Im open to hearing more. I think the monthly"freedom dividend" is a terrible idea though. Maybe that was just to get people to notice.
The thing to remember here is that Yang wants to include with the Freedom Dividend a Value Added Tax (which many developed countries already use very effectively) and close some of these loop holes that places like Google and Amazon use to avoid paying taxes. Unfortunately, a lot of news media sources don't give a very clear picture (but what's new there, LOL!) I hope you do get a chance to look a little further into Yang. I think you will find many of his ideas and qualities appealing.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Im open to hearing more. I think the monthly"freedom dividend" is a terrible idea though. Maybe that was just to get people to notice.
The thing to remember here is that Yang wants to include with the Freedom Dividend a Value Added Tax (which many developed countries already use very effectively) and close some of these loop holes that places like Google and Amazon use to avoid paying taxes. Unfortunately, a lot of news media sources don't give a very clear picture (but what's new there, LOL!) I hope you do get a chance to look a little further into Yang. I think you will find many of his ideas and qualities appealing.
You can do all those other things without the freedom dividend though.
the ”other women will be hurt” is a really weird argument to fall back on.
Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt.
Not it isn't, and that statement appears bigoted.
this is funny watching the back peddling.
Seriously, for just one moment, take my abrasive personality out of the equation: do you really want to align yourself with what Ledbetterman said? You claim to support trans rights, but you take up his side here?
i don't take 'sides'. i align myself with common sense. the terms he used were ignorant at worst, not even close to bigoted. there is a major difference there. you simply can't expect everyone to accept and change their verbiage overnight. it just doesn't work that way, and screaming at someone who doesn't know does more harm to any given cause than good.
He directly referred to a trans woman as a man. That is not verbiage; that is a statement about what a trans woman IS. I hope you really are an ally in the real world, but you aren't showing it here.
one of my more favourite quotes of the last few years: "just because you're outraged, doesn't make you right".
I'm not sure what your point is: are you claiming he didn't refer to a trans woman as a man? Or that him doing so is ok?
because you think you get to decide what level of 'ally' i am. you don't. just like you don't get to keep labeling people simply because they don't support your view 100%.
Im open to hearing more. I think the monthly"freedom dividend" is a terrible idea though. Maybe that was just to get people to notice.
The thing to remember here is that Yang wants to include with the Freedom Dividend a Value Added Tax (which many developed countries already use very effectively) and close some of these loop holes that places like Google and Amazon use to avoid paying taxes. Unfortunately, a lot of news media sources don't give a very clear picture (but what's new there, LOL!) I hope you do get a chance to look a little further into Yang. I think you will find many of his ideas and qualities appealing.
The Freedom Dividend is not what America is all about. It would on it’s own, enable the word “socialism” to defeat him.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Im open to hearing more. I think the monthly"freedom dividend" is a terrible idea though. Maybe that was just to get people to notice.
The thing to remember here is that Yang wants to include with the Freedom Dividend a Value Added Tax (which many developed countries already use very effectively) and close some of these loop holes that places like Google and Amazon use to avoid paying taxes. Unfortunately, a lot of news media sources don't give a very clear picture (but what's new there, LOL!) I hope you do get a chance to look a little further into Yang. I think you will find many of his ideas and qualities appealing.
You can do all those other things without the freedom dividend though.
Probably, M, but I think the AVT makes the Freedom Dividend possible though no the other way around.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Im open to hearing more. I think the monthly"freedom dividend" is a terrible idea though. Maybe that was just to get people to notice.
The thing to remember here is that Yang wants to include with the Freedom Dividend a Value Added Tax (which many developed countries already use very effectively) and close some of these loop holes that places like Google and Amazon use to avoid paying taxes. Unfortunately, a lot of news media sources don't give a very clear picture (but what's new there, LOL!) I hope you do get a chance to look a little further into Yang. I think you will find many of his ideas and qualities appealing.
The Freedom Dividend is not what America is all about. It would on it’s own, enable the word “socialism” to defeat him.
I don't see the Freedom Dividend as being the same as socialism, not at all. And Yang has never referred to himself as a socialist. If people interpret it that way, thin need to do the MATH, i.e. Yang's slogan, Make America Think Harder.
And look, Google and Amazon and Big Pharma, etc. are, in essence, receiving HUGE dividends by not having to pay takes while you and I fill their pockets. I don't think that is what America wants.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
the ”other women will be hurt” is a really weird argument to fall back on.
Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt.
Not it isn't, and that statement appears bigoted.
this is funny watching the back peddling.
Seriously, for just one moment, take my abrasive personality out of the equation: do you really want to align yourself with what Ledbetterman said? You claim to support trans rights, but you take up his side here?
i don't take 'sides'. i align myself with common sense. the terms he used were ignorant at worst, not even close to bigoted. there is a major difference there. you simply can't expect everyone to accept and change their verbiage overnight. it just doesn't work that way, and screaming at someone who doesn't know does more harm to any given cause than good.
He directly referred to a trans woman as a man. That is not verbiage; that is a statement about what a trans woman IS. I hope you really are an ally in the real world, but you aren't showing it here.
one of my more favourite quotes of the last few years: "just because you're outraged, doesn't make you right".
I'm not sure what your point is: are you claiming he didn't refer to a trans woman as a man? Or that him doing so is ok?
because you think you get to decide what level of 'ally' i am. you don't. just like you don't get to keep labeling people simply because they don't support your view 100%.
You avoided the question.
your question was asking what my point was. you gave two possibilities, neither of which was my point. so yes, i did answer your question.
the ”other women will be hurt” is a really weird argument to fall back on.
Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt.
Not it isn't, and that statement appears bigoted.
this is funny watching the back peddling.
Seriously, for just one moment, take my abrasive personality out of the equation: do you really want to align yourself with what Ledbetterman said? You claim to support trans rights, but you take up his side here?
i don't take 'sides'. i align myself with common sense. the terms he used were ignorant at worst, not even close to bigoted. there is a major difference there. you simply can't expect everyone to accept and change their verbiage overnight. it just doesn't work that way, and screaming at someone who doesn't know does more harm to any given cause than good.
He directly referred to a trans woman as a man. That is not verbiage; that is a statement about what a trans woman IS. I hope you really are an ally in the real world, but you aren't showing it here.
one of my more favourite quotes of the last few years: "just because you're outraged, doesn't make you right".
I'm not sure what your point is: are you claiming he didn't refer to a trans woman as a man? Or that him doing so is ok?
because you think you get to decide what level of 'ally' i am. you don't. just like you don't get to keep labeling people simply because they don't support your view 100%.
You avoided the question.
your question was asking what my point was. you gave two possibilities, neither of which was my point. so yes, i did answer your question.
the ”other women will be hurt” is a really weird argument to fall back on.
Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt.
Not it isn't, and that statement appears bigoted.
this is funny watching the back peddling.
Seriously, for just one moment, take my abrasive personality out of the equation: do you really want to align yourself with what Ledbetterman said? You claim to support trans rights, but you take up his side here?
i don't take 'sides'. i align myself with common sense. the terms he used were ignorant at worst, not even close to bigoted. there is a major difference there. you simply can't expect everyone to accept and change their verbiage overnight. it just doesn't work that way, and screaming at someone who doesn't know does more harm to any given cause than good.
He directly referred to a trans woman as a man. That is not verbiage; that is a statement about what a trans woman IS. I hope you really are an ally in the real world, but you aren't showing it here.
one of my more favourite quotes of the last few years: "just because you're outraged, doesn't make you right".
I'm not sure what your point is: are you claiming he didn't refer to a trans woman as a man? Or that him doing so is ok?
because you think you get to decide what level of 'ally' i am. you don't. just like you don't get to keep labeling people simply because they don't support your view 100%.
You avoided the question.
your question was asking what my point was. you gave two possibilities, neither of which was my point. so yes, i did answer your question.
Still avoiding. You cool with what he said?
You're acting like such a baby. First off, on the subject of "avoiding," your pathetic response to the article I posted yesterday that lays out the physical differences of men and women was a total cop out ("Uhh...I'm not a doctor. Can't you explain this in layman's terms?"). Umm... no. If you're too stuck in your ways to even want to read up on other side of the argument, then you're just like the Republicans that ignore the science of climate change because it doesn't fit their narrative.
So quit being so sensitive and harassing Hugh about whether he's "cool" or not with me suggesting when a transgender woman FIGHTS a ciswoman (I used "ciswoman" there to pacify you. Wouldn't want you whining over my use of "normal" woman again), then that is basically a man fighting a woman. Cry about it.
the ”other women will be hurt” is a really weird argument to fall back on.
Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt.
Not it isn't, and that statement appears bigoted.
this is funny watching the back peddling.
Seriously, for just one moment, take my abrasive personality out of the equation: do you really want to align yourself with what Ledbetterman said? You claim to support trans rights, but you take up his side here?
i don't take 'sides'. i align myself with common sense. the terms he used were ignorant at worst, not even close to bigoted. there is a major difference there. you simply can't expect everyone to accept and change their verbiage overnight. it just doesn't work that way, and screaming at someone who doesn't know does more harm to any given cause than good.
He directly referred to a trans woman as a man. That is not verbiage; that is a statement about what a trans woman IS. I hope you really are an ally in the real world, but you aren't showing it here.
one of my more favourite quotes of the last few years: "just because you're outraged, doesn't make you right".
I'm not sure what your point is: are you claiming he didn't refer to a trans woman as a man? Or that him doing so is ok?
because you think you get to decide what level of 'ally' i am. you don't. just like you don't get to keep labeling people simply because they don't support your view 100%.
You avoided the question.
your question was asking what my point was. you gave two possibilities, neither of which was my point. so yes, i did answer your question.
Still avoiding. You cool with what he said?
You're acting like such a baby. First off, on the subject of "avoiding," your pathetic response to the article I posted yesterday that lays out the physical differences of men and women was a total cop out ("Uhh...I'm not a doctor. Can't you explain this in layman's terms?"). Umm... no. If you're too stuck in your ways to even want to read up on other side of the argument, then you're just like the Republicans that ignore the science of climate change because it doesn't fit their narrative.
So quit being so sensitive and harassing Hugh about whether he's "cool" or not with me suggesting when a transgender woman FIGHTS a ciswoman (I used "ciswoman" there to pacify you. Wouldn't want you whining over my use of "normal" woman again), then that is basically a man fighting a woman. Cry about it.
I'm not crying; I'm angry. Hate makes me angry.
As for your article, I was testing to see if you understand it. If I'm dealing with a scientist, I might approach things differently.
But, I'll jump in: in the context of your argument, the article begs the question. It repeatedly refers to "gender differences," yet--so far as I can tell--the study did not include transgender people. So, your reasoning is: men and women are discrete physical beings, definable a priori, with differing traits; here is an article that precedes with the premise (not the conclusion) that men and and women are discrete physical beings definable a priori (it then proceeds, of course, to offer more specific knowledge about one of those differences). You're using circular logic.
the ”other women will be hurt” is a really weird argument to fall back on.
Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt.
Not it isn't, and that statement appears bigoted.
this is funny watching the back peddling.
Seriously, for just one moment, take my abrasive personality out of the equation: do you really want to align yourself with what Ledbetterman said? You claim to support trans rights, but you take up his side here?
i don't take 'sides'. i align myself with common sense. the terms he used were ignorant at worst, not even close to bigoted. there is a major difference there. you simply can't expect everyone to accept and change their verbiage overnight. it just doesn't work that way, and screaming at someone who doesn't know does more harm to any given cause than good.
He directly referred to a trans woman as a man. That is not verbiage; that is a statement about what a trans woman IS. I hope you really are an ally in the real world, but you aren't showing it here.
one of my more favourite quotes of the last few years: "just because you're outraged, doesn't make you right".
I'm not sure what your point is: are you claiming he didn't refer to a trans woman as a man? Or that him doing so is ok?
because you think you get to decide what level of 'ally' i am. you don't. just like you don't get to keep labeling people simply because they don't support your view 100%.
You avoided the question.
your question was asking what my point was. you gave two possibilities, neither of which was my point. so yes, i did answer your question.
Still avoiding. You cool with what he said?
You're acting like such a baby. First off, on the subject of "avoiding," your pathetic response to the article I posted yesterday that lays out the physical differences of men and women was a total cop out ("Uhh...I'm not a doctor. Can't you explain this in layman's terms?"). Umm... no. If you're too stuck in your ways to even want to read up on other side of the argument, then you're just like the Republicans that ignore the science of climate change because it doesn't fit their narrative.
So quit being so sensitive and harassing Hugh about whether he's "cool" or not with me suggesting when a transgender woman FIGHTS a ciswoman (I used "ciswoman" there to pacify you. Wouldn't want you whining over my use of "normal" woman again), then that is basically a man fighting a woman. Cry about it.
I'm not crying; I'm angry. Hate makes me angry.
As for your article, I was testing to see if you understand it. If I'm dealing with a scientist, I might approach things differently.
But, I'll jump in: in the context of your argument, the article begs the question. It repeatedly refers to "gender differences," yet--so far as I can tell--the study did not include transgender people. So, your reasoning is: men and women are discrete physical beings, definable a priori, with differing traits; here is an article that precedes with the premise (not the conclusion) that men and and women are discrete physical beings definable a priori (it then proceeds, of course, to offer more specific knowledge about one of those differences). You're using circular logic.
What a joke. Testing me to see if I understand the article? Give me a break. And where the hell's your article? Not that I really care to read it, or really want to go back and forth on this any more because I've already said my opinion. I just don't like being called bigot and you harassing others by basically asking "You DON'T think he's a bigot!?!"
the ”other women will be hurt” is a really weird argument to fall back on.
Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt.
Not it isn't, and that statement appears bigoted.
this is funny watching the back peddling.
Seriously, for just one moment, take my abrasive personality out of the equation: do you really want to align yourself with what Ledbetterman said? You claim to support trans rights, but you take up his side here?
i don't take 'sides'. i align myself with common sense. the terms he used were ignorant at worst, not even close to bigoted. there is a major difference there. you simply can't expect everyone to accept and change their verbiage overnight. it just doesn't work that way, and screaming at someone who doesn't know does more harm to any given cause than good.
He directly referred to a trans woman as a man. That is not verbiage; that is a statement about what a trans woman IS. I hope you really are an ally in the real world, but you aren't showing it here.
one of my more favourite quotes of the last few years: "just because you're outraged, doesn't make you right".
I'm not sure what your point is: are you claiming he didn't refer to a trans woman as a man? Or that him doing so is ok?
because you think you get to decide what level of 'ally' i am. you don't. just like you don't get to keep labeling people simply because they don't support your view 100%.
You avoided the question.
your question was asking what my point was. you gave two possibilities, neither of which was my point. so yes, i did answer your question.
Still avoiding. You cool with what he said?
You're acting like such a baby. First off, on the subject of "avoiding," your pathetic response to the article I posted yesterday that lays out the physical differences of men and women was a total cop out ("Uhh...I'm not a doctor. Can't you explain this in layman's terms?"). Umm... no. If you're too stuck in your ways to even want to read up on other side of the argument, then you're just like the Republicans that ignore the science of climate change because it doesn't fit their narrative.
So quit being so sensitive and harassing Hugh about whether he's "cool" or not with me suggesting when a transgender woman FIGHTS a ciswoman (I used "ciswoman" there to pacify you. Wouldn't want you whining over my use of "normal" woman again), then that is basically a man fighting a woman. Cry about it.
I'm not crying; I'm angry. Hate makes me angry.
As for your article, I was testing to see if you understand it. If I'm dealing with a scientist, I might approach things differently.
But, I'll jump in: in the context of your argument, the article begs the question. It repeatedly refers to "gender differences," yet--so far as I can tell--the study did not include transgender people. So, your reasoning is: men and women are discrete physical beings, definable a priori, with differing traits; here is an article that precedes with the premise (not the conclusion) that men and and women are discrete physical beings definable a priori (it then proceeds, of course, to offer more specific knowledge about one of those differences). You're using circular logic.
What a joke. Testing me to see if I understand the article? Give me a break. And where the hell's your article? Not that I really care to read it, or really want to go back and forth on this any more because I've already said my opinion. I just don't like being called bigot and you harassing others by basically asking "You DON'T think he's a bigot!?!"
"How about you tell me what it says and then I'll let you know if I agree with you"... standard 4th grade counterargument...hilarious!
Why do people give a shit about what Joe Rogan thinks? He's the Fear Factor guy. I don't understand how that douche is somehow considered some kind of political expert now.
It's just that he has a massive audience. Same as if Oprah endorsed someone.
Okay I just looked up his audience size and I am shocked.
How the fuck can the Fear Factor guy (okay, and the News Radio) guy have an audience like this? He's nothing but a washed up comedian/reality tv show host. I don't get it.
Why do people give a shit about what Joe Rogan thinks? He's the Fear Factor guy. I don't understand how that douche is somehow considered some kind of political expert now.
It's just that he has a massive audience. Same as if Oprah endorsed someone.
Okay I just looked up his audience size and I am shocked.
How the fuck can the Fear Factor guy (okay, and the News Radio) guy have an audience like this? He's nothing but a washed up comedian/reality tv show host. I don't get it.
I'm not the biggest Joe Rogan fan (probably listened to about 2% of the hundreds podcasts he's posted) but to dismiss him as nothing but a washed-up comedian makes not sense. He's never stopped touring and has had Netflix specials. I watched about 2 minutes of one, didn't find it funny at all, and I would never pay to watch him do standup. But to other people that like his standup, or closely follow UFC, he's been relevant for years.
Why do people give a shit about what Joe Rogan thinks? He's the Fear Factor guy. I don't understand how that douche is somehow considered some kind of political expert now.
It's just that he has a massive audience. Same as if Oprah endorsed someone.
Okay I just looked up his audience size and I am shocked.
How the fuck can the Fear Factor guy (okay, and the News Radio) guy have an audience like this? He's nothing but a washed up comedian/reality tv show host. I don't get it.
You definitely don't get it. I'm not the biggest Joe Rogan fan (probably listened to about 2% of the hundreds podcasts he's posted) but to dismiss him as nothing but a washed-up comedian makes not sense. He's never stopped touring and has had Netflix specials. I watched about 2 minutes of one, didn't find it funny at all, and I would never pay to watch him do standup. But to other people that like his standup, or closely follow UFC, he's been relevant for years.
Yeah I guess I don't. Maybe washed up isn't the best word.......so he's a comedian, a reality tv show host, and does stuff with the UFC and I'm supposed to lend credence to anything he says about politics because of that resume? Why?
Why does he have such a large audience? I don't get it.
Joe fucking Rogan....haha
Perhaps this is my boomer moment. I don't know . We live in interesting times.
the ”other women will be hurt” is a really weird argument to fall back on.
Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt.
Not it isn't, and that statement appears bigoted.
this is funny watching the back peddling.
Seriously, for just one moment, take my abrasive personality out of the equation: do you really want to align yourself with what Ledbetterman said? You claim to support trans rights, but you take up his side here?
i don't take 'sides'. i align myself with common sense. the terms he used were ignorant at worst, not even close to bigoted. there is a major difference there. you simply can't expect everyone to accept and change their verbiage overnight. it just doesn't work that way, and screaming at someone who doesn't know does more harm to any given cause than good.
He directly referred to a trans woman as a man. That is not verbiage; that is a statement about what a trans woman IS. I hope you really are an ally in the real world, but you aren't showing it here.
one of my more favourite quotes of the last few years: "just because you're outraged, doesn't make you right".
I'm not sure what your point is: are you claiming he didn't refer to a trans woman as a man? Or that him doing so is ok?
because you think you get to decide what level of 'ally' i am. you don't. just like you don't get to keep labeling people simply because they don't support your view 100%.
You avoided the question.
your question was asking what my point was. you gave two possibilities, neither of which was my point. so yes, i did answer your question.
Still avoiding. You cool with what he said?
You're acting like such a baby. First off, on the subject of "avoiding," your pathetic response to the article I posted yesterday that lays out the physical differences of men and women was a total cop out ("Uhh...I'm not a doctor. Can't you explain this in layman's terms?"). Umm... no. If you're too stuck in your ways to even want to read up on other side of the argument, then you're just like the Republicans that ignore the science of climate change because it doesn't fit their narrative.
So quit being so sensitive and harassing Hugh about whether he's "cool" or not with me suggesting when a transgender woman FIGHTS a ciswoman (I used "ciswoman" there to pacify you. Wouldn't want you whining over my use of "normal" woman again), then that is basically a man fighting a woman. Cry about it.
I'm not crying; I'm angry. Hate makes me angry.
As for your article, I was testing to see if you understand it. If I'm dealing with a scientist, I might approach things differently.
But, I'll jump in: in the context of your argument, the article begs the question. It repeatedly refers to "gender differences," yet--so far as I can tell--the study did not include transgender people. So, your reasoning is: men and women are discrete physical beings, definable a priori, with differing traits; here is an article that precedes with the premise (not the conclusion) that men and and women are discrete physical beings definable a priori (it then proceeds, of course, to offer more specific knowledge about one of those differences). You're using circular logic.
What a joke. Testing me to see if I understand the article? Give me a break. And where the hell's your article? Not that I really care to read it, or really want to go back and forth on this any more because I've already said my opinion. I just don't like being called bigot and you harassing others by basically asking "You DON'T think he's a bigot!?!"
I see why that might seem condescending, but you have to understand: I don't know you. You could be some guy who spent two minutes on Google, or you could be an osteopathic surgeon. That makes a difference in how the conversation progresses. I don't regularly read medical/scientific articles. I can muddle through them, but it seemed more expeditious to simply ask what you were gleaning from the article and what point you were trying to make with it.
Since you didn't explain, I was left to decipher your argument--such as it was--on my own. I tried to do so, and I've explained why the evidence you've provided doesn't make the point I think you're trying to make. If you'd like to correct me about the nature of your claim, I'm happy to continue the conversation.
As for the "where the hell's your article?" part, I'm not entirely sure what you mean. I've already told you that I'm not a scientist. In addition, my research is not focused on trans people/rights. It's an additional interest of mine, about which I have some knowledge, but it's not my area of expertise. Rather, I've tried to listen--over several years--to people who know far more about the subject than me. Thankfully, I encounter a fair number of them, so I've had many learning opportunities.
the ”other women will be hurt” is a really weird argument to fall back on.
Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt.
Not it isn't, and that statement appears bigoted.
this is funny watching the back peddling.
Seriously, for just one moment, take my abrasive personality out of the equation: do you really want to align yourself with what Ledbetterman said? You claim to support trans rights, but you take up his side here?
i don't take 'sides'. i align myself with common sense. the terms he used were ignorant at worst, not even close to bigoted. there is a major difference there. you simply can't expect everyone to accept and change their verbiage overnight. it just doesn't work that way, and screaming at someone who doesn't know does more harm to any given cause than good.
He directly referred to a trans woman as a man. That is not verbiage; that is a statement about what a trans woman IS. I hope you really are an ally in the real world, but you aren't showing it here.
one of my more favourite quotes of the last few years: "just because you're outraged, doesn't make you right".
I'm not sure what your point is: are you claiming he didn't refer to a trans woman as a man? Or that him doing so is ok?
because you think you get to decide what level of 'ally' i am. you don't. just like you don't get to keep labeling people simply because they don't support your view 100%.
You avoided the question.
your question was asking what my point was. you gave two possibilities, neither of which was my point. so yes, i did answer your question.
Still avoiding. You cool with what he said?
You're acting like such a baby. First off, on the subject of "avoiding," your pathetic response to the article I posted yesterday that lays out the physical differences of men and women was a total cop out ("Uhh...I'm not a doctor. Can't you explain this in layman's terms?"). Umm... no. If you're too stuck in your ways to even want to read up on other side of the argument, then you're just like the Republicans that ignore the science of climate change because it doesn't fit their narrative.
So quit being so sensitive and harassing Hugh about whether he's "cool" or not with me suggesting when a transgender woman FIGHTS a ciswoman (I used "ciswoman" there to pacify you. Wouldn't want you whining over my use of "normal" woman again), then that is basically a man fighting a woman. Cry about it.
I'm not crying; I'm angry. Hate makes me angry.
As for your article, I was testing to see if you understand it. If I'm dealing with a scientist, I might approach things differently.
But, I'll jump in: in the context of your argument, the article begs the question. It repeatedly refers to "gender differences," yet--so far as I can tell--the study did not include transgender people. So, your reasoning is: men and women are discrete physical beings, definable a priori, with differing traits; here is an article that precedes with the premise (not the conclusion) that men and and women are discrete physical beings definable a priori (it then proceeds, of course, to offer more specific knowledge about one of those differences). You're using circular logic.
What a joke. Testing me to see if I understand the article? Give me a break. And where the hell's your article? Not that I really care to read it, or really want to go back and forth on this any more because I've already said my opinion. I just don't like being called bigot and you harassing others by basically asking "You DON'T think he's a bigot!?!"
"How about you tell me what it says and then I'll let you know if I agree with you"... standard 4th grade counterargument...hilarious!
Ha! I can see how it might seem that way, but it's actually an educator's move: "please tell me the point you think you're making with this piece of evidence." Evidence is rarely self-evident.
Why do people give a shit about what Joe Rogan thinks? He's the Fear Factor guy. I don't understand how that douche is somehow considered some kind of political expert now.
It's just that he has a massive audience. Same as if Oprah endorsed someone.
Okay I just looked up his audience size and I am shocked.
How the fuck can the Fear Factor guy (okay, and the News Radio) guy have an audience like this? He's nothing but a washed up comedian/reality tv show host. I don't get it.
washed up? really? he's one of the most popular stand up comedians out there right now. his podcast has millions of subscribers. he is a massively influential and respected MMA announcer. why do you think all of these candidates are falling over themselves to get an audience with him?
Why do people give a shit about what Joe Rogan thinks? He's the Fear Factor guy. I don't understand how that douche is somehow considered some kind of political expert now.
It's just that he has a massive audience. Same as if Oprah endorsed someone.
Okay I just looked up his audience size and I am shocked.
How the fuck can the Fear Factor guy (okay, and the News Radio) guy have an audience like this? He's nothing but a washed up comedian/reality tv show host. I don't get it.
washed up? really? he's one of the most popular stand up comedians out there right now. his podcast has millions of subscribers. he is a massively influential and respected MMA announcer. why do you think all of these candidates are falling over themselves to get an audience with him?
See my last post. Washed up was the wrong word, I guess. I don't understand how a comedian/reality tv show host/"respected MMA announcer"(really, there is such a thing???!) give him credibility in anything outside of those arenas.
Why do people give a shit about what Joe Rogan thinks? He's the Fear Factor guy. I don't understand how that douche is somehow considered some kind of political expert now.
It's just that he has a massive audience. Same as if Oprah endorsed someone.
Okay I just looked up his audience size and I am shocked.
How the fuck can the Fear Factor guy (okay, and the News Radio) guy have an audience like this? He's nothing but a washed up comedian/reality tv show host. I don't get it.
You definitely don't get it. I'm not the biggest Joe Rogan fan (probably listened to about 2% of the hundreds podcasts he's posted) but to dismiss him as nothing but a washed-up comedian makes not sense. He's never stopped touring and has had Netflix specials. I watched about 2 minutes of one, didn't find it funny at all, and I would never pay to watch him do standup. But to other people that like his standup, or closely follow UFC, he's been relevant for years.
Yeah I guess I don't. Maybe washed up isn't the best word.......so he's a comedian, a reality tv show host, and does stuff with the UFC and I'm supposed to lend credence to anything he says about politics because of that resume? Why?
Why does he have such a large audience? I don't get it.
Joe fucking Rogan....haha
Perhaps this is my boomer moment. I don't know . We live in interesting times.
no more than any other person out there. he just has a massive following and that's why politicians take endorsements like that, because there are so many people out there who think it means something to be a celebrity. we all know it doesn't. but many don't.
Why do people give a shit about what Joe Rogan thinks? He's the Fear Factor guy. I don't understand how that douche is somehow considered some kind of political expert now.
It's just that he has a massive audience. Same as if Oprah endorsed someone.
Okay I just looked up his audience size and I am shocked.
How the fuck can the Fear Factor guy (okay, and the News Radio) guy have an audience like this? He's nothing but a washed up comedian/reality tv show host. I don't get it.
You definitely don't get it. I'm not the biggest Joe Rogan fan (probably listened to about 2% of the hundreds podcasts he's posted) but to dismiss him as nothing but a washed-up comedian makes not sense. He's never stopped touring and has had Netflix specials. I watched about 2 minutes of one, didn't find it funny at all, and I would never pay to watch him do standup. But to other people that like his standup, or closely follow UFC, he's been relevant for years.
Yeah I guess I don't. Maybe washed up isn't the best word.......so he's a comedian, a reality tv show host, and does stuff with the UFC and I'm supposed to lend credence to anything he says about politics because of that resume? Why?
Why does he have such a large audience? I don't get it.
Joe fucking Rogan....haha
Perhaps this is my boomer moment. I don't know . We live in interesting times.
no more than any other person out there. he just has a massive following and that's why politicians take endorsements like that, because there are so many people out there who think it means something to be a celebrity. we all know it doesn't. but many don't.
Why do people give a shit about what Joe Rogan thinks? He's the Fear Factor guy. I don't understand how that douche is somehow considered some kind of political expert now.
It's just that he has a massive audience. Same as if Oprah endorsed someone.
Okay I just looked up his audience size and I am shocked.
How the fuck can the Fear Factor guy (okay, and the News Radio) guy have an audience like this? He's nothing but a washed up comedian/reality tv show host. I don't get it.
You definitely don't get it. I'm not the biggest Joe Rogan fan (probably listened to about 2% of the hundreds podcasts he's posted) but to dismiss him as nothing but a washed-up comedian makes not sense. He's never stopped touring and has had Netflix specials. I watched about 2 minutes of one, didn't find it funny at all, and I would never pay to watch him do standup. But to other people that like his standup, or closely follow UFC, he's been relevant for years.
Yeah I guess I don't. Maybe washed up isn't the best word.......so he's a comedian, a reality tv show host, and does stuff with the UFC and I'm supposed to lend credence to anything he says about politics because of that resume? Why?
Why does he have such a large audience? I don't get it.
Joe fucking Rogan....haha
Perhaps this is my boomer moment. I don't know . We live in interesting times.
no more than any other person out there. he just has a massive following and that's why politicians take endorsements like that, because there are so many people out there who think it means something to be a celebrity. we all know it doesn't. but many don't.
Why does Joe Rogan have a massive following?
I think because of the reasons I like him. he's relatable. he sits in his basement and talks about current events with his friends and guests. sometimes very high profile guests (intellectuals and celebrities). he has had neil de grasse tyson on a few times. mike tyson. bernie sanders. rock stars, mma fighters, elon musk (probably his most famous one), genius professors, science geeks, you name it. it's sometimes hilarious and other times extremely thought provoking.
Why do people give a shit about what Joe Rogan thinks? He's the Fear Factor guy. I don't understand how that douche is somehow considered some kind of political expert now.
It's just that he has a massive audience. Same as if Oprah endorsed someone.
Okay I just looked up his audience size and I am shocked.
How the fuck can the Fear Factor guy (okay, and the News Radio) guy have an audience like this? He's nothing but a washed up comedian/reality tv show host. I don't get it.
washed up? really? he's one of the most popular stand up comedians out there right now. his podcast has millions of subscribers. he is a massively influential and respected MMA announcer. why do you think all of these candidates are falling over themselves to get an audience with him?
See my last post. Washed up was the wrong word, I guess. I don't understand how a comedian/reality tv show host/"respected MMA announcer"(really, there is such a thing???!) give him credibility in anything outside of those arenas.
why would anyone give a fuck about oprah's endorsement? the same reason. in a perfect world, politicians would be seeking endorsements from college professors, inventors, scientists, but no, they go with people who live in hollywood because the average voter is a blooming idiot.
Why do people give a shit about what Joe Rogan thinks? He's the Fear Factor guy. I don't understand how that douche is somehow considered some kind of political expert now.
It's just that he has a massive audience. Same as if Oprah endorsed someone.
Okay I just looked up his audience size and I am shocked.
How the fuck can the Fear Factor guy (okay, and the News Radio) guy have an audience like this? He's nothing but a washed up comedian/reality tv show host. I don't get it.
You definitely don't get it. I'm not the biggest Joe Rogan fan (probably listened to about 2% of the hundreds podcasts he's posted) but to dismiss him as nothing but a washed-up comedian makes not sense. He's never stopped touring and has had Netflix specials. I watched about 2 minutes of one, didn't find it funny at all, and I would never pay to watch him do standup. But to other people that like his standup, or closely follow UFC, he's been relevant for years.
Yeah I guess I don't. Maybe washed up isn't the best word.......so he's a comedian, a reality tv show host, and does stuff with the UFC and I'm supposed to lend credence to anything he says about politics because of that resume? Why?
Why does he have such a large audience? I don't get it.
Joe fucking Rogan....haha
Perhaps this is my boomer moment. I don't know . We live in interesting times.
I don't think being a standup or whatever lends any credence to his (or anyone's) political opinions. But really, for me anyway, nobody's resume lends credence to their political opinions. Sean Hannity has been a pollical commentator for decades. He has by far the highest television ratings in cable news. Pretty damn good resume. Do you put any credence in what he says?
As for when you say it's a "boomer" moment, I can relate to that as far as not knowing a lot about these online personalities. That's what I'd consider Rogan: an online personality. And while I'm familiar with him, I don't know many others. I know some guy named Logan Paul was trying to set up a boxing match with Antonio Brown. Apparently Logan Paul is very, very popular and influential. I know nothing about him other than he wants to box Brown. In a similar vein to you not being too familiar with Rogan since Fear Factor, apparently Adam Corolla is a big deal in the podcast world. I didn't know he did anything since The Man Show.
Why do people give a shit about what Joe Rogan thinks? He's the Fear Factor guy. I don't understand how that douche is somehow considered some kind of political expert now.
It's just that he has a massive audience. Same as if Oprah endorsed someone.
Okay I just looked up his audience size and I am shocked.
How the fuck can the Fear Factor guy (okay, and the News Radio) guy have an audience like this? He's nothing but a washed up comedian/reality tv show host. I don't get it.
washed up? really? he's one of the most popular stand up comedians out there right now. his podcast has millions of subscribers. he is a massively influential and respected MMA announcer. why do you think all of these candidates are falling over themselves to get an audience with him?
See my last post. Washed up was the wrong word, I guess. I don't understand how a comedian/reality tv show host/"respected MMA announcer"(really, there is such a thing???!) give him credibility in anything outside of those arenas.
why would anyone give a fuck about oprah's endorsement? the same reason. in a perfect world, politicians would be seeking endorsements from college professors, inventors, scientists, but no, they go with people who live in hollywood because the average voter is a blooming idiot.
You think Rogan's resume is on par with Oprah's? I'm not a huge Oprah fan (haha) but I would lend more credence to someone like that over a "respected MMA announcer" any day of the week.
Why do people give a shit about what Joe Rogan thinks? He's the Fear Factor guy. I don't understand how that douche is somehow considered some kind of political expert now.
It's just that he has a massive audience. Same as if Oprah endorsed someone.
Okay I just looked up his audience size and I am shocked.
How the fuck can the Fear Factor guy (okay, and the News Radio) guy have an audience like this? He's nothing but a washed up comedian/reality tv show host. I don't get it.
You definitely don't get it. I'm not the biggest Joe Rogan fan (probably listened to about 2% of the hundreds podcasts he's posted) but to dismiss him as nothing but a washed-up comedian makes not sense. He's never stopped touring and has had Netflix specials. I watched about 2 minutes of one, didn't find it funny at all, and I would never pay to watch him do standup. But to other people that like his standup, or closely follow UFC, he's been relevant for years.
Yeah I guess I don't. Maybe washed up isn't the best word.......so he's a comedian, a reality tv show host, and does stuff with the UFC and I'm supposed to lend credence to anything he says about politics because of that resume? Why?
Why does he have such a large audience? I don't get it.
Joe fucking Rogan....haha
Perhaps this is my boomer moment. I don't know . We live in interesting times.
I don't think being a standup or whatever lends any credence to his (or anyone's) political opinions. But really, for me anyway, nobody's resume lends credence to their political opinions. Sean Hannity has been a pollical commentator for decades. He has by far the highest television ratings in cable news. Pretty damn good resume. Do you put any credence in what he says?
As for when you say it's a "boomer" moment, I can relate to that as far as not knowing a lot about these online personalities. That's what I'd consider Rogan: an online personality. And while I'm familiar with him, I don't know many others. I know some guy named Logan Paul was trying to set up a boxing match with Antonio Brown. Apparently Logan Paul is very, very popular and influential. I know nothing about him other than he wants to box Brown. In a similar vein to you not being too familiar with Rogan since Fear Factor, apparently Adam Corolla is a big deal in the podcast world. I didn't know he did anything since The Man Show.
As far as right wing wacko's goes, Hannity has a ton of credibility as it has been his profession for the last 30 years. Actually, when he hosted Hannity and Combs, I watched. It was back before Fox became way too unhinged. Rogan is a comedian offering his opinion on politics and people are acting like it means something.
I only know of what Corolla's been doing because he appears on Stern every now and then. I've heard Logan Paul before. I think there was some dumb controversy with him a year or two ago.
Why do people give a shit about what Joe Rogan thinks? He's the Fear Factor guy. I don't understand how that douche is somehow considered some kind of political expert now.
It's just that he has a massive audience. Same as if Oprah endorsed someone.
Okay I just looked up his audience size and I am shocked.
How the fuck can the Fear Factor guy (okay, and the News Radio) guy have an audience like this? He's nothing but a washed up comedian/reality tv show host. I don't get it.
washed up? really? he's one of the most popular stand up comedians out there right now. his podcast has millions of subscribers. he is a massively influential and respected MMA announcer. why do you think all of these candidates are falling over themselves to get an audience with him?
See my last post. Washed up was the wrong word, I guess. I don't understand how a comedian/reality tv show host/"respected MMA announcer"(really, there is such a thing???!) give him credibility in anything outside of those arenas.
why would anyone give a fuck about oprah's endorsement? the same reason. in a perfect world, politicians would be seeking endorsements from college professors, inventors, scientists, but no, they go with people who live in hollywood because the average voter is a blooming idiot.
You think Rogan's resume is on par with Oprah's? I'm not a huge Oprah fan (haha) but I would lend more credence to someone like that over a "respected MMA announcer" any day of the week.
Joe Rogan. haha.
Come on people
not on par, just an example of another famous person. why would you lend more credence to oprah's opinion? because of her level of fame?
i'm not really sure what your last two sentences are about. Sanders is the one who tweeted rogan's endorsement. You asked why rogan has so many followers, I told you. If you haven't watched or listened to him, you are commenting from an ignorant place. the fact you dismiss him simply because he's from MMA is also profoundly ignorant. he's an incredibly intelligent guy.
Why do people give a shit about what Joe Rogan thinks? He's the Fear Factor guy. I don't understand how that douche is somehow considered some kind of political expert now.
It's just that he has a massive audience. Same as if Oprah endorsed someone.
Okay I just looked up his audience size and I am shocked.
How the fuck can the Fear Factor guy (okay, and the News Radio) guy have an audience like this? He's nothing but a washed up comedian/reality tv show host. I don't get it.
washed up? really? he's one of the most popular stand up comedians out there right now. his podcast has millions of subscribers. he is a massively influential and respected MMA announcer. why do you think all of these candidates are falling over themselves to get an audience with him?
See my last post. Washed up was the wrong word, I guess. I don't understand how a comedian/reality tv show host/"respected MMA announcer"(really, there is such a thing???!) give him credibility in anything outside of those arenas.
why would anyone give a fuck about oprah's endorsement? the same reason. in a perfect world, politicians would be seeking endorsements from college professors, inventors, scientists, but no, they go with people who live in hollywood because the average voter is a blooming idiot.
You think Rogan's resume is on par with Oprah's? I'm not a huge Oprah fan (haha) but I would lend more credence to someone like that over a "respected MMA announcer" any day of the week.
Joe Rogan. haha.
Come on people
not on par, just an example of another famous person. why would you lend more credence to oprah's opinion? because of her level of fame?
i'm not really sure what your last two sentences are about. Sanders is the one who tweeted rogan's endorsement. You asked why rogan has so many followers, I told you. If you haven't watched or listened to him, you are commenting from an ignorant place. the fact you dismiss him simply because he's from MMA is also profoundly ignorant. he's an incredibly intelligent guy.
I just wish he'd stop putting a microphone in front of Jordan Peterson. I don't listen to Rogan, so I'm certainly willing to believe there's some thought-provoking conversations, but the large number of Peterson appearances makes me question the nature of that provocation.
Why do people give a shit about what Joe Rogan thinks? He's the Fear Factor guy. I don't understand how that douche is somehow considered some kind of political expert now.
It's just that he has a massive audience. Same as if Oprah endorsed someone.
Okay I just looked up his audience size and I am shocked.
How the fuck can the Fear Factor guy (okay, and the News Radio) guy have an audience like this? He's nothing but a washed up comedian/reality tv show host. I don't get it.
You definitely don't get it. I'm not the biggest Joe Rogan fan (probably listened to about 2% of the hundreds podcasts he's posted) but to dismiss him as nothing but a washed-up comedian makes not sense. He's never stopped touring and has had Netflix specials. I watched about 2 minutes of one, didn't find it funny at all, and I would never pay to watch him do standup. But to other people that like his standup, or closely follow UFC, he's been relevant for years.
Yeah I guess I don't. Maybe washed up isn't the best word.......so he's a comedian, a reality tv show host, and does stuff with the UFC and I'm supposed to lend credence to anything he says about politics because of that resume? Why?
Why does he have such a large audience? I don't get it.
Joe fucking Rogan....haha
Perhaps this is my boomer moment. I don't know . We live in interesting times.
I don't think being a standup or whatever lends any credence to his (or anyone's) political opinions. But really, for me anyway, nobody's resume lends credence to their political opinions. Sean Hannity has been a pollical commentator for decades. He has by far the highest television ratings in cable news. Pretty damn good resume. Do you put any credence in what he says?
As for when you say it's a "boomer" moment, I can relate to that as far as not knowing a lot about these online personalities. That's what I'd consider Rogan: an online personality. And while I'm familiar with him, I don't know many others. I know some guy named Logan Paul was trying to set up a boxing match with Antonio Brown. Apparently Logan Paul is very, very popular and influential. I know nothing about him other than he wants to box Brown. In a similar vein to you not being too familiar with Rogan since Fear Factor, apparently Adam Corolla is a big deal in the podcast world. I didn't know he did anything since The Man Show.
As far as right wing wacko's goes, Hannity has a ton of credibility as it has been his profession for the last 30 years. Actually, when he hosted Hannity and Combs, I watched. It was back before Fox became way too unhinged. Rogan is a comedian offering his opinion on politics and people are acting like it means something.
I only know of what Corolla's been doing because he appears on Stern every now and then. I've heard Logan Paul before. I think there was some dumb controversy with him a year or two ago.
I agree that it was silly to see people on Twitter thinking him endorsing Sanders was a big deal. But there's actors that preach their politics and people somehow care. Lord knows there's people on here that give a crap what Eddie Vedder has to say about politics, and he doesn't know anything.
Why do people give a shit about what Joe Rogan thinks? He's the Fear Factor guy. I don't understand how that douche is somehow considered some kind of political expert now.
It's just that he has a massive audience. Same as if Oprah endorsed someone.
Okay I just looked up his audience size and I am shocked.
How the fuck can the Fear Factor guy (okay, and the News Radio) guy have an audience like this? He's nothing but a washed up comedian/reality tv show host. I don't get it.
washed up? really? he's one of the most popular stand up comedians out there right now. his podcast has millions of subscribers. he is a massively influential and respected MMA announcer. why do you think all of these candidates are falling over themselves to get an audience with him?
See my last post. Washed up was the wrong word, I guess. I don't understand how a comedian/reality tv show host/"respected MMA announcer"(really, there is such a thing???!) give him credibility in anything outside of those arenas.
why would anyone give a fuck about oprah's endorsement? the same reason. in a perfect world, politicians would be seeking endorsements from college professors, inventors, scientists, but no, they go with people who live in hollywood because the average voter is a blooming idiot.
You think Rogan's resume is on par with Oprah's? I'm not a huge Oprah fan (haha) but I would lend more credence to someone like that over a "respected MMA announcer" any day of the week.
Joe Rogan. haha.
Come on people
not on par, just an example of another famous person. why would you lend more credence to oprah's opinion? because of her level of fame?
i'm not really sure what your last two sentences are about. Sanders is the one who tweeted rogan's endorsement. You asked why rogan has so many followers, I told you. If you haven't watched or listened to him, you are commenting from an ignorant place. the fact you dismiss him simply because he's from MMA is also profoundly ignorant. he's an incredibly intelligent guy.
I just wish he'd stop putting a microphone in front of Jordan Peterson. I don't listen to Rogan, so I'm certainly willing to believe there's some thought-provoking conversations, but the large number of Peterson appearances makes me question the nature of that provocation.
I was having this conversation with a friend over the weekend about peterson. that's one of the biggest criticisms I have of joe; when he has a serious guest, he often doesn't challenge them. going in, I didn't really know who peterson was. on joe's podcast, I agreed with much of what he said. But then I did my own research on him. And I realized that peterson seemed to purposely come off as a "lighter" version of himself on the podcast, probably knowing the reach joe had. peterson seemed reasonable and knowledgeable on the podcast, but when i read some of the other shit he's said afterwards, he seems like a pretty awful person.
I can see why some then criticize joe as being the things they claim he is. I don't personally think he is those things, I think he just likes to get different points of view.
Comments
The thing to remember here is that Yang wants to include with the Freedom Dividend a Value Added Tax (which many developed countries already use very effectively) and close some of these loop holes that places like Google and Amazon use to avoid paying taxes. Unfortunately, a lot of news media sources don't give a very clear picture (but what's new there, LOL!) I hope you do get a chance to look a little further into Yang. I think you will find many of his ideas and qualities appealing.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Probably, M, but I think the AVT makes the Freedom Dividend possible though no the other way around.
www.headstonesband.com
So quit being so sensitive and harassing Hugh about whether he's "cool" or not with me suggesting when a transgender woman FIGHTS a ciswoman (I used "ciswoman" there to pacify you. Wouldn't want you whining over my use of "normal" woman again), then that is basically a man fighting a woman. Cry about it.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
As for your article, I was testing to see if you understand it. If I'm dealing with a scientist, I might approach things differently.
But, I'll jump in: in the context of your argument, the article begs the question. It repeatedly refers to "gender differences," yet--so far as I can tell--the study did not include transgender people. So, your reasoning is: men and women are discrete physical beings, definable a priori, with differing traits; here is an article that precedes with the premise (not the conclusion) that men and and women are discrete physical beings definable a priori (it then proceeds, of course, to offer more specific knowledge about one of those differences). You're using circular logic.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
How the fuck can the Fear Factor guy (okay, and the News Radio) guy have an audience like this? He's nothing but a washed up comedian/reality tv show host. I don't get it.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Why does he have such a large audience? I don't get it.
Joe fucking Rogan....haha
Perhaps this is my boomer moment. I don't know . We live in interesting times.
Since you didn't explain, I was left to decipher your argument--such as it was--on my own. I tried to do so, and I've explained why the evidence you've provided doesn't make the point I think you're trying to make. If you'd like to correct me about the nature of your claim, I'm happy to continue the conversation.
As for the "where the hell's your article?" part, I'm not entirely sure what you mean. I've already told you that I'm not a scientist. In addition, my research is not focused on trans people/rights. It's an additional interest of mine, about which I have some knowledge, but it's not my area of expertise. Rather, I've tried to listen--over several years--to people who know far more about the subject than me. Thankfully, I encounter a fair number of them, so I've had many learning opportunities.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
As for when you say it's a "boomer" moment, I can relate to that as far as not knowing a lot about these online personalities. That's what I'd consider Rogan: an online personality. And while I'm familiar with him, I don't know many others. I know some guy named Logan Paul was trying to set up a boxing match with Antonio Brown. Apparently Logan Paul is very, very popular and influential. I know nothing about him other than he wants to box Brown. In a similar vein to you not being too familiar with Rogan since Fear Factor, apparently Adam Corolla is a big deal in the podcast world. I didn't know he did anything since The Man Show.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Joe Rogan. haha.
Come on people
I only know of what Corolla's been doing because he appears on Stern every now and then. I've heard Logan Paul before. I think there was some dumb controversy with him a year or two ago.
i'm not really sure what your last two sentences are about. Sanders is the one who tweeted rogan's endorsement. You asked why rogan has so many followers, I told you. If you haven't watched or listened to him, you are commenting from an ignorant place. the fact you dismiss him simply because he's from MMA is also profoundly ignorant. he's an incredibly intelligent guy.
www.headstonesband.com
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
I can see why some then criticize joe as being the things they claim he is. I don't personally think he is those things, I think he just likes to get different points of view.
www.headstonesband.com