companies don t like. is it a good idea? should liberals get behind the censorship of speech that they don t like? i can t believe the liberals are supporting this. you run into the philosopher karl popper put forth the paradox of tolerance. when somebody says, i don t tolerate anybody else, that would be the whites of premises in this case, i don t need to tolerate their speech because they are intolerant of everything and everybody, unless you happen to fit their very narrow worldview. i agree that there can be a slippery slope your but this is the free marketplace. if you want to support white supremacist, cocreate your own hosting company and go create your own music service for whites of premises. spoon let me just say i m sure i m going to wind up on the splc web site for saying this, but i m not defending white supremacy. i don t believe it in and i don t approve of it. what i believe in his freedom of expression. in a marketplace of ideas where they compete with one another.
expression. in a marketplace of ideas where they compete with one another. if you don t like what somebody saying, make the counter case. beat them in debate, don t shut them down. aren t you as a liberal may be a little bit bothered by the practice at google of eliminating things from should search results? t you don t even know it s there? google has a functional monopoly on search and you know that. let s not pretend. that doesn t bother you? in the case of google that would be the exception. search is like, the one area where they really are like a monopoly but all the other things that you just described are not monopolies, so there really is a marketplace for competition. search is a which is why google is running whole other w animal. into some trouble in places like europe. i don t like the idea that google remove search resultsov just because we don t like what the answer is.on i am with you i on that one. i think there is a dangerous precedent when we shutdown something.
they compete with one another. if you don t like what somebody saying, make the counter case. beat them in debate, don t shut them down. aren t you as a liberal may be a little bit bothered by the practice at google of eliminating things from should search results? you don t even know it s there? google has a functional monopoly on search and you know that. let s not pretend. that doesn t bother you? in the case of google that would be the exception. search is like, the one area where they really are like a monopoly but all the other things that you just described are not monopolies, so there really is a marketplace for competition. search as a whole another animal which is why google is running into some trouble in places like europe. i don t like the idea that google remove search results just because we don t like what the answer is. i am with you on that one. i think there is a dangerous precedent when we shutdown something. spoon why don t liberals stand up and say that? i m gla
around this june 9, 2016 meeting between don trump jr. and the seven other people that we know were there, including two other of the top campaign officials in the trump campaign. when you have the mike flynn story, when you have the manafort stuff, there is just this is not an isolated incident. donald trump knows this is a bad story for him. he is trying to make this about the media. as anna points out, it has nothing to do with the media. we at cnn, no credible media outlet has said, oh, this meeting was a secret dinner. it was on tape. that s not the issue here. it s like somebody saying, hey, chris, you re tall and me saying, i have brown eyes. both of those things are true but that s not the same debate. he does this time and time again. he s trying to change the subject. this has nothing to do with the media here. context matters.
what is collusion? you have an e-mail from, you know, somebody saying, there s a russian lawyer coming to town. she has information on the clintons that you really need to see. shouldn t we sit down with these people, somebody who is connected to the russian government? i don t know how would you have more of a situation that meets the definition of collusion? so, you re all over the place trying to define collusion. what i m trying to zero in on, this confirms what we already know, the russians are reaching out to us. what i said from the very beginning of this investigation in the intelligence committee i can t take this investigation like anyone else watching it on tv and commenting on it. i have to take it from the legal perspective of it because we have to walk through all the facts. we have to get all the facts out because the essential thing is did any american cooperate with a foreign government to try to influence our election. and do you think you want to see more e-m