he's actually provided the explanation to your question quite nicely which contiues to lend creedence your mental disorder contention but the "liberal" term in any historical sense of the word hardly applies to today's left...I can't call them liberals anymore...it's unfair to the word:uhuh:

America's left and democrat party is following and promoting a Progressive agenda which Detbuch has concisely pointed out....is the very definition of anti-American

4 more years.....

They used to be controlled by the Constitution. But now that they have subverted it--no one.

Of course, their intentions are good. So don't worry.

My first response--"no one"--was off-hand, a bit facetious, but not completely off the mark. The real answer would be that the "controllers" and those "who want to be controlled" are controlling each other in a symbiotic relationship. As I've mentioned before, the progressives cannot escape the necessity of feeding the beast they have created. If they do, they both become extinct. The transfers of wealth, the ever-expanding "safety net," the promises of guaranteed security and comfort, of health care and unsustainable benefits, of jobs created by fiat rather than effort, of a social utopia, must be sustained, even if beyond reason or economic viability.

When Jim in CT keeps wondering why the left cannot recognize simple math in relation to the "economy" he doesn't recognize the life and death struggle to which the progressive movement has evolved. It is not about some mere recognition of simple math, it is about maintaining the perception that the progressive agenda "works." That it is ultimately beneficial more than is what they consider outmoded notions of individualism and self reliance and the restraints of the Constitution.

"Perception is reality" as a mode of conduct is a misapplication of relativity. Perception may be relative, but it is not reality. Relativity may explain why an object may be perceived to be standing still in relation to a viewer when in reality both the perceiver and the object are not standing still but are moving at the same pace in the same direction. The notion that perception is actually reality is saying that there is no such thing as reality in an objective sense. It is mostly a useless notion. One who will cross a busy intersection when for whatever personal "perception" he sees no cars may soon be perceiving his own funeral. Taken to its apogee, such a notion assumes the perceiver is God--"reality" is merely a creation of his perception.

But the notion is very useful in politics. At least in the nefarious practice of politics. The molding of mass perception is that method that used to be referred to as propaganda. That word was used a lot in much of the 20th century, especially during the "cold war" between Communism and the West. You don't hear the word used much anymore. Perhaps, the cold war is perceived to have been won. Or, perhaps, those engaging in it prefer not to call attention to the method. And if the media is complicit, or cowed into being called reactionary if it calls attention to it, the thought, or perception, of such a notion disappears.

So the symbiotic relation between the controllers and those who want to be controlled is facilitated by creating the perception that the controllers are constantly fighting for their underlings. That the negative economy, and the conflicts in society are problems they have inherited from a rapacious and oppressive past, but that there is and has been constant improvement due to their effort. And if those being controlled keep perceiving that things are getting better for them and the controllers are working hard at making it so, they will keep voting for them. If, however, there is a collapse, the votes will not be forthcoming. So it is necessary for the controllers to keep the controlled happy--or, at least, that they perceive they are happy.

And if such a time arrives that the perception is lost, and the reality of an unsustainable society becomes obvious, then do the controllers simply admit their error and go away? Or do we move on to a 1984ish or Brave New Worldish perception of reality.

YO, SPENCE -

In light of what Scott posted, and in light iof the robbery that killed 2 cops and a security guard, let me ask you straight up...are the Weather Underground terrorists, or not?

You accused me of being "casual" in my using the terrorist label with these violent kooks. So please enlighten us...what is it that differentiates the Weather Underground from terrorists?

If those that bomb abortion clinincs are terrorists, and of course they are, I fail to see how the Weather Underground fails to meet the criteria. Please, don't keep that wisdom and knowledge to yourself...do the liberal thing, and share the wealth!

We're all ears, and are giddy with anticipation...

The Weather Underground Organization (WUO), commonly known as the Weather Underground, was an American radical left organization founded on the Ann Arbor campus of the University of Michigan. Originally called Weatherman, the group became known colloquially as the Weathermen. Weatherman first organized in 1969 as a faction of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)[2] composed for the most part of the national office leadership of SDS and their supporters.

Their goal was to create a clandestine revolutionary party for the overthrow of the US government.[3]

With revolutionary positions characterized by Black liberation rhetoric,[2] the group conducted a campaign of bombings through the mid-1970s, including aiding the jailbreak and escape of Timothy Leary. The "Days of Rage", their first public demonstration on October 8, 1969, was a riot in Chicago timed to coincide with the trial of the Chicago Seven. In 1970 the group issued a "Declaration of a State of War" against the United States government, under the name "Weather Underground Organization" (WUO).[4]

At an SDS convention in Chicago on June 18, 1969, the National Office attempted to persuade unaffiliated delegates not to endorse a takeover of SDS by Progressive Labor who had packed the convention with their supporters.[8] At the beginning of the convention, two position papers were passed out by the National Office leadership, one a revised statement of Klonksy's RYM manifesto, the other called "You Don't Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows". The latter document outlined the position of the group that would become the Weathermen. It had been signed by Karen Ashley, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, John Jacobs, Jeff Jones, Gerry Long, Howie Machtinger, Jim Mellen, Terry Robbins, Mark Rudd, and Steve Tappis. The document called for creating a clandestine revolutionary party.

"The most important task for us toward making the revolution, and the work our collectives should engage in, is the creation of a mass revolutionary movement, without which a clandestine revolutionary party will be impossible. A revolutionary mass movement is different from the traditional revisionist mass base of "sympathizers". Rather it is akin to the Red Guard in China, based on the full participation and involvement of masses of people in the practice of making revolution; a movement with a full willingness to participate in the violent and illegal struggle."[9]

"Weatherman would shove the war down their dumb, fascist throats and show them, while we were at it, how much better we were than them, both tactically and strategically, as a people. In an all-out civil war over Vietnam and other fascist U.S. imperialism, we were going to bring the war home. 'Turn the imperialists' war into a civil war', in Lenin's words. And we were going to kick ass".

In July 1969, 30 members of Weatherman leadership traveled to Cuba and met with North Vietnamese representatives to gain from their revolutionary experience. The North Vietnamese requested armed political action in order to stop the U.S. Government's war in Vietnam. Subsequently, they accepted funding, training, recommendations on tactics and slogans from Cuba, and perhaps explosives as well.

The "Flint War Council," was a series of meetings of the Weather Underground Organization and associates in Flint, Michigan, that took place from 27–31 December 1969.[60] During these meetings, the decisions were made for the Weather Underground Organization to go underground [22] and to "engage in guerilla warfare against the U.S. government."[61] This decision was made in response to increased pressure from law enforcement,[62] and a belief that underground guerilla warfare was the best way to combat the U.S. government.[61]

On February 16, 1970 a nail bomb placed on a window ledge of the Park Police substation in the Upper Haight neighborhood of San Francisco exploded at 10:45 p.m. The blast killed police Sergeant Brian McDonnell. Law enforcement suspected the Weather Underground but was unable to prove conclusively that the organization was involved.[64] A second officer, Robert Fogarty, was partially blinded by the bomb’s shrapnel. Secret federal grand juries were convened in 2001 and again in 2009 to re-open the Park Precinct cold case in an attempt to again tie WUO members Billy Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Howie Machtinger and others to the deadly bombing.[65] Ultimately, it was concluded that members of the Black Liberation Army, whom WUO members affiliated with while underground, were responsible for not only this action but also the bombing of another police precinct in San Francisco as well as bombing the Catholic Church funeral services of the police officer killed in the Park Precinct bombing in the early summer of 1970.

probably not coincidentally, three members were killed the next month when a nail bomb that they were construction exploded in their safe house apartment

On March 6, 1970, during preparations for the bombing of a Non-Commissioned Officers’ (NCO) dance at the Fort Dix U.S. Army base and for Butler Library at Columbia University,[2] there was an explosion in a Greenwich Village safe house when the nail bomb being constructed prematurely detonated for unknown reasons. WUO members Diana Oughton, Ted Gold, and Terry Robbins died in the explosion.

An FBI report later stated that the group had possessed enough explosive to "level ... both sides of the street".

The bomb preparations have been pointed out by critics of the claim that the Weatherman group did not try to take lives with its bombings. Harvey Klehr, the Andrew W. Mellon professor of politics and history at Emory University in Atlanta, said in 2003, "The only reason they were not guilty of mass murder is mere incompetence. I don't know what sort of defense that is."

"it's worth noting that his (Ayers') actions weren't motivated by a hatred for America"

So what motivated him? It wasn't a desire to lead a violent revolt against the feds? .

"Had he (Ayers) been targeting abortion clinics you'd be spinning the other way"

Also stupid and demonstrably false. I have said many times that those who bomb abortion clinics are clearly terrorists.

I look at things objectively Spence. It is you, not me, who is completely, 100% blinded by ideology.

LOL
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there is a lot that is revealing.....:uhuh:

Ms. Boudin has a fascinating Wiki page....


highlights.....


Her great-uncle was Louis B. Boudin, a Marxist theorist.

Her father, attorney Leonard Boudin, had represented such controversial clients as Judith Coplon, Fidel Castro, and Paul Robeson.[2] A National Lawyers Guild attorney, Leonard Boudin was the law partner of Victor Rabinowitz, himself counsel to numerous left-wing organizations.

1965, her last year at Bryn Mawr was spent studying in the Soviet Union. She was paid 75 rubles a month by the Soviet government and, according to her résumé, taught on a Soviet collective farm.


In the 1960s and 1970s, Boudin became heavily involved with the Weather Underground, along with Cathy Wilkerson, was a survivor of the 1970 Greenwich Village townhouse explosion, the premature detonation of a nail bomb that had been intended for a soldiers' dance at Fort Dix, New Jersey.[3] Boudin was 27 at the time.

A declassified FBI report on foreign contacts of the Weather Underground Organization produced by the FBI’s Chicago Field Office reported that, "On February 10, 1976, a source in a position to possess such information advised that Leonard Boudin ... had indicated to a friend that Kathie [sic] was presently in Cuba."[citation needed] The law firm of Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman, P.C., provide legal representation for the Cuban government in the United States.

In 1981, when Kathy Boudin was 38 years old, she and several members of the Weather Underground and the Black Liberation Army robbed a Brinks armored car at the Nanuet Mall, in Nanuet, New York. After Boudin dropped her infant son, Chesa, at a baby sitter's, she took the wheel of the getaway vehicle, a U-Haul truck.

She waited in a nearby parking lot as her heavily armed accomplices took another vehicle to a local mall where a Brinks truck was making a delivery. They confronted the guards and gunfire immediately broke out, severely wounding guard Joe Trombino and killing his co-worker, Peter Paige. The four then took $1.6 million in cash and met with Boudin.

An alert high-school student called the police after spotting the gang abandoning the getaway vehicle and entering the U-Haul. A police officer spotted and pulled over the U-Haul, but they could see only Boudin in the driver's seat. Boudin then got out of the cab, and raised her hands.

The police officers who caught them testified that Boudin, feigning innocence, pleaded with them to put down their guns and got them to drop their guard; Boudin said she remained silent, that the officers relaxed spontaneously. After the police lowered their weapons, six of the men in the back of the truck armed with automatic weapons came out of the back of the truck, surprising the four police officers, one of whom, Waverly Brown, was killed instantly. Boudin and David Gilbert, a Weatherman radical and the father of Boudin's infant son, allegedly acted as decoys as well as getaway drivers: The Brinks robbers the police were searching for were all from the Black Liberation Army and drove a red car. Officer Edward O'Grady lived long enough to empty his revolver, but as he reloaded, he was shot several times with an M16. Ninety minutes later, he died in hospital. The other two officers escaped with only minor injuries. The occupants of the U-Haul scattered, some climbing into another getaway car, others carjacking a nearby motorist while Boudin attempted to flee on foot. An off-duty corrections officer, Michael J. Koch, apprehended her shortly after the shootout. When she was arrested, Boudin gave her name as Barbara Edson.


The majority of the defendants received three consecutive sentences of 25 years to life, making them eligible for parole in the year 2058. Boudin hired Leonard Weinglass to defend her. Weinglass, a law partner of Boudin's father, arranged for a plea bargain and Boudin pled guilty to one count of felony murder and robbery, in exchange for one twenty-year to life sentence.


Boudin and Gilbert's son Chesa Boudin was adopted by former Weatherman leaders Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn

She is presently an adjunct professor at Columbia University School of Social Work, a controversial appointment.




she sure has some experiences to share:uhuh:

The actions of Ayers and others were more violent protest than anything else. They communicated their target in advance with a specific purpose. I don't believe anyone ever was injured from their actions aside from some of their own who apparently didn't practice safe bomb making...

That's not to say it's not violent, not wrong or something to admire...but to compare it to modern terrorism, where mass pain is inflicted often upon innocent's just isn't quite right...it's not the same thing.

I don't think Ayers was ever even convicted of any crimes. Boudin certainly was (a robbery at that) and served her time.

Are they being "honored" or just recognized for their recent work?

What's the point of the entire thread? I really can't believe you're mulling this stuff over at night. You've been played by an election year (2 elections ago even!) hoax and for some reason just can't let it go.

I'll give you this, your faith is strong.

-spence

they spent much of their adult lives as members of a terrorist organization that clearly stated their goals.....they did bomb, people did die and sustain injuries as a result of their organization and provocation...that you can dismiss this is very disturbing.. what you continue to spout in their defense is their after the fact excuses....it's not coincidental that they found refuge in higher education....which is the point of this thread:uhuh:

Quite relevant to this discussion and Monday's attack on Boston...

The Weather Underground Organization has been talked about quite a few times in the news regarding previous bombings on US soil.

The Weathermen were referred to during their time and in legacy as terrorist. Whether bombing to create fear (or as you downplay it, "in violent protest") or bombing to maim, they are still terrorist acts. One action does not mean the other is excluded from the definition.

Terrorism, by it's very definition, is "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion."
Terrorism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

So, please explain how the Weathermen's planning bombings of government buildings, the CA state senator's office and banks as retaliation for Laos, Hanoi, Vietnam and others were not acts of terror.

The entire purpose driving the actions of the WUO was proclaimed by them as "the destruction of US imperialism and achieve a classless world: world communism".
Weatherman (organization)

"The destruction of US imperialism"... boy, does that sound awfully familiar to current day terrorists.

That is the nature of faith. Lack of faith, lack of belief in something enduring, makes strength irrelevant in a shifting world of relativity.

"I don't believe anyone ever was injured from their actions aside from some of their own who apparently didn't practice safe bomb making"

They planted bombs, Spence. They planted multiple bombs in pubilc buildings, as part of an attempt to violently overthrow the federal government. If those bombs didn't go off because of their own ineptitude, you give them credit for that?

"but to compare it to modern terrorism, where mass pain is inflicted often upon innocent's just isn't quite right...it's not the same thing."

In case you missed it from the last point...the only reason why they didn't kill people, is because their bombs didn't go off. Their intent was to kill people in furtherance of a political objective. Intent is what defines a terrorist, not just the resulting violence. Jeffrey Dahmer was not a terrorist. The Boston Strangler was not a terrorist.

"What's the point of the entire thread?"

Since your reading comprehension is off, I'll repeat. My intent was to ask why elite liberal universities honor murderers (like Bowdin and Abu Mumia Jamal) and heckle conservatives who have not hurt anyone(like Antonin Scalia and Ann Coulter).

Your response was that it's not an honor to make someone a professor at Columbia, and that the Weather Underground aren't all that bad because their bombs didn't go off through no intent of their own, and that Abu Mumia Jamal didn't get a fair trial in your opinion.

"I really can't believe you're mulling this stuff over at night."

I asked the question of whether or not mass murderers *(and those, like Ayers, who specifically set out to be mass-murderers) are fit to teach our children. I think that's a valid question. You disagree, presumably because nothing that a liberal does is worth scrutinizing.

"You've been played by an election year (2 elections ago even!) hoax "

OK. Spence, I contend that Bill Ayers hosted a political fundraiser for Obama (very early in Obama's political career) in his home. Is that true or is that a hoax? You tell us, please...

Let me answer for Spence...

"Because even though the Weather Underground's actions are precisely consistent with any rational definition of terrorism, if I conceded they were terrorists, that would be assigning blame to those on my side, and I cannot bring myself to do that."

Spence, you are precious...

You've brought this up a couple of times here. You are sayng that Ayers isn't the moral equivalent of a homicidal maniac, because he didn't kill anyone. Butthe only reason he didn't kill anyone, is because his bombs (planted with the intent to kill) didn't go off.

Do you really believe that?

Let's put that in context of what happened in Boston. If that murderer did everything the same...formulating his plan, research, decision-making, assembling the bomb, planting the bomb...but the bomb didn't detonate because he forgot to connect 2 wires...does that make him less evil, less of a homocisial maniac, more fit to teach your children, than we view that person today?

If all that matters is the body count (and intent isn't pertinent), what do you think of Ted Kennedy? He has just as many dead bodies in his wake as James Earl Ray (who murdered Martin Luther King), so do you view those 2 men the same way? In your eyes, are they equally fit to teach your children?

In terms of moral culpability, it obviously doesn't matter that the Weather Underground didn't kill anyone. The act of planting the bombs, with the intent they had, is what makes them homicidal terrorists. Not the results...The outcome speaks to their ineptitude, not to their moral culpability.

This is too precious...when a few weather Underground terrorists were killed making bombs (lots of dynamite mixed with nails for the bombs), there are reports that the bombs were to be used on 2 targets. An NCO dance at the Army base in Fort Dix NJ, and at the Columbia University library.

Why is this hysterical? Because one ofthe terrorists who survived that bomb blast was Kathy Bowdin, who participated in mass murder during the Brinks armored car robbery. Where does she work now?

Wait for it...Columbia University.

One can only wonder...if Kathy Bowdin had successully blown up the Columbia library (say a few dead kids and faculty) would the university still have made her a professor? Maybe they would have only made her an adjunct professor instead of tenured? Or maybe killing a few cops makes up for trying to blow up part of the university she now works for...

Unbelievable...

Greenwich Village townhouse explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

they we're building nail bombs when they blew themselves up and were suspected in previous nail bombings....I'm no bomb expert but I think you build a nail bomb to cause maximum casualties????

Spence's definition of "non-violent" protest I guess....


similar rhetoric to today's terrorists
similar tactics
similar targets


they would have been really have been something I bet if they had the internets for "pretty smart" research instead of having to travel to Cuber for bomb making training and funding from our enemies :uhuh:

I'm pretty sure that the American who Obama ordered need to get "two in the hat" via drone had not actually killed anyone himself either...he was just motivating others in unrelated, non-terrorist workplace violence and stuff

Oh I do believe that bombs did indeed go off. They didn't kill people because the targets were warned in advance.

If your intent was to kill people, why would you warn them?

As I said before, who's being "honored"? In Boudin's case it sounds like she just has a job. Granted it's at a good school but does her effort over the past 25 years out weight the previous 10?

Ayers appears to have really dedicated his life to positive works.

In the case of Jamal it was the students, apparently enough of who think he didn't get a fair trial and admire him for not giving up and working to help others from prison.

None of these people were "mass murders".

For once please do your own research, there's plenty of information online that debunks all these claims.

-spence

it's obvious that you either haven't read much yourself or you are simply nuts....what these three "share" it that they are or were violent left wing extremists......they are defended, admired, excused and "honored" for their work as left wing extremists and not whatever they've been doing post-imprisonment or escape thanks to good fortune or circumstance....Ayers is an icon in his radical little neighborhood in Chicago for his rage against the system and celebrated for his slipperiness, Obama types want to cozy up to him at cocktail parties not because of his work in education but because he's a folk hero to the radical leftists and represents what they aspire to although most have put on a suit and learned verbal jousting and invaded academia, law and government these days but they share the same ideaology that had Ayers and his friends declaring a state of war against the US


do build nail bombs because you really don't intend to hurt anyone?

I addressed this quite directly and with cited points. But as is usual, spence will ignore my post because his position is not defendable - or he'll reply with some quip or vague spin that has nothing to do with my comments.

"If your intent was to kill people, why would you warn them? "

Can you please support that?

What about the bombs that went off in the house where the terrorists lived, killing some of them? The police found evidence that the intended targets were Fort Dix (army base) and Columbia University. No evidence that they were going to forewarn their intended victims that I know of.

How about the 2 cops and the security guard that Miss Bowdin helped murder in the Brinks robbery? Did she warn them, but they failed to heed the warning?

"Granted it's at a good school but does her effort over the past 25 years out weight the previous 10?"

I have no idea, since you didn't podt details of all the "god things" she has done in th elast 10 years.

"As I said before, who's being "honored"? In Boudin's case it sounds like she just has a job"

A 'job' for an ex-felon is picking up dog crap or scrubbing toilets. A full professorship is an honor. Spence, you go ahead and ask those Columbia professors just have a 'job', or if they feel their is priviledge and prestige bestowed upon them.

"Ayers appears to have really dedicated his life to positive works."

I can only presume you are referring to the fact that Ayers has hosted fundraisers. You are forgetting about the planting of bombs and preaching violence as a means to a political end. Details, shme-tails.

"None of these people were "mass murders".

Kathy Bowdin is. And Bill Ayers is not, only because he failed to achieve hsi stated goal, a goal which he tried very hard to carry out.

You are reaching new lows, here. Bill Ayers has dedicated his life to positive public service, and nothing more. There's nothing else on his resume, Spence?

Unbelievable.

What about that, Spence? If you have no intention of hurting anyone, why make the effort to put nails into the bombs? Why use projectiles?

I guess when Ayers arranged for the nails to be put in the bombs, that was just an example of the "poitive public service" that Ayers has dedicated his life to.

In which, we see support for why I say liberalism is a mental disorder.

I can't get away from that statement, i just can't.

So is anyone on the extreme right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:biglaugh: rimshot


I usually stay out of here but that just struck me funny even as heartbroken I am being upset about the bombing


It does seem like it's not very appropriate even if she "paid her debt to society" for someone like that to be given a job like that at such a higher education university


ok, go back to insulting each other now :hs:

It is, actually, very appropriate. Radicals like her are a product of the universities. The sixties was a time of transition in the hallowed ivory halls of academe as well as the rest of society. But especially in academe. The sixties counter-culture demanded rapid change in what they saw as a backward immoral society that was moving too slowly, if at all, (in their eyes) toward social, racial, and gender equality and away from what they saw as imperialistic war. America, for them, was stuck in a very bad place. And the youth learned from the sociology and liberal arts instructors that we were a bad, oppressive, nation whose history was steeped in blood, slavery, and societal oppression that cried for liberation. And, though they were given examples of and instruction on more egalitarian solutions based, yes, on Marxian forms of socialism, they were told that change, revolution, could only come from within. But the schools were still halfway mired in the 1950's post war leave-it-to-Beaver-father-knows-best culture. So, the more serious students found liberation in action and expanded the radical move outside of academe into the society at large.

The radicals were, secretly by many, and openly by some, admired in academe as the darlings of a new age. They were the products of their teaching and the hopeful agents of change. And the universities liberal arts and sociology faculties grew with them and more openly approved what their radical progeny had done (with the insincere remonstrance against some violent but mostly harmless escapades). And they later welcomed them back into the fold as professors who had walked the walk to teach new generations the way to world peace and equality. To true social justice.

And now, they no longer had to resort to violence though they could proudly remember the glorious days of active revolution--and even teach methods that could still work to further transform the world. They could be more measured now, not so desperate, nor have to resort to violence, since they were now mainstream, the politically correct and righteous teachers.

Reformed and "forgiven" (as well as admired), they could devote their lives to positive public service. The progressive transformation of the educational and political institutions, which they helped to achieve, was the new melting pot that they sought which could combine various ideological notions of social justice and could co-opt, if not eradicate, the oppressive capitalistic, imperialistic mechanisms of the American past. And they could be at the vanguard of the continuing transformation--with the perks and comforts of acceptance and reward rather than the depravation (glorious none-the-less)of youthful radicals

there's your answer Jim...........:uhuh:

yup.....or suggest in another thread that someone pointing out the truth has gone too far or beyond the pale as he contiues to defend terrrorists, murderers and..folks that declared war and promised violence against the United States over political differences..... I suppose for the very same reasons that some Universities, Colleges and Organizations honor, employ and celebrate them

there was an FBI agent that managed to infiltrate the WU.....he had first hand experience with Ayers and the others and the story that he tells does't quite jive with Spence's version, which of course is nothing more that Ayer's version .....

your question should be ......is anyone on the extreme right with a violent history teaching at, guest lecturing or giving commencement speeches at American Universities?

I can't think of any examples and I'm pretty sure that any self-respecting liberal universiy would never allow it....

can you give an example?