Nick Gillespie Body's Bill Maher on Bill's Hypocrisy

[claudhopper]

Originally Posted by jwm1964

If Bill Maher owns two vehicles I think that shows tremendous restraint for someone of his wealth. As for the carbon foot print of his show, how many people make their living and support their families and from this enterprise.

Brilliant? He's a condescending ass. But then again, so is Bill Maher most of the time too.

Maher does standup all across the country. How does he get there? He flies in a private jet. Maher isn't married, so no family to take care of. He's an elitist that likes to tell all the peons what they should be doing, but sacrifice is for thee and not for me.
Hollywood is the epitome of hypocracy, they have a huge carbon footprint in general. That's why they have left California and do most filming overseas.
Yes, Bill is egotistical, irritating, and offensive at times, but I like him. I like his stand on animal rights, he eats nothing out of a grocery store, can or box. He's into organic fruits, veges, and whole grains.
I'm not sure how real he is. I think he says and does what he does because that's his shtick, that's what makes him money. He is actually very good friends with Ann Coulter.

[ChristineVA]

Originally Posted by claudhopper

That because nobody could argue with his reasoning! I thought it was one of the best of Maher's shows. I'd love to see more like that. Notice they had 5 liberals to one libertarian, and he won every point. He writes for REASON magazine and is consistently brilliant!
I do think Donna Brazil is a very classy lady, for anybody, but especially for a liberal.

I'd hardly call being loud, overbearing and interrupting people "brilliant." Bill has had some pretty wonderful, articulate conservative panel members that have done very well with getting their point across intelligently and respectfully. Gillespie wasn't one of them. He made the show as bad as when Bill brings on liberal actor Richard Belzer. Uuuuggghh.

[BentBow]

Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale

Nick Gillespie is obnoxious. He will shoot down any idea that anyone comes up with to make society better. He's not really even a libertarian, in my opinion. He's essentially an anarchist.

Better for who?


Who exactly is picking the winners and losers?

For every action there is a reaction.

The short term betterment, for long term disaster?