Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

S17.E19: George Will, Martin Short, Eliot Spitzer, Bari Weiss, and Rob Schenck


Guest
  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

Airs June 14, 2019

Guests

Quote

George Will, Martin Short, Eliot Spitzer, Bari Weiss, and Rob Schenck

Link to comment

With his beloved Bari there, Bill probably won't be whining.  And he knows Martin Short is a comedian, so Bill won't incorrectly assume that he is a humourless soccer mom.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

I always feel bad when I see Elliott Spitzer because that scandal ruined the career of someone who was a good politician and an intelligent man.  I doubt he’ll ever have a political life again, but I do enjoy hearing his perspective.

  • Love 14
Link to comment
9 hours ago, Caseysgirl said:

I always feel bad when I see Elliott Spitzer because that scandal ruined the career of someone who was a good politician and an intelligent man.  I doubt he’ll ever have a political life again, but I do enjoy hearing his perspective.

I thought was the only one who felt this way. And I agree with your post 💯%!!

  • Love 7
Link to comment
(edited)

Bill was certainly much better this week even if he spent too much time in "old man yells at cloud" mode. The scripted material after the monologue was good especially New Rules. The panel was really good of course even if it was like watching some big 60's group in concert - a few old guys who are extremely talented and still can crank out the rifts they mastered years ago but can't quite hit the high notes anymore along with a couple experienced session pros cranking out the greatest hits the audience came for and taking exactly zero risks. It was nice to see Martin Short seems to have figured out how to do panel without taking over which was probably the only thing even mildly surprising. Overtime was the highlight of the week for me as it often is since the audience comes up with better questions and isn't limited by Bill's obsession with 2 or 3 topics at any one time at the expense of any focus on other events and subjects. I'm glad to see Bill didn't manage to screw up the booker's triumph although I do wish he'd switch to a new obsession other than lecturing the Democrats on how they need to focus only on what he cares about if they want to win. We need another Ben Affleck moment to get him to move on to annoying and disgusting us with his ignorance and lack of self awareness as he lectures us on a new topic.

Edited by wknt3
  • Love 7
Link to comment

I call bullshit on George Will's interpretation of the electoral college. The electoral college was put in place to keep the unwashed masses from electing the wrong president. In fact it was designed specifically to keep someone like Donald Trump from becoming president so it is already pointless in that it does not serve its intended purpose.

The panel was certainly lively this week and I found it ironic that the two Democrats were the ones arguing against impeachment proceedings while the one Republican was in favor of it. I hate to say it but lefties like Spitzer and Weiss just prove Bill's point that Democrats are wimps. What's the point of winning the House in the midterms if Democrats aren't going to do their constitutional duty and hold Trump accountable? They are letting down the people who put them there and giving the right the win . . . again.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that when I heard Bill say Martin Short is 69 my first thought was "that can't be his real hair color." But when Bari Weiss had the audacity to call him a "69-year old with a very good wig" I lost all respect for her. That was beyond rude and completely uncalled for. And this is the lady Bill was defending last week? Maybe champion someone who doesn't insult your friends, Bill.

  • Love 6
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

But when Bari Weiss had the audacity to call him a "69-year old with a very good wig" I lost all respect for her. That was beyond rude and completely uncalled for. And this is the lady Bill was defending last week? Maybe champion someone who doesn't insult your friends, Bill.

Short had just mentioned a few minutes earlier, in a hilarious way of course, that he was wearing a wig.  I do not like BW at all, but she was referring to MS's original joke.  And after she said it no one was laughing harder than Short.

  • Love 15
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

I call bullshit on George Will's interpretation of the electoral college

He thinks he's smart because he talks in measured tones. Please cite me some examples of Democrats primary governing strategy being to just oppose Republicans. Who wants to give everyone access to good healthcare and who tried to stop it 67 times? 

It's that type of patent bullshit that gives rise to the both sides are just as bad so no one votes and now all your rights are being stripped away. Fuck off. 

And yeah it's not a great insight that the amendment to remove the electoral college won't pass. It's also interesting that the presidents who lost the popular vote all came from the same party. So fuck off twice. 

  • Love 21
Link to comment
Quote

Short had just mentioned a few minutes earlier, in a hilarious way of course, that he was wearing a wig.  I do not like BW at all, but she was referring to MS's original joke.  And after she said it no one was laughing harder than Short.

Thanks, I must have missed that.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
42 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

The panel was certainly lively this week and I found it ironic that the two Democrats were the ones arguing against impeachment proceedings while the one Republican was in favor of it. I hate to say it but lefties like Spitzer and Weiss just prove Bill's point that Democrats are wimps. What's the point of winning the House in the midterms if Democrats aren't going to do their constitutional duty and hold Trump accountable? They are letting down the people who put them there and giving the right the win . . . again.

Seriously, I don't get it. He and his cronies are openly committing all these crimes and we'll respond to it by doing to him what we did to...Jimmy Carter. Just have him lose an election as if all these is normal and impeachment isn't what you're supposed to do in this case. Bill was right when he told them they didn't know what would happen if they impeached. They've always got a good reason for not doing anything and passing the buck to somebody else, in this case the voters. It's easy enough to see what they obviously should be doing, but instead they're overthinking themselves to make everyone think they're playing three-dimensional chess here and have some clever reason for not doing it. Seems to me they do better when they actually do what's right because it's right. That's the one thing they have to stand on on this issue. And they can do that and also cover other issues.

42 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

Now, I'll be the first to admit that when I heard Bill say Martin Short is 69 my first thought was "that can't be his real hair color." But when Bari Weiss had the audacity to call him a "69-year old with a very good wig" I lost all respect for her. That was beyond rude and completely uncalled for. And this is the lady Bill was defending last week? Maybe champion someone who doesn't insult your friends, Bill.

Like was said above, this was actually a pretty good joke on her part, since she was referring to what Short himself said. In that context it was sort of a compliment.

  • Love 7
Link to comment
1 hour ago, sugarbaker design said:

Short had just mentioned a few minutes earlier, in a hilarious way of course, that he was wearing a wig.  I do not like BW at all, but she was referring to MS's original joke.  And after she said it no one was laughing harder than Short.

That was a good callback joke; she wasn't being mean. 

I thought the panel got a little shouty at times, but everyone was able to contribute and no one was being shouted over. I was prepared to not like Bari, but she was well informed and insightful. 

One thing I do like is when comics just riff off one another. Bill and Short were killing me. "When did you make the move to HBO?" 

I'm active on twitter in my professional community, and it works just fine. We don't have the problems they were talking about.

Will was less insufferable on OT, but I really don't give a fuck if Bernie ripped off FDR. Maybe because those policies worked and we need to look back and see how they can apply to modern society? 

I'm for impeachment-slow. We know for a fact the senate won't convict, so there needs to be some plan in place to seize the narrative. Point of fact, one can argue that they are preparing for impeachment - get the tax records, get Mueller and McGann to testify, vote for contempt for Barr. They already got Hicks to turn over documents that the white house told her not to. I wouldn't be surprised if Pelosi is waiting to pull the trigger closer to the election - Democratic voters will be motivated to actually vote, and it puts Trump on the defensive. She's shown to be a rather savvy Speaker. 

Spitzer is right - we have no idea at this time who is going to win the nomination. So I'm not bothering until 2020. I don't give a shit about the debates at all. It's a ratings grab and that's it. 

  • Love 9
Link to comment
2 hours ago, iMonrey said:

The panel was certainly lively this week and I found it ironic that the two Democrats were the ones arguing against impeachment proceedings while the one Republican was in favor of it.

There are no Republicans in Congress who are in favor of it or calling for it except for Justin Amash.  The GOP gets very, very little pressure to do what is right; everyone always blames the Democrats.  It is the GOP's fault that nothing is being done, and in fact, all that the Democrats are trying to do is being obstructed by the administration AND the GOP in Congress and on the Committees.  They are aiding and abetting the POTUS's unethical and criminal behavior, and are helping to cover it up, but everyone just blames the Democrats for not doing enough.  The GOP is taking very little heat, they aren't getting calls from their constituents to impeach, and frankly, not enough of the Democrats are either or Nancy would say: go.

  • Love 10
Link to comment
20 minutes ago, izabella said:

There are no Republicans in Congress who are in favor of it or calling for it except for Justin Amash.  The GOP gets very, very little pressure to do what is right; everyone always blames the Democrats.  It is the GOP's fault that nothing is being done, and in fact, all that the Democrats are trying to do is being obstructed by the administration AND the GOP in Congress and on the Committees.  They are aiding and abetting the POTUS's unethical and criminal behavior, and are helping to cover it up, but everyone just blames the Democrats for not doing enough.  The GOP is taking very little heat, they aren't getting calls from their constituents to impeach, and frankly, not enough of the Democrats are either or Nancy would say: go.

This is part of the message they should repeating everywhere instead of basically backing the Republicans up by saying impeachment would be too 'divisive" as if they're troublemakers. And certainly they shouldn't be talking about how important it is or them to work with Republicans if they're elected as if they're going to be reasonable.

  • Love 4
Link to comment

Martin Short is the best, and I appreciated the fact that he didn't hog the spotlight from the rest of the panel, because you know that is in his nature to do so. I love him!

  • Love 8
Link to comment

I haven’t logged on to this forum in ages (new job, new round of school, car accident) and came back just to complain about Bill complaining about his OWN DAMN AUDIENCE. Like, DUDE! They came here to see “Real Time with BILL MAHER, and you’re freaking Bill Maher! If they’re not laughing at the joke, then the joke must not have been good. Period. Quit throwing a hissy fit.

And when the audience groaned at the R. Kelly/Toys r Us joke, he whined that they were showing sympathy for R. Kelly. To me, the audience’s groan read as disgust, not sympathy. You’re telling me Bill is so sensitive and has such a big ego, he can’t bother to distinguish between the two?

  • Love 10
Link to comment
17 hours ago, link417 said:

I haven’t logged on to this forum in ages (new job, new round of school, car accident) and came back just to complain about Bill complaining about his OWN DAMN AUDIENCE. Like, DUDE! They came here to see “Real Time with BILL MAHER, and you’re freaking Bill Maher! If they’re not laughing at the joke, then the joke must not have been good. Period. Quit throwing a hissy fit.

And when the audience groaned at the R. Kelly/Toys r Us joke, he whined that they were showing sympathy for R. Kelly. To me, the audience’s groan read as disgust, not sympathy. You’re telling me Bill is so sensitive and has such a big ego, he can’t bother to distinguish between the two?

Yep and it's been this way for some time. Just about all the topical comedians will chide the audience occasionally for being too sensitive, but they also have the self awareness to realize that sometimes they misjudged the quality of the material or they botched the delivery. And they realize that sometimes it's not sensitivity it's disapproval/boredom/disgust with the target of the joke and not the joke itself. Bill does this all the time, perhaps because it's easier to call the audience snowflakes than to realize that he is basically telling dad jokes on stage or that the audience is not paid to kiss his ass and sit in respectful silence until they laugh uproariously and applaud like his writers and producers. It's yet another example of his being unwilling to do some of the basic parts of his job anymore and wondering why he doesn't get the praise he thinks he deserves.

  • Love 6
Link to comment
On 6/15/2019 at 8:37 AM, iMonrey said:

I call bullshit on George Will's interpretation of the electoral college. The electoral college was put in place to keep the unwashed masses from electing the wrong president. In fact it was designed specifically to keep someone like Donald Trump from becoming president so it is already pointless in that it does not serve its intended purpose.

Yeah he spouted some nonsense about states always needing to have a say, even BS states like the Dakotas.  Even if that criteria is valid, it was valid in the late 18th century, not now.

Forget about the disparity in populations.

Lincoln and others schemed to admit several new states, for partisan reasons.  Not just the EC but also the Senate.

In the second half of the 19th century, the pace of admitting these sparsely populated tracts of land as states was a hack to consolidate power for a particular party, not because these new states added anything to the union or advanced the interests of the country or anything like that.

I think they made a brief mention about how packing the SCOTUS would be a sham?  Well no more than all these states with 5 cows being admitted into the union, getting 2 Senators and a lot of federal money.

The only way to counter all these Republican moves to hold onto power with minority of the electorate supporting them is to take measures like these.

  • Love 5
Link to comment
On 6/15/2019 at 10:37 AM, iMonrey said:

But when Bari Weiss had the audacity to call him a "69-year old with a very good wig" I lost all respect for her. That was beyond rude and completely uncalled for. And this is the lady Bill was defending last week? Maybe champion someone who doesn't insult your friends, Bill.

Don't be too hard on her - Martin was the one who made the wig comment first and she was only following up on it.  It fell flat, but that's what it was.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
16 hours ago, scrb said:

Yeah he spouted some nonsense about states always needing to have a say, even BS states like the Dakotas.  Even if that criteria is valid, it was valid in the late 18th century, not now.

He had the same weird argument about the Constitution.  By what logic do we hold an 18th century document immutable? Is it sacred? Does he think God wrote it? Does he think the founding fathers were deities who could see into the future?  I can't wrap my head around "traditionalist" arguments. By the same token women should stay home, have babies and not be able vote. George Will probably believes that too. 

  • Love 6
Link to comment
2 hours ago, iMonrey said:

By what logic do we hold an 18th century document immutable? Is it sacred? Does he think God wrote it? Does he think the founding fathers were deities who could see into the future?

Obviously some people along the line haven't taken the Constitution to have come down from the Mount, since there have been 27 ratified amendments.  The only reason there haven't been more modifications to the Constitution is the process for ratification, which requires 3/4 of the state legislatures to sign off on any amendment.  This gives undue influence to the big empty states, very much like the Senate, the Electoral College, and the House when breaking a tie in the EC. 

George Will is a pompous, pinched pseudoaristocrat who thinks he is William F. Buckley.  His writing style, either despite or because of his best efforts, is exhausting rather than erudite.  

  • LOL 1
  • Love 9
Link to comment

In taking a strictly originalist interpretation of the Constitution, Will and others, (Hi, Justice Scalia) essentially believe that if a right wasn't specified originally, and hasn't been added through a constitutional amendment, then the Constitution does not include or protect that right.  Will even said in this ep that the Constitution tends to prohibit the government from abridging rights, as opposed to granting them.  The problem that the originalists have always had difficulty addressing, however, is that the people who wrote and approved of the Constitution lived in a very different world than ours, and had no way to adequately address the then-unimaginable issues the Constitution would have to deal with in the future.  Jefferson et. al. may have been geniuses, but they also wrote a Constitution by white males and for white males.  I guarantee none of them were thinking about the effect gender and racial equality, internet privacy, or the technological advances in health and reproductive care would have on the country and how the Constitution, as written, should deal with that.

I also find it of interest that most originalists have their race and gender in common with the founding fathers.

  • Love 7
Link to comment
4 hours ago, meowmommy said:

George Will is a pompous, pinched pseudoaristocrat who thinks he is William F. Buckley.  His writing style, either despite or because of his best efforts, is exhausting rather than erudite.  

Oh these two sentences just made my day. I have always loathed George Will. Using big words to sound like some intellectual. I consider myself fairly intelligent, but even I couldn't understand his word salad.

  • Love 6
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...