|
Holy poo poo the woman in the middle.
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 21:28 |
|
|
Yeah...I thought heading into it that this whole Berkeley thing would just be a small aside in the middle and then onto the rest of the show---nope! This season has not seen such a derail of this magnitude---she even tried to bring it back in OT again which may well have cut it shorter than planned.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
Religion is just a form of tribalism. One of the main, if not the only thing that causes us to kill eachother. They are different! Kill them! Its the reason sports are so popular, People grab their tribe and never let go.
Fragmented fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Nov 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
Rula Jebreal really went off there didn't she. I think it's because normally whenever she's on a panel show she's usually paired with some crazy Zionist caricature straight out of an A Wyatt Mann cartoon, so the format probably puts her on the defensive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
"Bill, you're just like an antisemite."
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
I've been liking Bill's opening monologues and his incredulity about Ebola the past three weeks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
Did Rula Jebreal really just compare Islam to being a Black person or a Jew? She sounds crazy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
Noirex posted:Did Rula Jebreal really just compare Islam to being a Black person or a Jew? She sounds crazy. To be fair, she also mentioned her father during her rants, a man who put her and her sister in an orphanage at the age of five after her mother killed herself, and let her stay there until she lucked out* and was given a scholarship to the University of Bologna. So it's possible she might have some baggage. * editing this because re-reading it in retrospect, it sounded incredibly lovely - she's not sitting on Bill's panel by 'lucking out,' she's sitting there because despite her having a poor showing, she has the proper credentials to be there. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 11:06 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
Jesus Christ, that woman in the middle actually made me agree with Maher. That's quite a feat...
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 12:31
|
|
|
I don't whether to hate Rula or love her. She mixes good points that everybody avoids (how radical Islam really gave rise) with general naiveness (thinking it is feasible to embargo Saudi Arabia). The general pissed me off about how "We have to stay in these bases around the world for the long haul." Yes because Western Europe can't possibly up there armies to match the might of the mighty Russian Empire...
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
I think Maher's approach to Islam is his main issue. What he actually says makes a lot of sense, but he needs to keep bringing up the point that he'd say the exact same thing of Christians from a few hundred years ago. I know he's said this before, but if he wants people to open their ears and listen to him he needs to get past the mental gymnastics they'll go through to stop listening as soon as he sounds even remotely racist. And yes, people absolutely do not know how to differentiate between race and religion. If he tried to take on the approach of "All religions are stupid and many of them had periods of extreme oppression and institutional violence, but in the current era, the predominance of this overt violence and oppression comes from Muslim countries," it would be straight up IMPOSSIBLE to refute. Obviously other examples of institutionalized violence exists, but rather than people losing their shits over the fact that "NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE VIOLENT" there could be some form of productive dialogue. His method does nothing but incite strong emotional responses from apologists, Muslims themselves, or SJWs. He should also point out that during some of the most oppressive times of Catholicism/Christianity in Europe, the Turks/Ottomans/Arabs were regarded as highly secular traders who encouraged question, reason, and open dialogue with other peoples. Religion itself is the problem. Islam isn't inherently worse than Christianity or Judaism. They all suck miserably. The difference is the level of literal interpretation in theocratic countries resulting in religion-based acceptance of violence happens to be in a region that is Muslim. The only way to fix it is to wall it off and let them fight amongst each other until new borders are defined. The only way to even humor that idea is to stop relying on their main export. Basically what I'm saying is the Western Powers in WW1 hosed poo poo up for at least another century. Thanks faggots. Shadow fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Nov 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
Shadow posted:And yes, people absolutely do not know how to differentiate between race and religion. Anyone autistic enough to conflate these two should be dismissed entirely like that obnoxious bitch on the show telling Bill that he would be fired for saying the same thing about African Americans as he does with Muslims.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
Vaall posted:Anyone autistic enough to conflate these two should be dismissed entirely like that obnoxious bitch on the show telling Bill that he would be fired for saying the same thing about African Americans as he does with Muslims. "No, Fox News would just offer me a job to replace Alan Colmes."
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 08:25
|
|
|
Shadow posted:If he tried to take on the approach of "All religions are stupid and many of them had periods of extreme oppression and institutional violence, but in the current era, the predominance of this overt violence and oppression comes from Muslim countries The problem with that approach is it's not true. Latin America and the Caribbean are the most violent places on earth, followed by sub-Saharan Africa. And pretty much all those countries are majority Christian.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 11:57
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:The problem with that approach is it's not true. Latin America and the Caribbean are the most violent places on earth, followed by sub-Saharan Africa. And pretty much all those countries are majority Christian. They're doing said violence in the name of whatever Drug Cartel Lord they serve though, no? The Middle East is still doing it in the name of Allah against Infidels... or what have you. If I'm wrong, please correct me. I hate being wrong. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
Isn't it pretty much just Wahabists? There are extreme Shiites too but it seems like 95% of the problems go back to Saudi Arabia and Wahabism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Isn't it pretty much just Wahabists? There are extreme Shiites too but it seems like 95% of the problems go back to Saudi Arabia and Wahabism. That's a chunk of it, but there's Salafis, Muslim Brotherhood, Pakistani/Indian/Chinese tensions, the problems in Indonesia, etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Rula: "You can't just write off an entire religion like that, Bill! That is why I am here to tell you how offended every Muslim is for your citing a poll."
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Shadow posted:They're doing said violence in the name of whatever Drug Cartel Lord they serve though, no? The Middle East is still doing it in the name of Allah against Infidels... or what have you. When people say the conflicts in the Middle East are about politics and economics, they're correct. When people say the conflicts in the Middle East are about religion, they're correct. Both sets of problems are real but there are some people who seem to want us to believe that religion could never be the motivation behind anything bad. Nobody would say such a thing about politics and economics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
Animal-Mother posted:When people say the conflicts in the Middle East are about politics and economics, they're correct. When people say the conflicts in the Middle East are about religion, they're correct. Both sets of problems are real but there are some people who seem to want us to believe that religion could never be the motivation behind anything bad. Nobody would say such a thing about politics and economics. No argument from me. Politics and economics are causes of all kinds of conflict, but (as you said) religion not being another (and major motivator/propaganda machine) is naive as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
Good times last night---interview lady killed it proper/hopefully comes back again and on OT with Sanders also being good ole' Sanders. That one guy lifting up Paul Ryan as one of the greatest champions of the poor alongside Warren/Sanders/Kucinich while he was still at it---god I wish the camerafolks had been on point to catch the look on Maher's face they were only able to hint at after the fact. I fear for next week though as I really don't want Rand Paul on the panel, as while there's a chance he'd say something so dumb as to yet again more visibly hoist himself---there's also a chance that he'd yet again wind up skating on it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
Shadow posted:They're doing said violence in the name of whatever Drug Cartel Lord they serve though, no? The Middle East is still doing it in the name of Allah against Infidels... or what have you. A lot of terrorist actions could be framed as being done in the behest of Osama or whatever faction leader is in charge in whatever area but mentally it's way easier and quicker to file it all under a branch of religion. Narrative might be paramount with politics and worldview. Animal-Mother posted:Nobody would say such a thing about politics and economics. That's why I tend to like the older term "political economy."
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
Remind me again why it's necessary for the show to have the fifth guest spot (plug central)? Usually that segment ends up interrupting good debate just so Bill can kiss the person's rear end for ten minutes and talk about their upcoming book/movie/TV show etc. Not talking about Lisa Kudrow specifically, it just seems that it adds nothing to the show. I think it was two weeks ago that the fifth guest said absolutely nothing for the rest of the show after the plugs were over, which seems like such a waste. This isn't the Tonight Show, it's HBO, they shouldn't be tied to this pr bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
ExiledTinkerer posted:I fear for next week though as I really don't want Rand Paul on the panel, as while there's a chance he'd say something so dumb as to yet again more visibly hoist himself---there's also a chance that he'd yet again wind up skating on it. It wouldn't surprise me if Rand Paul isn't the first interview simply *so* he has a limited amount of time to spout talking points, lie that he's looking forward to 'working with the president,' avoid answering questions, and not be baited into saying something dumb being on the panel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
porkfriedrice posted:Remind me again why it's necessary for the show to have the fifth guest spot (plug central)? Usually that segment ends up interrupting good debate just so Bill can kiss the person's rear end for ten minutes and talk about their upcoming book/movie/TV show etc. Not talking about Lisa Kudrow specifically, it just seems that it adds nothing to the show. I think it was two weeks ago that the fifth guest said absolutely nothing for the rest of the show after the plugs were over, which seems like such a waste. This isn't the Tonight Show, it's HBO, they shouldn't be tied to this pr bullshit. That's my biggest gripe with the show. He has to take a break in the middle for not new rules unfunny poo poo (most of which he is the only one laughing at) and then another break to slip somebody in for no reason. You get like 15 minutes of debate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
Invalid Validation posted:That's my biggest gripe with the show. He has to take a break in the middle for not new rules unfunny poo poo (most of which he is the only one laughing at) and then another break to slip somebody in for no reason. You get like 15 minutes of debate. Last night's case being especially annoying. Martin Short seemed a bit weirded out about having his rear end kissed so much. I also didn't like how he let Rand slide on flat out not answering the privatized prisons question. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 11:27 on Nov 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 11:16
|
|
|
I'll take mild consolation that Rand only deigned appear over satellite versus actually sitting down which would have netted him a chance to stink up OT. But yeah, way to not at all answer a question and luck out on not getting pressed on it---no better on the idiocy on climate change as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
ExiledTinkerer posted:But yeah, way to not at all answer a question and luck out on not getting pressed on it---no better on the idiocy on climate change as well. "The media in this country are a bunch of pussies who report nothing but the talking points and never press people to answer questions." *lets Rand slide on an important question because he likes his stance on weed*
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
I liked the part where they started the ball rolling on an interesting topic, Iraq and Syria. Especially since they had Jeremy Scahill on the panel. Unfortunately, that lasted all of five and a half minutes to be cut short for Twitter Wars: starring those wacky two popes. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
I like that they did overtime covered in fake snow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 09:29
|
|
|
I love the idea of Chris Matthews giving anyone grief over the way they pronounce words.  Guy can't even say the word "Washington" without shoving an R in there unnecessarily just like John McCain does.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 10:02
|
|
|
Such a mistake to not bring Cleese back out for OT---come on now!
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
I wonder why Bill's been bragging about calling most Americans stupid the past few weeks but simultaneously complaining that enough people aren't voting. You'd think he'd want more of the (stupid) voters to stay home.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
The show returns in two nights with Jay Leno, Salman Rushdie, Carly Fiorina, Paul Begala and Chris Hardwick. Bill did end up giving that commencement address at UCLA despite some controversy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3HfdeW_jFA
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
God, did he ever pick a hell of a week to have Rushdie on. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
nine-gear crow posted:God, did he ever pick a hell of a week to have Rushdie on. It's going to be great.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 08:19
|
|
|
nine-gear crow posted:God, did he ever pick a hell of a week to have Rushdie on. Rushdie's been on quite a few times. Could be a coincidence, or maybe Bill wanted to get a hold of him due to recent events. It doesn't look like there's anyone on the panel who's going to make the insane argument that cartoonists should refrain from making jokes about Islam. I'm sure Andrew Sullivan will be on again eventually, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Animal-Mother posted:Rushdie's been on quite a few times. Could be a coincidence, or maybe Bill wanted to get a hold of him due to recent events. He was scheduled to be on before this latest attack.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Yeah, this is definitely one of the stranger return from hiatus panel picks given what is going down in terms of the lot of it. 2015 is going to be a crazy year for the show, hopefully seeing less of the people that derailed so many of the episodes in favor of some newcomers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 21:28 |
|
|
Amen. Moar David Simon please. Also, Matt Taibbi and newcomer Mark Ames. Would be interesting to see those two on the same stage after their split.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 18:30
|
|