Real Time with Bill Maher (2012)

[Shannon Nutt]

Originally Posted by Tommy Ceez

His standup blows but I enjoy Real Times format

I saw his stand-up act in Pittsburgh a couple weeks back, and he was pretty good. Of course, it helps if you're a Democrat.

[dhmac]

Originally Posted by RichC2

This show pulls 4.1 million viewers an episode (gross viewers, not necessarily live) which is pretty solid for a show that's substantially cheaper than Game of Thrones and True Blood on HBO.

Interesting, given that the highest numbers for the highest rated shows on Fox News are about 3 million viewers.

So Bill Maher is higher? (Not counting the pot thing, that is.)

[SkullOrchard]

The Bill Maher of 15 years ago would ridicule unmercifully the Bill Maher of today.

[TheBigDave]

Originally Posted by dhmac

Interesting, given that the highest numbers for the highest rated shows on Fox News are about 3 million viewers.

So Bill Maher is higher? (Not counting the pot thing, that is.)

I'm guessing the 4.1 million viewers includes all the replays throughout the week (20+ replays per episode). And maybe On Demand and HBOGo viewers too.

O'Reilly has the most viewers on cable news. He gets around 3 million for the 8pm and 1-1.5 million for the 11pm slot. So he's in the 4-4.5 million range. But keep in mind, O'Reilly's doing that with just one replay. And it's five nights a week.

A better comparison would be CNN's shows. Anderson Cooper and Piers Morgan each get around 700-800 thousand per night (including replays). So their weekly ratings would add up to around 4 million each.

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by SkullOrchard

The Bill Maher of 15 years ago would ridicule unmercifully the Bill Maher of today.

We all grow wiser with age.

[Mr. Cinema]

Originally Posted by Groucho

I agree with this, and I'm an atheist.

Basically, this was like Religulous where Maher kept throwing out canned one-liners and looking smug. But unlike Religulous, this was live television so he couldn't edit out any replies that might make his opponent look intelligent.

I really liked Douthat. I hope he becomes a regular panelist on the show.

Douthat is a regular. He's been on there a few times before. The last appearance was last year when Kevin Nealon and Chris Matthews were on the show. It was one of my favorite episodes ever.

[Mr. Cinema]

Originally Posted by coli

I think Maher is really funny, but has just gotten too 'MSNBC'ish/FOX'ish in the past 5 years. His show back in the ABC days used to rag on all politicans and he wasn't just a mouthpiece for the democratic party. Now he is a 1 hour infommercial to get democrats elected and to me no different then the ridiculous shows on FOX/MSNBC. Now in saying that, there is a market for partisan democrats and republicans who just want someone to 'preach to the choir' and not give any opposing views for 1 hour and thats what shows are on FOX/MSNBC are doing these days. I used to watch his show 'religously' (no pun intended since Bill hates religion!) but it is so partisan now, I can't take it anymore.

Maher lines up with the Democrats on many issues, but he routinely criticizes them on his show. Something the stooges on Fox don't have the balls to do. Bill identifies himself as a Libertarian.

[Mike86]

Originally Posted by coli

I think Maher is really funny, but has just gotten too 'MSNBC'ish/FOX'ish in the past 5 years. His show back in the ABC days used to rag on all politicans and he wasn't just a mouthpiece for the democratic party. Now he is a 1 hour infommercial to get democrats elected and to me no different then the ridiculous shows on FOX/MSNBC. Now in saying that, there is a market for partisan democrats and republicans who just want someone to 'preach to the choir' and not give any opposing views for 1 hour and thats what shows are on FOX/MSNBC are doing these days. I used to watch his show 'religously' (no pun intended since Bill hates religion!) but it is so partisan now, I can't take it anymore.

This isn't really the case at all. He may favor the Democrats more than the Republicans but that's not to say he won't be critical of Democrats if they deserve it. I like a lot of Bill's views for the most part. He can get a little irritating at times but for the most part I find his views in line with a lot of mine.

[mcnabb]

Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema

Bill identifies himself as a Libertarian.

A libertarian??? A liberterian is someone is wants limited government, as the republican party isn't even near being called this word. Maher is for Obamacare, taxing the rich, more government spending, that is NOT what libertarians are for!

[mcfly]

Originally Posted by Groucho

I agree with this, and I'm an atheist.

That has to be interesting living in SLC.

[Philly30]

Isn't SLC a pretty liberal place?

[mcfly]

Originally Posted by Philly30

Isn't SLC a pretty liberal place?

I dunno, when I was there it felt like I was in the Twilight Zone. I've never been to a place with such nice people.

[Jack Straw]

Republicans, Get In My Vagina! from Kate Beckinsale

This video from Funny or Die was featured on this week's Real Time episode. It features Kate Beckinsale and two other MILFS talking about getting deep in their Vajs over and over again. One can only wonder how many rosy palms will get a workout watching and listening to this!

[dhmac]

Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema

Maher lines up with the Democrats on many issues, but he routinely criticizes them on his show. Something the stooges on Fox don't have the balls to do. Bill identifies himself as a Libertarian.

Bill used to self-identify as a Libertarian, but that was back in the 1990s when all Libertarians seemed to talk about was ending the drug war and removing troops from everywhere overseas. That was when Libertarians were entirely a 3rd party counter to both main political parties. But most people who call themselves Libertarians nowadays aren't like that anymore, basically having morphed into an anti-government branch of the current Republican Party that's more concerned with deregulating any and all business practices, even fraudulent ones, and not at all concerned with shrinking the bloated military industrial complex. Bill has even said on Real Time that he is not a Libertarian.

Now Bill Maher definitely is an Anti-Republican (which is not the same thing as being a Democrat). However, that's the current Republican Party he hates because he has said that he would like the old pre-1980 Republican Party to return, before it was basically taken over by the right-wing radicals and the religious right.

[Shannon Nutt]

Arsenio Hall is so talented...I could listen to the guy talk for an hour and not get bored. Why on earth no one is offering him another talk show (maybe he just doesn't want it?) is beyond me. I think he blows anyone else doing it currently (Maher, Leno, Letterman, Stewart, O'Brien, etc.) out of the water.

[Throwing Copper]

Originally Posted by Shannon Nutt

Arsenio Hall is so talented...I could listen to the guy talk for an hour and not get bored. Why on earth no one is offering him another talk show (maybe he just doesn't want it?) is beyond me. I think he blows anyone else doing it currently (Maher, Leno, Letterman, Stewart, O'Brien, etc.) out of the water.

I was shocked when his show was canceled in 1994. Still wondering what happened there......the ratings couldn't have fallen off THAT much.

He could do stand up again too, but he doesn't seem to do much of anything these days.

[MikahC]

The ratings actually did drop quite a bit after he had Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan on. I've also enjoyed Arsenio, though he does have his issues. The first thing I ever saw him on was an Eddie Murphy (he was friends with Eddie too, not just Magic Johnson) sponsored comedy special called Uptown Comedy Express (HBO). That was before even the Joan Rivers show (which led to him getting his own show). I was quite sad when we had a flood here and I lost my VHS copy of that special (it never made it to DVD).

He has a son he's raising but I don't think that's the whole situation. He has done other stuff. He was on Martial Law and I think a game or contest show of some sort. Still, you'd think he'd at least be able to get a show on BET. He actually made a quick comment about the environment not being conducive to it these days. Maybe he should have approached HBO. I still think there's a place for what he brought to the table on nighttime TV.

[wmansir]

Originally Posted by dhmac

Now Bill Maher definitely is an Anti-Republican (which is not the same thing as being a Democrat). However, that's the current Republican Party he hates because he has said that he would like the old pre-1980 Republican Party to return, before it was basically taken over by the right-wing radicals and the religious right.

I know it's part of the left's "the right has become extreme!!" talking point, but what policy positions did the '80's GOP hold that the GOP of today does not?

[Shannon Nutt]

Originally Posted by wmansir

I know it's part of the left's "the right has become extreme!!" talking point, but what policy positions did the '80's GOP hold that the GOP of today does not?

Well, for one, "Obamacare" is essentially the same health care plan Bob Dole came up with when Bill Clinton was President.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/12/he...cy/12dole.html

http://www.dolekemp96.org/agenda/issues/health.htm

[Tommy Ceez]

Originally Posted by wmansir

I know it's part of the left's "the right has become extreme!!" talking point, but what policy positions did the '80's GOP hold that the GOP of today does not?

That taxes might actually serve a purpose?

[wmansir]

Originally Posted by Shannon Nutt

Well, for one, "Obamacare" is essentially the same health care plan Bob Dole came up with when Bill Clinton was President.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/12/he...cy/12dole.html

http://www.dolekemp96.org/agenda/issues/health.htm

I didn't realize the '80's lasted until 1996, but did you actually read the Dole healthcare platform? It's a hell of a lot closer to current GOP proposals than Obamacare.

[Jack Straw]

Originally Posted by wmansir

I know it's part of the left's "the right has become extreme!!" talking point, but what policy positions did the '80's GOP hold that the GOP of today does not?

Reagan raised taxes 11 times.

[wmansir]

Originally Posted by Jack Straw

Reagan raised taxes 11 times.

Yes, after he cut income taxes across the board by 23% in his first year (and for the first time automatically adjusted tax exemptions and deductions for inflation) those cuts were reduced over his two terms. I'm sure several of those 11 were counted from the '86 tax act which lowered income tax rates but raised corporate taxes and eliminated some loopholes. While it did "raise taxes", Reagan promised to veto it unless it was revenue neutral.

[creekdipper]

Originally Posted by ben12

Also, pointing out an exception to the pattern of harm caused by religious nuts is not an argument against the harm that is caused by religious nuts. We're all very happy that not every bad thing that's happened is the result of religion, but that doesn't mean that a lot or most of it isn't a result of religion.

???? So you would call all of the hospitals, universities, charities, civil rights movements, and millions of acts of kindness toward strangers "an exception"? Wow. That qualifies as the understatement of the decade.

It's one thing to say that "a lot" of bad things have been the result of 'religion' (since "a lot" isn't very specific and could mean almost anything), but to say that "most" bad things have happened because of religion is simply indefensible and absurd. Trotting out the 'usual suspects' over and over isn't very convincing.

How about listing all of the evil things you can think of that are reported in your local newspaper and then explain how "most" of those things were caused by "religion". I see reports of theft, drug abuse, child neglect and abuse, domestic abuse, murder, vandalism, fraud, etc., etc., etc. but don't recall any causal links to "religion". If your premise were true, then the defendants would be using this argument in court to blame their 'religious' background as a mitigating factor.

I deal firsthand with many of the problems cited above, and I can assure you that in almost every instance there is a LACK of 'religion' in the perpetrators' lives, not an overabundance. Most have never darkened the door of a religious institution since they were a small child (if then).

Also, to absolve atheism of blame because it doesn't have any 'dogma' is equally absurd. It's the LACK OF DOGMA that makes atheism so dangerous. As your own words indicate, an atheist can theoretically do anything he or she pleases and justify it from a "moral" standpoint (for lack of better term) since "morality" is determined by that person alone. Otherwise, he or she has simply substituted 'Human' for 'God' (if he follows established rules taught by someone else). Unless an atheist develops his/her 'moral compass' independently of other humans (such as parents, teachers, etc.), then he/she is not merely following their own instincts regardless of what they may say. Everyone believes in a "god" when it comes to morality. Otherwise, people would be truly schizophrenic in their every action regarding morality (today theft is wrong; tomorrow it's okay, the next day it's up for grabs).

Put it this way: How can an atheist tell anyone else that anything is 'wrong'? An atheist can only speak for himself and act for himself unless he is willing to admit that there is a set of moral absolutes that must by followed...and then the atheist must explain the source of those 'absolutes'. If he says that they are innate and ingrained in our DNA, he must explain why different societies adopt different rules of behavior and why different individuals have different standards of 'morality'. If I am a religious person, I can say that the standards come from a higher authority. If I am an atheist, I can only say that the standards are those adopted by a majority of the society in a given place at a given time and may completely change tomorrow. Therefore, atheism represents the most dangerous threat to life since it has absolutely no higher authority to which to appeal other than mob rule.

[creekdipper]

Originally Posted by ben12

I think that has more to do with the fact that it's a TV show and, thus, is on a schedule. He can't spend the whole hour on one topic, and he doesn't necessarily have all the information right at his fingertips. Topics frequently get revisited on the show, so it's not a big deal. Unless you only watch one episode a year and write a huge rant about it.

You miss the point. If the show is simply to provide quick sound bites to buttress his own opinion and not to delve further into a topic which MAHER himself brings up, why watch? Then it becomes a comedy routine for bashing conservatives and religious people, in which case, why invite a "panel" of "experts" expect to act as set-up people for Maher's jokes?

No one is asking Maher to spend "the whole hour" on the topic (although, what's wrong with that? Is the audience too stupid to listen to a WHOLE HOUR...woooooooo....on topics such as health care, racism, gun control, climate change, etc.)?

And why shouldn't Maher have information "at his fingertips"? If someone can produce an entire movie on a subject, write books, MAKE A LIVING talking about these subjects, have an entire staff of writers/researchers, etc., why shouldn't he know more about these subjects than YOU or I??? And why should the audience have to watch every week for a topic to be 'revisited'? When I watch a debate, I don't want to see somebody pull a Robin Williams and jump from topic to topic without any resolution.

Face it...Maher dodges topics which he can't refute, and he displays an ignorance for many of the topics about which he blathers on while offering strong opinions. When he goes on a talk show with an informed person...such as his appearance with George Will in which Will made him look like an uninformed child...then Maher can't keep up.

Presumably, you're saying that "Real Time" doesn't actually provide answers or useful information unless one wants to take notes over an entire season and then try to collate the information to come up with some useful overview of the topic. Unlike those who only watch "one episode per season", I watch frequently enough to hear the SAME opinions offered repeatedly (usually without being challenged), the SAME predictable audience reaction (Democrats GOOD, Republicans BAAAAD), and the SAME Sarah Palin jokes (the last refuge of a liberal scoundrel). I expect more...so sorry that you are willing to accept pablum and act as those it's a tasty treat for the brain.

And having to resort to having Ed Schultz on a panel is really desperate, even for Maher.