• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Secular Talk

I love Secular Talk.

Agreed, Kyle is an excellent commentator.


I like Kyle's show more than the actual TYT show. So much better, actually.

I like TYT, but they do have their problems. Cenk and Ana are good commentators as well, but I feel like they're a little too biased right now, and about particular issues. Their #LoserDonald was fun for a day or two, but you can't just pump it out day after day. Everyone who watches their show knows that Trump is a ludicrous imbecile. Hell, Trump's name was officially banned from their network for like three years because they (correctly) surmised that he was an attention-seeking media whore. If negative media commentary was going to hurt him, he'd have been home in July of 2015. It's the negative publicity of attacking soldiers parents and so forth that brought down Trump.

Ultimately, I think that TYT is suffering some growing pains. They've gotten more exposure and size since the Sanders campaign when they were one of a tiny number of networks (e.g. TYT, Democracy Now) who were actually reporting on the primary in a biased but extremely fair way. Everyone else was largely just biased and extremely unfair, and/or lying. Almost every media outlet has diminished in my eyes after watching almost all of them dutifully report lies on a regular basis.

As for TYT, I think they're still trying to figure out how they fit into such a huge market, how they can keep up with their growing member base, etc.
 
Last edited:


Its basically an argument of semantics. They are both saying essentially the same thing and it's basically true. Without Obama's policies in Syria, ISIS as we know it today, wouldn't exist.
 
YouTube channel connected with the TYT Network. I watch Kyle Kulinski (the host) all the time.

I make it a point not to watch much from TYTs and to point out, every time they pop up, that they named their channel after the Turkish version of the Nazi party which carried out the Armenian genocide and the founder, Cenk Uygur, is an Armenian genocide denier and has only recently moderated his position of "It didn't happen." to "I don't know enough to talk about it." which is chicken speak for still denying it but not wanting to say it out loud.

That puts TYTs in the category of Stormfronters and the ultra white-nationalists that come here and say the Nazis were actually a great party and all the stuff about them, to include the Holocaust, is a lie.
 
I make it a point not to watch much from TYTs and to point out, every time they pop up, that they named their channel after the Turkish version of the Nazi party which carried out the Armenian genocide and the founder, Cenk Uygur, is an Armenian genocide denier and has only recently moderated his position of "It didn't happen." to "I don't know enough to talk about it." which is chicken speak for still denying it but not wanting to say it out loud.

That puts TYTs in the category of Stormfronters and the ultra white-nationalists that come here and say the Nazis were actually a great party and all the stuff about them, to include the Holocaust, is a lie.

Yeah, I know all about that. It's one of the many reasons why I don't like the Young Turks show.
 
Its basically an argument of semantics. They are both saying essentially the same thing and it's basically true. Without Obama's policies in Syria, ISIS as we know it today, wouldn't exist.

True, and ISIS is very thankful for New Guy Trump's continued support by way of cruise missile attack.
 
Its basically an argument of semantics. They are both saying essentially the same thing and it's basically true. Without Obama's policies in Syria, ISIS as we know it today, wouldn't exist.

I mean, you could likely track that back to Bush who got us into the war with no plan on how to keep it all together. So could we say that Bush founded ISIS?
 
I mean, you could likely track that back to Bush who got us into the war with no plan on how to keep it all together. So could we say that Bush founded ISIS?

Bush got us AQ in Iraq but they were on the back-burner and operated as more of a shadow government and such. Obama gave us ISIS, which was partially founded by AQ in Iraq. The most causal link between what we have today were Obama's policies in Syria.
 
Its basically an argument of semantics. They are both saying essentially the same thing and it's basically true. Without Obama's policies in Syria, ISIS as we know it today, wouldn't exist.

Yawn. Hypothesis contrary to fact. Next.
 
Yawn. Hypothesis contrary to fact. Next.

It's OK that you think this unfortunately, as is par for the course with you, reality doesn't back you up on this.
 
It's OK that you think this unfortunately, as is par for the course with you, reality doesn't back you up on this.

It's OK that you aren't aware when you've committed a logical fallacy. You and logic seem pretty much totally unacquainted.
 
It's OK that you aren't aware when you've committed a logical fallacy. You and logic seem pretty much totally unacquainted.

Look at you and your no-content posting streak. Can't break that one. It's the only thing you have going for you. It's quite boring.
 
Look at you and your no-content posting streak. Can't break that one. It's the only thing you have going for you. It's quite boring.

My content was pointing out that you made a logical fallacy and tried to pass it off as somehow, magically, valid.

That's all the 'content' your comment deserved.

That you have to pretend otherwise is simply par of the course.
 
Back
Top Bottom