I am grateful. I saw multiple spellings on the internet so I picked one at random. It’s good to know the definitely correct one.
If this were an article, I substantiate immediately. Since it’s a you-tube vid, the process takes longer.
Assert - assert - assert. It’s a garbage way of informing or misinforming your audience, however common on TV and video.
I have no problem dealing with an opinionated commentator. I do have a problem with someone who states dubious and tendentious opinions as facts, without substantiation or even allusion to the underlying controversy.
That said, I acknowledged above the necessity of fighting fire with fire. Better to shovel leftish unsubstantiated assertions at gullible men than fascist unsubstantiated assertions.
Since this is the Pit, I’ll say you’re completely full of shit.
You do you. Since you haven’t answered my clarifying questions (posed in response to your question above), I conclude you don’t really want substantiation.
Not sure why you think I’m making an amazing, gobsmacking claim. I substantiate my arguments here all the time, but typically not in response to You-tube vids, which trend horseshit.
Here’s an example of someone I attacked vociferously while providing substantiation:
Two miserable excuses for human beings shouting at each other. I loathe them both equally.
Between the two of them, I’d root for a technical equipment failure.
Your “clarifying questions” were you asking me to do your work for you. I don’t need to point out any particular minute of the video because I don’t know what point you ever thought you had.
You implied that Vaush made bad or false assertions, I’m happy to hear what they are. I’ve disagreed with Vaush on a few things in the past, so it would be no great relevation. But instead you’re going on about “substantiation”.
Sure you do. Just not here, apparently.
Preferably involving high voltage electricity.
No. No I wouldn’t.
That might be interpreted as wishing harm on someone… and as we both know from my wrongful ban in the Gun News Threads, there is at least one cock sucking son of a bitch bastard whose father loved fucking sheep and whose mother and sisters loved fucking dogs who would just love fap his goo by reporting me.
I didn’t mention the amps…
Can you tell us which of Vaush’s takes you do agree with, so we don’t waste everyone’s times?
Do you agree with him when he says that Israel should be destroyed in nuclear fire?
Do you agree with him when he says he trusts Iran with nukes more than Israel (presumably because he knows they’d use it to wipe Israel out, a goal he agrees with)?
Do you agree with him when he says that there’s nothing weird about his love of horse on human porn?
I’d say all of those are bad or false assertions, but if those aren’t the assertions Vaush makes that you agree with, we don’t need to waste time on those.
The sexual tension was palpable. They couldn’t take their eyes off of each other.
Have they changed the rules? I’ve always understood that wishing death on posters and on classes of people was strictly forbidden, and that wishing death on private individuals was problematic, but that public figures were fair game. If, for instance, I were to hope for the defenestration of Vladmir Putin, would I be placing my posting privileges at risk?
What’s wasting everyone’s time is this continued attempt to go off-topic.
Yes there are lots of things I agree with him on; on climate change, the rise of China, the genocide in Gaza etc. It’s not a thread on Vaush so I’ll leave it at that.
In terms of this video, the reason for linking that channel was just that:
- He plays the whole interview
- He points out what Cruz cannot say about Netanyahu, which makes it more entertaining watching Cruz squirm over Tucker’s repeated pressing.
You’ve pretty much got it. There’s a bit of fuzziness around “classes of people,” depending on how you’re defining “classes.” Generally, “protected classes” (as understood in US law) are off limits, but classes based on ideology or behavior are usually okay - “Kill all the Chinese” is out, but “Kill everyone in Al Qaeda” is acceptable.
For publicly recognizable figures, “wishing harm” is fine, but threats of violence could be a problem, especially with political figures. Anyone threatening any sort of violence against a sitting politician is going to get moderated, but “I hope Trump chokes to death on a corndog,” would not.
Sufficient hyperbole or cartoon imagery is also going to usually get a pass. “I’m going to throw Sabrina Carpenter into the sun,” is not generally going to draw a mod note.
Burger King commercial from 1977:
200 million people. Has that number changed?
I doubt Cruz knows even that. Like, what is there some kind of count or something?
That obviously cannot be correct, because their population is not quite 100 million today.
In 1977. there were about 200 million people in the USA. That’s a Burger King commercial. There are about 335 million now (I was part of the Census in 2010 and I reckon there are more now!)
I am not a Senator, yet Cruz’ best answer would have been something like “Iran has a population of 80 million plus, like Turkey and Germany”
Gotcha, I saw from the preview that it was a Burger King commercial, but since 1977 was before 1979 I figured it might have been a commercial that mentioned Burger King operating in Iran. But I suppose not!
I figured you’d fat fingered an extra 0 and that the population in 1977 was 20 million - I don’t see a population table that goes back to the 70s with a quick Google search, but it seems like the right ballpark given the population in the 80s.
How many people in Iran?
All of them.