Obama Calls Sandra Fluke to Console Her

[IDBillzFan]

Wouldn't he need to be funny, to be considered a comedian

I used to love Bill Maher when he did "Politically Incorrect." I mean, to the extent that we actually went to a taping of his show. He was smart and edgy and did a great job driving a panel.

 

I think what happens is, people like him only have so much to offer, so they see the loyalty of the left-wing nutjobs and decide to go all in with them. It's amazing to me to watch people like Maher, Joy Behar, Keith Olbermann, Alec Baldwin, Kathy Griffith, and even John Stewart simply go full-goose bozo after that crowd. I know there are similar people on the right, but they mostly tend to have their career in the political field whereas most of the people I just mentioned are simply B list entertainers who found a sweet spot to make some dough.

[Rob's House]

I used to love Bill Maher when he did "Politically Incorrect." I mean, to the extent that we actually went to a taping of his show. He was smart and edgy and did a great job driving a panel.

 

I think what happens is, people like him only have so much to offer, so they see the loyalty of the left-wing nutjobs and decide to go all in with them. It's amazing to me to watch people like Maher, Joy Behar, Keith Olbermann, Alec Baldwin, Kathy Griffith, and even John Stewart simply go full-goose bozo after that crowd. I know there are similar people on the right, but they mostly tend to have their career in the political field whereas most of the people I just mentioned are simply B list entertainers who found a sweet spot to make some dough.

I was the same way with Maher. When I was 19 I thought he was the greatest. I thumbed through a book of monologues he put out in the 90s not long ago & realized that even though they weren't as insightful as I thought they were back then, he still used to be a lot more sensible.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head with these guys latching onto a profitable niche and pandering to the crowd. It seems a lot of them start to buy into the bull **** they're peddling and jump on board full fledge with the whole package. It's human nature I guess , in a tribal way, but it's disheartening to see people with so much talent but so little self-awareness.

Edited March 9, 2012 by Rob's House

[Adam]

I was the same way with Maher. When I was 19 I thought he was great. I thumbed through a book of monologues he put out in the 90s not long ago & realized that even though they weren't as insightful as I thought they were then, he was still a lot more sensible back then.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head with these guys latching onto a profitable niche and pandering to the crowd. It seems a lot of them start to buy into the bull **** they're peddling and jump on board full fledge with the whole package. It's human nature I guess , in a tribal way, but it's disheartening to see people with so much talent but so little self-awareness.

I think you could probably say the same about Rush Limbaugh's comment- he panders a lot (at least he did when I listened) and a lot of times you push the envelope, then push a little more, then you screw up. If he was speaking his own mind and not trying to please his listeners, I doubt words like that would ever come out of his mouth. Like him or not he is an intelligent man and not that uncivilized.

 

Personally, I can't stand that genre of entertainment. Plays too much on partisan discord.

[B-Man]

Gee, I thought Bill was great in Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death - 1989

 

 

.

[Adam]

Gee, I thought Bill was great in Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death - 1989

 

 

.

[Rob's House]

Gee, I thought Bill was great in Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death - 1989

 

 

.

Hell yea, I thought Maher was so cool in that movie. Hey, I was 12.

[DC Tom]

Gee, I thought Bill was great in Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death - 1989

 

 

.

 

And they say Hollywood's out of original ideas.

[B-Man]

Washington Post

 

Limbaugh attack boomerangs on the White House

By Jennifer Rubin

 

Perhaps the left carried on a little too long and a little too loudly regarding Rush Limbaugh’s nasty language about Sandra Fluke. Conservative activist Penny Nance, executive director of Concerned Women for America, has sent a letter to the White House chief of staff demanding President Obama’s super PAC live up to the same standard Democrats have articulated for Republicans and Rush Limbaugh. ABC News reports:

 

{snip}

 

So why not give the money back? White House press secretary Jay Carney lamely tried to argue that Obama “has no direct ties to Priorities USA and cannot tell the group what to do with respect to Maher.”Oh no, it’s not that easy, Mr. Carney. Didn’t Obama just announce he would help the group with fundraising? I bet if he made a rule that he wouldn’t appear before or assist groups that don’t abide by his “Sasha and Malia” standard they’d snap to. The White House and its allies set the standard — condemn, distance, disassociate — with misogynistic entertainers. Now the president is stuck with it.

 

And by the way, why have all the lefty bloggers crying foul about Limbaugh fallen silent on this subject? I must admit, I got quite a laugh when Carney, sounding a great deal like Right Turn, intoned: “We are not and cannot be the arbitrator of every statement that everybody makes in the policy and political arena.” Ummm, has anyone checked with David Axelrod and his blogospheric pals who’ve been trying to goad Mitt Romney into wading in on this issue?

 

This is one issue on which the mainstream media is offering the White House no cover. As National Journal put it: “[E]ven the most ardent Obama supporter would have to admit that if Limbaugh crossed the line on acceptable discourse, then Maher obliterated that line, even acknowledging the difference between a political talkmeister and a comedian.” As for the argument that you can’t compare Maher and Limbaugh, there is something to that: Maher is a lot worse. “Direct quotes of Maher’s most nasty comments about Palin would make the point well. But his colorful descriptions of various parts of the female anatomy are not words easily used in National Journal stories. Perhaps the mildest was when he call Palin ‘a bully who sells patriotism like a pimp, and the leader of a strange family of inbred weirdos.’”

 

The White House, I am quite certain, never expected this issue to come back to bite the president and his campaign. But in the New Media era with energetic grassroots conservative activists, it is not as easy as it once was to apply civility rules only to the right. Call it the legacy of Andrew Breitbart: The left needs to abide by the same rules it sets for its opponents.

 

.

[OCinBuffalo]

Maybe Obama would, but the real question is: would ya?

 

http://www.thehoya.c.../1572656430.png

10 Sapphires, and then only if she was the safest bet in the bar. I just see: bad at it. Annoyingly bad at it.

And Firefly.

There's a lot more of us than they thought, huh? Too bad that a bunch of the characters are now dead via the movie. I've wondered if they did that on purpose to quell any attempts at revival?

.............

 

Look, the fact the the POTUS is calling this girl, merely serves to prove that all of this is a cheap tactic. Really, that's all that this is. It's politics. Poorly done politics at that. Good politics means that the President ends up with a net positive out of this. I fail to see the positive message here. "We are going to attack religious people to defend your reproductive rights!!!"? Where's the positive? Where's the "my Presidency = moving the country forward by working together"?

 

Here's the positive message: "We worked with religious institutions to create a policy that not only respects their Constitutional rights, but also creates a policy that makes birth control safe and affordable for those that choose it!" But, we don't get that with these clowns, do we? It's always about....strutting. "We're in power now and our first priority is making sure you acknowledge that!" It's like Inspector Clouseau...

 

Women. The polls say women are Obama's only chance to win. That's what this is about. How many of the women you know will appreciate being pandered to in this manner? Perhaps not all of them are smart enough to see through it, but I bet most are. Oh, and the polls on Obamacare with women?...still not good, despite this tactic and all the others.

 

And, for the last time, Tom already said it: The Supreme court either kills this whole thing 7-2 or 9-0 based on the 1st amendment. That's why it could be 9-0. The leftists on the court have defended the 1st their whole lives, and they will not ruin their reputations and legacy over a poorly conceived, to the point of numerous viable constitutional challenges, law that has next to 0 national support for it's constitutionality, and is likely to be repealed.

 

(Edit: poll here, Not Rassmusen, so there goes that excuse, and, what a surprise, that same old 20% figure again. Hint: The far-left is the 20%. 80% of the country is rational. 20% is not.)

Edited March 9, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[Bigfatbillsfan]

How come I don't hear you suggesting the Democrats disavow Bill Maher and Ed Shultz? How come I don't hear you asking the WH to return Maher's money? Wouldn't it be a good idea to cancel Axelrod's upcoming appearance. I mean, shouldn't Democrat's make it clear that Maher does not speak for them?

 

The dems should disavow Maher and Shultz and should not be taking money from from Maher's super-pac. I love how the dems have been complaining about how super-pacs are the most horible thing in the history of our nation and then start forming their own and taking money from people like Maher. Proves they're no better than the people they judge.

 

Washington Post

 

 

 

.

 

Good post. And very true.

 

People like Maher and Stewart know they have a lot of clout and people will take what they say seriously. Then when they act just like Rush and get called on it they hide behind "we're just comedians" . Well !@#$ that. It's a load of crap.

 

But that's different man. I have no idea why....it just is.

 

 

No, no it's not different.

 

And they say Hollywood's out of original ideas.

 

You have to remember that this movie came out in 1989. This is what they had to resort to for new ideas. At this point. They're out of new ideas.

 

10 Sapphires, and then only if she was the safest bet in the bar. I just see: bad at it. Annoyingly bad at it.

 

There's a lot more of us than they thought, huh? Too bad that a bunch of the characters are now dead via the movie. I've wondered if they did that on purpose to quell any attempts at revival?

.............

 

Look, the fact the the POTUS is calling this girl, merely serves to prove that all of this is a cheap tactic. Really, that's all that this is. It's politics. Poorly done politics at that. Good politics means that the President ends up with a net positive out of this. I fail to see the positive message here. "We are going to attack religious people to defend your reproductive rights!!!"? Where's the positive? Where's the "my Presidency = moving the country forward by working together"?

 

Here's the positive message: "We worked with religious institutions to create a policy that not only respects their Constitutional rights, but also creates a policy that makes birth control safe and affordable for those that choose it!" But, we don't get that with these clowns, do we? It's always about....strutting. "We're in power now and our first priority is making sure you acknowledge that!" It's like Inspector Clouseau...

 

Women. The polls say women are Obama's only chance to win. That's what this is about. How many of the women you know will appreciate being pandered to in this manner? Perhaps not all of them are smart enough to see through it, but I bet most are. Oh, and the polls on Obamacare with women?...still not good, despite this tactic and all the others.

 

And, for the last time, Tom already said it: The Supreme court either kills this whole thing 7-2 or 9-0 based on the 1st amendment. That's why it could be 9-0. The leftists on the court have defended the 1st their whole lives, and they will not ruin their reputations and legacy over a poorly conceived, to the point of numerous viable constitutional challenges, law that has next to 0 national support for it's constitutionality, and is likely to be repealed.

 

(Edit: poll here, Not Rassmusen, so there goes that excuse, and, what a surprise, that same old 20% figure again. Hint: The far-left is the 20%. 80% of the country is rational. 20% is not.)

 

Firefly? NERDS!!!! LOL

[OCinBuffalo]

Gee, I thought Bill was great in Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death - 1989

Two things:

 

1. If you sign up to be in a move that has Shannon Tweed, the Queen of "We didn't even try to make them look real" in it, then you deserve to be perma-banned from all further movies. This is why Maher has to make his own movies, because nobody else will let him be in theirs.

 

2. Cornell should invalidate Maher's degree on the sole grounds of this movie. That's cause....I've seen it. Well, part of it. It wasn't until today that I remembered that he was in it. And, he was trying to be funny in it. He sucked so badly that I completely forgot him, or, he was crowded out of my memory by aforementioned awful plastic surgery. Either way, he should never be allowed to invoke "I went to an Ivy school" again.

[Chef Jim]

No, no it's not different.

 

Then why is it being treated differently?

[Bigfatbillsfan]

Then why is it being treated differently?

 

If the press happens to have a liberal bias I can't help that. But it shouldn't be treated differently.

[DC Tom]

Firefly? NERDS!!!! LOL

 

I can kill you with my brain.

[Buftex]

Then why is it being treated differently?

 

 

There are some differences in the situations. Not saying Maher's comments were appropriate, but I will say, as Rush defenders have been saying, the words might have been chosen poorly, but the essence of what the two men are saying, from their POV, is true. Rush issued an (very insincere) "apology", becuase his show is losing sponsors. Maher's only sponsor is HBO. If people really wanted to make him gravel, like Rush pretended to, they would cancel their HBO subscripitions.

 

Given the tone of Rush's comments, he would have likely been happy to use the "c" word for Sandra Fluke, if he knew he could have gotten away with it. Maher doesn't have to adhere to the same FCC rules as Limbaugh. Rush can say he chose his words poorly, but it wasn't just the "slut" and "prostitute" terms, it was compounded by the ongoing (for three days) barrage of insults thrown at Fluke, encouraging her to post her porn videos, etc etc.

 

This is all still a work in progress. The Obama super pac may just yet, return the Maher donation, because they will feel pressure to do so...the same reasons that Rush apologized.

 

If this was some masterwork by the Obama people to disrtact attention from the economy (as has been suggested by many on the right) then the fact that it worked shows how idiotic they are. All Darryl Issa would have had to do is let Fluke read her short statement, say "thanks for playing" and none of this would have happened.

[Magox]

It's not just the fact that Bill Burton is accepting the $1 Million from Maher, but David AxleRod, the same Axlerod that called Romney a coward for not making a stronger stand against Rush, is himself and arguably Obama's right hand man will soon be appearing on Maher's show. I mean, I think this just goes to show you that not only are they a bunch of hypocrites, but they are so blinded by their own bull **** that they are just incapable of seeing it.

 

I mean really, this is about as hypocritical as it gets. Is this being reported on Politico? Nope, the double standard s clear.

 

Here's a good piece by liberal Kirsten Powers, who not surprisingly was insulted by Olbermann for not towing the party line.

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/08/critics-of-rush-limbaugh-ignore-bill-maher-matt-taibbi-misogyny.html

 

 

 

 

If Democrats are so outraged by misogyny in the media, why is President Obama’s super PAC taking Bill Maher’s $1 million? And why is David Axelrod reportedly going on ‘Real Time’?

 

 

The truth hurts.

 

 

 

 

Members of the professional left reacted with outrage to my column this week calling them out for their fake war against media misogyny. Instead of addressing the encyclopedia of left-wing misogyny I raised, many liberals chose instead to start a ferocious battle with all manner of straw men.

 

 

“It’s not true that liberals never call out people for misogyny!” is the refrain. Of course it’s not true, and I never said it was. Many of the professional left seem incapable of distinguishing between a few blog posts and comments condemning left-wing misogyny and a full-scale war to remove someone from their job. This really shouldn’t be so hard to grasp: If you hate misogyny and sexism in the media, then react to the consistent and repeated misogyny of men on the left with the same fervor that you have reacted to Rush Limbaugh’s sickening outbursts.

 

 

President Obama has seen fit to wade into the Limbaugh kerfuffle, even telling reporters Tuesday that Limbaugh’s behavior was an attack on everyone’s daughter and “I do not want them attacked or called horrible names.” Speaking of daughters, do you remember when Bill Maher said that the real name of then-20-year-old Bristol Palin’s book should be “Whoops, There’s a Dick in Me?”

 

 

 

“But Maher doesn’t have sponsors like Limbaugh does!” cry the left-wing Maher enablers. Yes, but he does have an endless stream of high-profile liberals parading through his studio. In fact, it was reported that none other than David Axelrod, who on Wednesday attacked Mitt Romney for his insufficient outrage over Limbaugh’s sexist rant, is set to visit the Maher show to kiss the ring of the Misogynist One. Also, I’m no genius, but doesn’t HBO run his show? Couldn’t liberals boycott HBO?

[Chef Jim]

There are some differences in the situations. Not saying Maher's comments were appropriate, but I will say, as Rush defenders have been saying, the words might have been chosen poorly, but the essence of what the two men are saying, from their POV, is true. Rush issued an (very insincere) "apology", becuase his show is losing sponsors. Maher's only sponsor is HBO. If people really wanted to make him gravel, like Rush pretended to, they would cancel their HBO subscripitions.

 

Given the tone of Rush's comments, he would have likely been happy to use the "c" word for Sandra Fluke, if he knew he could have gotten away with it. Maher doesn't have to adhere to the same FCC rules as Limbaugh. Rush can say he chose his words poorly, but it wasn't just the "slut" and "prostitute" terms, it was compounded by the ongoing (for three days) barrage of insults thrown at Fluke, encouraging her to post her porn videos, etc etc.

 

This is all still a work in progress. The Obama super pac may just yet, return the Maher donation, because they will feel pressure to do so...the same reasons that Rush apologized.

 

If this was some masterwork by the Obama people to disrtact attention from the economy (as has been suggested by many on the right) then the fact that it worked shows how idiotic they are. All Darryl Issa would have had to do is let Fluke read her short statement, say "thanks for playing" and none of this would have happened.

 

What the hell does the fact that Maher doesn't have sponsors have to do with it? They both used a demeaning word towards a woman. One was raked over the coals the other wasn't. That's the simplest of terms that I'm looking at this in. So, answer me, why was one raked over the coals and the other wasn't? That would be like you calling my wife a c*** and I call yours a slut and I get banned and you don't.

 

And the argument that Rush would have been happy to call her a c*** doesn't work because that doesn't fit his argument at all.

[3rdnlng]

There are some differences in the situations. Not saying Maher's comments were appropriate, but I will say, as Rush defenders have been saying, the words might have been chosen poorly, but the essence of what the two men are saying, from their POV, is true. Rush issued an (very insincere) "apology", becuase his show is losing sponsors. Maher's only sponsor is HBO. If people really wanted to make him gravel, like Rush pretended to, they would cancel their HBO subscripitions.

 

Given the tone of Rush's comments, he would have likely been happy to use the "c" word for Sandra Fluke, if he knew he could have gotten away with it. Maher doesn't have to adhere to the same FCC rules as Limbaugh. Rush can say he chose his words poorly, but it wasn't just the "slut" and "prostitute" terms, it was compounded by the ongoing (for three days) barrage of insults thrown at Fluke, encouraging her to post her porn videos, etc etc.

 

This is all still a work in progress. The Obama super pac may just yet, return the Maher donation, because they will feel pressure to do so...the same reasons that Rush apologized.

 

If this was some masterwork by the Obama people to disrtact attention from the economy (as has been suggested by many on the right) then the fact that it worked shows how idiotic they are. All Darryl Issa would have had to do is let Fluke read her short statement, say "thanks for playing" and none of this would have happened.

 

 

It was a separation of church and state issue that Nancy and friends were able to make into a "womans health" issue by asking for free contraception. Sandra Fluke is no simple law school student. She's an activist who happens to be a lesbian. Eventually that should come back to bite them in the ass when the duplicity becomes widely known.

[/dev/null]

Firefly? NERDS!!!! LOL

Sir, I think you have a problem with your brain being missing.

 

I can kill you with my brain.

No one's killin' any folk today, on account o' we got a very tight schedule

 

(I'd add some of the Chinese insults but I'm not 100% sure what they mean and would butcher the speelling anyways)

[IDBillzFan]

There are some differences in the situations. Not saying Maher's comments were appropriate, but I will say, as Rush defenders have been saying, the words might have been chosen poorly, but the essence of what the two men are saying, from their POV, is true. Rush issued an (very insincere) "apology", becuase his show is losing sponsors. Maher's only sponsor is HBO. If people really wanted to make him gravel, like Rush pretended to, they would cancel their HBO subscripitions.

 

Given the tone of Rush's comments, he would have likely been happy to use the "c" word for Sandra Fluke, if he knew he could have gotten away with it. Maher doesn't have to adhere to the same FCC rules as Limbaugh. Rush can say he chose his words poorly, but it wasn't just the "slut" and "prostitute" terms, it was compounded by the ongoing (for three days) barrage of insults thrown at Fluke, encouraging her to post her porn videos, etc etc.

 

This is all still a work in progress. The Obama super pac may just yet, return the Maher donation, because they will feel pressure to do so...the same reasons that Rush apologized.

 

If this was some masterwork by the Obama people to disrtact attention from the economy (as has been suggested by many on the right) then the fact that it worked shows how idiotic they are. All Darryl Issa would have had to do is let Fluke read her short statement, say "thanks for playing" and none of this would have happened.

God, you are such a batschitt crazy liberal loon, it's freaking embarrassing.

 

You're actually making an argument on what Rush "would have been likely" to say? Are you intentionally trying to take the crown from DIN?

 

Here's a very simply thought that even a die-hard, head-up-Obama's-ass liberal can understand: if it was wrong for Rush, it's wrong for Maher. Period. And no self-respecting person would criticize Rush, but take a million dollars from Maher.

 

And oh, gee, you're wrong...the super pac is keeping the money.