Comments by "CynicalBroadcast" (@CynicalBastard) on "Lesbian Couple FURIOUS At What Chef Told Them On Valentine’s Day Date" video.

  1. exactly.
    2
  2. no, it isn't. let's see when the people making these comments, go out on a romantic dinner on Valentines day, and some waiter or server or chef comes up and makes lewd jokes towards them. lol damn peolpe these days...talk about sex, people turn instantly moronic.
    2
  3. all excellent points people. does that count?
    1
  4. it's called joking around. goddamn, i think you might be semi-clueless.
    1
  5. yeah, well i like it. this is seriously not your usual news source. i come here for entertainment, and the news comes along with it, and then i go and research what's relevant to me -- it's social media entertainment -- but then go to TYT politics if you're into that, man...or if you're looking for "relevant" news, there are TONS of sources. i didn't mean to insult you dude. i apologize.
    1
  6. people tend to get tunnel vision when their goals aren't taken in stride. not making excuses for TYT -- personally i don't see the "regressive" stuff come up too much, though. it's a bunch of pontificating, most of the time, and not really taken seriously. and i don't like calling people out for anything, even being half-wits. yeah,Cenk says a lot of crap. no one is ever always right -- except me.
    1
  7. "Sam Harris never said we SHOULD nuke ISIS. He said that if the west was put in a position where they knew ISIS had nuclear capabilities it would be foolish not to strike first. " "I can't see how that is egregious. I mean, it is if you remove his qualifiers and the context and just say 'Harris wants to nuke the middle east' as it was framed by Cenk but, that is not what Harris was/is saying. " so it's hypothetical -- he's saying that Islam would be much more likely to use a nuclear bomb, than we would, so we should strike first...but what's the rationale there? that we're better because we strike first? or we're different for having nukes, than they are? where is the rationale, if i might ask? "His point is that, ISIS is not like Russia were on the cold war. The Russians were as scared to die as anyone else and thus everyone chilled. " was his point to dispel other fallacious reasoning that he's seen Cenk, perhaps, or someone else, postulate? because that explain the extreme nature of his hypothetical. "ISIS fighters have shown time and time again that they don't care about dying, or more accurately, dying to them is honourable. This means the concept of 'mutually assured destruction' wouldn't act as the deterrent it was against Russia. So, while I am against the use of nuclear weapons, in fact, I'm a practical pacifist, If ISIS obtained nuclear weapons, I agree we would be administering our own death sentence if we didn't act first." i suppose, hypothetically, that'd be true. ISIS should have been wiped out a long time ago, already -- to be frank.
    1
  8. it's a pretty big IF. IF ISIS had a nuke and had the capability to use it on the US -- nuking them might be ONE option, but then again, we also have joint special task forces that can go into ISIS territory and secure the bomb -- we don't need to risk collateral damage to the region, without trying other viable options; is that not a fair point? and that's not to disagree with your assertion that ISIS is a terrible threat, i am just exploring the hypothetical; because i'm curious about what it's suppose to prove...that ISIS are deranged enough to go to any measures necessary to accomplish their goals? is that it? because i mean, i think we already know that. or is it to explore what lengths we'd take to stop them because...there are plenty of options between doing nothing and then jumping to the nuclear option, you know...lots of other things we can do besides nuke them...so is that what we're to do with this hypothetical?
    1
  9. i don't think Hannah said that, even though i agree with you in principal. no one should say that, but she didn't...she said "i tend to believe more" --as in 'moreso'; because of her belief that women do not come forward so readily, with  rape accusations; i would suspect that's the reason she said that. it was a poor choice of words, but she was just saying she opts for believing the women more. slight difference; since we're talking about not misrepresenting people. she also said something recently that made me laugh too, she said "...blah blah isn't perfect" and i was like "yeah, well perfection is an impossibility, so watch it honey". LOL PS: also, yeah, Cenk isn't always a buffoon, so i give him the benefit of the doubt, as long as he isn't going of the rails, that he isn't a complete total buffoon, and simply...another fallible human whom invents rhetorical discussion based on limited knowledge ie opinions. like everyone else. i try not to hold judgements of people. i judge alot, already in my life, so when i make a judgement, it doesn't stick; usually, i just move on to the next judgement.
    1
  10. i remember she said "i tend to want to believe the women more." i just watched the video today, dude. you don't have to believe me, but that's what i remember. maybe i'll review, if i find it again. it was pretty recent.
    1
  11. i'm pretty sure alot of this video was just joking around...save Hannah, i mean.
    1
  12. actually it's not just TYT, it's the whole of America right now -- that's why they address it on TYT because they need to otherwise people will post virulent comments about how they didn't address "race" properly.
    1
  13. haha, no it isn't. that's a very large over exaggeration.
    1
  14. relax, don't get triggered now. his kitchen is open to the patrons, that's how hibachi grill places work; you sit down and they cook and talk to their patrons; and to be entertaining, they try and make jokes. it's almost, as one person said here, a cliche, it's so common.
    1
  15. so we got a joke after a joke after a joke, oooorrr is this last comment of yours not a joke? : \
    1
  16. you know, that's what the story here is about, right...and what Cenk was pointing out, RIGHHT? that he was probably making a lewd joke and that it didn't get across, and they got offended, and that they kind have a point in being taken aback, by the whole thing -- which Cenk SAID.
    1
  17. and no one is saying that's right to do.
    1
  18. no news organization is unbiased.
    1