Bill Maher Throws Out 911 Protester!!

Originally posted by coastlinekid
Maher is like alot of Hollywood personalities...He probably agrees with the Truthers, but he knows what side his bread is buttered...
[edit on 21-10-2007 by coastlinekid]

HAHAHAHAHAHA.

WTF... Why do people really think this? Maher is one of the most OUTSPOKEN people on TV today... IF HE THOUGHT IT... HE WOULD SAY IT.

Remember people... Bill smokes pot... He admits it every show... That alone is enough a confession for a raid...

If he really was being quiet for his own good...

Why not just guarantee his silence by throwing him in jail for possession with intent to resale???

or growing???

bill maher does NOT believe the 911 conspiracy theories.


God I wish those idiots would have had the balls to stand when Edwards was on stage... Secret Service would have stomped them new mudholes.

reply to post by Leo Strauss


Oh yeah! i loved that one! bill MAHer is such a fake liberal, i knew it all along. He can't even respond to a question like that becouse he only knows how to bash people but dose not know how to speak the truth. I'd rather watch Colbert and Stewart

for Stewart for bill

Originally posted by pavil
Thread is drifting terribly off point but you are supposing it is all faked, when the more logical conclusion is the opposite of that. Your belief is running contrary to the facts, yet you ignore the facts by dismissing them as false. You are allowed your own opinion, not your own facts.

Well, if you can believe a bullet can take 2 380 degree turns and hit the same man 3 times while hitting another man twice, then go ahead and believe in 9/11 official physics. Go ahead. One of us will proven wrong in time. I just hope I'm around when I can say "I told ya so".

Too bad the Techno Viking was not in the audience. I would tossed out this disrespectful scum on their rears and warned them not to dance with the Techno Viking.

Da truth needs no silly shouting children.

reply to post by Griff


I don't have a beef with you Griff, your arguements are well thought out, backed with data to review, unlike many others here. I am happy to respectfully disagree with you on points. You don't resort to the namecalling and insults. For all of that, I admire you.

Yes, perhaps time will tell what the truth is, however, I don't think there is going to be much in the way of new evidence, so it will always stay in the land of "if".

Originally posted by 1111111111111
reply to post by Leo Strauss

 

Oh yeah! i loved that one! bill MAHer is such a fake liberal, i knew it all along. He can't even respond to a question like that becouse he only knows how to bash people but dose not know how to speak the truth. I'd rather watch Colbert and Stewart

for Stewart

for bill

He's not a fake liberal and not every single element that isn't in compliance of a conspiracy, is a subsequent element of the original conspiracy! He's just your average, white, rich American liberal who hates war and loves marijuana. Because he has leftist ideals doesn't mean he has to believe in one thing or another just because that may be a strong consensus for that demographic. He says a lot of helpful and informative things to his viewers about the war in Iraq, about social news, such as police brutality, the Jenna 6, and allows people like Mos Def and Jeanine Garofalo to communicate their ideas about the subject without censorship, even though he may argue and disagree.

He's not automatically a "pawn" for the "Illuminati" because he believes the conventional idea that terrorists had perpetrated this act as a outlash against the occupancy and dominance in the middle east. He's not a "shill" because he supports Israel. He's not a lot of things just because he has an opinion that is in sharp contrast to your own. If you don't understand this and jump down everyone's throat who doesn't agree with you claiming they're "in on it" than you're doing your cause more harm than good. Going on a live, nationally broadcasted political forum like the Realtime and being disruptive is no way to get your point out without doing a substantial amount of damage to your "movement." Do it intelligently and respectfully.



Common sense, guys.

Bill Maher & Garry Kasparov

Same show, Maher makes a remark/joke that the U.S could use the kgb
and Kasparov is really on a roll.

Originally posted by pavil
reply to post by Griff

 

I don't have a beef with you Griff,

I agree wholeheartedly. I have no beef with you either and I oppologize if it seemed like I did. It's hard to 100% get your total meaning accross in just an internet forum. Peace.

reply to post by Griff

No Apology necessary. Peace and no worries.

You know the reason I thought the whole 9/11 ordeal was "odd" from the beginning was the fact that the towers were not really very "good" targets from a terrorist point of view-it didn't shut the city down the way a crash into Grand Central would have. If the plane from Boston had crashed 50 miles north of the city, it could have hit Indian Point and really screwed us. But it didn't, and let me also say, word on the street the very same day was that a lot of people didn't show up for work who would have been in the towers...3,000 people dead in a city of 8 million is not too bad-it could have been so much worse - and it wasn't.

You know, one thing has been bothering me from the beginning of this thread. BILL MAHAR (!?!?!?) of all people, shouting "Haven't we got any f**king security in this building." and then running down the aisle to gang up on some guy.

Is this the same Bill Mahar that said "It takes guts to fly into a building on a jet. It doesn't take any guts to lob cruise missiles at people from 2000 miles away." It can't be the same guy. The "guts" guy smokes pot. The "f**king security guy" SAYS he smokes pot.

I think the real Mahar has been XPD'd (expedient demise) and the real Lee Harvey Oswald (not the Baltic double) has been given plastic surgery and heavy duty script writers to impersonate the Bill we used to love and used to laugh at. . er, with.

It all makes sense now.

[edit on 22-10-2007 by ipsedixit]

The guy wasnt thrown out because of what he was saying, He was thrown out because he wouldnt let the show go on,I hate Bill Mahr as much as the next guy but the guy in the audience was rude and interrupting the show,When your acting like that it wouldnt matter what your saying

Originally posted by Pilot
You know the reason I thought the whole 9/11 ordeal was "odd" from the beginning was the fact that the towers were not really very "good" targets from a terrorist point of view

You’re thinking tactically; cause the absolute amount of damage possible. Now try thinking of it strategically.
Strategically the WTC was a wonderful target; it was a huge building that you could see from miles away and everyone could identify whether they had been to New York or not. It was economically important taking many businesses with it when it collapsed. And people, as you know 3,000 people died that day but if you think back that’s actually a rather low number, casualties were expected to reach 10,000-15,000 many of whom would have been of great importance economically as well (high earners).
Now add to that the weapons used aircraft. Air travel is of immense import both culturally and economically and for the first few months no one wanted to use. People that would normally fly took the bus to go on trips or they just canceled their plans.

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
In a previous episode Bill Maher went out of his way to attack the "truth" movement implying they are insane for questioning 911.

That sentiment is shared by many.

My take is that Maher picked this fight and We are Change obliged.

Not really. Free speech is something 9/11 Truthers have yet to understand.

The truth movement was behaving in a civilized manner by approaching Maher through the standard channels asking for airtime for their issues.

Holocaust Deniers have tried that trick, too.

His repsonse was to devote a segment of his show to call them insane and suggest they be medicated.

I prefer to tell 9/11 Truthers to get an education. But when Truthers try to tell normal people they alone possess the truth and we are all sheep, then Maher's response is certainly justified.

So here we are today.

Indeed. 9/11 Truthers will continue to get exactly what they ask for.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


What about those of us who have looked at both sides, and have seen the "facts" that the 9//11 truthers regurgitate, and don't find them to be convincing? Truthers just can't accept that folks disagree with them. They feel that if only we were to look into it more, we'd obviously come to our senses and assimilate ourselves into their Borg collective. I haven't seen one "fact" that would cause me to accept an inside job theory. Are there holes in the official story? Yes, but I don't think that just because I don't know every detail, that obviously treachery was involved on a mass scale. Whenever you see truthers out in public, they do come across as nut jobs. If they want to appear credible, they need to change their approach. As been stated, you can bring up inconsistencies in the "official" story, but when you start spouting off about things where there's no proof, you're just not going to gain a lot of traction in the public mind. At the end of the day, you have to also be willing to agree to disagree. If you refuse to accept that folks just don't(and won't) see things the way you do, you'll never have mass credibility. Being loud and rude don't add weight to arguments. Merit is what the goal should be, as emotion is useless in debate.

Originally posted by Redge777
I wrote this elsewhere but it explains why people like code pink are obligated by society to protest. They are serving our country since they have an opinion that is not represented in media.

(Back story: code pink getting arrested when a speaker said something and they began to read the constitution as rebuttal, they were in the crowd)

OK Code pink went down there to interrupt a speech that was against their point of view, they were loud and disrupted. It is there duty as Americans to do this, I can explain why with this example using pro bunny and pro turtle as examples.

If people only see pro bunny speeches. If the media only speaks in pro bunny terms. If corporate media selectively covers things with pro bunny spin. If congressional hearings and politicians avoid pro turtle topics and speak in pro bunny ways of thought, then the responsibility and actions of pro turtle people are now different in a free society.

If the pro turtle people do not have a viable out let to freely question the pro bunny agenda then for the good of our democracy, for free thought and the fostering of critical thinking it is the duty of every American to interrupt pro bunny speeches and give the counter pro turtle arguments.

Although interruptions are perceived as rude, the need to have an informed citizenry and to give people the information to make decisions and not just follow what they have been told is more important then formalities of decorum. If after hearing both pro bunny and pro turtle arguments the citizenry make a pro bunny decision that is fine, but that is not the point.

If you have a debate and only one side is at the podium, and the other podium is empty don't you think someone from the audience should yell out counter points? But our information is not formed as a debate, it is formed as a point of view to be packaged and sold to the masses so they will do what the controllers of media, and those in power want them to do.

The fact that Bill will not debate truthers, and when he talks about truthers he only does it with other people with the same frame of refrence he has makes audience participation mandatory.

I agree with everything you said and found your words to be enlightening and thought provoking. I award you full points, would read again and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
I haven't seen one "fact" that would cause me to accept an inside job theory.

Video footage from around the Pentagon not being released?

That doesn't bother you at all? If there's nothing to hide then there's nothing to hide!

Peace

[edit on 22-10-2007 by Dr Love]

Originally posted by Dr Love

Originally posted by BlueRaja
I haven't seen one "fact" that would cause me to accept an inside job theory.

Video footage from around the Pentagon not being released?

What video?

That doesn't bother you at all? If there's nothing to hide then there's nothing to hide!

Since no one needs any video, why should anyone care. All of the evidence already demonstrates AA77 hit the Pentagon.

reply to post by Dr Love


So the lack of information makes wild speculation fact? Where's the footage of cruise missiles, high energy beams, etc...? That doesn't exist either, so using your argument, I'm just as justified in not believing that account, as you in not believing that a 757 flew into the Pentagon. There are a lot more holes in the no 757 theory, than there are in believing that a 757 did in fact fly into the Pentagon(i.e. what happened to the 757, the passengers, the debris, the amount of damage- much more than a Global Hawk or Cruise Missile would cause, etc...)- show some proof of these things as being the cause of the damage.

en.wikipedia.org...
"In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.[3]"

Originally posted by BlueRaja
So the lack of information makes wild speculation fact?

It's not lack of information, it's withholding of information. Two different things.

"In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded.

Right, I want to prove that a plane hit the Pentagon. I need those videos. I like to be thorough, as the claimant, in fulfilling my burden of proof with all possible evidence. I'd like nothing more than to put an end to my "wild speculation".

Peace

[edit on 22-10-2007 by Dr Love]