LC Posted February 2, 2017 Posted February 2, 2017 If I read this thread, it is definitely more the left than the right that has a violence and discrimination problem. We are being called trolls, we should shut up, etc. You are painting with a broad brush there...I would say most reasonable people are holding their tongue. The ones speaking out are the ones with extreme viewpoints. If insisting on civilized discourse and not advocating violence and the destruction of property to shut down political speech for which you disagree is an extreme viewpoint that should say something in and of itself don't you think? You are incorrectly interpreting what I wrote. For instance, a person can have both moderate views regarding one issue, and extreme views regarding another issue. You are advocating for free speech and nonviolence on this thread. Completely reasonable (in my opinion). You have also argued for, essentially, full-scale anarchy on previous threads. This is an extreme view (in my opinion)
Dalal.Holdings Posted February 2, 2017 Posted February 2, 2017 The alt right butthurt is strong. That speaker had engaged in doxxing, threatening people online (among many other scum tactics). He was fit to speak at a place like Trump University. At a legitimate university not so much. The 1st amendment mentions who is "fit to speak" does it? Point me to where the right is burning things, assaulting people, and destroying property to stop people from speaking? I see but hurt fascists, but not on the right. The first amendment does not regulate who gets to speak at a university. It starts with the phrase "Congress shall make no law..." Using your logic, Harvard not allowing you to give a speech on constitutional law in one of their lecture halls is a violation of free speech. Love it when alt rightists go on about free speech. It is a public university. Do some research on the 14th amendment and the incorporation doctrine. But even without the first amendment if a group at Harvard law invited me to speak and another group lit fires and beat people up to stop me, whether that is a first amendment violation or not it isn't the way civilized human beings behave. If you do not want to hear someone speak don't attend. "I don't agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to protect your right to say it shut you up" Lol. Way to deflect from your easily debunked original 1st amendment claim. I never agreed with the violent protests and destruction of property. That guy is scum. I am against giving an editor of Breitbart news, neo nazi, KKK, ISIS member, Al Qaeda, etc a platform at a legitimate university. Their speech would add no value to discussion and would be destructive. Anyway, it's not for me to decide, it's the university. If you want to know his opinion, go read at Breitbart news. I can't wait until Breitbart opens an investing section. I hope you will go ahead and invest based on their news since you have no regard for facts or decency. What ever happened to plain old decency and a commitment to truth? Isn't this forum in the spirit of a guy like Warren Buffett?
rkbabang Posted February 2, 2017 Posted February 2, 2017 The alt right butthurt is strong. That speaker had engaged in doxxing, threatening people online (among many other scum tactics). He was fit to speak at a place like Trump University. At a legitimate university not so much. The 1st amendment mentions who is "fit to speak" does it? Point me to where the right is burning things, assaulting people, and destroying property to stop people from speaking? I see but hurt fascists, but not on the right. The first amendment does not regulate who gets to speak at a university. It starts with the phrase "Congress shall make no law..." Using your logic, Harvard not allowing you to give a speech on constitutional law in one of their lecture halls is a violation of free speech. Love it when alt rightists go on about free speech. It is a public university. Do some research on the 14th amendment and the incorporation doctrine. But even without the first amendment if a group at Harvard law invited me to speak and another group lit fires and beat people up to stop me, whether that is a first amendment violation or not it isn't the way civilized human beings behave. If you do not want to hear someone speak don't attend. "I don't agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to protect your right to say it shut you up" Lol. Way to deflect from your easily debunked original 1st amendment claim. I never agreed with the violent protests and destruction of property. That guy is scum. I am against giving an editor of Breitbart news, neo nazi, KKK, ISIS member, Al Qaeda, etc a platform at a legitimate university. Their speech would add no value to discussion and would be destructive. Anyway, it's not for me to decide, it's the university. If you want to know his opinion, go read at Breitbart news. I can't wait until Breitbart opens an investing section. I hope you will go ahead and invest based on their news since you have no regard for facts or decency. What ever happened to plain old decency? Isn't this forum in the other of a guy like Warren Buffett? "What ever happened to plain old decency?" What happened indeed.
valcont Posted February 2, 2017 Posted February 2, 2017 Valcont, Don't you think it is time for you to calm down? If I read this thread, it is definitely more the left than the right that has a violence and discrimination problem. We are being called trolls, we should shut up, etc. I started this as a joke with the countdown and see where this is going. Cardboard My politics is somewhere in the middle so I could care less for left or right. I was merely stating my opinion about this alt-right scumbag. And this idiot pitched in accusing me of inciting violence(which I clearly didn't) and threatening violence in the same line. I see this alt-right trash as no different than a radical Islamic preacher which right wingers like you accused Obama of catering to. We have already seen the results of this hate speech in Canada.
Cardboard Posted February 2, 2017 Author Posted February 2, 2017 If you add the Black Lives Matter to the list then I will fully agree with you. Moderation and truth has to come from every side. Not just one. Cardboard
valcont Posted February 2, 2017 Posted February 2, 2017 If you add the Black Lives Matter to the list then I will fully agree with you. Moderation and truth has to come from every side. Not just one. Cardboard Ok this will set off another round of debate to nowhere, you better stick to updating the countdown and I'll stick to the Investment ideas.
Tim Eriksen Posted February 2, 2017 Posted February 2, 2017 Valcont, Don't you think it is time for you to calm down? If I read this thread, it is definitely more the left than the right that has a violence and discrimination problem. We are being called trolls, we should shut up, etc. I started this as a joke with the countdown and see where this is going. Cardboard My politics is somewhere in the middle so I could care less for left or right. I was merely stating my opinion about this alt-right scumbag. And this idiot pitched in accusing me of inciting violence(which I clearly didn't) and threatening violence in the same line. I see this alt-right trash as no different than a radical Islamic preacher which right wingers like you accused Obama of catering to. We have already seen the results of this hate speech in Canada. You know it appears you went ballistic because you did not understand what was written. Please go back and re-read the exchange without the emotions. I am pretty sure this quote was sarcasm: "I don't agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to protect your right to say it shut you up" He took what true believers in freedom of speech often quote and believe and rephrased it based on how the protestors were acting to show that the protestors don't actually believe in freedom of speech. And he did not threaten violence, he said those who are attacked have a right to defend themselves. You do realize that your merely stated opinion sounds striking similar to the kind of hate speech you condemn a few sentences later? Probably not.
berkshiremystery Posted February 2, 2017 Posted February 2, 2017 On another note, how nice of our forum creator to close down the other presidential discussion thread and allow this one clearly a trolling attempt by Trump supporter to exist. And if there is anything recent events such as at Berkeley show, the left will simply not tolerate Trump supporters to exist. Actully, I follow Milo Yiannopoulos already some long time, great unconventional guy, presenting values of freedom and capitalism. Listening to Milo almost feels like in good old days of Milton Friedman on Donahue, where Milton, Ronald Reagan's house economist trolled with wit. Milo is some guy with great taste of style. I already did preorder Milo's new book: the trigger setting "Dangerous". His friends Lauren Southern's book: "Barbarian's" got before Christmas to No. 1, at the Canadian Amazon charts for a few days. Lauren, a hedgehog freak and political science student from Vancouver, with awesome political grandma, was traveling last summer through Germany, Dresden, Berlin, Belgium and other European cities. She stayed secretly in Peter Thiels, German hotel, with some other guys I know, followed all day by thousands of police officers and surveillance spies and detectives,.... ha, the lying big media wasn't interested, nooo CNN, no BBC, no MSN, nobody. Thiel was sprinting with Fiat's John Elkann through the streets, Lauren and folks behind, lol. Thiel months later backing Trump ,... I sensed his value set. Finally Trump speaking out to support Milo, against leftist Berkeley, support free speech or no public funds, good so.
valcont Posted February 2, 2017 Posted February 2, 2017 You know it appears you went ballistic because you did not understand what was written. Please go back and re-read the exchange without the emotions. I am pretty sure this quote was sarcasm: "I don't agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to protect your right to say it shut you up" He took what true believers in freedom of speech often quote and believe and rephrased it based on how the protestors were acting to show that the protestors don't actually believe in freedom of speech. And he did not threaten violence, he said those who are attacked have a right to defend themselves. You do realize that your merely stated opinion sounds striking similar to the kind of hate speech you condemn a few sentences later? Probably not. Wished you had followed your own advice and re-read the exchange. Here is what he wrote. Do you see what I mean? Probably not inside that right wing bubble of denialism. I disagree. Civility should be shown to all non-violent people. Were the people who were beat outside the event deserving of violence? How long before the left start murdering people? The moment you initiate violence you are no longer on the correct side, it is you who no longer deserves respect, and the victims of your aggression have every right to defend themselves, with deadly force if necessary, against you. There is nothing left for me to say to you, for you are not a civilized human being.
Tim Eriksen Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 You know it appears you went ballistic because you did not understand what was written. Please go back and re-read the exchange without the emotions. I am pretty sure this quote was sarcasm: "I don't agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to protect your right to say it shut you up" He took what true believers in freedom of speech often quote and believe and rephrased it based on how the protestors were acting to show that the protestors don't actually believe in freedom of speech. And he did not threaten violence, he said those who are attacked have a right to defend themselves. You do realize that your merely stated opinion sounds striking similar to the kind of hate speech you condemn a few sentences later? Probably not. Wished you had followed your own advice and re-read the exchange. Here is what he wrote. Do you see what I mean? Probably not inside that right wing bubble of denialism. I disagree. Civility should be shown to all non-violent people. Were the people who were beat outside the event deserving of violence? How long before the left start murdering people? The moment you initiate violence you are no longer on the correct side, it is you who no longer deserves respect, and the victims of your aggression have every right to defend themselves, with deadly force if necessary, against you. There is nothing left for me to say to you, for you are not a civilized human being. Nope. It says the moment anyone initiates violence you lose the right to civility and the aggrieved party can defend themselves. I think you misunderstand who the "you" is. I'm out.
rkbabang Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 You know it appears you went ballistic because you did not understand what was written. Please go back and re-read the exchange without the emotions. I am pretty sure this quote was sarcasm: "I don't agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to protect your right to say it shut you up" He took what true believers in freedom of speech often quote and believe and rephrased it based on how the protestors were acting to show that the protestors don't actually believe in freedom of speech. And he did not threaten violence, he said those who are attacked have a right to defend themselves. You do realize that your merely stated opinion sounds striking similar to the kind of hate speech you condemn a few sentences later? Probably not. Wished you had followed your own advice and re-read the exchange. Here is what he wrote. Do you see what I mean? Probably not inside that right wing bubble of denialism. I disagree. Civility should be shown to all non-violent people. Were the people who were beat outside the event deserving of violence? How long before the left start murdering people? The moment you initiate violence you are no longer on the correct side, it is you who no longer deserves respect, and the victims of your aggression have every right to defend themselves, with deadly force if necessary, against you. There is nothing left for me to say to you, for you are not a civilized human being. Nope. It says the moment anyone initiates violence you lose the right to civility and the aggrieved party can defend themselves. I think you misunderstand who the "you" is. I'm out. Bingo.
valcont Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 Nope. It says the moment anyone initiates violence you lose the right to civility and the aggrieved party can defend themselves. I think you misunderstand who the "you" is. I'm out. Bingo. In that case, I stand corrected and I apologize. Your last sentence threw me off. I thought you were saying that you don't want to engage in discussion since I am not a civilized human being.
rkbabang Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 Nope. It says the moment anyone initiates violence you lose the right to civility and the aggrieved party can defend themselves. I think you misunderstand who the "you" is. I'm out. Bingo. In that case, I stand corrected and I apologize. Your last sentence threw me off. I thought you were saying that you don't want to engage in discussion since I am not a civilized human being. I suppose I could have worded that better. "The moment someone..." rather than "The moment you..."
Spekulatius Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 If you add the Black Lives Matter to the list then I will fully agree with you. Moderation and truth has to come from every side. Not just one. Cardboard Moderation and truce has to start to start with each of us, before we are asking it from somebody else. The board members here by large should be reasonable, non-violent people, so it should not be hard to have a civil discourse. If not, these threads should be locked.
DCG Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 I'm just glad our president was up at 3:24am today.....to continue fighting with Arnold on Twitter... http://www.oceansofosyrus.com/uploads/monthly_2017_02/Donald_J__Trump_on_Twitter___Yes__Arnold_Schwarzenegger_did_a_really_bad_job_as_Governor_of_Californ-even_worse_on_the_Apprentice___but_at_least_he_tried_hard__.png.7184c5569f7283360eecffd0ff188992.png Also, removing financial regulations Obama put in place after the 2008 recession seems like a great idea....http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/trump-financial-executive-actions/index.html Someone needs to find a way to get this fucktard out of office.
bearprowler6 Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-to-build-an-autocracy/513872/
berkshiremystery Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 If you add the Black Lives Matter to the list then I will fully agree with you. Moderation and truth has to come from every side. Not just one. Cardboard Moderation and truce has to start to start with each of us, before we are asking it from somebody else. The board members here by large should be reasonable, non-violent people, so it should not be hard to have a civil discourse. If not, these threads should be locked. If you add the Black Lives Matter to the list then I will fully agree with you. Moderation and truth has to come from every side. Not just one. Cardboard Moderation and truce has to start to start with each of us, before we are asking it from somebody else. The board members here by large should be reasonable, non-violent people, so it should not be hard to have a civil discourse. If not, these threads should be locked. So you are suggesting from everybody to search with himself to find a way to oscillate with each new mental thought in direction of a tandem collective wavelength, and an equilibrium of mediocrity. It seems like your moderation and truce could lead to the Frankfurt School, i.e. "critical theory", a reverse engineering of individualism to collectivism, i.e. for the common good of the group. I'm perfectly versed in political science, it's historic roots, intentions, motivations and history. I'm owning some remarkable book library of its masterworks. Fortunately, I educated myself independently without indoctrination of hidden agendas. All roots go through psychology,... reverse engineering of the human perception by some few knowledgeable elite experts, by creating new deception delusions to the majority of the unaware. Sadly, these unaware minds are invisible "locked",... moved, pushed by hidden "Force Fields", i.e. Kurt Lewin (Frankfurt School/Tavistock) theories for the common good. Tavistock the birthplace of social control theories by CIA, MI5. Luckly, I assume Peter Thiel understands these dangerous malicious risks, because through his Palentir body Alex Karp, a PhD in critical theory (I heard, that Karp studied under Herbert Marcuse,....but not sure). It boggles me intellectually, that hidden "mind control" should be suggested from now on, so we have a trigger free safe space. 1984 has finally sadly arrived. ::)
LC Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 I think there is a large difference between not accepting ad hominem attacks vs. "hidden mind control"
John Hjorth Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 If you add the Black Lives Matter to the list then I will fully agree with you. Moderation and truth has to come from every side. Not just one. Cardboard Moderation and truce has to start to start with each of us, before we are asking it from somebody else. The board members here by large should be reasonable, non-violent people, so it should not be hard to have a civil discourse. If not, these threads should be locked. +1 - It's actually that plain simple, as posted by Spekulatius. I post here with my civil name - the name stated in my passport etc. - like Jurgis, Sanjeev and Eric. It's the best way for self moderation, and to stay out of trouble - for my part, at least. Jurgis, Sanjeev and Eric may have other motives, of which I have no knowledge. I respect other board members don't have this opportunity as living the lonely life of managing OPM. Unfortunately, I'm equipped with the worst temper even imaginable from birth - My father is an old school military man, distilled to the extreme -and his genes are in me. It took me many years just to acknowledge that fact, and try to shape my own behavior accordingly, in the meantime causing so many - actually - and uncautionally - selfinduced problems, untill I ended up realizing the facts of from what I'm built, relatively late in life. And life's got a lot easier from then going forward, in general. In short, if something makes you go ballistic on here, - take a break - do something else - positive - on your immediate mind - and get back, when you are cooled down again.
tengen Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 In short, if something makes you go ballistic on here, - take a break - do something else - positive - on your immediate mind - and get back, when you are cooled down again. Amen.
DooDiligence Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 In short, if something makes you go ballistic on here, - take a break - do something else - positive - on your immediate mind - and get back, when you are cooled down again. Amen. آمن
John Hjorth Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 For those of us a little more commercially minded ;) http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/us-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=2657726 I understand that supposedly 9 of the last 10 US presidents had assassination attempts on them, and that the odds on impeachment are usually around 4:1 – about the same as for assassination. Donald’s doing 4-5x that. And ... as Paddy Power is Irish – a win would be tax free Even the Donald would approve :D SD Pretty good humor, SharperDingaan! It could actually be a tweet by Mr. Taleb. I saw a bet there, in the category "Trump Specials": "Golden shower footage to appear on RedTube". Odds appeared to be 4/1. Hilarious.
Dalal.Holdings Posted February 6, 2017 Posted February 6, 2017 Trump: "Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!" Wow.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now