• 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!

Tomi Lahren (making no sense at all) WARNING

Lord of Planar said:
You guys are being really ignorant.

If he doesn't use one of these outlets for expression, he is just perching to the choir.

Grow a pair, like Tomi did going of a leftist show.
Click to expand...

So what is wrong with using a sporting event watched by millions of people as an outlet for expression.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I think protests are stupid. Does that answer your question?

My God.

You are really a touchy snowflake, aren't you.
Click to expand...

There you have it. He thinks no one should protest.

You're an authoritarian and you disgust me. Calling me a snowflake when you cant even handle a guy you dont know probably playing for a team you dislike kneels for a flag during a non-national game.

You dont even realize how hypocritical you are or how childish and stupid your position is.
 
Ask yourself. What is the purpose of a protest? More often than not, they become an unethical gathering of people, who end up infringing of the free movement of others.

Now how can you get your message out to the people who you end up offending?

You need respectful dialog.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Ask yourself. What is the purpose of a protest? More often than not, they become an unethical gathering of people, who end up infringing of the free movement of others.

Now how can you get your message out to the people who you end up offending?

You need respectful dialog.
Click to expand...

Here is a thought: some people protest because they can no longer passively stand by or passively participate in something that they find morally and ethically abhorrent. Mario Savio, one of the leaders of the free speech movement at Berkeley during the protests of 1964, spoke of this:

Now, there are at least two ways in which sit-ins and civil disobedience and whatever -- least two major ways in which it can occur. One, when a law exists, is promulgated, which is totally unacceptable to people and they violate it again and again and again till it's rescinded, appealed. Alright, but there's another way. There's another way. Sometimes, the form of the law is such as to render impossible its effective violation -- as a method to have it repealed. Sometimes, the grievances of people are more -- extend more -- to more than just the law, extend to a whole mode of arbitrary power, a whole mode of arbitrary exercise of arbitrary power.

And that's what we have here. We have an autocracy which -- which runs this university. It's managed. We were told the following: If President Kerr actually tried to get something more liberal out of the Regents in his telephone conversation, why didn't he make some public statement to that effect? And the answer we received -- from a well-meaning liberal -- was the following: He said, "Would you ever imagine the manager of a firm making a statement publicly in opposition to his Board of Directors?" That's the answer.

Well I ask you to consider -- if this is a firm, and if the Board of Regents are the Board of Directors, and if President Kerr in fact is the manager, then I tell you something -- the faculty are a bunch of employees and we're the raw material! But we're a bunch of raw materials that don't mean to be -- have any process upon us. Don't mean to be made into any product! Don't mean -- Don't mean to end up being bought by some clients of the University, be they the government, be they industry, be they organized labor, be they anyone! We're human beings!

And that -- that brings me to the second mode of civil disobedience. There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart that you can't take part! You can't even passively take part! And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus -- and you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it -- that unless you're free the machine will be prevented from working at all!!

That doesn't mean -- I know it will be interpreted to mean, unfortunately, by the bigots who run The Examiner, for example -- That doesn't mean that you have to break anything. One thousand people sitting down some place, not letting anybody by, not [letting] anything happen, can stop any machine, including this machine! And it will stop!!
Click to expand...

American Rhetoric: Mario Savio - Sproul Hall Sit-In Address
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Here is a thought: some people protest because they can no longer passively stand by or passively participate in something that they find morally and ethically abhorrent. Mario Savio, one of the leaders of the free speech movement at Berkeley during the protests of 1964, spoke of this:



American Rhetoric: Mario Savio - Sproul Hall Sit-In Address
Click to expand...

Civil disobedience is a higher new level of protest.

Answer me this. Have these people first voiced their grievances with written letters to those in power?

Have they exhausted other means to voice their grievance before taking actions that offend others?

I will claim right here, that I am biased in my viewpoint of most protest type actions I see. I don't believe most these people have actual concerns they want to see fixed. I believe the organizers look for causes to be rebellious, and drag in others for their personal various reasons.

If there a specific type protest you are thinking of?

Probably the most subtle, in the kneeling for the national anthem. No harm here in reality, but they break from the traditions of the organization they are paid from. Protests should be on their time. Not their employers time.

I think, these people want to offend others, and I find that to be an appalling trait in a person.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Civil disobedience is a higher new level of protest.

Answer me this. Have these people first voiced their grievances with written letters to those in power?

Have they exhausted other means to voice their grievance before taking actions that offend others?

I will claim right here, that I am biased in my viewpoint of most protest type actions I see. I don't believe most these people have actual concerns they want to see fixed. I believe the organizers look for causes to be rebellious, and drag in others for their personal various reasons.

If there a specific type protest you are thinking of?

Probably the most subtle, in the kneeling for the national anthem. No harm here in reality, but they break from the traditions of the organization they are paid from. Protests should be on their time. Not their employers time.

I think, these people want to offend others, and I find that to be an appalling trait in a person.
Click to expand...

An American citizen can protest how they seem fit as long as they not breaking the law. Damn shame the gop whom clam to be so American more then anyone else. Can't seem to understand simple things. SMH. Stop crying about the little stuff GOP.
 
Jaygodmedia said:
An American citizen can protest how they seem fit as long as they not breaking the law. Damn shame the gop whom clam to be so American more then anyone else. Can't seem to understand simple things. SMH. Stop crying about the little stuff GOP.
Click to expand...

I didn't say otherwise. My point was that many are consciously intent on aggravating others. This is an act on the evil side of morality.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I didn't say otherwise. My point was that many are consciously intent on aggravating others. This is an act on the evil side of morality.
Click to expand...

My God I agree with you.

But back to the topic at hand miss Tomi has stated some more worthless dumb ass crap...
Tomi Lahren: It’s the men with ‘toxic masculinity’ who will save you from mass shootings – DeadState
It's funny this article labels her as a fox "news" host.
I don't even think fox would go that for lol.
She is a news personality at best.
 
Tomi and Steve Doocy give airhead commentators a bad name.
 
Nickyjo said:
Tomi and Steve Doocy give airhead commentators a bad name.
Click to expand...

Lmao
Doocy is harmless though. Brain is a mess though.
I'd like to see a show on fox with Peter Doocy whom is an actual reporter and Tomi. She will spit her talking points as facts. And Peter would correct her with facts lol it would make for great TV.
 
calamity said:
People misled into thinking the virus was no big deal.

Lawsuit Against Fox News Over Coronavirus Coverage: Can It Succeed? Should It? - Just Security

I expect more of these will come along, especially from those people who have hard evidence of damages, like the children of Fox News junkie parents who died after ignoring warnings because Sean told them everything was fine.
Click to expand...

The first clip with Hannity is it is obviously edited.

Have the unedited video by chance?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom