TheLeviathan
-
Posts
21,582 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
49
Content Type
Profiles
Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis
Minnesota Twins Videos
2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings
2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors
Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources
2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
The Minnesota Twins Players Project
2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by TheLeviathan
-
We've discussed it before in other threads, but short version - I don't hold the Israelis blameless, they've done things they shouldn't have done. They are too aggressive at times. But the problem is not Israel. Mike or ashbury had a short, sweet way of saying this that escapes me right now.
-
I'm familiar, what I'm not familiar with is what comments she made that rose to that level.
-
Mike is right about that. She is squarely in the crosshairs of the right - it's only going to get worse for her. Mistakes or not, she is going to be targeted unfairly.
-
Look, I think the left's views on Israel are pretty wonky but I'm not 100% sure her comments are anti-semitic. I keep reading to hear one that jumps out and makes me cringe. The hypnotizing comment was dumb but not sure it's at that level. What should make me cringe that she's said? Maybe I missed it.
-
That's fair. They are inept. They're also less prone to being ridiculous. I despise this "he/she said/did this one thing therefore....banishment". That's a left-driven thing and I think the case of Omar is the right joining in. That's the thing in politics, if you weaponize something for you, you better be ready for it to come back the other way eventually.
-
My issue is hypocrisy and consistency. You know full well I hold both sides to that. Frankly, I think the Dems overreacted to Omar's comments. I think she said dumb, borderline things. She should've been scolded privately and waited for something like this when the pattern proved too large. Republicans have said far, far worse and had far, far less attention and scrutiny on it. I'm not one to tar and feather people for saying stupid things. (Though...I grant, the left does play that game. And on that front, they are being hypocrites. However, the Dems in office are not typically that version of "left". They tend to be the rational left that, for some reason, we're trying to run out of town)
-
I'm sure the outpouring of anger from the right about this activist judge is coming any second....
-
Still Free: LHP Dallas Keuchel
TheLeviathan replied to Seth Stohs's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
I also think, should things not go well for the team, that he has more value as a trade target. -
I wish we were privy to why the CIA didn't want him to have a clearance. I can't accuse him of wrong doing based on this, but the dude is shady.
-
I will join you back on topic. I raise your Manafort with a Kushner.
-
You know we had an actual civil war at one point right?
-
I don't know if you notice, but I do: your claims continue to retreat. I don't know what "most intense level" means and I'm not sure your personal range of "seeing" is relevant to the claim you're making. In fact, you should probably ignore something that subjective altogether when making such an argument.
-
How are there more teams? Hasn't your contention been that there are only two teams and that limitation is part of the problem? I can't make sense of tha tcomment. Factions have existed before there was even anything like what we call "media". Why is your hang-up on the media if you can't provide any evidence to substantiate that claim?
-
Hasn't that largely been the case everywhere? I imagine it's because both sides benefit from having a sharp dichotomy where you have to choose sides.
-
****, now we're all idiots again thanks to you.
-
Shouldn't you be able to answer the first question before you make that conclusion? If media's corrosive impact has always existed, why only now is the problem occurring? We've had "teams" in politics for as long as there have been societies. We have had hate and factions. Perhaps the media is not causing the issues at all, perhaps the issue is within human nature itself. Media might fan the flames, but it isn't the root cause or the origin. If it was, you should be able to show how humanity was humming along nicely until the "media" ruined the party.
-
How long has media been the cancer? Was this a change?
-
I have to say, usually I'm the guy that doesn't let someone off the hook for a really poorly made argument.....but damn, I sorta enjoy this version of Ben! We let out his inner o-lineman today.
-
Unfortunately, media is not alone to blame. This is where many of hte things we've spent time talking about here in this thread converge. Media is but an element of the problem you are talking about, whereas I think you cite it as the cause.
-
Agreed. I think part of the problem is the term "media" is so ubiquitous it's almost meaningless.
-
Or, again, you already have hate in your heart and you looked for a reason to fuel it. I'd like to see you provide some reasoning for why it was the media first influencing people, as opposed to the idea that the media is servicing a demand already existing. Now, the latter isn't necessarily better. We want media to be about truth, but I'm not sure the media wants us to hate each other. I think media wants to appeal to us. If so, it means you may have things backwards.
-
Is it that they choose the stories that divide us, or the ones we care about the most are the ones that divide us? All the media is doing, then, is servicing our desire to have we want most. The question with what the media provides and what we want is something of a chicken and the egg to me. Especially now when media is so available to the individual.
-
There are many good questions in here, but this seems to be the one you currently care about the most. The media does cover a lot of these stories, but they have to prioritize right? There are only so many hours in a day and so many stories to cover. I would say that there is certainly room to wonder what motivates those priorities. I'd venture to guess we would frequently not care for those reasons.
-
But merely because it was not brought up in the first 15-20 pages is not sufficient to draw the conclusions you did. No one has a problem with you injecting something like this: "Have you all ever wondered how we get our information and if we can trust it?" That's a good question. You'd have found a lot of interesting feedback to it. But that isn't what you did, instead you assumed that because in a narrow band of discussion this one thing didn't come up during this one frame of time, that people weren't thinking about it or caring about it. That wasn't fair and the confusion it caused as a result kept us from getting to a question that would have been interesting. You judged all of us for failing a test we never took. Perhaps you'll consider starting over and just asking one of those pertinent questions?
-
My brother and I are reading and discussing Chomsky's take on it. We have given up on Chomsky's horrid writing style, but the topic persists. This is a topic about general politics. Perhaps you should start one on the media. It is not fair to walk into a thread, with a purpose clearly stated in the title, and decry it for doing something it isn't. I don't fault the cow because it can't fly like a duck. If I want ducks, I'll go where the ducks are. You made sweeping assumptions about people here being lemmings and blind, but the truth is the fault lies with you. If you want to see what people think or don't think about the media - perhaps you should ask it in a relevant thread. Not use 20 pages of unrelated material to draw a sweeping conclusion. That's your narrative that you falsely spun. There isn't an agree/disagree element to be had here, just you recognizing an approach that was unfair from the get go.
