Goodbye Jon Stewart, you will be missed

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

While I don't agree with Bill Maher on his vaccine stance, the crazy liberal sites like Salon have had it out for him since he came out in favor of free speech and is anti-PC. He isn't loved by that brand of liberal anymore, if he ever was.
 
I know a lot of journalists who come closer to the title of "Clown" than John Stewart. I canzano name a couple just in the Portland area!

FTFY.

barfo
 
The anti-vaxers actually are kooks and liars. There's been absolutely no link at all between vaccines and autism (which is what the kooks like RFK Jr. claim). Maher made exactly that kind of link:

"It seems like common sense that vaccines, even thimerosal, probably don’t hurt most people — if they did, we’d all be dead, because they’re in a lot of vaccines that we all took — but some do. Obviously some minority gets hurt by this stuff."

The WWW site that titled that article "bizarre anti-vaccine rant" etc., is Salon, a very left wing/leaning site.

Science sites take issue with what he said, too:

View attachment 5636
He said that it is reasonable to assume that vaccines, like with any drug, are going to generate a negative reaction in a small minority of people, and that that small minority should have the freedom to choose not to do something that would be harmful to them because the majority says they have to. What exactly is unreasonable about that?
 
The vaccines don't hurt people. He agreed with RFK Jr who is a lunatic.
 
He said that it is reasonable to assume that vaccines, like with any drug, are going to generate a negative reaction in a small minority of people, and that that small minority should have the freedom to choose not to do something that would be harmful to them because the majority says they have to. What exactly is unreasonable about that?

Probably that nobody knows who that small minority is until after they have the reaction.

barfo
 
He said that it is reasonable to assume that vaccines, like with any drug, are going to generate a negative reaction in a small minority of people, and that that small minority should have the freedom to choose not to do something that would be harmful to them because the majority says they have to. What exactly is unreasonable about that?

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.or...an-antivaccine-crank-and-proves-it-yet-again/

It is with reluctance that I decided to write about this topic again, given how many times I’ve written about it over the last decade, both here and at my not-so-super-secret other blog and given how little his fans seems to care when I do. I’m referring to the antivaccine stylings of comedian and political pundit Bill Maher, something I’ve been writing about for over a decade now. Indeed, a little more than five years ago, I stirred up a bit of trouble in the skeptical community through some particularly harsh criticisms of Bill Maher, in particular of the Atheist Alliance International’s (AAI) decision to award Maher the Richard Dawkins Award. More than once, I’ve likened giving Bill Maher an award that lists “advocates increased scientific knowledge” anywhere in its criteria, not to mention being named after Richard Dawkins, to giving Jenny McCarthy an award for public health, given that, at least when it comes to medicine, Maher is anti-science to the core. Along the way, I’ve ruffled the feathers of some of both Dawkins’ and Maher’s fans.

Arguably Maher reached his peak of antivaccine advocacy through his weekly HBO talk show, Real Time With Bill Maher, five years ago, when the H1N1 pandemic was going on and public health officials were working hard to persuade people to get vaccinated against H1N1 influenza. Indeed, it got so bad that his own guests, such as Bill Frist and Bob Costas, were openly dissing him on his own show for his antivaccine views. Perhaps my favorite example came from Bob Costas, who in response to a wild claim by Maher that he doesn’t worry about getting the flu, even in the crowded confines of an airplane because of his superior lifestyle that apparently made him immune, blurted out, “Oh, come on, Superman!” Even worse, a friend of Maher, Michael Shermer, published an “Open Letter to Bill Maher on Vaccinations” in—of all places—The Huffington Post, which led Maher to respond, both on his show (in which he referred to vaccination as a “risky medical procedure”) and in a post on HuffPo himself entitled “Vaccination: A Conversation Worth Having“. It was, as a certain “friend of the blog” put it, a pyre of stupidity.
 
Why is this thread about what Bill Maher thinks about vaccinations?

barfo
 
Denny is looking to argue with someone.

I wish I could help, but he has (presumably accidentally) chosen a rational position on this topic.

barfo
 
Wow! You spent a significant amount of time ragging on those guys, failed to mention one thing against the others. Well I could go on for a page or two about how incompetent Clinton is but why bother. I will just say this, anyone of those people you ripped up is vastly preferable to Clinton or the other socialist. There use to be Democrats a person could vote for and not be far wrong. No more. So I will vote for the one, warts and all, that runs against the Democrat. A win is, anyone that will stop this fundamentally changing America. It was a pretty good place before this crap began.

MarAzul, first let me pre-face my entire response by stating the obvious - yesterday was the first national Republican debate, not the Democratic debate and thus I was commenting on that fact simply due to the time frame. Also if you read my response, or my other responses in other political threads you would take note in the fact that I am A) Registered independent, B) Do not like Hillary, C) would like to vote for Kasich in the general election.

Now, with that said, can you explain to me when America fundamentally started changing? Unless you're going to go back to 1861 when Lincoln used unprecedented executive action to use the federal army to maintain the union, 1901 when Teddy Roosevelt started using the federal government to break up the trusts and help average Americans by starting administrations like the FDA, or 1932 when FDR was elected and started new deal policies, 1941 when the military industrial complex really started to take root after Pearl Harbor, or 1965 when LBJ signed in Medicare, I am not sure when you're referring to.

The only other other significant time I can think of in which the country has "changed fundamentally" since 1965 was in 2001 when our civil liberties were eroded lightning fast after 9/11. Since 2008 the country hasn't change all that "fundamentally" under Obama that I can really pinpoint, well, with the exception of social changes such as the major shift in public opinion on gay marriage for example. But that are frankly is not brought on by anyone in any elected office, including Obama, that is just generational social changes that happen over time.

You may not be able to admit it, because, well, clearly you're a Republican, and apparently Republicans (note, not all, but most) generally don't like facts in politics. But let's review how well Obama has done based on some of the key indicators of a presidency for success based on generally accepted benchmarks. Check out the following:

ObamasNumbersApril2.png


Here's some more shocking data that Republicans have a hard time accepting, even though they are literally facts:

unemployment-reagan-v-obama.jpg


investment-returns-reagan-v-obama.jpg


MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME11.jpg



By the end of Reagan’s terms the total number of nonmilitary federal employees was 3,113,000. That is an INCREASE of 238,000 under his tenure as president.

As of 2014 the most recent year data is available under Obama the federal government's nonmilitary employee total was 2,726,000, that is 387,000 less than under Reagan's last year in office and 114,000 less than his first year in office.

Source: https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/

I know this is hard to believe because the Republican message is so consistent, but objectively, using actual data, the federal government in terms of size based on employment has actually shrunk 13% under Obama from Regaen era government. Spending under Obama relative to year over year growth of spending has also been the slowest in the last five presidents.

Honestly if Obama were a Republican, Republicans would love the guy. He is literally the only president in modern history that actually has shrunk government in most ways you can measure it. It's absolutely mind blowing to me that Republicans hate him so much when the alternative Democrat is Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Say what you will about Obama, but the guy is a freaking moderate when you look at it objectively and get past the rhetoric.

The major failing Obama has had has been weekly wage earning increases have been almost non-existent. The amount of money, and the relative worth of those dollars has regressed since he has been in office. That is not hardly unique to the US right now, and most of the western world is suffering from the same wage stagnation, and it's only just now multiple years after the recession just beginning to change. This wage stagnation has really hurt government revenues and deficits as well, as the less people make, the less amount of money there is to tax.

I should also point out just how much of a drill baby drill president Obama has been, US oil production has exploded under this administration for better or for worse.
 
Last edited:
"facts."

LOL

Spending slowest growth in decades.

LOL


upload_2015-8-8_8-1-43.png
 
This is my favorite Stewart Sketch! He destroyed Glen Beck.
 
The major failing Obama has had

Wow! That is an impressive list of stuff. Some more impressive stats could be added.

The debt has doubled. (Doesn't that make Obama the worst in history?)
The labor force is shrinking.
I lost my healthcare as did my wife. So did millions of other retirees because the ACA leveed a tax on the employer. It sure wasn't designed to produce revenue.
I could go on until tomorrow but this is enough.

As far as me being a Republican, I think you might be assuming. I think the Speaker and the majority leader should be retired for lack of leadership. My voting record is 2 to 3, Voted for two Democrat Presidents and three Republican Presidents. But I doubt I will ever see another Democrat that gets my vote since there are no Democrats that can be identified as such.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top