Why Liberals Hate Free Speech

[PoliticalChic]

PC has been asked time and again to explain what are the reasonable restrictions that can be placed on the First Amendment, and she can never answer. That is why she fails, completely, to understand why public schools cannot be seen as endorsing religion.

So sorry....I'm not gonna allow you to try to change the subject.

Back to the point:
On the basis of what reference in the Constitution should a student-initiated prayer be deemed unlawful?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So....what to do, when a corrupt court deems a right granted by the Constitution, unlawful?

"A group of high school football players in Tennessee have decided that they will pray anyway–no matter what the Freedom From Religious Foundation wants." http://theundergroundsite.com/index...-football-team-is-going-to-pray-anyway-14139/





8. "...take the blinders off and recognize the enemy for what they are. If they want to suppress speech, it's because they also want to suppress everything else about you that they don't like.


There are many conservatives and liberty-lovers who simply need to stop thinking of left-wingers as deluded but well-meaning people. They are not. The Left does not mean well. The Left hates freedom. It's not just that they have a "different idea" about what freedom is, but hold to the same general set of values about liberty and freedom that we do.


.... the Left has a completely alien ideology that hates the very concept of individual liberty, and therefore hates you for believing in it. Understand this, and you will go a long way towards understanding what drives those on the Left, from the most highly-placed Inner Party member in the US government all the way down to the barely-literate mouth-breather trolling the comments section on a blog.


...resist any efforts at restricting our freedom of speech and thought –even if it means breaking so-called laws in the process. There can be no genuine law that violates the plainly worded text of our Bill of Rights ...regardless of what any court or politician says."
Why liberals hate freedom of speech

 

[PoliticalChic]

Speech is abridged by government-funded institutions to support the social engineering that the government endorses.

Say the magic words, "I'm offended!," and Liberal government jumps in to erase freedoms, including free speech.



9. In a philosophy class at Marquette University (a Catholic school, no less), no opinion opposed to same-sex marriage is allowed. This was the conversation between a student and instructor Cheryl Abbate:"

Student: Regardless of why I'm against gay marriage, it's still wrong for the teacher of a class to completely discredit one person's opinion when they may have different opinions.

Abbate: Ok, there are some opinions that are not appropriate that are harmful, such as racist opinions, sexist opinions, and quite honestly, do you know if anyone in the class is homosexual?

Student: No, I don't.

Abbate: And don't you think that that would be offensive to them if you were to raise your hand and challenge this?



Student: If I choose to challenge this, it's my right as an American citizen.

Abbate: Ok, well, actually you don't have a right in this class, as ... especially as an ethics professor, to make homophobic comments, racist comments, sexist comments ...



Abbate: How I would experience would be similar to how someone who is in this room and who is homosexual who would experience someone criticizing this.


Student: Ok, so because they are homosexual I can't have my opinions? And it's not being offensive towards them because I am just having my opinions on a very broad subject.

Abbate: You can have whatever opinions you want but I can tell you right now, in this class homophobic comments, racist comments, and sexist comments will not be tolerated. If you don't like that you are more than free to drop this class." Stripping a Professor of Tenure Over a Blog Post



And so, Liberal universities are funded by all taxpayers, in order to turn out cadres of totalitarians.
So much for this once noble experiment called 'America.'

 

[JFK_USA]

Here's a related article.

Free speech is flunking out on college campuses

Yup....

....and from your link:

"These threats to free speech peaked this week at Wesleyan University, a top-flight school in Middletown, Conn., where the student government voted to cut funding for the 150-year-old campus newspaper after it published a conservative op-ed."

Okay PC, let's see if you can put away your bias.

Ben Carson recently said that he would remove federal funding from colleges and universities if they had "extreme political bias".

Now, as a self-proclaimed staunch defender of Freedom of Speech, why should the government punish universities for having speech the current administration (let's assume Carson wins) disagrees with? Would that be censorship per se since it's effect would be preventing speech on college campuses?

Now back to the thread.

Actually having been to a university (and currently on one), universities do NOT prevent people from speaking. We have bible crazies coming out weekly talking on campus. Had liberal and conservatives on campus discussing issues in a very civil manner. Both sides are challenged and both are heard. So I don't see where any of this is coming from.

1. "...why should the government punish universities for having speech the current administration (let's assume Carson wins) disagrees with?"
Amusing that you claim to have been to a university, and are at one currently....yet you're clueless about the 'law of the land.'

That would be the US Constitution.

The authority of the federal government is precisely stated in Article 1, section 8.

a.“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined.Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, aswar, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce;with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
James Madison, Federalist #45, January 26, 1788


Can you find the authority to fund universities....or education on any level therein?


2. Since you will be unable to perform the above task, could you take the time to explain your use of "bible crazies"?

Then, I'll eviscerate your response.




Please don't respond if:
a. I've caused a dangerous elevation in your blood pressure

or

b. If you suffer the fear and anxiety that questions such as mine, which destroy your worldview, have caused.

You didn't answer the question as always PC because it hurts your case.

The argument isn't under Article 1 analysis, it's under 1st Amendment analysis.

Any government policy restricting the freedom of speech, whether explicit or per se, is subject to Strict Scrutiny.

That means the government must have a compelling interest in restricting the speech, and that restriction must be by the least restrictive means.

Pulling federal funding to universities for speech it does not agree with would be unconstitutional because there is no compelling interest and it would be a very restrictive mean even if there was a compelling interest.

You probably should study constitutional law before commenting on constitutional issues because I just eviscerated your argument.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Speech is abridged by government-funded institutions to support the social engineering that the government endorses.

Say the magic words, "I'm offended!," and Liberal government jumps in to erase freedoms, including free speech.



9. In a philosophy class at Marquette University (a Catholic school, no less), no opinion opposed to same-sex marriage is allowed. This was the conversation between a student and instructor Cheryl Abbate:"

Student: Regardless of why I'm against gay marriage, it's still wrong for the teacher of a class to completely discredit one person's opinion when they may have different opinions.

Abbate: Ok, there are some opinions that are not appropriate that are harmful, such as racist opinions, sexist opinions, and quite honestly, do you know if anyone in the class is homosexual?

Student: No, I don't.

Abbate: And don't you think that that would be offensive to them if you were to raise your hand and challenge this?



Student: If I choose to challenge this, it's my right as an American citizen.

Abbate: Ok, well, actually you don't have a right in this class, as ... especially as an ethics professor, to make homophobic comments, racist comments, sexist comments ...



Abbate: How I would experience would be similar to how someone who is in this room and who is homosexual who would experience someone criticizing this.


Student: Ok, so because they are homosexual I can't have my opinions? And it's not being offensive towards them because I am just having my opinions on a very broad subject.

Abbate: You can have whatever opinions you want but I can tell you right now, in this class homophobic comments, racist comments, and sexist comments will not be tolerated. If you don't like that you are more than free to drop this class." Stripping a Professor of Tenure Over a Blog Post



And so, Liberal universities are funded by all taxpayers, in order to turn out cadres of totalitarians.
So much for this once noble experiment called 'America.'

You linked to the notoriously left of center Atlantic for an article you believes supports your broadbrush condemnations of liberals?

good one

 

[NYcarbineer]

Speech is abridged by government-funded institutions to support the social engineering that the government endorses.

Say the magic words, "I'm offended!," and Liberal government jumps in to erase freedoms, including free speech.



9. In a philosophy class at Marquette University (a Catholic school, no less), no opinion opposed to same-sex marriage is allowed. This was the conversation between a student and instructor Cheryl Abbate:"

Student: Regardless of why I'm against gay marriage, it's still wrong for the teacher of a class to completely discredit one person's opinion when they may have different opinions.

Abbate: Ok, there are some opinions that are not appropriate that are harmful, such as racist opinions, sexist opinions, and quite honestly, do you know if anyone in the class is homosexual?

Student: No, I don't.

Abbate: And don't you think that that would be offensive to them if you were to raise your hand and challenge this?



Student: If I choose to challenge this, it's my right as an American citizen.

Abbate: Ok, well, actually you don't have a right in this class, as ... especially as an ethics professor, to make homophobic comments, racist comments, sexist comments ...



Abbate: How I would experience would be similar to how someone who is in this room and who is homosexual who would experience someone criticizing this.


Student: Ok, so because they are homosexual I can't have my opinions? And it's not being offensive towards them because I am just having my opinions on a very broad subject.

Abbate: You can have whatever opinions you want but I can tell you right now, in this class homophobic comments, racist comments, and sexist comments will not be tolerated. If you don't like that you are more than free to drop this class." Stripping a Professor of Tenure Over a Blog Post



And so, Liberal universities are funded by all taxpayers, in order to turn out cadres of totalitarians.
So much for this once noble experiment called 'America.'

Wow, you've added a private Catholic university to your hit list? Is that publicly funded private Catholic university?

lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

9. In a philosophy class at Marquette University (a Catholic school, no less), no opinion opposed to same-sex marriage is allowed. This was the conversation between a student and instructor Cheryl Abbate:"
.'

Just out of curiosity, do you think Marquette as a private CATHOLIC university should have a 1st Amendment right to opt out of Obamacare requirements?

 

[TemplarKormac]

That means the government must have a compelling interest in restricting the speech, and that restriction must be by the least restrictive means.

So, there are tons of liberal colleges who depend on government grants to operate and endowments for scholarships who actively restrict free speech, including that instructor PC mentioned earlier.

Having worked at a college for 35 years, my grandmother knows full well that if a school takes government money, it is bound by the same rules the government must abide by.

So, how come those schools don't have to provide a "compelling interest" when they restrict speech or engage in "academic justice?"

I mean, did they not get the memo in Doe vs University of Michigan?

Google Scholar

 

[TemplarKormac]

You probably should study constitutional law before commenting on constitutional issues because I just eviscerated your argument.

Speak for yourself.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That means the government must have a compelling interest in restricting the speech, and that restriction must be by the least restrictive means.

So, there are tons of liberal colleges who depend on government grants to operate and endowments for scholarships who actively restrict free speech, including that instructor PC mentioned earlier.

Having worked at a college for 35 years, my grandmother knows full well that if a school takes government money, it is bound by the same rules the government must abide by.

So, how come those schools don't have to provide a "compelling interest" when they restrict speech or engage in "academic justice?"

I mean, did they not get the memo in Doe vs University of Michigan?

Google Scholar

If a kid at a college thinks his free speech rights were violated, he should sue. It's not complicated.

Then he can have his case decided by some of those unelected tyrannical judges that conservatives hate.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here's a related article.

Free speech is flunking out on college campuses

Yup....

....and from your link:

"These threats to free speech peaked this week at Wesleyan University, a top-flight school in Middletown, Conn., where the student government voted to cut funding for the 150-year-old campus newspaper after it published a conservative op-ed."

Okay PC, let's see if you can put away your bias.

Ben Carson recently said that he would remove federal funding from colleges and universities if they had "extreme political bias".

Now, as a self-proclaimed staunch defender of Freedom of Speech, why should the government punish universities for having speech the current administration (let's assume Carson wins) disagrees with? Would that be censorship per se since it's effect would be preventing speech on college campuses?

Now back to the thread.

Actually having been to a university (and currently on one), universities do NOT prevent people from speaking. We have bible crazies coming out weekly talking on campus. Had liberal and conservatives on campus discussing issues in a very civil manner. Both sides are challenged and both are heard. So I don't see where any of this is coming from.

1. "...why should the government punish universities for having speech the current administration (let's assume Carson wins) disagrees with?"
Amusing that you claim to have been to a university, and are at one currently....yet you're clueless about the 'law of the land.'

That would be the US Constitution.

The authority of the federal government is precisely stated in Article 1, section 8.

a.“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined.Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, aswar, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce;with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
James Madison, Federalist #45, January 26, 1788


Can you find the authority to fund universities....or education on any level therein?


2. Since you will be unable to perform the above task, could you take the time to explain your use of "bible crazies"?

Then, I'll eviscerate your response.




Please don't respond if:
a. I've caused a dangerous elevation in your blood pressure

or

b. If you suffer the fear and anxiety that questions such as mine, which destroy your worldview, have caused.

You didn't answer the question as always PC because it hurts your case.

The argument isn't under Article 1 analysis, it's under 1st Amendment analysis.

Any government policy restricting the freedom of speech, whether explicit or per se, is subject to Strict Scrutiny.

That means the government must have a compelling interest in restricting the speech, and that restriction must be by the least restrictive means.

Pulling federal funding to universities for speech it does not agree with would be unconstitutional because there is no compelling interest and it would be a very restrictive mean even if there was a compelling interest.

You probably should study constitutional law before commenting on constitutional issues because I just eviscerated your argument.

1. "The argument isn't under Article 1 analysis, it's under 1st Amendment analysis."
That's the sort of word salad that Liberals use to attempt to justify illegality.

The Constitution is the only document the citizens of this once great nation agreed to be governed by.

Article five explains the only way......the only way.....that the Constitution can be modified or changed.

The only way: the amendment process.



There has been no amendment that modifies or changes the first amendment forbidding any laws prohibiting the free expression of one's religion.


2. I hope all notice how you have run from the phrase you used earlier, the one illuminating your bias, when you characterized religious folks as
"bible crazies."


3." You probably should study constitutional law before commenting on constitutional issues because I just eviscerated your argument."
Did you construct that attempt just to hide the egg on your face?


4. And....you should learn that it was a KKK leader, put on the court by the bigot Franklin Roosevelt, who put the idea into your head that there should be some 'separation of religion from government.'
That's right, a man who lynched blacks is whose dictums you'd like to live by.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Pulling federal funding to universities for speech it does not agree with would be unconstitutional because there is no compelling interest and it would be a very restrictive mean even if there was a compelling interest.

Any university or college who accepts government money is bound by the same rules the government is. It cannot decide what speech it does or does not like.

 

[hazlnut]

Liberals are the power in the political realm....and they illustrate what Lord Action meant about power absolutely corrupting those who control it.



1." ...do any of you actually remember a time when liberals truly supported and believed in freedom of speech.... genuine,bona fide agreement with the principle that liberty includes allowing those with whom you disagree to have access to the marketplace of ideas, and that this marketplace itself will decide which are the best ones. You know, Voltaire's "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it," and all that?

I can't either. Probably nobody can who was not born during or before World War II,



2.... those on the Left do not believe in free speech. They simply do not accept the fundamental principle that people of all opinions ought to be able to express those opinions without being punished for it, or at least hindered to the greatest degree possible in their ability to express themselves.



3. [Thus the] editorial in Harvard's student newspaper The Crimson, in which Sandra Korn, a student columnist and "women's studies" major (who didn't see that one coming?) obligingly calls for academic totalitarianism,

"Yet the liberal obsession with 'academic freedom" seems a bit misplaced to me. .... No academic question is ever 'free' from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of "academic freedom"?



"Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of 'academic justice. When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.



"The power to enforce academic justice comes from students, faculty, and workers organizing together to make our universities look as we want them to do. Two years ago, when former summer school instructor Subramanian Swamy published hateful commentary about Muslims in India, the Harvard community organized to ensure that he would not return to teach on campus. I consider that sort of organizing both appropriate and commendable. Perhaps it should even be applied more broadly...


There, in a nutshell, is the modern liberal attitude toward freedom of speech, and by extension freedom of thought. If research doesn't substantiate the cultural goals and priorities of today's Neo-Fascists, then we must ensure that it "does not continue." Why liberals hate freedom of speech



If speech refutes the Left's positions on any number of issues, then it has to be silenced. "Academic justice" means suppression of all those naughty things that people might say that contradict us.


As far as speech is concerned, the Left definitely prefers a command economy over the free market.

1. Havard's a private university, you nitwit.

2. Do you understand that the Bill of Rights applies to citizens and their GOVERNMENT?

3. Harvard can censor, edit, kill any story they damn please.

4. So can any privately owned newspaper, TV station, or radio--censor/edit their own content.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Speech is abridged by government-funded institutions to support the social engineering that the government endorses.

Say the magic words, "I'm offended!," and Liberal government jumps in to erase freedoms, including free speech.



9. In a philosophy class at Marquette University (a Catholic school, no less), no opinion opposed to same-sex marriage is allowed. This was the conversation between a student and instructor Cheryl Abbate:"

Student: Regardless of why I'm against gay marriage, it's still wrong for the teacher of a class to completely discredit one person's opinion when they may have different opinions.

Abbate: Ok, there are some opinions that are not appropriate that are harmful, such as racist opinions, sexist opinions, and quite honestly, do you know if anyone in the class is homosexual?

Student: No, I don't.

Abbate: And don't you think that that would be offensive to them if you were to raise your hand and challenge this?



Student: If I choose to challenge this, it's my right as an American citizen.

Abbate: Ok, well, actually you don't have a right in this class, as ... especially as an ethics professor, to make homophobic comments, racist comments, sexist comments ...



Abbate: How I would experience would be similar to how someone who is in this room and who is homosexual who would experience someone criticizing this.


Student: Ok, so because they are homosexual I can't have my opinions? And it's not being offensive towards them because I am just having my opinions on a very broad subject.

Abbate: You can have whatever opinions you want but I can tell you right now, in this class homophobic comments, racist comments, and sexist comments will not be tolerated. If you don't like that you are more than free to drop this class." Stripping a Professor of Tenure Over a Blog Post



And so, Liberal universities are funded by all taxpayers, in order to turn out cadres of totalitarians.
So much for this once noble experiment called 'America.'

You linked to the notoriously left of center Atlantic for an article you believes supports your broadbrush condemnations of liberals?

good one

Well....time to spank you again!

Rather than try to counter a truth....you attempt to cast aspersions on the source.


Now....take notes:

Frequently a post on the message board includes either a link, quote, or reference to World Net Daily, or Rupert Murdoch, or Ann Coulter, or some other right-thinker, and rather than admit that the item is dispositive for the thread or question under discussion, too often the folks with the alternate view:

a. refuse to address the issue, because the citation is on the opposite side.
b. resort to an emoticon of laughter, or some sort of sign of disrespect, or the use of ‘lol.’
c. feel that some sort of “there you go again” response, rather than an actual refutation.
d. Attack the referred item with an Ad Hominem jab, pointing to an imagined physical or mental defect, or alter the name in some absurd manner.



What we have here is the kind of defense against opposing ideas that is indolent at best, and intellectually cowardly at worst. Rather than offering alternative or surrogate ideas, the above are faulty because:

a. To refuse to address the issue may mean that one has no faith in the argument of his side, or that the poster is not intellectually equipped to counter same. Nor does a citation's political orientation ostensibly prove falsity.
b. The emoticon response, akin to ‘talk to the hand,’ is both rude and shows an inability to be articulate, a necessary skill for the board to retain interest.
c. Indicates that one is too lazy to state, or, possibly, re-state a position. But, then, one should say that, or find a succinct way to explain their position.
d. Possibly the most common, the ad hominem, combines both the lack of ability to argue, and contempt for the opponent. This exposes the weakness both in one’s perspective, and one’s upbringing.

The correct resonse is that we should all be able to express our differences coherently in a public forum, and using the above methods is the hallmark of a loser.



To dismiss a source or author because they promulgate an alternative or even a hated perspective, without consideration of the truth of their premise lacks integrity. Or even efficacy: since the perpetrators of 9/11 were of the Arabic persuasion, should we forswear the use of Arabic numerals?


I should get paid for the education I provide for you.

Really.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Speech is abridged by government-funded institutions to support the social engineering that the government endorses.

Say the magic words, "I'm offended!," and Liberal government jumps in to erase freedoms, including free speech.



9. In a philosophy class at Marquette University (a Catholic school, no less), no opinion opposed to same-sex marriage is allowed. This was the conversation between a student and instructor Cheryl Abbate:"

Student: Regardless of why I'm against gay marriage, it's still wrong for the teacher of a class to completely discredit one person's opinion when they may have different opinions.

Abbate: Ok, there are some opinions that are not appropriate that are harmful, such as racist opinions, sexist opinions, and quite honestly, do you know if anyone in the class is homosexual?

Student: No, I don't.

Abbate: And don't you think that that would be offensive to them if you were to raise your hand and challenge this?



Student: If I choose to challenge this, it's my right as an American citizen.

Abbate: Ok, well, actually you don't have a right in this class, as ... especially as an ethics professor, to make homophobic comments, racist comments, sexist comments ...



Abbate: How I would experience would be similar to how someone who is in this room and who is homosexual who would experience someone criticizing this.


Student: Ok, so because they are homosexual I can't have my opinions? And it's not being offensive towards them because I am just having my opinions on a very broad subject.

Abbate: You can have whatever opinions you want but I can tell you right now, in this class homophobic comments, racist comments, and sexist comments will not be tolerated. If you don't like that you are more than free to drop this class." Stripping a Professor of Tenure Over a Blog Post



And so, Liberal universities are funded by all taxpayers, in order to turn out cadres of totalitarians.
So much for this once noble experiment called 'America.'

Wow, you've added a private Catholic university to your hit list? Is that publicly funded private Catholic university?

lol

How many universities can you name that refuse any government funding...or even allow government student loans?

Hillsdale is the only one I can think of.

"Hillsdale College is a co-educational, non-profit liberal arts college in Hillsdale, Michigan, United States. In its 1844 Charter, Hillsdale became the first American college to prohibit discrimination based on race, sex, or religion."Wikipedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

Liberals are the power in the political realm....and they illustrate what Lord Action meant about power absolutely corrupting those who control it.



1." ...do any of you actually remember a time when liberals truly supported and believed in freedom of speech.... genuine,bona fide agreement with the principle that liberty includes allowing those with whom you disagree to have access to the marketplace of ideas, and that this marketplace itself will decide which are the best ones. You know, Voltaire's "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it," and all that?

I can't either. Probably nobody can who was not born during or before World War II,



2.... those on the Left do not believe in free speech. They simply do not accept the fundamental principle that people of all opinions ought to be able to express those opinions without being punished for it, or at least hindered to the greatest degree possible in their ability to express themselves.



3. [Thus the] editorial in Harvard's student newspaper The Crimson, in which Sandra Korn, a student columnist and "women's studies" major (who didn't see that one coming?) obligingly calls for academic totalitarianism,

"Yet the liberal obsession with 'academic freedom" seems a bit misplaced to me. .... No academic question is ever 'free' from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of "academic freedom"?



"Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of 'academic justice. When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.



"The power to enforce academic justice comes from students, faculty, and workers organizing together to make our universities look as we want them to do. Two years ago, when former summer school instructor Subramanian Swamy published hateful commentary about Muslims in India, the Harvard community organized to ensure that he would not return to teach on campus. I consider that sort of organizing both appropriate and commendable. Perhaps it should even be applied more broadly...


There, in a nutshell, is the modern liberal attitude toward freedom of speech, and by extension freedom of thought. If research doesn't substantiate the cultural goals and priorities of today's Neo-Fascists, then we must ensure that it "does not continue." Why liberals hate freedom of speech



If speech refutes the Left's positions on any number of issues, then it has to be silenced. "Academic justice" means suppression of all those naughty things that people might say that contradict us.


As far as speech is concerned, the Left definitely prefers a command economy over the free market.

1. Havard's a private university, you nitwit.

2. Do you understand that the Bill of Rights applies to citizens and their GOVERNMENT?

3. Harvard can censor, edit, kill any story they damn please.

4. So can any privately owned newspaper, TV station, or radio--censor/edit their own content.

"Private" means nothing in this connection.

It received government funds and grants.

Harvard students take government loans.


What if Harvard refused admittance to black students......would the same be true?




BTW, speaking of Harvard......that Liberal paragon, Franklin Roosevelt...
As far back as 1920, when FDR was the Democratic party candidate for vice president, he had proposed that “the greater part of the foreign population of the City of New York” should be “distributed to different localities upstate” so as to feel pressure to “conform to the manners and customs and requirements of their new home.”
As a member of the Harvard board of directors he supported a Jewish admissions quota.


Looks like you turned out to be the nitwit, huh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. In a philosophy class at Marquette University (a Catholic school, no less), no opinion opposed to same-sex marriage is allowed. This was the conversation between a student and instructor Cheryl Abbate:"
.'

Just out of curiosity, do you think Marquette as a private CATHOLIC university should have a 1st Amendment right to opt out of Obamacare requirements?

To drive home the point of this thread.....you agree with the Professor, don't you.
Student: If I choose to challenge this, it's my right as an American citizen.

Abbate: Ok, well, actually you don't have a right in this class,as ... especially as an ethics professor, to make homophobic comments, racist comments, sexist comments ...

 

[francoHFW]

• The political correctness cops are going to ruin the progressive cause
  
• Bill Maher Rails Against Crazy Political Correctness From Liberals Tells Media Matters to Shut The F ck Up Video RealClearPolitics
• Jerry Seinfeld says political correctness is hurting comedy - CBS News
• Don Lemon weighs in on PC culture Liberals are the most easily offended and the least tolerant - Salon.com
• Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say -- NYMag
• Liberal Turley against political correctness in News Forum
• Are Liberals Becoming Too Sensitive and Politically Correct
• Jim Webb says Democratic Party has lost its way - The Washington Post
• John Stuart Mill s Argument Against Political...
• Dem Blames Political Correctness for Fort Hood Workplace Violence Controversy - ABC News
• Is the New Political Correctness Already Dying -- NYMag
• I don t know what to do you guys Fredrik deBoer
• http://www.forwardprogressives.com/liberals-becoming-sensitive-politically-correct/
• http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid
• http://www.socialmemorycomplex.net/leftlibertarian/2012/06/12/a-leftist-critique-of-political-correctness/
• My view: Political correctness should not inhibit free speech
  
• http://scienceblogs.com/webeasties/2013/05/21/science-racism-and-political-correctness/
• http://www.hawkeyelounge.com/threads/liberal-columnist-leonard-pitts-asks-if-weve-overdone-political-correctness.130665/
• #CancelColbert and the Return of the Anti-Liberal Left
• REED: When liberals become illiberal
• PC Police Out Of Control In Possibly The Most Absurd Story I've Ever Come Across
• “Political Correctness” | The Progressive Professor
• How Liberals Ruined College
• Rushdie warns of new dangers to free speech in West

A perusal of a number of your links proves that what are called Liberals today are actually no different from what would, correctly, be known a fascists.

Nice to see RW fascists (corporate bigots and the only kind) have all your propaganda all organized for you chumps...

Libs hate LIES. Too bad RWers don't.

 

[PoliticalChic]

• The political correctness cops are going to ruin the progressive cause
  
• Bill Maher Rails Against Crazy Political Correctness From Liberals Tells Media Matters to Shut The F ck Up Video RealClearPolitics
• Jerry Seinfeld says political correctness is hurting comedy - CBS News
• Don Lemon weighs in on PC culture Liberals are the most easily offended and the least tolerant - Salon.com
• Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say -- NYMag
• Liberal Turley against political correctness in News Forum
• Are Liberals Becoming Too Sensitive and Politically Correct
• Jim Webb says Democratic Party has lost its way - The Washington Post
• John Stuart Mill s Argument Against Political...
• Dem Blames Political Correctness for Fort Hood Workplace Violence Controversy - ABC News
• Is the New Political Correctness Already Dying -- NYMag
• I don t know what to do you guys Fredrik deBoer
• http://www.forwardprogressives.com/liberals-becoming-sensitive-politically-correct/
• http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid
• http://www.socialmemorycomplex.net/leftlibertarian/2012/06/12/a-leftist-critique-of-political-correctness/
• My view: Political correctness should not inhibit free speech
  
• http://scienceblogs.com/webeasties/2013/05/21/science-racism-and-political-correctness/
• http://www.hawkeyelounge.com/threads/liberal-columnist-leonard-pitts-asks-if-weve-overdone-political-correctness.130665/
• #CancelColbert and the Return of the Anti-Liberal Left
• REED: When liberals become illiberal
• PC Police Out Of Control In Possibly The Most Absurd Story I've Ever Come Across
• “Political Correctness” | The Progressive Professor
• How Liberals Ruined College
• Rushdie warns of new dangers to free speech in West

A perusal of a number of your links proves that what are called Liberals today are actually no different from what would, correctly, be known a fascists.

Nice to see RW fascists (corporate bigots and the only kind) have all your propaganda all organized for you chumps...

Libs hate LIES. Too bad RWers don't.

"RW fascists (corporate bigots and the only kind)"
1. Try to get your bigoted vocabulary correct.
Fascists, Communists, Liberals, Progressives, Nazis, and socialist are all Left-Wing.

Every one functions via this view: "...the central theme is still an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life., albeit at the loss of what had hitherfore been accepted as ‘inalienable human rights.’"
Goldberg


2. "Libs hate LIES."
This would be funny if it weren't so sad...


a. "Lie of the Year: 'If you like your health care plan, you can keep it'...Obama"
[VIDEO]Lie of the Year: 'If you like your health care plan, you can keep it'

b. "Hillary Clinton's 5 Biggest Lies in Her Benghazi Testimony"
Hillary Clinton's 5 Biggest Lies in Her Benghazi Testimony - Breitbart



You're even an embarrassment to the Leftists.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, we have seen that Liberals work tirelessly to deprive Americans of their rights, freedom of speech, of thought, of religion.....conscience.

It is possible because so very many accept that they can prevail upon a judge to alter the Constitution without a moment's hesitation.

Dennis Prager explains it thus:

10. Leftism is so pervasive, that if applied to any other way of looking at life, it would be widely recognized as a form of brainwashing!
Image a person who attended only fundamental Christian schools from preschool through graduate school, who never saw a secular, let alone anti-Christian, film, and who only read religious books.

Most would say that they had been ‘brainwashed.” Yet, we regularly find individuals who only attended secular liberal schools from preschool through college, watched or listened to only Left-of-center television, movies, music, and had essentially no exposure to religious or conservative ideas. Brainwashed?

Of course not!
Liberals are open-minded!!!

The irony here is that the denial itself shows how very effective the brainwashing has been.



Now, Christians or Jews who have rarely been exposed to secular ideas and values would readily acknowledge same. It is only those on the Left who fool themselves into believing that they have been exposed to all points of view.

Universities have become to Liberalism what a Christian seminary is to Christianity. The difference is that Christian seminaries acknowledge their purpose, to produce committed Christians.



a. “The purpose of a university should be to make a son as unlike his father as possible.” The University's Part in Political Life” (13 March 1909) inPWW(The Papers of Woodrow Wilson) 19:99.


b.