Hmmm... have you considered putting into practice what you preach?

Points for the cryptic putdown, but if your statement was intended to communicate anything tangible to me, it failed miserably.

So Bill Maher is not a part-owner of the Mets. It was disclosed yesterday that he is a minority partner of the team now as the Mets were supposedly selling 20 million dollar shares becauses the majority owner (Wilpon) has had financial problems the last few years.

So Maher always preaches about the rich paying more taxes, I wonder why he didn't donate that 20 mil (or whatever the exact amount was) to the government instead of investing in some silly baseball team? Sounds like he is republican when it comes to his money.

I don't follow the logic. Because Bill thinks rich people can more easily shoulder the burden of taxation than the middle (and lower) classes, he should donate the money he has instead of trying to grow it? It making money now a Republican idea? I'm pretty sure people along just about every dot of the political spectrum want to do that. Where liberals and conservatives often differ is on what the burden of taxation should be, how it should be shared, and what should be funded by it.

I've seen your statement made a lot that, "If you think we all should pay more in taxes, YOU pay more. Nobody is stopping you." I've heard it used against Warren Buffet as well. It seems searing enough on the surface. But what rich people advocating the rich pay more in taxes are talking about is everyone in the target demo contributing at different (higher) levels to accomplish a goal. One person doing it isn't going to accomplish the goal. Further, it's inherently unfair to expect your neighbor making the same amount of money as you to pay, say, 10% more in taxes so you don't have to pay 5% more.

To me, everytime I hear the, "YOU do it," logic, it's as if a community needs a road so their community is accessible, someone suggests they all chip in and build it, then someone says, "If you want it, YOU build it," then proceeds to use it after it's built. The road would be for the betterment of the community, and as a member of the community, you should contribute. If you really don't think the community needs a road, argue on that basis.

Its obviously not about one rich guy paying in voluntarily. Its about all rich people paying in involuntarily. The concept of taxation is pretty basic.

Saying that you "don't think it's as simple as defining [Americans] as conservative or liberal" right after you defined Bill Maher's audience as "Liberal".

So my point is that, perhaps, not simply putting labels on people is something you should practice doing yourself.

I practice. Like everything else in life, I'm successful to varying degrees. I'm open to you pointing out when I can do better.

In this case, I'm not sure what you disagree with. There are two different paragraphs each discussing different things. Do you disagree that Bill's audience is predominantly liberal? Not only that, but he targets it to a liberal audience these days? The 2nd paragraph stated that the disagreements I have with people tend not to go along the lines of whether they're (predominantly) liberal or conservative.

I really don't see the conflict.

BTW, I'm not completely against labels. They're a shorthand. And as long as we keep in mind they're shorthand, they can be a useful communication tool. But when we start giving the label too much power, it becomes an obstacle to effective communication. Such that if I say I'm conservative, a person might automatically think, "Oh, so you favor waterboarding." Or if I say I'm a liberal, a person might automatically think, "Oh, so you're in favor of welfare moms having babies that feed off the government tit."

Getting back to the show, I watched a bit of Bill guest hosting on Piers, but I got bored and deleted the recording. I didn't really want to see an hour of Seth and Lance after all. Maybe an hour of Colin Powell or Hillary Clinton. For my tastes, despite all the problems, Bill's show is still the best balance of comedy, political topics, and reasonably intelligent people. It must be, because it's really the only show I watch these days. Shows that have gone by the wayside include Dennis Miller, Jon Stewart, and even Meet The Press (stopped watching when Tim Russert stopped hosting. None of the MSNBC shows interest me, and neither do any of the Fox News shows. So I'm that sad American who gets his "news" from a comedy show. That's at least one reason that I'd like that "news" to be at least somewhat accurate.

Well no one to blame then yourself.

He's one of the good ones (MikahC). Let it go.

Maher paying more in taxes certainly won't make up for Romney only paying 14%.

As liberal as I am, I was grinning ear to ear seeing Gillepsie put Maddow in her place. That was awesome.

Eh..I'm not a big Maddow fan but Gillespie came off as a douche pretty much the entire show if you ask me.

On the other hand Kirk Douglas is a fucking champ!

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HECI4QK_mXA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I thought the show was a mess. It took so long to interview Kirk Douglas that I think the panel had no more than 10-12 minutes before Ruffalo was brought out. Most of the time it was a fight between Madow and Gillespie with poor what's-his-name in the middle pretty much just watching. Then it turned into a fight between Gillespie and Ruffalo on pretty much obsure points.

What?! Did I, and others, just discuss the SHOW without discussing politics?

Yes bravo you did. Who cares? The show is about politics I don't see how you don't grasp the concept that a show about politics will bring up the topic from time to time. You can discuss it without but frankly the topic would get kind of old if that's all anyone ever posted about. It's not like the last few posts have been very lively just some observations.

Except that he didn't. She pretty much called Gillespie on his tactic of attacking people who don't agree with him rather than actually rebutting their argument.

Tomorrow's show is going to be fun! Maher's going on a break with a high note!

Disagree. He was making the point that she has a liberal bias and because of that she will always side with Democrats even when they are very wrong (like the Holder issue).

It's funny that she subsequently went on to do the exact same thing. When he and Bill asked her if she liked anything about Romneycare, she just jumped on him with the "Why you always attacking people, you don't know me...etc" when they asked her a very direct question about the issue.

Do you expect a civil argument where either side is actually going to listen to the other??? Political debates now are two people arguing their side while putting their fingers in their ears saying, "la-la-la-la"...(like Jim Carrey in Dumb & Dumber).

Whenever both sides go on these shows its all about talking points, and they could care less what the other side is saying. The sad thing is I am starting to notice it when I argue with my friends as people in general have become more polarized and it is almost to the point where its just not even worth it to argue because neither side is going to be swayed or even cares to be swayed.

And I disagree right back. Gillespie has a conservative bias that's every bit as far to the right as Maddow is to the left. He regurgitates every right-wing talking point he's handed, just as he did when talking about fracking and genetically modified foods. And Maddow does not always side with Obama.

Gillesspie is far right? is that a joke, yes he really regurgitated that far right talking point of sharply reducing the defense budget and ending the drug war, and other wars yeah that far right loon.lol

Yes, with the occasional libertarian talking point thrown in.

I'm glad you posted that.
All those Hollywood liberal types who called Bush stupid because of how he ran the country. Well, how is your smart guy doing these past 4 years?