2017 PotWR Round 2: The Debate / Town Hall

[The Diplomat]

You're the right's favorite "non-conservative", though. Like how people called The New Republic "Even the liberal New Republic" because it was always being used by right-wingers to make points, you're "even the liberal" Diplomat.

Well, I always talk about how I was a registered Democrat before the SJW wing took over the party. Voted for Obama in the primary and general in 2008. I'm pro-gay marriage, pro-weed, pro-choice, I'm not a religious person, I believe that the wealthier can afford to pay more in taxes and still not have to struggle, etc.

None of these things have changed. But the party moved further left. Censorship and rioting on colleges over just the idea of having a guest speaker you disagree with, changing definitions and biological terms because everything is a social construct, complaining and being offended by literally everything. Becoming the enemy because i'm a "cis" white straight male who is for civil rights and the acknowledgement of history.

It's all a joke to be honest, but everyone seems to take it very seriously.

 

[Jack V Savage]

@IGIT still made good points, though.

True.

 

[The Diplomat]

There is another option

This is true.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I just don't see it Jack, and I have followed some of your back and forths.

Maybe Jack's referring to how he imputes disreputable motives onto the other poster then calls them out for lying when they claim to have other motives? In his mind that would be specific but in yours it lacks substance (since it amounts to mind-reading).

Or you just can't read.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Well, I always talk about how I was a registered Democrat before the SJW wing took over the party. Voted for Obama in the primary and general in 2008. I'm pro-gay marriage, pro-weed, pro-choice, I'm not a religious person, I believe that the wealthier can afford to pay more in taxes and still not have to struggle, etc.

None of these things have changed. But the party moved further left. Censorship and rioting on colleges over just the idea of having a guest speaker you disagree with, changing definitions and biological terms because everything is a social construct, complaining and being offended by literally everything. Becoming the enemy because i'm a "cis" white straight male who is for civil rights and the acknowledgement of history.

It's all a joke to be honest, but everyone seems to take it very seriously.

I feel ya'.

 

[Quipling]

Mir and Barnett were both ancient in combat years when they fought Cormier, who still hadn't even had ten fights. Cormier would get his head punched off by Prime Fedor.

Not only is this math questionable, but you could make that claim of most of the other people on your list. You can't seriously think that prime Frank Mir would do better against prime Fedor?

Also, ROMFFLMAO @ ranking a guy with so few fights at HW on the all time list.

Hey, I didn't make you put Mir or Barnett on your list.

And Cormier has nearly as many fights at heavyweight as Cain.

 

[Rational Poster]

Well, follow more closely next time. I think her gimmick takes people in. It's like with IGIT, who was an obvious troll, but would start his post with a greeting that had people thinking he was really polite.



I agree, but I think it goes both ways. People who started watching after he got good or who were primarily UFC fans who didn't follow other orgs kind of resented missing out and tried to tear him down because of that.

I don't think I'm tearing him down or trying to, he's still a solid top3 HW of all time, top2 even.

It's very interchangeable.

Werdum has just earned so many feathers since.... 2003.. it's hard for me to deny him anymore, considering he's still active and winning in the top tier organization.

I think it's very simple in that Werdum for a long time was a guy that it was cool to hate, and Fedor was a guy that it was cool to idolize.

 

[Greoric]

@Greoric, please advise.

They're the original anarchists. Leftist libs actually are pretty similar in terms of anti-authoritarianism and rejection of state power. Its just that they believe society would or can organize itself differently than how right libertarians describe without the use of monopolized compulsion.

Frankly, I respect their ethical stances a lot, and the fundamental disagreement seems to revolve around an understanding of biology if nothing else.

@Rational Poster sure as shit isn't a left libertarian though.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Well, I always talk about how I was a registered Democrat before the SJW wing took over the party.

That's not something that really happened, though. That's just something Republicans say to get votes from people who disagree with them on issues (and some people really fall for it).

 

[Bald1]

Maybe Jack's referring to how he imputes disreputable motives onto the other poster then calls them out for lying when they claim to have other motives? In his mind that would be specific but in yours it lacks substance (since it amounts to mind-reading).

Or you just can't read.

Eeyeliterracy rawns in muh fhamili.

 

[HomerThompson]

Well, I always talk about how I was a registered Democrat before the SJW wing took over the party. Voted for Obama in the primary and general in 2008. I'm pro-gay marriage, pro-weed, pro-choice, I'm not a religious person, I believe that the wealthier can afford to pay more in taxes and still not have to struggle, etc.

None of these things have changed. But the party moved further left. Censorship and rioting on colleges over just the idea of having a guest speaker you disagree with, changing definitions and biological terms because everything is a social construct, complaining and being offended by literally everything. Becoming the enemy because i'm a "cis" white straight male who is for civil rights and the acknowledgement of history.

It's all a joke to be honest, but everyone seems to take it very seriously.

Guess how I know not to take your opinions on politics seriously.

 

[The Diplomat]

That's not something that really happened, though. That's just something Republicans say to get votes from people who disagree with them on issues (and some people really fall for it).

Sure, and CNN isn't biased, and Hillary Clinton is a saint.

 

[The Diplomat]

Guess how I know not to take your opinions on politics seriously.

Me being a registered Democrat really did that?

 

[Rational Poster]

Sure, and CNN isn't biased, and Hillary Clinton is a saint.

CNN is a privately owned cable news channel.

Why do people expect it to not be biased?

Did we develope some sort of unbiased news AI?

It's like going into Hot Topic and complaining they don't have any suits and ties.

 

[The Diplomat]

CNN is a privately owned cable news channel.

Why do people expect it to not be biased?

Did we develope some sort of unbiased news AI?

I don't really have a problem with the bias per se (although it'd be nice to have one actual, 24/7 news channel that just told news), it's the denial by some of said bias. Fox News is biased, everyone knows that. MSNBC is too. But CNN used to be fairly moderate, now it's the Trump News Network.

 

[HomerThompson]

That's not something that really happened, though. That's just something Republicans say to get votes from people who disagree with them on issues (and some people really fall for it).

 

[Greoric]

Reads like a party in this thread! All the finest people.

 

[Rational Poster]

I don't really have a problem with the bias per se (although it'd be nice to have one actual, 24/7 news channel that just told news), it's the denial by some of said bias. Fox News is biased, everyone knows that. MSNBC is too. But CNN used to be fairly moderate, now it's the Trump News Network.

People tried that already, it doesn't sell.

Cable news is a business, they're selling a product to a target demographic.

You can't sell all the news to all the demographics at the same time.

If anything CNN is reacting to the EXTREME bias of the right wing media to target a market right wing media ignores.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Sure, and CNN isn't biased, and Hillary Clinton is a saint.

CNN is biased (not in the direction the GOP wants you to believe, though), and I've never said Clinton is a saint. So putting aside that you made a classic ad hominem fallacy, the basis of it is false. But you're showing what I mean--you're a useful idiot for the GOP.

 

[The Diplomat]

People tried that already, it doesn't sell.

Cable news is a business, they're selling a product to a target demographic.

You can't sell all the news to all the demographics at the same time.

If anything CNN is reacting to the EXTREME bias of the right wing media to target a market right wing media ignores.

I understand the business model and that ratings sell. CNN fell into that mold only recently though, because they are getting stomped by Fox. CNN was not like this only a few years ago.