I didn't mean that you were saying that - just a lot of scuttlebutt online with people being surprised that vaccinated people can still get it, oblivious to the fact that by that point it won't really matter if they get it, as, at worst, it'll be a mild case.

He is more or less asymptomatic so the vaccine is doing exactly what it should and he has a mild case. Science.

First show after his infection and he really was doubting the effects of the vaccine in his monologue. For a guy who make a lot of fun about Qanon and other conspiracy theorists he is pretty much one of them, when it comes to vaccination. The other topic that made be mad was Israel. It's such a complex topic where he tries to discredit an one-sided argument with another equally one-sided argument, even forcing his guest who wants to make a more complex argument, to agree with him.

I really like his show, but sometimes I wish I could just sit him down and talk to him without being interrupted. For someone who sees himself as the voice of reason he has some very fundamental views.

I bet the Talk wishes she was back since the ratings for that show went into the toilet after she left.

Glad Costas is back on HBO with a new show. Must see TV for me.

Why? To change his mind?
Every single human on the planet has views that someone else will think is crazy. I guarantee that.
You don't need to agree with everyone or have everyone agree with everything you believe.
Getting mad about that will only make you mad at everyone all the time.
Even Bill gets that and often invites people he disagrees with.
If you like hos show, that should be enough.

It's not like I have to change his mind, but I think he would reconsider his views if he would listen uninterrupted. One of his guests tried to explain the complexity to him, but before he could finish his thought Bill interrupted him. Bill invites people he disagrees with a lot and that's a big part of the shows appeal, but being his show Bill has the opportunity in the monologue and the editorial after new rules to present his views uninterrupted. Most of the time those view are nuanced and well argued, so that's a big part of the appeal, too.
So I'd just wish there was an opportunity were the roles are changed and Bill should have to listen, not necessarily to me. Perhaps he would still disagree, but regarding Israel, I think he would amend his views in part. In my opinion he isn't completly wrong, everything he says about the aggression towards Israel is true, but he almost gives Isarel a blank check and reduces the Palestinans to the actions of Hamas which is just unreasonable for a man who wants to be a voice of reason.

There are other views of his, I strongly disagree with e.g. the death penalty and those are view no good argument will change, but like his stand on climate change, the science has settled on vaccinations and that's something he should at least hear once.

I can only assume Bill can't get anyone on this show any more... Matthews and Kasich are complete clowns and it was as bad as expected. Matthews actually looked sober for once, which just made it even worse.

^ What? They've been on multiple times before.
Like any other show, not every guest is a winner.

Matthews is one of the few political pundits that is actually worth listening these days (even though he doesn't have his MSNBC show anymore and is essentially retired because of personal issues). I am a Republican but I watched Matthews show on MSNBC going back to 1996. Most of the younger pundits on TV are just partisan hacks that play to the partisan sheep in this country (Hannity, Joy Reid, Maddow, Ingraham, Cuomo, Tucker, Chris Hayes, Lemon, etc), but Matthews is sort of old school and will call it as he sees many times. Matthews is a guy who actually worked in Washington when they was true bipartisanship under Tip O'Neil, so he looks at politics much differently than today where everyone thinks the other side is evil. O'Neil and Reagan got things done because it was the best for the country, unlike McConnell and Pelosi who are looking at their parties interests first.

I don't have an issue with programs releasing individuals for making offensive remarks that are likely to run off advertisers and/or audience or are just thoroughly horrible, but yeah, the threshold for "offensive" has gotten unbelievably, comically even, low in these past few years.

Matthews is a clown? It was a travesty he lost his job at MSNBC for saying a girl was attractive. What a horrible human being! I saw a photo of that lady and she should be lucky somebody complimented her.

Anyways McNabb is right and Matthews wrote a couple of best selling books on the Kennedys and the relationship with Reagan and Tip O" Neill.

He had made several on air blunders besides that. (the Tim Scott mix up, etc) It was well past time to put him out to pasture.

It wasn't so long ago that an older man could say to a younger woman, "If I was 20/30 years younger . . ." and it was seen as a compliment. Matthews comes from that generation, so for him telling a woman he finds her attractive is supposed to be a compliment for her, not an offensive come on.

Making someone feeling uncomfortable shouldn't be enough to be canceled. If someone offers me a salad I feel uncomfortable since I don't eat salad and I have to decline, but I don't leave the party over it.

Cancel culture is very inconsistent. Chris Matthews lost his job at MSNBC because of the way he treated women on/off air in the past, yet Joy Reid keeps her job when they uncovered Homophobic old blog posts. She said her computer was hacked yet she apologized for those same old blog posts on the same show?

Megyn Kelly gets cancelled because she talks about wearing black face as a kid, yet Jimmy Kimmel doesn't get cancelled when he actually did a skit in blackface as Karl Malone.

None of it makes sense.

Joy Reid is someone I do not like,but a cable news company firing someone for catty homophobic comments from the 00's at a time when both political parties were against denying gay people the right to marry and when it was still acceptable for mainstream standup's to do hackneyed similiar homophobic jokes is that not the same as someone with a long documented continious case of sexually harassing women. One of his guest even went on records as recently as 2016 saying he made inapporiate comments as recent as 2016.

Megyn Kelly was a case of her ratings were a complete flop and her employeer's fired her as a way to fake a moral highground and probably try and get back some money in a buyout contract. I think Megyn Kelly situation should actually be a cautionary tale not to higher major cable news personalities in the first place in a-political spaces unless you are prepared to alienate some of the audience.You can't be a propogandist for a political party on cable news and then try and pivot to a "neutral" talk show host the way Megyn did.At the very least a third of the country will never watch your program,a similiar thing happened with the Jeopardy when Anderson Cooper had the lowest ratings for all the guest hosts, a bunch of conservatives flipped the channel the second he appeared .

Your comparisons are kind of inconsistent. Comparing "past content" with "current behavior" is apples and oranges. If you're going to do that, go with the Teen Vogue editor that got ousted (Alexi McCammond) to Joy Reid. Or Sarah Silverman losing a job over previous black face skits and Jimmy Kimmel not (though Kimmel's show is targeted toward adults and from what I understand, Silverman's job loss was not), though both were a long time ago (25 years vs. about 12.5 years)

I think the Megyn Kelly one was kind of dumb, but the network appeared to be looking for an out with her. Matthews had apparently been pretty abrasive with his comments for a long time and never actually stopped.

This should be interesting…

Nice!

I like Tarantino, but QT talking politics? I dunno.

Will Bill avoid mentioning the story about QT forcing Uma Thurman to drive a car (which then crashed) during Kill Bill or bring up his VERY close relationship with Harvey Weinstein? I'm guessing no.

It's not 2018...so no... I doubt it... that has all been addressed.

Tarantino was there to plug his new novelization of Once Upon A Time In Hollywood being released 6/29. The interview was a disappointment for me. For one, QT was literally tongue tied when responding to Bill's query about only making one more movie before retiring. Then his move with his wife and child to Israel was addressed. The question of why the hell would anyone move to the middle east from L.A, particularly in light of the recent bombing sirens going off there was not asked by Bill. QT said out of hand he didn't convert to Judaism rather dismissively. Now watch for the ADL to start screaming about that back and forth.

Since QT wasn't on the panel discussion (instead doing the one-on-one at the start of the show), there wasn't that much politics.

QT rarely seems to be at a loss for words, but Maher's pressing on his announced retirement (after one more movie) seemed to throw him for a loop. Which is odd, because you'd think QT has had to explain this countless times since he announced it.

I still think the "retirement" thing is a bunch of hooey, and so does QT. That might be a reason he was at a loss for words, 'cuz he was thinking "what line of bullshit should I spout this time?"

About the Reservoir Dogs remake, it's funny that he even said directly to the camera, "No I'm not doing it, Internet" and sure enough there was still an article in my feed yesterday about QT remaking Reservoir Dogs. That's probably the other reason he's still very careful about what bullshit he spews about the "retirement", because everything he says gets twisted.

Finally, I noticed the crowd laugh when he said (about 50s movies), "You couldn't say 'shit' if you had a mouth full of it". That's a line from From Dusk Till Dawn, people! He's quoting his own movies.

I actually think he may walk away from movies sooner rather than later. I think he's frustrated that blockbusters rule the calendar 12 months a year (he talks about it all of the time), and that's not the type of movies he makes. He's a dying breed out there as the whole studio model has changed since Pulp Fiction. I hate the modern blockbuster (and agree with Tarantino), but as long as they are making billion dollar total grosses, the studios will not take a chance on a young Tarantino and instead pump out some sequel, prequel, reboot or comic book movies. It's just the safer option for this business model. I don't goto the movies anymore because blockbusters have taken over the 12 month calendar (and TV is telling better stories now), but young people will go see some Marvel movie multiple times, so that is THE only audience they care about anymore (along with the foreign box office gross which is sometimes more important). That's why Hollywood kisses China's ass and are essentially their bitch. 20-25 years ago, the studios tried to cater to all audiences as there were room for Blockbusters and the smaller budget movies. Those days are long gone.