Maher gives ignorant, condescending liberals bad name; “ignorant condescending liberals” |
|
scream-of-consciousness; "If you're trying to change minds and influence people it's probably not a good idea to say that virtually all elected Democrats are liars, but what the hell."
Maher gives ignorant, condescending liberals bad name; “ignorant condescending liberals” |
|
"If the number of Islamic terror attacks continues at the current rate, candlelight vigils will soon be the number-one cause of global warming. " |
This will be the comment box |
I wouldn't piss on that if it was on fire.
Wished I could get past :59, but I'd rather not puke on my laptop in the interest of tolerance.
AND. I would "gladly" piss on that, fire or not, with one of those girly pisser thingys for backpacking. Then, I'd accidentally spill some camping gas. Or have our Rhodesian Ridgeback fart her skunky stink and then strike a match.... oh. I sound like them, huh? Nevermind.
I'd change the channel. :]
WV: extandso Castnaza??? ;]
You can tell he believes what he says Juice. Absolute proof that he, they, have no contact at all with real world happenings. None. The "mahers" represent the same threat level to me and mine as does any yegg.
I will condense the stupidity down to the 3 most salient points:
Quote -- "The last year, decade and month are all the hottest on record."
Paraphrase -- On the the global warming side of the debate..."every scientist in the world."
Generalization -- Global Warming is as valid as Gravity.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.
Yeah, Rodger,
As your post title indicates, for certain. Goofy Libs.
Yawn. He makes me very, very tired.
He's so brilliant he contradicted himself inside of 30 seconds. Facts aren't up for vote, but there can be consensus in science? And the irony escapes him and his brain dead audience of 6 that he IS a non-scientist lecturing about how stupid non scientists are and their opinions don't matter. We should trust what he says as fact...I mean he has a brain trust super panel which includes super sciencie scientists like Van Jones to give his drivel legitimacy. Who can argue with that?