I have seen snippets of Politically Incorrect and kept on channel surfing. Frankly, it just isn't very funny or insightful. Bill Maher doesn't have a "right" to a slot on television. He's an entertainer. His show is a product used to sell advertising to sell other products.

Not watching Bill Maher (for any reason) isn't any different than not buying bananas at the market. If "Dole" or "Chiquita" go out of business, tough luck. If Bill Maher ends up doing stand-up comedy in Toledo, tough luck. Having a television show has NOTHING to do with free speech. Not watching a television show is NOT censorship; it's the exercise of free choice by consumers of entertainment.

If a network cancels Maher's little playpen, "Politically Incorrect" it will be a business decision. A Free Press does not mean corporate America has to subsidize some gasbag because he makes what some moron thinks is a good point. Maher can keep making his "good points." If he can sponsor his own show, then he won't have to worry about who he pisses off. Businesses have no obligation to underwrite free speech. Their only job is to make profits and keep their shareholders happy (which generally means making profits).

I love how liberals like Maher and his defenders excoriate businesses until it's time to pay the bills. Then businesses should pony up, even if it costs them revenues. Please.

Maher is NOT entitled to a television show. America does not OWE him a bully pulpit. The "media death penalty" is utter tripe. The freedom we are fighting for is the freedom to turn off Maher, to write a letter to his sponsors or not buy bananas for no reason at all. The even bigger pile of dung is anyone who suggest my free exercise of my economic rights is cowardly. The America people owe Bill Maher absolutely nothing, payable on demand.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), September 25, 2001

Answers

Well said.

-- I, too (RememberThe@ld.Forum), September 25, 2001.

I've never had occasion to turn Bill Maher (whoever he is) off, because I've never tuned in. Is he on PBS? What's the problem?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 25, 2001.

You will fit in well in Dumbya's fascist New World Order. Excommunicate anyone who expresses their opinion if it conflicts with your power-hungry dictatorial quest to own the world. He didn't even say anything wrong, it's just that you don't agree with it. What's next, line people up and shoot them in the head if you don't agree with them?

-- (you are @ disgusting. nazi), September 25, 2001.

I never watched Maher. I don't care if his show lives or dies. I don't care if his sponsor cuts him off. I was agreeing with everything you were saying until you slipped in this gemlike idiocy:

"I love how liberals like Maher and his defenders excoriate businesses until it's time to pay the bills."

I don't know if your characterization of Maher as a liberal is correct or not, because I have never watched him. But I am a liberal myself, and whatever misguided stupidity Maher or his supporters are indulging in, it isn't due to their liberalism. If it were, then all liberals would indulge in the selfsame idiocy.

But I am a liberal. And I agreed with everything you said. That is, all except the gratutious load of dung you unloaded about liberals. That was nonsense.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), September 25, 2001.

Nipper:

While I haven't seen Maher either, I can understand how "liberals like Maher and his defenders" might be, in this respect, distinctly different from "liberals like Nipper". Presumably, Remember included this qualifying phrase for the purpose of qualifying his phrase.

You seem to be going out of your way to take offense here. Why?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 25, 2001.

The even bigger pile of dung is anyone who suggest my free exercise of my economic rights is cowardly.

Spoken like a true Repugnican! It's not about economic "rights", but about Freedom Of Speech. To be intimidated by an alternate opinion is what's cowardly.

-- ItWorks (Both@Ways.com), September 25, 2001.

I don't enjoy Maher and I don't enjoy Dennis Miller but I wouldn't enjoy them if they were conservatives either. I just don't get off on smartass remarks which is the specialty of those guys as far as I can tell.

Maher is not being "censored". An advertiser has a right to sponsor whoever they choose and a station has a right to broadcast whoever they choose.

Maher is on a cable channel I think. Maybe pBS will pick him up and run him right after Lawrence Welk.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), September 25, 2001.

-- photoshop rulz (photo@shop.com), September 25, 2001.

Politically Incorrect is owned by one of the many arms of Disney, IIRC. And they have ties with ABC, I think.

-- Not (Completely@SureBut.ThinkI'mRightAboutThis), September 25, 2001.

Flint, the reason I took offense is because it would have been exactly as meaningful if RTOF had said, "hominids like Maher and his supporters", or "vertebrates like Maher and his supporters", or "life forms like Maher and his supporters".

Any sufficiently large category that could include both Maher and all his supoorters could have been similarly modified by the qualifier "like" and have been equally apt. Yet, the unmistakable implication was that, of all the possible categories, "liberal" was somehow more apt than others, since it was the one singled out.

As such, since the whole tenor of RTOF's remarks was that Maher and all his supporters were jerks and fools, then the clear implication was that these were traits they shared with all liberals.

This implication was, as I already indicated, a gratuitous load of dung. Believe it or not.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), September 25, 2001.

Just ignore the ignoramus that started this thread Nipper, he is obviously just another hypocritical conservative asshole. They whine and whine about "liberals" allegedly making too much fuss about political correctness. But when someone who THEY perceive as a liberal is politically incorrect (in THEIR opinion), then it is THEY who are making a fuss.

These are the same assholes who kept saying that CNN was the Clinton News Network, controlled by liberals of course. Now that CNN has reported that Dumbya got high ratings in the polls, all of a sudden they seem to forget that it is the so-called liberal media.

-- LOL (conservatives have their @ head. up their ass), September 25, 2001.

Another of those nasty repugs on Maher:

http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/files/092401.html

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), September 26, 2001.

People have a right to speak, not to be heard. Opinions are a commodity. It doesn't matter WHY I don't like Maher's opinions. I have the economic right to turn the dial based on his hollow rhetoric, smug humor or choice of suits. If enough people Maher to make his show the highest rated on TV, it's no skin off my ass, but save the bullshit about being a Nazi because I exercise my right to NOT watch Bill Maher.

Well, Nipper, maybe you are a NEW kind of liberal who doesn't believe in heavy taxation of business to fund foolish social programs, gov't boondoggles and income restribution. Thought not. I am, however, delighted you are offended. Your idiotic liberal ideas offend me, particularly when I pay my quarterly taxes.

Finally, I have NEVER said anything about Maher and political correctness. I don't a rat's ass about what Maher says; what I find offensive is the suggestion not watching Maher or buying soap from his sponsors is somehow "censorship." Of course, this point is lost on those who cannot think beyond stimulus-response.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), September 26, 2001.

So I see from that URL that the whole crux of the issue is that Maher suggested we could be considered equally cowardly for attacking with cruise missiles from 2000 miles away?

If that's his logic, then the inventors of the bow and arrow were cowardly, the inventors of firearms were cowardly, etc, etc.

You always fight with the best and most appropriate weapons you have, excluding weapons of mass destruction (unless deemed absolutely necessary.) That's not being cowardly, that's just being smart. They didn't challenge us to a pistol duel or a joust here, they smashed planes into civilians, they made arrangments to spread bio or chemical weapons over civilians, and they're promising more if we do anything about it.

American Express, on the other hand, might be considered cowardly by pulling it's adds. Maher's show is an opinion forum, and the last time I checked, Americans were allowed to have differing opinions.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), September 26, 2001.

Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect is on ABC after Nightline.
He is NOT a liberal. He voted libertarian.
He does not bias his show one way or the other, he always has 4 guests from every political bent.
The discussions are usually "Politically Inncorrect", current events and subjects which are normally ignored in the regular media.
Lot's of opinions and assumptions from people who haven't even watched the show.


-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), September 26, 2001.

sorry Cherri, he voted for Nader

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), September 26, 2001.

This is not a time for partisanship.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), September 24, 2001.

-- (duh@duh.com), September 26, 2001.

"If that's his logic, then the inventors of the bow and arrow were cowardly, the inventors of firearms were cowardly, etc, etc."

Strangely enough, when the Portuguese brought firearms (rather crude early ones) to Japan, the Japanese quickly learned how to make them - they had the metalurgical expertise already - but soon banned them.

The reason for the ban wasn't that guns were too deadly. Those early guns had a very short range and very bad aim. The reason was that guns were contrary to the spirit of bushido, the samurai code of honor. Essentially, the Japanese thought guns were cowardly. They were successfully banned for about 200 years.

I guess that makes Maher a samurai. Or something.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), September 26, 2001.

Wrong. The crux of the issue is our right to choose entertainment as consumers AND that this choice has NOTHING to do with censorship.

American Express (or any other business) has the right to spend their advertising budget as they see fit. Period. End of story. It is WRONG to imply a simple business decision is brave or cowardly. I doubt the CEO or Board of American Express give a rat's ass about Bill Maher. What they care about is selling American Express cards and services. The only reason they have ANY interest in Bill Maher's TV show is to reach a particular audience. IF AMEX feels sponsoring Maher's show has become a business risk, they are obligated to back out? Why? Because AMEX has a responsibility to its shareholders to maximize profits.

And Nipper, any asshole (like Maher) can talk about heroes and cowards when sitting on a sound stage. Having an opinion is easy, even Cherri has them in bushels. It's harder to go in harm's way, to pound the mud in some godforsaken land risking (and bringing) death. The men in SEAL Team 6 are samurai. Maher is just another talking head.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), September 26, 2001.

As typical of you conservative liars, you distort and twist the truth to fit your agenda.

Maher did NOT call our military men cowards. The point he was making was that our men are NOT cowardly at all, that they are ready, willing, and able to do the job. The cowardly part was that our government chose NOT to let them do it, instead they waste $$Billions in missiles to attack from far away.

-- (get your @ facts. straight), September 26, 2001.

My take on this is that Maher was trying to address the fact that the attack on the WTC was termed a "cowardly" attack. I believe his point really was that for someone to fly an airplane into a building thereby destroying himself (along with the target) might be called a lot of things but the action of the pilot should not been charachterized as cowardly. I don't think a coward would be able to do such an act. In fact the same thought struck me at the time. However, I believe the term as used here refers to the act of terror on innocent civilians not the individual will it would take to do such a thing.

But that is neither here nor there really. The real point is that Maher's show sucks so who cares if it is cancelled. This is simply free enterprise at work and cancellation would be the end result of one of the most dearly held principles of our country in action.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), September 26, 2001.

"This is simply free enterprise at work and cancellation would be the end result of one of the most dearly held principles of our country in action."

Looks like you used the wrong choice of words. It should read...

"This is simply conservative fascism at work and cancellation would be the end of one of the most dearly held principles of our country in action."

-- (you had @ freudian. slip), September 27, 2001.

Remember the old forum wrote:

"The men in SEAL Team 6 are samurai. Maher is just another talking head."

One thing is pretty clear to me, RTOF. You are 100% irony and sarcasm proof. Just out of curiosity, when was the last time you had a good, cleansing belly laugh? You seem to need one - or better yet, a nice, slow, happy copulation.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), September 27, 2001.

No Freudian slip here. You obviously misunderstand the whole point of "Freedom of Speech". Freedom of speech means that you can (within limits) say whatever you want. You can express your opinions, ideas, theories, etc. It does not mean that you will necessarily be protected forom the consequences of your speech. If others disagree with you they can exercise their own forms of speech.

For example, let's say you own the only grocery store in a small town. Let's also say everyone in this town goes to the same very conservative church and you are the only atheist in town. You go to the church one Sunday and tell everyone as they go in that there is no such thing as God or that Mary wasn't a Vigin because you have proof she gang banged all the stable hands and just happened to get pregnant. In the church the beloved preacher tells the congregation that you obviously are under the influence of Satan and no one should shop at your store. The parishoners agree and soon you are out of business. You have exercised your free speech and they have exercised theirs with their decision not to buy from a disgusting sinner such as yourself. That is not a fascist conspiracy that is a consequence of your speech. In this case it is an economic cosequence of their right to buy from who they choose (free enterprise).

The same thing happens all the time but not as overtly. It's called ratings which advertisers use to see if there message is getting out. There is no Constitutional or Divine right to be on T.V. (except perhaps on public access channels and even there you would have some restrictions). Label it whatever you want but the people who are raising hell about Maher are exercising their right to free speech. Even if this was the result of a conservative fascist plot guess what? Fascists can exercise free speech too.

Hope this clarifies things and I'm sorry if not everyone thinks that carrying Politically Incorrect on the air should be in the Bill of Rights. I still think the show sucks and should be cancelled on its overall lack of merit regardless of the current controversy.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), September 27, 2001.

Hear, hear Little Nipper. I applaud your choices of relaxation.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), September 27, 2001.

One viewpoint on Maher, from a columnist who's been on his show --

http://www.jew ishworldreview.com/cols/jonah.html

That's a dynamic link, so if the Maher story isn't there, look under the "Jonah Goldberg Archives" link at the bottom of the page. Name of the story is "Maher mars 'Politically Incorrect'".

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), September 27, 2001.

My immunity to sarcasm, Nipper, pales in comparison to your immunity to reason. Keep thinking happy thoughts, and I'll just pray your happy thoughts never make it into legislation.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), September 27, 2001.

Bravo, Remember the old forum! You do an uncanny impression of Ebeneezer Scrooge before he was visited by the Christmas ghosts. Do you do any other Dickens characters?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), September 27, 2001.

Personally, I don't think this has anything to do with what Maher said. OF COURSE advertisers have the right to back out. The same thing happened when that Dr. Laura person made a comment on her show that offended various people.

I think the REAL problem here is administration reps becoming involved.

September 27. About Bill Mahr's recent comment on "Politically Incorrect," Bush spinner Ari Fleishman said: "There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is.

"On the same day last week that "NBC Nightly News" anchor Tom Brokaw sat down to interview former President Clinton, executives for the program received unexpected phone calls from senior communications staffers at the White House, expressing disappointment about the decision to spotlight Bush's predecessor. While not asking the network to refrain from running the interview, they expressed the feeling that the Sept. 18 interview with Clinton would not be helpful to the current war on terrorism. Neither NBC nor the White House would comment on the phone calls, but sources familiar with the calls confirmed that they happened." --Jake Tapper, 9/27/01

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), September 27, 2001.

"I think the REAL problem here is administration reps becoming involved." LOL Like an 'admin rep' pleading with Linda Tripp to lie under oath.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), September 27, 2001.

Which ghost are you, Nipwad? The spirit of socialism past, present or future?

-- Remember (the@ld.forum), October 01, 2001.

Maria,

Yes the two cases are very similar. Neither administration apparently wants or wanted anyone questioning their activities. That is what you meant right?

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 01, 2001.

RTOF, I love it when you call me Nipwad!

Nipwad! Nipwad! Nipwad! Why, it's so sweet and endearing, almost poetry!

Please post to every thread I participate in and, if possible, address me as Nipwad once in every sentence. I can't tell you how pleased that would make me. Consider this an open invitation. Feel free to quote me. I mean it.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), October 01, 2001.

Exactly JBT. Anita thought it was ok when Clinton needed to 'cover up' his private matter but finds it a problem when it comes to Bush's concern over national security.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 02, 2001.

Maria: "...Bush's concern over national security."

Are you seriously suggesting that anything Maher said affected our national security? How?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), October 02, 2001.

Pay attention LN, Anita wrote, "they expressed the feeling that the Sept. 18 interview with Clinton would not be helpful to the current war on terrorism."

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 02, 2001.

OK, Maria, now I see what you were referring to. It's useful to examine more of that quote than you quoted. Here's the whole thing (italics mine):

"On the same day [...] Tom Brokaw sat down to interview former President Clinton, executives for the program received unexpected phone calls from senior communications staffers at the White House, expressing disappointment about the decision to spotlight Bush's predecessor. While not asking the network to refrain from running the interview, they expressed the feeling that the Sept. 18 interview with Clinton would not be helpful to the current war on terrorism."

IOW, the White House "communications staffers" who made the calls (more than one):

- did not know the contents of the interview.

- did not ask that the interview be canceled or withdrawn.

- expressed "disappointment" that Clinton would have "the spotlight".

- hinted that the mere act of putting Clinton on television would somehow affect the 'war on terrorism' - but they didn't say how.

If this was in any way an accurate summary of what the White House "communications staffers" said and did, then national security was never at stake. They were just throwing their weight around.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), October 02, 2001.

They were just throwing their weight around. And so was the Big he with Linda Tripp.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 02, 2001.

Back to the Oaks again! Gee, I thought you were making some progress on this issue of yours, my Maria.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 02, 2001.

I am an idiot for even giving you the time for a response, but here goes... You are a freekin moron. His show is a product used to sell other products. Gee, did it take you long to see that? What do you think every other show on tv is? The Plitically Incorrect show is a business, just like any other. What you don't say, is that nobody has a right to be on tv. There are no rights when it comes to television you moron. Get a clue. You sound like a fascist to me.

-- William Chapman (atthebeach@sbcglobal.net), April 17, 2002.

You're just another DICK Mellon Scaifette puppet, better go suck at his tit to get you're next original thought.

-- eatme (dryspell69@hotmail.com), May 14, 2002.

I have always been a casual viewer of P.I. and have recently really enjoyed what Maher has had to say. But I think the person who poseted this message misses the point. If no one watches the show (or eats those bananas for that matter) of course he should be cancelled. But if the show is doing well, which it was (despite the fact you don't enjoy it) there is no reason for him to cancelled for voicing his opinion about public figures. Free speech should be an even playing field and not an opportunity to discriminate against those who you don't like.

-- Rocky Bergen (rockasoo@yahoo.com), June 05, 2002.

Politically Incorrect was the last outpost of intelligence on TV. This fact is painfully clear after viewing some of the replies to your original question. Obviously, if business was the reason for the existence of a show, Bill Maher would not be canceled as the ratings were high. The cancellation was just another example of the current fears being exploited by the media, etc. Oh well, at the nd of the month there'll be another comic to grace the airwaves. Whoopee.

-- (kosmicnanou@aol.com), June 11, 2002.

forget it. My message reached deaf ears. Deaf and dumb.

-- (kosmicnanou@aol.com), June 11, 2002.

I could understand most of your points, but after reading it however it seems to me you were simply to biased on the matter for me to take your opinion seriously. I've seen Maher's show and i dont see what the big fuss over this is.

"A Free Press does not mean corporate America has to subsidize some gasbag because he makes what some moron thinks is a good point."

Seems you need to insult a certain genre of people because they may not share your point of view. Even bringing liberalism into it. I dont know what Maher's stance on liberalism is but there isnt a need to bring up partisanship into your point. You were doing fine till you brought up what seems to be your personal beef into it.

Seems you just have something against Maher and his supporters in the first place. Perhaps you need some counciling? How about getting yourself laid and chilling out a bit over trivial stuff? Just a show, geez.

-- Athan (omageo@yahoo.com), June 13, 2002.

Its sad to see one of the few, well pretty much, THE ONLY television shows that actually bring up an issue and let people of different opinions debate it, and not hold back, and not be censored. You can dissagree with bill's views all you want, that fine, this is America, but there has never been a time where his show did not offer the other side of the coin. Their has always been a guest defending the other side.

Now with this gone I guess my only outlet for news is the internet, cuz the garbage you see on tv is so distorted and molded by corporations with agendas, liberal and conservative. It's sad that most americans are sheep and don't do any research on their own, they just buy into whatever is being told to them by some old guy with a bad tupe on sum nightly news program. hopefully another network will pick up bill, or atleast go on syndication at the least.

Another possitive effect this show has is get younger people into current events and politics. Me, myself am 18 years old, and I love to listen to and debate issues myself. When you got tv free of debate you get 1 side of the story.

-- (snubnoze@hotmail.com), June 28, 2002.