For me, it's about results, not words. A pox on both of them, to start with, but after that it's a false equivalency. Maher is a louche loudmouth (and has one of the most annoying voices in human history), but he is not in favor of changing any laws that will have a negative impact on me or on the class of people to whom I belong. That is, is doesn't favor laws that will make me need to have a sonogram to appease a right-wing wackadoo Congressional committee. Nugent, on the other hand, is supporting a candidate who has admitted that he wants to impede my freedoms as well as being a boorish numbskull.

ok scot, now show me some backbone and tell me why mr. obama is worth voting for. i'll get an answer from you about the same time you answer my question on when was the last time you asked our mayor and our governor a leading question that deserves an answer. or better yet, the 1st time. ma

I see the orders came down from the big white house, throw Bill Maher under the bus. It started sunday with George stepanopolous and will continue, he seems to be the ring leader and everyone else follows. Funny how it only took four years for a liberal writer to condemn the remarks about Palin.

It is rich to see these words coming from a committed leftist columnist. Of course, Scot is correct that campaigns need to absolve themselves of any support from those who seek to offend. But this kind of talk has been commonplace in the left wing for many years. I find it odd that Scot would only speak now, and speak when he has a balancing offender on the right to decry. Scot's piece is welcome though, because most of the left wing punditry has no qualms about ugly hate speech, when directed at Republicans.

So-It appears to be Apples to Oranges. *****WHERE is Ted Nugent's $1 MILLION DOLLAR DONATION.That is the amount of Bill Maher's gift to Obama. As I understand the situation, Pres. Obama's campaign has been asked many times to return the money. They have not and, apparently, will not. This, to me, means that they support his behavior. *****Ted Nugent has apparently made no such contributions or we would have read about it.***** It is true you can not control what all of your supporters say but you DO control the MONEY.

Can someone please bring the fainting couch for Mr Lehigh? The fact that unpleasant people seek a platform for their political opinions is clearly upsetting him. On the other hand, the comparison of a neanderthal comedian to a neanderthal rocker makes a lot more sense that the comparison of a neanderthal comedian to a high profile Republican power broker, so that's progress.

Apparently you favorite trolls didn't like your "balanced" commentary. System will be laughing out loud as soon as his mom wakes him up.

Thank you Ted Nugent. Now all the columnists who have ignored the "louche loudmouth" Bill Maher may feel that in criticizing Nugent on the right, they have to also mention Maher on the left. He'll no longer get away with "offensive comments" that haven't bothered these columnists til now. Not that there was equal coverage in Scot's column today, considering that Maher has months of public loucheness to catch up on.

Hi Everybody, I'm always amused by the people on both the left and right who see boorish speech as the exclusive province of their ideological opposites. There are enough regular examples on both sides that anyone with his eyes -- or rather, ears -- open should realize that's just not true. It's more an aspect of temperament than ideology, I think. That is to say, the tendency to demonize those you disagree with. I think it's the mark of a hyper-partisan to think it's the exclusive tendency of either right or left. Two other points: In general, I don't play referee on speech because it's an impossible task in that everyone can always point to someone on the opposite side who has said about the same thing and ask why you didn't write about them. That's a fair question; the usual answer is: 1) you were working on something else you deemed more important, or 2) it didn't happen in a fashion that was timely or convenient on your deadline or 3) you weren't aware of it, or 4) you don't want to dedicate your column exclusively to critiquing boorish things people say. In this case, however, both these pinheads are in the news of late. All that said, I have written about this kind of thing several other times over the years. Scot Scot

More nonsense from this Republican op, probably on the RNC payroll, who litters the Globe comments pages with multiple posts using multiple aliases and avatars...

Richmond12: But this kind of talk has been commonplace in the left wing for many years. And on the right wing, silly! You're looking at the world through a monocle - try both eyes.

Scot, Too funny; I think you're missing the point. Prior to commenting on Obama's flip-flop on Super PACs, conservative commenters on this site ignored Foster Friess' (unreturned) Super PAC donations of over $1,000,000 to various GOP candidates. This is the same Foster Friess who most recently said of President Obama, "I hope his teleprompters are bulletproof". One can only conclude that conservative commenters hellbent on exposing hypocrisy when they see it don't mention such outrageous and divisive remarks because they simply don't see them as outrageous, divisive, or hypocritical-- they are simply statements of party belief. Sure, the left are hypocrites, but apparently the GOP really do wish physical harm to the President and hate women. See Friess' disgusting remarks about women desiring birth control simply keeping their knees closed, or WI state Senator Glenn Grothman's recent comment in support of repealing equal pay protections for women: "You could argue that money is more important for men". Even Romney, of late supposedly the champion of stay-at-home mothers, stated earlier this year: "I wanted to increase the work requirement... I said, for instance, that even if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work. And people said, 'Well that's heartless.' And I said, 'No, no, I'm willing to spend more giving day care to allow those parents to go back to work. It'll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work." How else can you explain the conservative commenters' deafening silence in the face of such hate? L - O - L!! L - O - L!!

While one can identify instances on the right of boorish language, on the left it is not an instace, it is a trend. Jeff jacoby used to write an annual column dedicated to listing the most vile hate speech that came from the left at the end of every year. While not always involving profanity, the hate speech used on the left, in all its forms, is far more an accepted form of speech on the left than it is on the right.

Comparing Nugent to Maher is like comparing rotten apples to oranges! Granted Maher goes over the line for a laugh, but Nugent is just plain primitive! He's another one of these draft-dodging chickenhawks who folded like a house of cards when the Secret Service confronted him.

Now, here, Richmond and Waytoo, you guys reveal yourselves as inveterate and purblind partisans. You are blind to the abuses on your own side and only see those on the left. As to Mitt and Nugent, why would Mitt speak on the phone with him if he weren't seeking his endorsement? Look at what Nugent wrote in the Washington Times. And what Mitt had to say about him on the air at the time. And what Tagg tweeted about how cool it was for Mitt to have his endorsement. Also, waytoo, I know you have some column comprehension issues, but if you read it again, you'll find it says that despite the fiction that the campaign, the white house, and the super pack are all separate entities, if the president or Alexlrod said they didn't want any association with Maher, Burton would give the $$$ back tomorrow. Helpful hint: The best way to read a column is to read the words and take them for what they mean, and not to impose a kooky conspiratorial overlay to everything. Barcman: Wow, I hadn't seen or heard that remark by Freiss. You are certainly right that it's outrageous. (In some way, it demonstrates my point that once you get into policing offensive speech, it's a never-ending task.) Richmond, waytoo, care to step up on that one? Scot

It's time people grow up on both sides. This country is so divided and just look at these comments. You have Mean- Willie who in EVERY post calls everyone a toll who does not agree with his/her ideology. It's so childish, boring and dumb. Mean-Willie is the only poster who attacks other posters everyday, which is beyond lame. You have The System Work who in every comment for years has attacked Obama. For once I would like to see you post something nice or neutral and I mean on anything. Interesting piece Scot.

This is just what happens when, for 40 years, the Left adopts Rules for Radicals as it's core political tactics. Then gets hair-on-fire indignant when the Right co-opts it favorite tactic: ridicule.

For the record, I agree with you that name calling is beyond lame. Perhaps this might help: In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. *** In that context, the comments section here, and comments sections in just about every news website I've visited, are filled with trolls from both the left and the right.

Scot, Yes, apparently Romney's speaking directly to Nugent on the phone, nor his subsequent public and happy acceptance of Nugent's endorsement, constitute any sort of actual proof of a Republican looking the other way on the issue of hateful speech--you obviously manufactured this one! The system continues to fail to work! L - O - L!! The fact is, Romney accepted Nugent's endorsement after Nugent had made such violent, threatening statements as this: (Nugent waving a rifle) "Hey, Obama, you might want to suck on one of these, you punk!". And the conservative media? It looks the other way. When asked to "refudiate" Nugent, one top conservative media pundit--famous for calling out the hate speech of the left--responded: "No, I like Ted Nugent. He's a friend of mine.… [H]e's a rock star... If you don't like it, don't go to the concert, don't buy his new albums." Yes, judging by the failure of any conservative commenters here to condemn Nugent, Friess, or Romney's double-speak about whether or not motherhood constitutes "work", one must conclude that the GOP apparently supports such statements. In fact, that they can only respond with whines that you should have responses to their posts taken down, claims that the left does it more, and references to a worn-out, overblown quote from the 2008 campaign is proof that the only core conviction the GOP possess is partisanship. L - O - L!!

The only reason that I know anything about these morons is because the pundits keep repeating whatever they say. Some buffoons, like Rush Limburger, actually do have an audience and we do need to pay a certain amount of attention, but do you know anyone who listens to or is influenced by Bill Maher? I don't. His only audience is the echo chamber. Stop repeating his crude remarks and the public at large won't know if he is dead or alive.

How's this: I condemn all ridicule as a political tactic.

While conceding that yes, it would be great if no one ever used an ugly epithet to put down a man or woman -especially in the public sphere- Lehigh's concern here is undercut by the false equivalency between the two individuals he chooses. Ted Nugent is clearly a knucklehead. His grip on the issues, whether they be economic, military, constitutional or whatever... is negligible. I defy you to last more than two minutes watching one of his 'interviews' on YouTube. But the political right is lacking in the "dynamic" personalities that make for good TV, so we all are subjected to his eliminationist rantings. Bill Maher, on the other hand, devotes an hour each week("Real Time", Friday nights on HBO at 10, I believe...) to discussing issues with a variety of guests in a panel format that makes abundantly clear that he understands whereof he speaks. And the objectionable language that Maher used in reference to Sarah Palin was part of his stand-up act, not his issues-related "Real Time" show. But honestly, if you really thought that Sarah Palin was a qualified candidate for the first or second highest office of the most powerful country on the planet you're probably content with Ted Nugent's level of analysis.

FINALLY - Someone who feels EXACTLY as I do. These people on both the LEFT and the RIGHT - polarize political debate into stupidity, and gain followers doing so. Programs like Bill Maher's and Rush Limbaugh's both bring down the culture. They shock for their own pockets and ego and frankly that's all they care about. As far as why politician's don't disassociate themselves- because it's all about the money. It will never change without serious campaign reform.

LuvUSA: Thank you Richmond: Are you going to step to the plate on Bcarman's challenge and denounce the objectionable remark by Freiss? I know waytoo doesn't have what it takes to do that, but I have some hope for you. Step up. Scot

Couldn't disagree more. The characterization is convenient but inaccurate. Maher and Nugent are very different people doing very different things. Bill Maher (2nd-rate comedian..? sold-out events, highly regarded HBO series, sought after commentator, 20+ years of success) is a comedian, satirist, and cultlural/political commentor. He uses 'blue' language and pushes boundaries...but he also creates forums where vastly different voices discuss and debate current issues in open frankness--this exist no where else in the media. Where else is Andrew Breitbart, Salman Rushdie, Christopher Hitchens, Barney Frank, Richard Clark, Raph Nader, Matt Taibbi, Anne Coulter, Bob Woodward, Grover Norquist, Bill Moyers,...(on and on) appear in round table discussions? Meet the Press? Today Show? Does he use foul language? Yes. Does he offend? Yes. (so did George Carlin, Lenny Bruce, Richard Pryor). Does he advocate violence? No. Does he promote hate? No. Ted does...consistently. Ted Nugent uses violent, gun-fetish, hostile vulgarities to incite right-wing groups and individuals towards anger and hatred. The latest is only a small sample of what he does. At a concert he stood on stage with a machine gun between his legs while screaming vile, and almost deranged, sexual and violent insults towards the President and Secretary of State (google it, nugent-machine gun-Obama). It's one sided, far-right, hostile, intolerant and relentlessly vulgar. There are no round-tables with Ted, just guns and violent language. There is no humor or satire with Ted, just direct attacks anchored in hostility. There is no insight or dialogue with Ted, just rants and self-aggrandizing anger. It's unfortunate you use these two individuals in a misguided attempt to show equivalency. Bill M. was trotted out when Rush Limbaugh went off the rails...I'm certain we'll here it again. It get's tiring.

Hello Huston, I think we have just tuned into Mars. We have a nasty alien on the line.

jwinboston, It is that simple. I denounce Maher's comments. I denounce Nugent's comments. I denounce Friess' comments. I denounce blind Bush-bashing. I denounce Obama's hypocrisy. I denounce Romney's placing one foot on every side of almost every issue. Unfortunately, the story isn't about any of them. It's about the conservative extremists at the conservative-extreme Boston Globe comment boards who refuse to condemn such speech when it comes from members of their party, which according to their rhetoric about the same from the left leaves one to conclude they support all of the hate coming from the right. The story is about their lack of any core values other than partisanship. The ultimate sign the system could work, though, will be when they spend equal time denouncing all hate and divisiveness-- regardless of (D) or (R). Mark my words: I could write tomorrow's comments for them now, predicting the scorn they will heap on Obama (some of it deserved, some of it not). L - O - L!!

I think more disturbing is the vile speech in your world Scot -the media. Just look at some of the things spewed over at MSNBC

Scot: I think it would be helpful if you give us a link to a column you wrote against the hate-speech of the left -- anyone who used the c word for a woman will do. The reason we on the right note these things is that we are making a point about the hypocrisy of the left, which considers itself the "nice" side.

Barbara, I'm working as an editor today and am v. harried. But one that comes to mind was about the Hollywood fundraisers where the stars, so-called, made a number of offensive comments about George W. I think I also had some stuff to say about the Michael Moore and MoveOn (different columns) over some of the things they had said, as I remember some of my liberal readers getting quite exercised in email. Scot

MSNBC has nothing on Fox, Limbaugh, et al.

Guys, While we wait in the (increasingly forlorn) hope that Richmond and Waytoo will step up to the plate of principle, let me ask this question: What do you think of these canned hunts that Nugent leads? I have to say, all those decades ago when I got my NRA Hunter Safety card in upstate Idaho, the hunting crowd would have contemptuous of the very idea of shooting fish in a barrel or beasts in an enclosure. Of course, that was back when the NRA was a more reasonable, mainstream organization. Scot

RighteousWay, You are absolutely correct; the two parties are indeed essentially indistinguishable. The little people tacitly approve Friess', Romney's, and Nugent's comments (the latter of which were not "dug" up from some seldom-trafficked website, but came in a speech at the NRA's annual convention) by failing to condemn them. Instead they resurrect Jeremiah Wright and lipstick while howling that Scot's column is somehow a diversion. Digging deep, indeed! And on more than one level! L - O - L!!

As to your question about a canned hunt: it's despicable. I have no problem with hunting for food. That's called necessity. Don't call it a sport and expect me not to laugh in the so-called sportsman's face. If Nugent wants to prove his abilities let him strap a pair of antlers to his scalp and meet the beast on its own terms.

Funny, I don't recall Maher, who I'm not a big fan of, making thinly veiled threats of violence against anyone on the right. Plus maybe you all missed it, Bill Maher is a comedian. To Barbara: if you need a reference for a member of the right calling a woman the "c" word, try the man you voted for as president in 2008. Mr. McCain notoriously referred to his own wife in just that manner. There is no shortage of idiots on both sides of the aisle. Ted Nugent is beyond an idiot.

Seems to me it's Media Matter and the like that monitor 24/7 for quotes the likes of Nugent, Rush, Hannity, et al, to equivocate the comments of Maher, Wright, and the haters on the Left. Meanwhile, no one on the Right is calling to silence anyone. It's the Left that wants people silence since the worm has turned on ridicule.

So Scot, why don't you denounce ridicule in political speech and then square that with the first amendment. We can go on denouncing it for ever but it's not going to stop. The Left will never abandon Alinsky's Rule No. 5. And radicals on the Right will use it right back at them. Sad, true.

LaraLee, Yet another reply from you in response to my comments, and still no repudiation of the vile rhetoric spewed by Friess, Nugent, or the various Republican politicians who of late have become so enamored of attacking women. I haven't said anything about "silencing" anyone; I only ask that those intrepid souls who consistently (and rightfully) call out and condemn hateful speech on the left also condemn such speech on the right, lest others conclude that commenters on the right in fact support such sentiments as women requiring birth control keeping their knees closed, or Obama needing a bulletproof teleprompter to protect himself from those riled up by Nugent's abhorrent call to violence while a featured speaker at the recent NRA convention. That you yourself apparently dismiss the detestable comments made by no less than a featured NRA speaker at a national convention or one of the GOP's top donors as unremarkable or un-noteworthy, is telling.

Waytoo: You mean I'm an example to ... you? Yikes.

That's right. There's a disturbing trend towards equivalency...Bill & Ted are basically the same: 'political' pollutants, Dems & Repubs are indistinguishable, right & left wing commentators are the same, and opinions and science are interchangable. Glenn Beck openly mused about personally killing Michael Moore, or hiring someone to do it...he did this on air, later he was on the cover of Time. Ted is very violent in his words and actions (google it)...Anne Coulter speeches have been cancelled because of her racist hate speech...Repubs are prepared to turn back Violence Against Women law...while introducing 26 state push for 'Stand Your Ground' laws... Conservatives constantly invoke guns and 2nd amendment solutions (Bachman & others)...they commenmorate the State of Union outburst with a rifle that has 'You Lie' carved in it...it sold out in 15 minutes. Libs aren't excluded from saying hateful things...it's just as constant and embedded in violent language.

Look, the point is: this is silly. Neither side is going to get into a denunciation battle anymore than either side will give up ridicule as a political weapon. My view is that ridicule is hateful. You might have missed where a denunciated all of it. But Right and Left will continue to equivocate when it's their spokesperson, and both will continue to ridicule. Thank you Mr. Alinsky.

oops. it's just (correction) righties are constant and embedded in violent language.

"---a shining example to the cyber-stalkers, cyber-bullies, and name-callers who flock to your column---" glass houses indeed.

lara, lara, laralee Nugent has machine guns on stages and screams for President Obama to s**k it (it gets work check it out); Glenn Beck, live on the air, muses about killing Michael Moore, Rush is (was) on everyday for hours spewing lies and angry misinformation. BILL MAHER...same thing? Do research. REV. WRIGHT. "God damn America..." --seems an appropriate response to 300 years of slavery, segregation and institutional bigotry, you call it hate. Haters on left...or reactionaries to violent speech on the right (potatoe ...potaatoe, let's call the whole thing off)

There are biases in everything...life, newspapers and candies. The level of biases is relative. I'll take the Rev. Wright one. This has been written about incensantly. Preachers rant...Reagan deeply embraced the religious right to shore up his base...Jerry Falwell alone could fill an ocean with hateful speech....Rev. Wright 'God bless America, no, God damn America...' was part of his diatribe on racist America (300 years of slavery, segregation and institutional racism)--seems like a sane response if you're a 65 year black man preacher. Did the Globe give it pass, no...did they follow down the right wing rat hole on Rev Wright, no. Is that extreme..I don't think so, you do....maybe that's your bias.

And climate scientist Steve Zwick calls for burning skeptic's houses down. http://www.infowars.com/climate-alarmist-calls-for-burning-down-skeptics-homes/ But, yeah, let's call the whole thing off.

Yes these two men do pollute the political dialogue - so, why stoop to their level and pollute the Boston Globe by publicizing their boorish behavior. I am not interested in watching either one on t.v., nor am I interested in reading about them. So, Scot Lehigh, give us an interesting political story: or consider a joke, such as what is better for your dog? a) going on vacation with the family if you ride in a cage on the car-roof, b) or being cooked & eaten?

Seeb - Martin Bashir, Ed Schultz, Al Sharpton

Scot, I am not familiar with the people you mention, but can state unequivocally that I am against hate speech from anybody, whether or not profanity is involved. I see hate speech as a concession, it is the speaker's way of admitting that he lost the argument, and has nothing to offer but vile verbal attacks, targeted at the people guilty of having a different opinion. Dear Lord, I have been a target of some unkind words, in this very space. It is from people who are unable to win the argument with me, and whose only recourse is to attack. This IS the usual direction of left wing debaters, who cannot win with logic, facts and sound reasoning.

Conservative commenters continue to pollute the political dialogue. Friess said Obama better have a "bullet-proof teleprompter". Romney tells stay-at-home mothers to get a job to experience "the dignity of work". Nugent threatens to bring a gun to the campaign, and encourages others to do so as well. Can the conservative extremists at the Boston Globe comment boards call out this hate? No. They have to pretend the GOP candidate for president, a prominent top GOP Super PAC donor, and a feature speaker at the national convention of one of the most powerful lobbies in the country are nobodies, all in order to perpetuate their asinine argument that these people and their words don't factor into this debate. How about a conservative call-out to any of these figures for their incivility? Nope, not one conservative commenter has the principles to do so. Obama? Maher? Friess? Nugent? Romney? I'll call them all out, have already done so, and do so again here now. Anyone else with me? Nope, no need to ask. The conservatives aren't offended by the hateful act of anyone against Obama. Conservative commenters pollute the political dialogue and the GOP Kool-Aid guzzlers attack those who notice.

Richmond: Well, in general you are pretty well-informed (if somewhat susceptible to supply-side fantasies). Take a few minutes and read about Ted Nugent and give us your take. Should Mitt have wanted his endorsement? Should he now disavow him? As I expected, poor Waytoo is too benighted by hyper-partisanship to step up. But you I have some hope for. Scot

System, I agree, Obama's disciples who troll here certainly would earn Obama's praise for their incivility. But of course, all of the GOP trolls here who repeatedly refuse to condemn such behavior from the right certainly would earn the praise of Romney, who happily and publicly acknowledged (and apparently, via that phone call, even courted) the endorsement of that nobody Nugent. So will you stand with me and denounce Maher and Obama and Friess and Romney and Nugent, and those here who give them a free pass? Will you, in the name of the civility you seem to call for, condemn Republican trolls who exhibit that same boorish behavior?

While the denunciation wars rage on here, has anyone read Nugent's response to all this? "To me, my family and thinking America, the dysfunctional left-wing hate hysteria was laughable. I became the No. 1 global tweet entity, while every newspaper and America-hating television and radio gang literally tripped over themselves in a feeble attempt to out-lie each other." – Ted - http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/19/st-louis-nra-party-rocked/

Scot, Are you really trying to tell us that in 4 years you could not write about the hate thrown at Palin, look I'm not a big fan of hers, nor am I a big fan of President Obama, but what right is right, it wasn't just Maher, it was the entire left wing media. Bill Maher to me is nothing more than a disgusting pig, Nugent's comments were also bad. This hate has to stop, the media would play a huge roll in that if they weren't biased. I watch and read many different stations and newspapers, have to say the Globe's biased is obvious to everyone, that's why your subscriptions are down. Look at Fox new's ratings, there's a reason for that. I will be watching your columns closely until the election.

Sure Richmond, it seems convenient that you are "not familiar with the people you [Scot] mention" however you whine about attacks as being "the usual direction of left wing debaters..." Your bias is so apparent it is stunning. But you have yet to answer Scot's question regarding whether or not Romney should disavow Nugent's remarks and his endorsement. However, as your bias is so transparent and obvious, none of us expect you to do so. After all, in your narrow mind, only the left wing are guilty of polluting political dialogue. Let's see...have you heard of Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter? I'm sure you feel that their rhetoric is entirely appropriate when directed at those having a different opinion. You tell others to remove the stick in their eyes while you fail to notice the log in your own...

Waytoo: Don't be so sensitive, old boy. This wasn't about you. I was just trying to nudge Richmond along toward an even-handed assessment. That said, I think the episode is revealing. It demonstrates (yet again) that though you style yourself a principled observers confronting a vast array of hypocrites, you really can't bring yourself to acknowledge the loutish behavior of any fellow conservatives.

The system worked: We should all have a little of what you're smoking! Hate speech from the president? Hardly. Palin a pig? He never said it. Listen to the speech. Obama was referring to failed Bush policies promoted buy the McCain campaign. Hostage takers? He was referring specifically to policy negotiations. He never accused Republicans of taking anyone hostage. Bring a gun? Though your suggestion that he was seriously suggesting such a thing is absurd on its face, let's take him seriously just for giggles. His recommendations were based on opponents having brought guns to the same fight. Guess what? If we're fighting and you have a knife, I want to have a gun. But again the notion that he was seriously recommending such an act is absurd. On the other hand, we've actually seen people on the right bringing guns to presidential events and threatening to "water the tree of liberty" with the president's blood. Really!

Oops. His comment about bringing a gun was based on opponents having brought a knife. And Obama was no more referring to Governor Palin in his lipstick/pig comment than McCain (no stranger to uncivil language) was referring to Hillary Clinton when he referred to her healthcare proposals in the same terms. Both suggestions are absurd.

System, I'm hardly elevating every has-been rocker or wanna-be political comedian to the status of the Office of the President of the United States of America. (When do we cover Hank Williams, Jr.? L - O - L!!) But when Obama became linked with Maher, Maher's name and comments became part of the conversation here, mostly through your efforts. Likewise, when the GOP candidate for President solicits and eagerly accepts the endorsement of a person, whatever his past, who now is the public face of one of the most powerful lobbies in America, that person's words become relevant. It's the same principle. Of course, Nugent (and his apologists here) love to have him stand on a national stage (over 70,000 people attended the convention) and spew violent and inflammatory anti-Obama rhetoric-- then hide behind the "but he's just a nobody-washed-up-'8os-rocker" label. Please. Are you really waiting for Scot to condemn Obama before you condemn Romney, as if Obama's hate is anything close to Nugent and Romney's? Are you really that daft? Yes,the condemnation of hate starts from the top down not from the bottom up; Romney might be hurt you apparently think so little of him as to not put him up there near the top. People should take a few minutes to educate themselves on Romney's ugly, mean-spirited association with Nugent, and worry less about the date of Nugent's last hit single. Romney wants to be President of all of us while he publicly supports those who incite hate against more than half of us. (Not to mention Friess, who you never even mention, presumably because you have no way to defend a $1,000,000+ GOP donor who hates women and incites violence against the President.) You should be embarrassed by your lack of concern for any sense of decency and your blatant excusing of such boorish behavior of the GOP candidate for the President of the United States of America. Who can heal us with Romney inciting such hate? Who can heal us with the GOP inciting such hate and not being called on it by people like you, who could change the tone of the Comments Board but who chooses not to? It's laughable how you condemn all liberals for not posting their condemnations of Obama here, but allow a nameless, self-deluded, conservative commenter on BostonGlobe.com a free pass to condemn Obama while conveniently ignoring the hate harbored and promoted by Romney and the GOP. L - O - L!! You keep mentioning those other idiots who refer to you; I'm sure they're truly, humbly, flattered by your turning your attention away from Obama for a second to acknowledge the brilliant manner in which they've dealt a crushing blow to the validity your argument. But, how about instead of obsessing about a satirist of a satirist on BostonGlobe.com you try to make a difference by impacting the behavior of people on this site? You passed on condemning Friess, or Romney for his association with Nugent; you choose to condemn Obama alone. Your posts are therefore a waste words and time

System, You could make a positive impact if only you didn't have a core principle of party-over-country. I condemn BOTH Obama AND Romney, and all hate! Are you with me?

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies. Groucho Marx

Excellent. No more be said.

exactly right. this, once again, is a false equivalency seized on by the mainstream press - scot - as evidence of lack of bias. Fact of the matter is, Maher could debate rings around anybody on this board and most pols as well. I would have used a different range of derogoratory comments for Palin, but Maher doesn't suffer fools, and she is clearly a knucklehead to anyone with a brain.