Liberal Forum

*Huey » 25 Jul 2025, 2:31 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jul 2025, 2:31 pm

I have been watching him for decades.  Even before his Comedy Central Politically Incorrect days, when Arriana H was a conservative and she did that skit strange bedfellows with AL Franken.

He really hasn't changed in my opinion

That's it!  He's still who he is, and he's telling his own left, "you guys are creepy".   
 

*Huey » 25 Jul 2025, 11:15 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jul 2025, 11:15 am

Bill hasn't changed.  He is still an old school liberal.  He is not a modern day far left progressive.  It seems the start of the split began when he went to install solar panels and all the red tape he had to go thru.  The permits and fees and inspections.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sVBbU0Bd6NE
 

*Huey » 25 Jul 2025, 2:31 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jul 2025, 2:31 pm

I have been watching him for decades.  Even before his Comedy Central Politically Incorrect days, when Arriana H was a conservative and she did that skit strange bedfellows with AL Franken.

He really hasn't changed in my opinion

Well, your opinion of your opinion is higher than my opinion of your opinion. 

I watched him bully every Bernie-Bro guest he had during the 2016 election to take a loyalty oath to hitlery klingon "if" she "won" the primary (wink wink). He required no such oath of hitlery supporters "if" Bernie won, because he knew the fix was in, and he was helping to put the fix in. That is the action of a full blown, "in on it" democrat party apparatchik - full stop, beyond any wheedling ****. 

Now, unless you are ridiculously claiming that back in the old days he was a sold out hack taking marching orders from the democrat party, I have to say that your opinion is 100% pure ****, sir. 
 

Cannonpointer » 25 Jul 2025, 1:46 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jul 2025, 1:46 am

A king would be good, too - preferable to whatever this abortion is called.

You go ahead and take Maher at face value, midwit. It suits you.

Seems Maher has been pivoting for quite awhile now.

Wish liberals had more Bill Maher types 

See him on tv ocassionally seems have a good head on his shoulders most of time
 

Cannonpointer » 25 Jul 2025, 1:55 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jul 2025, 1:55 pm

So he convinced you, then. Good.

It's important tohim to remain relevant. 

You can be his new fan, bless your heart.

Naw ...I JUST like to call a spade, a spade !

Just like I will give John Fetterman his due for speaking the TRUTH... It DOESN'T mean I'd vote for him necessarily.  BUT, I have a tendency to BELIEVE that John Fetterman BELIEVES what he's saying, and that HE BELIEVES it's for the good of America... and even though he's a liberal deep down... at LEAST he's NOT a Communist !

Same goes for Bill Maher !

Cannonpointer » 25 Jul 2025, 1:55 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jul 2025, 1:55 pm

So he convinced you, then. Good.

It's important tohim to remain relevant. 

You can be his new fan, bless your heart.

When you see how dumb this forum is, you no longer marvel at the prowess of Tiny Hat propaganda 

Cannonpointer » 25 Jul 2025, 7:31 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jul 2025, 7:31 pm

Well, your opinion of your opinion is higher than my opinion of your opinion. 

I watched him bully every Bernie-Bro guest he had during the 2016 election to take a loyalty oath to hitlery klingon "if" she "won" the primary (wink wink). He required no such oath of hitlery supporters "if" Bernie won, because he knew the fix was in, and he was helping to put the fix in. That is the action of a full blown, "in on it" democrat party apparatchik - full stop, beyond any wheedling ****. 

Now, unless you are ridiculously claiming that back in the old days he was a sold out hack taking marching orders from the democrat party, I have to say that your opinion is 100% pure ****, sir.

But his ideology was not aligned with Bernie.  

LowIQTrash » 26 Jul 2025, 1:37 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2025, 1:37 am

When you see how dumb this forum is, you no longer marvel at the prowess of Tiny Hat propaganda 

0-9 stages of evolution your mind doesn't count 0-1 factually life by 1-10 stages of development of tomorrows daily here.

0. no homo sapiens exist
1. first generation gap arrived to become 16 original great great grandparent generation living when great great grandchildren arrive one at a time.

2. First 2nd generation of 8 great grandparents arrived one at a time with siblings that never reproduced a 3rd generation or outlived their offspring.

3. First 3rd generation of 4 grandparents following the same results of the 2 previous generations

4. First 4th generation of 2 parenting another generation gap of sons, daughters, cousins that made original generation gap the original great great grndparents of current global population within this species daily here where chromosomes are combined combinations of streaming DNA displacements.

5. First Arriving great great grandchildren

6. 5th generation of 2 parents become 50% each son or daughter same way original 16 great great grandparents did adapting in space per heart beat forward now.

7. cycles within the circle of life metaphor of ancestors actually living when eternally separated so far in plain sight 5th generation becomes grandparents or physically having 25% relative chromosomes in each great great grandchild born and life still hasn't duplicated an ancestor twice.

8. 5th generation gap parents become 1 of 8 great grandparents in life daily here.

9. 5th generation gap parenting a 6th, alive or dead, becomes 1 of 16 great great grandparents.

All the facts in history defy this sequence of events naturally going forward for the last 7,000 years in this species regardless ancestral lineage being black, brown, yellow, red, caucasian, and all hybrids included as male or female additions to the species regardless gender's intellectual biases or identity.

*31stArrival » 26 Jul 2025, 6:21 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2025, 6:21 am

 

You really could do a great remake of "Driving Miss Daisy". She Loves Me.. She Loves You Not..

AI Overview
The stages of evolution and human development you described appear to be a personal framework rather than reflecting established scientific understandings of evolution and population genetics. 
Here are some key differences from widely accepted scientific understanding:
Absence of Homo sapiens: Your first stage states that no Homo sapiens exist. In evolutionary biology, Homo sapiens have evolved over a long period from earlier hominin species.
Generation Gaps and Ancestral Counts: The specific numbers and dynamics of generations (e.g., 16 great-great-grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, etc.) don't align with the principles of genetic inheritance and population growth patterns.
While you inherit 50% of your DNA from each parent, the proportion inherited from more distant ancestors is approximate and decreases with each generation.
There's no guarantee of inheriting DNA from every ancestor, especially those further back in time.
DNA Duplication and Ancestral Relationships: The notion of never duplicating an ancestor's DNA twice and the specific 25% chromosome contribution don't fully capture the complexity of genetic inheritance.
Recombination shuffles genetic material during the formation of eggs and sperm, leading to unique combinations in each offspring.
Shared ancestry with individuals across generations is common, and you may share segments of DNA with many relatives, even distantly related ones, depending on how recombination occurred. 
In contrast to the described framework, scientific understanding of evolution and human population growth involves the following:
Evolution involves natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow, and mutation acting on populations over extended periods, which leads to changes in species.
Human population growth has increased rapidly in recent centuries, influenced by advances in medicine, technology, and agriculture. However, growth rates are predicted to slow in the future.
A unique blend of DNA is inherited from parents, with approximately 50% from each. As generations pass, the percentage of DNA inherited from specific ancestors decreases. Recombination ensures that the mix of DNA is unique even among siblings. 
It's important to differentiate between a personal framework and scientifically established knowledge. Scientific understanding relies on evidence and rigorous testing through methods like scientific inquiry. 
 

Johnny You » 26 Jul 2025, 6:57 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2025, 6:57 am

You really could do a great remake of "Driving Miss Daisy". She Loves Me.. She Loves You Not..

AI Overview
The stages of evolution and human development you described appear to be a personal framework rather than reflecting established scientific understandings of evolution and population genetics. 

 

Stages of evolving one of a kind daily alive now.
0. point of origin is being conceived by 2 parents.
1. fertilized cell begins to divide into body parts of the same chromosomes until decomposed.
2. zygote developing until a heart beat starts.
3. embryo exists until all body parts exist as a fetus.
4. fetus develops enough to exist outside the womb.
5. birth 0-9 months after origin.
6. infant regardless male or female child.
7. Toddler stating to navigate space as one at a kind.
8. Adolescent
9. Puberty
10. Adulthood.
11. Parenthood or not.
12. grandparent hood or not
13. great grandparenthood or not
14. great great grandparenthood or not.
15. dead and decomposing that happens after became 1 of 2 parents or not. Outlived offspring, offspring's offspring or not.
16. species becomes extinct at the time no more great great grandchildren arrive again.

Now you keep debating realities setup as 2 sided outcomes 24/7 like it is gospel by science fiction, spiritual fantasies, or promised better economic futures than genetic outcomes so far.

Intellectual Armageddon is when an instinctive brain can actually defeat social consensus of every narrative governing artificial factual tomorrows daily 365.2422 days a year, here, now.

the world wide web is a tool for intellectual minds to try and develop a one world order beyond actual time adapting since conceived.

Specificity of how, why, what, where, when, which, whom, lived or alive existed in plain sight relative to generation gap occupying space cradle to grave in this atmosphere into this rotation of the planet so far.

specificity of corruption means, motives, methods, power of suggestion, mayhem, madness, misery placed upon anyone defying those orchestrating tomorrows 7 days a week any generation gap living now.

I know how tyranny governs ancestries from personal experience of being governed by malcontents that won't accept life for all it has been in plain sight.

Bill Maher is just another malcontent sustaining intellectual methodologies of expanding sibling rivalries to global social behavior between practicing ideologies promising better tomorrows than genetics evolved so far.

*Huey » 26 Jul 2025, 5:47 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2025, 5:47 am

But his ideology was not aligned with Bernie.

Sigh.

He used his show as a control mechanism to influence the nomination. The purpose of bullying bernie-bro guests to sign a loyalty oath was to corrode the purity of those guests and any who aligned with them. It was to bully the left wing into line, to say, "Hey, if Hitlery wins it sucks, but better Hitlery than Trump." All the while knowing that the fix was in, that the press was going to carry Hitlery no matter what and that the party's REAL bosses would defeat democracy with so-called super-delegates while the press massaged public perceptions of this fascism. He was part of the machine, with his queer shoulder to the wheel. 

You know a thing by its functions - not by its protestations. FUNCTIONALLY, he was a democrat party apparatchik. And he's a very smart guy. He didn't stumble into that. He wasn't a useful idiot. He was a witting participant in pushing hitlery on the democ rats. 
 
 

Cannonpointer » 26 Jul 2025, 8:18 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2025, 8:18 am

*Huey » 26 Jul 2025, 5:47 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2025, 5:47 am

But his ideology was not aligned with Bernie.

Sigh.

He used his show as a control mechanism to influence the nomination. The purpose of bullying bernie-bro guests to sign a loyalty oath was to corrode the purity of those guests and any who aligned with them. It was to bully the left wing into line, to say, "Hey, if Hitlery wins it sucks, but better Hitlery than Trump." All the while knowing that the fix was in, that the press was going to carry Hitlery no matter what and that the party's REAL bosses would defeat democracy with so-called super-delegates while the press massaged public perceptions of this fascism. He was part of the machine, with his queer shoulder to the wheel. 

You know a thing by its functions - not by its protestations. FUNCTIONALLY, he was a democrat party apparatchik. And he's a very smart guy. He didn't stumble into that. He wasn't a useful idiot. He was a witting participant in pushing hitlery on the democ rats. 
 
 

 

I don't disagree to a point but he has not changed his ideology over the years.

*Huey » 26 Jul 2025, 8:20 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2025, 8:20 am

I don't disagree to a point but he has not changed his ideology over the years.

He doesn't really have any ideology. He has agendas. Legalize weed, defend homos, defend israel, trash traditional values, stay in front of the parade. 

His born again arguments with trans insanity are a perfect case in point. At the critical moment, he jumped ship. He never OVERTLY defended the trans insanity - not in any way that he couldn't take a step back from. But he lined up his guests and panels to defend it, and his step back is till a step forward from any place of decency. "Idunno if I'd go THAT far," and "That far is TOO far" are not revolutions in agenda. They are tweaks. He remains a trans-criminal, but everyone thinks he has done an about face.
 
But if you want to tell me that the young bill maher would have tepidly supported the trans agenda; would have stood with odious and corrupt hillary clinton; would have sat quiet for covid fascism - then we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I remember young bill maher very, very differently. The guy who lost his show for saying we sat pretty for 9-11 would never have aligned with the clinton wing of the democ rat party. He'd have been a bernie bro, insisting that we had the money to take care of americans if we quit bombing foreigners. He'd have wonked for Bernie, digging into the waste, fraud and abuse in DC to show that the money existed to implement bernie's ideas - it just hadda be redirected to better use. 

Young bill maher was not a neocon. He lost his show for crossing the neocons.Hillary was then and is now a neocon. She was what heopposed. 

Cannonpointer » 26 Jul 2025, 8:38 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2025, 8:38 am

*Huey » 26 Jul 2025, 8:20 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2025, 8:20 am

I don't disagree to a point but he has not changed his ideology over the years.

He doesn't really have any ideology. He has agendas. Legalize weed, defend homos, defend israel, trash traditional values, stay in front of the parade. 

His born again arguments with trans insanity are a perfect case in point. At the critical moment, he jumped ship. He never OVERTLY defended the trans insanity - not in any way that he couldn't take a step back from. But he lined up his guests and panels to defend it, and his step back is till a step forward from any place of decency. "Idunno if I'd go THAT far," and "That far is TOO far" are not revolutions in agenda. They are tweaks. He remains a trans-criminal, but everyone thinks he has done an about face.
 
But if you want to tell me that the young bill maher would have tepidly supported the trans agenda; would have stood with odious and corrupt hillary clinton; would have sat quiet for covid fascism - then we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I remember young bill maher very, very differently. The guy who lost his show for saying we sat pretty for 9-11 would never have aligned with the clinton wing of the democ rat party. He'd have been a bernie bro, insisting that we had the money to take care of americans if we quit bombing foreigners. He'd have wonked for Bernie, digging into the waste, fraud and abuse in DC to show that the money existed to implement bernie's ideas - it just hadda be redirected to better use. 

Young bill maher was not a neocon. He lost his show for crossing the neocons.Hillary was then and is now a neocon. She was what heopposed. 

 

I never said he was a neocon.  I said he was an old school liberal, not a modern day progressive.

*Huey » 26 Jul 2025, 8:41 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2025, 8:41 am

I never said he was a neocon.  I said he was an old school liberal, not a modern day progressive.

Old school liberals cannot get within 100 feet of hillary clinton without their hair catching on fire, son. 

I am an old school liberal. Have you seen me shill for hillary?
 

Cannonpointer » 26 Jul 2025, 10:10 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2025, 10:10 am

*Huey » 26 Jul 2025, 8:41 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2025, 8:41 am

I never said he was a neocon.  I said he was an old school liberal, not a modern day progressive.

Old school liberals cannot get within 100 feet of hillary clinton without their hair catching on fire, son. 

I am an old school liberal. Have you seen me shill for hillary?
 

 

Nope.  And I support many of the policies of old school liberals.

Cannonpointer » 26 Jul 2025, 8:38 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2025, 8:38 am

He doesn't really have any ideology. He has agendas. Legalize weed, defend homos, defend israel, trash traditional values, stay in front of the parade. 

His born again arguments with trans insanity are a perfect case in point. At the critical moment, he jumped ship. He never OVERTLY defended the trans insanity - not in any way that he couldn't take a step back from. But he lined up his guests and panels to defend it, and his step back is till a step forward from any place of decency. "Idunno if I'd go THAT far," and "That far is TOO far" are not revolutions in agenda. They are tweaks. He remains a trans-criminal, but everyone thinks he has done an about face.
 
But if you want to tell me that the young bill maher would have tepidly supported the trans agenda; would have stood with odious and corrupt hillary clinton; would have sat quiet for covid fascism - then we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I remember young bill maher very, very differently. The guy who lost his show for saying we sat pretty for 9-11 would never have aligned with the clinton wing of the democ rat party. He'd have been a bernie bro, insisting that we had the money to take care of americans if we quit bombing foreigners. He'd have wonked for Bernie, digging into the waste, fraud and abuse in DC to show that the money existed to implement bernie's ideas - it just hadda be redirected to better use. 

Young bill maher was not a neocon. He lost his show for crossing the neocons.Hillary was then and is now a neocon. She was what heopposed.

You have to admit FOS was truly ahead of 99% of people. IIRC he was the first on this forum to say that the political ideology of pundits, politicians, etc. was absolutely meaningless. That was one point he hammered over and over.

It’s all a ruse.

(And then the 95-98%’ers did their own analysis and concluded he was right)     

*Huey » 26 Jul 2025, 10:11 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2025, 10:11 am

Nope.  And I support many of the policies of old school liberals.

Naturally you would. FDR democrats were social conservatives who believed the government was a proper vehicle to get important things done for the benefit of the vast majority. You agree with the first half in toto and the second half case by case. 

Bill Maher is NOT a social conservative and therefore NOT an old school liberal.
 
 

LowIQTrash » 26 Jul 2025, 10:20 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2025, 10:20 am

You have to admit FOS was truly ahead of 99% of people. IIRC he was the first on this forum to say that the political ideology of pundits, politicians, etc. was absolutely meaningless. That was one point he hammered over and over.

It’s all a ruse.

(And then the 95-98%’ers did their own analysis and concluded he was right)   

You won't get any argument from me. I profited immensely from his too-short time on this board. 
 

Cannonpointer » 26 Jul 2025, 10:30 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2025, 10:30 am

Naturally you would. FDR democrats were social conservatives who believed the government was a proper vehicle to get important things done for the benefit of the vast majority. You agree with the first half in toto and the second half case by case. 

Bill Maher is NOT a social conservative and therefore NOT an old school liberal.

Actually , to hear BV tell it I have been instructed to hate on FDR.