Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Mar 5, 2007 in Arts & Entertainment | 37 comments

Maher: Cheney Dead More People Live

The MSM and blogs have spent a lot of attention to Ann Coulter’s outrageous remarks at CPAC. Both Democratic and Republican leaders have denounced her, the same goes for bloggers, etc. As you all know, we at TMV have done the same. Ann’s remarks were bigoted, she should never be allowed to speak at a serious political gathering from now onward and I don’t exactly consider it a bad thing if some newspapers would refuse to print her columns.

Some people argued that Ann is typical for the ‘hatred of the right’, the ‘discrimination’, ‘bigotry’, etc. I don’t believe that to be right for one second. Sure, some groups are like her, but the majority of conservatives is not. It is again a reason why fiscal conservatives should stop allowing the religious right / social conservatives to define ‘conservatism’ in America.

Anyway, the left has its own people who throw verbal bombs. For instance: Bill Maher.

He, like Coulter, didn’t say something literally, but implied something quite outrageous: that it would be better if Cheney would have died in Afghanistan. Warren Tod Huston reports for Newsbusters:

As reported here on Newsbusters, on his HBO program “Real Time”, Maher thought a “funny joke” was offered by Congressman Barney Frank who said that the bomb that recently missed vice president Cheney on an overseas visit was “wasted” because it didn’t kill him (to audience laughter and applause, I might add).

The exchange went on:

Maher: But I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow. (applause)

Scarborough: If someone on this panel said that they wished that Dick Cheney had been blown up, and you didn’t say…

Frank: I think he did.

Scarborough: Okay. Did you say…

Maher: No, no. I quoted that.

Frank: You don’t believe that?

Maher: I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.

Warren goes on to note that while the MSM and bloggers did pay a lot of attention to what Coulter said, they seem to be ignoring what Maher said.

Obviously that’s not a ‘fact’ at all. These remarks were, of course, outrageous and unacceptable. Should he legally be allowed to say this? Sure. Should a network embrace it / Maher? No.

Considering that the MSM pays a lot of attention to what Coulter said, same goes for bloggers, both should also call Maher out as well. It is unacceptable, he’s implying that terrorists killing the VP of America isn’t a bad thing. That’s just about as outrageous as one can get.

However, there is also a difference: namely the setting. Although it seems that quite some left-wingers agree with Maher (I do not need to remind anyone of comments left at a certain blog) he was not speaking at a major political gathering. Coulter was. That gives her remarks extra gravitysignificance.

In short: although the MSM should call Maher out, and although bloggers, liberal, moderate and conservatives should do the same thing, it wouldn’t make sense to, for instance, demand of Democrats to denounce Maher(‘s remarks).

Crossposted at my own blog.

(Edit: changed one sentence)

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2007 The Moderate Voice
  • C Stanley

    Maher’s Cheney remarks have more in common with some past odious statements by Coulter than they do with the recent CPAC statement. Some of her past remarks have also endorsed killing of those with whom she politically disagrees.

    And worse yet, Maher’s comments have an awful lot in common with the justification by abortion clinic bombers, that such killing is really justifiable homicide because taking the one life would save others. Anyone who would defend Maher ought to think about the company they’d be keeping by endorsing that line of thinking.

  • Marlowecan

    CStanley is correct in saying that Maher’s comments do echo Coulter’s comment about poisoning the creme brule of a Supreme Court Justice.

    I remember the rage on the Left that caused. There is not much comment from the Left about Maher.

    As the Letter by Ed Morrisey etc. indicates, conservatives do try to police themselves. Where are the Open Letters on the Left saying folks should stop wishing the death of the Vice-President.

    Patterico has some choice quotes on this. For example:

    I liked in particular Alec Baldwin on national TV:
    “We would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and we’d kill their wives and their children. We would kill their families.”

    Hey, it’s just a joke. Dumbass wingnuts, can’t take a joke!

  • You two should comment at my own blog. Just for fun, go check it out.

    Pure hypocricy, isn’t it?

  • doctormatt06

    Hmm…when did Bill Maher ever start standing for the Left-Wing, I mean no offense, but I don’t see Bill Maher being invited to major Left-Wing Conferences, and being hailed as THE voice of the right-wing. To somehow say Ann Coulter is equivalent to Bill Maher is ridiculous. He is a COMEDIAN, she is a PUNDIT. He doesn’t claim to belong to either the Democratic or Republican parties, and at least he will skewer the Democrats for being idiots just as much for the Republicans. The difference between Bill Maher and Ann Coulter is, they may both have chances to utter stupidities, but Ann Coulter is the only one who’s being invited to the table to speak them, year after year. Its not like she hasn’t done this time after time. Just last year she called people of arab descent ragheads. I mean and THEY INVITED HER BACK. So don’t tell me Bill Maher is like Ann Coulter in this instance. They are two different things.

  • kritter

    doctormatt- But look what happens when Coulter inevitably utters one of her faux pas—she says she was joking–like when she made the hilarious suggestion that someone poison a Supreme Court judge, or just as funny, calls for an invasion of all muslim countries with forced conversions to Christianity. She called Al Gore a fairy on Hardball, then when pressed, decided she was kidding a minute later. How witty and humorous.

  • domajot

    Yes, Mahr goes overboard, too. When he does,there should be no excuses.

    So let me go right ahead and make some; well, not excusess, but observations.

    For me, they represent two very different personality types. It’s less about what they say, more about the vibes they give off.
    Mahr is constantly grinning, which leaves the impression that he’s not taking himself completely seriously. Coulter leaves the impression that she’s seized with cold, hard anger and means every word seriously.

    Mahr’s poisoned arrows are aimed at something specific: Cheney’s role in going to war. Coulter’s insults are wild throws; it seems everyone she dislikes is a f…t. (Is the word allowed here?). As far as I know, Edwards has never shown any leaning to warrant this particular accusation, and if he had, how would that endanger America?

    I admit this is nebulous, and prabably prejudicial. Possibly, it’s even ill informed as I don’t watch either on purpose, only when I’m channel surfing and I pause for a few minutes.

    Stewaer is always funny, and I am a fan.

  • SurgeJack

    Actually, you’ll notice, much like the bit with Dinesh a few years ago, Maher was quoting. That’s a bit you don’t get from the portion of the transcript Newsbusters has allowed. And what he actually was saying was that if Cheney was not in power, fewer people would be dying, I asssume, because he feels Cheney is the brains of the operation and the one pushing the Iraq war to continue and feels that with him removed, there would be a removal of many forces that keep the United States in Iraq or engaged in foreign affairs.

    He wasn’t, as you’re putting it, calling for the assassination of the Vice President. He didn’t even agree with the idea that he should be killed. What he stated, in his own senile way, was that he felt Dick Cheney’s influence was contributing to death in the world. The game here is called distraction. They’ll attack the media, forgetting the fact that the media bashed Maher for his comment on Politically Incorrect, and forgetting how he managed to get cut from ABC as well, and why it is that he resides on HBO.

    They’ll forget that whereas in context, Ann Coulter was calling a Presidential Candidate a f****t, Bill Maher has to be taken out of context, and he we have to ignore a majority of what was said on his show, or what he’s said in the past, in order for it to seem like he was advocating assassination.

    You see, the reason people aren’t outraged about Bill Maher, is because firstly, Bill Maher wasn’t speaking at the Democratic National Convetion. Secondly, he didn’t say what you’re saying he said, and the reason you’re saying he’s said that is because it’s what NewsBusters has allowed you in terms of information, and you’ll note that NewsBusters, much like Crooks & Liars, as well as MediaMatters, tend to take things out of context to make their claims. Beyond that, whereas your question based on these incidents is ‘is there any difference’, Newsbusters was condemning people for not condemning Bill Maher and trying to make it seem like Ann Coulter said nothing, which is ironic, because as you and they have pointed out, Ann Coulter has advocated assassination in the past, and many had come to her defense. So, in so much as this comment would reveal hypocrisy on the left, it would then reveal hypocrisy on the right as well. It’s a blade that cuts both ways.

    However, the most prominent portion of this is Bill Maher was not saying what you think he was saying. Whereas you’ve misconstrued Maher’s meaning due to the limited information you got from NewsBusters, there is no one that misconstrued what Ms. Coulter was saying. A final, and third point is that Bill Maher has already been marginalized. Ann Coulter, meanwhile, is getting a large amount of press, remark after remark. So, before you go attacking the media, it might be wise to consider that Maher isn’t a prominent voice on any of the 24 hour news channels, and that his views aren’t given mass airings or publicity constantly.

    A few weeks ago, NewsBusters used Maher’s line of questioning to John Edwards to point out the sort of question that should be asked to/about Hillary. Now, he’s a wingnut again…

    Let’s forget that Coulter and Maher are basically pals and that the good lot of us folks down in America don’t like either of them, and let’s let a misinterpretation of what Bill Maher said excuse Ann Coulter throwing a bit of unsubstantive defamation at a Presidential Candidate. It’s bad enough that we’re all forced to advertise for these folks by talking about them. Now, we have to get in the practice of defending them, because clearly, of all the lot, these are the fellows that need defense: Bill Maher and Ann Coulter.

    Michael, how about this? Instead of playing the distraction game, how about you present someone in the conservative field who has been unfairly marginalized. Just bring up a brilliant conservative mind who has been moved out of the mainstream. Post an article of his or some’at. At least give time to someone who deserves it. Don’t give time to people that already have it. There are more important things than this. The media, in denouncing her, much like with what happened on NBC with the Jersey girls, is simply giving her more coverage. It’s the same thing. It’s the same plot, over and over again. First, there’s the outrage, the distancing. Then there’s the defense, and the distraction. And what does it do? It helps people sell books.

    But, go ahead, continue on and maybe you’ll have a ripple effect that gives Maher a pop in his ratings or some’at. I don’t care that Ann Coulter said Edwards was a f****t. That’s just a method. That’s a way of letting everybody play the righteous role and reinforce themselves compared with Ann. Let’s just come out with it: Edwards is a f****t. There, I said it. Does it make me special? Does it merit outrage? At best, it’s an allusion to the fact that he’s a political hack who incidentally got footage taped of him combing his fair for a good several minutes.

    But, really, thanks for feigning the outrage fella’s. It’ll help sell some books. It’ll really put a nice number on that bank account, and you can forgive, forget, and repeat the cycle next year. At least you got a chance to be self important, and throw out your righteous indignation instead of doing the right thing, which would be to give voice to those strong minded conservatives and liberals you fellows keep harping on about, who are actually repersentative of the brightest minds in the movement.

    But, no, we’ve got to force ourselves into situations where we’re left to defend these two. We’ve got to spread falsehoods and feign outrage. Oooh, Ann Coulter called John Edwards a f****t. Oh, how inappropriate! It clearly reveals the bigotry of the right, and is in no way whimpish compared to what she’s said in the past. Let’s ignore the fact that John Edwards was born to be a Log Cabin Republican and accidentally ran Democrat instead. Let’s focus on our outrage, and how right we are compared to Ann, and how she’s crossed the line, bah! Oh, my goodness, Ann Coulter is such a meanie! Get over yourselves.

    Ann Coulter and Bill Maher are just folks that occassionaly spout sense and occassionally spout nonsense, but who in no way represent the true heart of any movement, or even the brightest points of any particular movement. They represent themselves. Sometimes they say hilarious things. Sometimes, they fall flat. Sometimes, they just spout stupidity. It doesn’t really matter, though, because this is a political website, and instead of being dedicated to providing us with things that matter, and the actual lost voices on the right and left with unique, bright, and thought out views, it’s dedicated to fighting the blog wars of feigned outrage and righteous indignation, and pointing out hypocrisy, albeit ineptly, where anyone’d expect to find it.

  • mikkel

    I still can’t believe Coulter is getting into trouble for saying what she said when as CS points out she’s said much much worse. For me it’s ironic that all that stuff was brushed off as “she’s just being funny” and the only thing she’s getting into trouble for is the one thing that I thought was semi-funny! (Not only was Isiah Washington sent to rehab for saying a bad word, but it was pretty clear that he was going because he hurt people’s feelings, not because of underlying homophobia.)

    Anyway the one thing people are leaving out about the Maher thing (besides the fact that as doctormatt points out he’s not connected to either party and is more of a anarcho-compassionate libertarian) is that Barney Frank was on the program. Now Frank is as left as you can be and still be elected and he was defending Huffington for removing those comments from her blog — after all what they were talking about was the HuffPost tracking down and deleting every comment that wished Cheney harm. Maher said he couldn’t support that and Frank said he did and pointed out that Maher controls his program and she should control her site to reflect her.

    I won’t defend Maher but I will point out that an actual poltician representing the far left was there and seemed to think it was way out of line for civil debate (clip).

    So the scandal is a left-wing blog removing posts that were inappropriate and a left-wing politican telling a muckraker TV host that it was the right thing to do.

    That said CS makes a very good point that the underlying hate on both sides is much the same and Marlow is right that the left wing entertainers have said similar things and haven’t been chastized. I’d argue they aren’t nearly as integrated into the official political machine but also all the hyperbole and hate is making people complacent to the real dangers that we face and should be confronted. Equating Cheney/Bush with China or Hitler not only dishonors the people that did/do suffer from their regimes but also suppresses dialogue on the very real growing abuse of power that potentially could set the stage for an authoritarian government in the future — abuses that could might not occur if people worked to find alternative approaches.

  • Rudi

    From Newsmax:

    The exchange went on:

    Maher: But I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow. (applause)

    Scarborough: If someone on this panel said that they wished that Dick Cheney had been blown up, and you didn’t say…

    Frank: I think he did.

    Scarborough: Okay. Did you say…

    Maher: No, no. I quoted that.

    Frank: You don’t believe that?

    Maher: I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.

    The initial statement was – no more Cheney, fewer people die. In further discusions it is inferred that Cheney dies, he isn’t advocating an assination. IAIP, he probably wishes it, or thinks it to himself. Please show a direct quote,”kill Cheney”. Coulter did say to kill SOTUS Kennedy. Is Maher a columnist in newpapers and blogs, no just a comedian. Newmax as a reliable source – LOL. Maybe someone should link to the actual video, instead of a Newsmax transcript.

  • Bill Maher’s statement probably is true, and was not a call to action.

    I don’t agree with everything Maher says, but he actually does shock to provoke debate.

  • Marlowecan

    SurgeJack said: “What he stated, in his own senile way…”

    Well, to elevate these proceedings, I could add that Maher is currently dating Wynona Ryder and is a regular at the Playboy Mansion. He is senile like Hefner. 🙂

    As Rudi notes, the Maher reference is sorta forced. But SurgeJack is also right that Media Matters etc. do their daily business at taking quotes seriously out of context in their OUTRAGE OF THE DAY.

    This is one reason I have distaste for Coulter…she is manipulative …and she knows how to feed the publicity machine.

    As Mikkel and CStanley note, there is just too much hyperbole and hate…that is a distraction from the real issues.

    I mean…the global marketplace is still in turmoil today…after the Chinese markets are hiccuping again. China could tank the US economy (unlikely, as it would be suicidal)…but there are real issues out there.

    Coulter or Maher (even though he may be boffing with Wynona Ryder) don’t count as serious people or real issues.

    Now Britney, on the other hand… 🙂

  • Marlowecan

    A further point…important stories are boring.

    The New York Times has a good story on the 47 million Americans without health insurance! The United States is alone in the industrialized world in not ensuring health care for its population, and particularly the most vulnerable.

    The Walter Reed scandal reflects this in many respects, I believe.

    Yet this story is boring and dull. Better a shot of Coulter a la cheesecake, or Maher smirking and joking, than a true national outrage.

  • AustinRoth

    For those why try to claim that prominent, main-stream Leftists aren’t just as guilty of vile hate speech, check out this link to Patterico, unless of course it is too ‘reality-based’ for you: No Hate Speech by Prominent Leftists?

  • Lynx

    Well, shocking no one I will say that I like Bill Maher (enough that I download his show weekly, this one is at 54% presently) and despise Ann Coulter (though she does cause the morbid curiosity usually associated with car accidents) but I think there is a difference beyond my personal preference. He didn’t quite “call for the assassination” of Cheney, though what he said was still inflammatory. I do think tone is important, and I can guess that Maher used a deadpanned tone, his favorite, and not a belligerent or encouraging tone, though I’ll have to check out the video. Maher is not a pundit for the left. He’s a lefty, to be sure, though much more of a liberal libertarian than a democrat, but he’s no spokesman. Ann likes to think of herself as a spokeswoman (actually I bet she’d rather think of herself as a spokesman) for the Right, and the worst part is, many believe her. Frankly, I think she represents a very tiny vicious minority of the right, and most of the rest are embarrassed by her BUT she keeps getting invited to these mainstream events. When a speaker at a mainstream event for one party says something out of line it’s not unusual for that statement to be stuck on them, though it’s often unfair. If Maher had been invited to a high profile Democrat event and had said what he said, the statement would have gotten much more attention. But he didn’t, he said it on his show, much the way what Ann Coulter says on her regular columns is even more offensive than what she said and usually (thankfully) gets no attention.

  • kritter

    I agree with Rudi- Maher did not call for Cheney to be assasinated, as Coulter had with her creme brulee remark earlier. Having said that I think both Coulter’s remark about Edwards and Maher’s cross the line of good taste and civility, even if Maher’s is a true statement.

  • dan

    did anyone WATCH the episode? because i did. and this is a total misinterpretation.

    scarborough’s “If someone on this panel said that they wished that Dick Cheney had been blown up, and you didn’t say…” is actually a reference to huffington deleting comments on her blog about something she disagreed with.

    and maher said she shouldn’t have to because SHE didn’t say it. so why should she be worried that the comment would be applied to her?? she shouldn’t. and HE was just quoting the “death” comment… but he DID think that if cheney was simply not in power (NO comment at all on his death) then there would be less death.

    well, as if slapping us upside the head with irony, you just did the same damn thing.

    shame on you.

  • BrotherAlpha

    Arg. It’s the But, but, but Clinton fallacy all over again.

    Anyone who writes something this stupid should be ignored:

    “Coulter’s comment is intemperate, childish, lowbrow, even frat house-like for its part, but it was just a derogatory name in the end. Maher wants people KILLED, for Heaven’s sake.”

    If you don’t realize Anne Coulter has joked about killing people in the past, repeatedly, you shouldn’t be speaking on the subject. End of story. Anne Coulter stated plainly that the killing of 168 people by Timothy McVeigh was perfectly acceptable, she just wish he’d had blown up the New York Times Building instead.

    On the other hand, Bill Maher said, “I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.” He didn’t say, “I want someone to kill Dick Cheney.” or even, “It would be morally correct to kill Dick Cheney.” You may disagree with his assessment that Dick Cheney being V.P. is killing people, but you can’t claim Bill Maher supports the killing of Dick Cheney.

    It is also important to note than Anne Coulter made that remark about the Oklahoma City Bombing in 2002 and it didn’t hurt her standing with national conservative organizations one bit.

    Bill Maher and Anne Coulter are fundamentally different, what they have said in the past has been fundamentally different. And that is why they are treated different and not because of some imaginary bias in the media.

  • domajot

    I hope I never hear the names Bill Mahr and Ann Coulter again,

  • Marlowecan

    Domajot said: “I hope I never hear the names Bill Mahr and Ann Coulter again.”

    Hahahaha…I have to second that. I tried to avoid the whole business this weekend…but like a monstrous media black hole Coulter sucked me down…as indeed she has devoured the precious seconds of everyone’s life who has commented about her here.

    To think…there are bushmen in the Kalahari – the !Kung people perhaps – who are tonight sleeping in blissful ignorance of Ann Coulter and Bill Mahr!

  • Doma and Marlow: this was the last time that I ever spent attention to either.

  • Michael,
    You should like Maher. He was an unabashed supporter of Israel’s war of aggression in Lebanon.

    But I digress. I really wanted to say that, for all those who accuse the likes of myself and the birthday girl of being unpatriotic, or hating America first, the feeling I’ve had watching Israel defend herself and a US president defend Israel (a country that is held to a standard for “restraint” that no other country ever is asked to meet, but that’s another story) just reminds me how wrong that is. I LOVE being on the side of my president, and mouthing “You go, boy” when he gets it right. He just, outside of this, almost never does.

    – Bill Maher

  • Rudi

    The Maher comment was made on a comedy panel show and taken out of context. The Maher comment is like Don Imus attacking Bill and Hillary Clinton at the Washington Press corps dinner. Colbert did the same with Bush in attence last year. Neither Maher, Imus or Colbert write opion piecs that are published on Op-Ed pages. Colter is a poltical writer, if Krugman or Buchanan made outlandish statements it would affect their editorial and columnist status. When a comedian makes an outrageous statement, most often it is satire. Does anybody take the Jonathan Swift blog page as fact, it is just satire.

  • kritter

    This is just really low celebrity gossip, but I could swear that Ann Coulter dated Bill Maher a few years ago (imagine their pillow talk, lol)

    But then she was being interviewed awhile back and said she had never slept with a liberal???? Maybe she thought it would hurt her book sales if she admitted the affair.

  • Rudi

    On Joe Scarborough’s show he says that he was on Maher’s show and people have taken his statement out of context. Comeon now, Newsmax wouldn’t do this to deflect attention from Coulter, would they.

  • kritter

    I think the media cranks out these fake outrages day after day to win big ratings. Its like that infantile feud between Trump and O’Donnell- I’m sure the ratings rose for The Apprentice and the View as long as they kept it going. I heard that Coulter has a new book coming out-she was fading from public view, and now she’s the talk of the town again. And the Maher controversy probably won’t hurt his show either— win-win even Edwards is capitalizing with his “Coulter cash”. Are we all just witless dupes of the media??

  • AustinRoth, did you bother following the links from the Patterico piece? Reality based? NewsMax as a reliable source?? A Drudge article that you can’t even find online any longer? Articles by one of the most pathetic conservative columnists around, Jeff Jacoby, where he cites things that people from the left supposedly said without any reference as to where or when so they could be tracked down and verified? Other sources that similarly quoted but not specified for independent verification? The majority of Patterico’s piece isn’t reality based, it’s Republican pundit based, you know, like Ann Coulter?

    There were examples that weren’t questionable but really, once again I have to point out that the one they had the best case for was the Alec Baldwin stupidity. But once again, he’s an entertainer that supports liberals, not a political pundit or commentator. I have looked in vain for the books of political and social commentary that he wrote that hit the bestseller lists because of the droves of liberals supporting him. Couldn’t find them. The same for all of the rest of the people cited in a confirmable way except for Al Franken. He’s written two books that sold fairly well. One out of how many citations?

    AustinRoth, your choice of reference was a worse joke than Coulter.

  • AustinRoth

    So, you are saying reality is only what the left says it is?

  • AustinRoth

    Oh, and let’s see, there are also links to:
    Opinion Journal
    CNN
    Washington Post
    Boston.com
    Seattle Times
    HuffingtonPost.com

    And of course, when you don’t like the message, well, attack the source. Because if the source is from the Right, the ‘reality’ cannot be true. They only print ChimpyBushHitlerHalliburton propaganda.

  • Bill Maher isn’t a left-wing icon, he’s a comedian who uses biting commentary to attack others. Republicans were happy to cheer on his politically incorrect riffs, as long as they were directed at Jews, blacks, gays and “retards”. They loved his jokes about Clinton’s sex life and Marion Barry’s drug habit. It was only when he turned his satire against their team that they decided some words really were unacceptable.

  • Let’s see, I point out the problems with most of the citations in Patterico’s piece and you accuse me of simply attacking the messenger. Yes, I called Jacoby pathetic. And that’s because he is.

    If you can ever do anything about that vacuum lock of your lips on Bush’s posterior maybe you might be able to read better. Everyone outside of brain dead partisan hyper-conservatives have figured out that this administration has given incompetence a new level of meaning. And yes, NewsMax is nothing but a right wing propaganda machine. Nothing you write will ever change that fact.

  • C Stanley

    If you can ever do anything about that vacuum lock of your lips on Bush’s posterior maybe you might be able to read better.

    Jim,
    Where has AR said anything whatsoever that would indicate that he’s a Bush syncophant? Can’t you understand that people can be very critical of Bush but still be conservative? Or that people can criticize things on the left of American politics without being a Bush supporter? Where’s your logic?? This thread didn’t even have anything to do with Bush.

    And by the way, you proved AR’s point about ad hominem attacks (and upped the ante by making one against him as well.)

  • CS,

    I’ve never seen anyone but a Bush sycophant write things like this “They only print ChimpyBushHitlerHalliburton propaganda.” or this “Because if the source is from the Right, the ‘reality’ cannot be true.”. Ever. Patterico cites NewsMax, which is nothing but a joke if you want to cite actual news instead of right wing propaganda. AR defends it. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

  • C Stanley

    Jim,
    You really ought to take a course in logic sometime. Seriously. You have decided that everyone who says “A” is a “B”. You defined it that way. So now, when someone says “A”, that proves he is “B”. Of course. Makes perfect sense!

  • MichaelF

    Comment #32Jim Satterfield said:
    March 6, 2007 at 7:52 am
    CS,

    I’ve never seen anyone but a Bush sycophant write things like this “They only print ChimpyBushHitlerHalliburton propaganda.� or this “Because if the source is from the Right, the ‘reality’ cannot be true.�. Ever.

    Of course. Since you assume that all people who object to left wing hate speech are Bush sycophants you will always be proven to be correct.

  • BrotherAlpha

    “Of course. Since you assume that all people who object to left wing hate speech are Bush sycophants you will always be proven to be correct.”

    Strawman Attack. I suggest you re-read what they wrote.

  • CS,

    I have taken logic. It appears you haven’t. I stated that I have never seen anyone use the kind of “logic” that AR was using except those who are Bush partisans. That is an observation. It is my experience in reading this and many other blogs. If you have something solid to refute it, fine. But it is still my observation of what I’ve read so far.

    MichaelF,

    If what they do is object to “left wing hate speech” while attempting to minimize how much of it exists on the right or its major importance to the right wing political machine, then yes, I will assume they are Bush sycophants. These partisans constantly scream about left wing hate speech while turning a blind eye to Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, Reagan and all of the others or at least trying to ignore how much more is spewed by the right largely because they have the outlets that the left doesn’t.

  • C Stanley

    I stated that I have never seen anyone use the kind of “logic� that AR was using except those who are Bush partisans. That is an observation. It is my experience in reading this and many other blogs. If you have something solid to refute it, fine. But it is still my observation of what I’ve read so far.

    Jim,
    You are the one making a claim here, so the burden of proof is on you. The fact is that both AR and I have stated our reasons for disapproval of the Bush administration, but both of us also tend to want to stick to the facts in criticizing him (incidentally, I did the same thing during the Clinton administration when many people I know were bashing him). When people go overboard and attack without evidence, we call them on it. You can say that you observe the same kind of “defense” coming from Bush syncophants but again I repeat the following to show your logical fallacy:

    If person A makes statements that are consistent with person B’s statements, it does not follow that person A and person A agrees with person B on every other similar issue.

    If person A says “X” which defends person Y, it does not follow that person A generally supports person Y or that he/she blindly supports him/her.

    And I’ll repeat something I said to you in another recent thread, Jim. Would you appreciate it if I called you a Marxist and used as ‘proof’ of that your statements that are highly critical of the free market system? I wouldn’t do that, of course, because it’s not logical to assume that anyone who finds faults in the free market wants to abolish capitalism. I’d appreciate it if you would use similar logic when responding to my arguments; criticism of Democrats does not mean that I think Republicans are always right, it just means that I find the comments and blog posts here to go overboard on criticizing the right (sometimes without basis), while ignoring faults of the left.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com