Comments by "cosmosofinfinity" (@cosmosofinfinity) on "UH-OH: Dennis Prager agrees to interview with left wing progressive host" video.

  1.  @hansgustavson2271 What are you getting at? You seem to be implying a whole lot of... something
    2
  2. If God wasn't so lazy and took care of all that cancer and all those avalanches, I would have more time for my gaming seshes, but no he has to make things so tedious
    1
  3. I love that Dennis Prager is still pretending he loves to talk with people of opposing views on his show. But I love more that he had little choice but to admit how obviously Matt Walsh appears to be acting in bad faith, but still won't even commit to believing David is telling the truth that Matt did in fact say that lying BS because he personally knows him and wants to continue giving him undue benefit of the doubt. And of course he's still cheerleading forcing Larry Elder upon us all, even if nobody actually likes him or his unceasing attempts to grab power. Also, Prager talking about the viral Bill Maher clip is really just an indictment about how behind the times and out of touch Bill Maher was with the left he pretends to still be a part of even back then, and of course even now. Also, I have no regard for the institution of marriage or any religious text, but I would personally consider cheating on your wife an indictment against your worthiness to wield power, because if you are willing to lie out of convenience to the closest people in your personal life, you are definitely willing to lie to strangers. It is one of the most revealing things about someone's character one can do, it shows whether you like to merely portray yourself as honest for virtue signaling points, or if you actually live according to those principles even when it's hard. And ruling with fairness and transparency is hard. But he wants to give this hard job to morally weak people, give this selfless job to selfish people. The fact that Dennis Prager is willing to overlook that, and overlook Trump trying to steal an election under unproven/false pretenses, and his (projection) "common sense" agreement to the philosophy of electorally cheating against the other side if he can find a justifiable moral imperative (which these religious types always do, since it is a matter of the ultimate battle of God vs. Satan), it shows how dishonest he is when it really comes down to it. That said, I'm glad the conversation went well and ended on good terms, and you should have him on again to discuss more.
    1