>>>Ok that's fine, then you have no need to be part of a conversation about the contents of a video you did not watch.
>
>Says the prolific commentator on the Democrat loss who steadfastly refuses to read the only autopsy so far? Which willful blinkering actually is covered by the autopsy's longstanding liberal author?!

I've told you before that I read the autopsy a while back. Did you read the republican autopsy from the last election that Obama won? Think about what it said and what happend this election and see what adds up for ya there dude...then tell me how much stock you put in said autopsy.

>Yeah, I know- call it "whataboutism" et voila, there's no need to engage the point.
>
>But here's a small excerpt of another author for you: can you guess where it's from? (hint- note the implicit approval for "resistance" at the end)
>
>Oliver continues in the tradition of Jon Stewart, adding reinforcements to the “liberal” bubble. He coddles his viewers by convincing them (as if they needed more convincing) of how right they are, how wrong they are, how many more facts they know than them. The visual assault of fact after fact without any time given to admit the weak points in his argument robs his viewers of the opportunity to think, or have any deep understanding of an issue. Worse, the false sense of solidarity that comes with sharing an Oliver segment on Facebook is an invitation to apathy not resistance.

That is from a religious magazine who's mission is to pump people full of their 'christian values'. Hardly a reputable authority. You might want to actually read one of their magazines and some of the articles in it before using one of their editorials as an example to push your opinion. They do not understand one of the fundamental elements of our country -- separation of church and state.

And why are you still here in this conversation anyway? It's about a video you have not watched so you really have nothing to contribute to the actual topic.