Bill Maher question

I don't have HBO, so I haven't seen him on TV in ages, but used to really enjoy listening to him. I just found out he is coming to Kansas City in May. Should I go see him or not? Tickets are in the $27-47 dollar range.

use your money for somebody blue.

He's also trying to get a more conservative audience for his show too.

You mean that you are seriously considering making a decision to see a comedian based on other people's opinions of his political leanings? Wow, do you choose your music based on the political leanings of the musicians? That would be a really bad way to judge music.

Butt Tobie Kieth? Well now, he can kiss my pucker. Why? Well because of his political beliefs.

You should consider skiping the middle-men and just tithe directly to the KKK.

is a KKK supporter? I thought liberals were supposed to be openminded! I wouldn't recognize Toby Keith if I met him on the street, but I do know that he's a Democrat.

Man, talk about eating your young!

Sorry, art is good or bad depending on whether it's good or bad, not depending on who the artist voted for. I would think that would be obvious.

And also, Bill Maher is a progressive, and giving a little credit when things work out for the other side is honest and honorable.

Let's leave it to the right wing to boycott all that silly shit. Let's have a little honesty and openmindedness on our side.

There is a difference. He's for the end to the nanny state that forbids things like drugs, prostitution, access to safe abortion, and all the other things the Christian soldiers think are lovely. On economic issues he still believes the fairy stories about an invisible hand controlling an absolutely free marketplace.

Progressives always feel horribly betrayed when he shows his libertarian side on economics and foreign policy matters.

Plus, he seems to be making an effort to get more GOPers into his audience. It's doomed to failure, of course, since righties are always so far behind the intellectual curve. For instance, liberals have been shut out of power since 1968, but they still blame liberals for every ill in this country that the far right has actually caused.

I'm sure that betrayed progressives will avoid his paid appearances. I'm equally sure that the right wingers he's courting still think he's the Antichrist and will continue to do so and avoid his paid appearances.

Whether or not this will have any effect on his politics is anyone's guess.

to advocate fascist imperialism. It is in fact the opposite of libertarianism. Mahr's flop over to praising * for bringing freemon and moxy to those pesky a-rabs is bullshit and has nothing to do with his pseudo-libertarianism and everything to do with his being a koolaid drinking opportunistic media whore.

are "righties". I believe that catch-all labels like that are both a tactic of the right wing, and a trap that many ideologues fall into. I hate to see the left use that argument.

I find nothing wrong with trying to get a balanced audience, and Maher is often embarrassed by the left wing slant of his audiences, as am I. Why shouldn't he get an audience that will give both sides a fair chance before making up it's mind?

Also, I agree with your libertarian assessment, but to me, the guy's first and last, a comedian! I shudder whenever he goes off on one of his "we're poisoning our children with processed food" rants, but in the end, I watch a comedian because he makes me laugh.

We need more 'sanity' here.

is an untalented waste of space, capitalizing on the pain and sorrow of others for monetary gain.

I did not say that anyone who holds opposing views is a KKK supporter.

I trying to make the point that it is important to choose who you financially support. I would not give Toby Keith money through a ticket or record sale just as I would not tithe to the KKK.

Why not pay admission to a Neo-Nazi rally? I understand they have pretty good music. For someone who claims to be so "righteously principled", it is hard to understand why you cannot grasp this simple concept.

<<<Let's leave it to the right wing to boycott all that silly shit. Let's have a little honesty and openmindedness on our side.>>>

Well, taking the "high road" sure worked out well for the last campaign didn't it? Democrats raised a record amount of money, had a record number of grass roots activists, and we miserably lost the elections. Why, well it is because our strategy sucked. If we continue to follow your beliefs, then there will be no Democrats left in office.

Time to wake up and face reality son.

then his politics come into question. When an 'artist' wraps himself in the flag to sell his art, then you're invited to questions his politics.

Read my sig line.

Until we start putting our money where our mouths are the bullshit will proceed at its current pace.

Just say no to right wing assholes.

I was curious because, as I said, I haven't heard him in a while and keep reading all of these posts bashing him about being a bushbot. And, chances are, I will go to see him anyway.

is a Political comedian. He built his reputation and his audience with his left of center hipster libertine persona, kind of like a certain Mr. Miller. If he was just some guy telling jokes about bars and penguins I'd agree, who gives a shit what his politics are. In this case, what Mr. Mahr's politics are defines his comedy. Just say no to koolaid drinking opportunistic media whores.

Seem, that's what I don't get. So, if the other side is "opportunistic" when they do it, what are we when we do it, Messangers of the Golden Truth? Don't you think that's a little, uh, ironic?

I can see that sort of criticism directed at Rush or Hannity, but again, I think that trashing someone like Bill Maher for disagreeing with only a small part of your ideology is just silly.

One more thing, many Democrats, me included, are glad for democracy in the Middle East, no matter where it comes from.

Where you stand on Iraq, on our foreign adventures, on neoclown imperialism, on American Fascism, is sort of central in my opinion.

However if you think that freemon and moxy have broken out in the middle east, I suggest that indeed you too have imbided the koolaid. You do know that this was not the reason given for going to war, right? You do know that the congressional resolution authorizing the war was based on the administration's certification that Iraq posed a military threat to the United States, right? You do know that this war was fought on fraudulent grounds, right?

Democracy does not come from invading countries, leveling their cities and killing thousands of their citizens. That is called 'conquest', not democracy. The 'ddemocracy' we are establishing in Iraq comes with huge permanent military bases for our troops and control of their oil resources, if only we can kill off that pesky insurgency problem. They can dress this pig up in many different ways, and many of us will, as you have, get confused by the costume du jour. That does not alter the facts: we are engaged in a foolish criminal endeavor to establish an american empire. Where you stand on this issue is to me central.

is stupid, right?

Ok, first, the reason for war, as you put it. Based on a lie? Maybe. People need a reason to go to war that directly impacts them on a personal level. Bill Maher (suddenly a pariah around here for showing ideological courage)said that freedom was about the 4th reason given by Bush for the war. He then said if it had been the first, he would have gotten on board right away. So would I.

While I believe that BushCo has done almost everything involving the Iraq War very badly, there was indeed a sound geopolitical strategy for the war.

Step1: Pick a victim that is in trouble internationally, has invaded its neighbors in the past, and is run by a brutal dictator.

Step2: Kick his ass.

Step3: Introduce democracy there, at the same time eliminating one of Israel's foes.

Step4: Watch the dominoes fall.

As I said, Bush had an awful strategy in Iraq. What success we've had there so far, in my opinion, is mostly due to the militaries of us and the Brits, and the fact that Democracy is, in the end, a good and persuasive thing.

I want the best thing for America, which doesn't include George Bush, but I want us to intelligently (as Kerry said) kick royal ass when threatened, and if an opportunity comes to make the world a little freer, I want a President (again, not Bush) with the balls to take that opportunity. Sorry, I'm a Democrat, but I had enough of that peace and love shit while I was protesting Vietnam. Sure, it sounds groovy and all, but I've learned a lot since then.

Thanks for the lecture on democracy, by the way.

Since you are a big fan of bush bringing freedom and democracy to A-raq, I suggest that you might find yourself posting to the wrong website.

"Ok, first, the reason for war, as you put it. Based on a lie? Maybe."

Excuse me? Where are the weapons that threatened us? Either a lie or criminally negligent incompetence. Take your pick.

"Step1: Pick a victim that is in trouble internationally, has invaded its neighbors in the past, and is run by a brutal dictator.

Step2: Kick his ass."

Sort of contradicts your 'based on a lie maybe' nonsense, as you are admitting that this was about demonstrating american military might, not about WMD. So I guess it is ok with you that we go about the planet toppling governments we don't like, killing tens of thousands of civilians in process, causing massive suffering as a consequence of our actions, just so we can remake the world as we like it.

Hmmmm......

Thanks for the usual neoclown bullshit.

is a Republican?

Stop putting words in my mouth and trying to win a debate with that "you're posting in the wrong website" bullshit. Democrats can favor a strong defense, and I predict that the next Democratic President will be a strong defense President. Which may leave you posting "to the wrong website".

Actually, I backed Kerry, Edwards, Hillary and those who supported the original Iraq War resolution. I said that Bush handled everything badly, or didn't your rose-colored peace glasses pick up on that.

Anyone who supports war is in favor of killing children. There, your next post, already written for you.

If you support wars of aggression you are in favor of killing children. Oh wait - perhaps you've bought into the smart bomb bullshit too. Hey what the heck if you are going to drink the koolaid, drink deep.

By the way, there are Democratic Neoclowns - you for example.

"Strong Defense" - invading other countries that pose no threat to us in order to demonstrate how tough we are is a rather odd form of 'defense'. Oh but we brought all that democracy to Iraq so it is all good now. Sorry about all the dead people, you get to vote, we get your oil. Pay no attention to the huge permanent military bases we have no intention of ever leaving. Move along.

to disagree, I have no intention of getting into a hissy fit. I usually enjoy debating here, and do not want to break the rules.

We'll see which way the Democratic Party goes, OK?

If everyone to the right of you on defense is a Neoclown (uh, real clever), would I be far off base if I invited you to the next local Green Party meeting in your area?

While I believe that BushCo has done almost everything involving the Iraq War very badly, there was indeed a sound geopolitical strategy for the war.

Step1: Pick a victim that is in trouble internationally, has invaded its neighbors in the past, and is run by a brutal dictator.

Step2: Kick his ass.

Step3: Introduce democracy there, at the same time eliminating one of Israel's foes.

Step4: Watch the dominoes fall.


It isn't that you are 'to the right of me on defense' it is that you have stated support for the imperialist mission. I kept my mouth shut during the election campaign but I am not going to keep quiet about this issue now. If you are in favor of marching around the planet toppling governments and invading countries that have not attacked or threatened us then I am going to speak up and demand that you justify your positions everytime you and anyone else who claims to be a Democrat with similar positions makes these claims. If you don't like being challenged on your positions, don't make them, or put me on your ignore list.

I didn't say that was the only, or the best strategy for Iraq, I pointed out the geopolitical strategy used for the Iraq War. I am, frankly, more in line with John Kerry's position, which I believe you would also qualify as NeoCon ( I refuse to use your faux-clever neoclown bullshit phrase) if he weren't a Democrat. But don't let that stop you from trying to enforce your dogma on anyone who isn't smart enough to see things exactly your way.

The Imperialist mission? Man, welcome to 1969! Put away the love beads dude, the adults are in the room now.

What war would you have justified? The Korean War? WWII? Would you have squealed that we shouldn't invade Normandy because there might be kids playing on the beach? How about the Civil War? Ooooooh, we can't free the slaves, that would make us Imperialists!

Democratic Presidents have never been afraid to commit our military when our interests are involved, or to advance freedom. If you choose to insult me with your Republican name-calling, I'll just put up with it, because I don't want to piss off the mods by giving you the reply you deserve.

"I didn't say that was the only, or the best strategy for Iraq, I pointed out the geopolitical strategy used for the Iraq War."

Well actually what you said was:
"While I believe that BushCo has done almost everything involving the Iraq War very badly, there was indeed a sound geopolitical strategy for the war."

And you then went on to say that it is perfectly fine to attack nations that pose no threat to us, topple their governments etc. so that we can remake the world as we see fit.

"The Imperialist mission? Man, welcome to 1969! Put away the love beads dude, the adults are in the room now."

Have you read the PNAC documents? The foreign policy of the current administration is expressly imperialist. We now view our role as the sole arbiter of planetary justice. The neoclowns are determined to establish a Pax Americana, global hegemony, and they intend to do so with military force as needed. You can toss all the insults you want but that does not alter the reality of the situation.

"What war would you have justified? The Korean War? WWII? Would you have squealed that we shouldn't invade Normandy because there might be kids playing on the beach? How about the Civil War? Ooooooh, we can't free the slaves, that would make us Imperialists!"

Where have I said I opposed our involvement in WWII? Huh? Where have I stated that our involvement in the Korean War was wrong? Or the civil war? Or Afghanistan? Pretty broad brush there 'Moderate Dem', don't you think? Try this on for size: Iraq WRONG, Afghanistan RIGHT. Opposing one instance of an application of military force does not imply opposition to all instances of applying military force.

What I oppose is the theory that we have the right to impose 'democracy' at gunpoint as we see fit. This is not a traditional Democratic policy.

Should we use force if we are threatened: yes. Were we threatened by Iraq. No. Was our use of force in Iraq justified: no it is a war crime.

If you supported the Afghanistan war, then I have jumped on you too hard, and owe you an apology, at least for presuming to know your views, when I did not, in this case.

A little nuance here. I have said that I understood the real reason for the Iraq War, I did not say that I would have done it the same way. There is a difference. And I do agree that we were not specifically threatened by Iraq.

This is an uncomfortable position for me, as I regularly post at Hannity, where I am considered a moderate on defense, and a liberal on domestic policy. (You should try it, there's blood on the floor there on a regular basis, and you are obviosly a sharp guy). Here is seems that I am closer to the right, although in truth I am not.

I am really an old-school Democrat. Before Vietnam, Democrats were actually more aggressive militarily than Republicans, who tended more toward isolationism (see Pat Buchanon). I am in favor of an aggressive foriegn policy to look out for our national interests (again, so is John Kerry, Hillary, Edwards and many other Democrats). I have no respect whatsoever for Neocons, as I regard them as arrogant and yes, imperialistic.

At this point I regard the Iraq War as a well-fought but poorly planned and executed gambit that we may actually luck out with. I think that Wolfowitz and others who predicted parades and flowers, and that Iraqi oil would pay for the war, as liars and propagandists.

As I said, I want an aggressive President out there, hopefully one with a little tact and diplomacy, watching our for our interests, which is why I voted for Kerry. I am sorry if my views seemed to right wing for you, but many Democrats feel the same way that I do, and I cannot offer an apology for that.

I like him. Yes, he does think things are starting to go well in Iraq but he also said Bush is a liar. You be the judge.

I personally enjoy the show and I respect him for trying to get more conservatives in the audience, he is trying to do a 50/50 split.

If someone is really on the other side, I can't enjoy their work at all. I don't think that's all that unusual.

As to Maher, I wouldn't waste my money on him because although he can be funny, he can also be unfunny as I've been saying, even before he drank the Kool-Aid, he thinks he's a lot smarter than he is.

I would not pay a penny over ten cent to see that buffoon.

and sang the praises of Lord Bush? That show?

And, I will be the king of the coal tonight myself. I am planning to break in my new Weber BBQ Apron. Yum Yum.

He remains entertaining. I agree with some of what he says and disagree with other things. If you enjoyed him in the past, and don't find it necessary to agree with everything you hear, it is still worth seeing him.

been as funny as last season. but I wouldn't say the guy has drunk the purple drink. gee whiz, I don't understand why if you agree with anything bush does, you're will instantly become pond scum.

damn, it's depressing.

Lately, he's been pandering to the 'conservative' crowd. I always like his Politically Incorrect show...not necessarily for him, but the guest banter was usually hilarious!

I think his show on the road would be different than RealTime or Politically Incorrect though. He can be really funny, IMO, with his standup. Might want to keep in mind, he's a professed Libertarian.

But if you're looking for a guaranteed, politically inclined strong left-leaning comedy show, you might be disappointed. That's just my guess; I've never been to one of his shows.

A friend invited me to a free taping of one of his HBO Specials. I felt I got my money's worth. ;-)

As I've mentioned before in the forum, Bill Maher always struck me as primarily just an angry guy, and wherever he can most effectively be a thorn in the side is where he'll aim his acerbic wit.

Also, this doesn't have much to do with anything, but his constant railing on women during the taping of his show left me with the feeling he has intense ANGER ISSUES around the subject. :freak:

about Bill and women. Not only is he an unabashed friend of Annhole Coulter, but he bashes women fairly frequently. Although, whenever someone is going through personal issues, such as a breakup, many of us have a kneejerk gender reaction. It may just be a sourness caused by personal life issues.

To be a humorist requires a certain cynacism overall with an eye to stupid human tricks. There is plenty of material out there.

And it's really the "not funny" part that's the most important. He's supposedly a comedian, but I've never really heard anything particularly, funny, insightful or original out of the guy.

However, he still works and embraces the Linguistic Frames which have destroyed our language and redefined it as Orwell propesied.

Watch him, and there is a 2 in 3 chance you'll be disgusted, perhaps higher.

Iraq was doing okay? Before this he was a liberal hero.

a comedian. His HBO show has been mildly entertaining because of his guests until he started pandering to the right.
If you want to go see real comedy there are a lot more actually funny comedians out there then he is.
I don't why you bothered asking if you had already made up your mind to go.

but he shocked me last night on Anderson Cooper when he said Bush jr had more right to go into Iraq than Bush sr and sr only did it for the oil.. WTF Bill, remember Kuwait?

me off!

He takes a lot of Bush's positions, he tries to rationalize them and put a "that's not so bad" twist on them.

Either, because Maher wants a larger audience (more money, who can blame him, just another whore?) Or, Maher's truly out of touch and misinformed.

Whatever, Maher and Jon Stewart are about all we have. And still, neither is liberal enough for me.

I'm afraid he's been sipping the kookaid if not guzzling it.

(Please, God, don't let him swallow. :) )

It was a lot of what I'd heard before. Drugs, religion, vegetarianism, and some of his political take. If you are a Dem you need to realize he is a Libertarian. It was his stand up routine, not a full time political rant. However two couples seated up front near us hollred and walked out in the first few minutes because he called Bush an idiot.

But he is by no means an all-out Bush supporter... he rips the president constantly. He is always condemning the media, corporations, the imperialist approach by America. Anyone who actually watched his shows all the way through would know that.

What happened with Bill is, since the start of the new season, he has said that something good might actually come out of the middle east, that being democracy in Iraq, and to some extent gives bush credit for it (I say some because Bill really has failed to elaborate on his changed view). Now this is obviously very short-sighted, since democracy is far from being anywhere in the middle east, plus bush doesn't deserve one iota of credit for it (I think we can all agree on this).

To me this sudden hate for Bill Maher has become bandwagon like on these forums. Having said that, you're entitled to your opinion and by all means don't watch Bill if he pisses you off that much, but to call him a bush supporter is short-sighted in itself. Sorry if you don't like to here that, but what people have to be careful of, is in so much hate toward the right-wing (or any opinions that don't match yours) you become yourself what you despise most, and that is close-minded.

Bill Maher is after all a comedian first, and I do appreciate some of his rants. I think he does pose controversial questions that you won't find on any other remotely political show. I really wish the show was an hour and a half or two hours long so they had more time to discuss some of the issues he brings up.