Liberal Forum

roadkill » 27 Dec 2022, 11:27 am » wrote: ↑

27 Dec 2022, 11:27 am

Nerve struck.    

I bet...


 

Blackvegetable » 27 Dec 2022, 8:12 am » wrote: ↑

27 Dec 2022, 8:12 am

Putting your finger to the wind?

That's just cheese....

Yup! Penile Head Cheese! (smegma)      
 

roadkill » 27 Dec 2022, 8:22 am » wrote: ↑

27 Dec 2022, 8:22 am

I analyzed yer OP...yer a retarded Communist (redundant).    Did you vote for Biden?

Yer a doormat. 

nowhere in his op did I ever get a hint he voted for Biden. 

Yer just a pent up ball of frustration and stupid who cannot make a coherent argument.



 

Pastafarian » 27 Dec 2022, 2:02 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Dec 2022, 2:02 pm

Yer a doormat. 

nowhere in his op did I ever get a hint he voted for Biden. 

Yer just a pent up ball of frustration and stupid who cannot make a coherent argument.

Oh goodness...PastaClueless defends the OP.     

LowIQTrash » 27 Dec 2022, 3:52 am » wrote: ↑

27 Dec 2022, 3:52 am

Hello everyone. Hope you enjoyed your Xmas!   

Here is a short list of popular political commentators + their political leanings to "prove" (substantiate) the idea that...well, (((YouTube))) wants you to be retarded/ignorant...by directing you into channels of misinformation/disinformation/mediocre arguments/shallow sophistry.

And maybe you ARE already retarded/ignorant, so nothing is gained or lost by you watching these channels...(heh) but still, I'd like to throw down the gauntlet and see if any of you can prove me wrong.

Part 1 of ?

1. Tim Pool - claims he is a "classical liberal" (I doubt he - or for that matter, most "classical liberals" - even knows what the term means, just like how most people can't define "capitalism," "socialism," "communism," "fascism," whateverism because...people are retarded lol)

Verdict: 100% for midwits / TP isn't particularly intelligent, even if he does make decent arguments every now and then; nothing out of the ordinary

Bonus: Ask a self-proclaimed "classical liberal" what economists like Smith/Ricardo/George (Georgian Economics) actually believed (snicker) and don't settle for vague responses...and get ready for some laughter. Don't let them cheat via search engines/Wikipedia either.

2. Joe Rogan - JR seems to oscillate from "Bernie Bro" style succdem (social democrat) to libertar(D)ianism...then back to succdemism whenever he feels like it. Then back to liberTARDianism. Coz reasons.

If I had to describe JR...he's an umbrella "anti-establishment" type...which is fine but shallow. Everybody who isn't a complete retard knows "the Establishment" is corrupt, so there's no point in rehashing this.

Verdict: 80-85% midwittery, not good for in-depth analysis. Still better than most political channels on YT (though that's a pretty low bar). Occasionally some interesting content but usually outside politics. 

Bonus: JR had Tulsi Gabbard on his show several times, but never questioned Tulsi Gabbard's affiliation with the WEF "Young Leaders"...after all Tulsi Gabbard frequently marketed herself as "anti-establishment" but hailed from a highly suspect (((globalist))) organization.

You actually watch this YT **** long enough to get a sort of history on each?

If you do, you are either a midwit yourself or a masochist.
If you don't, you are relying on other people's opinions of them to post this.

Please advise...

DeezerShoove » 27 Dec 2022, 4:16 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Dec 2022, 4:16 pm

You actually watch this YT **** long enough to get a sort of history on each?

If you do, you are either a midwit yourself or a masochist.
If you don't, you are relying on other people's opinions of them to post this.

Please advise...

Anyone not living under a rock has seen enough Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson to make a judgement on them.

Being aware of mainstream US media doesn't automatically make you a midwit
 

SJConspirator » 27 Dec 2022, 6:46 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Dec 2022, 6:46 pm

Anyone not living under a rock has seen enough Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson to make a judgement on them.

Being aware of mainstream US media doesn't automatically make you a midwit

How much rent do you pay?


 

LowIQTrash » 27 Dec 2022, 4:39 am » wrote: ↑

27 Dec 2022, 4:39 am

Tucker Carlson - oh boy, where to start...(TC's vids garner a relatively massive # of views compared to his cohorts on Fox News' YT channel so I will include him here on this list even though YT isn't his primary outlet)

Former neocon who had his nose up DUBYA'S *** (like most of you **** idiot Trumptards), then converted to liberTARDianism (Glenn Beck did the same thing...he started calling himself a "libertarian" to rebrand himself LMFAO, what's with these lame marketing tactics)...now he's like...some paleocon/faux nationalist who rants about "our evil/corrupt ruling class" every segment

Fun fact/Aside: TC rebranded himself as a paleocon/quasi-nationalist after he realized the proles hate LIBERTARDIANISM that advocates flooding our country with undesirable 3rd worlders/don't want to get raped by monopolies and major corps

If you listen to a few of his monologues, he has this seductive bent to all his Fox News segments, where he kind of/sort of calls out "people on both sides" and LURES the ignorant into thinking: "Tucker is a true journalist! He's the only one in the MSM telling us DA TROOF!!!11"   

TC is Prince Charming to an army of FN watching princesses. Other Fox anchors like Hannity/Ingraham don't even come close to TC in terms of aggregate ratings/YT video views

TC is a honeypot/spider web for malcontent Trumptards/Republicans who are growing increasingly bitter/resentful at "the political establishment." His goal is to channel that anger back into voting Republican so you can keep serving your corporate masters/oligarchs like a good debt slave/wage slave/tax donkey.

Every time election season swings around, he subtly manipulates the army of princesses to get **** again...by the likes of McConnell, Graham, "RINOs", etc. doing the bidding of (((International Financiers/Money Changers)))

TC wins my award for "master manipulator" 

Kulinski is weak sauce. Tucker is the guy with the rope right now - they let him off leash, for the reasons you said. 

I used to LMAO at how  michael savage would lead his "mavericks" back into the fold relialy every election. 

Never forget that Tucker wore a bow tie. Dat mean gay.
 

Blackvegetable » 27 Dec 2022, 8:12 am » wrote: ↑

27 Dec 2022, 8:12 am

Putting your finger to the wind?

No questions,dick sucker.
 
https://i.imgflip.com/6yjej4.jpg

LowIQTrash » 27 Dec 2022, 3:52 am » wrote: ↑

27 Dec 2022, 3:52 am

Hello everyone. Hope you enjoyed your Xmas!   

Here is a short list of popular political commentators + their political leanings to "prove" (substantiate) the idea that...well, (((YouTube))) wants you to be retarded/ignorant...by directing you into channels of misinformation/disinformation/mediocre arguments/shallow sophistry.

And maybe you ARE already retarded/ignorant, so nothing is gained or lost by you watching these channels...(heh) but still, I'd like to throw down the gauntlet and see if any of you can prove me wrong.

Part 1 of ?

1. Tim Pool - claims he is a "classical liberal" (I doubt he - or for that matter, most "classical liberals" - even knows what the term means, just like how most people can't define "capitalism," "socialism," "communism," "fascism," whateverism because...people are retarded lol)

Verdict: 100% for midwits / TP isn't particularly intelligent, even if he does make decent arguments every now and then; nothing out of the ordinary

Bonus: Ask a self-proclaimed "classical liberal" what economists like Smith/Ricardo/George (Georgian Economics) actually believed (snicker) and don't settle for vague responses...and get ready for some laughter. Don't let them cheat via search engines/Wikipedia either.

2. Joe Rogan - JR seems to oscillate from "Bernie Bro" style succdem (social democrat) to libertar(D)ianism...then back to succdemism whenever he feels like it. Then back to liberTARDianism. Coz reasons.

If I had to describe JR...he's an umbrella "anti-establishment" type...which is fine but shallow. Everybody who isn't a complete retard knows "the Establishment" is corrupt, so there's no point in rehashing this.

Verdict: 80-85% midwittery, not good for in-depth analysis. Still better than most political channels on YT (though that's a pretty low bar). Occasionally some interesting content but usually outside politics. 

Bonus: JR had Tulsi Gabbard on his show several times, but never questioned Tulsi Gabbard's affiliation with the WEF "Young Leaders"...after all Tulsi Gabbard frequently marketed herself as "anti-establishment" but hailed from a highly suspect (((globalist))) organization.

I rather like Jimmy Dore.

SJConspirator » 27 Dec 2022, 6:46 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Dec 2022, 6:46 pm

Anyone not living under a rock has seen enough Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson to make a judgement on them.

Being aware of mainstream US media doesn't automatically make you a midwit

I guess seeing what little gets posted here is not enough to make a call.
That's because I do not watch them wherever they are (YT or TV).
Can't take it for very long.

I find it funny when people go off on the talking heads and then accuse others of being a sheep.
peepee is good for that ****, for example. 
Disagree with somebody here and you're a Fox News idiot, blah, blah, blah.
I don't watch any of that stuff unless there's a link here maybe... Once in a while.
Who can watch that **** - talking heads analyzing daily events? It's not even half news anymore.

I see a State of the Union address, then actually watch assholes afterward "analyze"?
Analysis and opinion...? No thank you.
Podcasts and news opinion are mostly wastes of time for me.
Too frustratingly long to say almost nothing.

They have their moments when they slip and are succinct. I'll give you that.  

Cannonpointer » 27 Dec 2022, 7:55 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Dec 2022, 7:55 pm

I rather like Jimmy Dore.

Only because he took the vaccine and then turned against pro-vaxxers...I believe that was the case?

He is more vocal than the rest, but I don't see much reason to revisit his channel.
 

Part 3 of ?

The Epoch Times

The Epoch Times is a Falun Gong (a religious cult based in Hong Kong and is anti-CCP, pro-Republican Party) creation that somehow blew up after Trump's election in 2016. They've been publishing since 2000 but most people (myself included) did not hear of their existence until sometime in the past 7 years.

Note that ET doesn't have "one" commentator as they are a publication, but the views among their "journalists" (lol) are difficult to distinguish and thus I will be referring to them monolithically. ET masks itself as "journalism" but they consist of opinion editorials.

ET loves publishing articles about how China is on the brink of collapse...which will happen any day now. Of course since that hasn't happened, they then revert to documenting CCP missteps/embarrassing mistakes on public policy. 

While I won't deny the retardation of the CCP on various subjects (such as their "Zero Covid" abomination), ET seems gleeful at the prospect that the CCP will one day fall from grace/lose its power/etc. This seems highly unlikely...but even were that the case, the idea that China would gladly embrace some form of Western democracy/republicanism as the alternative is complete idiocy.

First of all...the Chinee (as Cannonpointer likes to say) are mostly conformist, and this appears to be a genetic predisposition among East Asians in general. They don't really care about voting for [Candidate 1, Candidate 2, Candidate 3,...] as long as they have a family, food on the table, saved up money to send kids to college, and a roof over their heads. 

Second of all...the Chinee love the idea of "meritocracy." For those of you unaware, the Chinee have a rigid system of administration in state affairs (since Confucian times...possibly even prior for those of you with any knowledge of Chinese ancient history) where you are judged by your superiors if you wish to "move up" the system.

It's not much different from Corporate America...except instead of being judged by some ***-licker manager/director/VP, you'll be judged by someone presumably competent.

ET = retarded anti-CCP/pro-Trumpie/pro-DeSantis propaganda


Russell Brand

A comedian from the UK, Russell Brand enjoys his spotlight by telling jokes but is still a flawed "umbrella anti-establishmentarian."

My primary grievance is that he refuses to call out (((those people))), either because he doesn't know of their existence/their crimes, or because he would simply be censored by (((YouTube))) faster than the FBI "swept away" evidence at the Oklahoma City bombing site.

However, I am willing to overlook this flaw and point some things out:

1) He has called out the WEF/"globalist organizations"/oligarchs like Bill Gates (unfortunately, without identifying who "globalists" are) 

2) He's had interesting guests on like (They Created “75% of All Chronic Disease” | Vandana Shiva On Big Food - YouTube). Most YTers seem to be inherently uncomfortable with inviting guests who are smarter than they are to preserve their fragile egos, but to RB's credit, that doesn't seem to be the case here.

3) His secondary topic of interest is personal health + the degradation of the food supply, which is of high interest to me as well given that...food goes into your body frequently.

4) He's had debates with the likes of Candace Owens/Jordan Peterson/Ben Shapiro...and while this club is not the smartest in the opera house, his level of argumentation suggests he IS indeed smarter than the midwits (not by much, but enough to not be denigrated by the likes of me...lol)
 

DeezerShoove » 27 Dec 2022, 4:16 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Dec 2022, 4:16 pm

You actually watch this YT **** long enough to get a sort of history on each?

If you do, you are either a midwit yourself or a masochist.
If you don't, you are relying on other people's opinions of them to post this.

Please advise...

No, I do a bit of research on the most popular YTer's backgrounds and analyze their content by random sampling. 3-5 videos is more than sufficient for me to determine what "level" they are at. 

For example, if you read my 2nd post, I talk about Tucker Carlson's background and history before analyzing his main "selling point" which is, as I mentioned, to get bitterly resentful Republicans back into the Democrap/Repuke Gulag and tick the box next to (R) candidates.

A midwit would never do that type of research before making some kind of conclusion about TC. A midwit would watch Fox News, think Tucker Carlson is some kind of Godsend to help shed light on "the evil/incompetent ruling elites," and conclude that TC is a "true journalist" (nonsense).
 
 
 

Blackvegetable » 27 Dec 2022, 8:23 am » wrote: ↑

27 Dec 2022, 8:23 am

You watch this crap so we don't have to. 

Thanks.

TuckTuck does populism like only a St George's/Trinity man could.

Only as much as necessary.

I do admit if you are doing a simple case study via random sampling, TC is actually quite amusing...he somehow gets people to believe he isn't "one of them" while magically...come election time...rest is history.

LowIQTrash » 27 Dec 2022, 11:40 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Dec 2022, 11:40 pm

Only as much as necessary.

I do admit if you are doing a simple case study via random sampling, TC is actually quite amusing...he somehow gets people to believe he isn't "one of them" while magically...come election time...rest is history.

He's taking elocution lessons from the ghost of that guy who used to wrap up 60 Minutes with "observations".

LowIQTrash » 27 Dec 2022, 11:35 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Dec 2022, 11:35 pm

No, I do a bit of research on the most popular YTer's backgrounds and analyze their content by random sampling. 3-5 videos is more than sufficient for me to determine what "level" they are at. 

For example, if you read my 2nd post, I talk about Tucker Carlson's background and history before analyzing his main "selling point" which is, as I mentioned, to get bitterly resentful Republicans back into the Democrap/Repuke Gulag and tick the box next to (R) candidates.

A midwit would never do that type of research before making some kind of conclusion about TC. A midwit would watch Fox News, think Tucker Carlson is some kind of Godsend to help shed light on "the evil/incompetent ruling elites," and conclude that TC is a "true journalist" (nonsense).

"A bit of research" sounds like living by sound bite. Good for you.

LowIQTrash » 27 Dec 2022, 9:51 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Dec 2022, 9:51 pm

Only because he took the vaccine and then turned against pro-vaxxers...I believe that was the case?

He is more vocal than the rest, but I don't see much reason to revisit his channel.

He's his own man - in no one's pocket. That's rare enough.

He calls out everyone - well, almost everyone - that I want to see called out. 

He pisses off everyone who pisses me off.
 

DeezerShoove » 28 Dec 2022, 9:32 am » wrote: ↑

28 Dec 2022, 9:32 am

"A bit of research" sounds like living by sound bite. Good for you.

I can't tell if you are sarcastically lauding research or praising willful ignorance.

IMO, being informed, doing research is a good thing, having educated opinion is good

Blackvegetable » 27 Dec 2022, 8:23 am » wrote: ↑

27 Dec 2022, 8:23 am

TuckTuck does populism like only a St George's/Trinity man could.

Now THAT is just mean spirited.