Overtime July 31 2009 Bill Maher Real Time 09 07

[orleans]

Run time: 07:11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy0da4CB4_c   Posted on YouTube: August 01, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: August 01, 2009 By DU Member: orleans Views on DU: 1873

 

[Tx4obama]

1. Grrrr...

The one thing that really irritates me (and I mean REALLY BUGS ME) about Rachel is that 'on her show' the majority of the time her shirts are almost non-existent and you can only see about two inches of them under her jacket ... and now she goes on Maher's show and dresses great! I wish she would do that on her own show.

[Loudmxr]

3. I find discussing what Rachel is wearing so OTT. BTW I LOOOVE the new glasses

Yes I got sucked into it too. At first it was "I think she doesn't look good because of "the bad lighting" in the Albany remote". Then it was "she is wearing "too much brown".

THEN when someone said she had a new part in her hair and I KNEW it was just getting too long. I knew I joined the Rachel Maddow Fashion Critic Clique.

I NEED HELP. :crazy:

[PatSeg]

4. You're not alone

I need help too. I LOVE Rachel, but I have a problem with the shirts because low cut shirts draw the eye away from her face and emphasize her neck. It really isn't a style issue. When you're on TV, you don't need such an unnecessary distraction. Being I did not notice her clothes tonight confirms that point. I've had similar complaints about women anchors who wear very large clunky jewelry or very bright flashy colors. It is hard to focus on the person and what they are saying if there are physical distractions - just basic common sense.

I don't expect or want Rachel to go all girly. Just dress in a way, like tonight, where we don't notice and can focus on her.

[Tx4obama]

5. Exactly!

That is what I meant. Normally you can't see her shirt -- only her bare neck and chest and it IS distracting when you are trying to focus on her face and what she is saying. I think it is because no one else shows that much skin on the news programs and your eye (well MY eye) picks up on it.
I am a straight woman over 50 so I don't want a bunch of folks thinking that I am saying this because or gender or sexual preference or anything like that.
Most of the other women on the news shows have either some jewelry around the neckline or a shirt that is not so revealing so their skin is not so IN YOUR FACE.
I do love Rachel's show, but every night when I tune in the first thing that I think is 'I hope Rachel is wearing a shirt tonight' !!! LOL ;)

[spiritual_gunfighter]

6. Who cares what she is wearing

you and the others on this thread decided to make THIS the issue??? Rachel's show is the smartest, well researched show on cable news. She is also the best interviewer out there. She could wear a Spider-Man costume every night for all I care. Who gives a shit?

[eagertolearn]

9. I agree. I don't even see what she's wearing because her facial

expressions are so great! Who cares about the clothes.

[madamesilverspurs]

7. I've always thought that Rachel's bosses at MSNBC

dress her like that to distract viewers from the reality that no one else shows that much BRAIN on the news programs...

[PatSeg]

11. Yeah

I hesitate to say anything because it sounds petty, but it is basic commonsense when you're on a news show not to have clothes or jewelry detract from the person and what they're saying.

[cadaverdog]

12. I'll give you "distraction"

What about all those damn video clips they keep repeating while someone is being interviewed that have almost nothing to do with what is being talked about? Since when did we become so bored with intelligent conversation that we had to be fed "eye candy" to keep us entertained while the host and guest are talking about the impending end of the world?

Thank you for allowing me to rant, and now back to our show.

[Tx4obama]

2. ASAP

Pass a law to make texting and talking on a cellphone while driving against the law - otherwise repeal the laws that make 'drinking while driving' and 'driving without a seat belt' illegal.
Back in the day when they first talked about making wearing seat belts mandatory we all spoke up for our right of freedom to choose and no one listened.

Since just from the time that I was a kid we have lost many basic 'day to day' rights, I am glad that I am getting old and will not be around forty years from now to see just how bad it is going to get.

[jamesatemple]

8. While it may or may not be a basic right to kill yourself,

I want to preserve my right not to have to fund or be negatively affected by your decision. If text messaging, phoning, and/or not wearing a seatbelt causes a person to die outright, then my liability to their decision may be to be pay higher auto insurance premiums for that one instance. On the other hand, if their decision results in extended or lifetime health care, my insurance premiums are elevated for the entire term.

In our society, the rights of the whole must be superior to the rights of the individual...but only to the extent that the majority doesn't infringe on the rights of the minority. I agree with your call to "pass a law to make texting and talking on a cell phone while driving against the law...". Not doing so affects the rights of the rest of us with regard to our safety and our pocketbook. But I can't agree with your alternative "...otherwise repeal the laws that make 'drinking while driving' and 'driving without a seat belt' illegal". And, I don't think that you are really suggesting such repeal but, instead, were making a valid point.

[ScottLand]

10. Help!

I'm trapped in one of those pockets of stupidity! And now I'm afraid to text.

[Why Syzygy]

13. Did the FCC hear the uncensored F word?

:wow: I've never heard that on tv.