Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«3 »
  • Post
  • Reply
Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


The Schriver interview was awful.

Either Bill did not understand the purpose of him being on the show (To promote his cause) or Bill does not believe in the cause.

Bill blew it on that one. Very poorly done.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


I hate Michael Steele because he is so dishonest. I have never seen Ed before, is he an MSNBC guy?


I have no clue what the 4th lady (lesbian muslim?) was there for. Was she selling something?

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


That panel portion of the episode was a disaster. Not because of Bill but the panel was just a mess.

One thing I notice recently is left wing people are becoming louder and louder and directly confronting the opposition on their positions.

I appreciate the fact that blogging is an opportunity for people to get a place to spread their message but how do they make the jump to being on TV shows... honestly I don't know what I am saying, I am not even sure I agree with myself. I don't trust bloggers


The monologue was not bad and the Massachusetts Governor was good as well

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


HyperPuma posted:

Right wing conspiracy dude was no doubt a terrible human being, but I seemed to still be able to enjoy that episode. It was almost surreal, with they way those two were talking to each other and bill just sitting there not knowing wtf. I guess, like John Waters, I've been in a bit of a cynical anarchistic mood lately. Just have to laugh to keep from crying.

The biggest problem was that nobody (well me and I am the one that counts...) understood what they were talking about. What was he supposed to apologize for?

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


Another episode where the conservative just embarrasses himself. Why can't you be a conservative and give your opinions without being dishonest?

It is so easy to be a conservative, they just spout catch phrases and call people names. They don't even pretend to talk policy and they never ever suggest that perhaps a different way is something to think about.

Actually, I don't think current conservatives are capable of seeing a different way of thinking about things. They are too wrapped up in being elected.

The black guy in the middle was very good and made excellent points.

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


ApexAftermath posted:

My hunch is that their beliefs are based in dishonesty to begin with. Frum is scared to death of being left to the side of the road by the idiots that now control "his" party, yet he won't acknowledge they control his party now.

He seems like a smart guy mostly so I have no idea how to explain him. Frum is crazy I guess.

I don't think they have any beliefs other then Democrats are bad. This is the level that the republicans have reached.

Their true policy beliefs don't work and even the most simple policies like abortion do not make any sense.

The fact that today's conservative can't admit that Iraq was a flat out mistake is disapointing

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002



You are being ridiculous.

Why is her idea of child raising wrong?

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


TheOmegaWalrus posted:

It basically trades the child's happiness and social development for career readiness. Tiger moms will often refuse the child's natural ambitions and force them into set hobbies and careers.

Though in a totalitarian sense, you can't argue with their success at producing doctors/scientists/engineers ect.
I wasn't really asking you, you didn't claim her kids had Stockholm syndrome.

I agree with her about the self-esteem but disagree with her on the choices she has imposed on her kids. I do think parents (actually the country as a whole)should focus on education.

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


AltronHGX posted:

He challenged you on your stance and that was your defense? That he should go google it himself because you can't be assed to defend your own argument?



You do know that this a thread about a show that is primarily about discussion right? (Not that that retort would fly anywhere, ever)

He is pretending this is not a message board. Let him be, he is angry at the Lady on TV

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


It is still just a cultural difference and issue. There is no clear decision of what childhood is supposed to be like. In the U.S. we have different cultures who raise their children different then other children are raised.

I suspect that the Tiger Mom is too strict but she did not write a "how-to" she wrote a book about her experiences. I have not read Amy Chua's book but from the comments about it I get that the issue is more about elitism then racism or strict discipline.

I still wish ICQ would explain what it is that makes him so over the top angry about this.

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


I enjoyed this episode. It was more comedy then topical. Kevin Nealon was very good and some of the points Bill brought up were pretty humorous.

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


The fly that was buzzing around was an example of why they should not rent a studio from CBS. Or that a fly was buzzing around

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


Funny episode. Sometimes it is nice to hear a majority liberal opinion without a loon making dishonest statements to gently caress it all up.

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


ApexAftermath posted:

Holy poo poo this libertarian/conservative guy is one of the most annoying asses I've ever seen.

Every single one of them I have ever met, read, or seen.

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


Bozz posted:

Nick Gellespie is human garbage. I'm really struggling to make it through the whole episode. Had to stop it after he loving threw it back in the face of the mayor that his town was poor. The guy is aggressively a piece of poo poo. He acts like a retarded 15 year old angry at their parents, but is at the polar end of the political spectrum with his edgy attitude. Makes him all the more obnoxious that he's dressed up like Fonzi from Happy Days. Did he pick up his badass outfit in the boys section in Sears to get high school girls? It's 100 degrees outside you loving prick.

For the first time a guest really made me angry. I have no problem with his position or beliefs, no matter how stupid they are. I had a problem with his condescending attitude and how he would not shut his mouth.

I wish the mayor had been able to speak more. I think small town politics is as important as the constant presidential/congress things.

I would have loved to see the Mayor throw his water on Gellespie.

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


The bottom of the article has the whole panel portion

http://goo.gl/1PRBm

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


ParagonParadox27 posted:

What's great about that idea is that it just so happens that, because of Bush, there's no longer a middle class to enslave. Republicans think on multiple vectors, people. It was all part of the plan to save them.

Unfortunately this is not true.
They are not thinking. They only believe in the opposite of "them." The actual policy or welfare of the country and it's citizens don't matter.

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


If the point of the panel is to make some sort of point or at least get you to think of things, this wasn't very good. I wish at times that the show would have a fact checker of at least few basic things available to Bill could call out the lies.

The Governor was pretty good, the blonde girl in the middle wasn't bad and even the Tea party guy was not too insane (except for his looks) but all together they said nothing.

I am starting to become more and more down on Barak and the Dem party though. Bill is correct, they are gutless sellouts. Really I don't see much difference in the parties anymore because the Democratic party won't do anything that represents it's core beliefs and the beliefs of it's supporters.

At one point we the Dems had all the power, the Executive and both Houses and did nothing that people want.

At no point does anyone in charge care at all about the good of the country or the welfare of all of the people. They don't even care enough to be honest about what we want.

We are being let down so badly by all divisions of those that are supposed to lead us or guide us.



The Christie jokes were pretty funny and Bryan Cranston was humorous.

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


ApexAftermath posted:

Doesn't help that when you do try to do things the people want, people like Joe Lieberman gently caress it all up. Also blue dog democrats. It just boggles my mind when people say "they had both houses and the presidency" when in reality they only had control up to the point where the good ones wanted to do anything big.

I can't tell if I boggle your mind or you agree


Please point out the good one. I don't see any (there are a few but even they don't speak loud enough - or can't)

I don't know the exact phrase the Tea Party guy used at the beginning but he said something to the effect that his group was the group that spoke up and used democracy and that is bullshit. Each of them only had one vote. They did however get a lot of press and media time.

They are the minority, they are even the minority in the Rebublican party. Somehow though, they get heard.



I am driven nuts by the fact that we have issues that we have science to support us but people will not stand up for change that is KILLING us.

The health care system, the big farm system, the meat production system, global warming, transportation and fuel are all documented in documentaries, in newspapers, magazines, television, and the internet have information on these issues.

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


I really did not find the panel that bad but they accomplished nothing. None of them were really offensive and none of them actually said anything with any meaning.


Richard, all that stuff you listed makes him crazy. Crazy people can be organized and plan things but that doesn't mean they are not crazy assholes. Believing in magic and then killing people over said belief is crazy.

Bill's point about it being religion based was lost in the dull and meaningless panel discussion.

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


Having a scientist on is always a good thing. Tyson is personable as well.

I wish we would have more true experts on, stuff like people who know about the European health care system and things like that.

I do think the shine is beginning to come off of Obama. True opposition to him should be from the left.

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


Kind of a dull episode.

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


IRQ posted:

He always seems well on his way to drunk.

That's his shtick. He is more of a conversationalist and doesn't fit Bill's show well. All of his attempts to stick in little jokes would be better if he was just having a conversation like they have on the late night shows. I really don't find him funny but I imagine those who like like to read humor may like him.

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


tags2k posted:

O'Rourke made me cringe with almost every line - I seem to remember a previous time he was on being very similar. He obviously got to Grayson too as he got a few good shots in but was also taunted into some borderline-childish responses which didn't fit someone of his assumed professionalism.


I wouldn't say they were strawmen exactly but Michael Moore has a tendency to go on television with little in the way of preparation. He'll launch into what he thinks is going to be a blistering attack on the greedy scum closing all of the factories, but by the end of his sentence he's just said "banks are evil" in a slightly different way. You'd think he might do a smidgen of writing a few hours in advance and maybe get closer to the root problems than just trotting out the same tired and ineffective ideas interview after interview.
That is PJ's profession and he is doing what makes him money. It is professional, it is how he makes money. I just doesn't seem to be very funny to me (or us?)

I know you weren't the original person who posted about Moore but
The greedy scum that he is attack are banks. No matter what way he tries to point it out, it is a bank or a banker or an investor in a bank or people who profit from banks...

He is doing what he does and it is what it is. It is what he believes.
This is a talk show panel format, not a speech.


EDIT: I come off like a dick when I really just want to point out some facts (to me anyway)

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


That was not a good episode. The conservative on the left was so loving annoying. You can oppose a republican candidate because you don't like his "catch phrases," but you don't have to bring up any comparison to the president or anyone at all.

This is why Republicans are so dishonest, when you defend Herman Caine from one person's opinion by attacking the president, you are not pushing anything for the country, you are being stupid.

This is a TV show, Bill could just tell the dude to stfu or leave. That would have been funny to see. (now I am just dreaming)

I probably make no sense at all

I don't watch a lot of news anymore, I can't take it but what was the deal with the eyebrow? Was he trying to hide his thinning brows?

The opening religious guy was nice and had a good sense of humor.

Bill's honesty about libertarianism was very interesting. I guess he is not one...

quote:

I don't want the show to be an echo chamber, but they also need to stop having Republicans on because they're all one giant loving talking point and bullshit. There are a few conservatives that are good guests, capable of having an actual debate and conversation, they should just rotate them.

You are right. They need conservatives, not Republicans. Republicans are not people to have any sort of conversation with. Penn would be considered a conservative.

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


I do not mean what he appears to be on the show. I might have been wrong but I was under the impression that Bill was still calling himself a libertarian but had no choice but to fight against the republicans - therefor he is left of what the current government is - which is confusing...

I got the feeling that with this show, he was sort of calling libertarianism a position for the immature and perhaps selfish thinkers. Did anyone else get a different thought from what he was saying. I think Penn nicely explained his position. It was hard to figure out what was being said because we had some rear end in a top hat constantly interrupting to remind us "Obama is bad"

Libertarianism is conservatism because it is the opposite of liberalism? or is liberalism now different from progressiveness...

Wooty fucked around with this message at Oct 16, 2011 around 21:51

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


LuisX posted:

Bill has been calling himself a liberal for quite a while now though.

I would not call Penn a conservative. I do not know of any other conservative that will be totally ok with LBGT marriages, legalized drugs and hookers.

The position of the libertarian is conservative because it is "just leave me alone, I will do for myself and help you, if I feel like it" while the liberal position is "together we can succeed"

The republican party has stolen individual issues and made them theirs because it is easy to steal voters on one individual issue. This is becoming a problem for them because you can not be a slightly moderate republican anymore because you will upset someone with an obsession over one issue. You can't be a conservative, that will offend over 1/2 the people you want to vote for you, you have to be a republican.

Of course, I am being sort of silly with my descriptions and please excuse my cap usage.

Edit: I worry so hard about being misunderstood (don't look at my post in the Goon Doctor mental health threads) so please understand I don't disagree, I am just putting out what I sense is going on.

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


I am pretty sure Bill self identifies as an atheist and a rationalist. They are the same thing. Am I wrong?

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


punk rebel ecks posted:

I really don't understand the Maher hate. I would understand if he was as smarmy and full of it as say Hitchens, but Hitches he is not.

Do you mean in this thread or in some other groups in the world?

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


Bill is very arrogant. He is what conservatives accuse (probably rightly) the left of being.


You can be arrogant when you are correct and the others are wrong.

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


I agree.

Rush is just an act. He doesn't give two fucks who is in charge. He just makes up stories to fit the world or vision he has created.

He has created this false universe and the people who listen to them are convinced that this universe is real. They don't listen because they agree with Rush, they listen because they think Rush agrees with them and that means they are correct - they don't seem to be aware that Rush has created the entire thing.

Rush has mastered planting ideas in his audiences minds and tinkering with their hidden (sometimes not even hidden) thoughts and beliefs. Rush creates the talking points that they repeat. Just ask barak HUSSEIN obama what the true fear is and who is with them?

A great deal of people don't like Bill Maher because he takes on their artificial world and does it with a good deal of arrogance.

You can be arrogant and snide when you are correct. Bill's problem is that it is very hard to explain the liberal position. It is complicated and the right wing side is not. Bill just sits back and pokes them because it is so easy.

There is also a bit of liberal guilt. Liberals must be kind and respectful. Liberals can not play the game the way the Republicans do. That is against their nature and belief system.

Bill doesn't play that too well.

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


punk rebel ecks posted:

What does that mean, "Left of being"?
The right accuse the left of being arrogant. They are probably correct.

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


ApexAftermath posted:

You have to consider why they think this though. It's not because anyone is actually being arrogant.

snippy


Have you read the recent posts in this thread including my arrogance?

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


ApexAftermath posted:

Come again? Not sure what you are getting at. Are you saying you are a liberal and admitting arrogance?

Yes

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


ApexAftermath posted:

Why is it arrogant to argue from a point of fact though? Ignorant people might read intelligence as arrogance but that doesn't mean we should embrace that label. Where did we go so wrong that it became snooty to know things?

I figure it is a nuanced way of communicating. I don't think it is wrong and I am arrogant about stuff that I know (I think I know), especially when the other option is so obviously wrong. Bill Maher is pretty arrogant. (that is what this topic is about)

What has happened is that we are forced to argue a fact and then we get mad. There is only one fact and when people dispute it, we get mad or frustrated, we become arrogant, sarcastic, condescending etc. out of frustration.

I dunno, maybe someone else has a diff opinion.

(if you are a true liberal, you don't judge the dumb loving racist hicks that make up the republican party. You work hard to provide and pay for them to get a fair education)

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


You can not have a political conversation with people who have faith based beliefs.
The denial of science while still believing in the flu shot is just silly.

Many citizens are tricked into believing certain things and it is nearly impossible to get people to admit they are wrong and change their minds. The only thing that changes is that they forget the last outrage and Rush puts a new one out there.

Muslim > Born in Kenya > Why only show the short form? > That thing is a forgery.

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


Dudebro posted:

One of the main Republican candidates is a Mormon. That is mindblowing, yet not much is being made about that. He should have been laughed off the stage at the earliest possible moment. You literally believe the origin story of Mormonism. God forbid you have the power to launch nukes and influence world politics. God loving forbid.

Is it religion that's the problem? A lot of conservatives are true believers. You can't have a straight conversation with people like that. The table for rational discussion is over here, but you're still trying to figure out how to get in the room.

Obama is a Christian. Mormons are no different then the other ones.

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


readingatwork posted:

I agree. Besides, the bigger issue isn't what they believe but HOW they (conservatives) believe. Conservatives treat religion very dogmatically to the point where Rush Limbaugh recently came out and criticized Obama for going after the Lords Army because they are the Christians fighting the evil Muslims and are therefore good. Nevermind all the widespread surprise sex, murder, use of child soldiers, etc.

Even then it wouldn't be that huge of an issue except that they take this attitude into every single one of their "secular" beliefs. Which is why Republicans can get traction with positions as absurd as "death panels". Obama proposed it, and since St Rushbo said he was the great socialist Satan in one of his eulogies it MUST be evil somehow.

So the problem isn't Mormonism or even religion in general. It's people who are fundamentally disconnected with reality.

(Edited for clarity)

I don't want to dispute a fellow arrogant person but let's be honest, Rush doesn't give a crap about anything he says. It is just an act. These are just positions he creates to give him ratings.

I do like the socialist with a Hitler mustache idea though (that style is called a toothbrush mustache and I hope it makes a comeback for all us socialists) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toothbrush_moustache I wonder if I could market a special razor for that mustache.

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


ApexAftermath posted:

At this point who knows when he is telling the truth. I have a hard time doubting it is ALL an act because he got kicked off monday night football because he couldn't control his comments like that. I doubt he would gently caress up an opportunity like that over a persona he was trying to project. Either way the man is a disease and needs to die.

We don't disagree so I am not arguing. I would suggest that he thought his act would carry. The rest of the nation, the intelligent (us!) recognized his bullshit, called him on it, and he failed.

There is a real hidden message in the MNF/Rush thing. The majority of americans are and want liberal things. They just don't have a talk radio show ... and from that we jump off to the intentional disinformation that the conservatives put out.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Wooty
Dec 21, 2002


I enjoyed the episode. I like hearing left positions described intelligently. I also love discussions about racism.

I have to look up that author and see what else he has (for free...)

The Bristol Palin joke was very good

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«3 »