Magox

As of right now, in regards to the law I am with you. 20 weeks. This is the point that is has been published that a baby has a 25% chance of surviving outside of the womb. With time, that % will go higher. Personally, once that baby has a heartbeat, No !@#$ing way could I be supportive of an abortion. I must admit, my views on this has definitely evolved. I suppose having a child is what did it for me.

Up to what point does she no longer have the right to "choose"? When the baby is born? a day before? a month? at 28 weeks? Where is your cut off point? For the record, I support a woman's right to choose but up to a certain point. At some point, that fetus in my view then becomes a baby. And a woman's right to choose does not supersede the right of that baby to live.

Did I say manslaughter? Did I? What did I say?

If she knew what she was doing would affect her child and it was somehow provable that her actions did indeed cause the miscarriage, I would absolutely be for criminal charges.

Serious question, are you a moron?

At what point do we decide to call it a baby? It is open for interpretation, but no !@#$ing way anyone can tell me that once the fetus reaches 20 weeks that it's not a !@#$ing baby!

I sense that protectionism will be on the rise.

This chick is down right shady.

Of course not, you are a liberal.

That's not the argument I made. I didn't just generalize by saying "Hey Fox and the Daily show are the same", if I had stated that, then maybe you'd have something to work with. But, that's not what I said. Remember I said, words matter. I said he is FOR liberals as what Fox is FOR Republicans, a cheerleader for the party and the causes he supports. I know you have a decent grasp of the English language, if you read those words for what they are, when someone says A is FOR B as X is FOR Y and then goes on to list a couple examples of it, that means that the person is drawing a parallel. And the parallel that was made was at the end of the sentence. And it's clear that what I said at the end of the sentence was factually correct. Which means that the first portion of it was correct as well in regards to that there are parallels between the two. You interpreted what I said into something completely different. You were trying to infer that I was stating that the two are one in the same. Nope. Not what I said.

I never said he wasn't a comedian. As a matter of fact, I even said he's a damn good one at that. What I said is that he's not JUST a comedian and the articles from both the NY Times and Politico back that up (not that we needed to read them anyway), and what I did was draw parallels to Fox news. Of course they aren't perfect parallels, rarely there ever are. But I specifically said that they are both similar in the fact that they both promote and advocate causes they support and they both do things to support the party they tend to agree with. Of course one does it with comedy, the other does it with opinion hosts who bash their opponents. End result, is pretty damn similar. They both reinforce the opinions that their viewers already had about the political party they disagree with.

That's odd, because you said So which is it? He's just a comedian or is he a comedian with an agenda? Poppycock!!!!. He's just a comedian and he's never pretended to be anything else! Sheesh!

The original underlying point is that the Daily Show provides a service to it's clients much like Fox does for theirs. The obvious parallels are that they both advocate for causes that they support and they both attempt to take on with more zeal the people they politically disagree with and at times prop up those that they tend to agree with, as evidenced in the reporting both by Politico and the NY Times. Plus, most of us didn't need to read an article to know this, it was fairly obvious. We shouldn't even be having an argument about this, it's as clear as day.

Am I aloud to laugh at this?

GreggyT is not a liar, he's just a lemming.

Now, THAT is a dumbass comparison. Do better, lemming.

Once you dig in this deep, there is no turning back.

Only the poor lemming doesn't see what everyone else see's.

Eek! No bueno!

That's another misnomer that many lemmings like to parrot. Sure, they have plenty of opinion shows that veer pretty far to the right, but they provide as much as "news" as any other cable news network. A more accurate statement would be "none of the news networks really provide that much news".

To be honest, Maher is not on the same page with liberals on a number of causes. Sure, he hates the religious right and that is what motivates him comically more than anything, but I've seen him go off script on a number of occasions.

I made mention of this earlier, but did you guys notice how FACTCHECK tried to provide context to why the worker participation rate was declining (an obvious attempted defense of the president) but provided NO context to the rosy at-face-value statistics that attempted to caste the president on an economic bright light?

Don't get me wrong, I still watch it at times for it's comedic value. **** is just funny, doesn't matter who he's ragging on, but you just gotta keep in mind that he is typically taking on the right to help the left and that he is an advocate for a number of liberal causes. You've gotta be a real lemming to not see that.

You'd think that I was insulting his grandmother or something.

You've got it all wrong, man. He's JUST a comedian and not a cheerleader of the left and their causes.