Ben Carson Wants to Censor Speech

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Maybe not, but considering that all states marriage license specifically requested information for a Bride, and a Groom, bride and groom being defined gender, it is fair to say that all states saw marriage as a joining of a male and a female.

Well what they saw isn't what was and is.

Really? they didn't see it as a male female union?
why was there even an argument for gay marriage, obviously its been going on for many years prior to the recent decision.

They were wrong. Once marriage became part of state laws, it became subject to the US Constitution, and the US Constitution offers equal protection under the law.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Bush was a sucko (one of the worst ever) presidents - does that mean they won't vote for a white male again?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Oh puhleeze. You can't possibly be that stupid.

Cite the state law. ONE is all you need to show me.

It appears you are that stupid.

It's curios that liberal turds think acting like an imbecile is some kind of winning strategy.

You claimed that state law requires reproduction ability before one could get a marriage license.

I'm asking you to cite ONE state law that said that or says that. You have 50 chances to be right.

That's not what I claimed. Once again, the queer defender is setting up a straw man.

Okay, so now you're conceding that reproduction is not relevant to marriage requirements. That is why gays have a legitimate right to equal treatment under marriage laws.

 

[whitehall]

You almost gotta laugh that today's left could be so upside down in their thinking. Do they really rely on Media Matters and Huffington to do their thinking for them or are they plain stupid in an old fashioned democrat racist way? Isn't it obvious that Dr. Carson wants to open up colleges and free them from left wing Marxist and Orwellian dominance? There is actually a list of words that are forbidden to be uttered on college campuses under fear of inquisition and expulsion. One could reasonably assume that there are ideas and opinions that are equally forbidden. No liberal or radical speaker has ever been assaulted on a college campus but every single high profile conservative speaker has been a victim of assault or numerous assaults sometime in their careers. Think about it before you knee jerk racist lefties condemn Dr. Carson.

 

[Coyote]

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.

No, they don't.

For example, here's a look at Rutgers: http://budgetfacts.rutgers.edu/sites/budgetfacts/files/revenue_sources_pie_12_2013.pdf

U. Washington: State Budget Information | Office of Planning & Budgeting

State funding for Universities have been systematically cut: States Are Still Funding Higher Education Below Pre-Recession Levels | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

The purpose of a university education is not the same as public school.

It appears Rutgers gets about 70% of it's revenue from the government

I count 21% state funding, 20% federal/state/municipal/ and 0.2% Federal. That doesn't equal 70%.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Maybe not, but considering that all states marriage license specifically requested information for a Bride, and a Groom, bride and groom being defined gender, it is fair to say that all states saw marriage as a joining of a male and a female.

Well what they saw isn't what was and is.

Really? they didn't see it as a male female union?
why was there even an argument for gay marriage, obviously its been going on for many years prior to the recent decision.

They were wrong. Once marriage became part of state laws, it became subject to the US Constitution, and the US Constitution offers equal protection under the law.

Limiting marriage to male/female couples is equal protection since everyone is either male or female. According to your argument, states are violating the constitution by limiting to people who aren't biologically related.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh puhleeze. You can't possibly be that stupid.

Cite the state law. ONE is all you need to show me.

It appears you are that stupid.

It's curios that liberal turds think acting like an imbecile is some kind of winning strategy.

You claimed that state law requires reproduction ability before one could get a marriage license.

I'm asking you to cite ONE state law that said that or says that. You have 50 chances to be right.

That's not what I claimed. Once again, the queer defender is setting up a straw man.

Okay, so now you're conceding that reproduction is not relevant to marriage requirements. That is why gays have a legitimate right to equal treatment under marriage laws.

NO, I didn't concede anything of the sort. I never claim it required "reproductive ability." However, it rules out unions that are obviously, on their face, incapable of reproduction.

 

[rdean]

I love how these rightwing "less intrusive government" candidates turn around and propose increasingly intrusive government actions - such as monitoring higher education for "extreme political bias".

I wonder how they will determine what that is?

Anything that is even close to being the truth.

 

[whitehall]

Everybody knows that Dr. Carson has no problem with the 1st Amendment. Why do racist lefties rely on Media Matters to do their thinking. The world is upside down in the racist liberal mind.

 

[kaz]

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.

Wow, you know zero about how the Constitution works. Seriously, it's pathetic

 

[kaz]

I love how these rightwing "less intrusive government" candidates turn around and propose increasingly intrusive government actions - such as monitoring higher education for "extreme political bias".

I wonder how they will determine what that is?

Government restricting the actions of government is to you intrusive government?



And by that I mean

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.

By definition, marriage is, has alway been, and will always be, between a man and a woman. A same-sex pair of homosexual perverts claiming to be “married” do not meet the same defining criteria as a genuine marriage.

 

[toxicmedia]

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

He does?

Link?
.

So Ben Carson never said Muslims should not be POTUS?

But having just seen his interview on Meet the Press today, he probably just meant Muslims in favor of Sharia Law shouldn't be President

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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.

By definition, marriage is, has alway been, and will always be, between a man and a woman. A same-sex pair of homosexual perverts claiming to be “married” do not meet the same defining criteria as a genuine marriage.

I have to disagree.
I do agree that marriage by definition is between a male and a female, where I don't agree is when the conversation breaks down to a point that says two men or two women as a couple cannot live in the same monogamous fashion (hopefully) as a male/female married couple.
I might not understand how one guy can look at another guy and think that a sexual relationship is good idea, but on the other hand I've seen plenty of women with kids and thought to myself, what sick bastard had sex with her and produced children?
At the end of the day all that really impacts my life is how I live, not how others live. If their relationship does no harm to me, and it does not, then I have no reason to try and stop them from being happy.

 

[toxicmedia]

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.

It doesn't matter if it's a "right"

What matters is disallowing two adults from marrying based on your religious or ideological views.

Plural marriage, and marrying animals, or children, is different because it's not two adults.

Because marriage laws were written during a time when gay marriage was not considered...it is actually people who oppose gay marriage that are trying to change the definition of marriage, by introducing bans based on sexual orientation

 

[toxicmedia]

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.

By definition, marriage is, has alway been, and will always be, between a man and a woman. A same-sex pair of homosexual perverts claiming to be “married” do not meet the same defining criteria as a genuine marriage.

I have to disagree.
I do agree that marriage by definition is between a male and a female, where I don't agree is when the conversation breaks down to a point that says two men or two women as a couple cannot live in the same monogamous fashion (hopefully) as a male/female married couple.
I might not understand how one guy can look at another guy and think that a sexual relationship is good idea, but on the other hand I've seen plenty of women with kids and thought to myself, what sick bastard had sex with her and produced children?
At the end of the day all that really impacts my life is how I live, not how others live. If their relationship does no harm to me, and it does not, then I have no reason to try and stop them from being happy.

"At the end of the day all that really impacts my life is how I live, not how others live. If their relationship does no harm to me, and it does not, then I have no reason to try and stop them from being happy."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

awesome

 

[toxicmedia]

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.

There are only 3 reasons people oppose gay marriage.

1. Because the GOP and Fox News are mostly against it.
2. The thought of gay men kissing makes them feel icky
3. Their religion says it's wrong.

None of those are valid reasons to deny gays equal protection from a constitutional standpoint

 

[the_human_being]

I asked this question just last evening. With all the Liberal attacks on the person of Dr. Carson and the racial bigotry being visibly displayed by the Liberals, I simply would like someone to tell me if the Democrats are up to their old politics? My question is: Are the Democrats holding a KKK rally on USMB?

 

[toxicmedia]

I asked this question just last evening. With all the Liberal attacks on the person of Dr. Carson and the racial bigotry being visibly displayed by the Liberals, I simply would like someone to tell me if the Democrats are up to their old politics? My question is: Are the Democrats holding a KKK rally on USMB?

The children and grandchildren of KKK Democrats are now evangelical conservative Republicans and Tea Partiers.

The same southern and Midwestern filth...different century

 

[Arizona Willie]

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.

He's correct. There should not be politics in any class unfortunately everything is political in public schools.

They set 15 minutes aside in a college class here so that an Obama operative could come in and speak about Obamacare.

========
Many / most of them are old enough to vote and they are supposed to enroll in Obamacare if they aren't staying on their parents policy.

So it is entirely reasonable to allow " operatives " to come in and explain the program to them and tell them where and how to get more information.

I'm quite sure you would have no object to a Republican " operative " coming in to tell them how evil Obamacare is and how evil Democrats are.