Bill Maher "(2nd Amendment) just as obsolete as the 4th"

reply to post by neo96

Yeah right the 'GOP' used the 'fear card' eh?

The right constantly use the fear card.

The terrorists are going to get you
The illegals are going to get you
The gays are going to get you
The abortion doctors are going to get you
The gubermint are gunna take yer guns
The Democrats are gonna raise taxes
The healthcare law will kill your grandma

I can go on, shal I?

reply to post by HauntWok

Funny that you used the name independent voter as your screen name.

You are not independent your post clearly states your progressive bias.

reply to post by HauntWok


Still with that?

What part of 'Get rid of them evil guns' is someone missing?

Which is actually the topic as the 2nd is 'obsolete',

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by Paschar0

 

The point I was making is that you are faking outrage where no outrage is warranted. Maher had an opinion and you decided that you needed to respond with "Outrage". Seriously, outrage? It's not like he is setting policy for our government. His "New Rules" segment aren't real rules that anyone needs to follow.

Is that the problem? Do you think that he sets policy or can magically make up new laws? Has FOX News so warped your perception of reality that you think that a TV show host can actually create new laws you must obey?

My problem with your thread is your fake "outrage" over his opinion. It's petty, it demeans the word outrage. And you somehow equate Maher's opinion with Hitler. Where there is absolutely zero comparison that can be made. Maher doesn't set policy in this country, and can't really make new laws just by saying so. But you went ahead and decided to equate Maher with Hitler and proved that your outrage is just fake.

This whole thing of being outraged at every single little thing that slightly offends us as a nation is absurd. When did we as a society become so thin skinned as to let a comedian make us morally outraged? Instead of being maybe irked, or perhaps even slightly upset that Maher made such a statement, you blew through all the emotional levels of anger and went straight for OUTRAGE!

How emotionally unstable does a nation have to be to go from 0 to outrage in one sentence? Are you the kind of person that flips out at a starbucks if there isn't just the perfect amount of room in your coffee for cream? This is what your OP suggests, that you are the kind of person that demands to see the manager if the barista doesn't thank you with a song and dance by you gracing the store with your appearance.

And it's not just you, there's an entire culture out there of people getting outraged over the lamest things. Like I said before, if conservatives ever say anything against the great and powerful Limbaugh, they can loose their elections over this fake outrage. People are forced to resign in our government over fake outrage from the people. Is life in America so boring, and so unstimulating that one must declare outrage over every single thing that makes them even slightly uncomfortable? Good god, I am surprised wool sweater manufacturers in this country aren't burned to the ground by this culture of Over outraged people.

Maher had an opinion, one opinion that is protected under the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution. Now, you have that same freedom, and you instead of maybe not watching Maher's show anymore have instead went ahead and declared OUTRAGE over his opinion spelling that fake rage out even to the point of invoking godwin's law. Now to you Maher is Hitler for making a simple statement that he can't do anything about. He spoke his opinion, and to you that's the downfall of America.

It's sad really, sad and pedantic.

Why should we respect Mahers 1st Amendment right when he doesn't respect anybody else's rights? Maher is also someone who would like to limit the 1st amendment so he uses it to attack peoples other rights. When people claim outrage over what he has said he just laughs and mocks the people. Basically Maher is shooting people from a church window then when the police show up he claims sanctuary " he is exploiting the rules in favor of actions he would like to see taken" Its a double edged sword if you limit his free speech over what he said then great the party in power will began to issue limits on free speech. If you complain and do nothing he wins.

To really win against this moron you need to surround the studio and disrupt its ability to function, then you need to make sure he gets low ratings, Then demand your cable service takes away anything to do with the HBO hes on HBO right, send a letter to HBO telling them why you are canceling your service to them well anyway you get what I'm saying. At which point he will issue a sincere sorry which will not be sincere at all because it was all just a "misunderstanding" and people are just too uneducated to really understand his "genius".

Originally posted by CB328
I will agree that the Bush supreme court is the worst in American history. Just look at Citizens united and them allowing states to seize private property for economic gain (I forget the correct term).

That was probably the worst and most unconstitutional supreme court decision in the history of our nation. And the Obamacare decision was a terrible precedent as well.

No, that would be the decision on Obamacare which is a tax. John Roberts was the only Republican to vote for it.

That includes the House and the Senate.

Originally posted by hamburgerler

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by CB328

 

Conservatives were very mad at Bush for a host of reasons.

Because he screwed up a good economy, sat and watched as the price of gas nearly tripled during his reign. Trillion dollar wars, invaded the wrong country, grew the deficit every year, created new government agencies,
FISA, Patriot act, indefinite detention, among other things...

It is funny because you recall conservatives being busy saying the left was being un American the whole time.

Freedom Fries

Not sure you know the difference between Conservatives and the Establishment Republicans. Bush was the latter and they despise Conservatives. They're much closer to big centralized government Progressives than they are to Conservatives.

reply to post by digital01anarchy

When people claim outrage over what he has said he just laughs and mocks the people.

That doesn't limit anyone's 1st Amendment rights at all, you have the right to express your opinion, but with that right is the opportunity to have someone decent from that opinion. Part and parcel to having freedom of speech is having to deal with detractors of that opinion. None of Maher's barbs or mocks do anything to stop people from expressing their own opinion.

Basically Maher is shooting people from a church window then when the police show up he claims sanctuary " he is exploiting the rules in favor of actions he would like to see taken"

He's doing no such thing, not even close, not even remotely close.

The OP has an opinion about Maher's opinion, they disagree with Maher's opinion. I disagree with the amount of "outrage" the OP has expressed about Maher's opinion.

To really win against this moron you need to surround the studio and disrupt its ability to function,

Now see the difference here is that you are actively and physically stopping him from expressing his 1st Amendment right to freedom of expression. That would be violating his civil rights. Maher making fun of a person in no way physically stops them from expressing their civil rights. See the difference?

Now, you go on...

then you need to make sure he gets low ratings, Then demand your cable service takes away anything to do with the HBO hes on HBO right, send a letter to HBO telling them why you are canceling your service to them well anyway you get what I'm saying.

Now, this part, would be perfectly within your rights to do. In fact it may work if you got enough people to do it. Again, I am not defending Maher's opinion, just his right to express that opinion.

At which point he will issue a sincere sorry which will not be sincere at all because it was all just a "misunderstanding" and people are just too uneducated to really understand his "genius".

Maybe, but I think he would just make fun of the protestors.

According to Wikipedia....The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights.

Well some on this thread have said this spying doesn't affect the first amendment...well im not American...so I may have this all wrong..But if the gov are intercepting private email and phone communications, wouldn't that be considered abridging the "freedom" of speech.
If most of the news outlets work hand in hand with a government agenda, especially outlets like the Murdoch empire..wouldn't that be considered infringing on the freedom of the press?
If peaceful protests mean riot police turn up and break those protests up with force and pepper spray..wouldn't that be considered "interfering with the right to peaceably assemble".

I find the posters saying that the first amendment hasn't been binned are living in total denial already. Or do I have it wrong as a foreigner?

reply to post by HauntWok


Is bill not using his first amendment right to attack other rights? it takes a special type of person to attack rights while using one

disrupting the studio would not limit his right to free speech it would limit his ability to explain it to a larger crowd of people. it would just put him in hot water with his sponsors and the studio so what! he can still say it right that doesn't mean his job is protected. Think about it a news anchor just lost his job over his use of "bad words" oooo on his first day! While its really is his right the protection of his job isn't his right

They make an interesting point stating that the actions against people have been carried out for decades now under the guise of illegal contraband...and now, simply changes to the 4th amendment would allow them to carry out what they do now against a select few (not so select with 6 million people in prison) against everyone.

So in other words, this may be a way to give sweeping powers to TPTB by allowing them to search under the pillow, so-to-speak, without accusing them of being in possession of contraband.

Do the people in charge simply want a means to go after a perceived threat or opponent? Will sweeping powers give them that without having to keep up the charade with contraband? Interesting thoughts if you can see the full scope on this...

Originally posted by Ghost375

It's been a bad week for amendment fans in this country, from full spectrum wire tapping

Sorry, but there is no general right to privacy in the constitution.

I agree with the rest of your post. Just presenting the facts,

You're right in there is no express right to privacy found within the constitution; however, the right to privacy has been found, via Supreme Court precedence in Griswold v. Connecticut, to exist via the 4th (unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant), 9th(tricky one that Madison wrote to assure that, rights when found, would still be covered as he was deeply worried that having an express bill of rights would mean whatever wasn't included would not be considered a right even if it were reasonable to assume it was), and the 14th (due process) amendments. So while there is no express right to privacy within the Constitution, it has been found in the combination of these other rights and stare decisis sets the all respected precedent for it being construed as a right.

reply to post by digital01anarchy

Is bill not using his first amendment right to attack other rights? it takes a special type of person to attack rights while using one

Absolutely not. He is expressing an opinion. That opinion is his own, and doesn't stop anyone from anything. His opinion doesn't equate to law. As an example, has him saying this forcibly stopped anyone from purchasing a firearm? I don't think so. Same with the 4th Amendment, him saying it's obsolete doesn't take anyone's 4th Amendment rights from them at all.

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by digital01anarchy

 

Is bill not using his first amendment right to attack other rights? it takes a special type of person to attack rights while using one

Absolutely not. He is expressing an opinion. That opinion is his own, and doesn't stop anyone from anything. His opinion doesn't equate to law. As an example, has him saying this forcibly stopped anyone from purchasing a firearm? I don't think so. Same with the 4th Amendment, him saying it's obsolete doesn't take anyone's 4th Amendment rights from them at all.

edit on 9-6-2013 by HauntWok because: (no reason given)

except for the fact that bill is dangerous because he contributes large amounts of money to the political party that leans to the way he thinks.He then uses his show which is highly watched by liberals to influence what issues he feels are incorrect like his second amendment rant.

reply to post by digital01anarchy

except for the fact that bill is dangerous because he contributes large amounts of money to the political party that leans to the way he thinks.He then uses his show which is highly watched by liberals to influence what issues he feels are incorrect like his second amendment rant.

Dangerous? Only as dangerous as Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity, or Glenn Beck. Sure, he has influence, but the people that listen to him for the most part will be people that agree with what he says most of the time anyway. Just like those that listen to Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity.

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by digital01anarchy

 

except for the fact that bill is dangerous because he contributes large amounts of money to the political party that leans to the way he thinks.He then uses his show which is highly watched by liberals to influence what issues he feels are incorrect like his second amendment rant.

Dangerous? Only as dangerous as Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity, or Glenn Beck. Sure, he has influence, but the people that listen to him for the most part will be people that agree with what he says most of the time anyway. Just like those that listen to Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity.

and i agree with you that these people shouldn't have the ability to donate to a political party if they can affect the way the party thinks. But to claim that his words mean nothing is stupidity also yes he did attack his and everyone elses 2nd amendment right with his first amendment right because A he has influence over his brainwashed viewer base which will now donate to his cause of taking away everyone's 2nd amendment rights

Can't believe there's people on ATS who actually liked Bill Maher, EVER. He's an idiot of the highest order and always has been. I laugh whenever I see him, he's real smarmy and thinks he's super enlightened and liberal, which is hilarious to watch as a non-American seeing as if he was British he'd probably back the conservatives. That's without considering that he just isn't funny, in general.

You should seriously just send him to Denmark or something. I know he likes to talk up certain European countries now and again as a means of bashing the American right, but if you ship him off to Denmark or Sweden or somewhere he'd lose his mind upon the realisation that he's no longer the progressive enlightened liberal demi-god of society that he clearly thinks he is. His soul would combust, I'm sure.

It's his face I like the least.

reply to post by Paschar0


The first time I saw Bill Mahar on HBO, I knew that he was nothing but a propagandist shill for the progressive left, far worse IMHO than John Stewart or Steve Colbert. These jerks take propaganda and dress it up as fake "comedy". It doesn't surprise me in the least that Mahar is anti-gun and supports unwarranted searches.

Originally posted by Paschar0
My head is spinning over all this, actually witnesses first had the dismantling of the very things that made America great. How people can justify this in any way, shape or form is literally un-American.

I hate to burst your panic bubble, but Bill Maher is not in charge of the Constitution and his opinion on the Amendments is totally irrelevant. It doesn't change anything and it certainly doesn't dismantle any of the thing that made America great. Bill Maher could say the entire Constitution is irrelevant, and it would still be perfectly intact when you woke up the next morning.

The fear card is trying to be played

And you're one of the people playing it.

reply to post by HauntWok


Hey Bill, I didn't know you had an account on ATS. Some people just can't take any amount of criticism, can they?

Originally posted by GrandStrategy
Can't believe there's people on ATS who actually liked Bill Maher, EVER. He's an idiot of the highest order and always has been. I laugh whenever I see him, he's real smarmy and thinks he's super enlightened and liberal, which is hilarious to watch as a non-American seeing as if he was British he'd probably back the conservatives. That's without considering that he just isn't funny, in general.

You should seriously just send him to Denmark or something. I know he likes to talk up certain European countries now and again as a means of bashing the American right, but if you ship him off to Denmark or Sweden or somewhere he'd lose his mind upon the realisation that he's no longer the progressive enlightened liberal demi-god of society that he clearly thinks he is. His soul would combust, I'm sure.

It's his face I like the least.

You should have been around here during the Chris Dorner episode. Some boneheads here were cheering him on.