Ryan was lauded by the Cato institute on his nomination and counts Ayn Rand as one of his heroes (or did until he started getting flack because of Rand's views on religion).

Judging from the dearth of comments/discussion here, not missing anything this season.

People grow more mature with their political views over time.

Driving is a privilege granted to you by the government. If the government is tired of scraping bodies off the asphalt that were ejected through the windshield because of the lack of a seatbelt, I don't see the issue with the government setting rules of the road whether it be speeding or requiring certain equipment in the vehicle. Complaining about something so trivial is ludicrous.

Arianna Huffington used to appear on Politically Incorrect as the conservative voice in a bit called Strange Bedfellows, where she and Al Franken (the liberal) debated in bed in their pajamas. I'd say she changed more than Maher.

I do agree that it's trivial and not something I'd normally complain about. The difference between speeding and wearing a seat belt is- speeding can result in harm to others. Laws like that are about protecting others. Not wearing a seat belt will only hurt yourself. It's like limiting the size of sodas sold in NYC or banning fatty food or not letting someone smoke a doobie. Government deciding what's best for someone instead of letting an adult decide for themself.

I'd say the person's family would beg to differ. Or the taxpayers or insurance company playing the funeral expenses. Or the dude scraping his off the road.

And why endorse something the liberty to be a moron? Wearing a seatbelt is obviously "what's best" - any thinking person knows this. So why act like it's a freedom thats being exercised.

Tonight's final word was pretty much spot on.

Yeah but where does it end then? Drinking is bad for you, smoking cigs is bad for you, eating cake is bad for you, skydiving is dangerous. If you die from the effects of any of that it hurts your family. Seat belt is no different...except that there's no reason not to wear one. Those other things do have reasons, mainly pleasure. There's really no pleasure in not wearing a seat belt. But in the end, if you're an adult and want to be an idiot it should be your decision. Again though, like I said. I'm not going to be rallying against seat belt laws because I don't care.

So... What? I think it is a great thing that people can and do evolve and change their opinions. To be close minded, stubborn and have absolutely no humility or self awareness is much more harmful to ones character in my view then changing ones beliefs and opinions.

Guest list for tonight:

Amy Holmes is kind of hot. Too bad she's involved with that dipshit Beck.

Rushdie is usually a good guest.

Well it will certainly be interesting to see what Bill has to say about the events in Boston.

show began live about 1 hour and change after the Boston suspect was taken into custody.

Did anybody catch the east coast feed.....if so what was said?

He opened by mentioning that they were live at 10:00 Eastern and the bomber had been caught, which got big cheers, then he went on with the show.

New Rules was kind of odd. The last new rule is usually where he goes into some commentary about something he feels is important and this time it was like 1 minute long about singers with background dancers. It ended so abruptly that it almost felt like he cut it short. I can't say that I have the best memory about television shows of any genre, but I don't recall him every finishing with something so trivial and so short.

Most weeks, that final rule is the best part of the show, as the panels are often pretty bad, although this one was pretty good. Especially since Amy Holmes seemed to almost try and get along and be less argumentative for the conservative side than I've ever seen her before.

Surprised he didn't mention the fertilizer plant explosion in Texas. That is a clear example of a company not adhering to, or in need of tighter regulations to, you know, not explode.

Agreed about New Rules. But I guess every outing can't be an A+. I half expected another Muslim rant related to the bombing.

Amy Holmes being "agreeable" did nothing for me. It's my hope that the show just didn't cover topics where she'd be more in conflict. There's a difference between questioning and being argumentative and disruptive. I love having on conservative guests who question whether the emperor has clothes, who point out hypocrisy, etc. One of my favorite phrases to hear is, "On the other hand..." Because a debate without, "On the other hand..." isn't really much of a debate at all.

There has to be a video clip somewhere of Bill Maher saying, "I support Obama," followed by his rant to get rid of the 2nd ammendment. That'd go over well with certain groups.

It was a decent, reasonably intelligent panel, but I still somehow ended up somewhat bored. The Mid-show guests feel awkward to me. They come out to discuss 1 issue, then have to basically sit there for the rest of the show. If it's someone interesting who has something to offer outside the topic he's there to discuss, it can be fun to have a 4th panelist. But if it's someone like the guy from last night, he was pretty much useless after his interview/commentary. I'd rather just stick with the 3 panelists and the lead interview (monologue, lead interview, 3 panelists discussion "moderated" by Bill, New Rules).

Barry Levin shows the horrible state of education in my state. Here's a guy who strawmanned Bill at least five times. Just not clear thinking or debating.

I suspect he did cut it short for some reason, because I can't think of another episode ending this way.

As for the reason why it ended that way, I wonder if the final rule maybe had something to do with the Boston Marathon bombing and, because the news of the end of the manhunt happened immediately before the live show started, he had to throw it out due to it not being relevant anymore.

God, he was the worst. Bill should've hit him back with something along the line of "only 10% of muslims are extremists, but 10% of 1.4 billion is 1,400,000 (crazy) people". Or at leas have him debate with Salman Rushdie about his troubles with extremists. But what took the cake was Levin saying how a Muslim version of Book of Mormon wouldn't be met with violence. To say that with a straight face is just ridiculous. I did love how Maher called him out on his "Liberal bullshit".

10% of 1.4 billion is 140,000,000. If there were 140 million extremists, don't you think they would be a lot more effective? In fact, there were 4,564 terrorist attacks in the world in 2011, assuming all of those were caused by multiple Muslims, the percentage of the total Muslim population would be miniscule. Bill is wrong on this issue. Just because the minority of Muslims are more violent than the minority of Christians who are extremists is not an indictment of the entrie religion in the same way the minority of Catholics being pedophiles isn't an indictment of that religion.

Don't confuse the issue with facts. There's a rant going on.

Nobody bats 1.000. I have to believe the more exposure he has to Muslims, the more he'll get it. The problem is there hasn't been anyone yet who can really hold his feet to the fire for feeding red meat to the Islamophobes.

On the other hand, his position isn't completely bereft of support. The majority of terrorist attacks heard about by the American populace (certainly the ones large in scope), seem to be conducted by people with at least some self-professed affiliation with Islam. Is it just my perception? Is it the media? Or is it reality? If it's reality, why is it reality?

I think part of the problem is there is no central authority figure or body in Islam. What you have are learned scholars, sheiks, imams, etc. Where as the vatican in Catholicism makes proclamations that bishops, cardinals, priests are expected to live by, Islam is decentralized. To me, Islam is closer to walking through America and asking, "Is hunting decent?" You'll get all kinds of answers from all kinds of people -- many of them inconsistent (some people will recoil at the mention of hunting for food, but happily enjoy a hamburger, etc.). You always see the world through your personal environment and experiences. Thus there most certainly are Muslims who focus on Jihad. And there are Muslims who focus on, "Peace be [unto/upon] you."

Traditionally, there have been people committing atrocious acts in the name of Christianity as well. Some people take, "Spare the rod, spoil the child," too far. It's been used as justification for all kind of hate crimes (against minorities, gays, and even the government). But it does have a central authority who can say, "This is wrong."

I'd have loved to have the guy on the panel with Salmon Rushdie. Bill did what talented people often do -- he used his combination of humor and personality to dismiss an opinion that had validity. He essentially said this professor had an opinion with no education on the subject and should talk to someone who does (Salmon Rushdie). If you really want to search for the truth in situations like this, you allow for the possibility that both people have education and experience, they're just different. If you can hold both up to the light of day and be somewhat objective about it, perhaps you can use the two divergent pieces of the puzzle to get a better feeling for what the overall picture looks like.

Yeah, it was a typo on my part but 140 million being more than 1.4 million actually strengthens my point. And it's not like that 140 million are extremists in the sense that they're all suicide bombers, but that they have sympathy for the muslims who are.

And I hate to trot our my "credentials" but I say this as someone from a muslim country who grew up amongst them and understands their culture - so I should point out that a lot of this extremist behavior can also come from the culture and be supported by the religion.