Ben Carson Wants to Censor Speech

[Coyote]

"I actually have something I would use the Department of Education to do," Carson said. "It would be to monitor our institutions of higher education for extreme political bias and deny federal funding if it exists."

Once again Carson succeeds in exhibiting his ignorance of, or contempt for, First Amendment jurisprudence.

Needless to say, if any such policy were implemented by the Department of Education to subject colleges and universities to punitive measures for engaging in so-called 'extreme political bias,' that policy would be invalidated by the courts.

So Democrats pass 800,000 of government regulations to control you, whereas some Republicans want to pass one, and the Republicans are the party of big government?

"logic" like that is the reason everyone laughs at liberals.

It's not only one - they're reaching their tentacles into the private lives of women, what is considered marriage, and now this.

Remember - it's not the Dems who run on the platform of "less government".

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Why not, he already wants to amend the Constitution to dissallow Muslims from holding elected Federal office

He never made such claim, dumbass.

CORRECT Bripat , all Ben said is that muslims need to put their religion subservient to the USA Constitution and Bill of Rights .

Oh my.

Religion needs to be subservient to the Constitution, eh?

So enough with the religious nuts trying to use their religion to deny gays their constitutional rights.

gays have never been denied constitutional rights.

Kim Davis denied them and the Court dealt with her accordingly.

marriage has never been a right until falsely an loosely interpreted by the supreme ct.
Since this was one person acting in this instance, and not a community as a whole, your assumption that a right was denied by Christians fails. Even though we all know that marriage is not a right.

 

[Rustic]

Ben Carson Wants to Censor Speech on College Campuses

"I actually have something I would use the Department of Education to do," Carson said. "It would be to monitor our institutions of higher education for extreme political bias and deny federal funding if it exists."

This is not the first time that Carson has spoken about the need to eradicate alleged political bias from college classrooms. In June, he offered the same idea while appearing as a guest on a Las Vegas radio show.

Carson often complains that the United States is weighed down by what he calls a "PC culture." It seems that his defense of intemperate speech doesn't extend to political speech that he finds objectionable.

One minute Tea Baggers and far-righties are FOR the U.S. Constitution, and the next minute they are AGAINST it's protections. Strange, very strange.

Your logic is what is strange. Do you have any clue about the nutty, extreme stuff that some college "professors" have said in recent years? Any clue? Such as bizarre 9/11 conspiracy theories that claim that the Pentagon was hit by a missile and not an airliner, that the WTC buildings were brought down with planted explosives, etc., etc. All Carson is saying is that if a college knowingly allows professors to keep spewing this kind of radicalism, they should lose their federal funding. It's about time.

Those professors would be free to keep teaching their nutty stuff outside the university. They would be free to keep spreading their nuttiness on their personal websites. Etc., etc., etc. But if they wanted to teach at a college that's getting federal money, they would have to stop teaching such stuff to their students. That is hardly an extreme measure.

Universities are traditionally places of free thought, challenging norms, etc. Why does the government have to mess with them? There are universities that are pure conservative nuttiness and there are universities that are pure liberal nuttiness and there is a lot in between. They aren't federal institutions like public schools. As long as they meet the requirements for accreditation, provide a decent education - who the F cares? If a student doesn't like it they can transfer to another place.

Talk about indoctrination - that is EXACTLY what Carson and others are proposing by attempting to control what they teach from a political perspective. AND WHO is going to determine what is the "correct" politics?

So, what's your point??

Who, in this pro-"small government" party determines what constitutes "radical" politics that needs to be squashed? Next time, just read the exchanges.

That is why the only the basics should be taught leaving opinion out entirely.
Unfortunately, progressives have left a big pile of steaming sh!t in our institutes of higher learning, that being political correctness.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes... that's the Leftist Rumor... except First black congressman: Republican. First black Senator: Republican. First black Sec of State: Republican. First Black Sec of Defense: Republican. First Black Joint Chief of Staff: Republican. First Black Supreme Court Justice: Republican.

Current Republican Presidential Candidates: Include Black, Cuban, Female...

Democrat Peasantpimp Candidates... WHITE AND OLD AS FUCK... and one old white lyin' c u n t .

Dems already elected a black. Suck it up.

Maybe it will be a woman this time

Oh my... Reader... Imagine THAT... and from no less an authority than a Moderator on this very site and a Leftist of the lowest possible order: "the Democrats already elected a black."

LOL! Now there's nothing particularly creepy about THAT!

And you can rest assured that it will be ONE HELLUVA LONG TIME BEFORE THEY ELECT 'ANOTHER ONE'.

Nah, the door is open to black candidates. It's always hardest for the first - they become the scapegoat of every racist fear and conspiracy theory. Now, hopefully, we'll see more black candidates.

No black liberal will ever be elected again. Obama insured that.

I wouldn't bet on it. The right wouldn't have voted for a black liberal no matter what.

A lot of moderates voted for Obama. They will never vote for his ilk again.

 

[Mac1958]

It's no doubt a natural human impulse to want to protect what is important to you, and that would certainly include the ideological stranglehold the Left has on a vast majority of college campuses. But that doesn't mean that the impulse is a positive one.

Any honest person, a person not controlled by their ideology, would admit that a college campus is probably the best possible environment in which we can & should promote freedom of ideas, healthy debate, open minds, rigorous dialogue and the constant sharing and challenging of opinions and perspectives.

The Regressive Left is so protective of their ideological stranglehold that they're not going to give an inch on this, period.

It's reasonable to wonder what they're afraid of.
.

 

[bripat9643]

"I actually have something I would use the Department of Education to do," Carson said. "It would be to monitor our institutions of higher education for extreme political bias and deny federal funding if it exists."

Once again Carson succeeds in exhibiting his ignorance of, or contempt for, First Amendment jurisprudence.

Needless to say, if any such policy were implemented by the Department of Education to subject colleges and universities to punitive measures for engaging in so-called 'extreme political bias,' that policy would be invalidated by the courts.

So Democrats pass 800,000 of government regulations to control you, whereas some Republicans want to pass one, and the Republicans are the party of big government?

"logic" like that is the reason everyone laughs at liberals.

It's not only one - they're reaching their tentacles into the private lives of women, what is considered marriage, and now this.

Remember - it's not the Dems who run on the platform of "less government".

Government has always regulated what is considered marriage, and it still does, so that argument is pure hooey. How are they "reaching their tentacles into the private lives of women," by allowing private businesses decide what benefits they are willing to provide?

 

[Coyote]

He never made such claim, dumbass.

CORRECT Bripat , all Ben said is that muslims need to put their religion subservient to the USA Constitution and Bill of Rights .

Oh my.

Religion needs to be subservient to the Constitution, eh?

So enough with the religious nuts trying to use their religion to deny gays their constitutional rights.

gays have never been denied constitutional rights.

Kim Davis denied them and the Court dealt with her accordingly.

marriage has never been a right until falsely an loosely interpreted by the supreme ct.
Since this was one person acting in this instance, and not a community as a whole, your assumption that a right was denied by Christians fails. Even though we all know that marriage is not a right.

Marriage as a right was affirmed in Loving v Virginia, 1967 - neither falsely nor loosely.

 

[Coyote]

Ben Carson Wants to Censor Speech on College Campuses

One minute Tea Baggers and far-righties are FOR the U.S. Constitution, and the next minute they are AGAINST it's protections. Strange, very strange.

Your logic is what is strange. Do you have any clue about the nutty, extreme stuff that some college "professors" have said in recent years? Any clue? Such as bizarre 9/11 conspiracy theories that claim that the Pentagon was hit by a missile and not an airliner, that the WTC buildings were brought down with planted explosives, etc., etc. All Carson is saying is that if a college knowingly allows professors to keep spewing this kind of radicalism, they should lose their federal funding. It's about time.

Those professors would be free to keep teaching their nutty stuff outside the university. They would be free to keep spreading their nuttiness on their personal websites. Etc., etc., etc. But if they wanted to teach at a college that's getting federal money, they would have to stop teaching such stuff to their students. That is hardly an extreme measure.

Universities are traditionally places of free thought, challenging norms, etc. Why does the government have to mess with them? There are universities that are pure conservative nuttiness and there are universities that are pure liberal nuttiness and there is a lot in between. They aren't federal institutions like public schools. As long as they meet the requirements for accreditation, provide a decent education - who the F cares? If a student doesn't like it they can transfer to another place.

Talk about indoctrination - that is EXACTLY what Carson and others are proposing by attempting to control what they teach from a political perspective. AND WHO is going to determine what is the "correct" politics?

So, what's your point??

Who, in this pro-"small government" party determines what constitutes "radical" politics that needs to be squashed? Next time, just read the exchanges.

That is why the only the basics should be taught leaving opinion out entirely.
Unfortunately, progressives have left a big pile of steaming sh!t in our institutes of higher learning, that being political correctness.

If you were talking about public schools, which are completely taxpayer funded - I agree. Universities and higher education, are completely different. You just want them all covered with your own steaming pile of shit.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Dems already elected a black. Suck it up.

Maybe it will be a woman this time

Oh my... Reader... Imagine THAT... and from no less an authority than a Moderator on this very site and a Leftist of the lowest possible order: "the Democrats already elected a black."

LOL! Now there's nothing particularly creepy about THAT!

And you can rest assured that it will be ONE HELLUVA LONG TIME BEFORE THEY ELECT 'ANOTHER ONE'.

Nah, the door is open to black candidates. It's always hardest for the first - they become the scapegoat of every racist fear and conspiracy theory. Now, hopefully, we'll see more black candidates.

No black liberal will ever be elected again. Obama insured that.

I wouldn't bet on it. The right wouldn't have voted for a black liberal no matter what.

A lot of moderates voted for Obama. They will never vote for his ilk again.

By running McCain against obama the republican made it clear they wanted obama to win.
What is it that caused anyone to think that the conservatives would want McCain now when he had is ass handed to him by GW for the 2000 election.

 

[bripat9643]

CORRECT Bripat , all Ben said is that muslims need to put their religion subservient to the USA Constitution and Bill of Rights .

Oh my.

Religion needs to be subservient to the Constitution, eh?

So enough with the religious nuts trying to use their religion to deny gays their constitutional rights.

gays have never been denied constitutional rights.

Kim Davis denied them and the Court dealt with her accordingly.

marriage has never been a right until falsely an loosely interpreted by the supreme ct.
Since this was one person acting in this instance, and not a community as a whole, your assumption that a right was denied by Christians fails. Even though we all know that marriage is not a right.

Marriage as a right was affirmed in Loving v Virginia, 1967 - neither falsely nor loosely.

The government benefits that go with it are not a right. They are privileges. People are free to make any contractual arrangements they wish, but that doesn't make them entitled to any government sanction for their arrangements.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

CORRECT Bripat , all Ben said is that muslims need to put their religion subservient to the USA Constitution and Bill of Rights .

Oh my.

Religion needs to be subservient to the Constitution, eh?

So enough with the religious nuts trying to use their religion to deny gays their constitutional rights.

gays have never been denied constitutional rights.

Kim Davis denied them and the Court dealt with her accordingly.

marriage has never been a right until falsely an loosely interpreted by the supreme ct.
Since this was one person acting in this instance, and not a community as a whole, your assumption that a right was denied by Christians fails. Even though we all know that marriage is not a right.

Marriage as a right was affirmed in Loving v Virginia, 1967 - neither falsely nor loosely.

marriage being a right was not the question in Loving VS Virginia.

 

[bripat9643]

Your logic is what is strange. Do you have any clue about the nutty, extreme stuff that some college "professors" have said in recent years? Any clue? Such as bizarre 9/11 conspiracy theories that claim that the Pentagon was hit by a missile and not an airliner, that the WTC buildings were brought down with planted explosives, etc., etc. All Carson is saying is that if a college knowingly allows professors to keep spewing this kind of radicalism, they should lose their federal funding. It's about time.

Those professors would be free to keep teaching their nutty stuff outside the university. They would be free to keep spreading their nuttiness on their personal websites. Etc., etc., etc. But if they wanted to teach at a college that's getting federal money, they would have to stop teaching such stuff to their students. That is hardly an extreme measure.

Universities are traditionally places of free thought, challenging norms, etc. Why does the government have to mess with them? There are universities that are pure conservative nuttiness and there are universities that are pure liberal nuttiness and there is a lot in between. They aren't federal institutions like public schools. As long as they meet the requirements for accreditation, provide a decent education - who the F cares? If a student doesn't like it they can transfer to another place.

Talk about indoctrination - that is EXACTLY what Carson and others are proposing by attempting to control what they teach from a political perspective. AND WHO is going to determine what is the "correct" politics?

So, what's your point??

Who, in this pro-"small government" party determines what constitutes "radical" politics that needs to be squashed? Next time, just read the exchanges.

That is why the only the basics should be taught leaving opinion out entirely.
Unfortunately, progressives have left a big pile of steaming sh!t in our institutes of higher learning, that being political correctness.

If you were talking about public schools, which are completely taxpayer funded - I agree. Universities and higher education, are completely different. You just want them all covered with your own steaming pile of shit.

Taxpayers cover about 80% of the cost of public universities, so they are included in the shit.

 

[Coyote]

"I actually have something I would use the Department of Education to do," Carson said. "It would be to monitor our institutions of higher education for extreme political bias and deny federal funding if it exists."

Once again Carson succeeds in exhibiting his ignorance of, or contempt for, First Amendment jurisprudence.

Needless to say, if any such policy were implemented by the Department of Education to subject colleges and universities to punitive measures for engaging in so-called 'extreme political bias,' that policy would be invalidated by the courts.

So Democrats pass 800,000 of government regulations to control you, whereas some Republicans want to pass one, and the Republicans are the party of big government?

"logic" like that is the reason everyone laughs at liberals.

It's not only one - they're reaching their tentacles into the private lives of women, what is considered marriage, and now this.

Remember - it's not the Dems who run on the platform of "less government".

Government has always regulated what is considered marriage, and it still does, so that argument is pure hooey. How are they "reaching their tentacles into the private lives of women," by allowing private businesses decide what benefits they are willing to provide?

Oh my.

Religion needs to be subservient to the Constitution, eh?

So enough with the religious nuts trying to use their religion to deny gays their constitutional rights.

gays have never been denied constitutional rights.

Kim Davis denied them and the Court dealt with her accordingly.

marriage has never been a right until falsely an loosely interpreted by the supreme ct.
Since this was one person acting in this instance, and not a community as a whole, your assumption that a right was denied by Christians fails. Even though we all know that marriage is not a right.

Marriage as a right was affirmed in Loving v Virginia, 1967 - neither falsely nor loosely.

The government benefits that go with it are not a right. They are privileges. People are free to make any contractual arrangements they wish, but that doesn't make them entitled to any government sanction for their arrangements.

Agree - they aren't a "right". But individuals have a right to be treated equally - you can't give benefits to one marriage and not another when they are all recognized as marriages under the law. Like interracial marriage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh my.

Religion needs to be subservient to the Constitution, eh?

So enough with the religious nuts trying to use their religion to deny gays their constitutional rights.

gays have never been denied constitutional rights.

Kim Davis denied them and the Court dealt with her accordingly.

marriage has never been a right until falsely an loosely interpreted by the supreme ct.
Since this was one person acting in this instance, and not a community as a whole, your assumption that a right was denied by Christians fails. Even though we all know that marriage is not a right.

Marriage as a right was affirmed in Loving v Virginia, 1967 - neither falsely nor loosely.

The government benefits that go with it are not a right. They are privileges. People are free to make any contractual arrangements they wish, but that doesn't make them entitled to any government sanction for their arrangements.

Government benefits given to one group must be given to all who meet the same criteria. A state cannot deny drivers licenses to women, for example. Nor can they deny marriage licenses to same sex couples.

 

[bripat9643]

"I actually have something I would use the Department of Education to do," Carson said. "It would be to monitor our institutions of higher education for extreme political bias and deny federal funding if it exists."

Once again Carson succeeds in exhibiting his ignorance of, or contempt for, First Amendment jurisprudence.

Needless to say, if any such policy were implemented by the Department of Education to subject colleges and universities to punitive measures for engaging in so-called 'extreme political bias,' that policy would be invalidated by the courts.

So Democrats pass 800,000 of government regulations to control you, whereas some Republicans want to pass one, and the Republicans are the party of big government?

"logic" like that is the reason everyone laughs at liberals.

It's not only one - they're reaching their tentacles into the private lives of women, what is considered marriage, and now this.

Remember - it's not the Dems who run on the platform of "less government".

Government has always regulated what is considered marriage, and it still does, so that argument is pure hooey. How are they "reaching their tentacles into the private lives of women," by allowing private businesses decide what benefits they are willing to provide?

gays have never been denied constitutional rights.

Kim Davis denied them and the Court dealt with her accordingly.

marriage has never been a right until falsely an loosely interpreted by the supreme ct.
Since this was one person acting in this instance, and not a community as a whole, your assumption that a right was denied by Christians fails. Even though we all know that marriage is not a right.

Marriage as a right was affirmed in Loving v Virginia, 1967 - neither falsely nor loosely.

The government benefits that go with it are not a right. They are privileges. People are free to make any contractual arrangements they wish, but that doesn't make them entitled to any government sanction for their arrangements.

Agree - they aren't a "right". But individuals have a right to be treated equally - you can't give benefits to one marriage and not another when they are all recognized as marriages under the law. Like interracial marriage.

They are treated equally. Marriage is the union of a man and a women. It requires having the proper reproductive equipment. Two queers don't qualify any more than a blind man is qualified to drive.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

"I actually have something I would use the Department of Education to do," Carson said. "It would be to monitor our institutions of higher education for extreme political bias and deny federal funding if it exists."

Once again Carson succeeds in exhibiting his ignorance of, or contempt for, First Amendment jurisprudence.

Needless to say, if any such policy were implemented by the Department of Education to subject colleges and universities to punitive measures for engaging in so-called 'extreme political bias,' that policy would be invalidated by the courts.

So Democrats pass 800,000 of government regulations to control you, whereas some Republicans want to pass one, and the Republicans are the party of big government?

"logic" like that is the reason everyone laughs at liberals.

It's not only one - they're reaching their tentacles into the private lives of women, what is considered marriage, and now this.

Remember - it's not the Dems who run on the platform of "less government".

Government has always regulated what is considered marriage, and it still does, so that argument is pure hooey. How are they "reaching their tentacles into the private lives of women," by allowing private businesses decide what benefits they are willing to provide?

gays have never been denied constitutional rights.

Kim Davis denied them and the Court dealt with her accordingly.

marriage has never been a right until falsely an loosely interpreted by the supreme ct.
Since this was one person acting in this instance, and not a community as a whole, your assumption that a right was denied by Christians fails. Even though we all know that marriage is not a right.

Marriage as a right was affirmed in Loving v Virginia, 1967 - neither falsely nor loosely.

The government benefits that go with it are not a right. They are privileges. People are free to make any contractual arrangements they wish, but that doesn't make them entitled to any government sanction for their arrangements.

Agree - they aren't a "right". But individuals have a right to be treated equally - you can't give benefits to one marriage and not another when they are all recognized as marriages under the law. Like interracial marriage.

and yet the same people that argue this, will argue opposite when it comes to real rights.
Odd

 

[Coyote]

Oh my.

Religion needs to be subservient to the Constitution, eh?

So enough with the religious nuts trying to use their religion to deny gays their constitutional rights.

gays have never been denied constitutional rights.

Kim Davis denied them and the Court dealt with her accordingly.

marriage has never been a right until falsely an loosely interpreted by the supreme ct.
Since this was one person acting in this instance, and not a community as a whole, your assumption that a right was denied by Christians fails. Even though we all know that marriage is not a right.

Marriage as a right was affirmed in Loving v Virginia, 1967 - neither falsely nor loosely.

marriage being a right was not the question in Loving VS Virginia.

Marriage as a right was affirmed in that decision.

 

[bripat9643]

gays have never been denied constitutional rights.

Kim Davis denied them and the Court dealt with her accordingly.

marriage has never been a right until falsely an loosely interpreted by the supreme ct.
Since this was one person acting in this instance, and not a community as a whole, your assumption that a right was denied by Christians fails. Even though we all know that marriage is not a right.

Marriage as a right was affirmed in Loving v Virginia, 1967 - neither falsely nor loosely.

The government benefits that go with it are not a right. They are privileges. People are free to make any contractual arrangements they wish, but that doesn't make them entitled to any government sanction for their arrangements.

Government benefits given to one group must be given to all who meet the same criteria. A state cannot deny drivers licenses to women, for example. Nor can they deny marriage licenses to same sex couples.

The criteria is being able to form a reproductive unit. Queer couples don't meet the criteria.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"I actually have something I would use the Department of Education to do," Carson said. "It would be to monitor our institutions of higher education for extreme political bias and deny federal funding if it exists."

Once again Carson succeeds in exhibiting his ignorance of, or contempt for, First Amendment jurisprudence.

Needless to say, if any such policy were implemented by the Department of Education to subject colleges and universities to punitive measures for engaging in so-called 'extreme political bias,' that policy would be invalidated by the courts.

So Democrats pass 800,000 of government regulations to control you, whereas some Republicans want to pass one, and the Republicans are the party of big government?

"logic" like that is the reason everyone laughs at liberals.

It's not only one - they're reaching their tentacles into the private lives of women, what is considered marriage, and now this.

Remember - it's not the Dems who run on the platform of "less government".

Government has always regulated what is considered marriage, and it still does, so that argument is pure hooey. How are they "reaching their tentacles into the private lives of women," by allowing private businesses decide what benefits they are willing to provide?

Kim Davis denied them and the Court dealt with her accordingly.

marriage has never been a right until falsely an loosely interpreted by the supreme ct.
Since this was one person acting in this instance, and not a community as a whole, your assumption that a right was denied by Christians fails. Even though we all know that marriage is not a right.

Marriage as a right was affirmed in Loving v Virginia, 1967 - neither falsely nor loosely.

The government benefits that go with it are not a right. They are privileges. People are free to make any contractual arrangements they wish, but that doesn't make them entitled to any government sanction for their arrangements.

Agree - they aren't a "right". But individuals have a right to be treated equally - you can't give benefits to one marriage and not another when they are all recognized as marriages under the law. Like interracial marriage.

They are treated equally. Marriage is the union of a man and a women. It requires having the proper reproductive equipment. Two queers don't qualify any more than a blind man is qualified to drive.

No marriage isn't. There is no reproductive requirement in any marriage law in any state in the union.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

gays have never been denied constitutional rights.

Kim Davis denied them and the Court dealt with her accordingly.

marriage has never been a right until falsely an loosely interpreted by the supreme ct.
Since this was one person acting in this instance, and not a community as a whole, your assumption that a right was denied by Christians fails. Even though we all know that marriage is not a right.

Marriage as a right was affirmed in Loving v Virginia, 1967 - neither falsely nor loosely.

marriage being a right was not the question in Loving VS Virginia.

Marriage as a right was affirmed in that decision.

marriage was still a privilege. The right was to marry outside of ones race.