Enough said.....

Could you imagine the poor bastard that has to sleep next to that entry bitch every night !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I hate the people that voted that fraud into office, and they'll do it again​.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My alma mater, UMass Amherst, has chosen her to be their commencement speaker. Their reasons for recognizing her thusly made me want to puke. They will never see another dime from me.......

My alma mater, UMass Amherst, has chosen her to be their commencement speaker. Their reasons for recognizing her thusly made me want to puke. They will never see another dime from me.......

You should make sure they know that, your reason for not contributing is their choice of her. Otherwise they'll never know.
Seems most colleges these days tend to preach that BS...Look at the wasted youth coming out of them now and their left ideology.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am no fan She is just the opposite side of the same coin with Trump

Her fans are are so far left and his so far right they meet

Like Trump I cringe when she speaks because you dont know who's she's going to alienate next Id like to say if she ran for POTUS she would fail , but Trump has set a new standard that anyone can win


Both have mastered getting under the others sides skin

Seems most colleges these days tend to preach that BS...Look at the wasted youth coming out of them now and their left ideology.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is right. People should go to those esteemed right leaning schools - by the way what are those?

That is right. People should go to those esteemed right leaning schools - by the way what are those?

Liberty.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Enough said.....

Best title of a thread, maybe ever...

She lies about being Native American to get a cushy job.

She attacks banks for making profits off student loans, but it's OK for her to make 400k a year teaching at Harvard.

She attacks banks for making profits during the housing crisis, but it was OK for her and her husband to buy foreclosed homes and flip them.

When Obama was president, she said the senate HAD HE DUTY to invoke the nuclear option to break the GOP filibusters. Now she will go berserk when the Republicans do the same thing.

She bemoans the gender pay gap, but she herself pays female staffers less than male staffers.

She is a wretched, wretched woman.

I am no fan She is just the opposite side of the same coin with Trump

Her fans are are so far left and his so far right they meet

Like Trump I cringe when she speaks because you dont know who's she's going to alienate next Id like to say if she ran for POTUS she would fail , but Trump has set a new standard that anyone can win


Both have mastered getting under the others sides skin

"She is just the opposite side of the same coin with Trump"

Trump is nowhere near the right wing equivalent of Warren. Many conservatives don't like Trump because he's not nearly conservative enough. I've never heard anyone on the left complain that Warren isn't liberal enough.

But I respect your ability to criticize someone on your side, not many can be that honest.

That is right. People should go to those esteemed right leaning schools - by the way what are those?

The United States Military Academy
The United States Naval Academy
The United States Air Force Academy

Maybe some of the Jesuit schools like Holy Cross, but that's debatable.

And that's about it. College is becoming an intellectually subtractive experience.

That is right. People should go to those esteemed right leaning schools - by the way what are those?

By the way, how does endless liberal indoctrination help those college kids, Paul? When they only way they can respond to someone who disagrees with them, is to throw a brick through a window, yes, that's quite an "esteemed" student body of violent, unthinking, brain dead anarchists your side is creating.

The United States Military Academy
The United States Naval Academy
The United States Air Force Academy

Maybe some of the Jesuit schools like Holy Cross, but that's debatable.

And that's about it. College is becoming an intellectually subtractive experience.

Mass Maritime
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

By the way, how does endless liberal indoctrination help those college kids, Paul? When they only way they can respond to someone who disagrees with them, is to throw a brick through a window, yes, that's quite an "esteemed" student body of violent, unthinking, brain dead anarchists your side is creating.

Seems like the vast majority of the great universities are liberal. Good thing there are government schools of higher educ. or the cons. would be stuck w/liberty. I guess when you deny science you end up with crappy schools.

I never used to hear people refer to "your side" or "my side" until you started posting.

Man, do you have a lot of hate. It is constant.

Seems like the vast majority of the great universities are liberal. Good thing there are government schools of higher educ. or the cons. would be stuck w/liberty. I guess when you deny science you end up with crappy schools.

I never used to hear people refer to "your side" or "my side" until you started posting.

Man, do you have a lot of hate. It is constant.

"Seems like the vast majority of the great universities are liberal. "

Oh, I agree. But what I asked, and you dodged, was this - how does the pure liberalism, add to the greatness? Answer - it doesn't. Those schools are great because of the potential intelligence of the student body. That potential is not fully realized, when kids are indoctrinated to liberalism, and are taught that every single person who disagrees, is one of Hilary's deplorables.

The result is thoughtless liberal parrots who are unable to defend their ideas to any challenge, so they resort to rioting to shut down the challenger.

"I guess when you deny science you end up with crappy schools. "

So the side which says that a human embryo isn't distinguishable from a mole to be removed, gets to accuse me of denying science. If the global warming alarmists are correct on the science, how come NONE of their dire predictions have come true? I mean, to hear Al Gore tell it, you'd think North Dakota would be exporting pineapples and sugar cane by now.

"you end up with crappy schools"

Yeah, West Point doesn't turn out high quality kids, nope.

"Man, do you have a lot of hate"

You are the one, who in a few sentences, said that people who aren't liberals (1) deny science, and (2) are incapable of producing universities that aren't crappy. But I am the hatemonger. Got it.

I never used to hear people refer to "your side" or "my side" until you started posting."

Oh, I invented the concept of liberals and conservatives? Good lord...

Paul, how come at your elite liberal schools, the liberal students routinely riot to prevent conservatives from speaking, but the conservative students don't riot to prevent liberals from speaking?

YOU HAVE FUN WITH THAT. I look forward to your answer.

"

It seems like the colleges aren't preparing students for the real world, teaching them what they will need for their perspective majors, but rather teaching them what the school needs to teach them to keep them from spending their time and money elsewhere.
Convince the students that they learned a whole lot at the school and that they should "donate" to it to allow it to continue to "indoctrinate" others.

Why the hell do you think you have so many college grads WITH diplomas and degrees working as waiters and bag boys?

They learned ONLY what the school felt was necessary to graduate and move on. Influencing political views in students is like conditioning a dog to drool when you ring a bell....It's just too easy!

I almost forgot what the post was about....

Surely she can't believe all the crap she is spouting, right???
At what point does she stop defecating from her oral fixture?

It seems like the colleges aren't preparing students for the real world, teaching them what they will need for their perspective majors, but rather teaching them what the school needs to teach them to keep them from spending their time and money elsewhere.
Convince the students that they learned a whole lot at the school and that they should "donate" to it to allow it to continue to "indoctrinate" others.

Why the hell do you think you have so many college grads WITH diplomas and degrees working as waiters and bag boys?

They learned ONLY what the school felt was necessary to graduate and move on. Influencing political views in students is like conditioning a dog to drool when you ring a bell....It's just too easy!

Liberals learned a long time ago, that their agenda doesn't play well in most of America. So what liberals did, in order to advance their agenda, was concentrate on taking over the media and academia. It was brilliant, you genuinely have to give them credit from a strategic point of view.

When I was in college, I was a registered Democrat. It made perfect sense to me, to eliminate poverty by taking just a little bit more from the fabulously wealthy, who could not possibly miss a few pennies here and there. I really believed (because it's all I was taught in college, and all I saw on TV) that conservatives were happy to let poor people starve to death, so that millionaires could become billionaires. I heard that 100 times a day, and it was never, ever challenged. And I was a math major, not a sociology major, and I still got indoctrinated.

It was in my mid 20s when I realized how moronic all of that is. But college kids don't know any better, so it's very effective at creating liberals. And 99% of America doesn't watch Foxnews, so most people only hear Hilary say that people like me are deplorable, most people never hear the other point of view, they never get to see any challenges to liberalism. Because an honest presentation of what conservatism is, only happens on one network. On every other network, conservatives are described in awful language.

Seems like the vast majority of the great universities are liberal. Good thing there are government schools of higher educ. or the cons. would be stuck w/liberty. I guess when you deny science you end up with crappy schools.

I never used to hear people refer to "your side" or "my side" until you started posting.

Man, do you have a lot of hate. It is constant.

I agree that most universities, if they were true to their mission, would be liberal. The problem that Jim has is that he uses the term "liberal" rather than "progressive" or, even more pertinent in the case of universities, the terms "Marxist" or "leftist."

Universities, Western educational institutions in general, have increasingly shifted their identity from classical liberal toward leftist, "progressive" (which is actually regressive), or actually Marxist positions.

Classical liberal universities, such as Hillsdale, are a distinct minority. And they do not deny science. They teach it, even in its most modern form. Actually, science is not as "liberal" in its methodology as it is "conservative." It is dependent on fundamental laws and principles. But it is also open to new realities dependent on discovery of previously unknown material facts.

Marxism, leftism, is hyper-"conservative". They are unbending in their adherence to a "class struggle" model for the foundation of society. And they believe in an ultimate utopian material "heaven" on earth achieved through the political victory of some poorly identified "worker" class.

Progressivism is hyper-"liberal". It denies any foundational principles. For it, social existence is purely "relative" (even though relativism paradoxically relies on actual fundamental realities in order to be relative to each other). Progressivism is entirely situational. And situations (which constantly change in the view of Progressives) are temporarily defined by whoever has some appointed power to define. And the remedy for situations is decided by select "experts" with whom there can be no disagreement.

Neither Marxism/leftism nor Progressivism are really scientific in their methods of governing. Classical Liberalism is. The founding of our nation, and its Constitution are based on Classical Liberalism.

Discussing the divide between various forms of leftism and actual liberalism is not about hate. It is about thinking rationally.

"


Yeah, West Point doesn't turn out high quality kids, nope.
Isn't that a "government" school?
"Man, do you have a lot of hate"

You are the one, who in a few sentences, said that people who aren't liberals (1) deny science, and (2) are incapable of producing universities that aren't crappy. But I am the hatemonger. Got it.I think it had something to do with refering to a woman as wretched, horrible and refering to brain dean anarchist. It also has to do with your refering to people you don't like at POS and using the C word to refer to a woman. They way you respond to WDSMO Not normal behavior.

I never used to hear people refer to "your side" or "my side" until you started posting."

Oh, I invented the concept of liberals and conservatives? Good lord...Is that what you think I meant by that? I know you are smarter than that

Paul, how come at your elite liberal schools, the liberal students routinely riot to prevent conservatives I don't think it is all cons. just the flame throwers like Milo and Murray. When your goal is to insult people, don't be surprised when you draw the violent reaction you tried to provoke. from speaking, but the conservative students don't riot to prevent liberals from speaking?

YOU HAVE FUN WITH THAT. I look forward to your answer.

"

Last time when Murray spoke at Middlebury college there was an uptick in racism (The N word written on Black's dorm room doors, etc).

Last time when Murray spoke at Middlebury college there was an uptick in racism (The N word written on Black's dorm room doors, etc).

"Isn't that a "government" school?"

It's a military school, one branch of the federal government that knows what it's doing. You said that conservative schools are based on the denial of science, and are therefore crappy. I was just showing how false that was,

"I think it had something to do with referring to a woman as wretched, horrible "

So a woman cannot be accurately be described that way? Eva Braun? I supported my insults of Warren, with accurate examples of her disgusting hypocrisy. Sorry if you didn't like my accurate depiction. If you can't make me incorrect, you can always accuse me of hate. A very common tactic, which is exactly why college students cannot bear the thought of a conservative being allowed to speak. Those students have learned, from people like you, that everyone who disagrees with them is deplorable.

Liberals don't believe in freedom "of" speech. They believe in freedom "from" speech, at least when the speech challenges liberalism.

"Is that what you think I meant by that? I know you are smarter than that"

For future reference, when I say "my side", I mean people who tend to agree with me. When I say "your side", I mean people who agree with you. Got it? I'm not saying we are different species. I am saying in political discussions, we can often be lumped into one of two categories.

" don't think it is all cons. just the flame throwers like Milo and Murray."

If you think that, you are wrong. Condaleeza Rice and Antonin Scalia have had speaking invitations revoked.
But let's stick to your point...your liberal schools often have bomb throwers like Abu Mumia Jamal give speeches, or Bill Ayers. And that's OK. But not conservative bomb throwers?

Why is that? When you see a riot that s designed to keep someone from speaking, it's virtually always liberals who are rioting.

When was the last time you saw a riot started by conservatives, which was triggered by political ideology?

Why is it almost always, the liberals who riot, Paul?

Black Lives Matter says that white cops are the enemy, and they have called for the assassination of cops. But they get to speak, and conservatives don't burn down cities to prevent that. Al Sharpton gets to speak...all kinds of liberal bomb throwers get to speak all the time.

So if liberals get all tingly in their you-know-what's when liberal bomb throwers get to speak, why can't they extend the same courtesy to conservatives?

And do you know what I truly do hate? The exact same people who riot to keep conservatives from speaking, are the same ones who claim that liberals are open-minded and tolerant. and no one has the honesty to point out the hypocrisy. I hate that level of blatant intellectual dishonesty. Warren may be the very best example of that hypocrisy (do as I say, not as I do), in all of Washington.

Last time when Murray spoke at Middlebury college there was an uptick in racism (The N word written on Black's dorm room doors, etc).

And some of those (not saying in this case) have proven to be falsely reported. How are conservatives supposed to protect themselves against that? When the Tea Party was gaining momentum, we know for a fact that liberals pretended to be Tea Partiers, carrying racist signs, so that no one would listen to what the Tea Party had to say.

You don't see those tactics on the right. Not nearly to the same extent. We prefer to have an honest, open exchange of ideas, because we are confident our ideas will appear vastly superior. Liberals know this too, which is why they do everything they can to prevent an honest and open exchange of ideas.

Last time when Murray spoke at Middlebury college there was an uptick in racism (The N word written on Black's dorm room doors, etc).

So What.....one or two a-holes doesn't mean racism is running rampant.

There are 320,000,000 people in this country, some of them are a-holes, and some of those a-holes go to college....and some of those a-holes own sharpies.

That doesn't provide justification to stop somebody from speaking at an open forum. If you don't want to hear them speak...you don't go. its really THAT simple.

So What.....one or two a-holes doesn't mean racism is running rampant.

There are 320,000,000 people in this country, some of them are a-holes, and some of those a-holes go to college....and some of those a-holes own sharpies.

That doesn't provide justification to stop somebody from speaking at an open forum. If you don't want to hear them speak...you don't go. its really THAT simple.

"So What.....one or two a-holes doesn't mean racism is running rampant."

But when liberals don't think they can effectively debate the conservative, it's better to accuse them of racism, than to let them appear to have a valid point on something.

"If you don't want to hear them speak...you don't go. its really THAT simple"

Jeez, when you put it that way, it DOES sound simple. Especially if you like to pat yourself on the back about how tolerant and open-minded you are.

Here's an even better idea. If you think Milo is a bad guy, how about asking him questions, and engaging him, in a way that shows that he's a bad guy? He's a disgusting clown. If these college student cupcakes can't handle him in a debate, they really haven't learned much form their Marxist professors.

So What.....one or two a-holes doesn't mean racism is running rampant.totally agree. But isn't the whole discussion of this based on what a tiny % of the students are doing?

There are 320,000,000 people in this country, some of them are a-holes, and some of those a-holes go to college....and some of those a-holes own sharpies.

That doesn't provide justification to stop somebody from speaking at an open forum. If you don't want to hear them speak...you don't go. its really THAT simple.

Well, my feeling is when someone calls someone a freak of nature (in reference to gays for example) and if I was gay, I would be insulted.

Murray says Blacks are genetically inferior in cognition to whites - so when an advocate of eugenics oriented bigotry appears on campus, is it a wonder that Blacks don't want to hear him.

Would Hitler had been ok?

Phuk no, Hitler would not be ok.....

And whoever this Murray guy is, he clearly is not in an elected office is he?

As for the Liberal think tank that pervades in American higher institutions (colleges and universities) I give you this as a most recent example of just what these pansy administrations running these schools will tolerate. (and he has a history with over the edge commentaries)
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/30/us/drexel-professor-tweets-trnd/

That is right. People should go to those esteemed right leaning schools - by the way what are those?

The military academies and that's about it. The ratio of liberal vs conservative educators at colleges in the northeast is around 16-1. That itself is what produces wing nut philosophies from those fortunate enough to be in attendance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, my feeling is when someone calls someone a freak of nature (in reference to gays for example) and if I was gay, I would be insulted.

Are you prejudiced against freaks of nature?

Murray says Blacks are genetically inferior in cognition to whites - so when an advocate of eugenics oriented bigotry appears on campus, is it a wonder that Blacks don't want to hear him.

Blacks are not forced to hear him. Why should anybody deny others, including blacks, the ability to hear him. If they actually listened to what he says, rather than merely believe what some others say about him, they might actually learn something. And they might learn that valid studies, for instance as (https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf) show that heredity does play a significant part in levels of intelligence--as they do in just about everything else.

Murray doesn't claim that the difference should be feared or that it makes some racial or ethnic groups generally "inferior" to others. And he doesn't put whites at the top of the IQ ladder. He puts East Asians and Jews significantly higher in IQ than whites. And he says that any racial or ethnic group has a spectrum of high as well as low IQ. He says that the focus in society should not be so much on group differences, but on individual differences. And that all characteristics of a person, not just IQ, should be how we evaluate our associations with others. And that all groups (clans) think that they are superior (more worthwhile being a member of), and perfectly content on being who they are.

Would Hitler had been ok?

I doubt that he would accept a speaking engagement on a present day American university. But if he did, you don't think it would be interesting to hear him speak?

It sounds, from your few words here, that you support shouting down or denying speakers if you don't agree with them.

Would Hitler had been ok?

How many people did Murray send to the gas chamber?

Or have we hit that point where words are as bad as genocide...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How many people did Murray send to the gas chamber?

Or have we hit that point where words are as bad as genocide...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Didn't Hitler start out calling the Jews genetically inferior?

Do they need to hold off on protesting until someone is sent to the gas chamber?

Colleges have the kids for a few years, their parents had them for 17 bf they went to school.

Well, my feeling is when someone calls someone a freak of nature (in reference to gays for example) and if I was gay, I would be insulted.

Murray says Blacks are genetically inferior in cognition to whites - so when an advocate of eugenics oriented bigotry appears on campus, is it a wonder that Blacks don't want to hear him.

Would Hitler had been ok?

Paul, if you ever listen to conservatives, they universally decry any and all racism.

Donliberals similarly decry the riots that liberal college students engage in? Do the schools track these kids down and expel them? Hell, no.

That is the difference. Mainstream conservative pundits despise racists. Mainstream liberal pundits do not despise liberal anarchists. Liberal anarchists who silence the opposition, are accepted, if not celebrated.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is the difference. Mainstream conservative pundits despise racists. Mainstream liberal pundits do not despise liberal anarchists. Liberal anarchists who silence the opposition, are accepted, if not celebrated.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, Plenty of liberals despise anarchists or anyone who damage property. You just ignore it bc you hate liberals.

When Steve King makes what many people view as a racist comment like "other people's babies" some denounce it but others don't. He did get elected overhelmingly.

It is the same thing. You just see what you want to see.

Jim, Plenty of liberals despise anarchists or anyone who damage property. You just ignore it bc you hate liberals.

When Steve King makes what many people view as a racist comment like "other people's babies" some denounce it but others don't. He did get elected overhelmingly.

It is the same thing. You just see what you want to see.

"Plenty of liberals despise anarchists or anyone who damage property"

Please show me some facts, to convince me that liberals (influential liberals), by and large, oppose these revolutionary, anarchist tactics.

Because what I see, is college kids always getting a free pass when conservative speakers are whisked away by security.

I see Black Lives Matter not getting challenged anywhere other than Foxnews.

I see Abu Mumia Jamal treated like a hero.

I see Obama invited Al Shapton to the Oval Office more than 50 times.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the liberal establishment advocates for the destruction of property. But they sure as hell encourage their base to throw tantrums when they don't get exactly what they want, exactly when they want it.

I agree that most universities, if they were true to their mission, would be liberal. The problem that Jim has is that he uses the term "liberal" rather than "progressive" or, even more pertinent in the case of universities, the terms "Marxist" or "leftist."

Universities, Western educational institutions in general, have increasingly shifted their identity from classical liberal toward leftist, "progressive" (which is actually regressive), or actually Marxist positions.

Classical liberal universities, such as Hillsdale, are a distinct minority. And they do not deny science. They teach it, even in its most modern form. Actually, science is not as "liberal" in its methodology as it is "conservative." It is dependent on fundamental laws and principles. But it is also open to new realities dependent on discovery of previously unknown material facts.

Marxism, leftism, is hyper-"conservative". They are unbending in their adherence to a "class struggle" model for the foundation of society. And they believe in an ultimate utopian material "heaven" on earth achieved through the political victory of some poorly identified "worker" class.

Progressivism is hyper-"liberal". It denies any foundational principles. For it, social existence is purely "relative" (even though relativism paradoxically relies on actual fundamental realities in order to be relative to each other). Progressivism is entirely situational. And situations (which constantly change in the view of Progressives) are temporarily defined by whoever has some appointed power to define. And the remedy for situations is decided by select "experts" with whom there can be no disagreement.

Neither Marxism/leftism nor Progressivism are really scientific in their methods of governing. Classical Liberalism is. The founding of our nation, and its Constitution are based on Classical Liberalism.

Discussing the divide between various forms of leftism and actual liberalism is not about hate. It is about thinking rationally.

:kewl: And the "Great Schools" also were bastions of public stewardship and top developers of military officers up until the progressives took over in the 50s/60s. A measurable percentage of your officer corps was from Harvard, Princeton, other Ivy League schools. Now you can't get an ROTC office on campus.

"Isn't that a "government" school?"

It's a military school, one branch of the federal government that knows what it's doing. You said that conservative schools are based on the denial of science, and are therefore crappy. I was just showing how false that was,



Those schools also based things on tradition (mostly good) though less so these days. Other schools also had things based on tradition but that is oppressive privileged racism


So What.....one or two a-holes doesn't mean racism is running rampant.

There are 320,000,000 people in this country, some of them are a-holes, and some of those a-holes go to college....and some of those a-holes own sharpies.

That doesn't provide justification to stop somebody from speaking at an open forum. If you don't want to hear them speak...you don't go. its really THAT simple.

:kewl:

It is the same thing. You just see what you want to see.

If it's remotely the same thing, please provide a direct answer to this question.

When there is a riot that is triggered by political unrest, what percentage of the time is it liberals who are rioting, and what percentage of the time is it conservatives rioting?

Because if it's "the same thing" as you say, then 50% of politically motivated riots should be carried out by conservatives. Do you want to say with a straight face, that it's anywhere near 50%? In fact, it's a lot closer to zero. Why is that, Paul?

I await your answer. Just so you know, telling me that I'm full of hate, isn't answering the question I asked. So try another approach.

If it's remotely the same thing, please provide a direct answer to this question.

When there is a riot that is triggered by political unrest, what percentage of the time is it liberals who are rioting, and what percentage of the time is it conservatives rioting?some are liberal, some don't have any political ideology and some are just troublemakers. You're just assuming all are liberal and asking me to prove that they aren't.

Because if it's "the same thing" as you say, then 50% of politically motivated riots should be carried out by conservatives. Do you want to say with a straight face, that it's anywhere near 50%? In fact, it's a lot closer to zero. Why is that, Paul?

I await your answer. Just so you know, telling me that I'm full of hate, isn't answering the question I asked. So try another approach.

But you are full of hate and anger. Look at how you classify people. I don't see others calling people a POS or refering to woman using the "C" word.

Why did you duck the question about Steve King. If he makes racist comments why isn't that reflective of all conservatives? I don't think it does but using your logic it would.

The military academies and that's about it. The ratio of liberal vs conservative educators at colleges in the northeast is around 16-1. That itself is what produces wing nut philosophies from those fortunate enough to be in attendance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And why the vast majority a blue-collar workers, the ones that are in the trades , or farming the fields and working in factories are conservatives . They have not been indoctrinated by the liberal college system . In other words, they are on "uneducated"
And .... if any female ever deserved the C word , it's Elizabeth Warren
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Didn't Hitler start out calling the Jews genetically inferior?

Do they need to hold off on protesting until someone is sent to the gas chamber?

Colleges have the kids for a few years, their parents had them for 17 bf they went to school.

Right, because Trump is in office the natural next step is that we are going to follow in the footsteps of Nazi Germany...

Only thing that might get in the way of that is the Constitution, The 3 branches of Government, 50 separate state governments, and 99% of the 320,000,000 people that aren't stupid enough to let that happen.

How about instead of shouting him down and getting his appearance canceled, they show up to it, engage him in constructive debate, and show everybody, civilly, that is ideas are incorrect.

But you are full of hate and anger. Look at how you classify people. I don't see others calling people a POS or refering to woman using the "C" word.

Why did you duck the question about Steve King. If he makes racist comments why isn't that reflective of all conservatives? I don't think it does but using your logic it would.

Couldn't even try to answer my question, huh?

"Why did you duck the question about Steve King"

You didn't ask a question, you made a statement. Here is what you said, an exact quote...

When Steve King makes what many people view as a racist comment like "other people's babies" some denounce it but others don't. He did get elected overwhelmingly


If there's a question in there, I apologize, I don't see it.

Now, can you answer mine?

Paul, when I ask a question, and you respond by calling me a hatemonger, that is me winning.

But you are full of hate and anger. Look at how you classify people. I don't see others calling people a POS or refering to woman using the "C" word.

Why did you duck the question about Steve King. If he makes racist comments why isn't that reflective of all conservatives? I don't think it does but using your logic it would.

"or refering to woman using the "C" word"

I'll ask AGAIN, since you didn't answer it yesterday (shocker)...you don't think there has ever been a woman, in the history of the world, who deserved that description?

As to Steve King's comments, they were very offensive. But if what he was trying to say, is that we cannot let people into the country who don't embrace our culture, he is 100% correct.

We have room for many different ethnicities. We only have room for one culture.

Right, because Trump is in office the natural next step is that we are going to follow in the footsteps of Nazi Germany...

Only thing that might get in the way of that is the Constitution, The 3 branches of Government, 50 separate state governments, and 99% of the 320,000,000 people that aren't stupid enough to let that happen.

How about instead of shouting him down and getting his appearance canceled, they show up to it, engage him in constructive debate, and show everybody, civilly, that is ideas are incorrect.

"Right, because Trump is in office the natural next step is that we are going to follow in the footsteps of Nazi Germany..."

Anything to avoid admitting that the Republicans might have a better stance on any issue.

"How about instead of shouting him down and getting his appearance canceled, they show up to it, engage him in constructive debate, and show everybody, civilly, that is ideas are incorrect"

Very, very well said. The reason why they don't do that, is because they can't. College kids aren't ever exposed to points of view other than liberalism, they never see liberalism challenged, so they have no idea how to defend it. Much easier to throw a brick through a window. and then still claim that you are more tolerant than the other guy. That's the part that gets me. I am a parent, I understand the impulse of babies to throw temper tantrums. What I don't understand, is that in the very next nanosecond, these rioters claim to be on the side of diversity and tolerance.

Liberalism: diversity in everything, except ideas!

Right, because Trump is in office the natural next step is that we are going to follow in the footsteps of Nazi Germany...If that is what you got out my using Hitler and an example I think you misunderstood.

Only thing that might get in the way of that is the Constitution, The 3 branches of Government, 50 separate state governments, and 99% of the 320,000,000 people that aren't stupid enough to let that happen.

How about instead of shouting him down and getting his appearance canceled, they show up to it, engage him in constructive debate, and show everybody, civilly, that is ideas are incorrect.

BC according to the students the last time Murray spoke on campus there was an increase of hate crimes including the writing of the N word on Black's dorm room doors. It would be nice if people could engage civilly with someone who for many years has had the view that blacks are genetically inferior and cannot compete with white men, who are intellectually, psychologically and morally superior but I think that is a pretty high bar. If you know he is going to piss off some many people why invite him to speak unless you believe those discredited views. Invite someone whose views are based in fact.

If you know he is going to piss off some many people why invite him to speak unless you believe those discredited views.

Because you can, period. There is nothing illegal about it. It is that whole "Freedom of Speech" argument that they keep using to defend their actions when they shout down people.

Invite someone whose views are based in fact.

You mean someone whose views align with their own.

They invite Comedians to speak on campuses all the time. Is everything they say based on fact? Is everything that comes out of their mouth considered not offensive to anyone?

again, if you don't like him, don't come....or show up and try to engage in a civil discourse with him.

but instead we get this....real grown up of them

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/04/middlebury/hAfpA1Hquh7DIS1doiKbhJ/story.html

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/murray-746654-charles-shocked.html

BC according to the students the last time Murray spoke on campus there was an increase of hate crimes including the writing of the N word on Black's dorm room doors.

Your demonstrating that an effective way to bar someone from speaking on campus is to create civil disorder if they do. An increase of crimes is the fault of the criminals, not by someone who is not advocating the increase in crimes. If we must be afraid to speak because some criminals will use the speech to commit crimes, freedom of speech is effectively shut down, eliminated.


It would be nice if people could engage civilly with someone who for many years has had the view that blacks are genetically inferior and cannot compete with white men, who are intellectually, psychologically and morally superior but I think that is a pretty high bar.

Perhaps, your false understanding of Murray is due to not getting a chance to know fully what Murray thinks and says. Shutting his speech down is one way of depriving you of the truth.

Murray does not say that blacks are genetically inferior to whites in the way you describe. Nor that all blacks are genetically inferior to all whites even in the way he is discussing. He is speaking solely on the intelligence level measured by IQ. And, he says, even within that parameter, MANY blacks are superior to MANY whites. His use of IQ in this case is measuring basic groups, races and ethnicities. OVERALL, blacks and Latinos score lower than whites, but, OVERALL, East Asians and Jews score higher than whites. So there is no "white racist" motivation for what he is saying.

And he is certainly not saying that whites are "psychologically and morally superior" to blacks. Nor is he saying that blacks cannot compete with white men. Not only can the many black men who score higher IQ compete intellectually with the many white men who score lower, the majority of black men can outperform the majority of white men in areas which blacks are genetically "superior."

If you know he is going to piss off some many people why invite him to speak unless you believe those discredited views. Invite someone whose views are based in fact.

Whether you invite someone to speak who's views are supposedly discredited or not, you are obligated to let him speak if he accepts your invitation.

Murray's views have been "discredited" (falsely in my opinion) by some, but supported by others (see the link I posted above as an "expert" example). The purpose of having him speak is to put his views on display so that the audience has some direct evidence, from his mouth to their ears, on which to help make a judgement. And, usually, if the discourse is civil and not threatened with disruptive noise or violence, there are Q & A sessions after the speech in which points and counterpoints can be clarified and discussed--civilly--if civility is allowed.

Not inviting someone to speak, especially if he is "controversial," because there will be those who are "pissed #^&#^&#^&#^& is being a partner to the elimination of free speech, to the promotion of only allowing certain speech, to allowing mobs and criminals to dictate what is allowed, and to promoting ignorance and to the capture of social norms and behaviors by radical authoritarians.

If you know he is going to piss off some many people why invite him to speak unless you believe those discredited views. Invite someone whose views are based in fact.

Funny that many of the same liberals who ask that question regarding King, have no quarrel with inviting Bill Ayers or Abu Mumia Jamal to speak.

It's OK for people to throw offensive bombs, as long as those bombs are aimed at conservatives.

Paul, Ben Shapiro is another hated conservative whose appearance on campus often triggers riots. He's a staunch conservative, but he' snot a racist or a hatemonger., He's a slightly watered down version of Ann Coulter. But he's smart, and he's conservative, therefore he must be silenced.

You make it sound like the only conservatives who trigger riots are Klansmen. Not so.

You mean someone whose views align with your own.

THERE YOU HAVE IT.

I don't think that's what Paul means (he's more fair than that), but sure as hell it's what many liberals mean.

THERE YOU HAVE IT.

I don't think that's what Paul means (he's more fair than that), but sure as hell it's what many liberals mean.

Yeah, I know....

I mean it more like the views of the protesters...I fixed it

Funny that whenever there is ANY socially-charged event, one that get hyped up by the media, that there are SO MANY student protestors that feel the need to voice their opinion?
Of course you have to add the fact that some schools had "rearranged" their classes so that they could be able to protest without missing any of their "educational discussions" (aka further indoctrinations).

Looking at the generations of "mental giants" some of our schools are turning out, like a conveyor belt with no quality control, it's no wonder they follow like lemmings to the sea!

Because you can, period. There is nothing illegal about it. It is that whole "Freedom of Speech" argument that they keep using to defend their actions when they shout down people.Well, I guess then being shouted down is going to be the expected outcome.



You mean someone whose views align with their own. Not at all. Murray's theories have been widely debunked. Invite some of the conservative economists. So do you think the people invited him agreed w/his view?

They invite Comedians to speak on campuses all the time. Is everything they say based on fact? Is everything that comes out of their mouth considered not offensive to anyone?

again, if you don't like him, don't come....or show up and try to engage in a civil discourse with him.

but instead we get this....real grown up of themI agree it is crazy. (didn't look at the link) Entitled kids. It is a shame they are coddled all their lives, being always told "good job", getting their way, getting trophys for participating. They where entitled bf they got to school.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/04/middlebury/hAfpA1Hquh7DIS1doiKbhJ/story.html

nm

An excellent quote from the Sowell article in the OC Register;

"Academia, however, is ground zero in the war against people whose ideas go against the current political correctness. The virtual monopoly of the political left, on campuses across the country, allows all sorts of things to be attributed to people the left disagrees with, irrespective of whether those people have ever said anything resembling what they are alleged to have said."


Warren is the epitome of this school of thought where the masses are churned into an unaccepting frenzy by a fish wife.

Well, I guess then being shouted down is going to be the expected outcome.

That may be the expected, but the desired should be that they are escorted out of the event by security.

people paid to hear him speak, they don't get to decide whether you should be allowed to listen.

Saying that its OK to act like that is akin to giving a 2 year old that cookie to stop his temper tantrum...

So do you think the people invited him agreed w/his view? It doesn't matter....moot point

Some may, some may have actually welcomed the chance to listen and form their own opinion of what he is saying. some may have come to behave like adults and debate his concepts.

Again, nobody has the right to deny you the right to listen to somebody speak, or to deny somebody the right to speak.

That may be the expected, but the desired should be that they are escorted out of the event by security. I have never said there shouldn't be ramifications for someone's actions.

people paid to hear him speak, they don't get to decide whether you should be allowed to listen.

Saying that its OK to act like that is akin to giving a 2 year old that cookie to stop his temper tantrum...

I haven't once said it is ok - just that some reactions are going to be expected based on the actions.

nm

"I guess then being shouted down is going to be the expected outcome"

From liberals, yes. From conservatives, no. I would like to know why that is.

Why can conservatives tolerate that which offends them, but not liberals?

Paul, not speaking in absolutes by any means, just generalizations, OK?

It is stunning that someone who claims to be moral, fair minded, objective, a centrist who sees the good and bad of all sides, can flat out, without reservation, criticism, or dismay, say that irrational disorderly conduct should be expected from those who have graduated through our educational systems and are currently enrolled and taught in our higher educational institutions.

If he cannot comment on the failure of our supposedly liberal institutions to teach our children the value of free speech and polite moral behavior, then it appears that he is blind to the failure, or embraces the rude, destructive behavior as actually the right and moral thing to do--and lauds our educational system for turning out such beings.

"I guess then being shouted down is going to be the expected outcome"

From liberals, yes. From conservatives, no. I would like to know why that is.

Why can conservatives tolerate that which offends them, but not liberals?

Paul, not speaking in absolutes by any means, just generalizations, OK?

Your ignoring the fact that most people in college (according to Buckman) are libs. bc the farmers, factory workers and tradesman, etc. are all cons. So you have a much higher % of people in college who are lib vs cons. Adding in the fact that everyone has ignored the age of the people in college where that age pop. does stupid stuff. So applying that sample to the whole pop. is going to get you the wrong answer when you make a generalization.

Your ignoring the fact that most people in college (according to Buckman) are libs. bc the farmers, factory workers and tradesman, etc. are all cons. So you have a much higher % of people in college who are lib vs cons. Adding in the fact that everyone has ignored the age of the people in college where that age pop. does stupid stuff. So applying that sample to the whole pop. is going to get you the wrong answer when you make a generalization.

OK. Let's make this really simple, because you are going to bend over backwards to avoid admitting I am right...

If you look at all politically-motivated riots over the last 10 years (not just on college campuses), what % do you think were started by conservatives, and what % do you think were stared by liberals?

Gets tiresome, Paul. A little intellectual honesty would be appreciated. If you really think that liberals don't engage in riots at a rate that is disproportionate to their portion of the population, then we should stop responding to each other altogether.

Adding in the fact that everyone has ignored the age of the people in college where that age pop. does stupid stuff. .

Your "answer" doesn't begin to explain why conservative college students (they do exist) don't riot when politics doesn't go the way they want. It doesn't happen. Abu Mumia Jamal gets to speak. Al Sharpton gets to speak., Bill Ayers gets to speak. Black Lives Matter gets to speak. Spike Lee gets to speak. Zero riots. Zip. Just peaceful protests.

OK. Let's make this really simple, because you are going to bend over backwards to avoid admitting I am right...

If you look at all politically-motivated riots over the last 10 years (not just on college campuses), what % do you think were started by conservatives, and what % do you think were stared by liberals?

Gets tiresome, Paul. A little intellectual honesty would be appreciated. If you really think that liberals don't engage in riots at a rate that is disproportionate to their portion of the population, then we should stop responding to each other altogether.

As I said before you are assuming what a small % of the population does represents the whole population and assigning that thing to the full population - even though the demographics of the sample are totally different than the whole population. That is not intellectually honest.

That is like my saying the we know the kkk is racist and supports rep. therefore all reps. are racist. If you really think that cons. don't engage in racism at a rate that is disproportionate to their portion of the population, then we should stop responding to each other altogether.

As I said before you are assuming what a small % of the population does represents the whole population and assigning that thing to the full population - even though the demographics of the sample are totally different than the whole population. That is not intellectually honest.

That is like my saying the we know the kkk is racist and supports rep. therefore all reps. are racist. If you really think that cons. don't engage in racism at a rate that is disproportionate to their portion of the population, then we should stop responding to each other altogether.

"you are assuming what a small % of the population does represents the whole population "

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I am not saying al liberals are rioters, or that all liberals support riots (though not many pundits criticize the rioters, most justify it). Again, I ask a simple question, and instead of answering, you point out some of my many flaws.

Here is what I am doing. I am asking you, if liberals are more prone to riot, than conservatives. I'm not saying all liberals do it, I am not saying all liberals condone it. I am asking if politically-motivated rioting exists more commonly on the left than the right.

Yes or no?

I happily concede all of my shortcomings, you don't need to point them out, this is a yes or no answer. And if the answer is yes (which it obviously is), here is the real question - why?

That is like my saying the we know the kkk is racist and supports rep. therefore all reps. are racist. If you really think that cons. don't engage in racism at a rate that is disproportionate to their portion of the population, then we should stop responding to each other altogether.

Not remotely the same thing. Because 99% of the republicans in DC, and the conservative pundits you see on TV, call out the KKK for what they are.

Very, very few liberal politicians, and very few liberal talking heads, suggest that the rioters are wrong because even offensive conservatives have the right to speak.

Every single host on Foxnews despises the Klan. How many hosts at CNN tell the college rioters to shut up and let Milo speak?

That is like my saying the we know the kkk is racist and supports rep. therefore all reps. are racist.

Funny - history shows they were Dems and progressives

Funny - history shows they were Dems and progressives

Obviously true, but his point (which is also true) is that today, most Klansmen probably vote Republican. Which is actually against their cause in my opinion, but that's a separate issue for another time.

It's also a safe bet that most Islamic radicals vote democrat. Same with drug dealers, black panthers, and welfare cheats. So I'm not sure either party wants to be identified by the worst elements in their voting base.

My point is that Republicans don't excuse the behavior of racists in their midst. But these liberal rioters, when do they ever get criticized by liberal pundits or liberal politicians? When do they ever get called fascists by liberals on CNN or ABC or NBC?

Funny - history shows they were Dems and progressives

Yes, historically but not anymore. Parties flipped flopped.

"you are assuming what a small % of the population does represents the whole population "

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I am not saying al liberals are rioters, or that all liberals support riots sure, that is exactly what you do. Very rarely do you specify the sub set you are talking about. (though not many pundits criticize the rioters, most justify it). Again, I ask a simple question, and instead of answering, you point out some of my many flaws.

Here is what I am doing. I am asking you, if liberals are more prone to riot, than conservatives.No, I don't think so. I'm not saying all liberals do it, I am not saying all liberals condone it. I am asking if politically-motivated rioting exists more commonly on the left than the right.I would agree that there are more liberals in college than conserv. in college who "riot" but I think there are more people in those "riots" who have no political affiliation or identification than identify as liberal. When BLM rioted, those folks were angry that they felt they were treated differently from whites - their policital party (if they even had one) had nothing to do with it. In some of the riots, some of the people are anarchists, some are doing it bc of the mob mentality and some are doing bc they want to steal things.

Yes or no?

I happily concede all of my shortcomings, you don't need to point them out, this is a yes or no answer. And if the answer is yes (which it obviously is), here is the real question - why?

You're making a broad generalization by assigning something to them that I don't think is correct.

You're making a broad generalization by assigning something to them that I don't think is correct.

So you don't think liberals are more prone to political riots than conservatives. Thank you for providing a direct answer.

So you can point to as many conservative-led riots, as I can point to liberal-led riots? You really think so?

Can you name a single conservative-led political riot from the last 20 years? Because if I factor in the Trump election, what happens at every college when a conservative tries to speak, what happens every time white police officer shoots a black person, I can come up with many, many examples of liberal-led riots.

You're making a broad generalization by assigning something to them that I don't think is correct.

"When BLM rioted, those folks were angry that they felt they were treated differently from whites - their policital party (if they even had one) had nothing to do with it. "

Bullsh*t.

It's the democrat machine that fuels the notion that institutional racism exists, and it's the democratic machine that perpetuates the horrible lie that white police officers are a problem.

I haven't once said it is ok - just that some reactions are going to be expected based on the actions.

And, after actions against free speech, happen over and over and are not stopped by those who should stop the suppression of speech, then eventually, reactions to the shutting down of free speech "are [as you say] going to be expected,". It's going to get crazy if the thugs who are stopping people from speaking are not stopped:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbmjFD4KBjc

Interesting opponent versus Warren. Does he have a chance?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5XoMUIV5so

You can only afford to be a liberal if your young and just starting out or poor and living on handouts. Once you start to take off, it is a luxury you can't afford. I am in favor in helping folks that legitimaly need it, I don't want people dying or living in the streets to other 3rd world countries signing up with the Russians or Chinese. It would be great to cut taxes for all of us. What could you do with an extra 5 or 10 k of your own hard earned money. I live in Mass. This is a list of taxes I have to pay.
Real estate tax
sales tax
federal Tax
social security tax
Auto Excise Tax
Mooring Tax
trash pick fee
dump fee
sports fees
school bus fee
medicare tax
unemployment tax
Equipment Tax
cell phone tax

What I could do with that extra money.

What you could do with that extra money.

What a world.

Interesting opponent versus Warren. Does he have a chance?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5XoMUIV5so

He's coming out swinging, that's for sure. He offered to pay for her DNA test to see how much Native American DNA she really has.

I think Warren has set her sights higher than the US Senate. Me think-um that Princess Spreading Bull wants to live in teepee of Great White Chief. Ugh.

I am very happy this post got brought back to life.

each party's version of bat-#^&#^&#^&#^& crazy on the same ballot. Yeah, that would be just friggin awesome.

I'm just gonna vote myself off the island :wall:

Interesting opponent versus Warren. Does he have a chance?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5XoMUIV5so

Hey, isn't this guy a Nazi? :hihi:

Liberals learned a long time ago, that their agenda doesn't play well in most of America. So what liberals did, in order to advance their agenda, was concentrate on taking over the media and academia. It was brilliant, you genuinely have to give them credit from a strategic point of view.

When I was in college, I was a registered Democrat. It made perfect sense to me, to eliminate poverty by taking just a little bit more from the fabulously wealthy, who could not possibly miss a few pennies here and there. I really believed (because it's all I was taught in college, and all I saw on TV) that conservatives were happy to let poor people starve to death, so that millionaires could become billionaires. I heard that 100 times a day, and it was never, ever challenged. And I was a math major, not a sociology major, and I still got indoctrinated.

It was in my mid 20s when I realized how moronic all of that is. But college kids don't know any better, so it's very effective at creating liberals. And 99% of America doesn't watch Foxnews, so most people only hear Hilary say that people like me are deplorable, most people never hear the other point of view, they never get to see any challenges to liberalism. Because an honest presentation of what conservatism is, only happens on one network. On every other network, conservatives are described in awful language.

Local kid is scheduled to graduate from UMass Amherst in May. 25 year old Marine Corps veteran did tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. He cannot wait to get out. Is surrounded by anti-American teaching. His very words. It is nothing more than a factory to indoctrinate the American youth into becoming left leaning Democratic socialists! Just before his Thanksgiving break hid class was given a writing assignment that was to confess how as a white person, what it was like to grow up with such entitlements...... Are you kidding me? Apologizing for who he is? Another reason my alma mater will never get a dime from me again

Local kid is scheduled to graduate from UMass Amherst in May. 25 year old Marine Corps veteran did tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. He cannot wait to get out. Is surrounded by anti-American teaching. His very words. It is nothing more than a factory to indoctrinate the American youth into becoming left leaning Democratic socialists! Just before his Thanksgiving break hid class was given a writing assignment that was to confess how as a white person, what it was like to grow up with such entitlements...... Are you kidding me? Apologizing for who he is? Another reason my alma mater will never get a dime from me again
How is walking in another person's shoes anti-American?

Try walking in a Marine's shoes....... It is an indoctrination, not an education. I'm done if you can't see it

Try walking in a Marine's shoes....... It is an indoctrination, not an education. I'm done if you can't see it

That's bull#^&#^&#^&#^&. Total spin. Time to think.

That's bull#^&#^&#^&#^&. Total spin. Time to think.

Very full of thought response.

How is walking in another person's shoes anti-American?

It's idiotic to presume that a white kid is more privileged than a black kid. Oprah Winfrey's kid has fewer advantages than a poor white kid, from a broken family?

Your party is embracing the exact opposite, and I mean the absolute exact opposite, of what Martin Luther King hoped for. Your side has created a political point of view, where all that matters, are the superficial differences between us. Your side is doing that, because their ideas are so idiotic, they can only win by playing identity politics. So instead of debating why Senator Tom Cotton is wrong on a given issue, liberals talk about why he is evil. Much easier to demonize him, than to attempt to make him wrong.

It's idiotic to presume that a white kid is more privileged than a black kid. .

Think. You can do it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And I love when this thread gets resurrected occasionally, it's the best title of any thread since Al Gore invented the internet.

That's bull#^&#^&#^&#^&. Total spin. Time to think.

"Anti American teaching". From the mouth of a US Marine combat veteran. I have been thinking about that. A lot.....

"Anti American teaching". From the mouth of a US Marine combat veteran. I have been thinking about that. A lot.....

Says 1 conservative marine ... does being a marine give him the credentials to to decide whats Anti American teaching? but yet the Local kid is scheduled to graduate from UMass Amherst?
couldn't have been that much to bear

It's idiotic to presume that a white kid is more privileged than a black kid.

not all but most... and failing to see the world as it is rather then how you wish it was seems to be a conservative Trait

And i guess Trumps latest Pocahontas comment is to indoctrinate his base of support for his unprofessional behavior that they seem to love

and totally disrespects the office but people are more upset about a writing assignment

Says 1 conservative marine ... does being a marine give him the credentials to to decide whats Anti American teaching?

Wayne...what would be your definition of "Anti American"?

Try walking in a Marine's shoes.......

Spence could only do so after Labor Day, but then again "Dress Blues" was never his color either.



There's a lot of BS taking place on the College campuses now-a-days. Both my kids have told me some of the stupid chit they've seen at their respective schools.

It's idiotic to presume that a white kid is more privileged than a black kid.

not all but most... and failing to see the world as it is rather then how you wish it was seems to be a conservative Trait



The reason so many black kids are disadvantaged, is because 70% of them are born without a dad. That has absolutely nothing to do with skin color, and absolutely everything to do with the culture that people tend to embrace, and the decisions they choose to make. It's not "white" privilege. It's "stable family" privilege. Liberals never stop mocking traditional family values, and then they act surprised when the lack of family values has catastrophic societal effects.

White kids from broken, chaotic families tend to struggle. Black kids from stable homes, with two parents of opposite sex who are committed to the family, tend to do just fine. It's not about race. It's about the family, or lack thereof.

The late great liberal senator from NY, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, predicted 45 years ago that liberalism would be the end of the black nuclear family, and that it would be a disaster for blacks. He was excoriated for saying it. And he was 100% correct.

"And i guess Trumps latest Pocahontas comment is to indoctrinate his base of support for his unprofessional behavior that they seem to love"

It was a classless thing for him to do, in that setting.

Think. You can do it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Think on this, Nebe. And good luck making it wrong...

For the most part, black kids don't struggle because of the color of their skin. They struggle, because 70% of them, don't have a dad. Every study ever done, has shown that kids do much better with two parents in the home.

Liberals hate that truth, they deny that truth, and they mock that truth. That's liberalism. Instead of modifying your agenda to fit the facts, it's easier to just deny all the facts that don't fit your agenda. Conservatives do it too, but not to this degree, and not leading to these kinds of disastrous results.

She is already calling police chiefs to explain that what she said was taken out of context.... LEOs are not a good group to piss off, IMO. Think any State Police will be on the look out as she traverses the state today to various speaking engagements?

She is already calling police chiefs to explain that what she said was taken out of context.... LEOs are not a good group to piss off, IMO. Think any State Police will be on the look out as she traverses the state today to various speaking engagements?

what did princess spreading bull say now?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She is already calling police chiefs to explain that what she said was taken out of context.... LEOs are not a good group to piss off, IMO. Think any State Police will be on the look out as she traverses the state today to various speaking engagements?
i looked it up, shocker she says the criminal justice system is racist. liberals never make false claims if racism so it must be true, right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i looked it up, shocker she says the criminal justice system is racist. liberals never make false claims if racism so it must be true, right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

now she’s walking it back, saying she was talking about the system, not the people.

what is the system other than the people who work therein?

she’s such an #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&. she lies about being a native american to get a job, and says that cops who risk their lives all day long trying to help people, are racist.

she’s absolutely disgusting. the title of this thread is the best title ever, and should always be kept going. a putrid, wretched gargoyle.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i looked it up, shocker she says the criminal justice system is racist. liberals never make false claims if racism so it must be true, right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


a completely foolish statement its her Charlotte moment ..

And its in poor taste for Yarmouth’s top cop, who said her recent condolences for two slain Bay State officers is a slap in the face. Please .. you dont use the fallen officers to support you personal comments .. the 2 issues are unrelated



like it or not. There are elements of racism in our Justice system ... thats not debatable ... But to make the statement "front to back " with out details was dumb

a completely foolish statement its her Charlotte moment ..

And its in poor taste for Yarmouth’s top cop, who said her recent condolences for two slain Bay State officers is a slap in the face. Please .. you dont use the fallen officers to support you personal comments .. the 2 issues are unrelated



like it or not. There are elements of racism in our Justice system ... thats not debatable ... But to make the statement "front to back " with out details was dumb

yes there are racists in the criminal justice system, like there are racists everywhere, including academia and politics. nothing inherently more racist about people who work in your field, they are just easy targets to rile her base. you guys don’t deserve that, you put yourself at risk to protect others, but she wine say that because she scores more points saying something else.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence has a vote waiting for her
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence has a vote waiting for her
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Not likely...don't think it will come to that though.

That being said, there's a lot to like about this proposal...

https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/warren-introduces-accountable-capitalism-act

That being said, there's a lot to like about this proposal...

https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/warren-introduces-accountable-capitalism-act

Spence salutes...


"It is also cynical. Senator Warren is many things: a crass opportunist, intellectually bankrupt, personally vapid, a peddler of witless self-help books, etc. But she is not stupid. She knows that this is a go-nowhere proposition, that she will be spared by the Republican legislative majority from the ignominy that would ensue from the wholehearted pursuit of this daft program. It is in reality only a means of staking out for purely strategic reasons the most radical corner for her 2020 run at the Democratic presidential nomination. The Democratic party in 2018, like the Republican primary electorate in 2016, is out for blood and desirous of confrontation. So Senator Warren is running this red flag up the flagpole to see who salutes."

Actually her proposal brings together a lot of ideas from Republicans and CEO's.

The national review piece you quoted is completely unhinged...

The national review piece you quoted is completely unhinged...

that's funny

I don't think the author even knows what a benefit corporation is. Does he know Mike Pence signed it into law in OH?

More bad stuff from your favorite Senator

ELIZABETH WARREN ON Tuesday unveiled a sweeping set of reforms that would radically restrict and publicly expose corporate lobbying in Washington.

In a major speech at the National Press Club, she laid out the parameters of what she is calling the “Anti-Corruption Act.” If just half of it were implemented, it could transform the political economy of Washington and fundamentally upend the lawmaking process as it currently exists.

Warren began her speech by noting that only 18 percent of the American people now say that they have trust in the government. “This is the kind of crisis that leads people to turn away from democracy,” she said. “The kind of crisis that creates fertile ground for cynicism and discouragement. The kind of crisis that gives rise to authoritarians.”


In broad strokes, Warren is attempting to take the profit motive out of public service by making it extremely difficult for former lawmakers and government officials to cash in on their government experience, while simultaneously giving Congress and federal agencies the resources needed to effectively govern without the motivated assistance of K Street.

In 1995, when Newt Gingrich and the “Republican Revolution” took over Congress, he systematically dismantled the intellectual infrastructure of the institution, defunding major functions of Congress and slashing budgets for staff. The public-facing explanation was to cut back on wasteful spending, but the true intent was to effectively privatize lawmaking, forcing Congress to outsource much of the work of crafting legislation to K Street. What followed was an explosion in the lobbying industry in Washington.

Warren proposes much stricter restrictions on the revolving door between public service and lobbying, but, more fundamentally, flat-out bans on any lobbying on behalf of foreign governments, an industry that has come under increased scrutiny as a result of the trial of Paul Manafort, who made his fortune carrying water for foreign governments in Washington, often whose interests ran against those of the U.S.

Under current law, foreign agents must register and disclose any contacts with government officials — they would now be banned and under Warren’s law, all lobbyists would have to do what foreign agents do now.

Her bill would also mandate that the IRS release tax returns for candidates, and that the president and vice president be subject to conflict-of-interest laws. She would create a new Office of Public Integrity to enforce the new ethics laws.

The new proposal comes on the heels of the Accountable Capitalism Act, and is a window into what she sees as one of the main functions of government, to be a check against runaway capitalism but in significant ways to strengthen, rather than challenge, the free market. “I am a capitalist to my bones,” Warren said recently, in response to the conversation around democratic socialism.

Where some on the left view markets with deep skepticism, Warren’s ideology sees concentrations of corporate power as a great threat, but views functioning markets as a check against that consolidated power. For markets to function properly, she has long argued, robust government regulation and serious enforcement of laws must be in place, otherwise fraudsters and monopolists ripoff both consumers and investors. That ideology led to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and undergirds her more recent proposals.

The vision is not in conflict with democratic socialist reforms such as Medicare for all (which she supports) or free public college (which she also supports), but it’s more a matter of emphasis. Where Bernie Sanders made eliminating college tuition central to his campaign, Warren has for years focused on exposing abuses by student lenders. Where Sanders has become synonymous with Medicare for all, Warren this year unveiled a plan she argued should be implemented if the loftier goal is out of reach, relying heavily on cracking down on insurance companies and expanding subsidies for purchasers of insurance.

Corporate interests are ideologically opposed to proposals like Medicare for all, and will rally resources to oppose it if and when Congress considers it in a serious way. But Warren’s use of government and law enforcement to reshape the political economy hits corporate America in a visceral way. The animosity for the CFPB is difficult to overstate, as the agency was empowered to launch investigations into corrupt firms that had the capacity to destroy those companies. Bringing the hammer of the law down on Washington corruption will likely be met with an equally visceral reaction.

When it comes to Warren’s proposal, the elephant in the Senate is Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. If Warren were able to ultimately implement some of her anti-corruption agenda, it’s near certain those impacted would challenge elements of it in federal court — courts that Donald Trump is busy stacking with right-wing ideologues. That Warren is pushing forward nonetheless also goes to the heart of her approach to government, which is never to shy from a fight.

“I’m not here to describe the death of democracy. I’m here to talk about fighting back,” she said Tuesday.

Sounds like the swamp draining I would support.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sounds like the swamp draining I would support.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When politicians sell influence to the highest bidder, that's bad for everyone. Would Warren's bill also limit/ban contributions from labor unions? Or only from other businesses? People tend to forget that just as the GOP gets donations from Wall Street, so do the democrats get donations from labor unions and Hollywood. They all have their masters.

Also interesting that Warren is sad that the public has such little trust in Washington,. Coming from someone who lied about her ethnicity when applying for a job paying 400k, that's pretty interesting.

God I hope she gets the nomination.

When politicians sell influence to the highest bidder, that's bad for everyone. Would Warren's bill also limit/ban contributions from labor unions? Or only from other businesses? People tend to forget that just as the GOP gets donations from Wall Street, so do the democrats get donations from labor unions and Hollywood. They all have their masters.

Those evil labor unions are not the big donors
The top five donors to super PACs in the 2016 election are all billionaires or, at least, worth nine figures. There’s the environmentalist former hedge fund manager Tom Steyer. He has donated $66.2 million to NextGen Climate Action, his super PAC supporting Democratic candidates who back action to counter climate change. Republican casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson and his wife have donated $52.9 million. S. Donald Sussman, the Democratic hedge fund billionaire, has given $37.2 million to an array of super PACs. Newsweb Corporation chairman Fred Eychaner has supported Democrats with $32.1 million in super PAC donations. Facebook billionaire Dustin Moskovitz and his wife, Cari Tuna, have donated $22 million to super PACs supporting Democrats.

These donors combined to give more than $210 million ― more than all reported election spending by labor unions. In total, super PAC donations by rich people giving more than $500,000 topped $757 million by Oct. 19. That’s nearly six times the amount donated by labor.

Pete,
Jim didn’t say they were the big donors, he asked a question or 2 and you did not even come close to answering it.
This is why I choose to contribute less to this forum. Same nonsense back and forth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Those evil labor unions are not the big donors
The top five donors to super PACs in the 2016 election are all billionaires or, at least, worth nine figures. There’s the environmentalist former hedge fund manager Tom Steyer. He has donated $66.2 million to NextGen Climate Action, his super PAC supporting Democratic candidates who back action to counter climate change. Republican casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson and his wife have donated $52.9 million. S. Donald Sussman, the Democratic hedge fund billionaire, has given $37.2 million to an array of super PACs. Newsweb Corporation chairman Fred Eychaner has supported Democrats with $32.1 million in super PAC donations. Facebook billionaire Dustin Moskovitz and his wife, Cari Tuna, have donated $22 million to super PACs supporting Democrats.

These donors combined to give more than $210 million ― more than all reported election spending by labor unions. In total, super PAC donations by rich people giving more than $500,000 topped $757 million by Oct. 19. That’s nearly six times the amount donated by labor.

Why did you specify the donors to super PACs, as opposed to the top donors who give directly to the candidate? Trying to hide something?

Labor unions don't give meaningful money to democrats? Then it wouldn't be a big deal to stop taking it. Go ahead and propose that.

Pete,
Jim didn’t say they were the big donors, he asked a question or 2 and you did not even come close to answering it.
This is why I choose to contribute less to this forum. Same nonsense back and forth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The refusal to answer direct points really is something.

The refusal to answer direct points really is something.
This is a proposal for a bill, not written legislation.
Warren is a politician, of course she would propose things that are somewhat weighted to her perceived constituents advantage.
It still has to go thru the legislative process, where things get added and subtracted, at least in theory all legislators get to weigh in on it.
You find something that you think could be objectionable, with no basis and complain about it, claiming that you are sure some group or individual you object to would get an unfair advantage.
As far as math goes feel free to divide the $757 million by 6 to come up with an approximate number for how much labor unions donate in this case, all I did was try to illustrate that Labor unions are nowhere near as powerful as some think. If you think there is some secret money, feel free to show me.

This is a proposal for a bill, not written legislation.
Warren is a politician, of course she would propose things that are somewhat weighted to her perceived constituents advantage.
It still has to go thru the legislative process, where things get added and subtracted, at least in theory all legislators get to weigh in on it.
You find something that you think could be objectionable, with no basis and complain about it, claiming that you are sure some group or individual you object to would get an unfair advantage.
As far as math goes feel free to divide the $757 million by 6 to come up with an approximate number for how much labor unions donate in this case, all I did was try to illustrate that Labor unions are nowhere near as powerful as some think. If you think there is some secret money, feel free to show me.

Warren has her big donors too, including Wall Street and well connected law firms. How come it's OK when she takes donations from corporations, but sinister when everyone else does it?

And for once, instead of you posting an article, how about you tell me what you think about it.

I started writing something but in theory, remember there are a ton of details, I agree with what she proposes on reform in washington pretty completely.
My concern is that in Congress things typically get gutted to the point where they mean nothing or have enough exemptions that they are easily worked around for someone's benefit.

Sorry, but this made me chuckle...

I named my diesel Volkswagen donald trump. It’s orange and it lied to pass emissions.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ahhhh, but it still passed and you have it for another year

Did my civic duty to get rid of this awful woman.

I voted early and apparently I did vote often enough because they called it an hour after closing 3000 to 1500 but that can’t be.

This state is becoming a lost cause
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I voted early and apparently I did vote often enough because they called it an hour after closing 3000 to 1500 but that can’t be.

This state is becoming a lost cause
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I got a kick out of that last night, they were calling it with <1% of precincts reporting. :huh:

Hahahahaha

"I should have been more… mindful....." before she willingly signed documents describing herself as Native American.... for the Texas bar, Harvard, UPenn, and God knows where else....
Now hopefully she just goes away, if only as a second tier Senator. A death knell for her presidential bid?

Hahahahaha

"I should have been more… mindful....." before she willingly signed documents describing herself as Native American.... for the Texas bar, Harvard, UPenn, and God knows where else....
Now hopefully she just goes away, if only as a second tier Senator. A death knell for her presidential bid?
Here’s hoping she takes a hike
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hahahahaha

"I should have been more… mindful....." before she willingly signed documents describing herself as Native American.... for the Texas bar, Harvard, UPenn, and God knows where else....
Now hopefully she just goes away, if only as a second tier Senator. A death knell for her presidential bid?

she didn’t lie, she just wasn’t sensitive enough. that press conference was wonderful
to behold.

round eye who want-um live in teepee of great white chief, will regret lies for many moons.

and for her slander if the covington kids, she
might have to fork over many wampum.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'd say no way she runs after that tidbit was published.

I'd say no way she runs after that tidbit was published.

She still hasn't cancelled her Big Announcement rally in Lawrence as of yet.

She still hasn't cancelled her Big Announcement rally in Lawrence as of yet.

i hope she runs and gets the
nomination. she should
go home tonight, crack open another beer in that relaxed, totally natural, not staged at all fashion we saw on the video, and do some
soul searching.

Ugh!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i am so happy this thread was started and is still around.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So am I, Jim. So am I, a year later.

Such satisfaction to see, and hear, her dropping out. POS woman. Now get your azz back to work being a Senator, at least until we can vote your azz out. (Which should not be much of a stretch after her third place showing in Mass on Super Tuesday!) Almost three years after starting this thread, and tolerating its hijacks, I feel quietly vindicated to know that she now also knows; the people are not with you, Elizabeth!

I'd say no way she runs after that tidbit was published.



SB predictors have a terrible record :rotf2:

Warren is playing a very interesting game right now, except for her PRC driveway press talk. Staying uncommitted until the offers start coming in? Not sure Bernie or Joe are quite that desperate yet or ever will be. Maybe poison to either one. Convention could be the "best" since Chicago!