Even more significant, they both claim to be of one political persuasion, but on examination turn out to have an entirely different set of beliefs. O'Reilly claims to be a conservative, but is actually an old-style moralistic democrat. Maher claims to be a Libertarian, but is actually a amoral socialist.

Dave

There is a big difference between Bill Maher and the left wing loons that appear on his show. Most of Maher's guest just spit out the usual Media Matters talking points that have no basis in fact.

Maher himself takes extremely left wing positions on most issues, but he at least educates himself on an issue before speaking about it.

That's why O'Reilly has a lot more respect for Maher than he does most far left people.

I personally agree with Bill Maher on almost nothing, but I respect his point of view because its coming from someone with a grasp on the issues.

People like Sean Penn, Rosie, and the rest are completely ignorant about pretty much everything, but make ridiculous statements anyway.

The difference between Bill O'Reilly and Bill Maher is that one is actually funny. And it's not the one who had homosexual erotic fantasies with falafels and dildos.

Ones a devout Catholic who is honest about it..the other is a jew that pretends to ba an atheist...the only religion he attacks Christianity...

Maher a real phoney...

JOM

"During a time that bipartisanship is supposedly at its height"

I hope that's a typo... :-/

Bill Maher may be a cultural Jew, but, if memory serves, he is pretty much against all religion. He does NOT claim to be an atheist, however. I have heard him state on a # of occasions that he does in fact believe in god. From my perspective, that's unfortunate, but what the hey.

Of course I would take Maher over O'Reilly anytime. O'Reilly is a complete asshole, outdistanced in my opinion only by Rush and the sweet, demure Ms. Coulter, oh and maybe a few of the other right wing radical radio wackos.

However, I am not a great fan of Maher when it comes down to it. It's not his views. I generally agree with him. My problem with him is that his schtick is obviously a major ego trip for him. He doesn't hide it very well.

B-tone

JoM, I think it says a great deal about you that you assume because of his name and his perceived liberalism that Maher is a jew. Although his mother was a non-practicisn Jew, Maher didn't know it until he was grown up and he was in fact raised as a Catholic like his father (and Bil O'Reilly) who is of Irish and Swiss ancestry.

Politically Maher calls himself a libertarian and his views aren't far from those of the libertarian party. Realistically I'd call him a left-libertarian or a socialist/libertarian because he is less of a constitutional libertarian and more of a social issues libertarian. He voted for Bob Dole when Dole ran for president and supports a lot of the more sensible policies which libertarian-leaning Republicans believe in. But along with that he happens to just flat-out hate George W. Bush, and that has pushed his perceived position rather far to the left in the eyes of many.

O'Reilly, on the other hand, presents himself as a conservative, but politically he's much more of a populist/progressive or a 'values' conservative. Like a lot of Catholics he holds basically socialist/unionist views along with socially and morally conservative views on some issues like abortion and sex education and drug laws. He's really the worst sort of conservative - right wing on all the wrong issues and left leaning on all the wrong issues.

Dave

Bill O'Reilly is a conservative/populist who pretends to be objective and moderate. Maher is a leftist who pretends to be a libertarian.

But O'Reilly at least has the guts to go one-on-one on his show with people who disagree with him. Maher insulates himself by having three Marxists and one conservative on his show, and then packs the audience with fellow leftists. Naturally, the conservative gets shouted down and demonized, while Maher gets to pose as a real journalist. Basically, Maher's show is nothing more than a bash-the-conservative-and/or-Republican-fest.

I've been watching Maher on-and-off since his show was on Comedy Central. Back then, it was all about the jokes, and it actually was politically-incorrect and funny. Then he got on ABC, and he became little more than a humorless mouthpiece for the Democrat Party and the Clinton administration. Then he lost that show due to anti-American comments in the wake of 9/11, and eventually got his show on HBO, which is now nothing more than a leftist wank-fest. (But I do give him credit for telling the 9/11 Troofers to go fuck themselves.)

Nalle...I think it says a great deal about you that you assume I assume that Maher is a jew...technically he is... he like other liberal self hating jews publically deny it while bashing christians ...[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] its obvious you watch too much TV..

JOM

JOM, from you I'll take that as a compliment.

Dave

"Basically, Maher's show is nothing more than a bash-the-conservative-and/or-Republican-fest."

There was one show when Maher brought in three conservative guests. And he did it on purpose. And they ganged up on him.

And he's probably better friends with Ann Coulter than O'Reilly is. Only in America.

Rumor from a reliable source has it that JOM writes Maher's material for him.

"...eventually got his show on HBO, which is now nothing more than a leftist wank-fest."

Yes, much worse than Rush Limbaugh's rightist wank-fest...

rj #8: "Then he lost that show due to anti-American comments in the wake of 9/11,..."

Where do you come up with that bull?

He was dumped because the ratings were down and his humor wasn't funny or original.

It's good to see you guys come together in a bipartisan way and both get this subject wrong.

Maher's comments weren't anti-American unless you make up stuff to get offend by. It is braver to fly a plane into a building over firing missiles from far away. It is also crazier and not as smart. But Maher was dumped because his ratings couldn't handle the controversy and loss of advertisers.

You guys should stick to not knowing much about politics and stop straying out into other areas you don't know much about.

"You guys should stick to not knowing much about politics and stop straying out into other areas you don't know much about."

Quoted for Truth

Excelsior?

The most obvious similarity between these guys is that committed people on either side don't take them seriously. They never get below the surface, they have no actual constituencies, and they exert no influence. If either one went off the air, the only people who'd notice would be a few blowhards on the opposite side. Case in point: Maher gets fired all the time, and no one cares.

rj #8: "Then he lost that show due to anti-American comments in the wake of 9/11,..."

Where do you come up with that bull?

He was dumped because the ratings were down and his humor wasn't funny or original.

Cite:

ABC decided not to renew Maher's contract for Politically Incorrect in 2002 after he made a controversial on-air remark on September 17, 2001, in which he agreed with guest conservative political commentator Dinesh D'Souza that the 9/11 terrorists were not cowards, and then went on to say, "We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly."

So, after he called Americans cowards while praising Islamic terrorists in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, he lost his show. Which is pretty much what I said.

Maher's comments weren't anti-American unless you make up stuff to get offend [sic] by...Maher was dumped because his ratings couldn't handle the controversy and loss of advertisers.

Gee, why was there a controversy? Why did he lose advertisers? Could it be because he offended a large number of Americans with his comments?

"Gee, why was there a controversy?"

Because a little known Houston DJ named Dan Patrick (not of ESPN) misrepresented what was said in a newspaper two days later to get a little of the spotlight. Plenty of people who didn't watch the show decided to get offended because they aren't smart enough to think for themselves. It happens far too often in this country.

"Why did he lose advertisers?"

Because some don't know want their products associated with any controversy at all, but they were replaced. The show didn't go commercial free.

"Could it be because he offended a large number of Americans with his comments?"

Considering the show wasn't canceled until May 2002, a full eight months after Maher made his comments, I doubt it, but feel free to cite proof. There's a difference in not renewing a contract and firing someone. Are you saying if his ratings had been better, he still would have been let go? If so, you know less about the television business than I thought.

To see what happens when a large number of Americans get offended by someone in the media, see Don Imus.

As offensive as they may have been, Maher's comments about cowardice were correct. The 9/11 terrorists were horribly misguided fools, but not cowards. They were Islamic Kamikazes.

I don't know that lobbing missiles into a city is altogether cowardly, but it certainly involves a great deal less risk than other means of waging war. It is, for the launcher, antiseptic. Obviously, not so for those targeted. Nevertheless, that is the direction technology is taking us. Push button warfare. Click, boom!

B-tone

I think an argument can be made that if you're crazy enough to think flying a plane into a building with yourself in it is a good idea, then you probably aren't able to make the kind of rational assessment of risk necessary to be brave in the face of danger.

It's not brave to die for a cause when you think you're going to go straight to heaven It's just crazy.

Dave

You can be brave while you're doing evil things. There's no contradiction in it.

There was some speculation that most of the 9/11 terrorists thought they were just going to hijack the planes. Only the leader on each of the planes knew what the real plan was. I don't remember why people thought that.

Dave,

"Courage" comes from many sources. Most acts of so called heroism are made without any "rational assessment of risk." Once again, we are into a semantic argument. Those men were not crazy. It's true that their belief in Allah and their promised ascension into paradise was and is bullshit. Sadly, such beliefs are shared by hundreds of millions of similarly delusional folks. But how many "brave" Americans went to their glory in battle believing they were, by their acts, likely to gain access to and through the pearly gates? Your inability to believe it took courage for those guys to complete their mission is simply your overactive American jingoism run amok.

B-tone

Ooh, a discussion on courageous relativism!

It took a lot of courage for me to go for it on 4th down in my NCAA Football game on Xbox on my own 24 yard line.

No, Baritone, as usual you're reading me wrong. It takes courage to believe in something which will get you dead. No question about that.

But my point is that I'm not sure you can really be brave if you're in an altered mental state where you can't really conceive of death as a real possibility because you've become disassociated from reality, whcih is the state suicide bombers and kamikazes seem to be in.

Dave

That was a great article.

Here's an O'Reilly/Maher distinction though: one is unintentionally funny while the other is unintentionally not funny.

I don't know Dave. What IS bravery after all? If it's an act totally devoid of consideration, is that really bravery? Or is that insanity? Again, a lot of people have gone willingly to their deaths with the belief that they will wind up on the Paradise Express. Does that render their acts less brave? We like to think that truly brave acts are selfless. But few things we do, brave or not, are really selfless. In most instances, doing something without any regard for one's well being is considered crazy. The circumstance of war does not change that. The 9/11 terrorists were, in their minds, at war; at war for Islam, at war for Allah. In their twisted way they acted as true patriots for their cause, making the ultimate sacrifice. The truly evil ones are the gray beards who recruited, trained and sent those men to do the dastardly deed. Most Americans will say they fight for God and country. No particular difference at the behest of our own graybeards - or perhaps more accurately, gray peach fuzzies.

B-tone

It seems to me that bravery is only bravery if you know you're going to endanger yourself and understand the potential consequences and yet engage in that action anyway.

I agree that the hijackers were true patriots/zealots or whatever, but I question whether they really had a full conscious awareness of what they were doing to themselves.

Dave

There was some speculation that most of the 9/11 terrorists thought they were just going to hijack the planes. Only the leader on each of the planes knew what the real plan was. I don't remember why people thought that.

I seem to recall there was some CCTV footage from Boston Logan which analysts interpreted as showing Atta's team freaking out when he told them what the real plan was, just before they boarded the plane.

However, that was during the few weeks after 9/11 when the smallest nuances of evidence were being picked minutely apart in an effort to make sense of it all. So how much weight we should attach to it I don't know.

I'm going dressed as Osama bin Laden tonight.

Is that courage?

Dave,

As to the level of their "awareness," remember, this wasn't a spur of the moment attack. These guys were on the hook for their mission, presumably for months, perhaps years. They had a long time to consider the ramifications of their mission. That certainly points to just how effective and complete their inculcation was.

While I'm certain there have been many acts of bravery by American's in the war zones over the last several years, I'm not sure we could put together a group of 20 people over the course of time to carry out such a mission with the full knowledge that death was a certainty.

I remember the speculation regarding some of the terrorists not knowing the true nature of their mission. As far as we know, however, none backed out. (Of course, it they didn't realize what was going down (no pun intended) until after take off, they really didn't have a choice.)

B-tone

#18 rj: "So, after he called Americans cowards while praising Islamic terrorists in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, he lost his show. Which is pretty much what I said."

Those are opinions.

This is fact: "He was dumped because the ratings were down and his humor wasn't funny or original."

Lap,

This is fact: "He was dumped because the ratings were down and his humor wasn't funny or original."

Hmmm. How do you define "fact." Do you have statistics? Polls taken from live and TV audiences? Testimony that his material was, in fact NOT original? Perhaps you would have found his schtick funny and original if he had been lambasting the left.

RJ

Maher saying that the 9/11 terrorists were not cowards did not rise to the level of praise. It was simply an acknowledgement of the truth of the matter.

B-tone

Baritone: I thought you'd been here long enough to know that re-posting your comment isn't going to work. When that happens, odds are that Akismet has had a brain fart and the only solution is for you to be patient and for me to liberate the poor innocent comment. Happens to me a lot too!

Baritone, the facts (things known to have happened) are as follows:

I asked 9 apolitical comedy club patrons with years of experience watching stand-up comedians live and on television, if they thought Maher's material was funny and original, and whether his 9/11 remarks made any impression on them.

Eight of them said his material wasn't funny or original and one said he couldn't make up his mind. They all agreed that the 9/11 remark didn't influence them one way or another.

Their testimony proves that Maher's show was axed because of his performances, not because he angered people with his 9/11 remarks.

Christopher,

Well, over the course of about 10 minutes the post failed to show up, so I clicked publish a few dozen times just for good measure.

Just trying to keep your day interesting.

B-tone

Lap, it doesn't prove anything. It's still anecodtal.

Maher wasn't funny long before the 9/11 remark and didn't get cancelled, so clearly actually being funny was not a requirement of the job.

I also suspect that standup comedians are not the moral standard by which the networks are judged.

If his 9/11 remark had INCREASED viewers rather than reduced them he would certainly not have been cancelled.

Dave

Maher IS reasonably funny, actually. Not hilarious, mind you, but funny. I guess it depends on one's perspective. Some of you probably thought Hee Haw was a stitch - cutting edge comedy. I must admit, I didn't. But, again, it's a matter of taste. Taste and perspective.

B-tone

Maher's 9/11 utterances had no bearing on the longevity of his 'Politically Incorrect' show whatsoever, as the decision of the 9 judges revealed.

"Plenty of people who didn't watch the show decided to get offended because they aren't smart enough to think for themselves."

Yes, because only stupid people could possibly be offended by Bill Maher praising the bravery of Islamic terrorists six days after the worst terrorist attack in history, while calling Americans "cowards" ...

"To see what happens when a large number of Americans get offended by someone in the media, see Don Imus."

Oh, you mean the same Don Imus who lost his show after making controversial comments, and then got a new show a little while later (kind of like Bill Maher)?

"But my point is that I'm not sure you can really be brave if you're in an altered mental state where you can't really conceive of death as a real possibility because you've become disassociated from reality, which is the state suicide bombers and kamikazes seem to be in."

Exactly right. Islamic suicide bombers truly believe that, by going through with their attacks, they will be rewarded by Allah (God) with 72 virgins who they will then get to play with (fuck) for all eternity. In other words, they honestly believe they will be rewarded for their participation in these attacks. There is no "bravery" involved in trading your current, mediocre life for an eternity in paradise, if that's what you really believe is going to be the outcome (as these lunatics certainly did).

Also, it needs to be pointed out that in these comments, Maher was denouncing the United States military for the use of cruise missiles and such. While there is not much bravery involved in pushing a button, it is a strawman argument to suggest that the entire US military does nothing but press buttons from thousands of miles away, while machines do all the work. In fact, while Maher was saying this, USAF pilots were being shot at while patrolling the No-Fly zone over Iraq, as they had been for years. And in the aftermath of 9/11, Bush and the Congress sent hundreds of thousands of soldiers and Marines into ground combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, which certainly isn't evidence of American "cowardice" ... but then, naturally, Maher opposed this action. Apparently, Maher prefers a foreign policy he can mock as "cowardly" to a foreign policy that is anything but...

"While I'm certain there have been many acts of bravery by American's in the war zones over the last several years, I'm not sure we could put together a group of 20 people over the course of time to carry out such a mission with the full knowledge that death was a certainty."

The Doolittle Raid was a borderline suicide mission, but was hardly bereft of volunteers. And both Gary Gordon and Randall Shughart were well aware of the situation on the ground when they volunteered for it.

But, in a sense, you're correct. You probably couldn't get 20 American citizens (out of 300 million) to plan for years and carry out a suicide attack against thousands of innocent civilians. However, I don't believe that means Americans are less courageous than Islamic terrorists. Bill Maher apparently disagrees...

Scheisst. Finding two people with identical opinions about Bill Maher is like finding two people who want the same pizza toppings.

"There was one show when Maher brought in three conservative guests. And he did it on purpose. And they ganged up on him."

Well, at least there was one show like that...

"And he's probably better friends with Ann Coulter than O'Reilly is."

I think Maher is fucking her. (There's no accounting for taste.)

You know Bill Maher's a comic, right? If you allow yourself to get offended by anything he says, then yes, you are stupid. Either that or a 12-year-old girl. Why would you give someone else that power over you?

Imus didn't finish the week. Maher completed his contract months later. If you think the public reactions were the same, you weren't paying attention.

Speaking of strawmen, "Maher was denouncing the United States military for the use of cruise missiles and such."

Not according to him. From "The O'Reilly Factor" on September 20:

MAHER: What I was talking about was the policy making body of this country, which has not responded and had not responded before this, to terrorism the way they should."

"ground combat in Iraq and Afghanistan,... but then, naturally, Maher opposed this action."

On Larry King 8/14/07 in response to King saying Afghanistan was right to go into Maher said, "Afghanistan was right. Exactly." Please cite where Maher opposed going into Afghanistan or are you making that up as well?

All of a sudden everybody is spastic about something Maher said 4 (or so) years ago. Maher did support our incursion into Afghanistan, but not the Iraq war.

Taken in context his statement about the apparent courage of the 9/11 terrorists was, as I've stated, accurate. Does anybody imagine that any of them were cowering in the rear of the planes pissing themselves in abject terror? There supposed "altered state" was likely little different than anyone going into battle or even football players before a game with adrenaline flowing.

The refusal to concede that those quys acted bravely, is simply the refusal to humanize the enemy. They weren't demons. They were men. How can we hope to overcome Islamic terrorism if we don't realize that they are not devils or crazed nutballs, but rather, incredibly devout and dedicated people on a mission to defeat us.

Neither Maher, nor I are praising the terrorists. But it serves us well to give them their due. Humanizing them perhaps may allow us to realize how dangerous they are.

By comparison, lobbing missiles into a heavily populated area isn't exactly a "Rambo" moment, now is it?

American jingoism is in full flower here at BC.

B-tone

Jack Mehoffer!

In the traditional Greek structure, there are four virtues: prudence, temperance, justice, and fortitude (or courage). The Greeks saw each virtue playing its proper role in moderation. Absence or excess of a virtue constitutes a vice. Acting impulsively shows a lack of prudence; inaction results from an excess of prudence.

You could argue that the hijackers displayed an excess of fortitude, or displayed the virtue of fortitude unchecked by the virtue of justice. You can't argue that US airmen show cowardice. They fly missions which have an inherent risk. If they landed their planes behind enemy lines, and ran around punching the enemies, that would be an excess of fortitude.

I've got no problem calling the hijackers brave. Maher was probably thinking in these terms when he made his comment. Thing is, you can exercise virtues in terrible ways. Germany was just in its anger over the Treaty of Versailles.

"How can we hope to overcome Islamic terrorism if we don't realize that they are not devils or crazed nutballs, but rather, incredibly devout and dedicated people on a mission to defeat us."

We probably can't. When's the last time you heard of an American so dedicated and devout (and stupid) that he'd commit suicide for his country?

And is America (or any country) worth committing suicide for?

Better to survive and fight another day.

Clavos,

I agree with you, but remember the 9/11 terrorists and other suicide bombers were and are not fighting for a country, but for their god. I suppose there are a number of people who have or will in effect commit suicide for one country or another. I suspect most such actions, though will more likely be done first for a god - perhaps for "god and country," probably in that order.

I tend to accept English writer/philosopher A.C. Grayling's position that nationalism is no less destructive than other divisive issues - religion, race, culture, or most other means by which we create and join groups, clubs, etc., in an effort to set ourselves apart from others.

B-tone

Point taken, B-tone; I DID mix ideology with nationality.

And I think you're right that religion is generally a more powerful motivator than nationalism, though not being religious myself, I find it bizarre.

Clav,

Obviously, so do I. Not only bizarre, but dangerous. Rational thinking has little leverage against true believers and their star struck notion of eternal paradise.

Just a thought about those 72 virgins that are supposedly part of the martyr's booty (ha, ha.) After all, given we are talking eternity, are 72 really enough? How do you space them out? Also, once defiled, what happens to the sullied Vee girls? Do they get re-virginized? Or do the dead martyrs get together to stone them just for kicks? How about the virgin procurement section in paradise? They must be working overtime, dontcha think? Maintaining the inventory must be a bitch. Old Allah's gotta keep cranking them out. Seventy-two virgins for every one martyr. Also, what do female bombers get? Seventy-two cherry swingin dicks? Questions, questions.

B-tone

You know Bill Maher's a comic, right? If you allow yourself to get offended by anything he says, then yes, you are stupid.

So, the people who got offended at comedian Michael Richards' attempt at humor at the Laugh Factory were also "stupid" in your estimation?

Not according to him. From "The O'Reilly Factor" on September 20:

MAHER: What I was talking about was the policy making body of this country, which has not responded and had not responded before this, to terrorism the way they should.

Well, yes, three days after the fact, he was desperately trying to "clarify" his statement. You know, because of the major national controversy (that you don't think was a controversy) that ensued after he made those offensive comments (which you don't think were offensive).

If you are wasting time being offended by Kramer, then yeah, that's stupid. Why would you ever care enough about what anyone else says? Life is too short. If you look for it, people say stupid stuff all the time. In fact, it's their right, but if you want your delicate sensibilities to be offended, don't let me stop you from crying a river. I have better things to do then sit around throwing pity parties because someone said something I didn't like, but then I don't have a bloated sense of self worth.

"the major national controversy (that you don't think was a controversy)"

Right. Of course that doesn't explain why in my first post on this thread I wrote "Maher was dumped because his ratings couldn't handle the controversy" or why I responded to your question "why was there a controversy?"

I did say it wasn't as big a controversy as Imus, so either you have poor reading comprehension and critical thinking skills or you are stalling for time because you are unable to back your claims that Maher was against Afghanistan?

Of course, you could always step up and admit you were wrong.

btw, if the comments were so offensive, it's rather callous of you to bring them up and re-offend people with them.

"If you are wasting time being offended by Kramer, then yeah, that's stupid."

So, nothing can be offensive, as long as the person saying it claims they meant it in jest?

"Why would you ever care enough about what anyone else says? Life is too short."

Then why do you keep responding to my replies? :-/

"btw, if the comments were so offensive, it's rather callous of you to bring them up and re-offend people with them."

That's an interesting point-of-view...

How's about this: You like Bill Maher and feel the need to defend him. I don't like Bill Maher and feel the need to point out his flaws and past controversies.

He's clearly moved on. Perhaps we should as well? :-/

"And in the aftermath of 9/11, Bush and the Congress sent hundreds of thousands of soldiers and Marines into ground combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, which certainly isn't evidence of American "cowardice" ..."

But what about the hundreds of thousands of military age who chose to avoid going. Would that be evidence of cowardice...?

Spare the double talk and subject changes. I don't feel the need to defend Maher. I feel the need to dispute your incorrect statements but don't worry, I am now done with this subject. We'll just pretend it's just a coincidence that you want to move on while you have yet to to back your claims that Maher was against Afghanistan among your other errors.

Bush and Congress sending troops into Iraq wasn't so much cowardly - although you didn't see W or any other DC wonks slogging through the sand in full battle gear - as it was simply stupid.

Virtually everything the Bush administration has done has played right into the hands of Bin Laden and Al Qaida. There are more devoted Islamic terrorists now than ever. There are far more people throughout the world who truly hate us than ever before (except maybe during WWII when we weren't real popular in Germany or Japan.) Even during the cold war the concensus was that while the Soviets feared our military capability, just as we feared theirs, generally, they didn't hate us. Now we are reviled by many who at one time, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, were in our camp. Good job W!

B=tone

^ Dittos, B-tone.

'mother fucker' - I wish that you'd stop using the term 'dittos'...it's creepy

Bring the fat man to mind, does it?

Maher's comments re 9/11 may have been ill-considered, but he certainly didn't intend them as praise for the terrorists.

He said it took more bravery to participate in a suicide mission than to drop remote-control bombs. This is not literally untrue. And bravery is not always put to good purpose.

In the recent PBS series on WWII, The War, several American veterans recall what amazingly good soldiers the Nazis were in combat. This doesn't mean they sympathized with the enemy cause.

And Bill O'Reilly is just a bloviating bully. He has people he disagrees with on the show primarily to attempt to belittle and humiliate them, charmingly cutting off the mikes of those who unexpectedly get the better of him. He does allow Barney Frank and Charlie Rangel to come on and argue, possibly because, since they are far smarter than he is, their rhetorical abilities raise the entertainment level.

RJ is the most literal-minded and least reasonable poster on here sometimes, although he is apparently smart enough not to be. Brainwashed by Rush and O'Reilly, I guess.

Brainwashed by [...] O'Reilly, I guess.

Comment #8:

"Bill O'Reilly is a conservative/populist who pretends to be objective and moderate."

My frequent disagreeing with you does not equal brainwashing. K? Thx.

^ So now you're pretending not to be a Dittohead...?

OK, "brainwashed" is perhaps a low blow.

But isn't each of us better off expressing his own opinion in his own words?

Maybe I'm just imagining things, but some of the opinions expressed by RJ [and by some others who appear here less frequently], and even the exact wording of them, for example concerning David Brock and Media Matters, seem to come directly from other sources, perhaps Limbaugh, perhaps other noise machine web sites.

Repeating other folks' words and opinions, especially when they take the form of ugly insults to third parties, is not exactly the highest form of expression, eh?

Let's all think for ourselves.

handy;
No, you're not imagining things.

Bill Mayer tries to be objective on his remarks, but he is always bouncing around in what he believes in. He is say there is no God, but he will say be believes in a higher power of some sort....What really gets to me, why guys like him think they have a real message to the public.
While all the time he classified as a comedian a clown who wants to be taking seriously !

"But isn't each of us better off expressing his own opinion in his own words?"

I certainly do that, unless I'm citing something. I suspect the same goes for you.

"Maybe I'm just imagining things, but some of the opinions expressed by RJ [and by some others who appear here less frequently], and even the exact wording of them, for example concerning David Brock and Media Matters, seem to come directly from other sources, perhaps Limbaugh, perhaps other noise machine web sites."

Well, some of what you [and some others who appear here] have to say sounds like the sort of leftist tripe that could be found on any number of nutroots blogs. That doesn't mean you're engaging in plagiarism; it just means you have similar opinions and use similar arguments.

In other words, it works both ways. And it shouldn't be surprising that conservatives as a group generally have the same or similar opinions on most issues, and that "progressives" as a group generally have the same or similar opinions on most issues.

Plagiarism is not the issue, exactly. Our opinions have more validity when they are really our own, based on examination and reasoning.

When it's just "Rush said this, so I'll repeat it, yeah!" [or if I used David Brock's opinions as my own], the result is far less meaningful. And when it's a sophomoric insult being repeated, it's far worse. [i.e. "leftist tripe," "nutroots." Are you actually proud of yourself when you write that kind of worthless, mean-spirited foolishness? Grow up.

If you're saying you'll give full attribution from now on when parroting Limbaugh, I look forward to seeing it. If you catch me repeating others' words without attribution, feel free to point it out. Good luck with that.

Just saw that RJ and I have the two top spots in "most read articles" today - and last night also, with the positions reversed. [Both are non-political articles.] And I don't mean to prolong a nasty back-and-forth. But I did feel the need, in the posts above, to point out something I'd noticed.

When it's just "Rush said this, so I'll repeat it, yeah!"

When have I ever done that? Care to provide a cite?

If you're saying you'll give full attribution from now on when parroting Limbaugh, I look forward to seeing it.

I "parrot" no one. Please re-read comment #69, this time more s-l-o-w-l-y.

By the way, did you coin the phrase "noise machine" handyguy? Or did you perhaps learn it from your pals at Media Matters?

Hopefully now you see the absurdity of your argument...

I no longer expect you to be reasonable. No problem.

"Care to provide a cite?"

This coming from the guy who has yet to prove his assertion that Maher was against Afghanistan. Thanks for the laugh.

I thought you were "now done with this subject" El Bicho? ;-)

"I no longer expect you to be reasonable."

Interesting non-response, handyguy...

I guess by "reasonable" you mean just agreeing with whatever it is you say?