this is an insult to thanos, at least he had a coherent ideology.

I have a gripe with translators for how they often make Trump more coherent than he really is. This lady likely produced actual complete Italian sentences that made sense and attributed them to Trump. If she submitted the alphabet soup that Trump spews she would lose her job for mocking him.

Typical liberal editing pushing uninteresting in coherent thoughts of CPAC to create a dull / dump looking event. Typical FAKE news..

I can see why such a story appeals to you, another low IQ voter who can't tell real news from fake.

If this is the sort of thing @bobknight33 watches, I can see why he has trouble forming coherent thoughts. It's like that flesh eating virus, only it goes after brains.

Every now and then, bob, you make something resembling a coherent argument for your position.

But most of the time it’s trolling like this that makes me instantly dismiss anything you have to say because you state it so childishly.

Look at @Mordhaus. I don’t agree with him on this issue, but I respect his opinion because he’s making a decent argument.

I believe you can be better. Maybe you should buy a Gillette razor?

Yeah I think in this interview he is trying to sound a little more coherent but at the end there he slips a bit back to his natural state...

I agree with every point made here... and 5, maybe 10 years ago, I would happily engage in refuting any argument for god.

But it feels like society has gone backward since then.

OF COURSE, there's no god. There's no Santa, there's no tooth fairy and there's no Zeus. Thor was in an awesome movie, but so was fucking Batman (to be clear, I'm talking about the Dark Knight, not that DCEU shite). Doesn't make either of them real.

We've all made all the same logical coherent arguments for atheism, but at this stage it's so blindingly obvious, it's ... boring.

Is there a possibility of god? Uh, fine, I guess... but it's about as likely as me being the reincarnation of Elvis.

At this stage, I no longer have the energy or the motivation to debate people who still believe. Wanna believe in god? Eh, knock yourself out, as long as you don't try to push your fairytales onto my life or the lives of others, I really don't care anymore....

So, that's zero Nazi rallies then...and I doubt you can name a single one of these peaceful KKK rallies, because those rallies are never peaceful.

Bob, you don't get to decide who can be a citizen any more than I do, fortunately. Antifa may be misguided thugs, but the right trying to dehumanize them does nothing but embolden them.

Trump is not coherent enough to be fascist, but many things he's said are fascist, as are many of his supporters. Don't try to deny it, the unite the right march was replete with shields bearing fasces.

Now, I have to chastise you for horrible reading comprehension, intentional or not. Every time I mention antifa, I denounce them and call them fascist morons, yet you still somehow lump me with them in your mind. I sincerely hope this is an intentional misdirection, as the alternative, that you honestly can't grasp that someone left of you isn't in antifa and blm (because I know that in your head they're the same thing), is incredibly sad.

Agreed, the police seem to be taking a 'wait and see what happens' approach here, I can't fathom why, but that wasn't their tactic under Obama. When antifa attacked in Berkely the first time, the cops were on them like white on rice and they dispersed...what happened.

Again with this...me and my kind with me violence. *snicker* Me and my kind don't do silly sign slapping and shouting violence, our kind of violence wakes you up at 3 am standing at the foot of your bed in a Trump mask. ;-) I ain't with those millennials throwing tantrums, they aren't anti fascist, they are fascist....and dumb. Try as you might, you won't put me in their camp, or them in mine.

With his support at all time record lows for a president, I don't know where you get this idea beyond wishful thinking. Antifa makes Trump voters? No more than Nazis and the KKK make anti Trump voters. Which crowds are larger? Good luck with that....maybe you can convince the Dems to try Clinton again...you'll need it.

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.

Once again, not an argument. At least you admit you don't have one to give.

I don't buy the "it's a waste of my time" bullshit. You "wasted" your time watching the video, reading the article, replying to the link, replying to my comment, etc. Suddenly when you're called out on your lack of argument you don't have the time. Bwahahahaaha.

Somehow I get the feeling you don't work in the field (medicine) like me, and if you are able to form a coherent argument about it, it will be from a layperson's perspective.

Creationism and homeopathy are false equivalences. Not even a good try.

Go read my reply to JustSaying above. This is how hospitals work.

Always enlightening (if rather unpleasant) to hear what some of the extreme voices like Coulter are saying. And to be fair, she was somewhat more coherent than usual.

But I thought Maher did an excellent job of asking very legitimate, logical questions and then giving her enough leash with her responses to get herself into trouble.

If you hate Trump, watch this video. And other videos from his supporters and toadies. And read the Drudge Report on occasion. Because as Sun Tzu said:

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”