Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher has the best

**Devil's Advocate** · September 20th, 2001, 04:49 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by TastinGood:
Are you gay?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sticks and stones may break my bones...

liplick

------------------

[This message has been edited by Devil's Advocate (edited September 20, 2001).]

**kilzok7** · September 21st, 2001, 03:49 AM

[QUOTE] The word Stoic is reserved for those who jumped. [QUOTE]

As I understand it, Stoicism involves accepting everything that happens as "fate" and therefore not getting emotionally involved. Somehow, I think committing suicide is getting emotionally involved...

Of course, I'm no philosophy major...

**Alex** · September 21st, 2001, 03:53 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by honeyk:
politically incorrect is a great show because it does encourage people to THINK. Most news commentators and the like just try to put opinions in your mouth...and although i disagree with almost everything bill says, i really respect his ability to provoke thought.

if you like to watch bill, then another show you might want to check out is the o'reilly factor on fox news (weeknights at 7 central time)..it is an hour show and he is also a crusader for truth in terms of news and commentary. he is neither a democrat or republican, and provokes thought just as well, if not better than bill. cheack it out and let me know what you think!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

O'Reilly tries to be like Maher, but his Conservative Side fights him. I thought his take on Clinton's impeachment was wacky....the structure was great, but the underpinnings weren't there.

He made way too much about lying under oath.

Forcing a President to reveal damaging and humiliating information under oath THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS OVERALL JOB PERFORMANCE....was more an act of treason by his opposition than an undermining of lying under oath....

If Clinton hadn't been forced to answer questions that had no relevance to his job performance (and Monica refused to file charges, another point that gets overlooked), Clinton would not have had to lie.

Using the power of "Oath" to humiliate the President...what a joke...and O'reilly was 1st on the list talking about "lying while under oath", the president should be impeached and removed as president...on and on....

But I do think O'Reilly likes to go head to head with people he totally disagrees with and lets them have their say.

------------------

-Alex

**zelazny** · September 21st, 2001, 01:44 PM

lol, you know what they say about homophobes wink

------------------
Sure the universe is a great place, but if it wasn't here, no-one would miss it.

**kilzok7** · September 21st, 2001, 05:49 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Alex:

...Clinton would not have had to lie.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Clinton did not HAVE to lie. He knew the laws, but he CHOSE to lie anyway.

**Alex** · September 21st, 2001, 06:43 PM

You may have a case of Oat-h Bra-i-n Washing.

No one should be allowed to ask the President of the United States a question under oath that will undermine his stature and the office, unless the question has pertinence to breaking the law.

For instance, If Clinton had answered the "Did you have Sexual Relations with Monica Lewinsky?" question under oath and said... "Yes, I received a consensual BJ from that girl...."

What would the follow-up question have been?

And what relevance and importance would the follow-up question have had...I say NONE!

The "Did you have Sexual Relations" question was designed to FORCE Humiliation and Damage upon the President and the Presidency WITHOUT having any real relevance. The question, no matter how the President answered, HAS NO RELEVANCE TO BREAKING A LAW, while the answer can simultaneously damage the presidents stature and the presidency.

Lets analyze what is is.

Mr. President, did you have Sexual Relations with Monica Lewinsky....???

That question is framed to humiliate a standing president...AND TO ASK IT UNDER OATH IS AN ABUSE OF OATH!

The way the question should have been phrased to NOT BE AN ABUSE OF OATH, is the following...

Mr. President, did you have NON-CONSENSUAL Sexual Relations with Monica Lewinsky....?

"No I did not".....END OF STORY. END OF STORY.
END OF STORY...

That's it, it's over and done with. But the persecution did not ask the question the way it should have been asked....instead they played games, and they played games with the President of the United States and they played games with the highest office in the land.

The persecution specifically tried to humiliate and weaken a standing president...Now that IS an act of treason.

If answering the BJ question somehow led to other questions about breaking the law...than it has pertinence.

Unless you can show the pattern of questions that would have resulted from the persecution's injuriously worded question.... "Did you have Sexual Relations" which was purely DESIGNED TO DAMAGE A STANDING PRESIDENTS IMAGE, ......

than the onus is on the prosecutor for not asking "Did you have NON-CONSENSUAL Sexual Relations" ...

....THE REAL ABUSE OF LAW while Clinton was under Oath was in the Framing of the Question.... and NOT Clintons answer.

And that's why it does matter what is is....

IS lying under oath really more relevant THAN a persecutor KNOWINGLY humiliating a President AND weakening the Presidency by Abuse of Oath with THE INAPPROPRIATE AND MANIPULATIVE QUESTION THAT PRECEDED THE LIE?

It's reality TV before it's time...."We don't really know if the question has relevance...BUT HE'D BETTER ANSWER IT!

We don't really wonder why it's acceptable to vote someone off the island, but lets see who they vote off!

Do Salem Witch Hunts ring a bell?

[This message has been edited by Alex (edited September 29, 2001).]

**SHATOUSHKA** · September 21st, 2001, 09:30 PM

again, i agree with alex.
well put.

------------------
General Philosophy

**Alex** · September 21st, 2001, 10:09 PM

I think tonight (Friday, Sept 21, 2001), Bill Maher will have on his show 3 young moslem men who support Bin Ladin, or just support the religion but not Bin Ladin, this may be the most interesting 1/2 hour you may ever see.

(I hope that wasn't Thursday Nights show, which I missed)

The mix of guests on the show has been excellent the nights I have watched.

[This message has been edited by Alex (edited September 21, 2001).]

**Alex** · September 22nd, 2001, 04:15 AM

Well, Bill may be on Leno, but he will magically be on his own show right after, and on a different channel.

Speaking of Wal Mart...where are those American Flags made?

------------------

-Alex