Locking this thread because some threads have spiraled and people are violating the “don’t be a jerk” rule.
Except Dems have always been the party of fiscal responsibility too.
That’s what’s baffling, social services are fiscally conservative, taxing the richest in order to make sure the poorest have better living conditions is fiscally conservative, not spending public funds on companies worth billions is fiscally conservative… Fiscal conservatism is supposed to be spending public money wisely, well the most logical way to spend money for a government is by having a monopoly on certain things to make sure they’re provided to the population without the goal of making profit from it!
The most fiscally responsible stance is to be against corruption. The corruption is the thing that causes money magically disappear.
There are bad apples in Democratic party (Kevin de Leon from LA for example. I hope he never gets beyond current position) and we should fight hard to kick them out, but right now GQP is in its own league in terms of corruption.
Democrats usually eschew their obvious corruption and even some perceived slights. Republicans always circle their wagons and protect their own.
Yeah it’s become the party of lies and grifts. Electing actual conspiracy theorists and complete morons because they repeat lies that fox “news” tells everyone. Supporting a habitual lying con man for president who hocks crappy overpriced shoes, bibles and NFTs for 1000% their actual cost.
When conservatives say “fiscal responsibility” they mean cutting social spending so they can inflict as much harm on poor people as possible. If you look at everything they say through that lens, it all makes sense.
This. It’s more like the dems have been trying to unfuck things for
yearsdecades while Rs have continuously fucked it up. Spent gods fortune on war, shitting on civil rights and human progress, ect. All for what?
Soon to be the Uncle in Prison party.
Also, I’m suspicious this is really Bill Maher…
I’m suspicious this is really Bill Maher
It’s from page 106 of “What This Comedian Said Will Shock You”, Maher’s 2024 book.
Sorry, but fuck Bill Maher. He’s a fucking groomer.
(That article doesn’t include the part where one of the little girls tells Maher that Sofia Vergara’s character’s husband is much older than her and he says to them, “nothing wrong with that.”)
Do you believe in separating the art from the artist?
When did this become about art? I’m not seeing any art here.
It’s not. I just asked if you believed in the concept. Let’s say you really liked a painting, then found out the painter was a murderer.
Do you still like the painting?
If it were me, the answer is yes. Similarly, I think Bill Maher is an idiot, but I like the analogy.
Do I still like the painting? Maybe. Do I ever want to see it or another painting from that painter again? Maybe not. In the case of murder, the circumstances would be relevant. In the case of grooming children, the circumstances are not relevant. There are no extenuating circumstances which makes grooming children acceptable.
If John Wayne Gacy painted the most beautiful clown paintings ever, I still wouldn’t be interested in looking at them, just like I’m not interested in watching Woody Allen or Roman Polanski films.
Fair enough, just curious. I would love to see a beautiful clown painting though because I sure as hell can’t imagine it.
He was the most horrific painter I could think of outside of Hitler, which I felt was too on-the-nose. But ignore him and focus on Woody Allen and Roman Polanski, both legitimately excellent filmmakers, neither of whom I will ever watch a film from again. Even if I’ve seen it before. Chinatown and Annie Hall are both amazing films which I will never be watching again.
Hitler’s paintings were not bad. Not good, but also not bad.
It’s a fun little filter, you can figure out who is mature enough to separate art and artist by whether they think Hitler was a terrible painter or not.
My only problem with this stance is, if you can’t separate the “art from the artist” I feel that life becomes less enjoyable. Dig deep enough and most people aren’t great. So does it become our responsibility to know if anyone we like has done something bad? Or is it only when we’re made aware, because feigning ignorance is an easy way to avoid that.
IMO a person and what they create are different. I don’t think Michael Jackson’s music was bad just because he was a bad person. I don’t think you should give them money and support those bad people of course! But if I had a CD and said “I’m never listening to this again” I feel like I’m robbing myself, I’m not really changing anything for the better.
Anyways, just my take, very open and respecting of not wanting to engage with it at all though.
I can sometimes separate the art from the artist. Roald Dahl was a massive antisemite, but I still think he was a terrific writer. He also didn’t actually hurt anyone with his antisemitism, he was just a bigoted asshole.
In the case of Woody Allen, Roman Polanski and even Bill Maher now that I know he grooms kids, I can’t do that. And honestly, I can’t listen to Michael Jackson anymore either.
Maybe it’s because I’m a parent, but I cannot think about any of those people without thinking about children coming to harm. That makes life less enjoyable when I pay attention to them. Meanwhile, there are countless other artists to enjoy who are also terrific. Far more than I ever have time to give my attention to. So why give my attention to them?
A clock that’s only right twice a day is a shitty clock.
Bill Maher is a boomer. But this is some broken clock high level thinking.
Agreed. It definitely has ‘the person you hate the most made a good point’ vibes.
This reads like something one of his writers came up with.
he’s been creeping on kids lately, which is just natural progression i guess. a true libertarian
I’ve never heard the GoP called the “Daddy Party”.
Who the fuck is calling them that?
Bill Maher, and the shitlibs agreeing with him that the Republicans used to be respectable.
the Republicans used to be respectable
It’s been about 120 years. Make the Republican Party great again!
To be fair, old school Republicans from 30-40 years ago would be losing their shit at how much the current party has been cozying up to Russia and the Saudi’s which is where a very large chunk of the modern corruption comes from.
No they would not because it was always an act.
Yeah god damn assholes trying to find common ground should be burned at the stake.
Shitlibs shitting themselves in rage, again, oh no.
I never heard them called the daddy party exactly, however the concept is not new. Hell I remember there was an episode of The West Wing like 20 years ago where they talked about this. The mommy problem. It’s a thing in politics that gets talked about. Democrats are the ones you go to when you want things like jobs and Healthcare whereas Republicans the ones you go to when you’re scared. It certainly a strategy Republicans bank on, as we see it’s basically the only thing they have right now. Lie to people tell them to be scared of immigrants and minorities and crime. That’s the entirety of their campaign right now, there’s not a lick of policy or anything else.
Is possible that you’re too young.
I’m gen-x. Not sure if that still makes me too young or too old.
Lol. Girl read a history book. I’m not even American and can tell you that the Republicans were never the party of fiscal responsibility and security. Stop listening to that cunt Bill Maher. Imagine being so moronic that you think that Maher is right.
I always see it as giving people who call themselves Republicans an ‘out’. Like saying “I get why you’re voting that way, but it just isn’t true anymore” but we all know it never was and they’re morons, but if you just call them a moron, they double down
Security maybe but never fiscal responsibility. And security only because of the ridiculous amount of money they spend towards the military at the expense of our social services.
Most of the wars started abroad by Republicans were never about security but merely to expand US imperialism. Not to mention shit like the Iran-Contra affair and the shit the CIA have done. Those things have put Americans at more risk.
Man the dumbfucks in this comment section. Maher hit this one out of the park and you whining cunts can’t even acknowledge the obvious win. Doesn’t mean you like anything else he’s done, fuck’s sake.
This is the political weirdos community bruh
Turns out the weirdos were the commenters all along?
It’s because people are obsessed with taking away the accomplishments of people they don’t like, musicians, inventors, this latest generation and a half thinks once you’ve done a bad your contributions to society are nullified and it’s stupid, by God it’s stupid.
Almost everyone of any significance in the world is problematic somehow and to someone, we can’t just ignore their contributions and pretend only people we like provide worth and value.
Oh right Democrats totally haven’t sold out to corporate either. There’s free healthcare, student loans are forgiven, abortion rights are guaranteed, and they are definitely not funding a Genocide.
But at least we’re featuring hardcore Zionist Bill Maher
What outcome are you even pushing for here? I am, of course, giving you a massive benefit of the doubt and assume you aren’t just being paid to cynically beat the Gaza drum because the GOP have no other ideas with which to attack Harris.
Every day of their life they’re pushing for more dead Palestinians, the crueller the better, and for trump to be president.
Where can I sign up to get paid for debunking this propaganda?
The post isn’t even a meme it’s just one of the most hardcore Zionist TV hosts circlejerking about how his party supposedly never does anything wrong.
Where can I get paid to make anti-democrat posts every day of my life? Just kidding, I’m not evil and I don’t want to go out of my way to make sure every Palestinian is less safe/alive than before.
You’d be surprised how many rubles you can get tho
I don’t want to go out of my way to make sure every Palestinian is less safe/alive than before.
Have you considered not advocating for the people who make the Genocide possible?
Are you asking yourself?
deleted by creator
this does make him a terrible person, but not a pedophile.
and he fantasizes about being an adolscent that gets taken advantage of an adult.
thats the opposite of a pedophile.
and anyway, what you mean is Hebephilia, not pedophelia.
deleted by creator
i don’t have doubts. I am sure about what i say. there is no crime at hand.
folks like you are the reason we have this kind of problem in the first place. you dumb everything down, and put your own projections into your sourroundings. its a sensational, truth bending rethoric.
you do your people no favour at all.
is it morally heinus? absolutely. is there an actual video that he watched? no. is there an video? well, we don’t know. it was not mentioned in the case.
yes, he excersizied his right of free spech. should he be smacked in the jaw for this kind of talk? yes. does he have to lick your boots and shut his mouth? no.
democracy baby.
definition of child porn.
Child pornography under federal law is defined as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict a minor who is recognizable as an actual person by the person’s face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic. Undeveloped film, undeveloped videotape, and electronically stored data that can be converted into a visual image of child pornography are also deemed illegal visual depictions under federal law.[7] The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that images created by superimposing the face of a child on sexually explicit photographs of legal adults is not protected speech under the First Amendment.[8] However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “virtual child pornography” was constitutionally protected speech, unless meeting the criteria of obscenity.[9][10]
deleted by creator
Is being a pedophile not a crime? Cause last I checked being a pedophile is a crime
I say this as I’ve partnered a lot of crime and I’m happy to say pedophilia was not one of them
I don’t know why you’re being down-voted dude. I imagine this pedo’s got like eight accounts he’s using. Just want you to know as a random dude reading this, you’re 100% correct.
now you are beginning to put me in the same category by saying that I did defend his honor.
I’ll say it. I find your defense of Bill Maher here disturbing and it makes me wonder if you are sick like him.
The man said the real crime was that there was not a video of that woman raping a minor. He is wishing for child porn. You are defending that. Gross. I don’t care if it’s a pedophilia, hemophilia or any other kind of weird ass words you want to use to make it seem acceptable, It’s not. you should feel ashamed for defending it.
i am sick like bill maher, I confess. Yeah, it’s a shame.
This goddamn shitheel
Why do we have to gender this shit? Fuck the republicans. I honestly hope that party dies. But I am also worried what’s going to happen afterward because it will be one viable party. And I am seeing shades of republicans in some of the memes that get spread around. None of these people are your friends. Its best to think of them like a reptile would.
There will never* be only one viable party. If the Republican party fails, either a third party will become a big competitor to the Democrats or the Democratic party will split. This won’t be the first time a party goes away if they do. We’ve had this happen several times in US history.
*There may be only one large viable party for a short time while things organize around whatever comes next, but it won’t be significant.
I guess I just don’t trust people enough.
We are in the third level of repost now. Congrats
Okay but why is “Bill” capitalized while “maher” isn’t?
Auto correct recognizes bill as a name but not Maher. Mine did the opposite, but who knows.
Probably because “bill” is more than just a name.
What is so political_weirdo about this?
Not this, but Bill Maher is. I agree with the other commenter that this could be written by anyone on his staff, it doesn’t sound dumb or creepy enough to be from the man himself.
What a terrible fucking analogy.
I can get why it seems like that. But from a lived reality, I get it tbh.
