Not all "Christians", and not the top for most. Don't like abortions, don't have one works for most people.

If it had come out that Trump paid for 100 abortions for his various mistresses and daughters it wouldn't change one Christian vote.

Like I mentioned, America is by far mostly Christian, and firmly pro choice. You really don't understand American Christians. They work on Sundays, wear blended fabrics, eat shellfish, etc. Fundamentalists are frowned upon.

If you insist on being a child, I'll have to give you a time out.

I try to be as smart as I am able to, my means are humble.

Do you presume that everyone in Texas who proclaims himself a christian is obliged to have the same official christian opinion on abortions?

Dissenters to be burned at a stake on Sunday.

I do not claim to know "very fundamentals" but I am sure there are many interpretations even in Texas of what christianity is or should be. Which exactly do you have in mind?

I am glad videosift is graced by the presence of the Texas supreme christian fundamentalist who knows what people in Texas should think, the penalty for nonconformity being to "fuck off out of Texas". Sounds very unchristian to me, but what do I know about christians in Texas, right?

Well enjoy your 15 minutes of fame, Texas. Abortions dont care, they will keep on being performed, just secretly, dangerously and expensively. Lawyers will be happy. Poor people will die. In the name of preserving the life of a cluster of cells which might or might not have gone on to become a human, actual humans will be harmed.

"Two weeks ago a 30 year old came into my hospital perfectly healthy dead....dead from the swine flu."....really?! What kind of nonsense is this? How often does he treat perfectly healthy dead people? Wasn't he surprised when a dead man walked in?

Bill is 100% correct that the average American diet leads to a large percentage of American health issues across the board, and exacerbates others.

Islam today is largely fundamentalist. Any religion practiced like Islam is practiced by many today is bad and evil. That is Bill's position. Christianity had it's fundamentalist period....we call it the dark ages....it's seeing a resurgence in America.

Milo on Bill was not a platform, more an expose. He didn't look intelligent at all. Bill's show is about getting both sides of a debate, even when one side is abhorrent. It's about exposing Nazis, not pretending they're right.

Compared to right wing talking heads, Bill is 100% right about everything....which is to say, those who complain about his mistakes and odd opinions AS A COMEDIAN are invariably the same people who back outrageous nutjobs like Beck, Jones, Limbaugh, Trump, and all the other feckless and feculent right wing propagandists who never honestly explain positions they disagree with and always create paper tigers and windmills to fight. Bill has them on to have their say in their own words to expose the insanity, and often goes on to contradict them.

BTW, Bill did get fully vaccinated for Covid....and one month ago he contracted it anyway. This broke his perfect attendance record of never missing a show since 93. He is not a crazed anti vaxer, he simply believes in America that the health crisis and poor overall health of Americans comes mainly from our diets since >70% of us are overweight and >42% are clinically obese. He's right.

President of wallbuilders llc?
Wallbuilders llc-a right-wing advocacy and media organization that promotes alternative versions of history attempting to frame the United States as a fundamentalist Christian nation, despite the founding fathers unanimously and clearly stating it is not one.

this right here is what drives me absolutely bonkers.

you proceed from a false premise:
that "wealth" translates to being less corruptible.

blindly ignoring what wealth actual not only IS,but what it represents to the elite class in America.

power.

so could we please STOP with how much trump is actually worth,as if it has any inherent meaning in terms of power?


i do not understand wasting time with an ideologue,or dissecting his obviously conflicting comments as somehow expressing a clear and definable philosophy.these people play in the realm of cult of personality,spectacle and magical thinking.

their adoration for a particular public figure is cultish,and has very little to do with reality but more how their idol represents an ideal that they feel very strongly about.

so are we really surprised that bob will give Alexandria ocasio cortez a nod for exposing how easy it is to corrupt the system,but then conveniently excuse his idol and give him a pass based on the flimsiest of reasons:wealth.

when it was Alexandria ocasio cortez's lightning round that exposed how it is actually EASIER for the executive branch and the president to sell their influence for money.

but to bob,and how he sees things,the very idea that trump would ever engage in a breach of morality,and break his promise to the American people...is preposterous,...because trump already has money,why would he sell his integrity?

because BOB has integrity.
because BOB would never break a promise.
this is basic projection of ones morality onto a figure they admire.
we can apply the exact same metric to those who voted for Obama.same thing.same results.

you will never get bob to admonish his hero,because that hero represents the IDEA of what bob is projecting,not the actual reality.

fundamentalists engage in the exact same magical thinking.

so how can i get mad for bob,and the other trumpsters of the world?
i pity them.
because delusional dreams always crash on the shores of the real eventually.

and that is going to be a sad day for bob.

I'm sure they will gain more overall customers because they are owned by Proctor & Gamble. As I mentioned originally, there will be plenty of women and white knights who jump at the chance to support a company who decided to tag along onto the #metoo movement.

To me, that is part of the reason why I dislike this commercial so much. Not just because of it's huge and sweeping generalizations (practically every scene has one), but because their ad department had to know that an edgy commercial would do the same thing for them as it did for Nike. Does anyone think that the majority of actual corporate level people at Gillette/P&G give two fucks about #metoo? I know I don't.

It's just an ad targeted at a huge group of people that are easy to take potshots at currently. I find it little different than attack ads run by fucktards that want to condemn all Muslims for the act of terrorists or fundamentalist jihadists. The most screwed up thing about that analogy is that, realistically, there are largish groups of Islamic people that actually will cheer and throw celebrations when there is a terrorist attack. Yet you would be hard put to find large swaths of men out in the streets cheering on the effects of so called Toxic Masculinity.

Yes, we as men need to speak out. We need to support the evolution of mankind away from barbarism. But we don't need to succumb to propaganda that tries to purport that a man seeing a pretty lady walk past shouldn't attempt to say hi or introduce himself to her because that is bad. This ad, with one of the sweeping generalizations I mentioned earlier, would have you think that it is HORRIBLE for a man to do that and that a 'responsible' man would body check that guy. Because men should never try to meet women, only remain passive and allow the woman to come to them. I say fuck that, it is wrong to catcall women, but there is nothing wrong with going up and saying hi. This ad (and some other internet videos) would have you think it's the equivalent of throwing the lady down in the middle of a crowded walkway and having your way with her.

The ad could have been better, there were moments like the Terry Crews scene that I agree with, but they took the easy way out and just slammed men in general.

I'll see your 650k fetuses and raise you 14 dead walking, talking, breathing schoolkids. The first is primarily the concern of political opportunists, religious fundamentalists and people who seem far too interested in controlling other people's sex lives. The latter is the concern of, well, pretty much everyone.

@ChaosEngine

i am trying to unpack your comment.

so you AGREE that attacking people you disagree with ideologically is wrong,but only if they are not self-identified nazis?

because 90 years ago these guys kinda cornered the market in nazism? and well..we don't wanna see a repeat of THAT now do we? so let's punch them in the face....

and that somehow punching them in the face will somehow magically halt any further encroachment of those dirty nazis!!!!

because it was so effective in the 1930's?

ok..how about this...

how about we daydream about cockpunching these knuckleheads,because it brings a smile to our faces but NOT actually punch them?

instead...we allow these cunts..who came to this gig LOOKING for a fight..to bluster and foam at the mouth.to spew their vile and vulgar message of racism dressed up as nationalistic pride,so EVERYONE can see.

and i bet you dollars to donuts one of them knuckledragging retards,who came all gussied up for a rumble...is gonna make a mistake...that inbreeder is gonna just HAVE to use his home made mace,or his shiny new gopher poker on someone...

probably one of dem darn "libtards".

and in this age of cell phone vigilantism,this is gonna get caught on video,posted to youtube and KABOOM!

white nationalist racist nazi party is forced back underground.

because you CANNOT fight fascism with a different flavor of fascism.

fascism is fascism yo,just because one flavor may taste better to your buds don't change that very simple truth.

the problem in this setting is you have TWO groups who are addicted to identity politics,and BOTH are convinced of their own righteousness,and BOTH groups suffer from a horrid case of groupthink.

and this ideological stand has them both certain of their righteousness,and this gives them a moral certitude that violence is an acceptable answer.

because they are the righteous.

sound familiar?

you mentioned 100 years ago,
i will match your 100 years and counter with the previous 5,000.

ideology homie..
the cancer of the deluded.
just ask any fundamentalist christian,or muslim,or jew.....

they will be perfectly happy to tell you how RIGHT they are,and how WRONG you are.

and this shit?
^ this psycho shit?
this is just a puss pocket,erupting from the internal corruption feeding on my countries soul.

economic collapse ain't gonna bring my country down.
nope..
it is gonna be the polarized politics that finally takes this country out.

i hate this..i seriously hate this...

Yeah, I pretty much agree with all of that, especially around cigars (they're simply not as much of a problem).

And in general, a bit of common courtesy goes a long way. If you're in a beer garden and someone sits at a communal table with you, they should have the decency to ask if it's ok to smoke, and the reverse applies also. If you sit down at a table and someone is already smoking, you don't really have the right to ask them to stop.

There isn't really an easy answer to any of this... it's the issue of individual rights vs collective good, and there just isn't a single correct answer to that. If you think there is, you're either naive or a fundamentalist ideologue with no concern for practicality (either way).

how did this thread steer into climate change waters?
heh...god i love this site,and i love all you fuckers as well!

i don't really understand the rehashing of the election,trump is president.it is a done deal.

which is probably why i am struggling with the hillary diehards.politics is not a binary equation,so stop acting like it IS,and for the love of god stop with the condescension directed at people who did not vote YOUR way.ya'all are acting like we are your wayward dog who just took a giant dump on your carpet.

just LOOK at what you have done! LOOK at it! bad dog..baaaad dog.

@Stormsinger and @MilkmanDan were kind enough to share who they voted for,but they should not be put in a position to defend their vote.their vote,their choice and their right.

you may disagree,and that is fine,but to place all the blame on them,and their "like-minded compatriots" is arrogant,presumptuous and condescending.the reason hillary lost is not simply due to a few small holdouts.there are a myriad of reasons,and in my opinion,hillary should take most of the blame.

and what is this purity test @bareboards2 ?
do you mean a person standing by their principles?
remaining steadfast in their moral values?
showing us all that they would rather lose,than give up one ounce of integrity?

are you seriously criticizing people for holding to their own standards of morality and decency?

politics is not binary,there a many mitigating factors and political affilliation is only one aspect.

i have seen friends who voted for trump,and were extremely vocal about their support in the run up to election day,only to become eerily silent the further we got into trumps presidency.many of these people had voted for obama..TWICE..they wanted change.were desperate for change,and now they are finding out,that change may not be what they were expecting.

because the trump presidency is going to one helluva horror show,but there are also positives to consider.it is not a total loss.

i have the seen the very same people who have ridiculed and berated fundamentalist christians for being ideologically rigid,and philosophically immovable.turn around and express the exact same rigidity,and binary thought processes when it comes to their girl hillary clinton.

i was talking the other day with a man i highly respect and admire,who flippantly and casually called me a racist.
my crime?
i had the audacity to criticize obama.
which he doubled down and accused me of being sexist for not supporting hillary,and being critical of her as well.

how is this NOT ideological rigidity?
that to critically examine two prominent public figures automatically equates to:racism and sexism.

this is the metric that i see so many hillary supporters use when dealing with someone that they may disagree.this is a cheap,ill thought and ultimately WEAK counter to valid criticisms.

at what point do hillary supporters stop labeling other people the most vile of terms,simply because they did not step into line with THEIR thinking,and begin to examine the very REAL problems that both the hillary campaign,and the DNC,created for themselves?

or is everybody simply a racist and sexist?
that's it..no discussion.

this is akin to the fundamentalist christian labeling anybody who disagrees with their religion,or has brought up solid criticisms,as being an agent of satan.

" i do not like what you are saying about hillary,so therefore you must be a sexist".

the easiest,and most human,thing we do when faced with information and/or criticism that is in direct opposition to our long held beliefs.is to demonize the person making those claims,and therefore silence any further disruption to our own subjective belief system.

so when i talk about "insulated bubbles",and "echo chambers".that right there is what i am referring to,and it is dangerous.

i refuse to judge anybody on how they voted.they had their reasons,and i may even disagree with those reasons,but they have a right to their vote and who am i to judge them?

rehashing the election,or assigning blame based on ideological differences,accomplishes nothing.the REAL work starts now.trump is in office,and he is gearing up to be an unmitigated disaster.

so get involved.head to your next town hall meeting and speak your piece.start to connect with the political movements in your area and start to put pressure on your local representative.

i think we can all agree that trump is awful on so many levels,but to witness the american people become so politically engaged,so politically active,more active than they have been in decades.it really is inspiring,and all this is due to trump.

if hillary had won,would we see the same kind of newly energized,and politically active public?

i don't think so.

so let us stop with the rehashing.
stop with the blaming.
and get off our asses,step outside our own little,insulated echo chamber and start to engage.

don't know how to step outside your own bubble?
there is an app for that:
https://videosift.com/video/it-is-time-to-pop-your-social-media-echo-chamber-bubble

*oh,and even though i may have alluded to who i voted for.let me state clearly that i voted for hillary.i stick by my dislike of the "lesser of two evils" but come on...trump in the white house?

yeeesh....

Patriotism is not bad, fundamentalist patriotism as an ideology is bad.

Patriotism or its effect is really just a will to support and defend a local community that can then defend itself from external forces and organize internal infrastructure and services.

National states just happen to be strongly defined communities that can be organized fairly easily.

As with other ideologies it is important to try to not let one take over the state without any recourse.

Misuse of xenophobia in politics is just as worrying as the apparent lack of will to defend the "European community" from external forces. No one is willing to die in trenches in the name of Europe just yet. And there is still a lot of internal xenophobia within Europe.

The Sift isn't in to..doxxing...but despite the host's best attempts to disappear in the past 12 hrs...her info is all over the web.

The most bizarre part (or maybe not?)---she is an ESL teacher...attended two fundamentalist colleges, one for a masters.

Strange. Or not?

when radical right wingers,who lean towards an authoritarian,dogmatic way of approaching certain subjects,yet will attempt to disguise their bigotry,prejudice or hatred under the banner of "free speech",or nationalistic pride" and even sometimes "common sense" (because in THEIR world view,thats what it is to them:common sense).

they receive pushback,and rightly so,because you have to allow them to express their ideas in a public forum for the diseased and twisted philosophy to be exposed for the shit ideas they were in the first place.

but if you disagree with their philosophical viewpoint,and deal with that disagreement by shouting them down,calling them horrendous names,disrupt their chance to express those ideas you disagree with,and in some cases..engage in violence..you lose the moral high ground,and whatever solid argument you had to either destroy,or at least reveal their position for the shit idea you think it may be.will be automatically dismissed by those looking from the outside in.

because you have engaged in tactics that lessen what could have been an extremely important point by becoming the very thing you state you oppose.

you do not fight authoritarian fascism.....with authoritarian,and sometimes violent...fascism.it does not work,in fact the only thing it does it weaken your position and make you look like the very thing you are opposing.

in the free market of ideas,philosophies,ideas,viewpoints,political positions all need to be openly aired in this market to be either accepted as 'good' and "worthwhile" or "of substantial consideration",or be rejected for the shit ideas they are,but they need to be openly spoken and/or written in order for people to even consider those ideas.

when you shut down any and all opportunities for a person to even SPEAK about these ideas,and using tactics that can only be considered "bullying' and "shaming".you shut own any and all conversation without the idea itself being challenged,and BOTH sides go to their respective corners still convinced of their own "righteousness",and nothing was actually addressed.

both the ultra left and the ultra right are guilty of this tactic,and in the end we all lose,but especially those players in their particular realm of ideologies.

because now they can sit happily and contentedly in their own little,tiny echo chamber bubble with their other,like-minded people,and congratulate themselves on their own righteousness.even though they were the ones who shut down all challenge,all criticism and all scrutiny.

if your ideas,and/or philosophies cannot withstand a modicum of scrutiny or criticism,then maybe those ideas were shit to begin with.

so shouting someone down,and being so disruptive as to make it impossible for that person to even begin to articulate their position,is not a "win".you did not strike a blow for equality or justice,because you pulled a fire alarm,or violently attacked a person you disagreed with.

you lost your moral high ground,and anybody who may have been on the fence,or was simply curious and wanted to hear a differing opinion.saw how you behaved when your ideas were challenged,and they outright dismissed you and your cause.

the only people you have left in your circle are the very same people who agree with you already.so enjoy the circle jerk of the self-righteous,but do not delude yourself for one second that you are "right",or have struck a blow for "justice" and "fairness".

i have been accused of being "anti-sjw", a 'closet bigot" and (this is my favorite) 'a cis-gender white privileged oppressor".

as if the goals i seek are not dissimilar as everybody elses:equality,fairness and justice.

but when i point out the wrong headed tactics of attacking innocent people just trying to listen to a persons opinions,which may possibly be:racist,bigoted and antithetical to a fair and just society.that is when i am attacked,and it is done so with the most arrogant of presumptions,with little or no evidence to back up their personal attacks upon me.

because i had the audacity to question the tactics of the protesters,and defended that speakers right to free speech.

you are free to express whatever little thought pops into your pretty little head,and i have the right ridicule you relentlessly.you are free to espouse your opinions and philisophical ideologies,but you are NOT free from offense.

because,ultimately,in the free market of ideas,if your ideas are shit.someone WILL call you out on them,and if you think the tactic of shouting people down,disrupting their lecture and/or attacking the attendees somehow makes you "right" or your cause "morally justified".it does not.it just makes you look exactly like the people you are disagreeing with,and not for nothing..it kinda make you look fucking stupid.

so let those people talk.
let them make their ill-thought arguments.
allow them to spew rhetoric and propaganda,and do what should be done in a free market of ideas.

destroy their argument,with logic,reason and a sense of fairness and justice that appeals to the majority of us.

and i mean,come on,let's be honest.there are certain portions of the population that are true believers.you are not going to change their minds but for those who are NOT fundamentalist,dogmatic thinkers,use your brains,talk to them,destroy those who propose ill-thought and bullshit arguments to reveal them for the sychophants they are.

don't be attacking them.
do not engage in violence,or disruptive behavior.
because then you lose any credibility before you have even begun.

that's my .02 anyways,take it for what it is worth.

@transmorpher
then i mispoke,or you didn't understand.
i was addressing large swaths of history,so if it appeared i was making 'all things are fair,and equal" argument.

i apologize.

how about this:
at this point in history,it is islam that is by far the greatest threat to liberal democracies across the globe.they are threat to the process of democracies,and an even greater threat where they hold positions of political power.

the impetus and motivations that help promote,and therefor create a religious form of an echo chamber,which exponentially increases populations vulnerable to fundamentalist interpretations.either by force or fear,must be challenged.

always,and without reservation.
because to sit back and do nothing.....
/points to the dark ages.

that better?

i have no fear of drawing MO,nor calling out bad theosophy and even worse politics.

i am a man of faith,and my faith dictates my politics.

so i hoped i cleared that last bit up,and was clearer with my words.
goodnight man,i am whooped.

I totally agree that all religions have a problem, and all cultures have violence, fundamentalists, and other issues, but it's dishonest to say that they are all equal in problems, equally serious, equally harmful, or that the problems are equally widespread, equally ingrained in the culture, and especially equally represented by law and the government.

It's about rates, scale and motivation.

It would be dishonest to claim that there is no difference. Yet that is what it appears to be that's what you're suggesting.

Perhaps when you can draw big old Mo without the fear that someone will come after you, then we can start to talk about how equal all this is.