Sheriff Clark is in no mood for the bullshit, and nor should he be. I'm surprised CNN let that much raw truth be be broadcast and didn't shut it down. Don Lemon uncomfortable as fuck, it was great.
Americans are dreamers too
(This post was last modified: 07-17-2016 11:36 PM by GlobalMan.)
07-17-2016 11:23 PM
The following 3 users Like GlobalMan's post:3 users Like GlobalMan's post Chauncey, sixsix, debeguiled
eskimobobseal
Alpha Male
Posts: 1,034
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 14
Don Lemon should be fired for that, he completely mishandled the interview, repeated himself a thousand times, interrupted, stuttered and embarrassed himself.
(07-17-2016 11:28 PM)eskimobobseal Wrote: Don Lemon should be fired for that, he completely mishandled the interview, repeated himself a thousand times, interrupted, stuttered and embarrassed himself.
Whenever he didn't have a way to reply, he accused Clarke of talking about "other stuff," even though the topic was the same. He got he ass handed to him and knew it the entire time.
Lemon is such an asshat. Constantly deflects the sheriff's accusations and questions, then patronizing says it has been a stressful day, suggesting the good cop is cracking under the pressure. Fuck you asshole.
(07-17-2016 11:12 PM)Eastside Wrote: TLDW: David Clarke destroys Don Lemon and makes him look like a little girl.
He didn't destroy Don Lemon at all. I watch the video hoping that he would, but Sherriff Clarke reveals himself as someone who just picks and chooses the information that he wants to believe and ignores that which doesn't strengthen his case, a common phenomena in many people, regardless of which side of the isle they are on.
First, Lemon was knowledgeable about the results of a recent research study that Clarke was clearly clueless about. Then, towards the end, Lemon calmly points out that Clarke is derailing the conversation, by refusing to answer questions and asking off-topic questions himself instead.
When Clarke doesn't improve his change his behavior, Lemon politely, but firmly ends the interview.
(07-17-2016 11:12 PM)Eastside Wrote: TLDW: David Clarke destroys Don Lemon and makes him look like a little girl.
He didn't destroy Don Lemon at all. I watch the video hoping that he would, but Sherriff Clarke reveals himself as someone who just picks and chooses the information that he wants to believe and ignores that which doesn't strengthen his case, a common phenomena in many people, regardless of which side of the isle they are on.
First, Lemon was knowledgeable about the results of a recent research study that Clarke was clearly clueless about. Then, towards the end, Lemon calmly points out that Clarke is derailing the conversation, by refusing to answer questions and asking off-topic questions himself instead.
When Clarke doesn't improve his change his behavior, Lemon politely, but firmly ends the interview.
If anything, Lemon destroyed Clarke.
I think at the end of the day, you'll be the only one standing by that analysis.
07-17-2016 11:53 PM
GlobalMan
International Playboy
Posts: 3,027
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 67
Suits, Lemon has been one of the bigger shills for BLM, having no problem with expressing his personal opinion and implying that what they're doing is right and justified- So when he now tried to pretend he doesn't have any opinion on the matter and saying "I'm just a reporter" and "you're off topic" it was pure hypocritical faggotry, that's what people are getting at. Lemon has no problem letting people who support BLM stuff go off on tangents
Americans are dreamers too
(This post was last modified: 07-18-2016 12:07 AM by GlobalMan.)
Regardless of who destroyed who (let's set that aside for a moment, although I'm with the David Clarke wins side) Clark got in point after point that Don Lemon would NEVER want on his show.
(This post was last modified: 07-17-2016 11:55 PM by godfather dust.)
07-17-2016 11:55 PM
The following 2 users Like godfather dust's post:2 users Like godfather dust's post Dark Knowledge, debeguiled
Space Cowboy
Chubby Chaser
Posts: 481
Joined: Mar 2016
Reputation: 28
(07-17-2016 11:54 PM)GlobalMan Wrote: Suits, Lemon has been one of the bigger shills for BLM, having no problem with expressing his personal opinion and implying that what they're doing is right and justified- So when he now tried to pretend he doesn't have any opinion on the matter and saying "I'm just a reporter" and "you're off topic" it was pure hypocritical faggotry, that's what people are getting at. Lemon has no problem letting people who support this garbage go off on tangents.
Lemon may be the biggest dick every and deserving of being called out, but I think the effort by Clarke, however justified, failed.
All I'm saying is that based on this short segment alone, Lemon comes off as far more knowledgeable than Clarke.
I watched the clip hoping that Clarke would deliver a verbal ass-kicking, but that wasn't what I witnessed. That may be because Lemon is a cunning and slippery snake and it doesn't make him right about the issues he supports, just because he managed to come out of one exchange without being the clear loser.
My point is that we have to be careful not to let our biases color what we see. The only way that we can defeat an evil enemy is by being completely honest with ourselves and aware of the impressions we and others in our camp make.
If you want to win over moderates who might side with reason, we need to do more than simply be right. We also have to give the appearance of being correct.
In this one example, it's my impression that Clarke doesn't come across as the best advocate we could hope for. To say that he "destroyed Lemon" would require some stretching of the imagination, although it's also fair to say that beside being unaware of the conclusions actually reached by a study he claims to have read, he doesn't come off looking all too terrible.
But I'm concerned that anyone would reach the conclusion that Clarke "destroyed" Lemon.
Extremely poorly handled by Don Lemon, he didn't destroy shit, the dude fell apart. The sheriff didn't handle himself great either but you can see hes emotional and feed up with the bullshit.
(07-18-2016 12:07 AM)aeroektar Wrote: Extremely poorly handled by Don Lemon, he didn't destroy shit, the dude fell apart. The sheriff didn't handle himself great either but you can see hes emotional and feed up with the bullshit.
He may be emotional, but he remains emotionally in control and exhibits strong frame.
I hope that someday I can have the balls necessary to sell myself on TV like that.
The officer should not have entered the arena with a snake like Lemon. All Lemon's going to do is lie, weasel, and evade.
The officer is a good man, but he's in over his head here. To fight against a snake, you need an Anaconda.
But, on the other hand, the officer's candor and inexperience as a debater may actually have helped him. The average viewer watching this is going to have sympathy for him, and see Lemon for what he is: a smooth-talking weasel.
Sometimes innocence and candor are more important than debating skill.
Tries to corner the alpha with yes/no bullshit and word games, the alpha raises his voice and the beta becomes triggered and gets his panties in a bunch.
I can barely remember what it's like to feel so utterly emasculated by the presence of someone who could snap me like a twig, but this video provides a glimmer of that distant life.
(07-17-2016 11:54 PM)GlobalMan Wrote: Suits, Lemon has been one of the bigger shills for BLM, having no problem with expressing his personal opinion and implying that what they're doing is right and justified- So when he now tried to pretend he doesn't have any opinion on the matter and saying "I'm just a reporter" and "you're off topic" it was pure hypocritical faggotry, that's what people are getting at. Lemon has no problem letting people who support this garbage go off on tangents.
Lemon may be the biggest dick every and deserving of being called out, but I think the effort by Clarke, however justified, failed.
All I'm saying is that based on this short segment alone, Lemon comes off as far more knowledgeable than Clarke.
I watched the clip hoping that Clarke would deliver a verbal ass-kicking, but that wasn't what I witnessed. That may be because Lemon is a cunning and slippery snake and it doesn't make him right about the issues he supports, just because he managed to come out of one exchange without being the clear loser.
My point is that we have to be careful not to let our biases color what we see. The only way that we can defeat an evil enemy is by being completely honest with ourselves and aware of the impressions we and others in our camp make.
If you want to win over moderates who might side with reason, we need to do more than simply be right. We also have to give the appearance of being correct.
In this one example, it's my impression that Clarke doesn't come across as the best advocate we could hope for. To say that he "destroyed Lemon" would require some stretching of the imagination, although it's also fair to say that beside being unaware of the conclusions actually reached by a study he claims to have read, he doesn't come off looking all too terrible.
But I'm concerned that anyone would reach the conclusion that Clarke "destroyed" Lemon.
Please provide details of how exactly Don Lemon came out looking knowledgeable in this exchange, outside of the mere assertion that he did.
From what I saw, the only part of the "debate" that consisted of actual analysis or data and that could be construed as one side displaying more "knowledge" than the other centered around Lemon asserting that there does exist data showing blacks are unfairly targeted by police.
Lemon then brought up a Harvard study. After Lemon brought up the Harvard study, Clark pointed out that the Harvard study actually shows the opposite of what Lemon claims, namely that there is no difference between unjustified shootings of blacks and whites.
And what was Lemon's response to being caught out? He immediately sought to dismiss the validity of the Harvard study that he himself brought up to prove data exists! by saying it only sampled a handful of police departments and could not be taken as definitive proof of anything. Nigga please. That was complete self ownage and I can't believe anyone sees it otherwise. The rest of the exchange centered around Clark shotgunning his own talking points to an audience of millions over Lemon's feeble protestations. Guess what: feebly protesting a stream of truths without being able to refute any of them doesn't make you a victor.
(This post was last modified: 07-18-2016 01:13 AM by Fast Eddie.)
The thing you wish Clarke did was chop BLM off at its head.
Lemon: "We aren't talking about the narrative of ferguson being false"
Clarke: "Yes, actually, we are because Mike Brown was a public danger and charging a police officer. BLM gained national notoriety and executive branch support at this juncture in our national discussion. And from there, its snowballed out of control. Yes, police have killed black men unjustly and they have been deal with. But, Black men commit disproportionate amounts of crime in America meaning they interact with police much more often but are told "they are targeted" they aren't targeted, they put themselves in high risk situations.
And why are they doing this? Because the black community is fundamentally broken. 71% of all black babies are born out of wedlock. Thats a recipe for disaster."
My pontificating aside, I was listening to some NPR type radio show "Family Meeting" here in Chicago while out on a drive today. It was a well run show.
This old black men calls in and goes off. Black crime this, subversion that, white people aren't bad per se, etc, etc. And then out of left field goes "This is all a distraction. Our country has been ripped out from under us. The black community was destroyed and its affects are showing. But we just want to keep dealing with symptoms. Not the causes. Anyways, I'm done...KEEP TAKING THOSE BLUE PILLS, IDIOTS."
(07-17-2016 11:54 PM)GlobalMan Wrote: Suits, Lemon has been one of the bigger shills for BLM, having no problem with expressing his personal opinion and implying that what they're doing is right and justified- So when he now tried to pretend he doesn't have any opinion on the matter and saying "I'm just a reporter" and "you're off topic" it was pure hypocritical faggotry, that's what people are getting at. Lemon has no problem letting people who support this garbage go off on tangents.
Lemon may be the biggest dick every and deserving of being called out, but I think the effort by Clarke, however justified, failed.
All I'm saying is that based on this short segment alone, Lemon comes off as far more knowledgeable than Clarke.
I watched the clip hoping that Clarke would deliver a verbal ass-kicking, but that wasn't what I witnessed. That may be because Lemon is a cunning and slippery snake and it doesn't make him right about the issues he supports, just because he managed to come out of one exchange without being the clear loser.
My point is that we have to be careful not to let our biases color what we see. The only way that we can defeat an evil enemy is by being completely honest with ourselves and aware of the impressions we and others in our camp make.
If you want to win over moderates who might side with reason, we need to do more than simply be right. We also have to give the appearance of being correct.
In this one example, it's my impression that Clarke doesn't come across as the best advocate we could hope for. To say that he "destroyed Lemon" would require some stretching of the imagination, although it's also fair to say that beside being unaware of the conclusions actually reached by a study he claims to have read, he doesn't come off looking all too terrible.
But I'm concerned that anyone would reach the conclusion that Clarke "destroyed" Lemon.
Please provide details of how exactly Don Lemon came out looking knowledgeable in this exchange, outside of the mere assertion that he did.
From what I saw, the only part of the "debate" that consisted of actual analysis or data and that could be construed as one side displaying more "knowledge" than the other centered around Lemon asserting that there does exist data showing blacks are unfairly targeted by police.
Lemon then brought up a Harvard study. After Lemon brought up the Harvard study, Clark pointed out that the Harvard study actually shows the opposite of what Lemon claims, namely that there is no difference between unjustified shootings of blacks and whites.
And what was Lemon's response to being caught out? He immediately sought to dismiss the validity of the Harvard study that he himself brought up to prove data exists! by saying it only sampled a handful of police departments and could not be taken as definitive proof of anything. Nigga please. That was complete self ownage and I can't believe anyone sees it otherwise. The rest of the exchange centered around Clark shotgunning his own talking points to an audience of millions over Lemon's feeble protestations. Guess what: feebly protesting a stream of truths without being able to refute any of them doesn't make you a victor.
Clarke: And you know this...there is no data, there is no research that proves any of this nonsense.
Lemon: You need to be more specific about what data and what nonsense we are talking about.
Clarke: .........that.......................law enforcement officers treat black males different..................than white males in policing.............in these urban centers
Lemon: There is data that supports that.
Clarke: There is no data.
(A few lines of dialogue, where Lemon references sources that Clarke quickly and confidently shoots down. Lemon does not persist further and temporarily, it appears that Clarke has the upper hand).
Lemon: There is also research from a Harvard professor that also shows that black people are treated more aggressively by police officers
Clarke: No, you are.......wrong....in your interpretation of that Harvard study, because I read the study and that's not what he said. He said he was surprised to find......
Lemon: He said that he was surprised to find that in shoots of the most severe, he found no evidence that there was a difference. Also, it should be noted that that study had a very small sampling of police departments across the country; many people did not find it credible, but it is also interesting that IN that research, he found that blacks were treated different when it came to aggressive policing, but for the most aggregious shootings, he found no difference...that's what that study showed.
Clarke. Well, (sounding confused) based on just generally or are we talking about high crime areas? Because let's go back to.....(changes subject, never returns to refute Lemon's claim, which if you've read the study, was a completely accurate statement based on that research).
In conclusion, Lemon successfully tears down Clarke's claim that there is no evidence and Clarke is unable to provide a rebuttal.
Home
RooshV.com
Search (Via Forum)
Member List
![[-]](images/collapse.gif)
The following 25 users Like Eastside's post:
![[Image: S5lm9B2.gif]](http://i.imgur.com/S5lm9B2.gif)
