I liked that he called it " . . the African country of Niger".
Just in case the public got it confused with Nigeria.
Fwiw, everyone point scores at this stage of an Administration - was this guy cowering and blinded like the rest of the USA media 3-4-5 years ago when Bush/Cheney were wielding real power and living the great lies.
No, he was getting fired from network TV for speaking truth.
When I was a little kid in 1974, I remember whining to my Mom about how there was nothing good on TV to watch…just all this Watergate hearings stuff. I remember her saying that this was the price of being an American, the responsibility of the people to hold their government accountable. And then she said to go outside & play.
In 2007, my kid is free to watch 170+ channels of crap while the Teflon Presidency sails on and on. What I wouldn’t give for all 170 channels to be locked on Goverment Hearings on the questionable/indictable/illegal activities of this administration, if only to show that the system still works. Kids can always go outside & play.
How about this one?
Go medieval! 
Are you talking about 2004? If so, Moore was definitely not “invited to speak”. He was at the convention of his own volition, and Jimmy Carter invited him to sit in his box, but he wasn’t officially involved in any way.
If I’m misremembering, or if you’re talking about a more recent convention, I’m willing to stand corrected. I wouldn’t be surprised if he were invited to such a thing today, but in 2004 the Democrats were still very much shying away from Moore’s style of harsh criticism of Iraq.
I’ll take your word for it, as my care level is about this high. 
Moore is just a bombastic tub of lard, as far as I’m concerned. The Rush Limbaugh of the left.
What? And miss all that vital data about Anna Nicole Smith?
False equivalence. Moore is a polemicist prone to exaggerate the truth. Rush, the Orca of the Airwaves, is the only person ever known to actually fart a lie.
I could always buy them two nerf footballs to throw around in her honor. 
Feh. Two con men. Different styles.
Or, to put it more succinctly, he lies…but in a way that you find acceptable.
Works for me! 
Works for me!
I think the difference is somewhat more than stylistic. Michael Moore is definitely a polemicist who presents facts in a biased way to imply his desired conclusions: e.g., showing footage of Bush family members palling around with Saudi royalty to insinuate that the Bushes are basically puppets of the House of Saud.
But Limbaugh doesn’t just indulge in biased polemic; he also frequently flat-out makes shit up about nonexistent facts and pretends it’s evidence. Remember, this is the guy who deliberately claimed that an actual “Tufts University study” of “5000 co-eds” had documented an inverse relationship between female IQ and bra size. No documentation of any such study has ever been provided; Limbaugh simply made that shit up. This is complete, gratuitous fabrication of facts, and Limbaugh routinely perpetrates it on a scale that AFAICT Moore has never even attempted.
Yes, Moore is indeed something of a crackpot with an obvious and flagrant bias in his arguments. But Limbaugh is not only a flagrantly biased crackpot but also an outright shameless liar. I don’t think that difference should be glossed over by asserting that they just have different “styles”.
Or to put it even more succinctly, it’s easy to win an argument if you make up what the other person is saying.
Michael Moore does not support the Democrats. Can you find any comments by Limbaugh that are as critical of the Republicans as Moore has been of the Democrats?
As for Bill Maher I love his show and dislike his personality. I have met someone who was on his show whose opinion I trust and who really disliked the way he conducted himself away from the cameras. (I think this had to do with sharing a meal with Bill and the other guests.)
My personal dislike arises from comments that he makes about Southerners and women. Like a comment made earlier in this thread, they are just really humorless and ignorant.
But his show is so fine (as was his program Politically Incorrect where he often said other humorless and ignorant things.)
Trunk is right. On September 17, 2001, Bill Maher did his first Politically Incorrect program since the attacks. This source will provide you with more detail on what happened, but the essence is this:
At the time of the article, Maher supported the war in Iraq. And I believe I recall his saying that he voted for Bush in 2000.
Oh, and welcome to the SDMB, Elsie!
Takes one to know one, nyah nyah nyah … any chance of, you know, addressing the substance of what he says instead of name calling?
Zoe - Appreciate your words, thanks.
I think what strikes me most from this thread is it seems as if the highest profile, most credible questioning opposition to the brand of corporate Imperialism the USA practices isn’t a political party or political individuals, and isn’t an objective and analytical media. It’s 2 or 3 stand-up comedians on late night tv.
One wonders at how the breath of politics and media became so unrepresentative of the collective conscious until, perhaps, we remember this is how empire operates, this is how things work when it’s successful; we’re living through, what is effectively, a live case study in successful mass propaganda and manipulation.
I’ve never seen much of the guy, but after reading through this thread, I viewed a dozen or so clips of his and found nothing to indicate he was ‘barking mad’. Uneven, maybe, as most comedians are, but he also had some sharp commentary and some geuninely funny stuff. Mind pointing to some examples of his ‘barking’?