Too bad he does not say things which proves he is as intelligent
as others say he is.

He yells and screams about the Radical Right and how angry they are and how they skew things to present their view. (and they do)

Yet I hear him say nothing about the Loony Left who is at least as bad if not worse than the Radical Right.

Both of these extreames are made up of people who are nothing other than total Whackos.

Since I am, and have probably been for longer than Mahar has been alive, an Atheist Activest, I am most certainly NOT a right winger or a neo-con.

And anyone (Mahar) who does not know our actions to remove Saddam from power & free the Iraqi people were FULLY Justified and NEEDED is either ignorant of the facts or they are just too “F” ing STUPID to understand facts!

Neil C. Reinhardt

You really don’t know what you’re talking about at all, do you? But if you want to say that Bill Maher’s opinions about Iraq are BS, then fine.

Because for the past month, Maher has been supporting Bush on Iraq, and is of the opinion that it was a good idea.

So, what was that you were saying about people being “ignorant of the facts”?

Hey Luis

I damn well KNOW what I am talking
about.

I am not a B.M. junkie hanging on his every word like it seems you are.

IF he has changed his views on Iraq it only means he has finally educated himself.

It does not mean I was wrong on what I said about him based on what he had said in the past.

Neil C. Reinhardt

You don’t have to hang on every word the man says to know this; he’s been saying it rather solidly for more than half a year now. If you’re going to rag on somebody and complain about their views, you should at least know the views that he has voiced most strongly in the past half year. I think that’s quite a reasonable expectation if you’re going to slam someone. But to claim you DO know what you’re talking about when you don’t know his most significant views voiced for over half a year, that’s just ludicrous. “Ignorant” means you are “without knowledge of,” and you spoke on a matter you clearly were without knowledge upon. So the criticism stands.

BILL MAHER RULES!!!

Bill Maher is one of many liberal comics (in case you didn’t know). His views are not unbiased. In fact, his views are like many liberals, anti-Bush. Not pro-anything. He, and many others, critique, critique, critique, but don’t have any leadership or ideas that are better options. He uses his show and his quick humor to serve a purpose. In his mind, he is the balance for Rush or O’Reilly. His soul purpose is to make sure that the conservatives are not the only ones with a voice on television. I understand that, and take no issue with it. I actually think Bill Maher is a funny dude, but when he compared President Bush signing something that 10 steps down the road “might” have allowed for a CIA agent to become exposed (by Bill’s own admission Bush probably didn’t know it would) to Bill Clinton saying “I did not have sexual relations…” I lost all hope for him. His efforts to make Bush look like a liar (everyone is entitled to their opinion) make no sense. The previous president WAS A LIAR. No questions. No doubt…yet liberals want him (or someone like him) back in office. There is no logic here. Once again, it is a liberal agenda to bash the current administration, with no realistic alternatives. Bill Maher, and others like him, try to use peer pressure and a condescending attitude to make people think that if they support conservative ideas they are “not cool” or “out of the loop.” Point blank, Clinton did nothing about the issues in the Middle East. This lack of action (by Clinton and the presidents before him, democrats and republicans) allowed for 911. At least we have a president who is willing to take action. He is truly doing what he thinks is right. I hate the fact that Americans and Iraqis are dying. But what is the alternative? Sit back and do nothing? That didn’t work. Leave Iraq and allow insurgents, and tribal war lords, and corrupt officials to do whatever they want? That didn’t work (Saddam). Time for some action people. The democrats will have their chance to show us what they can do after 2008. Remember your criticisms when the power has been handed over. Don’t try to blame someone else. Don’t try to say that every problem was caused by Bush and continuing through the democratic president’s term. When there is a liberal president, all of the responsibility goes to them, just like Bush. Then we’ll see that its not as easy as people like Bill Maher think. Don’t mark my words. Mark your own.

Bill Maher is one of many liberal comics (in case you didn’t know).
No, actually, Maher is a Libertarian, as it appears you do not know.
His views are not unbiased.
Did I ever say that they were? Jeesh. I said specifically that I didn’t always agree with his politics. By definition, a person’s politics are biased. Did you do nothing more than read the first four words of this post and then make your comment?
In fact, his views are like many liberals, anti-Bush. Not pro-anything.
Usually, but certainly not always. For the better part of a year, he was praising and defending Bush on Iraq, saying that Bush had vision, and was following the idea of spreading Democracy in Iraq. He eventually abandoned that idea, but still, he held it for quite a long time, and got a lot of criticism for it.
He, and many others, critique, critique, critique, but don’t have any leadership or ideas that are better options. He uses his show and his quick humor to serve a purpose.
Actually, sometimes he does. No detailed plans, of course, but alternate courses of action are a frequent topic on his show.
In his mind, he is the balance for Rush or O’Reilly.
You know what he’s thinking? Wow! That’s pretty impressive, because he’s never said or indicated anything of the sort, so you must be psychic.
His soul purpose [sic] is to make sure that the conservatives are not the only ones with a voice on television.
Um… not quite. If that were true, he’d only have liberal guests on, and not the more even mix he usually has. Maher is well-known for making friends on both sides of the aisle, having befriended Arianna Huffington (who later became a liberal) and Ann Coulter (who didn’t, thank God). Maher is on the air because he likes frank discussion without what he sees as being bullcrap. Politically incorrect, to coin a phrase.
His efforts to make Bush look like a liar (everyone is entitled to their opinion) make no sense.
Ah, another one of those moments where I am glad I was not drinking my Diet Coke when reading something. The carbonation really stings when it comes out your nose.
The previous president WAS A LIAR. No questions. No doubt…yet liberals want him (or someone like him) back in office. There is no logic here.
Hmm, let’s see. Bill Clinton lied about inhaling marijuana and having sexual relations with that woman. George Bush lied about Iraq, WMD, terrorist ties and more in order to start a disastrous war which has cost us dearly in the lives of our troops, our international respect and leadership, and hundreds of billions in dollars, not to mention that it has destroyed our military readiness and capacity; Bush lied about 9/11 threats and what he failed to do in response to them, he lied about his energy policy, his medicare policy, his eavesdropping policy, and so many other policies and actions. He lied about torture, about Guantanamo prisoners, about his tax cuts, about Katrina, his “clean-air” act, so forth and so on. He has made it a policy to lie about science, forcing scientists to shut up or editing their reports to change their conclusions. Bush has lied about almost everything including his personal life (National Guard, using cocaine, etc. etc.). A more complete list is here.

The point, of course, is that Bill Clinton lied about his personal life. George Bush lied about his personal life and matters of public interest, things that cost hundreds of thousands of lives, trillions of dollars, and our leadership position in the world.

So yeah, we liberals are so illogical to prefer a president who lies about a blow job over one who lies to get us into a quagmire war, and so many other costly things. Stupid us.

I’ll stop there; this is too much like shooting fish in a barrel and I’ve got work to do. But thank you for presenting so easy a target, it’s a nice way to start the day.

It continues to Mystify me why TV/CABLE NEWS does nothing to acquire Genuine Scholars relative to Religion. I’m am handing them on a silver platter, someone who can prove that Christian Mythology is just that, Mythology, but nobody there does anything about this. Is there someone screening these messages who has religious bias who doesn’t want such persons to become known? Do I need to submit CNN’s unwillingness to challenge Religion to newspapers, etc..?

Note a GENUINE scholar, Dr. Barbara Thiering who easily handles all her critics. http://www.pesherofchrist.infinitesoulutions.com

The essential thrust of Dr Barbara Thiering’s research has been to show that the gospels themselves are supplying natural explanations of the “miracles”. The apparent miracles were deliberately composed for the “babes in Christ”. But each miracle story is actually recording a significant event in the career of Jesus, who was no more than a human figure, a great political leader in his time. 100% consistency with interpretation using ‘The Pesher” technique which couldn’t POSSIBLY be unless it was for real! Things that the Churches all Mysteries of God because they appear to be Contradictions are contradictions if using the old outdated interpretations of the churches.

Pseudoscience does not progress.

“. . .within a given topic, no progress is made. Little or no new information or uncovered. New theories are seldom proposed, and old concepts are rarely modified or discarded in light of new “discoveries,” since pseudoscience rarely makes new “discoveries.” The older the idea, the more respect it receives. . . (Reference: http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html)

While religion typically doesn’t purvey itself to be a form of ‘science’ , at least by those who are reasonable, the way in which it perpetuates itself is none-the-less following Pseudoscientific principles. I ask the reader to ask him/herself a question. What topic or subject matter exists in which Man’s knowledge does not alter or change and/or grow in some way over time?
If Man did not consider that there might be more to learn in order to better light a room we might still be reading by candlelight. If Man did not consider that there might be ways to travel (i.e., by car), we might still all be riding in a horse and buggy. To this day Crayola is still coming up with new and better ways to produce a variety of colors for their crayons. Look around your environment; even your own home and think about what went into the making of all the things you see. Has the paint on your wall been produced with improved means over the years? Has the paint itself changed in some way? Haven’t the manufacturers of everything you see with your own eyes found other ways to do produce things, other ways to change and or improve things? Perhaps some things are not made as well as they use to be, however, they produced them in new ways they’ve learned to perhaps save themselves money and earn more by providing less. Everything you see before your very eyes has been produced by those who have changed the way they do things for both good and bad reasons. Man’s knowledge continues to change and grow no matter what it is he finds himself involved with.
When one reads ancient documents and tries to consider the interpretation of said documents, there a innumerable factors that go into understanding the language and even dates of production of said documents. With regard to scriptural writings, there is so much that goes into interpreting the dates and meanings of the language that the debate of meanings and of dates of production goes on to this day among various scholars.
This being the case, is it really possible for people to have definitive interpretations? Is it possible that Man’s knowledge and understanding of Scripture will not alter, modify, change and grow over time? However, when is the last time you heard of a Churches dogma change with new information? In my view, it is Impossible for Man’s understanding not to change and grow with time. It cannot be the only thing in our existence in which man’s study of which and his knowledge of which stagnates; otherwise, he is perpetuating ‘Pseudoscience; and it is my contention that any religion which holds to old ideas and ignores and doesn’t even consider other ideas as a form of ‘Pseudoscience’ and perhaps even a Cult.
Questions:
1. When is the last time new information was revealed in your respective religion?
2. How often are new theories proposed?
3. How often has concepts been altered or modified?
4. How often has any concepts been discarded?
5. How much consideration is given toward new information?
6. How in-depth do the leaders of your church, mosque, synagogue or other. examine new potentially conflicting information? Are they carefully considering said information or are they so Angered from the get-go that they ignore most or even all of the contrary information? Do they even have any tolerance for anything contrary to their belief system?
7. Could they, therefore, be advocating a form of ‘Pseudoscience?
8. Do you know of a single subject matter within man’s existence that man’s knowledge hasn’t changed with over time or at least endeavors to grow over time by considering new and/or different information?

Hey would you mind stating which blog platform you’re working with? I’m planning to start my own blog in the near future but I’m having a tough time selecting between BlogEngine/Wordpress/B2evolution and Drupal. The reason I ask is because your layout seems different then most blogs and I’m looking for something unique. P.S Sorry for being off-topic but I had to ask!