Maher even stands up for Christians, to Rose's dismay.

END OF MESSAGE

the camera lens. Bloody fucking apologist.

I'm not saying that SW want work as a SW, I'm not saying they don't.  

 
I'd rather here the woman's opinion straight from her mouth!

 
I've never seen a SW wearing a burqa either, Bill is the master of nonsequitur-analogies. Glad to see he has come around in support of the Christian faith... for now, it is election season after all !

Charlie didn't sound too thrilled with Bill's opinion. In fact Rose challenged Bill to a surrogate debate with a moderate Muslim.

Hope, Charlie finds a moderate Muslim to debate Maher! That would one heck of a debate

Charlie Rose squeems throughout that segment with Maher. He is SO uncomfortable at the thought that Islam is a far different religion than any other.  

Maher actually brought facts to the debate and Rose brought his typical, media elite liberal anti-Christian bent and got slaughtered by Maher.

It was priceless watching Rose try to make a moral equivalence argument re: Christians and Muslims and Maher just cleaned his clock.  

Props to Maher on this one.

"You can't handle the truth!"     Note: Smiley face winking means what is being said is not to be taken as being serious or as an absolute declaration of reality. Just couldn't help myself from trying to be a little humorous.

1. What is "The Truth?" I agree that he points out some significant differences between Muslims and Christians, however is: "The Koran absolutely has on every page stuff that's horrible about how the infidels should be treated." A truth?

2. "Maher even stands up for Christians, to Rose's dismay." And yet he says: "All religions are stupid." To say something like 'you're stupid, but not as stupid as Joey over there" is not being stood up for, in my book.

3. Not certain how many people viewed him as being visibly upset, but I saw him as being frustrated that he couldn't get in a word in edgewise, for one. Some of the frustration may have been about not having his opinions validated by Mahrer. I wouldn't, nor couldn't say how much each one contributed to his frustration.

4. I thought comedians couldn't be counted on for speaking "the truth." At least that's the retort by many righties when a link to John Stewart is posted.  

... it's easier to say wants on your mind when is clear - Is that clear!

I'll have to take your word for it since I've never watched his show.  

END OF MESSAGE

easier than addressing any of my four points.  That's quite a stretch, taking everything I said, as evidence that I support Charlie Roses point of view.  

One does not need to agree with, sympathize with or even respect Christians in order to stand up for them in the context of this interview exchange.

Frustrated vs. upset? You can read people at least slightly better than BP.

Yes, all of the above puts you squarely in Rose's camp regarding this interview. One does not need to support another's point of view in order to side with them in a cause.

BTW, Stewart and Maher do frequently distort the truth. That's what made Maher's exchange I posted so remarkable and post worthy. Thank you for highlighting that aspect.

-- Modified on 9/13/2014 12:06:16 AM

 
I don't watch that show either... Yesterday Seinfeld made a guest appearance. I think he stole my bucket-list joke?

Now, if you were a journalist, and in the past you've seemed to use your expertise or understanding in such matters as being superior to mine, you would have just stated a lie. I said: " I agree that he points out some significant differences between Muslims and Christians,..." That's not glossing over! That was the major issue of the discussion. So, saying such is a lie. The point is, I'm not critiquing Mahler, I'm critiquing you. A you're to blind to see it. Can "the truth" have, what you called an "exaggeration," and what I call a lie, in it? Not by my logic.

Since, you have put me "squarely in Rose's camp regarding the interview," base in my critiquing of you vs. Mahler, I see no hope in you being objective enough, about anything I say, to have a reasonable discussion with you. If you said something like 'Mahler schooled Rose on the issue of militant Muslims vs. Christians,' I would have agreed with you. Too bad your preconceptions leave you so blind.  

Glossing over does not mean "ignoring". You gave an obligatory acknowledgement and then spent the rest of your time attempting to obfuscate the obvious. Now in an attempt to extricate yourself you restate the obvious claiming it to be substantially different from my original assessment. Indeed, Rose's reaction and yours were similar enough. Rather than address the facts you simply attempt to discredit the person merely presenting them.

"There you go again!"

END OF MESSAGE

You've just crossed the line, for me, into WTSTRT!    

END OF MESSAGE