Bill Maher and Ward Churchill

  • Thread starter Thread starter MjM
  • Start date Start date
M

MjM

Guest
http://homepage.mac.com/onegoodmove/movies/wardchurchill.html

http://www.onegoodmove.org/1gm/

One hell of an intelligent interview. Raises many good points, if only it had been longer!

I dont agree with the professors assertion that the people in the trade towers were comparable to Eichman. Eichmann knowingly and actively supported the murder of the jews, the department he worked for oversaw the development of gassing techniques and the construction of dead camps, and specifically in the case of the Eichmann the establishment and streamlining of train schedules.

This was a man fully aware of the suffering he was facilitating, he can only have harboured hatred for a people.

This is by no means comparable to people working in the Trade Towers.



Anyway your thoughts, particulary on the parts about how the USA should come to terms with the "blood on its hands" aspect. And the "why they hate us" part. How should these issues become rationalised and understood.
 
I dont agree with the professors assertion that the people in the trade towers were comparable to Eichman. Eichmann knowingly and actively supported the murder of the jews, the department he worked for oversaw the development of gassing techniques and the construction of dead camps, and specifically in the case of the Eichmann the establishment and streamlining of train schedules.

This was a man fully aware of the suffering he was facilitating, he can only have harboured hatred for a people.

This is by no means comparable to people working in the Trade Towers.
Click to expand...

Can u explain this to No Limit? I've tried but he's not getting it.
 
Calanen said:
Can u explain this to No Limit? I've tried but he's not getting it.
Click to expand...

Keep that to PMs.

Interesting interview definatly, but I think you are taking his metaphor using Eichmann wayyyyyyyyy to literally.
 
Calanen said:
Can u explain this to No Limit? I've tried but he's not getting it.
Click to expand...
You seem to be the one not getting it and I really don't appreciate you calling me out when you wouldn't address my points in the last thread we had on this. In that thread this was pretty much your last point that wasn't a lie I pointed out:

I read what you said No Limit - and have nothing more to add, and think you have added nothing further either.
Click to expand...
I wonder why I'm not getting it.

Your next point which I didn't address as it was a lie again that I already explained to you. You quoted the following for a second time in that thread:

'More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it. '
Click to expand...
and had the following comment on it:

Now, no matter how much you spin it - the CIA are not stereotyped as 1) arranging stock transactions 2) braying importantly on mobile phones 3) organising power lunches. He was clearly talking about the office workers in the WTC. And you can't spin, deny, backpeddle your way out of it for him No Limit. And especially not by calling me a liar.

Those are his words. Not mine. I quoted the relevant passage. I then put the link up to the whole loony essay. And now you are trying to say, see he said the CIA and Pentagon are Eichmanns, and thats OK, not the office workers...... that is baloney. Read it again No Limit. Write it in magic marker on your forehead. And don't ever call me a liar. Especially when you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Here was my reply the first time you used that quote:

Your second quote is interesting because it is exactly the same as O'Reilly read it on the air. Let me put that quote in a little more context for you:

To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.
Click to expand...

He is talking about the american peoples refusal to actually address what is going on in this world and around them. We are all so busy talking in our cell phones and enjoying our life of luxury we could careless what goes on in the world and this is the case. So what he is saying is the WTC victims knew the CIA was there but didn't care as they didn't think we would ever be attacked; as all americans did. The big point there is that all Americans, not just WTC victims, are arrogant and don't want to address what is going on in this world as it doesn't really affect them until it slaps you directly in the face.
Click to expand...

This was your reply to that explaination (which I quoted once already here):

I read what you said No Limit - and have nothing more to add, and think you have added nothing further either.
Click to expand...
If you had nothing to say to that explaination why the hell did you repeat it again?

All of these are direct quotes from that thread and this proves you have absolutely no interest in the actual truth as I pointed out on numerous occasions. So before you make a 'loony' accusation that I'm not getting it you might want to look over the facts you continue to ignore simply because they don't fit in with your agenda that this guy is a traitor.
 
I dont agree with the professors assertion that the people in the trade towers were comparable to Eichman. Eichmann knowingly and actively supported the murder of the jews, the department he worked for oversaw the development of gassing techniques and the construction of dead camps, and specifically in the case of the Eichmann the establishment and streamlining of train schedules.

This was a man fully aware of the suffering he was facilitating, he can only have harboured hatred for a people.

This is by no means comparable to people working in the Trade Towers.



Anyway your thoughts, particulary on the parts about how the USA should come to terms with the "blood on its hands" aspect. And the "why they hate us" part. How should these issues become rationalised and understood.
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting the interview, I will need to watch it later today.

A lot of what you said was covered in the other thread on this but I will repeat it again here as that thread was long. If you actually read the essay and not listen to O'Reilly's talking points on it you will know he applied the label to the government officials working in the WTC. They were people fully aware of the suffering they were facilitating upon the thousands of civillians our government kills each year. See how if I switch that quote from you up it still makes sense? This is the point Churchill was making; harsh yes, but so is our view toward the thousands of Iraqi children killed because of our policies.
 
Just watched the interview. I was extremely disappointed in Churchill's performance as he seemed extremely nervous and Maher had to do all the talking for him. Churchill didn't even provide an explaination for the comment when all he had to do was repeat what he said in a written statement. The sad thing is he will continue to be attacked by the media and won't be able to make a appearance to defend himself as he just demonstrated. This doesn't mean I think any less of him; if we were put in that position in front of millions of people I don't think any of us would be able to do better even if we do have a valid point.
 
wow, all i have to say to that is

Complete and Utter Ownage
 
No Limit said:
Conservatives, you gotta love their style of arguing. Can you please explain to me what that has to do with anything?
Click to expand...

Did you read what I posted? It had to do with the subject. Who said I am trying to argue anything?
 
Kinda funny how there is a whole big thing devoted to watching what Michael Moore does.

Teh Conservatives are teh scurred!

also, its unrelated to the topic =D
 
Bodacious said:
Did you read what I posted? It had to do with the subject. Who said I am trying to argue anything?
Click to expand...
Ok, my mistake, you had to click the "more" link which made it complicated.

The article still doesn't have much to do with anything. Instead of posting commentary (that doesn't make much sense) why don't you actually address the points we are talking about.
 
kmack said:
Kinda funny how there is a whole big thing devoted to watching what Michael Moore does.

Teh Conservatives are teh scurred!

also, its unrelated to the topic =D
Click to expand...


Oh give me a break.

1. Google Rush Limbaugh. The first thing that comes up is a Rush Limbaugh hate site. Funny how there is a whole big thing devoted to watching what Limbaugh does. Wait....

2. So if it is off topic, why are you respondign to it?

3. It is on topic. Is the topic no Bill Mahr and ward churchill? Read my link. It has everythig to do with the topic.
 
No Limit said:
Ok, my mistake, you had to click the "more" link which made it complicated.

The article still doesn't have much to do with anything. Instead of posting commentary (that doesn't make much sense) why don't you actually address the points we are talking about.
Click to expand...

It has to do with Bill Mahr and Ward Churchill.

I don't post commentary because the moorwatch link is how I feel about thw whole thing. I could care less about Churchill.

All I am doing is offering up a differnt perspective.
 
Bodacious said:
Oh give me a break.

1. Google Rush Limbaugh. The first thing that comes up is a Rush Limbaugh hate site. Funny how there is a whole big thing devoted to watching what Limbaugh does. Wait....
Click to expand...
When half of the things that come out of your mouth are lies are you suprised so many sites are like that? Looks up Michael moore, the results are similar.
2. So if it is off topic, why are you respondign to it?
Click to expand...
The question is why are you posting it.
3. It is on topic. Is the topic no Bill Mahr and ward churchill? Read my link. It has everythig to do with the topic.
Click to expand...
Yes, but you could have said what that article said and they I could have shown how wrong you are. We're not going to sit here and debunk some article that doesn't provide any back up to what they say other than "Bill Maher hates America".
 
Bodacious said:
It has to do with Bill Mahr and Ward Churchill.

I don't post commentary because the moorwatch link is how I feel about thw whole thing. I could care less about Churchill.

All I am doing is offering up a differnt perspective.
Click to expand...
If you want to have a discussion post what you are talking about from that article; otherwise you are just posting to waste space. Is typing "I think Bill Maher hates America" that hard?
 
No Limit said:
When half of the things that come out of your mouth are lies are you suprised so many sites are like that? Looks up Michael moore, the results are similar.
Click to expand...

No, I am not surprised. Where was the emotion of surprise conveyed in my post?

The question is why are you posting it.
Click to expand...

That question has been answered.

Yes, but you could have said what that article said and they I could have shown how wrong you are. We're not going to sit here and debunk some article that doesn't provide any back up to what they say other than "Bill Maher hates America".
Click to expand...

I don't see a moderator tag under your name. Until then I can post whatever I want in regards to the topic.
 
No Limit said:
If you want to have a discussion post what you are talking about from that article; otherwise you are just posting to waste space. Is typing "I think Bill Maher hates America" that hard?
Click to expand...

There is more to the artilce than the idea that Bill Maher hates America.
 
I wont address your first post as again, all you are trying to do is start a flamefest.

There is more to the artilce than the idea that Bill Maher hates America.
Click to expand...

For the 3rd time...post it. All I got from it was that he hates America.
 
I like Bill Mahr. I don't always agree with him, but he doesn't do a lot of pandering and he is fair with his views and others. PI was a good show.

Churchill came out of that interview looking like an idiot. I don't know what was wrong with the guy. I completely disagree with him, but I have seen him speak before and he is typically impassioned and loquacious. In this interview he looked like he was so high he couldn't remember his own name. It was rediculous.

I think the brother's point was the most important. When you decide to become an abosolute crazy extremist, any good points you have will be crushed under the juggernaut of your extremism. See Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh. et al.
 
GhostFox said:
I like Bill Mahr. I don't always agree with him, but he doesn't do a lot of pandering and he is fair with his views and others. PI was a good show.

Churchill came out of that interview looking like an idiot. I don't know what was wrong with the guy. I completely disagree with him, but I have seen him speak before and he is typically impassioned and loquacious. In this interview he looked like he was so high he couldn't remember his own name. It was rediculous.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you would have done much better in front of a few million people.
I think the brother's point was the most important. When you decide to become an abosolute crazy extremist, any good points you have will be crushed under the juggernaut of your extremism. See Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh. et al.
Click to expand...
An absolute crazy extremist? So far in our debates on this you conservatives haven't been able to argue that he is, so why are you trying now?
 
I'm sure you would have done much better in front of a few million people.
Click to expand...

He is in front of large audiences all the time.

An absolute crazy extremist? So far in our debates on this you conservatives haven't been able to argue that he is, so why are you trying now?
Click to expand...

I'm not a conservative, so I don't know why you try to paint everyone who disagrees with you with that brush. On the other issue, I didn't know it was up for debate. The guy has some good points, but even the farthest of the far left think this guy is a loon.
 
I'm sure you would have done much better in front of a few million people.
Click to expand...
There is a huge difference between speaking infront of a live audiance in a gym and speaking on national TV with a huge controversy in front of a person who lost family in 9/11. You guys haven't been able to dispute my points so obviously he had a valid argument, he simply couldn't get it across clearly (if at all).

I'm not a conservative, so I don't know why you try to paint everyone who disagrees with you with that brush.
Click to expand...
If you stand by what you preach on these boards you are a conservative.

guy has some good points, but even the farthest of the far left think this guy is a loon.
Click to expand...
Only people that think he is a loon haven't read his essay. And your left comment is not accurate; go to democraticunderground.com and read some statements about him, I haven't seen anyone mention loon.
 
i support the war, but that doesnt mean im conservative.

doesnt mean i support bush, and every little decision he makes. :p
 
GhostFox said:
And your basis for this is what? Supporting the war?
Click to expand...

Support of the war, you don't agree with global warming, you somewhat are against gun control, you agree with Bush's fiscal policies, and you are against public health care. This is out of all the recent topics, this is a pretty big conservative slant. I am not saying this is bad, I am simply saying you are a conservative ;).
 
I am not saying this is bad, I am simply saying you are a conservative
Click to expand...

I'm an economic conservative, and a social liberal. Overall I am a centrist.
 
1 left/right +2.2663 (+0.1364)
2 pragmatism +1.7812 (+0.1072)
 
Honestly I think that poll is a little biased so you look more liberal than you really are. Questions such as "Should we pay for people that refuse to work" are a little too far out there. But overall still interesting.
 
1 left/right -5.3697 (-0.3232)
2 pragmatism +3.0876 (+0.1859)

Seems more or less right.
 
No Limit said:
You seem to be the one not getting it and I really don't appreciate you calling me out when you wouldn't address my points in the last thread we had on this. In that thread this was pretty much your last point that wasn't a lie I pointed out:
Click to expand...

I am not going to repeat myself endlessly No Limit. Its pointless. I took the exact quote of what Ward Churchill said. You counter this by saying, O'Reilly quote it as well! Aha! Well, so what.

You kept saying he was referring to the CIA not office workers. I proved, with reference to Churchills own work, that this was not correct. But I had to do it in infinitisimellay minute detail until you finally changed your view and started saying that Americans as part of the culture are all globally responsible...or words to the effect.

My point still stands, and will never change. What Churchill said about the people in the Twin Towers, was and is NUTS. And no amount of spin doctoring, going from 'Aha that quote came from O'Reilly!' to 'He REALLY only meant the CIA' 'Ok, he did not really only mean the CIA! But they are all responsible as Americans for......'

So Im not gonna keep repeating it as you keep the spin doctoring No Limit. There has to be a 'No Limit' placed on how many times I have to make the same point to you.
 
I'am sorry, Bill Maher kicks ass. I think I'm the only member who talked to him ... [shameless self promotion]
 
Calanen said:
I am not going to repeat myself endlessly No Limit. Its pointless. I took the exact quote of what Ward Churchill said. You counter this by saying, O'Reilly quote it as well! Aha! Well, so what.

You kept saying he was referring to the CIA not office workers. I proved, with reference to Churchills own work, that this was not correct. But I had to do it in infinitisimellay minute detail until you finally changed your view and started saying that Americans as part of the culture are all globally responsible...or words to the effect.

My point still stands, and will never change. What Churchill said about the people in the Twin Towers, was and is NUTS. And no amount of spin doctoring, going from 'Aha that quote came from O'Reilly!' to 'He REALLY only meant the CIA' 'Ok, he did not really only mean the CIA! But they are all responsible as Americans for......'

So Im not gonna keep repeating it as you keep the spin doctoring No Limit. There has to be a 'No Limit' placed on how many times I have to make the same point to you.
Click to expand...
Again, he did not apply the Eichmann comment to the quote you posted:

'More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the [technicians] inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it. '
Click to expand...

I changed the above quote to make it a little easier for you to understand as you are completely ignoring what he is saying. So no, you didn't prove anyone wrong. He clearly stated earlier in the essay that when he talks about little Eichmanns he is talking about the CIA and the military in the pentagon.
 
He clearly stated earlier in the essay that when he talks about little Eichmanns he is talking about the CIA and the military in the pentagon.
Click to expand...

He has clearly stated in his interviews that the little "eichmans" are anyone who support the capitalist/technocrat society of the US. In fact your claim is just silly, simply because an analogy between Eichman and the CIA is nonsensicle. Churchill's point was that Eichman was a bureaucrat, outside of the millitary establishment, who indirectly through his bureaucratic actions, caused the deaths of untold jews. The people, working in the WTC were compared to Eichman, because he believes that by supporting these financial institutions, these people are causing millions of deaths around the world with their bureaucracy. Just like Eichman.

While I find Churchill's views reprehensible, at least I took the time to understand them. You are apparently defending him when you have no idea what the point of his statement was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W4d5Y
  • Locked
Electrical Engineer for WTC dismisses that fire and fuel alone toppled the towers
Replies
2
Views
575
Pi Mu Rho
Pi Mu Rho
Back
Top