Looks like Bill Maher must be dethroned as "Rush of the Left"

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Jesus Christ these people are clowns. Bill Maher's ideology is clearly Bill Maher and I have no idea what in God's name Alexandra Pelosi even thinks she's doing.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Jesus Christ these people are clowns. Bill Maher's ideology is clearly Bill Maher and I have no idea what in God's name Alexandra Pelosi even thinks she's doing.

Trying to break out of Mommy's shadow as a legitimate filmmaker, I suppose.

A brief review of descriptions of her work at The Wikipedia seems to indicate that she was more legitimate some weeks ago than she is now.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Even if this particular thing that Maher said is worse than this particular thing that Limbaugh said--which purely in terms of the words used it is, bearing in mind that Limbaugh's sentiments were worse even though his language wasn't and that this isn't even beginning to scratch the surface of the self-promoting amoral sleaze that is both men--his relevance to American politics is of course significantly lower.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Where did idea that Bill Maher's some kind of Democratic equivalent to Rush Limbaugh come from?

There is no moral equivalence being asserted. What Maher has done is orders of magnitude worse.

...well, since there's essentially no way for me to point out everything that is just inherently wrong with this sentence, I'll just settle for calling you a cognitively-impaired Republisheep ding-dong and leave it at that.

There is no way to point anything wrong with my statement because it is empirically true.

If you are going to criticize some people on the other side for noting that what Maher said was objectively worse and least have the basic respect for the truth not to put words in their mouths. Whether, they are right or wrong, analytically brilliant, or "cognitively imparied," or leaders or followers, I can cite example after example where they have clearly argued that what Maher said was objectively worse than anything Limbaugh ever said about Fluke.

Said or done? Even if (as I happen to agree with you on, but as I don't think either of our opinions on are really relevant) what Bill Maher said was worse, what Rush Limbaugh has done to political discourse through his words and actions, in this case and in others, is staggeringly worse than what Bill Maher has done.

Also, who the Hell made you the arbiter of what is 'objectively worse' to say, even? Are you, for instance, using a praxis that ignores the fact that Limbaugh told Fluke to make a sex tape, which rises into pretty similar territory to what Maher has said about Sarah Palin and her family? How are you so sure that oh-what-Limbaugh-said-was-okay-because-he-didn't-mean-it and not similarly defensive of Maher, who unlike Limbaugh actually does purport to be a comedian, even though he is obviously an incredibly bad and inexcusably insensitive one?

Why are we even still talking about this? What relevance has any of this to any actual issues? None whatsoever, and rightfully so, in Maher's case, other than the fact that he's a rich asshole and can donate to SuperPACs and make himself and the SuperPACs look bad. Rightfully none whatsoever, too, in Limbaugh's case, but unfortunately Limbaugh still wields a great amount of influence.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Thank you for numbering your points, I'll respond to them by number rather than continuing to nest quotes if that's all right with you.

A.

1. I'm not sure if it's different inside your echo chamber, but if Limbaugh has heightened the level of discourse in this case it's by acting so that the steam that he has blown off will be perceived as unacceptable in the future, since poll after poll after poll shows that he is not on the side of the American people on whether or not it is acceptable to use the language and level of argument that he did under these circumstances. If the discourse does die down and become more civil, which I agree with you that it probably will after emotions run their course on this asinine subject, it's going to be hard, to say the least, to credit Limbaugh for that in any positive sense. Limbaugh hasn't actually 'energized' or 'mobilized' anybody other than the BigSkyBobs with his comments. He certainly hasn't won anybody over.

2. Next time try to make your argumenta ad populum a little less blatant. Millions of people can listen to any old misogynistic windbag. Or watch. Millions of people watch Bill Maher, another old misogynistic windbag my characterization of whom as such you clearly agree with.

3. I agree with this in its entirety. I'm not advocating censorship of Limbaugh but I maintain the right to criticize his views and the gutter rhetoric that he uses to express them.

B.

1. I was attacking you for claiming that your take is objective, not for the fact that you have a take. I could say it's subjectively worse to call someone a slut since I know women who would be more offended by slut, but you're making of it an objective hierarchy, which I don't feel is appropriate.

2. No, I understand that Limbaugh often does that, but I understand that he's also at times entirely serious about the things that he says. Motivation and intent are certainly part of any moral or ethical judgment but they're not the only parts of it. I've had to interact with enough misogynists to come to the opinion that Limbaugh seems serious here. It's your right to not think that he is, but again, I'd question why you don't think the same of or admit of the possibility that the same is true of Maher, who has many of the same tendencies (which both you and I seem to dislike).

3. I don't actually think there's a comedian's exception in this case but I'd disagree with you that in general Limbaugh is as close as or closer to being able to invoke that than Maher is. Limbaugh is a comedian in that he is occasionally funny (maybe even frequently, according to one's sense of humor) but he has been, I think it fair to say, mainly focused on political activism over the years.

C.

It will remain but it will accrue to the SuperPAC rather than to a campaign which is not supposed to coordinate with it and whose object, Obama, opposes the SuperPAC setup and, to be quite frank, seems like he might not understand very well what he can and can't do with it. It will also probably remain a distinctly minor issue to most people who are not us, which we of course are perfectly free to like or dislike.