Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > TV Talk
Reload this Page >

Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO) - Series Discussion Thread

TV Talk Talk about Shows on TV

Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO) - Series Discussion Thread

Old 08-01-04, 06:21 AM
  #151  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Jadzia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,799
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I loved it when Dreier was talking about wanting to turn people into Republicans and Moore zinged him with "Would you then call us flip-floppers?"

Classic.

He did the same thing when Dreier said he was hoping Bush would come around on stem cell research. That was a great comeback.
Old 08-01-04, 10:15 AM
  #152  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
and whats with Moore always asking people "if they would send their child to die in Iraq"? firstly, we have a volunteer military and no parents force or send their children into the military. for every parent that might encourage their child to enlist for whatever reason, i'm sure there is another parent who would prefer there child did not go at all. he can't seem to comprehend that there are young men and women that don't share his worldview and his opinions and are willing to fight and die for what they believe in. instead he tries to paint them as violent, imature, unintelligent, clueless robots who are there because "Bush sent them there to die" and they do what their told because they don't know any better. and by the way, who's sending these children to die? which one is it, Bush or their parents? Moore loves to point the finger at anyone and everyone, accusing them of "sending our children to die" be it the parents, recruiters, President, etc. But he obviously can't say they are there by way of free will, that would be too logical. and he also wouldn't be able to continue to whore himself off under the veil of someone that "supports the troops"
Old 08-01-04, 11:15 AM
  #153  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Its not a question over whether the soldiers voluntarily go to Iraq. The question isn't whether a parent literally send this kids to Iraq. The question is essentially this: If YOUR son or daughter came to you and said, 'Dad, I'm on the fence here about whether or not to volunteer to fight for this war in Iraq. Do YOU think this war is potentially worth my life?'

Does the Congressman say, 'Yes son. I believe this war is critical to the security of the US and it is imperative that youngsters like yourself volunteer to fight this war if thats what YOU want to do.'

Does he say that? Will he say that to his son or daughter now on national TV?
Old 08-01-04, 01:05 PM
  #154  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Jadzia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,799
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Yes, and most parents aren't in a position to send their children off to war. The point is that our leaders are in that position. Moore is merely pointing out that it is very easy to vote to send some stranger's kids off to fight a war for dubious reasons. If they had kids in the military, they might be a little more cautious about sending them into harm's way unless absolutely necessary.
Old 08-01-04, 01:36 PM
  #155  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Jadzia
Yes, and most parents aren't in a position to send their children off to war. The point is that our leaders are in that position. Moore is merely pointing out that it is very easy to vote to send some stranger's kids off to fight a war for dubious reasons. If they had kids in the military, they might be a little more cautious about sending them into harm's way unless absolutely necessary.
i'll submit that both you and CRM114 have made some valid points. however i have yet to hear Moore even attempt to back up his reason for posing that question to even the limited extent that the two of you have. i guess he thinks its enough to just bait every conservative he speaks to that voted for the war with the question. (God knows he won't ask Kerry and Edwards that question)

and what does he suppose we should do? force the children of any congressman who votes for a war to automatically be required to serve in that war? btw, how many of the roughly 600 members of congress actually have children of age to serve in the military?

also, if one could argue that the fact that a congressman's child would have to fight in a war would make him/her consider their vote for war with a greater level of scrutiny and reluctance, the same could be said of the opposite. what if a large number of sons/daughters of congressmen were enlisted in the military and congress was faced with deciding whether war was an appropriate course of action. what if those members of congress voted against a war solely based on the fact they did not want their child in harms way. is that fair? what about the consequences that would ensue in that scenario?
Old 08-01-04, 03:02 PM
  #156  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,507
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally posted by tonytapez
i'll submit that both you and CRM114 have made some valid points. however i have yet to hear Moore even attempt to back up his reason for posing that question to even the limited extent that the two of you have. i guess he thinks its enough to just bait every conservative he speaks to that voted for the war with the question. (God knows he won't ask Kerry and Edwards that question)

I don't guess you've seen the movie, but he does show a democrat senator making a speech when voting in favor of the war... he does take a few shots at democrats.
Old 08-01-04, 03:29 PM
  #157  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Applejack
I don't guess you've seen the movie, but he does show a democrat senator making a speech when voting in favor of the war... he does take a few shots at democrats.
from the wording of your first sentence, i'm not sure if your saying you guess i haven't seen the movie or i have, so i'll just assume you think i haven't.

well i have. and i believe the democratic senator Moore shows is Tom Daschle speaking on the floor about giving his support to allow the President to use force against Iraq. someone please correct me if i'm wrong, though.

and Moore's criticism of the Dems is nowhere near the same ballpark as his demonization of the Bush administration. the impression that F9/11 gave me of the Dems that voted for the war was that they were "lied" to by the President and were victims of the evil Bush masterplan to deceive the world.
Old 08-01-04, 05:43 PM
  #158  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,507
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally posted by tonytapez


and Moore's criticism of the Dems is nowhere near the same ballpark as his demonization of the Bush administration. the impression that F9/11 gave me of the Dems that voted for the war was that they were "lied" to by the President and were victims of the evil Bush masterplan to deceive the world.
No, his criticisms of the Bush admin isn't near the same as his criticism of the Democrats. Probably because Bush, unarguably, was the driving force behind the Iraq war.

In an opinion piece such as F-911 criticizing the President's approach to the "war on terror", it would be surprising if he attacked the Dems with the same fervor when the president who instigated the war is Republican.
Old 08-01-04, 06:19 PM
  #159  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
driving force? last i checked the decision to goto war was not a partisan issue. everyone who was for the war, be they in the administration or in the congress, based their decisions on the same intelligence. without the approval of the congress there would have been no military action of the level that we saw.

now, at this point with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, Moore and the Dems that voted for the war are making this a Rep vs Dem issue becuase, after all, this is an election year. you can't really blame them for it though, i mean what else can they run on? thats just the nature of politics.

oh, and in my opinion, F9/11 isn't a critique of the President's war on terror as much as it is and indictment of a man and his administration/party backed up by half truths, false implications, and outlandish conspiracy theories. its a self admitted opinion peace masquerading as a docudrama thats fueled by pent up anger and resentment from what happened in the 2000 election. that, along with some far left-leaners, such as Moore, who are unable to accept opposing viewpoints from their own as debatable issues. instead, they characterize the other side as dangerous, evil, and devisive.

and to veer this thread back on topic, the most interesting part of Maher's show this week IMO was Moore admitting that he prejudged the war in iraq as "a lie" long before he had any facts to back that up because "he knows these people and knows that they are liars." that says alot IMHO about how Moore does business. he comes to a conclusion about something before knowing the facts and then goes and selects bits and pieces of info that support those conclusions leaving out any info that would lead someone to believe the contrary.

Last edited by tonytapez; 08-01-04 at 06:30 PM.
Old 08-01-04, 07:58 PM
  #160  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
dolphinboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: AZ
Posts: 8,056
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by tonytapez
driving force? last i checked the decision to goto war was not a partisan issue. everyone who was for the war, be they in the administration or in the congress, based their decisions on the same intelligence. without the approval of the congress there would have been no military action of the level that we saw.

now, at this point with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, Moore and the Dems that voted for the war are making this a Rep vs Dem issue becuase, after all, this is an election year. you can't really blame them for it though, i mean what else can they run on? thats just the nature of politics.

oh, and in my opinion, F9/11 isn't a critique of the President's war on terror as much as it is and indictment of a man and his administration/party backed up by half truths, false implications, and outlandish conspiracy theories. its a self admitted opinion peace masquerading as a docudrama thats fueled by pent up anger and resentment from what happened in the 2000 election. that, along with some far left-leaners, such as Moore, who are unable to accept opposing viewpoints from their own as debatable issues. instead, they characterize the other side as dangerous, evil, and devisive.

and to veer this thread back on topic, the most interesting part of Maher's show this week IMO was Moore admitting that he prejudged the war in iraq as "a lie" long before he had any facts to back that up because "he knows these people and knows that they are liars." that says alot IMHO about how Moore does business. he comes to a conclusion about something before knowing the facts and then goes and selects bits and pieces of info that support those conclusions leaving out any info that would lead someone to believe the contrary.
Weren't there millions and millions of people who also didn't trust the information they were getting just before the war? Moore was being self-depricating by joking that he guessed that the government would lie about Iraq and that he didn't have all the facts at the time. He puts himself in the position of being wrong. Something Dreir and Bush never do. Were't we all, as Americans, being asked to make a decision whether we believed the government before the war? Wasn't that why Bush spoke to us? So, Moore didn't buy it, when quite a few Democrats actually did and I don't just mean politicians, who, by the way, were told Bush would do all he could to get a BROAD coalition and make sure he'd exhausted all other options before going to war when he got that vote.

And if you think Moore wouldn't ask Kerry and Edwards if they'd ask their kids to volunteer to fight in this war, then you don't know much about Moore. He's anti-power more than he is ant-Bush and he'll be watching Kerry as closely as he's watching Bush if Kerry manages to win.

I can't wait to see what the Republicans and Moore bashers do when he's criticizing Kerry for not keeping his promises if he's our next President. Maybe their head's will just explode.
Old 08-01-04, 10:12 PM
  #161  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Capitol of the Empire! Center of all Commerce and Culture! Crossroads of Civilization! NEW ROME!!!...aka New York City
Posts: 10,909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Last I checked, there were no children in the military in Iraq, just fully emancipated adults.
Old 08-01-04, 10:22 PM
  #162  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Josh-da-man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Bible Belt
Posts: 43,877
Received 2,718 Likes on 1,875 Posts
I always find it curious how Moore is demonized for being partisan, or for twisting facts to make his points.

The irony is that usually comes from the same people who are fans of Limbaugh, Coulter, and Hannity.

Why does Moore somehow have an obligation to not demonize the Bush Administration and Republicans, and remain somehow fair and balanced (har har) when his conservative counterparts, who use the same kinds of tactics, are under no such obligation when it comes to liberals and Democrats?
Old 08-01-04, 10:58 PM
  #163  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Formerly known as Groucho AND Bandoman/Death Moans, Iowa
Posts: 18,292
Received 371 Likes on 265 Posts
Originally posted by Tommy Ceez
Last I checked, there were no children in the military in Iraq, just fully emancipated adults.
I would be suprised if that was true. My grandfather enlisted at 16 in WWII by lying about his age, as did thousands of others. While it probably isn't as widespread for this war, I would bet there are a few who have done the same.
Old 08-01-04, 11:02 PM
  #164  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Josh-da-man
I always find it curious how Moore is demonized for being partisan, or for twisting facts to make his points.

The irony is that usually comes from the same people who are fans of Limbaugh, Coulter, and Hannity.

Why does Moore somehow have an obligation to not demonize the Bush Administration and Republicans, and remain somehow fair and balanced (har har) when his conservative counterparts, who use the same kinds of tactics, are under no such obligation when it comes to liberals and Democrats?
so if one side does it that makes it ok for the other side to do the same? i hate to be cliche but two wrongs don't make a right. and just because i criticize Moore doesn't mean i'm a fan of those three either. if any of them made a movie about Clinton or Kerry using Moore's tactics i'd be just as harsh on them. i know it may seem like the easy answer, but partisanship isn't always the motive behind people's criticisms.

and dolphinboy, if Moore is so "anti-power" and really wants to expose those who "lied" to us and involved us in this "fictitious" war then why is he not being at least somewhat critical of Kerry, Edwards, and the other Dems who voted for the war? what is he doing at the DNC convention. the fact that he keeps quiet, to me, shows what his true motives are.
Old 08-02-04, 12:14 AM
  #165  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
dolphinboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: AZ
Posts: 8,056
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by tonytapez
and dolphinboy, if Moore is so "anti-power" and really wants to expose those who "lied" to us and involved us in this "fictitious" war then why is he not being at least somewhat critical of Kerry, Edwards, and the other Dems who voted for the war? what is he doing at the DNC convention. the fact that he keeps quiet, to me, shows what his true motives are.
Um, because we really only have two parties and because he believes Bush is simply the worst of the two choices, so he's doing the best he can to support the only other viable alternative.

Did you both to read his book? I'm a huge fan of Bill Clinton and I'm also a Democrat. Moore whacks Clinton and, for me, it's actually hard to read, because it makes me have to look at Clinton differently than I want to you.

Why should Moore slam anything Kerry is doing now, when he truly believes Bush needs to go. McCain doesn't really like Bush, but it's campaign season, so he's doing what he needs to do to get the guy who's closest to him in beliefs elected. Do you think McCain will be saying the same sweet things about Bush after a Bush re-election? No, he'll go back to being a very moderate Republican. And if Kerry wins and moves to the center, as you would except, Moore will attack Kerry for not being a "true" Democrat and he'll write books criticizing Kerry if he doesn't do the things Moore wants him to do, which is very much the things Nader wants the Democrats to do. He has an agenda and he does what he feels he has to, attacks who he feels he needs to, to see the country go in the direction he believes is best.

He has a bigger platform than you and I. But he doesn't need to do this. It has to be a pain the butt, he's already wealthy, so at least the man is trying to keep the powerful honest. Believe me, I think it's a losing effort. I just admire the guy for trying. He's much further to the left than me, but so what? He's no Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh, who only care to profit from taking a side and never going any further than one sides talking points. In fact, Bill Maher is another guy, who while is on the left, certainly doesn't only endorse Democrats.
Old 08-02-04, 04:41 AM
  #166  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 8,978
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally posted by Tommy Ceez
Last I checked, there were no children in the military in Iraq, just fully emancipated adults.
But the point in the film was to find a congressman whose child was sent to Iraq, and that maybe they wouldn't vote for the war if it were their child going. But they aren't the parents that are encouraging their kids to join the military. They encourage other parents that the military is a good option for their kids.

As far as this show went, I thought it was rather classless of Drier to walk out, but I guess he thought that was the appropriate thing to do. I think the best point made was when Bill Maher said, "What if it was Clinton who sat there for 7 minutes?" It should be a question everyone asks themselves when they see that because it shouldn't change your opinion about whether or not it was the right thing to do.

My only problem with this show was that I wish they had the Colorado Governor or some other Republican there in person because this panel was way too unbalanced, especially after they brought Nader in. Everybody there, including Maher, made it clear that they wanted Bush out. The one guy who didn't wasn't making a very good case for him.

I just remembered my favorite line from the Colorado Governor. "The Democrats are a very liberal party. We are a very moderate to conservative party." On second thought, it probably wouldn't have helped the Republicans to have him there in person

Last edited by Roto; 08-02-04 at 04:49 AM.
Old 08-02-04, 10:33 PM
  #167  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Capitol of the Empire! Center of all Commerce and Culture! Crossroads of Civilization! NEW ROME!!!...aka New York City
Posts: 10,909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
They encourage other parents that the military is a good option for their kids.
I will repeat and then drop my thread hijacking...adults join the military, and after 18 years old, parents have NO SAY in the decisions of thier offspring.
Old 08-03-04, 01:13 AM
  #168  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 8,978
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Yes Tommy, everything is black and white, there is no in between I used the word encourage for a reason.
Old 08-06-04, 04:06 PM
  #169  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,018
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Real Time with Bill Maher 8-6-04

11 pm ET on HBO

"This week, Bill's guests include comedian Steve Harvey, Rep. Kay Granger, former Rep. Bob Barr and reporter Cokie Roberts."
Old 08-06-04, 04:17 PM
  #170  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Jadzia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,799
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Can't wait, unless I go into labor tonight.

I'm so glad Maher is back on the air. I need my fix of his wit every week.
Old 08-06-04, 04:28 PM
  #171  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 8,978
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
The first show was good, I just hope this one is a little more balanced. I almost felt bad for the Republican last week. Looking forward to Steve Harvey. He seems like the nicest guy who is always cool, calm and collected. It'd be fun to see him get in an arguement
Old 08-06-04, 07:52 PM
  #172  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
nazz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Land of the Free
Posts: 5,989
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
This thread reminded me to set up my season pass on Tivo.

Thanks.
Old 08-06-04, 08:56 PM
  #173  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Peachtree City, GA 30269
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Count me in.
Old 08-07-04, 02:33 AM
  #174  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 8,978
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
That panel was horrible! Bob Barr has no sense of humor. Someone should've shut off his microphone because he was really getting obnoxious interrupting with his stupid jokes, and most of them were just Steve Harveys jokes that he would just continue to run into the ground. The ones that weren't didn't even make sense. Steve Harvey starts saying all the different colors for the alert levels and Bob Barr says he's "playing the race card." huh? Man, that guy just struck me as a jackhole. I did like when Kokie told him that he was going to put these comedians out of business.

Unfortunately Steve is too polite for this show. I'm not a big David Cross fan, but if Bob Barr is ever invited back, that's the comedian I want on the show. Someone who would just tell that guy that he's making an ass of himself.

I pretty much agreed with Bill Maher on all the topics except for Ricky Williams, but I know Bill's motivation is that he wants pot legalized. The problem is, it's not legal and the NFL can't afford to not take a stance on it. Baseball gets pressure from the President about steroids for crying out loud. Ricky Williams made his choice to smoke pot instead of playing football. I don't care if he has social anxiety disorder, it was still a dumb pothead decision. I also didn't buy Bill's story that he was persecuted and they made him take a urine test every day. I'm sure he took plenty of tests, but not every day for his whole career.
Old 08-07-04, 03:08 AM
  #175  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Falls Church, VA
Posts: 1,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How it went from one of the best panels the show has ever had to the worst in one week... Absolutely dreadful. They didn't stay on topic, Harvey never looked at the camera and added absolutely no political discussion to it... Hell, Harvey just served to confuse Barr even more. I'm not sure if Cokie Roberts was just caught in the middle of a train wreck or was equally to blame for the whole thing.

And Maher... I've watched every show from the beginning, and while I'm not one to always agree with his politics, the corn thing was just ridiculous. He went from a picture of Kerry and Bush holding corn, a show of support to rural farmers, to some inane rant on the food industry. Maher seemed like he just had to rant about corporations "making America fat" this week, and somehow decided Kerry and Bush holding corn was the perfect connection. Ricky Williams was an equal waste of time, in comparison to other news subjects that took place this week...

The whole show seemed out to promote age old partisan issues: Gay marriage, drugs, evil food corporations/lobbyists and even more about Bush's 7.5 minutes (After last week, I think I get where Maher stands on the topic.) On a day where job growth was very disappointing, all Hell started to break lose in Iraq again, and the US election campaigns are in full swing... The topics discussed, regardless of how horrible the panelists would have been at discussing any subject, just seemed pointless and debated strictly so Maher could rant away. But combine that with Steve Harvey and Bob Barr...

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.