Bill Maher vs. Rush Limbaugh

[The ClayTaurus]

Man, you're so obsessed with Rush that you've followed me to 2 other threads about it. Look: I never said he lied. I said he was a hypocrite. I don't need to find you a lie because I never said he was a lier. Now please, stop thread jacking everywhere I post, you look desperate.

 

[no1tovote4]

I listen to Rush all the time when I'm on car trips, and I've heard him talk about the sanctity of marriage. I doubt every show he does gets transcripted, but I will see if I can find something online. Otherwise, I guess it's a I heard-you heard argument.

What would be important is the actual semantics of the situation. I have heard him talk about the historical value and the value to society if they keep it man to woman, but I have not heard him actually mention sanctity. But, as I said, I don't listen all that often so he may have stated that it is sanctified.

I have never understood the sanctified thing anyway. A judge can't sanctify anything, there are many hetero marriages that aren't sanctified. There are many gays married in ceremonies in churches, either misled churches or not matter of opinion there, those would be sanctified but not legally accepted. Therefore the "sanctity" of marriage would already be violated by the churches but cannot by the government. The government cannot sanctify anything.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

What would be important is the actual semantics of the situation. I have heard him talk about the historical value and the value to society if they keep it man to woman, but I have not heard him actually mention sanctity. But, as I said, I don't listen all that often so he may have stated that it is sanctified.

I have never understood the sanctified thing anyway. A judge can't sanctify anything, there are many hetero marriages that aren't sanctified. There are many gays married in ceremonies in churches, either misled churches or not matter of opinion there, those would be sanctified but not legally accepted. Therefore the "sanctity" of marriage would already be violated by the churches but cannot by the government. The government cannot sanctify anything.

Fair enough. The point I was trying to make was that his opinion on marriage, be it historical, personal, ethical, numerical... it holds very little value. His opinions on divorce proceedings, however... all ears

 

[Nuc]

So now you have to attacke me personally. I know it's upsetting when you can't find anything on him.

C'mon nobody can be that stupid. Obviously he's taking you guys for a ride.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

So now you have to attacke (sic) me personally.

Is it honest to be a complete flaming lib and act like you're a reasonable adult?

But these idios (sic) don't know that.

You're obviously too (sic) stupid to understand what he's saying

Boy, you're a real smarmy f*ckface, aren't you?

:blah2:

to be fair, he did apologize for the last one.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

:blah2:

to be fair, he did apologize for the last one.

See, i give insults AND coherent, persuasive arguments, you only give insults. Try both.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Still waiting for that one lie of Rush's.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Still waiting for that one lie of Rush's.

Your gonna have a long wait rwa as you well know. When the left cannot meet an argument head on (typical) we all know that they just resort to hyperbole and insult and attack the person, not the idea.

They are all like Nuc - just big guys in a diaper. (metaphorically speaking of course)

 

[Nuc]

They are all like Nuc - just big guys in a diaper. (metaphorically speaking of course)

Hey! That's a sumo wrestler to you!
:2guns: :wank: :whip3: :coffee3:

 

[acludem]

I'm a big fan of Bill Maher because he's the only political commentator on television that doesn't give a free pass to one side or the other in any debate. He goes after everyone with the same tenacity and wit. I watched the show as I do every week and laughed at the comments made about Rush just as Limbaugh's listeners laugh at comments he makes about "Slick Willie" and Ted Kennedy. Bill Maher is first and foremost a comedian. His greatest strength is that he never takes himself to seriously as a "political pundit". If you look at his panels they tend to draw equally from the worlds of entertainment, journalism, academia, and politics. By the way, Joe Scarborough was on that show with Carlin and also took a pot shot or two at Rush, though he did say they were friends.

Also, FYI, Bill Maher got fired from ABC because of comments he made about the war in Iraq, the most famous being his description of our military tactics as "cowardly". It had nothing at all to do with ratings, it was, ironically, because Bill was too "Politically Incorrect".

One thing about liberal talk shows as opposed to conservative talk shows though, conservatives still want to talk about Bill Clinton at every turn, liberals don't bring up Ronald Reagan or George H.W. Bush at every turn, we talk about the now instead instead of the then, but then that should be expected since conservatives want all of us to live in the then.

acludem

 

[rtwngAvngr]

we talk about the now instead instead of the then, but then that should be expected since conservatives want all of us to live in the then.

acludem

No, actually it's the dems trotting out the old Vietnam playbook and trying to make it work for Iraq.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Actually acludem, if you think socialism is a bright new future then, yes, I want to live "in the past". Apparently you consider freedom an oddity doomed to antiquity. How sad.

 

[CivilLiberty]

The left has no standards or rules to go by other than slam the right.

And the right has no standards or rules other than to slam the left.


Both right an left are highly polarized finger-pointers. What's new?


Rush is still a fat-headed hate-mongering neocon windbag.




A

 

[CivilLiberty]

Not a good example, because Rush is right on the money here. I have seen posts on this very board which imply the very same thing.

Oh gee, posts on this board? Gosh, then it must be true....

I know that you won't listen to any of this, but for anyone else who doubts the truth of Rush's words, compare how the ACLU goes after every little Christian public display, but defends Muslims who are being profiled.
By their actions, it's clear to me who many Dems/libs are truly afraid of, and it isn't Al Qaeda.

ACLU is not DEMOCRATS first of all.


Second, the ACLU has supported religious freedom on many cases, and you're taking their actions out of context.


Andy

 

[Abbey Normal]

Oh gee, posts on this board? Gosh, then it must be true....

Your attempts at condescension aside, why do you assume that the posters on this board are very different from society at large? Perhaps I am unaware of special recruiting efforts for membership that make the Dems here freakishly out of step with the rest of the Dems in the country?

ACLU is not DEMOCRATS first of all.

How many Republicans vs. Democrats do you think are ACLU members? Your statement is very naive.

Second, the ACLU has supported religious freedom on many cases, and you're taking their actions out of context.

Libs all over love to toss out that the ACLU takes on all kind of cases. For every "religious freedom" case they may have brought, there are virtually dozens, perhaps hundreds, of anti-Christian lawsuits. Occassional window-dressing to try to look fair doesn't cut it. You really should read up on the ACLU before trying to skew what they really do.

 

[acludem]

My brother is a Republican and member of the ACLU for one. I have posted numerous, numerous examples of the ACLU defending the rights of Christians, something that the right doesn't want to admit. The ACLU supports religious freedom for everyone, which means that no religion ought to be able to use the power of government to codify their religious beliefs. This is what many fundamentalists seek to do. This is what our founding fathers feared because they had seen it done.

acludem

 

[Nuc]

My brother is a Republican and member of the ACLU for one. I have posted numerous, numerous examples of the ACLU defending the rights of Christians, something that the right doesn't want to admit. The ACLU supports religious freedom for everyone, which means that no religion ought to be able to use the power of government to codify their religious beliefs. This is what many fundamentalists seek to do. This is what our founding fathers feared because they had seen it done.

acludem

Shhhhhh! acludem! Don't you know that despite 95% of the electorate being Christian, despite 80+% of Americans believing in angels, despite executive,senate and house (+SCOTUS) being in the hands of Republicans, despite all this.............THE ENTIRE COUNTRY IS BEING CONTROLLED BY THE ACLU AND NAMBLA!!!!!!

It goes without saying that ACLU and NAMBLA have almost the exact same membership, but nonetheless......

I have learned so much since joining this board.

 

[manu1959]

My brother is a Republican and member of the ACLU for one. I have posted numerous, numerous examples of the ACLU defending the rights of Christians, something that the right doesn't want to admit. The ACLU supports religious freedom for everyone, which means that no religion ought to be able to use the power of government to codify their religious beliefs. This is what many fundamentalists seek to do. This is what our founding fathers feared because they had seen it done.

acludem

nor should the aclu / govt. prevent me from expressing my beliefs

 

[acludem]

Oh Please don't pull your NAMBLA bullshit again. The ACLU's involvement in that case was about freedom of speech. Here's the ACLU's press release explaining the case: http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=8100&c=86

This case is in the same category with the ACLU's defense of the neo-nazis, Ku Klux Klan, and other highly unpopular forms of speech.

The ACLU was only involved in the free speech issues. To advocate for someone's right to say what they want is not to advocate for the content of their speech. I support the right of NAMBLA to argue for what they believe, so long as they aren't directly encouraging people to harm children, which was the issue at the crux of this trial.

acludem

 

[Nuc]

Oh Please don't pull your NAMBLA bullshit again. The ACLU's involvement in that case was about freedom of speech. Here's the ACLU's press release explaining the case: http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=8100&c=86

This case is in the same category with the ACLU's defense of the neo-nazis, Ku Klux Klan, and other highly unpopular forms of speech.

The ACLU was only involved in the free speech issues. To advocate for someone's right to say what they want is not to advocate for the content of their speech. I support the right of NAMBLA to argue for what they believe, so long as they aren't directly encouraging people to harm children, which was the issue at the crux of this trial.

acludem

Ummm...I was making fun of the paranoia of the right regarding ACLU and NAMBLA. It was humor....I think?