|
|
What are your thoughts on Tonight's show?
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
3/4/08
|
|
(42 of 42)
Mar 4, 2008 8:58 AM
|
Bill--
When discussing the many personalities of Hillary Clinton, you stated it was a female trait and men are what they are. I can't beleieve you and your completely male panel have so quickly forgotten about Al Gore! Geez! He hired a consultant to test which personality he should wear for which event!!! Come on!
|
|
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
3/4/08
|
|
(41 of 42)
Mar 4, 2008 2:03 AM
|
Bill,
The one thing I really want to know is if anyone knows Pastor Hagee's checkered past. let's start with the fact that he is now MARRIED to his church secretary, after divorcing his wife and trying to have her committed because she probably lost it after finding out he was having an affair with his secretary. Real good spiritual leader. I live in San Antonio and I, for one, am very embarassed to admit that this is where his church is located. Also, have you seen this guy?? For someone preaching 'the good word' isn't gluttany one of the seven deadly sins? Just a thought
|
|
|
Posts:
7,482
Registered:
8/24/06
|
|
(40 of 42)
Mar 3, 2008 10:03 PM
|
Well I finally saw the show tonight, so now the comments about Obama's cock have been put into perspective.
Gawd, the governor of PA is an idiot.
Some of the New Rules were right on the money.
|
|
|
Posts:
23
Registered:
11/10/06
|
|
(39 of 42)
Mar 3, 2008 5:13 PM
|
What puzzles me about modern Buddism is that it ignores the fact that Buddah himself said he DID NOT want Buddism to be a religion. It was a way of life, primarily in relation to meditation.
Its after Buddah's death that people turned his teachings into exactly what he didnt want them to be: a religion. His teachings were always meant to be totally secular, for EVERYONE, of any religion or occupation or whatever. "Buddism" doesnt really even exist, or wasnt suppose to anyway.....
|
|
|
Posts:
2
Registered:
11/6/04
|
|
(38 of 42)
Mar 3, 2008 4:50 PM
|
> PCDuncan....i have not been able to watch because I
> don't have cable right now...What's I miss?
>
> Enlighten me man....i've been to busy to listen into
> the low QHz? Please????????
Hi Tori,
Good to hear from you. Firstly, I bear Dan no ill will. He is reacting from his own experience. The exchange went something like this:
Buddhism was mentioned in the discussion of American religions, Bill said Buddhism was more philosophy than religion (I would tend to agree) then Dan said, and I will quote as closely as I remember,
(Not a direct quote, but from my memory.)
"The majority of American Buddhists are Soka Gakkai Buddhists, which is "gimme" Buddhism, very materialistic, the anti-thesis of what Buddhism is really about."
Then Hitchens attempted to lump Buddhism in with other religions that (according to him) despise life so much they cannot bear to think of their "messiahs" being born of a woman. I cannot speak for other sects of Buddhism, but The Soka Gakkai never claimed the historic Buddha to be anything other than a human being, born of a woman, died of natural causes, and all the rest. Buddha is not a God, but a person. And Buddhahood is a potential shared equally by all living things.
As I said, I knew Dan in 1986 when he first met members of the Soka Gakkai (then Nichiren Shoshu Soka Gakkai of America or NSA). The group was in its infancy in America and under the auspices of the Japanese Priesthood. In 1991 Soka Gakkai and Priesthood split and the Soka Gakkai has evolved a much less aggressive and more measured approach to Buddhism (in my opinion closer to the original intent). It is now a lay organization only. To my knowledge Dan did not dislike me personally, but was very turned off by the practice in 1986. His prerogative. I think if Dan was aware how the organization has changed since he first came in contact with it in the mid 1980's he would have a (perhaps slightly) different opinion.
I have no problem with other people's opinions but I don't want my religion misrepresented so I thought this would be a good forum to discuss what was said. The Answer to Free Speech you disagree with is more Free Speech.
Peace
Patrick
--
Edited by PCDuncan at 03/03/2008 1:51 PM
--
Edited by PCDuncan at 03/03/2008 1:54 PM
--
Edited by PCDuncan at 03/03/2008 2:03 PM
--
Edited by PCDuncan at 03/03/2008 2:04 PM
|
|
|
Posts:
476
Registered:
4/14/07
|
|
(37 of 42)
Mar 3, 2008 12:57 PM
|
PCDuncan....i have not been able to watch because I don't have cable right now...What's I miss?
Enlighten me man....i've been to busy to listen into the low QHz? Please????????
|
|
|
Posts:
2
Registered:
11/6/04
|
|
(36 of 42)
Mar 3, 2008 12:17 PM
|
Dan Savage's claim that Soka Gakkai Buddhism is ?materialistic? is not accurate. Dan is great, don't get me wrong. He is well spoken and funny, but I think he is making a broad generalization based on old, outdated information.
I am a Soka Gakkai Buddhist and I knew Dan Savage back in 1986 when we were both actors in the Kentucky Shakespeare Festival. I will be the first to say that my fellow practitioners were overly aggressive back then, but in the last 22 years the organization has changed immensely for the better. To my recollection I personally never hounded Dan or told him to chant (pray) for "solid gold toilet seats."
Soka Gakkai Buddhism does not dictate what individuals should or should not pray for and is non judgmental. Some chant for better jobs, homes, modes of transportation and money because that is what is important to them. Who am I, or who is anyone else, to say they should not do this? Some chant for better family relationships and health. A person with a sick child who can?t afford a doctor would certainly pray for their child?s health and the money to facilitate the treatment. Is that materialism? I am glad I don?t practice a religion that tells me not to pray for those things.
To be overly focused on materialism is not a good idea, but it is also self defeating to be focused only on the spiritual at the expense of life in the real world. I am not running off to join a monastery and no one should have to in order to be happy. That is after all, what Buddhism is about, becoming happy. Becoming happy in the real world is hardly ?the anti-thesis of Buddhism? as Dan claims.
I am also curious if Dan is aware of the fact that Soka Gakkai Buddhism is one of the only worldwide religions that openly support Gay, Lesbian and Transgender Rights. Again, he is entitled to his opinion, but I hope he bases it on more recent information.
As for Hitchen's statement about the "Buddha being born from a slit in his mother's side," I have never heard in 22 years anyone but Christopher Hitchen's refer to this. If the historic Buddha was born by Caesarian it is simply not considered important to me or any of the Buddhists I know of any sect. What a person says and does during their lifetime is far more important than how they were born or how they died.
"What's Love Got To Do With It?" and "A Mighty Heart," portraying the Tina Turner and Marianne Pearl stories respectively, reflect the Soka Gakkai Buddhism that I know exists today.
Patrick
--
Edited by PCDuncan at 03/03/2008 9:21 AM
|
|
|
Posts:
2,949
Registered:
7/17/07
|
|
(35 of 42)
Mar 3, 2008 7:41 AM
|
> What are your thoughts on Tonight's show?
Watched it last night, the first one of the season for me. I was totally disappointed. The only bright spot was Gov. Randall, at least he has something to say. Christopher Hitchens was a huge bore, the UN Undersecretary when allowed to speak had quite a bit to say. Unfortunately he wasn't given more air time.
Dan Savage and that fake report from the front lines was so TDSesque.
Bill, stick with what works for you, not what works for others.
BTW, I'm a woman and I loved the piece on Hillary's reactions ranging from tears to anger. Yes, it's definitely true. Then again how many politicians both male and female, change their tactics when they realize something isn't working. I can agree with one opinion Hitchens had, Obama's voice. It's velvet, he can say almost anything and the crowd will be mesmerized.
I'd like to see you address Nader's issues with Obama's stance on those issues. Will Obama dare to be questioned by you on the air?
Give us something to sink our teeth into.
|
|
|
Posts:
33
Registered:
1/12/05
|
|
(34 of 42)
Mar 2, 2008 11:45 PM
|
Best
Show
Ever.
Cringed a few times (curry - eeeew!), yawned during Mr Hillary-guy, the rest of the show went by so fast I couldn't believe it when it was over.
Maybe it was common knowledge that the Rabid Brit is a Clinton-hater , well I didn't know. I'm not surprised; seriously, he hates more than most, which makes him immensely annoying, obnoxious or entertaining, depending on if he's in hate with your own pet hate at the moment. Him being "a little queer for Obama" had me laughing so hard I almost gagged.
Anyways, much as I enjoyed it, Rabid Brit is even more entertaining (to me) when he's hating more, so I hope someone will get him off decaf and back on double espressos. Or whatever it was.
Crossing my fingers there'll be a show on May 2nd, and that there's room for some Norwegian ladies in the audience! And that Mr. Savage will be back, I'm a little straight for him ;D
|
|
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
3/2/08
|
|
(33 of 42)
Mar 2, 2008 8:37 PM
|
I used to enjoy your shows because you seemed to be frank and truthful.
Tonight I was watching the show and I couldn?t believe my eyes and ears. If felt like I was watching Fox? you and your guests were talking and acting like O?Reilly and his gang.
You were bashing Hillary while adulating Obama. How could one be all the way wrong and evil, while the other is spotless?
I cannot believe that you joined the official media in manipulating these elections.
You lost your standing, man. Shame on you.
|
|
|
Posts:
144
Registered:
1/25/08
|
|
(32 of 42)
Mar 2, 2008 4:19 PM
|
> ''I'm not a feminist, but . . . ?'' That's a fraud.
> It's intellectually dishonest. And it's a slap to the
> feminists who prepared the table at which today's
> young women sup.
>
> So for the record, I am a feminist. My daughter is,
> too.
> She doesn't know it yet.
That is very sad to hear. Hopefully you will one day realize what a joke the feminist movement has become. The feminist movement has lost much of its credibility as of late. They have become pawns of the left who are willing to sacrifice women's well-being and health for their political agenda. I'm surprised you support Hillary, being as though you are a so-called feminist. I find it ironic that someone who claims to be a feminist could support such an anti-feminist candidate.
Clinton should disgust you because she single-handedly has managed to tell women the world over that no matter what your husband does ? humiliate you, betray you, lie to you, abuse other women, sexually harass other women, intimidate women, even possibly be a rapist ? you should not only not leave him, you should forever support and enable that behavior.
Hillary is a candidate of the machine. She represents an old, established, well-funded politics. It saddens me to know that people will vote for Hillary simply b/c she is a woman.
--
No, you can't have my constitutional rights, I'm still using them!
One Nation- Under Surveillance, With Liberty and Justice for None.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
- William Colby, former CIA director
|
|
|
Posts:
2
Registered:
3/2/08
|
|
(31 of 42)
Mar 2, 2008 3:08 PM
|
The Feb 29th show was an all-time low for Bill Maher, and I am a huge fan. Maher's references to Obama's penis color, size & smell several times was totally disgusting. Who care's Bill?? Why gross us out?
Maher's several comments that Prince Harry is not the son of Prince Charles while speculative is not terribly new, but certainly in poor taste. Yeah, we know, the kid is being toted out as a hero, so what? At least he was at the front line in Afghanistan-why drag him down in his moment of glory? A real cheap shot Bill! It almost seemed to me that you were on some high and a bit of a loose cannon. Cool it.
|
|
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
3/1/08
|
|
(30 of 42)
Mar 1, 2008 5:50 PM
|
To say I'm furious would be an understatement. I always knew that Bill was a sexist to a great extent, but he normally had something intelligent to say also and would have panels to offset some of the BS.
Last night it went over the line. Hitchins is a known Clinton hater. Shearer was trying to go for the joke and the guy in the middle I don't know,
I hope Obama is as great as they all think he is because the press, pundits like Olbermann (who I used to watch and love), Oprah(who I have no use for)and now Bill have gotten him elected.
Everyone keeps using the term "REAGANESQUE", I don't now about you but I remember Reagan and I call that time "THE DARK AGES' I don't want to go back.
I did not vote for Hillary, I voted for Biden, who I still believe is the only one on either side who understands everything that is going on in the world. But after losing him, I would have voted for Hillary next.
I think Obama gives a great speech and he is inspirational but these are scary times people. They talk about the "fear" game but if you don't believe we live in dangerous times your head is in the sand. The Senate and the House of Reps will eat Obama up. He has no gravitas. Remember Kennedy. We all talk about what would have been, and I still miss him , even more so his brother.
But the reality is during his tenure, nothing important got passed. LBJ blocked it and LBJ got it thru ,after his murder.
Why? Well besides the fact that he hated Bobby & Jack because they treated him like a dunce, he had the power because of all the time spent in Congress, in both houses.
He had made deals with everyone thru the years, he was owed favors, he knew secrets, that's how civil rights passed the South. You may not like it but that is the truth and the history.
And we are going to repeat it again. Obama needs time in the Senate to learn things. You have seen what happens these last 8 years when you learn on the job.
You can hate her , think she is devious, will do anything to win, whatever the flavor of the day is. The reality is she knows what is going on, the players in this country and around world. And if she doesn't her husband does. Do you get how much Bush has screwed up everything, inside our borders and out? We don't have time for anyone to learn on the job.
This is what the country does to us the Democrats or Liberals, or progressives, whatever you call yourself. They vote in a Republican who screws everything up. Then we come in as the great hope, and after everything is somewhat on the right track, they vote in a Republican Congress to fight everything, so nothing gets done, blame the President, vote in a Republican and it all starts again.
I would love to live in a time when I could have lofty goals and change everything that's wrong with government, this isn't it!
Our Constitution has been raped by Bush, the Justice Dept. is a mess, you know the stockmarket is going to fall thru the floor to the basement when Bush leaves, because their best friend will be gone. They predict gas will be $4.00 a gallon. The billions of dollars that have been "misplaced", stolen, lost are not to be believed. And getting out of Iraq is not going to be easy. No one wants us out more than I. 1 son-in-law has been there , 1 is there now, and the first one is probably going back.
Not only that, but Afghanistan is a mess and we need to get back there fast. And that's just the tip of what he'll have to deal with. Healthcare, unions, jobs, Nafta, my head hurts.
We will give him about 3 to 6 months and if he hasn't fixed something major then the honeymoon is over. This guy is so behind on what he needs to know that it will take that long not to get lost in the White House.
If Hillary loses the nomination don't be surprised if McCain wins. One unexpected attack, a minor one, before the election and its a done deal. The fear everyone talks about is right under the surface, And mark my words if anyone can make that happen its Cheney and the Republican's . They may be against McCain now but once the nomination process is over he'll be their guy. These people are true believers. They want everything to stay as is, and they really believe what they are doing is right.
At least with Hillary they know she's tough, Obama scares them , they think he is weak, fair or not.
Well that's my rant. Sorry it's so long but I'm tired of seeing simple sentences for such a complicated problem.
That's why this thread was so interesting. So many thoughtful , intelligent people, wether I share their opinion or not. Let's all keep our fingers crossed. As Margo Channing said in ALL ABOUT EVE said "it's going to be a bumpy night".
|
|
|
Posts:
1,952
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(29 of 42)
Mar 1, 2008 3:08 PM
|
> mike0217:
>
> What Bill said tonight was NOT a joke. Read and
> learn.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> --
> There are four common themes in media coverage of
> Clinton's candidacy:
>
> First, Clinton is criticized using a gender-based
> grading system. The media evaluate how she looks,
> talks, laughs and even claps. She is held to double
> standards familiar to working women. A man
> demonstrates toughness and strength; a woman who
> behaves similarly is called icy and rigid. His
> behavior shows compassion and warmth, but her similar
> behavior shows too much emotion and maybe weakness.
> He knows how to work the system; she is manipulative.
> He shows a mastery of the subject; she is nitpicky.
> He thinks through all the options before charting a
> course; she is calculating. Familiar?
>
Very familiar. And this double standard is applied not just on a gender basis, but to any candidate the one applying it doesn't like.
> Second, our society still has not come to terms with
> ambition in women -- it is suspect. Clinton is
> frequently charged with doing or saying anything to
> win. But I think it has an extra sharp anti-woman
> overtone as it is used against Hillary. In other
> words, everything Clinton does to win the election --
> strategizing, organizing, confronting, comparing and
> contrasting -- is interpreted as calculating, fake
> or
> just plain evil. But when a man campaigns hard,
> refusing to cede an inch, they call it . . . running
> for office!
>
I've seen the same tactics applied between male candidates, too. Famously, against Nixon.
> Third, Clinton is presumed to be where she is today
> because of her husband, Bill. The fact that Clinton
> has a famous former president for a husband is used
> to discredit her own achievements and to imply that
> maybe she couldn't have made it on her own. I?m
> trying to remember if any of these commentators
> implied that George W. Bush shouldn't be taken
> seriously as a candidate because his father had been
> president. Or that people shouldn't vote for a
> certain male candidate because he clearly got a leg
> up from his powerful family's money, legacy? Or say
> from the advantages bestowed by his wife's fortune?
> Who's to say that if Hillary had taken the fast-track
> first, instead of Bill, she wouldn't have risen to
> the top before him?
>
Oh, C'mon! Don't you remember John Kerry, and the talk about his wife Teresa Heinz's money? Arnold, and Maria Shriver? In fact, the whole Kennedy clan is reputed to have made it on politics because of the family fortune, ditto for Jay Rockefeller.
> Finally, when all else fails, belittle the voters.
> Women voters are irrational and biased, and voting
> only on the basis of gender, the press are happy to
> intimate (at least about the women who are voting
> for
> Hillary), and they not so subtly imply that all
> voters are stupid and shallow. When the pundits try
> to mindread the general public to guess why they cast
> their ballots one way or another, they often conclude
> that voters make decisions based on the same
> superficial traits that fascinates the talking-heads
> themselves -- like who seems "comfortable in their
> own skin" or who strikes them as annoyingly nerdy.
>
I think this is more because the media is lazy than sexist. Or pressed for time. They don't have the inclination to dig deeper, They have an article to write, 400-500 words. They can fill it with superficial crap that they think appeals to the widest audience. I remember before the campaigning started, the media had just about anointed Giuliani as the presumptive GOP nominee. They were dismissive of McCain as a nationally ambitious gadfly has-been and that his future was as a perennial also-ran.
But all that said, I think there is a real bias in the media. I just don't think it's against women. The bias is really against losers, and they see women as mostly losers, and they have a whole inventory of biased comments and labels they have developed especially for use against women.
> -Below the Belt - Ignorance and Venom: The Media's
> Deeply Ingrained Sexism 2/15/08
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> Keep reading
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> Posted on Wed, Feb. 06, 2008
> Rejecting feminism makes no sense
> LEONARD PITTS JR.
>
> Brace yourself. I'm going to use a word that offends
> folks. I'm talking the ''F'' word. Feminist.
>
> This woman sent me an e-mail Monday, and it got me
> thinking. See, in describing herself, she assured me
> she was not ''a `women's libber'' -- the late 1960s
> equivalent of feminist. She also said she was retired
> from the U.S. Navy. There was, it seemed to me, a
> disconnect there: She doesn't believe in women's
> liberation, yet she is retired from a position that
> liberation made possible.
>
> Intrigued, I asked my 17-year-old daughter if she
> considers herself a feminist. She responded with a
> mildly horrified No. This, by the way, is the
> daughter with the 3.75 GPA who is currently pondering
> possible college majors including political science,
> psychology and . . . women's studies. I asked her to
> define ``feminist.''
>
> There began a halting explanation that seemed to
> suggest shrillness wrapped around obnoxiousness.
> Abruptly, she stopped. ''It's hard to explain,'' she
> said.
>
> Actually, it's not. Jessica Valenti, author of Full
> Frontal Feminism: A Young Woman's Guide to Why
> Feminism Matters, calls it the I'm-Not-A-Feminist-But
> syndrome. As in the woman who says, ''I'm not a
> feminist, but . . . '' and then ``goes on to espouse
> completely feminist values. I think most women
> believe in access to birth control, they want equal
> pay for equal work, they want to fight against rape
> and violence against women.''
>
> A once-useful term ''Feminist,'' it seems, has ended
> up in the same syntactical purgatory as another
> once-useful, now-reviled term: liberal. Most people
> endorse what that word has historically stood for --
> integration, child labor laws, product safety -- yet
> they treat the word itself like anthrax. Similarly,
> while it's hard to imagine that any young woman
> really wants to return to the days of barefoot,
> pregnant and making meatloaf, many now disdain the
> banner under which their gender fought for freedom.
> They scorn feminism even as they feast at a table
> that feminism prepared.
>
> Says Valenti, ``The word has been so effectively
> misused and so effectively mischaracterized by
> conservatives for so long that women are afraid to
> identify with it. They'll say everything under the
> sun that's feminist, but they won't identify with it
> because they've been taught feminists are anti-men,
> feminists are ugly.''
>
> Deborah Tannen agrees. She is a professor of
> linguistics at Georgetown University and author of a
> number of books on gender and communication,
> including: You're Wearing That?: Understanding
> Mothers and Daughters in Conversation. ``The reason,
> I believe, is that meanings of words come from how
> they're used. And since the word feminist is used as
> a negative term rather than a positive one, people
> don't want to be associated with it.''
>
> With apologies to Malcolm X, they've been had,
> they've been hoodwinked, they've been bamboozled. And
> it's sad. I've lost track of how many times, visiting
> high schools or teaching college classes, I have met
> bright girls juggling options and freedoms that
> would've been unthinkable a generation ago, smart
> young women preparing for lives and careers their
> foremothers could not have dreamt, yet if you use the
> ''F'' word, they recoil.
>
> We have lost collective memory of how things were
> before the F-word. Of the casual beatings. Of the
> casual rape. Of words like ''old maid'' and
> ''spinster.'' Of abortion by coat hanger. Of going to
> school to find a man. Of getting an allowance and
> needing a husband's permission. Of taking all your
> spirit, all your dreams, all your ambition,
> aspiration, creativity and pounding them down until
> they fit a space no larger than a casserole dish.
>
> ''I'm not a feminist, but . . . ?'' That's a fraud.
> It's intellectually dishonest. And it's a slap to the
> feminists who prepared the table at which today's
> young women sup.
>
> So for the record, I am a feminist. My daughter is,
> too.
> She doesn't know it yet.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,864
Registered:
10/23/05
|
|
(28 of 42)
Mar 1, 2008 2:48 PM
|
the show was extremely good this week. The panel was very good.
I think that Maher, or the writers should have said Barak's Curried %$#3, rather than, black curried $%^&. It would have been funnier.
overall the show was very funny and so was the panel.
the show addresing the regalia that obama was in was a huge plus in my eyes.
--
I came
I saw
and I conquered
--
Edited by cargilb1 at 03/01/2008 11:49 AM
|
|
|
|
|
