Open-Minded Liberals at it again

[Griever]

(02-02-2017, 08:04 PM)McC Wrote: The tolerant side continuing to show their intolerance.

yeah that crazy group from oakland just ruins everything

[Griever]

(02-03-2017, 09:07 AM)djam Wrote: So she left out the word "attempted" and you call it a lie? Look at how fast the liberal media jumps on something so freaking lame. This is not proving anything except that the left is full of crap and literally looking to twist words, take things out of context and spin words to confuse their followers into believing a bunch of lies. 

what twists? she said it, theres nothing to spin

sorry if calling your boy's people out on their lies hurts your feelings

maybe you need a safe space

[djam]

(02-03-2017, 09:15 AM)Griever Wrote: what twists? she said it, theres nothing to spin

sorry if calling your boy's people out on their lies hurts your feelings

maybe you need a safe space

Lol, thats funny. You know, I think its best if you just go on believing what you do...

[Griever]

(02-03-2017, 09:36 AM)djam Wrote: Lol, thats funny. You know, I think its best if you just go on believing what you do...

we'll keep going off what she says, you can keep on going off of #alternativefacts

[djam]

(02-03-2017, 09:43 AM)Griever Wrote: we'll keep going off what she says, you can keep on going off of #alternativefacts

Sounds good youngin

[GMDino]

(02-03-2017, 09:07 AM)djam Wrote: So she left out the word "attempted" and you call it a lie? Look at how fast the liberal media jumps on something so freaking lame. This is not proving anything except that the left is full of crap and literally looking to twist words, take things out of context and spin words to confuse their followers into believing a bunch of lies. 

I do call it a lie because they were never accused of any such thing.

But again, I'd rather talk about that than a handful of idiots throwing rocks.

[*bfine32*]

More Open-mindedness in NY:
http://time.com/4659339/new-york-university-protests-arrests-gavin-mcinnes/

Quote:Eleven people were arrested outside New York University Thursday during a protest against a conservative comedian speaking speaking at the school.

The protesters face disorderly conduct, resisting arrest and criminal mischief charges, Reuters reports, after they demonstrated against Vice Media co-founder Gavin McInnes.

According to Reuters, student Tamara Fine told an NBC affiliate that she is "dumbfounded that NYU would invite somebody who is a hate speaker."

McInnes, who left Vice in 2006, was invited to speak by the NYU College Republicans. The group released a statement after the incident, saying in part, "We understand that his presence was controversial but we didn't expect these outburst [sic] from this institution. We hope that in the future, NYU students will be more open to hearing ideas that are different from their own."

[Griever]

(02-03-2017, 04:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: More Open-mindedness in NY:
http://time.com/4659339/new-york-university-protests-arrests-gavin-mcinnes/

aw man they hurt his feelings by calling him a nazi


they sure are mean

[GMDino]

(02-03-2017, 04:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: More Open-mindedness in NY:
http://time.com/4659339/new-york-university-protests-arrests-gavin-mcinnes/

I am of the opinion, and the on the record, as saying let these guys talk.

You can't show their hatred if you don't let them say it out loud.

Stopping one speech only allows them to say "See!  The OTHER side is the one that is closed minded and full of hate!!"

And they can still go out any number of social and friendly platforms (Breitbart for example) to spew their message anyway.

Let them them speak...then shine a light on what they say.

[hollodero]

(02-03-2017, 03:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think the reaction to the story speaks for itself. her point was that iraqis were found doing some shady stuff

I looked it up in my dictionary. The word "massacre" doesn't translate to "shady stuff". It's amazing what justifications one can find for a blatant lie. And it's amazing how in addition you reach the conclusions that the left is stupid for thinking a massacre would somehow need to involve some massacring.
(There wasn't even attempted massacring, there was simply nothing even remotely close to a massacre. How on earth could one not simply say OK that was actually her bad?)

(02-03-2017, 03:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: and Obama banned movement for 6 months

But he hasn't banned movement. That just is not true either.

(02-03-2017, 03:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: however, the left had to redirect from that point.

By pointing out that Kellyanne made up a massacre?
You're right, a decent political opponent just would let that one slide and shut up about it.

(02-03-2017, 04:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: More Open-mindedness in NY:
http://time.com/4659339/new-york-university-protests-arrests-gavin-mcinnes/

But I fully agree with you on that one.

[*bfine32*]

(02-03-2017, 10:32 PM)hollodero Wrote: I looked it up in my dictionary. The word "massacre" doesn't translate to "shady stuff". It's amazing what justifications one can find for a blatant lie. And it's amazing how in addition you reach the conclusions that the left is stupid for thinking a massacre would somehow need to involve some massacring.
(There wasn't even attempted massacring, there was simply nothing even remotely close to a massacre. How on earth could one not simply say OK that was actually her bad?)


But he hasn't banned movement. That just is not true either.


By pointing out that Kellyanne made up a massacre?
You're right, a decent political opponent just would let that one slide and shut up about it.


But I fully agree with you on that one.

Yes she admitted she made a mistake in her wording; however, I'm not sure where you got that I concluded the left was "stupid" because of it. (Was that a blatant lie on your part?)

Given I should have said restricted as opposed to banned, so perhaps he "extreme vetted"

Of course a "political opponent" would not have shut up about the hyperbole; however, they would not look at her comments with an open mind. An it begs the question: why are so many folks rushing to be a political opponent of an administration has been in office for about 1 week. 

Folks making a deal out of what this lady said are just solidifying the point of the OP. She misspoke and then admitted she misspoke. 

[hollodero]

(02-03-2017, 11:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes she admitted she made a mistake in her wording; however, I'm not sure where you got that I concluded the left was "stupid" because of it. (Was that a blatant lie on your part?)

OK maybe you don't think that. Might be I mixed you up a little with some other guy taking your stance. I would call it a mistake in my wording. But, point taken. I backpadel on that one full steam.

(02-03-2017, 11:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Given I should have said restricted as opposed to banned, so perhaps he "extreme vetted"

Well, sure he restricted it alright. It's just plain wrong to say he banned movement when he did in no sense of the word ban movement. I would tell any left person the exact same thing in similar circumstances, this isn't a partisan stance. Nor is it a mere technicality to me. Words and differences do have meaning here.

(02-03-2017, 11:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course a "political opponent" would not have shut up about the hyperbole; however, they would not look at her comments with an open mind. An it begs the question: why are so many folks rushing to be a political opponent of an administration has been in office for about 1 week. 

I don't know. I know why I do. Because there are other possibilities than that Kellyanne just made a honest mistake. Because from another perspective it looks like part of a pattern of deliberate lies, and not only to flatter a vain president with petty alternative facts. But to agitate. Inventing a massacre to legitimize a move against certain let's say ethnicities looks like a - maybe failed, but still - state propaganda move. And that she added "it didn't get covered" as if an actual massacre was swept under the rug, simply implying that kind of media conspiracy (maybe she didn't do that), adds to the possible pattern I see. Which is an authoritarian one, which I consider threatening.

- Or she just blundered. I couldn't rule that out completely, I just highly doubt it. You might highly doubt the relevance of my take, too. But if you're open minded, I feel you have to admit that this take is not to be completely dismissed or marginalized as just a sleazy political attack. How people who actually honestly don't give a damn about the political opponent might reach the conclusion that there might be something more to it; how the threatening aspects I and others see, even if you do not agree, objectively are not a completely absurd take. That get less and less absurd by the day.

(02-03-2017, 11:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Folks making a deal out of what this lady said are just solidifying the point of the OP. She misspoke and then admitted she misspoke. 

I do have a hard time believing one would mistakenly use the word "massacre" for something that on no level resembles a massacre, in any case. But ok. If it were a singular incident I would be inclined to somehow agree. But it isn't.

[Benton]

(02-03-2017, 11:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes she admitted she made a mistake in her wording;...

Folks making a deal out of what this lady said are just solidifying the point of the OP. She misspoke and then admitted she misspoke. 

She claimed the media didn't cover a massacre. That's beyond a mistake in wording. It's either woefully ignorant, or willfully misleading. 

Folks making a big deal out of this are doing the right thing. Even her admission was more deflection about how it's the media. 

[GMDino]

(02-03-2017, 11:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes she admitted she made a mistake in her wording; however, I'm not sure where you got that I concluded the left was "stupid" because of it. (Was that a blatant lie on your part?)

Given I should have said restricted as opposed to banned, so perhaps he "extreme vetted"

Of course a "political opponent" would not have shut up about the hyperbole; however, they would not look at her comments with an open mind. An it begs the question: why are so many folks rushing to be a political opponent of an administration has been in office for about 1 week. 

Folks making a deal out of what this lady said are just solidifying the point of the OP. She misspoke and then admitted she misspoke. 

She "misspoke" and even if she had been telling the truth, or even if she has said what she "meant" it was still wrong in saying that Obama's actions were the same.

Also, when someone has already said they are "alternative facts" they deserve all they get when they "misspeak".

[*bfine32*]

(02-04-2017, 01:55 AM)Benton Wrote: Folks making a big deal out of this are doing the right thing.

Fundemental difference of opinion, but point taken.

[Dill]

(02-02-2017, 11:11 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Far more rational ways to protest such a disgusting person being invited to speak at a campus that is suppose to be known for inclusion.

I certainly agree with them trying to prevent someone who preaches such hate, but matching hate with hate is wrong.

The campus IS inclusive. The Administration had no problem allowing a racist to speak, when invited by a campus group. The 1,500 who peacefully protested were exercising their right to free speech as well.

No problem until the Black Block appears. It is not clear any are even Berkeley students.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/02/02/what-black-bloc/97393870/

Trump cannot defund a state university, funded by CA. Berkeley does get federal funding for cancer research, but again, Trump does not control that funding. 

What sense does it make to threaten such defunding when 1) the University permitted the speaker to speak, 2) it was the police, not the university, who cancelled the speech, 3) it is not clear that Berkeley students were involved in the protest, and 4) Trump has not the power to defund anyway? (Rhetorical questions thrown out to the forum, not aimed at you, Pat.)

[Dill]

(02-04-2017, 12:33 AM)hollodero Wrote: I don't know. I know why I do. Because there are other possibilities than that Kellyanne just made a honest mistake. Because from another perspective it looks like part of a pattern of deliberate lies, and not only to flatter a vain president with petty alternative facts. But to agitate. Inventing a massacre to legitimize a move against certain let's say ethnicities looks like a - maybe failed, but still - state propaganda move. And that she added "it didn't get covered" as if an actual massacre was swept under the rug, simply implying that kind of media conspiracy (maybe she didn't do that), adds to the possible pattern I see. Which is an authoritarian one, which I consider threatening.

I'm pretty sure that Conway knows that once these alternative facts get into circulation they stay there--like the "fact" Gore claimed to invent the internet or Obama is a Muslim.  Repeated corrections and denials don't much reduce the number of believers.

But your point about the pattern deserves emphasis, or I would say the formula, the formulaic presentation of disinformation, with a tag phrase asserting the media didn't cover it. The claim "the media didn't cover it" confirms a world view, and frequently seems to serve as retroactive, additional proof that something occurred. Of course its true if the media is "failing to report" it. In this case it also increases fear of Muslims and immigrants to justify a policy which cannot be justified by any evidentiary basis in stats and events.

[BmorePat87]

(02-04-2017, 05:54 PM)Dill Wrote: The campus IS inclusive. The Administration had no problem allowing a racist to speak, when invited by a campus group. The 1,500 who peacefully protested were exercising their right to free speech as well.

No problem until the Black Block appears. It is not clear any are even Berkeley students.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/02/02/what-black-bloc/97393870/

Trump cannot defund a state university, funded by CA. Berkeley does get federal funding for cancer research, but again, Trump does not control that funding. 

What sense does it make to threaten such defunding when 1) the University permitted the speaker to speak, 2) it was the police, not the university, who cancelled the speech, 3) it is not clear that Berkeley students were involved in the protest, and 4) Trump has not the power to defund anyway? (Rhetorical questions thrown out to the forum, not aimed at you, Pat.)

Good to know that there were peaceful protestors. As I said, the coverage I had seen only showed this one group (thank you for posting more about them). 

[*bfine32*]

(02-04-2017, 05:54 PM)Dill Wrote: What sense does it make to threaten such defunding when 1) the University permitted the speaker to speak, 2) it was the police, not the university, who cancelled the speech, 3) it is not clear that Berkeley students were involved in the protest, and 4) Trump has not the power to defund anyway? (Rhetorical questions thrown out to the forum, not aimed at you, Pat.)

I would say it is similar to If you host a party you are responsible for your guest's actions. Even if you are not the one making the noise, when the man knocks on the door, you're the one he wants to speak with and/or issue a citation. 

[Dill]

(02-05-2017, 12:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I would say it is similar to If you host a party you are responsible for your guest's actions. Even if you are not the one making the noise, when the man knocks on the door, you're the one he wants to speak with and/or issue a citation. 

If someone you didn't invite breaks into your party and you are trying to expel them,  You don't get a citation if I'm the man. The people who broke in do.