Good God do I hate Elizabeth Warren

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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 in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"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

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

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

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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!

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

Originally Posted by PaulS

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/20...bhJ/story.html

[The Dad Fisherman]

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/m...s-shocked.html

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[FishermanTim]

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!

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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/20...bhJ/story.html

nm

[nightfighter]

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.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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...

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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?

[detbuch]

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.