Jackson Jambalaya

That viewpoint, coming from a radical leftist agenda-ite, is kind of like spotting a unicorn.

I never thought I would agree with Van Jones so utterly and completely.

"You are creating a kind of liberalism that the minute it crosses the street into the real world is not just useless, but obnoxious and dangerous."

Amen.

There's nothing to explode over. Van was right.

Regardless of how you may feel about Corey Lewandowski, Milo Yiannopoulos, or Richard Spencer, they deserved the opportunity to speak at the university's they were invited to. Because they were guest of the University.

The problem we have now-a-days is that when we debate issues, we do not seek common ground or people will automatically disrespect someone or a group who has an opposing viewpoint from their own. Henceforth eliminating any real possibility for having an understanding from an opposing viewpoint.

Here's a perfect example, "Bed Wetter Alert" - "Bed-wetters are going to explode when they see ONE of THEIR OWN saying something THEY definitely won't like in this video."

How are we going to have an intellectual discussion on how to discuss issues, when we bust out the gate with name calling? LOL!

Who's going to want to come to the table and be forthright, when its all about having the upper hand in the debate. Are we debating for style points or for real understanding?

Needless to say, Van was right. We are not going to go anywhere if its all about being comfortable in our own echo chambers. People are no longer intellectually curious. They want someone else to do their thinking for them and to tell them how to get there.

People are no longer intellectually curious.

According to you, a nonintellectual.

@ 2:07pm

bring it! Your little insult gives me vigor for a new debate against a troglodyte such as yourself. ;-)

Good for Van Jones.

Is he a 9/11 truther? Sure. But he's spot-on.

I'm fairly confident, fortunately, that none of the snowflakes will take heed.

How do you know 'people are no longer intellectually curious'? What gives you the right to reach (and state) that conclusion?

Can you even define intellectual curiosity?

(I hope my post 'brings you vigor').

Van Jones is just trying to grow his white audience that Glen Beck can no longer provide.

9:31
And you know that because...?
Oh yeah, you don't. You are just sucking up good air!

There's no bedwetting to be had.
I would suggest that there is, however, more than a little hypocrisy on both sides when it comes to protests.
The right doesn't like protesters on the left and in several Red States have introduced bills to keep the public " safe" from having to see or deal with protesters as they go about their business.
This is not really all that different from keeping college students " safe" from protesters as they go about their business on a campus.
I was shocked that so many on the right seemed to have convenient memory loss about the Tea Party protesters at Democratic candidates town halls.
Rude and crude is rude and crude and those of us who are not " true believers" can see them in both parties. And, we see those with some manners laughably rationalizing the bad behaviors.
Both parties have extremists wings that incite the mentally ill. Both parties have stooped to " plants" whose role it is to disrupt. Both parties try to protect their candidates from having to even see a protester by making sure the permitting keeps them as far away as possible.
To my mind the worst protesters are the religious nuts who protest about gays at the funerals of our military killed in action . Geez, there's not even a reason to think anyone at the funeral is gay or pro-gay. And, to add to a family's grief without rhyme or reason more than reaches the bar for insane cruelty.
But, now the mentally ill can find each other and form groups who share the same delusions. They can even run for office or have a website.
Many of our woes would end if we did returned to the days of involuntary commitment for the mentally ill who have no one to make sure they take their meds. Their commitment could also give the gullible and ignorant a " heads up" that this person is crazy and not to be believed.

@ 9:01pm - "Can you even define intellectual curiosity?"

Curiosity is the strong desire to learn without constraint and is the driving force behind new discoveries in not only technology and science, but across all fields.

How we debate new discoveries, technology, science and other fields are key. As I said before, are we debating for clarity and understanding, or simply for style points, trying to one up someone, or are we simply uncomfortable with someone else's view points and doing everything in our power to obstruct something we don't agree with?

I think we should start with less name calling, more willing participants to listen and we could perhaps start having honest conversations.

@ 10:15m - "Oh yeah, you don't. You are just sucking up good air!"

Sorry, I was too busy reading on how our infrastructure in Mississippi is falling to sh*t! Perhaps you are sucking up my good air, if I was born before you, then obviously it was mine before yours! ;-)

Who defines honest? You? LMAO

@ 8:20am - "Who defines honest? You? LMAO"

Its comments like that, that set the tone and explain why people can have open and honest conversations! LMAO!!

Did you mean CAN'T? (while you laughed your arrogant ass off)...

@ 5:18pm

It was a freakin' typo! You are all fragile over a typo? LMAO

There are too many attorneys or "wanna be attorneys" much less wanna be professors who opine on this board.

How are we going to have an intellectual discussion on how to discuss issues, when we bust out the gate with claims of being the most intellectual on stage?

I won't bore you all with examples. You can see them for yourselves at 1:36, 2:37, 7:32, 9:28 and 5:51.

@ 6:36am

"when we bust out the gate with claims of being the most intellectual on stage?"

Where were the claims on BEING THE MOST INTELLECTUAL?

I simply referred to "intellectual curiosity" and people - didn't say anything about being the most intellectual.