Real Time With Bill Maher: 'New Rule, How The Left Was Lost'

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- telling the Far-Left in America to grow up.

Source:The New Democrat

"Bill slams this ridiculous new era of mind-numbing partisanship, where simply speaking truth to your own party can make you an instant hero to the other side." 

From Real Time With Bill Maher 

Because of America's crazy and outdated two-party system, you have two, large, political parties in America, that have two crazy factions in it. Which means you have a Democratic Party that believes in both liberal democracy, quality of opportunity, equal rights, and equal justice, as well as personal freedom is dangerous, capitalism is racist, free speech is bigoted, minorities and women should be treated better than the majority population and Caucasian men. Because the Democratic Party has a Center-Right and Center-Left, that believes in liberal values that I mentioned before and a Far-Left that believes in the crazy values that I just mentioned. 

So America has a Democratic Party that looks and acts like the adults in the room, but only because they are the adults in the room. Who tend to run the Democratic Party and don't need a gerrymandered district to get elected to anything, who can not just get elected statewide in swing states, but who can get elected statewide in Democratic states. (Where Far-left Democrats can't, like in California) And a Far-Left that really should be in the Green Party (when they're not occupying mental institutions) who can't get elected anywhere, to anything, that doesn't just have an overwhelmingly Democratic population, but left-wing Democratic population. 

I'm not saying America should have a parliamentary political system, because that would make me a crazy leftist as well. But the two-party system is why America has a Democratic Party that has two political factions that simply don't agree on much, because the Far-Left has nowhere else to go, because they represent such a small percentage of the country. And the Green Party is simply to small for them to get elected to anything, that's worth anything in America. 

Real Time With Bill Maher: 'Bernie Sanders- Standing Up For Socialist Values'

Source:Mary Benoet- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) on Real Time With Bill Maher, in 2008.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Bernie Sanders on Real Time with Bill Maher 2008. This video was recorded while Barack Obama was initially running for president, YEARS AGO. Bernie Sander's message remains consistent through the years."  

From Mary Benoet

At risk of sounding simplistic: there's a reason why we live on a planet with somewhere around a hundred-eighty countries or so and not live on a planet with no countries, but with one huge central authority in charge, because we have different populations, people's, cultures, values and everything else all over the planet. And what works in one country or even in a block of countries, might not work somewhere else with a completely different economy, with different resources, responsibilities, threats, populations and everything else.

My point is that U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and his supporters (the social democratic-left in America) have a tendency to say:"This is how it's done in Europe with government doing so much for their people and everything else. It seems to work there and their people love it. Which is why should adopt that economic system here and do it the European way." Apparently unaware, or ignoring the obvious facts that Europe and the states there are completely different societies. That for one thing don't even have to worry about their own national defense, because America is responsible for it.

Americans tend to be rugged, individualist, free, wanting to be able to make their own decisions and live their own lives. And in a lot of cases hate to have to take any public or even private charity. And when they do, they tend to see that as some type of failure and have let themselves and their families down. 

Europe is the complete opposite of of America in a political cultural sense and if anything love taking public assistance from their government and would riot if the government were to cut their public assistance. And freak out about having to to pay for their own childcare out of their pocket and not taxes and actually have to take responsibility for themselves. And this is just an example of the culture differences.

Americans figured out a long time ago (well most of us did, our Socialists are still late to this dance, or still at the door, or not even there yet, perhaps sitting out the dance that there's a limit to what we want government to do for us) that instead we want to be free as possible to take care of us as much as possible. And then if we run into financial trouble, like being out of a job and just lost our savings as part of that result, then we would want to be able to take public assistance in the short-term until we can get ourselves back on our feet. With a good job that gives us the freedom to do those things.

That's the main difference from a liberal democracy, a liberal society, the free society that the American Founding Fathers (the Founding Liberals) wanted to create for America. And in the last two-hundred plus years we've worked as a country to improve our society so as many Americans as possible have that freedom to manage their own lives and Europe. Which is the opposite of that where they want to be taxed to the point where no one is completely free to take care of themselves. Because they believe when they move as a national unit, they move better with no one being too rich or poor and moving together.

So when Bernie Sanders Social Democrats (or Democratic Socialists) say that: "Europe does it this way, so should we." they are comparing Massachusetts with Texas. What is done in Massachusetts, is not wanted in Texas and vice-versa. Both states have figured out an economic system and government that works for them. But that doesn't mean it will work for everyone in the country. 

Americans like being able to have the freedom to make their own decisions and you need your money in order to do that. Europeans at least in a lot of cases see that as selfish or materialistic and would freak out and even riot if their government's forced them to take responsibility over their own lives. Just some of the differences between America and Europe.

Real Time With Bill Maher: 'Atheism Is Not a Religion'

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- on Atheism and religion.

Source:The Daily Press

"Bill Maher on HBO's "Real Time" goes on a rant about how atheism and theism are incompatible ideologically. He "un-baptizes" Mitt Romney's deceased father-in-law, who was himself an atheist. Funny as hell!" 

From Pariah 2001

This photo is from the same monologue/editorial Bill Maher did on the same program about Atheism and religion.

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- on Atheism and religion.

Religion: "the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods.

"ideas about the relationship between science and religion" 

Atheism: "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods' 

You can see these definitions for yourself at Dictionary.com. 

Of course I agree that Atheism is not a religion. But I also believe hat if jump into a lake, I would get wet. Unless someone who was dying of first, managed to drink every last drop of water, before landed in the lake. But I don't think that's the point here. 

I think the point here is that Atheists, especially hard-core Atheists who put down everyone who is religious the same way that fundamentalist believers put down everyone who disagrees with them on anything, including other believers, sound like fundamentalists as well. 

If you think about it, Atheists and fundamentalists have one big thing in common and this includes Bill Maher: they don't disagree with the Golden Rule, they hate the Golden Rule to the point that they think it should be outlawed. 

If you are going to live in a free society, it helps to not put down people as immoral, crazy, and stupid, simply because of religion, or any other issues where the individuals have a constitutional right to decide for themselves whether to be part of whatever the activity is. 

America has lasted almost 240 years with fundamentalists, Atheists, and Agnostics, even with the fact that we've always had fundamentalists on the Far-Right, who not only love their religious beliefs, but think they should be the law of the land and hate the concept of the Separation of Church and State. And not just Atheists, but Communists on the Far-Left, who would probably try to outlaw organized religion, if they ever came to power. 

One of the beauties of free speech and personal freedom, it allows for everyone to be themself and live and learn. Let's keep it that way. 

Bill Maher: 'Be More Cynical on Religion'

Source:Free Thinking- Real Time With Bill Maher. No, really. This is not his TV show.

Source:The Daily Press

Being cynical is probably a conservative boring way to live your life. Where you'll end up taking less risks and your not putting your heart on the line very often. Not trying to sound gushy, but being cynical has its advantages as well. You'll probably get burned and disappointed less, because you're taking less chances. You're not automatically going to take someone's word when they say something. 

For example when a member of Congress refers to someone from the other party as their friend, which happens all the time in the Senate, you're not automatically going to assume Sen. Smith is friends with Sen. Jones or John McCain is friends with George W. Bush. Just because they say that, you'll understand that they may just be saying that. 

That's how Washington works and when a member of Congress is referred to as a distinguished gentlemen or distinguished gentlelady, you know that they not be distinguished at all. Perhaps except for being a leader in Congress when it comes to fundraising, or bridges to nowhere, or "bringing home the bacon", that no one eats. Because no one lives or drives there, etc. 

If you trust someone who has a good track record with you, they have sound judgement, etc and they invite out to treat you for dinner or will pick up the check, you know to take their word they'll do those things. But when you offer them something to eat and give it to them, something they never had before and they taste it and have a horrible look on their face and they say its not good, chances are they are just being nice and don't take that seriously. Truth and flattery are different.

The only advice I would give here, is take things in life for what they are. And don't automatically assume everything you hear is the truth. Especially from people who need you for something. I would start with politicians, but anyone who needs something from you, when they do and say things that make sense and you know why they did it and understand it, great. 

But if they do or say something strange that's out of character and is something that's not a good thing, for example let's say you love playing tennis. And someone you know needs something from you. And they don't have a clue about tennis and don't even like the game and they start talking to about tennis, trying to express an interest in it, even challenging you to a match, don't automatically assume they've become tennis fans. 

They just might want you to believe that they are tennis fans instead, as a way to communicate to you. When they give you an explanation for it, unless it makes sense and adds up, don't automatically assume they are saying what happened or the whole truth. Because they might only be saying what they want you to hear.

I know I'm a political junky and I have this pattern of using political stories to communicate broader points. But this is my last political story here. Politicians are the perfect people to be cynical about. If a white collar politician comes to your state, hell let's say running for President, why not and I'm not going to use a name here, a wealthy white collar wine and cheese yuppy politician, let's say. 

This person comes to your State and let's say your state has a lot of blue collar workers there, lets say Pennsylvania or Ohio. And this politician stops by one of your local taverns or bowling allies in Pittsburgh, to speak to your people. And this person comes to show you his bowling skills, trying to convince you he has some. 

Or the white collar limo owning and riding politician  drinks beer to show you he likes beer, but generally doesn't do these things, don't automatically assume this politician is like you. But instead wants you to believe he is, to get you to vote for him. He wants your vote not to be friends. 

The more you take things as they are and not just what you want them to be, the better you'll be off if life. And I know that sounds unromantic and perhaps unreligious, but what do you expect from an Agnostic anyway. Because you'll always know or at least most of them depending on how intelligent you are, who is with you and who wants you to believe they are with you in order to get something out of you.
Source:Free Thinking

Real Time With Bill Maher: Center-Left Democrats vs. Occupy Wall Street

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher. Perhaps you know who the guy in the photo is yourself.

Source:The Daily Press

Bill Maher has this idea that since there's a Democrat in the White House, that President Obama should govern like Dennis Kucinich. What he doesn't seem to understand, is that President Obama and Representative Kucinich come from two different factions of the party. Barack Obama comes from the adult realist faction of the party. Progressives and Liberals that see the world for what it is and try to make it the best that they can, with what's available to do so.

Dennis Kucinich comes from the dreamer utopian faction of the party, Socialist Hippies from the 1960s, and early 70s and today that haven't grown up. And see the World that they want to create apparently not realizing what's possible, but believe everything that they want is possible. And its possible now to turn America into Europe to create their Socialist Utopia. And you got these two competing factions, the adults with the power in the party that see the world for what it is and try to make it the best that they can, against the Hippies that want to see the world that they want now.

And if you support any policy thats different from what the Hippies want, you're some type of corporate sellout to the Republican Party or something. President Obama is like a father with his only real life family, as well as his kids in the Democratic Party. That help him run the party, plus with millions of adopted children that complain about not being able to have cake for dinner. And throw temper tantrums when they can't have cake for dinner or have to eat salad with their meat. And tell their parents they hate them when they can't stay up all night on a school night.

The Socialist Hippies (the Democratic children) in the party that doesn't have a great grasp on reality, that want everything now and doesn't understand what Hubert Humphrey called the "Art of the Possible". So the state of the Democratic Party right now a political party that I'm proud to be a member of is basically two parties and I believe within ten years could become officially two political parties. Which I believe would be good for both American liberalism and progressivism, as well as socialism giving each political movement their own voice.

You have the Liberal Democrats led by the President and the Congressional Democratic Leadership and the DNC. And then you have the Hippie Socialists again from the 1960s and early 70s. And want to bring that movement about today and create their own Socialist Utopia a perfect world. Where there's no wealthy or poor people, no violence, no war, give peace a chance. Everybody is equal, sounds like a decent Hollywood film or Hollywood fantasy. No bigotry, but the only problem that they have, is that they don't have a damn clue how to bring those things about. They tell the Leadership "this is what we want now go out there and accomplish that". Without having any idea of how to bring that about.

Hippy Democrats are like a head coach who wants to have the best team in the league. But doesn't know what type of system he wants on offense and defense, or what type of players he wants. Or how to write a game plan or run a practice, that these things are just details, right. Sounds more like a great fan than a successful head coach. And then leave it up to the Liberal Democrats the adults in the room to get the job done.

And when the Hippies accomplish some of those goals that the whole party supports, what's the thanks for the Democratic Leadership, they get called sellouts by their kids the Hippies. Who weren't even invited to the party because they probably would've thrown food or gotten into a fight. It's like giving your kid a corvette as their graduation present. But then getting called as asshole because you didn't give your son a Porsche. Thats why the Liberal Democrats run the Democratic Party because they are the adults in the room.

Real Time: Bill Maher and Panel- Talking About the U.S. Constitution

Source: Real Time With Bill Maher- Republican political strategist Michelle Caruso-Cabrera.

Source:The Daily Press 

"Bill and his roundtable guests (Matt Taibbi, Kevin Smith, Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, John Heilemann & Tavis Smiley), answer fan questions." 

From Real Time With Bill Maher

Unless you’re a real Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian or perhaps even Independent, chances are you generally like the U.S. Constitution. If you’re a so-called Progressive ( Socialist, really ) today Christian-Nationalist or Christian-Theocrat, chances are you don’t like the U.S. Constitution. Because it constricts you from doing what you want the Federal Government to do and make it bigger.

Today’s Progressives ( Socialists in actuality ) would like to see the Federal Government get so big to the point, that it would provide a lot of the services that the private sector and state and local government’s currently provide. The 10th Amendment and property rights, makes that a lot more difficult for them to do that. As FDR found out during the New Deal back in the 1930s.

So today’s so-called Progressives who are really European Social Democrats, they would like to rewrite the U.S. Constitution to give the Federal Government more power. Including taking out some Constitutional Amendments, like the 2nd Amendment the Right to Self-Defense. And perhaps even amend the First Amendment when it comes to the media. They would like to see a public media, not a corporate Media ( as they would call it ) . And even be able to regulate hate speech in America.

As the Bush Administration found out, the U.S .Constitution got in their way when it came to indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. Christian-Nationalists would also like to amend the First Amendment so that it would only cover Freedom of Religion for Christians and political speech. Well, that it is political speech, as long as the people are saying things they agree with. And would like to eliminate the Right of Privacy, the Fourth Amendment and perhaps a few others.

The Christian-Right people I call Theocrats or better yet a religious cult, people who see marijuana as immoral, but have religious and political views that seem so out of space like they are on Fantasy Island and seem high on something illegal: basically view people who don’t live their lives as they do, they are immoral and should be in jail or something and would love to amend the First Amendment to outlaw adult entertainment.

So the Christian-Right can censor certain forms of entertainment they don’t like. Ban non-Christian religions and turn America into a Christian theocracy. Where life especially for women would become very restrictive with dress codes and that sort of thing. No more Right to Privacy, because now adultery and pre-marital sex, kids out-of-wedlock would be illegal. Pornography obviously illegal, alcohol and perhaps certain forms of dancing would be illegal.

It would be like living in Iran but a Theocracy like this, would make Iran look like a liberal democracy. That only 1960s Hippies could dream up in one of their pipe dreams. So converted so-called Progressives and ex-Libertarians like Bill Maher, should think twice about calling for a new U.S. Constitution, because he probably wouldn’t like the results of it. If Socialists want America to become like Scandinavia or Canada, then they need a new U.S. Constitution to achieve that.

Today’s so-called Progressives would need a new Constitution to establish all the democratic socialism. And to give the Federal Government all the power over us that they want to establish. If Christian-Nationalists  want to make America like Russia, then they should move there or get into power and establish Martial Law, which is what happened in Egypt fifty years ago.

If Theocrats want to make America like Iran, well they should move to Iran, because they aren’t getting to the White House in America. No presidential candidate in America runs as a Theocrat and gets elected President. But for Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians, we just need to defend, promote and speak up for the U.S. Constitution. To bring even more individual liberty than we already have.

Real Time With Bill Maher: Secularism & Religion

Source:Fox News- Bill O'Reilly vs Bill Maher.

Source:FRS FreeState

“All copyrights belong to Fox New. No copyright infringement intended” 

From Derek Stran 

“Air Date: September 20th, 2001

Panelists: Laura Innes, Dennis Prager & Peter Greenburg”

Source:No Cow Eyes- Politically Incorrect With Bill Maher.

From No Cow Eyes 

There are advantages and disadvantages of living in a free society like America, or living in an authoritarian state like Russia or China. The question and debate is where would most people be better off: living in a country where people have the right to be themselves and live their own lives, knowing that there going to people who hate other people simply because who they are, their race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, etc, who kill other people simply because of their hate.

But I think most Americans (and I’m one of them) would rather live here and have that freedom, knowing that someone who has the same freedom that they do, might decide to murder a lot of people simply because they hate them.

My point is terrorism is everywhere and if anything the most free societies in the world are more prone to terrorism and other violence, simply because they don’t have the same amount as security, as you would see in a police state, where the country is so secure, that the national government is even scared of it’s own people. So I think the question is would rather be completely secure, except perhaps from your own government, or be fairly secure but have the freedom to live your own lives.

Real Time With Bill Maher: 'Why Can't America be More Like Canada?'

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- comedian Martin Short on Real Time in 2011.

Source:The Daily Press 

"Canada is a country that has health care and not a lot of gun violence. And we've become just a more war-like mean, cramped conservative country"  

From The Daily Caller 

Why can't Canada be more like Canada? Well, because America is America and Canada. (To be as overly simplistic as possible) Canadians are a very collectivist and a very welfare-centric country. America likes their individual freedom and individualism, their personal freedom, the ability to make their own decisions without Big Government trying to tax them to death because Uncle Sam believes its more qualified to spend Americans money better than them. 

With Canadians, I think they don't mind Big Government spending a lot of their money for them, just as long as the services that they get are good and their money is spent well. The political cultures in both countries are just very different.  

Democracy Review: Real Time With Bill Maher- 'On Un-Presidential Campaign For President'

Source:Democracy Review- Bill Maher and panel on Tea Party activist Sarah Palin.

Source:The Daily Press

“Sarah Palin’s Unpresidential Campaign on Real Time with Bill Maher. As they said, Palin is absolutely unbelievable…. 

From Democracy Review 

Sarah Palin (whether she’s even aware of it or not) is not a politician. She’s barley a political activist. She’s basically a Fox News host (except she’s not smart enough for FNC to have her own show) who goes around the country telling people the first thing that comes to her mind. Which is generally very cute and funny.

As Melissa Harris Perry  on this show said, Americans are use to reality TV, even if they know it’s not real and hearing someone like a Sarah Palin speak about subjects they know nothing about like they are experts. Paul Revere being the perfect example of that.

Sarah Palin at best is a political entertainer and satirist and sometimes a damn good one who can be very funny (even intentionally) but she’s not a serious politician and perhaps never has been.