Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Joe Rogan Fan boys

Love him or hate him is no matter, this all goes to prove a 77 year old guitar player can have some power.

ROFLMAO...

Yepp

Clapton claims he can't play anymore after he had the shots.

Neil Young sucks. He has looked like an elderly woman for decades.

He screwed up big time. He bent over to kiss their ass and now the woke are fixing to screw him big time.

Spotify is sitting on an episode.
https://maajidnawaz.substack.com/p/my-episode-joe-rogan-and-the-streisand-585

Y'all might be right... then again y'all might be wrong...

I've been watching DWACW pretty hard... and "Truth" Social Media... ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY...

Rogan could be working on some "kicked to the curb/victim" angle. Time will tell. Admittedly I know NOTHING of Rogan except the one or two segments re: Dr. Malone... and MeatEater.

Might be a Rogan rebirth maybe??? ...on Trump's 3rd party angle... we will see.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/chances-truth-social-digital-world-222402577.html

FTR my personal heros in my life have always been men/women I know personally... and NOT a voice on a box.

Learned that lesson 30 25 years ago...

Never liked Jimmy Carter politics, but always thought "Well, at least he is a simple and humble man"... then I knew him/worked for him (restoration of his "Boyhood Home"). He was the most arrogant self-centered prick I have ever personally met. Pure dickhead.

Your liberalness is still sightly in the closet.

This trope in regards to separation of church & state is old and tired and fails to consider the context in which the phrase originated. Jefferson’s famous letter to the Danbury Baptists of 1802 was an assurance that government would not interfere in any way in the life of the church; not vice-versa.

Likewise the issue with the establishment clauses’ contemporary translation. The FFs were all in one way or another (and to varying degrees of orthodoxy) Christians. That is to say their entire world was built upon the foundation of a Christian understanding of the world. The enlightenment upon which they justified their war for independence was based upon fundamental truths taught in Christianity. For the FFs “freedom of religion” wasn’t the ability for American citizens to choose between Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, and Satanism. The nation-state as imagined at the time, even those of the utmost tolerance, had no such diversity, and it was completely out of their frame of reference. When they said “freedom of religion” they were thinking of those sects of Christianity that were common within Anglo-Saxon spheres; Quakerism, Deism, Anglicanism, Presbyterianism, Congregationalism, Baptists/Anabaptists, etc.

The fact that they saw no cultural “freedom from religion” is proven by the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence wherein the SELF EVIDENT truth (ie anyone with common sense can see) that all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Therefore to be “free from religion” would be to submit oneself to the unlimited, capricious power of the state… as we are seeing constantly today…

This incessant superimposition of our postmodern values upon the FFs is something against which we ought to be vigilant, instead judging their words according to the context in which they were spoken. We can’t understand them otherwise, and play into the hands of those who never really cared about laws or truth in the first place.

Hmmmmm, Spotify CEO informed staff that they aren't censoring him or taking him down. Refreshing to see Netflix and Spotify make a stand against the cancel culture. Free speech is rapidly waning in this country. Sad so many here are trying to usher it in.

People nowadays also use the phrase “judging their words according to the context in which they were spoken”…pertaining to the Founding Father’s…in order to support and justify their own agenda. Even when they’re on opposite sides of the spectrum…! The anti-gun people use that very phrase to devalue and deemphasize the 2nd Amendment nowadays. Others use it to justify the imposition of a Christian theocracy.

Seems if ‘Christians’ were really concerned about extending the ministry of Jesus, the best way to do that would be through their personal lives, rather than forcing their beliefs upon others through governmental actions.

Once long ago, a handful of disenfranchised Jews who were crushed between the Roman Empire and the organized religion of the Jewish Temple, maintained and exercised their personal faith in a resurrected savior…and changed the world. And they didn’t do so by forcing their beliefs upon others through governmental actions.

I didn't read this entire thread as I already know who thinks who sucks and how bad. My take on this whole Joe Rogan thing is viewing it as a reflection of what has become with free speech in this country. He interviews people, period. Because of things people say during an interview, whether by him or a guest, the left takes it upon themselves to silence him and/or his guests. To me, that's where the problem lies. Without dissent or differing ideas we get stuck with the single point of view which, unfortunately, is the view that is shouted the loudest no matter how small the group doing the shouting.

The irony.

Whether you like or hate Rogan, he's putting people on his podcast with ideas other than CNN.gov and letting them speak. If any of the major news networks would do that he would not be nearly as popular. But they don't and it is interesting to listen to the other side of the story, then make up your own mind.

You’re presenting a false dichotomy and ignoring my points.

What say you of the words of the Declaration of Independence? What was the point of those words if I am so wrong as you suggest?

Do you recognize that there is an awful lot of real estate between what I’ve argued which is not against religious freedom but for a different interpretation of it based upon the time & place of the writing of the Constitution and the “forcing of their beliefs upon others through for governmental actions”?

Consider how the interpretation I’ve suggested was implemented in allowances for legal immigration, and how much of the cultural problems we face today are due to people who have no common ground with American culture coming without any intention of assimilation. This is detrimental not only for American culture but also for those who come without intention of assimilation; they might likely be happier elsewhere if they don’t share our ideals, yes? It’s a big world.

Or would you suggest there is no American culture? Or perhaps your hatred of the Christian Church would have you believe that our culture is actually an anti-culture, characterized by the idea that the FFs didn’t really believe that God had in fact endowed anyone with anything, or that it mattered not from whence freedom is derived?

Rogan isn't going to lose his audience because of the people working against him.

He very well may lose his audience for apologizing.

He should have just given the finger and kept going.

I failed to also point out that the building of a nation is not the same as personal evangelism. As we see all around us, the environment in which one may be free to speak and act virtuously is contingent upon a coherent understanding of virtue that we now lack, causing once commonplace conversations to be construed as “hate speech”. Your “freedom from religion” in many quarters now equates to the right of anyone to say anything, the more transgressive the better, so long as it transgresses the sensibilities of Christians and no one else.

What we have as the result of having sought after the “ideals” you argue for is the definitive proof of what Jefferson implied in the DOI; that to set aside the Creator was to kneel to capricious and unlimited state power, and the resultant obliteration of individual rights.