The Republican Party, We're Sorry
Talking Point # 2 "When they say the terrorists want the Democrats to win. You say, are you insane? George Bush has been a terrorist's wet dream. He inflames radical hatred against America and then runs on offering to protect us from it. It's like a guy throwing shit on you, and then selling you relief from the flies."
Quicktime Video 3.7 MB : 6'29
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.
Quicktime 7 required
Real Time with Bill Maher Check out the after show interview video now available.



Comments
Yeah, that'll be the day when a Dem uses his TP's. Unfortunately, the big ticket races are between slimey douchebag republicans and idealist sissy democrats.
Such a powerful indictment of the GOP idiocy infesting our country! Thanks - Bill.
How did Kingston (R) respond? He had to be embarrassed.
Is it me or is Bill just getting better and hitting harder every week?
Thanks again, Norm, for this and all the other great clips here at OGM. I will repeat, Screw Howard Stern. You are the king of all media.
When they say Democrats are obstructionists, you say, 'You're welcome.'
-Bill Maher as Lao Tzu
"Yeah, that'll be the day when a Dem uses his TP's. Unfortunately, the big ticket races are between slimey douchebag republicans and idealist sissy democrats."
They do say stuff like that--in Democratic rallies. A talking point that gets the Real Time crowd pumped up is not the same thing as an argument which convinces an independent to stop supporting the other guy and now support you. It would be really lame if we started calling Democratic candidates 'idealistic sissies' because we buy into the amateur political strategy of comedians.
I'm getting a bit tired of left wing entertainers, especially comedians like Bill Maher, Colbert and Stewart constantly sniping at the how the Dems have pathetic candidates and a horrible message. Sure I've been frustrated with the message too and I know, if Stewart didn't do that than he wouldn't have anything to make fun of the Dems over. But I don't like the fact that so many liberals constantly trash the people who are actually putting themselves out there and fighting for liberal values. We're all so wise and pure that no John Kerry of Al Gore is good enough for us.
The Democratic party actually has some great people running against Republicans in Congress and for governor. You wouldn't know that, though. While the GOP is busy pumping up a dull, unserious frat boy as the second coming of Christ, the Democrats wring their hands and take shots at a solidly liberal, three-purple heart, bronze star veteran--why? appearance-wise he's no Robert Redford and he's too long-winded. For a lot of liberals the candidate actually has to be the second coming of Christ or we refuse to get behind him or her.
What Bill Maher said about Steve Irwin is just dumb. I'm no big fan of Irwin's show, but he was a real conservationist. He spoke out and fought to save the reefs where rays live. Real conservationists do on occasion get killed or harmed by animals because, duh they are sometimes in the wild and the animals are wild. Angry bulls don't discriminate between vegtarians and meat eaters, and stingrays don't save their venom for stingray poachers.
Thank you dende for pointing out what so many just happen to ignore. The Dems of today are flawed, but so is everybody else. To expect perfection from any of our political leaders - it's the same in Canada - is just plain folly and a waste of good energy. If anyone here needs an example from North of the border, just look up the name 'Jack Layton'.
Oh, to Anony, Maher and Lao Tzu do have one thing in common: calling it like it is ... but I think it ends there. Lao Tzu's lessons take years; Maher puts it across in punchlines.
dende blogger said: "What Bill Maher said about Steve Irwin is just dumb. I'm no big fan of Irwin's show, but he was a real conservationist. He spoke out and fought to save the reefs where rays live. Real conservationists do on occasion get killed or harmed by animals because, duh they are sometimes in the wild and the animals are wild. Angry bulls don't discriminate between vegtarians and meat eaters, and stingrays don't save their venom for stingray poachers."
Maher wasn't insinuating that angry bulls can tell the difference between PETA and your fattest Milwaukee Cheesehead eating its sister at Arbys. Maher's environmental views are outside the paradigm of Conservation, which he views as anthropocentric.
Maher thinks the Crocodile Hunter was the "bitch" in that Indian parable from Natural Born Killers: A woman finds a wounded snake, so she nurses it back to potency, and then one day the snake bites her. She asks "Snake why did you bite me?" and the snake said "Because I'm a Snake, you dumb Bitch!"
Just to add to that, many Environmentalists aren't very saddened by the loss of The Croc Hunter's Conservation efforts. He was about as productive as Timothy Treadwell from Werner Herzog's "Grizzly Man" Documentary. But at least Treadwell didn't exploit and wrestle animals for entertainment and magic trick purposes.
"many Environmentalists aren't very saddened by the loss of The Croc Hunter's Conservation efforts."
Sure, that's a legitimate debate among conservationists. But I tend to take Irwin's side on that one. Irwin was around animals, he worked in a zoo, and went out in the wild and picked up snakes. A lot of it was cheesy dare-devil-type stuff which is why I didn't find the show that great. But he wasn't out in the wild to torture or harass animals, nor was he ever shocked or offended at the fact that wild animals can get aggressive. I don't see what the big difference is between a wildlife conservationist who goes out and tranquilizes and tags some individual animals for the purpose of monitoring and ultimately perserving the species, and a conservationist guy who goes out and films himself picking up snakes to make people more aware of the biodiversity of the planet. In both cases people are going out and bothering a few animals. But this is a very insignificant level of intervention considering the goal. Unfortunately conservation today requires active human intervention, which even the hard-core anti-Irwin conservationists understand.