Trump Seeks Inquiry Into Unproved Allegations That Obama Tapped His Phones

[Dashinka 25,898]

16 hours ago, Póg mo said:

Saying both sides lie, seems to be an excuse for justifying more of the other sides lies. Add in a large dose of political bias and what happens? An environment where truth is always the first casualty. I am not perfect, I am sure I am naturally predesspossed to believing certain truths, but I do pride myself on at least listening to the other side. I am not, for example, predesspossed to automatically believing the Russians are in league with Trump. I honestly don't know either way, I try to base my opinion on available facts, and am willing to change my views when facts present themselves. Sometimes the facts are difficult to identify, but always.

Evidence I would like to see would be the Donald's tax returns. Having access to them, would go a long way towards showing whether or not Donald Trump is as wealthy as he claims, or as some groups maintain that he is at the mercy of outside actors for keeping his fortune.  

 

 

 

 

So you are suggesting one side can lie, and the other side just has to sit back and take it?  I am not justifying any side should lie, just acknowledging the fact that both sides do. 

[OriZ 3,165]

6 hours ago, ccneat said:

 

The Trump connection to Mein Kampf has been documented and is in his divorce court records.  I find it strange that modern folk seek out Hitler as some sort of wisdom that needs to be put on a level scale with other philosophies.

 

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/explaining-hitler-author-breaks-silence-trump-uses-mein-kampf-playbook-to-normalize-tyranny/

Again, I don't care about Trump. It also has nothing to do with wisdom. I bought it because as a Jew, I find it fascinating to look into his mind, and I'm not the only one. The problem with some people these days is they refuse to even try and understand or listen to the other side, even if it's just so they can "know their enemy" better. Case in point, all the violence in campuses not letting people speak. I am for letting these people speak just as I am for opening up your mind and not refusing to even read a book only because it was written by a madman. I see the refusal to try and understand the other side(and again that doesn't mean you have to agree with them) a symptom of a huge problem these days.

Edited March 8, 2017 by OriZ

[Teddy B 17,252]

9 hours ago, OriZ said:

I don't understand how people can claim they listen to both sides when time and time again they prove the opposite. I firmly believe in truly listening to both sides. That means I see things from the perspective of both Israel and the Palestinians, but form my own opinion. This means I have the ability to see both sides of the coin with single payer, but ultimately come to my own conclusions. That means I consistently read liberal and conservative sources, equally. As some here may know, one of my favorite weekly market commentaries are written by John Hussman whose mentor is Jimmy Carter. In the end you can't agree with both sides but broadening your horizons is not a bad thing. I have Mein Kampf in my house, sitting right next to "The Essential Zohar"(awesome book, btw). 

I was reading this thinking it was an an NB middle of the road post.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

13 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

I was reading this thinking it was an an NB middle of the road post.

OriZ sometimes hugs the centerline also . It had far too many words for a NB post

Edited March 8, 2017 by Nature Boy Flair

[Teddy B 17,252]

5 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

OriZ sometimes hugs the centerline also . It had far too many words for a NB post

True and the proper spelling and grammar were a sure give away as well.

[OriZ 3,165]

41 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

I was reading this thinking it was an an NB middle of the road post.

I think NB's alignment is off these days 

 

22 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

True and the proper spelling and grammar were a sure give away as well.

lol...I try

[smilesammich 10,727]

2 hours ago, OriZ said:

Again, I don't care about Trump. It also has nothing to do with wisdom. I bought it because as a Jew, I find it fascinating to look into his mind, and I'm not the only one. The problem with some people these days is they refuse to even try and understand or listen to the other side, even if it's just so they can "know their enemy" better. Case in point, all the violence in campuses not letting people speak. I am for letting these people speak just as I am for opening up your mind and not refusing to even read a book only because it was written by a madman. I see the refusal to try and understand the other side(and again that doesn't mean you have to agree with them) a symptom of a huge problem these days.

people have a right to speak and people have a right to protest speech they don't like. with the campus violence, i don't think it's that protesters didn't understand milo or just needed to listen better. the protests came from listening to him and understanding what he was all about.

[OriZ 3,165]

4 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

people have a right to speak and people have a right to protest speech they don't like. with the campus violence, i don't think it's that protesters didn't understand milo or just needed to listen better. the protests came from listening to him and understanding what he was all about.

They had a right to protest, yes, they did not have the right to try and silence him by being violent. Or the ones over here at Middlebury college just the other day for that matter:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/07/opinion/discord-at-middlebury-students-on-the-anti-murray-protests.html?_r=0

[Jacque67 7,328]

Oohhhh students!!!!

[smilesammich 10,727]

8 minutes ago, OriZ said:

They had a right to protest, yes, they did not have the right to try and silence him by being violent. Or the ones over here at Middlebury college just the other day for that matter:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/07/opinion/discord-at-middlebury-students-on-the-anti-murray-protests.html?_r=0

there's a difference between being tolerant of differing opinions and normalizing bigotry and white nationalism. i certainly do not care to protect the free speech of racists. 

 

from your link, i agree;

 

Quote

Elizabeth Siyuan Lee

Philosophy, ’17

For too long, a flawed notion of “free speech” has allowed individuals in positions of power to spread racist pseudoscience in academic institutions, dehumanizing and subjugating people of color and gender minorities. While I defend Murray’s right to speak his mind, the fact that the college provided an elevated platform for him did more harm than good. To that effect, I do not think Middlebury made sufficient avenues for students to engage with the implications of Mr. Murray’s ideas.

First, the event was co-sponsored by the political science department and featured opening remarks by the president of the College, elevating the speaker’s institutional legitimacy. While students have the right to bring speakers of all kinds to campus, the university itself must be responsible and academically honest when giving such events a show of approval through cosponsorship. Much of Murray’s work is not peer-reviewed and his assertions are not scientifically proven.

Second, and more important, the format of Murray’s talk did not allow for equal discussion. Were students, especially students of color, expected to just sit and listen for 45 minutes to an individual who has written that they are inferior to whites? Do Asians have to accept Murray’s assertions that we have “higher IQ’s” than other races, and as a result become the metaphorical “punching bag” for issues surrounding race and class? Where was the avenue to speak out against such ideas? How could students engage in debate on an equal playing field when Mr. Murray had a stage and a microphone, and we were just members of the audience? Without a platform for legitimate discussion, it seems that students had few non-disruptive tools to get their voices heard.

 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

23 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

people have a right to speak and people have a right to protest speech they don't like. with the campus violence, i don't think it's that protesters didn't understand milo or just needed to listen better. the protests came from listening to him and understanding what he was all about.

People have a right to protest with violence huh?  Only in your world. 

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, Nature Boy Flair said:

People have a right to protest with violence huh?  Only in your world. 

that isn't what i said. people have a right to protest. if you're a eugenicist and want to spread your racist disgusting beliefs and call for violence and oppression against groups of people expect violence. people aren't just going to lay down and let history repeat itself.

further, anyone who participates in violence and gets caught, like any other crime, is at the mercy of the court where of course, 'protesting' is not a defense.

 

 

[OriZ 3,165]

7 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

there's a difference between being tolerant of differing opinions and normalizing bigotry and white nationalism. i certainly do not care to protect the free speech of racists. 

 

from your link, i agree;

 

 

 

What they are ignoring is the fact there's a whole lot more to his work than just that. Concentrating on just a tiny portion of it, as wrong as it may be, which was not even what the lecture was about, I deem kind of ridiculous. They don't have to be "just members of the audience". In fact they don't have to be there at all, nobody locked them in there, but allow those who are actually interested to listen. Just like if Van Jones or Farrakhan were going to speak somewhere and I didn't want to listen(although like I said I believe in listening to everybody) I wouldn't violently protest against it, I just wouldn't show up. 

 

6 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

People have a right to protest with violence huh?  Only in your world. 

We've already established that weeks ago, get with the program will ya 

Edited March 8, 2017 by OriZ

[smilesammich 10,727]

5 minutes ago, OriZ said:

 

What they are ignoring is the fact there's a whole lot more to his work than just that. Concentrating on just a tiny portion of it, as wrong as it may be, which was not even what the lecture was about, I deem kind of ridiculous. They don't have to be "just members of the audience". In fact they don't have to be there at all, nobody locked them in there, but allow those who are actually interested to listen. Just like if Van Jones or Farrakhan were going to speak somewhere and I didn't want to listen(although like I said I believe in listening to everybody) I wouldn't violently protest against it, I just wouldn't show up. 

 

maybe you didn't read the part i quoted, maybe you're willfully ignoring this what this man is all about to serve your argument, not sure. either way. if you're comfortable with normalizing people with beliefs like murray, you won't know what to do when suddenly the narrative of our country starts to convene. its dangerous and these people need to hurry up die off (they're mostly old white dudes) and get put in their place (dumb dumbs like milo). reality is, this world is never going back to white male dominance. charles murray is nothing but a bitter clinger trying to have his influence before he kicks the bucket.

 

one more time:

Quote

For too long, a flawed notion of “free speech” has allowed individuals in positions of power to spread racist pseudoscience in academic institutions, dehumanizing and subjugating people of color and gender minorities. 

 

anyway, this all started from you saying the problem is folks not listening to the other side. i'm arguing that people are listening, and don't want none. in the two examples you've given - yeah just don't go see van jones or farrakhan. neither one of them are going to test your iq or check your genitals to see if you're worthy of existence or need to be phased out.

[OriZ 3,165]

3 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

maybe you didn't read the part i quoted, maybe you're willfully ignoring this what this man is all about to serve your argument, not sure. either way. if you're comfortable with normalizing people with beliefs like murray, you won't know what to do when suddenly the narrative of our country starts to convene. its dangerous and these people need to hurry up die off (they're mostly old white dudes) and get put in their place (dumb dumbs like milo). reality is, this world is never going back to white male dominance. charles murray is nothing but a bitter clinger trying to have his influence before he kicks the bucket.

 

one more time:

 

anyway, this all started from you saying the problem is folks not listening to the other side. i'm arguing that people are listening, and don't want none. in the two examples you've given - yeah just don't go see van jones or farrakhan. neither one of them are going to test your iq or check your genitals to see if you're worthy of existence or need to be phased out.

Or maybe you just didn't actually read his work and only want to go based on what you heard about the part that's wrong with it.