Well Tea Partiers ... he is does have a valid point.

[Turin]

Bill Maher to Tea Partiers;

"Now I want you teabaggers out there to understand one thing. While you idolize the Founding Fathers and dress up like them and smell like them, I think it's pretty clear that the Founding Fathers would've hated your guts. And what's more, you would've hated them! They were everything you despise. They studied science, read Plato, hung out in Paris, and thought the Bible was mostly bull****.

They were not the common man of their day. Ben Franklin studied scientific phenomena like lightning and the aurora borealis, and were he alive today, he could probably explain to Bill O'Reilly why the tides go in and out".

 

[Barbbtx]

Bill Maher to Tea Partiers;

Got a link? I want to post this on another thread about how scathing liberals are. This is a prime example.

 

[RedAkston]

Bill Maher to Tea Partiers;

Funny, I don't remember science, religion or Paris being mentioned at a single Tea Party I've attended. In fact, they have absolutely nothing to do with the Tea Party movement at all. It's a shame that we can't have one honest liberal poster here who can be honest and truthful about the Tea Party. Unfortunately, this is what we get - uninformed drones like Bill Maher.

 

[Wiseone]

I think topics meant only to bait people should banned, it just brings out the bad side of us, as seen above, which spills over into other threads which have a chance of being decent.

 

[Redress]

Funny, I don't remember science, religion or Paris being mentioned at a single Tea Party I've attended. In fact, they have absolutely nothing to do with the Tea Party movement at all. It's a shame that we can't have one honest liberal poster here who can be honest and truthful about the Tea Party. Unfortunately, this is what we get - uninformed drones like Bill Maher.

I think that was his point actually. What the founding fathers where, the tea party isn't.

 

[LuckyDan]

They hung out in Paris? So did Ho Chi Minh.

I wonder how often Bill pulls out his Plato. I'm sure it goes over well with the playmates at the mansion.

 

[Wiseone]

They hung out in Paris? So did Ho Chi Minh.

I wonder how often Bill pulls out his Plato. I'm sure it goes over well with the playmates at the mansion.

Exactly, how often would someone who'd laugh or feel smug about this actually read Plato? Probably not often. Serious shut this topic down it doesn't serve any value and its just going to get people pissed off at each other.

 

[LuckyDan]

Exactly, how often would someone who'd laugh or feel smug about this actually read Plato? Probably not often. Serious shut this topic down it doesn't serve any value and its just going to get people pissed off at each other.

Or maybe it will give us a chance to bone up on our Greek philosphers. (Oops. No pun intended there regarding Plato. Or Bill.) I didn't get Plato. Socrates was cool. Aristotle was a freak.

 

[Hoplite]

Exactly, how often would someone who'd laugh or feel smug about this actually read Plato?

**Raises hand** I'm currently working through my third reading of the Republic.

Generally, I dont like Maher. His Religious movie was stupid beyond belief and I dont find his comedy very funny. That said, he does have an interesting point.

A lot of the time I see teabaggers described as "the common man standing up for their rights" and people who "do what the founding fathers would have done", the indication being that the teabaggers are your true red-blooded Joe American. Maher's comment (if it is indeed his comment) is actually fairly true; if the teabaggers could actually MEET the founding fathers and had a chance to talk with them, they'd probably hate each other.

 

[RedAkston]

I think that was his point actually. What the founding fathers where, the tea party isn't.

No, his point was to slam the Tea Party movement with lies and misconceptions. The Tea Party movement is about limited government, government accountability and stopping the outrageous spending. How on earth could the founding fathers be against that since that is exactly what they were for? This was a smear job Redress, and don't think it wasn't for a second.

 

[Wiseone]

Or maybe it will give us a chance to bone up on our Greek philosphers. (Oops. No pun intended there regarding Plato. Or Bill.) I didn't get Plato. Socrates was cool. Aristotle was a freak.

Plato is the skeptic right? If I remember correctly from my Freshman class on something or other I think its bull****. I specifically remembering reading a translated copy of something where somebody, I think Plato or one of his students, went on a huge overly detailed explanation of skepticism which basically couldn't have been summed up in "I can't be 100% certain I know anything." Then if that wasn't bad enough he had the gall and the audacity to tag onto the the end "O and by the way, since I'm skeptical about everything I have to be skeptical about my own belief in skepticism." Which promptly made me go what the **** was all the last 10 pages for then asshole.

I could just see this guy as some smug little bastard who when confronted about his philosophy just tosses up the "Well part of my ideas is that my ideas may all be wrong, so you may be right" routine and thinks he's pretty clever for doing it. I hate smugness, and I especially hate when its manages to survive thousands of years and multiple translations. Seriously if you aren't certain then don't make an argument, there's no point to saying anything if you're just going to collapse like a house of cards when confronted.

Now I'm having flash backs to this class, damn I should have learned to slack earlier.

 

[LuckyDan]

**Raises hand** I'm currently working through my third reading of the Republic.

Well. Keep at it. Maybe it will click this time.

**Generally, I dont like Maher. His Religious movie was stupid beyond belief and I dont find his comedy very funny. That said, he does have an interesting point.

A lot of the time I see teabaggers described as "the common man standing up for their rights" and people who "do what the founding fathers would have done", the indication being that the teabaggers are your true red-blooded Joe American. Maher's comment (if it is indeed his comment) is actually fairly true; if the teabaggers could actually MEET the founding fathers and had a chance to talk with them, they'd probably hate each other.

Why? The inference seems to be - on Maher's part - because the FFs were educated, while the partiers are backwards yahoos. Probably not true.

 

[Redress]

No, his point was to slam the Tea Party movement with lies and misconceptions. The Tea Party movement is about limited government, government accountability and stopping the outrageous spending. How on earth could the founding fathers be against that since that is exactly what they were for? This was a smear job Redress, and don't think it wasn't for a second.

I think you are still missing the point. Of course it is a smear. It is insulting. It also has a kernel of accuracy. The Tea Party is very simplistic, which is something the founding fathers where not. The founding fathers where sophisticated, which is something the tea party is not. The founding fathers did not focus on only a couple issues, the tea party does. Whether the founding fathers would agree in this day and age with the tea party on the issues the tea party supports, we will never know, but I do think it is safe to say that the founding fathers would at the very least be somewhat disappointed with the tea party and not consider them representative of what they(the founding fathers) where.

 

[LuckyDan]

Plato is the skeptic right? If I remember correctly from my Freshman class on something or other I think its bull****. I specifically remembering reading a translated copy of something where somebody, I think Plato or one of his students, went on a huge overly detailed explanation of skepticism which basically couldn't have been summed up in "I can't be 100% certain I know anything." Then if that wasn't bad enough he had the gall and the audacity to tag onto the the end "O and by the way, since I'm skeptical about everything I have to be skeptical about my own belief in skepticism." Which promptly made me go what the **** was all the last 10 pages for then asshole.

You mean this?

Another strand of skeptical thought begins with questions about the nature of philosophical investigation. In the Meno, Plato formulates a famous puzzle. How is investigation possible? We cannot investigate either what we know or what we do not know. In the former case, there is no need to investigate. In the latter case, we would not know what to look for, and we would not recognize it if we found it (80d-86c). So there is no room for investigating anything. Socrates calls this an eristic argument, thus drawing attention to the fact that this is a puzzle that sophists have put forward (cf. Plato's Euthydemus).

Ancient Skepticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Renae]

Funny, I don't remember science, religion or Paris being mentioned at a single Tea Party I've attended. In fact, they have absolutely nothing to do with the Tea Party movement at all. It's a shame that we can't have one honest liberal poster here who can be honest and truthful about the Tea Party. Unfortunately, this is what we get - uninformed drones like Bill Maher.

Correction. We get uninformed drones OF Bill Maher.

 

[Renae]

I think you are still missing the point. Of course it is a smear. It is insulting. It also has a kernel of accuracy. The Tea Party is very simplistic, which is something the founding fathers where not.

See folks, even mods can be hyper partisan attack dogs. Insulting entire groups of people, those that support or are members of the Tea Party.

 

[Wiseone]

Plato is the skeptic right? If I remember correctly from my Freshman class on something or other I think its bull****. I specifically remembering reading a translated copy of something where somebody, I think Plato or one of his students, went on a huge overly detailed explanation of skepticism which basically couldn't have been summed up in "I can't be 100% certain I know anything." Then if that wasn't bad enough he had the gall and the audacity to tag onto the the end "O and by the way, since I'm skeptical about everything I have to be skeptical about my own belief in skepticism." Which promptly made me go what the **** was all the last 10 pages for then asshole. QUOTE]

You mean this?

Another strand of skeptical thought begins with questions about the nature of philosophical investigation. In the Meno, Plato formulates a famous puzzle. How is investigation possible? We cannot investigate either what we know or what we do not know. In the former case, there is no need to investigate. In the latter case, we would not know what to look for, and we would not recognize it if we found it (80d-86c). So there is no room for investigating anything. Socrates calls this an eristic argument, thus drawing attention to the fact that this is a puzzle that sophists have put forward (cf. Plato's Euthydemus).

Ancient Skepticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Ya that bull****. Plato, who calls into question the very notion of investigation, concludes its impossible, but does it through an investigation of that notion, what an asshole.

 

[LuckyDan]

Ya that bull****. Plato, who calls into question the very notion of investigation, concludes its impossible, but does it through an investigation of that notion, what an asshole.

You're not alone. Later in the linked piece, this:

Plato's solutions to this puzzle are difficult to assess.

 

[Hoplite]

Why? The inference seems to be - on Maher's part - because the FFs were educated, while the partiers are backwards yahoos. Probably not true.

The teabagger movement, from what has been shown to me, is not one based off of a deep understanding of economics or political science.

It's essentially people who are angry about something screaming and yelling and demanding that something be done regardless of how ludicrous their request is or how little they actually understand regarding what they're asking for.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I think topics meant only to bait people should banned, it just brings out the bad side of us, as seen above, which spills over into other threads which have a chance of being decent.

This.:yes:

 

[LuckyDan]

The teabagger movement, from what has been shown to me, is not one based off of a deep understanding of economics or political science.

It's essentially people who are angry about something screaming and yelling and demanding that something be done regardless of how ludicrous their request is or how little they actually understand regarding what they're asking for.

Yahoos.

So they should just sit down and shut up? I don't know any partiers but I know some liberal dems. TPers can't be more angry or ludicrous than the progressives. Besides, if they split the GOP, dems have a divided enemy. Libs should cheer them.

 

[Hoplite]

Yahoos.

So they should just sit down and shut up?

Not at all. They're free to be as ridiculous as they'd like, just dont expect that people will take them seriously.

I don't know any partiers but I know some liberal dems. TPers can't be more angry or ludicrous than the progressives. Besides, if they split the GOP, dems have a divided enemy. Libs should cheer them.

"Everyone else is doing it too" is no excuse. There are plenty of people in every party that fit my previous objections and I acknowledge that, however "everyone else is doing it too" is not a reason to just ignore something.

 

[Redress]

See folks, even mods can be hyper partisan attack dogs. Insulting entire groups of people, those that support or are members of the Tea Party.

Except I did not. Accuracy is important. I talked of the tea party, not the people in the tea party. I know that is kinda a subtle distinction, but it is also a very real distinction.

 

[LuckyDan]

Not at all. They're free to be as ridiculous as they'd like, just dont expect that people will take them seriously.


"Everyone else is doing it too" is no excuse. There are plenty of people in every party that fit my previous objections and I acknowledge that, however "everyone else is doing it too" is not a reason to just ignore something.

Okay, then what ARE they doing?

I believe it is their refrain of returning to founding principles that makes them a target. No other group says that, at least not to the degree they do, and progressives seldom mention the FFs, unless it is to call TJ a slaver and rapist.

They almost need to be history professors and consititutional lawyers to defend themselves against these insults, but even academics and con experts disagree among themselves. Hell, the FFs disagreed among themselves.

 

[Jerry]

I think topics meant only to bait people should banned, it just brings out the bad side of us, as seen above, which spills over into other threads which have a chance of being decent.

And put an end to the silly games DP is knowen for? WTF?