Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Look, just because we have a law that says Congress won't make laws restricting free speech doesn't mean that we have decided as a society to pitch all social norms put the window. PRIVATE entities are still well within their rights to censor your free speech, and people may shun you if you behave like a pig. Nobody said you are absolved of social judgment.
Yes, Clay is within his legal rights to make these statements, but that doesn't mean he's NOT a boor and that women (and men) aren't within their rights to be turned off by his behavior, particularly in context of this interview.
I do believe he understood all that... to illustrate that at the end of the day, he's kicked off CNN and Jemele is still hosting on ESPN.
As far as the other poster complaining that I haven't 'debated' him and that I only agree with those who agree with me?
You win!
I've never heard anything of Don Lemon. Heard the name, don't anything about the stiff. I don't even know who the F is on CNN, ok? Sounds like Don Lemon is a boor, too.
I think the point he was making was obvious. This woman on ESPN slanders the POTUS and nothing happens to her. He makes a silly harmless comment and he gets kicked off the set. Why? Because of the politics of the MSM. If he had made some sort of horrible remark about the POTUS he would have finished the show.
It's obvious he planned to do it and proved his point.
You can always count on CNN to deliver with failure right on cue.
How are they hypocrites? Talking about a female reporter and bringing up "boobs" was tacky. It had nothing to do with the conversation or the reason he was brought onto CNN.
Well, let me break it down for you.
1) He mentioned "boobs" in a free speech 1st amendment discussion and they um....melted down and "yanked mikes". Clearly intentional and unfortunately the irony of outrage was lost on most viewers including the host that kept pretending that she "mis-heard" what he said up to and including word play suggesting he liked "booze" in order to milk ratings. (She was lying that she mis-heard it but was working the outrage angle but didn't want to shut it off yet for ratings. )
2) On the second level, I found it hillarious that the guy on the left started talking about how the gal had criticism etc. over her appearance etc. while the host is clearly a top 0.5% in the traditional looks department and yet the person he was defending was really just being attacked for her tweets, the fact others mocked her appearance doesn't absolve her of some level of journalistic integrity.
3) If that CNN host puts on 30lbs she's fired.
Let that last point soak in.
It's true and it frankly validates the (shockingly) clever attack that the dude on the right side launched.
Really, it's sadly ironic to hear someone get indignant in a free speech discussion about the use of the word Boobs but even more telling that the reporter, whom let's be honest is 99.9% in her job because of looks over other candidates suddenly goes all "faux indignant" after using her face, boobs and appearance to move to the front of the line in TV because that/s what generates ratings.
But hey, if you disagree, be sure to include an explanation as to why news women are on average much younger than newsmen and how few minorities are in those roles while they pontificate about equality.
Lol...the gal with the faux outrage over the use of the word "boobs" and failing to spot it in a discussion about free speech? Then yanking his mike for saying it? All I know from that interview is that she speaks great and is pretty and is about 40 IQ points lower than the guy on the right that destroyed her without her even being smart enough to notice.
Look, just because we have a law that says Congress won't make laws restricting free speech doesn't mean that we have decided as a society to pitch all social norms put the window. PRIVATE entities are still well within their rights to censor your free speech, and people may shun you if you behave like a pig. Nobody said you are absolved of social judgment.
Yes, Clay is within his legal rights to make these statements, but that doesn't mean he's NOT a boor and that women (and men) aren't within their rights to be turned off by his behavior, particularly in context of this interview.
I think Clay just made a calculated move to boost his social media profile by generating some sensationalist controversy for himself...and clearly, he succeeded. He's like most celebrity talking heads, always hungry for attention. This is very good for his future earnings potential. The right-wing media circuit loves boorish behavior draped in the pretense of freedom (especially if CNN is on the other side!) and will be eating out of his hand for some time now.
The entire interview started with the premise that the ESPN gal had a right to "free speech" where really she doesn't as an employee of ESPN.
So he basically blew up that argument with his boobs comment which.....got his speech quickly restricted lmao.
I'm a little bit in shock that anyone on the far left or right could be so clever....but he made fools of the other 2 in the video. I'm used to hearing tired partisan schlock.
If I were an anchor at CNN, I wouldn't let someone come on and act like that.
I mean, I'd handle it different from how these two people did. They did their whole "I can't believe you said something sexist" act, like he good little CNN talking heads they are. But their disgust with his comment is entirely reasonable. The job of a news anchor is to inform the public of particular controversies and the views associated with them. Some guy trolling and acting like an ass isn't a good mode.
What I would have said instead of the pseudo-SJW outrage: "act like an adult or get the **** off my show you stupid ****."
But I'm less tolerant of trolls than the people who think Milo is intelligent.
I don't think I would have given him even that much satisfaction. The perfect reply would have been to say, in a very calm voice, "boobs are not relevant to this conversation," and then get right back to the topic at hand. No stunned expression, no outrage, no emotional reaction whatsoever. He was attempting to use shock value as a weapon, and that would have rendered it useless.
These idiots have no idea that they've been trolled and busted as hypocrites!
(I think that most of you see what Clay Travis did there?)
Ya, never mind the feelings of others, he showed how impolite he is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(She was lying that she mis-heard it but was working the outrage angle but didn't want to shut it off yet for ratings. 
)
