Washed up gameshow hosts never die; they just make fools of themselves on Twitter.
On Thursday morning, second string gameshow host and first string conservative idiot Chuck Woolery tweeted this:
If you disagree with Democrats, they will hound you, destroy you if possible, unless and until you agree with them, Science & Hollywood.etc.
— Chuck Woolery (@chuckwoolery) January 19, 2017
Let’s dissect this 140 characters or less of babble.
If you’re on one side of the political debate you expect the other side to attack you. That’s how the game is played. Republicans are quite good at the whole destruction thing. And they have a better, more coordinated media machine to use for their attacks. Just ask Sandra Fluke, the law student who was attacked by Rush Limbaugh for three days straight back in 2012. And why did he do that? She dared to speak out in favor of women’s access to birth control.
RELATED: 62 Million Idiots Might Believe Trump’s Wednesday Morning Tweets But The Rest Of Us Know Better
Woolery should have stopped there. But as he has proven before, he just doesn’t know when to shut up. And he just told the world that he thinks you can have differing opinions on science.
Yes, Chuck, Democrats will hound you and destroy you if possible if you don’t agree with them about science. Because science is a process. It isn’t an opinion. Republicans used to understand that. But some of the replies to Woolery’s tweet prove that’s no longer the case.
@chuckwoolery They would have a good old fashion Republican fight on their hands. And believe me I will come out on top!
— Deplorable Brenda J (@bjscodywody1) January 19, 2017
@chuckwoolery democrats r mentally ill
— Dom Rizzo (@rizzo5_dom) January 19, 2017
@chuckwoolery They have no tolerance for opposition of any kind! Scary….
— Proud Mary (@freedomschild77) January 19, 2017
This is what you get when you convince a bunch of people that there are two sides to every argument. But there aren’t always two sides. Sometimes there’s just the truth. Science is the truth. So what do you call the counterargument to that?