Trump orders colleges to back free speech or lose funding

[Mac-7]

Is a private research university such as, say, Harvard the public square?

State Universities already have an obligation to uphold freedom of speech regardless of his executive order.

To the extent that it receives federal research grants it is in the public square

So why differentiate a college receiving research grants or federally subsidized tuition?

They all do except one. Here's the answer: because he can.

The answer is that the money goes to students not Liberty U

Its the kids money that angry libs would have to take away

if they dare

The kids then spend the money at liberty U, so sorry this is incorrect.

you can complain about student aid as much as you please

But the cutoff of grants will not affect Liberty

and it will hurt the lib institutions

 

[pknopp]

So, you support the use of street violence, against your political enemies.

Sometimes. Is that not what we did in Boston on December 16, 1773?

THank you for your honesty. So many of your lib buddies here, lie about that.


So, are you going to be honest enough to admit that with people like you, and mobs like Antifa, that Trump's move is completely called for?


Or is that too much even for an honest left like you?

My lib buddies? Who is it that often times notes

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

So, you believe that we fought for independence to stop the British use of free speech against us?

While I expect this out of some I had sort of expected more out of you.

You were the one trying to make an equivalency between the two.

The TOPIC is ensuring that OUR Universities are not favoring one ideology over another.

Our fight for independence is not part of that topic.

Again the question arises ....does that include Christian Schools and Military Academies?

Christian Universities aren't the best example but Military Academies would be excellent examples. I'm sure the argument would be that they should get "special exemptions".

 

[CWayne]

So, you believe that we fought for independence to stop the British use of free speech against us?

Keep it in the realm of the topic. I've seen no one (other than those on this forum) claim that they accept violence to silence those they disagree with. However, we have actual deeds in the real world by the left over the past few years of leftists using violence to try and silence those they disagree with.

You have some clown here in this thread, taking statements out of context to try and say that speech itself is violence.

"So, you believe that we fought for independence to stop the British use of free speech against us?"

We had First Amendment rights before the Constitution was ratified?

That aside, violence is neither free speech nor protected by the Constitution.

Correct.

Violence is NOT free speech.

it isn't a protest either. it's a riot.

They can riot all they wish, as long as it does not interfere with another's right to speak or exercise their Constitutional right.

I mean, think about what it is they are protesting or rioting against and the purpose of those riots or protests.

They wish to oppress a thought or idea that they do not want to be spread because they disagree with it.

exactly, they resort to violence in the riot to scare away the opposition. The thing they don't understand is that the opposition can fight back. And the MSM only reports on the fighting back. what a society of evil!!!!

Well, the Universities use the violence or the threat of violence, to jack up the costs of security against Conservatives so that they cannot afford the event. They would not do the same to a leftist speaker who had to have the same level of security.

This is called the 'hecklers veto' and no university should permit it.

 

[CWayne]

So, you support the use of street violence, against your political enemies.

Sometimes. Is that not what we did in Boston on December 16, 1773?

THank you for your honesty. So many of your lib buddies here, lie about that.


So, are you going to be honest enough to admit that with people like you, and mobs like Antifa, that Trump's move is completely called for?


Or is that too much even for an honest left like you?

My lib buddies? Who is it that often times notes

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

So, you believe that we fought for independence to stop the British use of free speech against us?

While I expect this out of some I had sort of expected more out of you.

You were the one trying to make an equivalency between the two.

The TOPIC is ensuring that OUR Universities are not favoring one ideology over another.

Our fight for independence is not part of that topic.

Again the question arises ....does that include Christian Schools and Military Academies?

It applies to anyone who accepts federal dollars.

 

[Mac-7]

Just because a lib editor lies in a headline it does not become a fact

Liberty receive ZERO dollars from the federal government

that money went to students

I keep forgetting.

Cons only believe what they WANT to believe and truth, facts or reality have nothing to do with it.

ok....

why don't YOU see if YOU can find any data suggesting that liberty did NOT get any federal funds.

I read every link and all of them are for student loans and grants to students not the university

Which then goes to the University. Yes there are different rules whether the aide is direct or not. All the same they are benefiting greatly.

No more so than if they were getting student tuition from a bank.

Many can not access loans from a bank. That is why the government student loan program was created.

The acceptance of direct federal dollars to support the University means that they are subject to the limitations that the taxpayers place on them.

They can turn down the dollars and accept ONLY student tuition, and become private universities.

Somehow, I don't think they'll do that.

The issue here is that Conservatives have a right to speak on University campuses that receive federal dollars AND that the Universities are NOT permitted to throw any obstacles in their way or to allow the student body to prevent it.

Well not exactly. If the students want to protest, they are also permitted to do that.

Plus, private lenders insist on being repaid while Uncle Sucker does not

 

[colfax_m]

To the extent that it receives federal research grants it is in the public square

So why differentiate a college receiving research grants or federally subsidized tuition?

They all do except one. Here's the answer: because he can.

The answer is that the money goes to students not Liberty U

Its the kids money that angry libs would have to take away

if they dare

The kids then spend the money at liberty U, so sorry this is incorrect.

you can complain about student aid as much as you please

But the cutoff of grants will not affect Liberty

and it will hurt the lib institutions

At least we can agree your statement about conservative Christians caring about freedom of speech was bogus.

 

[pknopp]

Sometimes. Is that not what we did in Boston on December 16, 1773?

My lib buddies? Who is it that often times notes

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

So, you believe that we fought for independence to stop the British use of free speech against us?

While I expect this out of some I had sort of expected more out of you.

You were the one trying to make an equivalency between the two.

The TOPIC is ensuring that OUR Universities are not favoring one ideology over another.

Our fight for independence is not part of that topic.

Again the question arises ....does that include Christian Schools and Military Academies?

It applies to anyone who accepts federal dollars.

And if a military academy turns away a speaker promoting gay rights, do you think Trump would remove funding?

 

[Mac-7]

I keep forgetting.

Cons only believe what they WANT to believe and truth, facts or reality have nothing to do with it.

ok....

why don't YOU see if YOU can find any data suggesting that liberty did NOT get any federal funds.

I read every link and all of them are for student loans and grants to students not the university

Which then goes to the University. Yes there are different rules whether the aide is direct or not. All the same they are benefiting greatly.

No more so than if they were getting student tuition from a bank.

Many can not access loans from a bank. That is why the government student loan program was created.

The acceptance of direct federal dollars to support the University means that they are subject to the limitations that the taxpayers place on them.

They can turn down the dollars and accept ONLY student tuition, and become private universities.

Somehow, I don't think they'll do that.

The issue here is that Conservatives have a right to speak on University campuses that receive federal dollars AND that the Universities are NOT permitted to throw any obstacles in their way or to allow the student body to prevent it.

Well not exactly. If the students want to protest, they are also permitted to do that.

Well, that is too bad for them. They can spend 10's of thousands of dollars less and learn a skill that directly benefits society.

They are permitted to PEACABLY protest as long as the protest does NOT interfere with the right of others to speak or otherwise exercise their Constitutional rights.

What he said

protest, yes

riot and threaten the lives of conservative speakers, no

 

[Mac-7]

So, you believe that we fought for independence to stop the British use of free speech against us?

While I expect this out of some I had sort of expected more out of you.

You were the one trying to make an equivalency between the two.

The TOPIC is ensuring that OUR Universities are not favoring one ideology over another.

Our fight for independence is not part of that topic.

Again the question arises ....does that include Christian Schools and Military Academies?

It applies to anyone who accepts federal dollars.

And if a military academy turns away a speaker promoting gay rights, do you think Trump would remove funding?

Dont be silly

there are no free speech rights in the US military

 

[pknopp]

I keep forgetting.

Cons only believe what they WANT to believe and truth, facts or reality have nothing to do with it.

ok....

why don't YOU see if YOU can find any data suggesting that liberty did NOT get any federal funds.

I read every link and all of them are for student loans and grants to students not the university

Which then goes to the University. Yes there are different rules whether the aide is direct or not. All the same they are benefiting greatly.

No more so than if they were getting student tuition from a bank.

Many can not access loans from a bank. That is why the government student loan program was created.

The acceptance of direct federal dollars to support the University means that they are subject to the limitations that the taxpayers place on them.

They can turn down the dollars and accept ONLY student tuition, and become private universities.

Somehow, I don't think they'll do that.

The issue here is that Conservatives have a right to speak on University campuses that receive federal dollars AND that the Universities are NOT permitted to throw any obstacles in their way or to allow the student body to prevent it.

Well not exactly. If the students want to protest, they are also permitted to do that.

Plus, private lenders insist on being repaid while Uncle Sucker does not

Federal student loans can never be dismissed. Private ones can.

 

[jc456]

I keep forgetting.

Cons only believe what they WANT to believe and truth, facts or reality have nothing to do with it.

ok....

why don't YOU see if YOU can find any data suggesting that liberty did NOT get any federal funds.

I read every link and all of them are for student loans and grants to students not the university

Which then goes to the University. Yes there are different rules whether the aide is direct or not. All the same they are benefiting greatly.

No more so than if they were getting student tuition from a bank.

Many can not access loans from a bank. That is why the government student loan program was created.

The acceptance of direct federal dollars to support the University means that they are subject to the limitations that the taxpayers place on them.

They can turn down the dollars and accept ONLY student tuition, and become private universities.

Somehow, I don't think they'll do that.

The issue here is that Conservatives have a right to speak on University campuses that receive federal dollars AND that the Universities are NOT permitted to throw any obstacles in their way or to allow the student body to prevent it.

Well not exactly. If the students want to protest, they are also permitted to do that.

Plus, private lenders insist on being repaid while Uncle Sucker does not

right, uncle sucker forgives the loans. ask bernie!!!

 

[CWayne]

So, you believe that we fought for independence to stop the British use of free speech against us?

While I expect this out of some I had sort of expected more out of you.

You were the one trying to make an equivalency between the two.

The TOPIC is ensuring that OUR Universities are not favoring one ideology over another.

Our fight for independence is not part of that topic.

Again the question arises ....does that include Christian Schools and Military Academies?

It applies to anyone who accepts federal dollars.

And if a military academy turns away a speaker promoting gay rights, do you think Trump would remove funding?

You would have to ask Trump that. I don't do progressives projection of what I think he would do in order to win argument points on an internet forum.

If a military academy that is taking federal dollars turns away someone speaking in favor of gay rights, that academy should face fines.

 

[Mac-7]

I read every link and all of them are for student loans and grants to students not the university

Which then goes to the University. Yes there are different rules whether the aide is direct or not. All the same they are benefiting greatly.

No more so than if they were getting student tuition from a bank.

Many can not access loans from a bank. That is why the government student loan program was created.

The acceptance of direct federal dollars to support the University means that they are subject to the limitations that the taxpayers place on them.

They can turn down the dollars and accept ONLY student tuition, and become private universities.

Somehow, I don't think they'll do that.

The issue here is that Conservatives have a right to speak on University campuses that receive federal dollars AND that the Universities are NOT permitted to throw any obstacles in their way or to allow the student body to prevent it.

Well not exactly. If the students want to protest, they are also permitted to do that.

Well, that is too bad for them. They can spend 10's of thousands of dollars less and learn a skill that directly benefits society.

Right, only the rich and well connected kids should be able to access higher educations. Sheesh,

They are permitted to PEACABLY protest as long as the protest does NOT interfere with the right of others to speak or otherwise exercise their Constitutional rights.

Or they are willing to accept the consequences. Like the people in Boston did on December 16 1773.

Or Rosa Parks did when she said "no".

If the lefty students want to act like 3-year olds and break all their toys they can just stand in the corner till they grow up

 

[iceberg]

"So, you believe that we fought for independence to stop the British use of free speech against us?"

We had First Amendment rights before the Constitution was ratified?

That aside, violence is neither free speech nor protected by the Constitution.

Correct.

Violence is NOT free speech.

it isn't a protest either. it's a riot.

They can riot all they wish, as long as it does not interfere with another's right to speak or exercise their Constitutional right.

I mean, think about what it is they are protesting or rioting against and the purpose of those riots or protests.

They wish to oppress a thought or idea that they do not want to be spread because they disagree with it.

exactly, they resort to violence in the riot to scare away the opposition. The thing they don't understand is that the opposition can fight back. And the MSM only reports on the fighting back. what a society of evil!!!!

Well, the Universities use the violence or the threat of violence, to jack up the costs of security against Conservatives so that they cannot afford the event. They would not do the same to a leftist speaker who had to have the same level of security.

This is called the 'hecklers veto' and no university should permit it.

and that is my point - do not take sides, setup your rules of engagement for having these events and who is responsible for what, and go. changing the rules as you go is what causes this crap and gets you trump as a president.

 

[pknopp]

While I expect this out of some I had sort of expected more out of you.

You were the one trying to make an equivalency between the two.

The TOPIC is ensuring that OUR Universities are not favoring one ideology over another.

Our fight for independence is not part of that topic.

Again the question arises ....does that include Christian Schools and Military Academies?

It applies to anyone who accepts federal dollars.

And if a military academy turns away a speaker promoting gay rights, do you think Trump would remove funding?

You would have to ask Trump that. I don't do progressives projection of what I think he would do in order to win argument points on an internet forum.

Discussion forums are for questions like that but that was my original point. Trump writes EO's but then does nothing. They are a stupid waste of time but people eat them up for some reason.

If a military academy that is taking federal dollars turns away someone speaking in favor of gay rights, that academy should face fines.

Trump's EO says they lose funding.

 

[jc456]

You were the one trying to make an equivalency between the two.

The TOPIC is ensuring that OUR Universities are not favoring one ideology over another.

Our fight for independence is not part of that topic.

Again the question arises ....does that include Christian Schools and Military Academies?

It applies to anyone who accepts federal dollars.

And if a military academy turns away a speaker promoting gay rights, do you think Trump would remove funding?

You would have to ask Trump that. I don't do progressives projection of what I think he would do in order to win argument points on an internet forum.

Discussion forums are for questions like that but that was my original point. Trump writes EO's but then does nothing. They are a stupid waste of time but people eat them up for some reason.

If a military academy that is taking federal dollars turns away someone speaking in favor of gay rights, that academy should face fines.

Trump's EO says they lose funding.

exactly. so what's your issue?

 

[pknopp]

Which
then goes to the University. Yes there are different rules whether the aide is direct or not. All the same they are benefiting greatly.

No more so than if they were getting student tuition from a bank.

Many can not access loans from a bank. That is why the government student loan program was created.

The acceptance of direct federal dollars to support the University means that they are subject to the limitations that the taxpayers place on them.

They can turn down the dollars and accept ONLY student tuition, and become private universities.

Somehow, I don't think they'll do that.

The issue here is that Conservatives have a right to speak on University campuses that receive federal dollars AND that the Universities are NOT permitted to throw any obstacles in their way or to allow the student body to prevent it.

Well not exactly. If the students want to protest, they are also permitted to do that.

Well, that is too bad for them. They can spend 10's of thousands of dollars less and learn a skill that directly benefits society.

Right, only the rich and well connected kids should be able to access higher educations. Sheesh,

They are permitted to PEACABLY protest as long as the protest does NOT interfere with the right of others to speak or otherwise exercise their Constitutional rights.

Or they are willing to accept the consequences. Like the people in Boston did on December 16 1773.

Or Rosa Parks did when she said "no".

If the lefty students want to act like 3-year olds and break all their toys they can just stand in the corner till they grow up

Not a fan of freedom and equality I see. OK, then.

 

[Mac-7]

Which then goes to the University. Yes there are different rules whether the aide is direct or not. All the same they are benefiting greatly.

No more so than if they were getting student tuition from a bank.

Many can not access loans from a bank. That is why the government student loan program was created.

The acceptance of direct federal dollars to support the University means that they are subject to the limitations that the taxpayers place on them.

They can turn down the dollars and accept ONLY student tuition, and become private universities.

Somehow, I don't think they'll do that.

The issue here is that Conservatives have a right to speak on University campuses that receive federal dollars AND that the Universities are NOT permitted to throw any obstacles in their way or to allow the student body to prevent it.

Well not exactly. If the students want to protest, they are also permitted to do that.

Well, that is too bad for them. They can spend 10's of thousands of dollars less and learn a skill that directly benefits society.

Right, only the rich and well connected kids should be able to access higher educations. Sheesh,

They are permitted to PEACABLY protest as long as the protest does NOT interfere with the right of others to speak or otherwise exercise their Constitutional rights.

Or they are willing to accept the consequences. Like the people in Boston did on December 16 1773.

Or Rosa Parks did when she said "no".

No one said that. The problem with your argument is that higher education can ONLY be achieved by taking out crushing debt.

They WILL take the consequences. The discussion is pinned around preventing it, to begin with. The actual argument is our universities looking the other way when conservative speech is oppressed while being hypocritical about having their own ideology curtailed in the public forum.

The lefties could try debating ideas they dont like

But many lib students are not articulate enough or well informed so all they can do is fly into a rage till they get their way

 

[Mac-7]

No more so than if they were getting student tuition from a bank.

Many can not access loans from a bank. That is why the government student loan program was created.

The acceptance of direct federal dollars to support the University means that they are subject to the limitations that the taxpayers place on them.

They can turn down the dollars and accept ONLY student tuition, and become private universities.

Somehow, I don't think they'll do that.

The issue here is that Conservatives have a right to speak on University campuses that receive federal dollars AND that the Universities are NOT permitted to throw any obstacles in their way or to allow the student body to prevent it.

Well not exactly. If the students want to protest, they are also permitted to do that.

Well, that is too bad for them. They can spend 10's of thousands of dollars less and learn a skill that directly benefits society.

Right, only the rich and well connected kids should be able to access higher educations. Sheesh,

They are permitted to PEACABLY protest as long as the protest does NOT interfere with the right of others to speak or otherwise exercise their Constitutional rights.

Or they are willing to accept the consequences. Like the people in Boston did on December 16 1773.

Or Rosa Parks did when she said "no".

If the lefty students want to act like 3-year olds and break all their toys they can just stand in the corner till they grow up

Not a fan of freedom and equality I see. OK, then.

I’m not a fan or riots and violence

see post #558

 

[pknopp]

Many can not access loans from a bank. That is why the government student loan program was created.

Well not exactly. If the students want to protest, they are also permitted to do that.

Well, that is too bad for them. They can spend 10's of thousands of dollars less and learn a skill that directly benefits society.

Right, only the rich and well connected kids should be able to access higher educations. Sheesh,

They are permitted to PEACABLY protest as long as the protest does NOT interfere with the right of others to speak or otherwise exercise their Constitutional rights.

Or they are willing to accept the consequences. Like the people in Boston did on December 16 1773.

Or Rosa Parks did when she said "no".

If the lefty students want to act like 3-year olds and break all their toys they can just stand in the corner till they grow up

Not a fan of freedom and equality I see. OK, then.

I’m not a fan or riots and violence

see post #558

Without them we are still flying the Union Jack and blacks still have to drink out of separate fountains.