Real Time with Bill Maher: Weekly discussion and pot session

10/7/11

Episode was pretty boring to be honest. The union guy didn't seem all that prepared or knowledgable, Alan Grayson was an unusual bore, the woman republican author was a non-entity, the other male author was kinda meh, and PJ O'Rourke was as insufferable as he usually is. Also, the same old neo-liberal trope was a bit much as well.

The thing that really surprised me was the last New Rule about racism, especially because Maher hasn't shown any inclination to go that way in previous shows. I'm guessing that one of his writers decided to bring it in that direction, which I applaud, but I hope this isn't the last of if because Maher seems a little ignorant about race sometimes. Although, when O'Rourke said that the Chinese need some unions, he pretty much illustrates the dissonance with that stance when he couldn't say the same for US workers, which he kinda brushed off as jokingly being an idealogue.

Last weeks show was much better and not just because they were all "liberals." I hope next week will be more animated.

What say you, fellow CAGs?

O'Rourke is one of those people that I have a kind of love/hate relationship with.Sometimes he makes some sense, and the guy can make me laugh, but then he's a part of of the Cato Institute, so I just don't know.

O'Rourke is really starting to show his age, not surprising since the time he was funny must have been before I was born.

I don't know, Maher seems to love him. I just can't figure the guy out a lot of the time.

Anyone see last weekends show? I can't remember his name, but the guy he had out first, that guy pissed me off. He pissed me off because like most religious types, he found a way out of answering Maher's question about how he reconciles being for the killing of Bin Laden with Jesus' teachings of forgiveness. His answer was complete bullshit.

Yeah, I saw it. Maher was being pretty nice to the guy...like unusually nice to him just because he said something bad about Mormonism and Romney, but this isn't the first time that Maher let his guard down. The most recent time that he got bit was when David Frum got fired and Maher thought that he disavowed the Republicans and conservative ideology. Frum obviously didn't...no surprise there.

Knowing that Penn is a huge Libertarian, I wasn't that enthused about his appearance. Like most libertarians, everything is nice on the surface, but once you peel back the top layer, it's a whole lotta crazy underneath. Penn's example of the library and putting his fingers to Maher's head like a gun to represent taxation was a perfect example of the stupidity. I mean it's nice to assume that people are inherently good, but knowing what we know about the ability to easily override those controls, it's pretty ing irrelevant. Although, Penn has a better perspective on history as demonstrated in Overtime and that's as much credit as I've give him.

It's unfortunate that they marginalized the guy in the middle though.

I still think Grayson's smackdown of O'Rourke was the highlight of the past two weeks.

Here's the clip with Maher talking about racism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M31tI8W5Lyk&feature=player_detailpage#t=145s

Here's Grayson's clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77wMFfIslXc&feature=related

This week was pretty good. The EPA director was a really good communicator, Maddow was Maddow, Friedman was ok, and Green wasn't that bad either. Toure had an interesting description of his book and I couldn't quite put my finger on my issues with it until he mentioned Henry Louis Gates, although, the rest of his comments weren't very problematic for me.

Two points that stuck out for me were they were talking about how we could never have another contrived war like Iraq and the gamification of war. On the first point, people have been saying that for as long as war has existed. And for the second, we've been trying to make soldiers better killers and control their responses since war has existed as well. I don't see those to concepts going away just because we have a better idea of who controls the puppet strings. If anything, it's been made easier to manufacture conflicts and create "better" soldiers through the same mechanisms that allow us to see who's the Wizard of Oz.

Penn is at least one of the saner libertarians. The guy isn't a heartless bastard anyway.

This week was a very interesting epsode. There was so much herpy derpy from the two conservatives that I wanted to punch them in the face(not literally of course)...it reminded me of our own fellow conservatives CAG's. Ware was most certainly intoxicated and hilarious...or maybe he just got tired of listening to herpy derpy bullshit, West was unusually more militant in his stances and approaches...although he needed to be schooled on the history of Mormonism and John Smith, Goldberg was making really good points but unfortunately the men kept on speaking over her, Christie was a douche that tried to hide despicable points with a gentle tone, and Norquist was just straight up full of shit.

Maher pretty much lost control of the panel before they were halfway though the show and it was interesting to see him stumble around trying to justify that it was religion that made someone rape Gaddifi with a stick rather than the patriarchal rape culture that we live in while Ware and West were trying to educate him on it. New Rules and the jokes were pretty brutal, but the biggest WTF moment for me was when Ware lit a cigarette in the studio, although Galifinakis lit up a joint so I don't know WTF.

That was the one with Cornell West, right? I just finally saw it yesterday (a little behind). that was probably the most out of control I've ever seen that show. Even West, who's usually pretty calm got up a few times and seemed like he was going to crawl over the desk. I'd love to have a class with that man, he seems a little crazy at times, but the man has a passion and way of speaking that's incredible.

Yeah...that's the one. The show was completely bonkers.

This past week wasn't that great either. Issa(R-California Congressman), a complete shit bag his entire life and the richest person in Congress, was a typical conservative douche bag, talking over the other guests, especially the female guest, not letting them finish, etc. Maher should really work on the men talking over the women and it's something that's been going on for a long ass time, especially from the conservative male guests.

This Friday is the season finale too.

OOOOOOr the women could learn to speak up and defend themselves. If you feel someone is trampling all over you and not respecting your opinion then its better to learn to speak up then to have someone else fight for you.

Anyways the Cornell West episode was indeed crazy. Brother West is usually one of my fav guests...but he seemed rather unhinged that episode, didnt help that the other guest was completely ing unhinged.

[quote name='MSI Magus']OOOOOOr the women could learn to speak up and defend themselves. If you feel someone is trampling all over you and not respecting your opinion then its better to learn to speak up then to have someone else fight for you.[/quote]
It's not that simple and it has less to do with respecting someone's opinion, but respecting the person. When Issa was being openly hostile to Wagner, he was using class privilege, race privilege, and gender privilege, Maher was letting that bullshit slide. Even West knows and acknowledges when to give a marginalized voice an opportunity to be heard.

Trying to identify and reverse a lifetime's worth of sexist socialization is NOT a simple task. And instead of blaming the victim, maybe you should be ascribing some sense of personal responsibility on the perpetrator of the sexist action as well.

Anyways the Cornell West episode was indeed crazy. Brother West is usually one of my fav guests...but he seemed rather unhinged that episode, didnt help that the other guest was completely ing unhinged.

Click to expand...

Are you talking about Ware, Christie, or Norquist? Ware was drunk and the other two were J.A.Q.-ing off while looking squirmish.

[quote name='dohdough']It's not that simple and it has less to do with respecting someone's opinion, but respecting the person. When Issa was being openly hostile to Wagner, he was using class privilege, race privilege, and gender privilege, Maher was letting that bullshit slide. Even West knows and acknowledges when to give a marginalized voice an opportunity to be heard.

Trying to identify and reverse a lifetime's worth of sexist socialization is NOT a simple task. And instead of blaming the victim, maybe you should be ascribing some sense of personal responsibility on the perpetrator of the sexist action as well.


Are you talking about Ware, Christie, or Norquist? Ware was drunk and the other two were J.A.Q.-ing off while looking squirmish.[/QUOTE]

I knew this would be your response. Being a woman is not the equivalent of being a rape victim or a better example in this case a woman from a third world country. Are women in the US undervalued and often under appreciated? Yep! Does that mean that we expect women to just shut up and let men talk over them? NOPE! Maher could and should speak up, but more importantly these women should speak up. What would Issa have done? What power did he have to "put her in her place".

We live in America and while women are still not treated as full equals they are treated as far past close enough that they can speak up for themselves in 99% of situations without fear of reprisal. If anything what you are doing is extremely insulting to women. Most girls(Edit -O shit I said girls instead of women I must be sexist) I know find it insulting when men try and speak up and defend them or imply someone is taking advantage of them. But hey, I guess I am a Neo liberal or some such crap and am just brainwashed by society to not be a perfect liberal who thinks every person needs some shining ultra pure 100% bad ass dohdoh level liberal to ride in on a white horse and defend them from the massive injustices of American socioeconomic factors we are too ignorant to recognize are manipulating us common folk. Or some such nonsense.

To put it simply. Not all women want someone to speak up for them, many find that insulting/sexist! And again your post proves that you above most posters here need people to 100% agree with you on every single issue to the smallest factor.

Edit - O and I was talking about the Australian dude sitting on the panel with West. Hearing he was drunk is not surprising, he was acting like he was just hanging out with Rick Perry or some shit.

[quote name='MSI Magus']I knew this would be your response. Being a woman is not the equivalent of being a rape victim or a better example in this case a woman from a third world country. Are women in the US undervalued and often under appreciated? Yep! Does that mean that we expect women to just shut up and let men talk over them? NOPE! Maher could and should speak up, but more importantly these women should speak up. What would Issa have done? What power did he have to "put her in her place".[/QUOTE]
...and the African slaves could've easily overthrown their white overlords because they outnumbered them...

Or maybe Issa shouldn't be an asshole and Maher should've said something like I initially said before you added your 2 cents about women just needing to speak up just because you said so.

I gave three reasons why Issa felt like he could talk over Wagner and those same three reasons, plus one, as to why Wagner also didn't speak up. Just because you don't understand how privilege operates on a systemic level doesn't mean they don't exist.

We live in America and while women are still not treated as full equals they are treated as far past close enough that they can speak up for themselves in 99% of situations without fear of reprisal. If anything what you are doing is extremely insulting to women. Most girls(Edit -O shit I said girls instead of women I must be sexist) I know find it insulting when men try and speak up and defend them or imply someone is taking advantage of them. But hey, I guess I am a Neo liberal or some such crap and am just brainwashed by society to not be a perfect liberal who thinks every person needs some shining ultra pure 100% bad ass dohdoh level liberal to ride in on a white horse and defend them from the massive injustices of American socioeconomic factors we are too ignorant to recognize are manipulating us common folk. Or some such nonsense.

Click to expand...

When women exert authority, people call them bitches. When women have multiple sex partners, people call them sluts. When women are successful in their professions, people make assumptions that they slept to the top. Women make 25% less than men on average. I shouldn't need to point out more examples. If you don't think that going up against the staus quo isn't punitive, I'm not the one with the problem.

To equate me with being sexist by calling Issa an asshole for being sexist because he was aggressively talking over a female is pretty derp-worthy. Issa is using male privilege to try and shut her up and I would also use male priviledge to tell him to literally STFU. It would behoove Maher as a moderator stop Issa from marginalizing other guests. I'm not talking about one or two incidents, but a long ing pattern on the show.

To put it simply. Not all women want someone to speak up for them, many find that insulting/sexist! And again your post proves that you above most posters here need people to 100% agree with you on every single issue to the smallest factor.

Click to expand...

No. My problem is with you saying dumb shit beyond your level of knowledge and education...and I'm not talking about having a degree.

For the nth time: me pointing out an -ism doesn't not make me an -ist.

And since you don't seem to understand neo-liberalism yet, a quick hop to the wiki on it is a good start. The problem with you isn't with what the definition is, but what is implied by the ideology such as individualism, equality, and economics as the means of self-determination/definition, which you promote.

Edit - O and I was talking about the Australian dude sitting on the panel with West. Hearing he was drunk is not surprising, he was acting like he was just hanging out with Rick Perry or some shit.

Click to expand...

For a big guy, I'm surprised that he has problems keeping his shit in check after a cup of booze...or maybe he just felt like being chummy. He looked like he had drunk-face to me.

Geez Magus, over react much? It's Maher's show, he has a responsibility to make sure everyone has a chance to speak, and usually he does try to let everyone have their say. Doesn't matter if the person is male or female. This time he basically just let everyone go free-for-all.

Edit - You know what. NM. No matter what I say you are always going to accuse anyone that doesnt agree with you of being brainwashed by society and no matter what I say you wont ever see how sexist it is to say women cant fight their own battles. If I was in the middle east or someplace id agree with you, but in America while sexism still exists(as you pointed out with your list of issues women face)it doesnt exist at a level that men should step in and fight a women/minorities battle unless they prove time and time again they let others trample them(and even then its better to talk directly to the person, teach them to fish vs giving them a fish).

[quote name='MSI Magus']Edit - You know what. NM. No matter what I say you are always going to accuse anyone that doesnt agree with you of being brainwashed by society and no matter what I say you wont ever see how sexist it is to say women cant fight their own battles. If I was in the middle east or someplace id agree with you, but in America while sexism still exists(as you pointed out with your list of issues women face)it doesnt exist at a level that men should step in and fight a women/minorities battle unless they prove time and time again they let others trample them(and even then its better to talk directly to the person, teach them to fish vs giving them a fish).[/QUOTE]
I never said that women can't fight their own battles, but that on the show, there's been a long pattern of this kind of treatment. How you pushed that into "dohdoh(sic) is sexist because he thinks women can't fight their own battles" is all you and not even close to anything that I'm stating or implying. I'm not co-opting feminist theory or language and colonizing it to further entrench male privilege.

And just because we're not at the same levels of the worst offenders of racism and sexism doesn't mean that thing are great. There's a difference between rottenest rotting shit in a barrel with a couple inches of water and the scum festering at the top of it, but it's still shitty no matter how you try separate it. This is the exact point that Tavis Smiley was trying to make to Maher when Maher was making the same argument about the Middle-East being oppressive to women...(edit: with the help of the US because the CIA helped to overthrow the democratically elected governments and tried to install US corporation friendlier ones)

edit: There isn't much difference between your original post and the one you edited in.

So in one breath I should stop blaming the victim, yet in the next women can fight their own battles.

I'm saying that it's contextual. You act as if I'm talking about taking over the feminist movement because women can't do it on their own or something.

I'm resurrecting this thread because tonight's episode of Real Time was off the ing hook. Kirk Douglas was sharp as shit for being 95 and debilitated from a stroke over 10 years ago, Maddow was 2 steps ahead of everyone in a couple spots although she was more than a bit lazy shooting down the libertarian, Mark Ruffalo was great, but too bad he's a bit of a truther.

The libertarian dude decided to wear a tacky ing leather jacket again like from his first appearance and was as douchy as ever. It's like the jacket is some kind of catalyst for bring out the dumber asshole in him or something.

Next week is the season finale and I have to admit that the season has been a bit of a drag.

[quote name='dohdough']I'm resurrecting this thread because tonight's episode of Real Time was off the ing hook. Kirk Douglas was sharp as shit for being 95 and debilitated from a stroke over 10 years ago, Maddow was 2 steps ahead of everyone in a couple spots although she was more than a bit lazy shooting down the libertarian, Mark Ruffalo was great, but too bad he's a bit of a truther.

The libertarian dude decided to wear a tacky ing leather jacket again like from his first appearance and was as douchy as ever. It's like the jacket is some kind of catalyst for bring out the dumber asshole in him or something.

Next week is the season finale and I have to admit that the season has been a bit of a drag.[/QUOTE]

Gillespie's shtick is his jacket. He wears it almost everywhere.

They call him the Fonzie of Freedom.

When Kirk Douglas voiced his complaint with religion, Bill said, "You're preaching to the choir!" I couldn't tell if that was intentional or not. Thankfully the person doing the closed captioning could understand Kirk better than I could. I had to look up the 60s incident they were referring to, as well.

What Bill really needs is a robot computer sidekick that can quickly grab the information and statistics he or his panelists need during these arguments. It's so annoying to see a conversation or debate halted because two people claim to have read factual analyses that completely contradict one another.

Also, I couldn't figure out what Nick Gillespie was arguing for with the labeling of mutant chili issue. He appeared to think that the information should be technically available, even if it means a 6 hour research session to find out if your green beans will grant you a superpower. After all, why improve something if the current system is technically feasible?

dohdough, what do you mean Mark Ruffalo is a bit of a truther? Did I miss something?

ID2006 it means Ruffalo probably said something to the effect that he believes 9/11 is a False Flag Operation which automatically makes him a kook right doh?
If you know all the evidence behind 9/11 and believe the official story, regardless whether or not you believe it to be a False Flag operation then I question your intelligence. The official explanation really doesn't wash after hearing everything.

[quote name='ID2006']When Kirk Douglas voiced his complaint with religion, Bill said, "You're preaching to the choir!" I couldn't tell if that was intentional or not. Thankfully the person doing the closed captioning could understand Kirk better than I could. I had to look up the 60s incident they were referring to, as well.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, there were a couple of points where I didn't quite understand what he was saying. On of them was when he said it wasn't a choice to be Jewish or gay and I forget the other one.

What Bill really needs is a robot computer sidekick that can quickly grab the information and statistics he or his panelists need during these arguments. It's so annoying to see a conversation or debate halted because two people claim to have read factual analyses that completely contradict one another.

Click to expand...

I don't know how real-time fact checking would help with destroying the flow of the debate, but I agree that there are a number of times that he totally misses someone's bullshit or unable to address it in a meaningful way. Maybe they should pilot a program like that for a few episodes next season to see if they can make it work. I mean there's obviously a monitor in the table, so they can do something. It'd be interesting to see reactions from the guests too.

Also, I couldn't figure out what Nick Gillespie was arguing for with the labeling of mutant chili issue. He appeared to think that the information should be technically available, even if it means a 6 hour research session to find out if your green beans will grant you a superpower. After all, why improve something if the current system is technically feasible?

Click to expand...

Right, it's a very superficial argument that puts all the onus on the person with the least power to implement the system rather than the entity that would actually be the one and has the resources to implement it.

dohdough, what do you mean Mark Ruffalo is a bit of a truther? Did I miss something?

Click to expand...

His main beef is that the report doesn't address stuff before the crash and after the collapse. I'm guessing that it has more to do with the commission answering how things happened, but not why. The only thing I can confirm is that he doesn't like the explanation of how the buildings fell. He typically goes on and on about it raising more questions, but fails to give a couple of examples. I don't expect an on the spot treatise, but at least give a couple examples.

[quote name='Sarang01']ID2006 it means Ruffalo probably said something to the effect that he believes 9/11 is a False Flag Operation which automatically makes him a kook right doh?
If you know all the evidence behind 9/11 and believe the official story, regardless whether or not you believe it to be a False Flag operation then I question your intelligence. The official explanation really doesn't wash after hearing everything.[/QUOTE]
Yeah...that's exactly what I said and implied. How about you give some examples instead of being vague?

Occam's Razor kills conspiracy theories dead.

We're in a post 9/11 world and yet we're arguing about gay marriage. I don't think it's at the fore front of anyone's mind anymore.

[quote name='Strell']Occam's Razor kills conspiracy theories dead.

We're in a post 9/11 world and yet we're arguing about gay marriage. I don't think it's at the fore front of anyone's mind anymore.[/QUOTE]
Looks like someone's in on it.:shock:

[quote name='dohdough']Yeah, there were a couple of points where I didn't quite understand what he was saying. On of them was when he said it wasn't a choice to be Jewish or gay and I forget the other one.

I don't know how real-time fact checking would help with destroying the flow of the debate, but I agree that there are a number of times that he totally misses someone's bullshit or unable to address it in a meaningful way. Maybe they should pilot a program like that for a few episodes next season to see if they can make it work. I mean there's obviously a monitor in the table, so they can do something. It'd be interesting to see reactions from the guests too.

Right, it's a very superficial argument that puts all the onus on the person with the least power to implement the system rather than the entity that would actually be the one and has the resources to implement it.

His main beef is that the report doesn't address stuff before the crash and after the collapse. I'm guessing that it has more to do with the commission answering how things happened, but not why. The only thing I can confirm is that he doesn't like the explanation of how the buildings fell. He typically goes on and on about it raising more questions, but fails to give a couple of examples. I don't expect an on the spot treatise, but at least give a couple examples.


Yeah...that's exactly what I said and implied. How about you give some examples instead of being vague?[/QUOTE]

I don't know building number 7. Beforehand when they were conducting an anti-terrorist operation and saw what was happening on the radar and were basically told to ignore it from what I remember. Even if you were conducting an Anti-Terrorist OPERATION wouldn't the thing to do would be to follow procedure and check? The fact they find a spotless id of one of the hijackers in the building doesn't make sense either.
The Pentagon one is pretty damning. Looking at the logistics of that would seem to suggest a missile instead of a plane especially given there was no real debree to suggest it. Also anyone wanting to look at the video has no chance as most was seized and what was left to show was really nothing at all the indicate what happened. Speaking of evidence, all the stuff collected from WTC to really check the buildings foundations themselves were shipped off to China before they could be checked. The suspicion being that Thermite was used on the building as it's been said many times that while jet fuel is incredibly hot it's not hot enough to melt Steel. Where Thermite plays in is that it changes the Steel to its component parts which reach their melting point much faster. Although there is the explanation that they possibly cheapened on the materials and they were not made with Steel. If you discount that it's worth noting the Thermite explanation as some if not most of these buildings were supposedly made to withstand all sorts of impact that would imply a Terrorist action. Let us not forget the towers were attacked back in the 90's by the PLO I think.
The impact of 9/11 and what plain doesn't make sense was in the aftermath of the crises. Even if you don't believe the False Flag argument you have to believe the agencies involved handled themselves quite incompetently which is why the Patriot Act especially should have never passed. No offense but use the tools you have effectively and competently then tell me you might actually need something more. Shit like this is straight out of the "Shock Doctrine"(Patriot Act something out of the 1984 playbook) though, force something through when people are too numb to fully comprehend it's bullshit.

You're talking about 200,000 pounds of metal and aviation fuel going at 400-500 mph. Its amazing the buildings survived the initial impact let alone a 1,000+ degree fire which while not hot enough to completely melt the steel is certainly hot enough to severely weaken it. Ever broken a paper clip? Granted that's about as minimalistic as an argument can be made, the point stands that metal doesn't need to be at its melting point to fail.

Now take one of those same planes and slam it into the ground which is already compressed. There ain't exactly gonna be much left of a plane after that...

[quote name='RedvsBlue']You're talking about 200,000 pounds of metal and aviation fuel going at 400-500 mph. Its amazing the buildings survived the initial impact let alone a 1,000+ degree fire which while not hot enough to completely melt the steel is certainly hot enough to severely weaken it. Ever broken a paper clip? Granted that's about as minimalistic as an argument can be made, the point stands that metal doesn't need to be at its melting point to fail.

Now take one of those same planes and slam it into the ground which is already compressed. There ain't exactly gonna be much left of a plane after that...[/QUOTE]

I assume for the second point you're talking about the Pentagon. That whole thing wreaks of something being covered up, especially with the video footage. You do the logistics in terms of flying with a Jumbo Jet it doesn't wash. What makes more sense is a missile, which, when you consider that is scary as hitting the Pentagon but actually makes more sense then a plane if you look at everything surrounding it.
As for the buildings I believe 7 was built to take an impact like that and if you consider the PLO attacks I refuse to believe they didn't have possible similar precautionary measures for the other buildings. Granted I'm never one to discount human stupidity or arrogance or greed and maybe this was possibly one, two or three but the official explanation doesn't wash for me. I could perfectly well believe three given the greedy, unredeemable s a lot of those in the Bush Administration were. Putting out all that bullshit about the Swine Flu to pimp that Tamiflu crap and we know where Rumsfeld was in this. That full body scanner crap that Chertov had a stake in.

I'm actually watching it right now. Too bad this turned into a 9/11 conspiracy theory thread.

I kinda of feel Sorry for Maddow, seems like she's always having to fight to be able to speak without anyone interrupting her.

[quote name='Clak']I kinda of feel Sorry for Maddow, seems like she's always having to fight to be able to speak without anyone interrupting her.[/QUOTE]
I partially blame Maher for it because he does a horrible job of moderating the panels.

Yeah he really does, it's kind of a free for all. Mort Zukerman seemed so out of place. It was basically Maddow and Gillespie arguing across him. That seems to happen a lot, the quite panelist always seems to end up in the middle of the 3.

[quote name='dohdough']I partially blame Maher for it because he does a horrible job of moderating the panels.[/QUOTE]

Agreed though it is fair to say at least it's not as bad as other political shows where it was essentially monkeys flinging poo at each other.
If not that then some beltway crap where I'd just as soon hang myself. This is why I don't listen to "Meet The Press". Are they discussing valid political strategy that matters? Yes except it's dry as and dodging around the issues and it's almost as bad as actually NOT talking about politics around the dinner table. I swear some talk about it like it's Football. Ugh.

[quote name='ID2006']What Bill really needs is a robot computer sidekick that can quickly grab the information and statistics he or his panelists need during these arguments. It's so annoying to see a conversation or debate halted because two people claim to have read factual analyses that completely contradict one another.
?[/QUOTE]

They could do a pop-up videoesque thing for the re-runs.

[quote name='dohdough']I partially blame Maher for it because he does a horrible job of moderating the panels.[/QUOTE]

Really? Back when I used to watch Real Time (and Politically Correct before that), one of the things I always liked was that Maher did a very good job moderating the panel and making sure everyone got a chance to speak. I preferred it over similar shows since it wasn't just a group of 3 or 4 people all trying to see who can yell their opinion the loudest. Sort of a shame if things have gone in that direction.

It basically has. Before this last episode they showed an old clip featuring Maddow having to fight, finally standing up, just to speak. Think that was from last year.

[quote name='Cantatus']Really? Back when I used to watch Real Time (and Politically Correct before that), one of the things I always liked was that Maher did a very good job moderating the panel and making sure everyone got a chance to speak. I preferred it over similar shows since it wasn't just a group of 3 or 4 people all trying to see who can yell their opinion the loudest. Sort of a shame if things have gone in that direction.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, Maher is pretty hands off nowadays.

Anybody watch this week? Good episode, notable for the segment where Maher takes a big ol' shit on Dinesh D'Souza. Check it out if you can, the link below has part of the interview.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/01/dinesh-dsouza-bill-maher-debate-obamas-sublimated-rage/

By the end, it seemed like the whole thing was an ambush, with Bill chastising Dinesh for not defending him after Politically Incorrect was pulled off the air.

The latest episode was pretty good. Jason Alexander played this week's mediator between Bill and the token Republican/Conservative. The Mormon discussion was kind of boring, though, since I can't see Mitt Romney being all that attached to his religion and its specifics. Bill himself really did seem more prepared or focused than usual, as well as more irritable. I was definitely not around for that Dinesh kerfuffle, so I had no idea what was coming.

They just couldn't resist giving Jason Alexander a dopey Seinfeld question in the Overtime segment. I wonder how sick of that he is.

Off-topic edit: Does Seinfeld hold up well? I've seen maybe one episode and never watched the rest. I'm hoping Netflix or someone will get the streaming rights so I don't have to buy/rent the discs.

[quote name='Ugamer_X']Anybody watch this week? Good episode, notable for the segment where Maher takes a big ol' shit on Dinesh D'Souza. Check it out if you can, the link below has part of the interview.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/01/dinesh-dsouza-bill-maher-debate-obamas-sublimated-rage/

By the end, it seemed like the whole thing was an ambush, with Bill chastising Dinesh for not defending him after Politically Incorrect was pulled off the air.[/QUOTE]

The comments section on that video rivals most of the tripe I've seen on yahoo.

[quote name='ID2006']The latest episode was pretty good. Jason Alexander played this week's mediator between Bill and the token Republican/Conservative. The Mormon discussion was kind of boring, though, since I can't see Mitt Romney being all that attached to his religion and its specifics. Bill himself really did seem more prepared or focused than usual, as well as more irritable. I was definitely not around for that Dinesh kerfuffle, so I had no idea what was coming.[/QUOTE]
I'd have to disagree with Romney and his religion. If anything I'd say that he's balls deep in it judging from some of his overcompensation of things. It's like trying to LARP Plainsville or Leave it to Beaver. Kirn was pretty much alluding to that.

edit: It's kinda why people say he's robotic because there's no genuiness to any of his actions and it's as if he's just going through the motions to give a pretense that he cares.

They just couldn't resist giving Jason Alexander a dopey Seinfeld question in the Overtime segment. I wonder how sick of that he is.

Off-topic edit: Does Seinfeld hold up well? I've seen maybe one episode and never watched the rest. I'm hoping Netflix or someone will get the streaming rights so I don't have to buy/rent the discs.

Click to expand...

Seinfeld holds up ok if you can get past the fashion and haircuts. I was never a fan of the show, but there are some really good episodes in there.

[quote name='dohdough']I'd have to disagree with Romney and his religion. If anything I'd say that he's balls deep in it judging from some of his overcompensation of things. It's like trying to LARP Plainsville or Leave it to Beaver. Kirn was pretty much alluding to that.

edit: It's kinda why people say he's robotic because there's no genuiness to any of his actions and it's as if he's just going through the motions to give a pretense that he cares. [/QUOTE]


I was thinking of it as someone who didn't shun their faith to get ahead by acting like it isn't there. He doesn't seem all that kind and giving. But, yeah, as with many religious people, he probably has his own version in his mind that might still include the stranger stuff they spoke about on Bill Maher.

To be fair, I can't say I know all the tenets of Mormonism. I thought following Jesus' teachings was in there somewhere, but maybe it does encourage the cutthroat lifestyle he's lived.

Don't forget the magic underoos. Still have to watch this episode.

So I finished watching and had to look this planet kolob shit up.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolob

I wonder if xenu lives there too?

[quote name='Clak']So I finished watching and had to look this planet kolob shit up.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolob

I wonder if xenu lives there too?[/QUOTE]
Yeah...I was going to say that Scientology is actually very similar to Mormonism, but I did't want to spoil it for anyone...I hate spoilers.:lol:

Christine O'donnell was Bill's first guest tonight. I am pretty sure not one word she spoke was 100% true. Same old tired lies and twisting of facts. She was trying to say that for every 1 job we have been gaining we "actually" have been losing 4 jobs because those people are just going on welfare. So according to her logic last month 400,000 people went on welfare? I am also getting tired of the whole under Obama the debt has increased more than from George Washington to Reagan combined. Then she takes no blame for Bush creating Medicare Part D and the 2 wars. The standard answer of you can't keep blaming Bush basically is saying he should end both wars and pay for Medicare Part D by raising taxes which almost every conservative would shit a brick about. I am so glad she lost.