hobiejoe wrote: 
Free, and worth every penny?!  

 KurtfromLaQuinta wrote: 
Now you mention it, my uncle has a 2000 Lincoln something-or-the-other-barge in a garage in Manhatten that we really need to get rid of. You can have it for free, but sucker buyer collects.

 hobiejoe wrote: 
And if it goes up and down too much, you end up selling Buicks.  #upchuck

 KurtfromLaQuinta wrote: 
A great party, but the membership does tend to go up and down.

 islander wrote: 
Your a boater floater.

 sirdroseph wrote: 

 hippiechick wrote: 
Yes, but he does occasionally have "real journalists" on his panel. His dialogues are on timely topics, frequently including politics.  And his monologue, while coming from a know comedian, aspires to being taken seriously.  Frequently he is dead on and should be taken seriously.  He is kind of a "hybrid personality" with good ideas frequently.  His "comedian" label, though, is deserved and largely neutralizes his attempts at focused discourse being taken seriously, imo.  He has always owned his partisanship/opinion on many subjects.

 ScottN wrote: 

Bill Maher is a comedian. There is no reason to expect non-partisan conversation.

 ScottN wrote: 
Agreed, "infotainment" or even "opinotainment".

BBC is good. I like CNN International also. And thank FSM for NPR!

 Monkeysdad wrote: 
Same with most news outlets.  True journalism has given way to "infotainment" with most shows having a bias, frequently stated if not already well known.  I like BBC America for a somewhat more balanced look at our politics.

 hippiechick wrote:  

 You're either his target audience or you're not.

 hippiechick wrote: 


If you want an intelligent news show watch Up With Chris hayes on msnbc on sats and suns

Bill maher is the same as he's always been. He is a political humorist for the liberal, not a commentator or news person. You're either his target audience or you're not.

 MsJudi wrote: 
When Air America was getting going I thought "good idea, this will be a nice counter to the AM right wing drumbeat". But after just a few listens it quickly became apparent to me that it was just the flip side of the coin. The answer to right wing hate isn't left wing hate.  We need to recognize that we all exist on a continuum of ideas. On any given issue, I may have a different solution to you, but we also probably have a lot of common ground. Once we get there, and can accept that there are more than one solution to the many problems, we can consider compromise in order to move ahead. Does it really matter if we get to 4 by adding 2+2, or 1+3?  And can we live with 5 instead?  If we simply decry that there is a problem and we can't accept any part of the other guys solution then we'll have to learn to live with problems. 

I've not been a Democrat or a Republican in a long time. I occasionally call myself a libertarian (lite), but I don't really fit that set of ideas either.  I'm forced to compromise when I make a selection for my representatives because not one of them matches my ideas 100%. But this doesn't bother me, because I recognize that they are not there to represent me exclusively. They are also representing all my neighbors, and we clearly don't agree 100% on everything (did you see the color they picked for their trim?). So now why can't those same representatives recognize this simple truth and take the majority view that put them there, but go seek compromise and forward motion that is needed to lead?

I used to think as the worlds diverse populations intermixed more we would get more acceptance. But it seems like the more that people see differences, the more they retreat into their enclaves of sameness (band name). I don't have a solution other than keep trying. Call out the BS when you see it and keep acting in the best interest of everyone moving forward.

 hippiechick wrote: 
I'd rather be considered politically incorrect for having bright, uncommon ideas about how to move the plant forward in its evolution, rather than because I have a platform from which to scream, and an aging reputation for being cutting edge in another life, on another network.

 sirdroseph wrote: 
C'mon you know any problem can be solved by throwing money at it.

 hippiechick wrote: 
This statement is so many levels of wrong for reasons that have nothing to do with political persuasion.

 MsJudi wrote: 
That's why he is politically incorrect. Take him or leave him.

And OV, he gave 1 mil to Obama, so he is trying to be part of the solution. 

 MsJudi wrote: 
Just another big mouth that wants to be part of the problem, not the solution. They're everywhere, like hypocrites on a hot plate.

I'll tell you the truth... I used to enjoy old Bill, but then two things began to happen. The first is that I began to realize that his thinking is often as block-headed and simplistic as the right-wing pundits he loathes and that he tries to move all of his guests into restating and reaffirming his one-note solutions for the incredibly complex problems he discusses. Subtlety and detail seem to elude him. The second thing that happened, and this was way more irritating because it became a constant drum beat for him for a full season, was his constant rants that fat people have broken his heath care system. He's an unhealthy SOB- he makes no bones about his drinking and smoking habits- but suddenly it was us fat people who were the cause of his woes. So yes, I'm obese. Believe it or not, I'm also incredibly healthy, which I have confirmed every year with a full panel of tests administered by my physician. I place little to no burden on the health care system and when I do, I pay for it myself. I've never once asked Bill Maher to help me with my fat-person medical bills and simply can't ever imagine that it would become a necessity for me to do so in the future.

I'm a liberal dem and I support a lot of what he supports, but I see very plainly that the world is filled with shades of gray, millions and millions of them, and there isn't simply one ham-handed solution for each of them.

Bill is a hammer and every problem is a nail.