Real Time with Bill Maher

[Paranoid Pessimist]

I watched it last night. Surprised not to see more comment here. It was one of the better shows, although I thought Ben Affleck came across as a hyperactive blabbermouth blowhard bore -- even when I agreed with what he was saying. I have a low tolerance for actors trying to be "real" by taking political stances. P.J. O'Rourke is one of the better conservatives Maher has on

Good like in the opening monologue from Maher: "Leave it to George W. Bush to fight a war for oil and not get any."

After listening to him speak, I was ready to get on the Ron Paul (R-Tx) for president bandwagon. He made as much sense as anyone else curently running.

The interview is here (and thanks to babsbunny for posting it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3285273

or

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4600

[algreen90]

1. I agree it was a good episode...

..but the Sean Penn/Gary Shandling episode still remains my favorite of this last year. I agree with you though on Ron Paul, I really like this guy and his views. Imagine, a president who learns from our historical mistakes. I have to disagree with you though on Ben Affleck. I like the guy and I think he is a rare bird in that he seems to be quite versed on history and politics.

[ellisonz]

10. I loved that episode too....Affleck, spare me.

Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[algreen90]

30. After watching Overtime....

I'll agree with you on Affleck. I guess in rehearsed regurgitated snippets anyone can sound intelligent:)

[magnolia]

31. Why?

Why would a persons profession determine whether they had a right to express their political views...or determine the value of their views? If Affeck were a plumber would he then be worthy of you listening?

I honestly don't understand the contempt some have for actors.

[sandnsea]

2. Bashing Affleck, praising Paul

Well alrighty then.

Nobody should wonder how Reagan got elected with comments like these.

[Greyhound]

4. This is my fear. A Republik that appears to be reasonable, and a

Rebublik-lite Democratic candidate and hello to a fully reich-wing SCOTUS and the disaster that will create for generations. The Democrats simply have to take some stands and refuse to give in, or they and we, will suffer some terrible consequences.

[sandnsea]

6. People have to pull their heads out

It is simply not the total fault of 50 senators that we're in this mess. You vote for a Republican and you get a Republican. Any Democrat, including Joe Lieberman, is ALWAYS better than any Republican. They're Republicans because they believe capital trumps labor. That's always bad for human beings.

[Greyhound]

7. I have to disagree, Lieberman for example, is a republik, always has been.

No matter what they call themselves, there are a significant number of "Democrats" that do believe capital trumps everything. Biden is another one, Feinstein, Emanuel, Stabenow, Clinton to a slightly lesser degree, and on and on. Then there are the totally self-interested hucksters like Rangel that just do whatever they can to further their careers regardless of anything.

Just as there used to be, might still be but I don't know who they are, Republiks that put national interest ahead of self-interest. I don;t care which team they're on, I care about what they will do or ignore.

[sandnsea]

8. No he isn't

And I swear to god if 6 years of Bush hasn't shown you the difference then you deserve the disaster you've got.

Have you not read the threads around here when people go off on their tangents about how $150,000 incomes are struggling? Or the ones who are skeered of the immigrants. Or the ones who believe people really can eat on $150 a month. That's how you end up with Democrats who vote in favor of trade and bankruptcy laws and the like. It isn't those senators alone, it's US. If we don't change minds, they're not going to change votes.

[question everything]

9. Well said. I cannot believe that so many here

have become a one-issue voters.

Sure, we want our troops (and our money) out of Iraq but there are so many other issues, domestic ones, for which Ron Paul, a promoter of "small government" would not be bothered but that Lieberman will.

And, then, of course, there are the Supreme Court justices.

[Greyhound]

14. As I said in previous post, I have to disagree. As far as what he has done that directly effects

the daily lives of Americans, the abortion issue aside, he is just as bad as our own Republik Senator Smith, possibly worse.

Arbusto_® is the worst President, certainly in my lifetime and probably ever, regardless of party, so he can hardly be considered the standard by which we measure the others. "We suck less" is not a motivation to advocate for anybody, and is the main reason most people don't even bother to vote. As long as Democratic candidates use this fact as a means to secure their own careers while fucking over their constituents, things will just get worse and worse. The only difference is the pace.

We (I believe you live in this cesspool with the rest of us) have the disaster because of the Republik-lite Democrats, that laid the groundwork for all of this before most people ever heard of Arbusto_®. They were the ones that supported and capitulated to Raygun (he never had a Republik majority in the House) and sold out their constituents in order to get those big MIC campaign contributions.

This bill is the latest example, they got nothing in return for selling out. Actually since they didn't get anything I can't even call it selling, they just supported the ongoing crimes. Lieberman and the others call themselves Democrats, not because they support Democratic positions, but simply because Republiks just can't get elected in their districts or the seat was already occupied by some oligarch that got there first.

[sandnsea]

16. Why do you think they did that?

The people I was talking about in my previous thread, the ones with the portfolios and vacation homes. They voted in Reagan. Do you seriously believe we would have ended up with Bill Clinton centrism and the DLC if people hadn't decided they preferred Capitalism to Marx?

The only opposition to unregulated capitlism is STILL a left that is out of touch with how mainstream people think. There IS a way to fight both the DLC and the Blue Dogs, but it's not with a far left socialist utopian fantasyland.

In the meantime, the DLC and Blue Dogs at least acknowledge that another half of America exists, and that's a damn site more than you'll get out of any Republican. When push comes to shove, Gordon is ALWAYS lined up with the Republicans. The only time they left him vote against the party is when they know his vote doesn't matter one way or the other anyway. You have to just not be paying attention to think Gordon is the same as Lieberman, it's just not true at all. You'd never catch Lieberman blaming the spotted owls for the loss in logging revenue, for instance; or standing in a food bank and denying that there are hungry people, for another.

[Greyhound]

19. Do you think Bill Clinton would have been elected if he ran on NAFTA

or Welfare "reform", or the telecommunications act, of any of the other crap he actually accomplished? He got elected because he said he was for the working person, he said he was for equal rights, he said he was for universal health care, of course he accomplished none of these things, and many don't believe he ever intended to.

The short-sighted, binary view is what gets us into these messes. There is a wide range between the robber barons and Marx, and the most successful nations find a balance, but we seem to be singularly unable to even have a dialog about alternative ways to accomplish the changes that we need, and the laws of evolution dictate that if we fail to adapt we will die.

You brought up the logging industry and that is a great example of what's wrong with us and our binary view of reality. I didn't live here when it was a front page issue (nationally), so I don't remember who wrote it, but I read a very long analysis of the problem and some proposed solutions. In brief, the paper stated that the problems were due to the timber industry's methods of over-harvesting the timber and shipping it to Asia for processing into lumber. The proposed solution was a few regulations including a ban of the export of timber, thereby forcing the market for the lumber to be satisfied by a mostly domestic process. The resulting increase in price would result in reduced deforestation, increased employment for the producers of lumber, and a sustenance of the industry as a whole.

Of course, the timber industry howled because they would make a little less money and the conservation advocates howled because there would still be logging, so nothing was done and the domestic industry became a shadow of its former self and in 10 years most of the loggers were unemployed, Oregon legislated the industry nearly out of existence (a choice I'm personally happy about) and the state of Washington started to look like the moon. In the end, everybody lost except the Weyerhaeuser's that moved operations out of the country (and the owls?).

As for the DINOs acknowledging poverty, lack of health care, or the existence of liberals, while dong nothing about it, yields exactly the same results as the Republiks "standing in a food bank and denying that there are hungry people".

[sandnsea]

21. OMG, he did run on that!!

How can you say Clinton didn't support NAFTA when Ross Perot's entire campaign was based on that big sucking noise. And he ran on welfare reform too, he had already implemented work programs in Arkansas. A hand up, not a hand out. Don't you remember?

As to health care, here's a quote from a 1992 article. His plan was to require employers to provide insurance, and have govt care for the unemployed. That's not hardly universal health care, to anybody who was listening. He also promised less government intrusion, over and over and over. Because that is what people wanted to hear.

"We've got to quit having the Federal Government try to micromanage health care, and instead set up incentives for the private sector to manage costs down within limits beyond which we absolutely must not go in spending."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E0CE2D71130F936A1575AC0A964958260

As for the timber industry, they went to the south, and don't even get me started on that. *I* didn't say our timber industry was lost because of the owls, I said people like Smith say that. A binary view is the problem? Then you refer to an article you don't know who wrote? The problem with the northwest timber industry is that they don't have to respect the environment as long as 'other treed regions' think a forest is the same thing as a tree plantation and a living wage means enough to buy a new single wide. Consequently, your market plan wouldn't work either. Currently, we're importing an enormous amount of construction wood, flooring and decking and the like. I think the ship has sailed on turning back the clock on the kind of trade we do. The best we can do is push labor and environmental regulations. And while every Democrat isn't equally focused on that, there are NO Republicans who are. They're on the exact opposite track, trying to exploit every worker they can, for every nickel they can.

As much as I dislike about half of what Bill Clinton did in the 90s, and don't want Hillary as President - I can still say either one of them would be ten times better than any Republican out there. And I still can't understand what people are looking at when they can't see it themselves.

[Greyhound]

22. I didn't say he didn't support NAFTA, I said he didn't run on it. Perot's campaign was

in opposition to 41's advocacy, not Clinton's silence. No, I don't remember his talking about welfare reform, but I'll take your word on it. I was a devoted independent for most of my life, only registering Democrat in 2002. I've always been far too liberal for the Democratic Party and only viewed the Republiks with more contempt (except for a couple of issues where I'm far too conservative for Dems, but still hate the Republiks with a passion.)

The timber industry paper I referred to was not an article, it was a white-paper (IIRC, 200 - 300 pages in '89, it was vaguely relevant to a project I was working on in the transportation industry and the regulatory strategy was possibly useful to what we wanted to do at that time) prepared to explore alternatives to divert the impending crash that happened because nobody was willing to look outside their respective boxes. I also stated that I used it as an example and thought I was clear that my reference was not complete, but a very brief description. The point, that I apparently failed make, was that the result was foreseen years before it happened, and was entirely avoidable, but for their refusal to adapt.

Adaptation, or rather our lack of it, is what I'm trying get through. The Democratic Party leadership is giving every indication of returning to exactly the same BS that sent them into the wilderness for 12 years, and we can expect the same result this time too. We out-voted the election fraud and got them a chance and they are going to piss it away.

Whether you and I like what they do or not is irrelevant, the American people sent them there for one reason, get out of Iraq, if they try and fail because they don't have enough votes the people will send more in 2008. However, what the voters are seeing them do instead, is giving them the finger and putting all their energy into politicking and trying to get re-elected, which I believe will result in their taking the fall for the slaughter that they could have slipped their well-deserved responsibility for.

I started this with the statement that what I fear is a Republik candidate with a "moderate" facade and a pissed off electorate. If that happens we lose two, three, possibly all four of the "liberal" justices and we're totally screwed for generations to come. I don't think many people (I know you are one) have realized just how much is at stake in this election. It will be tough under the best circumstances, if for no other reason than the election fraud that gives an automatic edge to the Republiks, but if our oh-so-clever party leaders think they can piss on the people's shoes and convince them it's raining, well, I'm thinking South America.

[sandnsea]

29. I understand your concern

Regarding the timber, everybody has an agenda and one can never read anything without looking at the authors and understand the philosophy behind the writing. And yes, I think smart people can predict a crisis years in the making. And yes, it's the unwillingness to face reality and adapt that causes real people to suffer. And a final yes, politics from all sides is the basic culprit, including the politics of capitalist greed.

Here's the thing, America voted because they were UNHAPPY about Iraq. Make no mistake, America would be just as happy if we stayed and the killing stopped - as they would with a withdrawal. Americans don't like to worry or think they have to feel guilty or concerned about something, they like to be happy. Reagan's morning in America? Yeah, that. Thus the popularity of pot and prozac. The principle of launching an illegal war, the lies, the economics of the oil? Bla bla bla - noise to most Americans. That's why right wing radio works so well, it paints simple pictures that people can grasp in seconds. Liberals have literary minds, lawyerly minds, on and on and on and on... that's another reason we're losing the war of ideas in our own country.

So the things the too liberal for the Democrats base their opinions on, 90% of America has never even thought about. So what's important is to paint the differences the 90% are familiar with. If you don't want to lose to a Republican in 2008, you CAN NOT say Democrats are part of the war party. You have to move yourself way to the right, for you, and see that most people still see this as Bush's stubborn occupation agains Dem's desire to change course. Bush is the President, and that's why he ends up with the final call on matters of war. The solution is to vote for a Dem who stands for changing course. Simplistic? Yes. But you've really got to learn to think like that in order to win the more important things, like those supreme court justices, intervention on climate change, and a complete end to the occupation if we nominate the right Dem, an end to the war, if we nominate Hillary.

[snowbear]

17. I agree with greyhound. The OP of this thread sounds like a "one issue" voter..

The only people that I know that are "one issue voters" are Repugs that vote only on the abortion issue and nothing else.

Ron Paul, when you sit down and listen to him for more than 3 minutes, sounds as loonie as Sam Brownback on a lot of his issues.

[gaspee]

3. Oh, gimme a break

PJ O'Roarke is a stupid bllowhard who kept making assinine comments that the audience politiely ignored rather than booing him. I almost fdidn't watch last night because he is practically intolerable. He tries to take over the show.

Are you sure you don't have the two men confused? PJ was the hyperactive twit trying to dominate the conversation.

[lordsummerisle]

5. As far as conservatives go

PJ is not so bad but I think it's mostly because he's affable, somewhat self-deprecating, and has a pretty good sense of humor...when he says things I don't agree with it doesn't bother me as much as say when Hannity or Fred Barnes speaks...

[silverback]

11. Ron Paul...

Paul is an honest and honorable man, FAUX hates his guts and that speaks well of him.

I'm going to vote for him in the primary, mostly because if he were to win the nomination it would drive a stake through the heart of neoconservatism and we could get on with things.

I can always vote democrat in the general, but America needs to come together and reject the neoconservative agenda and that can't happen if they nominate another one.

[unlawflcombatnt]

15. Paul: Best on Trade, Civil Liberties, Iraq, & Immigration

I'm not going to re-register as a Republican to vote for him in the primary. But right now, Paul's positions on Trade (voted against ALL free trade agreements), civil liberties advocacy, Iraq, and his opposition to amnesty/open borders makes him my favorite candidate.

I don't agree with Paul's views on taxes. However, have any of the Democrats, other than Edwards, even mentioned rolling back the tax cuts on the top 2%??? As it stands now, they'd be no better than Ron Paul on taxes, and worse on almost everything else.

Have the Democrats done anything yet for American workers, other than attach a minimum wage provision to their sell-out on Iraq war funding?

[primative1]

28. Democrats Pro Worker Positions ...

Last week I tuned into CSpan so I could watch a 9PM speech Ron Paul was giving on the house floor.
I tuned in a few minutes early (unfortunately) and got to watch the last ten minutes of some pathetic discourse offered by some caucus called "new democrats" (Meeks of NY seemed to be leading it).
It was infuriating.
They took turns profusely thanking each other and praising MORE "free" trade and then going on to the next member that lauded praise on the group and themselves and MORE "FREE" trade and round and round for the duration.
"New Democrats"?
The entire experience was nauseous.
Repeat it enough times and it must be true?
Those guys sure dont represent me and I doubt they represent anyone other than whoever pays them to say the stuff they were drooling.

[snowbear]

18. Sure thing Silverback

"I can always vote democrat in the general"

Did you mean...

"I could always vote Democratic in the general"

Why do I have the feeling you've never voted for a Democrat in your life? ~~~~

[venable]

25. nice catch larissa n/t

[venable]

24. thank you

why PJ friggin O'Rourke gets appreciated on DU is baffling.

he is a racist, classist, sexist pig, a snot-nosed right wing smug little twerp who annoys the hell out of me. I can't even look at him.

[cleveramerican]

12. PJ O'Rourke is a great writer

much better in print than on TV. I love the guy.

I can recognize wit and I applaud it wherever it exists.



Read his essay" Kuwait City on the last day of the War" his thoughts on the first iraq war.

[SergeyDovlatov]

13. He had a pretty good quote on the Iraq war too

(While looking at all the US military forces staged in Kuwait)
"Wow, It is much more expensive to steal the oil than just buy it!" PJ O'Rourke

I loved it

[venable]

26. smug little frat boy who thinks Iraq is funny

not interested

[venable]

27. one man's 'great writer' is anothe man's annoying smug twerp

I simply can not stand anything this guy writes. he is not funny, and the things he writes about are not funny. he is the worse kind of privileged little prick who allows wingnuts to feel they are all pink-shirted, 8-year-old's haircutted, bow-tied garden partiers, while the country and the world are dying.

a pox on PJ O'Rourke.

[Lord Helmet]

20. Maher was hilarious.

I also think Carter should have told the Republicans to blow him.

[doni_georgia]

23. This week's "New Rules" was good - but no match for last week

I hate that Real Time is on hiatus. I watch every week - one of the very few TV shows I watch.