Your video, jim jefferies-charlottesville white supremacist rally, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Bill Burr is much improved in recent years, I think. He seems to have learned some important lessons from Jim Jefferies and Louis CK. You can say objectively horrible things -- as long as you tell the absolute truth and don't "punch down."

That was why he said that disclaimer, I think. He punched down on kids and parents frightened that their children will be molested. So he had to tell the truth to make up for it -- He doesn't believe that. It is just a "theory." And the audience needed to hear the complete truth.

Or so it seems to me.

Your video, The New Healthcare Plan Is A Secret - The Jim Jefferies Show, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Your video, Jim Jefferies visits Melania Trump's Hometown, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Yes, how about that, "the argument followed". (I've got a screen shot of that. It's now my wallpaper. Lol. Jk).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry's_law (I've done it before - and no doubt I'll do it again).

"Is that somehow above your comprehension level, so not coherent to you?" Yes, that's it. Clearly it's above my "comprehension level". Lol. So, have you got a clip showing Trump calling it a Muslim ban. Because I googled it and couldn't find one. Is there evidence that Muslim's are banned from the USA? I can't see any. I googled it but apparently the majority of Muslims in the world have no travel ban (it was a geographic ban, not a religious one). Apparently the Obama administration had already designated travel conditions on those seven countries and this is an extension of those conditions. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/feb/07/reince-priebus/were-7-nations-identified-donald-trumps-travel-ban/

I don't dispute that the list is not well thought out (by either administration). I don't dispute that the majority religion affected is Islam. I do dispute that it is singularly a Muslim ban, because it's not. It bans everyone from those nations. If you want to dispute this fact, then please provide some evidence. Jim Jefferies got it wrong.

Where did I defend anyone? I called out Jefferies. I can't see any words where I defend anyone.

I didn't support or vote for anyone. I'm not an American citizen. I'm looking from the outside in - and that gives me a good perspective.

No, it wasn't. I said AN argument followed. If you want to be niggling, be correct. Arguments came before AND after. (Edit:ok, looking back, I did say "the argument followed" my mistake here, but not there, argument did follow. I did not intend that to mean the ONLY argument followed, just that one did.)

"He said it was a Muslim ban"is pretty understandable to me....as is "it is a Muslim ban". Is that somehow not coherent to you?

Whether you voted for him or not, whether you intend it or not, whether you like him or not, by defending this Trump (non) apologist and denying those statements are an argument against the claim that there's no Muslim ban, you are at least tacitly supporting Trump who's making the same argument in court, that argument being that his calling for and promising a Muslim ban in the campaign and now saying the travel ban is "keeping his campaign promises" in no way make it a Muslim ban (unless you are a room of far right leaners).

"Cogent" depends largely on the listener.

That's the claim, that he offered no argument.

I only addressed that point, when argument was offered, because you seemingly myopicly targeted what you thought was a mistake that made your point.

If I understood it and found it convincing, it's cogent....and I do.

I finally agree with something you said...in part....Jim Jefferies is a loud mouthed verbally aggressive comedian.
But, I think "He (Trump) called it a Muslim ban." is a cogent, coherent, and concise argument. Edit:so do the lawyers suing to stop the ban. ;-)

I watched it when it aired, the whole thing.
I'm not desperate, nor do I care a whit about Jim, I don't like him, he's as much an ass as Morgan, I care that a good argument against bullshit isn't discarded because you can't or won't grasp it. I never claimed he made the argument well, or that he didn't ramble, just that he offered an argument, it made sense, and it is applicable.

I don't recall who invoked Hitler first, but if I remember correctly, they both did in the full show. Since Jefferies came out later, it was probably Morgan before Jefferies made his appearance, but I can't be sure.

And PS- I hate Clinton almost as much as Trump. I supported Sanders, the only honest person that ran.

Lol. That's the funniest shit I've read all day.

Your and my definition of destroy must be very different.

It was YOUR contention that any argument "followed" rather than preceded. If you don't want to be held to a claim, don't make it. Funny, that's the same as any good atheist would argue.

I wrote "any coherent arguments". I was quite specific. His "arguments" are a rambling stream of consciousness with a few statements that don't support any ideas to form a coherent argument.

Now here's where you fucked up big time: "you Trump supporters". Get ready to eat a bag of dicks because you got that wrong. I'm not. Buy them here https://www.amazon.com/Bag-Of-Dicks-Sent-Anonymously/dp/B01GKEUY1Y

"when given a cogent argument" bwhahahahahaaha. Yeah, he's not cogent.

"against your claims" bwahahahaahahaa. What claims did I make (besides Jim Jefferies not presenting an argument)?

" you consistently ignore it to focus on some insignificant, off topic bullshit, like "That proceeded-not followed-"Fuck off"" Bwhahahahahaa. This doesn't cover your mistake. You made a claim. I held you to it and pointed out that even if I didn't hold you to it you'd still fail. You're the one focusing on that point.

"when cogent arguments both preceded and followed the excellent retort to his utter bullshit." Bwhahahaahahaa. Except they didn't. You can say it's a cogent argument but that doesn't make it true. FFS I provided the transcript - it's right above - with no coherent/cogent arguments in it. I'll give the concession here that your standard for cogent/coherent may be lower than mine. "the excellent retort" is not excellent. It's a great example of someone with not much to say. It's verbal diarrhoea of someone who can't immediately think of a good retort.

Get over it mate. Jim Jefferies is a loud mouthed verbally aggressive comedian who doesn't present any good arguments in this discourse. He's great at shutting down his opponents by cutting them off with vitriol and bullshit but that's about it.

Oh, and Piers Morgan is a dick. Lol, how handy, you can add him to the bag your eating.

This segment is so short that unless you go and watch the whole thing (which I haven't) you're basically making an educated guess about what they're even arguing about.

I don't know why you're so desperate for Jim to be right. Every argument against Trump and his policies is not automatically cogent, coherent, correct, etc., even if one hates him.

Lastly, Godwin's law. He loses.

PS - This is getting boring. Unless you can assure me that you're non-partisan, and follow through with it in your arguments, I'm not willing to further discuss this with a proverbial pigeon.

"the argument followed"...

Things Jim Jefferies said:
"She wouldn't have a Muslim ban
Oh fuck off
Fuck off
It's a fucking Muslim ban
He said there was a Muslim ban, there's a Muslim ban
It's, k, this is what you do, this is what you do Piers, you say "he hasn't done this, he hasn't done that, he's not going to do all these things", give him a fucking chance mate, you know what I mean? 'Cause Hitler didn't kill The Jews on the first day, he worked up to it.
Not ridicu... if people got hysterical in Germany right away then it wouldn't of...
You just like, you just like that you won The Apprentice and have a famous friend mate, that's all you fucking like, that's all you like
I'm not losing my audience, am I losing it?
Fuck off."

Things Jim Jefferies didn't say: any coherent arguments.

Your video, Jim Jefferies tells Piers Morgan to Fuck Off, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Your video, Jim Jefferies -- Airplane Etiquette, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 10 Badge!

Well, first off, the part about sterilising and killing was pretty obviously tongue in cheek, although I take your point that some Trump supporters might make the same point seriously.

That said, I have an expectation that the people on this site are smart enough to read what I said as comic hyperbole. As for it being in poor taste, that's up to the listener. I certainly found it in much better taste than Jim Jeffries bit on Bill Cosby, but as you quoted Reginald D Hunter "take it from the rest of us who did laugh--it was fuckin' funny."

All comedy aside, I was being 100% serious when I said that if you really believe in something so much that no evidence will change your mind, then you shouldn't be voting let alone running for office.

As for getting the same response at the DNC.... you're almost certainly right. It would be about different issues (probably vaccines, GMOs and the like), but they would be just as wrong as the Republicans.

That anger is real and not at all misguided. Woolly thinking has held the human race back for millennia and caused untold suffering and horror: racism/slavery, sexism, homophobia, the "war on drugs", climate change, alternative medicine.... do I need to go on?

I'm not saying you can't have a firmly held belief, and I'm not even saying that everything you believe must be fully supported by evidence, but everyone (myself included) should be willing to at least question their own dogma.

"Would you reconsider in the face of new evidence?" should be the simplest question to answer for anyone.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Jim-Jefferies-Guns-Are-Not-Protection

Jim Jefferies - Guns Are Not Protection has been added as a related post - related requested by notarobot.

Jim Jefferies on Vaccinating his child (autism Prequel) has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579 on that post.

Jim Jefferies on Vaccinating his child (autism Prequel) has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579 on that post.