Have They Lost Their Maher-bles?
March 4, 2007 at 8:25 am
Uh, oh. Now Bill Maher’s done it. He’s got C-SPAN’s attention and earned this morning’s C-SPAN call-in question:
Political name calling: When Inappropriate?
The question is based equal parts on the Ann Coulter CPAC remark about John Edwards and Bill Maher saying he regrets the Dick Cheney assassination attempt was unsuccessful.
Callers don’t seem pleased with political name calling. For C-SPAN, the phrasing of the question would make Emily Post proud. Hopefully, neither Coulter nor Maher — two friends — also inappropriately use their dessert spoon when their soup spoon is called for.
mosquito said,
March 4, 2007 @ 9:12 am
Bill Maher is the exception that proves the rule–hate speech is neither characteristic nor typical of the left.
Maher is an entertainer and I wonder if he sometimes gives shocking statements to increase his ratings….Maher’s friendship with Coultier is well known so it’s possible they “play” off each other.
I do prefer Maher to Coultier….At least Maher is able to “intelligently” back up many of his statments and he has some talent…unlike Coultier who appears to only have the ability to sputter “shock” statements to get attention.
rooster said,
March 4, 2007 @ 10:29 am
Mosquito, your comments reveal a lack of seriousness on your part.
Jack said,
March 4, 2007 @ 10:47 am
Yeah, I’m sorry buddy, but if you read a broad selection of political commentary, you’ll notice that ‘hate speech’ is thrown around by both sides. Take a look at a few of the lefty blogs if you’d like more than few examples that disprove your rule.
Dasher said,
March 4, 2007 @ 11:51 am
From my experience the left is way over the top with hate speech.. they use it every day… Is calling the President a Nazi hate speech.. I think so. Survey’s show the left uses obscene language 40 times as much as the right.
The left is also very racist, but somehow… the MSM let them get away with it. Something they would never do with the right.
What is behind Ann Coulter’s statement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q
w3 said,
March 4, 2007 @ 11:58 am
Hate is an insidious emotion that can be expressed in far less overt ways than is employed by the likes of Coulter and Maher. For example, I can read hatred in the comments of “Mosquito” who is trying to imply that Coulter is the rule, Maher is the exception and at least Maher is justified in his hatred.
If ridicule is considered to be a degree of hatred, the left has at least as many shining examples from which to pull as has the right. I would hardly call labeling someone a “global warming denier”, “part of a vast right wing conspiracy”, or “religious nut” a term of endearment. One need look no further than the chairman of the DNC himself who said, “I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for,” and who declared that conservatives have never made on honest living in their lives, and declared Tom DeLay deserving of jail time when he has not been convicted. Who does Howard Dean hate when he says on one TV program that the Democrats stand for marriage being between a man and a woman and then on another program says he supports measures to change the definition of marriage? Treating your audience like buffoons can be considered a form of hatred, can it not?
My comments would be many more times longer than the original post if I continued to post the vile rhetoric of Howard Dean, leader of the Democrat Party. I only mean to demonstrate that mosquito is not correct in her or his assertion that Maher is the exception to a rule of love and respect on the part of the left.
xamichee said,
March 4, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
Dasher,
Deducing that Edwards is a homosexual from a youtube clip of him making sure his hair is OK is like me deducing Bush is a nazi from a youtube clip of him giving you the finger.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Og2WU7esbnY
So, yeah. Fuck you wingnuts. Saying Bush is a Nazi isn’t hate speech. And it doesn’t violate Godwin’s Law when your regime has achieved the 14 characteristics of a fascist state. See, it’s not hate speech when it’s true.
Same reason “Daily Show” is funny and “1/2 Hour News Hour” isn’t. The former is funny because it points out the truth, while the latter bases its jokes on division, petty name calling and gratuitous insult.
Get a brain. Morans! GO USA.
mosquito said,
March 4, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
We3said–I can’t control what you (or others) may want to project upon my writing. But nowhere do I say that someone (Maher included) is justified when they utter a hate speech statement.
I stand by my statement that it is typical of the right wing neocons to utilize hate speech….and it is not characteristic of the left.
buzz…buzz…
Phillep said,
March 4, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
Mosquito, is it the Left or the Right saying that the Iraqis are unable to achieve Democracy? Is it “hate speech” to imply they are inherently inferior to the West?
Both the Right and Left says domestic violence is bad, yet which says “it’s their culture” when it comes to Honor Killing? Doesn’t this imply Moslems are inherently incapable of civilized behavior? Isn’t that “hate speech”?
Consider “equal opportunity” in education. Doesn’t lowering entry standards for certain minorities imply they are inherently inferior to Whites and assorted oriental groups? That’s not “hate speech”?
Al Franken and Ann Coulter both use “edgy humor”, Ann less than Al. Yet Ann is guilty of “hate speech” and Al is not?
gm said,
March 4, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
—-So, yeah. Fuck you wingnuts.—
Oh the sweetness and purity of planet lefty! How much more loving and caring lefties are than those evil, dark conservatives. How can you lefties bear to have your essential goodness shadowed in the slightest by the dark side?
Instead of spending our time simply hurling affectionate, pet names at each other, let us consider a recent operational measurement of anger in the blogosphere. Intapunk proposed a contest to measure the use of profanity on left wing and evil, nasty, hating, fascist rightwing sites. The hatred of course is operationalized to the use of the 7 dirty words from George Carlin.
Gateway pundit responded with the results of this measurement and I think it is simply remarkable. Left wing sites use these words in the range of 35 to 40 times more than right wing sites. Almost astounding. (of course to be fair one of the most hateful of the right wing sites (free republic) often posts quotes from the loving caring leftist sites so may actually have an inflated “hate measure”)
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/03/seven-words-you-can-never-say-on.html
I am simply appreciative that lefties maintain the high standards of discourse that they do. It may be due to their frustration of having gotten a college degree in womens studies, queer studies, hispanic studies, african-american studies and then having to work at a second hand clothing store. I know that would make me mad.
Or it may be brain damage from the ingestion or inhalation of subtances.
All I can say is — medicate yourselves!
w3 said,
March 4, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
Mosquito,
A refutation of your assertions in list format:
1. “justified” means - proven or shown to be just, right, or reasonable. You assert that Bill Maher “is able to “intelligently” back up many of his statments [sic]”. What else do you mean if you do not mean that Bill Maher justifies his hatred. What I mean to say is that, in both of your posts you assert but do not justify that Bill Maher is the exception to the rule of love on the part of the left. You imply but do not justify that the right is ruled by hate speech. You are not yet justified in your assertions. However you do claim that Bill Maher, by “backing up” what he says, has provided proof sufficient unto you of his claims and is justified. If you did not find his evidence to support his assertion you would have chosen a phrase other than “back up”. You are giving a quality to Bill Maher’s evidence that implies you find it satisfactorily supports the hateful assertion.
2. “right wing neocon” is a hateful ad hominem attack which provides evidence that Bill Maher is not the only hateful person on the left side of the political spectrum. Those who employ it mean to use it as a term of derision which is another form of hatred.
3. You may stand by it, but you have not proven your assertion, clearly stated in your second post if only implied in your first, that the right employs hate speech and the left does not. You have left on this blog a string of opinions, but no fact.
4. You do not refute my repeated examples of hatred employed by the current leadership of the Democrat Party which leaves me wondering if you either agree with Howard Dean but do not see his comments as hateful or whether you agree that they are hateful but destroy your assertion of a loving political left.
Kit Winterer said,
March 4, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
I’d comment that this is another example of their political correctness destrying what once was a very interesting network: C-Span. Since their adoption of pc phone lines, their programming, particularly Washington Journal has become unviewable. They never stop hate speech regardless of which line is being used. Anyone who compares them to before the pc lines (used to be distributed geographically but now effectively are; leftists who hate Bush, leftists pretending to be independents who hate bush, and leftists pretending to be Republicans who hate Bush, I certainly heard much worse than either of these comments on CSPAN as well as lots of lies with no questioning of the authority of the ranter. I think that Cspan has become much like NPR with no class.
mosquito said,
March 4, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
w3said
I “meant” that Maher backs up his arguments in general….this does not include his hate speech remark. Ann Coultier’s statements are so interlaced with outrageous claims and hate speech there’s no way I can take her seriously…nor do I take seriously those who “follow her” and defend her hate speech. Just my opinion…you can agree or disagree.
I do not think that ANYONE (including Maher) is “justified” in using hate speech…i.e. advocating violent acts.
Choose to believe whatever you wish….I say that hate speech is far more commonplace on the right than it is the left. Numerous folks, Pat Robertson, BIll O’Reilly, Ann Coultier, Rush the flush Limbaugh commonly utilize hate speech. We will hear Maher’s hate speech example utilized ad nauseum by the neocon rightwing extremists faction and the vast majority of progressives, such as myself, will not back Maher up for his hate speech comment.
In case you have not gotten the message….once again…I strongly disagree with Maher concerning his hate speech remark and I do not believe his remark was justified.
On the other hand I continue to believe that hate speech is a rarity on the left and commonplace in the right wing faction. There are numerous examples of hate speech on the right (besides the notables I just listed.) For example Frank Gaffney, “one of the country’s most influential and well-connected neoconservatives,” MISquoted Abraham Lincoln (i.e. Lincoln NEVER said ” Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. “) to argue that a Senator should be hung for treason for debating the Iraq war. (source:http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/02/14/neoconservatism/index.html?
Glenn Reynolds advocates killing radical mullahs and Iranian atomic scientists
(source http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion_columnists/article/0,2777,DRMN_23972_5363932,00.html)
Michelle Malkin’s latest book said that interning Japanese Americans during WWII was appropriate (source http://mediamatters.org/items/200408110001)
…to name just a few examples of recent right wing hate speech….
I was able to come up with those examples in approximately 15 minutes. It’s not difficult to find hate speech among neocon conservatives. It’s prolific unfortunately.
I am “grateful” for my conservative friends and a few folks who are “right wing” who don’t support hate speech and are willing to speak out against it.
buzz…buzz
Lee Annis said,
March 4, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
Harold Meyerson and Howard Dean, to name at least 2 lefties, are every bit as vicious as Coulter, if not more so. Dean’s right on one thing, though; Coulter should apologize. The 3 main GOP presidential candidates(Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney) have all condemned her recent cheap shot at John Edwards, the favored candidate of the trial lawyer community. unfortunately, Dean has never apologized for the many meanspirited statements he made in his first 2 years as chairman, nor has he seen fit to condemn the recent cheap shots at longtime Democratic fundraiser David Geffen.
Jo said,
March 4, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
Ann is Emily Post compared to the Left.
The Right must be winning if the lefties are all in an uproar over this. Yeeeehaw.
papertiger said,
March 4, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
Which party is it that insists that murdering unborn children is every parents right?
The Torrettes party . Hateful? Oh your damn right it is.
Which party is it that insists that sub tropical populations must be subjected to insect born deadly diseases rather then allow them use of DDT?
The spite party. buzz buzz
Which party invented the science of social apartheit in order to justify their subjugation of colored people, kept them in involuntary servitude, then waged a 100 year guerilla war to keep them from voting?
The Lynching party.
Diocletian said,
March 4, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
Ann Coulter’s remark was mild compared to the words used by many on the left to refer to Mark Foley and Ted Haggard’s homosexuality. The left is prepared to toss gays under the bus when needed for political gain, there’s no doubt about that.
Diocletian said,
March 4, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
Don’t forget that it was a member of Edwards’ own staff who said: “What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?” and Edwards supported her. So any claim of offense from Edwards about Coulter’s remark seems a little trite don’t ya think?
w3 said,
March 4, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
After working for more time than it is worth gathering quotes of vile rhetoric of the left, I clicked submit and was told my code was not valid and my post erased. So I will not bother any longer proving what is true about the left. You need only look up the writings of Ellen Goodman, the quotes of Howard Dean, the radio transcripts of Mike Webb and Randi Rhodes, the violent threats against enemies of ELF and other leftists eco terrorist groups and this, a quote from Hillary Clinton:
“Every nation has to either be with us or against us. Those who harbor terrorists or who finance them are going to pay a price.” Hillary Clinton, September 13, 2001.
No, the rhetoric of violence is not the sole domain the political right.
gm said,
March 4, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
—Glenn Reynolds advocates killing radical mullahs and Iranian atomic scientists—
You didn’t read Reynolds response to Campos (whom he described as “beclowned”) in his description of the Campos’ argument.
Lets see who indulged in the same “hate speech”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~“`
Two Democratic Senators Feinstein and Biden in 1998 asked FBI Director Louis Freeh if assasination (of terrorists) would be legal and Feinstein said “arrest of terrorists is the best option but said that other “robust” strategies should be considered”
Also Renolds says “In 1998, Senator Charles S. Robb stated that if Hussein continued to defy the United Nations, the United States should consider changing the executive order forbidding the assassination of foreign leaders”
George Stephanopoulos, wrote: “A misreading of the law or misplaced moral squeamishness should not stop the president from talking about assassination. He should order up the options and see if it’s possible. If we can kill Saddam, we should.”
http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/02/post_2708.php
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It should be noted that in history, leaders are sometimes targeted, the Japanese admiral Yamamoto for example.
It is obvious that you really don’t understand “hate speech” is really and in this case are misidentifying the discussion of tactics in a possible (or currently ongoing) war. Perhaps this is why the left engages in hate speech so much, they may share your fundamental misunderstanding.
Laika's Last Woof said,
March 5, 2007 @ 1:45 am
“Saying Bush is a Nazi isn’t hate speech … See, it’s not hate speech when it’s true.”
So that would make you kind of like the White Rose, wouldn’t it?
w3 said,
March 5, 2007 @ 8:10 am
As if on cue, Patterico brings you, No Hate Speech by Prominent Leftists?
http://patterico.com/2007/03/05/5901/leftist-hate-speech/
Bill Smith said,
March 5, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
Hey…don’t stop now: this thread is just getting interesting & seems to be a top comment destination!