Bill Maher on #CharlieHebdo attacks: “There are no great religions; they’re all dangerous"

[Tywysog Cymru]

It wasn't a truly free market by any means, but it was far freer than what exists today; namely the seizing of property and murder of property owners.

The murders are carried out by individuals, and the government really isn't responsible. Their government is evil, Zuma is a crook, but they aren't responsible for the attacks on white farmers.

[jmdrake]

Aww, princess. Can't even come up with your own insults, huh? Nothing to say about the absurd charge of "politically correct fascist"? No one is lying you idiot. You can accuse me of being ignorant of France's legal system (which I am), but it was an honest mistake. I read the article yesterday and I admit to forgetting the specifics, and yes being criminally charged is far worse than merely being sued; I admit to being wrong in that instance. Not everyone who disagrees with you has some craven ulterior motive, and I have no problem admitting when I'm incorrect.

Hey moron. An honest mistake is one that you make before someone explains to you the truth. If you bothered to read what I wrote the first time instead of going off into insult land you would not have made the same mistake. Making the same claim multiple times means you are either incredibly stupid or lying. It really doesn't matter which. The point is that this really isn't about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means that each group can equally be insulted. If Muslims could get people criminally prosecuted for insulted the prophet, there would be no reason to kill over it. Now I don't agree with such prosecutions. But I don't agree with any prosecution over newspaper content. And, considering the open season on Christians by Hebdo, other than the loss of life, I really don't give a crap.

You are however, completely wrong when I said I minimized it. Saying it's not bad as brutal murder is not "minimizing" something, I don't know how you come to that conclusion. You also never specifically said I support that, but then why respond to my post with the article or say that "anyone smarter than a flatworm" knows there's something wrong with what happened when I said absolutely nothing to the contrary?

Do you understand that when someone is faced with criminal charges if that person doesn't submit to the power of the state he can be legally murdered by the state? Why I think Stefan Molyneaux is a blowhard, one thing that he does get right is that those advocating statism are ultimately advocating the use of lethal force to enforce their ideals. When we are talking about criminal charges that's is the ultimate result.

Now, this is what you keep ignoring. My original point is that if the Muslims had the "benefit" of pushing for criminal charges to shut down speech they didn't like, there would be no reason for them to want to kill anyone over speech they didn't like. So let's get something straight here. You were the one getting "panties in a bunch." What I said was a clear and unambiguous truth. The hypocritical French hate speech code is part of the problem. The French should either scrap it altogether (my preference) or expand it to cover insults against any group.

I agree. Everything he said in that video is true, though.

You're free to believe what you want. I don't base my beliefs on videos.

Actually, there are many different reason he's said to be a socialist, including his own words. He was very openly anti-capitalist and pro-state, if you deny this you know nothing about the man.

Or maybe I know more than you do. You are so freaking arrogant that you are unable to realize people can look at the same facts and arrive at different conclusions. For one thing socialism isn't communism. For another MLK was no more socialist than the average modern Republican. Social Security? Socialism. Prescription drug benefit? Socialism. Farm subsidies? Socialism. Do I agree with any of those things? No. Am I going to ignorantly write anyone who does agree with those things as a bloodthirsty communist as you did? No. Here is the most "socialist" speech MLK made. Nothing "bloodthirsty" in that at all. http://www.gphistorical.org/mlk/mlkspeech/

[jmdrake]

It wasn't a truly free market by any means, but it was far freer than what exists today; namely the seizing of property and murder of property owners.

Good grief you are stupid! Apartheid was openly socialist.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/12/t...can-apartheid/
“Workers of the world unite, keep South Africa white.”

–Slogan of early twentieth-century South African Labor Unions

“South Africa’s apartheid is not the corollary of free-market or capitalist forces. Apartheid is the result of anti-capitalistic or socialistic efforts to subvert the operation of market (capitalistic) forces.”

–Walter E. Williams, South Africa’s War Against Capitalism

During the twentieth century the worldwide socialist movement attempted to criticize capitalism by associating it with Nazi Germany since the Nazis did not nationalize many industries as the Russian socialists had done (they allowed ostensibly private enterprises that were nevertheless regulated, regimented and controlled by the state). The truth is that the roots of Nazism or “national socialism” were thoroughly socialistic. The Nazis were “national” socialists, whereas the Soviets claimed to be international socialists. The Nazis and the communists were ideological clones who considered the ideas of classical liberalism (free-market capitalism, limited government, low taxes, private property, the rule of law, peace), and those who espoused them, to be their mortal enemy.

Similarly, the international socialist movement has long attempted to associate another kind of socialist movement – the former South African Apartheid laws – as some kind of abuse of capitalism. Nothing could be further from the truth. Government-imposed discrimination against black South Africans was instigated by white labor unions associated with various Marxist and communist movements. It was a pervasive system of government regulation, regimentation and control. This of course is the exact opposite of free-market capitalism.

It was this form of massive government interventionism that the late Nelson Mandela battled against in his youth, and for which he was imprisoned for twenty-seven years by the South Africa government. (Unfortunately, Mandela himself was a socialist and a covert member of the executive committee of the South African Communist party who idolized such totalitarian monsters as Fidel Castro. He apparently never understood that it was a version of Castroite socialism that had victimized him and the black population of South Africa, and that what South African blacks needed the most was the economic freedom and opportunity provided by free-market capitalism).

What Was South African “Apartheid”?

Two books are indispensable to understanding the system of government-imposed, institutionalized discrimination against South African blacks known as “Apartheid.” They are The Colour Bar by William H. Hutt, and South Africa’s War Against Capitalism by Walter E. Williams. Both were published before the final collapse of Apartheid.

The origins of institutionalized discrimination against South African blacks were in the violent, Marxist-inspired white labor union movement (which had American ties) of the early twentieth century. One of the first leaders of this movement, as Hutt describes, was one W. H. Andrews, who formed a chapter of the International Socialist League and who became the first secretary of the Communist Party of South Africa. He championed the use of violence and terrorism to “protect” white workers from competition from blacks. This union movement eventually became joined at the hip with the South African government so as to use the coercive powers of government (which can be far more violent and terroristic than mere unions alone) to deprive South African blacks of economic opportunity.

The first “Colour Bar Act,” as they were known, was the 1911 Mines and Works Act, which listed numerous jobs that could not legally be performed by blacks. South African capitalists opposed this law because they wanted to be able to hire employees in a free market. In such a market, the generally lower-skilled and less-educated black workers (less skilled because of inferior educational opportunities as well as racism) could indeed find employment, albeit at a lower, entry-level wage than more experienced and skilled white workers. The unions’ main goal was to deprive “the capitalist class,” which they harshly condemned, of this opportunity to hire black workers. As Hutt explained, what the general secretary of the white workers’ labor union opposed was “the desire of the capitalist class to achieve economies by bringing better-remunerated and more responsible work within the reach of the Africans.”

The Mines and Works Act of 1926 was the result of “the combination of socialism and racism” brought about by the ruling Nationalist party, a socialist political party that had formed a coalition government with the South African Labour Party. The lynchpin of this law was known as “the rate for the job,” a law that mandated minimum wages that precluded thousands of black workers from offering to become employed at entry-level wages, thereby depriving them of employment opportunity altogether. This of course is the effect of minimum-wage laws anywhere and everywhere. As Hutt wrote, the law “had the effect of preventing the entry of subordinate races or classes into the protected field.”

A 1922 Apprenticeship Act saw to it that only whites could attain apprenticeships in numerous trades, with apprenticeship being a prerequisite for employment. When South African blacks attempted to bypass all these socialistic, protectionist labor laws by becoming entrepreneurs and starting their own business enterprises, the union-dominated South African government issued Obama-style “directives” or executive orders forbidding the opening of any black-owned businesses, “even in African urban areas.” There was also a system of “job reservations” where hundreds of jobs were “reserved” for white workers only.

There were also pervasive separate-and-unequal laws and regulations affecting just about every institution in South African society. Inter-racial marriage was outlawed, as was sexual intercourse between whites and non-whites. These all of course had nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism or markets or a free society and were entirely the work of the dark hand of statism. As Walter Williams concluded in South Africa’s War Against Capitalism, “The whole ugly history of apartheid has been an attack on free markets and the rights of individuals, and a glorification of centralized government power.”

[heavenlyboy34]

This is totally worth the watch.

That's really interesting. He makes some mistakes about classical Christianity, but it's generally neat.

[UWDude]

Again, is that why apartheid South Africa had an immigration problem?



Out of what one? I said what I meant and meant what I said.

then you are exactly what I thought you were
a racist

a true, dyed in the wool, to the core, white nationalist
just another stormfronter who has been banned dozens of times.

And your stars and bars were the symbol. It is a palatable, diplomatic symbol.
I bet your stormfront account has an actual swatsika


But I get it, I get it, it is the Indian (aka Aryan) symbol for peace, amirite?

[UWDude]

Good grief you are stupid! Apartheid was openly socialist.

Just like the nazis.

Nationalist

Socialists

as long as you were of the nation, you got the benefits of socialism.

And, uh starsnbars...

you didn't actually hear you quite spell out who you claim to be... "your nation".

Can you please elaborate?

[A Son of Liberty]

So Rothbard and Hoppe are "collectivists" too?

Rothbard created paleolibertarianism, which was explicitly pro-white.

I've never read anything by Rothbard which was racist, and I haven't read much at all of Hoppe, but if they were in fact racists, then $#@! them. Racism is explicitly a collectivist viewpoint, not to mention a moronic way to look at the world.

[oyarde]

Throughout history different religions have become more dangerous than others for long periods of time . Worship of the state has been more consistent . Those that intertwine the two can never be trusted .

[enhanced_deficit]

Exactly. And in the next breath these people whine about Israel, the only nation that comes close to representing Western values in the Middle East.

Brilliant.

BTW, in sovereign Israel (anyone knows which parrts of land it is defined by, 1948 or 1967 borders?), are people of different races allowed to marry one another ? Or marriage between people of jewish and arab races inside sovereign Israel is banned?

Do you believe Jews and Arabs are equal as races or one is more chosen/special/supremacist than the other?



Top rabbis move to forbid renting homes to Arabs
Haaretz
Dec 7, 2010 - Dozens of Israel's municipal chief rabbis signed on to the ruling, which ... "Racism originated in the Torah," said Rabbi Yosef Scheinen, who heads the Ashdod Yeshiva. "The land of Israel is designated for the people of Israel. This is what the Holy One Blessed Be He intended and that is what the [sage] Rashi interpreted.

Israeli rabbis warn landlords not rent or sell to non-Jews
www.telegraph.co.uk
Dec 8, 2010 - Fifty Israeli rabbis have signed an open letter warning Jews not to rent ... The Association for Civil Rights in Israel slammed the letter as "racist."


To the untrained eye, Israel appears to have not only laws based on racial supremacist values but also quite a racist culture deeply ingrained in its society.

[Legend1104]

It wasn't always like this.



But there's a lot in the rest of the bible that COULD justify mass murder and genocide. It's most of the old testament!

But that is only based off of a shallow incorrect understanding of the Bible. God never granted man the authority to mass genocide or the killing or innocents at all. Not once.

[UWDude]

But that is only based off of a shallow incorrect understanding of the Bible. God never granted man the authority to mass genocide or the killing or innocents at all. Not once.

Numbers 31:17
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

Numbers 31:18
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.


LoL

God told the Israelites to kill the males, women, even children, and to rape the virgins.

LoL

What did Fiery Thomas Paine say about the Bible?

Whence arose the horrid assassinations of whole nations of men, women, and infants, with which the Bible is filled; and the bloody persecutions, and tortures unto death and religious wars, that since that time have laid Europe in blood and ashes; whence arose they, but from this impious thing called revealed religion, and this monstrous belief that God has spoken to man?

[DamianTV]

Numbers 31:17
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

Numbers 31:18
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.


LoL

God told the Israelites to kill the males, women, even children, and to rape the virgins.

LoL

If you guys are my 73 Virgins, then I want my money back!

[PRB]

because he doesn't want to be called a hypocrite for protecting some religions, he'd rather hate/bash them all.

[Christian Liberty]

I've never read anything by Rothbard which was racist, and I haven't read much at all of Hoppe, but if they were in fact racists, then $#@! them. Racism is explicitly a collectivist viewpoint, not to mention a moronic way to look at the world.

I wouldn't necessarily throw out everything someone said because they were prejudiced, though I agree that's a wrong position to take. Rothbard, from what I recall, didn't seem to care that much about racism per say except as it impacted policy.

He is, but that doesn't mean every single argument he makes should be thrown out. I actually go a step further and say Molyneux is a blight on the wider libertarian movement, but when he's right he's right.

agreed.

Liking Israel isn't a requirement in order to be a Christian.

Indeed. One's opinion on a State =/= one's opinion on a race.

[Brett85]

Well, you have to give Bill Maher credit for being consistent. He bashes all religions, not just Christianity.

[UWDude]

Well, you have to give Bill Maher credit for being consistent. He bashes all religions, not just Christianity.

I've only seen Bill Maher give passing ridicule to some Jewish eating traditions. He never bashes Israel or Judaism.

[acptulsa]

Rothbard created paleolibertarianism, which was explicitly pro-white.

I don't suppose you'd care to back that up with some rational argument, or even a link?

Yeah, didn't think so.

It wasn't a truly free market by any means, but it was far freer than what exists today; namely the seizing of property and murder of property owners.

So, the Dutch didn't seize any land at all from anyone of a darker complexion when they first arrived...?

Numbers 31:17
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

Numbers 31:18
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.


LoL

God told the Israelites to kill the males, women, even children, and to rape the virgins.

In all fairness, I think he was trying to say God never gave man the authority to order up any genocides for their own purposes. I think. Though I agree that isn't what he said.

because he doesn't want to be called a hypocrite for protecting some religions, he'd rather hate/bash them all.

You can read Bill Maher's mind? Would that be a gift or a curse?

[jmdrake]

That's really interesting. He makes some mistakes about classical Christianity, but it's generally neat.

I watched it. Here's a question. He says "It's no wonder why the Spanish expelled the Muslims." Okay. But why did the Spanish expel the Jews? Either one of two possibilities. The Spanish Christians were just jerks (in which case their "reason" for expelling the Muslims is irrelevant), or the Jews deserved to be expelled as bad as the Muslims, in which case the Christian Zionists who are backing this claptrap need a refund. Also he claims that empires always fall from within. Always. But then he says the only reason Rome fell was due to external pressure from Muslims. And Rome didn't fall when taken over by German barbarians because the German barbarians adopted Roman culture? But the Romans adopted Greek culture. So......there really was never a Roman empire just a Greek one? So many holes....so little time.

[Legend1104]

Numbers 31:17
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

Numbers 31:18
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.


LoL

God told the Israelites to kill the males, women, even children, and to rape the virgins.

LoL

What did Fiery Thomas Paine say about the Bible?

You did exactly what I meant by a misunderstanding of the Bible. Thanks for verifying my statement. I never said that God did not tell Moses (or someone else ) to go into their enemies city and kill everyone. What I said was God never gave man the authority. He never said "Hey Moses. Man do whatever you want. You want to cut up they kids, do it. Its cool with me." Every time someone in the Bible did this, it was when he told them to specifically. In other words man has never been given that authority, he only followed the commands of God. Only God has the authority to make the judgement to kill in such a fashion. Man does not have that authority, so when you quote the scriptures to me, understand what I'm saying first.

P.S. I was not debating about the morality of these actions, only whether it was granted to man to choose to do this kind of stuff (authority) or rather they were simply fulfilling the commands of their higher authority. If you want to have that debate feel free and I will gladly tell you my opinion.

[otherone]

Only God has the authority to make the judgement to kill in such a fashion. Man does not have that authority, so when you quote the scriptures to me, understand what I'm saying first.`

Luckily for us that God has given us human mouthpieces to relay what he wants done.

[Muwahid]

I really dislike Maher. I also dislike how people think free speech is a pass to say anything inflammatory (what happened to morals?).

Free speech is designed so that the state cannot violate your rights if you criticize it. So yes, Ron Paul made an excellent point in saying free speech isn't so we can discuss the weather, but it's also not so we can see how far we can insult people for seemingly no reason before they snap.

We must also remember the insults are aimed towards a people, discriminated against in France, while there is favoritism for other religions, namely Judaism. And abroad France is an interventionist nation which targets Muslim nations, and in the past, France colonized Muslim countries and abused the inhabitants.. that's the proper context.

It's like many things Muslims do which are violent, while we may not agree with their choices on any level... we should at least understand them.

I do not stand with Charlie Hebdo, that's for sure.

[TER]

It's like many things Muslims do which are violent, while we may not agree with their choices on any level... we should at least understand them.

I do not stand with Charlie Hebdo, that's for sure.

I think Charlie Hebdo is in bad taste. I would never spend a nickel to purchase one of their magazines. The way they mock Islam as well as all other faiths on a regular basis is sad and unnecessary. Satire is one thing, but the lack of restraint and sympathy is another. It seems to me that many of those who died that day had chosen Mammon above God and they will be accountable before God for all the evil things they have done. May God forgive them.

With that said, they did not deserve death at the hands of sinners, of which we all are, simply because of words and cartoon pictures. I mean, to the civilized man in the year 2015, mere words and pictures which are offensive cannot be accepted to be deserving of death, right?

But perhaps they did deserve death according to God's law?

Muhawid, how should we understand these fundamentalist jihadists? How are we to see and begin to understand how these devout Muslims were in a real way justified or not for their actions in Paris?

[TER]

I really dislike Maher. I also dislike how people think free speech is a pass to say anything inflammatory (what happened to morals?)

Excellent question! Just because we have the power to create (albeit words or drawings or whatever) does not mean that we should forget virtue and righteousness. For if we truly believe this life was given on to us as stewards and workers in the field, awaiting the Heavenly Banquet to come, then we must abide in truth and in righteousness before God (and man!) and live according to the good will of God.

But what is the will of God? This is the ultimate question! Indeed, our very lives hang upon it!

[otherone]

I really dislike Maher. I also dislike how people think free speech is a pass to say anything inflammatory (what happened to morals?).

Morals are what should prevent you from raising your hand against a brother who offends you.

[jmdrake]

I think Charlie Hebdo is in bad taste. I would never spend a nickel to purchase one of their magazines. The way they mock Islam as well as all other faiths on a regular basis is sad and unnecessary. Satire is one thing, but the lack of restraint and sympathy is another. It seems to me that many of those who died that day had chosen Mammon above God and they will be accountable before God for all the evil things they have done. May God forgive them.

With that said, they did not deserve death at the hands of sinners, of which we all are, simply because of words and cartoon pictures. I mean, to the civilized man in the year 2015, mere words and pictures which are offensive cannot be accepted to be deserving of death, right?

But perhaps they did deserve death according to God's law?

Muhawid, how should we understand these fundamentalist jihadists? How are we to see and begin to understand how these devout Muslims were in a real way justified or not for their actions in Paris?

Actually TER, there Old Testament is replete with examples of God using sinful nations to punish Israel and at times He even told His prophets ahead of time He would do that. One prophet even complained about that. (See Habakkuk 1) Yes the sinful nation would ultimately get punished as well so their actions were not excused. Have you seen the cover where Charlie blasphemed the Holy Trinity? Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Holy Spirit represented by the Illuminati symbol) were engaged in sodomy. I will not re-post the picture though I have in other threads. You can easily find it on Google if you want to see it. It's interesting that 12 people got killed at Charlie Hebdo. One for each apostle? Then it could be coincidence or even a false flag. (There are a lot of strange things about the story.)

But what's more interesting is the hypocrisy. Note this:

http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Wikile...e-Hebdo-387183
Maurice Sinet, who worked as a political cartoonist for "Charlie Hebdo" for 20 years, was fired in 2009 for his "anti-Semitic" cartoon mocking the relationship of Nikolas Sarkozy's son, Jean, with a wealthy Jewish woman. Commenting on rumors that Jean considered converting to Judaism out of carrier reasons, Maurice Sinet quipped: "He’ll go a long way in life, that little lad." He was charged of "inciting racial hatred". After the journalist Claude Askolovitch thought, Sinet's article was anti-Semitic, then editor in chief, Philippe Val, demanded an apology from Sinet. He refused saying: “I’d rather cut my balls off.” He lost his job. One of the many Zionist front Organization took him to court, and Sinet won a 40, 000 Euro court judgment against his former publisher. - See more at: http://mwcnews.net/focus/politics/49....CbsaXLCf.dpuf

So the "Let's attack everyone" Charlie Hebdo fires someone for not apologizing for a relatively mild criticism of someone converting to Judaism and then the person who get's fired is criminally charged for inciting racial hatred? If there is a law against inciting racial hatred in France, then why does Charlie Hebdo get away with what it does? Oh, but some will say "Islam is not a race". Now even though the comment Sinet was fired for was religious in nature (someone converting to Judaism), Jews operating in a unique "race/religion" space. Okay. Well what about Charlie Hebdo mocking the African Christian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram as welfare queens?



And further, why should it be okay to mock religion but not race, especially when it's obvious that certain ethnic groups are disproportionately allied with a particular religion? There was a recent story where a shooting range here in the U.S. that had a "no Muslims" policy barred a man and his son because they thought they "looked" Muslim.

Anyway, killing bad. Mocking religion, not smart. And free speech laws should be consistent. I don't think they should exist at all. But if they exist and are disproportionately applied, you are asking for trouble.

[jmdrake]

I really dislike Maher. I also dislike how people think free speech is a pass to say anything inflammatory (what happened to morals?).

Free speech is designed so that the state cannot violate your rights if you criticize it. So yes, Ron Paul made an excellent point in saying free speech isn't so we can discuss the weather, but it's also not so we can see how far we can insult people for seemingly no reason before they snap.

We must also remember the insults are aimed towards a people, discriminated against in France, while there is favoritism for other religions, namely Judaism. And abroad France is an interventionist nation which targets Muslim nations, and in the past, France colonized Muslim countries and abused the inhabitants.. that's the proper context.

It's like many things Muslims do which are violent, while we may not agree with their choices on any level... we should at least understand them.

I do not stand with Charlie Hebdo, that's for sure.

I don't stand with Charlie Hebdo either. I disappointed in Rand's suggestion that everybody reprint the Charlie Hebdo cartoons so that nobody can be "singled out." That said, the Muslim community in France should take a breath and shift gears. Rather than demanding an end to "free speech" they should demand an end to hypocritical application of free speech laws. But then....I think they're being played. I think we're all being played.

[pcosmar]

Numbers 31:17
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

Numbers 31:18
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.


LoL

God told the Israelites to kill the males, women, even children, and to rape the virgins.

LoL

What did Fiery Thomas Paine say about the Bible?

What does that have to do with killing humans.

The people that the Israelites were told to kill were corrupted creatures.. They were the offspring of the fallen angels. Corrupted beyond repair.

they were genetically not human.

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days--and also afterward--when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

"There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight."

They were to wipe out the satanic mutations.. They failed to do so.

[pcosmar]

Anyway, killing bad. Mocking religion, not smart. And free speech laws should be consistent. I don't think they should exist at all. But if they exist and are disproportionately applied, you are asking for trouble.

I had posted this before. (seems it has been ignored)
This $#@! has NEVER been protected "freedom of speech".

Them's fightin' words.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/t...ing_words.html

[otherone]

They were to wipe out the satanic mutations.. They failed to do so.

God told the Israelites to kill the males, women, even children, and to rape the virgins.

Kinda the opposite of wiping out.

[otherone]

The people that the Israelites were told to kill were corrupted creatures.. They were the offspring of the fallen angels. Corrupted beyond repair.

they were genetically not human.

Them's fightin' words.