THE Political Thread (ALL Political Discussion Here - See Rules, P. 1)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 1840, 1841, 1842 ... 1857, 1858, 1859  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
governator
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 13998

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:51 pm    Post subject:

ChickenStu wrote:
kikanga wrote:
Wilt wrote:
Kamala Harris is dropping out.

I was so high on her after the 1st debate. Boy was I wrong. She couldn't defend her record AT ALL. She flip flopped on Medicare for All. And she couldn't get the small donors. I still find he likeable. But she just wasn't good enough.


Never got African-American support. And neither has Booker.


The black vote is Biden's to lose
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 21318
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:51 pm    Post subject:

BigGameHames wrote:

I genuinely don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. Lots of sarcasm and few cogent points. You obviously may ask CL but thinking her opinion is even close to as valuable as his is asinine.

If you think a theory about women in general trying to destroy harmless men is valuable. More power to you
_________________
"Turn your losses into lessons." - Mike "The Situation"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Wilt
LG Contributor
LG Contributor


Joined: 29 Dec 2002
Posts: 10553

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:55 pm    Post subject:

Surfitall wrote:
Wilt wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
I believe that’s why allowing him and others to speak is important and why arguing against points you disagree with instead of silencing them is the right(as well as American) way to create change.


But it's not important. If he engaged in a reasonable dialogue, yes. But he doesn't, and there is no societal benefit in having him on a show and spew his garbage for hours, challenged or not challenged. The only winner is Alex Jones, and everybody else loses.

Which goes back to my original question: why should anyone be impressed if Joe Rogan invites people that range from reasonable all the way to crazy? It's not impressive at all. It doesn't make him a great interviewer, it doesn't make him into some rebellious fighter against political correctness. It simply makes him someone that wants attention, and he knows that people like Alex Jones will gather attention.





I'm reminded of the late great Christopher Hitchens, "It's not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it's the right of everyone in the audience to listen and to hear. And every time you silence somebody, you make yourself a prisoner of your own action because you deny yourself the right to hear something."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY


I don't need to hear Holocaust deniers, racists, anti-vaxxers, 9/11 truthers, and other crazy people when discussing the Holocaust, racism, the value of vaccines, and the 9/11 attacks. Giving legitimacy to those people doesn't make me an "open minded" person, nor does it make me courageous. You're defending the indefensible here. It's not an attack on the First Amendment, it's not an attack on Alex Jones' right to spew nonsense, it's not an attack on Joe Rogan's right to invite crazy people, it's about preserving the legitimacy of public discourse. Those people need to be heard less, not more, because they have nothing valuable to say.

This discussion began when you claimed that Joe Rogan is a fascinating interviewer, partly because he invites all kinds of people to his show, even someone as demented as Alex Jones, resulting in a very popular podcast. I'm claiming, as well as others, that this doesn't make him particularly impressive. It actually makes him less impressive. That's not an attack on his free speech or Alex Jones' free speech. It just makes it a lot less likely that I will waste my time following an attention seeker who legitimizes people like Alex Jones. You are, on the other hand, impressed by that. As I said before, great for you. I have higher standards, with all due respect.

No need to repeat the same thing over and over again.
_________________
¡Hala Madrid!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 44202
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:17 pm    Post subject:

Surfitall wrote:

I'm reminded of the late great Christopher Hitchens, "It's not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it's the right of everyone in the audience to listen and to hear. And every time you silence somebody, you make yourself a prisoner of your own action because you deny yourself the right to hear something."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY


That's a very compelling and seemingly empowering quote.

Unfortunately it is inherently flawed. It's based on the false supposition that all that is said by anyone is equally meritorious and meaningful, and that those who are not exposed have somehow denied themselves and are for the lesser because of it.

It shouldn't need to be explained how incorrect that is and why.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
greenfrog
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 35126
Location: 502 Bad Gateway

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:19 pm    Post subject:

ChickenStu wrote:
kikanga wrote:
Wilt wrote:
Kamala Harris is dropping out.

I was so high on her after the 1st debate. Boy was I wrong. She couldn't defend her record AT ALL. She flip flopped on Medicare for All. And she couldn't get the small donors. I still find he likeable. But she just wasn't good enough.


Never got African-American support. And neither has Booker.

Apparently the deadline for the California ballot is coming up and she didn't want the embarrassment of finishing 4th or 5th in her home state. A weak showing could induce a primary challenge.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 49256
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered intelligent.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:29 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
governator wrote:
Wilt wrote:
jodeke wrote:
Trumps numbers are steady. This tells me no matter what's said about him they won't change. His base is of his ilk.

Target undecided, independents, youth, AA, Hispanic, Asian, women, groups that outnumber the Trump base etc.

Beat the hell out of GET OUT AND VOTE drums.

Don't be apathetic as in 2016, it's a lock.


Three things worry me:

1. Long and divisive Democratic contest
2. New and improved Russian meddling efforts
3. Trump refusing to concede and telling his army of followers not to accept the election result


#3 prob not gonna happened but #1 and #2 for sure it's gonna happened. As long as we coalesce at the end, it's ok


Unless there is a sweeping victory in the Electoral College vote and a profound victory in the popular vote, I don't see Trump conceding. He'll claim election fraud on the part of the Dems and claim it negates the Dem victory.

Even if the Democrats pull a Ronald Reagan Trump will not concede. Won't make a difference. On Jan 20th he'll be trespassing if he tries to sit in the chair.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

Your prayers are always answered. Sometimes the answer is NO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
BigGameHames
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7796

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:31 pm    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:

I genuinely don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. Lots of sarcasm and few cogent points. You obviously may ask CL but thinking her opinion is even close to as valuable as his is asinine.

If you think a theory about women in general trying to destroy harmless men is valuable. More power to you


That’s not at all what I said not do I believe that. I’ll ask again, please don’t intentionally misrepresent my point. We can be civil and not be misleading while discussing this. At least I can.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 21318
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:32 pm    Post subject:

nickuku wrote:
kikanga wrote:
You may have a point here. Peterson the lone clinical psychologist in the world is Neo of this FemiNazi controlled simulation built to destroy harmless Caucasian men!

And we can’t ask CL about it because best case scenario she doesn’t know about the plot and worst case scenario she is one of the organizers.


I thought the JP hype died when everyone exposed him as a fraud.


On the contrary. He's totally legitimate, getting 6 visits (more than anybody else I know) on one of the biggest podcasts in the world.

His fans have referred to him as the "most influential public intellectual in the world".
But when someone proves he's full of crap. He retreats to his self-description as a "stand-up".
If you want to know more about that. And watch a real stand up comedian destroy his logic with a measly 3 questions. Check this out: https://youtu.be/QO9j1SLxEd0

And before BGH says, "look this video says don't stiffle free speech!"
I just want to say, I'm not advocating for only that. Another alternative is actually challenging a controversial guest on his logic. Like most journalists do.
_________________
"Turn your losses into lessons." - Mike "The Situation"


Last edited by kikanga on Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:33 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
BigGameHames
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7796

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:33 pm    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:

I genuinely don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. Lots of sarcasm and few cogent points. You obviously may ask CL but thinking her opinion is even close to as valuable as his is asinine.

If you think a theory about women in general trying to destroy harmless men is valuable. More power to you


That’s not what I said nor do I believe it. Please don’t intentionally misrepresent my opinion, you’ve done it twice now. I’ve remained civil and haven’t attempted to be misleading, you should try to do the same.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 21318
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:34 pm    Post subject:

BigGameHames wrote:
kikanga wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:

I genuinely don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. Lots of sarcasm and few cogent points. You obviously may ask CL but thinking her opinion is even close to as valuable as his is asinine.

If you think a theory about women in general trying to destroy harmless men is valuable. More power to you


That’s not what I said nor do I believe it. Please don’t intentionally misrepresent my opinion, you’ve done it twice now. I’ve remained civil and haven’t attempted to be misleading, you should try to do the same.


So I should internalize and respond to your arguments. But I shouldn't hold you to them?

Did you not say his opinion was valuable? What nuance am I missing?

I'm trying to thread the needle between the boundaries of what you consider a worthwhile conversation, but clearly I must be struggling.
_________________
"Turn your losses into lessons." - Mike "The Situation"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 21318
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:41 pm    Post subject:

Three questions I would love answered.

1)Is there proof that denying hate speech a platform increases said hate speech's effectiveness?
2) When hate speech is given a platform, is there proof more people identify it as the bs it is than people who buy into it?
3) How does challenging controversial opinions or lies = Chinese-level censorship?
_________________
"Turn your losses into lessons." - Mike "The Situation"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
BigGameHames
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7796

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:50 pm    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
kikanga wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:

I genuinely don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. Lots of sarcasm and few cogent points. You obviously may ask CL but thinking her opinion is even close to as valuable as his is asinine.

If you think a theory about women in general trying to destroy harmless men is valuable. More power to you


That’s not what I said nor do I believe it. Please don’t intentionally misrepresent my opinion, you’ve done it twice now. I’ve remained civil and haven’t attempted to be misleading, you should try to do the same.


So I should internalize and respond to your arguments. But I shouldn't hold you to them?

Did you not say his opinion was valuable? What nuance am I missing?

I'm trying to thread the needle between the boundaries of what you consider a worthwhile conversation, but clearly I must be struggling.


No you’re trying to oversimplify opinions in an attempt to misconstrue what the actual opinion is. You know that. You want to paint him as something he isn’t and are simplifying his points in ways to make him sound like he is what you want to paint him as. You’re missing the nuance of the opinion because it cannot be properly summarized in a headline or a few sentences as you would like it to be. But you know all of that. It’s what many of you on here do to public figures or other posters who’s views you disagree with. Many other posters fall for it and go along with it and many posters who are victims of it are fed up and have stopped posting in here. It’s a huge reason why this thread has become an echochamber(along with one sided moderation). I’ve received multiple PMs asking why do I bother in response to this vary exchange. You are very transparent when you do these things and aren’t being as sly as you seem to believe. Dishonest discourse doesn’t make your argument any more correct no matter how many likeminded individuals cheer you on along the way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 21318
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:54 pm    Post subject:

BigGameHames wrote:
No you’re trying to oversimplify opinions in an attempt to misconstrue what the actual opinion is. You know that. You want to paint him as something he isn’t and are simplifying his points in ways to make him sound like he is what you want to paint him as. You’re missing the nuance of the opinion because it cannot be properly summarized in a headline or a few sentences as you would like it to be. But you know all of that. It’s what many of you on here do to public figures or other posters who’s views you disagree with. Many other posters fall for it and go along with it and many posters who are victims of it are fed up and have stopped posting in here. It’s a huge reason why this thread has become an echochamber(along with one sided moderation). I’ve received multiple PMs asking why do I bother in response to this vary exchange. You are very transparent when you do these things and aren’t being as sly as you seem to believe. Dishonest discourse doesn’t make your argument any more correct no matter how many likeminded individuals cheer you on along the way.


I've actually had productive conversations with conservative people in this thread. Ask Lalalakeshow about me. I think he will vouch.

Angering you is not my goal. And I really do value differing opinions.

Can we reset the conversation? If there is 1 thing you want me to grasp from your POV what would it be? And I'm begging, please give me a source that backs up your statement. That way I have more to digest than just your post.
_________________
"Turn your losses into lessons." - Mike "The Situation"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
BigGameHames
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7796

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:56 pm    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
Three questions I would love answered.

1)Is there proof that denying hate speech a platform increases said hate speech's effectiveness?
2) When hate speech is given a platform, is there proof more people identify it as the bs it is than people who buy into it?
3) How does challenging controversial opinions or lies = Chinese-level censorship?


Nobody is arguing against number 3. That’s essential to have a successful debate. Numbers 1 and 2 are nearly impossible to prove or disprove but I would confidently argue yes to both. 1 because they end up in echo chambers having these discussions with only likeminded individuals where reasonable disagreement doesn’t take place and the hate becomes reinforced within the individuals. 2 because I have faith in society and when blatantly hateful speech receives push back, people tend to see the hate for what it is IMO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
BigGameHames
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7796

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:58 pm    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
No you’re trying to oversimplify opinions in an attempt to misconstrue what the actual opinion is. You know that. You want to paint him as something he isn’t and are simplifying his points in ways to make him sound like he is what you want to paint him as. You’re missing the nuance of the opinion because it cannot be properly summarized in a headline or a few sentences as you would like it to be. But you know all of that. It’s what many of you on here do to public figures or other posters who’s views you disagree with. Many other posters fall for it and go along with it and many posters who are victims of it are fed up and have stopped posting in here. It’s a huge reason why this thread has become an echochamber(along with one sided moderation). I’ve received multiple PMs asking why do I bother in response to this vary exchange. You are very transparent when you do these things and aren’t being as sly as you seem to believe. Dishonest discourse doesn’t make your argument any more correct no matter how many likeminded individuals cheer you on along the way.


I've actually had productive conversations with conservative people in this thread. Ask Lalalakeshow about me. I think he will vouch.

Angering you is not my goal. And I really do value differing opinions.

Can we reset the conversation? If there is 1 thing you want me to grasp from your POV what would it be? And I'm begging, please give me a source that backs up your statement. That way I have more to digest than just your post.


I’m not angry or surprised. It’s the status quo in here. I think if you look at the above post you’ll see the summarization of why I believe what I believe.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 21318
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 3:05 pm    Post subject:

BigGameHames wrote:
kikanga wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
No you’re trying to oversimplify opinions in an attempt to misconstrue what the actual opinion is. You know that. You want to paint him as something he isn’t and are simplifying his points in ways to make him sound like he is what you want to paint him as. You’re missing the nuance of the opinion because it cannot be properly summarized in a headline or a few sentences as you would like it to be. But you know all of that. It’s what many of you on here do to public figures or other posters who’s views you disagree with. Many other posters fall for it and go along with it and many posters who are victims of it are fed up and have stopped posting in here. It’s a huge reason why this thread has become an echochamber(along with one sided moderation). I’ve received multiple PMs asking why do I bother in response to this vary exchange. You are very transparent when you do these things and aren’t being as sly as you seem to believe. Dishonest discourse doesn’t make your argument any more correct no matter how many likeminded individuals cheer you on along the way.


I've actually had productive conversations with conservative people in this thread. Ask Lalalakeshow about me. I think he will vouch.

Angering you is not my goal. And I really do value differing opinions.

Can we reset the conversation? If there is 1 thing you want me to grasp from your POV what would it be? And I'm begging, please give me a source that backs up your statement. That way I have more to digest than just your post.


I’m not angry or surprised. It’s the status quo in here. I think if you look at the above post you’ll see the summarization of why I believe what I believe.


Well since 1 and 2 are impossible to prove or disprove I guess we can both allow each other the leeway to agree to disagree. Thanks for the convo. I wish it didn't become as combative as it did. But I'll tell you the same thing I told LLLakeshow.
There are rich people who make money on our combat. And we actually have more in common with each other than we do with those profiteering multi-millionaires and billionaires.
I hope you agree.
_________________
"Turn your losses into lessons." - Mike "The Situation"


Last edited by kikanga on Tue Dec 03, 2019 3:07 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 7620
Location: Boulder ;)

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 3:05 pm    Post subject:

BigGameHames wrote:
kikanga wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
kikanga wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:

I genuinely don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. Lots of sarcasm and few cogent points. You obviously may ask CL but thinking her opinion is even close to as valuable as his is asinine.

If you think a theory about women in general trying to destroy harmless men is valuable. More power to you


That’s not what I said nor do I believe it. Please don’t intentionally misrepresent my opinion, you’ve done it twice now. I’ve remained civil and haven’t attempted to be misleading, you should try to do the same.


So I should internalize and respond to your arguments. But I shouldn't hold you to them?

Did you not say his opinion was valuable? What nuance am I missing?

I'm trying to thread the needle between the boundaries of what you consider a worthwhile conversation, but clearly I must be struggling.


No you’re trying to oversimplify opinions in an attempt to misconstrue what the actual opinion is. You know that. You want to paint him as something he isn’t and are simplifying his points in ways to make him sound like he is what you want to paint him as. You’re missing the nuance of the opinion because it cannot be properly summarized in a headline or a few sentences as you would like it to be. But you know all of that. It’s what many of you on here do to public figures or other posters who’s views you disagree with. Many other posters fall for it and go along with it and many posters who are victims of it are fed up and have stopped posting in here. It’s a huge reason why this thread has become an echochamber(along with one sided moderation). I’ve received multiple PMs asking why do I bother in response to this vary exchange. You are very transparent when you do these things and aren’t being as sly as you seem to believe. Dishonest discourse doesn’t make your argument any more correct no matter how many likeminded individuals cheer you on along the way.


Who is it this guy is defending
Alex Jones or Joe Rogan?
_________________
КОБЭ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 7620
Location: Boulder ;)

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 3:09 pm    Post subject:

Lots of attacking going on here

People writing me PM's asking why I deal with it
Liberals slandering people without merit

This is IS A very unsafe space for propaganda or conspiracy nuts and for very very good reason

Ever hear of Sandy Hook? Lenny Pozner
_________________
КОБЭ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
BigGameHames
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7796

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 3:11 pm    Post subject:

ContagiousInspiration wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
kikanga wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
kikanga wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:

I genuinely don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. Lots of sarcasm and few cogent points. You obviously may ask CL but thinking her opinion is even close to as valuable as his is asinine.

If you think a theory about women in general trying to destroy harmless men is valuable. More power to you


That’s not what I said nor do I believe it. Please don’t intentionally misrepresent my opinion, you’ve done it twice now. I’ve remained civil and haven’t attempted to be misleading, you should try to do the same.


So I should internalize and respond to your arguments. But I shouldn't hold you to them?

Did you not say his opinion was valuable? What nuance am I missing?

I'm trying to thread the needle between the boundaries of what you consider a worthwhile conversation, but clearly I must be struggling.


No you’re trying to oversimplify opinions in an attempt to misconstrue what the actual opinion is. You know that. You want to paint him as something he isn’t and are simplifying his points in ways to make him sound like he is what you want to paint him as. You’re missing the nuance of the opinion because it cannot be properly summarized in a headline or a few sentences as you would like it to be. But you know all of that. It’s what many of you on here do to public figures or other posters who’s views you disagree with. Many other posters fall for it and go along with it and many posters who are victims of it are fed up and have stopped posting in here. It’s a huge reason why this thread has become an echochamber(along with one sided moderation). I’ve received multiple PMs asking why do I bother in response to this vary exchange. You are very transparent when you do these things and aren’t being as sly as you seem to believe. Dishonest discourse doesn’t make your argument any more correct no matter how many likeminded individuals cheer you on along the way.


Who is it this guy is defending
Alex Jones or Joe Rogan?


Rogan and to a lesser extent Jordan Peterson.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
BigGameHames
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7796

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 3:13 pm    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
kikanga wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
No you’re trying to oversimplify opinions in an attempt to misconstrue what the actual opinion is. You know that. You want to paint him as something he isn’t and are simplifying his points in ways to make him sound like he is what you want to paint him as. You’re missing the nuance of the opinion because it cannot be properly summarized in a headline or a few sentences as you would like it to be. But you know all of that. It’s what many of you on here do to public figures or other posters who’s views you disagree with. Many other posters fall for it and go along with it and many posters who are victims of it are fed up and have stopped posting in here. It’s a huge reason why this thread has become an echochamber(along with one sided moderation). I’ve received multiple PMs asking why do I bother in response to this vary exchange. You are very transparent when you do these things and aren’t being as sly as you seem to believe. Dishonest discourse doesn’t make your argument any more correct no matter how many likeminded individuals cheer you on along the way.


I've actually had productive conversations with conservative people in this thread. Ask Lalalakeshow about me. I think he will vouch.

Angering you is not my goal. And I really do value differing opinions.

Can we reset the conversation? If there is 1 thing you want me to grasp from your POV what would it be? And I'm begging, please give me a source that backs up your statement. That way I have more to digest than just your post.


I’m not angry or surprised. It’s the status quo in here. I think if you look at the above post you’ll see the summarization of why I believe what I believe.


Well since 1 and 2 are impossible to prove or disprove I guess we can both allow each other the leeway to agree to disagree. Thanks for the convo. I wish it didn't become as combative as it did. But I'll tell you the same thing I told LLLakeshow.
There are rich people who make money on our combat. And we actually have more in common with each other than we do with those profiteering multi-millionaires and billionaires.
I hope you agree.


Yes I agree to disagree. And yes I agree with your second point.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
BigGameHames
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7796

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 3:15 pm    Post subject:

ContagiousInspiration wrote:
Lots of attacking going on here

People writing me PM's asking why I deal with it
Liberals slandering people without merit

This is IS A very unsafe space for propaganda or conspiracy nuts and for very very good reason

Ever hear of Sandy Hook? Lenny Pozner


And it becomes an unhealthy place for political discussion when things that are not “right wing propaganda” are labeled as such.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 21318
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 5:03 pm    Post subject:

governator wrote:
ChickenStu wrote:
kikanga wrote:
Wilt wrote:
Kamala Harris is dropping out.

I was so high on her after the 1st debate. Boy was I wrong. She couldn't defend her record AT ALL. She flip flopped on Medicare for All. And she couldn't get the small donors. I still find he likeable. But she just wasn't good enough.


Never got African-American support. And neither has Booker.


The black vote is Biden's to lose


The African American vote can be cynical at times. We knew Jesse Jackson would never win President. And we didn't show up for him. But when Barack starting winning caucuses we went all in.
More than any other demographic, early primary and caucus results matter to the AA vote in my opinion.
_________________
"Turn your losses into lessons." - Mike "The Situation"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Surfitall
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 12 Feb 2002
Posts: 3163
Location: South Orange County

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 5:33 pm    Post subject:

Wilt wrote:

This discussion began when you claimed that Joe Rogan is a fascinating interviewer, partly because he invites all kinds of people to his show, even someone as demented as Alex Jones, resulting in a very popular podcast. I'm claiming, as well as others, that this doesn't make him particularly impressive. It actually makes him less impressive. That's not an attack on his free speech or Alex Jones' free speech. It just makes it a lot less likely that I will waste my time following an attention seeker who legitimizes people like Alex Jones. You are, on the other hand, impressed by that. As I said before, great for you. I have higher standards, with all due respect.


Not quite but I can understand how you came to this conclusion. I'm not claiming that Rogan is a fascinating interviewer. For me, it's about the interviewees (some of them, as I have said) that I find fascinating, and the fact that we are able to hear them unfiltered and unedited for hours that I find worth listening to. I do credit Rogan for creating a format and an environment that makes them comfortable enough to come on and speak for hours.

But I get it...you don't want to listen to any of his shows primarily because you disagree with and/or are offended by the opinions of either him and/or some of his guests.

You aren't quite right about how this discussion began. It started when adkindo mentioned that he heard the interview with Tulsi on the Joe Rogan podcast, and I chimed in and challenged anyone to listen to that interview and come away with believing she is a Russian asset (knowingly or unknowingly). You and others who refuse to listen to the interview have brought up all sorts of reasons why she is, in fact, a Russian asset, so the challenge is kind of meaningless at this point. We're just talking past each other.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Wilt
LG Contributor
LG Contributor


Joined: 29 Dec 2002
Posts: 10553

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 5:50 pm    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
governator wrote:
ChickenStu wrote:
kikanga wrote:
Wilt wrote:
Kamala Harris is dropping out.

I was so high on her after the 1st debate. Boy was I wrong. She couldn't defend her record AT ALL. She flip flopped on Medicare for All. And she couldn't get the small donors. I still find he likeable. But she just wasn't good enough.


Never got African-American support. And neither has Booker.


The black vote is Biden's to lose


The African American vote can be cynical at times. We knew Jesse Jackson would never win President. And we didn't show up for him. But when Barack starting winning caucuses we went all in.
More than any other demographic, early primary and caucus results matter to the AA vote in my opinion.


It'll be interesting to see how African Americans react to Biden's performance in Iowa and New Hampshire. Let's say he performs badly in both (distant 3rd or 4th place) and if there's a movement to abandon him, who they will migrate to. Obviously Kamala is gone now. Will it be Bernie? He has some support among younger African Americans. Warren? Maybe. Buttigieg? Unlikely. Maybe Booker is waiting for his moment in South Carolina, but his support among African Americans there is zero in some polls (he criticized Mayor Pete for having almost no support among AA's in the South, but he's not doing any better).

I still think Biden will somehow prevail, but he can't allow to be embarrassed in Iowa and New Hampshire.
_________________
¡Hala Madrid!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 44202
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 5:57 pm    Post subject:

Surfitall wrote:
Wilt wrote:

This discussion began when you claimed that Joe Rogan is a fascinating interviewer, partly because he invites all kinds of people to his show, even someone as demented as Alex Jones, resulting in a very popular podcast. I'm claiming, as well as others, that this doesn't make him particularly impressive. It actually makes him less impressive. That's not an attack on his free speech or Alex Jones' free speech. It just makes it a lot less likely that I will waste my time following an attention seeker who legitimizes people like Alex Jones. You are, on the other hand, impressed by that. As I said before, great for you. I have higher standards, with all due respect.


Not quite but I can understand how you came to this conclusion. I'm not claiming that Rogan is a fascinating interviewer. For me, it's about the interviewees (some of them, as I have said) that I find fascinating, and the fact that we are able to hear them unfiltered and unedited for hours that I find worth listening to. I do credit Rogan for creating a format and an environment that makes them comfortable enough to come on and speak for hours.

But I get it...you don't want to listen to any of his shows primarily because you disagree with and/or are offended by the opinions of either him and/or some of his guests.

You aren't quite right about how this discussion began. It started when adkindo mentioned that he heard the interview with Tulsi on the Joe Rogan podcast, and I chimed in and challenged anyone to listen to that interview and come away with believing she is a Russian asset (knowingly or unknowingly). You and others who refuse to listen to the interview have brought up all sorts of reasons why she is, in fact, a Russian asset, so the challenge is kind of meaningless at this point. We're just talking past each other.


I think there's a bit of error/misrepresentation on both ends. The point is (and I can only speak to my portion of the discussion here), it's not matter of "refusing" to listen to that particular interview so one can continue to erroneously believe she may be (to some degree or other) an aid or asset to Russian influence over this nation's political course. The point is that the single interview that you point to, no matter how long it is or who it is with, doesn't undo or erase all that goes into assessing Gabbard's credibility or influences. And that is a point that you conspicuously keep evading.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell


Last edited by DaMuleRules on Tue Dec 03, 2019 6:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 1840, 1841, 1842 ... 1857, 1858, 1859  Next
Page 1841 of 1859
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB