I have no interest in defending Bill Maher. Just understand that there's context to everything... headlines don't cut it.

I just got done with the post above, so I gotta keep it quick.

Maher is a comedian as well as a political/social commentator. He's gonna say funny stuff... and you are the one claiming liberals are 'humor impaired'? To be honest with you, my political leanings would be considered a hair left of center. That doesn't mean I can't listen to liberal and conservative voices without my head exploding (just a joke, your head won't explode) or flying off the handle in defense of party agenda.

["...when he said that he wished Rush dead? Or when he said that if Cheney would die that the lives of other people would be saved? The same Bill Maher who blamed conservatives for Timothy McVeigh's actions?"]

Obviously I have no idea as to your knowledge of Maher's comments concerning your quote above. I don't know if you listened to the entire conversation involving those comments, or if you just heard or read those comments somewhere with perhaps some associated commentary. If you haven't, I will simply suggest you google it and listen to the original discussions concerning your points in their entirety before you draw any conclusions from good right wing publication headlines. If you have done so, my apologies.

Whew.

In response to your first reply: That's a whole lot of black and white when reality is grey.

I go with the car insurance argument. One is required to have car insurance if one wishes to drive (legally). Understandably not everyone drives, but surely everyone lives. Insuring your own life and health so others don't have to pick up that tab for you seems like a reasonable thing to require. Usually something the right bring up a lot, validly, is the "don't make me pay for you" argument. This alone could last pages so I'll move on from here.

As to the economy. Have you not even slightly considered the fact that companies or "market forces" becoming large enough that if they failed millions would be broke to be a bad thing? Was SCOTUS' decision allowing non-disclosure of campaign finance contributions when it comes to corporations not even a little disturbing? Now billion dollar companies can contribute to the political agenda that serves them best, effectively invalidating the voting process, without having to disclose those contributions, namely because doing so may entice shoppers to change their mind about where they shop. If you suddenly discovered that the grocery store chain you've been patronizing for years was contributing millions to the Democratic Party, I'll take a guess and say you wouldn't be happy about it. Not to mention the effect extremely profitable corporations can have on public policy as well.

In response to your second reply:
Bill Maher is not the first person to suggest Stalin was a right winger. Whether Stalin is Authoritarian, Totalitarian, neither, both, or otherwise is an argument better left for History class, since it's a question that gives the best of historians headaches anyhow. That's why I prefaced my response with advising that it would be 'highly abridged and pointed'.

["Now which group sound authoritarian to you? The left which wants to order law-abiding citizens around and force them to surrender private property and to sign up for government run schemes or the right which wants less government control over law-abiding citizens’ personal lives?"]

Aside from, again, the whitest white against the blackest black argument you can make in a greyish grey reality, my view on the matter of 'Authoritarian' as it relates specifically to Maher's comment about Stalin was already posted. Scroll up. When theorizing intellectually as to the political leanings of a historical figure from 100 years ago, there's no need for the "Oxford Dictionary"'s definition of "Authoritarian", especially when debating the definition of "Authoritarian". We aren't playing Scrabble where simply saying "It's in the dictionary!" wins you the point. Furthermore, there's a reason I stated "It's important to take into consideration that the meaning of these terms have changed slightly over the past 100 years or so." in my original posting.

"I'm a happy person" was a sarcastic response. No need to criticize my hilarity.

...and I have no particular beef against christianity. It's all groups of people that believe in magic flying men in the sky that I think can be, at times, dangerous. While not necessary for me to do so I feel the obligation for me to advise you that I do indeed believe in something, I'm just content at understanding that thusfar, despite my best attempt to find some, there is no evidence to indicate that the truth lies in any contemporary dogma. In my view, mythology is mythology, whether it be ancient Greek mythology, Mayan mythology, or present day Middle Eastern, Asian, or Euro-American mythology.

In response to your third reply:
Ugh, I attempted to make it clear in my last posting that I don't care if anyone is insulting, just offer a valid counterpoint to the topic at hand while doing so. Saying "I can do either with the same aplomb" is the equivalent of saying "I can be an arse if you want to be an arse" which devalues your unfounded sense of superiority and morality by being at least equally as insulting.

In the end, I'd have to say, I appreciate your taking the time to offer such a lengthy response, but please stop insinuating that you have any idea as to my specific personal political affiliation or lack thereof, age, and/or level of knowledge. Having a differing viewpoint than your own does not make someone ignorant, intellectually inferior, or anything less than fully capable of handling his own in any conversation he chooses to insert himself into, I promise.

"Are you denying that Maher made the statement or are you denying that it was asinine?"

(from my original post on this thread)

"Not speaking for Maher, but my highly abridged and pointed take on the matter is that Stalin was an Authoritarian, and while I understand you have a different view on it, Authoritarianism has been commonly understood to be a "Right Wing" concept. It's important to take into consideration that the meaning of these terms have changed slightly over the past 100 years or so.

Ultimately I'd call Stalin nothing more than a political opportunist. He certainly turned on the left and used the right wing movement to promote his own personal political agenda."

___________

"Learn to live with it because some of us will not allow your type to come here and issue insults with impunity. "
"We get it, you don't like Limbaugh; guess what... we don't care. "

Who is "we"?

It's apparent that my comments irritate all of your personalities. Either that or you have become quite comfortable with partaking in commentary only with those who share your particular views. I wasn't so much 'whining' about being insulted, but rather mentioning the solely insulting nature of your comment, rather than adding anything more to the discussion as whole while being so.

Less than an hour after my comment you're the first to reply throwing claims of insults around and, coincidentally, not speaking to the topic at hand in the least. By the way, I'm a pretty happy person!

How I'm treated, whether it be 'courteously and respectfully' or otherwise is of no consequence to me. I'm simply sharing my thoughts in a comment thread. How people react or respond is their own prerogative. Generally I appreciate a valid counterpoint if I take a stance that someone disagrees with. The substance of what they say is what's important to me, not the way they choose to word it.

In other words, I don't care if I'm supposedly being insulted as long as the conversation keeps moving along.

...and your considering of my few words about Rush to be a 'psychotic hate Limbaugh routine', is a bit extreme. He's done a great job of de-legitimizing himself anyhow - he certainly doesn't need any help from me.

Hoosier, it's not difficult to determine Jeffrey isn't an avid Maher fan or consistent watcher of the show by what he wrote. His comment starts with, "Let me see if I am getting this right" - so since he wasn't getting it right, I felt the obligation to clarify for him.

Way to call the kettle black with the insults, by the way. How about an intelligent comment on the article instead of introducing yourself into another person's comment by leaving snarky, useless, baseless commentary.

Wow, you're an ignorant bigot. I have no response, since intelligent conversation is not possible with someone who relies on stereotypes and prejudice instead of reality.

Come on now... you don't even watch Real Time. That is apparent by your ignorant comment. Maher is just as critical of the left as he is of the right... unfortunately for those on the right, the recent political candidates have been directly from the funny farm, which doesn't make it easy to empathize with republican ideals.

Maher also is very good about referencing hard facts.

Limbaugh is just a spin-based entertainer.

"the core political contest is between liberty and tyranny"

I wasn't sure if I wanted to respond or not because I'm not sure if you're referring to Stalinism, or if that was a commentary on current politics.

Either way, if you're going to simplify it in terms of 'a contest between liberty and tyranny', we'd be travelling down (falling down?) that rabbit hole just as long discussing that what one person considers liberty, another considers tyrannic.

Government programs such as Medicare could be considered a liberty - an 'inalienable right', if you will, to quality health care. Others have been convinced, ignorantly, that government involved health care is somehow equivalent to the eighth horseman of the apocalypse because of the all the misinformation and scare tactics used against it.

Not speaking for Maher, but my highly abridged and pointed take on the matter is that Stalin was an Authoritarian, and while I understand you have a different view on it, Authoritarianism has been commonly understood to be a "Right Wing" concept. It's important to take into consideration that the meaning of these terms have changed slightly over the past 100 years or so.

Ultimately I'd call Stalin nothing more than a political opportunist. He certainly turned on the left and used the right wing movement to promote his own personal political agenda.

Being a Detroiter, I'll apologize ahead of time for the biased response.

What a snarky, cynical, sheepishly partisan article.

Conveniently omitted from your article is the fact that Chrysler has paid back over $4 Billion worth of government loans.They're also getting hit at 12%! To compare, as of November 2010, AIG had paid back $37 of the $100 Billion they were loaned.

I understand this really sucks for someone who is blindly right wing, but the auto 'bailout' is working out pretty well.

The commercial's intent was to show the willingness and pride the Detroit worker showed by bringing a company that needed a government loan to survive back to innovating again. It's something to be proud of, but unfortunately, as your article shows, it's not politically advantageous to commend a democrat, much less the president.

I certainly know that Detroit has a percentage of adults who disregard personal responsibility. Certainly there are those that play the system and abuse drugs and alcohol. I don't see how that is a problem specific to Detroit, however. Also not lost from your commentary was your fusing of Detroit, Welfare, and Crack. This leads me to believe that perhaps your frustration is not with Detroit as a whole, but just a specific group of Detroiters.