|
Former Human posted:That was the first incident, which Bill answered quite well in her defense, but later Gillespie asked what Rachel thought of Romneycare and her answer was literally "dude you don't know me" and "leave me alone." That was pretty silly. Seriously, an all-time shittiest guest. Every time she spoke up (which was about twice, really), he jumped on her saying she had no merit and just said whatever liberals want in that "just asking questions" way. You just do not accuse other guests of being poo poo to the core like that. I haven't been watching Maher for years, but it seems new to me. The lovely thing is you can't unravel a conversation like that to show how lovely the point he's trying to make is on live tv. With quoting on a forum or snipping relevant quotes for your broadcast editorial you can. On live tv, if you can mask an accusatory fallacy with clever-enough wording, the other person is pretty much pinned down. Especially when the other person knows they shouldn't eat up 5 minutes (a naively optimistic estimate) of air time to discuss it. TL:DR: Gillespie is a huge rear end basically acting like this is his own personal Fox News program.
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 09:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:27 |
|
|
Yes, it was a loaded question meant to imply Rachel is a partisan shill, but that doesn't excuse her lame non-answers either. Even Bill asked if she was in favor of Romneycare and she pretended like she didn't hear him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 09:51
|
|
|
Former Human posted:Yes, it was a loaded question meant to imply Rachel is a partisan shill, but that doesn't excuse her lame non-answers either. Even Bill asked if she was in favor of Romneycare and she pretended like she didn't hear him. G: "Well you should not be forced by your democratic partisanship to be forced into-" M: "I'm just trying to say a nice thing and already 'You're a hack.'" G: "That's not what I'm saying, but you will always take the side of a democrat over a republican." Yeah, of course Gillespie would never say she's a hack, just that she does simply and exactly what a hack does. And still keeping his hands clean and "unbiased" he clarified to everyone moments before that he was not a republican or interested in the subject of political bias (when bias of republicans was mentioned). It was merely coincidence that he took the  Man, I hate that guy. Edit: And he basically cued Maher to press to a new topic because he wasn't "interested" (not even making that up) and (as a libertarian) and is apparently above such petty conversations of political bias... for about 35 seconds until he popped the subject of how biased she was. gary oldmans diary fucked around with this message at 10:26 on Jun 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 10:10
|
|
|
Ugh, what a painfully dire, shouty episode that was (apart from New Rules saving the day as usual, of course). Why do they always pair Maddow with irritating pricks? Nick Gillespie is a divisive tool and not helpful to the conversation, Mark Ruffalo is a nice guy but seems to be in pantomime mode, with ideas above the station of the talking points he actually knows (and gets applause for "Romneycare is the same as Obamacare", really?), and Kirk Douglas was incomprehensible. Oh well, higher hopes for next week.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 10:39
|
|
|
I think he just brought it up the second time as a joke, "See, you could have used Romneycare as an example of a policy you liked", but she reacted too defensively instead of just saying she preferred single payer. She is a liberal pundit and she will always take the liberal position, he is a libertarian and will always take that position so the conversation was pointless, but she did not handle it well. The show is best when people can laugh off stuff like that, because it doesn't belong on the show to begin with. It needs to be entertainment first to work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 13:12
|
|
|
Somehow, I was able to pretty well understand all of Kirk Douglas---but really was there absolutely no way they could've sprang for a live show bit of subtitles in Close Captioning form? Hell, if I'd have known I'd have tried watching the show with CC on the TV outright just for that segment. I figured Maddow/Gillespie wouldn't end well---and it certainly didn't. Dude behaved about as well as last time in the sense that I think he technically got booed by the audience just a tad less this time around. Maddow's answer to the Romneycare bit was par for the course since his initial line of attack never actually stopped, he just took a short siesta of running his mouth otherwise then got back to trying to single her out as his target for the show. He's just playing into his Smug Self-Assured Libertarian Victory crowd when he goes on the show, not even trying to engage meaningfully or in good faith. The lineup before summer break next week didn't strike me offhand as an especially contentious mix like this week, but I only caught it briefly scrolling on by.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 13:40
|
|
|
Maddow just did not handle herself well in that situation. I expect more of her than resorting to middle-school "YOU DON'T KNOW ME" responses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 17:06
|
|
|
I expected a better response/smackdown from Maddow. Gillespie was a classic rude, smug, gently caress you Dad libertarian. It was really hard (but kinda fun?) to watch someone embarrass himself like that. Watching/listening to his poor reasoning was pretty ironic given where he works, too. Avian Pneumonia fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Jun 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 19:40
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:Yeah I'm kind of shocked he was on in the state he was in. You can't understand a goddamn thing he says. This. He seemed out of it, looked like crap, and I couldn't understand him, and so couldn't Bill. I mean I understand he is almost 100 and is a legend, but it just seemed awkward.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 20:01
|
|
|
Just watched it on my DVR, and Gillespie was probably the best of the guests. I like Maddow, but she was just irritating this time. I had to turn it off when Bill started talking about GMOs or I would of had a stroke. Did I miss anything good?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 20:18
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:I think he just brought it up the second time as a joke, "See, you could have used Romneycare as an example of a policy you liked", but she reacted too defensively instead of just saying she preferred single payer. So he's bringing up the same issue of her being a shill that she made clear she did not care for 25 minutes earlier. It's a dare to get her to try to "prove" she isn't a liberal shill and make a fool of herself presented as some kind of opportunity. If she said "Yes" she'd be the liberal shill who likes an idea if Obama co-opts it. If she said "No" she's just as much of a perfect liberal talking head as he accused her of being earlier. It's possible to act liberal if someone is paying you, but it is easier than ever for a person's beliefs to actually line up with the liberal side. The liberal agenda (though not always the liberals themselves) serves the downtrodden and aims to progress via scientific deduction over (faulty) metaphorical reductions, gut feelings, or messages from god. That sounds like what a lot of people genuinely want. Meanwhile, the conservatives have reared in all outliers via media antagonism, loyalty tests, and rampant RINO accusations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 20:57
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:Just watched it on my DVR, and Gillespie was probably the best of the guests. I like Maddow, but she was just irritating this time. I had to turn it off when Bill started talking about GMOs or I would of had a stroke. Did I miss anything good? You cannot actually be serious. Gillespie, the "libertarian" who fails to understand economics 101 (protip: textbook capitalism assumes rational actors and perfect information - you cannot, by definition, be a libertarian who supports the rights of corporations to withhold information from consumers) and is the most abrasive and disrespectful person on the show every time he's on it, was the "best guest"? poo poo, you're the one giving me a stroke.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 21:10
|
|
|
Though he's pretty knowledgeable (I was genuinely impressed when he said gas liquefaction wasn't a practical means of transport), he's long-ago fallen into the pitfall of thinking libertarianism is a party wholly independent from conservatism. That "don't have government interfere" is at all a different policy than "don't have government regulate". He said "That's not what I'm saying" 3 times that I noticed. Each time he was thinking about something differently than described, but with the exact same results. That's some kind of disjointed way of relating concepts. E: V V V JerkyBunion posted:any time he would ask her a question she didn't like SHE would make it personal. gary oldmans diary fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Jun 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 21:25
|
|
|
Please stop trying to defend Rachel. She was far more obnoxious than Gillespie on this episode. The whole point of going on to the show is to debate and any time he would ask her a question she didn't like SHE would make it personal. He was trying to show that she was a partisan. He did a pretty good job of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 21:36
|
|
|
I dunno....most debates if you get caught bullshitting to the degree the like of Gillespie is fond of, you get shut down pretty hard by moderation. I never watch Maddow's show, but she was generally passive/on defense the entire time(which had her a fairly boring showing really, and this was all oddly deja vu'ish considering what the Real Time Real Moment or whatever classic clip just so happened to be at the top of the show...) whereas Gillespie was the acerbic one by far---it is meant to be a general discussion on current events show, not a platform latching on to panelists for just about the entire lot of it plus OT to make some sort of "point". Had Maddow reacted in any way other than how she did or turning aggressive as hell on the dude, the entire show would've just been Gillespie running his mouth loudly while getting exhausting rebukes from Bill and maybe Ruffalo straight coming over the table at him over his hilarious conceited views on fracking in terms of "Well, I GUESS if a major Aquifer got contaminated(but who could trust that EPA!), then it might be worth starting paying some attention to~"
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 23:09
|
|
|
Welp watching this for 5 mins so far and sweet jesus, it's that awful prick from Reason. This is going to be awful isn't it edit: I have to admit, Maddow is *extremely* angry in this episode. It's awkward. Happy_Misanthrope fucked around with this message at 05:48 on Jun 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 05:39
|
|
|
Worst episode of Real Time I've seen in a while. I don't know if Maher is intentionally sabotaging his own show or something by inviting shitheads like Nick Gillespie and Steve Moore on the show but I wish he would stop it. Saying it's important to have that sort of viewpoint on the show for the sake of open-mindedness and diversity is like saying that an orchestra could be improved by adding an airhorn player.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 06:08
|
|
|
It was the least I've liked anything Maher-related since he was swept up in the anti-Islam movement after 9/11 (Youtube). I'm glad my stupid moments from 10 years ago that I've gotten past aren't on Youtube. I do like this clip because in it does show that reason really does eventually wear away notions like he had at the time. Edit: Watching that now is just horrible. That was such a terrible time. gary oldmans diary fucked around with this message at 06:40 on Jun 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 06:31
|
|
|
The show is really terrible when they have self-serving libertarian types on there. The guy from the movie was lame as well. I like Maddow but she really doesn't bring anything new to the table - she's essentially a smarter version of Bill Maher. Kirk Douglas was pretty painful to watch as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 07:58
|
|
|
Ned posted:The show is really terrible when they have self-serving libertarian types on there. The guy from the movie was lame as well. I like Maddow but she really doesn't bring anything new to the table - she's essentially a smarter version of Bill Maher. I was impressed by how well he could walk and move, since the man is 95. But hearing him try to talk, yeah, that was painful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 10:25
|
|
|
It was kinda sad but it seemed to me that he still had a sharp mind, and I could understand everything he was saying. But how did he get like this, did he have a stroke or something?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 10:27
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:But how did he get like this, did he have a stroke or something? I dunno, maybe being 95 years old had something to do with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 10:50
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:It was kinda sad but it seemed to me that he still had a sharp mind, and I could understand everything he was saying. If you could understand everything he was saying how did you miss the part where he said he had a stroke 15 years ago and lost his voice 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 11:30
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:But how did he get like this, did he have a stroke or something? In 1996, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 11:39
|
|
|
Former Human posted:If you could understand everything he was saying how did you miss the part where he said he had a stroke 15 years ago and lost his voice I must've missed the part where he said stroke because I did get the part where he said he lost his voice. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 12:48
|
|
|
Gillespie cracks me up. I know the vast majority on here and (probably) Bill's audience/viewership go nuts over this guy but he always stays calm and slowly dissects the viewpoints and positions of the other guests in an extremely pragmatic and confrontational way. In the end the other guests always end up peculiarly defensive (Maddow) or angrily pointing and screaming at him (Ruffalo) as he calmly and self-assuredly sits there in his leather jacket. It'd get old if he was on every week but for once or twice a year he brings a funny and predictable diversion. In a debate/panel setting he has an obvious advantage in that he's not tied to the Rs or Ds and all the illogical trappings and tenets that come with aligning oneself to one or the other (that most TV personalities do). There's never going to be any mainstream Libertarian blunders because they never win the big elections. ApexAftermath posted:Wouldn't the ideal answer be something like "actually Romneycare isn't so bad, and it is a lot like Obama's plan and Romney distances himself from his own plan now because of this so doesn't that show you how badly he panders to whoever can help him currently?" Yea, that was basically what should've/could've been said. I think it kind of proved Gillespie's point that most political TV pundits are partisan and very leery of endorsing plans put out by the opposing party (even if only in name). Maddow was obviously averse to saying "I'd endorse Romneycare." Hogburto posted:It was merely coincidence that he took the Ending the drug war and decriminalizing/legalizing drugs is conservative? NoEyedSquareGuy posted:I don't know if Maher is intentionally sabotaging his own show or something by inviting shitheads like Nick Gillespie... It's a change of pace and "stirs the pot." Thus, ratings.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 23:18
|
|
|
Zogo posted:Ending the drug war and decriminalizing/legalizing drugs is conservative? Libertarians smug about being above partisan politics more often than not remind me of people who say they're agnostic when someone asks if they're theist or atheist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 01:25
|
|
|
Hogburto posted:That's a pretty convenient point to slip in for your "not a conservative" cred. Why is it convenient? From what I've seen of Libertarians they take a lot of outlandish, unorthodox positions that don't seem convenient. Hogburto posted:Yet shows himself to be predominantly conservative on all the actual issues discussed (even with the accusations of Maddow being shill -what a coincidence). He just likes being able to deny it. How people come across will be somewhat dependent on which topical issues are brought up for any given show. If Friday's episode had covered reproductive rights, sexual issues, the Iraq/Afghanistan wars he would've had many more liberal expositions. I also recall him being anti-ATF which is another diametrically opposing viewpoint to the law and order, authoritarian, conservative mindset. I think Gillespie's style/schtick is unprofessional but Maddow wasn't able/didn't want to answer the question of naming an R who she preferred over a D so his point seemed to be true (not that I think it's a giant revelation that MSNBC workers are going to heavily favor the Ds and Fox News is going to be same for Rs). e.g. When Ed Schultz is on Real Time/radio he talks about Republicans in a very hammy manner. Does that make someone a shill/hack by default? Hogburto posted:Libertarians smug about being above partisan politics more often than not remind me of people who say they're agnostic when someone asks if they're theist or atheist. LP members can't really claim that because they're in a party themselves. I think a lot of Libertarians (and members of smaller political parties) enjoy being able to subvert what they view as the false dichotomies put forth in the mainstream. Basically trying to challenge any duopolistic viewpoint. Zogo fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Jun 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 04:32
|
|
|
Zogo posted:Why is it convenient? From what I've seen of Libertarians they take a lot of outlandish, unorthodox positions that don't seem convenient. His point isn't true any more than some schoolyard bully proves everyone he picks on is gay by proposing that they cannot prove they are straight. Hell, he did actual do the whole "prove it" act on her. On the rest, I'm just gonna let it go before that guy eats up any more of my time. Suffice to say I think he acted like a complete dick in antagonizing another guest to drag defacing opinions from her out of nowhere (apparently, her point which I thought was stellar annoyed him), while dodging everyone else's accurate interpretations of what he was saying ("That's not what I'm saying.").
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 05:42
|
|
|
quote:I also recall him being anti-ATF which is another diametrically opposing viewpoint to the law and order, authoritarian, conservative mindset. Nah, the hard right hates the ATF. Why do you think they would like a group dedicated to enforcing gun laws?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 06:15
|
|
|
Hogburto posted:Being on the Real Time with Bill Maher is exactly the most convenient atmosphere to drop that tidbit knowing nobody is going to argue with it. I'll agree with that but are you saying that he's being deceptive and is taking that position on drug legalization only on a superficial level for some ulterior motive? Hogburto posted:His point isn't true any more than some schoolyard bully proves everyone he picks on is gay by proposing that they cannot prove they are straight. Hell, he did actual do the whole "prove it" act on her. It's not like he was making a baseless accusation and accusing her of being a member of the Communist party like McCarthy would have at one his hearings. I've seen Maddow's show plenty of times and she's not a friend of the Republicans in any way shape or form from everything I've seen and heard (correct me with examples if I'm wrong). He asked her a few direct questions and she was taken aback by them. I don't even think it's that big a revelation. There's millions of people in this country that despise all Republicans or all Democrats and don't lose much sleep over it. Hogburto posted:On the rest, I'm just gonna let it go before that guy eats up any more of my time. At the end of the day I think we can be pretty sure that he's on the show to sell his book. FuriousxGeorge posted:Nah, the hard right hates the ATF. Why do you think they would like a group dedicated to enforcing gun laws? True, but I'm operating under the idea that not all conservatives love guns or own them. Gun owners seem to have very varied and nuanced opinions on guns and the laws concerning them. Many are fine with regulations, taxes and the stringent rules that come with owning them. Affinity towards the ATF (and many other gov't programs) fluctuates between administrations of course. Now that Holder/Obama are involved with the ATF, conservatives can point to them as scapegoats for "Fast and Furious."
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 23:25
|
|
|
Maddow got clearly rattled early in that show and basically just freaked out from then on. She came across unprepared and defensive and seemed to not really be there at all until New Rules (you could at least hear her laughing.) She had done well in the past so it's not clear what her problem was with Gillespie besides him being a bit douchy/creepy and him talking the most. He wasn't nearly as bad as most of the random Neocon/CNBC broads that are on the show (or that Kennedy bitch) who just would scream over everyone and furtively attempt to "jedi mind scramble topic change" mid argument. I doubt its easy to get new guests on this show, so you can't blame BM for trotting out the same folks twice or more per season. I'm sure they aim to get opinionated and somewhat interesting people (no matter how loathsome their positions may be) but finding those that will show up and participate is another story.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 23:58
|
|
|
Zogo posted:It's not like he was making a baseless accusation Zogo posted:I've seen Maddow's show plenty of times and she's not a friend of the Republicans in any way shape or form from everything I've seen and heard (correct me with examples if I'm wrong). Keyser S0ze posted:Maddow got clearly rattled early in that show and basically just freaked out from then on. gary oldmans diary fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Jun 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 00:05
|
|
|
She clearly wasn't interested in taking his bait regarding her partisanship or whatever. I don't blame her, since he wouldn't stop talking about it and it had nothing to do with the issues being discussed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 02:17
|
|
|
Hogburto posted:There is a difference between being liberal on issues because that is your genuine assessment on that specific issue and just deciding you're gonna be liberal on everything no matter what because you've always been liberal before and it seems to be paying well. He called her stances forced democratic partisanship. Yes there is a difference and yes he did say "democratic partisanship." But you think that his accusation was baseless? I don't think that necessarily makes someone a shill/hack anyway (Maddow's wording). Hogburto posted:You're joking, right? I've been on about how that would be a ridiculous notion that would actually prove nothing but gullibility. No, what are you referring to?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 05:34
|
|
|
Zogo posted:Yes there is a difference and yes he did say "democratic partisanship." But you think that his accusation was baseless? I don't think that necessarily makes someone a shill/hack anyway (Maddow's wording). And that's Gillespie being "above" partisan politics. Do I think that accusation is baseless?  (Stay for Overtime and watch Gillespie be the only one stupid enough to say single-payer is a bad idea and countries with it have worse healthcare than America because all cheaper healthcare means is that you get less healthcare. Apparently he thinks every US dollar spent on healthcare actually translates into $1 in effective care for a patient with no overhead or profiteering. America #1 Yeehaw!)
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 06:35
|
|
|
Hogburto posted:The implication is that she is a money-loving shill that doesn't mind fleecing the Americans she influences. And that's Gillespie being "above" partisan politics. I didn't get that hostile of an implication/vibe from it. Right after she objected and used the word "hack" he said "that's not what I'm saying." I wouldn't put Gillespie or the vast majority of panelists on that show "above partisan politics." Hogburto posted:(Stay for Overtime and watch Gillespie be the only one stupid enough to say single-payer is a bad idea and countries with it have worse healthcare than America because all cheaper healthcare means is that you get less healthcare. Apparently he thinks every US dollar spent on healthcare actually translates into $1 in effective care for a patient with no overhead or profiteering. America #1 Yeehaw!) I'll watch it in a few weeks. It always takes Comcast a long time to get the OT segments on their on demand.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 23:25
|
|
|
Zogo posted:I didn't get that hostile of an implication/vibe from it. Right after she objected and used the word "hack" he said "that's not what I'm saying." There's this place called the internet, where you can actually watch Overtime live, or watch it back later.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 23:40
|
|
|
Zogo posted:Right after she objected and used the word "hack" he said "that's not what I'm saying."
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 23:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:27 |
|
|
richardfun posted:There's this place called the internet, where you can actually watch Overtime live, or watch it back later. That's good to know. I didn't realize they allowed anyone to view the OT on the HBO site for free. I had thought you needed to setup an HBOGO account or something which I didn't want to bother with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 05:08
|
|