He provided examples of Reps wanting to end democracy? Okay, man. Sounds like you do need to be watching his show.

And BTW, I never even implied he shouldn't make fun of Christians, I agree 100% they are just as open to criticism/comedy as anyone else. No clue where you got that.

But the idea that he is some equal opportunity bomb-thrower is just delusion.

Well, one example was a candidate that wanted to make it more difficult for people to vote and another who said Democracy was against peace. I don't call that a rining endorsement for the perpetuation of democracy.

You're gonna go with the Reps "want to make it more difficult to vote" trope? The one that has been disproven on this board with empirical data and facts on this board countless times?? You know Georgia, the epicenter of vOtEr SuPpReSsIoN, just had the highest turnout they've ever had.

Provide us the policy Reps are pushing that aims to suppresses voters. Specifically.

Get out of one hole, start digging another I guess.

Also, since were on the subject of thwarting democracy, I'm curious as to your thoughts on the media colluding with the Democratic party to actively suppress stories that put their candidates in a bad light until after elections are concluded? How about turning intelligence agencies, who are led by unelected appointees, into partisan actors that work to undermine duly elected representatives of one party, and then subsequently lie about it?

Are those beneficial to the democratic process? Putting your thumb on the scale to make sure voters aren't informed? Using intel agencies as political weapons?

Would love to hear your thoughts. Since you're so concerned with democracy and all.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Well, one example was a candidate that wanted to make it more difficult for people to vote and another who said Democracy was against peace. I don't call that a rining endorsement for the perpetuation of democracy.

---

Link it or its bull****

Other than his views on global warming and disliking Trump, he sounds like a typical F16 poster. Almost weekly, he goes on rants against vaccines, Covid lockdowns, woke culture, cancel culture, Islam, etc.
And some people on this board are finally souring on Trump, so maybe that shouldn't even be counted as a huge difference.

Andrew Eaton? You there bud?

Rodney Ruxin said:

---

Also, since were on the subject of thwarting democracy, I'm curious as to your thoughts on the media colluding with the Democratic party to actively suppress stories that put their candidates in a bad light until after elections are concluded? How about turning intelligence agencies, who are led by unelected appointees, into partisan actors that work to undermine duly elected representatives of one party, and then subsequently lie about it?

Are those beneficial to the democratic process? Putting your thumb on the scale to make sure voters aren't informed? Using intel agencies as political weapons?

Would love to hear your thoughts. Since you're so concerned with democracy and all.

---

It's bad. It shouldn't be happening. Ask harder questions.

Saltwater Assassin said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Well, one example was a candidate that wanted to make it more difficult for people to vote and another who said Democracy was against peace. I don't call that a rining endorsement for the perpetuation of democracy.

---

Link it or its bull****

---

It was in the links that were shared with me. Look above.

So which party is harming democracy more?

Rodney Ruxin said:

---

You're gonna go with the Reps "want to make it more difficult to vote" trope? The one that has been disproven on this board with empirical data and facts on this board countless times?? You know Georgia, the epicenter of vOtEr SuPpReSsIoN, just had the highest turnout they've ever had.

Provide us the policy Reps are pushing that aims to suppresses voters. Specifically.

Get out of one hole, start digging another I guess.

---

Georgia wasn't brought up. He brought up a particular candidate for California Sec.of State and some other guy.

I never said that they GOP was trying to suppress voting rights. Good grief. Settle down and then go back and read what was written, Nancy.

Rodney Ruxin said:

---

So which party is harming democracy more?

---

I never claimed that the GOP was harming Democracy. Jesus f'in Christ. Learn to read.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Rodney Ruxin said:

---

So which party is harming democracy more?

---

I never claimed that the GOP was harming Democracy. Jesus f'in Christ. Learn to read.

---

Quote:

---

Fair enough. At least he provided examples of Republican's wanting to do what he accused them up.

---

The above was in direct reference to Maher's claim that the GOP wanted to "end democracy".

Seems I can read just fine. Your short-term memory on the other hand....

Rodney Ruxin said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Rodney Ruxin said:

---

So which party is harming democracy more?

---

I never claimed that the GOP was harming Democracy. Jesus f'in Christ. Learn to read.

---

Quote:

---

Fair enough. At least he provided examples of Republican's wanting to do what he accused them up.

---

The above was in direct reference to Maher's claim that the GOP wanted to "end democracy".

Seems I can read just fine. Your short-term memory on the other hand....

---

My claim in that sentence was that Maher provided an example of Republicans wanting to do what he accused them of. I never said the GOP wanted to end democracy. Nuance is difficult to understand when you get emotional.

That's not nuance, that's a distinction without a difference. You are affirmatively stating that Maher provided evidence for his claim, which was verbatim Republicans wanting to "end democracy". Therefore, you agree there's evidence for that claim. It's literally the only interpretation of what you said.

Now you're trying to back out by basically saying "I never said Republicans want to end democracy, I just said there's evidence they want to end democracy". And trying to couch that incoherence as nuance.

Nobody is "emotional". We are reading the words you wrote.

That fool is pandering to the middle so he doesn't have his shows removed. If you ever listened to his old shows, it was full on far left nonsense. Don't buy it.

Once again pictures are worth 1k words:



Maher started out to the left of where Elon indicated himself to start, but what's going on with Maher is effectively this shift.

Rodney Ruxin said:

---

That's not nuance, that's a distinction without a difference. You are affirmatively stating that Maher provided evidence for his claim, which was verbatim Republicans wanting to "end democracy". Therefore, you agree there's evidence for that claim. It's literally the only interpretation of what you said.

Now you're trying to back out by basically saying "I never said Republicans want to end democracy, I just said there's evidence they want to end democracy". And trying to couch that incoherence as nuance.

Nobody is "emotional". We are reading the words you wrote.

---

Back out of what? I never claimed that the GOP was trying end Democracy. For some reason, you feel like you can win by tying me to something that I never claimed or believed. It's weird.

If I believed that the GOP was trying to end Democracy, I would clearly say it. I don't believe it. You'll have to accept that or keep tilting at windmills.

A Republican said that truth was a higher virtue than democracy. Bill Maher runs with an out of contact sound bite that republicans want to end democracy.

It's dumb and it's the exact opposite of what Maher claims to stand for. At the end of the day he still a petty political hack.

I didn't "tie" you to anything. I interpreted what you posted in the most straight-forward manner possible. I just explained to you, in terms that a 5-year old could understand, how what you wrote affirmatively agrees that there is evidence that "Republicans want to end democracy". No intellectually honest person would disagree with that. Which is why you didn't address it.

I know it's hard be be an adult about it and just take the L when we've gone past our skis in an argument. But we all have to do it sometimes, or at least we should.

Quote:

---

Leftist and "Young Turks" host Cenk Uygur claimed that Maher was a culture warrior for the political right.

"Bill Maher is actually perfect for CNN to be honest. False equivalencies, propping up right-wing culture war talking points, fighting for the status quo and that smug face. [Jake] Tapper might get jealous because he might be outsmugged.

---

Whether intentional or not, this might just be the most egregious example of gaslighting that I've seen in the last year. Bill Maher on the political right? Lol at that nonsense. Nobody is going to believe that crap unless they're a CNN true believer. Or incredibly gullible & stupid

Rodney Ruxin said:

---

I didn't "tie" you to anything. I interpreted what you posted in the most straight-forward manner possible. I just explained to you, in terms that a 5-year old could understand, how what you wrote affirmatively agrees that there is evidence that "Republicans want to end democracy". No intellectually honest person would disagree with that. Which is why you didn't address it.

I know it's hard be be an adult about it and just take the L when we've gone past our skis in an argument. But we all have to do it sometimes, or at least we should.

---

You interpreted the information incorrectly. Take the L or keep tilting at windmills.

Have a good evening and best of luck.

Dude - take the L. I did earlier today where I missed where you specified "republican" president. No need to white knight for Maher or pull a muscle contorting from untenable posts.

Been wondering when this would happen. I guess we've arrived.

TheEternalPessimist said:

---

Clown world.

Maher is not on the right. Or even the middle.

The far left is mad that he simply sees holes in their arguments and calls out obvious bs from his own side. That can not be allowed.

Kind of like how Steven Crowder is on the right.

---

Maher is being attacked for he committed the number one sin that a leftest should never admit to or even whisper, the "Truth with facts".

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Once again pictures are worth 1k words:



Maher started out to the left of where Elon indicated himself to start, but what's going on with Maher is effectively this shift.

---

Moving the goalposts doesn't make Maher conservative. His entire clan is dumb. He is still a leftist and he is not over the center line no matter what nonsense his own intersectionalists say. If you ask him about very specific conservative topics he is going to fall in line with the democrats 90% of the time.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Dude - take the L. I did earlier today where I missed where you specified "republican" president. No need to white knight for Maher or pull a muscle contorting from untenable posts.

---

I'd take the L if I believed what I'm being accused of.

"accused of", i.e. what I said

Bill Maher is pretty much correct about everything he says.

Completely shocked you'd think that....

Just another godless mouthpiece.

Tom Doniphon said:

---

Completely shocked you'd think that....

---

Yes, like him, I tend to be right about the far left and the far right.

The only difference between the far right and the far left for me is that the far right is more dangerous.

Some more dangerous than others.

Tom Doniphon said:

---

Some more dangerous than others.

---

The best men I know are dangerous men. They are good because they make a moral decision to be so; not because they are afraid to do bad things.

Neehau said:

---

Tom Doniphon said:

---

Completely shocked you'd think that....

---

Yes, like him, I tend to be right about the far left and the far right.

The only difference between the far right and the far left for me is that the far right is more dangerous.

---

What's the total score on poor neighborhoods terrorized & burnt down by left looneys vs right looneys?