Joe Rogan

Jack

P4P Star
Jul 29, 2012
8,416
2,362
They don't get involved in identity politics or SJW stuff, they focus on policy, economics, healthcare etc and call out those on the right when they try and con people with their views on 'socialism'.

You don't get this kind of balance or truth from the other side, why that is I'm not sure.
You do, you just don't see it because you're in disagreement with them.

The amount of times that someone like Shapiro has actually broken down things like healthcare is ridiculous. He does it all the time, he goes to his usual schtick about how is wife is a doctor, how she disagrees with him and then breaks down the subject. If people disagree with him, that's fine, but to make out he's just some ranting loon like Alex Jones is ridiculous. Shapiro has released such a vast array of material, his every political view is out there and in depth.

Someone like Kulinski is more similar to Crowder than Shapiro. He does the same nonsense that Crowder does, where he exaggerates points, uses strawman arguments, jumps to extremes and all that other rubbish, yet here he is being held up as some serious figure. Watch him debate with Charlie Kirk, it's pathetic, and anyone who has seen that debate and doesn't think he came off as childish and petulant is unequestionably biased. Cenk is the same, so is Seder, as are Sargon and Mark Dice on the right. None of these people are credible, they're all deeply annoying and disingenuous.
 

Bachafach^^^

ANTIFA
Dec 6, 2019
1,338
1,089
19
Varaždin
You do, you just don't see it because you're in disagreement with them.

The amount of times that someone like Shapiro has actually broken down things like healthcare is ridiculous
Ok, tell us what you like about Shapiro's healthcare views. Give us a breakdown since you're so familiar with his work.

Someone like Kulinski is more similar to Crowder than Shapiro.
Ok you Tory cunt. Tell us when Kulinski has stated to the effect that Jews who support Obama or don't agree with Israeli policy regarding Israel are not "real jews"

The Jewish people has always been plagued by Bad Jews, who undermine it from within. In America, those Bad Jews largely vote Democrat.

Or stated anything as racist as "Jews like to build, arabs like to bomb crap and live in sewage"


Or stated anything as ridiculous as their is a militant homosexual agenda, or pushing climate change deniaslism




Btw which points of which points Shapiro makes do you find appealing? You keep ignoring this same as you ignored his Dem Jew bashing?

Watch him debate with Charlie Kirk, it's pathetic, and anyone who has seen that debate and doesn't think he came off as childish and petulant is unequestionably biased.

Kuslinski actually has a segment where he tries to convert right wing callers




Sam Seder also loves debating Libertarians






Btw here is a clip of Kuslinski vs Charlie Kirk, tell us where Kuslinski is biased and what points you agree with Kirk on?






Funny how you righties were so pro debate a few years ago now after a few rounds of being dragged you don't want to play anymore.
 

TFG

Jul 23, 2013
7,895
4,483
You do, you just don't see it because you're in disagreement with them.

The amount of times that someone like Shapiro has actually broken down things like healthcare is ridiculous. He does it all the time, he goes to his usual schtick about how is wife is a doctor, how she disagrees with him and then breaks down the subject. If people disagree with him, that's fine, but to make out he's just some ranting loon like Alex Jones is ridiculous. Shapiro has released such a vast array of material, his every political view is out there and in depth.

Someone like Kulinski is more similar to Crowder than Shapiro. He does the same nonsense that Crowder does, where he exaggerates points, uses strawman arguments, jumps to extremes and all that other rubbish, yet here he is being held up as some serious figure. Watch him debate with Charlie Kirk, it's pathetic, and anyone who has seen that debate and doesn't think he came off as childish and petulant is unequestionably biased. Cenk is the same, so is Seder, as are Sargon and Mark Dice on the right. None of these people are credible, they're all deeply annoying and disingenuous.
No, they don't, which is why none of them will debate anyone who actually knows what they are talking about when it comes to public healthcare models. His breakdown is terrible, largely based on anecdotal evidence and shows blatant misunderstandings of how the system would actually work. You don't care about facts or logic though so this is no surprise that you see this as same same.

That's such a terrible take on Kulinski that shows you haven't watched any of his content, or have done so from your obsessed right wing mindset. Firstly, why are you the THIRD person to mention this debate, and the third person to talk about 'petulance' rather than content? :lol: You make this too easy, you really do. Kyle loses his patience because he's debating with a Trumpian retard, and if you watch that 'debate' agreeing with said retard then it's time to accept your company. In terms of intellect the debate is completely one sided, that's just something you need to get over. Even though you long to be seen as some kind of right wing thinker who sees through the bullshit :)lol:) you will agree with Kulinski on way more issues than Charlie Kirk. Crowder is nothing alike and sees himself as more of a comedian that literally targets college campus kids to make his videos, he has also got a consistent record in accepting and backing out of debates with people, where as Kyle regularly asks for them, not the same at all.

Pakman, Kyle, Seder etc are far more reputable than their counterparts, only a complete idiot would suggest otherwise. There's a reason people aren't regularly ridiculing their stances on important issues and pointing out error after error. It's time to either support your arguments and prove the validity in theirs or shut the fuck up.
 

TFG

Jul 23, 2013
7,895
4,483
Ok, tell us what you like about Shapiro's healthcare views. Give us a breakdown since you're so familiar with his work.



Ok you Tory cunt. Tell us when Kulinski has stated to the effect that Jews who support Obama or don't agree with Israeli policy regarding Israel are not "real jews"

The Jewish people has always been plagued by Bad Jews, who undermine it from within. In America, those Bad Jews largely vote Democrat.

Or stated anything as racist as "Jews like to build, arabs like to bomb crap and live in sewage"


Or stated anything as ridiculous as their is a militant homosexual agenda, or pushing climate change deniaslism




Btw which points of which points Shapiro makes do you find appealing? You keep ignoring this same as you ignored his Dem Jew bashing?




Kuslinski actually has a segment where he tries to convert right wing callers




Sam Seder also loves debating Libertarians






Btw here is a clip of Kuslinski vs Charlie Kirk, tell us where Kuslinski is biased and what points you agree with Kirk on?






Funny how you righties were so pro debate a few years ago now after a few rounds of being dragged you don't want to play anymore.
Funny how they've both watched the debate enough to make statements about how unacceptably petulant Kyle was, but can't muster a single comment on what he got wrong :think
 

Jack

P4P Star
Jul 29, 2012
8,416
2,362
Ok, tell us what you like about Shapiro's healthcare views. Give us a breakdown since you're so familiar with his work
I can't give a full reply at the moment but I disagree with Shapiro on healthcare. He's against a nationalised, 'free' service whereas I strongly believe that a system like the NHS should be protected and should be considered human right, not a privilege.

However, that doesn't mean that just because I disagree with Shapiro, I think he's unable to see the benefits. People on here are falling into the trap that their beliefs are undeniable fact and anything short of complete agreement shows a lack of research, intelligence or morality which is where I will defend Shapiro, because he's none of those. He just disagrees but it doesn't mean it removes his credibility as an intellectual.
 

TFG

Jul 23, 2013
7,895
4,483
I can't give a full reply at the moment but I disagree with Shapiro on healthcare. He's against a nationalised, 'free' service whereas I strongly believe that a system like the NHS should be protected and should be considered human right, not a privilege.

However, that doesn't mean that just because I disagree with Shapiro, I think he's unable to see the benefits. People on here are falling into the trap that their beliefs are undeniable fact and anything short of complete agreement shows a lack of research, intelligence or morality which is where I will defend Shapiro, because he's none of those. He just disagrees but it doesn't mean it removes his credibility as an intellectual.
It does remove his credibility when he uses incredibly flawed logic to reach his conclusion that is consistent across a number of his views, along with blatant dishonesty. If you don't think his views on issues such as healthcare, climate change, military intervention show a lack of research, then you are very easily fooled and incredibly ignorant your self.

This is a guy that writes books on how to 'own lefties' but doesn't debate any of them, or even acknowledge any proper left wing counter arguments to his views. He formulates very narrow minded arguments that are designed to have an impact on his readers, they are not designed to produce balanced, well researched arguments. He's not just wrong, he's deliberate in the way he bends the truth and malicious in the way he spreads it.
 

Bachafach^^^

ANTIFA
Dec 6, 2019
1,338
1,089
19
Varaždin
I can't give a full reply at the moment but I disagree with Shapiro on healthcare. He's against a nationalised, 'free' service whereas I strongly believe that a system like the NHS should be protected and should be considered human right, not a privilege.

However, that doesn't mean that just because I disagree with Shapiro, I think he's unable to see the benefits. People on here are falling into the trap that their beliefs are undeniable fact and anything short of complete agreement shows a lack of research, intelligence or morality which is where I will defend Shapiro, because he's none of those. He just disagrees but it doesn't mean it removes his credibility as an intellectual.
Yeesh, that was pathetic
 

Werety

My time to get an avatar is running out
Aug 22, 2013
1,493
727
You do, you just don't see it because you're in disagreement with them.

The amount of times that someone like Shapiro has actually broken down things like healthcare is ridiculous. He does it all the time, he goes to his usual schtick about how is wife is a doctor, how she disagrees with him and then breaks down the subject. If people disagree with him, that's fine, but to make out he's just some ranting loon like Alex Jones is ridiculous. Shapiro has released such a vast array of material, his every political view is out there and in depth.

Someone like Kulinski is more similar to Crowder than Shapiro. He does the same nonsense that Crowder does, where he exaggerates points, uses strawman arguments, jumps to extremes and all that other rubbish, yet here he is being held up as some serious figure. Watch him debate with Charlie Kirk, it's pathetic, and anyone who has seen that debate and doesn't think he came off as childish and petulant is unequestionably biased. Cenk is the same, so is Seder, as are Sargon and Mark Dice on the right. None of these people are credible, they're all deeply annoying and disingenuous.
Kulinski is NOT the equivalent of Crowder on the left. That’s ridiculous Crowder is much much much worse.
 

Jack

P4P Star
Jul 29, 2012
8,416
2,362
Funny how they've both watched the debate enough to make statements about how unacceptably petulant Kyle was, but can't muster a single comment on what he got wrong :think

From the start of this video, Kirk states that Trump never asked a Ukrainian to intervene about Biden but to go after Crowdstrike. Kulinski then attacks Kirk for...not being able to put two and two together, to spot the implied meaning of what was said? Kirk asks Kulinski to back up what he's saying with a fact but Kulinski can't, so he tries to divert the topic. Kirk is talking factually about what's in the transcript - which is the only thing that matters - whereas Kulinski is talking about what is inferred, something irrelevant. Kirk then states the fact that the Ukranian president said that nothing was withheld, to which Kulinski childlishy jumps in with "it doesn't matter, it was obvious".

Near the start of the video when Kulinski states that he can admit fault on his own side because of HIllary and yet Kirk won't do the same for Trump. This is just a bizarre statement because Kulinski is not on the same side as Clinton, she's a corrupt politician and, like all of the left, he's against her. Rightly so too, but to use her as an example of him being against someone of the left is ridiculous because Kulisnki would never refer to Clinton as a left wing politician, she's very clearly not. He's grandstanding in this way to make himself look fair and impartial but everyone knows that Clinton is not on the left - if he could have given an example of him criticising Bernie, AOC or someone like that, he'd have a point but he didn't, his example of criticising someone on his team was to criticise someone he hates.

Kirk then states that Kulinski's argument has to be backed up by fact and not opinion - which is absolutely true - and then Kulinski petulantly resorts to "OK, Charlie, Trump did nothing wrong". He got annihilated. His defence of not having the facts to back him up is either an admittance of poor research or, more worryingly, a completely lack of impartiality because everyone knows that Kirk is right on this, yet Kulinski doesn't care - he epitomises everything Kirk talks about, when he says that people just have it in for Trump no matter what. When Kirk is talking and coming up with valid points, Kulinski childishly makes a gesture to pretend he is sleeping. After Kirk is finished, Kulinski tries to be funny and sums up what Kirk just said with "Donald Trump good, Democrat bad"...it's just childish playground nonsense. Kulinski then just moves the goal posts, ignores Kirk's valid points, talks about Saudi Arabia - which is nothing to do with anything - and then starts shouting and swearing, before saying that Kirk wouldn't criticise Trump's allegiance with Saudi Arabia. That becomes very humiliating for Kulinski when Kirk does criticise the Saudi government.

The first 6 minutes or so are just embarrassing. Anyone who thinks that Kulinski looked better or didn't come off as a moron is just delusional, he clearly lost this debate and made himself looked pathetic in doing it because he either couldn't argue facts or when he didn't have a rebuttal, just moved the goalposts. It's pathetic. The idea that an intellectual would make a gesture to pretend to be asleep, start shouting and swearing or incessently move the goalposts is hilarious. He's a childish knob and it's mad that he's being used as an example of an intellectual. He made Charlie Kirk look like the equivalent of prime Pernell Whitaker, he couldn't lay a glove on him.

For what it's worth, I'm not a fan of Kirk either but Kulinski came off terribly and to say otherwise is nothing other than bias.
 

Bachafach^^^

ANTIFA
Dec 6, 2019
1,338
1,089
19
Varaždin

From the start of this video, Kirk states that Trump never asked a Ukrainian to intervene about Biden but to go after Crowdstrike. Kulinski then attacks Kirk for...not being able to put two and two together, to spot the implied meaning of what was said? Kirk asks Kulinski to back up what he's saying with a fact but Kulinski can't, so he tries to divert the topic. Kirk is talking factually about what's in the transcript -
1. What the fuck are you talking about.

9640

This has been confirmed by a National Security Advisor, Ambassador to Ukraine an an Ambassador to the European Union and White House Chief of Staff.

Here is a play by play if you're unfamiliar with subject.


2. The moderator asked if it is ever ok for a US president to extort a foreign Ally, Kirk says Hillary should be locked up and then proceeds to lie regarding the Ukrainian investigation because he's a partisan hack.

The Ukrainian investigation had been all over the media at this point and the facts were clear and corroborated by several intelligence figures.

Kuslinski for his part believes to the chagrin of many leftists including myself that the impeachment trial is pointless, most of Washington is hopelessly corrupt and the impeachable offenses Trump has committed would be more a long the lines of funding Saudi Arabia murder of hundreds of thousands of children in Yemen.

Kuslinski rightly mocks Charlie Kirk for his partisan hackery because those of his ilk and yours apparently would never admit Trump is the least bit corrupt no matter what evidence is provided.



3. Please explain what you mean by "inferring" Trump attempted to extort the Ukrainian government. By that standard di did Hitler "infer" the Nazis commit the holocaust. Did Reagan "infer" armed shipments to Nicuaraguan death squads.

What level of proof do you require to show a crime has been committed



4. Kuslinski ends the segment with a power bomb when asked if a President should sell his assets after attaining office. Charlie Kirk is left studdering about Trump coming from nothing and fighting off bankruptcy or something.






For what it's worth, I'm not a fan of Kirk either but Kulinski came off terribly and to say otherwise is nothing other than bias.

Yeah you say that, now what do you think about Shapiro's comments about what makes a real Jew?

 
Jun 14, 2012
13,834
6,412
It's crazy how big Joe Rogan is these days. I was chatting to three of the guys at work when he came up, and it turned out all of us follow him
His podcast has definitely gotten mainstream over the years. There's people I work with who I would have thought would never even have heard of him that listen to his show.