Nope.
Same bread, different butter.
'Fact'-based. Well-researched. 'Funny'. 'Cares about the issues.'. The works.

I don't think so. It's not the same bread at all. Coulter is not funny, well-researched,(ridiculous is more like it) or cares about the issues. She is a propagandist like her hero Joseph McCarthy. If you're a woman, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. (which is funny considering the feminist movement that has allowed here to say these things)Gay, you're burning in hell(I'm not going to rehash your whole diatribe, but we don't agree there even though I know you don't literally condemn gays to burn in hell). If you read and listen to what people say you are a fag(liberal pussy in her context there). No, they are not the same bread or different butter, they are different grains. Maher has a career as an actor and a comedic writer well before he got seriously political, but I'm glad he found that side of him.(Herman's Head and he as and is a stand up comedian and that takes more talent than Coulter ever thought she had)

I rather convenient dismissal, this! 8^O

Conevenient, No. I precisely pointed out that you were judging someone's work you admitted that you haven't even really seen or given a real chance. This has nothing to do with that point at all. That is prejudice(pre-judging).

"Is Bill Maher's 'attack on religion' a mash of denigrating, tactless pot-shots against the lowest-common-denominator of the day, or against a group of people too chaste to sue his butt off when he happens to be spewing in their direction?"

"If you tell me (and you give me your word of honour that your assessment is honest) that less than 30% of Mr. Maher's material pertaining to 'attack on religion' fits this description, I shall never speak of him again."

Time to answer this question which holds the same prejudice as your other statement. Maher goes after all religions and I can respect someone's opinion even though I don't fully agree with it(I don't fully agree with Maher, because I think religion CAN be a good thing, but the fanatics have taken over and have long taken over religions of all types. I enjoy how he cuts through it. I am not an Atheist, but there are certain things I fully agree with Atheists on for I haven't truly conformed to any religious text, for they are all flawed and written by man and man cannot fully interpret or understand God. If he can, why does he need to be saved? etc.

But like I said, I think you have already gone through this conversation and I'm not trying to rehash it, but I don't agree wit a lot of what you said. I personally confide in what Jesus said, nothing else, for everything else is misrepresented, forgeries been found, and Greek taken out of context to fit everyone's agenda(even those who think they have divine clear understanding when they don't) who judges other people without being judged themselves(I really like that saying).

You assume Maher is afraid of criticizing so called hardcore religious types(the badass ones that sue, right?). They do try and attack him, but unfortunately we have the first amendment in this country), because he is afraid they might sue. Kind of ridiculous that you think someone can sue someone else for expressing an opinion in this country for one, but also considering the facts I continue to lay out that I already refuted that for he was thrown off of ABC for stating his opinion and he knew he might(especially after 9/11 and to quote someone else you probably don't like who is a brilliant satirist Stephen Colbert, that took balls. brass ones) for he almost got thrown off in 2000 for calling Bush out on his lies like I mentioned before(and he didn't like being thrown off of that network, but he felt it was important to be one of the few voices of sanity right after 9/11). So this "assumption" is not holding any water or sound logic; kind of like continuing to make this judgment after you admitted you haven't really even given Maher a chance.

And it's not hard to find the lowest common denominator in religion, but he is always respectful to his guests even if they are religious or have religious convictions like Cornell West when he goes on his show(or Tavis Smiley who are not preachers, but have strong religious convictions) We all make mistakes and sometimes Bill goes too far, but so do you and so do many people. This doesn't happen very much, though in my view. By prejudging Maher like I showed you did, you really lose credibility in this assumption you are making and let's not pretend you aren't making assumptions.

On balance as far as the honor question(because I pointed out the flaws in the people "too chaste to sue" argument), I would say that the reason the lowest common denominator is pointed out a lot, is because of the influence it has on most people in this country who voted against their interests and causes human suffering. It pisses me off and so it can be quite Cathartic to hear rightful scorn for their practice which has the influence which causes harm to many people. If it was just a bunch of tripe that no one paid attention to, that would be different, but the damage caused by controlling people's minds to vote against their interests in this country is worthy of scorn. So since your analysis is flawed your percentage is also flawed. that and you're still pre-judging and proving that you are prejudging by even asking a question that you should have the answer for yourself, but you haven't; been fair to Bill Maher.

If anything, you could at least give him credit for his comedic talent which stretches far past his views on religion. Perhaps I'm expecting too much. Oh well. I love satire(Mr. Fiore's work fits there) so I'll point to another show I like that probably offends the hell out of you. This is how I sum up your argument, which is pretty much Peter Griffin's opinion about the Godfather:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avddxEad7u8

It has, and the price of gold has become heavily depressed in various locales.
As a long-term global commodity, however, gold has never fluctuated significantly in value, and one doesn't need to be an economics major to understand why.

We agree! Yay! As a commodity, still a good investment.

Do they even make Bill Maher bobble head dolls?

You win. Between 'bobble heads' being a symbol of patronage, 'staying conservative' being a symbol of revulsion, 'lefties' referring to the left-wing talking heads, 'talking heads' referring to blowhard, spendthrift senators, I shall never again rely on metaphor.

No, not to my knowledge. Bobble heads are not a good example of patronage(and to just throw out an metaphor like that out of the blue makes it even worse. I think of baseball players when I think of bobble heads) I would say neo-conservative is the correct term(not that they could be converted even if they weren't called out by Maher on a weekly basis for their BS); conservatives are not a symbol of revulsion; in the literal, I wish conservatives cared about conserving; they don't. They don't even adhere to the Goldwater conservatives anymore. I don't know if you are aware of it, but fiscal responsibility was much more prevalent under the Democratic party even if a lot of them have turned out to be spineless and ineffective,(oh my favorite one of Mark's is spine-o-crat)and taxes are not the devil, deregulation is what should be the focus whether it's our fed policies that are unchecked or the corporations who own all of our seeds to all of the food e consume and even water, the private sector and deregulation has taken the lead as far as planetary peril(and the FTA that support them). So I don't find that apt either as far as the terminology is concerned. Ineffectual, spineless, and some being as corrupt as the American right, yes, but let's get it straight.

Yes, I'm aware of the history of the term. It goes without saying that "lefties" in this context refers to the spokesmen for the American political left in 2008 A.D. and not to Josef Stalin and the Bolsheviks in the 1930's.

I use the term affectionately, since 'liberal' has been co-opted by the "righties" (our good pal Ralphie among them) as a 'pejorative term'. Even if Matthew Santos picks it up and wears it as a badge of honour

Just want to make sure. ;) But using that term can have a wide context is all I'm saying, but you clarified successfully and I figured as much. I just wanted to make sure you weren't another Joesph McCarthy clone, for McCarthyism died for a good reason.

I wear the "L "word proudly. Jesus was a liberal, but he would be called a coward and unpatriotic in this day and age. Sad. I am not aware of Ralphy, but something tells me we wouldn't hit it off. :D

I am simply saying that 'uniting behind the party' should take a backseat to 'not giving Sen. Obama a free ride'.
And to buy gold.
And if you don't have any money to buy gold with, sell me your animations, and then buy gold. Diamonds. Precious metals. Lumber. Anything except Chilean pesos.

Not when so many people are suffering form the disastrous Bush/McCain economic polices and endless conflicts in the ME. the human factor outweighs my personal preferences and Obama does show some progress there as opposed to regression. But I don't give Obama a free ride and I will be pressuring him to adopt better policies but defeating McCain is priority number one for good reason considering the issues and the human cost of all of these disastrous policies.

I agree with the latter, and I appreciate the thought; I will if I ever get the money.

McCain bites the heads off of chickens.

Now this is very disappointing. I link to a video of his latest speech with direct references proving my assertions one by one to all the points he makes, and all you have is a straw man(that is refuting a point I'm not making that is easy to refute without refuting my initial argument) to counter.

Here's some more "pop up double talk" with direct references at the bottom to actual legislation McCain voted for and against pointing out his hypocrisy and his close alignment with Bush on many policies. That's called substance to prove my assertions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlnMjB6LNGA

Yes. We know. Nobody within fifty miles of this site is going to vote for McCain. Your power now is to keep Sen. Obama honest. You have some small power to turn him into an Edwards (my daddy works in a mill, my daddy works in a mill, my daddy works in a mill) by giving legs to public demands for sensible economic policy.

I would hope so, but I have seen McCain defenders here. I plan to keep Obama honest and I will push to oust him from office if he doesn't deliver on his platform and I'm still hoping for an Edwards run in 2012. I can't help but detect a condescending tone about the Mill worker thing (He acknowledges his repetition there for he has a humbling sense of humor about himself, but he says father not "daddy.") but Edwards did have the most sensible economic policies in this race supported by Paul Krugman and many other noted economists, but I'll assume you were sincere there for now.

The fact that you're defending Sen. Obama as 'not as bad' as McCain speaks volumes. Make the guy earn your vote.

It does speak volumes as in I pay attention to the damage of the past 8 years and that I would put my personal preferences aside for any progress that affects any human being's well being whether we are talking about our soldiers in Iraq being killed and denied benefits with no end in sight, all the homes being foreclosed on, all the dead Iraqis not being reported, and all the poor who are still being neglected this leading me to Edwards candidacy as well his work on behalf of consumer rights.

People suffering have earned my vote and I know the better choice to ease that suffering is Obama. If the Democrats ------- this election up, though, I am done with the two party system and i will register as an independent.

Animate!
Blog!
Write to the editor!
Be the guy that gets tazered.

I do all three, except for the guy who gets tazered which was excessive, but both parties were responsible for what happened there. I probably do need to do more of the former, for I guess I like arguing way too much and I do waste a lot of time when I should be doing more creative things. So I'm not perfect, but I'm confident in my foundation of my views. I probably should find a better outlet like Mr. Fiore and spend more time down that avenue with my passions in this area. I'm working on that and I'm gong to start being more vigilant in that area.

Peace.