Conservative NYT Pulitzer Prize Winner Bret Stephens Destroys Bill Maher

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

A rich white liberal cant fathom the idea of people only owning one pair of shoes and putting bags over them...Sigh. This is exactly why they lost. They are completely disconnected from real people and the day to day struggle of working class America

Yes, it's easy to forget why the GOP is so connected to working class America.

 

[icecoldvovchanchyn]

excellent rebuttal, you really crushed me

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

excellent rebuttal, you really crushed me

I carried you to the tenth and THEN crushed ya

 

[icecoldvovchanchyn]

what kind of les paul do you have?

 

[irish_thug]

I haven't watched Maher in a few weeks. I caught up to his most recent episode earlier tonight. It's rare that I've seen Bill this genuinely rustled on his own show. Bret is a Pulitzer Prize winning former Wall Street Journal staffer who was poached by the New York Times. It appears Bill thought that Bret would uncritically affirm his own liberal perspective, here, that the MSM and the NYT are not problematic in their coverage of the news.

Bret had a different conversation in mind. While his comments paint a sparkling picture of the New York Times and their radical new mission, currently, specifically regarding the editorial page, Bret has no desire to play for the liberal team in this segment by haranguing conservative media or conservative perceptions of liberal bias in the media.

Rather, he reminds Bill that the great trap media pundits should strive to avoid is in becoming little more than a platform for affirmation of the consumer's views: to become an echo chamber. The lesson to all is that one should routinely consume and engage material that challenges or opposes one's personal views. Unfortunately for Bill, he fails to see that this is precisely what he feigns to desire, and he runs headlong into a very simple comment that makes him look very, very bad.

Later, he doubles, and then triples down on looking monstrous.

Unfortunately for all of us, Bill isn't the only liberal, nor the only conservative, who lacks the self-awareness to identify where his rhetoric does not align with his cultural attitude. Seeking affirmation has become the rule, not the exception, for conservatives and liberals alike.

There are very few things I enjoy as much as a rustled bill maher

 

[Overtures]

I haven't watched Maher in a few weeks. I caught up to his most recent episode earlier tonight. It's rare that I've seen Bill this genuinely rustled on his own show. Bret is a Pulitzer Prize winning former Wall Street Journal staffer who was poached by the New York Times. It appears Bill thought that Bret would uncritically affirm his own liberal perspective, here, that the MSM and the NYT are not problematic in their coverage of the news.

Bret had a different conversation in mind. While his comments paint a sparkling picture of the New York Times and their radical new mission, currently, specifically regarding the editorial page, Bret has no desire to play for the liberal team in this segment by haranguing conservative media or conservative perceptions of liberal bias in the media.

Rather, he reminds Bill that the great trap media pundits should strive to avoid is in becoming little more than a platform for affirmation of the consumer's views: to become an echo chamber. The lesson to all is that one should routinely consume and engage material that challenges or opposes one's personal views. Unfortunately for Bill, he fails to see that this is precisely what he feigns to desire, and he runs headlong into a very simple comment that makes him look very, very bad.

Later, he doubles, and then triples down on looking monstrous.

Unfortunately for all of us, Bill isn't the only liberal, nor the only conservative, who lacks the self-awareness to identify where his rhetoric does not align with his cultural attitude. Seeking affirmation has become the rule, not the exception, for conservatives and liberals alike.

Solid work, Mick.

 

[hillelslovak87]

yeah, I'm sure Bill has trouble calling himself a Democrat. He's been carrying their water, and talking points, shamelessly for the past 8+ years.

And giving Obama a million bucks as a press cock stroke.

However, that article was whinging garbage.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

Bill Maher is an idiot. I have very difficult time watching him. He is almost as unbearable as this smug liberal turd:

 

[PainIsLIfe]

The funny thing is, that you can explain the entire rise of the Alt-Reich with that quote.

I suppose that depends on your definition of the Alt-right.

Most people say it's the racist that supported Trump. Others say it's the conservative working class that feel like they're being shat on by both parties.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Meh. That style of argument has never appealed to me. If you are claiming that the left was outraged about Obama's remarks and the right was not, that is false.



That's the same poor argument, unless you're claiming that "left-leaning sites" are generally more reliable? Look at the primaries if you want to see what I mean. Look at the platforms. Notice how left-leaning politicians always rush to condemn crazies on their side.

I'm claiming that democrats in the rustbelt got a little bent over it.

Then why did Clinton complain about being pulled to the left? If she weren't pandering then she wouldn't have been pulled anywhere.

Btw- nope, I haven't noticed lefties rushing to condemn the crazies on their side. BLM was ok as long as they were shutting down Bernie rallies, Bill Ayers is some sort of hero in liberal circles, Alan Ginsberg had to broach NAMBLA before he was no long considered an activist and inspirational poet among the left.


FFS, Pelosi finally condemned Antifa violence last month - and then only after letters started pouring in to editorial boards at left leaning papers - that means it took 6 months. In the meantime you guys bitched that it took Trump too long to sufficiently condemn nazis.

 

[PorkPiePusher]

You're doltish, sirrah.
Condescension.
There exists no "t" in that word, and dinna you say a word about testosterone

Writing from my phone so mistakes are bound to creep in, and the mobile version does not allow for editing upon a quick review.

Also, don't think I don't appreciate the irony of you calling out my socio-political post on the merits of grammar in a thread dedicated to intellectual condescension and it's negative effect on proper discourse.