Ebridg3

DEI and Feminism

Candace Owens' entire act makes a lot more sense once you stop asking whether she's "controlled" or whether every position is some calculated grift.

I don't know what she actually believes privately. I just know the pattern is incredibly consistent.

First she was the **Black female conservative** saying what Black people supposedly weren't allowed to say.

Then she became the **conservative willing to stand up to Israel** and say what establishment conservatives supposedly weren't allowed to say.

Now it's the same formula again:

**Establish an identity ? find the contrarian position inside that identity ? make the "forbidden" claim ? turn the backlash into proof that you're independent ? repeat.**

That's why the Andrew Wilson debate was so revealing.

Andrew opened by basically saying, *If I misrepresent your position, correct me. I don't want to straw-man you.*

That was a gift. Candace was making the affirmative claims. The burden of proof was on **her**, and he was inviting her to define her own position.

Instead, she immediately started arguing that she hadn't really taken those positions.

Then why are we having the debate?

You've spent months making extraordinary claims and insinuations, agreed to a $300,000 debate about them, and when your opponent says, "Fine, you tell me exactly what you believe," suddenly nobody is allowed to pin you down.

To me, she lost right there.

But her audience saw the opposite.

I saw: **She's avoiding the burden of proof.**

They saw: **There she goes again — not letting the establishment frame her!**

And that's the whole business model.

Criticism becomes proof you're over the target.
Questions become attempts to silence you.
An opponent saying "I don't know" becomes evidence you're right.

At that point you're not really debating facts anymore. You're performing rebellion for an audience that has already decided rebellion itself is evidence.

**Candace doesn't have to prove she's right. She just has to make her audience feel like somebody doesn't want her saying it.**

quote:

---

Jayden Daniels' mom

---

Yall gotta quit being in denial.

quote:

---

For the clowns hating on JD5, would y’all be okay had Pickett demanded to wear #9?

---

I bet i can guess your opinion of the Karmelo Anthony and Nolan Wells stories.

It just never stops

So,

LSU will get evald.
They will liquidate roughly 10% of themselves
Then they will invest that money, which would have to increase by.. how much, yearly, for this to work?

Rev share is going up to 40 mil.

So, if they make a bad investment, LSU football is crippled.

quote:

---

Say goodbye to our last 3 National Championship QBs, Patrick Peterson, Jamal Adams, Joseph Addai, Danielle Hunter, Sam Montgomery, Kwon Alexander, and several others.

---

Different era. They wouldn't have stayed on that lsu team. Not sll of em.

quote:

---

Not to mention our last 2 Heisman trophy winners although were transfers were out of state.

---

Materially different than his point

quote:

---

Clemson
@ Ole Miss
A&M
@Auburn
Bama
Texas
@Tenn

---

I agree with your concern given that Clemson isn't a guarantee, but if you look up and Clemson is a double digit game in the third quarter... I'd consider the bet, because when that game finalizes, Vegas isn't going to give you -235 odds that LSU wins 2 of the remaining 6 games that you have listed.

If you're patient, and don't mind waiting on your money.. this is as close to free money as you're going to get.

1000$ bet is 400$ and some change in profit.

I mean, nothing is guaranteed, but this is an absurd odd to offer.

quote:

---

I think Aranda would suffer the same problems he did in 2019. He really struggled to adjust to our offense scoring so frequently and so quickly. He made adjustments and they were much improved by the end of the season, but I do worry that'd be an issue under Kiffin.

---

Super teams existed in 2019. Those teams don't exist anymore.

Aranda had even said it then, and really, who stopped teams better? Maybe you forget, Nick Saban himself was given up points back then.

quote:

---

First, you assume that future revenues will stay at their current level. That is not a reasonable assumption. The SEC is expected to increase revenue greatly in the future.

Second, a portion of the additional money will be used to increase future revenue.

Third, the current/future liabilities (buyouts) are not going away by themselves. They will end, but they need to be paid in the interim. Any time an entity takes a loan, they are using future cash flow to pay that loan. Future cash flow will be impacted one way or the other.

---

Interested to know how you see them increasing revenue.

Games sell out already
Concessions are already ridiculous
Parking has already been ruined

Football is becoming less popular among college age students as a whole.

Make no mistake about it... youre conflating winning with making more money without identifying actual mechanisms that make more money.

You can do three things.
1. Increase volume of sales
2. Increase profit per sale
3. Reduce costs

Newsflash... youre not reducing costs if youre trying to win championships.

Your whole philosophy is based on winning == more money.

Its like you got a room full of entrepreneurs and zero ops guys.

My point is, this is short term thinking, not long term.

And psychologically, its stupid as hell. Its liking giving a bunch of money to a woman that was already seeing you for nothing, just because she liked you. Now, youre a cash cow to her. She will never see you the same again.