Bill Maher Insults the First Lady

  • Thread starter Thread starter swampfox
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

swampfox

Guest
Bill Maher’s got an odd way of showing his love for humanity
newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/9/26/194236.shtml

HBO “Real Time” host Bill Maher compared First Lady Laura Bush to “Hitler’s dog” during his Friday night cablecast, after flashing a parody photo of Mrs. Bush with a black eye, as if she’d been a victim of domestic abuse.

After the photo display, Maher was challenged by guest panelist Christopher Hitchens, who told him: “It must be to [George Bush’s] credit he got Laura Bush to marry him. She’s an absolutely extraordinary woman.”

To that, Maher replied: “Oh, come on. That’s like Hitler’s dog loved him. That is the silliest reason. …”

“I think tomorrow you might be sorry you said that. Laura Bush is very gentle and talented,” Hitchens warned.
 
Anyone that could criticize Laura Bush is really making himself look bad. Laura Bush is a real classy lady. Bill Maher will live to regret his remarks.
 
Can anything less be expected from a guy who blanket criticizes people who believe in religion and mocks the faith he was brought up in? Attacking with cause is one thing, I fail to see the humor in attacking Bushs wife. Doesnt the mafia even have a code… leave the wives and kids alone?
 
I think this comment of Maher’s was rude and insensitive, but he specializes in these types of remarks. I hope all of you who are upset about these comments are not the types who think nothing of bashing Hillary. What that poor woman went through was much worse.
 
40.png
bapcathluth:
I think this comment of Maher’s was rude and insensitive, but he specializes in these types of remarks. I hope all of you who are upset about these comments are not the types who think nothing of bashing Hillary. What that poor woman went through was much worse.
Click to expand...
That’s a twist and spin–
 
This thread is heading down the wrong path. If I don’t see a dramatic improvement in charity, it will be closed very quickly.

Check the posting guidelines for help in posting charitably.
 
I have never watched Bill Maher and, from what I have heard, I am glad I have not. I think an phone, letter, and eMail campaign to get Bill Maher reprimanded is in order. It seems that inferences to the Nazis are allowed and even encouraged by the left when talking about the right, but you are not allowed to say anything bad about their people. The hypocracy must end and Bill Maher must be reprimanded.

PF
 
40.png
bapcathluth:
I hope all of you who are upset about these comments are not the types who think nothing of bashing Hillary. What that poor woman went through was much worse.
Click to expand...
Indeed. One thread about Sen. Clinton on this very Forum ran to some 250+ posts, almost all totally negative towards her, and some very nasty - “feminazi” was one term used.

Neither woman deserves such invective spewed against her. Simple respect is owed to each woman and I’m sorry to see such, whether on public television or on a Catholic forum.
 
Arba Sicula:
Indeed. One thread about Sen. Clinton on this very Forum ran to some 250+ posts, almost all totally negative towards her, and some very nasty - “feminazi” was one term used.

Neither woman deserves such invective spewed against her. Simple respect is owed to each woman and I’m sorry to see such, whether on public television or on a Catholic forum.
Click to expand...
Please give us your opinion on Hillary Clinton.
 
Please give us your opinion on Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...
Though this question was not asked of me, I wish to respond.
Hillary Clinton is an extremely intelligent and well educated woman.
She is a loyal wife who valued her marriage against an onslaught of media derision and has proved to be an excellent mother.
That said, I pray for a conversion of heart for her so that she would bring the above mentioned attributes to the table of God.
 
40.png
abcdefg:
Please give us your opinion on Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...
Opinion has nothing to do with anything, simple good manners seem to go out of the window when political allegiency’s are brought to the fore.

What is the difference between some television presenter insulting someone on the television and a subscriber to a forum insulting someone on the net?

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Hillary Clintons or Cindy Sheehans of this world the invective that is often generated can only be described as horrific. To then couple it to a denounciation of anyone else insulting YOUR favourite, smacks of rank hypocracy.

You either denounce ALL or NONE, you can’t pick and choose.
 
40.png
catsrus:
Hillary Clinton… is a loyal wife who valued her marriage against an onslaught of media derision…
Click to expand...
This conclusion flows from the premise of knowing Clinton’s mind in remaining married. She could have been loyal. She could have had other motives for remaining married. Since one of our new guidelines says:

It is never acceptable to assume or say you know what another person thinks or needs,

I would prefer to see the assessment of Clinton’s marital status confined to a discussion of her actual decisions and actions and how her marital status bore on those.
 
40.png
walstan:
Opinion has nothing to do with anything, simple good manners seem to go out of the window when political allegiency’s are brought to the fore.

What is the difference between some television presenter insulting someone on the television and a subscriber to a forum insulting someone on the net?

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Hillary Clintons or Cindy Sheehans of this world the invective that is often generated can only be described as horrific. To then couple it to a denounciation of anyone else insulting YOUR favourite, smacks of rank hypocracy.

You either denounce ALL or NONE, you can’t pick and choose.
Click to expand...
I can’t agree. We have to be discerning when someone puts themselves forward as a candidate for office. Hiliary Clinton has done so, Laura Bush has not. Taking potshots at a First Lady who has done so much good is nothing but nastiness. Calling Hiliary Clinton to account for her stand on the issues and naming a spade a spade is another matter entirely.
 
How am I not surprised by his comments…

As for comparing the first ladies they were and are on different paths as first ladies. Both women are strong intellgent women who have upheld their marraige vows through the thick of tough times. The difference is that Laura has no wants and nobody is calling her to run for election. Laura plays the mother and wife role. She doesn’t get involved in politics and very rarely gives her own opinion. When she does it is big news (aka…supreme court). Hillary on the other hand has always been seen as a canadiate. She has always spoken her mind and her views were almost as important as her husband. She has gone on to be an ELECTED office holder after her husbands term. Her opinions are of great importance and have a chance of changing policy therfore she can and should be criticized for her positions.She has put herself in that catagory. On the otherhand no one should be attacking her as a person but on her views. Lets give both women credit for being first ladies which is a hard job and lets pray for each.

God Bless,
Beckers
 
40.png
walstan:
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Hillary Clintons or Cindy Sheehans of this world the invective that is often generated can only be described as horrific. To then couple it to a denounciation of anyone else insulting YOUR favourite, smacks of rank hypocracy.

You either denounce ALL or NONE, you can’t pick and choose.
Click to expand...
I agree. There is still a poster who insists on referring to Sen. Clinton as a “feminazi” in complete disregard of the rules of the Forum and in violation of simple civility. I wince at that, and really wonder how a Christian can stoop to such. WWJD? He certainly didn’t call His enemies vile names!

That question about the opinion of Sen. Clinton was directed at me, and I didn’t respond because I saw it as a gambit for an attack on the Senator. I find her, my Senator, a hardworking Senator who has the respect of most of her collegues and I’ve not been displeased with her representation of us New Yorkers.
 
40.png
Della:
I can’t agree. We have to be discerning when someone puts themselves forward as a candidate for office. Hiliary Clinton has done so, Laura Bush has not. Taking potshots at a First Lady who has done so much good is nothing but nastiness. Calling Hiliary Clinton to account for her stand on the issues and naming a spade a spade is another matter entirely.
Click to expand...
Disagree with or criticize her actions in Congress, that’s fine and acceptable. And calling her to account for her stand on issues is also appropriate. Invective and pejoratives directed at her personally is always wrong.
 
Arba Sicula:
I agree. There is still a poster who insists on referring to Sen. Clinton as a “feminazi” in complete disregard of the rules of the Forum and in violation of simple civility. I wince at that, and really wonder how a Christian can stoop to such. WWJD? He certainly didn’t call His enemies vile names!

That question about the opinion of Sen. Clinton was directed at me, and I didn’t respond because I saw it as a gambit for an attack on the Senator. I find her, my Senator, a hardworking Senator who has the respect of most of her collegues and I’ve not been displeased with her representation of us New Yorkers.
Click to expand...
Did she agree with her husband’s vetoes of Congress’s legislation to ban partial birth abortions? My recollection is that there was a pro-life alternative in the senatorial election. Niceties aside, what is worse, words that label a person who repeatedly supports a pro-death agenda or actions that facilitate and enable that agenda?
 
Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine
amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0974670138/102-0602997-4174559?v=glance

By Candice E. Jackson

Candice E. Jackson’s “Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine” chronicles how Bill and Hillary Clinton’s inner circle bribed, intimidated, and harassed seven women who had once been the objects of Bill’s lustful desires. The author - a feminist libertarian - does not condemn Bill’s philandering ways, but rather in great detail exposes how the Clintons’ liberal politics allowed them to justify their misogynistic attacks against these defenseless women.

Clinton sexual assault target Kathleen Willey calls “Their Lives” the “most accurate portrayal of…the true nightmare Bill and Hillary put me through.” Clinton rape victim Juanita Broaddrick hails the book as “a complete chronological account of the events surrounding Bill Clinton’s violent assault on me.” Famed author and commentator David Horowitz says, “This book connects the political to the personal in a way no one has done before.”
 
40.png
swampfox:
Did she agree with her husband’s vetoes of Congress’s legislation to ban partial birth abortions?
Click to expand...
She wasn’t a Senator then, so couldn’t vote either for or against the veto.
My recollection is that there was a pro-life alternative in the senatorial election.
Click to expand...
Her Republican opponent, Rick Lazio is pro-choice, though he opposed partial-birth abortions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top