And there’s the difference. Maher will admit to being wrong. Rush never will. While he may have “apologized” for his remarks, even now he’s saying that the whole kurfluffle was cooked up by the Obama administration to make conservatives look bad.
In other words, Rush is Oliver Hardy to Obama’s Stan Laurel saying “Now, look what you make me do!”
As well, has Rush Limbaugh ever had his show taken away from him because of his comments? Maher has: Politically Incorrect was cancelled when some of his comments on the 9/11 terrorists were seen as calling US military members cowardly.
No one has ever successfully challenged the validity of any of the facts presented by Michael Moore in any of his films. Sanjay Gupta at CNN took at a shot at it once and had to finally admit that it was his “facts” that were wrong, not Michael Moore’s. I lost a little respect for Sanjay that day because he adamantly refused to admit he was wrong. CNN finally issued a corporate level capitulation.
Also, let distinguish between facts and arguments. The opposing attorneys in a trial attempt to construct opposing arguments from the same set of facts. The facts of the case are not in dispute. What is being judged is the strength of the arguments constructed from those facts.
So, you may not like some of the arguments put forth by Michael Moore, but the underlying facts have been proven consistently accurate. If you think otherwise, I believe Michael Moore had some kind of cash offer for anyone who could prove any of his facts inaccurate. Maybe you could post some of those facts which you’ve found invalid, and then apply for the reward.
That’s not quite right – he objected to people calling the terrorists “cowards”, and said that killing yourself flying a plane into a building wasn’t the act of a coward. It seemed to people that he was praising the terrorist, or something – he didn’t call the US military “cowards”.
I happen to agree with him, and did at the time. I don’t admire the terrorists, but calling them “cowards” is a non-sequitur.
Bah, that’s nothing. I’ve got a thousand bucks says you can’t prove me wrong on any issue ever in my life. Go ahead, try!
Nope, not good enough.
You didn’t do it.
Nice try!
Ooh, almost. Still, though, I was right.
See? I’ve never been wrong! QED!
Or, to quote my good friend Mr. Carroll,
He might be the closest thing the left has to a Limbaugh. I’ll admit I don’t like how he goes on about things he is uninformed about. For example, I just left some YouTube comments about how he was misinformed about Christian dogma.
But if that’s as close as they can get, then they are doing much better on that front.
Let try this again. My post addressed “facts” not “issues”. Any assertion that cannot be proven true is by definition not a fact.
Maybe some formal definition will help:
Fact:a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
Well; I do agree that calling them “cowards” was a non sequitur; it’s what people who do aggressive things that militarists like ourselves don’t like tend to be called, like the way some people call any woman they don’t like a slut. A generic, almost reflexive insult that has nothing to do with their actual behavior. On the other hand, I don’t think it takes much bravery for someone to kill themselves if they are religiously fanatic enough to take seriously the idea that they go to paradise if they die as martyrs. Bravery-wise, I’d be more impressed by someone who believed that and then surrendered alive anyway, instead of (they think) going to paradise.
So it’s just coincidence you all think Limbaugh is worse than Maher? :rolleyes:
Anybody know how the Dems (I assume it was they) chose Fluke to testify? Just your average girl on the street (no pun intended)… or a public figure wannabe??
Heard much from her since then, have you?
Many reasons, none of them even close to “coincidence”, have been put forth as to why Bill Mahar shouldn’t be compared to Rush Limbaugh. Do you dispute all those reasons? If so, why?
My best guess is that Fluke decided on her own to testify because she thought it was important to do so.
Here is something I think they both have in common…making a funny bolsters the strength of your political arguement. And the funnier/more popular it is the more it does so.
Lets say a president has particular policy and it gets implemented. Then something happens in the world or the president does something else. Then, by using something like word play, faulty logic, or other means, one constructs a joke using this situation.
Sure, it can be funny as hell. But that doesn’t mean you’ve shown the policy to be wrong. It just means you are good at twisting things and or making jokes.
Its been my impression that Mahr is the worst in this sorta thinking, with Rush being not to far behind. OTOH, I get the impression that Dennis Miller and John Stewart are at the other extreme. They know they made a funny, but that its generally just a funny, not direct philosophical hit on some possibly wrong policy.
To be fair, I haven’t seen or heard large amounts of any of these guys, and most of what I have has been years ago now, but I think my general point has some validity.
To Marley23 and kenobi 65– I gotta nitpick a little. Even though Jon Stewart leans to the left, he will gladly make fun of anybody for a good laugh. I’ve seen him target Obama, other Democrats, and liberals(specific ones and in general) when they deserved it.
IMHO, rightwingers simply open themselves up to ridicule more often.
Sort of tangential, but does anyone know what the words were of Maher’s routine in which he used the c-word in referring to Sarah Palin?
I don’t know what the lead up to it was, but he said “speaking of twats” then talked about Sarah Palin. He didn’t call her a cunt, as many believe. This was also not on his TV show, it was during his stand-up routine in front of a couple of hundred people, who had paid to attend the performance.
I first became aware of Limbaugh back when he had a television show. Happily, it turned out that he was too ugly and mean for the idiot box. Or maybe he lost market share to the equally repulsive Morton Downey. The scariest part of the program was the camera pans of the audience. It looked like an open casting call for the role of Lee Harvey Oswald or Mark David Chapman. I think I watched it once, and I’ve never forgotten the following exchange:
Rush: Did you hear about the two lesbians who bought a pig farm down south?
(Audience hoots and hollers)
Rush: Now, now, dont laugh. They’re just trying to propagate the species.
He’s always been a misogynist piece of shit.
As for the left, I don’t think there is any demand for a Limbaugh equivalent. I certainly wouldn’t want to listen to some bitter, old windbag rant and rave on the radio.
Chris Matthews is the one I nominate as Rush’s equivalent on the left. Although several of the msnbc tv commentators are just as bad. I watch cnn. Almost never watch msnbc its just to biased.
Thrill up my leg Mathews. :rolleyes:
Maher himself seems to think he did, according to the interview I linked to in post#3.