Joined: 25 Apr 2015 Posts: 31985 Location: Anaheim, CA
Posted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 6:27 pm Post subject:
Geoff Bennett
@GeoffRBennett
NEWS: The House Intelligence committee will vote on its impeachment inquiry report on Tuesday, Dec. 3 at 6PM ET. The report then heads to the Judiciary Committee, which is holding its first public hearing on Wednesday at 10AM ET
Surf I watched the Tulsi Joe Rogan interview. Among other Joe Rogan podcasts. Please watch this:
The fact people fall for videos like that is terrifyingly hilarious. It’s exactly why Rogans show is getting more popular amongst reasonable people on both sides of the aisle and with all kinds opinions. You can’t cut up a few short segments with some horrible people(and some not horrible but who said controversial things) and include one time he said something incorrect then insinuate he’s some gateway to the far right. Context and listening to a long form open discussion is the entire reason for its popularity. Not the highlights or clips.
Joined: 02 Jan 2011 Posts: 36081 Location: 502 Bad Gateway
Posted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 6:40 pm Post subject:
Omar Little wrote:
That’s because there’s not a lot of there there with regards to policy. Frankly, I don’t spend a lot of time discussing Booker or Klobuchar or several other people who have plenty of policy and record to run on, because:
A. They aren’t polling high enough to really waste the time on.
B. They aren’t being pushed and fawned over by the Russians and the Breitbart folks.
C. They aren’t making a lot of anti Democratic statements and pro Russian and pro GOP statements.
D. I’m not constantly being told by conservative trolls and far left folks that they are misunderstood, that acknowledging what they are doing now (not at twenty) is a smear, and that even though the speaker is not a supporter, they are willing to go hammer and tong for her at the slightest criticism.
There's enough there. If a political commentator, let's say Joy-Ann Reid, who just red-baited her, for instance, wants to make the case for a robust military presence in the Middle East to push back against Russian expansion by arming Salafists to take down regimes she can do so. Instead we get: "What she said sounded Kremlin-y".
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52673 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 7:20 pm Post subject:
BigGameHames wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
By the way, the Joe Rogan podcast is consistently the #1 or #2 most listened to podcast in the country, which is crazy since as you point out he is just a comedian and UFC commentator (and let’s not forget former host of Fear Factor).
And Taylor Swift has a (bleep) ton of fans . . . popularity has no direct bearing on substance.
C’mon DMR, you can do better than that.
What do you mean?
Do you dispute that premise?
I do not dispute that premise, lol. However, you are ignoring where I said he was also the host of Fear Factor, which has a direct impact on substance. Anyone that hosted that show is clearly an enlightened being. /s
So let's review . . . you slam people who over the course of time here have demonstrated themselves to be thoughtful, reasonable and knowledgable people who quite correctly criticize Gabbard (someone who has quite clearly and admittedly contradicted herself in the past) because you say she had one good interview with Joe Rogan (a guy you admit is sketchy when it comes to substance) while chastising them for not listening to that interview, while claiming that because of that interview, people need to ignore everything that is indisputably on the record about Gabbard . . .
Interesting.
You should include “IMO” after this statement.
Not at all, they have definitely demonstrated themselves to be so as any reasonable participant in this thread knows. Just go back your pathetic trolling _________________ 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
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29426 Location: La La Land
Posted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 7:46 pm Post subject:
BigGameHames wrote:
kikanga wrote:
Surf I watched the Tulsi Joe Rogan interview. Among other Joe Rogan podcasts. Please watch this:
The fact people fall for videos like that is terrifyingly hilarious. It’s exactly why Rogans show is getting more popular amongst reasonable people on both sides of the aisle and with all kinds opinions. You can’t cut up a few short segments with some horrible people(and some not horrible but who said controversial things) and include one time he said something incorrect then insinuate he’s some gateway to the far right. Context and listening to a long form open discussion is the entire reason for its popularity. Not the highlights or clips.
I've watched multiple Rogan podcasts on youtube. I know people who have been introduced to the far right via his podcast (and the youtube algorithm). I think the video is fair.
i fail to to see the value in bringing on Jordan Peterson 6 times, Shapiro twice, Bret Weinstein 4 times, Milo Yiannopolis twice, Dave Rubin 3 times, Sargon of Akkad, James Damore. The list goes on and on. If I gave you quotes of what those people have said on and off that show. Any non-prejudice person would be in utter shock.
He's had guests on there who don't spread hate speech. But that doesn't erase the guests that do. And guess which ones get more views. 2 of his top 3 most watched podcasts are Ben Shapiro and Alex Jones. _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29426 Location: La La Land
Posted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 8:02 pm Post subject:
Some believe all voices deserve a platform as big as Rogans. Some believe not all voices do, but his guests haven't "crossed the line". Either argument is pretty easy to pick apart.
I appreciate some of his guests. But others are allowed to say whatever ignorant stuff they want via his interviewing technique. And of the millions of people who watch and listen. 10s of thousands (I'm sure in some cases 100s of thousands) gobble it up like it's gospel truth.
Not saying that's Rogan's personal goal. I am saying the effect is there though. _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90308 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 10:28 pm Post subject:
greenfrog wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
That’s because there’s not a lot of there there with regards to policy. Frankly, I don’t spend a lot of time discussing Booker or Klobuchar or several other people who have plenty of policy and record to run on, because:
A. They aren’t polling high enough to really waste the time on.
B. They aren’t being pushed and fawned over by the Russians and the Breitbart folks.
C. They aren’t making a lot of anti Democratic statements and pro Russian and pro GOP statements.
D. I’m not constantly being told by conservative trolls and far left folks that they are misunderstood, that acknowledging what they are doing now (not at twenty) is a smear, and that even though the speaker is not a supporter, they are willing to go hammer and tong for her at the slightest criticism.
There's enough there. If a political commentator, let's say Joy-Ann Reid, who just red-baited her, for instance, wants to make the case for a robust military presence in the Middle East to push back against Russian expansion by arming Salafists to take down regimes she can do so. Instead we get: "What she said sounded Kremlin-y".
So I argue there’s not a lot of policy there, and the rebuttal is some attack on joy Reid (whom I don’t care much for or about) which has nothing to do with my critique. It’s all tribal. No matter what she says or does or doesn’t say or do, a whole bunch of you who profess to not support her act like your sister was attacked. This is what agitprop is designed to do. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Joined: 12 Feb 2002 Posts: 3829 Location: South Orange County
Posted: Sun Dec 01, 2019 5:36 am Post subject:
kikanga wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
kikanga wrote:
Surf I watched the Tulsi Joe Rogan interview. Among other Joe Rogan podcasts. Please watch this:
The fact people fall for videos like that is terrifyingly hilarious. It’s exactly why Rogans show is getting more popular amongst reasonable people on both sides of the aisle and with all kinds opinions. You can’t cut up a few short segments with some horrible people(and some not horrible but who said controversial things) and include one time he said something incorrect then insinuate he’s some gateway to the far right. Context and listening to a long form open discussion is the entire reason for its popularity. Not the highlights or clips.
I've watched multiple Rogan podcasts on youtube. I know people who have been introduced to the far right via his podcast (and the youtube algorithm). I think the video is fair.
i fail to to see the value in bringing on Jordan Peterson 6 times, Shapiro twice, Bret Weinstein 4 times, Milo Yiannopolis twice, Dave Rubin 3 times, Sargon of Akkad, James Damore. The list goes on and on. If I gave you quotes of what those people have said on and off that show. Any non-prejudice person would be in utter shock.
He's had guests on there who don't spread hate speech. But that doesn't erase the guests that do. And guess which ones get more views. 2 of his top 3 most watched podcasts are Ben Shapiro and Alex Jones.
I’ll just pick two of the controversial people you list above to respond. The value of bringing on people multiple times is that they generally have really interesting things to say...or at least that’s what Joe thinks.
I am one of those who listened to the Alex Jones podcast after he was deplatformed from pretty much every major social media venue. I’d never listened to anything more than a snippet of the outrageous things he had to say and I’m glad I listened to this episode. The conclusion I came away with is that he is borderline, if not certifiably mentally ill. Seriously, there is something wrong there, and over the course of two hours it becomes very clear.
I listened to one of the Ben Shapiro podcasts and my takeaway there? What do I remember from it? That he is a religious zealot that wouldn’t go to a gay wedding even if it was his best friend because religion compels him not to. Why explain it, just watch it: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nmihGvY8NIk
By the way, the Joe Rogan podcast is consistently the #1 or #2 most listened to podcast in the country, which is crazy since as you point out he is just a comedian and UFC commentator (and let’s not forget former host of Fear Factor).
And Taylor Swift has a (bleep) ton of fans . . . popularity has no direct bearing on substance.
C’mon DMR, you can do better than that.
What do you mean?
Do you dispute that premise?
I do not dispute that premise, lol. However, you are ignoring where I said he was also the host of Fear Factor, which has a direct impact on substance. Anyone that hosted that show is clearly an enlightened being. /s
So let's review . . . you slam people who over the course of time here have demonstrated themselves to be thoughtful, reasonable and knowledgable people who quite correctly criticize Gabbard (someone who has quite clearly and admittedly contradicted herself in the past) because you say she had one good interview with Joe Rogan (a guy you admit is sketchy when it comes to substance) while chastising them for not listening to that interview, while claiming that because of that interview, people need to ignore everything that is indisputably on the record about Gabbard . . .
Interesting.
You should include “IMO” after this statement.
Not at all, they have definitely demonstrated themselves to be so as any reasonable participant in this thread knows. Just go back your pathetic trolling
Calling Tulsi a poor candidate is reasonable. Calling her a Russian agent is not only not but it’s incredibly disrespectful to somebody who has put her life on the line for OUR country. And that’s seen as common sense on this thread. Completely unreasonable. But keep calling reasonable posts trolling, it only furthers my point. You can have your echo chamber.
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29426 Location: La La Land
Posted: Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:33 am Post subject:
Surfitall wrote:
I’ll just pick two of the controversial people you list above to respond. The value of bringing on people multiple times is that they generally have really interesting things to say...or at least that’s what Joe thinks.
I am one of those who listened to the Alex Jones podcast after he was deplatformed from pretty much every major social media venue. I’d never listened to anything more than a snippet of the outrageous things he had to say and I’m glad I listened to this episode. The conclusion I came away with is that he is borderline, if not certifiably mentally ill. Seriously, there is something wrong there, and over the course of two hours it becomes very clear.
I listened to one of the Ben Shapiro podcasts and my takeaway there? What do I remember from it? That he is a religious zealot that wouldn’t go to a gay wedding even if it was his best friend because religion compels him not to. Why explain it, just watch it: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nmihGvY8NIk
I don't worry about the you's of the world. It's the young an impressionable that concern me. Or (politically) uninformed UFC fans who think: hey I like Rogan's commentary during matches. I'll check out his podcast and ... wow I guess SJWs and femiNazis are destroying America by destroying Christian, white men!
I'm assuming Joe hasn't had David Duke on his show. So he does realize some don't deserve the platform. I just wish he applied that to the more subtle far right indoctrinators. _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29426 Location: La La Land
Posted: Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:41 am Post subject:
This clip of Joe Rogan is interesting to me for 2 reasons.
1) He goes back and forth with the idea that David Duke is Democrat plant.
2) He argues directly against my point. He says de-platforming David Duke (and others like him). Would actually make their message spread more. Make their message more powerful/effective.
I disagree with both points. 1 is a scary bad take. But I wonder if anybody in here thinks point 2 is correct. _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
I’ll just pick two of the controversial people you list above to respond. The value of bringing on people multiple times is that they generally have really interesting things to say...or at least that’s what Joe thinks.
I am one of those who listened to the Alex Jones podcast after he was deplatformed from pretty much every major social media venue. I’d never listened to anything more than a snippet of the outrageous things he had to say and I’m glad I listened to this episode. The conclusion I came away with is that he is borderline, if not certifiably mentally ill. Seriously, there is something wrong there, and over the course of two hours it becomes very clear.
I listened to one of the Ben Shapiro podcasts and my takeaway there? What do I remember from it? That he is a religious zealot that wouldn’t go to a gay wedding even if it was his best friend because religion compels him not to. Why explain it, just watch it: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nmihGvY8NIk
I don't worry about the you's of the world. It's the young an impressionable that concern me. Or (politically) uninformed UFC fans who think: hey I like Rogan's commentary during matches. I'll check out his podcast and ... wow I guess SJWs and femiNazis are destroying America by destroying Christian, white men!
I'm assuming Joe hasn't had David Duke on his show. So he does realize some don't deserve the platform. I just wish he applied that to the more subtle far right indoctrinators.
Rogan talks (bleep) on Christianity constantly. You clearly don’t listen enough to have the strong opinion that you have.
This clip of Joe Rogan is interesting to me for 2 reasons.
1) He goes back and forth with the idea that David Duke is Democrat plant.
2) He argues directly against my point. He says de-platforming David Duke (and others like him). Would actually make their message spread more. Make their message more powerful/effective.
I disagree with both points. 1 is a scary bad take. But I wonder if anybody in here thinks point 2 is correct.
I agree with the second point whole heartedly. Combats hate speech with real speech to disprove it and you’ll see it get less and less prevalent.
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29426 Location: La La Land
Posted: Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:50 am Post subject:
BigGameHames wrote:
kikanga wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
I’ll just pick two of the controversial people you list above to respond. The value of bringing on people multiple times is that they generally have really interesting things to say...or at least that’s what Joe thinks.
I am one of those who listened to the Alex Jones podcast after he was deplatformed from pretty much every major social media venue. I’d never listened to anything more than a snippet of the outrageous things he had to say and I’m glad I listened to this episode. The conclusion I came away with is that he is borderline, if not certifiably mentally ill. Seriously, there is something wrong there, and over the course of two hours it becomes very clear.
I listened to one of the Ben Shapiro podcasts and my takeaway there? What do I remember from it? That he is a religious zealot that wouldn’t go to a gay wedding even if it was his best friend because religion compels him not to. Why explain it, just watch it: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nmihGvY8NIk
I don't worry about the you's of the world. It's the young an impressionable that concern me. Or (politically) uninformed UFC fans who think: hey I like Rogan's commentary during matches. I'll check out his podcast and ... wow I guess SJWs and femiNazis are destroying America by destroying Christian, white men!
I'm assuming Joe hasn't had David Duke on his show. So he does realize some don't deserve the platform. I just wish he applied that to the more subtle far right indoctrinators.
Rogan talks (bleep) on Christianity constantly. You clearly don’t listen enough to have the strong opinion that you have.
I haven't watched all 1000+ episodes. Only the more recent ones are on youtube. But I was talking about some of the guests I mentioned earlier. Who spewed mostly unchallenged hot takes.
I think you know that, that's why you glossed over the white men part of my comment. _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Last edited by kikanga on Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:52 am; edited 1 time in total
Calling Tulsi a poor candidate is reasonable. Calling her a Russian agent is not only not but it’s incredibly disrespectful to somebody who has put her life on the line for OUR country. And that’s seen as common sense on this thread. Completely unreasonable. But keep calling reasonable posts trolling, it only furthers my point. You can have your echo chamber.
You need to know the differences between an agent, a witting asset, and an unwitting asset (though asset and agent are used interchangeably depending on organization or government), and maybe you'll understand why it is reasonable to call her at least an unwitting asset. An unwitting asset is one that is being used by another government without even knowing it, while still believing they are loyal to their own government. I don't recall anyone in this thread calling her a Russian agent, which would imply that she was knowingly hired by the Russian government to hurt the interests of the United States. _________________ ¡Hala Madrid!
I’ll just pick two of the controversial people you list above to respond. The value of bringing on people multiple times is that they generally have really interesting things to say...or at least that’s what Joe thinks.
I am one of those who listened to the Alex Jones podcast after he was deplatformed from pretty much every major social media venue. I’d never listened to anything more than a snippet of the outrageous things he had to say and I’m glad I listened to this episode. The conclusion I came away with is that he is borderline, if not certifiably mentally ill. Seriously, there is something wrong there, and over the course of two hours it becomes very clear.
I listened to one of the Ben Shapiro podcasts and my takeaway there? What do I remember from it? That he is a religious zealot that wouldn’t go to a gay wedding even if it was his best friend because religion compels him not to. Why explain it, just watch it: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nmihGvY8NIk
I don't worry about the you's of the world. It's the young an impressionable that concern me. Or (politically) uninformed UFC fans who think: hey I like Rogan's commentary during matches. I'll check out his podcast and ... wow I guess SJWs and femiNazis are destroying America by destroying Christian, white men!
I'm assuming Joe hasn't had David Duke on his show. So he does realize some don't deserve the platform. I just wish he applied that to the more subtle far right indoctrinators.
Rogan talks (bleep) on Christianity constantly. You clearly don’t listen enough to have the strong opinion that you have.
I haven't watched all 1000+ episodes. Only the more recent ones are on youtube. But I was talking about some of the guests I mentioned earlier. Who spewed mostly unchallenged hot takes.
I think you know that, that's why you glossed over the white men part of my comment.
I didn’t gloss over anything, I commented on the woefully misinformed portion of your statement.
Calling Tulsi a poor candidate is reasonable. Calling her a Russian agent is not only not but it’s incredibly disrespectful to somebody who has put her life on the line for OUR country. And that’s seen as common sense on this thread. Completely unreasonable. But keep calling reasonable posts trolling, it only furthers my point. You can have your echo chamber.
You need to know the differences between an agent, a witting asset, and an unwitting asset (though asset and agent are used interchangeably depending on organization or government), and maybe you'll understand why it is reasonable to call her at least an unwitting asset. An unwitting asset is one that is being used by another government without even knowing it, while still believing they are loyal to their own government. I don't recall anyone in this thread calling her a Russian agent, which would imply that she was knowingly hired by the Russian government to hurt the interests of the United States.
Got it. I think you need to attempt to get information from less biased places if you actually think she is a Russian ASSET(witting or unwitting).
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29426 Location: La La Land
Posted: Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:47 am Post subject:
BigGameHames wrote:
kikanga wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
kikanga wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
I’ll just pick two of the controversial people you list above to respond. The value of bringing on people multiple times is that they generally have really interesting things to say...or at least that’s what Joe thinks.
I am one of those who listened to the Alex Jones podcast after he was deplatformed from pretty much every major social media venue. I’d never listened to anything more than a snippet of the outrageous things he had to say and I’m glad I listened to this episode. The conclusion I came away with is that he is borderline, if not certifiably mentally ill. Seriously, there is something wrong there, and over the course of two hours it becomes very clear.
I listened to one of the Ben Shapiro podcasts and my takeaway there? What do I remember from it? That he is a religious zealot that wouldn’t go to a gay wedding even if it was his best friend because religion compels him not to. Why explain it, just watch it: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nmihGvY8NIk
I don't worry about the you's of the world. It's the young an impressionable that concern me. Or (politically) uninformed UFC fans who think: hey I like Rogan's commentary during matches. I'll check out his podcast and ... wow I guess SJWs and femiNazis are destroying America by destroying Christian, white men!
I'm assuming Joe hasn't had David Duke on his show. So he does realize some don't deserve the platform. I just wish he applied that to the more subtle far right indoctrinators.
Rogan talks (bleep) on Christianity constantly. You clearly don’t listen enough to have the strong opinion that you have.
I haven't watched all 1000+ episodes. Only the more recent ones are on youtube. But I was talking about some of the guests I mentioned earlier. Who spewed mostly unchallenged hot takes.
I think you know that, that's why you glossed over the white men part of my comment.
I didn’t gloss over anything, I commented on the woefully misinformed portion of your statement.
Funny you used woefully misinformed in a conversation about Joe Rogan's guests.
Also, interesting. Since you thought I was talking about Joe and not his guests. You didn't fight the idea that Joe believes SJWs and femiNazi's are trying to destroy America and white, men. Only the Christian part is an inaccuracy when it comes to Joe in your mind. _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Last edited by kikanga on Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:59 am; edited 3 times in total
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90308 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:53 am Post subject:
Just for the sake of killing off bad arguments, the idea that Gabbard has been vetted for a high security clearance and served her country bars her from being a Russian agent, much less merely a sitting or unwitting asset, is silly. Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen say hello. Or they would if they weren’t imprisoned for being Russian agents who served their country for years and had the highest of clearances and beat polygraphs.
Fwiw, I don’t thing Gabbard is an agent. I think at this point it would be hard to argue that she’s unwitting though. She knows she’s getting a lot of help, and she knows the positions she’s taking both clearly align with the interests of Putin, and that she’s sabotaging (albeit poorly) the Democratic Party interests and helping the GOP.
But hey, tucker Carlson and Maddow were friendly back in the day, so that means... well, it doesn’t really mean anything, but it’s better than discussing the merits. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
I’ll just pick two of the controversial people you list above to respond. The value of bringing on people multiple times is that they generally have really interesting things to say...or at least that’s what Joe thinks.
I am one of those who listened to the Alex Jones podcast after he was deplatformed from pretty much every major social media venue. I’d never listened to anything more than a snippet of the outrageous things he had to say and I’m glad I listened to this episode. The conclusion I came away with is that he is borderline, if not certifiably mentally ill. Seriously, there is something wrong there, and over the course of two hours it becomes very clear.
I listened to one of the Ben Shapiro podcasts and my takeaway there? What do I remember from it? That he is a religious zealot that wouldn’t go to a gay wedding even if it was his best friend because religion compels him not to. Why explain it, just watch it: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nmihGvY8NIk
I don't worry about the you's of the world. It's the young an impressionable that concern me. Or (politically) uninformed UFC fans who think: hey I like Rogan's commentary during matches. I'll check out his podcast and ... wow I guess SJWs and femiNazis are destroying America by destroying Christian, white men!
I'm assuming Joe hasn't had David Duke on his show. So he does realize some don't deserve the platform. I just wish he applied that to the more subtle far right indoctrinators.
Rogan talks (bleep) on Christianity constantly. You clearly don’t listen enough to have the strong opinion that you have.
I haven't watched all 1000+ episodes. Only the more recent ones are on youtube. But I was talking about some of the guests I mentioned earlier. Who spewed mostly unchallenged hot takes.
I think you know that, that's why you glossed over the white men part of my comment.
I didn’t gloss over anything, I commented on the woefully misinformed portion of your statement.
Funny you used woefully misinformed in a conversation about Joe Rogan's guests.
Also, interesting. Since you thought I was talking about Joe and not his guests. You didn't fight the idea that Joe believes SJWs and femiNazi's are trying to destroy America and white, men. Only the Christian part is an inaccuracy when it comes to Joe in your mind.
I don’t disagree that he thinks certain SJWs(ever heard of Antifa?) are hurting America, I agree. I don’t think wants white men to be superior to minorities in any way shape or form. I don’t believe he is racist in any way shape or form. He has people of color on the podcast quite often. I simply mentioned that part because he is openly anti religion and not Christian and you made that claim.
Last edited by BigGameHames on Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:14 am; edited 1 time in total
Just for the sake of killing off bad arguments, the idea that Gabbard has been vetted for a high security clearance and served her country bars her from being a Russian agent, much less merely a sitting or unwitting asset, is silly. Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen say hello. Or they would if they weren’t imprisoned for being Russian agents who served their country for years and had the highest of clearances and beat polygraphs.
Fwiw, I don’t thing Gabbard is an agent. I think at this point it would be hard to argue that she’s unwitting though. She knows she’s getting a lot of help, and she knows the positions she’s taking both clearly align with the interests of Putin, and that she’s sabotaging (albeit poorly) the Democratic Party interests and helping the GOP.
But hey, tucker Carlson and Maddow were friendly back in the day, so that means... well, it doesn’t really mean anything, but it’s better than discussing the merits.
Just like your wild conspiracy theories don’t really mean anything.
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52673 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:19 am Post subject:
Surfitall wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
By the way, the Joe Rogan podcast is consistently the #1 or #2 most listened to podcast in the country, which is crazy since as you point out he is just a comedian and UFC commentator (and let’s not forget former host of Fear Factor).
And Taylor Swift has a (bleep) ton of fans . . . popularity has no direct bearing on substance.
C’mon DMR, you can do better than that.
What do you mean?
Do you dispute that premise?
I do not dispute that premise, lol. However, you are ignoring where I said he was also the host of Fear Factor, which has a direct impact on substance. Anyone that hosted that show is clearly an enlightened being. /s
So let's review . . . you slam people who over the course of time here have demonstrated themselves to be thoughtful, reasonable and knowledgable people who quite correctly criticize Gabbard (someone who has quite clearly and admittedly contradicted herself in the past) because you say she had one good interview with Joe Rogan (a guy you admit is sketchy when it comes to substance) while chastising them for not listening to that interview, while claiming that because of that interview, people need to ignore everything that is indisputably on the record about Gabbard . . .
Interesting.
Nope, that is a poor recap and mischaracterization of what has happened here since page 1831. Your characterization is so bad that I think it’s worth recapping the entirety of my interactions on this topic: This all started because Adkindo posted that he listened to the interview, and I chimed in by simply saying that it was a good interview, and that I challenge anyone here to listen to it and still say that she is a Russian asset.
Then, I get accused by Omar Little of “quoting a lot of the sites and people who have pretty cozy Russian connections” and therefore apparently I am unable to discern Russian agitprop because I’m so steeped in it. When I asked him to provide links to any of my posts where I did this...no response.
Then Kikanga cuts and pasted a litany of accusations and smears against Gabbard from Reddit. I point out that the responses to each of those accusations can be found on Reddit as well, and provide a link to a site on Reddit that tries to address the smears which is not acknowledged or refuted by anyone. I also post an article byMatt Taibbi from Rolling Stone talking about how ridiculous the smears are getting against her. The response? Crickets.
Chef Linda then compares what Tulsi is doing to what Jill Stein did in 2016, suggesting that she will be used by the Russians to sabotage the election. I mention that Tulsi has repeatedly said that if she isn’t selected as the Democratic candidate that she will not run as a 3rd party candidate and that it’s unlikely Tulsi can be used in that way even if they want to. The response? Nothing,
Then Wilt steps in suggesting that Tucker Carlson is a white supremecist, and claims that she called the a Democratic Party evil. I then provided a link to what I believe is the interview he is referencing where she sounds very rational when talking about the importance of transparency at the DNC... nothing about the Democratic Party being evil. I also ask about why he thinks he is a white supremecist. Rather than give me a link, he tells me to google it and then claims I am a liar because he thinks I know what he’s talking about. I find the interview he is referencing, express offense over being called a liar, and post both that interview and the one he did the following day where he confirms that racism is a problem in America and clarifies what he was trying to say. I suggest that his accusations against both Tulsi and Carlson are filled with hyperbole. His response? Nothing yet.
And then you appear. You take a tiny snippet of my post about Joe Rogan having a top rated podcast and say that “popularity has no direct bearing on substance.” You ignore the rest of the paragraph, which is this: I never listen to his UFC podcasts because I have zero interest in those, but I will say that his interviews with her, Bernie Sanders, Edward Snowden, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Elon Musk, Sam Harris, and many others are fascinating. The only reason I started listening to him was because I was incredulous about how his podcast could be so highly rated and was shocked to discover the caliber of some of his guests and the depth of his interviews. Feel free to continue use denigrating him for being a UFC commentator though...he says it himself frequently when marveling at how popular his show has become and the guests he’s been able to attract.”
While your statement is factually correct, “Popularity has no direct bearing on substance.”, the fact that you ignored the context (that sentence was in response to Wilt dismissively calling him a “UFC analyst”), and that you ignored the rest of the paragraph where I specifically say how shocked I was at “the caliber of some of his guests and the depth of his interviews” tells me that either you we’re lazy in your response, or you were being disingenuous in your response. I chose to take the more charitable view by suggesting you could do better...But in hindsight I guess I should have just given the fuller response. My bad on that.
Sorry, I've been traveling so I didn't get a chance to respond to this.
I read all of it and it is not a mischaracterization at all.
People made very valid points about Gabbard and you just kept repeating the same one sentence nonsense, "Says the guy who didn't listen to the interview". AS if that's a substantive rebuttal
And that is my point.
One interview with Joe Rogan (of all people) doesn't erase everything we have seen and know of Gabbard. And I am sorry to be blunt, but it is utter silliness to claim otherwise. And his list of prior guests doesn't change that. In fact, when one looks at the totality of his guest list, it becomes pretty evident that Rogan is just a "look at me" podcaster and nothing more. _________________ 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
Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen say hello. Or they would if they weren’t imprisoned for being Russian agents who served their country for years and had the highest of clearances and beat polygraphs.
Ames used the nickname Rick so they were the government's Rick and Robert. Their cerebral forwards, per Bill Walton. _________________ GOAT MAGIC REEL SEDALE TRIBUTE EDDIE DONX!
I’m sure y’all had a good thanksgiving, pretty sure politics came up once the alcohol kicked in and I’m sure like my own, well, my wife’s family who are more Democrats (there’s 1 or 2 republicans, the military ones) and all of us agree, Trump can win again.
I think fair or not, trump got warren by the balls with his insults
Trump gonna do Mayor Pete the same he’s doing Warren
Bernie got no chance
Trump prob would smoke all the other single digit percentage candidates
Biden has a chance but his ‘gaffes’ could bite him in the ass
Trump would do Bloomberg like he did Rubio, lil Mike stuff
We might or might not get the historic turn out Hillary got in 2016, battleground electoral votes haven’t changed much at all (unless 2018 blue wave was a good predictor but feel like it’s diff with trump)
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52673 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:34 am Post subject:
BigGameHames wrote:
Calling Tulsi a poor candidate is reasonable. Calling her a Russian agent is not only not but it’s incredibly disrespectful to somebody who has put her life on the line for OUR country. And that’s seen as common sense on this thread. Completely unreasonable. But keep calling reasonable posts trolling, it only furthers my point. You can have your echo chamber.
Serving is to be respected, but if you are truly interested in what is completely unreasonable, then you'd acknowledge that serving is not a shield from proper criticism. Especially when we are talking about someone who has disrespected her fellow candidate who also served. So save the righteous indignation. Especially since it's demonstrative of the typical Republican hypocrisy that saw them collectively attack combat veteran John Kerry.
And just to be clear, serving doesn't make one immune to being manipulated (directly or otherwise) by the Russians. _________________ 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
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
