Trump

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Re: Trump

    Originally posted by Vlad Drkulec View Post
    The only way to deal with this is to cut off funding to schools who hire and protect such professors. Berkely got something like 350 million dollars in federal funding. Schools that decline to arrest and prosecute their professors, students and anarchist agitator rioters lose funding until such time as they can demonstrate that free speech is something that they are willing to protect. I am sure that Governor Brown will be willing to take up the slack in funding thus created. Such a measure would cost the university of California billions of dollars and would probably induce all the researchers who pull in all that funding to relocated to schools who are less politically correct. Don't feed your enemies.
    No, no! It was the Right that did it. Just ask Robert Reich, who provided zero proof, but got onto CNN to give his views.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycJ2uUKG6S8
    "Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Trump

      Originally posted by Tom O'Donnell View Post
      No, no! It was the Right that did it. Just ask Robert Reich, who provided zero proof, but got onto CNN to give his views.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycJ2uUKG6S8
      Hi Tom:

      You have an issue with Robert Reich??

      Bob A

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Trump

        Originally posted by Tom O'Donnell View Post
        No, no! It was the Right that did it. Just ask Robert Reich, who provided zero proof, but got onto CNN to give his views.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycJ2uUKG6S8

        Your bias against truth is showing again, Tom.

        Reich said throughout, "there are rumors", "I'm not saying anything factually", "We just simply don't know on both sides, it jumps to a conclusion." Whereas the woman in the center of the 3 people being shown debating, who was introduced as "a Republican strategist", said "these are left-wing vandals." So it is SHE who tries making a factual statement with no proof.

        You're blaming CNN for having Reich, but they also allow this Republican strategist to try and spread her version of the truth. And it took Reich to take her to task for doing that. The host Don Lemon doesn't raise any questions about her statement.

        Bring it on with your youtube videos, Tom, and I'll just continue exposing the propaganda behind them. You can continue to blame CNN, blame people like Reich, but the truth is not that simple and you are completely biased.
        Only the rushing is heard...
        Onward flies the bird.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Trump

          Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
          Hi Tom:

          You have an issue with Robert Reich??

          Bob A
          Fwiw Bob, here's a wikipedia link re: Robert Reich (includes career, political views...):

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Reich
          Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
          Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Trump

            Originally posted by Paul Bonham View Post
            Your bias against truth is showing again......you are completely biased.
            Hi Paul:

            Interesting and complex concept: "Bias".

            One can be biased because they hold an ideology that is impervious to rational debate: I refer to this as "Ideological Bias". You run into it anywhere on the spectrum: right, centre, left. The person totally and passionately believes that their "factual arguments" justifying their positions, are "true". There is no hint of immorality, of "lying".

            A key feature is that the same "facts" (Which others claim to be dubious) are regularly trotted out in support of the position, as if sent down to us on the stone tablets.

            There can be here, no dialogue......no presentations of "alternate possible facts" will even be considered.

            Dialogue implies an openness on both sides to the possibility the other is right, and they are wrong.

            If you really believe that this context is not present, that you are being faced with ideological bias, then Einstein, I believe, said not to waste your time (Don't have his exact quote at my fingertips....someone else got it?).

            Bob A
            Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Saturday, 4th February, 2017, 02:07 PM.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Trump

              Originally posted by Kevin Pacey View Post
              Fwiw Bob, here's a wikipedia link re: Robert Reich (includes career, political views...):

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Reich
              Hi Kevin:

              I hold Robert in high regard.......his analysis is often very insightful (With all due respect to Tom).

              Bob A

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Trump

                Originally posted by Tom O'Donnell View Post
                No, no! It was the Right that did it. Just ask Robert Reich, who provided zero proof, but got onto CNN to give his views.

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycJ2uUKG6S8
                There is no doubt that many of those masked people were outside agitators but we could have figured out exactly who they were if a few of them had been arrested. There are rumours that the agitators are funded by a number of Soros funded left wing groups. There are precedents from the the Obama administration for cutting off funding for schools that don't toe the line (as they threatened with the transgender bathroom issue and also with radical feminist interpretation of toxic males campus indoctrination). Cut off the funding to these left wing universities and sanctuary cities. Stop funding terrorism and rioters.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Trump

                  Originally posted by Paul Bonham View Post
                  Your bias against truth is showing again, Tom.

                  Reich said throughout, "there are rumors", "I'm not saying anything factually", "We just simply don't know on both sides, it jumps to a conclusion." Whereas the woman in the center of the 3 people being shown debating, who was introduced as "a Republican strategist", said "these are left-wing vandals." So it is SHE who tries making a factual statement with no proof.

                  You're blaming CNN for having Reich, but they also allow this Republican strategist to try and spread her version of the truth. And it took Reich to take her to task for doing that. The host Don Lemon doesn't raise any questions about her statement.

                  Bring it on with your youtube videos, Tom, and I'll just continue exposing the propaganda behind them. You can continue to blame CNN, blame people like Reich, but the truth is not that simple and you are completely biased.
                  Alex Jones has two guests on his program.

                  The first guest says that he heard rumours that the Clintons killed a whole bunch of associates in order to keep dirty secrets from getting out. Hey, a whole bunch of people are dead who know the Clintons, so just connect the dots.

                  The second guest says people die all the time. The Clintons know thousands of people and obviously when you know that many people some of them are going to die, perhaps a couple under "mysterious circumstances". The "mysterious circumstances" merely mean that the investigators never found with absolute 100% certainty what happened.

                  According to the Paul Bonham school of journalism analysis, both are equally credible claims.

                  Meanwhile Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is probably the correct one.

                  Which seems simpler:

                  1) A bunch of people opposed to an ideology committed some violence to get their way.

                  2)There was a conspiracy involving the people on tour, the masked vigilantes and the mayor and police, who chose to make only three arrests for some reason.

                  Meanwhile Reich, who evidently knows the tens of thousands of students at the university by sight, says the bulk of his proof is that he didn't recognize them as students.
                  "Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Trump

                    Originally posted by Tom O'Donnell View Post
                    According to the Paul Bonham school of journalism analysis, both are equally credible claims.
                    If you take out the word "equally", then you have encapsulated what I am saying. But you inserted that word, which I never used, in a blatant attempt to make my argument seem silly.



                    Originally posted by Tom O'Donnell View Post
                    Meanwhile Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is probably the correct one.

                    Which seems simpler:

                    1) A bunch of people opposed to an ideology committed some violence to get their way.

                    2)There was a conspiracy involving the people on tour, the masked vigilantes and the mayor and police, who chose to make only three arrests for some reason.

                    Meanwhile Reich, who evidently knows the tens of thousands of students at the university by sight, says the bulk of his proof is that he didn't recognize them as students.

                    Two points on that:

                    (1) Courts of law do not use Occam's Razor to determine guilt or innocence. Tom O'Donnell obviously does. Enough said there.

                    (2) Reich never used the word "proof" because he wasn't making a factual argument. Reich used his non-recognition of the violence perpertrators as evidence giving weight to his argument that they COULD HAVE BEEN anti-free speech activists from the alt right. Again, Tom displays blatant disregard for what people are actually arguing. His bias is so complete that he hears only what he wants to hear, sees only what he wants to see.
                    Only the rushing is heard...
                    Onward flies the bird.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Trump

                      Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
                      Hi Paul:

                      Interesting and complex concept: "Bias".

                      One can be biased because they hold an ideology that is impervious to rational debate: I refer to this as "Ideological Bias". You run into it anywhere on the spectrum: right, centre, left. The person totally and passionately believes that their "factual arguments" justifying their positions, are "true". There is no hint of immorality, of "lying".

                      A key feature is that the same "facts" (Which others claim to be dubious) are regularly trotted out in support of the position, as if sent down to us on the stone tablets.

                      There can be here, no dialogue......no presentations of "alternate possible facts" will even be considered.

                      Dialogue implies an openness on both sides to the possibility the other is right, and they are wrong.

                      If you really believe that this context is not present, that you are being faced with ideological bias, then Einstein, I believe, said not to waste your time (Don't have his exact quote at my fingertips....someone else got it?).

                      Bob A

                      Hi Bob,

                      Yes, bias is an interesting study. I often wonder if this has ever happened: two identical twins grow up together, attend the same schools, go to all the same events, basically do everything together, maybe even take the same undergraduate studies. And yet.... one of them grows up to be very conservative, the other to be very liberal. And neither can convince the other to come over to their view.

                      Wouldn't that be interesting? How would psychologists explain such a result? However, I don't know if such a case has ever been documented. But the point is, do we really understand what forms people's opinions, especially when they cling fiercely to them despite evidence they are wrong? Is it possible that our sociological and political beliefs are induced by genetic or chemical processes that might be beyond our control and not influenced by outside environment?

                      And then there are people who are very open-minded and agnostic, preferring to study all sides of an argument and give each side the benefit of objective consideration.
                      Only the rushing is heard...
                      Onward flies the bird.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Trump

                        Originally posted by Paul Bonham View Post
                        If you take out the word "equally", then you have encapsulated what I am saying. But you inserted that word, which I never used, in a blatant attempt to make my argument seem silly.






                        Two points on that:

                        (1) Courts of law do not use Occam's Razor to determine guilt or innocence. Tom O'Donnell obviously does. Enough said there.

                        (2) Reich never used the word "proof" because he wasn't making a factual argument. Reich used his non-recognition of the violence perpertrators as evidence giving weight to his argument that they COULD HAVE BEEN anti-free speech activists from the alt right. Again, Tom displays blatant disregard for what people are actually arguing. His bias is so complete that he hears only what he wants to hear, sees only what he wants to see.


                        I didn't realize CNN was a court of law. Are the guests' hearsay now evidence?

                        "Don, they could have been Martians. They could have been a bunch of robots. They could have been ghosts." If I were to make such a claim I would probably need something a bit more compelling than "I read in the National Enquirer that Martians live in Berkeley" or "I'm not saying they were robots but they moved a bit stiffly".

                        The point is that extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. Ordinary claims (e.g. that some people opposed to an ideology will become violent) are pretty ordinary.

                        Having said that, of course Reich could be correct. Anything is possible. CNN created fake news by giving both sides a chance to deliver theories with zero proof attached to either. Even if one theory is a lot more plausible than the other.
                        Last edited by Tom O'Donnell; Saturday, 4th February, 2017, 06:38 PM.
                        "Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Trump

                          Originally posted by Kerry Liles View Post
                          I skipped ahead to 10:15 or thereabouts and was kind of shocked at the 'enthusiasm' that woman/professor showed - wow. I could almost predict what she was going to yell (and I am still wondering why it is that I could predict some of that...?! yikes) Anyway, interesting post and bizarre video but I don't think we have seen the last of these kind of protests. I think it will only get worse and I am afraid the violence level will simply ratchet up quickly... stay tuned world.
                          We have had 3 straight weekends of protests now, and I agree that we can expect to see it continue. The vast majority of these protestors are exercising their right of protest in a peaceful way. As long as Trump continues to rule in his authoritarian manner: to insult all his opponents, attack the media, to ignore the constitution, to pretend he has the support of the majority, to deny reality; the protests will continue. I hope the protests remain peaceful and that nobody gets hurt, but we should expect some level of violence.
                          To hold the leaders of the “left” or the “right” accountable for all acts of violence from extremists is pointless. I do expect the leaders of the “left” and the “right” to condemn acts of violence and to conduct themselves so as not to promote violence. Keep it peaceful. Do not condemn all peaceful protesters for the acts of a few extremists.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Trump

                            Originally posted by Bob Gillanders View Post
                            We have had 3 straight weekends of protests now, and I agree that we can expect to see it continue. The vast majority of these protestors are exercising their right of protest in a peaceful way. As long as Trump continues to rule in his authoritarian manner: to insult all his opponents, attack the media, to ignore the constitution, to pretend he has the support of the majority, to deny reality; the protests will continue. I hope the protests remain peaceful and that nobody gets hurt, but we should expect some level of violence.
                            To hold the leaders of the “left” or the “right” accountable for all acts of violence from extremists is pointless. I do expect the leaders of the “left” and the “right” to condemn acts of violence and to conduct themselves so as not to promote violence. Keep it peaceful. Do not condemn all peaceful protesters for the acts of a few extremists.
                            Hi Bob G:

                            I think a vain hope re peaceful, non-violent right of assembly.

                            I saw an article about a month ago I think (I'd have to go scroll down for a long time, and even then could miss it) - 7 USA states had bills now before them to allow municipalities, I think, to manage/limit the peaceful right of assembly (Beyond permits for road-blocking, etc.). Someone else know about this?

                            Bob A

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Trump

                              Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
                              Hi Bob G:

                              I think a vain hope re peaceful, non-violent right of assembly.

                              I saw an article about a month ago I think (I'd have to go scroll down for a long time, and even then could miss it) - 7 USA states had bills now before them to allow municipalities, I think, to manage/limit the peaceful right of assembly (Beyond permits for road-blocking, etc.). Someone else know about this?

                              Bob A

                              Perhaps this is what you are referring to:

                              https://theintercept.com/2017/01/23/...ceful-protest/
                              Only the rushing is heard...
                              Onward flies the bird.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Trump

                                Originally posted by Paul Bonham View Post
                                Perhaps this is what you are referring to:

                                https://theintercept.com/2017/01/23/...ceful-protest/
                                Hi Paul:

                                Thanks.

                                You nailed it.....very, very scary when the whole trending of the governing issue in the USA now is the "fast-tracking" toward authoritarianism (If not Fascism itself)

                                Bob A

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X