I'm saying you would need to read everything he ever said to DISPROVE that claim, not to PROVE it.

I think you misunderstood me (or I spoke without clarity, which happens!). To disprove that "some" of what someone said was sympathetic to Nazis, you would need to review everything they had ever said.

THE TRUTH IS ALWAYS SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE

Hitchens' positions on the middle east were a bit of a mixed bag. When it came to foreign policy, I don't think he really knew what he was talking about - he was just another guy with an opinion. His defense of the Iraq War was wrongheaded, even though I went to great lengths to see where he was coming from.

I often wonder what it was like to be Peter Hitchens - the halfwit forever in the shadow of his infamous brother. Writing stupid newspaper op-eds that the world made fun of, and generally being considered a bit of a dullard.

You are correct, and I spoke carelessly there. My intention is to point out that Maher is not calling for the extermination of Muslims based on their BEING MUSLIMS. He has repeatedly gone to lengths to say that he doesn't believe all Muslims, or even a close majority, are dangerous and/or violent.

The rise of Milo is one of those chicken and egg things. On the one hand, I think if everyone had ignored him from the start - when he was just another nobody internet tech blogger - he probably wouldn't have speaking engagements and book deals today.

He does challenge his guests - he just didn't challenge THIS guest, to his own shame.

There WAS a public interest in public dismantling Milo for the world to see. It wouldn't convince any of his supporters obviously, but it could expose him as the farce he is for anyone else he tried to reach in the future - the marketplace of ideas at work.

I think the real problem was bringing comedians on for panels about real issues, and expecting that their opinions wouldn't at-least occasionally be cringe-worthy.

Colbert has actually rediscovered his edge the past month and a half or so. Not quite to the Colbert Report days (sadly), but he's getting his groove back.

I assume it's just because he sees them both as "provocateurs" - but seems to have completely missed what they were provocateurs ABOUT.

I didn't "equate" Chomsky to anything - I noted Chomsky's position on free speech, in making a larger point.

Agreed. I find Maher intellectually soft on some issues (especially shit like GMOs and vaccines), but I had high hopes that creaming an idiot like Milo was right up his alley.

Again, this is just assuming facts not in evidence. He doesn't have "venomous rhetoric" or "hatred" for Muslims as people - he has extreme criticisms of certain beliefs, and whoever holds them.

I remember when he did a panel on vaccinations, and had on some dumbass anti-vaxxer.

I think Wilmore worked great in smaller, more concentrated doses, as a correspondent on the Daily Show. Especially when he had Jon as a dumb straight man for whatever his punchline ultimately was.

Mike Yard was the one consistently hilarious guy on the Nightly Show, aside from Wilmore himself, for me.

If you think he gets some details wrong in his characterization of what the Koran, or the Hadiths, say - that's fine, and I'd even agree with you to some extent.

I was intensely disappointed by the interview itself at the top of the show. The Overtime segment almost made up for it, because the panel got to have a go at him, but I was very disappointed with Maher.