Anticipating attacks, I should like to emphasize that I do not subscribe to the myths propagated by enemies of Israel and I am not blaming Jews for anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism predates the birth of Israel. Neither Israel's policies nor the critics of those policies should be held responsible for anti-Semitism. At the same time, I do believe that attitudes toward Israel are influenced by Israel's policies, and attitudes toward the Jewish community are influenced by the pro-Israel lobby's success in suppressing divergent views.
The organization of our press has truly been a success. Our law concerning the press is such that divergences of opinion between members of the government are no longer an occasion for public exhibitions, which are not the newspapers' business.
America is great precisely because it is an open society, and an open society recognizes that nobody is the ultimate arbiter — and that we may be wrong at times, even if we are powerful. We must be open to criticism and respect divergent and different views and interests.
Also, differences of opinion can be creatively stimulating as well as frustrating.
Nine times out of ten your two smartest policy advisors disagree.
There are definitely people who disagree with certain creative decisions you make. Pleasing everyone is pretty hard.
To think is to differ.
Our policy is not along the same lines as the policy of the United States. It is not because we want it to be different. It is because our thinking is different.
You can't see the future, there's no such thing. It's all bets. You'll never get the same answer from two seers. But that doesn't mean either of them's wrong.
If you're also in the arena and you're putting your ideas out and you're owning them and you're saying "I disagree with you about this and that, I think you've got this wrong" - then not only do I invite that, I freaking love that. I love that. I'm an academic. I'm hardwired for a good debate.
How do I hold my truth to be the truth when everyone else believes their truth to be different.
I don't agree with Trump on everything.
If all the economists were laid end to end, they'd never reach a conclusion.
… two men may be as sincere, as earnest, as faithful, as uncompromising, and yet hold opinions far asunder as the poles
What you see is not what others see. We inhabit parallel worlds of perception, bounded by our interests and experience. What is obvious to some is invisible to others.
I am well aware of different views across my own party and across parliament on pretty well all Brexit issues.
Defenders see things way different than blockers.
In accommodation with other Powers, differences of opinion must be looked for, even those most agreed on the same general views.
Communities and constituencies do not always have aligned interests.
You need people who have their own views, whose views you respect, whom you can have a productive disagreement with, and work out ideas which you might not have come up with, or who improve on ideas you had.
One scientist will interpret data one way, another in another way. One scientist may feel that an experiment is valid, another feels it's invalid. That's why scientists have discussions and put forward their opinions in conferences and papers.
… what is true for me may be blasphemy for others.
Decisions of the kind the executive has to make are not made well by acclamation. They are made well only if based on the clash of conflicting views...The first rule in decision-making is that one does not make a decision unless there is disagreement.
If the bishops are saying that it is divine revelation that seven percent of unemployment is morally unacceptable and that that is a teaching which must as a matter of faith be accepted by all Catholics, I respectfully dissent.
Common sense to one person might be something different to another.
