I see Bill Maher is advocating that people accept Limbaugh's apology, but he didn't come out and say that until people started bringing him up as a sign of the hypocrisy of the left.

I seem to recall there being quite a big dust-up when Maher used the c-word on Palin, just as there was when Letterman made the foul joke about Bristol.

Also, watch the videos of each of these three incidents, and it's obvious who's trying to be funny and who's being a mean goddamn son of a bitch. I won't even listen or consider the argument that Limbaugh is an entertainer in the same way as Letterman or Maher. That's just disingenuous and dishonest, and it's not an argument I'm going to let someone make who wants to claim they belong to the "Party of Values."

Second, Maher and Letterman made their jokes once, got hit by a backlash, and apologized.

Limbaugh went on a three-day, hate-filled tirade. His offense went way beyond simply the use of "those two words." As I pointed out earlier, there's no resemblance between what Rush Limbaugh reported Ms. Fluke said and what Ms. Fluke actually said. In order to make his argument that she wanted the taxpayer to pay for her pills, he had to completely distort what she actually said. So he creates a straw man, and argues against that.

His listeners, some of whom may be successful but none of whom seem very informed or have strong moral convictions, take his argument and use it to condemn a woman who was simply trying to argue that there was a medical need for birth control. In her actual testimony, she addressed most of the arguments later made against her, but Rush played on the fact that all his most of his listeners knew of her were the lies he himself fabricated.

For this, Rush has not apologized. In fact, he has rather pointedly said that he apologized only for "those two words," and not at all for anything else he has done. He doubled down on everything, and has continued to lie and distort the situation.

Therefore, it would be ridiculous to do what Bill Maher suggests, and accept Limbaugh's apology. He didn't really apologize at all. Maher just wants to cover his own sorry ass.

Pundits of all stripes are essentially signatories to a mutual non-aggression pact. The idea that anyone be held accountable for the things they say is so threatening to them all, they present a largely unified front on the subject. Conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan has criticized the pressure put on Limbaugh's advertisers to drop him because he says you should fight "bad speech with good speech". Of course, that's exactly the approach that's been taken with Limbaugh for over 2 decades and we can see how successful it's been.

Mike

Is this the apology Maher made?

"Well, you know, I've been through this so many times. There's a lot of people in America who have, of course, nothing to do except look for something to get mad at. And I've been a frequent target and I'm happy to provide that service. So, you know, I always say, as I've said many times in these kind of situations, if I hurt somebody's feelings, I'm always sorry about that, I'm not trying to hurt somebody's feelings. But if you want me to say I'm sorry what I said was wrong, no, sorry, I can't go there."

Gerald, I don't know if that's the apology, or even if Maher said it. There's no attribution. I have no idea what that quote refers to.

But let's take it at face value, and stipulate that Bill Maher said those words in reference to calling Sarah Palin the "c-word."

He's right.

First, all I hear from the Right is whining and crying and pointing fingers and saying 'but he said it, too!'

That's bullshit, and it's childish. Republicans, who like to talk a lot-- A LOT-- about taking personal responsibility, have a real talent for attempting to excuse their behavior by pointing to flaws on the other side.

Little kids do that. All right, little Johnny, if everybody else jumps off the bridge, does that mean you would, too?

One thing that I want to point out, in all this attempt to deflect blame, not one of these Republicans is condemning Rush Limbaugh. It's not like they're saying 'You're right, we should condemn Rush Limbaugh and any who say these things.' Republicans are saying, 'Why are you condemning Rush Limbaugh when you did not condemn Bill Maher?'

Bill Maher called Sarah Palin the c-word because she is an ignorant, hypocritical, lying, backstabbing bully who has an ugly, selfish sense of honor and decency that many people find repugnant. He called her that, because deep down, she's not a good person.

And he's right about that.

It's not wrong to call a foul human being-- or let's be charitable and say a human being who has a lot to repent before they can be reborn as a new person by the grace of forgiveness-- a 'foul human being' (or, you know, all that other).

THIS would have been the time for Mitt Romney to have said, "Well, I wouldn't have used those words."

Bill Maher apologized if he hurt her feelings, but he is a Libertarian (not a Liberal) who does not believe words are equivalent to sticks and stones. And he's right about that. He was saying Sarah Palin is ignorant. He's right about that.

Comparing Rush Limbaugh to that is a completely different thing.

Limbaugh went on for days, day after day, mocking a young woman who argued that women's insurance plans should include birth control because birth control has many more health-related uses than simply birth control, and that college students are poor and cannot afford the additional cost.

Rush Limbaugh lied about what she said, mischaracterized her testimony, and used this straw man argument to slander her.

I don't know how much, if anything, you know about our history of conservatives in our country, but men like Rush Limbaugh have been known to stoop to the very lowest of levels to intimidate women and minorities who dare to publicly disagree with them, and what Rush Limbaugh was doing was exactly that.

If someone listened to Bill Maher, and was not repulsed by his language, they would come away with an honest assessment of Sarah Palin. Crudely expressed, but honest, and defensible. If you take away "those two words" of Limbaugh's, you still come away with a complete misrepresentation of Sandra Fluke, an indefensible lie.

I want to ask you a pointed question, Gerald, and an honest man won't hem and haw in his answer:

Do you think what Bill Maher did and said about Sarah Palin is really in the same league as what Rush Limbaugh did and said about Sandra Fluke?

How about we all agree that Maher's an idiot, too. This is all entertainment politics, not meant to be taken seriously. At least, it shouldn't be, but the Daily Show passes for critical thought.

Maybe he should articulate that and back it up with facts instead of lowering himself to using a derogatory word for a woman.






I haven't heard the either quote in context or during the show. Btu from what I've read about both, I'd say Rush Limbaugh's treatment of the his target was more vicious.

I had a long response typed up but this shit is so tired. Both sides trying to make the other look bad, while trying to downplay or excuse their own behavior. The groupthink mentality never ends.

Also, I find it funny that someone who strongly disagrees with the religious right is using religion to question the morality of someone else.

First, before I say anything else, Gerald, let me address your last statement.

I do not believe that the Republican Party is a party of Christian Values. They certainly claim that, but the arguments advanced by Gingrinch, Santorum, Bachmann, Romney, Paul, Boehner, or any of their spokesmen are not Christian by any stretch of the imagination. The opinions and positions held by the Family Research Council, by Gary Bauer, by Ralph Reed, by Kenneth Copeland, by any of these people, are not Christian.

How else are you going to show that they are hypocrites but by holding them up to the words they themselves use to condemn the left?

I don't talk a lot about this, Gerald, but I was born again in my 21st year. I was raised an anaabaptist: The baptism of infants is meaningless superstition. The only baptism that matters is when one is an adult, and has a mature, fully formed conscience and knows the difference between right and wrong. I was baptized in a church that believed in the fire of the Holy Ghost, I'll say that much for it. I studied to be a preacher. I studied with a group of ministers from a variety of denominations, including with an incredibly enthusiastic Pastor George W. Ferguson of a small black baptist congregation.

I've long since discarded the mythology and superstition, and I actually related here the story of when I ended my association with the worldly body that calls itself the Christian Church, but I do believe it is better to do good than to do evil.

Because the Republicans have chosen to wrap their lies in a pretense of being Christian, then I think they need to be judged with that judgment.

One of the reasons I post here is to test my arguments. I have friends in law school whom I test most of my arguments with. But most of them are pretty young and don't know Christian anything. Well, I do know the Bible. I do know the books of the New Testament. Most liberals don't, and therefore, they are at a disadvantage when some conservative goes spouting their religious crap. I'm not that way, and I've got enough respect for Jesus and God in me that it really pisses me off to see these right wing sons o' bitches mock all of it with their hypocrisy.

Read the Bible sometime, Gerald. It doesn't matter if you're a Christian or not or ever want to be. It's one of the foundational documents of Western Civilization. When you read the four Gospels, you'll see that Jesus was kind and gracious and forgiving to everyone except for one specific class of people.

Unlike Rush Limbaugh and most Southern Baptists, he didn't condemn the adulteress, or the tax collector, or the drunkards, or the common working man. He forgave them. He wouldn't have bitched about his taxes going to help her, he would have rendered unto Caesar then given her his own cloak, regardless of how much sex she'd been having.

On the other hand...

Have you ever heard the Commandment, "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain;"?

That's only part of it. After the semicolon, the rest of it says, "for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain."

Have you ever wondered what that means? Most grandmothers interpret it to mean not to cuss and use "swear words."

But interpret it in terms of the Christian revelation, especially in that those who are saved are the "Bride of Christ."

If my poor old friend gets married, and his new bride takes his name in a fancy ceremony in front of God and everybody, but then everybody in town sees her sleeping with any man that winks at her, is she really my poor old friend's wife?

Of course not. She's taken his name in vain.

Republicans make a big damn deal about being the party of faith and Christian values, and yet every argument they make is in favor of greed and selfishness. Their highest goal is money.

You can't serve both God and Mammon.

He did. Watch his Yahoo special from a couple of weeks ago.

Oh, you're just making that shit up.