GreatWhiteNorth

"glorification of violence" was neither what I said, nor meant. Weird that you attributed your posted words as mine. That was purely a product of your post - you are misleading people here. "Glorification" was an interesting word to use on your part. You proceed to quote "veiled calls for violence" as being "too dangerous to hear"... Your posts are starting to look sketchy. Are you sure you don't have an agenda of your own here?

No. It isn't Marxism.. and none of the rest of that last sentence is true.

Point well made. There are many, many examples of explicit calls for violence. They aren't rare. But - is your point also that this "Aldean" example should get a pass because it is more of the same? Sounds like a kid saying, "but the other kids did it first!" I'd like to think otherwise. Calling for violence doesn't need to be tolerated. It shouldn't have been before either, but we can't change history. Our best option is to limit it as best we can. Starting now. The internet is a giant echo chamber that takes calls for violence and calls for hate and amplifies them many times over. That isn't something we had before. But we do now. Different tactics are in order if we truly want to make society better. (Those tactics don't include using political party affiliation to divide us - that only hinders progress, but you know that.)

Especially those guests that are egotistical, narcissistic, pathological, psychopaths. No doubt, they get along famously.

50/50. "Woke" isn't remotely a culture - it's a political movement. And it is based on a sketchy foundation. IMO, it isn't helpful. Promising to "shut it down"? No, not that. The US allows people to follow their own political paths. It's part of what the country was built on. Political efforts shouldn't be hindered or "shut down" - that's what the commies do. Not us.

Too long didn't read - Blah, blah way toooo long. If you've got a succinct point, make it. If you don't - then find one.

I had listened to a Fridman podcast when he interviewed Don Knuth - actually listened to it, in its entirety, twice. It was outstanding. Knuth is so impressive. What I didn't do was dig further into Lex's interviews... until now, I didn't realize he had built up such an impressive (and crazy diverse) catalog. RFK is DAF, but it doesn't make the podcast any less interesting. Looks like I've got a lot of podcasts I need to catch up on. Thanks for the post.

The important thing here is that Russia absolutely, and without a doubt, made efforts to influence the election. So "Russian influence" is factual. Their efforts may have been a significant factor... or not. How successful they were is basically impossible to pin down. "Russian collusion", on the other hand, would involve a relationship between Trump and his campaign directly with the Russians. Collusion was never proven. May have been a "witch hunt" or maybe just didn't have enough evidence... hard to say, we just don't know. Given these circumstances, we've got more questions than answers. It could have been a lot of things. The only thing we know is that... we don't really know. The only thing we can take away from this is that the current Russian government is, without a doubt, rotten to the core and the enemy of the USA.

You seem angry right now, so I'll make this brief as to not antagonize you further. Yes, Trump's campaign (not himself, more like Bannon and his team) used some 'modern' techniques to 'influence' the election and the results in Trump's favor. Bannon was super creepy and was fired by Trump at some point - but he had done his job well. If you remember, the results were a surprise to most everyone. Not magic, just some new techniques that turned out to work quite well. By 2020, those techniques were no longer new - they were well known among campaign pro's. The D's used some of those same techniques, and some similar new ones that had been developed and were able to turn the tide and even the stakes. As always, new tech can give an advantage in the short term - but eventually (usually quite quickly these days), it is shared/duplicated and it is no longer an advantage. This isn't an attempt at humor. My humor is shared by many here... but you seem to be sour right now, so - no, not you.

Nope, you missed it. Maybe read it again. It was a commentary on humor, and other posters that tried but didn't quite hit the mark. Not a big deal. You seem to be in attack mode. There's an old saying from the early days of social media about never posting when you're angry. It's not a bad idea.

No, really, humor is a tough business. It really is. It relies so much on timing... which is incredibly hard to do on an online forum. So many attempts at humor fall flat.

I just made the one, plenty of room for you... or one of your aliases. Use that Illinois blog guy one - always a hit.

Not quite true - this is specifically the 'non-wrestling topics' section.

100% agreed. That exactly explains how that orange turd was elected to the presidency in 2016. (He didn't stand a chance otherwise.) Also explains why the orange turd was so upset he lost in 2020. He had paid for the same cheating, but yet lost this time. When he lost in 2020, he went all wacko about 'stolen' election. Which is basically what he did in 2016. It was kind of like a thief calling the police to complain that the stuff they stole was now taken.

You forgot to say "flip-flop." You guys always say it. It's FOX News gold. BTW "vehemently" is a nice touch, not many 5 year olds use that one in a sentence. Nicely done.

Question answered. I've personally witnessed it more times than I care to admit - but some people actually use google as their home page and type the name of the site they want to go to into the Google search field. Thus, the nickname for a computer as being a "google maker." As far as counting into the millions - I am not surprised. Imagine these folks doing this every hour of every day...

Oh that? That was my rebuttal. BTW, it might well be that Willie's got the inside track on the coke gig... he did say "zero substance."

The "dum-dum" comment was a reference to an interview with Ben Askren after he was KO'd in MMA, the "5 year old" was a reference to something Willie posted himself. Inside references. Maybe not humorous to everybody, but that's OK. Humor works that way. Willie's "dividing the nation" post above is the same. Maybe funny to some, maybe not to others. Humor is a tough business.

That's interesting, so where's your substance about this particular post right now?

Ooof... I knew a person with that same attitude when I was in college. According to them, they were always right and never wrong. Challenged everyone to it, constantly. That was one insufferable human being. Don't know what ever came of 'em. To be honest, I don't care. Just glad to be rid of that BS.

Of course not, in the US neither the right nor the left wants citizens to be dirt poor. After all is said and done, we're mostly good people and have respect for one another (at least those that don't get too deep into the fiction of a R vs D war.) What's your point?

The sound of a man who is trying to figure out how to deal with the equivalent of a 5 year old child.

C'mon... really? You're claiming the leftists' desire is to make their citizens dirt poor? Not the dumbest thing I've seen posted here, but it is on the list.

Ok dum-dum

No. No it isn't.