Trump orders colleges to back free speech or lose funding

[martybegan]

subsidizing is not funding. Again, it's due to municipal bonds being tax free.

And $3.2 billion over 20 years sounds like a lot until you realize that the same amount of money is 1/3 of the total federal expenditure in a SINGLE DAY.

Context.

It is still Federal tax dollars. Your dissembling doesn't change that fact.

Given to the Students, not directly to the Institution. They also admit that fact plainly in their statement.

You really cannot stand being wrong can you? You asked if the NFL got Federal money. The answer is YES.

They got paid by the feds for advertising, that is not federal funding.

"Getting Federal Money" is usually constructed as getting grants, especially in an academic scenario, Research money, etc.

Did Trump say he was going to cut student's pell grants and subsidized student loans?

You morons are trying to nitpick and obfuscate to get any gotcha moment you can.

No, that’s not all they get.

they take a comprehensive look at the federal side of stadium subsidies. They find that since 2000 alone, federal taxpayers have footed $3.2 billion toward private sports stadiums through subsidies in the form of tax-exempt municipal bonds. The amount of revenue the federal government loses gets even bigger—$3.7 billion—when the additional tax benefits that the high-income bond holders receive are taken into account.


Top 10 biggest federal subsidies for pro stadiums (Hint: the Yankees are #1)

That isn't funding, that is something the Feds agreed to WITH THE STATES regarding municipal bonds. The feds have no say really over how the States issue their own debt services.

You keep looking for links, and have to keep expanding on the definition of "funding".

Has Trump threatened to remove the tax free status of municipal bonds?

All of this to ignore the main part of this thread, which is SJW types trying to shut down speech they oppose, often with either the acceptance of school administrators or a hands off policy by said administrations.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That would be either Congress or the US Department of Education, depending on the law or regulation in question. There's more than one.

So the Trump administration, correct?

No, shitforbrains. There have been various laws for quite a while outlining what constitutes "federal funding" for the purposes of a university or college being subject to federal government regulation/interference. They predate the Trump administration by quite a bit, even if your pathetic memory doesn't.

Listen here asshole. Did you read what the thread is about? Obviously not you lazy fuck.

This entire thread is about an executive order, not legislation.

And what exactly is your problem with it again?

I have a problem with the double standard of conservatives decrying “censorship” except when it’s done by conservative Christian universities (which was claimed to not exist because conservative chrisitians are so comfortable and confident in their beliefs).

I don’t support censorship but I feel that universities should have some ability to say no to people whose only intention is to distrust and troll the school and provide zero academic benefit (like Milo). Since it’s a slippery slope, I don’t know if it’s feasible to do so and to some extent the problem seems to have solved itself.

"I have a problem with conservatives calling leftists out on our bullshit when I've been told to believe they're worse!"

What you have a problem with is the existence of conservative Christian universities, and no amount of denial will change that. You know exactly jack and shit about what does and doesn't happen on any of their campuses, because you haven't been to any of them. All you want is to deflect from the topic to rant and rail against conservative Christians. Typical leftist: never mind the topic, let's talk about who I hate and why I'm not a bigot for hating them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, shitforbrains. There have been various laws for quite a while outlining what constitutes "federal funding" for the purposes of a university or college being subject to federal government regulation/interference. They predate the Trump administration by quite a bit, even if your pathetic memory doesn't.

Listen here asshole. Did you read what the thread is about? Obviously not you lazy fuck.

This entire thread is about an executive order, not legislation.

And what exactly is your problem with it again?

I have a problem with the double standard of conservatives decrying “censorship” except when it’s done by conservative Christian universities (which was claimed to not exist because conservative chrisitians are so comfortable and confident in their beliefs).

I don’t support censorship but I feel that universities should have some ability to say no to people whose only intention is to distrust and troll the school and provide zero academic benefit (like Milo). Since it’s a slippery slope, I don’t know if it’s feasible to do so and to some extent the problem seems to have solved itself.

And we suddenly all figured out where to pee, too.

Why y’all so obsessed with that?

Maybe because we don't like the idea of people's privacy and safety being compromised so that you dipshits can pander and feel superior. We're funny that way.

 

[Cecilie1200]

if they're not going to allow both sides equal time,

Only problem...what the fuck does that mean?

So, every time a geologist guest speaker has an event, a flat earther gets an event?

Clarify, please.

It's pretty simple, if you're not a halfwit who doesn't understand anything that doesn't involve controlling and micromanaging people's lives and who is trying to overcomplicate things.

You just grant the same freedom to invite speakers and assemble peaceably to listen to them to conservative student groups that you grant to leftist student groups. Easy-peasy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And what exactly is your problem with it again?

I have a problem with the double standard of conservatives decrying “censorship” except when it’s done by conservative Christian universities (which was claimed to not exist because conservative chrisitians are so comfortable and confident in their beliefs).

I don’t support censorship but I feel that universities should have some ability to say no to people whose only intention is to distrust and troll the school and provide zero academic benefit (like Milo). Since it’s a slippery slope, I don’t know if it’s feasible to do so and to some extent the problem seems to have solved itself.

And we suddenly all figured out where to pee, too.

Why y’all so obsessed with that?

"we" weren't the ones who made it an issue.

Bullshit! Conservatives are the ones passing laws about it.

Yeah, yeah. The fight wasn't started when you upended society, it started when conservatives were "horrible" enough to fight back. How dare they!

 

[iceberg]

if they're not going to allow both sides equal time,

Only problem...what the fuck does that mean?

So, every time a geologist guest speaker has an event, a flat earther gets an event?

Clarify, please.

It's pretty simple, if you're not a halfwit who doesn't understand anything that doesn't involve controlling and micromanaging people's lives and who is trying to overcomplicate things.

You just grant the same freedom to invite speakers and assemble peaceably to listen to them to conservative student groups that you grant to leftist student groups. Easy-peasy.

yea, i certainly didn't think it was a divisive statement i made. then again, some people will put the divide there and then blame you for it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Is a flat earther asking? Have a set of rules and stay with them.

Why is that so hard

You ignored my question. But yes, flat earthers are asking.

So, your answer? We are supposed to give equal time to both sides of...what? Every issue? Like... Say...the fact that the planets revolve about the Sun? The fact that vaccines are effective?

Some things still need explained, here.

Again, this is not about "however will we micromanage this to meet some arbitrary standard of 'fair'?" Just grant the same access to conservative groups as is granted to non-conservative groups. Done.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's good. No more shutting conservative views out of college campuses which receive federal funds. This is a victory for free speech.

And there you have it, really. Accidental honestly, laid bare. This is about protecting ideas people see as "conservative", and that is all. Oh, and religion. So, for every atheist that speaks, a member of every religion ever invented no also gets equal time..
Right?

Hehehe, I doubt it.

And there you have it, really. Intentional obtuseness and partisanship, laid bare.

OF COURSE it's about protecting conservative ideas. No one has been hiding that from you, twerp. This is because it's conservative ideas being suppressed right now. It's not necessary to protect leftist ideas at the moment, because conservatives have no desire to make you stop spewing insane nonsense. Listening to you is our chief amusement.

And I think we can safely assume as a rule of thumb that anything you say is not ever going to be right.

 

[Ringtone]

I have a problem with the double standard of conservatives decrying “censorship” except when it’s done by conservative Christian universities (which was claimed to not exist because conservative chrisitians are so comfortable and confident in their beliefs).

I don’t support censorship but I feel that universities should have some ability to say no to people whose only intention is to distrust and troll the school and provide zero academic benefit (like Milo). Since it’s a slippery slope, I don’t know if it’s feasible to do so and to some extent the problem seems to have solved itself.

And we suddenly all figured out where to pee, too.

Why y’all so obsessed with that?

"we" weren't the ones who made it an issue.

Bullshit! Conservatives are the ones passing laws about it.

Yeah, yeah. The fight wasn't started when you upended society, it started when conservatives were "horrible" enough to fight back. How dare they!

Cecilie, you just drove the nail home 5 times straight in a row with a single blow!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Is a flat earther asking? Have a set of rules and stay with them.

Why is that so hard

You ignored my question. But yes, flat earthers are asking.

So, your answer? We are supposed to give equal time to both sides of...what? Every issue? Like... Say...the fact that the planets revolve about the Sun? The fact that vaccines are effective?

Some things still need explained, here.

If they are following the guideline all must follow, what's the problem?

You are dodging my question. I will try again.

On which issues to both sides get equal time? Every and any issue?

That's the problem with this law. You aren't answering, because you don't have a good answer. Nothing to be ashamed of. Just admit it.

There can be no good answer to a dumbfuck question, other than "Piss off, moron."

 

[Cecilie1200]

Every issue where requested.

Haha, so equal time should given , at a university, to a flat earther as to a top geologist, if a flat earther requests it.



And you think that's good? Come on.

Just admit, you are only talking about political views. Honesty is a virtue. Unfortunately, this silly, nebulous law doesn't lend as much clarity as your posts accidentally do.

And to be clear, I don't strictly disagree (but for different reasons, I'm sure).

If you can find a student group that wants to invite a flat-earther to speak at their school, then yes. Let 'em do so. Seriously, what is your major investment in never letting anyone, anywhere, say things you don't agree with?

Just admit, you're trying to find insane, extraneous hypotheticals because you have no argument.

 

[iceberg]

Every issue where requested.

Haha, so equal time should given , at a university, to a flat earther as to a top geologist, if a flat earther requests it.



And you think that's good? Come on.

Just admit, you are only talking about political views. Honesty is a virtue. Unfortunately, this silly, nebulous law doesn't lend as much clarity as your posts accidentally do.

And to be clear, I don't strictly disagree (but for different reasons, I'm sure).

If you can find a student group that wants to invite a flat-earther to speak at their school, then yes. Let 'em do so. Seriously, what is your major investment in never letting anyone, anywhere, say things you don't agree with?

Just admit, you're trying to find insane, extraneous hypotheticals because you have no argument.

and that is why i quit playing his asinine reindeer games.

 

[colfax_m]

I have a problem with the double standard of conservatives decrying “censorship” except when it’s done by conservative Christian universities (which was claimed to not exist because conservative chrisitians are so comfortable and confident in their beliefs).

I don’t support censorship but I feel that universities should have some ability to say no to people whose only intention is to distrust and troll the school and provide zero academic benefit (like Milo). Since it’s a slippery slope, I don’t know if it’s feasible to do so and to some extent the problem seems to have solved itself.

And we suddenly all figured out where to pee, too.

Why y’all so obsessed with that?

"we" weren't the ones who made it an issue.

Bullshit! Conservatives are the ones passing laws about it.

Yeah, yeah. The fight wasn't started when you upended society, it started when conservatives were "horrible" enough to fight back. How dare they!

No one was upending society. Just people making decisions for themselves which conservatives (small government supposedly) decided was unacceptable and therefore requires government authority to tell people what to do.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"I don't disagree with you but let's argue"

Agreement on one point is not agreement on all points, obviously. Don't be a sissy. This is a discussion board

Why do I care? Uh...says the guy who started the thread...what a bizarre comment.

I think students at universities should have the right to reject speakers that deviate far from the norm on certain topics. Not every nutsack deserves forum he actually has no "right" to. That's why I care.

I also care because our poisonous president will likely bastardized and manipulate this bad EC for political ends.

You know how they can "reject speakers that deviate blah blah fucking bullshit"? By just not going to hear them speak.

What you ACTUALLY think is that students who agree with you should be able to reject speakers who don't agree with you on behalf of every other student around.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, some anti-fluoridation nutball does not deserve an equal forum on a university campus as does a top scientist with all the evidence at his back.

And yes, that's exactly the type of "request" you are going to get on campuses.

You really have no idea how campus speakers work, do you?

 

[Cecilie1200]

And they can, by not watching it or participating in it.

They don't have a choice in participation, when their money is paying for it. So not a good argument, sorry.

And I'm so very sure you're worried about that when the conservative students' money is going to pay for some radical leftist asshole.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What you consider far from the norm may not be what someone else considers far from the norm.

Which, in objective topics, is not a matter of opinion. Politics are different than academics c, rigorous topics.

Second, even with politics: if MLK speaks, then the grand wizard of the KKK must also be paid to speak? Fuck that.

You continue to be utterly ignorant of how any of this works.

 

[iceberg]

And we suddenly all figured out where to pee, too.

Why y’all so obsessed with that?

"we" weren't the ones who made it an issue.

Bullshit! Conservatives are the ones passing laws about it.

Yeah, yeah. The fight wasn't started when you upended society, it started when conservatives were "horrible" enough to fight back. How dare they!

No one was upending society. Just people making decisions for themselves which conservatives (small government supposedly) decided was unacceptable and therefore requires government authority to tell people what to do.

lord you are more annoying than a penis-wart.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes they do. They do not have to attend.

But they have to pay for it. You would be cool with your money going to a pedophile who wants equal time to speak about why pedophilia should be legal and even recognized as marriage?

No. You need to think this through, more.

Conservatives' student funds have to go to pay for scads of leftist loon speakers, and I don't see you getting all broken up about THAT.

Whenever you can show us a student group requesting a pedophile speaker, we'll take your scenario seriously.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What you consider far from the norm may not be what someone else considers far from the norm.

Which, in objective topics, is not a matter of opinion. Politics are different than academics c, rigorous topics.

Second, even with politics: if MLK speaks, then the grand wizard of the KKK must also be paid to speak? Fuck that.

Strawman.

Not a straw man at all. White supremacists groups exist on campuses and do make this type of demand.

Join us in reality, Chris.

We're in reality, Fart Fun. And the reality is that white supremacists have First Amendment rights, just like you do. They're loathsome, but only a leftist is dumb enough to think that you fight loathsome ideas by banning them and driving them underground. Conservatives know that you kill those ideas by letting people see and hear them for what they are.