Trump orders colleges to back free speech or lose funding

[CWayne]

 

[pknopp]

when you salute the flag,you are saluting the CIA and our corrupt government who is out to kiss us all.

I tip my hat off the NFL players who kneel.i ALWAYS leave to go to the restroom when they play the national anthem,i am not about to salute our corrupt government and CIA that starts wars around the world.LAND OF THE FREE? Uh this is no free country,its th eland of the OPPRESSED.

From that dumbass statement I can tell that you've never served your country.
Saluting the flag has not one damn thing to do with the CIA but everything to do with the constitution, our history and all of those who've sacrificed and given their all to keep this nation free.
Maybe if you had served you would'nt be so damned clueless and stupid today.

Duckworth on NFL anthem policy: I fought to defend right to take a knee in protest

Those Spoiled Bossy Brats Earned No Rights at All, So They Had None

That is really insulting. We were forced to listen to the same nonsense in Vietnam about "fighting for their right to call us 'baby-killers'.'' Only a wimp would agree to submit to that, especially since anyone who is ordered to kill enemies 10,000 miles away certainly has a right to kill the enemies at home even more.

Really, that nonsense about defending traitors' civil rights was a test of how much pride we would surrender to the spoiled cowards who desperately needed to claim we weren't heroes at all. We failed their test because the handcuffing ROEs took all the fight out of us before we could come home and take revenge.

"Spoiled cowards"........you mean those who were rich enough to get fake bone spur exemptions from the draft?

Gutless Puke Dubya: "Daddy, Daddy, I'm Afwaid of Going to Vietnam. Pwease, Pwease, Pwease, Get Me out of Having to Fight!"


Gaining inside information that Real America is always excluded from, Trump went to school with the pro-war sons of those who determined that we must stop the Communists from taking over South Vietnam. When he saw that those young hawks were begging their Daddies to get them out of doing their duty, he realized that the whole thing was a farce, including the Preppy "anti-war" protesters, who never protested the Chickenhawks. When birth privileges extend to who dies and who hides, which is Capital Treason, all must be outlawed forever. No inheritance, no trust funds, no living off an allowance in college. Preppylovers don't belong in America, either.

Trump and Clinton were never Chickenhawks. Confine your fake resentment to slimeballs like Romney, who actually marched in favor of the war, then had his Daddy get his sissyboy carcass out of having to actually practice what he preached.

Romney never sent anyone off to die. Trump has.

 

[JustAGuy1]

You know what hate speech is since you apparently listen to it all the time.

Ahhhhhh, shove your lefty doublespeak up your ass.

To IM2 "hate speech" can be simply disagreeing wqith anything he says.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Colleges should allow all types of political views to be presented, but they should also require that anyone presenting political (and other) views MUST agree to a debate with someone opposing their views after.

WE aren't the ones who dodge debate and stage violent protests to shut people up, chum.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Academentia

Whenever it is preached by Left or Right Wing gurus, "critical thinking" only means self-serving conclusions illogically reached through sophist double-talk. An example of honest and intelligent critical thinking would be to point out that the same thinking processes that Liberal Arts professors think they have a monopoly on are being used in all practical subjects. The pathetic nerd losers like to think that practical subjects are merely memorizing without using creative thinking.

 

[Richard-H]

Colleges should allow all types of political views to be presented, but they should also require that anyone presenting political (and other) views MUST agree to a debate with someone opposing their views after.

WE aren't the ones who dodge debate and stage violent protests to shut people up, chum.

Who is 'We'?

Prone to stereotypes and generalizations, are 'We' not?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Colleges should allow all types of political views to be presented, but they should also require that anyone presenting political (and other) views MUST agree to a debate with someone opposing their views after.

WE aren't the ones who dodge debate and stage violent protests to shut people up, chum.

Who is 'We'?

Prone to stereotypes and generalizations, are 'We' not?

We = people who aren't you.

Really not worried about having the approval of a dipshit hypocrite like you.

 

[Richard-H]

Colleges should allow all types of political views to be presented, but they should also require that anyone presenting political (and other) views MUST agree to a debate with someone opposing their views after.

WE aren't the ones who dodge debate and stage violent protests to shut people up, chum.

Who is 'We'?

Prone to stereotypes and generalizations, are 'We' not?

We = people who aren't you.

Really not worried about having the approval of a dipshit hypocrite like you.

That's kinda weird. I've never dodged debate or been involved in any violent protests of any type.

I guess you just talking out of your ass!

 

[ChrisL]

Colleges should allow all types of political views to be presented, but they should also require that anyone presenting political (and other) views MUST agree to a debate with someone opposing their views after.

WE aren't the ones who dodge debate and stage violent protests to shut people up, chum.

Who is 'We'?

Prone to stereotypes and generalizations, are 'We' not?

I am assuming it means the people who support this proposal.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Colleges should allow all types of political views to be presented, but they should also require that anyone presenting political (and other) views MUST agree to a debate with someone opposing their views after.

WE aren't the ones who dodge debate and stage violent protests to shut people up, chum.

Who is 'We'?

Prone to stereotypes and generalizations, are 'We' not?

We = people who aren't you.

Really not worried about having the approval of a dipshit hypocrite like you.

That's kinda weird. I've never dodged debate or been involved in any violent protests of any type.

I guess you just talking out of your ass!

That's funny, the topic wasn't about you personally, since no one has ever or would ever invite you to speak at a college.

Get over yourself and realize that you have no reason whatsoever for conceit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Colleges should allow all types of political views to be presented, but they should also require that anyone presenting political (and other) views MUST agree to a debate with someone opposing their views after.

WE aren't the ones who dodge debate and stage violent protests to shut people up, chum.

Who is 'We'?

Prone to stereotypes and generalizations, are 'We' not?

I am assuming it means the people who support this proposal.

And the people who are the cause for it, ie. conservative speakers who get shut down in college speeches.

 

[ChrisL]

Colleges should allow all types of political views to be presented, but they should also require that anyone presenting political (and other) views MUST agree to a debate with someone opposing their views after.

WE aren't the ones who dodge debate and stage violent protests to shut people up, chum.

Who is 'We'?

Prone to stereotypes and generalizations, are 'We' not?

I am assuming it means the people who support this proposal.

And the people who are the cause for it, ie. conservative speakers who get shut down in college speeches.

One has to think that they want to shut down opposition speech because they have no good answers to negate any of it. When they can't negate the speech, they want to not hear it at all. Leftists are living in an echo chamber of stupidity and ignorance.

 

[Pogo]

Since you obviously CAN'T READ, I'll essplain it to your illiterate ass in tiny widdle words.

I asked Marty if he --- not YOU -- HE (because I don't give a fuck what you believe, and you didn't bring it up anyway) believes that (insert speaker name here) has the inherent right to speak, at a college campus he's not even affiliated with, while the students who ARE affiliated with and in attendance at that college, DO NOT have that right.

That's what he can't answer. And you can't either because IT WASN'T YOUR FUCKING POINT IN THE FIRST PLACE you giant black hole of mental midgetry.

Also pointed out that his link claimed Murray was "forced to flee" yet the video therein showed no such fleeing.

That about cover it, Peewee? Get it now or do I have to draw fucking stick figures?

The speakers were INVITED by Students attending the university.

The video doesn't, but the story describes his car being attacked as he was leaving the venue.

Your games are old and tired. get new ones. Poo-Goo

How many times are you going to try to dance around the question without touching it?

What is it, radioactive?

I answered the question, your typical refusal to acknowledge it is part of your schtick.

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnno I don't think you did.

Now it's possible in the interminable waiting through all your lollygagging I could have missed something but I have yet to see anything but deflection to other questions I didn't ask. Much like your inability to make the case that that college paper was a real story, that was what, a month ago? More? Hell the OP even abandoned that one when he saw he was busted -- not you though.

The question HERE, again, was whether you believe the students on their own campus, have the same right of expression as whatever crackpot gadfly speaker you'd foist on that campus for them, a campus you have no affiliation with in the first place. DO they or DO THEY NOT have that same right?

Cue deflection dance. It's a moldy oldie by now.

The right is of the Students who WANT TO HEAR said speaker to hear said speaker. The speaker is invited by Students.

You ignore the fact that a group of students is INVITING this person to speak. It is THOSE STUDENTS who's rights are being infringed along with the invited speaker.

Now you got your "answer", lets see what other methods of deflection you come up with, you wasted of carbon.

Actually you *STILL* haven't touched the question, have you.

I kind of expected that based on recent history but I admit I can't anticipate the lengths to which you will go to avoid it.

The question was, still is, and ever shall be, DOES that student body --- the ones in the video --- HAVE the right to voice their opinion, or HAVE THEY NOT?

You can not or will not answer that.

 

[iceberg]

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.

Only if you're a leftist drone who doesn't comprehend what individual freedoms are, or why they matter.

Liberty University restricts the individual freedoms of their students. That’s a fact.

and yet you listed none of them,,,

I had the same problem trying to get details from him

it ain't worth the effort.

 

[martybegan]

The speakers were INVITED by Students attending the university.

The video doesn't, but the story describes his car being attacked as he was leaving the venue.

Your games are old and tired. get new ones. Poo-Goo

How many times are you going to try to dance around the question without touching it?

What is it, radioactive?

I answered the question, your typical refusal to acknowledge it is part of your schtick.

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnno I don't think you did.

Now it's possible in the interminable waiting through all your lollygagging I could have missed something but I have yet to see anything but deflection to other questions I didn't ask. Much like your inability to make the case that that college paper was a real story, that was what, a month ago? More? Hell the OP even abandoned that one when he saw he was busted -- not you though.

The question HERE, again, was whether you believe the students on their own campus, have the same right of expression as whatever crackpot gadfly speaker you'd foist on that campus for them, a campus you have no affiliation with in the first place. DO they or DO THEY NOT have that same right?

Cue deflection dance. It's a moldy oldie by now.

The right is of the Students who WANT TO HEAR said speaker to hear said speaker. The speaker is invited by Students.

You ignore the fact that a group of students is INVITING this person to speak. It is THOSE STUDENTS who's rights are being infringed along with the invited speaker.

Now you got your "answer", lets see what other methods of deflection you come up with, you wasted of carbon.

Actually you *STILL* haven't touched the question, have you.

I kind of expected that based on recent history but I admit I can't anticipate the lengths to which you will go to avoid it.

The question was, still is, and ever shall be, DOES that student body --- the ones in the video --- HAVE the right to voice their opinion, or HAVE THEY NOT?

You can not or will not answer that.

They are not "voicing their opinion", they are trying to suppress the opinions of others.

Standing outside and protesting is voicing your opinion, trying to prevent someone else from speaking is not.

Again, you keep reframing the discussion in a pathetic attempt to not have to take a position on something.

And again, I CAN KEEP THIS UP AS LONG AS YOU CAN YOU WASTE OF HUMAN LIFE

 

[toobfreak]

sheeeeesh-------

When I was in college, schools backed and promoted free speech and free thinking for free.

 

[Richard-H]

Colleges should allow all types of political views to be presented, but they should also require that anyone presenting political (and other) views MUST agree to a debate with someone opposing their views after.

WE aren't the ones who dodge debate and stage violent protests to shut people up, chum.

Who is 'We'?

Prone to stereotypes and generalizations, are 'We' not?

I am assuming it means the people who support this proposal.

And the people who are the cause for it, ie. conservative speakers who get shut down in college speeches.

One has to think that they want to shut down opposition speech because they have no good answers to negate any of it. When they can't negate the speech, they want to not hear it at all. Leftists are living in an echo chamber of stupidity and ignorance.

Then you'd agree that anyone should be allowed to speak, but they must also agree to debate?

 

[Cecilie1200]

WE aren't the ones who dodge debate and stage violent protests to shut people up, chum.

Who is 'We'?

Prone to stereotypes and generalizations, are 'We' not?

I am assuming it means the people who support this proposal.

And the people who are the cause for it, ie. conservative speakers who get shut down in college speeches.

One has to think that they want to shut down opposition speech because they have no good answers to negate any of it. When they can't negate the speech, they want to not hear it at all. Leftists are living in an echo chamber of stupidity and ignorance.

Then you'd agree that anyone should be allowed to speak, but they must also agree to debate?

I don't know about Chris, but I'm personally not agreeing with anything which is just a manifestation of your need to feel in control of all around you.

Not everything has to include the left's bullshit, no matter HOW much it chafes your ass to let conservatives just hang out together without you.

 

[ChrisL]

WE aren't the ones who dodge debate and stage violent protests to shut people up, chum.

Who is 'We'?

Prone to stereotypes and generalizations, are 'We' not?

I am assuming it means the people who support this proposal.

And the people who are the cause for it, ie. conservative speakers who get shut down in college speeches.

One has to think that they want to shut down opposition speech because they have no good answers to negate any of it. When they can't negate the speech, they want to not hear it at all. Leftists are living in an echo chamber of stupidity and ignorance.

Then you'd agree that anyone should be allowed to speak, but they must also agree to debate?

If it is set up that way and not just a speech? Sure. Otherwise, no. You should not be able to shut down anyone's free speech just because you can't jump on stage and debate them. You can always start your own debate afterwards.

 

[ChrisL]

Who is 'We'?

Prone to stereotypes and generalizations, are 'We' not?

I am assuming it means the people who support this proposal.

And the people who are the cause for it, ie. conservative speakers who get shut down in college speeches.

One has to think that they want to shut down opposition speech because they have no good answers to negate any of it. When they can't negate the speech, they want to not hear it at all. Leftists are living in an echo chamber of stupidity and ignorance.

Then you'd agree that anyone should be allowed to speak, but they must also agree to debate?

I don't know about Chris, but I'm personally not agreeing with anything which is just a manifestation of your need to feel in control of all around you.

Not everything has to include the left's bullshit, no matter HOW much it chafes your ass to let conservatives just hang out together without you.

Agree. Leftists are control freaks.