Posted on 03/08/2012 3:22:38 PM PST by Brad from Tennessee
Liberal talk show host Bill Maher this week defended conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh from critics he suggested were promoting a “fatwa,” or ideological judgment, by attempting to intimidate him off the air.
"Chris Matthews got it right talking about me today: of course what #RushLimbaugh said was vile but I don't like fatwas! Ur beating a dead pig — Bill Maher (@billmaher) March 8, 2012"
and. . .
"Hate to defend #RushLimbaugh but he apologized, liberals looking bad not accepting. Also hate intimidation by sponsor pullout — Bill Maher (@billmaher) March 7, 2012"
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Obviously self-serving on Maher’s part since he said things far worse than Rush.
The friend of my enemy is my friend... er enemy.. or something like that.
Maher is only doing this because the heat has been on him to apologize to Sarah Palin for the disgusting things he has said about her..he will NEVER apologize to her, so instead he is half ass standing up for Rush..he’d rather defend Rush then ever apologize to a Conservative woman
Oh this is rich. NOW he wants to cover his ass?
The left would gladly sell out Maher if it meant taking down Limbaugh, and Maher knows it.
Hence, the defense.
Boycotts are the purest form of free speech.
Rush and Maher are both big boys (or pretend to be).
Say what you want but don’t cry like little toddlers when you don’t like the outcome.
Even when they are organized and financed by those with ulterior, communist motives?
True, but if Maher has any sense at all he should know that once Rush is silenced and precedent is set , who's to say we won't get a government hostile to Mahar and he won't be silenced. What most of these leftists don't get that the 1st amendment protects unpopular speech, since popular speech needs no protection. This is why conservatives don't go in for the leftist tactic of silencing the opposition.
This way, next time he offends someone, he can apologize and say, “hey I supported Rush’s apology.”
Maher knows he can continue spewing his disgusting comments because he only answers to HBO..HBO is a leftist network, so he knows that he is safe. What is the worst that can happen to HBO, a bunch of people stop subscribing to their network, but they still have the leftists who will continue paying for HBO so they know they have nothing to worry about. I have Time Warner Cable(Trust me I want to get rid of them but I dont have many options for Internet here so that is why we stick with them) they offered us HBO for free for a year, we refused, wouldn’t watch that garbage no matter what
Bill Maher is a queynte.
There are always satellite services (WildBlue, Hughes, etc). And even Dish and DirectTV offer Internet services although not as effective as those strictly Internet.
Right now our bill is 120 bucks a month(I know, total rip off for what we get!) have 1 DVR HD box and 1 HD box, plus internet..comes out to 89.99 plus the cost of the boxes and the tiers(Sports tiers, etc, you have to pay extra to watch certain channels like Lifetime Movie Network, a channel my Mom watches), we were getting showtime for free(Even though we never watched it) but once they jacked up the price to 15 dollars we got rid of it. If we were to switch to Dish Network or Directv, the internet would become 50 bucks a month since we would no longer be in the package bundle, that is how they get you
Free speech is free speech ... even if you don’t agree with it.
I lot of rightists don’t understand free speech either.
I don’t agree with your across the board declaration that that conservatives don’t go in for silencing the opposition. Many do.
Situational ethics is rampant on both sides.
The big difference between the two is that Rush called Sandra Fluke a slut to be funny and ironic.
Maher called Palin a c*nt to be hateful.
At least this Mongo knows he's pawn in game of life...
I'm not disagreeing, I'm just asking if it is really free speech when it is not "free" and paid for speech.....speech that is promoted with commie money.
IOW, juxtapose the Tea Party vs paid zealots who are not spontaneous but rather paid to agitate.
IOW, would they be speaking if not for the money?
IMO, that is not free speech, it is purchased, fraudulent speech.
The same case could be made against the tea party and many other organizations.
The same argument is being made in oppoisition to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
You enter believe in freedom of speech or you don’t. It’s an absolutists issue.
Just because someone has more money to get a louder megaphone doesn’t mean it isn’t free speech.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.