11 comments to “Billy Smackdown”

1. democommie:
   13 April 2008, on 7:33 pm

   I see where pretendsident Bushkins is readying a big welcome for the Popealope. It’s so heartwarming to see a couple of religious fundies get together and discuss children, one wants to let his underlings fuck them, the other just wants them dead.

2. ChuckA:
   13 April 2008, on 9:12 pm

   I saw the whole show Friday night (HBO). Richard Dawkins appeared by satellite…nothing unusual in his rather modest interview; just good to finally see him making an appearance. I wish sometime Maher would have a full show devoted to atheism; especially a sit-down panel with the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, and either Dennett or Harris. THAT would be quite a show!
   After seeing that “Smackdown” at the end of Maher’s usual “New Rules”, I immediately started thinking of “Catholic Boy”, Bill Donahue…erupting like a volcano. I was checking the usual Internet news on Saturday…no mention of any flack.
   Of course, the regular news media will probably steer clear of broaching the topic.

   It was probably the strongest criticism I’ve seen on any recent media; and aimed so scathingly accurate at the Pope and the longtime corrupt RCC.

   My Bravo AND Ramen to Bill! That took a lot of ‘Chutspa’…or if you prefer…
   BALLS?

3. Robert H:
   13 April 2008, on 11:38 pm

   New Rule: No more stupid “faith” debates among presidential candidates like the one that aired today.

4. Karen:
   14 April 2008, on 12:04 pm

   ChuckA
   Did you notice Bill’s panel seemed to be a bit tongue-tied after the Dawkins interview when Bill threw out the question of whether any really intelligent people believed in talking snakes? Only what’s-his-name (George, from Seinfeld) was willing to broach the subject, and he tip-toed into it.

5. ChuckA:
   14 April 2008, on 6:19 pm

   Yes, Karen, I noticed that too. My thought was, they didn’t want to “incriminate” themselves as being critical of religion, in front of any potential ‘believer’ audience. Jason Alexander (”George”), as another entertainer, has certainly quite a bit less to lose than the others; not being connected to any serious governmental scrutiny.(?)
   At least they all ’seemed’ to be smiling during most of the proceedings.
   ?

6. Stardust:
   14 April 2008, on 11:27 pm

   Bill Maher gets away with saying it like it is. It’s great!

   Believers try to disassociate themselves with incidents like this fundie Mormon cult, saying it as “just another religious cult and not representative of moderate religion.” Many will say it’s just nutjobs taking religion too far. But it sprang up from the same thing that “normal” Mormons faith comes from. Then when you get delusional people going off to organize by themselves is a dangerous thing, especially for the children involved. They think they are hiding them from “the world”, but they are part of a bizarre, crazy organized lunacy run by crazy child abusers/women oppressors.

   No god will ever protect the innocent children of these insane groups of adults who are supposed to be protecting and nurturing them. The children are the ones who are always the most hurt in all this crap. And once again, time after time, HUMAN BEINGS (via the legal system) come to the rescue! (Thank human goodness.) And now the children have years and years of healing to do, with HUMAN INTERVENTION and guidance.

7. AtheistUnderMask:
   15 April 2008, on 9:20 am

   So the US wouldn’t let Amy Winehouse into the States for an award show because she’s another country’s answer to Britney Spears, but we’ll let a guy who more or less encouraged bishops to let the child rearing go on in.

   Why does this not make any sense to me?

   But I’m not surprised Bush would host a former Nazi. His granddaddy helped fund them.

8. Raindogzilla:
   15 April 2008, on 9:27 am

   At least at some points in my life, I’ve believed in talking snakes. Of course, I had enough hallucinogens coursing through my bloodstream to make me legally insane in several states at the time. Ooh! Ooh! Parallel! Start revising your DSM-IVs!

   My less drug-induced visions include one of a sad, white-robed, ex-Nazi clown, standing on the pigeon shit-spackled cobble stones watching Harry Dean Stanton and his crew repo the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

9. OurLady of Perpetual Motion:
   15 April 2008, on 11:34 am

   Stardust, isn’t it sad that culturally ingrained superstitious misogyny is considered “normal” anywhere?
   What’s ‘normal’ about pretending a rice wafer is magically transformed into human flesh and then eating it?
   Or assuming that heaven is laid out like a pyramid scheme with women as nothing but holy whores for all eternity?

   People are so fucked up they think shit like this is acceptable.

10. Eve:
    15 April 2008, on 2:36 pm

    Our Lady of Perpetual Motion: Or assuming that heaven is laid out like a pyramid scheme with women as nothing but holy whores for all eternity?

    Ooh, what an interesting description of the Muslim heaven! And how appealing it makes Islam to me – not.

    Which makes me wonder: what kind of afterlife does Islam offer its female adherents? Do they even get an afterlife? I mean, their men are looking forward to 70 immortal virgins each; what happens to their earthly wives? /useless speculation about imaginary futures

11. Raindogzilla:
    15 April 2008, on 5:19 pm

    I don’t understand, Eve, why 70-odd virgins would be heaven. I mean, there’s the bleeding, there’s the sloppy emotional entanglements of a perpetual first time, and there’ll surely be no competent fellatio for quite some time- if ever(pardon my viscera). For women, being rewarded with the converse would be a hell, with a steady diet of “Is it in yet?” and “So soon?”

    I theorize that this infatuation the salami-ist man has with virgins- and young virgins in particular, is based not on any high-falutin’ notions of purity but from a deep-seated fear that an experienced partner would have something to judge his inadequacy- either of endowment or of performance, against.

    Viva Viagra!