Comments by "A.J. Hart" (@cobbler88) on "Valuetainment" channel.

I don't think that's possible. PBD was being the sort of slimy that got him to where he is, and Whitlock called him a "used car salesman" and said he had "feminine energy."
8
KNOWING that he was being slimy doesn't make him any better of a person in this situation.
6
Soltron Because what was agreed to was an interview - not a panel. Why would Jason ask if anyone else would be present?
6
Soltron Irrelevant. He agreed to do an interview - not a panel. As such he had no reason to comb through any subsequent correspondence looking for further details beyond travel, lodging and scheduling. Hell, even in the description here it's fairly obvious they kind of buried that little revelation further down in the correspondence. When you agree to a dinner date with details to come later, when that next message comes with the details, do you keep scrolling just to make sure there's nothing about the addition of a few extra people to that dinner, or do you just assume that these are details for the one-on-one you agreed to? Take care
4
Apparently not.
3
@desr421 Oh, I think Jason is a little precious when it comes to all the religion and claiming that too many things are "satanic." I only listen to maybe 1/3 of his podcasts because I'm not interested in most of what he's discussing. He claims humility while also claiming he's putting "fire" out there, then turns around again and criticizes a regular guest about "pride." But he's in the right on this one. The fact of the matter - which has never been disputed - is that he agreed to an interview - not a panel or debate. If they changed the terms later, they needed to confirm that the message was received and that he agreed to the new terms. That's how these things work when done honestly. It doesn't raise Jason's profile to get into this kind of dust-up with two people who are less famous than he is. I mean actual famous - not social media famous. Take care.
3
I can only encourage people to view/listen to Jason Whitlock's account (and response to this rebuttal), and compare it to what's being said here. Then decide who was being slimy and disingenuous here.
2
@southsideman4891 He also said that the piece with Whitlock was going to be an interview - not a panel. PBD says a lot of things, and I doubt many of them cast him in a negative light.
2
@apitterson17 Soutpaws are an affront to God! 🤣
2
It's never taken much insight to be on to Reich's game. He rose to prominence under Clinton, and rarely did any of the things he said on the very public issues actually passed the economic smell test.
2
@nezkeys79 I understand where you're coming from. But if someone was changing the basic terms of a deal you had agreed to, 1) wouldn't they be expected to do it somewhere more prominent than the fine print of a follow-up email, and 2) wouldn't they confirm you had agreed to the new terms before going ahead? That's another part that's getting lost here. You can throw all manner of things out there. You still need confirmation from the other party.
2
But we also recognize that there's a bit of used car salesman in PBD. It's very obvious even though there is plenty of straighitforward content. Even though we generally trust the channel to a certain extent, don't confuse that with blind belief. Anyone who has any sophistication when it comes to consuming information gets a bit of a "feel" from listening to PBD.
1
@medicisounds1384 He was told it was an interview. That's what they agreed to. Why would Jason expect anyone else to be on the show?
1
@medicisounds1384 Having multiple people at an interview on a podcast isn't unusual. It just doesn't change anything. Whether the podcast was a one-man show or a three-man show, we're still talking about the usual production v. bringing in clowns from the outside. Interviews don't involve the latter.
1
Yup!
1
Weird. I've been in the media for about 25 years and have never witnessed this. At least not in actual media. I guess it depends on what a person considers "media" as far as what they expect. That said, I've obviously witnessed a lot of shady sh!t. Just not this particular thing.
1
Bet-David REALLY doesn't seem to understand the mind of a businessman. The businessman is hired for his acumen regarding his ability to garner profit in the setting in which he's been hired. If the landscape is not conducive to what has worked elsewhere, he tries something else and will believe in that course. That being said, I think he's absolutely correct regarding the true nature of the lions share of politicians never changing. They may flip-flop out of convenience but they will not actually believe that course. It was just a poor analogy.
1
So you must battle through horrible, cringey lines to seduce an 18yo counter girl. Got it. :)
1
I think the thing here was that this was not an opportunity. Not as long as it was a panel with that troll present. It was doomed to be a sideshow of no value, just as it turned out to be.
1
@desr421 You don't knowingly have a sit-down with someone who has no interest in truth. And Jason DID sit with the man years ago, so he was very familiar with how this would go. Still, none of this has anything to do with he bait and switch they tried here.
1
@nezkeys79 His point is that there wasn't supposed to be a panel to begin with when the deal was struck, which no one has countered. I've got plenty of problems with Whitlock being a little too precious, but this one is pretty straightforward.
1
@nezkeys79 Normally I'd agree, but as I've plainly stated in some of the comments to this video, it was still on PBD's team to confirm that the person on the other end of the bargain approved of the change. Try unilaterally changing deals in other areas of life and see how that works. Take care.
1
Would anyone else roll the dice on trying to replace two employees who demanded ANNUAL raises of $5K? Every decade you''ll pay at least an additional $100K in salary with no additional production from those two employees. Maybe making two $50K employees become two $150K employees after 20 years wasn't part of the business plan, especially while getting no additional work out of them. It makes it tough to grow the business when two people are suddenly chewing up so much salary overhead as well. How many additional employees can be brought on? Also, does it seem odd that two who "helped build the company" were on the outside looking in regarding reaping the benefits if they were so irreplacable? I've been head hunted as well. But I WAS replaced at my former company because it was required. The work didn't get done as well, but it was done well enough by my replacement. Graciously, this sounds more like two people who already had jobs lined up who then made steep salary demands, abruptly left the company high and dry without the ability to phase in replacements, and the market itself eventually took care of that business as it would have otherwise.
1
@caseycamachoperez7774 The two things are not necessarily related, but I understand the line of thinking.. Look at it like this: If 20 companies offer an employee $50K a year, and two others offer $60K or $40K, that doesn't mean the market dictates that that employee is worth $60/$40K. The market still says he's a $50K employee. Anomalies don't define the market. We can't take our cues from sports contracts and buy into media misuse of language. I've been in the media in major league and major D-1 markets for decades. We're absolutely ruining the language. Just because A market believes it should still be paying Bobby Bonilla doesn't mean THE market thought so. 🤣 Take care.
1