Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on August 31, 2009, 11:00:11 AM



Title: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on August 31, 2009, 11:00:11 AM
You can have an opinion, just so long as it's the same opinion.   ::)

Posted on: Sunday, August 30, 2009

Hawaii Democrats reprimand senator over civil-union e-mail
Party irked over senator's e-mail against civil-unions bill
By Derrick DePledge
Advertiser Government Writer

State Democrats agreed yesterday to uphold a reprimand against state Sen. Mike Gabbard, finding the senator actively worked against a civil-unions bill last session and undermined the party's platform in favor of equality and civil rights.

O'ahu Democrats voted in July to reprimand Gabbard, a prominent opponent of same-sex marriage in the 1990s, for sending an e-mail to a party activist that said he would encourage his colleagues in the Senate to oppose civil unions.

Gabbard, who said he was representing the will of his constituents, appealed to the party's state central committee. The committee narrowly voted to uphold the reprimand after a private meeting at the Musicians' Association of Hawai'i union hall.

"It was a rigorous process. It was a very tough issue, and this was the result," said Brian Schatz, chairman of the Democratic Party of Hawai'i, who voted against a reprimand.

Gabbard, D-19th (Kapolei, Makakilo, Waikele), said the fairest way to resolve such disagreements is at the ballot box.

"I think the fairest thing to do is to simply encourage people to get involved in the process, and let the democratic process play itself out," he said. "Whether it's civil unions or any other issue — or any elected official for that matter — ultimately any reprimand should happen at the ballot box every election cycle."

Democrats said it is rare to discipline an elected official for actions involving a public-policy issue that's before the state Legislature. In 1999, the party's state central committee approved a resolution critical of state senators who voted against the confirmations of state Attorney General Margery Bronster and budget director Earl Anzai.

A reprimand is the least severe punishment available to the party. The senator could have faced censure or expulsion.

Debi Hartmann, the chair of O'ahu Democrats, said Gabbard distinguished himself from other Democrats who opposed civil unions by the e-mail promising to actively organize against the bill.

The O'ahu Democrats' rules committee had recommended dismissing the complaint against Gabbard, but O'ahu Democrats rejected the recommendation and opted for a reprimand.

"He said in the e-mail that he would actively work to encourage his colleagues to do something," said Hartmann, who opposed same-sex marriage in the 1990s but backed civil unions at the Legislature last session. "That's very different than a member of the Legislature voting on an issue because his constituents feel a particular way."

Mun-Won Chang, a small-business owner who lives in 'Ewa Beach, said she was against the reprimand because it could make Gabbard a hero to opponents of civil unions. She said Democrats should instead focus on getting the bill passed next session.

"We are the party of inclusion, that's what President Obama ran on, so we need to include everyone," she said. "If that's what his view is, let it be his view. And if he's representing his constituents, who are we to say 'No, you can't vote that way'?"

Several party activists, still disappointed by Gabbard's visible role against same-sex marriage in the 1990s, were upset when Gabbard switched from the Hawai'i Republican Party in 2007 and was embraced by leading Democrats. Gabbard said at the time that he did not agree with the party on all issues and specifically cited civil unions and abortion rights.

Gabbard, chairman of the Senate Energy and Environment Committee, has mostly worked on issues such as renewable energy and environmental protection in the Senate. Other than speaking out against civil unions, the senator has not been publicly vocal about social issues.

The party's platform plank on civil rights and equal rights supports "equal access to fundamental rights including but not limited to marriage, privacy, and a woman's right to choose."

The civil-unions bill that passed the state House last session would give same-sex partners who enter into civil unions the same rights, benefits and responsibilities as married couples under state law. Domestic partnerships, civil unions and same-sex marriages performed in other states would be recognized as civil unions in Hawai'i.

The bill was amended in the Senate to allow both same-sex and heterosexual couples to enter into civil unions.

The bill stalled in the Senate but remains alive for the next session that starts in January.

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090830/NEWS01/908300350/Hawaii+Democrats+reprimand+senator+over+civil-union+e-mail


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: timfogarty on August 31, 2009, 12:40:52 PM
yawn.

political parties are private clubs.   you're free to join one or not.  as a private club, they can set their own rules.   If an elected official, one who used party resources to get elected, does not follow the requests of party leadership, the party leadership can choose to sanction him.  if he doesn't like it, he is free to quit the party.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on August 31, 2009, 01:06:05 PM
yawn.

political parties are private clubs.   you're free to join one or not.  as a private club, they can set their own rules.   If an elected official, one who used party resources to get elected, does not follow the requests of party leadership, the party leadership can choose to sanction him.  if he doesn't like it, he is free to quit the party.

I think this is crazy.  This is supposed to be the party of tolerance.  The big tent.   ::)  What a farce.

What's even more outrageous about this is Democrats knew Gabbard's history when they recruited him to switch parties AFTER he was elected.  He's the most vocal and recognizable pro-traditional marriage proponent in the state.  How shocking that he actually opposed the civil union/homosexual marriage bill after becoming a "Democrat."   ::) 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on July 27, 2010, 01:25:09 PM
Older stories:

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=133812.0


http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=342427.0


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on July 27, 2010, 01:27:21 PM
The liberal response to opposing viewpoints:  silence them.   ::)

Lawsuit Claims College Ordered Student to Alter Religious Views on Homosexuality, Or Be Dismissed
By Joshua Rhett Miller
Published July 27, 2010
FoxNews.com

(http://www.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/U.S./Keeton640_397x224.jpg)
Jennifer Keeton, 24, has been pursuing a master's degree in school counseling at Augusta State University since last year, but school officials have informed her that she'll be dismissed from the program unless she alters her "central religious beliefs on human nature and conduct," according to a civil complaint filed last week.

A graduate student in Georgia is suing her university after she was told she must undergo a remediation program due to her beliefs on homosexuality and transgendered persons.

The student, Jennifer Keeton, 24, has been pursuing a master's degree in school counseling at Augusta State University since 2009, but school officials have informed her that she'll be dismissed from the program unless she alters her "central religious beliefs on human nature and conduct," according to a civil complaint filed last week.

"[Augusta State University] faculty have promised to expel Miss Keeton from the graduate Counselor Education Program not because of poor academic showing or demonstrated deficiencies in clinical performance, but simply because she has communicated both inside and outside the classroom that she holds to Christian ethical convictions on matters of human sexuality and gender identity," the 43-page lawsuit reads.

Keeton, according to the lawsuit, was informed by school officials in late May that she would be asked to take part in a remediation plan due to faculty concerns regarding her beliefs pertaining to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues.

"The faculty identifies Miss Keeton's views as indicative of her improper professional disposition to persons of such populations," the lawsuit reads.

The remediation plan, according to the lawsuit, noted Keeton's "disagreement in several class discussions and in written assignments with the gay and lesbian 'lifestyle,'" as well as Keeton's belief that those "lifestyles" are cases of identity confusion.

If Keeton fails to complete the plan, including additional reading and the writing of papers describing the impact on her beliefs, she will be expelled from the Counselor Education Program, the lawsuit claims.

Keeton has stated that she believes sexual behavior is the "result of accountable personal choice rather than an inevitability deriving from deterministic forces," according to the suit.

"She also has affirmed binary male-female gender, with one or the other being fixed in each person at their creation, and not a social construct or individual choice subject to alteration by the person so created," the lawsuit reads. "Further, she has expressed her view that homosexuality is a 'lifestyle,' not a 'state of being.'"

In a statement to FoxNews.com, Augusta State University officials declined to comment specifically on the litigation, but said the university does not discriminate on the basis of students' moral, religious, political or personal views or beliefs.

"The Counselor Education Program is grounded in the core principles of the American Counseling Association and the American School Counselor Association, which defines the roles and responsibilities of professional counselors in its code of ethics," the statement read. "The code is included in the curriculum of the counseling education program, which states that counselors in training have the same responsibility as professional counselors to understand and follow the ACA Code of Ethics."

David French, senior counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund, which filed the lawsuit against Augusta State University on Keeton's behalf, said no university has the right to force a citizen to change their beliefs on any topic.

"The university has told Jennifer Keeton that if she doesn't change her beliefs, she can't stay in the program," he told FoxNews.com. "She won't even have a chance to counsel any students; she won't have a chance to get a counseling degree; she'll be expelled."

Keeton, who is not available for interviews according to French, believes that people have "moral choices" regarding their sexuality, he said.

"A student has a right to express their point of view in and out of class without fear or censorship or expulsion," French said.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/27/georgia-university-tells-student-lose-religion-lawsuit-claims/


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on July 27, 2010, 01:33:50 PM
Most far left libs hate free speech. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Skip8282 on July 27, 2010, 03:12:25 PM
I hope she got that stuff in writing (like email or something), but I don't think the profs would be that dumb.  It'll be interesting to see how this goes.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on July 28, 2010, 03:19:16 PM
Chicago School Refuses to Host Rove, Welcomes Obama Appointee
By Stephen Clark
Published July 28, 2010 | FoxNews.com

Loyola University Chicago has refused to host Karl Rove (r) but is welcoming Obama appointee Eboo Patel (l). (IFYC/AP)
A private university in Chicago that refuses to host former senior Bush adviser Karl Rove, arguing that welcoming a "political" speaker ahead of the midterm elections could threaten its tax-exempt status, has added an Obama administration appointee to address the student body.

Loyola University Chicago is hosting Eboo Patel, an Obama appointee to the White House interfaith council, next month, calling into question the school's rationale for rejecting Rove's appearance.

"The news that Eboo Patel, an appointee of the Obama administration, will be allowed to speak at Loyola University Chicago, while Karl Rove was essentially barred, is further proof that the (university) administration either has zero understanding of tax law or is unabashedly biased," said Evan Gassman, a spokesman for Young America's Foundation, a conservative outreach group that was sponsoring the Rove speech.

University spokesman Steve Christensen told FoxNews.com that the topic of Patel's speech does not have a political motive, which would violate current speaker policy.

"Our university considers its on-campus speakers on a case-by-case basis, and very carefully," he said. "Dr. Patel's speech on Aug. 27 will focus on the importance of interfaith leadership and transformative education, two topics that are directly associated with the university's mission. This is a very different lecture than what was proposed by our College Republicans, who informed the university in their proposal that they are inviting Karl Rove 'to speak in October 2010 to speak about the upcoming elections and their impact on public policy.'"

The university previously argued that the timing of Rove's appearance for the upcoming school year could imperil its 501(c )(3) tax status.

"The timing of this event is problematic given the campaign cycle," Kimberly A. Moore, director of student affairs and Greek affairs, told students in an e-mail. "Loyola has to maintain impartiality in order to protect our tax-exempt status."

Adam Kissel of the nonpartisan Foundation for Individual Rights in Education told FoxNews.com that the school appears to be applying a "double standard."

"We often see rules applied strangely as a proxy for the real issue that a particular administrator or the whole institution doesn't want the lecture to happen and a pretext is developed to keep the speaker off of campus," Kissel said. "We see that time after time."

Rove, a Fox News contributor who gained prominence as the architect of former President George W. Bush's successful campaign strategies in 2000 and 2004, is not working on any campaign this season.

The school has offered to host Rove after the midterm election on Nov. 2, but the conservative group said Rove would not be able to speak then because of his busy schedule.

Conservative students point out that the school has hosted partisan speakers on election years before. In September 2004, the school hosted Howard Dean, who ran for president that year. A couple of weeks after his speech, political activist Ralph Nader, who also ran for president that year, spoke on campus -- a speech that was advertised as a campaign event in which donations were solicited.

Patel, whom Obama appointed last year to his advisory council of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, will discuss interfaith leadership and transformative education, according to the school's provost who is sponsoring the speech. Patel was named by Harvard's Kennedy School Review as one of five future policy leaders to watch.

"It is very disconcerting to see Loyola not live up to the standards of academic freedom that they frequently preach about," said Sean Vera, the student who tried to bring Rove to the campus.

"I never expected Loyola would prevent the free exchange of ideas and they would do so in such a partisan manner," he said.

But the university said times have changed.

"In recent years, the IRS has become increasingly more scrutinizing over not-for-profit universities and their tax-exempt status as it relates to political or potentially political speakers invited to come on campus," Christensen said. "With that in mind, our university has become more cautious in its decision-making."

Kissel, of FIRE, called that a "false argument."

"It does not threaten the school's 501(c )(3) status to permit a student group to bring even a politician to campus while the politician is in office," he said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/28/chicago-school-refuses-host-rove-welcomes-obama-appointee/


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on October 21, 2010, 05:40:50 PM
Quote
NPR Ends Analyst’s Contract After Comments on Muslims (Juan Williams)
New York Times ^ | October 20, 2010


________________________ ________________________ ________________


NPR has terminated its contract with Juan Williams, one of its senior news analysts, after he made comments about Muslims on the Fox News Channel. NPR said in a statement that it gave Mr. Williams notice of his termination on Wednesday night. The move came after Mr. Williams, who is also a Fox News political analyst, appeared on the “The O’Reilly Factor” on Monday. On the show, the host, Bill O’Reilly, asked him to respond to the notion that the United States was facing a “Muslim dilemma.” Mr. O’Reilly said, “The cold truth is that in the world today jihad, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, is the biggest threat on the planet.”

Mr. Williams said he concurred with Mr. O’Reilly.

He continued: “I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”

Mr. Williams also made reference to the Pakistani immigrant who pleaded guilty this month to trying to plant a car bomb in Times Square. “He said the war with Muslims, America’s war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don’t think there’s any way to get away from these facts,” Mr. Williams said.

NPR said in its statement that the remarks “were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.”


The public radio organization said it thanked him for many years of service. Mr. Williams did not immediately respond on Wednesday night to an e-mail seeking comment...


(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...

________________________ ________________________ ________


More tolerance, open mindedness, and respect for different views from the far left.   ::)  ::)
 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on January 29, 2011, 12:01:44 PM
Amazing how rude and ignorant some paranoid anti-religious extremists can be.   ::)  This fool is a bad as Michael Newdow (sp?). 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLvn5p2Ztdo


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on January 29, 2011, 12:11:11 PM
Amazing how rude and ignorant some paranoid anti-religious extremists can be.   ::)  This fool is a bad as Michael Newdow (sp?). 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLvn5p2Ztdo


I see no evidence of paranoia or extremism

someone who sees paranoia and extremism where none exists is most likely the one who is paranoid


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: 240 is Back on January 29, 2011, 12:43:16 PM
Amazing how rude and ignorant some paranoid anti-religious extremists can be.

Heck, I know some pro-religious types who believe a higher power condemns them for little things like masturbating before bed - as he's always watching.

talk about paranoid...


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Skeletor on January 29, 2011, 01:31:17 PM
Usually when there are disorderly conduct charges you know it's all bogus.

How extremist of him, to dare to voice his opinion in public and complain about a violation of the Constitution. And he did so while stating his name and in a peaceful way.

If anything I think his 1st Amendment Rights were violated, or maybe the praying zealots want to ban public speech.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: George Whorewell on January 29, 2011, 01:40:32 PM
I see no evidence of paranoia or extremism

someone who sees paranoia and extremism where none exists is most likely the one who is paranoid

Does that mean that you admit that you are paranoid and delusional as well, or is this epiphany another one of those liberalisms that applies to everyone else except you?


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on January 29, 2011, 01:46:23 PM
Does that mean that you admit that you are paranoid and delusional as well, or is this epiphany another one of those liberalisms that applies to everyone else except you?

your statement makes no sense

I see no evidence of anyone "out to get me" unlike some other posters on this board who think people or groups of people are out to get them


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on January 30, 2011, 12:49:35 PM
Usually when there are disorderly conduct charges you know it's all bogus.

How extremist of him, to dare to voice his opinion in public and complain about a violation of the Constitution. And he did so while stating his name and in a peaceful way.

If anything I think his 1st Amendment Rights were violated, or maybe the praying zealots want to ban public speech.

That wasn't peaceful.  It was an unnecessary, disrespectful, political stunt.  He could have said the same thing outside of the chambers, which is what everyone else does when they want to make a political statement.  No one should be allowed to disrupt proceedings like that.  It may not be a crime, but they can certainly kick his butt out.   

That guy is a fool.  He spends his time searching for any expression of Christianity on public property and cries about it.  He has been involved in countless disputes over that kind of stuff.  He was probably one of the persons complaining about state legislators having a fish symbol on their office doors.   ::)  An example of a dumb atheist (and there are plenty of smart ones). 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: George Whorewell on January 30, 2011, 02:13:34 PM
your statement makes no sense

I see no evidence of anyone "out to get me" unlike some other posters on this board who think people or groups of people are out to get them

What does that have to do with your ironically hypocritical statement about individuals who see extremism everywhere?


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on January 30, 2011, 02:52:02 PM
What does that have to do with your ironically hypocritical statement about individuals who see extremism everywhere?

feel free to explain my alleged hypocrisy

I never said anyone was out to get me and the only one who seems paranoid on this thread is a certain bible thumper who thinks people who are doing nothing more than exercising their first amendment rights are somehow out to get him (or people like him)


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: George Whorewell on January 30, 2011, 05:43:04 PM
I never addressed whether anyone was out to get anyone. I just thought that your statement was hypocritical and ironic because more than almost anyone else on this board, you accuse others of being extremists because they disagree with you and have what can only be described as a delusional and paranoid worldview.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on January 30, 2011, 05:50:08 PM
I never addressed whether anyone was out to get anyone. I just thought that your statement was hypocritical and ironic because more than almost anyone else on this board, you accuse others of being extremists because they disagree with you and have what can only be described as a delusional and paranoid worldview.

I don't recall accusing anyone of being an extremist for disagreeing with me ?

If I do it so often, as you suggest, why don't you show me an example or two of what you're talking about


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: George Whorewell on January 30, 2011, 05:55:01 PM
And as I often respond, I have better things to do with my time. I'm sure someone else could dig up multiple threads that illustrate my point.

Your pro Islam/ anti christian, pro gay marriage, pro socialist postings will reveal many examples. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on January 30, 2011, 05:57:40 PM
And as I often respond, I have better things to do with my time. I'm sure someone else could dig up multiple threads that illustrate my point.

Your pro Islam/ anti christian, pro gay marriage, pro socialist postings will reveal many examples. 


give me an example from memory then

I don't recall calling anyone an extremist and especially for just disagreeing with me

I usually don't even resort to name calling until someone starts doing it to me


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: George Whorewell on January 30, 2011, 06:04:39 PM
I just gave you several from memory. I don't remember the names of the exact threads. I recall you once called 333 an extremist for disagreeing with the African genital washing program in the Stimulus Bill.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on January 30, 2011, 06:10:32 PM
I just gave you several from memory. I don't remember the names of the exact threads. I recall you once called 333 an extremist for disagreeing with the African genital washing program in the Stimulus Bill.

no you didn't - you gave not one example of me calling anyone an extremist for disagreeing with me.

further more - I'm not pro-Isam (no idea where you got that from), I'm not anti-christian (just keep out of government), I'm not a socialist and although I'm not against gay marriage (it's a civil rights issue) I've never called anyone and extremist  or anything close to it for disagreeing with me on that issue (or any that I can recall).

I see you still can't stop thinking about genitals 

If you think I called him an extremist on that thread then you can easily locate that thread and find an example



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: George Whorewell on January 30, 2011, 06:15:26 PM
I could. But I wont.

We both know the truth.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on January 30, 2011, 06:18:38 PM
I could. But I wont.

We both know the truth.

I know the truth - not sure about you

here's the thread - it took 2 seconds to find it

I haven't even bothered to look at it because I know I'm right

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=348652.0


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 30, 2011, 06:26:00 PM
When people like straw call me an extremist, I know I am clearly on the right track.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on January 30, 2011, 06:27:13 PM
When people like straw call me an extremist, I know I am clearly on the right track.

show me where I've called you an extremist

I've called you an idiot, moron, etc..

but I've never called you an extremist and certainly not merely disagreeing with me

have I ?


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 30, 2011, 06:30:09 PM
I've been called so many names by now I lost track, but whether you call me an extremist, idiot, moron, or whatever, I still consider it a sign and indication of my being far closer to the right and correct side of an issue than not.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on January 30, 2011, 06:33:50 PM
I've been called so many names by now I lost track, but whether you call me an extremist, idiot, moron, or whatever, I still consider it a sign and indication of my being far closer to the right and correct side of an issue than not.

how many times have you called other people a moron, idiot etc..

we all give each other shit but I've never called you an extremist or even a moron for simply disagreeing with me

show me an example

shit - I always start every conversation with everyone (even Whorewell and Bum) with a clean slate ....every time




Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: tonymctones on January 30, 2011, 06:55:10 PM
i think straw man has said that nancy pelosi is not far left...

that gives you an idea of where he lands on the political spectrum


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on January 30, 2011, 07:50:25 PM
i think straw man has said that nancy pelosi is not far left...

that gives you an idea of where he lands on the political spectrum

where are Sanders and Kucinich in relation to Pelosi ?


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: tonymctones on January 30, 2011, 08:03:36 PM
where are Sanders and Kucinich in relation to Pelosi ?
lol simply b/c there are ppl out there further left doesnt mean she isnt far left

is pelosi far left in your opinion straw?



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 30, 2011, 08:08:25 PM
Kookcinich is a joke.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on January 30, 2011, 08:14:21 PM
lol simply b/c there are ppl out there further left doesnt mean she isnt far left

is pelosi far left in your opinion straw?


no


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: tonymctones on January 30, 2011, 08:16:36 PM
no
LOL again this gives you guys a very good idea of where strawman lands on the political spectrum


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Fury on January 30, 2011, 08:19:37 PM
LOL again this gives you guys a very good idea of where strawman lands on the political spectrum

Yes, he falls somewhere between "moron" and "idiot".


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on January 30, 2011, 08:34:33 PM
Yes, he falls somewhere between "moron" and "idiot".

I assume that is to the left of Moran

 :D


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on January 30, 2011, 08:42:52 PM
LOL again this gives you guys a very good idea of where strawman lands on the political spectrum

she is the Dem leader in the House so if she is Far Left then so is the Democratic Party



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: tonymctones on January 30, 2011, 08:51:13 PM
she is the Dem leader in the House so if she is Far Left then so is the Democratic Party


LOL goodness gracious your rationalzations sometimes are just knee slapping funny bro

first a number of the left didnt want her as the minority leader

second a number of the moderate democrats lost in the slaughter that was the 2010 mid term elections...

the ppl from districts with far left leanings such as pelosi's...got re-elected b/c their far left beliefs align with their constituents...

the others from moderate districts didnt agree with the far left agenda pushed by pelosi et al and guess where they are now?

thats right voted out...

so who is left in the democratic party in congress right now?

hmmm well if alot of the moderates got booted and the far lefts re-elected...



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on January 31, 2011, 12:27:09 PM
LOL goodness gracious your rationalzations sometimes are just knee slapping funny bro

first a number of the left didnt want her as the minority leader

second a number of the moderate democrats lost in the slaughter that was the 2010 mid term elections...

the ppl from districts with far left leanings such as pelosi's...got re-elected b/c their far left beliefs align with their constituents...

the others from moderate districts didnt agree with the far left agenda pushed by pelosi et al and guess where they are now?

thats right voted out...

so who is left in the democratic party in congress right now?

hmmm well if alot of the moderates got booted and the far lefts re-elected...

I've said Pelosi is not far left and gave you some examples of people who could be conisidered far left

I then said if you've going to call Pelosi far left then you might as well calls the Democratic Party (at least in the house) far left as she is their chosen leader and you seem to be making that same argument in your post above


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: tonymctones on January 31, 2011, 12:34:06 PM
I've said Pelosi is not far left and gave you some examples of people who could be conisidered far left

I then said if you've going to call Pelosi far left then you might as well calls the Democratic Party (at least in the house) far left as she is their chosen leader and you seem to be making that same argument in your post above

LOL the ppl in congress are not the democratic party...they are only part of it and as i explained further left for the most part now than before the elections...

again your rationalizations sometimes are knee slapping funny bro...



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on February 16, 2011, 07:28:47 PM
University to Change Policy Defining Religious Discrimination as Oppression by Christians
By Todd Starnes
Published February 16, 2011
FoxNews.com

The University of California at Davis has backed away from a policy that defined religious discrimination as Christians oppressing non-Christians after more than two dozen Christian students filed a formal complaint.

The definition was listed in a document called, “The Principles of Community.” It defined “Religious/Spiritual Discrimination” as “The loss of power and privilege to those who do not practice the dominant culture’s religion. In the United States, this is institutionalized oppressions toward those who are not Christian.”

“This is radical political correctness run amok,” said David French, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund.

The conservative advocacy group wrote a letter on behalf of more than 25 students who objected to the policy and wanted it revised.

He said it’s absurd to single out Christians as oppressors and non-Christians as the only oppressed people on campus.

Raheem Reed, an associate executive vice chancellor at UC-Davis, said he received the letter and removed the definition Wednesday afternoon.

“I certainly can see how a Christian student reading that definition might feel and that’s why it was immediately disabled and taken down,” Reed told Fox News Radio. “This is not how we define religious discrimination.”

However, one student said they complained to administrators last November about the policy and nothing was done. “Christians deserve the same protections against religious discrimination as any other students on a public university campus,” French told Fox News Radio. “The idea that a university would discriminate against Christians is a very old story, unfortunately, and one that we see played out every day.”

One student, who asked not to be identified, said university officials asked her to reaffirm “The Principles of Community” last semester. She refused to do so when she realized that Christians were not protected under the policy.

“To have a non-discrimination policy that excludes the Christian faith is a cause for action,” she said. “In higher academia, one would hope that a diversity of ideas and beliefs would be appreciated. But my experience has been that this has not always been the case. There is a real fear of academic bias against the Christian faith.”

Reed said he regrets that Christian students might feel intimidated. “We want everyone to feel safe, welcomed and supportive,” he said.

“Not only are we taking it down, but now we’re going to look at what kind of affirmative steps we can take to reassure those members of our campus community who may have felt somewhat threatened or intimidated by it.”

French said all of the students who complained are fearful of backlash if their identities became known. “This was amazing to actually enshrine in your non-discrimination statement – discrimination against Christians,” he said.

“This is a symbol of the seeming impunity in which universities violate the law to establish a radical, secular-left agenda.” Alan Brownstein, a law professor at UC-Davis, said the campus has a generally open and tolerant view of religion.

“It’s a university campus,” he said. “There is robust debate and people will disagree on just about everything.” Brownstein, who is a nationally known constitutional scholar, said any legal challenges to the policy would depend on whether or not it’s a binding document.

“Clearly, if you had an enforceable regulatory policy that said, ‘we will discipline Christians who oppress non-Christians, but we will not impose the same kind of disciplinary sanctions on non-Christians who engage in the same kind of harassing behavior against Christians,’ that would be unacceptable and subject to legal challenge.”

Reed said “The Principles of Community” is not a policy. “They are, in fact, aspirational principles we have – to try to make sure we are promoting diversity and trying to build a more inclusive campus community,” he said.

Regardless, Brownstein said it might have been more appropriate to use less-specific language in the policy. “It’s always preferable to be as general as you can when you describe these kinds of unacceptable behaviors,” he said.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/16/university-says-change-definition-christians-oppressors/


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on May 18, 2011, 11:21:22 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8OZsJokBB0


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 18, 2011, 11:23:39 AM
BB - check out my post in samsons thread what bama admn is doing to the Boston Herald.   


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on August 19, 2011, 11:33:57 AM
Florida Teacher Suspended for Anti-Gay Marriage Posts on Personal Facebook Page
By Todd Starnes
Published August 19, 2011
FoxNews.com

A former “Teacher of the Year” in Mount Dora, Fla. has been suspended and could lose his job after he voiced his objection to gay marriage on his personal Facebook page.

Jerry Buell, a veteran American history teacher at Mount Dora High School, was removed from his teaching duties this week as school officials in Lake County investigate allegations that what he posted was biased towards homosexuals.

“We took the allegations seriously,” said Chris Patton, a communication officer with Lake County Schools. “All teachers are bound by a code of special ethics (and) this is a code ethics violation investigation.”

Patton said the school system received a complaint on Tuesday about something Buell had written last July when New York legalized same sex unions. On Wednesday, he was temporarily suspended from the classroom and reassigned.

Patton said Buell has taught in the school system for 22 years and has a spotless record. Last year, he was selected as the high school’s “Teacher of the Year.”

But now his job is on the line because of what some have called anti-gay and homophobic comments.

Buell told Fox News Radio that he was stunned by the accusations. “It was my own personal comment on my own personal time on my own personal computer in my own personal house, exercising what I believed as a social studies teacher to be my First Amendment rights,” he said.

The school system declined to comment on the specific Facebook messages that led to their investigation, but Buell provided Fox News Radio with a copy of the two Facebook messages that he said landed him in trouble.

The first was posted on July 25 at 5:43 p.m. as he was eating dinner and watching the evening news.

“I’m watching the news, eating dinner when the story about New York okaying same-sex unions came on and I almost threw up,” he wrote. “And now they showed two guys kissing after their announcement. If they want to call it a union, go ahead. But don’t insult a man and woman’s marriage by throwing it in the same cesspool of whatever. God will not be mocked. When did this sin become acceptable?”

Three minutes later, Buell posted another comment: “By the way, if one doesn’t like the most recently posted opinion based on biblical principles and God’s laws, then go ahead and unfriend me. I’ll miss you like I miss my kidney stone from 1994. And I will never accept it because God will never accept it. Romans chapter one.”

According to the school system, what Buell wrote on his private account was disturbing. They were especially concerned that gay students at the school might be frightened or intimidated walking into his classroom. Patton also disputed the notion that Buell’s Facebook account is private.

“He has (more than) 700 friends,” he said. “How private is that – really? Social media can be troubling if you don’t respect it and know that just because you think you are in a private realm – it’s not private.”

Buell’s attorney strongly disagreed and accused the school system of violating his First Amendment rights.

“The school district is being anti-straight, anti-First Amendment and anti-personal liberty,” said Horatio Mihet, an attorney with the Liberty Counsel. “The idea that public servants have to whole-heartedly endorse homosexual marriage is repugnant to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,” Mihet told Fox News Radio.

“All he did was speak out on an issue of national importance and because his comments did not fit a particular mold, he is now being investigated and could possibly lose his job. What have we come to?”

Buell said he does not know the individual who filed the complaint, but the past week has caused his family “heartache.”
 
“To try and say you could lose your job over speaking about something in the venue that I did in the manner that I did is not just a knee-jerk reaction,” he said. “It’s a violent reaction to one person making a complaint.”

But Patton said the school system has an obligation to take the comments seriously. He said Buell will not be allowed back in the classroom “until we do all the interviews and do a thorough job of looking at everything – past or previous writings.”

To accomplish that, he said people have been sending the school system screenshots of Buell’s Facebook page.

“Just because you think it’s private, other people are viewing it,” Patton said, noting that the teacher’s Facebook page also contained numerous Bible passages.

Mihet said he was livid.

“These are not fringe ideas that Mr. Buell espoused on his personal Facebook page,” he told Fox News Radio. “They are mainstream textbook opposition to homosexual unions – and now he’s been deemed unfit to teach children because he opposes gay marriage? My goodness.” Buell believes the school system is trying to send a message to Christian teachers.

“There is an intimidation factor if you are a Christian or if you make a statement against it (gay marriage) you are a bigot, a homophobe, you’re a creep, you’re intolerant,” he said. “We should have the right to express our opinions and talk about things.”

But some legal experts believe that school teachers could be held to a different standard when it comes to using social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter.

“This teacher is right on the cusp of going over the line,” said Miami attorney Justin Leto. “If he is ‘friends’ with his students on Facebook, then I think he should not be surprised by the school’s actions. However, if he has a private page and restricts student access, then he should be free to say what he wishes.”

Leto said teachers should have the right to make statements about their own personal beliefs without fear of retribution from their employer. “This assumes that the comments are not hateful, racist or malicious,” he said.
 
“It’s a little bit more complicated with a school teacher,” said Brad Jacob, a law professor at Regent University. “The first question you have to ask, did this context communicate that the teacher was speaking on behalf of the government?”

But what about on social networking sites, like Facebook and Twitter? “School teachers generally have free speech rights, and the government may not censor the private speech on public school teachers,” he said.

However, if Buell had communicated his opinion on gay marriage in the classroom, Jacob said the teacher would have been on shaky legal ground. “If he communicated those views in the classroom, I think the state could have grounds to punish or fire him,” he said.

Reaction in Central Florida has been mixed.

Brett Winters, a former Mount Dora student, told the Orlando Sentinel he was disappointed about Buell’s comments. “This type of hateful language is dangerous not only to gay students, but also to anti-gay students,” Winters told the newspaper.

Michael Slaymaker, president of the Orlando Youth Alliance, told the newspaper that gay students might feel uncomfortable in Buell’s class.
“I would hope a teacher would be there to help them and not hurt them,” he told the Orlando Sentinel.

Meanwhile, hundreds of people have joined at least two Facebook groups calling for the school system to reinstate the popular teacher. “He’s developed a reputation as being one of the most caring teachers in the school,” Mihet said.

Buell said the most disappointing part of the investigation is that he may not be in his classroom on Monday – the first day of the school year.
“This is the place where you will receive the most respect out of any place you’ll be all day. I love my kids. I take my job very seriously.”

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/19/florida-teacher-suspended-for-anti-gay-marriage-post-on-personal-facebook/


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on September 23, 2011, 11:06:15 AM
Texas School Punishes Boy for Opposing Homosexuality
By Todd Starnes
Published September 22, 2011
FoxNews.com

An honors student in Fort Worth, Texas, was sent to the principal’s office and punished for telling a classmate that he believes homosexuality is wrong.

Holly Pope said she was “absolutely stunned” when she received a telephone call from an assistant principal at Western Hills High School informing her that her son, Dakota Ary, had been sent to in-school suspension.

“Dakota is a very well-grounded 14-year-old,” she told Fox News Radio noting that her son is an honors student, plays on the football team and is active in his church youth group. “He’s been in church his whole life and he’s been taught to stand up for what he believes.”

And that’s what got him in trouble.

Dakota was in a German class at the high school when the conversation shifted to religion and homosexuality in Germany. At some point during the conversation, he turned to a friend and said that he was a Christian and “being a homosexual is wrong.”

“It wasn’t directed to anyone except my friend who was sitting behind me,” Dakota told Fox. “I guess [the teacher] heard me. He started yelling. He told me he was going to write me an infraction and send me to the office.”

Dakota was sentenced to one day in-school suspension – and two days of full suspension. His mother was flabbergasted, noting that her son had a spotless record, was an honor student, volunteered at his church and played on the school football team.

Officials at the high school did not return calls for comment. However, the Fort Worth Independent School District issued a statement that read:

“As a matter of course, Fort Worth ISD does not comment on specific employee or student-related issues. Suffice it to say that we are following district policy in our review of the circumstances and any resolution will likewise be in accordance with district policy.”

After a meeting with Pope and her attorney, the school rescinded the two-day suspension so Dakota would be allowed to play in an upcoming football game.

“They’ve righted all the wrongs,” said Matt Krause, an attorney with the Liberty Counsel. “This should have no lasting effect on his academic or personal record going forward.”

Pope contacted the Liberty Counsel immediately after her son was punished.

“I told the school that he should never have been suspended for exercising his Constitutional rights,” Krause told Fox News Radio. “The principal is sincere in trying to do the right thing and hopefully they will tell the teacher, ‘Do not do that anymore.’ He won’t be pushing his agenda.”

Krause called the incident “mind blowing” and said the teacher had frequently brought homosexuality into ninth grade classroom discussions.

“There has been a history with this teacher in the class regarding homosexual topics,” Krause said. “The teacher had posted a picture of two men kissing on a wall that offended some of the students.”

Krause said the picture was posted on the teacher’s “world wall.”

“He told the students this is happening all over the world and you need to accept the fact that homosexuality is just part of our culture now,” Krause said.

The school district would not comment on why a teacher was discussing homosexuality in a ninth grade German class.

“In German class there should be no talk of being pro-Gay or homosexual topics,” Krause said.

Dakota’s mother said she believes the teacher should apologize.

“He should never have been punished,” Pope said. “He didn’t disrupt the class. He wasn’t threatening. He wasn’t hostile. He made a comment to his friend and the teacher overheard it.”

“My son knows people that are homosexual,” she said. “He’s not saying, ‘I don’t like you.’ He’s saying, ‘I’m a Christian and I believe that being that way is wrong.’”

Krause said school leaders told Dakota that in the future he should be careful when and where he talks about his opposition to homosexuality – suggesting that he talk about such matters in the hallway instead of the classroom.

He said Liberty Counsel will monitor the situation to make sure there is no future retaliation. Meantime, Pope said her son will return to the teacher’s classroom.

“I’ve told him to treat this teacher with respect,” she said. “He is your elder. He is your teacher. What his beliefs are or what they are not – outside the school is none of our business.”

Click here to read more on this story from Fox News Radio.

Click here to read more on this story from MyFoxDFW.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/22/texas-school-punishes-boy-for-opposing-homosexuality/


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on September 23, 2011, 07:51:46 PM
Bum

except for the story about Rove on the first page (and a private university not wanting him to talk is not an example of censorship) all of your examples of so called "censorship" have to do with certain christian persons opinion about gays, gay marriage, etc....

ignoring the fact that no one is stopping any of these people from writing and publishing their beliefs and even speaking them virtually anywhere they want, why are all your examples about christians and their beliefs about gay people?

Do you believe that "Libs" are persecuting your fellow Christians?


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: George Whorewell on September 24, 2011, 10:24:49 PM
Bum

except for the story about Rove on the first page (and a private university not wanting him to talk is not an example of censorship) all of your examples of so called "censorship" have to do with certain christian persons opinion about gays, gay marriage, etc....

ignoring the fact that no one is stopping any of these people from writing and publishing their beliefs and even speaking them virtually anywhere they want, why are all your examples about christians and their beliefs about gay people?

Do you believe that "Libs" are persecuting your fellow Christians?

Straw= Thinks that Christianity opposes homo's like him because Noah's arc doesn't advocate the pairing of same sex animals.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on October 05, 2011, 01:51:46 PM
Graduate Student Says She Was Dismissed From Program Due to Beliefs Toward Homosexuality
By Joshua Rhett Miller
Published October 05, 2011
FoxNews.com

(http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/396/223/Julea%20W.jpg)
In July, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit of Julea Ward, seen here, against Eastern Michigan University (EMU) after the school successfully contended she violated school policy and the American Counseling Association's code of ethics, which forbids counselors from discrimination in clinical practice.

An attorney for a graduate student claiming she was wrongfully dismissed from her counseling job at a Michigan college because she refused to work with gay and bisexual clients argued in federal court Tuesday that his client was discriminated against because of her religious beliefs -- while the school insists her actions violated school policy.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati heard arguments in the case involving Julea Ward, a Detroit-area public school teacher. In July 2010, a federal judge dismissed Ward's lawsuit against Eastern Michigan University (EMU) after the school successfully contended she violated school policy and the American Counseling Association's code of ethics, which forbids counselors from discrimination in clinical practice.

Following Tuesday's hearing, Jeremy Tedesco, an attorney for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, said he believes the Appeals Court will overturn the ruling because it violated Ward’s First Amendment rights.

"Ultimately, the university has a really tough battle here," Tedesco told FoxNews.com. "The bottom line to us is that this is very clear violation of her First Amendment rights in a couple of different contexts."

Tedesco argued that Ward's rights were violated when she was required to enter a remediation program to change her beliefs toward homosexuality. He said EMU officials violated the U.S. Constitution when they refused to accommodate Ward's sincerely held beliefs by not allowing her to refer her client to another qualified candidate.

"Rather than allow Julea to refer a potential client to another qualified counselor -- a common, professional practice to best serve clients -- EMU attacked and questioned Julea's religious beliefs and ultimately expelled her from the program because of them," Tedesco said in a statement. He said there is no timetable for the appellate court's decision.

According to ADF attorneys, Ward was assigned a potential client seeking assistance regarding a homosexual relationship shortly after she enrolled in the counseling program in January 2009. Realizing she could not affirm the client's relationship without violating her own religious beliefs, Ward then asked a supervisor for assistance. After being advised to reassign the potential client, EMU officials informed Ward she would need to undergo a "remediation" program in order to stay in the counseling program, the attorneys claim.

Ward was later dismissed from the program, and EMU officials denied her appeal.

"Julea followed accepted professional practice and the advice of her supervising professor when she referred the potential client to someone who had no conscience issue with the subject to be discussed," Tedesco's statement continued. "She would have gladly counseled the client herself had the topic focused on any other matter. Julea was punished for acting professionally and ethically in this situation."

In a statement to FoxNews.com, university officials said they are confident the July 2010 ruling will be upheld.

"This case has never been about religion or religious discrimination," read a statement issued by Walter Kraft, vice president for communications at EMU. "It is not about homosexuality or sexual orientation. This case is about what is in the best interest of a client who is in need of counseling, and following the curricular requirements of our highly-respected and nationally-accredited counseling program ... This case is important to Eastern Michigan, it also is important to universities across the country, as well as to the several universities in Michigan that have filed briefs in support of our position in this case."

In February, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Michigan filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting EMU.

"Students seeking counseling must be able to trust that they will receive the help they need, free from discrimination," ACLU Deputy Legal Director Louise Melling said in a statement.

"Counselors are entitled to their own religious beliefs, but they do not have a right to discriminate as part of their professional training at a public university."

Michael Steinberg, legal director of the ACLU of Michigan, said public school counselors should not be "able to close the door" to homosexual students looking for guidance.

In a 48-page opinion, U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh dismissed Ward's lawsuit in July, citing the university's rational basis for adopting the American Counseling Association's code of ethics.

"Furthermore, the university had a rational basis for requiring students to counsel clients without imposing their personal values," Steeh wrote. "In the case of Ms. Ward, the university determined that she would never change her behavior and would consistently refuse to counsel clients on matters with which she was personally opposed due to her religious beliefs -- including homosexual relationships."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/05/appeals-court-to-hear-case-graduate-student-dismissed-for-refusing-to-work-with/?test=latestnews


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on October 05, 2011, 04:05:17 PM
yet another example of non-censorship

Bum - you should correct the title of this thread to "Paranoid Religious Kooks feel persecuted over their bigotry against gay people"


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 17, 2012, 10:08:37 AM
Liberals just can't get over the fact that conservatives rule talk radio. 

FCC should clear Limbaugh from airwaves
By Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan and Gloria Steinem, Special to CNN
updated 10:05 AM EDT, Mon March 12, 2012

(CNN) -- Ironically, the misogyny Rush Limbaugh spewed for three days over Sandra Fluke was not much worse than his regular broadcast of sexist, racist and homophobic hate speech:

-- Female Cabinet members are "Sex-retaries."
-- "The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies."
-- The National Organization for Women is "a bunch of whores to liberalism."
-- [Said to an African-American female caller]: "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back."
These are just a few samples from the arsenal of degrading language Limbaugh deploys on women, people of color, lesbians and gays, immigrants, the disabled, the elderly, Muslims, Jews, veterans, environmentalists and so forth.

Jane Fonda

Limbaugh doesn't just call people names. He promotes language that deliberately dehumanizes his targets. Like the sophisticated propagandist Josef Goebbels, he creates rhetorical frames -- and the bigger the lie, the more effective -- inciting listeners to view people they disagree with as sub-humans. His longtime favorite term for women, "femi-Nazi," doesn't even raise eyebrows anymore, an example of how rhetoric spreads when unchallenged by coarsened cultural norms.

Robin Morgan

At least this most recent incident has turned a spotlight back on the vile, damaging statements Limbaugh has been promulgating for years. His sponsors are dropping him; his stations have begun to follow suit. VoteVets, a coalition of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, released a statement by female vets, including Katherine Scheirman, former chief of medical operations in the U.S. Air Forces, demanding that the American Forces Network drop Limbaugh from its programming.

Gloria Steinem

They state, "Our entire military depends on troops respecting each other -- women and men. There simply can be no place on military airwaves for sentiments that would undermine that respect."

That makes this a fitting time to inquire of his syndicator, Clear Channel Communications, whether it intends to continue supporting someone who addicts his audience to regular doses of hate speech. Clear Channel's Premiere Radio Networks Inc., which hosts Limbaugh's program, has defended his recent comments.

If Clear Channel won't clean up its airways, then surely it's time for the public to ask the FCC a basic question: Are the stations carrying Limbaugh's show in fact using their licenses "in the public interest?"

Spectrum is a scarce government resource. Radio broadcasters are obligated to act in the public interest and serve their respective communities of license. In keeping with this obligation, individual radio listeners may complain to the FCC that Limbaugh's radio station (and those syndicating his show) are not acting in the public interest or serving their respective communities of license by permitting such dehumanizing speech.

The FCC takes such complaints into consideration when stations file for license renewal. For local listeners near a station that carries Limbaugh's show, there is plenty of evidence to bring to the FCC that their station isn't carrying out its public interest obligation. Complaints can be registered under the broadcast category of the FCC website: http://www.fcc.gov/complaints

This isn't political. While we disagree with Limbaugh's politics, what's at stake is the fallout of a society tolerating toxic, hate-inciting speech. For 20 years, Limbaugh has hidden behind the First Amendment, or else claimed he's really "doing humor" or "entertainment." He is indeed constitutionally entitled to his opinions, but he is not constitutionally entitled to the people's airways.

It's time for the public to take back our broadcast resources. Limbaugh has had decades to fix his show. Now it's up to us.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/10/opinion/fonda-morgan-steinem-limbaugh/


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: blacken700 on March 17, 2012, 10:27:09 AM
thats' because more than half of repubs let talk radio do their thinking for them


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 17, 2012, 10:29:41 AM
thats' because more than half of repubs let talk radio do their thinking for them

And you let the Communist Occupier in Chief do your thinking - what is your point? 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 17, 2012, 10:43:44 AM
In the least surprising news of the day . . . .

Quote
Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

Online, liberals far less tolerant than normal people
IBD Editorials ^ | March 13, 2012 | ANDREW MALCOM
Posted on March 13, 2012 8:22:49 PM EDT by Kaslin

Not exactly shocking news for those exposed to them for years, but the respected Pew Research Center has determined that political liberals are far less tolerant of opposing views than regular Americans.

In a new study, the Pew Center for the Internet and American Life Project confirmed what most intelligent Americans had long sensed. That is, whenever they are challenged or confronted on the hollow falsity of their orthodoxy -- such as, say, uniting diverse Americans -- liberals tend to respond defensively with anger, even trying to shut off or silence critics. (i.e. photo above of President Obama reacting to Boston hecklers.)

The new research found that instead of engaging in civil discourse or debate, fully 16% of liberals admitted to blocking, unfriending or overtly hiding someone on a social networking site because that person expressed views they disagreed with. That's double the percentage of conservatives and more than twice the percentage of political moderates who behaved like that.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: _bruce_ on March 17, 2012, 03:57:59 PM
Free speech is a one way street.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on April 06, 2012, 09:23:40 AM
Iowa Republicans blast law school over refusal to hire conservative professor as faculty
By Cristina Corbin
Published April 06, 2012
FoxNews.com

Iowa Republicans are taking aim at the state's top law school for denying a faculty position to a conservative law professor, who an assistant dean once said embraces politics the rest of the faculty "despises."   

Teresa Wagner, who works as an associate director of writing at the University of Iowa College of Law, is suing former dean Carolyn Jones for employment discrimination, claiming she was not hired for a professor position because Jones and other law faculty disapproved of her conservative views and activism.

To hold a law faculty position at the publicly funded university is viewed as a "sacred cow," Wagner said in an interview, and "Republicans need not apply."

The case, which goes to trial this October, has become a chief concern for Republicans in Johnson County, who on Monday passed a resolution calling on the Iowa House of Representatives' oversight committee to investigate hiring practices involved in Wagner's case and others like it.

"We think the hiring policies need to be such where there are certainly non-discriminatory practices which relate to political philosophy, as well as to race and gender and other issues," said Bob Anderson, chairman of the Johnson County Republican Party. He claims students are deprived of "diversity of political thought" when conservative thinkers, like Wagner, are rejected based on their politics.

"We have a very active, conservative Republican community within the University of Iowa, which has not been met with an appropriate sense of respect for their ideas," he told FoxNews.com. "We see generally the climate as unfavorable." 

Wagner, who graduated with honors from the law school in 1993, has taught at the George Mason University School of Law. She has also worked for the National Right to Life Committee, which opposes abortion, and the conservative Family Research Council.

In 2006, Wagner applied for a full-time instructor position with the law school and was denied. She was also rejected for an adjunct or full-time position in four subsequent attempts, according to her attorney, Stephen T. Fieweger.

"For the first time in years, there are more registered Republicans in the state of Iowa than there are Democrats, which is obviously not reflected at the University of Iowa," Fieweger told FoxNews.com.

Fieweger said Wagner's candidacy was dismissed because of her conservative views, and he cited a 2007 email from Associate Dean Jonathan C. Carlson to Jones in which Carlson wrote: "Frankly, one thing that worries me is that some people may be opposed to Teresa serving in any role, in part at least because they so despise her politics (and especially her activism about it)."

Associate Dean Eric Andersen was not immediately available for comment when contacted Thursday. Tom Moore, a spokesman for the university, told the Iowa City Press Citizen last week that the school is "committed to equal opportunity, diversity and to following fair hiring practices."

Wagner's case was initially dismissed in a lower court that ruled the dean could hire whomever she wishes. But the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in St. Louis, reinstated it in December. A trial is set for Oct. 15.

Fieweger said the law school and academic institutions in general have been so "entrenched" in discriminating against conservative-minded faculty over the years that "they don't recognize they're doing it."

At the time Wagner filed her complaint, Fieweger said, the number of registered Republicans on the law faculty stood at one.

Fieweger said the school argues Wagner was rejected because she "stunningly flunked the interview" in refusing to teach analysis -- a claim he said "just doesn't make sense and the jury is going to see that."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/05/iowa-republicans-blast-law-school-over-refusal-to-hire-conservative-professor/


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on April 06, 2012, 01:21:03 PM
Iowa Republicans blast law school over refusal to hire conservative professor as faculty
By Cristina Corbin
Published April 06, 2012
FoxNews.com

Iowa Republicans are taking aim at the state's top law school for denying a faculty position to a conservative law professor, who an assistant dean once said embraces politics the rest of the faculty "despises."   

Teresa Wagner, who works as an associate director of writing at the University of Iowa College of Law, is suing former dean Carolyn Jones for employment discrimination, claiming she was not hired for a professor position because Jones and other law faculty disapproved of her conservative views and activism.

To hold a law faculty position at the publicly funded university is viewed as a "sacred cow," Wagner said in an interview, and "Republicans need not apply."

The case, which goes to trial this October, has become a chief concern for Republicans in Johnson County, who on Monday passed a resolution calling on the Iowa House of Representatives' oversight committee to investigate hiring practices involved in Wagner's case and others like it.

"We think the hiring policies need to be such where there are certainly non-discriminatory practices which relate to political philosophy, as well as to race and gender and other issues," said Bob Anderson, chairman of the Johnson County Republican Party. He claims students are deprived of "diversity of political thought" when conservative thinkers, like Wagner, are rejected based on their politics.

"We have a very active, conservative Republican community within the University of Iowa, which has not been met with an appropriate sense of respect for their ideas," he told FoxNews.com. "We see generally the climate as unfavorable." 

Wagner, who graduated with honors from the law school in 1993, has taught at the George Mason University School of Law. She has also worked for the National Right to Life Committee, which opposes abortion, and the conservative Family Research Council.

In 2006, Wagner applied for a full-time instructor position with the law school and was denied. She was also rejected for an adjunct or full-time position in four subsequent attempts, according to her attorney, Stephen T. Fieweger.

"For the first time in years, there are more registered Republicans in the state of Iowa than there are Democrats, which is obviously not reflected at the University of Iowa," Fieweger told FoxNews.com.

Fieweger said Wagner's candidacy was dismissed because of her conservative views, and he cited a 2007 email from Associate Dean Jonathan C. Carlson to Jones in which Carlson wrote: "Frankly, one thing that worries me is that some people may be opposed to Teresa serving in any role, in part at least because they so despise her politics (and especially her activism about it)."

Associate Dean Eric Andersen was not immediately available for comment when contacted Thursday. Tom Moore, a spokesman for the university, told the Iowa City Press Citizen last week that the school is "committed to equal opportunity, diversity and to following fair hiring practices."

Wagner's case was initially dismissed in a lower court that ruled the dean could hire whomever she wishes. But the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in St. Louis, reinstated it in December. A trial is set for Oct. 15.

Fieweger said the law school and academic institutions in general have been so "entrenched" in discriminating against conservative-minded faculty over the years that "they don't recognize they're doing it."

At the time Wagner filed her complaint, Fieweger said, the number of registered Republicans on the law faculty stood at one.

Fieweger said the school argues Wagner was rejected because she "stunningly flunked the interview" in refusing to teach analysis -- a claim he said "just doesn't make sense and the jury is going to see that."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/05/iowa-republicans-blast-law-school-over-refusal-to-hire-conservative-professor/

how is this censorship

I guess if Fox doesn't offer Keith Olberman a job then they are censoring him too


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: tonymctones on April 07, 2012, 09:12:18 AM
how is this censorship

I guess if Fox doesn't offer Keith Olberman a job then they are censoring him too
public institutions that receive govt subsidies are not supposed promote a political doctrine.

Isnt that one of your beef's with the church?

I guess you havent gotten a chance to look up the definition of censor just yet?


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on April 07, 2012, 09:49:58 AM
public institutions that receive govt subsidies are not supposed promote a political doctrine.

says who?

by your standard wouldn't hiring her be promoting political doctrine as well

btw - Faux News uses the public airwaves so shouldn't they be required to have liberal points of view (assuming of course one believes that somehow not being hired for a job is a form of censorship)

Isnt that one of your beef's with the church?
no

I guess you havent gotten a chance to look up the definition of censor just yet?

feel free to show me a generally accepted definition that includes the situation of this woman



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: OzmO on April 07, 2012, 10:17:25 AM
So what if the school doesn't want to hire her?  Isn't their right to hire who ever they want?  And if they want to hire only liberal minded people isn't it their choice?

Should we start having affirmative action now for political ideology?



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: OzmO on April 07, 2012, 10:20:19 AM
Makes me wonder if an institution that had overwhelmingly conservative staff decided not hire a extreme liberal professor if the outcry would be the  same?

Or should it be?


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on April 07, 2012, 10:33:26 AM
So what if the school doesn't want to hire her?  Isn't their right to hire who ever they want?  And if they want to hire only liberal minded people isn't it their choice?

Should we start having affirmative action now for political ideology?



A private school should be able to hire whomever they want.  A taxpayer funded school, not so much.

But the real issue (at least to me) is the repeated attempt to silence dissent.  It's a liberal hallmark. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on April 07, 2012, 10:45:30 AM
A private school should be able to hire whomever they want.  A taxpayer funded school, not so much.

But the real issue (at least to me) is the repeated attempt to silence dissentIt's a liberal hallmark. 

It's a conservative hallmark to whine about non-existent censorship

how is she being silenced ?

she can speak, blog, publish etc.. and can probably get a job at a 100 different schools

she is not entitled to a job at any particular school regardless of whether that school receives any public assistance or not

should the school be forced to hire David Duke as well because his particular political beliefs are not represented?



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: tonymctones on April 07, 2012, 10:47:01 AM
says who?

by your standard wouldn't hiring her be promoting political doctrine as well

btw - Faux News uses the public airwaves so shouldn't they be required to have liberal points of view (assuming of course one believes that somehow not being hired for a job is a form of censorship)
no

feel free to show me a generally accepted definition that includes the situation of this woman
says the govt and nut job paranoid atheist such as yourself.

you havent railed for the tax exempt status of churchs to be taken away b/c they are political?

does fox news receive public subsidies?

define censor straw...


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on April 07, 2012, 12:03:24 PM
says the govt and nut job paranoid atheist such as yourself.

you havent railed for the tax exempt status of churchs to be taken away b/c they are political?

does fox news receive public subsidies?

define censor straw...

this has nothing to do with separation of church and state but if you think it does then I guess christian churches should be forced to hire rabbi's, imam's and also atheists to provide their points of view on Sunday mornings

again - feel free to produce any definition of censorship that you think would support this womans claim that she is entitled to a job at this specific university


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: tonymctones on April 07, 2012, 12:26:32 PM
this has nothing to do with separation of church and state but if you think it does then I guess christian churches should be forced to hire rabbi's, imam's and also atheists to provide their points of view on Sunday mornings

again - feel free to produce any definition of censorship that you think would support this womans claim that she is entitled to a job at this specific university
LOL I didnt know that their were imams and rabbis applying for jobs at churchs

find any definition of censor that doesnt...jack ass


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: OzmO on April 07, 2012, 04:10:39 PM
A private school should be able to hire whomever they want.  A taxpayer funded school, not so much.

But the real issue (at least to me) is the repeated attempt to silence dissent.  It's a liberal hallmark.  

Aren't they just denying a job in favor of someone else?  I don't think a staff of peopel like 33333 would be any less intolerant.   It's only natural now a days in this culture of lib vs dem spurred on by talking heads in a joint demonization. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on April 07, 2012, 09:06:36 PM
Aren't they just denying a job in favor of someone else?  I don't think a staff of peopel like 33333 would be any less intolerant.   It's only natural now a days in this culture of lib vs dem spurred on by talking heads in a joint demonization. 

They're denying a job to a conservative so they can hire someone else who is a liberal.  It's an attempt to control ideology and keep out opposing viewpoints. 

Check out the story earlier on this page about liberals being less tolerant with people with different opinions.  They cut them off.  Try and shut them up.  It's a very predictable reaction. 

The response to speech you disagree with is more speech, not less. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 07, 2012, 09:16:29 PM
They're denying a job to a conservative so they can hire someone else who is a liberal.  It's an attempt to control ideology and keep out opposing viewpoints. 

Check out the story earlier on this page about liberals being less tolerant with people with different opinions.  They cut them off.  Try and shut them up.  It's a very predictable reaction. 

The response to speech you disagree with is more speech, not less. 

leftists and liberal communists are dishonest about their agenda.  They are the least tolerant of anyone.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on April 08, 2012, 03:43:34 PM
leftists and liberal communists are dishonest about their agenda.  They are the least tolerant of anyone.

I agree.  Not true of all of them, but certainly true of a lot. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: OzmO on April 08, 2012, 07:13:22 PM
They're denying a job to a conservative so they can hire someone else who is a liberal.  It's an attempt to control ideology and keep out opposing viewpoints.  

Check out the story earlier on this page about liberals being less tolerant with people with different opinions.  They cut them off.  Try and shut them up.  It's a very predictable reaction.  

The response to speech you disagree with is more speech, not less.  

Are you suggesting groups/institutions with hard core conservatives Controlling things don't do similar things?

If you don't think so, are you telling me a bleeding heart lib is going to make General with the same difficulty as a conservative?


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 08, 2012, 07:20:16 PM
Are you suggesting groups/institutions with hard core conservatives Controlling things don't do similar things?

If you don't think so, are you telling me a bleeding heart lib is going to make General with the same difficulty as a conservative?

Like who exactly that has a similar captive audience? 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: OzmO on April 08, 2012, 07:24:07 PM
Like who exactly that has a similar captive audience?  

Huh?

Don't understand, maybe you missed a word in your sentence.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 08, 2012, 07:26:44 PM
Huh?

Don't understand, maybe you missed a word in your sentence.

Conservatives don't have the captive audience that leftists and communists do like the school system, the msm, the colleges, academia, etc. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: OzmO on April 08, 2012, 07:30:32 PM
Conservatives don't have the captive audience that leftists and communists do like the school system, the msm, the colleges, academia, etc. 

Oh so the military isn't a captive audience? 

How many people are in military including defense contractors, industry, consulting etc?



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 08, 2012, 07:33:53 PM
Oh so the military isn't a captive audience? 

How many people are in military including defense contractors, industry, consulting etc?



Most people by that age have already made up their minds.    he leftist communists who write the text books, occupy the teachers unions, who occupy the msm, etc spread their liberal communist crap and false bullshit from far earlier age. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: 240 is Back on April 08, 2012, 07:58:45 PM
churches use state money.. hell, they pay zero taxes.  and they sure as shit hire people that fit their ideological beliefs.  Wear your Slayer shirt in, see if they hire ya.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: OzmO on April 08, 2012, 08:01:23 PM
Most people by that age have already made up their minds.    he leftist communists who write the text books, occupy the teachers unions, who occupy the msm, etc spread their liberal communist crap and false bullshit from far earlier age. 

Yeah 18-25 year olds never change their mind as they grow older.  And the conservative rhetoric and demonization of liberals in the military have no effect.   ::)


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 08, 2012, 08:02:46 PM
churches use state money.. hell, they pay zero taxes.  and they sure as shit hire people that fit their ideological beliefs.  Wear your Slayer shirt in, see if they hire ya.

Many congregations are leftist to. Try to get money.  I wear my slayer shirts in TJE bronx and pro gin shirts wherever I gp.  


my favorite shirt says loudly that only slaves oppose the the. 2nd amwndmenf.  I wear it all TJE time.


Communism like the modern day liberal ideology needs to be defeated.  Modern day librals equal commies.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on April 08, 2012, 10:23:29 PM
LOL I didnt know that their were imams and rabbis applying for jobs at churchs

find any definition of censor that doesnt...jack ass

sorry can't find any definition of censorship that includes entitlement to a specific job

feel free to provide one or I'll assume the point has been made


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on April 08, 2012, 11:33:57 PM
Are you suggesting groups/institutions with hard core conservatives Controlling things don't do similar things?

If you don't think so, are you telling me a bleeding heart lib is going to make General with the same difficulty as a conservative?

Are you talking about taxpayer funded organizations?  If so, I don't think that happens. 

If you're talking about private organizations, then yes I'm sure it happens. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: OzmO on April 09, 2012, 07:24:50 AM
Are you talking about taxpayer funded organizations?  If so, I don't think that happens. 

If you're talking about private organizations, then yes I'm sure it happens. 

The military isn't a tax payer funded organization?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's right what happened in that article, my point is, it happens in reverse too and the military as a prime example.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: tonymctones on April 09, 2012, 04:25:53 PM
sorry can't find any definition of censorship that includes entitlement to a specific job

feel free to provide one or I'll assume the point has been made
Nice straw man, youre living up to your name quite nicely.

censorverb
cen·soredcen·sor·ing\ˈsen(t)-sə-riŋ, ˈsen(t)s-riŋ\
Definition of CENSOR
transitive verb
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>

do you think they examined his background and stances and didnt give him the job b/c of them?

if so is that not suppressing his opinion?


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on April 10, 2012, 08:30:24 AM
Nice straw man, youre living up to your name quite nicely.

censorverb
cen·soredcen·sor·ing\ˈsen(t)-sə-riŋ, ˈsen(t)s-riŋ\
Definition of CENSOR
transitive verb
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>

do you think they examined his background and stances and didnt give him the job b/c of them?

if so is that not suppressing his opinion?

your name is becoming synonymous with not knowing when to quit when you're wrong

this woman is employed by the University of Iowa where she is free to express her opinions all day long so her only complaint is she feels entitled to a different job

http://www.law.uiowa.edu/directory/staff/teresa-wagner.php

there is no definition of censorship that includes entitlement to a specific job at a specific employer

if she wants a job as a law professor she is free to apply to every collge of law on the planet but nothing entitles her to a job at any particular university

finally...and pay close attention to this point - her lawsuit is based on a claim of discrimination and not censorship



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on April 10, 2012, 02:48:11 PM
The military isn't a tax payer funded organization?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's right what happened in that article, my point is, it happens in reverse too and the military as a prime example.

The military is taxpayer funded, and yes they censor stuff all the time, but they're a different animal.



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: OzmO on April 10, 2012, 08:26:52 PM
The military is taxpayer funded, and yes they censor stuff all the time, but they're a different animal.



Do you deny a conservative bias in the military?


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on April 10, 2012, 09:34:51 PM
Do you deny a conservative bias in the military?

In terms of hiring, promotion, and firing, yeah I deny that.  I think the majority of the rank and file are conservative, but that doesn't = a conservative bias when it comes to how the services are run. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: OzmO on April 11, 2012, 08:26:20 AM
In terms of hiring, promotion, and firing, yeah I deny that.  I think the majority of the rank and file are conservative, but that doesn't = a conservative bias when it comes to how the services are run. 


That's about the most untrue statement I have heard you say.  Liberals are completely demonized in the military and if you are a outward liberal getting high level promotions above Captian is difficult if not impossible.  In the lower ranks, you get labeled and have to deal with all kinds of bias. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 11, 2012, 08:28:40 AM

That's about the most untrue statement I have heard you say.  Liberals are completely demonized in the military and if you are a outward liberal getting high level promotions above Captian is difficult if not impossible.  In the lower ranks, you get labeled and have to deal with all kinds of bias. 


As in most areas of life where adults reside.  Once one becomes an adult and still displays leftist ideas - ridicule and mocking should be expected.     


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: OzmO on April 11, 2012, 08:48:04 AM

As in most areas of life where adults reside.  Once one becomes an adult and still displays leftist ideas - ridicule and mocking should be expected.     

Followed by jail time if it continues.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 11, 2012, 08:50:49 AM
Followed by jail time if it continues.

no way!!!!  The best evidence of the failure of liberalism are liberals themselves!   The more they speak, the more they spread their mamby pamby crap, the more the general public realizes who freaking nuts most leftists are. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: OzmO on April 11, 2012, 09:05:00 AM
no way!!!!  The best evidence of the failure of liberalism are liberals themselves!   The more they speak, the more they spread their mamby pamby crap, the more the general public realizes who freaking nuts most leftists are. 

then put them in glass cages on the sides of streets and sidewalks


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on April 11, 2012, 09:06:14 AM

That's about the most untrue statement I have heard you say.  Liberals are completely demonized in the military and if you are a outward liberal getting high level promotions above Captian is difficult if not impossible.  In the lower ranks, you get labeled and have to deal with all kinds of bias. 

I disagree.  I know a number of liberals in the military, including high ranking officers.  They are a minority IMO, but they are not demonized.  A Soldier's political ideology doesn't really factor into promotions (or supervision, etc.).  

Maybe HH has a different view, but that's what I've seen.  


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: OzmO on April 11, 2012, 10:13:52 AM
I disagree.  I know a number of liberals in the military, including high ranking officers.  They are a minority IMO, but they are not demonized.  A Soldier's political ideology doesn't really factor into promotions (or supervision, etc.).  

Maybe HH has a different view, but that's what I've seen.  

Still disagree (based on very close dealings over the years), and especially since higher level promotions are not purely merit based.  And to say "they" are not demonized might be true in front of them, however, liberals in general are demonized as a matter of culture in the military.  Remember i am not talking about E-1-5 here. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on April 11, 2012, 12:30:28 PM
Still disagree (based on very close dealings over the years), and especially since higher level promotions are not purely merit based.  And to say "they" are not demonized might be true in front of them, however, liberals in general are demonized as a matter of culture in the military.  Remember i am not talking about E-1-5 here. 

If you're talking about enlisted promotions from E-6 through E-9, those are done by promotion boards that meet hundreds or thousands of miles away, where I don't think it's even possible for the board to know what the person's political preferences might be.  There is no room in the selection process for them to consider that kind of stuff. 

Regarding promotions from Major through Colonel, it's the same process:  a board that doesn't even meet the individual up for promotion makes a decision based on officer evaluation reports, education, performance, physical fitness, etc. 

I think general officer promotions could get "political," but by and large everything else doesn't involve discrimination based on political philosophy. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: OzmO on April 11, 2012, 01:25:02 PM
So reviews by superiors aren't taken into account at all?


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on April 11, 2012, 02:12:12 PM
So reviews by superiors aren't taken into account at all?

That's what officer evaluation reports are.  Enlisted have the same, except they're called noncommissioned officer evaluation reports.  


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: OzmO on April 11, 2012, 02:45:45 PM
That's what officer evaluation reports are.  Enlisted have the same, except they're called noncommissioned officer evaluation reports.  

and those don't make a difference?


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on April 11, 2012, 02:50:33 PM
and those don't make a difference?

They make a huge difference. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: OzmO on April 11, 2012, 03:16:42 PM
They make a huge difference.  

So back to my point about political bias in the military:

-  Conservative bias influences promotions

My supporting facts to my point:

-  The military is dominated by conservatives (just as possibly the university system is by liberals)
-  Liberals are demonized and ridiculed in the military in it's culture and in subtle ways

Your supporting facts to my point:

Reviews by superiors make a huge difference in promotions

Main argument relating to thread:

The same unfair type censorship (political discrimination) via promotions happens in reverse in other tax funded organizations such as the military, why aren't you complaining about it?

relating questions:

Whats the size difference in people of Teaching/Administration staff in state universities versus e-5 to e-9 and O-1 to 4 star generals in the 4 branches of service?


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on April 11, 2012, 04:24:47 PM
So back to my point about political bias in the military:

-  Conservative bias influences promotions

My supporting facts to my point:

-  The military is dominated by conservatives (just as possibly the university system is by liberals)
-  Liberals are demonized and ridiculed in the military in it's culture and in subtle ways

Your supporting facts to my point:

Reviews by superiors make a huge difference in promotions

Main argument relating to thread:

The same unfair type censorship (political discrimination) via promotions happens in reverse in other tax funded organizations such as the military, why aren't you complaining about it?

relating questions:

Whats the size difference in people of Teaching/Administration staff in state universities versus e-5 to e-9 and O-1 to 4 star generals in the 4 branches of service?


Overall, I don't think this is a good comparison.  The academic environment is all about "the marketplace of ideas."  Expression, opinion, dissent, etc. are encouraged.  At least in theory.  The military is the polar opposite.  There is all kinds of censorship.  You have a chain of command.  You don't disrespect your superiors, or risk going to jail.  If you're active duty, you don't make disparaging comments about the president.  There are strict rules regarding engaging in political activities.  It's really night and day. 

I have no complaints about censorship in the military because it's what people signed up for when they joined.  That's not true of universities. 

Regarding demonization, I never saw that when I served.  I've been around active duty service members for years and haven't seen it.  One of my closest friends is a liberal and he's a rising star in the Army.  He's getting promoted to major this year. 

I don't know what the size difference is between senior officers and enlisted, and university professors. 

     


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: OzmO on April 11, 2012, 04:40:13 PM
Overall, I don't think this is a good comparison.  The academic environment is all about "the marketplace of ideas."  Expression, opinion, dissent, etc. are encouraged.  At least in theory.  The military is the polar opposite.  There is all kinds of censorship.  You have a chain of command.  You don't disrespect your superiors, or risk going to jail.  If you're active duty, you don't make disparaging comments about the president.  There are strict rules regarding engaging in political activities.  It's really night and day. 

I have no complaints about censorship in the military because it's what people signed up for when they joined.  That's not true of universities. 

Regarding demonization, I never saw that when I served.  I've been around active duty service members for years and haven't seen it.  One of my closest friends is a liberal and he's a rising star in the Army.  He's getting promoted to major this year. 

I don't know what the size difference is between senior officers and enlisted, and university professors. 
    

I have a few close friends in the military and working in the defense industry at high levels who cited many examples of conservative bias and liberal demonization and they are for the most part conservatives themselves.  Much of it subtle and much of it in casual conversation and some of it the "old boys club" mentality that seeps into things like reviews.   I agree that there is no place for dissension in our military and really don't have too much of a problem of it being dominated by conservatives, however, to say there isn't an existing bias that makes it harder for outward liberal is fantasy.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on April 11, 2012, 04:47:10 PM
I have a few close friends in the military and working in the defense industry at high levels who cited many examples of conservative bias and liberal demonization and they are for the most part conservatives themselves.  Much of it subtle and much of it in casual conversation and some of it the "old boys club" mentality that seeps into things like reviews.   I agree that there is no place for dissension in our military and really don't have too much of a problem of it being dominated by conservatives, however, to say there isn't an existing bias that makes it harder for outward liberal is fantasy.

Well I guess I live in fantasy land.   :)  I have a hard time believing conservative bias in the military prevents liberals from getting promoted.  I'll talk to my friend about it.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: OzmO on April 11, 2012, 05:31:41 PM
Well you do live in Hawaii  ;D


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on April 11, 2012, 06:30:39 PM
Well you do live in Hawaii  ;D

Yes I do.   ;D


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 11, 2012, 08:16:43 PM
I have a few close friends in the military and working in the defense industry at high levels who cited many examples of conservative bias and liberal demonization and they are for the most part conservatives themselves.  Much of it subtle and much of it in casual conversation and some of it the "old boys club" mentality that seeps into things like reviews.   I agree that there is no place for dissension in our military and really don't have too much of a problem of it being dominated by conservatives, however, to say there isn't an existing bias that makes it harder for outward liberal is fantasy.

And 90 percent of the msm is staffed by libs.   Dontsee you upset over that? 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: OzmO on April 11, 2012, 08:58:32 PM
And 90 percent of the msm is staffed by libs.   Dontsee you upset over that? 
Try and keep up.   ;) :)


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on May 05, 2012, 09:43:38 AM
What does loco call Canada?  America's retarded little brother?  Even they engage in liberal censorship. 

School Says “Jesus” Shirt is Hate Speech
May 4, 2012
By Todd Starnes

A Canadian high school student was suspended for a week because wore a t-shirt promoting his Christian beliefs and he was told if he wears it again – he could be suspended for the remainder of the school year.

William Swinimer, a student at Forest Heights Community School in Nova Scotia, was punished for wearing a shirt that read, “Life is wasted without Jesus.” The shirt is a reference to a passage of Scripture from the New Testament.

Swinimer told Fox News that he was told the shirt was a form of “hate talk.”

“I’ve been told by my principal that it is hate talk and is disrespectful to other people’s religions,” Swinimer said. “She said it (the shirt) cannot be in school because people would get offended.”

Nancy Pynch-Worthylake, the school board superintendent, told The Canadian Press that the wording on the shirt is “problematic.”

“If I have an expression that says, ‘My life is enhanced with Jesus,’ then there’s no issue with that, everybody is able to quickly understand that that’s my opinion about my own belief,” she told the newspaper. “If the shirt were to say, ‘Without Jesus, your life is a complete waste,’ then that’s clear that it is an opinion aimed at somebody else’s belief.”

Swinimer confirmed that he had been disciplined a number of times for wearing shirts with religious references.

“I’ve found that they have dissed Christianity quite a bit,” he said. “I do not want to be disrespectful of anybody else’s religions. I don’t want to put down anybody’s opinions. All I want to do is stand up for rights and freedoms of Canadians.”

The school does not have a dress code and Swinimer said students wear a variety of t-shirts. But he said for whatever reason, his Christian shirts seem to get him sent to the office.
“They treat other religions differently than they do Christianity,” he said. “The staff and principal and school board have been very hostile toward Christianity.”

But, he said, they promote other religions in the school.

“If they can pick on Christians in this school, what can they pick next?” he wondered. “Christianity in that school is not being treated the same way. I’m being discriminated against because of my religion.”

Swinimer attends Jesus the Good Shepherd Church, a Pentecostal congregation in Nova Scotia. Pastor Varrick Day told Fox News he is proud of his young parishioner.

“I’m very proud he’s standing up,” Day said. “I think he’s being bullied by the staff at the school and by the school board.”

Day called the suspension outrageous and said he hoped it would awaken other Christians across the nation.

“It’s not about the t-shirt,” he said. “This is what our forefathers fought and died for – this freedom of speech and religion.”

School officials told Swinimer that if he returned to school wearing the shirt, he would be suspended for the remainder of the school year.

“I plan to wear that t-shirt Monday, he said. “Not because I want to be disrespectful, not because I want to defy anybody, but because I believe this is the right thing to do.”

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/school-says-jesus-shirt-is-hate-speech.html


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on May 05, 2012, 10:19:26 AM
What does loco call Canada?  America's retarded little brother?  Even they engage in liberal censorship. 

School Says “Jesus” Shirt is Hate Speech
May 4, 2012
By Todd Starnes

A Canadian high school student was suspended for a week because wore a t-shirt promoting his Christian beliefs and he was told if he wears it again – he could be suspended for the remainder of the school year.

William Swinimer, a student at Forest Heights Community School in Nova Scotia, was punished for wearing a shirt that read, “Life is wasted without Jesus.” The shirt is a reference to a passage of Scripture from the New Testament.

Swinimer told Fox News that he was told the shirt was a form of “hate talk.”

“I’ve been told by my principal that it is hate talk and is disrespectful to other people’s religions,” Swinimer said. “She said it (the shirt) cannot be in school because people would get offended.”

Nancy Pynch-Worthylake, the school board superintendent, told The Canadian Press that the wording on the shirt is “problematic.”

“If I have an expression that says, ‘My life is enhanced with Jesus,’ then there’s no issue with that, everybody is able to quickly understand that that’s my opinion about my own belief,” she told the newspaper. “If the shirt were to say, ‘Without Jesus, your life is a complete waste,’ then that’s clear that it is an opinion aimed at somebody else’s belief.”

Swinimer confirmed that he had been disciplined a number of times for wearing shirts with religious references.

“I’ve found that they have dissed Christianity quite a bit,” he said. “I do not want to be disrespectful of anybody else’s religions. I don’t want to put down anybody’s opinions. All I want to do is stand up for rights and freedoms of Canadians.”

The school does not have a dress code and Swinimer said students wear a variety of t-shirts. But he said for whatever reason, his Christian shirts seem to get him sent to the office.
“They treat other religions differently than they do Christianity,” he said. “The staff and principal and school board have been very hostile toward Christianity.”

But, he said, they promote other religions in the school.

“If they can pick on Christians in this school, what can they pick next?” he wondered. “Christianity in that school is not being treated the same way. I’m being discriminated against because of my religion.”

Swinimer attends Jesus the Good Shepherd Church, a Pentecostal congregation in Nova Scotia. Pastor Varrick Day told Fox News he is proud of his young parishioner.

“I’m very proud he’s standing up,” Day said. “I think he’s being bullied by the staff at the school and by the school board.”

Day called the suspension outrageous and said he hoped it would awaken other Christians across the nation.

“It’s not about the t-shirt,” he said. “This is what our forefathers fought and died for – this freedom of speech and religion.”

School officials told Swinimer that if he returned to school wearing the shirt, he would be suspended for the remainder of the school year.

“I plan to wear that t-shirt Monday, he said. “Not because I want to be disrespectful, not because I want to defy anybody, but because I believe this is the right thing to do.”

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/school-says-jesus-shirt-is-hate-speech.html

typical tone deaf fundie who can't understand that his shirt is implicitly disrespectful of anyone who doesn't share his religious belief


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: The True Adonis on May 05, 2012, 10:26:46 AM
typical tone deaf fundie who can't understand that his shirt is implicitly disrespectful of anyone who doesn't share his religious belief
I am an atheist and think he should be able to wear whatever shirt he wishes without suspension.  That is just ridiculous. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 05, 2012, 10:29:13 AM
 :)
typical tone deaf fundie who can't understand that his shirt is implicitly disrespectful of anyone who doesn't share his religious belief


Your a friggin commie panzie ass. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on May 05, 2012, 10:30:37 AM
I am an atheist and think he should be able to wear whatever shirt he wishes without suspension.  That is just ridiculous. 

personally I couldn't give a rats ass either but I'm sure same fundie who started this thread would have a problem if a kid was walking around with a shirt dissing christians or christian beliefs

also, the school has a right to restrict students actions if they feel those actions would potentially cause problems

this kid can wear any shirt he wants when he is not in school


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on May 05, 2012, 10:32:31 AM
:)Your a friggin commie panzie ass. 

kind of funny you calling me a pansy considering how you wilted when suddenly faced with one of the thugs you rant about on a daily basis


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: The True Adonis on May 05, 2012, 10:35:53 AM
personally I couldn't give a rats ass either but I'm sure same fundie who started this thread would have a problem if a kid was walking around with a shirt dissing christians or christian beliefs

also, the school has a right to restrict students actions if they feel those actions would potentially cause problems

this kid can wear any shirt he wants when he is not in school
What kind of problem would that shirt potentially cause and who would cause the problem?  Can you give me a hypothetical?


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on May 05, 2012, 10:44:45 AM
What kind of problem would that shirt potentially cause and who would cause the problem?  Can you give me a hypothetical?

you really can't figure it out?

how about anyone who doesn't share that particular religious belief (and I'm not talking about atheists)

you don't think the school administrators have a right to object to language that could be easily interpretted as inflammatory

I'm sure you're aware that there are many things you can do outside of school that you can't do in school and restrictions on how you dress are ubiquitous




Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: The True Adonis on May 05, 2012, 11:00:20 AM
you really can't figure it out?

how about anyone who doesn't share that particular religious belief (and I'm not talking about atheists)

you don't think the school administrators have a right to object to language that could be easily interpretted as inflammatory

I'm sure you're aware that there are many things you can do outside of school that you can't do in school and restrictions on how you dress are ubiquitous



I really can`t figure out how that shirt would offend anybody.  ???


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Skip8282 on May 05, 2012, 11:33:31 AM
I really can`t figure out how that shirt would offend anybody.  ???



X2

Don't hold your breath waiting for an example of how it could offend someone though.



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on May 05, 2012, 11:46:51 AM
X2
Don't hold your breath waiting for an example of how it could offend someone though.

I already gave an example

you're right though, no one should be offended if someone is wearing a tshirt saying you're wasting your life unless you're a christian

I can't see how jews, muslims, hindu's would potentially be offended by that

I'm sure Christians wouldn't be offended to see someone wearing a shirt saying Jesus sucks and Christians are idiots

I can't imagine perceived insults to someone's religious beliefs causing any problems





Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: The True Adonis on May 05, 2012, 11:49:32 AM
I already gave an example

you're right though, no one should be offended if someone is wearing a tshirt saying you're wasting your life unless you're a christian

I can't see how jews, muslims, hindu's would potentially be offended by that

I'm sure Christians wouldn't be offended to see someone wearing a shirt saying Jesus sucks and Christians are idiots

I can't imagine perceived insults to someone's religious beliefs causing any problems




Why should we care if anyone is offended or not?


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on May 05, 2012, 11:54:17 AM
Why should we care if anyone is offended or not?

you shouldn't but if you ran a school then you might

it's not like people of different religious beliefs ever get offended at perceived insults and get potentially violent

certainly never happened in the history of the human race as far as I can recall


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: The True Adonis on May 05, 2012, 11:56:25 AM
you shouldn't but if you ran a school then you might

it's not like people of different religious beliefs ever get offended at perceived insults and get potentially violent

certainly never happened in the history of the human race as far as I can recall
The more that happens, the more people will realize how absurd religion is.  Let it happen.  Furthermore, I hope they are offended.  That simply means they feel inadequate because their beliefs are indefensible nonsense.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on May 05, 2012, 11:59:08 AM
The more that happens, the more people will realize how absurd religion is.  Let it happen.  Furthermore, I hope they are offended.  That simply means they feel inadequate because their beliefs are indefensible nonsense.

I have no problem with any of that but I can understand why a school administrator would not want to make their school the place for such an event

forget about the religious context for a moment and think about the setting



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Skip8282 on May 05, 2012, 12:04:48 PM
I already gave an example

you're right though, no one should be offended if someone is wearing a tshirt saying you're wasting your life unless you're a christian

I can't see how jews, muslims, hindu's would potentially be offended by that

I'm sure Christians wouldn't be offended to see someone wearing a shirt saying Jesus sucks and Christians are idiots

I can't imagine perceived insults to someone's religious beliefs causing any problems








Knock of the childish stupidity.  The shirt said nothing of the sort and hurled no insults at anyone.  ::)

You can't provide an example because there's nothing offensive about it.

And that's why you have to devolve to childish nonsense.



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on May 05, 2012, 12:12:53 PM



Knock of the childish stupidity.  The shirt said nothing of the sort and hurled no insults at anyone.  ::)

You can't provide an example because there's nothing offensive about it.

And that's why you have to devolve to childish nonsense.



I agree, no one should be offended because someone wears a t-shirt saying your life is a waste if you don't believe in Jesus

I can't imagine why anyone would be offended by that

I also can't imagine why a school adminstrator would care some of it's students offended or it might potentially cause problems between students

who gives a shit

it's not like it's their job to worry about stuff like that


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Skip8282 on May 05, 2012, 12:16:23 PM
I agree, no one should be offended because someone wears a t-shirt saying your life is a waste if you don't believe in Jesus

I can't imagine why anyone would be offended by that

I also can't imagine why a school adminstrator would care some of it's students offended or it might potentially cause problems between students

who gives a shit

it's not like it's their job to worry about stuff like that





Bout time you started talking some sense.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Mr. Magoo on May 05, 2012, 01:02:38 PM
What does loco call Canada?  America's retarded little brother?  Even they engage in liberal censorship. 

School Says “Jesus” Shirt is Hate Speech
May 4, 2012
By Todd Starnes

A Canadian high school student was suspended for a week because wore a t-shirt promoting his Christian beliefs and he was told if he wears it again – he could be suspended for the remainder of the school year.

William Swinimer, a student at Forest Heights Community School in Nova Scotia, was punished for wearing a shirt that read, “Life is wasted without Jesus.” The shirt is a reference to a passage of Scripture from the New Testament.

Swinimer told Fox News that he was told the shirt was a form of “hate talk.”

“I’ve been told by my principal that it is hate talk and is disrespectful to other people’s religions,” Swinimer said. “She said it (the shirt) cannot be in school because people would get offended.”

Nancy Pynch-Worthylake, the school board superintendent, told The Canadian Press that the wording on the shirt is “problematic.”

“If I have an expression that says, ‘My life is enhanced with Jesus,’ then there’s no issue with that, everybody is able to quickly understand that that’s my opinion about my own belief,” she told the newspaper. “If the shirt were to say, ‘Without Jesus, your life is a complete waste,’ then that’s clear that it is an opinion aimed at somebody else’s belief.”

Swinimer confirmed that he had been disciplined a number of times for wearing shirts with religious references.

“I’ve found that they have dissed Christianity quite a bit,” he said. “I do not want to be disrespectful of anybody else’s religions. I don’t want to put down anybody’s opinions. All I want to do is stand up for rights and freedoms of Canadians.”

The school does not have a dress code and Swinimer said students wear a variety of t-shirts. But he said for whatever reason, his Christian shirts seem to get him sent to the office.
“They treat other religions differently than they do Christianity,” he said. “The staff and principal and school board have been very hostile toward Christianity.”

But, he said, they promote other religions in the school.

“If they can pick on Christians in this school, what can they pick next?” he wondered. “Christianity in that school is not being treated the same way. I’m being discriminated against because of my religion.”

Swinimer attends Jesus the Good Shepherd Church, a Pentecostal congregation in Nova Scotia. Pastor Varrick Day told Fox News he is proud of his young parishioner.

“I’m very proud he’s standing up,” Day said. “I think he’s being bullied by the staff at the school and by the school board.”

Day called the suspension outrageous and said he hoped it would awaken other Christians across the nation.

“It’s not about the t-shirt,” he said. “This is what our forefathers fought and died for – this freedom of speech and religion.”

School officials told Swinimer that if he returned to school wearing the shirt, he would be suspended for the remainder of the school year.

“I plan to wear that t-shirt Monday, he said. “Not because I want to be disrespectful, not because I want to defy anybody, but because I believe this is the right thing to do.”

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/school-says-jesus-shirt-is-hate-speech.html

School is right, title of article is wrong, boy misinterpreted why he should not wear the shirt, superintendent is right, etc


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Mr. Magoo on May 05, 2012, 01:06:48 PM
I agree, no one should be offended because someone wears a t-shirt saying your life is a waste if you don't believe in Jesus

Right


I also can't imagine why a school adminstrator would care some of it's students offended or it might potentially cause problems between students

it's not like it's their job to worry about stuff like that

Wrong, It is their job to worry about stuff like that. Lots of constitutional cases in the past over stuff like that. Remember the bong hits for Jesus case?


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on May 05, 2012, 01:42:39 PM
Right


Wrong, It is their job to worry about stuff like that. Lots of constitutional cases in the past over stuff like that. Remember the bong hits for Jesus case?

I was being sarcastic

I personally have no problem with the tshirt and also no problem if an administrator has an issue with it and tells him he can't wear it at school

btw - this was in Canada so I doubt US Supreme court decisions matter much to them


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Mr. Magoo on May 05, 2012, 01:59:26 PM
I was being sarcastic

I personally have no problem with the tshirt and also no problem if an administrator has an issue with it and tells him he can't wear it at school

btw - this was in Canada so I doubt US Supreme court decisions matter much to them

ah, didn't even see that. Good point. I just assumed it was given the title of this thread, fox news, etc.

My bad.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on May 05, 2012, 06:32:09 PM
I have a few close friends in the military and working in the defense industry at high levels who cited many examples of conservative bias and liberal demonization and they are for the most part conservatives themselves.  Much of it subtle and much of it in casual conversation and some of it the "old boys club" mentality that seeps into things like reviews.   I agree that there is no place for dissension in our military and really don't have too much of a problem of it being dominated by conservatives, however, to say there isn't an existing bias that makes it harder for outward liberal is fantasy.

Talked to my buddy about this subject.  He said he doesn't really see any liberal demonization.  He doesn't think liberals get discriminated when it comes to promotions.  Only way it could happen with senior NCOs and with officers is if the person rating the Soldier has some kind of bias.  Still, would be hard to justify a poor evaluation if the Soldier is performing well. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on May 05, 2012, 06:57:35 PM
School is right, title of article is wrong, boy misinterpreted why he should not wear the shirt, superintendent is right, etc

How is the title wrong?  He said the principal told him the shirt was "hate talk."  "Hate talk" = "hate speech." 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: OzmO on May 06, 2012, 01:14:06 PM
Talked to my buddy about this subject.  He said he doesn't really see any liberal demonization.  He doesn't think liberals get discriminated when it comes to promotions.  Only way it could happen with senior NCOs and with officers is if the person rating the Soldier has some kind of bias.  Still, would be hard to justify a poor evaluation if the Soldier is performing well. 

Talked to 3 others myself, 2 thought like you. 

Eitherway I do agree about liberal bias in e schools case.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 06, 2012, 01:40:27 PM
 
Fred Armisen currently does his best Barack Obama on SNL
The Daily Caller has obtained a scrapped sketch critical of President Barack Obama that was intended for airing at the opening of last night’s “Saturday Night Live” on NBC.

In the skit, President Obama addresses Americans soon after the first anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden — and he makes sure to remind viewers that all credit for the raid on the terrorist leader’s compound belongs to him.

“I hope you had a safe and joyous first anniversary of his killing,” the president, portrayed by Fred Armisen, begins.

“Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to be at home this year, as I had to fly to Afghanistan, to remind President Karzai that, exactly one year ago, we killed Osama bin Laden, and that the decision to do so was a gutsy one,” the president continues. “And was mine.”

The president then outlines what gifts are appropriate on the anniversaries of “Killing Osama bin Laden Day,” and reminds his audience that “heavy drinking, and Killing Osama bin Laden Day, are never a good combination.”

The full text of the skit, which was authored by comedian Jim Downey, is viewable below. It is not clear why the skit was scrapped.

The real President Obama has faced harsh criticism in recent weeks for allegedly politicizing bin Laden’s death by taking too much credit for the operation that killed him.

Instead of the skit, NBC opted instead to air a parody of Fox News Channel’s “Fox and Friends.” That skit, which also featured Armisen, mocked Fox News personalities by portraying them as clueless partisans.

“Shame on President Barack Obama, who is running a campaign ad that argues that Mitt Romney would not have made the decision to launch the raid,” said Taran Killam, who portrayed Fox personality Steve Doocy.

“I can name one person who wouldn’t have launched that raid: Barack Obama!” Bobby Moynihan, playing Fox host Brian Kilmeade, interjected.

Follow Gregg on Twitter

Obama Address Cold Open – May 6, 2012



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on May 18, 2012, 04:45:31 PM
I just watched the video.  If that's considered "hate speech," then there's going to be a whole of censorship going on.  Click the link to see the video. 

Not Tricked This Time: YouTube Pulls Video Critical of Gay Rights Extremists
By Matthew Sheffield | May 18, 2012

In a victory for gay rights extremists, YouTube has agreed to remove a video critical of Canadian laws concerning homosexuality from its website, even though the video discusses policy issues and does not use any derogatory language about gays and does not advocate violence against them.

The video created May 16 by preacher and hard rock drummer Bradlee Dean to accompany his weekly column published by WorldNet Daily and other news outlets, exposes facts about the hatred and oppression directed at conservative Christians and opponents of gay marriage in Canada by the radical Left toward people of faith, those who hold to traditional marriage. The video also details a solemn warning to American’s to get vocal on the issue or prepare for the cultural overhaul under way in Canada.

Among the shocking examples of how gay rights extremists are using hate speech laws to silence conservatives is a ruling by a Canadian official that Christian parents who home-school their children can not teach their children that homosexuality is a sin.

Within 2 hours, the video was taken offline by YouTube after it was flagged by a discriminatory individual for “hate speech.”

The video now appears in its original version on MRCTV.

While conservatives are often victimized by the Left's abuse of automated “flag spam” filters, in this case it appears that YouTube personnel were directly involved in removing the video. This is the text of the email YouTube sent to Bradlee informing him of YouTube's decision to remove the video:

The YouTube Community has flagged one or more of your videos as inappropriate. Once a video is flagged, it is reviewed by the YouTube Team against our Community Guidelines. Upon review, we have determined that the following video(s) contain content in violation of these guidelines, and have been disabled: Homosexual Marriage (WARNING!) Look to Canada – (BdeanSonsofLiberty). For more information on YouTube's Community Guidelines and how they are enforced, please visit the help center.

Nothing in Bradlee's video violated YouTube's Community Guidelines. Here is the video, you can watch it yourself:


Those guidelines include this statement:

We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity).”
Bradlee's video did not attack or demean gays – it addressed serious policy questions raised by actual events and political decisions in Canada. By taking Bradlee's video offline, YouTube has shown its commitment to “defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view” isn't all that strong when it comes to defending the right of people opposed to gay marriage.

No matter what you think of gay marriage, people who think it's wrong have just as much of a right to oppose it as the Occupiers to do be against banks or the Iraq war. You don't have to be against gay marriage to think the removal of Bradlee's clip was wrong. Tolerance ought to run both ways.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2012/05/18/not-tricked-time-youtube-pulls-video-critical-gay-rights-extremis


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: The True Adonis on May 18, 2012, 04:47:36 PM
I just watched the video.  If that's considered "hate speech," then there's going to be a whole of censorship going on.  Click the link to see the video. 

Not Tricked This Time: YouTube Pulls Video Critical of Gay Rights Extremists
By Matthew Sheffield | May 18, 2012

In a victory for gay rights extremists, YouTube has agreed to remove a video critical of Canadian laws concerning homosexuality from its website, even though the video discusses policy issues and does not use any derogatory language about gays and does not advocate violence against them.

The video created May 16 by preacher and hard rock drummer Bradlee Dean to accompany his weekly column published by WorldNet Daily and other news outlets, exposes facts about the hatred and oppression directed at conservative Christians and opponents of gay marriage in Canada by the radical Left toward people of faith, those who hold to traditional marriage. The video also details a solemn warning to American’s to get vocal on the issue or prepare for the cultural overhaul under way in Canada.

Among the shocking examples of how gay rights extremists are using hate speech laws to silence conservatives is a ruling by a Canadian official that Christian parents who home-school their children can not teach their children that homosexuality is a sin.

Within 2 hours, the video was taken offline by YouTube after it was flagged by a discriminatory individual for “hate speech.”

The video now appears in its original version on MRCTV.

While conservatives are often victimized by the Left's abuse of automated “flag spam” filters, in this case it appears that YouTube personnel were directly involved in removing the video. This is the text of the email YouTube sent to Bradlee informing him of YouTube's decision to remove the video:

The YouTube Community has flagged one or more of your videos as inappropriate. Once a video is flagged, it is reviewed by the YouTube Team against our Community Guidelines. Upon review, we have determined that the following video(s) contain content in violation of these guidelines, and have been disabled: Homosexual Marriage (WARNING!) Look to Canada – (BdeanSonsofLiberty). For more information on YouTube's Community Guidelines and how they are enforced, please visit the help center.

Nothing in Bradlee's video violated YouTube's Community Guidelines. Here is the video, you can watch it yourself:


Those guidelines include this statement:

We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity).”
Bradlee's video did not attack or demean gays – it addressed serious policy questions raised by actual events and political decisions in Canada. By taking Bradlee's video offline, YouTube has shown its commitment to “defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view” isn't all that strong when it comes to defending the right of people opposed to gay marriage.

No matter what you think of gay marriage, people who think it's wrong have just as much of a right to oppose it as the Occupiers to do be against banks or the Iraq war. You don't have to be against gay marriage to think the removal of Bradlee's clip was wrong. Tolerance ought to run both ways.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2012/05/18/not-tricked-time-youtube-pulls-video-critical-gay-rights-extremis
I have had videos of mine flagged.  It sucks but Youtube is well within their rights to do so.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on May 18, 2012, 04:51:13 PM
I have had videos of mine flagged.  It sucks but Youtube is well within their rights to do so.

Who said they didn't?  They're a private entity and can do whatever the heck they want.  That's not the point. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: The True Adonis on May 18, 2012, 04:57:35 PM
Who said they didn't?  They're a private entity and can do whatever the heck they want.  That's not the point. 
So quit your bitching.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on May 18, 2012, 05:00:34 PM
So quit your bitching.

Ah shut the heck up.  I'll post whatever I want.   :-*

And if you don't like it, don't read it. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: The True Adonis on May 18, 2012, 05:03:45 PM
Ah shut the heck up.  I'll post whatever I want.   :-*

And if you don't like it, don't read it. 
I was just funning, but my point still stands.  Youtube can remove whatever they want so I don`t understand any "outrage" associated with that story.  I notice that most of the Old Dixie songs are getting flagged as racist when there is nothing racist about them.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on May 18, 2012, 05:08:46 PM
I was just funning, but my point still stands.  Youtube can remove whatever they want so I don`t understand any "outrage" associated with that story.  I notice that most of the Old Dixie songs are getting flagged as racist when there is nothing racist about them.

It's about the fact they deem speech that opposes the homosexual lifestyle and homosexual marriage on religious grounds as "hateful."  That kind of viewpoint will eventually make it's way into our books. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: The True Adonis on May 18, 2012, 05:12:33 PM
It's about the fact they deem speech that opposes the homosexual lifestyle and homosexual marriage on religious grounds as "hateful."  That kind of viewpoint will eventually make it's way into our books. 
I still don`t understand why people consider the various Confederate Flags as "hateful" either.  I have never seen it in a textbook, but that is popular sentiment, especially among most blacks.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on May 18, 2012, 06:05:34 PM
I still don`t understand why people consider the various Confederate Flags as "hateful" either.  I have never seen it in a textbook, but that is popular sentiment, especially among most blacks.

you really can't figure that out

you're smart enough to understand symbolism

come on man


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: The True Adonis on May 18, 2012, 06:09:53 PM
you really can't figure that out

you're smart enough to understand symbolism

come on man
Many blacks fought under that flag willingly.  Also, the Largest Slave Holder in NC at one time was John Carruthers Stanley, a Black man in New Bern, NC.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on May 18, 2012, 06:14:43 PM
Many blacks fought under that flag willingly.  Also, the Largest Slave Holder in NC at one time was a Black man in New Bern, NC.

and how do those two examples change what both many whites and most black feel when they see the confederate flag

You know enough about the horror of the civil war, slavery, etc... to fully understand why the Confederate flag would be considered by many to be a symbol of hate, repression, and violence (and not only against blacks)


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: The True Adonis on May 18, 2012, 06:15:39 PM
and how do those two examples change what both many whites and most black feel when they see the confederate flag

You know enough about the horror of the civil war, slavery, etc... to fully understand why the Confederate flag would be considered by many to be a symbol of hate, repression, and violence (and not only against blacks)
Only an ignorant person would consider it as a symbol of hate.  Someone who does not know history whatsoever.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on May 18, 2012, 06:27:40 PM
Only an ignorant person would consider it as a symbol of hate.  Someone who does not know history whatsoever.

two can play at that  game

only an ignorant person would not see it as symbol of hate

only a really dishonest person would pretend not to understand why it is symbol of hate


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 20, 2012, 02:11:45 PM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/n-c-teacher-tells-student-he-could-be-arrested-for-talking-badly-about-obama



Dear god are you libs a bunch of twats.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on May 20, 2012, 10:50:33 PM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/n-c-teacher-tells-student-he-could-be-arrested-for-talking-badly-about-obama



Dear god are you libs a bunch of twats.

A liberal teacher trying to silence opposing viewpoints?  No way.   ::)  This is a true liberal hallmark:  silence dissent. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: garebear on May 20, 2012, 10:55:36 PM
Only an ignorant person would consider it as a symbol of hate.  Someone who does not know history whatsoever.
Stupid, stupid post.

You've really outdone yourself with this one.



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on August 01, 2012, 01:24:16 PM
NYC Council Speaker Christine Quinn asks NYU to evict Chick-fil-A
By Perry Chiaramonte
Published August 01, 2012
FoxNews.com

A powerful New York politician claims she was just speaking as a private citizen when she tried to run Chick-fil-A out of town, but she used her official letterhead and even invoked her position as City Council speaker to apply pressure on the embattled chicken chain.

New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who has mayoral aspirations, sent a letter to New York University president John Sexton on Saturday asking the school to immediately end their contract with the fast food restaurant. The Atlanta-based company's sole New York City outlet is in the school's food court.

"I write as the Speaker of the NYC Council, and on behalf of my family. NYC is a place where we celebrate diversity. We do not believe in denigrating others. We revel in the diversity of all our citizens and their families,” the letter begins.

"Let me be clear ‐‐ I do not want establishments in my city that hold such discriminatory views," Quinn, an open lesbian who recently married her longtime partner, also wrote in the letter. "We are a city that believes our diversity is our greatest strength and we will fight anything and anyone that runs counter to that."


'If we allow something like this, then the next letter might be concerning someone’s view on abortion.'
- NYC Council member Peter Vallone


“As such I urge you to sever your relationship with the Chick‐fil‐A establishment that exists on your campus,” the speaker added.

The letter has drawn the ire from others on the council.

“She can write to someone as a council member, but if she states that she is writing as the Speaker it can only be on behalf of the entire council. She has to have the majority vote of the council, and I don’t recall voting on this matter,” City Councilman Peter Vallone (D-Queens) told FoxNews.com. “A stance on gay marriage is in no way a forum to prevent someone form running a business in a community.

“If we allow something like this, then the next letter might be concerning someone’s view on abortion.”

A spokesperson for Quinn told FoxNews.com in a written statement that, while officials in other cities have said they would block Chick-fil-A through land-use means, Quinn was just expressing her own views.

“Christine Quinn was simply voicing her own opinion; she fully understands that Mr. Cathy has the right to say and donate to anything he wants. But she has the right to use her voice just as much as he does,” Quinn’s spokesperson added.

The speaker elaborated on her stance and seemingly backpedaled while speaking with reporters at an event in midtown Manhattan on Tuesday.

“I support businesses that are open and inclusive -- that reflect the viewpoint of New York City, the most in diverse city in the world. That said, businesses that follow our laws have a right to open here,” said Quinn during the announcement of the city starting a career center for veterans. “We are asking Mr. Cathy to reconsider, open up his mind and really overcome his homophobia and stop investing his money in efforts to limit the rights of LGBT Americans. I’m raising my voice -- which can be loud at times -- but I’m never going to misuse this office in any way at all.”

Whether the school will take Quinn's advice remains to be seen. In 2011, NYU’s Student Senators Council considered a resolution to remove Chick-fil-A from campus but ultimately ruled that, “to ban any entity from campus for ideological reasons is, in most every case, to limit freedom of expression,” and did not seek a resolution from the full University Senate.

But John Beckman, a spokesman for NYU, tells FoxNews.com in a written statement that given the recent news, the matter will be revisited by school officials.

“The University Administration will ask the University Senate to take up the issue of Chick-fil-A’s status on campus again when it reconvenes this fall to make a recommendation on how to proceed,” he said.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said last week that he would not follow the lead of his counterparts in Chicago, San Francisco and Boston, who all said Chick-fil-A was not welcome in their cities. Bloomberg said it was “inappropriate” for any government to decide if a business can or cannot operate in a city because of someone's political views.

Quinn also had posted a petition on Change.org last week that demands Cathy apologize for his remarks. Another petition on the website was created by an NYU student and gathered 15,000 signatures of students also demanding that the chicken chain be removed from the campus.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/01/nyc-council-speaker-christine-quinn-asks-nyu-to-evict-chick-fil/


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on August 01, 2012, 01:55:17 PM
doesn't someone actually have to be censored before calling it censorship ?



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 01, 2012, 01:57:26 PM
doesn't someone actually have to be censored before calling it censorship ?



Thankfully there are those out there who stand up to these leftist tyrants who hate free speech for that not to happen. 

Liberal = Intolerant, bigoted, close minded, brown shirts 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on August 01, 2012, 02:03:28 PM
Thankfully there are those out there who stand up to these leftist tyrants who hate free speech for that not to happen. 

Liberal = Intolerant, bigoted, close minded, brown shirts 

who said Cathy isn't free to speak or spend his money any way he wants

he is free to say anything he wants and anyone who doesn't like it is free to speak out against him or protest his company etc...

I don't think cities should try banning them and I'm don't even think they can legaly do so (hasn't this gone to the courts in case where cities tried to ban adult bookstores and other types of business like that)

you're the lawyer so I assume you know this stuff


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 01, 2012, 02:04:58 PM
who said Cathy isn't free to speak or spend his money any way he wants

he is free to say anything he wants and anyone who doesn't like it is free to speak out against him or protest his company etc...

I don't think cities should try banning them and I'm don't even think they can legaly do so (hasn't this gone to the courts in case where cities tried to ban adult bookstores and other types of business like that)

you're the lawyer so I assume you know this stuff

Correct - but what set this off was Rhambo and Menino more than anything else trying to ban the business within city limits. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 06, 2012, 09:07:43 AM
Liberal profs admit they’d discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement
 The Washington Times ^ | August 1, 2012 | Emily Esfahani Smith

Posted on Thursday, August 02, 2012 5:03:10 PM by Cincinatus' Wife

......................Ps ychologists Yoel Inbar and Joris Lammers, based at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, surveyed a roughly representative sample of academics and scholars in social psychology and found that “In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists admit that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues.”

This finding surprised the researchers. The survey questions “were so blatant that I thought we’d get a much lower rate of agreement,” Mr. Inbar said. “Usually you have to be pretty tricky to get people to say they’d discriminate against minorities.”

One question, according to the researchers, “asked whether, in choosing between two equally qualified job candidates for one job opening, they would be inclined to vote for the more liberal candidate (i.e., over the conservative).”

More than a third of the respondents said they would discriminate against the conservative candidate. One respondent wrote in that if department members “could figure out who was a conservative, they would be sure not to hire them.”

Mr. Inbar, who volunteered for the Obama campaign in 2008, cautions that the finding reflects only what respondents said they would do — not necessarily what they actually would do in real life.................... ..

....Harvey Mansfield, a conservative professor of government at Harvard University, argues that the anti-conservative bias is real and pronounced. He says conservatism is “just not a respectable position to hold” in the academy, where Republicans are caricatured as Fox News enthusiasts who listen to Rush Limbaugh.

Beyond that, conservatives represent a distinct minority on college and university campuses. A 2007 report by sociologists Neil Gross and Solon Simmons found that 80 percent of psychology professors at elite and non-elite universities are Democrats.....


(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on September 14, 2012, 05:39:00 PM
White House asks YouTube to review anti-Islam film
Published September 14, 2012
FoxNews.com
 
The White House has asked YouTube to review the online video that has been cited as the spark for demonstrations raging across the Middle East and North Africa.

The Obama administration is not explicitly asking YouTube to remove the film, but to check if it meets their standards.

"The White House asked YouTube to review the video to see if it was in compliance with their terms of use," Press Secretary Jay Carney said.

The trailer for "Innocence of Muslims" has been used as a rallying cry by those attacking U.S. embassies and consulates around the world. Several top lawmakers, though, have questioned whether the film -- in the case of the deadly attack on the consulate in Libya -- was used as a cover to execute a pre-planned attack on American officials.

Critics have accused the Obama administration of putting too much focus on the film itself, and faulted the administration for continuing to condemn it.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in a ceremony Friday marking the return of the remains of the four Americans killed, again described that video as "senseless" and "unacceptable." But she also called on leaders in those countries to stop the violence.

"The people of Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Tunisia did not trade the tyranny of a dictator for the tyranny of a mob. Reasonable people and responsible leaders in these countries need to do everything they can to restore security and hold accountable those behind these violent acts," she said.

Meanwhile, The Associated Press reports that federal probation officials are investigating the California filmmaker linked to the video. He had previously been convicted of financial crimes.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/14/white-house-asks-youtube-to-review-anti-islam-film/


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on September 14, 2012, 05:50:55 PM
Google will not remove anti-Islam film from YouTube following White House request for review
Published September 14, 2012
FoxNews.com

Google will not remove the YouTube video that has been cited as the spark for demonstrations raging across the Middle East and North Africa, the company announced Friday.

The decision comes following a White House request for the trailer for ‘Innocence of Muslims’ to be reviewed under the company’s policies.

The Obama administration is not explicitly asking YouTube to remove the film, but to check if it meets their standards.

"The White House asked YouTube to review the video to see if it was in compliance with their terms of use," Press Secretary Jay Carney said.

The company determined that the video was within guidelines.

“However, we’ve restricted access to it in countries where it is illegal such as India and Indoesia, as well as in Libya and Egypt given the very sensitive situation sin these two countries,” a spokeswoman said.

. . .

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/14/white-house-asks-youtube-to-review-anti-islam-film/?intcmp=trending


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on January 29, 2013, 11:56:03 AM
Great commentary.  More disturbing attempted censorship by our president. 

Obama vs. Fox News -- behind the White House strategy to delegitimize a news organization
By Kirsten Powers
Published January 29, 2013
FoxNews.com

There is no war on terror for the Obama White House, but there is one on Fox News.

In a recent interview with The New Republic, President Obama was back to his grousing about the one television news outlet in America that won’t fall in line and treat him as emperor. Discussing breaking Washington's partisan gridlock, the president told TNR,"If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News...for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it."

Alas, the president loves to whine about the media meanies at Fox News. To him, these are not people trying to do their jobs. No, they are out to get him. What other motive could a journalist have in holding a president accountable? Why oh why do Ed Henry and Chris Wallace insist on asking hard questions? Make them stop!


Alas, the president loves to whine about the media meanies at Fox News. To him, these are not people trying to do their jobs. No, they are out to get him.

The president seems more comfortable talking to "real journalists" such as Chris Hughes, who asked the question in the TNR interview that elicited Obama's reflexive Fox hatred. Hughes is the new owner of TNR and is a former major Obama campaign donor and organizer who was featured on the cover of Fast Company, with the headline, "The Kid Who Made Obama President." You can't make this stuff up.

This latest volley from the president is just one in a long line of comments from his White House as part of their campaign to silence any dissent they detect in the press corps.

Recently, the White House has kept Fox News off of conference calls dealing with the Benghazi attack, despite Fox News being the only outlet that was regularly reporting on it and despite Fox having top notch foreign policy reporters.

They have left Chris Wallace’s "Fox News Sunday" out of a round of interviews that included CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS for not being part of a “legitimate” news network. In October 2009, as part of an Obama administration onslaught against Fox News,White House senior adviser David Axelrod said on ABC’s “This Week” that the Fox News Channel is "not really a news station" and that much of the programming is "not really news."

Whether you are liberal or conservative, libertarian, moderate or politically agnostic, everyone should be concerned when leaders of our government believe they can intentionally try to delegitimize a news organization they don’t like.

In fact, if you are a liberal – as I am – you should be the most offended, as liberalism is founded on the idea of cherishing dissent and an inviolable right to freedom of expression.

That more liberals aren't calling out the White House for this outrageous behavior tells you something about the state of liberalism in America today.


Sure, everyone understands how some of Fox's opinion programming would get under President Obama's skin, the same way MSNBC from 4pm until closing time is not the favorite stop for Republicans.  But it's not okay -- or presidential -- to continue smearing an entire network of hard working journalists because you are mad at Sean Hannity. 

During the initial launch of the war on Fox News in October 2009, then-White House Communications Director Anita Dunn told the New York Times of Fox News, “[W]e don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.” On CNN, she declared that Fox was a “wing of the Republican Party.” Then: “let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is."

Gosh, this sounds so familiar. In fact, it’s exactly the line that Media Matters used in a 2010 memo to donors: “Fox News is not a news organization. It is the de facto leader of the GOP, and it is long past time that it is treated as such by the media, elected officials and the public.”

In fact, this is the signature line of Media Matters in discussing Fox News, which they say they exist to destroy. Their CEO, David Brock told Politico in 2011 that their strategy was a “war on Fox” that is executed by 90 staff members and a $10 million yearly budget, gratis liberal donors.

Can someone explain to me how it’s “liberal” to try and shut down a media organization? What the Obama administration is doing, and what liberals are funding at MMFA is beyond chilling – it’s a deep freeze.

On the heels of Dunn’s attack on Fox, Brock wrote a letter to progressive organizations bragging about the U.S. government trashing a news organization: “In recent days, a new level of scrutiny has been directed toward Fox News, in no small part due to statements from the White House, and from Media Matters, challenging its standing as a news organization.” Point of order: who put Media Matters in charge of determining what is and isn't a news operation?

A Media Matters memo found its way into the public domain and if you care at all about decency and freedom of the press, it will make you throw up. If you like McCarthyism, it’s right up your alley. It details to liberal donors how they have plans to assemble opposition research on Fox News employees.

It complains of the “pervasive unwillingness among members of the media to officially kick Fox News to the curb of the press club” and outlines how they are going to change that through targeting elite media figures and turning them against Fox. They say they want to set up a legal fund to sue (harass) conservatives for any “slanderous” comments they make about progressives on air. They actually cite one of the best journalists around, Jake Tapper, as a problem because he questioned the White House about calling a news outlet “illegitimate.” Tapper can see the obvious: if the White House can call one news outlet illegitimate for asking tough questions, then guess who is next? Anyone.

We defend freedom of the press because of the principle, not because we like everything the press does. For example, I defend MSNBC’s right to run liberal programming to their hearts content.

Monitoring the media is actually a good thing; the media should be held accountable, including Fox News. When MMFA began I was supportive of their endeavor and even used some of their research. They seemed a counterbalance to conservative media monitoring organizations.

But now the mask is off. They make no bones about their intentions, and it's not a fair media. It is clear now that the idea of freedom of the press actually offends Media Matters. In their memo, they complain about “an expansive view of legal precedent protecting the freedom of the press, and the progressive movement's own commitment to the First Amendment” as an impediment to be overcome or changed. They say they are “consider[ing] pushing prominent progressives to stop appearing on Fox News.” For those who defy the order, they threaten to start daily publishing the names of Democrats who appear in order to shame them. If that doesn’t work, presumably they will just shave our heads and march us down Constitution Avenue.

When Anita Dunn was informing America – as a senior government official – which news organizations were “legitimate,” she conveniently deemed CNN, which rarely challenges the White House, as a “real” network. Presumably she believes MSNBC is “legitimate” also, despite their undisguised disgust of the GOP and hagiography of the president, not to mention more opinion programming than any cable outlet.

I’m going to go out on a limb and assume she thinks CBS is “legitimate” after they just ran what amounted to a 2016 ad for Hillary Clinton on "60 Minutes." CBS is the same place that has a political director who also writes for one of the most liberal outlets in the country, Slate. Who also just wrote in that publication that the president should “pulverize” the GOP. Imagine a political director at CBS hired away from the Weekly Standard who then wrote an article about "pulverizing" Democrats. I know, I lost you at the part where CBS hired a political director from a conservative outlet.

Last week Rolling Stone editor Michael Hastings – who is a liberal and said recently that “most journalists I know are liberal” – discussed his time covering Obama on the campaign trail. Among the things he witnessed was a reporter trying to interview Obama using a sock puppet.

He told MSNBCs Martin Bashir, “That’s the presence of Obama, even on the press corps, even on the people who follow him every day. When they are near him, they lose their mind sometimes. They start behaving in ways, you know, that are juvenile and amateurish and they swoon.”

Hastings admitted that the presence of Obama made him go gooey too. "Did I ask about drones, did I ask about civil liberties? No, I did not.”

I guess this is what the White House and their friends at Media Matters call the “legitimate” media.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/29/obama-vs-fox-news-behind-white-house-strategy-to-delegitimize-news-organization/


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Skip8282 on January 29, 2013, 08:35:02 PM
I agree with the article.

In this country, you should never EVER be treated as a second class citizen if you are trying to inform the public.

In my mind, even web blogs are valid news... It is up to us to determine whether or not the information is valid or accurate.




Well....I see cans of worms opening on this one, lol.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on April 30, 2013, 05:25:37 PM
Expressing a faith-based belief in support of traditional marriage and heterosexuality can get you fired, or labeled a bigot, or both.  He better watch his mouth. 

ESPN Apologizes for Commentator's Christian Worldview on Homosexuality
by Ben Shapiro
29 Apr 2013

While the left lectures Americans about the historic breakthrough made by NBA free agent Jason Collins in announcing his sexuality and calls for well-deserved tolerance, they are on full-out attack against ESPN commentator Chris Broussard for expressing his Christian views. And now ESPN has been forced to apologize.

It all started when Broussard appeared on Outside the Lines to talk about Collins. Appearing with ESPN senior writer LZ Granderson, who is openly gay, Broussard was asked by the host, “How ready is the NBA and the locker rooms for having an openly gay teammate?”

Broussard answered, “The climate in society is very set for this thing to happen …. A lot of people feel like if you come out and say you don’t agree with homosexuality, you are viewed as a bigot, you are viewed as intolerant. So I think the climate is right for somebody to come out and say they are gay. I’ve been texting with players, GMs, coaches, agents throughout the day … and it’s been overwhelmingly supportive of Jason, from former teammates to guys who have played against him.” Broussard acknowledged that a few players said they might be uncomfortable with a gay player in the showers, but that “I don’t think you’ll see somebody come out and be against this, whether because of their true feelings or because of political correctness.”

Later in the conversation, Granderson said, “If we really want to move toward progress and toward full acceptance, we have to have this conversation and this process. Broussard then seconded that motion, and gave an example of that conversation and how it could be productive:

I’d like to second what LZ said. “I’m a Christian. I don’t agree with homosexuality. I think it’s a sin, as I think all sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is. [ESPN's] L.Z. [Granderson] knows that. He and I have played on basketball teams together for several years. We’ve gone out, had lunch together, we’ve had good conversations, good laughs together. He knows where I stand and I know where he stands. I don’t criticize him, he doesn’t criticize me, and call me a bigot, call me ignorant, call me intolerant.

In talking to some people around the league, there’s a lot Christians in the NBA and just because they disagree with that lifestyle, they don’t want to be called bigoted and intolerant and things like that. That’s what LZ was getting at. Just like I may tolerate someone whose lifestyle I disagree with, he can tolerate my beliefs. He disagrees with my beliefs and my lifestyle but true tolerance and acceptance is being able to handle that as mature adults and not criticize each other and call each other names…

Personally, I don’t believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle or an openly premarital sex between heterosexuals, if you’re openly living that type of lifestyle, then the Bible says you know them by their fruits, it says that’s a sin. If you’re openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality, adultery, fornication, premarital sex between heterosexuals, whatever it may be, I believe that’s walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. I would not characterize that person as a Christian because I do not think the Bible would characterize them as a Christian.

This has been the traditional Biblical view for thousands of years. Still, traditionally religious people in the United States, like Broussard, have reached an understanding and tolerance for those with whom they disagree. Mutual tolerance between the traditionally religious and proponents of the morality of homosexuality is what the conversation between Granderson and Broussard was all about. As Granderson said, “Chris and I have had those uncomfortable conversations, the NBA now needs to have those uncomfortable conversations.” Tolerance is the goal. And tolerance requires tolerance on both sides.

But instead of having those uncomfortable conversations, and coming to mutual respect for one another’s positions, the left went after Broussard hammer and tongs. The hashtag #firechrisbroussard quickly skyrocketed on Twitter. The same left that praised Bob Costas to the skies for randomly sounding off on Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher and gun control now decided that Broussard was way out of line. The LA Times ran an online poll asking, “Should Broussard have said what he said on TV?”

Kelly Dwyer of Yahoo! Sports wrote, “The last thing [gay youths] need is to see someone like Chris Broussard, who ESPN (and by extension, the NBA) trusts as both its voice both at games and in-studio, to be referring to them as sinners who are in ‘open rebellion to God.’” Deadspin’s John Koblin said that it was “unclear why [Broussard’s opinion was] necessary or even relevant at this hour.” Variety subtly suggested, “In December, ESPN suspended commentator Rob Parker for questionable comments on the race of NFL quarterback Robert Griffin III, then chose not to renew his contract after it expired at year’s end.”

In response to all this leftist tolerance, ESPN dutifully released a statement apologizing for Broussard’s comments: “We regret that a respectful discussion of personal viewpoints became a distraction from today’s news. ESPN is fully committed to diversity and welcomes Jason Collins’ announcement.” Naturally, Buzzfeed’s Kate Aurthur ripped ESPN anyway for not sufficiently falling into line: “So no apology from Broussard …. ESPN got itself into this ridiculous, impossible situation here by relying on one of its employee's religious beliefs to inform a discussion about the huge Collins news …. What I would like to know, therefore, is why they put Broussard on the air to discuss his personal feelings about Collins, homosexuality, and Christianity, rather than his area of professional expertise — basketball — in the first place.” Aurthur went on a rampage, calling Broussard “punitive, unforgiving,” and lamenting that “Collins’ beautiful announcement” had been tarnished by ESPN’s “outdated, homophobic pit of its own making.”

Broussard’s opinion was verboten according to the left. Granderson’s was not. The right was happy to air both opinions. Yet the left thinks that Broussard was way out of bounds. That’s because the goal of the left in overplaying the Jason Collins coming out party – a presidential call? Really? – is to portray those who disagree on homosexuality as bigots and homophobes who want to deny people like Collins happiness. Broussard never even remotely suggested that Collins should not have come out. He repeatedly stated that the time was ripe for Collins to come out. Virtually everyone on the right agrees with that general perspective. But Broussard violated the most taboo of all standards: he suggested that he had a different moral view than that of the left. And so now his job may be in jeopardy.

When it comes to tyranny and tolerance, the case of Chris Broussard is far more telling than that of Jason Collins. It is the left that wants tyranny of expression. Tolerance only extends to those deemed worthy by the left.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/04/29/ESPN-apologizes-Broussard


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on April 30, 2013, 05:33:53 PM
Hey Fundies - you are free to believe and say anything you want about gay marriage and everyone else is free to call you a bigot, homophobe, etc..

For gods sake stop whining

Jesus whined less when he was being crucified to death than some fundies whine about this issue


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 01, 2013, 04:16:18 AM
Obama critic disinvited from Morehouse graduation ceremonies [Black College Punishes Black Pastor]
Georgia Tip Sheet ^ | James Richardson
Posted on May 1, 2013 6:22:02 AM EDT by SoFloFreeper

A prominent pastor was allegedly disinvited from speaking at Morehouse College’s baccalaureate service this week after he criticized President Barack Obama, who will deliver the school’s commencement address.

The Rev. Kevin Johnson, a Morehouse alumnus and the senior pastor of Bright Hope Baptist Church in North Philadelphia, Pa., wrote an opinion column earlier this month in the Philadelphia Tribune accusing Obama of neglecting the black community in his cabinet picks–they’re overwhelmingly white–and broader political agenda

(Excerpt) Read more at georgiatipsheet.com ...


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on May 01, 2013, 12:32:58 PM
Obama critic disinvited from Morehouse graduation ceremonies [Black College Punishes Black Pastor]
Georgia Tip Sheet ^ | James Richardson
Posted on May 1, 2013 6:22:02 AM EDT by SoFloFreeper

A prominent pastor was allegedly disinvited from speaking at Morehouse College’s baccalaureate service this week after he criticized President Barack Obama, who will deliver the school’s commencement address.

The Rev. Kevin Johnson, a Morehouse alumnus and the senior pastor of Bright Hope Baptist Church in North Philadelphia, Pa., wrote an opinion column earlier this month in the Philadelphia Tribune accusing Obama of neglecting the black community in his cabinet picks–they’re overwhelmingly white–and broader political agenda

(Excerpt) Read more at georgiatipsheet.com ...


Not surprised.  The only opinions many liberals tolerate are the ones they agree with. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on May 01, 2013, 12:41:03 PM
Not surprised.  The only opinions many liberals tolerate are the ones they agree with. 

I'm once again not at all surprised that right wingers and fundies think they should never be criticized for anything they say or that others should not be free to react to what they say with condemnation and rejection

how about everyone just whatever they want (freedom of speech) and stop pissing and moaning if others object to their statements and even choose to un-invite them to share more of their thoughts.

BTW - v. Johnson was told that he would be one of three baccalaureate service speakers, and he refused so once again we've got someone pissing and moaning over nothing


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on August 12, 2013, 01:16:00 PM
A this rate, calling homosexuality a "sin" will be a crime one day.  I understand that only matters to Christians, but this kind of censorship is troubling. 

Gospel Singer McClurkin Cut From MLK Event Over Gay Rights

Donnie McClurkinGospel musician Donnie McClurkin claims he was uninvited to a concert  in Washington, D.C. celebrating Martin Luther King Jr. and the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington due to his stance on homosexuality. McClurkin has said that God delivered him from what he reportedly called “the curse” of homosexuality after he was sexually abused as a child.  In a video posted online, the musician said Washington, D.C., Mayor Vincent C. Gray’s office asked him not to attend the concert where he was considered a headliner. “Last night, on the way to the airport, we received a telephone call from the promoters who had received word from the Mayor’s office –Mayor Gray’s office– as well as the arts commission that I was not welcomed and uninvited the night before the concert,” McClurkin said. “[It’s] quite unfortunate that in today a black man, a black artist is uninvited from a civil rights movement depicting the love, the unity, the peace, the tolerance.” McClurkin went on to say “These are bully tactics simply because of stances that I took never, ever demeaning, never, ever derogatorily addressing any, any lifestyle.” Representatives for Mayor Gray’s office did not immediately return a request for comment.  You can watch the full video here.

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2013/08/12/gospel-singer-donnie-mcclurkin-cut-from-mlk-event-over-gay-rights/


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: whork on August 13, 2013, 03:28:45 PM
Not surprised.  The only opinions many liberals tolerate are the ones they agree with. 

Yup.
Damn libs.
At least the republicans is tolerant.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on August 13, 2013, 05:14:34 PM
Yup.
Damn libs.
At least the republicans is tolerant.

Yes they is.   :)


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on September 11, 2013, 03:32:49 PM
If he wants a job he better keep his faith-based opinions to himself.  What is happening to my country? 

Craig James fired by Fox Sports for saying homosexuality is a ‘choice’ to be judged by God
By Cheryl K. Chumley
The Washington Times
Monday, September 9, 2013
 
A Fox Sports college football analyst was fired after just one week once video footage surfaced of him in 2012 speaking of gays having to face God for their sexual choices.

Craig James, a former NFL player who unsuccessfully ran last year for a Senate seat in Texas, said during a campaign debate that gays would “have to answer to the Lord for their actions,” the Daily Mail reported. He also said, to applause, that being gay “is a choice” and those who “choose to do that” face accountability from God.

He made the comments about gays in context of explaining how “God’s going to judge each one of us in this room for our actions,” the Mail reported.

He added: “We should not give benefits to those civil unions. They should not occur. We have to stay strong on this, this is important, man. … We have a fiscal issue in this country. … We also have a moral issue in this country.”

Fox executives fired him and said he “will not be making any further appearances on Fox Sports Southwest’s football coverage this season,” a network spokesperson told Sports Illustrated.

Another Fox spokesman told the Dallas Morning News, “We just asked ourselves how Craig’s statements would play in our human resources department. He couldn’t say those things here.”

Mr. James was formerly an analyst for ESPN, but took a hiatus to run for Senate. He was hired by Fox Sports a month ago.

At the time of Mr. James‘ hiring, Fox Sports Southwest executive producer Mike Anastassiou called him a “talented broadcaster who I’ve admired throughout his career. His knowledge of college football and the experience he brings as an analyst will be a tremendous asset to our coverage.”

 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/9/fox-sports-fires-craig-james-homophobic-comments/#ixzz2ecrpwLCl
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on September 11, 2013, 03:38:07 PM
If he wants a job he better keep his faith-based opinions to himself.  What is happening to my country? 

Craig James fired by Fox Sports for saying homosexuality is a ‘choice’ to be judged by God
By Cheryl K. Chumley
The Washington Times
Monday, September 9, 2013
 
A Fox Sports college football analyst was fired after just one week once video footage surfaced of him in 2012 speaking of gays having to face God for their sexual choices.

Craig James, a former NFL player who unsuccessfully ran last year for a Senate seat in Texas, said during a campaign debate that gays would “have to answer to the Lord for their actions,” the Daily Mail reported. He also said, to applause, that being gay “is a choice” and those who “choose to do that” face accountability from God.

He made the comments about gays in context of explaining how “God’s going to judge each one of us in this room for our actions,” the Mail reported.

He added: “We should not give benefits to those civil unions. They should not occur. We have to stay strong on this, this is important, man. … We have a fiscal issue in this country. … We also have a moral issue in this country.”

Fox executives fired him and said he “will not be making any further appearances on Fox Sports Southwest’s football coverage this season,” a network spokesperson told Sports Illustrated.

Another Fox spokesman told the Dallas Morning News, “We just asked ourselves how Craig’s statements would play in our human resources department. He couldn’t say those things here.”

Mr. James was formerly an analyst for ESPN, but took a hiatus to run for Senate. He was hired by Fox Sports a month ago.

At the time of Mr. James‘ hiring, Fox Sports Southwest executive producer Mike Anastassiou called him a “talented broadcaster who I’ve admired throughout his career. His knowledge of college football and the experience he brings as an analyst will be a tremendous asset to our coverage.”

 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/9/fox-sports-fires-craig-james-homophobic-comments/#ixzz2ecrpwLCl
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

what's your problem Bum

This guy is free to express his opinion and his employer is free to not like it and fire him for it

I don't recall you or any right winger on this board complaining when right wing employers were firing employees for "expressing their opinion" by voting for a Democratic POTUS


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: whork on September 11, 2013, 05:38:19 PM
If he wants a job he better keep his faith-based opinions to himself.  What is happening to my country? 

Craig James fired by Fox Sports for saying homosexuality is a ‘choice’ to be judged by God
By Cheryl K. Chumley
The Washington Times
Monday, September 9, 2013
 
A Fox Sports college football analyst was fired after just one week once video footage surfaced of him in 2012 speaking of gays having to face God for their sexual choices.

Craig James, a former NFL player who unsuccessfully ran last year for a Senate seat in Texas, said during a campaign debate that gays would “have to answer to the Lord for their actions,” the Daily Mail reported. He also said, to applause, that being gay “is a choice” and those who “choose to do that” face accountability from God.

He made the comments about gays in context of explaining how “God’s going to judge each one of us in this room for our actions,” the Mail reported.

He added: “We should not give benefits to those civil unions. They should not occur. We have to stay strong on this, this is important, man. … We have a fiscal issue in this country. … We also have a moral issue in this country.”

Fox executives fired him and said he “will not be making any further appearances on Fox Sports Southwest’s football coverage this season,” a network spokesperson told Sports Illustrated.

Another Fox spokesman told the Dallas Morning News, “We just asked ourselves how Craig’s statements would play in our human resources department. He couldn’t say those things here.”

Mr. James was formerly an analyst for ESPN, but took a hiatus to run for Senate. He was hired by Fox Sports a month ago.

At the time of Mr. James‘ hiring, Fox Sports Southwest executive producer Mike Anastassiou called him a “talented broadcaster who I’ve admired throughout his career. His knowledge of college football and the experience he brings as an analyst will be a tremendous asset to our coverage.”

 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/9/fox-sports-fires-craig-james-homophobic-comments/#ixzz2ecrpwLCl
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Do you think being homo is a choice BB?


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: The True Adonis on September 11, 2013, 05:56:00 PM
Do you think being homo is a choice BB?
Its both.  Anyone can choose to engage in gay activities or sex if they want to and many are attracted completely to the opposite sex whereas some are only mildly attracted and so on.

I have no idea why some don`t see both aspects of choice and genetics when it comes to sexuality.  Its the same thing as deciding if you want rice or beans tonight as Gore Vidal said.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxE0ay0kgkg


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on September 11, 2013, 06:18:50 PM
Do you think being homo is a choice BB?

Yep. Just ask Jason Collins.  Engaged to a woman for years, then decided he liked men better. 

Not sure what that has to do with Craig James being censored? 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: whork on September 11, 2013, 07:04:25 PM
Its both.  Anyone can choose to engage in gay activities or sex if they want to and many are attracted completely to the opposite sex whereas some are only mildly attracted and so on.

I have no idea why some don`t see both aspects of choice and genetics when it comes to sexuality.  Its the same thing as deciding if you want rice or beans tonight as Gore Vidal said.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxE0ay0kgkg

Unless you are at least bisexual it would be next to impossibly to get an erection when being with a man no?


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: whork on September 11, 2013, 07:07:54 PM
Yep. Just ask Jason Collins.  Engaged to a woman for years, then decided he liked men better. 

Not sure what that has to do with Craig James being censored? 


Its not a choice. I would never physically be able to obtain an erection with a man only with a woman.

Do you sometimes get horny when around men BB? You are atleast bi-sexual then.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on September 11, 2013, 07:32:10 PM

Its not a choice. I would never physically be able to obtain an erection with a man only with a woman.

Do you sometimes get horny when around men BB? You are atleast bi-sexual then.

How does this relate to Craig James being censored? 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 11, 2013, 08:11:50 PM
Lurker and Strraw cant help it - agreed


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: LurkerNoMore on September 11, 2013, 08:38:21 PM
Says the little elf that obsessed over collecting Obama photos on his hard drive and modeling himself after after another man by copying his nickname.



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: The True Adonis on September 11, 2013, 10:25:11 PM
Unless you are at least bisexual it would be next to impossibly to get an erection when being with a man no?
I don`t think so.  You ever see those Bangbus videos? haha


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: whork on September 11, 2013, 11:55:47 PM
How does this relate to Craig James being censored? 

He was censored for his words and we are debating those right now.

You posted the article for a reason i suppose?


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on September 12, 2013, 12:17:46 PM
He was censored for his words and we are debating those right now.

You posted the article for a reason i suppose?

No, we're not debating anything.  We're not even discussing Craig James being censored.     


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on September 12, 2013, 12:18:50 PM
School Tells Child She Can’t Write About God
Sep 11, 2013
By Todd Starnes

A Tennessee mom is looking for answers after her daughter’s teacher refused to let the child write about God for a school assignment.

Erin Shead, a 10-year-old student at Lucy Elementary School in Millington, was assigned to write about someone she idolized. The girl, who is a Christian, decided to write about God.

“I look up to God,” she wrote. “I love him and Jesus, and Jesus is His earthly son. I also love Jesus.”

The youngster also said that God would “always be the #1 person I look up to.”

“It was so cute and innocent,” Erica Shead told television station WREG. “She talked about how God created the Earth.”

But Shead said her daughter’s teacher objected to the choice and told her she could not use God as an idol for the assignment.

Erin told her mom that it had something to do with religion  - that God could not be her idol. The teacher then allegedly told the child that she had to take the paper about God home – because it could not remain on school property.

“How can you tell this baby – that’s a Christian – what she can say and what she can’t say?” Shead asked.

The teacher approved of Erin’s second choice — Michael Jackson.

Shead told WREG she met with the principal and still has questions about what happened.

“I told the principal this morning, would it be better if she wrote about Ellen Degeneres?” she said. “Of course there was no comment.”

Christian Ross, a spokesman for Shelby County Schools, told Fox News ”teachers are prohibited from promoting religious beliefs in the classroom.”

However he said the district does not have a policy that prohibits a student from expressing religious beliefs in class assignments.

If that’s the case, why was Erin Shead not allowed to write about God?

Ross did not provide an answer.

“This incident has been addressed at the school-level, and the principal has contacted parents of the student regarding their concerns,” he said. “Out of respect for and in order to protect the privacy of individual  students and staff, the district is not commenting further on this matter.”

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/school-tells-child-she-cant-write-about-god.html


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on September 12, 2013, 12:31:54 PM
Yep. Just ask Jason Collins.  Engaged to a woman for years, then decided he liked men better.  

Not sure what that has to do with Craig James being censored?  

Craig James was not censored

he is free to express his opinion in written or verbal form

He was just fired because his employers don't like his opinions on a particular subject and perhaps think his opinions will reflect poorly on them or cost them money

they are free to do that as Craig James is completely free to express his opinions

This is no different than a commentator being fired for making a racist comment





Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: whork on September 12, 2013, 04:49:51 PM
No, we're not debating anything.  We're not even discussing Craig James being censored.     


Why do you have a problem with him being fired?


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on September 12, 2013, 05:04:19 PM

Why do you have a problem with him being fired?

His comments were made a year ago during a political campaign.  They are not controversial at all.  They echo what mainstream Christianity teaches about homosexuality.   

This is another instance of a tiny demographic controlling the private speech of ordinary Americans. They are successfully muzzling private, faith-based commentary, even speech by preachers.  Scary stuff. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on September 12, 2013, 05:10:37 PM
His comments were made a year ago during a political campaign.  They are not controversial at all.  They echo what mainstream Christianity teaches about homosexuality.  

This is another instance of a tiny demographic controlling the private speech of ordinary Americans. They are successfully muzzling private, faith-based commentary, even speech by preachers.  Scary stuff.  

maybe his employer thought those kind of comments would cost them money and perhaps they figured he might make them on the air in the future or cause some kind of controversy

they have the right to choose not to be associated with comments they don't agree with or comments that might cause them monetary loss or might cause controversy

Face it Bum, he has the right to say whatever he wants and his employer has the right not to like it and fire him for it

Stop whining and acting like he's some kind of victim

BTW - the very story you posted had an explanation from Fox Sports as to why they fired him
Quote
Another Fox spokesman told the Dallas Morning News, “We just asked ourselves how Craig’s statements would play in our human resources department. He couldn’t say those things here.”


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on September 12, 2013, 05:18:49 PM
Yep. Just ask Jason Collins.  Engaged to a woman for years, then decided he liked men better. 

Not sure what that has to do with Craig James being censored? 

LOL - it's funny how you know what's going on inside this guys head

how do you know he wasn't "trying" to be straight all these years and just couldn't do it

You seem to think he's was completely straight and just woke up one morning and decided to be gay



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: The True Adonis on September 12, 2013, 05:26:57 PM
LOL - it's funny how you know what's going on inside this guys head

how do you know he wasn't "trying" to be straight all these years and just couldn't do it

You seem to think he's was completely straight and just woke up one morning and decided to be gay


Its both though.  Sure, you can be attracted from the get-go to one sex but you can also choose if you like.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on September 12, 2013, 05:48:43 PM
Its both though.  Sure, you can be attracted from the get-go to one sex but you can also choose if you like.

Are you speaking from experience?

Did this guy come out as bi or gay

There are plenty of gay men who were formally married and even had kids (as I'm sure you know)

Obviously there was/is societal pressure to be straight (especially if you're a black professional athlete)



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: whork on September 13, 2013, 02:52:15 PM
His comments were made a year ago during a political campaign.  They are not controversial at all.  They echo what mainstream Christianity teaches about homosexuality.   

This is another instance of a tiny demographic controlling the private speech of ordinary Americans. They are successfully muzzling private, faith-based commentary, even speech by preachers.  Scary stuff. 


Please tell me you see the irony here ;D



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: whork on September 13, 2013, 02:53:43 PM
Its both though.  Sure, you can be attracted from the get-go to one sex but you can also choose if you like.


You can only choose if you are attracted to the person/gender.

How are you gonna complete the sexual act if you cant get it up?


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on September 13, 2013, 03:01:53 PM

Please tell me you see the irony here ;D



No, I don't.  You'll have to spell it out for me.  I'm a little slow.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: The True Adonis on September 13, 2013, 03:07:43 PM

You can only choose if you are attracted to the person/gender.

How are you gonna complete the sexual act if you cant get it up?
Nerve endings are blind.

You ever see how they extract sperm from farm animals, race horses and the like?  The animals are not attracted to the humans performing the action but still manage to cum buckets.  The same is true for humans if they so choose.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: whork on September 13, 2013, 03:12:05 PM
Nerve endings are blind.

You ever see how they extract sperm from farm animals, race horses and the like?  The animals are not attracted to the humans performing the action but still manage to cum buckets.  The same is true for humans if they so choose.


Thats gonna be a hard fucking choise to make :o


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Al Doggity on September 13, 2013, 07:30:14 PM
Yep. Just ask Jason Collins.  Engaged to a woman for years, then decided he liked men better. 


 :-\ This isn't his version of events. In that SI article he talked about trying for years to be hetero but always knowing that he wasn't. He has never said that he was straight and then decided to be gay. He has said that he's always been gay, but unsuccessfully tried to be straight.So if you were to ask Jason Collins, he'd say it wasn't a choice.

Nerve endings are blind.

You ever see how they extract sperm from farm animals, race horses and the like?  The animals are not attracted to the humans performing the action but still manage to cum buckets. 

Animal sperm collectors don't just show up and try to rub some out. They use females in heat to arouse the animal that's being collected.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: The True Adonis on September 13, 2013, 07:32:05 PM
:-\ This isn't his version of events. In that SI article he talked about trying for years to be hetero but always knowing that he wasn't. He has never said that he was straight and then decided to be gay. He has said that he's always been gay, but unsuccessfully tried to be straight.So if you were to ask Jason Collins, he'd say it wasn't a choice.

Animal sperm collectors don't just show up and try to rub some out. They use females in heat to arouse the animal that's being collected.
Usually not the case for most animals.  Maybe in the zoo, but not with your domesticated livestock all the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlvF83Uvqbk


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: The True Adonis on September 13, 2013, 07:42:26 PM
And then you have the prison population where a lot of them make a choice to engage in gay sex, yet never would have had they not been stuck there for the rest of their lives.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Al Doggity on September 13, 2013, 07:49:07 PM
Usually not the case for most animals.  Maybe in the zoo, but not with your domesticated livestock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlvF83Uvqbk


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqjhjWdF0Ao

You originally posted the dog video I posted above, but removed it before I could respond. Right at the beginning of the video, the narrator references the presence of the teaser bitch. In the horse video you posted, it is likely there was a mounting or teaser mare present. In the comments of the horse video, commenters wonder why the horse gets hard so fast. It appears to get semi-aroused before it is even touched.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: whork on September 14, 2013, 06:00:15 AM
And then you have the prison population where a lot of them make a choice to engage in gay sex, yet never would have had they not been stuck there for the rest of their lives.

Thats a choice between sex or no sex its not a choice between male and female.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: The True Adonis on September 14, 2013, 11:58:43 AM
Thats a choice between sex or no sex its not a choice between male and female.
Whats the difference?  Someone can learn to like it and then love it and perhaps love the person and be attracted to them. 

You never had any gay friends or knew someone who was gay?  Ask them their experiences with Straight men and what they have seen happen.  Every one of them has a story.  :D


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: The True Adonis on September 14, 2013, 12:01:27 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqjhjWdF0Ao

You originally posted the dog video I posted above, but removed it before I could respond. Right at the beginning of the video, the narrator references the presence of the teaser bitch. In the horse video you posted, it is likely there was a mounting or teaser mare present. In the comments of the horse video, commenters wonder why the horse gets hard so fast. It appears to get semi-aroused before it is even touched.
I honestly got tired of looking up animal ejaculation videos, but they are out there.  Also, in bonobos and gorillas homosexuality is practiced by some as practice for when they do get a female.  For others its a dominance hierarchical thing and some just do it for pleasure.   Same thing for humans, the fifth ape.

This book covers it all very well.

(http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1348237826l/61662.jpg)


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on September 16, 2013, 04:10:23 PM
:-\ This isn't his version of events. In that SI article he talked about trying for years to be hetero but always knowing that he wasn't. He has never said that he was straight and then decided to be gay. He has said that he's always been gay, but unsuccessfully tried to be straight.So if you were to ask Jason Collins, he'd say it wasn't a choice.


That's the version from his fiance, who he was with for eight years, and I assume was having sex with on a regular basis.  She probably knew him as well as anyone and had no clue he liked men.  He made a choice to start sleeping with men.  If he was really gay from the jump he wouldn't have been engaged to a woman for so long. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on September 16, 2013, 04:16:24 PM
That's the version from his fiance, who he was with for eight years, and I assume was having sex with on a regular basis.  She probably knew him as well as anyone and had no clue he liked men.  He made a choice to start sleeping with men.  If he was really gay from the jump he wouldn't have been engaged to a woman for so long. 

sounds more like the choice he made was to try to be straight

I love how you just assume that if he was "really gay" he wouldn't have been engaged to a woman for "so long"

how long does the Bum Meter say someone can be engaged if they are really gay and just trying to be straight

I'm sure it never occurred to you that a black professional athlete would feel any pressure to try to be straight

How absurd...right ?






Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: The True Adonis on September 16, 2013, 04:21:19 PM
sounds more like the choice he made was to try to be straight

I love how you just assume that if he was "really gay" he wouldn't have been engaged to a woman for "so long"

how long does the Bum Meter say someone can be engaged if they are really gay and just trying to be straight

I'm sure it never occurred to you that a black professional athlete would feel any pressure to try to be straight

How absurd...right ?





::)

Beach Bum`s scenario is the more likely one.

Its not all or nothing, its both as I said.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on September 16, 2013, 04:42:31 PM
::)

Beach Bum`s scenario is the more likely one.

Its not all or nothing, its both as I said.

how do you know "it's both" ?

Did Jason Collins say he was bi?

How many times have we heard this same story about a man "trying to be straight"

Do you ever hear stories of gay guys who tried to be gay but really couldn't suppress there straight urges

Layer in the fact that this guy is a black, professional athlete and it makes even more sense

I guess we should assume Jason Collins really doesn't know himself as well and Bum seem to know him



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Al Doggity on September 16, 2013, 08:02:59 PM
That's the version from his fiance, who he was with for eight years, and I assume was having sex with on a regular basis.  She probably knew him as well as anyone and had no clue he liked men.  He made a choice to start sleeping with men.  If he was really gay from the jump he wouldn't have been engaged to a woman for so long.  


Being  a closeted gay man wouldn't have prevented him from being engaged. His relationship with a woman would have been an element of being closeted. That actually isn't the ex-fiancee's version of events, either. Here is what she did say:

Quote
I can't imagine what it's like to go through all the stages he has gone through, all the deep layers. I don't know what it's like to wear a mask for 34 years. It's sad that society puts that kind of pressure on a person.

So, neither Collins or his ex-fiancee thinks he made a choice to suddenly turn gay and both have stated that societal pressures had a lot to do with him hiding that fact.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Al Doggity on September 16, 2013, 08:04:24 PM
I honestly got tired of looking up animal ejaculation videos, but they are out there.
The videos may be out there, but it's certainly not the most common practice and your previous statements are inaccurate.




Quote
Also, in bonobos and gorillas homosexuality is practiced by some as practice for when they do get a female.  For others its a dominance hierarchical thing and some just do it for pleasure.   Same thing for humans, the fifth ape.

This isn't accurate. Bonobos don't use homosexuality as practice until they get a mate. Bonobos are a bisexual species.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: The True Adonis on September 16, 2013, 08:30:09 PM
The videos may be out there, but it's certainly not the most common practice and your previous statements are inaccurate.




This isn't accurate. Bonobos don't use homosexuality as practice until they get a mate. Bonobos are a bisexual species.

::)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal_2.html

Hope this helps:

https://www.youtube.com/results?safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=AVn&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=rcs&q=Bonobos+homosexuality&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.52164340,d.dmg,pv.xjs.s.en_US.CQsooEYev9Y.O&biw=1920&bih=1034&dpr=1&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=w1


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Al Doggity on September 16, 2013, 08:50:02 PM
::)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal_2.html

Hope this helps:

https://www.youtube.com/results?safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=AVn&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=rcs&q=Bonobos+homosexuality&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.52164340,d.dmg,pv.xjs.s.en_US.CQsooEYev9Y.O&biw=1920&bih=1034&dpr=1&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=w1

What is this post supposed to be proving? From your first link: "nearly all bonobos are bisexual".


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on September 17, 2013, 11:40:00 AM

Being  a closeted gay man wouldn't have prevented him from being engaged. His relationship with a woman would have been an element of being closeted. That actually isn't the ex-fiancee's version of events, either. Here is what she did say:


That's not all she said:

"A month before I was set to marry the man I loved, he called off the wedding. I had no idea why. He and I had been together for eight years. We had planned to have children, build a family."

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/07/jason-collins-fiancee-cosmopolitan-carolyn-moos/

So he was a homosexual, yet living with a woman, sleeping with her, engaged to be married, and planning to have kids.  That's just pure BS.  He made a choice.  And he is free to sleep with whomever he wants.  Free country.   

But to bring it back to the subject matter, if you have any issues with or objections to the GLBT lifestyle, whether faith-based or not, you better keep your mouth shut. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on September 17, 2013, 11:59:12 AM
That's not all she said:

"A month before I was set to marry the man I loved, he called off the wedding. I had no idea why. He and I had been together for eight years. We had planned to have children, build a family."

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/07/jason-collins-fiancee-cosmopolitan-carolyn-moos/

So he was a homosexual, yet living with a woman, sleeping with her, engaged to be married, and planning to have kids.  That's just pure BS.  He made a choice.  And he is free to sleep with whomever he wants.  Free country.   

But to bring it back to the subject matter, if you have any issues with or objections to the GLBT lifestyle, whether faith-based or not, you better keep your mouth shut. 

Bum, you and anyone else can talk all you want about your beliefs

The point is that others can choose not to agree with you and if they happen to be your employer and think those beliefs could harm their business then you may suffer the consequences

It would be no different than if you were a racist and your employer decided that your chosen beliefs would be harmful to his business

If you read the comments by Fox Sports that's pretty much exactly what they said


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Al Doggity on September 17, 2013, 07:42:16 PM
That's not all she said:

"A month before I was set to marry the man I loved, he called off the wedding. I had no idea why. He and I had been together for eight years. We had planned to have children, build a family."

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/07/jason-collins-fiancee-cosmopolitan-carolyn-moos/

So he was a homosexual, yet living with a woman, sleeping with her, engaged to be married, and planning to have kids.  That's just pure BS.  He made a choice.  And he is free to sleep with whomever he wants.  Free country.   

But to bring it back to the subject matter, if you have any issues with or objections to the GLBT lifestyle, whether faith-based or not, you better keep your mouth shut. 

Well, you said that if you asked Jason Collins he would say being gay was a choice. But he literally has been asked and answered the question on the record and said that it isn't. Then you said that his ex-fiancee would have a different version of events, but she was also asked  and answered on the record and she said the same thing, that she didn't believe it was a choice. Both of the people involved  say that things are one way, yet you insist that they are both wrong and you know better than them? Why do you think they would both lie? Why do you think you understand their situation better than they do?


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on September 17, 2013, 07:52:13 PM
Well, you said that if you asked Jason Collins he would say being gay was a choice. But he literally has been asked and answered the question on the record and said that it isn't. Then you said that his ex-fiancee would have a different version of events, but she was also asked  and answered on the record and she said the same thing, that she didn't believe it was a choice. Both of the people involved  say that things are one way, yet you insist that they are both wrong and you know better than them? Why do you think they would both lie? Why do you think you understand their situation better than they do?

very simple

although we can presume that Bum has never met either of these people he somehow knows them both better than they know themselves



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on September 18, 2013, 11:38:09 AM
This entire thread is nothing more than Bums personal desire to luxuriate himself in a fantasy of being victimized for his religious beliefs





Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on September 18, 2013, 12:25:22 PM
Well, you said that if you asked Jason Collins he would say being gay was a choice. But he literally has been asked and answered the question on the record and said that it isn't. Then you said that his ex-fiancee would have a different version of events, but she was also asked  and answered on the record and she said the same thing, that she didn't believe it was a choice. Both of the people involved  say that things are one way, yet you insist that they are both wrong and you know better than them? Why do you think they would both lie? Why do you think you understand their situation better than they do?


What I said was “Just ask Jason Collins.  Engaged to a woman for years, then decided he liked men better.”  Those are facts.   

I also quoted his fiancé, who said they were not only together for eight years, but were planning a family together.  Also facts.   

So, both confirmed that he was in a committed relationship with a woman for years, planning to get married, and planning to have kids like any normal heterosexual couple. 

And what I also said is any comments by him (or anyone else) who say he was always a homosexual is “BS.”  If he was always a homosexual he would have just gotten a boyfriend and not lived with a woman he intended to marry and have children with.  He made a choice, which he had the right to do.  He can sleep with whomever the heck he wants. 

What I’m doing is placing more emphasis on what actually happened, instead of after-the-fact claims that he was living a lie, etc.   

In any event, the real issue is the suppression of speech.  We are in dangerous territory.   


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on September 18, 2013, 12:39:25 PM

What I said was “Just ask Jason Collins.  Engaged to a woman for years, then decided he liked men better.”  Those are facts.    

I also quoted his fiancé, who said they were not only together for eight years, but were planning a family together.  Also facts.    

So, both confirmed that he was in a committed relationship with a woman for years, planning to get married, and planning to have kids like any normal heterosexual couple.  

And what I also said is any comments by him (or anyone else) who say he was always a homosexual is “BS.”  If he was always a homosexual he would have just gotten a boyfriend and not lived with a woman he intended to marry and have children with.  He made a choice, which he had the right to do.  He can sleep with whomever the heck he wants.  

What I’m doing is placing more emphasis on what actually happened, instead of after-the-fact claims that he was living a lie, etc.  

In any event, the real issue is the suppression of speech.  We are in dangerous territory.    


you're claiming that Jason Collins said something to the effect that "he decided he liked men better"

you have an actual quote to that effect from Collins or is the "fact" you speak of your just your own statement to that effect ...i.e. it's a fact that you made that statement about Collins ?

BTW - for about the 100th time - NO ONE IS SUPPRESSING ANYONE`S SPEECH

you and anyone are free to say whatever you want

why do you keep pretending this is not the case

what you're really complaining about is that others don't agree with what you say and when these people exercise THEIR FREEDOM it bothers you

That's your real beef so why not just admit it


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Al Doggity on September 18, 2013, 01:18:54 PM

What I said was “Just ask Jason Collins.  Engaged to a woman for years, then decided he liked men better.”  Those are facts.   

 No, those aren't facts. The "then he decided he liked men better" part is something you just made up. Collins has never said that and his ex-fiancee has never said that that is what she believes happened.

Quote
I also quoted his fiancé, who said they were not only together for eight years, but were planning a family together.  Also facts.   

So, both confirmed that he was in a committed relationship with a woman for years, planning to get married, and planning to have kids like any normal heterosexual couple. 

And what I also said is any comments by him (or anyone else) who say he was always a homosexual is “BS.”  If he was always a homosexual he would have just gotten a boyfriend and not lived with a woman he intended to marry and have children with.  He made a choice, which he had the right to do.  He can sleep with whomever the heck he wants. 



Even his ex-fiancee acknowledges that he was under a lot of societal pressure to present himself as a straight man.

Quote
What I’m doing is placing more emphasis on what actually happened, instead of after-the-fact claims that he was living a lie, etc.   

No, what you're doing is cherry-picking certain aspects of the story, ignoring whatever you find inconvenient and then simply making up "facts" out of thin air to create your own narrative.

Quote
In any event, the real issue is the suppression of speech.  We are in dangerous territory.   

As others have already said, speech isn't being suppressed. There is a difference between "free speech" and "offensive speech without any ramifications whatsoever."


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on September 18, 2013, 01:31:51 PM
No, those aren't facts. The "then he decided he liked men better" part is something you just made up. Collins has never said that and his ex-fiancee has never said that that is what she believes happened.
 


Even his ex-fiancee acknowledges that he was under a lot of societal pressure to present himself as a straight man.

No, what you're doing is cherry-picking certain aspects of the story, ignoring whatever you find inconvenient and then simply making up "facts" out of thin air to create your own narrative.

As others have already said, speech isn't being suppressed. There is a difference between "free speech" and "offensive speech without any ramifications whatsoever."


Yes, it is a fact he decided he liked men better than women.  How could that not be a fact if he’s now an open homosexual, after previously being in an eight year relationship with a woman?? 

I know about the societal pressure, etc., etc.  Could that have delayed his decision to start openly having sex with men?  Of course.  Does that mean he didn’t make a choice at the end of the day?  Of course not. 

I agree you could characterize my emphasis on certain statements as “cherry-picking,” although you’re doing the same thing.  But I’m really just using common sense. 

Yes, speech is absolutely being suppressed.  It’s not necessarily a First Amendment issue, because private employers can censor speech, but if you cannot see what is happening you need to take the blinders off.

Go look at the story about McClurkin I posted earlier in this thread.  A preacher was uninvited to an event that was likely going to be filled with religious overtones, because at some point in the past he made what used to be a noncontroversial statement about his own former lifestyle choice. 

Not sure if I posted it in this thread, but I created a thread during the NBA playoffs about the Pacers center (forget his name), who was fined $75k by the NBA for jokingly saying “no homo.” 

You cannot see how dangerous that kind of hypersensitivity is and how it can affect other forms of speech? 



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Al Doggity on September 18, 2013, 01:48:50 PM
Yes, it is a fact he decided he liked men better than women.
No, it's not.

Quote
  How could that not be a fact if he’s now an open homosexual, after previously being in an eight year relationship with a woman?? 
Because he was gay throughout that relationship. Being in a relationship with a woman doesn't mean he wasn't attracted to men.

I know about the societal pressure, etc., etc.  Could that have delayed his decision to start openly having sex with men?  Of course.  Does that mean he didn’t make a choice at the end of the day?  Of course not. 
[/quote]
It also doesn't mean he did make a choice, which is what you are saying and he is not saying.


Quote
I agree you could characterize my emphasis on certain statements as “cherry-picking,” although you’re doing the same thing.  But I’m really just using common sense. 
No, I'm actually looking at the story as a whole at not adding made up facts.I'm not cherry-picking at all.

Quote
Yes, speech is absolutely being suppressed.  It’s not necessarily a First Amendment issue, because private employers can censor speech, but if you cannot see what is happening you need to take the blinders off.

Go look at the story about McClurkin I posted earlier in this thread.  A preacher was uninvited to an event that was likely going to be filled with religious overtones, because at some point in the past he made what used to be a noncontroversial statement about his own former lifestyle choice. 

Not sure if I posted it in this thread, but I created a thread during the NBA playoffs about the Pacers center (forget his name), who was fined $75k by the NBA for jokingly saying “no homo.” 

You cannot see how dangerous that kind of hypersensitivity is and how it can affect other forms of speech? 


And this has been covered. "Free speech" doesn't mean you can say anything you want without repercussion. Of course if you say something that many people find offensive, there is a possibility of commercial backlash. There should be. Free speech does not mean  no one is  ever going to get angry at what you say.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on September 18, 2013, 02:00:26 PM
And this has been covered. "Free speech" doesn't mean you can say anything you want without repercussion. Of course if you say something that many people find offensive, there is a possibility of commercial backlash. There should be. Free speech does not mean  no one is  ever going to get angry at what you say.

I never said there should be no repercussions for speech.  There are all sorts of restrictions. 

What I’m talking about is the suppression of speech that isn’t objectively offensive, or at a minimum has been speech that people have used for years in this country. 

Are you saying you have no problem with the NBA fining someone for jokingly saying “no homo”?  So people cannot even joke?  (More rhetorical questions.)  Of course they can do it.  Whether they should is another story.   

IMO, it’s really about an attempt to indoctrinate people. 

I also think it’s extremely hypocritical for liberals to suppress speech, when they are supposed to be people of tolerance.  In reality, many of them are just tolerant of things they agree with. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on September 18, 2013, 02:48:39 PM
I never said there should be no repercussions for speech.  There are all sorts of restrictions.  

What I’m talking about is the suppression of speech that isn’t objectively offensive, or at a minimum has been speech that people have used for years in this country.  

Are you saying you have no problem with the NBA fining someone for jokingly saying “no homo”?  So people cannot even joke?  (More rhetorical questions.)  Of course they can do it.  Whether they should is another story.    

IMO, it’s really about an attempt to indoctrinate people.  

I also think it’s extremely hypocritical for liberals to suppress speech, when they are supposed to be people of tolerance.  In reality, many of them are just tolerant of things they agree with.  


you're blind to the fact that many people find the statements by christians about homosexuals to be offensive and also a potential legal liability as well as potentially harmful to a businesses bottom line.

Your blindness to these things is YOUR CHOICE.  

I think you know these things but you have to choose to ignore them in order to maintain your belief system that you are somehow being persecuted for religious beliefs.   The idea that because a certain type of speech has been used "for years in this country" somehow makes it ok is ridiculous  and again I suspect you're well aware of that too.   It wasn't long ago that saying #igger  was completely acceptable and was certainly used "for years" with no repercussions but I assume you are aware that is no longer considered acceptable in spite of it's "years" of being used


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Al Doggity on September 18, 2013, 07:00:48 PM
The idea that because a certain type of speech has been used "for years in this country" somehow makes it ok is ridiculous  and again I suspect you're well aware of that too.   It wasn't long ago that saying #igger  was completely acceptable and was certainly used "for years" with no repercussions but I assume you are aware that is no longer considered acceptable in spite of it's "years" of being used

What he's saying really does basically come down to him being upset that times have changed and standards have changed. It isn't about "suppressing speech". Every single one of those examples was essentially a business trying to mitigate public relations disasters and retain clients. Dangerous territory, indeed. ::)


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on November 04, 2013, 02:26:30 PM
Frightening: White House Intimidating Free Speech
by KEITH KOFFLER on OCTOBER 31, 2013

Okay, someone explain to me how this happens in the United States of America.

The White House is suppressing speech, bullying private citizens into not saying things that will hurt the president by calling attention to his false claim that people could keep their insurance if they like it.

According to CNN – and that doesn’t stand for Conservative News Network – insurance industry officials who criticize the Obamacare rollout are getting calls from the White House telling them to shut the &^%$! up. In particular, the White House doesn’t want them to talk about the inconvenient problem that insurers are being forced to drop people’s coverage – even though Obama promised this would not happen.

We really, really are becoming a new kind of country. These insurance executives are private citizens who have the right to say anything they want. Particularly sacrosanct is their freedom to criticize their government. While under Obamacare the feds exercise considerable sway over the insurers, THEY STILL DO NOT WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT.

This is exactly what happens as the government expands its purview over your life. It gets it into its thick head that it can control your life, beyond the specific provisions of any given law. Obamacare is not just going to ruin your health care. It will bite off, chew up, and spit out a nice sized chunk of your freedom.

Here’s the report, as delivered by CNN’s Drew Griffin:

What’s going on is a behind the scenes attempt to at least keep insurers from publicly criticizing what is happening under this Affordable Care Act rollout. Basically, if you speak out, if you are quoted, you are going to get a call from the White House – pressure to be quiet.

Insurance executives are being told to keep quiet . . . they feel defenseless against the White House PR team . . . the White House is exerting massive pressure on the industry, including the trade organizations, to keep quiet. The sources are telling us they fear White House retribution.

(They’re being told to keep quiet about) the fact that clarifications were made to the Affordable Care Act after the law was passed and those clarifications are forcing the insurance industry to drop insurance plans that do not meet Obamacare requirements.

Here’s the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHWEUPOFO8M

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/10/31/frightening-white-house-intimidating-free-speech/


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 04, 2013, 05:33:39 PM
Liberal commies at brown u just shut down ray kelly speech.   Fucking commie rats


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: whork on November 05, 2013, 07:54:21 AM
The reality is that everyone is pissy when things don't go their way.

End of story.

Mr Bum is upset because his religious beliefs don't carry more weight. He can cry a river to anyone who will listen, and in this day and age, there's not that many left.

Reality is that Mr. Bum is of an old guard who is dying off and the younger generation does not take hate for homosexuals lightly.



This!!


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: RRKore on November 05, 2013, 04:01:22 PM

You originally posted the dog video I posted above, but removed it before I could respond. Right at the beginning of the video, the narrator references the presence of the teaser bitch. In the horse video you posted, it is likely there was a mounting or teaser mare present. In the comments of the horse video, commenters wonder why the horse gets hard so fast. It appears to get semi-aroused before it is even touched.

I originally saw this as part of a TED talk about sexuality:
The video shows a human (in Denmark, maybe?) stimulating a female hog to the point of orgasm during artificial insemination (because there's said to be a school of thought whereby a female experiencing orgasm is more likely to conceive).  BTW, this might make for a funny WYHI thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6q2wKhqdmmw


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: RRKore on November 05, 2013, 04:15:43 PM
Yes, it is a fact he decided he liked men better than women.  How could that not be a fact if he’s now an open homosexual, after previously being in an eight year relationship with a woman?? 


Are you being sincere here?  Because it seems most reasonable to me that he didn't all of a sudden decide he liked men better but he DID all of a sudden decide he was gonna be open about his preferences.  That's all.

Is it really your religion driving all this?  Seems like some folks are too hung up on this binary gender thing when it's clearly more complicated than that.



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: RRKore on November 05, 2013, 04:29:47 PM
Liberal commies at brown u just shut down ray kelly speech.   Fucking commie rats

Freedom of speech at work, there, amigo.  I applaud them.  As the Thai's say, "Som Nom Nah".  (Which kinda means "Serves you right" or "You karmically got what you deserved".)  (First two words rhyme with "home", 3rd word rhymes with "paw".)



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on November 05, 2013, 06:16:42 PM
Are you being sincere here?  Because it seems most reasonable to me that he didn't all of a sudden decide he liked men better but he DID all of a sudden decide he was gonna be open about his preferences.  That's all.

Is it really your religion driving all this?  Seems like some folks are too hung up on this binary gender thing when it's clearly more complicated than that.



Yes I'm being sincere.  I don't buy that "he's been gay his whole life" crap.  He made a choice.  After living with a woman for years who had no idea he was in the down low.  

My religion has nothing to do with my opinion.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on November 05, 2013, 06:20:57 PM
Freedom of speech at work, there, amigo.  I applaud them.  As the Thai's say, "Som Nom Nah".  (Which kinda means "Serves you right" or "You karmically got what you deserved".)  (First two words rhyme with "home", 3rd word rhymes with "paw".)



That's not free speech.  That's disturbing the peace, etc. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: doison on November 05, 2013, 06:31:12 PM
Yes I'm being sincere.  I don't buy that "he's been gay his whole life" crap.  He made a choice.  After living with a woman for years who had no idea he was in the down low.  

My religion has nothing to do with my opinion.

Exactly.

It's a choice we've all fought against making, amarite?


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: RRKore on November 06, 2013, 09:07:44 AM
Yes I'm being sincere.  I don't buy that "he's been gay his whole life" crap.  He made a choice.  After living with a woman for years who had no idea he was in the down low.  

My religion has nothing to do with my opinion.

Fair enough. 

Without thinking about a whole lot, I'm pretty sure I disagree (over-simplified analogy to follow):  If I like and would really enjoy eating chocolate cake but have chosen to refrain from eating it for years and years (for whatever reason) before  finally deciding, "Fuck it, I'm gonna eat me some chocolate cake" it doesn't mean I all of a sudden chose to like chocolate cake, it just means I've finally chosen to to eat it. 

(Hmmm, maybe the analogy above DOES apply pretty well to the Jason Collins thing;  Only instead of "chocolate cake" substitute "chocolate beef-cake".  haha)

BB, you seem smart so I think you already understand this viewpoint but just don't go along with it.  And I don't have much of a problem with that -- I have no dog in this fight.

My personal feeling is that though I believe gays should have all the legal rights straight people do, they don't deserve any special protections when it comes to being made fun of occasionally.  As long as it's genuinely funny (and not ONLY mean-spritited, it's ok.)


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: RRKore on November 06, 2013, 09:12:57 AM
That's not free speech.  That's disturbing the peace, etc. 

I see your point but feel that what they did was deserved and was definitely no more wrong than the Stop and Frisk practice.  (And, hell yeah, I feel that 2 wrongs DO make a right, sometimes.) 





Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on November 06, 2013, 10:30:25 AM
Fair enough. 

Without thinking about a whole lot, I'm pretty sure I disagree (over-simplified analogy to follow):  If I like and would really enjoy eating chocolate cake but have chosen to refrain from eating it for years and years (for whatever reason) before  finally deciding, "Fuck it, I'm gonna eat me some chocolate cake" it doesn't mean I all of a sudden chose to like chocolate cake, it just means I've finally chosen to to eat it. 

(Hmmm, maybe the analogy above DOES apply pretty well to the Jason Collins thing;  Only instead of "chocolate cake" substitute "chocolate beef-cake".  haha)

BB, you seem smart so I think you already understand this viewpoint but just don't go along with it.  And I don't have much of a problem with that -- I have no dog in this fight.

My personal feeling is that though I believe gays should have all the legal rights straight people do, they don't deserve any special protections when it comes to being made fun of occasionally.  As long as it's genuinely funny (and not ONLY mean-spritited, it's ok.)


Here is the way I see it.  I was not a fan of Jerry Fallwell (sp?), but he said one thing a while ago that I agree with.  We all have different temptations.  Some people are susceptible to various drug or alcohol addictions, some food, some smoking, other lifestyle choices, etc.  People are tempted to do things in areas where they have weaknesses.  I think that's true of people who chose to become homosexuals.  They have temptations to engage in abnormal behavior.  Some engage, some do not.  At the end of the day, they make a choice, and there are numerous examples of people who have chosen that lifestyle and then come out of it.   

Regarding legal rights, I think the people should decide.  If a majority want to confer legal protections to LGBT, gender identity, and whatever other gender classification we want to create, then I respect what the people decide.  For example, I support traditional marriage, but our legislature is about to pass homosexual marriage here in about the next several days.  I disagree with the legislature deciding this instead of the people, but I'll respect that law.  That's the way democracy works.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on November 06, 2013, 10:31:59 AM
It's always entertaining when Bum claims to know people better than they know themselves



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on November 06, 2013, 10:32:42 AM
I see your point but feel that what they did was deserved and was definitely no more wrong than the Stop and Frisk practice.  (And, hell yeah, I feel that 2 wrongs DO make a right, sometimes.) 


How is a private citizen giving a speech responsible for a police officer frisking someone?  Don't see any correlation.  

There is a way to protest and get your point across without acting like an idiot.  Nobody listens to the kind disruption they engaged in.  


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on November 06, 2013, 10:36:08 AM
Here is the way I see it.  I was not a fan of Jerry Fallwell (sp?), but he said one thing a while ago that I agree with.  We all have different temptations.  Some people are susceptible to various drug or alcohol addictions, some food, some smoking, other lifestyle choices, etc.  People are tempted to do things in areas where they have weaknesses.  I think that's true of people who chose to become homosexuals.  They have temptations to engage in abnormal behavior.  Some engage, some do not.  At the end of the day, they make a choice, and there are numerous examples of people who have chosen that lifestyle and then come out of it.   

Regarding legal rights, I think the people should decide.  If a majority want to confer legal protections to LGBT, gender identity, and whatever other gender classification we want to create, then I respect what the people decide.  For example, I support traditional marriage, but our legislature is about to pass homosexual marriage here in about the next several days.  I disagree with the legislature deciding this instead of the people, but I'll respect that law.  That's the way democracy works.

who the hell are you or anyone to decided what is normal or abnormal between two consenting adults

I think being a vegan is abnormal but it's none of my business what anyone else believes or chooses to do with their lives

regarding the idea that the majority should be able to vote on the rights of a minority (even in violation of the constitution) I assume you'd have no problem if the majority wanted to take away voting rights to redheads or some other random group



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: whork on November 07, 2013, 03:49:49 AM
Here is the way I see it.  I was not a fan of Jerry Fallwell (sp?), but he said one thing a while ago that I agree with.  We all have different temptations.  Some people are susceptible to various drug or alcohol addictions, some food, some smoking, other lifestyle choices, etc.  People are tempted to do things in areas where they have weaknesses.  I think that's true of people who chose to become homosexuals.  They have temptations to engage in abnormal behavior.  Some engage, some do not.  At the end of the day, they make a choice, and there are numerous examples of people who have chosen that lifestyle and then come out of it.   

Regarding legal rights, I think the people should decide.  If a majority want to confer legal protections to LGBT, gender identity, and whatever other gender classification we want to create, then I respect what the people decide.  For example, I support traditional marriage, but our legislature is about to pass homosexual marriage here in about the next several days.  I disagree with the legislature deciding this instead of the people, but I'll respect that law.  That's the way democracy works.


Do you have a desire to fuck men but refrain from it because of your faith BB?


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on November 07, 2013, 10:04:27 AM

Do you have a desire to fuck men but refrain from it because of your faith BB?

(http://newturfers.com/mwf/attach/95/578395/TrollBeGone.gif)


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: RRKore on November 07, 2013, 10:27:49 AM
How is a private citizen giving a speech responsible for a police officer frisking someone?  Don't see any correlation.  

There is a way to protest and get your point across without acting like an idiot.  Nobody listens to the kind disruption they engaged in.  

Private citizen?  I thought Ray Kelly was the NYPD Police chief?  If I'm wrong, then never mind.

But if he is the chief then his men are regularly violating the rights of thousands and thousands of innocent people's rights by detaining and frisking them without cause so having a group of citizens let him know about the extent of their dissatisfaction with the practice by shouting him down and not letting him speak at their college campus not only doesn't seem so bad but it also seems like an effective way of garnering publicity about the problems many have with "Stop and Frisk". 

Of course, some of the attention is negative because it will seem to many like his rights to free speech are being infringed upon (I don't think they are to any appreciable degree - he has plenty of other soap-boxes to stand on.) but, again, it's a fair trade-off to me:   If Kelly doesn't respect the right of citizens to be free from unreasonable searches, why should the citizens respect his right to free speech?  Som nom nah, I say.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on November 07, 2013, 10:37:08 AM
Private citizen?  I thought Ray Kelly was the NYPD Police chief?  If I'm wrong, then never mind.

But if he is the chief then his men are regularly violating the rights of thousands and thousands of innocent people's rights by detaining and frisking them without cause so having a group of citizens let him know about the extent of their dissatisfaction with the practice by shouting him down and not letting him speak at their college campus not only doesn't seem so bad but it also seems like an effective way of garnering publicity about the problems many have with "Stop and Frisk". 

Of course, some of the attention is negative because it will seem to many like his rights to free speech are being infringed upon (I don't think they are to any appreciable degree - he has plenty of other soap-boxes to stand on.) but, again, it's a fair trade-off to me:   If Kelly doesn't respect the right of citizens to be free from unreasonable searches, why should the citizens respect his right to free speech?  Som nom nah, I say.

You are correct.  He is public official. 

Still, that doesn't make the disruption any more palatable.  Especially at a university, which is supposed to be the marketplace of ideas.  Shouting someone down is just censorship.  It's a liberal hallmark.  Disagree with someone's opinion?  Silence it. 

There is no trade-off.  That's not how society works.  If people are opposed to his law enforcement policies, then challenge them by voting, protesting (appropriately), lobbying, and court challenges.  If they lose, suck it up and follow the law, or move to another state. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: RRKore on November 07, 2013, 11:38:07 AM
You are correct.  He is public official. 

Still, that doesn't make the disruption any more palatable.  Especially at a university, which is supposed to be the marketplace of ideas.  Shouting someone down is just censorship.  It's a liberal hallmark.  Disagree with someone's opinion?  Silence it. 

There is no trade-off.  That's not how society works.  If people are opposed to his law enforcement policies, then challenge them by voting, protesting (appropriately), lobbying, and court challenges.  If they lose, suck it up and follow the law, or move to another state. 

Not how a polite society works, I agree.  Not even how the society I would prefer works, I'll even add. 

Today's society, I'm sure you realize (and I'll join you in lamenting and risk sounding like old men railing about "kids these days") is more complicated.  Disruptions like the one at Brown make news (the squeaky wheel gets the greasin') and in today's society, with it's craven shit like viral marketing, it's to be expected. 

I start to understand and condone it, I guess, when I realize how many of our elected representatives, once in office, fail to support the policies they were elected to support. 
I tried in vain to search for a youtube clip from the old Bill Murray movie, Quick Change, where an old man in a public restroom, hearing Randy Quaid's moaning (due to Bill Murray ripping the taped stacks of money off of him) inside a stall and thinking some kind of kinky sex act was going on, says in disgust, "You can keep this city!"



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on November 07, 2013, 07:22:50 PM
Not how a polite society works, I agree.  Not even how the society I would prefer works, I'll even add. 

Today's society, I'm sure you realize (and I'll join you in lamenting and risk sounding like old men railing about "kids these days") is more complicated.  Disruptions like the one at Brown make news (the squeaky wheel gets the greasin') and in today's society, with it's craven shit like viral marketing, it's to be expected. 

I start to understand and condone it, I guess, when I realize how many of our elected representatives, once in office, fail to support the policies they were elected to support. 
I tried in vain to search for a youtube clip from the old Bill Murray movie, Quick Change, where an old man in a public restroom, hearing Randy Quaid's moaning (due to Bill Murray ripping the taped stacks of money off of him) inside a stall and thinking some kind of kinky sex act was going on, says in disgust, "You can keep this city!"



There are plenty of ways to shine the spotlight on conduct people find abusive within the confines of free speech and expression.

But I do agree that way too many of our elected representatives fail to do what's in the best interests of the country and their constituents.  

I'm a recent convert to term limits.  


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on November 18, 2013, 10:08:15 AM
Toe the line, or they will shut you up. 

D.C. insurance commissioner fired a day after questioning Obamacare fix
By Aaron C. Davis
Published: November 16, 2013

A day after he questioned President Obama’s decision to unwind a major tenet of the health-care law and said the nation’s capital might not go along, D.C. insurance commissioner William P. White was fired.

White was called into a meeting Friday afternoon with one of Mayor Vincent C. Gray’s (D) top deputies and told that the mayor “wants to go in a different direction,” White told The Washington Post on Saturday.

White said the mayoral deputy never said that he was being asked to leave because of his Thursday statement on health care. But he said the timing was hard to ignore. Roughly 24 hours later, White said, he was “basically being told, ‘Thanks, but no thanks.’ ”

White was one of the first insurance commissioners in the nation last week to push back against Obama’s attempt to smooth over part of the botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act: millions of unexpected cancellations of insurance plans.

In persuading Congress to vote for the health-care overhaul, Obama had promised that Americans who liked their insurance plans would be able to keep them. When that turned out to not be the case, Obama apologized last week. And to stem growing bipartisan dissent, he announced Thursday that plans slated to be canceled next year to comply with the legislation could be extended for one year.

While the president’s plan sounded like a simple fix, it rattled the insurance industry, which had set prices for next year based on many of its products changing to comply with the health-care law. Allowing some plans to continue beyond Jan. 1 could also run afoul of provisions in laws passed by dozens of states and the District to implement the Affordable Care Act.

In a statement issued Thursday, White hinted strongly that he opposed the idea.

“The action today undercuts the purpose of the exchanges, including the District’s DC Health Link, by creating exceptions that make it more difficult for them to operate,” the statement said.

He also pointed to a statement issued by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners that said the Obama order “threatens to undermine the new market, and may lead to higher premiums and market disruptions in 2014 and beyond.”

“We concur with that assessment,” White said Thursday.

White’s statement was removed from the department’s Web site sometime before Friday morning. Asked about the removal Friday, spokesman Michael Flagg said the department’s statement had changed.

“Our statement now is that we’re taking a close look at the implications of the president’s announcement on the District’s exchange and we will soon recommend a course of action after taking into consideration the positions of all the stakeholders,” Flagg wrote in an e-mail.

On Saturday, Flagg declined to comment on whether White had been fired, saying the department doesn’t comment on personnel issues.

A senior city official said White’s initial statement was sent to the mayoral communications director, Pedro Ribeiro, only minutes before it was issued publicly. It was not sent to Deputy Mayor Victor Hoskins, White’s immediate supervisor, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak about a personnel matter.

A formal statement critical of the president should have been closely vetted and approved by the mayor’s office, and White refused to acknowledge the misstep, the official said. White said Hoskins fired him Friday.

White said he thought he would have been derelict in his duties to not quickly make a statement on the president’s announcement.

“Everyone was looking for responses from the regulators. One of my chief concerns is always consistency and clarity in the marketplace — you can’t have something that big sitting out there without responding to it,” he said.

White had served as Gray’s commissioner for the D.C. Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking since February 2011. Prior to last week, his most high-profile and controversial role had been as chief of the department that took control of Chartered Health Plan, the city’s largest manager of health care for low-income residents, amid questions about “irregularities” in its finances.

Chartered was owned by businessman Jeffrey E. Thompson, who has been implicated in funding a $650,000 “shadow campaign” to elect Gray. White oversaw the successful sale of the insurer’s assets, and his department’s handling of the transition has been generally viewed positively.

White said he had known since he took the job that he served at the pleasure of the mayor. He said he was proud of his record and would have stayed.

On the president’s proposed health-care fix, he said: “I wasn’t saying I was against it, I also was saying I didn’t know enough to fully support it — I want to be clear, and I think it is, I was not speaking for Mayor Gray.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-insurance-commissioner-fired-a-day-after-questioning-obamacare-fix/2013/11/16/b88eaea0-4f17-11e3-9890-a1e0997fb0c0_story.html?tid=pm_local_pop


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on November 20, 2013, 12:03:41 PM
I'm surprised. 

Protection, at last? University with liberal bent bans political discrimination
By Faith Mangan, Alicia Acuna
Published November 20, 2013
FoxNews.com

The University of Colorado, which has a reputation for liberal politics, has banned discrimination based on political affiliation -- giving greater protection to students and faculty who speak their minds while on campus.

The policy is believed to be a first for any public college or university, and could help protect campus conservatives who might fear retribution for expressing their views in the classroom, or in written assignments.

While the measure was sponsored by two Republicans, the change was unanimously passed by the entire Board of Regents.

Regent Sue Sharkey, who spent months working on the policy change, points out: "This just wasn't a Republican or conservative initiative. Rather, we as a board came together as Democrats and Republicans to be unified."

Sharkey says it covers students and faculty, "to ensure... we were honoring their First Amendment rights and they could speak out on their political views and not feel they would be discriminated against based on that."

She recounted hearing stories from members of the campus community who told her about feeling diminished or silenced, unable to comfortably express their views.

The regents have also passed a resolution to conduct a campus survey. The study is expected to take the temperature of the campus climate.

Sharkey explains it "will really take a look at discrimination and how pervasive is it. And rather than having just anecdotal stories from students or faculty, we really want to find out how broad this is."

The school is also home to the Ward Churchill scandal.

Churchill is a former professor who was fired after a protracted legal battle. He infamously referred to victims of the 9/11 attacks as "little Eichmanns" – a reference to the Nazi leader.

Attorney David Lane represented him. Asked for reaction to the anti-discrimination policy change, Lane does not mince words: "Well, I wonder where they were when Ward Churchill needed that protection, frankly.

“It's called the First Amendment ... but I fully support the concept that people should not lose their jobs, their government jobs on a government campus, like the University of Colorado, based on their ideas or their speech. I'm all in favor of that,” he said.

Now if someone feels discriminated against for their political views or affiliation, he or she will be able to file a complaint with the office of non-discrimination and have it investigated.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/20/protection-at-last-university-with-liberal-bent-bans-political-discrimination/


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on January 15, 2014, 10:54:19 AM
CA Teacher Forces Student to Stop Talking About Bible
War on Christmas: The Aftermath

On December 19, a school teacher in Temecula, California told her first grade student, Brynn Williams, that she could not present her family's Christmas tradition of a star of Bethlehem at her school, according to local reports.

Brynn's class was assigned to do a 1-minute presentation about an object that best represents their family's Christmas tradition. When Brynn stood up to give her presentation, she began reciting a Bible verse just before the teacher interrupted and told her to ”go take your seat". She was the only student not allowed to finish her presentation.

"When this took place she was hurt," said Brynn's father Shane, "she felt that she had done something wrong and she was going to be punished."

Brynn's family has since sought legal counsel with Advocates for Faith & Freedom.

"The disapproval and hostility that Christian students have come to experience in our nation's public schools has become epidemic,” said Robert Tyler, general counsel for Advocates for Faith & Freedom, "I hope that (the school district ) will take the lead role in adopting a model policy to prohibit this abuse that has become all too common place for religious-minded students."

The Temecula Valley School District released only the following statement:

The Temecula Valley Unified School District respects all students' rights under the Constitution and takes very seriously any allegation of discrimination. Due to the fact that District officials are currently investigating the allegations, it would be inappropriate to provide further comment at this time.

This story broke shortly after advocates for religious freedom picked up on another controversial incident in a West Covina school district where another teacher prevented her student from bringing on campus "candy canes with a religious message".

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/ca-teacher-forces-student-stop-talking-about-bible


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on January 20, 2014, 11:49:57 AM
Only opinions that liberals agree with are tolerated. 

Latina actress Maria Conchita Alonso out of play over support of Tea Party candidate
Published January 19, 2014
FoxNews.com

A San Francisco arts organization has parted ways with a well-known Latina actress, who was to star in its rendition of “The Vagina Monologues,” after the thespian appeared in a political ad with a California Tea Party lawmaker who is running for governor.

“We really can’t have her in the show, unfortunately,” Eliana Lopez, the producer, told KPIX 5 of Maria Conchita Alonso’s resignation on Friday from the cast of Brava! For Women in the Arts’ upcoming Spanish performance of the Eve Ensler play.

“Of course she has the right to say whatever she wants. But we’re in the middle of the Mission. Doing what she is doing is against what we believe.”

Several Latino organizations have criticized Alonso -- a former Miss Venezuela who gained Hollywood fame for hits like “The Running Man,” and “Moscow on the Hudson” -- for endorsing Tim Donnelly, a California State Assemblyman from San Bernardino.

Connelly founded a state chapter of the Minutemen, an armed vigilante border patrol group, and has vigorously fought against measures that allow California's undocumented immigrants to attend public colleges at the same tuition rates as other residents, as well as permit them to obtain driver’s licenses, according to Fox News Latino.

In the Connelly ad, released Jan. 13, Alonso holds a small dog that she introduces as “Tequila” and at times uses vulgar expressions as she translates remarks by Donnelly about his views on various issues into Spanish.

“Politicians and big government are killing our prosperity, pushing welfare costs through the roof and driving our schools into the ground,” Donnelly reportedly notes in the ad.

Then, while standing next to him, Alonso jokingly translates it all by saying, “We’re screwed.”

“The Tim Donnelly ad with Maria Conchita Alonso ad is so bad it’s almost laughable,” Café Con Leche, a Latino Republican group, said in a statement. “The ad seems designed to appeal to Hispanic voters, but instead insults the intelligence of many Hispanic voters.”

Brava! For Women in the Arts’ production of “The Vagina Monologues” is scheduled to show at the venue it owns and operates called the Brava Theater Center, located in San Francisco’s Mission District, a neighborhood heavily populated with people of Latin descent.

For her part, Alonso was reportedly born in Cuba and spent the first five years of her life there, until her family moved to Venezuela in 1962. She became a U.S. citizen in 2005.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/01/19/latina-actress-maria-conchita-alonso-out-play-over-support-tea-party-candidate/?intcmp=latestnews


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on January 20, 2014, 12:00:18 PM
Only opinions that liberals agree with are tolerated. 

Latina actress Maria Conchita Alonso out of play over support of Tea Party candidate
Published January 19, 2014
FoxNews.com

A San Francisco arts organization has parted ways with a well-known Latina actress, who was to star in its rendition of “The Vagina Monologues,” after the thespian appeared in a political ad with a California Tea Party lawmaker who is running for governor.

“We really can’t have her in the show, unfortunately,” Eliana Lopez, the producer, told KPIX 5 of Maria Conchita Alonso’s resignation on Friday from the cast of Brava! For Women in the Arts’ upcoming Spanish performance of the Eve Ensler play.

“Of course she has the right to say whatever she wants. But we’re in the middle of the Mission. Doing what she is doing is against what we believe.”

Several Latino organizations have criticized Alonso -- a former Miss Venezuela who gained Hollywood fame for hits like “The Running Man,” and “Moscow on the Hudson” -- for endorsing Tim Donnelly, a California State Assemblyman from San Bernardino.

Connelly founded a state chapter of the Minutemen, an armed vigilante border patrol group, and has vigorously fought against measures that allow California's undocumented immigrants to attend public colleges at the same tuition rates as other residents, as well as permit them to obtain driver’s licenses, according to Fox News Latino.

In the Connelly ad, released Jan. 13, Alonso holds a small dog that she introduces as “Tequila” and at times uses vulgar expressions as she translates remarks by Donnelly about his views on various issues into Spanish.

“Politicians and big government are killing our prosperity, pushing welfare costs through the roof and driving our schools into the ground,” Donnelly reportedly notes in the ad.

Then, while standing next to him, Alonso jokingly translates it all by saying, “We’re screwed.”

“The Tim Donnelly ad with Maria Conchita Alonso ad is so bad it’s almost laughable,” Café Con Leche, a Latino Republican group, said in a statement. “The ad seems designed to appeal to Hispanic voters, but instead insults the intelligence of many Hispanic voters.”

Brava! For Women in the Arts’ production of “The Vagina Monologues” is scheduled to show at the venue it owns and operates called the Brava Theater Center, located in San Francisco’s Mission District, a neighborhood heavily populated with people of Latin descent.

For her part, Alonso was reportedly born in Cuba and spent the first five years of her life there, until her family moved to Venezuela in 1962. She became a U.S. citizen in 2005.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/01/19/latina-actress-maria-conchita-alonso-out-play-over-support-tea-party-candidate/?intcmp=latestnews

I see you still haven't learned the definition of censorship yet


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on January 21, 2014, 09:32:36 AM
Typical.

Cuomo: 'Extreme Conservatives,' Pro-Lifers Not Welcome in NY
Cortney O'Brien | Jan 18, 2014

If anti-abortion activists thought those 35 feet ‘buffer zones’ currently in place around abortion clinics were restrictive, wait until they hear the boundary New York Governor Andrew Cuomo wants to draw for them. Calling into “The Capitol Pressroom” radio show Friday morning, the liberal leader made it clear just what he thinks about conservatives and pro-lifers:

“The Republican Party candidates are running against the SAFE Act — it was voted for by moderate Republicans who run the Senate! Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”

Cuomo’s comments perhaps come as no surprise to those familiar with his proposed Women’s Equality Act - legislation which works opposite its title thanks to its radical abortion agenda. Although the measure was defeated last year, Cuomo, in his fourth State of the State address, declared he was determined to try again in 2014.

Dan Janison at Long Island’s Newsday asks a poignant question about Cuomo’s recent condescending remarks: What if the conservative governor of a red state made these comments about extreme liberals?

Just imagine for a moment if Haley Barbour or Rick Perry said: “Do you support abortion rights? Do you support same-sex marriage? Do you support gun control? Then, you have no place in this state because that's not who we are.”

Those remarks would be ripe for some mocking exposure on MSNBC.

True, MSNBC would have no mercy on Perry and Barbour. Nor should we be soft on Cuomo. We should be attacking his comments, which alienated a large bloc of voters, just as much as the left jumped all over Romney’s ‘47 percent’ gaffe.

One more point from Janison:

Did the governor become a bit, uh, extreme in his critique of extremists?

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2014/01/18/cuomo-extreme-conservatives-prolifers-arent-welcome-in-ny-n1781071


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on February 10, 2014, 11:32:46 AM
Iowa Republicans blast law school over refusal to hire conservative professor as faculty
By Cristina Corbin
Published April 06, 2012
FoxNews.com

Iowa Republicans are taking aim at the state's top law school for denying a faculty position to a conservative law professor, who an assistant dean once said embraces politics the rest of the faculty "despises."   

Teresa Wagner, who works as an associate director of writing at the University of Iowa College of Law, is suing former dean Carolyn Jones for employment discrimination, claiming she was not hired for a professor position because Jones and other law faculty disapproved of her conservative views and activism.

To hold a law faculty position at the publicly funded university is viewed as a "sacred cow," Wagner said in an interview, and "Republicans need not apply."

The case, which goes to trial this October, has become a chief concern for Republicans in Johnson County, who on Monday passed a resolution calling on the Iowa House of Representatives' oversight committee to investigate hiring practices involved in Wagner's case and others like it.

"We think the hiring policies need to be such where there are certainly non-discriminatory practices which relate to political philosophy, as well as to race and gender and other issues," said Bob Anderson, chairman of the Johnson County Republican Party. He claims students are deprived of "diversity of political thought" when conservative thinkers, like Wagner, are rejected based on their politics.

"We have a very active, conservative Republican community within the University of Iowa, which has not been met with an appropriate sense of respect for their ideas," he told FoxNews.com. "We see generally the climate as unfavorable." 

Wagner, who graduated with honors from the law school in 1993, has taught at the George Mason University School of Law. She has also worked for the National Right to Life Committee, which opposes abortion, and the conservative Family Research Council.

In 2006, Wagner applied for a full-time instructor position with the law school and was denied. She was also rejected for an adjunct or full-time position in four subsequent attempts, according to her attorney, Stephen T. Fieweger.

"For the first time in years, there are more registered Republicans in the state of Iowa than there are Democrats, which is obviously not reflected at the University of Iowa," Fieweger told FoxNews.com.

Fieweger said Wagner's candidacy was dismissed because of her conservative views, and he cited a 2007 email from Associate Dean Jonathan C. Carlson to Jones in which Carlson wrote: "Frankly, one thing that worries me is that some people may be opposed to Teresa serving in any role, in part at least because they so despise her politics (and especially her activism about it)."

Associate Dean Eric Andersen was not immediately available for comment when contacted Thursday. Tom Moore, a spokesman for the university, told the Iowa City Press Citizen last week that the school is "committed to equal opportunity, diversity and to following fair hiring practices."

Wagner's case was initially dismissed in a lower court that ruled the dean could hire whomever she wishes. But the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in St. Louis, reinstated it in December. A trial is set for Oct. 15.

Fieweger said the law school and academic institutions in general have been so "entrenched" in discriminating against conservative-minded faculty over the years that "they don't recognize they're doing it."

At the time Wagner filed her complaint, Fieweger said, the number of registered Republicans on the law faculty stood at one.

Fieweger said the school argues Wagner was rejected because she "stunningly flunked the interview" in refusing to teach analysis -- a claim he said "just doesn't make sense and the jury is going to see that."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/05/iowa-republicans-blast-law-school-over-refusal-to-hire-conservative-professor/

Federal Appeals Court to Decide if Politics Should Factor in Law School Hiring
Sunday, 09 Feb 2014
By Elliot Jager

A Federal Court of Appeals in St. Paul, Minn., will on Feb. 13 hear arguments in a case involving a law school accused of refusing to hire a highly qualified instructor because she is also an anti-abortion activist, according to a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Peter Berkowitz.

The case, Wagner v. Jones, involves Teresa Wagner, who had applied for the job of legal writing instructor at the University of Iowa law school, and Dean Carolyn Jones, who allegedly refused to hire her on political grounds.

According to Berkowitz, a senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution and a constitutional scholar, the legal question is "whether a state law-school may deny employment to faculty candidates because of their political beliefs."

Wagner had been working part-time for the law school when two full-time slots for legal-writing instructors became available. She applied and became a finalist for one of the openings, according to Berkowitz.

Wagner's credentials were extensive; she was a trial attorney; had edited scholarly books, and written a legal brief used in a U.S. Supreme Court case involving partial-birth abortions. The law school committee dealing with faculty appointments recommended giving her the job.

But the overwhelmingly liberal law-school faculty voted against Wagner; Jones said she "flunked" her interview.

Of the two available positions one went to a liberal who subsequently resigned. The second is being staffed by adjunct instructors including one with known pro-abortion sensibilities, according to Berkowitz.

Wagner sued the school. A jury agreed that her rights had been violated. However the panel could not agree to hold the law dean exclusively responsible. Through legal machinations the case was dismissed.
Wager wants the appeals court to order a new trial.

At the time of her rejection, the law school had a single registered Republican on its 50-member faculty. Since she launched her suit, the school has hired several more.

Berkowitz argues: "Hiring decisions should be based on candidates' merits, including their ability to vigorously present in the classroom and criticize conservative as well as progressive views. If the Eighth Circuit protects Teresa Wagner's constitutional rights, the court will also bolster legal education in America by promoting its depoliticization."

http://www.newsmax.com/US/politics-law-school-hiring/2014/02/09/id/551713#ixzz2swgBvhEM


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 06, 2014, 11:47:40 AM
Does not surprise me one bit. 

Rutgers faculty protest of Condoleezza Rice as graduation speaker 'appalling,' lawmaker says
By Kelly Heyboer/ The Star-Ledger
March 04, 2014

TRENTON — Republican state Assemblywoman Mary Pat Angelini blasted a Rutgers University faculty group today for its opposition to Condoleezza Rice's selection as this year's commencement speaker.

Angelini (R-Monmouth) issued a statement calling the faculty vote protesting Rice's selection "appalling and an embarrassment to our state."

"This is nothing more than a political firestorm fueled by their hatred of an opposing ideology, and President George W. Bush in particular. Dr. Rice and the people of New Jersey deserve better," Angelini said.

Last week, Rutgers' New Brunswick Faculty Council passed a resolution calling on the university’s board of governors to rescind its invitation to Rice. The former U.S. Secretary of State is scheduled to receive $35,000 and an honorary doctorate for her speech.

The faculty resolution said Rutgers should not honor Rice because of her role in the war in Iraq and the Bush administration's adoption of waterboarding and other controversial interrogation techniques.

"Condoleezza Rice ... played a prominent role in the administration’s effort to mislead the American people about the presence of weapons of mass destruction," the resolution said.

In her statement, Angelini praised Rice.

“Condoleezza Rice is a trailblazer and a woman of extraordinary intelligence and diverse talents who has spent most of her career in academia," Angelini said. "She was the first woman and first African-American to serve as provost of Stanford University and has served as a Stanford professor for more than three decades. That alone makes her beyond qualified to deliver the commencement speech at Rutgers or at any university."

Rice is scheduled to speak at the May 18 university-wide commencement ceremony in the Rutgers football stadium in Piscataway. The Rutgers Board of Governors unanimously approved Rice's nomination for the honorary degree last month.

Other honorary degrees will go to Gerald C. Harvey, outgoing chair of the university’s Board of Governors, and Richard Leakey, the renowned paleoanthropologist and environmentalist.

Donald Katz, founder and CEO of Audible Inc. and an award-winning journalist, will receive an honorary doctorate and serve as Rutgers-Newark’s commencement speaker.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: RRKore on March 07, 2014, 11:31:26 AM
Supporting idiotic wars has consequences, I guess. 

Anyway, unless Rutgers was just looking for publicity, hiring a controversial figure like Rice wasn't a great move -- She HAS accomplished a lot, especially considering her race & gender, but unfortunately for her that's not what she's destined to be known for.  Props to the faculty of Rutgers for not having short memories, I say.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 27, 2014, 01:39:19 PM
This isn't an example of censorship, but it's a precursor to what is coming.  Any opposition to lifestyle choices will be deemed "barbaric," "hateful," etc. and people will eventually be silenced. 

As Obama Meets Pope, Media Mum on Biden's Slam of 'Bizarre,' 'Barbaric' Christian Position on Gays
By Tim Graham | March 27, 2014

As the media boosted President Obama's meeting with Pope Francis on Thursday morning, none have noticed how the reportedly weekly-Mass-attending Vice President Joe Biden made remarks in Los Angeles at a "Human Rights Campaign" event last Saturday night. Biden expressed disbelief and outrage that anyone's still taking Catholic teaching on sexuality seriously in this modern age.

The gay newspaper The Washington Blade reported Biden used words like "close to barbaric" to describe the present system of religious liberty -- the notion that a religious employer doesn't have to hire (and can fire) gay activists. Biden even said "the world -- God willing -- is beginning to change." He then cited Pope Francis (out of context) saying "who are we to judge?" (video below)

Biden called on Congress immediately to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, saying the lack of prohibition on anti-LGBT workplace discrimination is “close to barbaric.”

“It’s outrageous we’re even debating this subject. I really mean it. I mean, it’s almost beyond belief that today, in 2014, I can say to you as your employee in so many states, ‘You’re fired because of who you love,’” Biden said. “Think about that. It is bizarre. No, no, no. It really is. I don’t think most Americans even know that employers can do that.”

Gay activists are upset that Team Obama hasn't just gone around Congress and issued an Executive Order instituting this "anti-discrimination" policy. Biden also said the orthodox Christian position on homosexuality is a "sick" cultural norm that has to go:

“The single most basic of all human rights is the right to decide who you love,” Biden said. “It’s the single basic building block; it’s the single most important human rights. And hate can never, never be defended because it’s a so-called cultural norm. I’ve had it up to here with cultural norms. I really mean it. If a cultural norm is sick, it's sick, it’s simple. There’s never a justification for a government or an individual politician to play off the bigotry and hatred.”

Biden paid tribute to the courage of gay activists: “All of you spoke up and stepped out and came forward, you came out and you marched, you demanded to be recognized, demanded your constitutional rights, demands a basic American dream. You demanded respect...your tenacity, your integrity, and yes, your physical courage, and your pride, bent the moral arch of this nation, and it’s finally moving in the right direction.”

Biden claimed they not only “liberated millions, millions in the LGBT community...you liberated tens of millions of straight guys and straight women,” who can now speak up for gay activism.

Biden's not only disagreeing with his own church's teaching. He's openly proclaiming it's "sick" and "close to barbaric."

Pope Francis could have also asked Obama how House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi can be both Catholic and accept a "Margaret Sanger Award" from Planned Parenthood on the same day as this meeting. Penny Starr at CNS News reminds readers that Sanger wrote against “The Wickedness of Creating Large Families” and believed “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

Hollywood sponsors of the HRC's Los Angeles gala included HBO, Disney-ABC Television Group, A&E, and DirecTV.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2014/03/27/media-mum-obama-meets-pope-joe-bidens-denunciation-bizarre-and-barbaric-#ixzz2xCJP5GNg


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 31, 2014, 12:55:05 PM
Liberal Tolerance: Mozilla Employees Demand CEO Step Down Over his Support of Traditional Marriage
March 28, 2014
By Todd Cefaratti

Employees at Mozilla, the organization that created the Firefox web browser, has shown their warped sense of commitment to “tolerance” by demanding the termination of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich because he dared to oppose gay marriage.
 
Or, put another way, Eich is being targeted by his employees for his support of traditional marriage.
 
Eich cofounded the organization in 1998 and served as the company’s chief technology officer before becoming CEO. Eich is also well-respected in the technology field for having invented the Javascript Web Scripting language in 1995.
 
Eich supported California’s Proposition 8, the prohibition of same-sex marriage in California that was approved by voters, but killed in the court system.
 
Upon ascending to the CEO’s office, Eich was forthcoming about his opposition to same-sex marriage, and noted on the company’s blog,
 
I know there are concerns about my commitment to fostering equality and welcome for LGBT individuals at Mozilla. I hope to lay those concerns to rest, first by making a set of commitments to you. More important, I want to lay them to rest by actions and results … I know some will be skeptical about this, and that words alone will not change anything. I can only ask for your support to have the time to “show, not tell”; and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain.
 
Employees have taken to Twitter to vent their outrage that their company’s leader dares to have an opinion on the matter that is not en vogue with contemporary misunderstandings of the concept of marriage.
 
Chris McAvoy Tweeted, “I love @mozilla but I’m disappointed this week. @mozilla stands for openness and empowerment, but is acting in the opposite way.”
 
Kat Braybrooke, curator and co-design lead at Mozilla, Tweeted, “Like many @Mozilla staff, I’m taking a stand. I do not support the Board’s appointment of @BrendanEich as CEO. #Prop8”
 
Reportedly, the issue has been much ado about nothing as Eich has been open at meetings about his position and inside sources have reported that such a position doesn’t seem to be hindering the success of anybody based on sexual orientation.
 
So, what’s the problem?
 
This is a micro example of the kind of intolerance surrounding the traditional marriage debate. The left has worked tirelessly to label the right for homosexuals to marry as a moral absolute that pits not one opinion against another, but right versus wrong.
 
But in reality, those who so often preach that this is an issue of tolerance remain the most intolerant in the discussion. Those who support the traditional definitions of marriage are too-often attacked and targeted by the “progressive” left.
 
Make no mistake: there is no room for coexistence with this brand of leftist zealotry. Though they express a desire for tolerance, liberals want not a rational discussion of viewpoints, but demand a complete, unconditional surrender of those with whom they disagree.

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/03/28/liberal-tolerance-mozilla-employees-demand-ceo-step-down-over-his-support-of-traditional-marriage/


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on April 03, 2014, 05:10:23 PM
Liberal Tolerance: Mozilla Employees Demand CEO Step Down Over his Support of Traditional Marriage
March 28, 2014
By Todd Cefaratti

Employees at Mozilla, the organization that created the Firefox web browser, has shown their warped sense of commitment to “tolerance” by demanding the termination of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich because he dared to oppose gay marriage.
 
Or, put another way, Eich is being targeted by his employees for his support of traditional marriage.
 
Eich cofounded the organization in 1998 and served as the company’s chief technology officer before becoming CEO. Eich is also well-respected in the technology field for having invented the Javascript Web Scripting language in 1995.
 
Eich supported California’s Proposition 8, the prohibition of same-sex marriage in California that was approved by voters, but killed in the court system.
 
Upon ascending to the CEO’s office, Eich was forthcoming about his opposition to same-sex marriage, and noted on the company’s blog,
 
I know there are concerns about my commitment to fostering equality and welcome for LGBT individuals at Mozilla. I hope to lay those concerns to rest, first by making a set of commitments to you. More important, I want to lay them to rest by actions and results … I know some will be skeptical about this, and that words alone will not change anything. I can only ask for your support to have the time to “show, not tell”; and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain.
 
Employees have taken to Twitter to vent their outrage that their company’s leader dares to have an opinion on the matter that is not en vogue with contemporary misunderstandings of the concept of marriage.
 
Chris McAvoy Tweeted, “I love @mozilla but I’m disappointed this week. @mozilla stands for openness and empowerment, but is acting in the opposite way.”
 
Kat Braybrooke, curator and co-design lead at Mozilla, Tweeted, “Like many @Mozilla staff, I’m taking a stand. I do not support the Board’s appointment of @BrendanEich as CEO. #Prop8”
 
Reportedly, the issue has been much ado about nothing as Eich has been open at meetings about his position and inside sources have reported that such a position doesn’t seem to be hindering the success of anybody based on sexual orientation.
 
So, what’s the problem?
 
This is a micro example of the kind of intolerance surrounding the traditional marriage debate. The left has worked tirelessly to label the right for homosexuals to marry as a moral absolute that pits not one opinion against another, but right versus wrong.
 
But in reality, those who so often preach that this is an issue of tolerance remain the most intolerant in the discussion. Those who support the traditional definitions of marriage are too-often attacked and targeted by the “progressive” left.
 
Make no mistake: there is no room for coexistence with this brand of leftist zealotry. Though they express a desire for tolerance, liberals want not a rational discussion of viewpoints, but demand a complete, unconditional surrender of those with whom they disagree.

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/03/28/liberal-tolerance-mozilla-employees-demand-ceo-step-down-over-his-support-of-traditional-marriage/

Good grief.   ::)

Mozilla CEO resigns, opposition to gay marriage drew fire
Reuters By Sarah McBride

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Mozilla Chief Executive Brendan Eich has stepped down, the company said on Thursday, after an online dating service urged a boycott of the company's web browser because of a donation Eich made to opponents of gay marriage.

The software company came under fire for appointing Eich as CEO last month. In 2008, he gave money to oppose the legalization of gay marriage in California, a hot-button issue especially at a company that boasts about its policy of inclusiveness and diversity.

"We didn't act like you'd expect Mozilla to act," wrote Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker in a blog post. "We didn't move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We're sorry."

The next step for Mozilla's leadership "is still being discussed," she added, with more information to come next week.

While gay activists applauded the move, many in the technology community lamented the departure of Eich, who invented the programming language Javascript and co-founded Mozilla.

View galleryA man is seen next to a Firefox logo at a Mozilla stand&nbsp;&hellip;
A man is seen next to a Firefox logo at a Mozilla stand during the Mobile World Congress in Barcelon …
"Brendan Eich is a good friend of 20 years, and has made a profound contribution to the Web and to the entire world," venture capitalist Marc Andreessen tweeted.

Eich donated $1,000 in 2008 in support of California's Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in the state until it was struck down by the Supreme Court in June.

His resignation came days after OkCupid.com, the popular online dating site, called for a boycott of Mozilla Firefox to protest the world's No. 2 Web browser naming a gay marriage opponent as chief executive.

On Monday, OkCupid sent a message to visitors who accessed the website through Firefox, suggesting they use browsers such as Microsoft Corp's Internet Explorer or Google Inc's Chrome.

"Mozilla's new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples," the message said. "We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid."

http://news.yahoo.com/mozilla-says-ceo-resigns-amid-gay-marriage-controversy-195338477.html;_ylt=AwrBEiT.yT1TKDYAllnQtDMD


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on April 03, 2014, 07:32:38 PM
11 pages and Bum still has no clue what the word censorship means


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on April 07, 2014, 05:56:01 PM
Why are so many liberals afraid of different viewpoints?  The really unfortunate things about this is how young those women are.

Tolerant Feminists Tell Conservative Young Woman: We Don't Want You Here
Katie Pavlich | Apr 02, 2014

Campus Reform is a conservative outlet that keeps tabs on liberal university indoctrination and hypocrisy. Recently Campus Reform's Katherine Timpf, who considers herself a libertarian, attended the "inclusive" National Young Feminist Leadership Conference in Crystal City, Virginia to ask young women questions about what feminism means to them.

Not surprisingly, the liberal women at the conference weren't happy about Timpf being in attendance. She was discriminated against based on her place of employment, attacked for her assumed political views and was told "you guys aren't wanted here." Organizers of the event are seen repeatedly seen saying, "Campus Reform is a conservative outlet, just to warn you if you're going to talk to them."

 “They’re a group that’s conservative, so what we are fighting for is not something…” one organizer told a student who was talking with Timpf, prompting the student to walk away.

“You’re just assuming that based on where I work,” Timpf told the organizer.

“Yeah, we are,” the organizer stated.

“You guys aren’t wanted here,” a participant told the reporter after the warning.

“I thought this was supposed to be an inclusive thing, why am I being excluded because of where I work?” Timpf asked another organizer after another interruption.

“Because the place that you work is not inclusive,” the organizer responded.

“You don’t know that,” Timpf said. “You don’t know anything about me or my personal beliefs, I’m just being labeled and excluded based on a label.”

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/04/02/tolerant-feminists-tell-conservative-young-woman-we-dont-want-you-here-n1817656

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEYDUnwmG4U


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on May 15, 2014, 12:10:28 PM
Quote
Kirsten Powers: Liberals' Dark Ages
May 14, 2014

Each week seems to bring another incident. Who will the thought police come for next?

Welcome to the Dark Ages, Part II. We have slipped into an age of un-enlightenment where you fall in line behind the mob or face the consequences.

How ironic that the persecutors this time around are the so-called intellectuals. They claim to be liberal while behaving as anything but. The touchstone of liberalism is tolerance of differing ideas. Yet this mob exists to enforce conformity of thought and to delegitimize any dissent from its sanctioned worldview. Intolerance is its calling card.

Each week seems to bring another incident. Last week it was David and Jason Benham, whose pending HGTV show was canceled after the mob unearthed old remarks the brothers made about their Christian beliefs on homosexuality. People can't have a house-flipping show unless they believe and say the "right" things in their life off the set? In this world, the conservative Tom Selleck never would have been Magnum, P.I.

This week, a trail-blazing woman was felled in the new tradition of commencement shaming. International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde withdrew from delivering the commencement speech at Smith College following protests from students and faculty who hate the IMF. According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, this trend is growing. In the 21 years leading up to 2009, there were 21 incidents of an invited guest not speaking because of protests. Yet, in the past five-and-a-half years, there have been 39 cancellations.

Don't bother trying to make sense of what beliefs are permitted and which ones will get you strung up in the town square. Our ideological overlords have created a minefield of inconsistency. While criticizing Islam is intolerant, insulting Christianity is sport. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is persona non grata at Brandeis University for attacking the prophet Mohammed. But Richard Dawkins describes the Old Testament God as "a misogynistic … sadomasochistic … malevolent bully" and the mob yawns. Bill Maher calls the same God a "psychotic mass murderer" and there are no boycott demands of the high-profile liberals who traffic his HBO show.

The self-serving capriciousness is crazy. In March, University of California-Santa Barbara women's studies professor Mireille Miller-Young attacked a 16-year-old holding an anti-abortion sign in the campus' "free speech zone" (formerly known as America). Though she was charged with theft, battery and vandalism, Miller-Young remains unrepentant and still has her job. But Mozilla's Brendan Eich gave a private donation to an anti-gay marriage initiative six years ago and was ordered to recant his beliefs. When he wouldn't, he was forced to resign from the company he helped found.

Got that? A college educator with the right opinions can attack a high school student and keep her job. A corporate executive with the wrong opinions loses his for making a campaign donation. Something is very wrong here.

As the mob gleefully destroys people's lives, its members haven't stopped to ask themselves a basic question: What happens when they come for me? If history is any guide, that's how these things usually end.

Kirsten Powers writes weekly for USA TODAY.

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors. To read more columns like this, go to the opinion front page or follow us on twitter @USATopinion or Facebook.



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on June 19, 2014, 09:00:30 AM
Liberals doing what they do:  shutting down different viewpoints.

(http://[quote author=OzmO link=topic=539720.msg7567952#msg7567952 date=1403190578][url=http://blog.ctnews.com/politics/2014/06/18/student-school-censors-conservative-websites/#24391101=0]http://blog.ctnews.com/politics/2014/06/18/student-school-censors-conservative-websites/#24391101=0[/url][b]Student: school censors conservative websites[/b][img width=450 height=337]http://blog.ctnews.com/politics/files/2014/06/ct-gop-screenshot-no-access.jpg)

Andrew Lampart couldn’t right click.

Yet the 18-year-old high school senior from Woodbury could left click with relative ease.

Denied access to conservative-leaning websites by the school district’s Internet firewall, the soon-to-be graduate of Nonnewaug High School lodged a formal complaint with the Region 14 Board of Education Monday night over what Lampart said is double standard.

While doing research for a assignment on gun control in the school’s library, Lampart said he tried unsuccessfully to visit the websites of Second Amendment groups such as the National Rifle Association on his Android tablet that was connected to the school’s WiFi network. Woodbury is 13 miles from Newtown.


Lampart said he ran into similar roadblocks while surfing the websites of anti-abortion and traditional marriage organizations — and even the Connecticut Republican Party.

Access to the websites of the Connecticut Democrats, the pro-gun control Newtown Action Alliance and advocacy groups for the LGBT community was unfettered, according to Lampart, who took screen shots from his Internet browser.

“It was appalling to see that it was very one-sided,” Lampart, who is bound for the Christian-oriented Liberty University in the fall and is in the process of starting up a Young Republicans chapter in Woodbury, told Hearst Connecticut Media Wednesday.

Jody Ian Goeler, the superintendent of Region 14, which serves the towns of Woodbury and Bethlehem, denied that the district has a political agenda.

“There is not a bias,” Goeler told Hearst Wednesday. “We’ve done everything we can in a our power to ensure that students have access to a variety of resources and a variety of different perspectives.”

Goeler said that the website of the Connecticut Democrats should have also been blocked by Dell SonicWALL, a paid firewall service that the district uses to filter sites accessed on its computers and WiFi network.

Any website that is political in nature is restricted under a uniform policy, according to Goeler, who said that political parties are treated no differently than groups such as a the Ku Klux Klan or Neo-Nazis.

Teachers do have the ability to override the restrictions on a case-by-case basis if a students needs to visit a website for an assignment, he said.

“From a policy perspective, I think we’re solid,” Goeler said. “We have a very good policy.”

From bullying and sexually explicit websites to those political in nature, Goeler said there are 64 categories of restricted sites.

The superintendent said he spent an entire day with the district’s information technology officer after Lampart went to the school board. Additional websites that might have an advocacy component such as the Newtown Action Alliance are also blocked now, said Goeler, who added that the district is reviewing its choice of firewall provider.

Messages seeking comment were also left Wednesday for John Chapman, school board chairman for Region 14.

State GOP Chairman Jerry Labriola Jr. condemned the district’s Internet access policy.

“If it’s true, it’s very troubling and constitutes a dangerous form of censorship,” Labriola told Hearst Wednesday. “I call upon the school district to give equal access to political viewpoints across the spectrum. The last thing we need are young innocent minds poisoned by a radical liberal ideology espoused by clueless so-called educators.”

Lampart said he brought the matter to the attention of Goeler toward the end of May.

“When I first went to the superintendent, he seemed surprised and vowed to fix the problem,” Lampart said. “Nothing was done.”

Lampart said he complained to members of the Region 14 school board and went so far as to speak at the body’s meeting Monday night.

“As of right now, the issue has not been fixed, nor do I know of any course of action they’re taking,” Lampart said. “Somebody must have categorized the websites initially. The teachers also have the ability to block or unblock some websites.”

Even the official website of the Vatican was blocked, according to a screen shot provided by Lampart.

Lampart said the student body at Nonnewaug is split between liberals and conservatives like himself.

“You can definitely tell what side of argument that teachers stand on,” Lampart said.

More screenshots provided by Lampert:
[/quote][/img]


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on September 24, 2014, 09:42:16 AM
School accused of 'purging' Christian books
By Todd Starnes
Published September 23, 2014
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Opinion/876/493/TheHidingPlace-cover.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
TheHidingPlace-cover.jpg

It’s hard to imagine that any school would have a problem with a book about a Christian family that helped Jews escape the Holocaust.

But Springs Charter Schools in Temecula, Calif., not only had a problem with “The Hiding Place,” they also took issue with any other book that was written by a Christian author or included a Christian message.

“We do not purchase sectarian educational materials and do not allow sectarian materials on our state-authorized lending shelves,” Superintendent Kathleen Hermsmeyer wrote in a letter to attorneys at the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI).
 
Why would a public charter school take issue with books written by Christians?Pacific Justice Institute is representing a parent who discovered what they called a “Christian purging” of the charter school’s library.
Pacific Justice Institute is representing a parent who discovered what they called a “Christian purging” of the charter school’s library.

“She was told by one of the library attendants that the library has been instructed to remove all books with a Christian message, authored by Christians, or published by a Christian publishing company,” read a letter PJI sent to the public charter school. “The attendant advised that the library would no longer be carrying those books. Indeed, our client was told that the library was giving those books away, and she actually took some.”

Among the books deemed inappropriate, the PJI said, was “The Hiding Place” the biography of Corrie ten Boom, a Dutch Christian who was imprisoned by the Germans for helping Jews escape the Holocaust.

“It is alarming that a school library would attempt to purge books from religious authors,” said Brad Dacus, president of the religious advocacy group. “This is a major sweep by this charter school to eliminate the religious viewpoint. Libraries cannot engage in an open purging of books simply because they are of a Christian perspective.”

Dacus said the charter school must reverse “their ill-conceived and illegal book-banning policy.” If they fail to do so, he said, PJI is prepared to take further legal action.

So why would a public charter school take issue with books written by Christians?

I figured Superintendent Hermsmeyer would be more than willing to set the record straight and explain the book purging. It seems I figured wrong. I gave her 24 hours to return my calls, and as of this writing, she has not done so.

But she did reply to the letter she received from Pacific Justice Institute. And what she told them was a bit alarming.

“We are a public school, and as such, we are barred by law from purchasing sectarian curriculum materials with state funds,” she wrote. “We only keep on our shelves the books that we are authorized to purchase with public funds.”

I’m guessing Harry Potter is OK but Frodo is not.

Pacific Justice Institute said the charter school has violated the First Amendment. They cited a 1982 Supreme Court ruling that said “local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books and seek by their removal to ‘prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.’” If you’d like to read the entire case – it’s “Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico.”

Hermsmeyer denied they were discriminating against Christian authors or publishing companies.
“At no time, however, have we discriminated against Christian authors or publishing companies who create secular educational materials,” she wrote.

Heaven forbid the children find a Bible in the library.

It’s quite unfortunate that the charter school endorses the banning of books.

“Some of the greatest literature of Western civilization comes from religious authors,” Dacus said. Are they going to ban the sermons or speeches of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.?”

I oppose all book banning. If a book offends you, don’t read it.

The way I see it – book banning is just one step away from book burning. And I don’t mean to pour gasoline on the fire, but we all know what regime did that.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/09/23/school-accused-purging-christian-books/


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on November 21, 2014, 04:09:38 PM
Colleges and universities are supposed to be the marketplace of ideas; a place where kids can express and discuss viewpoints, including viewpoints people consider offensive. 

Except if you are a liberal, then you only get to discuss what the liberal agrees with.  Tolerance.   ::)

Teacher to student: If you don't support gay marriage, drop my class
By Todd Starnes
Published November 21, 2014
FoxNews.com

Students who oppose gay marriage are homophobic, according to an audio recording of a Marquette University instructor who went on to say that gay right issues cannot be discussed in class because it might offend homosexuals.

I reached out to the 20-year-old student at the center of this outrageous episode and the story he tells should serve as a warning to anyone who thinks religious schools are safe havens for open discourse.

The story was first reported on a blog run by a Marquette University professor and was picked up by the good folks over at The College Fix.

The young man, who asked not to be identified, explained what happened when his ethics instructor, Cheryl Abbate, led a conversation in “Theory of Ethics” class about applying philosophical theories to modern political controversies. There were a list of issues on the board – gay rights, gun rights, and the death penalty.

“We had a discussion on all of them – except gay rights,” the student told me. “She erased that line from the board and said, ‘We all agree on this.’”

Well, as it so happened – the student did not agree with instructor Abbate.

So after class he approached the instructor and told her he thought they should have discussed the issue of gay rights. He also recorded their conversation -- without her permission.

“Are you saying if I don’t agree with gays not being allowed to get married that I’m homophobic?” the student asked.

“I’m saying it would come off as a homophobic comment in this class,” the teacher replied.

“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,” the student said.

Abbate disagreed.

“There are some opinions that are not appropriate – that are harmful – such as racist opinions, sexist opinions,” she said. “And quite honestly, do you know if anyone in the class is homosexual?”

The student said he did not know the answer to her question.

“Do you not think that would be offensive to them if you were to raise your hand and challenge this,” she asked.

At that point, the student told the instructor he had a right to challenge that – “that’s my right as an American citizen.”

“Actually,” the teacher replied, “You don’t have a right in this class especially [in an ethics class]  to make homophobic comments.”

The student retorted that the comments were not homophobic.

“This is about restricting rights and liberties of individuals,” he said. “Because they’re homosexual, I can’t have my opinions?”

And that’s when the teacher dropped the bombshell.

“You can have whatever opinions you want but I will tell you right now – in this class homophobic comments, racist comments, sexist comments will not be tolerated,” she said. ‘If you don’t like it, you are more than free to drop this class.”

So the student dropped the class.

“I understand that other people have very different views than I do and that’s understandable,” the student told me. “But when a student is not allowed to have an open discussion in a discussion-type class on a specific issue because it’s regarded as homophobic – that really irks me.”

Marquette Professor John McAdams, who runs the Marquette Warrior blog, accused Abbate of using a tactic “typical among liberals now.”

“Opinions with which they disagree are not merely wrong, and are not to be argued against on their merits, but are deemed ‘offensive’ and need to be shut up,” he wrote.

The student told me he filed a complaint – but he said university officials dismissed his concerns.

McAdams wrote that he was not surprised because the university officials held the same intolerant views as the instructor.

“Like the rest of academia, Marquette is less and less a real university,” he wrote. “And when gay marriage cannot be discussed, certainly not a Catholic university.”

A university spokesman told me they were viewing “both a concern raised by a student and a concern raised by a faculty member.”

“We are taking appropriate steps to make sure that everyone involved is heard and treated fairly,” the spokesman told me. “In compliance with state and federal privacy laws, we will not publicly share the results of the reviews.”

Abbate told the website Inside Higher Ed that the “class discussion was not meant to be an opportunity for students to express their personal beliefs about political issues.”

She said she hoped Marquette would “use this event as an opportunity to create and actively enforce a policy on cyberbullying and harassment.”

“It is astounding to me that the university has not created some sort of policy that would prohibit this behavior which undoubtedly leads to a toxic environment for both students and faculty,” she told Inside Higher Ed.

The only thing toxic at Marquette are teachers who oppose Catholic doctrine and try to silence dissenting opinions.

I would be remiss if I did not address the student’s behavior. A full review of the audio tape reveals the student was in fact disrespectful to the instructor. And when the instructor asked if she was being recorded, the student did not tell the truth.

I asked the young man about his behavior and he admitted to me that it was wrong. He told me that he “regretted” his actions.

Nevertheless, the student’s behavior does not excuse Marquette University’s successful attempt to silence the free exchange of ideas.

So let’s review -- an instructor at a Catholic university taught material that is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church and when a Catholic student brought this information to the attention of Catholic administrators – the student was the one who got rebuked.

I’m not a Catholic – but it seems to me Marquette University is one of those CINO schools – Catholic in Name Only.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/11/21/teacher-to-student-if-dont-support-gay-marriage-drop-my-class/?intcmp=latestnews


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on January 09, 2015, 04:50:55 PM
Fire chief fired after gay comments in book
Julie Wolfe, WXIA-TV, Atlanta
January 7, 2015
(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/bcef3913a9a4abe8a4ba8f15ad49fb3b85ffc32c/c=0-0-534-712&r=537&c=0-0-534-712/local/-/media/2015/01/07/USATODAY/USATODAY/635562131058503375-atlantafirechief.jpg)
atlantafirechief
(Photo: City of Atlanta)

ATLANTA — The city's fire chief was relieved of his duties Tuesday after he published controversial comments about homosexuality in a book.

In the self-published book titled "Who Told You That You Were Naked?" Kelvin Cochran referred to homosexuality as "unclean," "a sexual perversion," "vulgar" and "inappropriate."

Cochran received a monthlong suspension in November. At the time, Mayor Kasim Reed said, "I want to be clear that the material in Chief Cochran's book is not representative of my personal beliefs, and is inconsistent with the administration's work to make Atlanta a more welcoming city for all citizens — regardless of their sexual orientation, gender, race, and religious beliefs."

At a news conference Tuesday, Reed announced Cochran had been "relieved" of his position.

"Not one time during the course of preparing this book did Chief Cochran ever think that it was appropriate to have a conversation with me despite the fact that I have made my opinion — and this administration's opinion — clear on this topic," Reed said.

Reed said Cochran was given an opportunity to resign and refused. "Bottom line, he was terminated," Reed said.

Still in uniform after the news conference, Cochran told reporters, "I'm not apologetic for writing the book."

He said he will not hide his Christian faith.

"Everything I wrote in the book is based on scriptures, not my opinions," said Cochran.

Cochran said he only learned that he was losing his job about an hour before the news conference.

"LGBT citizens deserve the right to express their belief regarding sexual orientation and deserve to be respected for their position without hate and discrimination, but Christians also have the right to express their beliefs as well," said Cochran.

Cochran said that he ran the idea of the book by the city's ethics department and didn't receive any pushback. He said that he gave Reed copy of the book a year ago.

Alex Wan, the only openly gay member of Atlanta's City Council, supported Reed's decision.

"I support the administration's decision to terminate Kelvin Cochran's employment with the City of Atlanta," Wan said in a released statement. "This sends a strong message to employees about how much we value diversity and how we adhere to a non-discriminatory environment.

Wan's statement said Cochran's suspension came after some of Cochran's employees complained about internal distribution of his self-published book. Reed would not discuss details of the investigation.

Reed said that the Fire and Rescue Command staff and his Cabinet will undergo sensitivity training.

"We wanted the city to take strong, decisive action which today they've done," said Stephen Borders, president Atlanta Professional Firefighters.

Borders took his colleagues' complaints about Cochran's book to city officials before the controversy went public.

"It was the fire chief. He is our judge, and our jury, and our executioner when it comes to (discipline). He is the ultimate representative of the city when it comes to public safety," Borders said.

The Faith and Freedom Coalition posted a call to action on its website, asking members to contact the mayor demanding Cochran be reappointed.

"In our country we don't punish people for the potential to discriminate we punish them for actually discriminating. To our knowledge unless the mayor knows about it and hasn't said so there's no allegation to speak of," explained spokesperson Robert Potts.

However, Reed did not list discrimination as cause for termination. He said Cochran violated the city's code of conduct in releasing the book.

"This is about how we treat one another. And so those folks who are calling me and telling me I should retain him. I just want you to know one thing. His religious decisions are not the basis of the problem. His judgement is the basis of the problem," Reed said.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/07/atlanta-fire-chief-fired-gay-comments-book/21378685/


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on January 09, 2015, 06:13:27 PM
Fire chief fired after gay comments in book
Julie Wolfe, WXIA-TV, Atlanta
January 7, 2015
(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/bcef3913a9a4abe8a4ba8f15ad49fb3b85ffc32c/c=0-0-534-712&r=537&c=0-0-534-712/local/-/media/2015/01/07/USATODAY/USATODAY/635562131058503375-atlantafirechief.jpg)
atlantafirechief
(Photo: City of Atlanta)

ATLANTA — The city's fire chief was relieved of his duties Tuesday after he published controversial comments about homosexuality in a book.

In the self-published book titled "Who Told You That You Were Naked?" Kelvin Cochran referred to homosexuality as "unclean," "a sexual perversion," "vulgar" and "inappropriate."

Cochran received a monthlong suspension in November. At the time, Mayor Kasim Reed said, "I want to be clear that the material in Chief Cochran's book is not representative of my personal beliefs, and is inconsistent with the administration's work to make Atlanta a more welcoming city for all citizens — regardless of their sexual orientation, gender, race, and religious beliefs."

At a news conference Tuesday, Reed announced Cochran had been "relieved" of his position.

"Not one time during the course of preparing this book did Chief Cochran ever think that it was appropriate to have a conversation with me despite the fact that I have made my opinion — and this administration's opinion — clear on this topic," Reed said.

Reed said Cochran was given an opportunity to resign and refused. "Bottom line, he was terminated," Reed said.

Still in uniform after the news conference, Cochran told reporters, "I'm not apologetic for writing the book."

He said he will not hide his Christian faith.

"Everything I wrote in the book is based on scriptures, not my opinions," said Cochran.

Cochran said he only learned that he was losing his job about an hour before the news conference.

"LGBT citizens deserve the right to express their belief regarding sexual orientation and deserve to be respected for their position without hate and discrimination, but Christians also have the right to express their beliefs as well," said Cochran.

Cochran said that he ran the idea of the book by the city's ethics department and didn't receive any pushback. He said that he gave Reed copy of the book a year ago.

Alex Wan, the only openly gay member of Atlanta's City Council, supported Reed's decision.

"I support the administration's decision to terminate Kelvin Cochran's employment with the City of Atlanta," Wan said in a released statement. "This sends a strong message to employees about how much we value diversity and how we adhere to a non-discriminatory environment.

Wan's statement said Cochran's suspension came after some of Cochran's employees complained about internal distribution of his self-published book. Reed would not discuss details of the investigation.

Reed said that the Fire and Rescue Command staff and his Cabinet will undergo sensitivity training.

"We wanted the city to take strong, decisive action which today they've done," said Stephen Borders, president Atlanta Professional Firefighters.

Borders took his colleagues' complaints about Cochran's book to city officials before the controversy went public.

"It was the fire chief. He is our judge, and our jury, and our executioner when it comes to (discipline). He is the ultimate representative of the city when it comes to public safety," Borders said.

The Faith and Freedom Coalition posted a call to action on its website, asking members to contact the mayor demanding Cochran be reappointed.

"In our country we don't punish people for the potential to discriminate we punish them for actually discriminating. To our knowledge unless the mayor knows about it and hasn't said so there's no allegation to speak of," explained spokesperson Robert Potts.

However, Reed did not list discrimination as cause for termination. He said Cochran violated the city's code of conduct in releasing the book.

"This is about how we treat one another. And so those folks who are calling me and telling me I should retain him. I just want you to know one thing. His religious decisions are not the basis of the problem. His judgement is the basis of the problem," Reed said.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/07/atlanta-fire-chief-fired-gay-comments-book/21378685/

good riddance

now he can spend more time reading his bible


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: The True Adonis on January 09, 2015, 06:34:08 PM
good riddance

now he can spend more time reading his bible
He looks a little light in the loafers.  Probably wouldn`t be any use with a plow or rake.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on January 14, 2015, 11:34:23 AM
Good commentary.

New York Times Applauds Atlanta's Religious Intolerance
By Tony Perkins | January 14, 2015
(http://newsbusters.org/s3/files/styles/blog_body-50/s3/images/Kelvin-Cochran2%5B1%5D.jpg?itok=hYC8H_PT)

Apparently, the New York Times is in favor of faith in the public square -- if the purpose is to mock it.  Editors at the Times poured gasoline on the fire of Atlanta’s latest controversy with an editorial that should shock even their most liberal readers.  Just when you thought the media couldn’t sink any lower, the Times takes on the same First Amendment that gives it the freedom to print these vicious attacks on Christians.

In a stunning editorial Tuesday, the newspaper argues that men and women of faith have no place in public management of any kind.  The piece, which shows a remarkable disinterest in the facts, claims that Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran didn’t have permission to publish his book on biblical morality.  Not only did Cochran have permission from the city’s ethics office to publish his book, but he only distributed it in his personal capacity at church -- where a handful of his coworkers attend.

But the shoddy journalism didn’t end there.  Editors insisted that Cochran’s book was full of “virulent anti-gay views” -- when in fact, the 162 page book only mentioned homosexuality twice.  And both times, the conversation merely echoed the Bible’s teachings on the subject.  For that -- privately espousing a faith that a majority of Americans share -- Kelvin was fired.

“It should not matter,” the New York Times conveniently suggests, “that the investigation found no evidence that Mr. Cochran had mistreated gays or lesbians.  His position as a high-level public servant makes his remarks especially problematic, and requires that he be held to a different standard.”  And what is that “standard,” specifically?  That he has no First Amendment rights?   If so, that’s the height of hypocrisy for these editors, who just days ago championed the press’s freedom to ridicule religion in the public square.  Apparently, the New York Times believes in the freedom of the press to attack faith, but not the public’s right to hold a faith in the first place.

“Nobody can tell Mr. Cochran what he can or cannot believe,” the editors say (somewhat ironically, since that’s what they seem to be doing).  “If he wants to work as a public official, however, he may not foist his religious views on other city employees who have the right to a boss who does not speak of them as second-class citizens.”  At no point did Kelvin Cochran “foist” his views on anyone.  And if you follow the Times’s suggestion to its natural conclusion, then there’s no place in this country for Christians in any position of authority!

Earlier on Tuesday, hundreds of Cochran supporters spilled into the rotunda of the Georgia Capitol to stand up to the city’s religious intolerance -- and then marched to Mayor Reed’s office where they left nearly 50,000 petitions from citizens across the nation.  Together with Atlanta’s religious leaders, black and white, Republicans and Democrats, I urged Americans to fight this notion that Christians have to check their faith at the workplace door.

“This past weekend the world marched in Paris recognizing that free speech is the cornerstone of a truly free society.  A realization is now sweeping Europe that political correctness has become lethal and it is an avowed enemy of true freedom.  But whether a journalist in France satirically writes about religion or a fire chief in Atlanta, Georgia writes about the sacred teachings of his faith, the silencing of either is a threat to the freedoms of all...Chief Cochran has spent a lifetime, ready at a moment’s notice to fight the fires that threatened lives and property, today he stands ready to fight the flames of intolerance fueled by our own government that threaten our most fundamental freedoms.”

It’s time for the city of Atlanta to end its campaign of discrimination against Christians, whose only crime is exercising the same liberties our forefathers came to these shores to protect.  The New York Times is calling for public servants to be held to a different standard when it comes to their freedom of speech and religion.  But I think most Americans are quite happy with the standard that we’ve had for the last 226 years -- the First Amendment!

Tony Perkins is president of the Family Research Council. This is cross-posted from his Washington Update.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tony-perkins/2015/01/14/new-york-times-applauds-atlantas-religious-intolerance#sthash.ySCREd9d.dpuf


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on January 14, 2015, 12:38:41 PM
Hey Bum ,where is the link to the NY Times story?

I think we'd all rather read it and draw our own opinion about it rather than hearing Tony Perkins (obviously biased) opinion about it.

Clearly Perkins is too much of a pussy to include a link in his own commentary so his readers can draw their own conclusions rather than being spoon fed an opinion about it without being able to check and see if it is accurate or not.

Did you happen to notice this quote in the original story that you posted

Quote
However, Reed did not list discrimination as cause for termination. He said Cochran violated the city's code of conduct in releasing the book.

"This is about how we treat one another. And so those folks who are calling me and telling me I should retain him. I just want you to know one thing. His religious decisions are not the basis of the problem. His judgement is the basis of the problem," Reed said.



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: LurkerNoMore on January 14, 2015, 01:29:20 PM
Fire chief fired after gay comments in book
Julie Wolfe, WXIA-TV, Atlanta
January 7, 2015
(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/bcef3913a9a4abe8a4ba8f15ad49fb3b85ffc32c/c=0-0-534-712&r=537&c=0-0-534-712/local/-/media/2015/01/07/USATODAY/USATODAY/635562131058503375-atlantafirechief.jpg)
atlantafirechief
(Photo: City of Atlanta)

ATLANTA — The city's fire chief was relieved of his duties Tuesday after he published controversial comments about homosexuality in a book.

In the self-published book titled "Who Told You That You Were Naked?" Kelvin Cochran referred to homosexuality as "unclean," "a sexual perversion," "vulgar" and "inappropriate."

Cochran received a monthlong suspension in November. At the time, Mayor Kasim Reed said, "I want to be clear that the material in Chief Cochran's book is not representative of my personal beliefs, and is inconsistent with the administration's work to make Atlanta a more welcoming city for all citizens — regardless of their sexual orientation, gender, race, and religious beliefs."

At a news conference Tuesday, Reed announced Cochran had been "relieved" of his position.

"Not one time during the course of preparing this book did Chief Cochran ever think that it was appropriate to have a conversation with me despite the fact that I have made my opinion — and this administration's opinion — clear on this topic," Reed said.

Reed said Cochran was given an opportunity to resign and refused. "Bottom line, he was terminated," Reed said.

Still in uniform after the news conference, Cochran told reporters, "I'm not apologetic for writing the book."

He said he will not hide his Christian faith.

"Everything I wrote in the book is based on scriptures, not my opinions," said Cochran.

Cochran said he only learned that he was losing his job about an hour before the news conference.

"LGBT citizens deserve the right to express their belief regarding sexual orientation and deserve to be respected for their position without hate and discrimination, but Christians also have the right to express their beliefs as well," said Cochran.

Cochran said that he ran the idea of the book by the city's ethics department and didn't receive any pushback. He said that he gave Reed copy of the book a year ago.

Alex Wan, the only openly gay member of Atlanta's City Council, supported Reed's decision.

"I support the administration's decision to terminate Kelvin Cochran's employment with the City of Atlanta," Wan said in a released statement. "This sends a strong message to employees about how much we value diversity and how we adhere to a non-discriminatory environment.

Wan's statement said Cochran's suspension came after some of Cochran's employees complained about internal distribution of his self-published book. Reed would not discuss details of the investigation.

Reed said that the Fire and Rescue Command staff and his Cabinet will undergo sensitivity training.

"We wanted the city to take strong, decisive action which today they've done," said Stephen Borders, president Atlanta Professional Firefighters.

Borders took his colleagues' complaints about Cochran's book to city officials before the controversy went public.

"It was the fire chief. He is our judge, and our jury, and our executioner when it comes to (discipline). He is the ultimate representative of the city when it comes to public safety," Borders said.

The Faith and Freedom Coalition posted a call to action on its website, asking members to contact the mayor demanding Cochran be reappointed.

"In our country we don't punish people for the potential to discriminate we punish them for actually discriminating. To our knowledge unless the mayor knows about it and hasn't said so there's no allegation to speak of," explained spokesperson Robert Potts.

However, Reed did not list discrimination as cause for termination. He said Cochran violated the city's code of conduct in releasing the book.

"This is about how we treat one another. And so those folks who are calling me and telling me I should retain him. I just want you to know one thing. His religious decisions are not the basis of the problem. His judgement is the basis of the problem," Reed said.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/07/atlanta-fire-chief-fired-gay-comments-book/21378685/

What an idiot.  Now  if someone wrote a book calling blacks unclean, vulgar or inappropriate, he would be the first one to start howling with outrage.  But when he throws the same bullshit onto someone else, it's ok.   ::)


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on January 21, 2015, 09:46:50 AM
Why are liberals so afraid of opposing viewpoints?  I'm sure he would have had no complaints if the default channel was MSNBC.  Too bad United caved. 

Former Obama Aide Furious Over Newsmax TV
Tuesday, 20 Jan 2015
By Jim Meyers

A former senior White House aide to President Obama became furious after he noticed Newsmax TV airing on a United Airlines flight.

Bill Burton, who served as Obama’s White House press secretary, was apparently outraged when he saw Newsmax TV yesterday on the plane’s video screens, and quickly tweeted:

"Hey there, @united. Why on earth is newsmax tv the default channel running on all of your screens when boarding your planes."

Burton apparently doesn’t have much use for the liberal ideals of free expression or allowing for an open exchange of ideas and opinions – at least when it comes to Newsmax TV.

Newsmax TV, the new and fast-rising cable and online channel, went on air in June of 2014. It is broadcast 24/7 to more than 35 million homes and businesses on DIRECTV Ch. 349 and DISH 223.

Numerous companies, such as airlines and hotels that offer DIRECTV or DISH, can easily broadcast Newsmax TV. United temporarily has been broadcasting the network as its airline default channel.

Burton seems to have cowed the airline into submission. United responded to Burton's complaint with their own tweet: "@billburton In the coming months we will be removing that as our default channel."

Burton’s and United’s tweets have now gone viral, and some United customers are not happy about the airline’s quick cave-in to P.C. browbeating.

One person tweeted back: “Why would you remove it? Because some liberal whined?”

Burton served as chief strategist for the Priorities USA Action committee that backed Obama’s 2012 re-election, as well as communications director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the 2006 election cycle.

Hey there, @united. Why on earth is newsmax tv the default channel running on all of your screens when boarding your planes? #tcot

— Bill Burton (@billburton) January 20, 2015
@billburton In the coming months we will be removing that as our default channel. ^JT

— United (@united) January 20, 2015
@united @billburton Why would you remove it? Because some liberal whined?

— Chris Dengler (@chrisdengler) January 20, 2015
@united @billburton please don't replace it with that moronic MSNBC

— Jae Onasi (@JaeOnasi) January 20, 2015
@united what a pathetic bunch of surrender monkeys you are. Your airline sucks @billburton

— Stelios Karakolis (@agrianthropo) January 20, 2015

http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/bill-burton-newsmaxtv-united-flight/2015/01/20/id/619609/#ixzz3PTW1E1B3


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on January 26, 2015, 04:11:10 PM
Good for him. 

This is true:  "If I didn’t know better, I’d say The New York Times is suggesting a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for public workers who happen to be Christian."

Christian ex-fire chief fires back at Atlanta mayor, files discrimination complaint
By Todd Starnes
Published January 26, 2015
FoxNews.com

(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Opinion/876/493/660-Kelvin-Cochran-Fox.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Former Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran (Fox 5 Atlanta)

Former Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran says he was fired because he wrote a book expressing his Christian faith, according to a discrimination complaint filed Jan. 19 with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

“I believe that I have been discriminated against because of my religion,” Cochran wrote in the complaint.

His attorney, Jeremy Tedesco of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal organization that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith, said the ADA wants to vindicate the former fire chief following his “unjust termination.”

The mayor may have the LGBT activists, the union and The New York Times on his side – but Chief Cochran has some much bigger firepower – the nation’s evangelical community.
“Americans are guaranteed the freedom to live without fear of losing their jobs because of their beliefs and thoughts,” Tedesco said.

Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed threatened that the former fire chief’s reputation would be destroyed should he file a lawsuit.

“He’s gonna lose,” Reed told television station WAGA. “And in the process his reputation is going to be destroyed because people are going to see he’s dishonest.”

The EEOC complaint is the latest move in a battle between Cochran and Reed that has generated a national debate over religious liberty in the public marketplace since it began in November.

Cochran was suspended without pay on Nov. 24 for writing a book about biblical morality, “Who Told You That You Were Naked?” He said homosexuality is “vile” and listed it among other forms of “sexual perversions.”

He was also accused of giving the book to colleagues at work with whom he had personal friendships.

An investigation by the city of Atlanta found that “firefighters throughout the organization are appalled by the sentiments expressed in the book.”

The report went on to say that “there is also general agreement the contents of the book have eroded trust and have compromised the ability of the chief to provide leadership in the future.”

But the investigation found no evidence of discrimination against LGBT firefighters.

“There is currently no indication that Chief Cochran allowed his religious beliefs to compromise his disciplinary decisions,” the report states. “No interviewed witness could point to a specific instance in which any member of the organization has been treated unfairly by Chief Cochran on the basis of his religious beliefs.”

Cochran was cleared of any wrongdoing. But on Jan. 6 – the day he was supposed to return to work – he was fired.

The mayor denied that Cochran’s faith had anything to do with his dismissal. Instead, he said it was lack of judgment and management skills. He also said Cochran violated the city’s code of conduct.

Folks, this was nothing short of an old-fashioned witch hunt led by the mayor, LGBT activists and the city’s left-wing firefighter’s union.

According to the city’s investigation, they interviewed a retired lesbian battalion chief who harbored “suspicions” about Cochran’s Christian faith.

“She stated that she took a voluntary demotion because of these suspicions,” the report states.

What a load of fertilizer.

The Atlanta Professional Firefighters Local 134 piled on, commending the mayor for firing the Christian fire chief.

“Local 134 supports LGBT rights and equality among all employees,” the union said in a statement, urging the city to “improve LGBT rights by adding an LGBT liaison for the fire department.”

Now, the leadership of Local 134 is either ignorant or illiterate – because the official investigation clearly shows the fire chief NEVER DISCRIMINATED AGAINST LGBT FIREFIGHTERS.

The New York Times editorial board said it doesn’t matter if Chief Cochran was innocent. That’s not the point, it wrote Tuesday in a scathing editorial titled “God, Gays and the Atlanta Fire Department.”

“It should not matter that the investigation found no evidence that Mr. Cochran had mistreated gays or lesbians,” the Times wrote. “His position as a high-level public servant makes his remarks especially problematic, and requires that he be held to a different standard.”

The mayor may have the LGBT activists, the union and The New York Times on his side – but Chief Cochran has some much bigger firepower – the nation’s evangelical community.

Leading the charge is Franklin Graham, president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. Graham told me he’s known Cochran for years – and found him to be a decent and honorable man.

He said Cochran has become the latest victim of a national cleansing of Christians in the public marketplace.

“We need to stand up with Chief Cochran and others when they are persecuted,” Graham told me. “This man is being persecuted because he believes the Bible.”

Robert White, executive director of the Georgia Baptist Convention, called The New York Times editorial “quite remarkable.”

“It declares his innocence and then declares him guilty,” he said. “Guilty of what? He didn’t discriminate against any homosexuals. He vowed that he wanted to have a healthy workplace for all of his employees.”

The Times went on to argue that while Cochran is free to believe whatever he wants, there are limits to where he can believe and still maintain gainful employment in the public arena.

If I didn’t know better, I’d say The New York Times is suggesting a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for public workers who happen to be Christian.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/01/26/christian-ex-fire-chief-fires-back-at-atlanta-mayor-files-discrimination/?intcmp=trending


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on January 26, 2015, 04:34:36 PM
The dumbass shouldn't have been handing these out at work.

If he had a half a brain he would have waited until he retired to self publish his stupid book

It's not like the world couldn't have waited a few years for another anti-gay screed from a fundie dipshit


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on February 09, 2015, 01:37:12 PM
Not censorship, but definitely intolerance.  Another liberal hallmark. 

Ben Carson Placed on ‘Extremist’ Watch List
February 8, 2015
By Greg Campbell

ZCarsonThe Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), like so many liberal institutions started decades ago, began with noble intentions. Today, however, they serve as a partisan group dedicated to a brand of political extremism that they, ironically, purport to work against.
 
They throw around terms like “extremist” and “terrorist” in order to intimidate and sensationalize. While so many on their “extremist” list are, by most measures, extremists (Klan members and other assorted neo-Nazis), they also include many who represent a challenge to the liberal narrative.
 
In 2011, they notoriously included Kentucky Senator and potential 2016 presidential candidate Rand Paul on their list. Like him or hate him, it’s ridiculous to include Rand Paul on a list that includes KKK members.
 
Now, they are including famed neurosurgeon and potential 2016 presidential candidate Ben Carson on their list of “extremists.”
 
The reason, according to the SPLC, seems to be little more than the fact that Carson supports traditional definitions of marriage and that he famously spoke-out against Obama’s policies at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2013.
 
Evidently, supporting the longstanding institution of marriage and taking issue with the Dear Leader’s failed leadership is enough to qualify for entry on the SPLC’s political hitlist.
 
The SPLC explains why he’s on the list: (Emphasis added)
 
Although the book amplified Carson’s name recognition, the breakout incident that made him a sensation in far-right political circles was his audacious public criticism of President Obama, who was sitting nearby at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2013. He lectured Obama on the national debt, called for a tax system along the lines of biblical tithes and touted health savings accounts that could be inherited by family members as a better option than any government plan. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other right-wing political commentators lavished praise on Carson. The Wall Street Journal headlined a positive review of the speech “Ben Carson for President,” noting that he may not have been politically correct, “but he’s closer to correct than we’ve heard in years.”
 
In a March 2013 appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity,” Carson bolstered his standing with hardliners by appearing to equate gays who wish to marry with pedophiles and humans who have sex with animals. Although he later apologized for the remark, claiming it was taken out of context and asserting that he loved gay people just as much as straight people, his words triggered an avalanche of protest from faculty colleagues and students at Johns Hopkins. He had been scheduled to deliver the university’s commencement address just two months later but withdrew rather than stoke further controversy. At around the same time, Carson, at age 61, announced his retirement from Johns Hopkins, effective July 1, saying he wanted to leave surgical practice at the top of his game….
 
Legal Insurrection makes a good point about the real-world dangers of the list, saying,
 
Landing on SPLC’s Extremist list can be politically deadly, and also deadly in the real sense.  TheFamily Research Council made the list because of its position on same-sex marriage, inspiring Floyd Lee Corkins to go on a murderous shooting spree at FRC headquarters.
 
It would be fine if the yahoos at MSNBC declared Carson “extreme” or other political commentators did similarly; what this represents, however, is a shocking display of partisan behavior from a group that is supposed to be tracking so-called “hate groups” and potential domestic terrorists. While such a Quixotic task will ultimately rely upon a bit of subjectivity, the SPLC’s recent addition is pathetic and transparent in their intent to smear a political contender for daring to criticize the Obama Regime and stand by the institution of marriage that has stood for thousands of years.

http://www.tpnn.com/2015/02/08/ben-carson-placed-on-extremist-watch-list/


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on February 09, 2015, 01:45:05 PM
Not censorship, but definitely intolerance.  Another liberal hallmark. 

Ben Carson Placed on ‘Extremist’ Watch List
February 8, 2015
By Greg Campbell

ZCarsonThe Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), like so many liberal institutions started decades ago, began with noble intentions. Today, however, they serve as a partisan group dedicated to a brand of political extremism that they, ironically, purport to work against.
 
They throw around terms like “extremist” and “terrorist” in order to intimidate and sensationalize. While so many on their “extremist” list are, by most measures, extremists (Klan members and other assorted neo-Nazis), they also include many who represent a challenge to the liberal narrative.
 
In 2011, they notoriously included Kentucky Senator and potential 2016 presidential candidate Rand Paul on their list. Like him or hate him, it’s ridiculous to include Rand Paul on a list that includes KKK members.
 
Now, they are including famed neurosurgeon and potential 2016 presidential candidate Ben Carson on their list of “extremists.”
 
The reason, according to the SPLC, seems to be little more than the fact that Carson supports traditional definitions of marriage and that he famously spoke-out against Obama’s policies at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2013.
 
Evidently, supporting the longstanding institution of marriage and taking issue with the Dear Leader’s failed leadership is enough to qualify for entry on the SPLC’s political hitlist.
 
The SPLC explains why he’s on the list: (Emphasis added)
 
Although the book amplified Carson’s name recognition, the breakout incident that made him a sensation in far-right political circles was his audacious public criticism of President Obama, who was sitting nearby at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2013. He lectured Obama on the national debt, called for a tax system along the lines of biblical tithes and touted health savings accounts that could be inherited by family members as a better option than any government plan. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other right-wing political commentators lavished praise on Carson. The Wall Street Journal headlined a positive review of the speech “Ben Carson for President,” noting that he may not have been politically correct, “but he’s closer to correct than we’ve heard in years.”
 
In a March 2013 appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity,” Carson bolstered his standing with hardliners by appearing to equate gays who wish to marry with pedophiles and humans who have sex with animals. Although he later apologized for the remark, claiming it was taken out of context and asserting that he loved gay people just as much as straight people, his words triggered an avalanche of protest from faculty colleagues and students at Johns Hopkins. He had been scheduled to deliver the university’s commencement address just two months later but withdrew rather than stoke further controversy. At around the same time, Carson, at age 61, announced his retirement from Johns Hopkins, effective July 1, saying he wanted to leave surgical practice at the top of his game….
 
Legal Insurrection makes a good point about the real-world dangers of the list, saying,
 
Landing on SPLC’s Extremist list can be politically deadly, and also deadly in the real sense.  TheFamily Research Council made the list because of its position on same-sex marriage, inspiring Floyd Lee Corkins to go on a murderous shooting spree at FRC headquarters.
 
It would be fine if the yahoos at MSNBC declared Carson “extreme” or other political commentators did similarly; what this represents, however, is a shocking display of partisan behavior from a group that is supposed to be tracking so-called “hate groups” and potential domestic terrorists. While such a Quixotic task will ultimately rely upon a bit of subjectivity, the SPLC’s recent addition is pathetic and transparent in their intent to smear a political contender for daring to criticize the Obama Regime and stand by the institution of marriage that has stood for thousands of years.


http://www.tpnn.com/2015/02/08/ben-carson-placed-on-extremist-watch-list/

almost nothing on this thread is an example of censorship

for example, the fundie moron fire chief published his book and no one "unpublished" it or is preventing him from selling it, giving it away, etc so absolutely ZERO censorship there


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on February 09, 2015, 01:48:36 PM
Not censorship, but definitely intolerance.  Another liberal hallmark. 

Ben Carson Placed on ‘Extremist’ Watch List
February 8, 2015
By Greg Campbell

ZCarsonThe Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), like so many liberal institutions started decades ago, began with noble intentions. Today, however, they serve as a partisan group dedicated to a brand of political extremism that they, ironically, purport to work against.
 
They throw around terms like “extremist” and “terrorist” in order to intimidate and sensationalize. While so many on their “extremist” list are, by most measures, extremists (Klan members and other assorted neo-Nazis), they also include many who represent a challenge to the liberal narrative.
 
In 2011, they notoriously included Kentucky Senator and potential 2016 presidential candidate Rand Paul on their list. Like him or hate him, it’s ridiculous to include Rand Paul on a list that includes KKK members.
 
Now, they are including famed neurosurgeon and potential 2016 presidential candidate Ben Carson on their list of “extremists.”
 
The reason, according to the SPLC, seems to be little more than the fact that Carson supports traditional definitions of marriage and that he famously spoke-out against Obama’s policies at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2013.
 
Evidently, supporting the longstanding institution of marriage and taking issue with the Dear Leader’s failed leadership is enough to qualify for entry on the SPLC’s political hitlist.
 
The SPLC explains why he’s on the list: (Emphasis added)
 
Although the book amplified Carson’s name recognition, the breakout incident that made him a sensation in far-right political circles was his audacious public criticism of President Obama, who was sitting nearby at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2013. He lectured Obama on the national debt, called for a tax system along the lines of biblical tithes and touted health savings accounts that could be inherited by family members as a better option than any government plan. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other right-wing political commentators lavished praise on Carson. The Wall Street Journal headlined a positive review of the speech “Ben Carson for President,” noting that he may not have been politically correct, “but he’s closer to correct than we’ve heard in years.”
 
In a March 2013 appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity,” Carson bolstered his standing with hardliners by appearing to equate gays who wish to marry with pedophiles and humans who have sex with animals. Although he later apologized for the remark, claiming it was taken out of context and asserting that he loved gay people just as much as straight people, his words triggered an avalanche of protest from faculty colleagues and students at Johns Hopkins. He had been scheduled to deliver the university’s commencement address just two months later but withdrew rather than stoke further controversy. At around the same time, Carson, at age 61, announced his retirement from Johns Hopkins, effective July 1, saying he wanted to leave surgical practice at the top of his game….
 
Legal Insurrection makes a good point about the real-world dangers of the list, saying,
 
Landing on SPLC’s Extremist list can be politically deadly, and also deadly in the real sense.  TheFamily Research Council made the list because of its position on same-sex marriage, inspiring Floyd Lee Corkins to go on a murderous shooting spree at FRC headquarters.
 
It would be fine if the yahoos at MSNBC declared Carson “extreme” or other political commentators did similarly; what this represents, however, is a shocking display of partisan behavior from a group that is supposed to be tracking so-called “hate groups” and potential domestic terrorists. While such a Quixotic task will ultimately rely upon a bit of subjectivity, the SPLC’s recent addition is pathetic and transparent in their intent to smear a political contender for daring to criticize the Obama Regime and stand by the institution of marriage that has stood for thousands of years.

http://www.tpnn.com/2015/02/08/ben-carson-placed-on-extremist-watch-list/

Dr. Carson's response:

Ben Carson: 'Christian Values' Landed Me on 'Extremist' List
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=3488e625-36b6-4e32-8c93-335eaa96aea1&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Image: Ben Carson: 'Christian Values' Landed Me on 'Extremist' List (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Monday, 09 Feb 2015
By Sandy Fitzgerald

Likely 2016 presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson Monday fired back at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has included him in its "Extremist Files" because of his long-stated opinions against same-sex marriage.

"It is important for us to once again advocate true tolerance," the retired neurosurgeon said in a statement. "That means being respectful of those with whom we disagree and allowing people to live according to their values without harassment."

Further, said Carson, the nation is approaching the stage where "wrong is called right" at a time "when embracing traditional Christian values is equated to hatred" and "it is nothing but projectionist when some groups label those who disagree with them as haters."

By naming Carson to its list, the SPLC includes him along with former Ku Klux Klan leader and Louisiana politician David Duke and numerous KKK members, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and more.

The SPLC, using a series of Carson quotes to back up its assertions, claims that after Carson came to conservatives' attention with his speech condemning the Affordable Care Act at the 2013 National Prayer Breakfast, he soon "was appearing as the keynoter at a rash of right-wing and hate group gatherings, linking gays with pedophiles, comparing the U.S. to Nazi Germany and endorsing biblical economic practices for 21st century America."

The SPLC is based in Montgomery, Alabama, and describes itself as a civil rights organization. It includes on its "Hate Map" what many on the right consider to be simply conservative groups, such as the Family Research Council.

Carson is not the first prominent conservative to land on one of the SPLC's lists, reports The Blaze. Last year, historian David Barton and American Center for Security Policy founder Frank Gaffney were also added to the center's lists.

The SPLC says its "hate map" targets those groups that follow "beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics" and is "compiled using hate group publications and websites, citizen and law enforcement reports, field sources and news reports."

http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/Ben-Carson-SPLC-extremist-file-gays/2015/02/09/id/623629/#ixzz3RHbVngIc


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 09, 2015, 01:48:55 PM
almost nothing on this thread is an example of censorship

for example, the fundie moron fire chief published his book and no one "unpublished" it or is preventing him from selling it, giving it away, etc so absolutely ZERO censorship there

Go back to bed loser.   


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on February 09, 2015, 01:55:53 PM
Go back to bed loser.   

am I talking to you

aren't you the closet queer who claims I stalk him yet you can't stop responding to any post I make whether it's directed to you or not



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 09, 2015, 01:57:40 PM
am I talking to you

aren't you the closet queer who claims I stalk him yet you can't stop responding to any post I make whether it's directed to you or not


:'(


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on February 09, 2015, 02:00:26 PM
:'(

Go back to bed loser.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 09, 2015, 02:31:41 PM
Go back to bed loser.

You don't even lift - go back to bed Strawpajamafag


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on February 09, 2015, 02:46:30 PM
You don't even lift - go back to bed Strawpajamafag

Go back to bed loser.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on February 10, 2015, 12:14:40 PM
 :-\

Students opposed to LGBT agenda shamed in classroom
By Todd Starnes
Published February 09, 2015
FoxNews.com
Facebook2166 Twitter334 livefyre5219 Email Print
(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/fn2/876/493/starnes660.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Students at Acalanes High School were given a handout with LGBT terminology – including words like pan-sexual, demi-boy and gray gender.

Teenagers at a California high school were publicly shamed for disagreeing with speakers allowed to push an LGBT agenda during an English class, according to several upset parents.

The Queer Straight Alliance at Acalanes High School, in Lafayette, lectured students in several ninth-grade English classes on Jan. 29 about LGBT issues, according to Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, which is representing the parents.

During the class, the students, ages 14 and 15, were instructed to stand in a circle. Then, they were grilled about their personal beliefs and their parents’ beliefs on homosexuality, PJI alleges.

“The QSA had students step forward to demonstrate whether they believed that being gay was a choice and whether their parents would be accepting if they came out as gay,” PJI attorney Matthew McReynolds said. “Students who did not step forward were ridiculed and humiliated.”

PJI is a law firm that specializes in religious liberty cases. They are representing several families who had children in the freshman classes -- some of whom also are angry because there was no parental notification of the LGBT lecture.

“Singling out students for ridicule based on their moral or political beliefs is a Marxist tactic that should have no place in the United States of America,” Dacus said.

During the lecture, the Queer Student Alliance provided students with the names of the gay and lesbian teachers at the high school. They also had students line up to demonstrate where they fell on the “gender spectrum.”

“It was an exercise in gender fluidity,” the parent of one child told me. “They told the students that one day they could come to school feeling like a boy and the next day they could come to school feeling like a girl.”

Students were given a handout with LGBT terminology – including words like pan-sexual, demi-boy and gray gender.

Demi-boy/girl is defined as someone who only partially identifies as a man or woman. Gray gender defines someone who feels as though they sort of fit inside the gender binary, but that their gender is more hazy and undefined.

“Acalanes High School and the district have defied common sense, ignored the law and broken parents’ trust,” McReynolds said in a prepared statement. “These administrators are acting like schoolyard bullies. If they think intimidation is going to work on us or these parents, they are greatly mistaken.”

“It was a public outing,” one parent told me. “My child is being raised in a family with conservative values. We are a Christian family. What bothers me the most is the school is being dishonest and secretive about what’s happening. My son’s value system and our belief system is not being respected on a many levels.”

And from a very practical point – she wants to know why the Queer Student Alliance was allowed to take over an English class.

“There’s no other club at the high school that gets face time in front of freshman English classes for an entire period,” the parent said.

So why is Acalanes High School outing students who may not agree with every facet of the LGBT agenda?

Superintendent John Nickerson tells me it’s all about tolerance.

“The classroom instruction in question was part of a tolerance workshop led by peer educators under the supervision of teachers,” Nickerson wrote to me in an email.

That’s all well and good – but were the teenagers academically qualified to teach a class on issues like “gender fluidity”? Why weren’t the teachers teaching the class? And what about the allegations that students were bullied by the Queer Student Alliance?

“We are aware of the concerns and allegations raised by two parents and the Pacific Justice Institute,” he wrote. “We are investigating the situation, learning activities and classroom environment.”

This happens to be the same high school that invited a “pleasure activist” from Planned Parenthood to teach sex education to the freshman class. Students were encouraged to ask each other questions like “Is it okay if I take my pants off?”

The parent I spoke to bristled at the notion the LGBT class was about tolerance.

“They are tolerant of everyone except people who have Christian values,” she told me.

PJI sent a letter to the school district demanding an explanation of what happened. They believe the classroom lecture violated the privacy rights of the students.

“It should be self-evident that, as a fundamental privacy right, students cannot be ‘outed’ during class time by being made to declare their beliefs and feelings about sensitive sexual matters, any more than a student could be required to announce their sexual orientation,” PJI wrote in their letter to the school district.

Has it really come to this, America – forcing students to declare their allegiance to the LGBT agenda? Maybe they should just stick to teaching English in English class.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/02/09/students-opposed-to-lgbt-agenda-shamed-in-classroom/


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on February 12, 2015, 12:27:08 PM
Dr. Carson's response:

Ben Carson: 'Christian Values' Landed Me on 'Extremist' List
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=3488e625-36b6-4e32-8c93-335eaa96aea1&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Image: Ben Carson: 'Christian Values' Landed Me on 'Extremist' List (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Monday, 09 Feb 2015
By Sandy Fitzgerald

Likely 2016 presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson Monday fired back at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has included him in its "Extremist Files" because of his long-stated opinions against same-sex marriage.

"It is important for us to once again advocate true tolerance," the retired neurosurgeon said in a statement. "That means being respectful of those with whom we disagree and allowing people to live according to their values without harassment."

Further, said Carson, the nation is approaching the stage where "wrong is called right" at a time "when embracing traditional Christian values is equated to hatred" and "it is nothing but projectionist when some groups label those who disagree with them as haters."

By naming Carson to its list, the SPLC includes him along with former Ku Klux Klan leader and Louisiana politician David Duke and numerous KKK members, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and more.

The SPLC, using a series of Carson quotes to back up its assertions, claims that after Carson came to conservatives' attention with his speech condemning the Affordable Care Act at the 2013 National Prayer Breakfast, he soon "was appearing as the keynoter at a rash of right-wing and hate group gatherings, linking gays with pedophiles, comparing the U.S. to Nazi Germany and endorsing biblical economic practices for 21st century America."

The SPLC is based in Montgomery, Alabama, and describes itself as a civil rights organization. It includes on its "Hate Map" what many on the right consider to be simply conservative groups, such as the Family Research Council.

Carson is not the first prominent conservative to land on one of the SPLC's lists, reports The Blaze. Last year, historian David Barton and American Center for Security Policy founder Frank Gaffney were also added to the center's lists.

The SPLC says its "hate map" targets those groups that follow "beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics" and is "compiled using hate group publications and websites, citizen and law enforcement reports, field sources and news reports."

http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/Ben-Carson-SPLC-extremist-file-gays/2015/02/09/id/623629/#ixzz3RHbVngIc

Liberal SPLC Removes Ben Carson From 'Extremist Files'
Wednesday, 11 Feb 2015
By Greg Richter

The Southern Poverty Law Center has removed Dr. Ben Carson from its "Extremist Files," citing "intense criticism" in recent days.

A statement on the group's website now replaces Carson's "Extremist File" page, where quotes he made opposing same-sex marriage were cited as the reason for including him with Ku Klux Klan members, skinheads and other white supremacists.

"In October 2014, we posted an 'Extremist File' of Dr. Ben Carson. This week, as we've come under intense criticism for doing so, we've reviewed our profile and have concluded that it did not meet our standards, so we have taken it down and apologize to Dr. Carson for having posted it," the statement on the group's website reads.

But the group didn't completely back down, noting "We've also come to the conclusion that the question of whether a better-researched profile of Dr. Carson should or should not be included in our 'Extremist Files' is taking attention from the fact that Dr. Carson has, in fact, made a number of statements that express views that we believe most people would conclude are extreme."

The statements in question are then listed.

"We laud Dr. Carson for his many contributions to medicine and his philanthropic work, and we, like so many others, are inspired by his personal story," the statement reads. "Nevertheless, particularly because Dr. Carson is such a prominent person, we believe that his views should be closely examined."

Carson is widely expected to run for president as a Republican in 2016.

"I want to thank all the people who have spoken up in my behalf," Carson said Wednesday on Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor." "I think it's obviously quite ridiculous.

The SPLC, based in Montgomery, Alabama, describes itself as a civil rights organization, and includes on its "Hate Map" what many on the right consider to be simply conservative groups, including the Family Research Council.

The SPLC's list has worked to shut people up because they are afraid they might end up on their list, Carson told Fox News.

http://www.Newsmax.com/US/Ben-Carson-Southern-Poverty-Law-Center-extremist-files/2015/02/11/id/624277/#ixzz3RYoiWZWG


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on February 19, 2015, 12:47:24 PM
Atlanta’s former fire chief sues the city, says he was fired because of religious beliefs
By Abby Ohlheiser
February 18, 2015

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=http://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_908w/2010-2019/Wires/Images/2015-01-24/AP/Gay_Rights_States-01f36.jpg&w=1484)
Former Atlanta fire chief Kelvin Cochran, third from right, observes a moment of prayer as religious groups rally to support him in January. (David Goldman/AP file)

The standoff between former Atlanta fire chief Kelvin Cochran and the city that used to employ him escalated on Thursday, when Cochran’s attorneys announced that they have filed a federal lawsuit.

The suit accuses the city of firing Cochran because of his religious beliefs, violating his constitutional rights.

Cochran’s case has become a focal point in a larger national debate over public religious expression protections and the civil rights of LGBT Americans.

Cochran, who is an evangelical Christian, was terminated in January after a city investigation pertaining to his self-published book, “Who Told You That You Were Naked,” a Bible study-style text that covers a range of his personal religious beliefs. In one section of the book, Cochran called “homosexuality” and “lesbianism” a “sexual perversion” morally equivalent to “pederasty” and “bestiality.”

Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed said in January that Cochran’s firing was over his “judgment and management skills,” and that “Cochran’s personal religious beliefs are not the issue.” The city had suspended Cochran in November, after questioning whether the book’s passages on homosexuality violated the city’s non-discrimination policy.

But that is not at all how Cochran and his growing number of supporters see things.

“To actually lose my childhood-dream-come-true profession – where all of my expectations have been greatly exceeded – because of my faith is staggering,” Cochran said in a statement released with news of the lawsuit. “The very faith that led me to pursue my career has been used to take it from me.”

The complaint, provided by Cochran’s lawyers, claims: “Defendants fired Cochran solely because he holds religious beliefs concerning same-sex marriage and homosexual conduct that are contrary to the Mayor’s and the City’s views on these subjects.”

It adds: “Cochran, and other City employees who agree with Cochran’s religious views regarding same-sex marriage and homosexual conduct, are under a constant state of threat of the City taking adverse action against them — up to and including termination — if they express those views inside and outside of work.”

In an administrative federal discrimination complaint filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission last month, Cochran stated: “I have been discriminated against because of my religion — Christian.”

Last week, six members of Georgia’s congressional delegation wrote a letter to Mayor Reed in support of Cochran’s reinstatement. “Your action against Chief Cochran appears to violate fundamental principles of free speech and religious freedom,” it reads. “The only way Chief Cochran could avoid his views would be to disown his religion.”

The letter, written by Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R) and co-signed by five other Republican members of Congress, adds: “Atlanta itself engaged in an act of discrimination.”

Cochran’s case has become a rallying point for several conservative religious groups that believe some laws and policies designed to protect LGBT individuals from discrimination are a violation of religious liberty protections. Those groups include the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is legally representing Cochran;  the Faith and Freedom Coalition; the Family Research Council; and the Georgia Baptist Convention.

“The idea that the government can force public servants to surrender their First Amendment rights is outrageous,” Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said at a mid-January religious freedom rally at the Georgia State Capitol, according to the Christian Post. “If a government will fire someone for their religious beliefs, no beliefs are safe from government regardless of how sacred those beliefs may be. Mayor Reed is sending a very clear message that Christians must check their faith at the door of public service.”

On its Web site, the Alliance Defending Freedom takes the position that same-sex marriage is “the most prominent and pressing danger to fundamentally altering marriage, as it undermines the good that marriage provides society” — and that “those who believe in marriage,” by which the group means those who believe in heterosexual marriage only, “are politically, culturally, and legally persecuted for those beliefs.”

Cochran’s dismissal has also hovered in the background of a pair of controversial religious liberty bills currently being considered in the Georgia legislature.

The city has the support of LGBT rights groups such as Georgia Equality and Lambda Legal, along with the Atlanta Professional Firefighters Union, which released a statement commending Reed for Cochran’s termination. “Local 134 supports LGBT rights and equality among all employees,” it reads.


Human Rights Campaign president Chad Griffin said in January that “the fact that Mayor Reed lost confidence in Kelvin Cochran’s ability to do his job is completely unsurprising, and his decision to terminate Cochran was right, fair and in the best interest of all Atlanta’s residents.

“People of faith take their religious convictions with them to the workplace every day, but Cochran’s unprofessional and irresponsible conduct was completely unrelated to his personal convictions.”

Jenna Garland, a spokeswoman for Mayor Reed, said Wednesday that the city of Atlanta would “rigorously defend” itself against Cochran’s legal actions and is “confident that the decision to terminate Mr. Cochran was both the right thing to do and fully legal.”

The city also disagreed with Cochran’s version of the story on several major points, as it has done in the past.

In the compliant and in previous statements, Cochran has said that he sought the permission of Nina Hickson, the City of Atlanta Ethics Officer, before publishing the book. He says he was told that “so long as the subject matter of the book is not the city government or fire department he could write the book.”

Garland, the mayor’s spokeswoman, countered in a lengthy January statement that “Mr. Cochran was told that the City Code required him to get the approval of the Board of Ethics before publishing his book, something he admits he never did.”

Cochran has also said, both in the complaint and in his previous administrative discrimination filing, that “the [city] investigation revealed zero instances of discrimination by me against any other employee of the city.”

“What he was actually told was that his distribution of a book about his beliefs within his department had caused his employees to question his ability to continue to lead a diverse workforce,” Garland’s January statement reads, adding that the city believes Cochran’s overall conduct before and during the investigation “reflected poor judgment and failure to follow clearly defined work protocols.”


“The City of Atlanta remains a place where all people, including those who share Mr. Cochran’s beliefs, are equally valued and respected,” Garland added on Wednesday. “However, religious beliefs cannot shield any employee from the consequences of poor judgment and insubordination.”

Both sides of the matter do agree that Cochran distributed his book to several Atlanta fire employees during his tenure.

Cochran’s complaint says that the fire chief distributed the book to “10 AFRD employees who he knew were Christians,” and who had requested copies of the book; to “approximately 3-5 additional employees who approached him and requested a copy of the book”; and to “three command level AFRD employees” who “previously shared their Christian faith with him.”

In its report on the matter, the city says that Cochran distributed the book to at least nine employees, three unsolicited.

Based on interviews with multiple city employees, the city’s report concluded that “there was a consistent sentiment among the witnesses that firefighters throughout the organization are appalled by the sentiments expressed in the book. There also is general agreement the contents of the book have eroded trust and have compromised the ability of the chief to provide leadership in the future.”

Again, Cochran disagreed. “During this time frame, Cochran’s book caused no disruption with any city practices or procedures or in the workplace at all,” the complaint argues.

In the complaint, Cochran asks for compensatory damages, reinstatement to his old job and a pair of declarations from the city stating that it violated his constitutional rights.

The complaint also asks for the city to “stop enforcing their policies…and practice of allowing adverse employment actions against Cochran and other City employees for expressing protected religious messages about marriage and sexuality when those messages are about matters of public concern.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/02/18/with-growing-national-support-for-his-cause-atlantas-former-fire-chief-sues-the-city-over-his-dismissal/


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 04, 2015, 10:45:34 AM
I'll be donating to this kid's campaign when he eventually runs for office.   :)

And how typical of liberals to shut down viewpoints that differ from their own. 

Facebook yanks page of 12-year-old conservative who said Obama doesn't love U.S.
February 28, 2015
(http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/3d/2e/3d2e312d196b22a85a33c59ec336a4bc.JPG?itok=E0mi-D8m)
Facebook yanks page of 12-year-old conservative.

On Friday, C.J. Pearson, a 12-year-old conservative from Georgia who posted a viral video supporting Rudy Giuliani, discovered that his personal Facebook page was locked. In an exclusive interview with Examiner.com on Saturday, Pearson said he received a message from someone about 6 a.m. Friday. That's when he learned his account and page had been locked for "suspicious activity."

He jumped through all of Facebook's hoops, but wasn't able to recover his account. So he created a new profile to take its place. His public page was not affected, he said, however, he can no longer administer the page. Fortunately, he said, a friend is helping post links to that page.

As is so often the case in these situations, Facebook did not respond to his requests for help. Nor would they tell him what the alleged suspicious activity was. We reached out to Facebook, but the social media giant has so far refused to respond to our request for comments.

Pearson said he is working on legislation to lower the age of those serving in the state House and Senate. The legislation, which is set to be the subject of a hearing on Monday, would lower the age of House members from 21 to 18, and lower the age of state Senators from 25 to 21. Pearson said he was using Facebook to line up witnesses for the hearing, but Facebook's actions have made that more difficult. He can't read any messages sent to his old profile and the old page doesn't show up.

On Monday, we reported that Pearson posted a video supporting former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. He also minced no words when he said that President Obama doesn't love America.

“I don’t want to be politically correct. I don’t care about being politically correct at this point,” he said. “President Obama, you don’t love America.”

The video has gone viral and as of this writing, has received over 1.2 million views. He has also become something of a celebrity among conservatives who appreciate his candor and his willingness to publicly state with conviction what so many others are afraid to say. Many have said they would love to see the young man run for office, and they may get their wish, as Pearson said he "definitely" has political aspirations and wants to "fight for freedom."

This is not the first time Facebook has blocked conservatives for questionable reasons. In March 2013, for example, Facebook banned Florida blogger Diane Sori for 30 days over something she never posted. As we have reported many times, Facebook has banned conservatives for clicking "like" or simply saying "thank you." Conservative pages have also been targeted and shut down for questionable reasons while other pages have been allowed to flourish. As we reported last May, articles mentioning Islam were falsely flagged as "unsafe" and pages critical of Islam have been removed over false claims of inappropriate material.

http://www.examiner.com/article/facebook-yanks-page-of-12-year-old-conservative-who-said-obama-doesn-t-love-u-s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUtirCf-RfU


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: blacken700 on March 04, 2015, 10:56:49 AM
he was locked out because he's 12,you have to be 13 to be a facebook user, he outed himself :D  shooting yourself in the foot starts early as a repub :D


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: LurkerNoMore on March 04, 2015, 10:58:44 AM
he was locked out because he's 12,you have to be 13 to have a facebook user, he outed himself :D  shooting yourself in the foot starts early as a repub :D


Hahaha.

If this is true... then HAHAHAHAHAHA


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: LurkerNoMore on March 04, 2015, 11:03:43 AM
he was locked out because he's 12,you have to be 13 to be a facebook user, he outed himself :D  shooting yourself in the foot starts early as a repub :D


You are correct.  Apparently, lying starts at an early age for Repubs as well.

----------

Demanding a response from Facebook, they duly responded and gave him a cast-iron reason why they banned his page - he is 12.

Indeed, it is explicitly stated in Facebook's terms and conditions that no one under the age of 13 can have an account.

In a statement, Facebook said they were alerted to the fact that Pearson is 12 and acted accordingly.

'You have to be 13 to have a facebook account. This is a requirement, not a suggestion. He was locked out because he lied about his age, not because of the content,' replied a Facebook representative according to the Beaufort Observer.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 04, 2015, 11:07:18 AM
he was locked out because he's 12,you have to be 13 to be a facebook user, he outed himself :D  shooting yourself in the foot starts early as a repub :D

Oh that's BS.  Someone reported his post.  The age was nothing more than an excuse to censor him.  If his post/video was one spouting blind devotion like The Messiah's cult-like followers, it would likely still be up. 

I've heard of numerous stories of anti-Obama posts disappearing from facebook, particularly during the 2012 campaign. 

In any event, I like this kid.   :)


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: LurkerNoMore on March 04, 2015, 11:11:20 AM
Actually age does have something to do with it.  They require their members to be 13, he is only 12 and lied about it.  They don't need any type of excuse to remove him if he violates their TOS.

So in short, he should :

1 - Follow the rules
2 - Don't lie


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: blacken700 on March 04, 2015, 11:15:58 AM
Oh that's BS.  Someone reported his post.  The age was nothing more than an excuse to censor him.  If his post/video was one spouting blind devotion like The Messiah's cult-like followers, it would likely still be up. 

I've heard of numerous stories of anti-Obama posts disappearing from facebook, particularly during the 2012 campaign. 

In any event, I like this kid.   :)

lol he's 12 you have to be 13 simple as that ;D


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 04, 2015, 11:26:24 AM
lol he's 12 you have to be 13 simple as that ;D

It's not as simple as that.  Have you heard of "pretext"?  It's when someone gives an excuse to cover up their true intent.  That's what I think happened to this kid. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: LurkerNoMore on March 04, 2015, 11:44:52 AM
It's not as simple as that.  Have you heard of "pretext"?  It's when someone gives an excuse to cover up their true intent.  That's what I think happened to this kid. 

You mean his "pretext" was to lie about his age to cover up the fact that he was not old enough to be a member of that site?

Well that sounds pretty simple.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 04, 2015, 12:06:26 PM
You mean his "pretext" was to lie about his age to cover up the fact that he was not old enough to be a member of that site?

Well that sounds pretty simple.

Of course it sounds simple to you.  Does not surprise me one bit. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 04, 2015, 12:09:44 PM
Of course it sounds simple to you.  Does not surprise me one bit. 
;D


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: blacken700 on March 04, 2015, 12:17:47 PM
Of course it sounds simple to you.  Does not surprise me one bit. 

poor repubs always someone else fault,the rules are the rule get over it.unless you have proof and that doesn't mean your women's intuition ;D


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 04, 2015, 12:36:51 PM
poor repubs always someone else fault,the rules are the rule get over it.unless you have proof and that doesn't mean your women's intuition ;D

If you want to take the simplistic approach, go right ahead.  You rarely have a smoking gun when someone is using pretext.  You have to look at other factors, use common sense, etc. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: blacken700 on March 04, 2015, 12:43:59 PM
If you want to take the simplistic approach, go right ahead.  You rarely have a smoking gun when someone is using pretext.  You have to look at other factors, use common sense, etc. 

so you have no proof,the only real proof is their rules say you have to be 13 he 12


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 04, 2015, 12:55:40 PM
so you have no proof,the only real proof is their rules say you have to be 13 he 12

I have an opinion.  You are choosing to accept their reasoning at face value.  I'm not based on what I've read and heard, and actually personally experienced. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: blacken700 on March 04, 2015, 01:01:33 PM
that's right is just your opinion,I'll have to go with the facts unless you can prove otherwise


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 04, 2015, 01:24:40 PM
that's right is just your opinion,I'll have to go with the facts unless you can prove otherwise

You don't really know all of the facts either, like whether they had an agenda, and whether other kids who haven't criticized the president have been allowed to keep their pages active. 

This has to be viewed in the broader context of the repeated, proven liberal practice of censoring opposing viewpoints. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: LurkerNoMore on March 04, 2015, 01:43:44 PM
Of course it sounds simple to you.  Does not surprise me one bit. 

The fact you can't grasp a simple concept doesn't surprise anyone on this board.



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 04, 2015, 01:46:00 PM
The fact you can't grasp a simple concept doesn't surprise anyone on this board.



The fact that you are a creepy perv stalker who does not even lift, barely 30 yo and in dire need of T Shots is a concept everyone on this board grasps.   ;)


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: LurkerNoMore on March 04, 2015, 01:47:58 PM
I have an opinion.  You are choosing to accept their reasoning at face value.  I'm not based on what I've read and heard, and actually personally experienced. 

Your opinion isn't fact.  And based on what we have seen of it over time, isn't worth shit either.  

On the other hand, they have a rule.  Which is a fact.  He broke the rules.  That is a fact too.   When considering their factual statement or your "opinion", there really is no second guessing to be done on where the credibility lies.  


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: LurkerNoMore on March 04, 2015, 01:49:23 PM
The fact that you are a creepy perv stalker who does not even lift, barely 30 yo and in dire need of T Shots is a concept everyone on this board grasps.   ;)

The fact that you have to tell yourself lies about another person you don't even know in order to calm your rampant insecurities is a concept we have long since attributed to laundry list of mental problems you have.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 04, 2015, 01:58:01 PM
The fact you can't grasp a simple concept doesn't surprise anyone on this board.



You really aren't very bright. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 04, 2015, 01:59:20 PM
The fact that you are a creepy perv stalker who does not even lift, barely 30 yo and in dire need of T Shots is a concept everyone on this board grasps.   ;)

It doesn't surprise me that he is so young.  It's pretty obvious.  Either that or he's just much dumber than I thought. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 04, 2015, 02:00:17 PM
Your opinion isn't fact.  And based on what we have seen of it over time, isn't worth shit either.  

On the other hand, they have a rule.  Which is a fact.  He broke the rules.  That is a fact too.   When considering their factual statement or your "opinion", there really is no second guessing to be done on where the credibility lies.  

Obviously, my opinion isn't a fact and I never said it was. 

This subject requires you to think critically, which you have shown, conclusively, that you are unable to do. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: LurkerNoMore on March 04, 2015, 02:09:48 PM
It doesn't surprise me that he is so young.  It's pretty obvious.  Either that or he's just much dumber than I thought. 

You have proven yourself to be stupid.  Now THAT is pretty obvious. 

If you want to believe lies that some mental midget tells you about someone else, please go ahead.  Given your level of stupidity, I wouldn't expect anything else.  Funny how every time I question where he gets these notions from he just runs away without answering like a little girl. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: LurkerNoMore on March 04, 2015, 02:11:39 PM
Obviously, my opinion isn't a fact and I never said it was. 

This subject requires you to think critically, which you have shown, conclusively, that you are unable to do. 

No, your opinion isn't fact.  Or factual based for that matter.  The facts however have been listed.  Critical thinking isn't required in that area.  But spinning it for your own viewpoint is a must for the delusional ones as you have proven. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 04, 2015, 02:16:17 PM
You have proven yourself to be stupid.  Now THAT is pretty obvious. 

If you want to believe lies that some mental midget tells you about someone else, please go ahead.  Given your level of stupidity, I wouldn't expect anything else.  Funny how every time I question where he gets these notions from he just runs away without answering like a little girl. 

Yes, you are dumber than I thought.

And you really never know when to quit when it comes to stalking people and calling them names.  You are a punk.  I seriously doubt you would say some of the things you have said to Coach and Soul Crusher to their faces.  They would likely punch you in the mouth.  That's probably what you need. 

Are you really 30 years old?  That would explain a lot. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 04, 2015, 02:19:05 PM
Yes, you are dumber than I thought.

And you really never know when to quit when it comes to stalking people and calling them names.  You are a punk.  I seriously doubt you would say some of the things you have said to Coach and Soul Crusher to their faces.  They would likely punch you in the mouth.  That's probably what you need. 

Are you really 30 years old?  That would explain a lot. 

and taking T shots while not competing in anything ,etc.     Pathetic huh?


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: LurkerNoMore on March 04, 2015, 02:20:43 PM
Yes, you are dumber than I thought.

And you really never know when to quit when it comes to stalking people and calling them names.  You are a punk.  I seriously doubt you would say some of the things you have said to Coach and Soul Crusher to their faces.  They would likely punch you in the mouth.  That's probably what you need. 

Are you really 30 years old?  That would explain a lot. 


Actually, I would tell them - and you - exactly the same things to your face that I type on here.  The only way they would punch me in the mouth is if they stood on a booster seat.

But hey....  why are you asking me if I am really 30 years old.  This is Pole Toucher's little lie.... have to let him tell it the way that makes him feel best about himself.  Apparently, believing it is doing wonders for you too.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 04, 2015, 02:21:11 PM
and taking T shots while not competing in anything ,etc.     Pathetic huh?

Yep.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: LurkerNoMore on March 04, 2015, 02:21:39 PM
and taking T shots while not competing in anything ,etc.     Pathetic huh?

Hey, why not provide proof of this.  This is only, like.... the 100th time you have been challenged to do so.  Or will you run away again like a little bitch?


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 04, 2015, 02:22:14 PM

Actually, I would tell them - and you - exactly the same things to your face that I type on here.  The only way they would punch me in the mouth is if they stood on a booster seat.

But hey....  why are you asking me if I am really 30 years old.  This is Pole Toucher's little lie.... have to let him tell it the way that makes him feel best about himself.  Apparently, believing it is doing wonders for you too.

Dude you are a straight up punk.  I'm really a little tired of reading your crap on this board.    

How old are you?  


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: LurkerNoMore on March 04, 2015, 02:24:35 PM
Dude you are a straight up punk.  I'm really a little tired of reading your crap on this board.    

How old are you?  

Ask Pole Toucher, this is his story.  Don't want to interject any facts in it.  You wouldn't recognize facts anyway.

Don't worry, he will come back and provide links to all his claims about me on here.  Surely, he wouldn't lie would he?   ::)


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 04, 2015, 02:25:48 PM
Ask Pole Toucher, this is his story.  Don't want to interject any facts in it.  You wouldn't recognize facts anyway.

Don't worry, he will come back and provide links to all his claims about me on here.  Surely, he wouldn't lie would he?   ::)

Grow up already.   ::)


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: LurkerNoMore on March 04, 2015, 02:26:55 PM
What's the matter?  Don't you want him to support his claims?  Or does his lies about other people calm your little insecurities as well?


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 04, 2015, 02:29:59 PM
What's the matter?  Don't you want him to support his claims?  Or does his lies about other people calm your little insecurities as well?

Ok - this is VERY easy to sort out no? 

You posted on this board that you are taking T-shots within the past year - YES or NO?  You are also 30-31 yo - YES or NO?   Do you compete in anything whatsoever - YES OR NO? 

Me?  No T-Shots not now, ever, at all - 39 y/o - have a competition NEXT WEEKEND that is 24+ hours straight, have done over 2 dozen events in the last 2 years or so in various events, competed in BB years ago 23-27 yo - didn't use anything at all.   Was on TV obviously so you know whati look like. 



Is it that FNG hard you little creepy perv?


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: blacken700 on March 04, 2015, 02:34:02 PM
Dude you are a straight up punk.  I'm really a little tired of reading your crap on this board.    

How old are you?  

i thought you are a moderator


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: LurkerNoMore on March 04, 2015, 02:34:31 PM
Ok - this is VERY easy to sort out no? 

You posted on this board that you are taking T-shots within the past year - YES or NO?  You are also 30-31 yo - YES or NO?   Do you compete in anything whatsoever - YES OR NO? 

Me?  No T-Shots not now, ever, at all - 39 y/o - have a competition NEXT WEEKEND that is 24+ hours straight, have done over 2 dozen events in the last 2 years or so in various events, competed in BB years ago 23-27 yo - didn't use anything at all.   Was on TV obviously so you know whati look like. 



Is it that FNG hard you little creepy perv?

I have never deleted a post on this board that I have ever made.  So anything related to me taking T-Shots will still be there.  YOU find it.  I can't find what doesn't exist.  "Should be very easy to sort out".  (Your words)

Somehow 30-31 doesn't equate into being "not even 30".  

But since apparently you know these "facts", I am sure you can link to us to where you got them.  You know...   "Ok - this is VERY easy to sort out no?  "


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: LurkerNoMore on March 04, 2015, 02:36:01 PM
i thought you are a moderator

He's a hypocrite who is easily flustered when confronted with "facts" or when his own words and tactics are used against him.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 04, 2015, 02:43:37 PM
I have never deleted a post on this board that I have ever made.  So anything related to me taking T-Shots will still be there.  YOU find it.  I can't find what doesn't exist.  "Should be very easy to sort out".  (Your words)

Somehow 30-31 doesn't equate into being "not even 30".  

But since apparently you know these "facts", I am sure you can link to us to where you got them.  You know...   "Ok - this is VERY easy to sort out no?  "

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=277813.0


QUOTE FROM YOU:

"Awesome.  If it doesn't affect you. There are very few people who can use deca without the sides from it causing it to be a unpleasant experience.  For me, libido loss was a huge issue.  It wasn't that I couldn't get a hard on, it was that I just didn't care to.  It is one thing to desire sex and be horny but to encounter a limp dick when it is Go Time!  But it is something else all together to be able to get hard enough to have sex, but just not really care too. That is what deca did to me.  It didn't render me impotent, but rather it removed all desire and interest in sex completely.  Other than that, I had no complaints.

Now if I were going to lock myself away from all female contact for 3-4 months at a time - you know... like taking a winter caretaker job at a closed mountain resort ala The Shining - LOL!! ... then I would use it again for sure.

Everyone is different though.  I fall in with the majority that can't (or won't) handle the sides.  But then on the other hand, I am in the minority of other groups as winstrol and tren doesn't cause hair problems for me and I never get acne from anything."




________________________ ________________________ ____________________




LMFAO!!!!!!   SO FNG SAD AND PATHETIC.   


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: LurkerNoMore on March 04, 2015, 02:53:51 PM
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=277813.0


QUOTE FROM YOU:

"Awesome.  If it doesn't affect you. There are very few people who can use deca without the sides from it causing it to be a unpleasant experience.  For me, libido loss was a huge issue.  It wasn't that I couldn't get a hard on, it was that I just didn't care to.  It is one thing to desire sex and be horny but to encounter a limp dick when it is Go Time!  But it is something else all together to be able to get hard enough to have sex, but just not really care too. That is what deca did to me.  It didn't render me impotent, but rather it removed all desire and interest in sex completely.  Other than that, I had no complaints.

Now if I were going to lock myself away from all female contact for 3-4 months at a time - you know... like taking a winter caretaker job at a closed mountain resort ala The Shining - LOL!! ... then I would use it again for sure.

Everyone is different though.  I fall in with the majority that can't (or won't) handle the sides.  But then on the other hand, I am in the minority of other groups as winstrol and tren doesn't cause hair problems for me and I never get acne from anything."




________________________ ________________________ ____________________




LMFAO!!!!!!   SO FNG SAD AND PATHETIC.   

What on Earth has that got to do with me having T-Shots?  Besides nothing? 

The only thing sad and pathetic is that when given the chance to clear up your lies, after it becomes evident that you can't, instead of just keeping quiet and slinking off like you have done every time in the past, you post some bullshit completely unrelated to what you are challenged to prove. 

Seriously, you really are mentally challenged aren't you?


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 04, 2015, 03:01:30 PM
What on Earth has that got to do with me having T-Shots?  Besides nothing? 

The only thing sad and pathetic is that when given the chance to clear up your lies, after it becomes evident that you can't, instead of just keeping quiet and slinking off like you have done every time in the past, you post some bullshit completely unrelated to what you are challenged to prove. 

Seriously, you really are mentally challenged aren't you?

That was only one post Limp Dick.   Quit while you are ahead.    ;)


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: LurkerNoMore on March 04, 2015, 03:07:35 PM
That was only one post Limp Dick.   Quit while you are ahead.    ;)

Then please post more.  Maybe one that even supports your claims.  Never mind the fact you had to go to 2009 and find one from my early use.  Never mind the fact (x2) almost every one has libido issues due to nandralone.   ::)

So are you going to support your lies claims or just post nonsense and look like the whining bitch you are?


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 04, 2015, 03:10:18 PM
Then please post more.  Maybe one that even supports your claims.  Never mind the fact you had to go to 2009 and find one from my early use.  Never mind the fact (x2) almost every one has libido issues due to nandralone.   ::)

So are you going to support your lies claims or just post nonsense and look like the whining bitch you are?


Many of us don't need or use roids at 30 yo so we don't have those issues.   Now go get your shine box - FNG sad sad sad sad - drug abusing loser who doesn't even compete or do anything. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 04, 2015, 03:13:52 PM
i thought you are a moderator

I don't know?  Am I?  :)


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 04, 2015, 03:15:47 PM
Ok - this is VERY easy to sort out no? 

You posted on this board that you are taking T-shots within the past year - YES or NO?  You are also 30-31 yo - YES or NO?   Do you compete in anything whatsoever - YES OR NO? 

Me?  No T-Shots not now, ever, at all - 39 y/o - have a competition NEXT WEEKEND that is 24+ hours straight, have done over 2 dozen events in the last 2 years or so in various events, competed in BB years ago 23-27 yo - didn't use anything at all.   Was on TV obviously so you know whati look like. 



Is it that FNG hard you little creepy perv?

LOL!  So he is a kid taking T-shots who doesn't compete?  Oh brother.  What a loser. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: LurkerNoMore on March 04, 2015, 03:16:13 PM
So.... no evidence of these so called T-Shots that you have been lying crying about for a year huh?

So what you are really saying is :

You are a liar.
We know you are a liar.
You know that we know you are a liar.
You are so pathetic and self loathing that you have to make up lies about someone you don't even know in order to deal with your own insecurities.

Well hell, that is nothing new.  We already knew all that.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 04, 2015, 03:17:10 PM
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=277813.0


QUOTE FROM YOU:

"Awesome.  If it doesn't affect you. There are very few people who can use deca without the sides from it causing it to be a unpleasant experience.  For me, libido loss was a huge issue.  It wasn't that I couldn't get a hard on, it was that I just didn't care to.  It is one thing to desire sex and be horny but to encounter a limp dick when it is Go Time!  But it is something else all together to be able to get hard enough to have sex, but just not really care too. That is what deca did to me.  It didn't render me impotent, but rather it removed all desire and interest in sex completely.  Other than that, I had no complaints.

Now if I were going to lock myself away from all female contact for 3-4 months at a time - you know... like taking a winter caretaker job at a closed mountain resort ala The Shining - LOL!! ... then I would use it again for sure.

Everyone is different though.  I fall in with the majority that can't (or won't) handle the sides.  But then on the other hand, I am in the minority of other groups as winstrol and tren doesn't cause hair problems for me and I never get acne from anything."




________________________ ________________________ ____________________




LMFAO!!!!!!   SO FNG SAD AND PATHETIC.   

Bwahahahaha!!!  Why the heck would he post about being a limp noodle?  LOL!!   ;D


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: LurkerNoMore on March 04, 2015, 03:17:50 PM
LOL!  So he is a kid taking T-shots who doesn't compete?  Oh brother.  What a loser. 

The only losers we see are the ones resorting to blatant lies and the one believing him.

Good job you two losers.  


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: LurkerNoMore on March 04, 2015, 03:18:57 PM
Bwahahahaha!!!  Why the heck would he post about being a limp noodle?  LOL!!   ;D

Yeah, because no one else experienced that on deca before?   ::)

A better question is why are you interested in my noodle?  Oh, I forgot you have a penchant for keeping pics of cocks on hand.   Just to show the kids you know...


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 04, 2015, 03:24:19 PM
Yeah, because no one else experienced that on deca before?   ::)

A better question is why are you interested in my noodle?  Oh, I forgot you have a penchant for keeping pics of cocks on hand.   Just to show the kids you know...

Listen you little admitted limp noodle'd punk, I am drawing the line with you and pedo comments.  I will make you a promise:  one more comment like that I will delete or modify every single post I see from you on this board.  I'm not going to bother asking Ron to put in you timeout, like he previously did.  How big of a friggin loser must you be to get banned from a message board?   ::) 

And I'm leaving this right here so everyone (including Ron) can see what I plan to do. 

So make your choice.   :)


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: LurkerNoMore on March 04, 2015, 03:26:43 PM
Listen you little admitted limp noodle'd punk, I am drawing the line with you and pedo comments.  I will make you a promise:  one more comment like that I will delete or modify every single post I see from you on this board.  I'm not going to bother asking Ron to put in you timeout, like he previously did.  How big of a friggin loser must you be to get banned from a message board?   ::)  

And I'm leaving this right here so everyone (including Ron) can see what I plan to do.  

So make your choice.   :)

Why not leave EVERYTHING here for Ron to see?  Oh, you don't want to do that huh?  No matter, I have screen captures.   :D



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 04, 2015, 03:34:29 PM
DUDE REALLY?

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=485855.0


 
When measuring levels, 397-1169 is what is considered "normal" ranges no matter what your age is.  Most docs are still stuck in the 70s with this treatment and protocol.  If you get a doc wanting to do injects every other week, walk out the door immediately.

The standard protocol for HRT/TRT clinics here in South FL is

250mg Test Cyp weekly
2 x 500iu HCG weekly
2 tabs of Arimidex weekly

One shot of cyp weekly should bring your numbers up to between 1100 and 1400.  The average is the low to mid 1200s.
 

 
 


So.... no evidence of these so called T-Shots that you have been lying crying about for a year huh?

So what you are really saying is :

You are a liar.
We know you are a liar.
You know that we know you are a liar.
You are so pathetic and self loathing that you have to make up lies about someone you don't even know in order to deal with your own insecurities.

Well hell, that is nothing new.  We already knew all that.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 04, 2015, 03:35:32 PM

Ones here charge $150-$195 per month for all three drugs and your lab tests every two months for the first six months and then once a year. 

You can add in HGH for an extra $350-$500 per month.



 http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=485855.0



 
 
 



So.... no evidence of these so called T-Shots that you have been lying crying about for a year huh?

So what you are really saying is :

You are a liar.
We know you are a liar.
You know that we know you are a liar.
You are so pathetic and self loathing that you have to make up lies about someone you don't even know in order to deal with your own insecurities.

Well hell, that is nothing new.  We already knew all that.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: LurkerNoMore on March 04, 2015, 03:37:30 PM
Yeah.... dude REALLY.

Where does that equate into me being on T-Shots?

Not translating your (lack of) logic here. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 04, 2015, 03:38:56 PM


Deleted. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 04, 2015, 03:39:30 PM
Lurker your days of posting crap on this board are over.  As long as I'm around. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 04, 2015, 03:40:02 PM
Yeah.... dude REALLY.

Where does that equate into me being on T-Shots?

Not translating your (lack of) logic here. 

LMFAO

You have endless posts on roids and drugs a test - barely a blip on training or competing or anything in that relm.   FNG sad - if you are going to be a drug abuser and addict - at least do something with it.  


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: blacken700 on March 04, 2015, 03:45:33 PM
LMFAO

You have endless posts on roids and drugs a test - barely a blip on training or competing or anything in that relm.   FNG sad - if you are going to be a drug abuser and addict - at least do something with it.  

you posting shit about someone then having someone delete his post so he can't defend himself. that's pretty low


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 04, 2015, 03:47:56 PM
you posting shit about someone then having someone delete his post so he can't defend himself. that's pretty low

He didn't ask me to delete anything.  That was all me.  And I do it in the open and say exactly what I'm doing, so there is no confusion about it.   :)


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 04, 2015, 03:49:33 PM
you posting shit about someone then having someone delete his post so he can't defend himself. that's pretty low

I never ever once asked on of the mods to ever delete anything.  Ask OMR, Ron, whoebver,    I had an issue w some stalkers from GB in real life - that was a different situation by some creepy stalking pervs on here  


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: LurkerNoMore on March 04, 2015, 03:49:51 PM
you posting shit about someone then having someone delete his post so he can't defend himself. that's pretty low

Losers get banned from message boards because they lack self-control.  I guess that makes me a loser? 



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on March 07, 2015, 12:09:01 PM
Just another example of paranoid anti-religious extremists

Christian chaplain fired for preaching compassion and love over violence of American Sniper

On February 10th, MidAmerica Nazarene University’s  (MNU) chaplain Randy Beckum gave his morning sermon, which wasn’t unusual – it was his job. But what was different that day was the response to the sermon – as one student paper put it, the sermon sparked an “outcry” and a torrent of criticism particularly on social media. The criticism ranged from complaints that Beckum had politicized his sermons to the idea that he had insulted Christians who served in the military.

What was this controversial sermon that Beckum gave? Here’s the full text:
http://mnutrailblazer.com/article/manuscript-of-dr-beckum-s-controversial-chapel-message (http://mnutrailblazer.com/article/manuscript-of-dr-beckum-s-controversial-chapel-message)

Beckum’s sermon that day was about America’s addiction to violence, citing the film “American Sniper” as a symptom of that, and how this was problematic for Christianity, a religion founded on the ideals of nonviolence. Here’s an excerpt:

As you know two movies came out recently. Selma, the story of one of the 20th century most influential Christian leaders, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who led a non-violent movement that changed the course of American History forever. And American Sniper, the story of the most deadly Navy SEAL sniper in American history. Selma has made 29-30 million so far. American Sniper made over 103 million in the first 4 days. Gives you an idea about who our heroes are. I don’t think it is an under-statement to say that our culture is addicted to violence, guns, war, revenge and retaliation. Unfortunately, so are a lot of Christians.

He went on to say that we have to “be very careful about equating patriotism with Christianity,” and implored his flock to be “controlled by love, compelled by love for everyone.”

Shortly after Beckum’s sermon, it was announced that he would no longer be the vice president of the university’s Community Foundation. Although the university president claimed Beckum had previously expressed interest in stepping down from that position, his daughter disputes this assertion.

Many in the MNU community are wondering if Beckum was “punished” for his pro-peace sermon, and the timing of his dismissal as VP of the community foundation seems to validate those concerns. “Even the people that were frustrated with what (Beckum) had to say in chapel, or wanted to challenge it, were confused and almost offended by the demotion,” said Kristi Rose Jackson, who was elected to be student body president.

Sadly, it appears that MNU may have given into the furor and decided that a Christian clergyman preaching the peace the founder of the faith stood for is simply too controversial for their campus.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 07, 2015, 12:24:36 PM
Free Speech you FNG moron?   

Just another example of paranoid anti-religious extremists

Christian chaplain fired for preaching compassion and love over violence of American Sniper

On February 10th, MidAmerica Nazarene University’s  (MNU) chaplain Randy Beckum gave his morning sermon, which wasn’t unusual – it was his job. But what was different that day was the response to the sermon – as one student paper put it, the sermon sparked an “outcry” and a torrent of criticism particularly on social media. The criticism ranged from complaints that Beckum had politicized his sermons to the idea that he had insulted Christians who served in the military.

What was this controversial sermon that Beckum gave? Here’s the full text:
http://mnutrailblazer.com/article/manuscript-of-dr-beckum-s-controversial-chapel-message (http://mnutrailblazer.com/article/manuscript-of-dr-beckum-s-controversial-chapel-message)

Beckum’s sermon that day was about America’s addiction to violence, citing the film “American Sniper” as a symptom of that, and how this was problematic for Christianity, a religion founded on the ideals of nonviolence. Here’s an excerpt:

As you know two movies came out recently. Selma, the story of one of the 20th century most influential Christian leaders, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who led a non-violent movement that changed the course of American History forever. And American Sniper, the story of the most deadly Navy SEAL sniper in American history. Selma has made 29-30 million so far. American Sniper made over 103 million in the first 4 days. Gives you an idea about who our heroes are. I don’t think it is an under-statement to say that our culture is addicted to violence, guns, war, revenge and retaliation. Unfortunately, so are a lot of Christians.

He went on to say that we have to “be very careful about equating patriotism with Christianity,” and implored his flock to be “controlled by love, compelled by love for everyone.”

Shortly after Beckum’s sermon, it was announced that he would no longer be the vice president of the university’s Community Foundation. Although the university president claimed Beckum had previously expressed interest in stepping down from that position, his daughter disputes this assertion.

Many in the MNU community are wondering if Beckum was “punished” for his pro-peace sermon, and the timing of his dismissal as VP of the community foundation seems to validate those concerns. “Even the people that were frustrated with what (Beckum) had to say in chapel, or wanted to challenge it, were confused and almost offended by the demotion,” said Kristi Rose Jackson, who was elected to be student body president.

Sadly, it appears that MNU may have given into the furor and decided that a Christian clergyman preaching the peace the founder of the faith stood for is simply too controversial for their campus.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on March 07, 2015, 12:35:47 PM
Free Speech you FNG moron?   


what a surprise my stalker is the first to respond

yes, free speech

that's what this guy was exercising but apparently the paranoid anti religious extremists didn't agree with his message so they fired him



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 07, 2015, 12:54:17 PM
what a surprise my stalker is the first to respond

yes, free speech

that's what this guy was exercising but apparently the paranoid anti religious extremists didn't agree with his message so they fired him



So - its not govt related so while he may be a douche - its his right. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on March 07, 2015, 12:55:33 PM
So - its not govt related so while he may be a douche - its his right. 

why is he a douche


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 10, 2015, 12:12:40 PM
This is where we are headed.  They will try and censor pastors.  Dangerous territory.

Former SEALs chaplain could be kicked out of Navy for Christian beliefs
By Todd StarnesPublished March 09, 2015
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Opinion/876/493/450-Modder.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Navy Chaplain Wes Modder is pictured with a ceremonial oar presented to him by Naval Special Warfare Command. He received the oar at the end of his tour. (Courtesy Wes Modder)

A chaplain who once ministered to Navy SEALs could be thrown out of the military after he was accused of failing “to show tolerance and respect” in private counseling sessions in regards to issues pertaining to faith, marriage and sexuality, specifically homosexuality and pre-marital sex, according to documents obtained exclusively by Fox News.

Lt. Commander Wes Modder, who is endorsed by the Assemblies of God, has also been accused of being unable to “function in the diverse and pluralistic environment” of the Naval Nuclear Power Training Command in Goose Creek, S.C.

“On multiple occasions he discriminated against students who were of different faiths and backgrounds,” the Chaplain’s commanding Officer Capt. Jon R. Fahs wrote in a memorandum obtained by Fox News.

Modder told me he was devastated by the accusations. He believes charges have been trumped up.

Modder is a highly decorated, 19-year veteran of the military. Prior to becoming a Navy chaplain, he served in the Marine Corps.  His assignments included tours with the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit and Naval Special Warfare Command – where he served as the Force Chaplain of the Navy SEALs.

His record is brimming with accolades and endorsements – including from Capt. Fahs.

In Modder’s most recent review, Fahs declared that the chaplain was “the best of the best,” and a “consummate professional leader” worthy of an early promotion.

So how did Chaplain Modder go from being the “best of the best” to being unfit for service in the U.S. military in a span of five months?

The Navy did not return my calls seeking comment – so all we can do is rely on their written accusations and evidence.

Michael Berry, a military veteran and attorney with Liberty Institute a law firm that specializes in religious liberty cases is representing Modder. He accused the military of committing a gross injustice against the chaplain in a letter to the Navy. He told me they will respond forcefully and resolutely to the allegations – which they categorically deny.

“We are starting to see cases where chaplains have targets on their backs,” Berry said. “They have to ask themselves, ‘Do I stay true to my faith or do I keep my job?’”

He said Modder is being punished because of his Christian faith.

“They want chaplains to be glorified summer camp counselors and not speak truth and love into people’s lives,” Berry told me. “There are some anti-religious elements in our military. Anytime somebody wants to live their faith out – there are people who say that is offensive.”

Modder told me he was devastated by the accusations. He believes charges have been trumped up.

“The military now wants a 2.0 chaplain instead of a legacy chaplain,” Modder said. “They want a chaplain to accommodate policy that contradicts Scripture.”

Modder’s troubles started on Dec. 6 when an assistant in his office showed up to work with a pair of Equal Opportunity representatives and a five-page complaint documenting grievances against the chaplain.

The lieutenant junior grade officer went on to detail concerns about Moody’s views on “same-sex relationships/marriages, homosexuality, different standards of respect for men and women, pre-marital sex and masturbation.”

Modder said the young officer had only been working with him for about a month and would constantly pepper him with questions pertaining to homosexuality. He had no idea that the officer was in fact gay – and married to another man.

“His five page letter of complaint was unconscionable,” Modder said. “He said I had a behavioral pattern of being anti-discriminatory of same sex orientation.”

The chaplain was not even given a chance to defend himself. He was immediately removed from duties and told to clean out his office.

“It was insulting and it was devastating,” Modder said. “I felt discriminated against. How could something like this happen at this stage of my career?”

Zollie Smith, the executive director for the Assemblies of God, U.S. Missions, told me they stand firmly behind the chaplain.

“We stand behind him 100 percent,” he said.

In hindsight, Berry believes the officer was setting up his client – and in doing so may have committed a crime.

“I believe some of what the lieutenant has alleged could constitute a military crime – false statements – taking what the chaplain said and twisting or misconstruing it – in an attempt to get the chaplain punished,” he said. “He abused the position he was placed in as a chaplain’s assistant.”

He believes the officer may have gained access to private counseling file

“To be clear, Chaplain Modder does not dispute that during private, one-on-one pastoral care and counseling sessions, he expressed his sincerely held religious belief that: sexual acts outside of marriage are contrary to Biblical teaching; and homosexual behavior is contrary to Biblical teaching; and homosexual orientation or temptation, as distinct from conduct, is not sin,” Berry said.

Modder said many Americans may be shocked to discover how much military culture has changed over the past few years.

“This new generation is very secular and very open sexually,” he said. “The values that the military once held – just like the Boy Scouts of America – are changing. The culture wants this. Culture is colliding with truth. That’s at the heart of this.”

Modder recalled an incident that occurred when he first arrived on the base. He was about to deliver the invocation at a graduation ceremony when the captain pulled him aside.

“He looked at me and said, ‘Hey chaplain – do not pray in Jesus’ name,’” he recalled.

Modder said he understands the firestorm he is about to enter – but he remains resolute.

“Every fiber in my being wants to run away from this – but if I do I’m not being obedient to the Lord,” he told me. “I need to stand up for righteousness and this is something I cannot walk away from.”

The reality is that many other chaplains could find themselves in Chaplain Modder’s shoes. The Roman Catholic church and the Southern Baptist convention have nearly identical positions on the issues that the Navy found problematic with Modder.

“It’s going to be a hard road for me,” he said. “But it’s what God has called me to do.”

Ultimately, it’s about leaving a legacy and setting an example for his family – his wife and four young children.

The day he was relieved of his duties, Chaplain Modder’s 14-year-old son tagged along to help pack up his dad’s office. A few senior enlisted men were there as well.

As they were driving away, the boy told his father that the enlisted men had spoken to him.

“They told my son that ‘you can be proud of your father because he’s keeping the faith,’” Modder said. “The whole command knows that Chaplain Modder is keeping the faith.”

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/03/09/former-seals-chaplain-could-be-kicked-out-navy-for-christian-beliefs/


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: headhuntersix on March 10, 2015, 12:20:46 PM
Some piece of shit fag sets up or causes problems for a true warrior...this is what happens when an agrieved class gets power in places they have no business being. They don't want to "serve honorably". They want to make the rest of us validate their life style.  This is exactly why many of us were against this shit in the first place.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on March 10, 2015, 10:22:35 PM
This is where we are headed.  They will try and censor pastors.  Dangerous territory.

Former SEALs chaplain could be kicked out of Navy for Christian beliefs
By Todd StarnesPublished March 09, 2015
FoxNews.com


Christian beliefs are definitely under attack in this country

http://mnutrailblazer.com/article/manuscript-of-dr-beckum-s-controversial-chapel-message


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 26, 2015, 10:51:53 AM
Navy bans chaplain from ministering to family of dead sailor
By Todd Starnes
Published March 24, 2015
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Opinion/876/493/660-Modder-praying-LI.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Chaplain Wes Modder prays over Navy service members. (Courtesy Liberty Institute)
It really takes a special kind of lowlife to stop a chaplain from ministering to the family and colleagues of a dead sailor.

But that’s exactly what happened last week at Naval Nuclear Power Training Command in Goose Creek, S.C., according to attorneys representing Chaplain Wes Modder.

It’s become clear to me Navy leadership cannot be trusted to protect religious liberty within the ranks. It’s time for our elected officials to intervene before Chaplain Modder’s commander brings more embarrassment and shame to the Armed Forces.

“For this Navy to bar a chaplain from comforting and ministering to sailors and families is a reprehensible violation of religious freedom and common human decency,” said Kelly Shackelford, the president of Liberty Institute, a law firm that specializes in religious liberty cases.

Some quick background before I explain what happened:

Chaplain Modder is facing the end of a stellar, 19-year-career in the Navy because he expressed his faith-based views on marriage and human sexuality during private counseling sessions with sailors.

Last December, a gay officer took offense at Christian chaplain’s take on homosexuality. Modder, who is endorsed by the Assemblies of God, was accused of discrimination and failing to show tolerance and respect, among other things.

Just a few months earlier, Modder’s commander had called him the “best of the best” and a “consummate professional leader.” But now he’s on the verge of being kicked out of the military.

Modder was relieved of his duties and temporarily reassigned pending the outcome of an investigation. The Navy has since denied the chaplain’s request to be reinstated.  for religious accommodation.

So that brings us to an incident that occurred last week, when a sailor in Modder’s previous unit unexpectedly died.

Liberty Institute attorney Michael Berry tells me Modder was about to reach out to the sailor’s grieving family when he was stopped by a member of the command.

He was slapped with a “no contact” order – the Navy’s version of a restraining order – banning him from providing counsel or ministering to any members of his unit.

“This Navy official is using the ‘no contact’ order as a weapon to punish and humiliate a decorated military chaplain,” Berry said. “To deny Chaplain Modder of the ability to minister to a grieving family and other sailors is deplorable.”

The Navy went so far as to banish Modder from the base on the day of the sailor’s memorial service. The chaplain said that was adding “insult to injury.”

“One of the most important things chaplains do is to provide comfort and care after a tragic death,” Modder said. “I am heartbroken for the family, and yet the Navy won’t allow me to do my job of helping them grieve and mourn.”

It’s beyond me why the Navy would treat a Marine and highly decorated chaplain with such derision. This is a man who was deployed multiple times during the War on Terror. This is a man who once led chaplains who ministered to Navy SEALs.

Tens of thousands of Americans have petitioned the Pentagon to reinstate Modder, and a number of high profile-political and religious figures – including Mike Huckabee, Sen. Ted Cruz, Franklin Graham and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins – have offered their support.

I reached out to the Chief of Chaplains’ office for comment, but they did not return my call. I can only hope the reason is because they are just as speechless as I am.

It’s become clear to me that Navy leadership cannot be trusted to protect religious liberty within the ranks. It’s time for our elected officials to intervene, before Chaplain Modder’s commander brings more embarrassment and shame to the Armed Forces.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/03/24/navy-bans-chaplain-from-ministering-to-family-dead-sailor/


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Al Doggity on March 26, 2015, 11:06:20 AM
Navy bans chaplain from ministering to family of dead sailor


LOL. The greatest hack of them all.  ;)


Chaplain faces possible discharge for being 'intolerant'
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2015/03/10/chaplain-fired/24699275/

Navy Capt. Jon Fahs, NNPTC commander, cited several specific incidents in which Modder offered inappropriate counseling to sailors in the command, according to the detachment for cause letter. The letter states that Modder:

  • Told a female that she was "shaming herself in the eyes of god" for having premarital sex.
  • Told another student that homosexuality was wrong and that "the penis was meant for the vagina and not for the anus."
  • Suggested to a student that he, Modder, had the ability to "save" gay people.
  • "Berated" a student for becoming pregnant while not married.

The issue arose after multiple sailors filed equal opportunity complaints about Modder with the command, alleging discrimination.

When confronted with the complaints, Modder told his command that "he will not follow Navy policy if it conflicts with his faith," according to the letter.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 26, 2015, 11:09:20 AM
LOL. The greatest hack of them all.  ;)


Chaplain faces possible discharge for being 'intolerant'
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2015/03/10/chaplain-fired/24699275/

Navy Capt. Jon Fahs, NNPTC commander, cited several specific incidents in which Modder offered inappropriate counseling to sailors in the command, according to the detachment for cause letter. The letter states that Modder:

  • Told a female that she was "shaming herself in the eyes of god" for having premarital sex.
  • Told another student that homosexuality was wrong and that "the penis was meant for the vagina and not for the anus."
  • Suggested to a student that he, Modder, had the ability to "save" gay people.
  • "Berated" a student for becoming pregnant while not married.

The issue arose after multiple sailors filed equal opportunity complaints about Modder with the command, alleging discrimination.

When confronted with the complaints, Modder told his command that "he will not follow Navy policy if it conflicts with his faith," according to the letter.

Wow.  Breaking news.  Except for my post about this on the previous page.

Quote
This is where we are headed.  They will try and censor pastors.  Dangerous territory.

Former SEALs chaplain could be kicked out of Navy for Christian beliefs
By Todd StarnesPublished March 09, 2015
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Opinion/876/493/450-Modder.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Navy Chaplain Wes Modder is pictured with a ceremonial oar presented to him by Naval Special Warfare Command. He received the oar at the end of his tour. (Courtesy Wes Modder)

A chaplain who once ministered to Navy SEALs could be thrown out of the military after he was accused of failing “to show tolerance and respect” in private counseling sessions in regards to issues pertaining to faith, marriage and sexuality, specifically homosexuality and pre-marital sex, according to documents obtained exclusively by Fox News.

Lt. Commander Wes Modder, who is endorsed by the Assemblies of God, has also been accused of being unable to “function in the diverse and pluralistic environment” of the Naval Nuclear Power Training Command in Goose Creek, S.C.

“On multiple occasions he discriminated against students who were of different faiths and backgrounds,” the Chaplain’s commanding Officer Capt. Jon R. Fahs wrote in a memorandum obtained by Fox News.

Modder told me he was devastated by the accusations. He believes charges have been trumped up.

Modder is a highly decorated, 19-year veteran of the military. Prior to becoming a Navy chaplain, he served in the Marine Corps.  His assignments included tours with the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit and Naval Special Warfare Command – where he served as the Force Chaplain of the Navy SEALs.

His record is brimming with accolades and endorsements – including from Capt. Fahs.

In Modder’s most recent review, Fahs declared that the chaplain was “the best of the best,” and a “consummate professional leader” worthy of an early promotion.

So how did Chaplain Modder go from being the “best of the best” to being unfit for service in the U.S. military in a span of five months?

The Navy did not return my calls seeking comment – so all we can do is rely on their written accusations and evidence.

Michael Berry, a military veteran and attorney with Liberty Institute a law firm that specializes in religious liberty cases is representing Modder. He accused the military of committing a gross injustice against the chaplain in a letter to the Navy. He told me they will respond forcefully and resolutely to the allegations – which they categorically deny.

“We are starting to see cases where chaplains have targets on their backs,” Berry said. “They have to ask themselves, ‘Do I stay true to my faith or do I keep my job?’”

He said Modder is being punished because of his Christian faith.

“They want chaplains to be glorified summer camp counselors and not speak truth and love into people’s lives,” Berry told me. “There are some anti-religious elements in our military. Anytime somebody wants to live their faith out – there are people who say that is offensive.”

Modder told me he was devastated by the accusations. He believes charges have been trumped up.

“The military now wants a 2.0 chaplain instead of a legacy chaplain,” Modder said. “They want a chaplain to accommodate policy that contradicts Scripture.”

Modder’s troubles started on Dec. 6 when an assistant in his office showed up to work with a pair of Equal Opportunity representatives and a five-page complaint documenting grievances against the chaplain.

The lieutenant junior grade officer went on to detail concerns about Moody’s views on “same-sex relationships/marriages, homosexuality, different standards of respect for men and women, pre-marital sex and masturbation.”

Modder said the young officer had only been working with him for about a month and would constantly pepper him with questions pertaining to homosexuality. He had no idea that the officer was in fact gay – and married to another man.

“His five page letter of complaint was unconscionable,” Modder said. “He said I had a behavioral pattern of being anti-discriminatory of same sex orientation.”

The chaplain was not even given a chance to defend himself. He was immediately removed from duties and told to clean out his office.

“It was insulting and it was devastating,” Modder said. “I felt discriminated against. How could something like this happen at this stage of my career?”

Zollie Smith, the executive director for the Assemblies of God, U.S. Missions, told me they stand firmly behind the chaplain.

“We stand behind him 100 percent,” he said.

In hindsight, Berry believes the officer was setting up his client – and in doing so may have committed a crime.

“I believe some of what the lieutenant has alleged could constitute a military crime – false statements – taking what the chaplain said and twisting or misconstruing it – in an attempt to get the chaplain punished,” he said. “He abused the position he was placed in as a chaplain’s assistant.”

He believes the officer may have gained access to private counseling file

“To be clear, Chaplain Modder does not dispute that during private, one-on-one pastoral care and counseling sessions, he expressed his sincerely held religious belief that: sexual acts outside of marriage are contrary to Biblical teaching; and homosexual behavior is contrary to Biblical teaching; and homosexual orientation or temptation, as distinct from conduct, is not sin,” Berry said.

Modder said many Americans may be shocked to discover how much military culture has changed over the past few years.

“This new generation is very secular and very open sexually,” he said. “The values that the military once held – just like the Boy Scouts of America – are changing. The culture wants this. Culture is colliding with truth. That’s at the heart of this.”

Modder recalled an incident that occurred when he first arrived on the base. He was about to deliver the invocation at a graduation ceremony when the captain pulled him aside.

“He looked at me and said, ‘Hey chaplain – do not pray in Jesus’ name,’” he recalled.

Modder said he understands the firestorm he is about to enter – but he remains resolute.

“Every fiber in my being wants to run away from this – but if I do I’m not being obedient to the Lord,” he told me. “I need to stand up for righteousness and this is something I cannot walk away from.”

The reality is that many other chaplains could find themselves in Chaplain Modder’s shoes. The Roman Catholic church and the Southern Baptist convention have nearly identical positions on the issues that the Navy found problematic with Modder.

“It’s going to be a hard road for me,” he said. “But it’s what God has called me to do.”

Ultimately, it’s about leaving a legacy and setting an example for his family – his wife and four young children.

The day he was relieved of his duties, Chaplain Modder’s 14-year-old son tagged along to help pack up his dad’s office. A few senior enlisted men were there as well.

As they were driving away, the boy told his father that the enlisted men had spoken to him.

“They told my son that ‘you can be proud of your father because he’s keeping the faith,’” Modder said. “The whole command knows that Chaplain Modder is keeping the faith.”

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/03/09/former-seals-chaplain-could-be-kicked-out-navy-for-christian-beliefs/


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: headhuntersix on March 26, 2015, 11:10:08 AM
Some of this is wrong but if you go to a chaplain for this kind of thing they don't leave their beliefs at the door. There are other alternatives to this. I don't understand why a gay junior officer was in the chaplains's office in the first place.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 26, 2015, 11:12:47 AM
Some of this is wrong but if you go to a chaplain for this kind of thing they don't leave their beliefs at the door. There are other alternatives to this. I don't understand why a gay junior officer was in the chaplains's office in the first place.

Probably to set him up. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: headhuntersix on March 26, 2015, 11:16:04 AM
I'm pretty secular....I always ask a chaplain what he is..so I know how much my Irish Catholic mouth can get away with.  I have really never run into this.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 26, 2015, 11:18:10 AM
If someone seeks the advice and counsel of a Christian chaplain, they should not be surprised or offended when he talks about his Christian beliefs. 

But there is an effort to silence those folks (both in the military and out).  Talk about the tail wagging the dog. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Al Doggity on March 26, 2015, 11:20:38 AM
Wow.  Breaking news.  Except for my post about this on the previous page.


There were several complaints. Not just 1.  ::)


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: headhuntersix on March 26, 2015, 11:22:50 AM
Yeah and I suspect that the first few went away and then he was targeted. Oddly enough that shit happens now.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 26, 2015, 11:24:19 AM
There were several complaints. Not just 1.  ::)

Really?  You must have learned that from the article I posted.   ::)


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Al Doggity on March 26, 2015, 11:26:30 AM
Really?  You must have learned that from the article I posted.   ::)

Neither of the articles you posted list the other complaints.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 26, 2015, 11:31:14 AM
Neither of the articles you posted list the other complaints.

You mean it didn't say this?  “On multiple occasions he discriminated against students who were of different faiths and backgrounds,” the Chaplain’s commanding Officer Capt. Jon R. Fahs wrote in a memorandum obtained by Fox News.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Al Doggity on March 26, 2015, 11:41:55 AM
You mean it didn't say this?  “On multiple occasions he discriminated against students who were of different faiths and backgrounds,” the Chaplain’s commanding Officer Capt. Jon R. Fahs wrote in a memorandum obtained by Fox News.


That's hardly a list and both articles heavily implied that everything came down to one case.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on April 23, 2015, 11:04:12 AM
Liberals can be such pansies.  Afraid of opposing viewpoints. 

Growing trend of students protesting campus speakers they don't agree with
Published April 23, 2015
FoxNews.com

MEGYN KELLY, HOST: Another report tonight from an American college campus where some students want to silence a speaker they don't happen to agree with.

Students at a public university in Texas are petitioning against their own Governor Greg Abbott as their graduation speaker because they say, well, he's just not diverse enough and does "not align the spirit" of the University of North Texas.

In just the last two -- the last week, I should say, two other colleges were at the center of controversy after students protested a conservative author who had been invited to speak about sexual assault.

Students complained that her mere presence was offensive they needed to spoke trigger warnings on campus, so people could get prepared to deal with their upset.

Joining me now -- warning, here she comes, that author. Cristina Hoff Sommers, who is outspoken feminist and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Great to see you, Christina.

(CROSSTALK)

CHRISTINA HOFF SOMMERS, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE SCHOLAR: Great to be here.

KELLY: They only have that label feminist because you're the kind of feminist they believed in and you don't say the stuff they want to say. And therefore, they want you to check your mouth. And if you don't check your mouth then everyone needs to be held before you come on campus and told that they can go to their safe space if you have the nerve to show up.

SOMMERS: Yes they have to -- they have safe rooms where they go. At Brown University, for example, they have played-doh and bubbles and tape recordings of puppy dogs, it is so infantilizing (ph). It is so shocking to me as a philosophy professor, that free speech, free expression, I mean, the campus has become a hostile environment for free expression.

KELLY: As I understand it, when you were going to Georgetown University to speak, they had to create safe zone for people who are so overwhelmed by your presence there. It's like I can't...

(CROSSTALK)

SOMMERS: And Kelly when they wanted...

KELLY: And in the meantime you had been receiving so many threats for your mere appearance. They had to give you a security guard to maintain your actual physical safety.

SOMMERS: I don't know if there were threats but the tone of the criticism is on Facebook postings and other places alarmed the campus authorities so they thought perhaps I need protection from these safe spacers.

KELLY: Did they give you a play-doh? I mean, were like a -- did you authorize.

SOMMERS: I sort of it -- I would say it went over, I wouldn't reminded going to their safe room because it was so intense. I walk into the hall and it's filled. They kept changing the room because there were greater numbers of people wanted to come to protest leaving on campus. The room was filled with people with posters and placards and then the...

(CROSSTALK)

KELLY: It's like we are ruining the upcoming generation. Life doesn't involve only people who think the way you think college students. You have to kind of get used to people with opposing views.

SOMMERS: Exactly. And you know, it used to be people would come and debate me or they wouldn't like my views. Now, they say I pose a threat to their safety. And I'm moderate liberal feminist. There is nothing incendiary about my views. That's what also shocking as the...

KELLY: You don't buy the full dogma about things like the numbers about sexual assaults in campus neither just Brit Hume, neither do a lot of people who aren't sexists or misogynist.

SOMMERS: Neither do a lot of -- if campus feminist who speak out against it. But as one professor did at Northwestern, Laura Kepner, she spoke out against the sort of rape culture rhetoric in the trigger warnings in the chronicle of higher education. Well, her article triggered students and they are demanding that she be sanctioned and it's very bad. It's a real threat to freedom.

KELLY: You know it -- I end this segment with the profound words of my old trainer, Dave, back in the day when I still worked out. Toughen up, buttercup. That's what those college students need to be told. Christina, good to see you.

SOMMERS: Thank you.

http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2015/04/23/growing-trend-students-protesting-campus-speakers-dont-agree-with/


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on April 23, 2015, 11:05:23 AM
Univ Students Want Gov. Abbott Removed as Graduation Speaker
Apr 22, 2015

University of North Texas students have created a petition asking school officials to replace Gov. Greg Abbott as the keynote speaker for the spring commencement ceremony.

The petition on Change.org has garnered more than 2,495 signatures. It focuses on the fact that some students have political disagreements with the Republican governor.

“The University of North Texas’ student body is made up of students from all walks of life,” the petition reads. “Therefore, it is pivotal that our keynote speaker be someone who reflects not only our student population but our views on equality and representation. Governor Abbott is an advocate for immigration reform, border patrol, and anti-equal marriage laws.”

The creators of the petition also stated that Abbott's views do “not align the spirit of the University of North Texas which prides itself in providing equal opportunities for their students.”

Neal Smatresk, the university's president, told the Star-Telegram that he's not going to replace Abbott with another speaker.

Read more from the Star-Telegram:

“He’s a new governor, he’s supportive of higher education,” said Smatresk, who became UNT’s president last year. “Why wouldn’t we want to celebrate the success of our institution in its 125th year with him?

“I feel it’s a great way to celebrate.”

Despite the controversy swirling around his appearance — most via social media — Abbott plans to honor his commitment.

“Gov. Abbott is honored to accept the invitation to address the University of North Texas’ commencement, and he looks forward to recognizing the great work UNT is doing to elevate Texas’ higher education system, as well as the contributions that the UNT Class of 2015 will make to build a better future for Texas,” said Amelia Chasse, press secretary for the governor.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/04/22/texas-university-students-want-gov-greg-abbott-removed-graduation-speaker


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on May 28, 2015, 11:42:35 AM
The marketplace of ideas, so long as they are liberal ideas.  Some liberals can be so weak minded.

Texas student sues after college bans gun rights sign
By  Maxim Lott
Published May 28, 2015
FoxNews.com

A Texas college student filed suit against her school this week, saying her constitutional rights were violated when she was shooed off the quad for displaying a pro-Second Amendment sign.

Nicole Sanders, 24, who attends Blinn College, a two-year public college in Brenham, Texas, said she and a classmate at the 18,000-student school were holding signs near the student center in February when they were told to move. Sanders' sign read, “Defend Gun Rights on Campus,” and the other said “LOL,” with President Obama’s logo as the “O.” The pair was trying to attract members for a student group they were forming, a chapter of Young Americans for Liberty.

Sanders claims a college official accompanied by three armed campus police officers approached and said someone had complained that their display was offensive and that they wouldn’t be allowed to do it again unless they got “special permission.” According to Sanders, the official added that it was unlikely such permission would be granted to advocate for gun rights.

“When you have to get a permit before you can speak, it shuts down ideas – everything gets censored through the administrators,” Sanders, who is studying political science, told FoxNews.com. "It's unconstitutional for a public university to limit speech to one area of campus. I think that college should be a marketplace of ideas.”


"When you have to get permit before you can speak, it shuts down ideas."

- Nicole Sanders, Blinn College student

There was an option, Sanders says she was told. She and her classmate, Chris Bradford, who is not part of the suit, could display their signs at a “free speech area” off to the side of the campus center, roughly the size of two parking spaces, where few would see her.

“You only get so many people there,” Sanders told FoxNews.com.

Her lawsuit, which is being filed in federal court in Austin with the help of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), also alleges that her ceramics professor, David Peck, tried to intimidate her into not suing the school. The suit alleges that he warned her that he would “protect me and mine” from accusations against Blinn College and that Sanders “better think” before taking further action.

Blinn College student Nicole Sanders, (l.), is suing after school officials told her she could not display the sign shown at right in a heavily-trafficked area of campus. (Courtesy: FIRE/Jenifer Morris)

Peck did not respond to a request for comment Friday. University spokesman Jeff Tilley said the school is evaluating its policies.

“We certainly will take this opportunity to evaluate our policies as they are written and as they are applied by faculty and staff," Tilley said. "We will evaluate whether any misunderstandings may have occurred. Because of our commitment to our students and to the law, we are confident that we will be able to resolve any concerns that have been raised.”

Tilley said the school has a policy not to discriminate based on politics, but that it can have reasonable restrictions to ensure order.

“Blinn College is allowed to implement what the courts call “time, place and manner” regulations to ensure that the operations of the college, including classes in session, are not disrupted,” he said.

First Amendment legal experts say Sanders has a strong case if they can show other types of speech were permitted in the same area.

"If they can prove that they were specially denied because they were for gun rights, then it would be unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination,” Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA who specializes in the First Amendment, told FoxNews.com.

He added that it also was constitutional in another way.

“On government property, even in an airport outside the security cordon, bans on leafleting and other 'low footprint' speech would be unconstitutional,” he said.

Despite that, such bans are common on universities. Volokh attributes that to a bureaucratic mindset.

“Colleges are government institutions. They are run by people who see their primary job as making everything run smoothly, with a minimum of complaints and a minimum of upset. It takes publicity, and often a lawsuit, for them to realize ‘Well, there is this legal rule that we need to be following,'" he said.

FIRE often files such lawsuits, and recently won a case against the University of Hawaii, which tried to ban students from handing out the U.S. Constitution in most areas of campus, and only reversed course after being sued.

Sanders' lawyer is optimistic about this case.

“Blinn College thinks it’s acceptable to have a free speech zone that is the size of a parking spot," FIRE lawyer Catherine Sevcenko said. "But the Constitution’s free speech zone is the size of the United States.”

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/05/28/texas-student-sues-after-college-bans-gun-rights-sign/?intcmp=latestnews


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on June 08, 2015, 09:52:51 AM
Shocking at Vox: 'I'm a Liberal Professor, and My Liberal Students Terrify Me'
By Laura Flint | June 6, 2015

A top article trending on Vox, an exclusively online (and leftward leaning) news platform is entitled "I'm a liberal professor, and my liberal students terrify me." According to a professor of a "mid-size state school" who preferred to remain anonymous to protect his job, "The student-teacher dynamic has been re-envisioned along a line that's simultaneously consumerist and hyper-protective, giving each and every student the ability to claim Grievous Harm in nearly any circumstance, after any affront, and a teacher's formal ability to respond to these claims is limited at best."

Of course for anyone paying a speck of attention to the free speech environments of American campuses, this is nothing new. In 2012, George Will penned an article in The Washington Post entitled "Colleges have free speech on the run." He described, "The right never to be annoyed, a new campus entitlement" and the "Legions of administrators, who now outnumber full-time faculty, are kept busy making students mind their manners, with good manners understood as conformity to liberal politics."

Meanwhile FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), whose president Greg Lukianoff describes himself as "a liberal, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, lifelong Democrat," has been trying to bring the lack of free speech on public and private college campuses to public attention since its founding in 1999.

But no matter. Now that college intellectual oppression is affecting not only the few conservative professors who dared to enter the polarized world of American academia but also liberal professors, some in the liberal media are prepared to listen.

The professor described the he fear he held that students would rate him poorly on evaluations or report him for insensitivity to the administration if he assigned readings that "affect the student's emotional state." He pointed to "a simplistic, unworkable, and ultimately stifling conception of social justice" that focuses on emotions, as the culprit for turning millennial students into fragile flowers.

According to the professor, this trend toward ever-increasing censorship "affects liberal, socially conscious teachers much more than conservative ones." It remains unclear how that logic pans out. However, he also believes these conservative professors will be liberal academia's savior from itself, as "there's nothing much to do other than sit on our hands and wait for the ascension of conservative political backlash."

PS: The Wall Street Journal had the story of students going after liberal prof Laura Kipnis for an essay on "growing sexual paranoia" on campuses.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/laura-flint/2015/06/06/shocking-vox-im-liberal-professor-and-my-liberal-students-terrify-me#sthash.9tTY8l27.dpuf


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on September 07, 2015, 01:21:19 PM
Navy bans chaplain from ministering to family of dead sailor
By Todd Starnes
Published March 24, 2015
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Opinion/876/493/660-Modder-praying-LI.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Chaplain Wes Modder prays over Navy service members. (Courtesy Liberty Institute)
It really takes a special kind of lowlife to stop a chaplain from ministering to the family and colleagues of a dead sailor.

But that’s exactly what happened last week at Naval Nuclear Power Training Command in Goose Creek, S.C., according to attorneys representing Chaplain Wes Modder.

It’s become clear to me Navy leadership cannot be trusted to protect religious liberty within the ranks. It’s time for our elected officials to intervene before Chaplain Modder’s commander brings more embarrassment and shame to the Armed Forces.

“For this Navy to bar a chaplain from comforting and ministering to sailors and families is a reprehensible violation of religious freedom and common human decency,” said Kelly Shackelford, the president of Liberty Institute, a law firm that specializes in religious liberty cases.

Some quick background before I explain what happened:

Chaplain Modder is facing the end of a stellar, 19-year-career in the Navy because he expressed his faith-based views on marriage and human sexuality during private counseling sessions with sailors.

Last December, a gay officer took offense at Christian chaplain’s take on homosexuality. Modder, who is endorsed by the Assemblies of God, was accused of discrimination and failing to show tolerance and respect, among other things.

Just a few months earlier, Modder’s commander had called him the “best of the best” and a “consummate professional leader.” But now he’s on the verge of being kicked out of the military.

Modder was relieved of his duties and temporarily reassigned pending the outcome of an investigation. The Navy has since denied the chaplain’s request to be reinstated.  for religious accommodation.

So that brings us to an incident that occurred last week, when a sailor in Modder’s previous unit unexpectedly died.

Liberty Institute attorney Michael Berry tells me Modder was about to reach out to the sailor’s grieving family when he was stopped by a member of the command.

He was slapped with a “no contact” order – the Navy’s version of a restraining order – banning him from providing counsel or ministering to any members of his unit.

“This Navy official is using the ‘no contact’ order as a weapon to punish and humiliate a decorated military chaplain,” Berry said. “To deny Chaplain Modder of the ability to minister to a grieving family and other sailors is deplorable.”

The Navy went so far as to banish Modder from the base on the day of the sailor’s memorial service. The chaplain said that was adding “insult to injury.”

“One of the most important things chaplains do is to provide comfort and care after a tragic death,” Modder said. “I am heartbroken for the family, and yet the Navy won’t allow me to do my job of helping them grieve and mourn.”

It’s beyond me why the Navy would treat a Marine and highly decorated chaplain with such derision. This is a man who was deployed multiple times during the War on Terror. This is a man who once led chaplains who ministered to Navy SEALs.

Tens of thousands of Americans have petitioned the Pentagon to reinstate Modder, and a number of high profile-political and religious figures – including Mike Huckabee, Sen. Ted Cruz, Franklin Graham and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins – have offered their support.

I reached out to the Chief of Chaplains’ office for comment, but they did not return my call. I can only hope the reason is because they are just as speechless as I am.

It’s become clear to me that Navy leadership cannot be trusted to protect religious liberty within the ranks. It’s time for our elected officials to intervene, before Chaplain Modder’s commander brings more embarrassment and shame to the Armed Forces.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/03/24/navy-bans-chaplain-from-ministering-to-family-dead-sailor/

Navy exonerates chaplain accused of being anti-gay
By Todd Starnes 
Published September 04, 2015

(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/opinion/2015/09/04/navy-exonerates-chaplain-accused-being-anti-gay/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1441399349199.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Wes Modder

A Navy chaplain accused of failing to show “tolerance and respect” toward gay sailors has been cleared of all wrongdoing and will not be removed from the military.

“I am relieved the Navy sided with me,” Lt. Cmdr. Wes Modder told me.

Join Todd’s American Dispatch - a Must-Read for Conservatives

Modder, a highly decorated veteran who once ministered to an elite Navy SEAL unit, had been given a “detachment for cause” letter in February.

He was removed from his job after his commander accused him of being intolerant and unable to “function in the diverse and pluralistic environment” of the Naval Nuclear Power Training Command in Goose Creek, S.C.

“On multiple occasions he discriminated against students who were of different faiths and backgrounds,” wrote Capt. Jon R. Fahs, the chaplain’s commanding officer, in a memorandum obtained by Fox News.

Navy Personnel Command rejected the commander’s recommendation to fire Modder, Military Times reported.

“There is no documentation of poor performance in his personnel record,” one unnamed officer told the newspaper.

Instead, the chaplain, who is endorsed by the Assemblies of God, was cleared of all wrongdoing and will be allowed to retire — marking the end of nearly 20 years of military service.

“This is not only a great day for Chaplain Modder, but for every American who supports religious freedom in our military,” said Michael Berry, the chaplain’s attorney.

Berry is an attorney with Liberty Institute, one of the nation’s largest law firms specializing in religious liberty cases. They partnered with the law firm of WilmerHale to defend Modder.

“Although Captain Fahs’ actions against Chaplain Modder violated the Constitution, federal law and military regulations, we are grateful that Navy officials categorically rejected those actions,” Berry said.

“We believed this would be the outcome from day one.”Berry said the popular Navy chaplain was the victim of a setup.

Earlier this year, a gay married officer was assigned to be Modder’s assistant. The assistant initiated the complaint against the chaplain because of his views on homosexuality and same-sex relationships.

“I believe some of what the lieutenant has alleged could constitute a military crime - false statements, taking what the chaplain said and twisting or misconstruing it in an attempt to get the chaplain punished,” Berry told me.

Modder had also been accused of telling a woman that she was “shaming herself in the eyes of God” for having premarital sex and for berating an unmarried student for becoming pregnant.

Liberty Institute President Kelly Shackelford commended the Navy for exonerating their client and called it a victory for religious liberty.

“We always knew that when the facts came to light, the Navy would exonerate Chaplain Modder,” Shackelford said. “Religious liberty is our first freedom and essential for our men and women in uniform.

”It’s unfortunate that a good man like Chaplain Wes Modder has been subjected to public scorn and ridicule because of a young officer’s witch hunt. However, truth won the day and Chaplain Modder should be commended for his courage under fire and his long years of service to the United States Armed Forces."

And let this be a warning to those officers who might try to target other military chaplains. Your misdeeds will be exposed.

“We hope this sends a strong signal to military commanders — violating religious liberty will not be tolerated,” Shackelford told me. 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/09/04/navy-exonerates-chaplain-accused-being-anti-gay.html


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on October 12, 2015, 10:46:39 AM
D.N.C. Officer Says She Was Disinvited From Debate After Calling for More of Them
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2015/10/13/us/12firstdraft-dnc/12firstdraft-dnc-tmagArticle.jpg)
Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, a vice chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, said she was disinvited from the first Democratic presidential primary debate in Nevada after she appeared on television and called for more face-offs.

Ms. Gabbard confirmed on Sunday that her chief of staff received a message last Tuesday from the chief of staff to Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairwoman of the national committee, about her attendance at the debate. A day earlier, Ms. Gabbard had appeared on MSNBC and said there should be an increase beyond the current six sanctioned debates.

A person close to the committee who asked for anonymity to discuss internal discussions insisted, however, that Ms. Gabbard had not been disinvited. Instead, the person said, an aide to Ms. Wasserman Schultz expressed a desire to keep the focus on the candidates as the debate approached, rather than on a “distraction” that could divide the party, and suggested that if Ms. Gabbard could not do that, she should reconsider going.

Ms. Gabbard insisted otherwise.

“When I first came to Washington, one of the things that I was disappointed about was there’s a lot of immaturity and petty gamesmanship that goes on, and it kind of reminds me of how high school teenagers act,” Ms. Gabbard said in a telephone interview on Sunday night. She said she would watch the debate in her district in Hawaii, which elected her to her second term last year.

“It’s very dangerous when we have people in positions of leadership who use their power to try to quiet those who disagree with them,” she added. “When I signed up to be vice chair of the D.N.C., no one told me I would be relinquishing my freedom of speech and checking it at the door.”

Holly Shulman, a spokeswoman for the committee, said the desire was to allow the Democrats to present a clear contrast with the Republicans.

“The focus of the debate in Nevada as well as the other debates and forums in the coming weeks should be on the candidates who will take the stage, and their vision to move America forward,” she said. “All that was asked of Ms. Gabbard’s staff was to prioritize our candidates and this important opportunity they have to introduce themselves to the American people. The Democratic Party is a big-tent party, and we embrace the diversity of opinions and ideas that come from our members.”

Ms. Gabbard and R.T. Rybak, a committee vice chairman and a former mayor of Minneapolis, have for weeks publicly called for more debates.

“More and more people on the ground from states all across the country are calling for more debates, are wanting to have this transparency and greater engagement in our democratic process at a critical time, as they make the decision of who should be the next person to lead our country,” Ms. Gabbard said in her MSNBC appearance.

The next day, two people briefed on the conversations said, the chief of staff to Ms. Wasserman Schultz reached out to her counterpart in Ms. Gabbard’s office about attending the debate. Weeks earlier, Ms. Gabbard had said she would like tickets for herself and a guest to the Nevada debate, the one closest to Hawaii.

The person close to the committee insisted: “She was not uninvited. The D.N.C. team wanted this first debate to have all the focus on the candidates. Gabbard’s people were told that if they couldn’t commit to that, since Tulsi was trying to publicly divide the D.N.C. leadership last week, then they should consider not coming.”

The person added, “The fact that she is still making this about her and not our great candidates by talking to The New York Times says something unfortunate.”

Ms. Gabbard said the only issue raised had been “the fact that I had publicly disagreed” with Ms. Wasserman Schultz.

“This isn’t about any one person,” Ms. Gabbard said. “It’s about how the Democratic Party should be representing democratic values, allowing for free speech and open debate within our party, and for more transparency and debates for our presidential candidates.”

“All of our candidates agree with my position,” she added.

Former Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, who has been struggling to gain traction in the Democratic primary contest, has been calling for more debates and has accused Ms. Wasserman Schultz of trying to benefit the leader in the polls, Hillary Rodham Clinton, by limiting debates. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has also called for more debates, although he has not been as adamant as Mr. O’Malley has.

People who disagree with Mr. O’Malley have pointed out that he infrequently debated his challenger for governor in Maryland. And they note the number of sanctioned debates is the same as in the 2008 race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

But there were more than a dozen unsanctioned debates and forums back then. This time, the candidates could be excluded from the sanctioned debates if they take part in ones that are not approved by the national committee.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/12/d-n-c-officer-says-she-was-disinvited-from-debate-after-calling-for-more-of-them/?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on October 14, 2015, 01:03:26 PM
D.N.C. Officer Says She Was Disinvited From Debate After Calling for More of Them
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2015/10/13/us/12firstdraft-dnc/12firstdraft-dnc-tmagArticle.jpg)
Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, a vice chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, said she was disinvited from the first Democratic presidential primary debate in Nevada after she appeared on television and called for more face-offs.

Ms. Gabbard confirmed on Sunday that her chief of staff received a message last Tuesday from the chief of staff to Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairwoman of the national committee, about her attendance at the debate. A day earlier, Ms. Gabbard had appeared on MSNBC and said there should be an increase beyond the current six sanctioned debates.

A person close to the committee who asked for anonymity to discuss internal discussions insisted, however, that Ms. Gabbard had not been disinvited. Instead, the person said, an aide to Ms. Wasserman Schultz expressed a desire to keep the focus on the candidates as the debate approached, rather than on a “distraction” that could divide the party, and suggested that if Ms. Gabbard could not do that, she should reconsider going.

Ms. Gabbard insisted otherwise.

“When I first came to Washington, one of the things that I was disappointed about was there’s a lot of immaturity and petty gamesmanship that goes on, and it kind of reminds me of how high school teenagers act,” Ms. Gabbard said in a telephone interview on Sunday night. She said she would watch the debate in her district in Hawaii, which elected her to her second term last year.

“It’s very dangerous when we have people in positions of leadership who use their power to try to quiet those who disagree with them,” she added. “When I signed up to be vice chair of the D.N.C., no one told me I would be relinquishing my freedom of speech and checking it at the door.”

Holly Shulman, a spokeswoman for the committee, said the desire was to allow the Democrats to present a clear contrast with the Republicans.

“The focus of the debate in Nevada as well as the other debates and forums in the coming weeks should be on the candidates who will take the stage, and their vision to move America forward,” she said. “All that was asked of Ms. Gabbard’s staff was to prioritize our candidates and this important opportunity they have to introduce themselves to the American people. The Democratic Party is a big-tent party, and we embrace the diversity of opinions and ideas that come from our members.”

Ms. Gabbard and R.T. Rybak, a committee vice chairman and a former mayor of Minneapolis, have for weeks publicly called for more debates.

“More and more people on the ground from states all across the country are calling for more debates, are wanting to have this transparency and greater engagement in our democratic process at a critical time, as they make the decision of who should be the next person to lead our country,” Ms. Gabbard said in her MSNBC appearance.

The next day, two people briefed on the conversations said, the chief of staff to Ms. Wasserman Schultz reached out to her counterpart in Ms. Gabbard’s office about attending the debate. Weeks earlier, Ms. Gabbard had said she would like tickets for herself and a guest to the Nevada debate, the one closest to Hawaii.

The person close to the committee insisted: “She was not uninvited. The D.N.C. team wanted this first debate to have all the focus on the candidates. Gabbard’s people were told that if they couldn’t commit to that, since Tulsi was trying to publicly divide the D.N.C. leadership last week, then they should consider not coming.”

The person added, “The fact that she is still making this about her and not our great candidates by talking to The New York Times says something unfortunate.”

Ms. Gabbard said the only issue raised had been “the fact that I had publicly disagreed” with Ms. Wasserman Schultz.

“This isn’t about any one person,” Ms. Gabbard said. “It’s about how the Democratic Party should be representing democratic values, allowing for free speech and open debate within our party, and for more transparency and debates for our presidential candidates.”

“All of our candidates agree with my position,” she added.

Former Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, who has been struggling to gain traction in the Democratic primary contest, has been calling for more debates and has accused Ms. Wasserman Schultz of trying to benefit the leader in the polls, Hillary Rodham Clinton, by limiting debates. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has also called for more debates, although he has not been as adamant as Mr. O’Malley has.

People who disagree with Mr. O’Malley have pointed out that he infrequently debated his challenger for governor in Maryland. And they note the number of sanctioned debates is the same as in the 2008 race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

But there were more than a dozen unsanctioned debates and forums back then. This time, the candidates could be excluded from the sanctioned debates if they take part in ones that are not approved by the national committee.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/12/d-n-c-officer-says-she-was-disinvited-from-debate-after-calling-for-more-of-them/?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

DNC Vice Chair: Wasserman Schultz "Saying Things That Aren't True," Told Me Stop Calling For More Debates
Posted on October 13, 2015

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), vice-chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, talks to NBC's Andrea Mitchell about DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz telling her not to come to the first Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas.

 "I was on your network, MSNBC, talking on Meet the Press Daily about how we do need more debates," Gabbard said. "The same thing that I have been saying now for several weeks. And the very next day got a message saying that if I'm going to continue talking about that, that I shouldn't go to the debate."

 "It's not surprising to me that she is saying things that aren't true," Gabbard added.

 Wasserman Schultz disputes this is the case, saying Gabbard "chose not to come because I guess she can't."

 Andrea Mitchell asked Gabbard if she will stay at the DNC in her leadership position.

 "You just called her a liar for all intents and purposes," Mitchell said.

ANDREA MITCHELL: Congresswoman, what happened here? [Wasserman Schultz] says that it's not the case that you were not told you couldn't come, that she simply wanted you to stop discussing the debate structure and discuss the issues.

 REP. TULSI GABBARD (D-HI): Good morning, Andrea. Aloha from Hawaii. I can't say much more than to say that that's just not true. I was on your network, MSNBC, talking on Meet the Press Daily about how we do need more debates. The same thing that I have been saying now for several weeks. And the very next day got a message saying that if I'm going to continue talking about that, that I shouldn't go to the debate. It's not surprising to me that she is saying things that aren't true.

 About a month ago, shortly after I called for more debates, the chairwoman said publicly that she had communicated and consulted with vice chairs and officers of the DNC prior to making her decision, both about the number of debates as well as this retribution policy of the exclusivity clause.

 The fact is, there was no communication or no consultation with the vice chairs and officers, of which I am one, so it's unfortunate that she continues to say things that aren't true but what I would like to focus on is the issue of democracy, the issue of freedom of speech which is really the core principle here in my call for more debates and in my call to get rid of this retribution policy that punishes these very serious presidential candidates from going out and engaging the American people across the country in different forums and different debates if they do so outside of the six DNC-sanctioned debates.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/10/13/dnc_vice_chair_wasserman_schultz_saying_things_that_arent_true_told_me_stop_calling_for_more_debates.html


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on October 23, 2015, 10:07:15 AM
Campus paper budget yanked in dust-up over ‘Black Lives Matter’ op-ed

(http://twt-thumbs.washtimes.com/media/image/2015/10/20/argus_c0-171-2649-1715_s561x327.jpg?ca53a159b28eacee3ceac46f296bd68fb4ae8e97)
The Wesleyan Argus student newspaper is displayed Thursday, Sept. 24, 2015, on the campus of Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn. The student government for the liberal arts school is weighing a petition to strip The Argus of funding after some objected to an opinion piece it published on the Black Lives Matter movement.  (AP Photo/Michael Melia)

By Valerie Richardson
The Washington Times
Tuesday, October 20, 2015

The Wesleyan University student government has voted to slash funding for the school newspaper following widespread criticism over an op-ed criticizing the Black Lives Matter movement.

The resolution, passed Sunday by a vote of 27-0 by the Wesleyan Student Assembly, cuts the $30,000 annual budget for The Wesleyan Argus in half and redistributes it among the campus’ five publications through the creation of 20 work-study positions in student media.

Junior Alex Garcia, who introduced the proposal, said the resolution was aimed at reducing paper waste and attracting “students of all backgrounds into media,” but the effort was widely viewed as an act of retaliation against the 147-year-old campus newspaper.

“Questioning ‘Black Lives Matter’ costs student paper $17K,” said conservative website Campus Reform in a headline.

Wesleyan President Michael S. Roth issued a statement Monday warning that “any decision about student publications made in the wake of a controversial op-ed should be understood with real caution.”

Mr. Roth added in a Tuesday post on Twitter: “I believe students will realize it’s a big mistake to cut newspaper funding, and they can find ways to support alternative publications.”

The uproar on the Middletown, Connecticut, campus was touched off by sophomore Bryan Stascavage’s Sept. 15 opinion piece headlined “Why Black Lives Matter Isn’t What You Think,” in which he sympathized with some of the movement’s goals but criticized it for “the vilification and denigration of the police force.”

Two days later, the newspaper issued an apology, saying the article contained “flaws,” and promised to run a “Black Out Issue” written only by “students of color.” Even so, the damage was done.

Students launched a petition campaign accusing the newspaper of failing to “provide a safe space for the voices of students of color” and calling for a boycott, along with demands that the newspaper staff complete “social justice/diversity” training and reserve front-page space for “marginalized groups/voices.”

“I know change will take time, but by passing this proposal we can’t say we didn’t try to make the concrete structural changes necessary to start addressing the problem of diversity and inclusion in publications,” said Mr. Garcia in an online video on behalf of the resolution.

The Argus editorial staff had urged the student government to vote down the resolution, saying that the editors had participated in “Social Justice Education Training,” and that “we are in the process of developing a new Editor of Equity and Inclusion position, as well as new outreach programs.”

“These initiatives can’t transform The Argus right away, but transformation takes time,” said the editorial. “This is where the resolution fails: It is reactionary and therefore disregards its broader implications.”

Other students and alumni criticized the newspaper for what they described as caving to political pressure.

“As a former editor on the Argus, I am troubled by this apology,” said Rebecca Schiff, class of 2001, in a comment on the newspaper’s website. “You work on a newspaper. It’s a dinky, barely readable newspaper, but it’s still a newspaper. Reporters and editors have fought for the freedom to say what they want in many countries, including ours.

“You don’t need to apologize if people disagree with an op-ed that you print,” she said. “Apologies like this reflect a totalitarian culture that you must fight. I say this as a left-winger who strongly supports Black Lives Matter.”

The Argus publishes twice a week with a paper distribution of 3,000 copies, which would be reduced to 2,400 copies under the resolution.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/20/wesleyan-students-slash-campus-newspaper-budget-af/?page=all


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on October 27, 2015, 10:10:02 AM
Cornell University Kicks Jesse Watters Off Campus for Asking About Liberal Bias
Published October 26, 2015

Fox Nation:

Jesse Watters crashed Cornell University to test students on their liberal “indoctrination” after a report claimed that 96 percent of Cornell professors donated to Democrats. However, in the middle of the regular “Watters’ World” questioning, Jesse was kicked off the campus because Cornell media relations had not grant him permission to interview students.

“We ask that you don’t interview students on campus,” Melissa Osgood, Cornell’s deputy director of media relations said.

“Cornell doesn’t have a problem with Fox News, does it?” Watters asked.

“Absolutely not,” Osgood said.

After Watters asked repeatedly, even the senior director of Cornell media relations would not budge, saying that Fox News could not interview students “on campus” and that he would send Watters a statement.

Still, before Watters' ejection, he did get some questions in to some students.
 

Jesse: What’s the vibe on campus?

“A very diverse campus – a bunch of different people from a bunch of different backgrounds.”

Jesse: It’s not that diverse, because according to this report, 96 percent of the donations from faculty here went to Democrats.

“What’s wrong with that?”

 
Jesse: Do you ever feel the professors are pushing a political agenda here?

“I’ve got friends who are liberal arts majors –  they write a paper and they bring up a conservative viewpoint, they won’t get a good grade.”

“If I want an A, I tailor my paper to how the professor leans.”

 
Jesse: 95 percent is kinda high.

“It’s really high.”
 
Jesse: Your brain is a sponge right now, and I’m worried that these teachers are starting to have a chilling effect.

“Uh…”


Jesse: I’m going to give you a test to see if you’ve been indoctrinated and how bad it is. Do you think we should build a wall on the Southern border to protect against the illegal alien invasion?

[laughter]

“The invasion…”

“Make it out of ice.”

Jesse: That’s not very smart from a Cornell student.

“Well, it’s because I’m indoctrinated, so I know nothing.”

Jesse: So you’d be okay with Guatemalans coming into your dorm room and sleeping on your floor?

“Okay, no.”

Jesse: What is the national debt right now?

“200 million.”

Jesse: 18 Trillion. Professors aren’t tell you the truth.

“Maybe not.”

 
Jesse: What do you think about Hillary Clinton?

“After the whole email scandal, I’ve lost a lot of trust in her.”
 

Jesse: Do you trust Hillary?

“Yes.”

Jesse: Then why did she lie about the Benghazi attacks being about a video when she knew it was about a terrorist attack?

“Huh…”

“I don’t think that she was lying at all to the American public.”


Jesse: Sanders – you feelin’ the Bern?

“I feel like Hillary will give him the burn.”

 
O’Reilly’s Take:

O'Reilly: "They hated you."

Jesse: They did.

O'Reilly: "There's no doubt about it. Did the guy tell you why you couldn't shoot?"

Jesse: Finally I got a statement. It didn't say why I couldn't shoot, it just says Cornell does not consider a person's political stance in its hiring practices.

O'Reilly: "You didn't ask them anything about that."

Jesse: Maybe they should if 96% are Democrats.

O'Reilly: "Don't they know they looked 18 times worse not having you question?"

Jesse: Maybe after they hire some conservative professors, they can hire a new PR team.

O'Reilly: "They told me the real reason they didn't want you on campus."

Jesse: What was that?

O'Reilly: "You had mittens...That offended almost everybody."

http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/10/26/cornell-university-kicks-jesse-watters-campus-asking-about-liberal-bias


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on November 09, 2015, 03:47:54 PM
I have no words.   :-\

Yale’s Halloween Advice Stokes a Racially Charged Debate
By LIAM STACK
NOV. 8, 2015

Weeks of simmering racial tension at Yale University boiled over in recent days into a debate over whether the administration was sensitive enough to concerns about Halloween costumes seen as culturally offensive, students and adminstrators said.

Peter Salovey, the president of Yale, said he had been left “deeply troubled” by a meeting he held with students of color last week who were “in great distress.” Many said they did not believe the university was attuned to the needs of minority students.

“The experiences they shared went beyond the incidents of the last few days,” he said in a statement. “Their concerns and cries for help made clear that some students find life on our campus profoundly difficult.”

James Ramsey, lower right, the University of Louisville president, and his wife, Jane, upper left, hosted a Halloween party in Louisville, Ky. The University of Louisville has apologized after the photo showing Ramsey among university staff members dressed in stereotypical Mexican costumes was posted online.

The debate over Halloween costumes began late last month when the university’s Intercultural Affairs Committee sent an email to the student body asking students to avoid wearing “culturally unaware and insensitive” costumes that could offend minority students. It specifically advised them to steer clear of outfits that included elements like feathered headdresses, turbans or blackface.

Students in front of the Sterling Memorial Library at Yale University. Credit Christopher Capozziello for The New York Times 

In response, Erika Christakis, a faculty member and an administrator at a student residence, wrote an email to students living in her residence hall on behalf of those she described as “frustrated” by the official advice on Halloween costumes. Students should be able to wear whatever they want, she wrote, even if they end up offending people.

An early childhood educator, she asked whether blond toddlers should be barred from being dressed as African-American or Asian characters from Disney films.

“Is there no room anymore for a child or young person to be a little bit obnoxious … a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive?” she wrote. “American universities were once a safe space not only for maturation but also for a certain regressive, or even transgressive, experience; increasingly, it seems, they have become places of censure and prohibition.”

Ms. Christakis’s email touched on a long-running debate over the balance between upholding free speech and protecting students from hurt feelings or personal offense. It also provoked a firestorm of condemnation from Yale students, hundreds of whom signed an open letter criticizing her argument that “free speech and the ability to tolerate offence” should take precedence over other considerations.

“To ask marginalized students to throw away their enjoyment of a holiday, in order to expend emotional, mental, and physical energy to explain why something is offensive, is — offensive,” the letter said. “To be a student of color on Yale’s campus is to exist in a space that was not created for you.”

Ms. Christakis’s email also led to at least one heated encounter on campus between her husband, Nicholas Christakis, a faculty member who works in the same residential college, and a large group of students who demanded that he apologize for the beliefs expressed by him and his wife, which they said failed to create a “safe space” for them.

When he was unwilling to do so, the students angrily cursed and yelled at him, according to a video posted to YouTube by a free speech group critical of the debate. On Sunday it had been viewed over 450,000 times.

“You should step down!” one student shouted at Mr. Christakis, while demanding between expletives to know why Yale had hired him in the first place. “It is not about creating an intellectual space! It is not! Do you understand that? It is about creating a home here!”

“You’re supposed to be our advocate!” another student yelled.

“You are a poor steward of this community!” the first student said before turning and walking away. “You should not sleep at night! You are disgusting.”

The debate over Halloween costumes comes at a time of escalating racial tension at college campuses across the United States. Last month, the president of the University of Louisville apologized to students after he and over a dozen friends were pictured wearing ponchos, sombreros and bushy mustaches with maracas in their hands as part of Mexican-themed Halloween costumes. And on Sunday, dozens of black football players at the University of Missouri vowed to boycott school athletic activities over the university’s handling of racial incidents unless its president resigned.

The debate has erupted against an increasingly tense racial background at Yale. The campus has seen a long-running debate over a residential college named in honor of John C. Calhoun, a 19th-century South Carolina politician, outspoken white supremacist and member of the Yale class of 1804. His name continues to adorn its graceful Gothic halls.

And one week ago a black undergraduate accused a fraternity, Sigma Alpha Epsilon, of denying her entrance to a “white girls only” party on the basis of her race, an allegation that the fraternity denies. Jonathan Holloway, the dean of Yale College, said that his office took the accusation seriously and was investigating.

In an email sent to the student body on Thursday, Mr. Holloway said that he was “fully in support” of the request that Yale students avoid culturally insensitive Halloween costumes and that he regretted the sense among some minority students that Yale had “a poisonous atmosphere.”

“We need always to be dedicated to fashioning a community that is mindful of the many traditions that make us who we are,” he wrote. “Remember that Yale belongs to all of you, and you all deserve the right to enjoy the good of this place, without worry, without threats, and without intimidation.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/09/nyregion/yale-culturally-insensitive-halloween-costumes-free-speech.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on November 09, 2015, 03:57:07 PM
Cornell University Kicks Jesse Watters Off Campus for Asking About Liberal Bias
Published October 26, 2015

Fox Nation:

Jesse Watters crashed Cornell University to test students on their liberal “indoctrination” after a report claimed that 96 percent of Cornell professors donated to Democrats. However, in the middle of the regular “Watters’ World” questioning, Jesse was kicked off the campus because Cornell media relations had not grant him permission to interview students.

“We ask that you don’t interview students on campus,” Melissa Osgood, Cornell’s deputy director of media relations said.

“Cornell doesn’t have a problem with Fox News, does it?” Watters asked.

“Absolutely not,” Osgood said.

After Watters asked repeatedly, even the senior director of Cornell media relations would not budge, saying that Fox News could not interview students “on campus” and that he would send Watters a statement.

Still, before Watters' ejection, he did get some questions in to some students.
 

Jesse: What’s the vibe on campus?

“A very diverse campus – a bunch of different people from a bunch of different backgrounds.”

Jesse: It’s not that diverse, because according to this report, 96 percent of the donations from faculty here went to Democrats.

“What’s wrong with that?”

 
Jesse: Do you ever feel the professors are pushing a political agenda here?

“I’ve got friends who are liberal arts majors –  they write a paper and they bring up a conservative viewpoint, they won’t get a good grade.”

“If I want an A, I tailor my paper to how the professor leans.”

 
Jesse: 95 percent is kinda high.

“It’s really high.”
 
Jesse: Your brain is a sponge right now, and I’m worried that these teachers are starting to have a chilling effect.

“Uh…”


Jesse: I’m going to give you a test to see if you’ve been indoctrinated and how bad it is. Do you think we should build a wall on the Southern border to protect against the illegal alien invasion?

[laughter]

“The invasion…”

“Make it out of ice.”

Jesse: That’s not very smart from a Cornell student.

“Well, it’s because I’m indoctrinated, so I know nothing.”

Jesse: So you’d be okay with Guatemalans coming into your dorm room and sleeping on your floor?

“Okay, no.”

Jesse: What is the national debt right now?

“200 million.”

Jesse: 18 Trillion. Professors aren’t tell you the truth.

“Maybe not.”

 
Jesse: What do you think about Hillary Clinton?

“After the whole email scandal, I’ve lost a lot of trust in her.”
 

Jesse: Do you trust Hillary?

“Yes.”

Jesse: Then why did she lie about the Benghazi attacks being about a video when she knew it was about a terrorist attack?

“Huh…”

“I don’t think that she was lying at all to the American public.”


Jesse: Sanders – you feelin’ the Bern?

“I feel like Hillary will give him the burn.”

 
O’Reilly’s Take:

O'Reilly: "They hated you."

Jesse: They did.

O'Reilly: "There's no doubt about it. Did the guy tell you why you couldn't shoot?"

Jesse: Finally I got a statement. It didn't say why I couldn't shoot, it just says Cornell does not consider a person's political stance in its hiring practices.

O'Reilly: "You didn't ask them anything about that."

Jesse: Maybe they should if 96% are Democrats.

O'Reilly: "Don't they know they looked 18 times worse not having you question?"

Jesse: Maybe after they hire some conservative professors, they can hire a new PR team.

O'Reilly: "They told me the real reason they didn't want you on campus."

Jesse: What was that?

O'Reilly: "You had mittens...That offended almost everybody."

http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/10/26/cornell-university-kicks-jesse-watters-campus-asking-about-liberal-bias

Do you even read the crap that you post

first paragraph

Quote
Jesse Watters crashed Cornell University to test students on their liberal “indoctrination” after a report claimed that 96 percent of Cornell professors donated to Democrats. However, in the middle of the regular “Watters’ World” questioning, Jesse was kicked off the campus because Cornell media relations had not grant him permission to interview students.

Cornell is a private university and they can kick anyone off campus if they want to, especially some douchebag reporter

I'm sure private fundie univerities would have no problem kicking out almost anyone who asked questions about their idiotic religious beliefs or bigotry and I'm sure you'd be in total support of that


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on November 13, 2015, 10:22:06 AM
MISSOURI: PROFESSORS AGAINST PRESS FREEDOM
WENDY KAMINER
WRITER AND LAWYER
How fortysomething academics inflame campus witch-hunts.
12 NOVEMBER 2015
(http://www.spiked-online.com/images/Missouri_campus.jpg)
 
There they go again’, may be all we can add these days when students shut down or shout down viewpoints that violate the imagined right of favoured groups to feel ‘safe’, ‘comfortable’ and ‘unoffended’. Protests about allegedly offensive speech and speakers occur at least once a week, targeting with increasing aggressiveness even mild disagreements with campus orthodoxies.

The latest high-profile protests erupted at Yale University. They were sparked by a fraternity’s alleged racially discriminatory actions but exploded over instances of unwelcome speech, when the associate house master of Silliman College, Erika Christakis, questioned the wisdom and necessity of cautionary notes about offensive Halloween costumes. Further outraged by the failure of Christakis and her husband, house master Nicholas Christakis, to apologise for their divergent defences of free speech, students demanded their resignations. ‘I don’t want to debate. I want to talk about my pain… Christakis needs to stop instigating more debate’, one student succinctly explained in an op-ed that appeared briefly in the Yale Herald.

When students at one of the United States’ most prestigious universities throw tantrums in reaction to a call for debate, free-speech advocates who have long warned of the dangers posed by campus civility codes may be tempted simply to respond, ‘We rest our case’.

But silence in the face of censorship isn’t an option. At the very least, speech-policing must be chronicled. Consider recent efforts to bar journalists from covering a protest at the University of Missouri, as reported by the New York Times:

‘Tim Tai, a student photographer on freelance assignment for ESPN, was trying to take photos of a small tent city that protesters had created on a campus quad… Protesters blocked Mr Tai’s view and argued with him, eventually pushing him away. At one point, they chanted, “Hey hey, ho ho, reporters have got to go”.’

‘I am documenting this for a national news organisation’, Mr Tai told the protesters, adding that ‘the First Amendment protects your right to be here and mine’. The protesters accused him of acting unethically and disregarding their requests for privacy.

Student hostility toward freedom of the press is, by now, routine and predictable. But it also infects some faculty members, partly because campus rules treating offensive speech as an actual civil-rights violation date back some 20 years. Students educated under early speech-code regimes are now in or entering their 40s. Those who stayed in academia are sometimes as censorious as their students.

So, University of Missouri protesters intent on forcibly barring press coverage were joined by a faculty member, Melissa Click, who, according to the New York Times, ‘appeared to grab’ at the camera of another photographer and yelled, ‘Who wants to help me get this reporter out of here? I need some muscle over here.’

Click teaches mass media. Her research focuses on ‘popular-culture texts and audiences, particularly texts and audiences disdained in mainstream culture’, according to her staff-profile page. ‘Her work in this area is guided by audience studies, theories of gender and sexuality, and media literacy.’ You might think that media literacy would require some study of press freedom. But the aptly named Professor Click’s current research includes studies of ‘Fifty Shades of Grey readers’ and ‘the impact of social media in fans’ relationship with Lady Gaga’.

What more can you say when confronted with media experts who oppose the freedoms on which media rely? If student and faculty censors aim to leave me speechless, they’re beginning to succeed.

Wendy Kaminer is an author, lawyer, and civil libertarian.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/missouri-professors-against-press-freedom/17622#.VkYXHdCRqng


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: 240 is Back on November 13, 2015, 12:40:30 PM
Yale graduates are some of the most violent and dishonest liberals the country has seen. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on February 09, 2016, 10:59:24 AM
Prof Bans Students From Saying ‘Husband’ Or ‘Wife’ Because It’s Not ‘Inclusive’
PETER HASSON
02/05/2016

In just the latest instance of taxpayer-funded censorship, students in one University of Florida course have been banned from using words such as “husband,” “wife,” “mom,” or dad” in the classroom and risk losing points off their grade if they don’t comply.

In the syllabus for her “Creativity In Context” class — a required course for any student pursuing a minor in Innovation — UF professor Jennifer Lee informs students of her four paragraph long classroom “communications policy” that she says will enforce “ethical conduct” in the classroom.

“The following policies and guidelines will be followed in this course,” the policy begins, followed by a bullet point instructing students to “Use inclusive language.” The policy mandates that students “[ s]peak in a way that does not make assumptions about others based on “norms”, stereotypes, or one’s own identity or experience.”

The syllabus explains that this means replacing the words “boyfriend”/”girlfriend” with the more inclusive “partner” or “significant other.” The rule applies to conversations about married couples too: saying “husband” or “wife” is forbidden. Even the words “mom” and “dad” have a more “inclusive” alternative — students are told to use the word ‘family” instead.

By using the new words, Lee explains, students will be using speech that “is inclusive of alternative orientations and family structures, and free of stereotypes.”

Students are also required to comply with professor Lee’s “safe education environment policy” — distinct from her “communications policy” — which warns students that “any behavior or language that makes others feel unsafe or unwelcome in this classroom can and will not be tolerated.” Lee openly acknowledges that this no-tolerance policy covers “interrupting or ignoring others.”

Lee’s exhaustive policies aren’t just meaningless words, either. She warns that “Students who do not meet conduct expectations will be given one warning by electronic mail, and continued behavior issues will result in the loss participation points per course instructor’s discretion.” She did not reply to The Daily Caller’s request for comment.

Ari Cohn, a lawyer with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) told TheDC that the policies are “likely to chill classroom discussion to the detriment of all.” He went on to say that Lee’s “inclusive language” policy presents “a veritable minefield through which students must tip-toe when they wish to participate in class. Faced with the possibility of a lower grade, students are likely to refrain from providing their input for fear that the professor or a classmate will be offended by something that they say, no matter how unreasonably.”

Cohn noted, “Generally, professors have the discretion, and the right—consistent with principles of academic freedom—to conduct their classrooms as they see fit. However, faculty members must be careful not to infringe on the rights of their students to freedom of expression, and freedom of conscience.”

Lee isn’t the first professor to face public scrutiny for banning words inside the classroom. Just last fall, multiple professors at Washington State University threatened students with bad grades if they used “oppressive and hateful language” such as “illegal alien,” “male,” or “female,” in the classroom. After public backlash, the school walked back the language mandates.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/05/prof-bans-students-from-saying-husband-or-wife-because-its-not-inclusive/#ixzz3zh8RyIN7


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on February 24, 2016, 11:19:26 AM
BEWARE THIS MAN: State College President Bans Breitbart’s Shapiro   
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/02/Ben-pasted_image_at_2016_02_22_11_47_pm_480.png)
by Breitbart News
22 Feb 2016

On Monday evening, just three days before Breitbart News Senior Editor-At-Large was scheduled to give his speech at California State University Los Angeles (CSULA) titled “When Diversity Becomes a Problem,” the president of the university officially cancelled the lecture, citing the need to organize a more “inclusive event.”

In an email to the Young America’s Foundation chapter at CSULA, university president William Covino wrote, “After careful consideration, I have decided that it will be best for our campus community if we reschedule Ben Shapiro’s appearance for a later date, so that we can arrange for him to appear as part of a group of speakers with differing viewpoints on diversity. Such an event will better represent our university’s dedication to the free exchange of ideas and the value of considering multiple viewpoints.”

Shapiro and YAF have vowed to take their event to campus anyway, without the permission of the school. “The campus fascists have taken over,” Shapiro told Breitbart News. “I pay taxes in the state of California; I’m paying for these whiny children to be indoctrinated by radical leftists. For CSULA to pretend that they’re trying to provide balance isn’t just stupid, it’s insultingly stupid. I am the balance, and they’re too afraid to let me speak. These aren’t diversity warriors. They’re jackbooted thugs. If they want to call the men with guns to shut down free speech, they’ll demonstrate clearly just who they are. I’ll see them on Thursday.”

YAF announced in a statement, “In recognition of the school’s dire need for ideological diversity, Young America’s Foundation and CSULA YAF, in cooperation with Ben Shapiro, fully intend to hold the event, which is part of YAF’s Fred R. Allen Lecture Series, without the university’s approval. The Foundation is prepared to take legal action if the school fails to recognize these students’ rights.”

Covino clearly had no problem with the university hosting radical leftists ranging from Dr. Cornel West to Angela Davis and Tim Wise without the need for a conservative counterpoint. “Balance at CSULA only runs one way,” Shapiro said. “This event obviously threatens the feelings of the precious snowflakes at the university. Tough.”

The shutdown follows weeks of controversy, after Professor Robert Weide threatened to wrestle students for sponsoring the event, and Black Lives Matter activist Professor Melina Abdullah, who took to Facebook to complain, “I say this event is a problem…What we go’n do y’all?!?!” One of the commenters, Ruben Martin, replied, “You want I should hoiwt’em bwoss? I’s got a fews ideas me n’d’fellas been kickin ‘round. Only ting iz he won’t be talking or lookin so nice no more. We’ll take the cannolies…” CSULA students have said the event poses a “threat to their lives” and is “damaging to their mental health.”

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/02/22/beware-this-man-state-college-president-bans-breitbarts-shapiro/


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 01, 2016, 09:31:27 AM
BEWARE THIS MAN: State College President Bans Breitbart’s Shapiro   
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/02/Ben-pasted_image_at_2016_02_22_11_47_pm_480.png)
by Breitbart News
22 Feb 2016

On Monday evening, just three days before Breitbart News Senior Editor-At-Large was scheduled to give his speech at California State University Los Angeles (CSULA) titled “When Diversity Becomes a Problem,” the president of the university officially cancelled the lecture, citing the need to organize a more “inclusive event.”

In an email to the Young America’s Foundation chapter at CSULA, university president William Covino wrote, “After careful consideration, I have decided that it will be best for our campus community if we reschedule Ben Shapiro’s appearance for a later date, so that we can arrange for him to appear as part of a group of speakers with differing viewpoints on diversity. Such an event will better represent our university’s dedication to the free exchange of ideas and the value of considering multiple viewpoints.”

Shapiro and YAF have vowed to take their event to campus anyway, without the permission of the school. “The campus fascists have taken over,” Shapiro told Breitbart News. “I pay taxes in the state of California; I’m paying for these whiny children to be indoctrinated by radical leftists. For CSULA to pretend that they’re trying to provide balance isn’t just stupid, it’s insultingly stupid. I am the balance, and they’re too afraid to let me speak. These aren’t diversity warriors. They’re jackbooted thugs. If they want to call the men with guns to shut down free speech, they’ll demonstrate clearly just who they are. I’ll see them on Thursday.”

YAF announced in a statement, “In recognition of the school’s dire need for ideological diversity, Young America’s Foundation and CSULA YAF, in cooperation with Ben Shapiro, fully intend to hold the event, which is part of YAF’s Fred R. Allen Lecture Series, without the university’s approval. The Foundation is prepared to take legal action if the school fails to recognize these students’ rights.”

Covino clearly had no problem with the university hosting radical leftists ranging from Dr. Cornel West to Angela Davis and Tim Wise without the need for a conservative counterpoint. “Balance at CSULA only runs one way,” Shapiro said. “This event obviously threatens the feelings of the precious snowflakes at the university. Tough.”

The shutdown follows weeks of controversy, after Professor Robert Weide threatened to wrestle students for sponsoring the event, and Black Lives Matter activist Professor Melina Abdullah, who took to Facebook to complain, “I say this event is a problem…What we go’n do y’all?!?!” One of the commenters, Ruben Martin, replied, “You want I should hoiwt’em bwoss? I’s got a fews ideas me n’d’fellas been kickin ‘round. Only ting iz he won’t be talking or lookin so nice no more. We’ll take the cannolies…” CSULA students have said the event poses a “threat to their lives” and is “damaging to their mental health.”

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/02/22/beware-this-man-state-college-president-bans-breitbarts-shapiro/

What's most troubling is how young these folks are.  They should have held their own rally or meeting and presented their own ideas.  Or better yet, they should have participated in a debate with Shapiro.  Instead, they resorted to threats, anarchy, setting off alarms, blocking doors, and even promoted physical violence.  These are future leaders.   :-\

Campus Protesters Try to Silence Conservative Speaker, Demand College President’s Resignation
Natalie Johnson   / @nataliejohnsonn /
February 26, 2016

(http://dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/160226_YAFProtest_Johnson-1250x650.jpg)
Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro talks about diversity despite a disruption when protesters at California State University, Los Angeles blocked entrances to the event in an attempt to shut it down. (Photo: Jacqueline Pilar/Young America's Foundation)
Student protesters swarmed California State University, Los Angeles to barricade the entrances of a theater where conservative commentator Ben Shapiro was set to deliver a speech about censorship and diversity on college campuses.

Led primarily by the school’s Black Student Union and Black Lives Matter chapter, the hundreds of demonstrators, including some professors, poured into the Student Union building Thursday afternoon to block other students from attending the event.

Many in the dense crowd of protesters shoved and shouted at attendees who tried slipping through the doors.

Members of the conservative Young America’s Foundation, host of the event, called “When Diversity Becomes a Problem,” said they were forced to sneak groups of four to five in the back door leading directly to the theater to avoid catching the attention of protesters who hadn’t yet obstructed the last entrance.

Amy Lutz, a program officer at YAF, said the group was able to funnel roughly 100 students into the theater on the CSU-LA campus before protesters surrounded the entrances, preventing anyone from entering or leaving for the duration of Shapiro’s speech.

“It was frightening. I felt like we were hostages in this room, because we couldn’t get out,” Lutz told The Daily Signal.

She said more than a dozen police officers stayed inside the theater, ordering attendees to stay put until the crowd dissipated. A demonstrator pulled the fire alarm midway through the lecture, but Shapiro carried on with his remarks despite the shrill noise and pounding at the doors.

“Here’s my message to the bloviating jackasses outside: Toughen up, you spoiled brat snowflakes, if you actually want a better world,” Shapiro, editor-in-chief of The Daily Wire, said to cheers.

Police escorted Shapiro out of the theater at the end of his speech, citing  “safety concerns.”

Much of the crowd moved from the theater to the executive’s office to hold a sit-in and demand the resignation of CSU-LA’s president, William Covino, for allowing Shapiro’s appearance.

Lutz said the reaction from the protesters underscores a troubling problem among universities across the United States. She said:

Not only is free speech under attack, but it’s also very difficult to be a conservative on a college campus. It’s very difficult to speak up, and a lot of students choose to be silent because they know in extreme cases, like this one at CSU-LA, people will aggressively fight back if they choose to speak their mind.

Melina Abdullah, a professor and chair of pan-African studies at the university, took to Twitter and encouraged students to protest Shapiro’s appearance, calling his event “hate speech.” She claimed police were sent to arrest students for protesting.

The Daily Signal could not independently confirm this statement.

Emily Jashinsky, a spokeswoman for YAF, told The Daily Signal that tens of thousands of viewers tuned in to Shapiro’s speech online Thursday night. She said the level of interest illustrates that the country is “growing increasingly frustrated” with censorship on college campuses.

On Monday, Covino emailed YAF members informing them he had canceled Shapiro’s appearance for security reasons, opting for a “more inclusive event” highlighting speakers with “differing viewpoints on diversity.”

The university president reversed his decision Thursday, hours before Shapiro’s speech was supposed to begin, when YAF refused to reschedule.

“I strongly disagree with Mr. Shapiro’s views. But if Mr. Shapiro does appear, the university will allow him to speak,” Covino said in a prepared statement provided to The Daily Signal by YAF. “We will make every effort to ensure a climate of safety and security.”

Jashinsky said YAF was “disgusted” by the president’s response. She said:

This was absolutely no occasion for celebration. This president [Covino] grudgingly embraced the concept of free speech. This is the president of a public university, who in his statement doesn’t condemn attacks his own professors have made on their students.

One of those attacks, she said, came from a professor who threatened to wrestle roughly a dozen YAF members for inviting Shapiro to speak.

“[Covino] doesn’t condemn any of the hostility toward conservative students,” Jashinsky said. “It should have been a full-throated endorsement of free speech, regardless of whether he agrees or not with what’s being said.”

David Hacker, senior counsel and director of the Center for Academic Freedom at the legal aid group Alliance Defending Freedom, told The Daily Signal he is exploring legal options on behalf of YAF.

Hacker, who was on campus during the protests, said he is waiting for a response from the university to a letter he sent Monday to its counsel.

The letter demands that the university rescind an “unconstitutional” $621.50 fee slapped on YAF to pay for security officers because of the event’s “controversial” nature.

“The university engaged in viewpoint discrimination against these conservative students, and it shouldn’t have done that,” Hacker said. “You can’t put a price tag on the view of somebody’s speech.”

http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/26/campus-protesters-try-to-silence-conservative-speaker-demand-college-presidents-resignation/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q9I4IRijpU


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: absfabs on March 01, 2016, 04:53:59 PM
What's most troubling is how young these folks are.  They should have held their own rally or meeting and presented their own ideas.  Or better yet, they should have participated in a debate with Shapiro.  Instead, they resorted to threats, anarchy, setting off alarms, blocking doors, and even promoted physical violence.  These are future leaders.   :-\

Campus Protesters Try to Silence Conservative Speaker, Demand College President’s Resignation
Natalie Johnson   / @nataliejohnsonn /
February 26, 2016

(http://dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/160226_YAFProtest_Johnson-1250x650.jpg)
Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro talks about diversity despite a disruption when protesters at California State University, Los Angeles blocked entrances to the event in an attempt to shut it down. (Photo: Jacqueline Pilar/Young America's Foundation)
Student protesters swarmed California State University, Los Angeles to barricade the entrances of a theater where conservative commentator Ben Shapiro was set to deliver a speech about censorship and diversity on college campuses.

Led primarily by the school’s Black Student Union and Black Lives Matter chapter, the hundreds of demonstrators, including some professors, poured into the Student Union building Thursday afternoon to block other students from attending the event.

Many in the dense crowd of protesters shoved and shouted at attendees who tried slipping through the doors.

Members of the conservative Young America’s Foundation, host of the event, called “When Diversity Becomes a Problem,” said they were forced to sneak groups of four to five in the back door leading directly to the theater to avoid catching the attention of protesters who hadn’t yet obstructed the last entrance.

Amy Lutz, a program officer at YAF, said the group was able to funnel roughly 100 students into the theater on the CSU-LA campus before protesters surrounded the entrances, preventing anyone from entering or leaving for the duration of Shapiro’s speech.

“It was frightening. I felt like we were hostages in this room, because we couldn’t get out,” Lutz told The Daily Signal.

She said more than a dozen police officers stayed inside the theater, ordering attendees to stay put until the crowd dissipated. A demonstrator pulled the fire alarm midway through the lecture, but Shapiro carried on with his remarks despite the shrill noise and pounding at the doors.

“Here’s my message to the bloviating jackasses outside: Toughen up, you spoiled brat snowflakes, if you actually want a better world,” Shapiro, editor-in-chief of The Daily Wire, said to cheers.

Police escorted Shapiro out of the theater at the end of his speech, citing  “safety concerns.”

Much of the crowd moved from the theater to the executive’s office to hold a sit-in and demand the resignation of CSU-LA’s president, William Covino, for allowing Shapiro’s appearance.

Lutz said the reaction from the protesters underscores a troubling problem among universities across the United States. She said:

Not only is free speech under attack, but it’s also very difficult to be a conservative on a college campus. It’s very difficult to speak up, and a lot of students choose to be silent because they know in extreme cases, like this one at CSU-LA, people will aggressively fight back if they choose to speak their mind.

Melina Abdullah, a professor and chair of pan-African studies at the university, took to Twitter and encouraged students to protest Shapiro’s appearance, calling his event “hate speech.” She claimed police were sent to arrest students for protesting.

The Daily Signal could not independently confirm this statement.

Emily Jashinsky, a spokeswoman for YAF, told The Daily Signal that tens of thousands of viewers tuned in to Shapiro’s speech online Thursday night. She said the level of interest illustrates that the country is “growing increasingly frustrated” with censorship on college campuses.

On Monday, Covino emailed YAF members informing them he had canceled Shapiro’s appearance for security reasons, opting for a “more inclusive event” highlighting speakers with “differing viewpoints on diversity.”

The university president reversed his decision Thursday, hours before Shapiro’s speech was supposed to begin, when YAF refused to reschedule.

“I strongly disagree with Mr. Shapiro’s views. But if Mr. Shapiro does appear, the university will allow him to speak,” Covino said in a prepared statement provided to The Daily Signal by YAF. “We will make every effort to ensure a climate of safety and security.”

Jashinsky said YAF was “disgusted” by the president’s response. She said:

This was absolutely no occasion for celebration. This president [Covino] grudgingly embraced the concept of free speech. This is the president of a public university, who in his statement doesn’t condemn attacks his own professors have made on their students.

One of those attacks, she said, came from a professor who threatened to wrestle roughly a dozen YAF members for inviting Shapiro to speak.

“[Covino] doesn’t condemn any of the hostility toward conservative students,” Jashinsky said. “It should have been a full-throated endorsement of free speech, regardless of whether he agrees or not with what’s being said.”

David Hacker, senior counsel and director of the Center for Academic Freedom at the legal aid group Alliance Defending Freedom, told The Daily Signal he is exploring legal options on behalf of YAF.

Hacker, who was on campus during the protests, said he is waiting for a response from the university to a letter he sent Monday to its counsel.

The letter demands that the university rescind an “unconstitutional” $621.50 fee slapped on YAF to pay for security officers because of the event’s “controversial” nature.

“The university engaged in viewpoint discrimination against these conservative students, and it shouldn’t have done that,” Hacker said. “You can’t put a price tag on the view of somebody’s speech.”

http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/26/campus-protesters-try-to-silence-conservative-speaker-demand-college-presidents-resignation/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q9I4IRijpU


PRIVATE ARMED SECURITY



Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 09, 2016, 05:19:46 PM
Student senator faces impeachment for conservative beliefs
By  Todd Starnes 
Published March 09, 2016
FoxNews.com
 
There’s a witch hunt underway for conservatives at the University of Southern California – and Jacob Ellenhorn appears to be Public Enemy No. 1.

Ellenhorn is a student senator at USC and president of the College Republicans. He is also an outspoken conservative.

Click here to join Todd’s American Dispatch: a must-read for Conservatives! 

And that’s a big problem among his fellow student lawmakers at USC.

Ellenhorn is facing possible impeachment – accused of all sorts of tawdry behavior – like publicly expressing his conservative opinions and (brace yourself) inviting high-profile conservative speakers to campus.

“It seems like freedom of speech and freedom to express your views is not allowed by the University of Southern California student government right now,” he told me.

Ellenhorn accused liberal students of engaging in a “witch hunt” and committing “institutionalized discrimination against me and my views.”

“If you voice a difference of opinion on any small issue – they lash out at you,” he told me. “You’re a racist, you’re a homophobe, you’re anti-woman, you’re  sexist. This is ridiculous.”

The official complaint, first reported by Campus Reform, alleges that Ellenhorn “created a hostile environments (sic) for our USC study body, and has also violated our USC Principles of Community by bringing a speaker and moderating an event that blatantly perpetuates sexism.”

The Lefties were especially troubled when Ellenhorn invited Milo Yiannopoulos to speak last year.

PODCAST: Listen to Todd’s indepth interview with Jacob Ellenhorn

Stephen Smith, an adjunct professor  and executive director of the USC Shoah Foundation, accused Yiannopoulos of being known for his “anti-feminist and more broadly misogynist commentary.”

“Harmful speech has no place in the Trojan community,” Smith wrote in a letter calling for Yiannopoulos to be disinvited.

“Whatever Yiannopoulos has to say on campus, his invitation here calls into question the human values as well as the academic standards of the USC College republicans,” he wrote.  “Controversial celebrity presenters may draw an audience, but the integrity of the USC College Republicans is rubbished by such content, the high standards of excellence we all try to uphold at USC are undermined, and the USC community as a whole is deeply offended on behalf of its women students, staff and faculty.”

Ellenhorn admits that he’s invited firebrand speakers like Yiannopoulos and Ben Shapiro.

“They are claiming that because I invited them – I made students on campus feel unsafe,” he said. “No one has to listen to them. No one was forced to attend. For goodness’ sake – we’re adults. We should be able to handle other people’s opinions.”

Senators are expected to hold hearings later this month to determine the young conservative’s fate. But Ellenhorn doesn’t seem to be all that intimidated.

He penned a fiery response to the complaint – accusing University Student Government of “trying to castrate strong male voices into submission.”

Bold.

Now, you might be wondering why I’m dedicating this column to covering what some might consider a silly campus skirmish. But this is no silly skirmish.

Pew Research did a study a few months ago – revealing that 40 percent of millennials believe there should be limitations on free speech. That’s a disturbing number.

I suspect that our public universities are being used to foster such anti-American thinking. The Left isn’t just opposing dissenting viewpoints. They are trying to silence opposing viewpoints.

Ellenhorn told me he’s seen his fellow senators rant about all sorts of outrageous issues – but he’s never tried to silence anyone. He’s never tried to have his opposition impeached.

“Difference of opinion should be triumphed,” he said. “But what they are trying to do is shut difference of opinion down.”

And they are in for a mighty big fight.

“I’m not going to stand down,” he said. “I’m going to stand up. I’m not going to be quiet.”

(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/opinion/2016/03/09/student-senator-faces-impeachment-for-conservative-beliefs/_jcr_content/article-text/article-par-26/images/image.img.jpg/880/558/1457558027981.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
USC student Senator Jacob Ellenhorn (Courtesy of Jacob Ellenhorn)
 

Well said, Jacob! That’s exactly what you should do when faced with a leftwing bully. Stand your ground.

“They are trying to silence me – and I’m just going to get louder.”

The USC senators might want to invest in some ear plugs – because it’s about to get rowdy.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/03/09/student-senator-faces-impeachment-for-conservative-beliefs.html?intcmp=trending


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 16, 2016, 12:56:09 PM
Here is what you can expect from a Trump presidency:  the typical liberal censorship and/or attempt to silence/punish opposing viewpoints.

POLITICO reporter denied access to Trump event
By HADAS GOLD
03/16/16
(http://static2.politico.com/dims4/default/603f23a/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Ffd%2F29%2Fb871019844849a01bf5eed24fc3a%2F160315-donald-trump-rally-gty-1160.jpg)
Donald Trump arrives for a primary night event at the Mar-A-Lago Club's Donald J. Trump Ballroom March 15, 2016, in Palm Beach, Florida. | Getty

POLITICO reporter Ben Schreckinger was denied entry to Donald Trump's press conference on Tuesday night, despite having previously been granted credentials by the campaign.

The move followed a threat last week from Trump officials to exclude POLITICO reporters from campaign events.

On Tuesday morning, Schreckinger, who has covered the campaign regularly for more than six months, received an email granting him credentials for Trump's speech and press conference at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida that evening. But less than 10 minutes later, another email arrived saying those same credentials were denied. Upon arriving at Trump's private club, he was denied entry and escorted off of the property.

Schreckinger, whose latest story on Trump's campaign was a report on concerns about campaign manager Corey Lewandowski's temperament and behavior, never received an explanation as to why his credentials have been denied. Neither Lewandowski nor Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks responded to requests for comment.

"I’m saddened by the personal nature of the Trump campaign’s attack on an excellent reporter, Ben Schreckinger. The campaign provided no explanation for barring our reporter from Donald Trump’s speech tonight. If this is the response to honest, fair, and sometimes critical reporting – like today’s piece on Campaign Manager Corey Lewandowski — it certainly will not intimidate POLITICO as we cover the campaign in the days ahead," POLITICO editor Susan Glasser said in a statement.

POLITICO is far from alone among media organizations being denied entry to Trump events. The Des Moines Register, Univision, Fusion, The Huffington Post, National Review, Mother Jones and BuzzFeed have all been denied credentials to Trump's events, often after publishing critical stories about the campaign. In January, New York Times reporter Trip Gabriel was ejected from an event in Iowa after writing about Trump's weak ground game in the state, which he eventually lost to Ted Cruz.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/03/ben-schreckinger-denied-access-donald-trump-220836#ixzz43668CBhw


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 24, 2016, 10:52:08 AM
Raising a nation of sissies.   :-\

‘Donald Trump 2016’ Chalkings Around Emory University Led To Abject Panic
Matt Vespa | Mar 23, 2016
(http://media.townhall.com/townhall/reu/ha/uploads/2016/3/23/24.png)

Folks, I’m not a Donald Trump supporter by any stretch of the imagination, but a) he has a right to speak and hold rallies without progressives ironically building walls to prevent people from attending and b) he should be defended–and anyone else for that matter–against the absurd political correctness agenda infesting our college campuses. It’s assumed that around 20 percent of Republicans won’t vote for Trump in the general election, though these mindless attacks might force unity in the face of this progressive evolution that has run absolutely amok. At Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, someone had the temerity to exercise his or her First Amendment rights and write “Donald Trump 2016” in chalk across campus. This innocuous display of free speech sent some students running off like scared wombats, feeling triggered by the slogans. No, I’m not making this up; some of these delicate snowflakes got their feelings very, very hurt (via Mediaite):

According to student paper The Emory Wheel, the triggered students protested outside the administration building chanting, “You are not listening! Come speak to us, we are in pain!”

“I’m supposed to feel comfortable and safe,” one female student said. “But this man is being supported by students on our campus and our administration shows that they, by their silence, support it as well … I don’t deserve to feel afraid at my school.”

The university quickly responded in an email: “By nature of the fact that for a significant portion of our student population, the messages represent particularly bigoted opinions, policies, and rhetoric directed at populations represented at Emory University, we would like to express our concern regarding the values espoused by the messages displayed, and our sympathy for the pain experienced by members of our community.”

“It is clear to us that these statements are triggering for many of you,” they continued. “As a result, both College Council and the Student Government Association pledge to stand in solidarity with those communities who feel threatened by this incident and to help navigate the student body through it and the environment of distrust and unease it has created.”

Oh, it gets worse. Apparently, emergency counseling is being offered (via Fox Sports) [bold indicates text of email]:

The student government association is OFFERING EMERGENCY COUNSELING FOR STUDENTS TRIGGERED BY THE TRUMP 2016 CAMPUS CHALKINGS. Here is their email:

"That being said, by nature of the fact that for a significant portion of our student population, the messages represent particularly bigoted opinions, policies, and rhetoric directed at populations represented at Emory University, we would like to express our concern regarding the values espoused by the messages displayed, and our sympathy for the pain experienced by members of our community...

It is clear to us that these statements are triggering for many of you. As a result, both College Council and the Student Government Association pledge to stand in solidarity with those communities who feel threatened by this incident and to help navigate the student body through it and the environment of distrust and unease it has created.

To that end, Emergency Funds within the College Council monetary policy were created to provide time-sensitive funds during circumstances involving discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and such funds are available to any student organization looking to sponsor events in response to this incident."

Donald Trump 2016 represents a “bigoted” opinion? And seriously, if a chalking gets you so worked up that you needs to seek counseling, you’re not a serious person. You’re a caricature, who is about to get a brutal dose of reality upon graduation. As Clay Travis of Fox Sports wrote, these kids are going to an institution of learning (and whining) that costs $65,000 per year– and this is what’s getting them worked up. It’s irrational, but also tragicomic that a mere political expression in chalk–that can be removed by water–has led to campus officials offering these progressive snowflakes a chance to see the shrink because they just can’t deal with certain aspects real life.  Students of Emory: we’re a nation that allows for people to hold differing opinions on a variety of subjects. You know, part of that whole diversity bit you love to espouse…until someone says something that you don’t like.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/03/23/donald-trump-2016-chalkings-around-emory-university-led-to-abject-panic-n2138353


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on March 24, 2016, 10:58:01 AM
Emory is a private university and Trump has no right of any sort to speak there and the students that pay to be there have every right to protest him speaking there

He can book an auditorium somewhere else in the city and hold his race baiting Hitler youth rally


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 31, 2016, 12:27:38 PM
A generation of cupcakes. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shRtVAPjnKs


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on April 01, 2016, 10:29:48 AM
Raising a nation of sissies.   :-\

‘Donald Trump 2016’ Chalkings Around Emory University Led To Abject Panic
Matt Vespa | Mar 23, 2016
(http://media.townhall.com/townhall/reu/ha/uploads/2016/3/23/24.png)

Folks, I’m not a Donald Trump supporter by any stretch of the imagination, but a) he has a right to speak and hold rallies without progressives ironically building walls to prevent people from attending and b) he should be defended–and anyone else for that matter–against the absurd political correctness agenda infesting our college campuses. It’s assumed that around 20 percent of Republicans won’t vote for Trump in the general election, though these mindless attacks might force unity in the face of this progressive evolution that has run absolutely amok. At Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, someone had the temerity to exercise his or her First Amendment rights and write “Donald Trump 2016” in chalk across campus. This innocuous display of free speech sent some students running off like scared wombats, feeling triggered by the slogans. No, I’m not making this up; some of these delicate snowflakes got their feelings very, very hurt (via Mediaite):

According to student paper The Emory Wheel, the triggered students protested outside the administration building chanting, “You are not listening! Come speak to us, we are in pain!”

“I’m supposed to feel comfortable and safe,” one female student said. “But this man is being supported by students on our campus and our administration shows that they, by their silence, support it as well … I don’t deserve to feel afraid at my school.”

The university quickly responded in an email: “By nature of the fact that for a significant portion of our student population, the messages represent particularly bigoted opinions, policies, and rhetoric directed at populations represented at Emory University, we would like to express our concern regarding the values espoused by the messages displayed, and our sympathy for the pain experienced by members of our community.”

“It is clear to us that these statements are triggering for many of you,” they continued. “As a result, both College Council and the Student Government Association pledge to stand in solidarity with those communities who feel threatened by this incident and to help navigate the student body through it and the environment of distrust and unease it has created.”

Oh, it gets worse. Apparently, emergency counseling is being offered (via Fox Sports) [bold indicates text of email]:

The student government association is OFFERING EMERGENCY COUNSELING FOR STUDENTS TRIGGERED BY THE TRUMP 2016 CAMPUS CHALKINGS. Here is their email:

"That being said, by nature of the fact that for a significant portion of our student population, the messages represent particularly bigoted opinions, policies, and rhetoric directed at populations represented at Emory University, we would like to express our concern regarding the values espoused by the messages displayed, and our sympathy for the pain experienced by members of our community...

It is clear to us that these statements are triggering for many of you. As a result, both College Council and the Student Government Association pledge to stand in solidarity with those communities who feel threatened by this incident and to help navigate the student body through it and the environment of distrust and unease it has created.

To that end, Emergency Funds within the College Council monetary policy were created to provide time-sensitive funds during circumstances involving discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and such funds are available to any student organization looking to sponsor events in response to this incident."

Donald Trump 2016 represents a “bigoted” opinion? And seriously, if a chalking gets you so worked up that you needs to seek counseling, you’re not a serious person. You’re a caricature, who is about to get a brutal dose of reality upon graduation. As Clay Travis of Fox Sports wrote, these kids are going to an institution of learning (and whining) that costs $65,000 per year– and this is what’s getting them worked up. It’s irrational, but also tragicomic that a mere political expression in chalk–that can be removed by water–has led to campus officials offering these progressive snowflakes a chance to see the shrink because they just can’t deal with certain aspects real life.  Students of Emory: we’re a nation that allows for people to hold differing opinions on a variety of subjects. You know, part of that whole diversity bit you love to espouse…until someone says something that you don’t like.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/03/23/donald-trump-2016-chalkings-around-emory-university-led-to-abject-panic-n2138353

Debate continues over Donald Trump chalkings at Emory University
By STEPHANIE CONDON CBS NEWS
March 31, 2016

Students at Emory University were the subject of some ridicule last week after protesting that pro-Donald Trump messages written in chalk around campus left them "in pain." University administrators and students have taken several steps since then to respond to the protests, but criticism of the students continues.

Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich, an Emory alum, wrote on Twitter Thursday that he's worried about the "fragility and timidity" of some students. "In the age of ISIS how can a name in chalk be frightening?" He followed up with one more tweet on the matter:

Newt Gingrich  ✔‎@newtgingrich
Emory has me worried because i thought college was a place to grow up and explore ideas not a place to hide and be intimidated by trivia
9:41 AM - 31 Mar 2016

University president Jim Wagner met with the students and sent a campus-wide email broaching the matter last week, pledging to promote a "safe environment" at Emory.

Then on Friday, Wagner stopped by a table on campus where members of the Young Americans for Liberty, a libertarian group, were collecting signatures for a petition that asks the university administration to clarify free speech protections on campus. Wagner wrote his own sidewalk chalk message next to their table: "Emory Stands for Free Expression!"

The Young Americans for Liberty over the weekend created a whole new round of chalk drawings and messages on the campus, Inside Higher Ed reports. Their drawings included messages of support for all of the remaining Democratic and Republican presidential candidates -- including a picture of Trump with the message, "Make Emory Great Again."

Alex Reibman, one of the event organizers, told Insider Higher Ed that the new chalkings were "a counterprotest to show that students are capable of handling chalk and that we stand for freedom of expression."

Meanwhile, Ajay Nair, the dean of campus life at Emory, published a column in Inside Higher Ed this week to put the controversy "in context."

"In the context of a college campus, we thrive on open and civil dialogue, inviting even the most controversial perspectives and remarks," he wrote. "The college setting is a laboratory where students may, for the first time, grapple with such issues. Those conversations by their very nature can be difficult and must take place in a safe environment that is inclusive and guided by mutual respect and civility."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/emory-university-continues-to-take-heat-for-response-to-donald-trump-chalk-drawings/


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on April 07, 2016, 10:02:58 AM
Student Government At Public University Wants To Kick Out Member Over Pro-Trump Chalking
SCOTT GREER
Associate Editor
04/06/2016

Student government leaders at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga have demanded one of its members to resign over chalking a message on campus supporting Donald Trump.

In a message posted to Twitter early Wednesday morning, the incoming government slate called “Empower UTC” said they asked one of the participants in their coalition, Hailey Puckett, to leave student government over her pro-Trump artwork.

According to the message, Puckett’s values “do not line up with the pillars we’ve established ourselves on.”

“We do not support bigotry or hatred or the messages spread by Donald Trump’s ignorance,” the message from the student leaders said. “We do not support the mission of those who wish to spread that ignorance.”

“We promised to represent you, and by you we mean everyone,” the message continued. “We will not, however, represent those who support the oppression of others. We do not ask you to forgive or forget her actions, but that you start conversations with them. We ask that you spread messages of love and inclusion to everyone you encounter.”

Empower UTC is set to take over the positions of president, vice president and secretary for student government in the upcoming school year. As apart of the ticket, Puckett won a seat as a senator just last week in campus elections. According to a source at the college, Empower UTC was considered the pro-Greek Life, conservative ticket in the race.

The removal of Puckett appears to be in response to outrage over her posting a tweet celebrating a “Trump 2016” chalk mark she helped make. Underneath the slogan, a wall was drawn.

In response to the chalk mark, incensed students began tweeting out the hashtag #BlackUTC and #BlackUnity and chalked an opposing message on campus.

One of the main proponents for the dismissal of Puckett was part of a rival student government coalition that sought to promote more diversity on campus.

Completing this poll entitles you to Daily Caller news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Last weekend, over a hundred campuses were dotted with pro-Trump chalkings as part of a movement calling itself #TheChalkening. #TheChalkening was an effort less created to support Trump than to fight back against out-of-control campus political correctness. (RELATED: The Frat Site That Helped Ignite #TheChalkening Speaks Out)

The nationwide movement was done in response to Emory University students claiming chalk marks in support of Trump at their campus in March threatened their safety. (RELATED: Is It Now A Hate Crime To Support Donald Trump On A College Campus?)

UTC SGA president-elect Phillip Stubblefield did not a return a request for comment about his decision to ask for Puckett’s resignation, nor did Puckett herself return a request for comment by the time of publication.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/06/student-government-at-public-university-kicks-out-member-over-pro-trump-chalking/#ixzz45A2aZmum


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on April 07, 2016, 02:25:05 PM
Dems on FEC target conservatives, vote to punish maker of anti-Obama movie
By Paul Bedard (@SecretsBedard) • 4/7/16

The three Democrats on the Federal Election Commission, in their latest and boldest move to regulate conservative media, voted in unison to punish a movie maker critical of President Obama after he distributed for free his latest work, Dreams of My Real Father: A Story of Reds and Deception.
 
Filmmaker Joel Gilbert, owner of Highway 61 films, has produced several independent politically-themed movies and sent Dreams out to millions of voters in key swing states prior to the 2012 election.
 
While he acted on his own, and with no ties to political groups or parties, an FEC complaint was filed claiming he violated reporting rules, prompting him to seek the standard media "exemption."

But despite giving the same exemption to liberal movie makers like Michael Moore and Daily Kos, the Democrats recently voted against Gilbert in a February action, reviving their bid to punish conservative media, a campaign initially targeting online news outlets like the Drudge Report.
 
Lucky for Gilbert, the three Republicans on the FEC also united to vote to give him the exemption. The tie vote blocked any action, and was followed by a unanimous 6-0 vote to close the file. Had he lost, Gilbert would have been required to report who helped fund the anti-Obama movie.
 
The latest Democratic move on conservatives comes as some Democrats in Congress, and liberal publications, are pushing to end the even split between Democrats and Republicans on the FEC, a move conservatives have warned would lead to punishing new rules on right-leaning media and candidates.
 
Republican Commissioner Lee E. Goodman has been warning about the assault on conservative media for three years and said the vote on Gilbert showed that the Democrats are still focused on right-leaning media.
 
"Freedom of the press isn't so free when three government commissars vote to punish a filmmaker for distributing a documentary film," he told Secrets.

"Conservative documentary films have faced tough sledding at the FEC, no matter how the films are distributed," Goodman said, adding, "It's chilling."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dems-on-fec-target-conservatives-vote-to-punish-maker-of-anti-obama-movie/article/2587898


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: 240 is Back on April 07, 2016, 10:38:39 PM
Here is what you can expect from a Trump presidency:  the typical liberal censorship and/or attempt to silence/punish opposing viewpoints.

#5 and #13 of Alinsky Tactics.   Trump has used 12 of 13 of them. 


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: dr.chimps on April 08, 2016, 12:16:25 AM
Cut-and-paste warrior.  ::)


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: GigantorX on April 08, 2016, 07:16:53 AM
Cut-and-paste warrior.  ::)

He's simply listing examples in a thread dedicated to providing examples of said subject. You are free to discuss them any which way you choose.

What would you like to be done instead?


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on April 14, 2016, 09:50:16 AM
Ohio University Cancels Fundraising Week Events After Students Paint Pro-Trump Messages
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/04/wi/afp_bbeec5ff349b2a1187d9d8b9ff7486afc19f11a7-640x428.jpg)
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump greets supporters on April 11, 2016 in Albany, New YorkAFP
by BEN KEW
13 Apr 2016

Officials at Ohio University have cancelled several events during a charity fundraising week, known as ‘Greek Week,’ after students painted a wall designated for graffiti with pro-Trump slogans.

The fundraising events were due to take place between April 11 – 16, however the plans were amended after members painted “Build the Wall” and “Trump 2016” along with the GOP party logo.

The graffiti is understood to be an endorsement of Donald Trump’s campaign for the Republican Nomination, supporting his policy of building a wall between the US and Mexico to stop illegal immigration into the country.

The wall has been an outlet for free speech since the 1970’s, however many students have argued that pro-Trump artwork took it too far.

A letter sent to all sororities and fraternities signed by various student councils states, “This phrase is offensive and hurtful to many individuals as it is directly tied to the Hispanic/Latino/a community, makes them feel marginalized, and the message was interpreted that they do not belong at Ohio University.”

“The big picture right now is that some people didn’t feel unified with Greek life,” Matt Falconer, president of OU’s chapter of Sigma Chi, said. “That was one of the main reasons why Greek Week was altered.”

In light of an emergency meeting held by the university’s Hispanic and Latino Society, University President McDavis Roderick sent an email to students which read: “Indeed, this wall is a place of free speech and expression; however, the words painted were troubling because they had a very different meaning to some than they may have to others viewing the message or even to those who painted the message.” He also suggested cultural competency classes to encourage students to be more sensitive.

The graffiti has since been removed by Hispanic students who painted over it. The university has said the students will not be punished.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/04/13/ohio-university-cancels-fundraising-week-after-students-paint-trump-wall/


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: dr.chimps on April 16, 2016, 06:23:41 AM
He's simply listing examples in a thread dedicated to providing examples of said subject. You are free to discuss them any which way you choose.

What would you like to be done instead?
He's a fucking google-snapping idiot. No true idea in his head except room-temperature GOP creed. You?   


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: LurkerNoMore on April 16, 2016, 08:20:51 AM
He's a fucking google-snapping idiot. No true idea in his head except room-temperature GOP creed. You?   

HAHAHAHAHA.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: GigantorX on April 16, 2016, 09:41:35 AM
He's a fucking google-snapping idiot. No true idea in his head except room-temperature GOP creed. You?   

Strong take!


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on May 05, 2016, 09:19:07 AM
Jason Riley Is the Latest Conservative to Be Disinvited from a College Campus Jason Riley
by PETER WOOD & RACHELLE PETERSON   
May 2, 2016

The higher-education disinvitation sweepstakes continue. Virginia Tech has just disinvited Jason Riley, a Wall Street Journal columnist and Manhattan Institute senior fellow. Riley had been asked to deliver the BB&T Distinguished Lecture at Virginia Tech’s Pamplin College of Business. But late last week he received an e-mail from the faculty member who arranged the lecture informing him that the head of the Finance Department, the J. Gray Ferguson Professor of Finance, Vijay Singal, had vetoed the invitation. We obtained a copy of this e-mail.

Why? Mr. Riley, who is black, has attracted some negative attention since his publication in 2014 of Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed. Professor Singal feared that whatever controversy Riley had attracted so far would be amplified once he set foot on Virginia Tech’s campus. He imagined there would be amplified controversy over Riley’s speech because Virginia Tech is still reverberating from the last BB&T Distinguished Lecture, delivered by Charles Murray on March 25.

That event was widely noted because of the exceptionally clumsy way that Virginia Tech president Tim Sands handled it. Sands sent an “open letter” to the Virginia Tech community on March 10, ostensibly upholding the invitation to Murray but doing so in such poison-pen language that he practically wrote the placards for the protesters. In Sands’s words, Murray’s work, particularly The Bell Curve, is “discredited,” “flawed,” “used by some to justify fascism, racism and eugenics,” and “regarded by some in our community as repugnant, offensive, or even fraudulent.”

It emerged that Dr. Sands actually knew little of Murray’s scholarly work, but relied instead on hearsay from Murray’s distempered critics. Murray answered Sands with a pungent open letter of his own; delivered his scheduled lecture despite some protesters; and left the campus with only one significant casualty — namely President Sands’s reputation.

What makes Jason Riley’s disinvitation notable is how little prompted it. The link between the Murray affair and the disinvitation to Riley isn’t speculative. The letter to Riley telling him his lecture is canceled plunges right into the recent history, including Tim Sands having “embarrassed himself and the university” with his open letter. The professor who wrote to Riley clearly felt chagrined by this turn of events. He is “sure” that President Sands “never read” The Bell Curve, at which he directed such vitriol. And Sands’s remarks, he says, served as an accelerant to a protest at the business school two days before Murray’s speech. The protest turned out to be “an ugly, hate-filled two-hour attack on Charles Murray,” charging him with absurdities such as membership in the Ku Klux Klan.

The head of the finance department had not initially objected to Riley as the next BB&T speaker but later, when he realized that Riley had “written about race issues” in the Wall Street Journal, he decided Riley would have to go. The department head and others in the finance department “worried about more protests from the looney left” and were unmoved by arguments that it was wrong to give in to such intimidation.

Disinvitations from college officials are becoming distressingly common and not quite as shocking as they were a few years ago. The William F. Buckley Jr. Society at Yale last week held its Second Annual Disinvitation Dinner. Last year it honored George Will, disinvited from Scripps College for expressing doubts about “rape culture” on campus. This year, it honored former New York Police commissioner Ray Kelly, who was disinvited from Brown University right at the podium where he was scheduled to speak. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education keeps a summary list of disinvitations, but even FIRE can hardly keep up with the disgraceful trend. It has yet to note, for instance, Suzanne Venker’s disinvitation by “Uncomfortable Learning,” the student group at Williams College that had invited Venker, a critic of feminism. Uncomfortable Learning exists to bring controversial speakers to campus but was overwhelmed by the backlash to Venker’s scheduled appearance.

What makes Jason Riley’s disinvitation notable, though, is how little prompted it. No students threatened to protest his speech or wrote editorials denouncing his views. No one picketed the finance department. Riley’s speech hadn’t even been announced on campus. Mere fear of potential protest swayed Virginia Tech to cancel Riley’s pending event.

For the past six months, cry-bully activists on campuses from Mizzou to Princeton to Dartmouth have bowled over craven administrators who have deferred to their demands and declined to exercise jurisdiction. The Riley disinvitation shows just how low campus authorities are willing to bow to the fancies of their students. Higher education can offer intellectual freedom little more than lip service when it authorizes the heckler’s veto.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434834/jason-riley-virginia-tech-speaking-invitation-rescinded


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on May 09, 2016, 09:45:48 AM
Jason Riley Is the Latest Conservative to Be Disinvited from a College Campus Jason Riley
by PETER WOOD & RACHELLE PETERSON   
May 2, 2016

The higher-education disinvitation sweepstakes continue. Virginia Tech has just disinvited Jason Riley, a Wall Street Journal columnist and Manhattan Institute senior fellow. Riley had been asked to deliver the BB&T Distinguished Lecture at Virginia Tech’s Pamplin College of Business. But late last week he received an e-mail from the faculty member who arranged the lecture informing him that the head of the Finance Department, the J. Gray Ferguson Professor of Finance, Vijay Singal, had vetoed the invitation. We obtained a copy of this e-mail.

Why? Mr. Riley, who is black, has attracted some negative attention since his publication in 2014 of Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed. Professor Singal feared that whatever controversy Riley had attracted so far would be amplified once he set foot on Virginia Tech’s campus. He imagined there would be amplified controversy over Riley’s speech because Virginia Tech is still reverberating from the last BB&T Distinguished Lecture, delivered by Charles Murray on March 25.

That event was widely noted because of the exceptionally clumsy way that Virginia Tech president Tim Sands handled it. Sands sent an “open letter” to the Virginia Tech community on March 10, ostensibly upholding the invitation to Murray but doing so in such poison-pen language that he practically wrote the placards for the protesters. In Sands’s words, Murray’s work, particularly The Bell Curve, is “discredited,” “flawed,” “used by some to justify fascism, racism and eugenics,” and “regarded by some in our community as repugnant, offensive, or even fraudulent.”

It emerged that Dr. Sands actually knew little of Murray’s scholarly work, but relied instead on hearsay from Murray’s distempered critics. Murray answered Sands with a pungent open letter of his own; delivered his scheduled lecture despite some protesters; and left the campus with only one significant casualty — namely President Sands’s reputation.

What makes Jason Riley’s disinvitation notable is how little prompted it. The link between the Murray affair and the disinvitation to Riley isn’t speculative. The letter to Riley telling him his lecture is canceled plunges right into the recent history, including Tim Sands having “embarrassed himself and the university” with his open letter. The professor who wrote to Riley clearly felt chagrined by this turn of events. He is “sure” that President Sands “never read” The Bell Curve, at which he directed such vitriol. And Sands’s remarks, he says, served as an accelerant to a protest at the business school two days before Murray’s speech. The protest turned out to be “an ugly, hate-filled two-hour attack on Charles Murray,” charging him with absurdities such as membership in the Ku Klux Klan.

The head of the finance department had not initially objected to Riley as the next BB&T speaker but later, when he realized that Riley had “written about race issues” in the Wall Street Journal, he decided Riley would have to go. The department head and others in the finance department “worried about more protests from the looney left” and were unmoved by arguments that it was wrong to give in to such intimidation.

Disinvitations from college officials are becoming distressingly common and not quite as shocking as they were a few years ago. The William F. Buckley Jr. Society at Yale last week held its Second Annual Disinvitation Dinner. Last year it honored George Will, disinvited from Scripps College for expressing doubts about “rape culture” on campus. This year, it honored former New York Police commissioner Ray Kelly, who was disinvited from Brown University right at the podium where he was scheduled to speak. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education keeps a summary list of disinvitations, but even FIRE can hardly keep up with the disgraceful trend. It has yet to note, for instance, Suzanne Venker’s disinvitation by “Uncomfortable Learning,” the student group at Williams College that had invited Venker, a critic of feminism. Uncomfortable Learning exists to bring controversial speakers to campus but was overwhelmed by the backlash to Venker’s scheduled appearance.

What makes Jason Riley’s disinvitation notable, though, is how little prompted it. No students threatened to protest his speech or wrote editorials denouncing his views. No one picketed the finance department. Riley’s speech hadn’t even been announced on campus. Mere fear of potential protest swayed Virginia Tech to cancel Riley’s pending event.

For the past six months, cry-bully activists on campuses from Mizzou to Princeton to Dartmouth have bowled over craven administrators who have deferred to their demands and declined to exercise jurisdiction. The Riley disinvitation shows just how low campus authorities are willing to bow to the fancies of their students. Higher education can offer intellectual freedom little more than lip service when it authorizes the heckler’s veto.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434834/jason-riley-virginia-tech-speaking-invitation-rescinded

Wall Street Journal columnist will speak at Virginia Tech after school issues public apology
Posted: Thursday, May 5, 2016
BY ROBBY KORTH | The Roanoke Times

Jason Riley, a conservative columnist for the Wall Street Journal, will speak at Virginia Tech once the school issues him a public, written apology.

Riley stirred controversy earlier this week in a column saying that he was disinvited from speaking at a lecture. He is known as an outspoken black conservative who wrote the 2014 book “Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed,” and for his appearances on Fox News.

At the time, Tech officials said he actually never was invited because a professor who had emailed him an invitation wasn't authorized to do so. Instead, a university committee had selected a Harvard economist to give the BB&T funded business school lecture.

Tech President Timothy Sands said in a Thursday statement that he and other university officials "regret the confusion and assure our friends, parents, students, alumni and partners that we will take the actions necessary to ensure that such miscommunication does not occur in the future."

Tech spokeswoman Tracy Vosburgh said Thursday that the school will issue the public apology at some point. She said details on the Riley talk – assuming he agrees to speak – are not yet ironed out. She said that Riley could come as a part of the original lecture series or a separate function. Riley would be paid by Tech's Pamplin College of Business, she said. The cost for the speech was not available Thursday.

Riley said he had a phone conversation with Virginia Tech Pamplin College of Business Dean Robert Sumichrast, Thursday afternoon.

"He was extremely contrite, respectful and very apologetic for what happened," Riley said of the conversation in a phone interview with The Roanoke Times.

Riley said he appreciated that Sumichrast acknowledged that he was invited and then disinvited. He said in the conversation Sumichrast also offered to issue an apology on the school's behalf, something crucial Riley said because he felt like Tech administrators had been characterizing him "as a liar."

Riley said once he reads the public apology he will make arrangements to travel to Blacksburg for a lecture in the series, though he isn't yet sure if it will be part of the BB&T series or a separate event.

He said he'd like to talk about public policy rather than the behind-the-scenes issues he's had with Virginia Tech.

Riley had said that he was invited by Tech finance professor Douglas Patterson for the 2016 BB&T fall lecture series.

Patterson wrote to Riley "My purpose in writing is to invite you to give the fall 2016 lecture here in Blacksburg."

The university, through the business school dean and its public relations office Tuesday, said Riley was never officially invited to speak.

“I am deeply sorry to see this characterization of Virginia Tech in the national media and across social media,” Sumichrast wrote in a letter to the university community Tuesday.

The committee set up by Sumichrast selected Robert Barro, an economist at Harvard University, as the series’ next speaker, according to Tech spokeswoman Tracy Vosburgh.

Patterson, in the earlier email to Riley, wrote that university officials were concerned about potential backlash after protests after an appearance by Charles Murray as a BB&T lecturer in March.

Riley said he was happy with the outcome. However, he was disappointed because he believes it took media backlash - the issue was discussed on Fox News Wednesday night and in a Riley column in the Wall Street Journal - for him to actually receive the invitation.

"It's kind of a shame that's what it takes for you to be heard on campus," Riley said.

Vosburgh said that the backlash wasn't the reason Tech wanted Riley to come to campus. Once officials realized that he had been offered an invitation by a Tech professor, it was time to make good on it.

"It was the right thing to do," she said.

The BB&T lecture series began in 2007 with a $1 million grant funded by the foundation to explore “the foundations of capitalism and freedom,” according to a 2007 news release.

The courses and lectures are aimed at comparing free market economies with alternative economic systems such as capitalism versus socialism, the release said.

http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/article_dd343f6a-f815-53de-b462-f2238ded786d.html


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on May 10, 2016, 09:50:54 AM
Did Facebook bury conservative news? Ex-staffers say yes.
By Philip Bump
May 9, 2016
 
The great irony of the tech blog Gizmodo's revelation that Facebook's trending-topic curators weeded out stories about Facebook or about issues popular with conservatives is that Gizmodo's story therefore likely won't end up on Facebook's list of trending topics. After all, the report, which suggests that the social media behemoth's team filtered out stories on conservative topics from conservative sites, will most certainly be very, very popular with conservatives. (Update: Or maybe it will.)

What we're talking about here is that little box in the upper right of your Facebook page — the short list of news topics that are being discussed on Facebook at the moment. They're clearly tailored to the user; as I write, mine include stories about New York (where I live) and politics, which I would assume that a surgeon in Dallas probably wouldn't see. Because Facebook has one-sixth of the world using it every day, pretty much everything is being talked about to some extent. The company uses an automatic system (an algorithm) to surface what's currently popular, and a team of staffers then further curates the list to tailor it to meet particular standards.

And there's the problem. Gizmodo quotes several former curators suggesting that conservative news stories would be booted from the automatically generated list of trending stories for two reasons. One was if the story came from a conservative-leaning site,  such as Breitbart.com or Newsmax.com, in which case curators were told to find the same story on a mainstream media site, if possible. The other was if the curator didn't want to include the story or didn't recognize the story as important. It's hard to know the extent to which the latter judgments took place, but one of the former curators — a conservative — told Gizmodo, "I believe it had a chilling effect on conservative news."

That's problematic, for obvious reasons. (Gizmodo notes that it's not clear whether this is still happening, because the trending news algorithm is constantly being tweaked, and that it's not clear whether liberal news was similarly affected.) The bigger question is the extent to which Facebook overlays another filter on top of what you see — and the extent to which that can influence political decisions.

We already knew (even if we sometimes forget) that there are a lot of layers of filtration that occur before you see anything on Facebook. There's the filtering that you yourself do, picking friends, clicking links, posting stuff. There's the main Facebook algorithm that puts things in your feed. That's based in large part on what you tell the system you like. Two years ago, journalist Mat Honan liked everything in his feed, telling Facebook, in short, that he liked everything. Within 48 hours, his feed was a garbage dump. His human curation had failed.

So this manipulation of the trending news is another layer. But it's significant in part because it's the most obvious manifestation of what Facebook wants you to see. Facebook slips ads in your feed and highlights some posts over others, but the trending news is Facebook itself sharing content with you. And as Gizmodo reports, its employees are deliberate in doing so. For example:

In other instances, curators would inject a story — even if it wasn’t being widely discussed on Facebook — because it was deemed important for making the network look like a place where people talked about hard news. “People stopped caring about Syria,” one former curator said. “[And] if it wasn’t trending on Facebook, it would make Facebook look bad.”

Facebook was also criticized for not having a trending topic on the Black Lives Matter movement, one former curator claimed. So they "injected" it into the feed. "This particular injection is especially noteworthy because the #BlackLivesMatter movement originated on Facebook, and the ensuing media coverage of the movement often noted its powerful social media presence," Gizmodo's Michael Nuñez writes. Black Lives Matter existed without Facebook, but this injection could only have helped.

In April, Nuñez reported that Facebook employees were advocating for chief executive Mark Zuckerberg to explain during a company meeting what responsibility Facebook had to block Donald Trump's candidacy. (The question doesn't appear to have been answered.) If it wanted to block Trump from appearing on the site, an expert told Nuñez, it was within its legal rights to do so, just as it can block other forms of content. The report resulted in assurances from the company that it would never interfere with people's voting choices. "We as a company are neutral," a spokesman told The Hill, "we have not and will not use our products in a way that attempts to influence how people vote."

Any news organization, including The Washington Post, is subject to bias introduced by the people that work for it. Hand-tailoring what the trending-news algorithm spits out introduces bias (not that the algorithm itself is without any bias, given that it, too, is cobbled together by humans). But that bias affects an audience of a size that The Post could only dream about.

This is a company that wants to create a system to bring the Internet to the entire world — so that the entire world can use Facebook. It's a company whose chief executive, Zuckerberg, led a recent effort to reform immigration policies in the United States. If Facebook wanted to, it could put a message in support of immigration at the top of every user's news feed, completely legally — though risking huge backlash.

Or it could use its influence more quietly. In 2010, Facebook conducted a social experiment, introducing a tool letting people tell friends when they'd voted in that year's elections. People who saw that message were 0.4 percent more likely to vote — resulting in an estimated 300,000 more people getting to the polls. This prompted a lot of questions about how Facebook could influence turnout, either at its own whim or as a product offered to political campaigns.

That's the issue at the heart of the question over what Facebook is suppressing or promoting. This is a media company at a scale that's without precedent in the world. Nearly three-quarters of American adults who use the Internet use Facebook. And those adults didn't see stories about political topics in their trending news feeds because a human who works at Facebook decided not to show it.

Update: Facebook released a statement on Monday afternoon.

We take allegations of bias very seriously. Facebook is a platform for people and perspectives from across the political spectrum.

Trending Topics shows you the popular topics and hashtags that are being talked about on Facebook.

There are rigorous guidelines in place for the review team to ensure consistency and neutrality. These guidelines do not permit the suppression of political perspectives. Nor do they permit the prioritization of one viewpoint over another or one news outlet over another. These guidelines do not prohibit any news outlet from appearing in Trending Topics.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/09/former-facebook-staff-say-conservative-news-was-buried-raising-questions-about-its-political-influence/


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on May 16, 2016, 03:51:54 PM
My conservative page got blocked by Facebook
By  Todd Starnes 
Published May 16, 2016
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/opinion/2016/05/16/my-conservative-page-got-blocked-by-facebook/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1463405111039.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)

I am the bad boy of Facebook.

I earned that badge of honor back in 2013 when Facebook blocked my page and removed a message I had posted that invoked Paula Deen, the National Rifle Association and Jesus Christ. Here’s what I wrote:

"I'm about as politically incorrect as you can get. I'm wearing an NRA ball cap, eating a Chick-fil-A sandwich, reading a Paula Deen cookbook and sipping a 20-ounce sweet tea while sitting in my Cracker Barrel rocking chair with the Gaither Vocal Band singing 'Jesus Saves' on the stereo and a Gideon's Bible in my pocket. Yes sir, I'm politically incorrect and happy as a June bug."

The folks over at Facebook took great offense to that message.

Join Todd’s American Dispatch newsletter: A must-read for conservatives!

"We removed this from Facebook because it violates our Community Standards," Facebook wrote me. "So you're temporarily blocked from using this feature."

I wasn't even allowed to post our daily Bible verse -- a popular feature called "Morning Glory -- Start Your Day Inspired."

Facebook Inc. (FB) | FindTheCompany

For the record, I really do have a Cracker Barrel rocking chair, I'm quite fond of sweet tea, I love Chick-fil-A, I'm a huge fan of Southern Gospel music, I own several Paula Deen cookbooks and I'm a proud member of the National Rifle Association.

Does that make me a bad person?

I was genuinely perplexed by Facebook's censors – befuddled even.

So I decided to investigate Facebook's community standards – which at best – are rather vague. Among its commandments were bans on nudity, bullying, harassment, graphic content, pornography and spam.

For the record, I require all of our followers to wear pants and Miss Paula was not doing anything unladylike with a stick of butter.

It is true that one of my daily postings included some spam – a delicious recipe for a fried spam sandwich.

It's even more puzzling that they would target a patriotic, conservative website like mine when they allow a host of vulgar, violent and pornographic sites to stay in business.

Among the sites I found just this morning:

“F*** Donald Trump”

“F*** Sarah Palin Hoe A** B****

“Tea Party Can Kiss My A**”

“Rush Limbaugh is an Abject A******”

Had I been reading Saul Alinsky's “Rules For Radicals,” wearing a Planned Parenthood ball cap and smoking a joint, Facebook would've left me alone.

Facebook's decision to block me generated quite a bit of outrage. Don't choke on your Fruit Loops, but even the folks over at The Washington Post came to my defense.

And a few hours after banning me, Facebook had a change of heart.

"A member of our team accidentally removed something you posted on Facebook," they told me in an email. "This was a mistake and we sincerely apologize for this error."

Since that fateful day, I’ve noticed that my page has been subjected to random censorship by the Facebook gods. I’ve received dozens of complaints from readers who tell me my content no longer appears on their pages. In some cases, Facebook won’t allow them to share my postings.

And I’ve lost count of the number of fellow conservative writers whose pages have been blocked, banned or censored.

So I wasn’t all that surprised when a group of former Facebook workers told the tech news website Gizmodo that they put a liberal spin on “Trending Topics” – and routinely censored conservative news.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg strongly denied the allegations.

“Facebook stands for giving everyone a voice,” he wrote in a Facebook posting. “We believe the world is better when people from different backgrounds and with different ideas all have the power to share their thoughts and experiences. That’s what makes social media unique.”

Mr. Zuckerberg has agreed to meet with some conservative newsmakers later this week to address the allegations that Facebook suppressed conservative content.

“The reason I care so much about this is that it gets to the core of everything Facebook is and everything I want it to be,” he wrote. “Every tool we build is designed to give more people a voice and bring our global community together. For as long as I'm leading this company this will always be our mission.”

I really want to believe that Mr. Zuckerberg’s social networking platform is a place where anyone can share anything –a place that gives people a voice -- including people who ascribe to traditional American values.

Because any community that frowns upon the Good Book and sweet tea is a community that violates my personal standards.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/05/16/my-conservative-page-got-blocked-by-facebook.html?intcmp=hplnws


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on June 14, 2016, 10:50:39 AM
Speech by conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos shut down by protesters at DePaul — police and security don’t intervene
By Eugene Volokh May 25

Robby Soave (Reason’s Hit & Run) has more on the incident, with links. He also notes that DePaul demanded $1,000 for security from the College Republicans, who invited Yiannopoulos, as a condition of allowing him to speak. I think universities shouldn’t do that, but instead assure the safety of speakers and students as part of their own responsibility — but if they do charge the money, shouldn’t they at least give the organizers their money’s worth?

The student independent newspaper, DePaulia, has a similar story. One account by a participant (Michael Sitver, writing in an independent blog post at the Huffington Post) who says he talked to the police officers reports that the officers “wanted to do their job, and remove the protesters, but administrators demanded they stand passively and watch.”

The DePaulia article has this reaction from two DePaul student government officials, who suggest that Yiannopoulos should not have been allowed to speak in the first place, and that excluding him would have been “more neutral”:

Others like former Student Government Association senator and to-be EVP of Student Affairs Andrew Willett and to-be senator Michael Lynch said the university should have stepped in beforehand.

“I personally believe the university should not continue with events that are this controversial,” Willett said. “I think they should try to stay a little more neutral. This creates a hostile environment for learning, and our students are not in the best spots right now. Student safety is first and foremost, and this is not productive.”

DePaul University President Dennis H. Holtschneider issued this statement; I was not impressed by it, but you can decide for yourselves what you think:

I am writing from France, where Fr. Udovic and I are leading a mission trip to introduce our trustees to the life and legacy of St. Vincent de Paul. Because today is a free day, a number of us are spending the day in Normandy, touring the museum, walking the famous beaches of the D-Day landings and standing silent before the rows and rows of graves honoring the men and women who gave their lives so others might live in freedom.

I tell you this because I awoke this morning to the reports and online videos of yesterday’s speech by Milo Yiannopoulos and the accompanying protest. I was sorry to see it.

Mr. Yiannopoulos and I share very few opinions. He argues that there is no wage gap for women, a difficult position to maintain in light of government data. As a gay man, he has claimed that sexual preference is entirely a choice, something few if any LGTBQ individuals would claim as their own experience. He claims that white men have fewer privileges than women or people of color, whom he believes are unfairly privileged in modern society — a statement that is immediately suspect when white men continue to occupy the vast majority of top positions in nearly every major industry.

Generally, I do not respond to speakers of Mr. Yiannopoulos’ ilk, as I believe they are more entertainers and self-serving provocateurs than the public intellectuals they purport to be. Their shtick is to shock and incite a strong emotional response they can then use to discredit the moral high ground claimed by their opponents. This is unworthy of university discourse, but not unfamiliar across American higher education. There will always be speakers who exploit the differences within our human community to their own benefit, blissfully unconcerned with the damage they leave behind.

Now that our speaker has moved on to UC Santa Barbara and UCLA, we at DePaul have some reflecting and sorting out to do. Student Affairs will be inviting the organizers of both the event and the protest — as well as any others who wish — to meet with them for this purpose. I’ve asked them to reflect on how future events should be staffed so that they proceed without interruption; how protests are to be more effectively assisted and enabled; and how the underlying differences around race, gender and orientation that were made evident in yesterday’s events can be explored in depth in the coming academic year.

As this proceeds, I wish to make a few matters crystal clear.

Yesterday’s speaker was invited to speak at DePaul, and those who interrupted the speech were wrong to do so. Universities welcome speakers, give their ideas a respectful hearing, and then respond with additional speech countering the ideas. I was ashamed for DePaul University when I saw a student rip the microphone from the hands of the conference moderator and wave it in the face of our speaker.

I was alarmed when I watched individual students on both sides intentionally provoking the others with inflammatory language, but I was proud when I saw students — many students — working to calm each other, and at times, even hold people back from hasty decisions. Many of our students understood that protests only work when people conduct themselves honorably. I wish to thank all of them for self-monitoring the crowd’s behavior. The experience could have been a far worse experience had they not done so.

I wish to thank our Student Affairs staff, Public Safety team, Student Center employees, Chicago police and temporary contract safety personnel. They were thrust into an unexpected and challenging situation that we must examine for hard learned lessons. I am grateful that the situation was calmed and dispersed without serious injury to anyone’s person. I know the staff, too, are reflecting on these events and what might be learned for the future.

On behalf of the university, I apologize to the DePaul College Republicans. ​They deserved an opportunity to hear their speaker uninterrupted, and were denied it.

Here in Normandy, I expected to be moved by the generosity of those who gave their lives on the beaches early on June 6, 1944. I did not expect, however, to be shocked when I realized that most of the soldiers were the same ages as our students today. The rows on rows of white crosses in the American cemetery speak to the selflessness of the human spirit at early adulthood to lay down their lives for a better world.

I realize that many of yesterday’s protesters hold similarly noble goals for a more inclusive world for those traditionally held aside by our society. I realize also that these young soldiers died for all the freedoms enshrined in our Bill of Rights, including freedom of speech and assembly. ​We honor their sacrifice best if we, too, remember and honor all the rights of human freedom, even as we fight for more freedom and justice for all.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/25/speech-by-conservative-speaker-milo-yiannopoulos-shut-down-by-protesters-at-depaul-police-and-security-dont-intervene/


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 20, 2016, 11:41:51 AM
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/06/20/justice-department-replaces-allah-with-god-in-censored-orlando-terrorist-transcript-n2181111


 >:(


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on August 01, 2016, 11:13:59 AM
Conservative Speaker Ben Shapiro: ‘This Is How Free Speech Dies’
Aug. 1, 2016    
Carly Hoilman

Another university has reportedly banned conservative pundit Ben Shapiro from speaking at a campus event.

The decision was announced Monday in a blog post published on Shapiro’s Daily Wire. In the post, John Minster, vice president of DePaul University’s Young Americans for Freedom chapter, lamented the collapse of free thought and discussion on the increasingly liberal American campus scene.

“Given the experiences and security concerns that some other schools have had with Ben Shapiro speaking on their campuses, DePaul cannot agree to allow him to speak on our campus at this time,” the university’s vice president of facilities operations reportedly told YAF in an email last week.

Following the announcement, both Shapiro and YAF provided statements to Minster.

“It’s both pathetic and predictable that the University is happy to grant a veto on speakers to snowflake leftists so long as the leftists threaten violence,” Shapiro said. “This is how free speech dies: when people in power cave to the bullies rather than standing up for basic rights.”

“If DePaul cannot trust its delicate liberal snowflake students and administrators to allow Ben to speak his mind safely and freely, it has utterly failed in its mission to ‘[foster] a community that welcomes open discourse.’ Make no mistake, any security concerns we face on campuses are 100 percent incited by the censorious, intolerant Left,” YAF said.

Minster cited the decision to ban Shapiro as evidence that the fundamental American values listed in the First Amendment are “under attack” in the realm of higher education.

Shapiro’s former fellow Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos was also banned from speaking at DePaul after the conservative provocateur spoke at an on-campus event earlier this year and drew angry crowds of student activists.

It’s not the first time a university tried to block Shapiro from sharing his perceived controversial political views with students. In February, he was banned from speaking at California State University Los Angeles after protesters pressured administrators by deeming Shapiro’s message to be one of racism and intolerance.

Minster concludes his post with a personal account of his first days at DePaul. He described the confidence he felt that “DePaul, while it was likely opposed to most conservative values, would still allow conservative speakers like Ben Shapiro to be heard just the same as they have other speakers like convicted Palestinian terrorist Rasmea Odeh; that DePaul, while undoubtedly liberal, would still uphold the founding values of freedom of speech and expression.”

“I hope I wasn’t wrong,” Minster writes.

The post ends with a plea from DePaul’s YAF chapter, urging the university “to reverse this disgraceful decision.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/08/01/depaul-university-reportedly-bans-conservative-speaker-ben-shapiro-this-is-how-free-speech-dies/


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on August 01, 2016, 04:59:38 PM
More from the generation of thin-skinned sissies we are breeding at our colleges and universities.  It should be the marketplace of ideas, pro and con, not some place where "offensive" viewpoints get censored. 

Student body vice president writes a ‘forget Black Lives Matter’ post, and a university erupts
By Cleve R. Wootson Jr.
August 1, 2016

In the emotional hours after five police officers were shot and killed during a Black Lives Matter protest in Dallas last month, Rohini Sethi vented on Facebook.

“Forget #BlackLivesMatter;” wrote Sethi, the vice president of the Student Government Association at the University of Houston. “More like AllLivesMatter.”

The post was deleted shortly afterward, but not before word spread through the campus of nearly 43,000 students.

Minority student organizations denounced the post as hateful and inflammatory — unbecoming of a student leader elected to represent the entire student body and who receives a stipend from student fees.

In the ensuing days, minority student organizations would call for her to resign or be ousted from office. A hashtag was born: #RemoveRohini.

. . . .

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/08/01/student-body-vice-president-writes-a-forget-black-lives-matter-post-and-a-university-erupts/?tid=sm_fb


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on August 04, 2016, 10:40:58 AM
Student facing 50 day suspension for saying 'All Lives Matter'
By Todd Starnes 
Published August 03, 2016 
FoxNews.com

Politically correct tyranny is afoot at the University of Houston.

I was recently made aware of a student at the university who was suspended for 50 days by the student government association and ordered to attend diversity training over a reference she made about the Black Lives Matter crowd. (She can still go to class but she can't participate in student government activities.)

“#ForgetBlackLivesMatter; more like AllLivesMatter,” wrote Rohini Sethi, the vice president of the school’s student government association.

Click here to join Todd’s American Dispatch: a must-read for conservatives!

Ms. Sethi wrote those words last month just a few hours after five Dallas police officers were assassinated.

Her belief that every life matters set off a firestorm of controversy among students – including the Black Student Union.

They were among several predominantly African-American groups who demanded that Ms. Sethi be punished for exercising her First Amendment rights.

“For her to say on her social media ‘forget black lives matter,’ it’s almost as if to say if all of us were to die tomorrow, she wouldn’t care,” BSU president Kadidja Kone told the Washington Post.

“Just for her to say, ‘forget Black Lives Matter,’ is a punch in the stomach, student Nala Hughes told ABC 13 News in Houston.

The 100 Collegiate Men, an organization for black students, also condemned the idea that all lives matter.

“As of today, African American students do not feel welcome, comfortable, represented, valued or even acknowledged at the University of Houston,” read a statement provided to the Post. “Students at the University of Houston want to feel adequately represented. They do not feel that this is being accomplished as long as Rohini Sethi is in office.”

In order to placate the torches and pitchfork mob, the student government association gave SGA President Shane Smith full authority to mete out a punishment.

And Mr. Smith was more than happy to oblige.

According to the Daily Cougar, Ms. Sethi was suspended from government activities for 50 days.

She was also ordered to attend three cultural events each month, write a letter of reflection on her Facebook posting and make a public presentation “detailing the knowledge she has gained about cultural issues facing our society.”

She was also ordered to attend mandatory diversity training – basically a form of ideological conversion therapy.

It’s ironic because I thought the academic lefties were opposed to conversion therapy.

"The First Amendment prevents a person from being jailed by the government for what they say,” Mr. Smith wrote in a statement. “The First Amendment does not prevent people from receiving other consequences for what they say, including workplace discipline."

I suspect had jail been an option, Mr. Smith would’ve tossed Ms. Sethi in county lockup – just to teach her a lesson.

“It is a fair point that one ignorant social media post alone may not warrant such sanctions,” he wrote. “However, serving in a public role means that we are held to a higher standard – and rightfully so.”

Oh, so Mr. Smith is a school yard bully. I’m certain he will grow up to be a fine community organizer.

But while Mr. Smith’s actions are reprehensible, they are not nearly as reprehensible as the actions of the grownups who actually run the University of Houston.

They provided a statement to the Houston Press – trying to distance themselves from the actions of the student government association.

"The University of Houston continues to stand firm in support of free speech and does not discipline students for exercising their Constitutional rights,” the statement read.

That’s true. They just let power-hungry little fascists-in-training do their dirty work.

Such cowardice!

Ms. Sethi did not return messages seeking comment – but she did post a statement on Facebook.

“I disagree with the sanctions taken against me by my SGA because I believe I have done a great deal to better understand the controversy I caused,” she wrote. “I have also apologized for my words because no student should feel as though I do not have their best interests at heart. Even so, I will abide by the sanctions for as long as they are in place.

Ms. Sethi has done nothing to warrant an apology.

What happened to this young lady is despicable and detestable. She was publically shamed and verbally flogged because she believes every life has value.

But such an opinion is no longer allowed at the University of Houston -- where free speech has been strung up by a politically correct lynch mob.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/08/03/student-facing-50-day-suspension-for-saying-all-lives-matter.html


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on November 15, 2016, 11:22:33 AM
University Program Director Forced to Resign for Pro-Trump Remark
BY: AMANDA PRESTIGIACOMO
NOVEMBER 14, 2016

On Thursday, University of Rochester's Ted Pawlicki was pressured to step down as undergraduate program director of the Department of Computer Science after posting a pro-Trump remark in the school’s anti-Trump and anti-America protest Facebook page following the election. Pawlicki made the grave sin of not only having a differing view than the masses at the upstate New York school, but having the audacity to vocalize it. Moreover, seemingly all other dissent from professors, school officials and students—from the anti-Trump strain—were not only tolerated but encouraged.

On Wednesday, Professor Pawlicki rebutted the school’s anti-American protest with a joke administered via his personal Facebook account. The professor posted the following comment on the school’s “#NotMyAmerica” protest page: “A bus ticket from Rochester to Canada is $16. If this is not your America, then I will pay for your ticket if you promise to never come back.”

(https://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2016/11/final_screenshot.jpg)

“I have reported this as a bias incident report,” wrote student Caleb Krieg.

Many other campus snowflakes were also gravely “offended.”

“Shocking, tone-deaf and insensitive to the students that you teach. Shame on you,” wrote another student, Julie DeLuca.

“This is why women and minorities don’t feel welcome in the computer science department,” wrote student Bethany Gardner, although Pawlicki made no connection to women or minorities…?

Perhaps these students should have never left their safe spaces and continued coloring, holding hands and blowing bubbles, or whatever it is that these frail folks do to avoid reality and dissent.

"It was intended to be humorous, actually," Pawlicki told The Democrat and Chronicle. "Moving to Canada (in reaction to presidential election outcomes) has been a joke since the Reagan administration. I didn't intend it to be malicious, certainly. I don't think there's anything malicious about it, either."

"Pawlicki said he had directed the undergraduate computer science program for 18 years and that, 'I love the job.' He said he would continue in his role as a senior lecturer, an untenured teaching faculty position," reports the D&C.

"It was suggested that I step down (as director) by my chair and my dean and I took their advice," said Pawlicki.

Of course, all the anti-Trump dissent at the university was oddly a-okay.

After the apparently devastating and emotionally crippling election loss of Hillary, the school exploded with grief and anti-Trump and anti-America protests. One student who spoke to the Daily Wire, and wished to remain anonymous for obvious reasons, told us that “liberal professors have been openly voicing their opinions in classrooms this entire week, and even pushing exams back for students who are ‘emotionally hurt’ [by the election].” The University of Rochester President Joe Seligman even sent out an email on Wednesday to assure students "we are a safe place" and the campus sent out notifications offering free counseling for anyone "struggling" with "last night's election."

Below is a screenshot of the hysterical #NotMyAmerica protest email invite sent to students on campus, which paints all Republicans as racist, sexist bigots.

(https://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2016/11/anti_america_.jpg)
Screenshot: Twitter

Pawlicki was compelled to repent for his act of blasphemy, issuing an apology letter and stepping down from his position as program director.

“These remarks were ill-considered,” Pawlicki wrote, “and I deeply regret any and all hurt they occasioned.”

“After reflecting on the impact my remarks have had on students, and following consultation with Dr. Wendi Heinzelman, Dean of Hajim School, and Dr. Sandhya Dwarkadas, Chair of Computer Science, I have decided to step down from the position of Undergraduate Program Director for Computer Science,” he said.

(https://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2016/11/letter.jpg)
'Screenshot: Twitter

Students are now claiming that Pawlicki has previously made female students feel "unwelcome," although this is has never been brought to his attention before, Pawlicki says.

"His recent Facebook post was unprofessional and upset many students, but what it also did was prompt students to share similar instances in which Pawlicki has shown bias against women," said senior Lance Floto. "Female students have told me they do not feel comfortable in his class or visiting his office hours."

"Some students have claimed they dropped his classes in the past because of his online remarks," reports the Campus Times.

Pawlicki told the Campus Times "that he was unaware of any students who had dropped his classes for that reason."

The Daily Wire reached out to Mr. Pawlicki for comment but did not receive a response in time for publication.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/10766/university-professor-steps-down-program-director-amanda-prestigiacomo#


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 15, 2016, 11:34:00 AM
Lol at Libfags.   What a bunch of losers and vaginas


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on November 18, 2016, 08:57:38 AM
Confrontation/Marxist Anti-Free Speech Tactics start at 2:30

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CKm00W68Eg


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: mazrim on November 18, 2016, 09:20:22 AM
University Program Director Forced to Resign for Pro-Trump Remark
BY: AMANDA PRESTIGIACOMO
NOVEMBER 14, 2016

On Thursday, University of Rochester's Ted Pawlicki was pressured to step down as undergraduate program director of the Department of Computer Science after posting a pro-Trump remark in the school’s anti-Trump and anti-America protest Facebook page following the election. Pawlicki made the grave sin of not only having a differing view than the masses at the upstate New York school, but having the audacity to vocalize it. Moreover, seemingly all other dissent from professors, school officials and students—from the anti-Trump strain—were not only tolerated but encouraged.

On Wednesday, Professor Pawlicki rebutted the school’s anti-American protest with a joke administered via his personal Facebook account. The professor posted the following comment on the school’s “#NotMyAmerica” protest page: “A bus ticket from Rochester to Canada is $16. If this is not your America, then I will pay for your ticket if you promise to never come back.”

(https://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2016/11/final_screenshot.jpg)

“I have reported this as a bias incident report,” wrote student Caleb Krieg.

Many other campus snowflakes were also gravely “offended.”

“Shocking, tone-deaf and insensitive to the students that you teach. Shame on you,” wrote another student, Julie DeLuca.

“This is why women and minorities don’t feel welcome in the computer science department,” wrote student Bethany Gardner, although Pawlicki made no connection to women or minorities…?

Perhaps these students should have never left their safe spaces and continued coloring, holding hands and blowing bubbles, or whatever it is that these frail folks do to avoid reality and dissent.

"It was intended to be humorous, actually," Pawlicki told The Democrat and Chronicle. "Moving to Canada (in reaction to presidential election outcomes) has been a joke since the Reagan administration. I didn't intend it to be malicious, certainly. I don't think there's anything malicious about it, either."

"Pawlicki said he had directed the undergraduate computer science program for 18 years and that, 'I love the job.' He said he would continue in his role as a senior lecturer, an untenured teaching faculty position," reports the D&C.

"It was suggested that I step down (as director) by my chair and my dean and I took their advice," said Pawlicki.

Of course, all the anti-Trump dissent at the university was oddly a-okay.

After the apparently devastating and emotionally crippling election loss of Hillary, the school exploded with grief and anti-Trump and anti-America protests. One student who spoke to the Daily Wire, and wished to remain anonymous for obvious reasons, told us that “liberal professors have been openly voicing their opinions in classrooms this entire week, and even pushing exams back for students who are ‘emotionally hurt’ [by the election].” The University of Rochester President Joe Seligman even sent out an email on Wednesday to assure students "we are a safe place" and the campus sent out notifications offering free counseling for anyone "struggling" with "last night's election."

Below is a screenshot of the hysterical #NotMyAmerica protest email invite sent to students on campus, which paints all Republicans as racist, sexist bigots.

(https://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2016/11/anti_america_.jpg)
Screenshot: Twitter

Pawlicki was compelled to repent for his act of blasphemy, issuing an apology letter and stepping down from his position as program director.

“These remarks were ill-considered,” Pawlicki wrote, “and I deeply regret any and all hurt they occasioned.”

“After reflecting on the impact my remarks have had on students, and following consultation with Dr. Wendi Heinzelman, Dean of Hajim School, and Dr. Sandhya Dwarkadas, Chair of Computer Science, I have decided to step down from the position of Undergraduate Program Director for Computer Science,” he said.

(https://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2016/11/letter.jpg)
'Screenshot: Twitter

Students are now claiming that Pawlicki has previously made female students feel "unwelcome," although this is has never been brought to his attention before, Pawlicki says.

"His recent Facebook post was unprofessional and upset many students, but what it also did was prompt students to share similar instances in which Pawlicki has shown bias against women," said senior Lance Floto. "Female students have told me they do not feel comfortable in his class or visiting his office hours."

"Some students have claimed they dropped his classes in the past because of his online remarks," reports the Campus Times.

Pawlicki told the Campus Times "that he was unaware of any students who had dropped his classes for that reason."

The Daily Wire reached out to Mr. Pawlicki for comment but did not receive a response in time for publication.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/10766/university-professor-steps-down-program-director-amanda-prestigiacomo#
How anyone can take a job at these places is beyond me. I couldn't live with the stupidity/hypocrisy.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Yamcha on November 21, 2016, 02:43:20 PM
Wonder why we don't here about this on our news outlets???  ???

http://archive.is/cftNS (http://archive.is/cftNS)

New Yorker charged in ’Nice-style Truck Attack in Times Square’ terrorism plot - report

A Brooklyn, New York resident has been charged by federal authorities for supporting terrorism, after making online postings supporting ISIS in plotting to commit an attack in Times Square similar to that in Nice, France.
The man has been identified as Mohammed Rafik Naji, 37, a legal US resident originally from Yemen, according to NBC News investigative reporter Tom Winter.
Naji made several online posts in support of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), Winter said, citing the federal complaint.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Irongrip400 on November 21, 2016, 06:52:39 PM
How anyone can take a job at these places is beyond me. I couldn't live with the stupidity/hypocrisy.

I was thinking the same thing. Pretty lame. I've got a book called "Liberal Facism" about this very thing.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Yamcha on November 22, 2016, 09:11:42 AM
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/21/university-new-hampshire-professors-call-trump-supporters-expelled/ (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/21/university-new-hampshire-professors-call-trump-supporters-expelled/)

Professors want students suspended for silently protesting the anti-Trump protestors, while dressed as Nixon and Harambe.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on January 02, 2017, 09:22:56 AM
University of Oregon Professors Could Be Fired If They Offend Students
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/05/10584676434_c9fee88d9a_k-640x480.jpg)
by TOM CICCOTTA
29 Dec 2016
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Last week, administrators at the University of Oregon made it clear to professors that they would be disciplined if they offended students on the subjects of race, gender, sexuality, or religion.

This is a concerning new development considering that this new warning from administrators suggests that professors can be disciplined based upon what students subjectively choose to find offensive. Discipline for remarks made by professors is not limited to bigoted remarks or deliberate racism, but rather any incident that a student may find offensive.

According to The Washington Post, a faculty member could be disciplined for something as innocuous as suggesting that there are biological differences in temperament or talents between men and women.

This time it involved someone making herself up as a black man at a costume party (as it happens, doing so in order to try to send an antiracist message). But according to the university’s logic, a faculty member could be disciplined for displaying the Mohammed cartoons, if it caused enough of a furor. Or a faculty member could be disciplined for suggesting that homosexuality may be immoral or dangerous. Or for stating that biological males who view themselves as female should be viewed as men, not as women. Or for suggesting that there are, on average, biological differences in temperament or talents between men and women.

The warning from administrators came as a result of an incident that occurred in the home a University of Oregon law school professor. The professor, Nancy Shurtz, hosted a Halloween party for some of her students and chose to dress up as a character from the recently acclaimed book, “Black Man in a White Coat.” Shurtz’s decision to dress in blackface, despite the book’s anti-racist message, obviously sparked controversy on campus.

According to Eugene Volokh of The Washington Post, the following acts of expression could be considered harassment under the University of Oregon’s new policy:

Sharp criticism of Islam.
Claims that homosexuality is immoral.
Claims that there are biological differences in aptitude and temperament, on average, between men and women.
Rejection of the view that gender identity can be defined by self-perception, as opposed to biology.
Harsh condemnation of soldiering (that would be harassment based on “service in the uniformed services” or “veteran status”).
Condemnation of people who have children out of wedlock (that would be harassment based on “marital … status” and “family status”).

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/12/29/5818857/


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on February 02, 2017, 11:14:37 AM
Silence opposing viewpoints.  A liberal hallmark. 

Trump hints that federal funding could be cut after U.C. Berkeley riot
Published February 02, 2017 
FoxNews.com

President Trump tweeted early Thursday that if schools like University of California, Berkeley, do not allow free speech, it may cost them federal funding.

The tweet was in response to violent protests that were in response to a planned talk on campus Wednesday by Milo Yiannopoulos, a controversial Breitbart News editor. The talk was canceled due to the protests.

Donald J. Trump  ✔@realDonaldTrump
If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view - NO FEDERAL FUNDS?
1:13 AM - 2 Feb 2017

The decision was made two hours before the event because a crowd of more than 1,500 had gathered outside the venue, the university said in a statement.

"Of paramount importance this evening was the campus's commitment to ensure the safety and security of those attending the event, the speaker, those who came to engage in lawful protest, as well as members of the public and the Berkeley campus community," it said.

The 32-year-old right-wing provocateur is a vocal supporter of President Donald Trump and a self-proclaimed internet troll whose comments have been criticized as racist, misogynist, anti-Muslim and white supremacist. He was banned from Twitter after leading a harassment campaign against "Ghostbusters" actress Leslie Jones.

Yiannopoulos' visit to Berkeley was sponsored by the campus Republican club. The university has stressed it did not invite him and does not endorse his ideas but is committed to free speech and rejected calls to cancel the event.

Hundreds of peaceful demonstrators carrying signs that read "Hate Speech Is Not Free Speech" had been protesting for hours before the event.

In the evening, a small group dressed in black and in hooded sweatshirts used metal barricades to break windows, threw smoke bombs and flares, used a diesel generator to start a large bonfire outside the building.

"This was a group of agitators who were masked up, throwing rocks, commercial grade fireworks and Molotov cocktails at officers," said UC Berkeley Police Chief Margo Bennet.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/02/trump-hints-that-federal-funding-could-be-cut-after-u-c-berkeley-riot.html


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on February 02, 2017, 11:16:52 AM
And here is one of those tolerant liberals pepper spraying a young woman who had the nerve to show up wearing a MAGA hat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x643kcoc8FU


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Yamcha on February 02, 2017, 11:22:17 AM
And here is one of those tolerant liberals pepper spraying a young woman who had the nerve to show up wearing a MAGA hat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x643kcoc8FU

I'm 85% sure that the hat says "make Bitcoin great again".

Still, she's going to a Milo/Breitbart event at Cal Berkeley. Should have taken her surroundings into account.

EDIT: Yes, Bitcoin

(https://i.reddituploads.com/5c4e13518f3c407d88005af4a360b217?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=fdaea12292afdccd75b70e62a5857652)


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on February 02, 2017, 11:32:03 AM
Wonder why we don't here about this on our news outlets???  ???

http://archive.is/cftNS (http://archive.is/cftNS)

New Yorker charged in ’Nice-style Truck Attack in Times Square’ terrorism plot - report

A Brooklyn, New York resident has been charged by federal authorities for supporting terrorism, after making online postings supporting ISIS in plotting to commit an attack in Times Square similar to that in Nice, France.
The man has been identified as Mohammed Rafik Naji, 37, a legal US resident originally from Yemen, according to NBC News investigative reporter Tom Winter.
Naji made several online posts in support of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), Winter said, citing the federal complaint.

great question ::)

http://nypost.com/2016/11/21/man-arrested-for-plotting-terror-attack-on-times-square/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/fbi-arrests-brooklyn-man-joined-isis-hoped-attack-nyc-article-1.2882425

http://abc7ny.com/news/prosecutors-man-wanted-to-plan-france-style-attack-in-times-square/1618510/

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/nyregion/brooklyn-man-arrested-isis.html?_r=0


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on February 03, 2017, 04:08:17 PM
I had never heard of this Milo Yiannopoulos, but after watching this interview, I like him.  He really exposes how pervasive liberal censorship can be.  Great interview. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWo5F9vPNI0


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Yamcha on February 03, 2017, 05:04:55 PM
Yes, we have countless examples of liberal censorship and lame hurt feelings.

But as a man in the middle, I see plenty of close minded conservatives.
Anything Trump says or does is met with almost GOD like approval.

Objectivity and fair minded judgements are the real victims here.

You can leave or actually contribute something of value to this board (besides your opinions).


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Skeletor on February 03, 2017, 05:13:20 PM
Yes, we have countless examples of liberal censorship and lame hurt feelings.

But as a man in the middle, I see plenty of close minded conservatives.
Anything Trump says or does is met with almost GOD like approval.

Objectivity and fair minded judgements are the real victims here.

Being close minded in itself is not much of a problem: someone worshiping Obama or Trump as god and ignoring their flaws does not cause much harm to others. The problem starts when people actively try to silence others for their views (real or perceived) and resort to violence and destruction.


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on February 23, 2017, 10:44:17 AM
Hundreds of campuses encourage students to turn in fellow students for offensive speech
By ADAM STEINBAUGH • 2/21/17

Universities are the cradle of free speech, where ideologies and ideas clash, where academics and activists can agree, disagree, or be disagreeable. This is particularly true in the United States, where the First Amendment zealously guards against government surveillance and intrusion into free speech.

Yet at hundreds of campuses across the country, administrators encourage students to report one another, or their professors, for speech protected by the First Amendment, or even mere political disagreements. The so-called "Bias Response Teams" reviewing these (often anonymous) reports typically include police officers, student conduct administrators and public relations staff who scrutinize the speech of activists and academics.

This sounds like the stuff of Orwell, although even he might have found the name "Bias Response Team" to be over-the-top.

Over the past year, I surveyed more than 230 such reporting systems for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and asked dozens of schools for records about their Bias Response Teams. What I found is detailed in a new report describing how universities broadly define "bias" to include virtually any speech, protected or not, that subjectively offends anyone. On many campuses, administrators are called upon to referee whether speech is polite.

The threat to expressive rights isn't confined to speech from the Left or the Right. Bias reporting systems are being used to report all kinds of speech.

At Appalachian State University, students reported on one another for chalked messages that were pro-Trump as well as chalked messages calling Trump a "RACIST." The former were reported by students as "hate speech," the latter "politically biased slander" that was "unlawful."

While students at Ohio State University reported each other for comparing Hillary Clinton to Hitler, students at Texas Tech were whispering to administrators that the Black Student Union's tweets in support of the Black Lives Matter movement offended them. Meanwhile, the University of Oregon saw it fit to dictate "community expectations" to students who had the audacity to complain about oppression.

Yes, complaining about oppression may bring the Bias Response Team to your dorm room to explain why your views were insufficiently polite, decent, and non-controversial.

These are just a few of the examples we've published so far, and over the next several weeks we plan on publishing more on our website.

What happens when the Bias Response Team is alerted to subversive or offensive speech? Some teams have demonstrated an awareness that a public university cannot (and should not) act to chill protected speech, focusing their efforts instead on supporting students who encounter offensive speech. But others, such as the University of California, San Diego, call upon their lawyers to find "creative" ways to censor offensive speech: in that case, a student newspaper satirizing "safe spaces." (The university is now being sued for these "creative" efforts.)

Many Bias Response Teams respond with what they characterize as an "educational" response. This might sound like a faculty member visiting a student who was reported for racist speech and discussing the Civil Rights movement. But it's not. Rather, it's often an administrator, not an educator, summoning a student or faculty member to a meeting, reprimanding them, and "educating" them about how their words upset someone.

That was the case at the University of Northern Colorado, where an adjunct professor encouraged students to confront views with which they disagreed. When a student sparred with the professor over transgender rights, a debate raging both in the media media and legislative and judicial chambers, the professor was summoned to meet with an administrator, who warned the professor that discussing such issues might result in lengthy investigations.

How will students be able to defend their rights in the legislature or the courts if debating them in the classroom is to be discouraged?

Students face serious instances of harassment, true threats, and other conduct that is not protected by the First Amendment. Yet in asking students to report any and all offensive speech, universities risk undermining their commitment to free discourse and debate.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/students-rat-each-other-out-over-speech/article/2615405


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on March 30, 2017, 09:19:10 PM
Protesters seek to disrupt Villanova lecture; 3 removed
Students gather outside the Garey Hall auditorium on the on campus of Villanova University to hear controversial social scientist Charles Murray speak on Thursday, March 30, 2017.
by Maria Panaritis, Staff Writer  @panaritism |  mpanaritis@phillynews.com

Villanova University public safety officers removed at least three protesters from a Thursday afternoon lecture by Charles Murray, the controversial social scientist accused of being a white nationalist over his writings about race, economic status and intelligence.

A fourth protester left on his own.

The ejections came amid a heavy police presence outside the law school on the Main Line campus, where Murray had been invited to deliver a lecture titled "What Does Trumpism Mean for Liberty in the Long Run?"

Though planned months ago, his visit comes three weeks after a similar talk at Middlebury College in Vermont sparked violence. Demonstrators there swarmed and rocked a car in which and a professor were riding; the professor with him suffered a concussion.

About a dozen protestors gathered inside and outside the hall, and a few dozen students mulled about outside, but it was unclear if they were observing or participating.

At one point, the few outside protesters began shouting so loudly it disrupted Murray's remarks before 120 ticketed guests.

 "No Murray! No KKK! No fascist USA !" they chanted.

At one point, Murray grew exasperated.

"Okay folks," Murray said from a lectern, "I'm getting a little pissed at this point."

Murray, 74, is known for a 1994 book, The Bell Curve, that drew controversial lines between race, IQ and socio-economics. Critics have complained that it amounted to "scientific racism."

He forcefully defended himself against such claims at Villanova. He had been invited by the Ryan Center, which says it wants to promote civil, economic, and financial liberty; federalism; and the American Constitution. ​

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Murray-lecture-Villanova-protest.html


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: TheGrinch on March 30, 2017, 10:53:13 PM
Protesters seek to disrupt Villanova lecture; 3 removed
Students gather outside the Garey Hall auditorium on the on campus of Villanova University to hear controversial social scientist Charles Murray speak on Thursday, March 30, 2017.
by Maria Panaritis, Staff Writer  @panaritism |  mpanaritis@phillynews.com

Villanova University public safety officers removed at least three protesters from a Thursday afternoon lecture by Charles Murray, the controversial social scientist accused of being a white nationalist over his writings about race, economic status and intelligence.

A fourth protester left on his own.

The ejections came amid a heavy police presence outside the law school on the Main Line campus, where Murray had been invited to deliver a lecture titled "What Does Trumpism Mean for Liberty in the Long Run?"

Though planned months ago, his visit comes three weeks after a similar talk at Middlebury College in Vermont sparked violence. Demonstrators there swarmed and rocked a car in which and a professor were riding; the professor with him suffered a concussion.

About a dozen protestors gathered inside and outside the hall, and a few dozen students mulled about outside, but it was unclear if they were observing or participating.

At one point, the few outside protesters began shouting so loudly it disrupted Murray's remarks before 120 ticketed guests.

 "No Murray! No KKK! No fascist USA !" they chanted.

At one point, Murray grew exasperated.

"Okay folks," Murray said from a lectern, "I'm getting a little pissed at this point."

Murray, 74, is known for a 1994 book, The Bell Curve, that drew controversial lines between race, IQ and socio-economics. Critics have complained that it amounted to "scientific racism."

He forcefully defended himself against such claims at Villanova. He had been invited by the Ryan Center, which says it wants to promote civil, economic, and financial liberty; federalism; and the American Constitution. ​

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Murray-lecture-Villanova-protest.html


LOL @ "scientific racism"

hehe.. scientific facts are racist... amazing


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on April 21, 2017, 05:12:49 PM
Ann Coulter rejects Berkeley's proposal to reschedule her speech
Published April 21, 2017
FoxNews.com

Ann Coulter said no to a proposal by the University of California, Berkeley, that would reschedule her planned speech on campus -- to a date when no formal classes are in session.

"You cannot impose arbitrary and harassing restrictions on the exercise of a constitutional right," Coulter told "Hannity" on Thursday night. "None of this has to do with security."

The conservative commentator initially agreed to speak at Berkeley on April 27 after college Republicans invited her, but the school canceled on Wednesday citing threats of rioting and other violence. Still, Coulter said she would show up anyway.

ANN COULTER VOWS TO SPEAK AT BERKELEY AFTER EVENT CALLED OFF
 
"What are they going to do? Arrest me?" she asked Tucker Carlson that evening.

By Thursday, the university announced it could round up the proper security to let her speak on May 2. The school's academic calendar shows that it falls in a "Reading/Review/Recitation Week" after the end of formal classes but before final exams.

"I'm speaking at Berkeley on April 27th, as I was invited to do and have a contract to do," Coulter tweeted. She also claimed she was unavailable May 2.

NY'S FREE-TUITION PROGRAM BLASTED BY BOTH RIGHT AND LEFT

It was the latest skirmish in a free-speech fight involving conservative voices on college campuses across the country, including at Berkeley. In February, masked rioters at the school smashed windows, set fires, and shut down an appearance by former Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos. Last week, the Berkeley College Republicans said threats of violence forced them to cancel a speech by writer David Horowitz. Writer Charles Murray's appearance at Middlebury saw riots last month, and Heather Mac Donald's speech at Claremont McKenna College was streamed online earlier this month after protesters blocked the door to the venue.

Chancellor Nicholas B. Dirks told a news conference that police had "very specific intelligence regarding threats that could pose a grave danger to the speaker," her audience, and protesters if the event goes ahead next Thursday. He urged Coulter to speak at the later date instead, when the university can provide an "appropriate, protectable venue."

The Berkeley College Republicans invited Coulter to speak on the subject of illegal immigration.

Campus spokesman Dan Moguluf said Coulter's promise "to come to the campus come what may" prompted Dirks to launch an expanded search beyond the usual venues for high-profile speakers to find one where officials can ensure safety.

Berkeley has been the site of clashes between far-right and far-left protesters, most recently at a rally last weekend called in support of President Donald Trump in downtown Berkeley.

Mogulof said campus police learned that some of the groups that appeared to be responsible for the violence last weekend and at the Yiannopoulos event "planned to target the appearance of Ann Coulter on campus."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/21/ann-coulter-rejects-berkeleys-proposal-to-reschedule-her-speech.html


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 22, 2017, 03:53:59 AM
Bunch of outdoes


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Slapper on April 22, 2017, 08:18:39 AM
We all have to understand one thing about the left, or what it really is nowadays, the radical left: they will piggy-back off of genuine popular discontent, take control of and eventually run any method of dissent. They do so not because they really feel for the red spotted owl of North Dakota, but because it gets them "popular support," or a step closer to getting the power.

So it shouldn't come as any surprise that they will do their utmost to silence any critics, including sabotaging anything allowed by the Fifth Amendment.  

Remember, ONLY THEM want: 1) peace on earth, 2) an articulate, free and affluent middle class, 3) free education, 4) zero pollution, 5) gay and women rights to be observed, 6) free and effective press/media, et cetera. TO THEM, conservatives are the exact opposite of this, and that is the mistake they keep making here in the US, the mistake they've made in the past around the world that has cost hundreds of millions of human lives and a mistake they will continue to make unless genuine discontent isn't allowed to flow through the proper and much more effective channels.

The censorship methods used by the radical left are essentially the same as the ones used by Stalin's people in the old USSR. It started in the very same manner: They were initially allowed to coexist to as to "save face," then groups of "uncontrolled citizens" (in reality they were government agents) began sabotaging and even killing dissenters and eventually they just killed anyone who uttered anything remotely critical of the status quo.

All in the name of "popular support".  


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on May 10, 2017, 04:44:37 PM
Boos drown out Betsy DeVos' speech at Bethune-Cookman graduation
USA TODAY NETWORK Caroline Glenn, Florida Today  
May 10, 2017

Education Secretary Betsy Devos delievered the commencement speech at Bethune-Cookman, a historically black university. Video by Caroline Glenn, FLORIDA TODAY

DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. — Education Secretary Betsy DeVos struggled to deliver her commencement speech at a historically black college Wednesday, as the crowd drowned out her words with roaring boos.

Her remarks at Bethune-Cookman University on the importance of education were overpowered by calls from the audience to "shut the (expletive) up" and "not a Wildcat," the name of the university's teams.

Jeers from the audience persisted throughout her 20-minute speech, when she was introduced and while she accepted an honorary degree.

More: Petition supported by teachers' unions asks college to disinvite DeVos

At one point, university President Edison Jackson interrupted DeVos to warn students, "If this behavior continues, we can mail the degrees to you." At least one person was escorted out of the arena.


Online petitions managed to collect signatures from about 60,000 people who didn't want DeVos at Bethune-Cookman. A handful of protesters from the NAACP, Florida Education Association and American Federation of Teachers, also flocked to Daytona Beach's convention center, the site of the graduation.

Still, Jackson defended the decision at a news conference before the event.

After an hour delay, during which journalists could not leave the building to speak with students or protesters, Jackson answered only three of four questions.

 TomJoyner Foundation @tomjoynerfound
"If this behavior continues, your degrees will be mailed to you. Choose which way you want to go." - @bethunecookman President Jackson says.
7:11 AM - 10 May 2017

The university volunteered one student to speak to the media, but he was quickly whisked away as reporters began asking questions.

"We have always been in the business of making friends, and if you don't have friends, it's very difficult to raise money," Jackson said during a news conference before the ceremony. "Her department controls roughly 80% of Title IV monies, as well as grants. So why wouldn't we want to make friends?"

Protesters from The Dream Defenders, a Florida youth organization working to better the lives of black communities, said DeVos will actually make it harder for Bethune-Cookman graduates to pay back their student loans after she halted an Obama-era program to help students manage federal college loans.

"Betsy DeVos should not be speaking at an HBCU. Betsy DeVos should not be the speaker at any educational institution," Rachel Gilmer, co-director of Dream Defenders, said in reference to DeVos' favoritism for non-traditional public schools.

A group of students stand and turn their backs during
A group of students stand and turn their backs during a commencement speech by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos at Bethune-Cookman University on Wednesday, May 10, 2017, in Daytona Beach, Fla. (Photo: John Raoux, AP)
Protesters said the move polarized what should be a day focused on the graduating students.

"This was not supposed to be a political event," said Keon Williams, a Bethune-Cookman alumnus. "They made this about politics."

More: Trump orders DeVos to get rid of 'overreaching mandates' in schools

In February, President Trump met with leaders from America's historically black colleges and universities when he signed an executive order to move assistance for the institutions from the Department of Education to the White House.

That's where, school officials said, the conversation started to bring DeVos to Bethune-Cookman's graduation. The decision to have DeVos address the some-300 graduating students came under immediate scrutiny.

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos spoke at a recent summit in Utah. Video provided by Newsy Newslook

Opponents pointed to DeVos' past comments about HBCUs as the "real pioneers when it comes to school choice. They are living proof that when more options are provided to students, they are afforded greater access and greater quality. Their success has shown that more options help students flourish.”

Critics quickly slammed DeVos' statement, arguing HBCUs were the only choice.

More: After backlash for hailing HBCUs as school choice 'pioneers', DeVos pivots her message

Clifford Porter, assistant vice president for institutional advancement, said while the university is "very aware of the misstatement," he hoped Wednesday's event would be an opportunity to educate DeVos about HBCUs.

Students and alumni also have taken issue with the university's perceived comparison of DeVos to their school's founder, Mary McLeod Bethune, an educator, humanitarian and civil rights activist.

"We couldn't disagree more," Gilmer said.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/05/10/betsy-devos-bethune-cookman-university-boos/316326001/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tj8T8RRF2ZY


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on May 24, 2017, 06:55:29 PM
No doubt emboldened by getting rid of O'Reilly.

Sean Hannity Sees Liberal Attempt To Drive Him Off The Air: ‘This Is A Kill Shot’
The Fox News host defiantly pushes back against critics in a HuffPost interview just as a first advertiser flees.
By Michael Calderone
05/24/2017

As Fox News host Sean Hannity came under fire for fueling a conspiracy theory about a murdered Democratic National Committee staffer, Media Matters on Tuesday ran a straightforward, yet potentially ominous headline for him: “These are Sean Hannity’s advertisers.”

Last month, then-Fox News star and accused sexual harasser Bill O’Reilly saw more than 50 companies quickly flee his show following an advertiser boycott led by Media Matters and other progressive organizations. Hannity tweeted more than a dozen times Wednesday that “liberal fascists” at Media Matters now were targeting him just as Cars.com became the first advertiser to jump ship.

The recent attention being paid to his advertisers, Hannity said in an interview with HuffPost, is an attempt by progressives to silence his conservative voice.

“There’s nothing that I did, nothing that I said, except they don’t like my position politically,” he said. “They’ll try to ratchet up the intensity of their rationale. It does not justify an attempt to get me fired. And that’s what this is. This is an attempt to take me out. This is a kill shot.”

Media Matters president Angelo Carusone told HuffPost his organization isn’t pushing for an advertiser boycott. He said readers turn to the group for information on conservative media figures, and an accurate list of advertisers was relevant to post given the public outcry over Hannity’s coverage of Seth Rich’s slaying.

Conspiracy theorists have claimed the 27-year-old DNC staffer was murdered last summer in Washington in retaliation for being WikiLeaks’ source of party emails later published online. The U.S. intelligence community, though, concluded it was Russian hackers who infiltrated the DNC and not the work of an internal whistleblower. Washington police consider Rich’s murder to have been a botched robbery attempt. And Rich’s parents have asked for people to stop politicizing their son’s death.

But Hannity continued pushing the theory on his radio show Tuesday afternoon even after Fox News’ website retracted a story featuring unproven claims of a link between Rich and WikiLeaks. He later teased a major development coming on his Tuesday night Fox News show. But Hannity said during the broadcast that he would stop speaking about the case at this time out of respect for Rich’s family.

Hannity told HuffPost he received no pressure from Fox News brass or Rupert Murdoch, the executive chairman of parent company 21st Century Fox, to back off the story.

“I did it out of my own heart,” he said. “Nobody tells me what to say on my show. They never have and frankly they never will. I’m not that type of person you can say, ‘Go on air and say this.’ That’s been the beauty of Fox News all these years. They leave me alone.”

A year ago, Fox News appeared invincible amid 15 years of rating dominance among cable news networks. But co-founder and chairman Roger Ailes left in disgrace in July following a sexual harassment scandal; he died last week. O’Reilly, the top-rated cable host, swiftly lost his perch in April following a social media-fueled boycott. Co-president Bill Shine, who Hannity personally advocated for on Twitter, was out weeks later.

Carusone said he views Hannity “freaking out” on Twitter as evidence of “palpable fear and anxiety,” given those high-profile departures from Fox News. “I think it illustrates the anxiety he feels,” he said. Still, Carusone also said Hannity was exploiting the opportunity to attack the left.

Last week, Media Matters launched a campaign ― “Know What You’re Sponsoring” ― that’s aimed at making sure “ad buyers know what their clients are sponsoring if they spend their ad dollars with Fox,” according to the group’s release. Carusone said posting the list of Hannity’s advertisers is “a continuation of that conversation,” and pointed out that Media Matters compiled it through publicly available information.

Carusone said the problem with Hannity’s brand right now from an advertiser perspective is not that it’s conservative, but that it’s “completely volatile.”

Hannity said he thinks Media Matters is “being cute” in claiming not to be leading and advertiser boycott.

“There is an attempt, at this moment in time, to absolutely shut down the Fox News Channel and render it, frankly, a shadow of its former self,” said Hannity. “I’m like the last, sole remaining person there from the old guard.”

“I think a lot of this is rooted in that people view that Fox did have an impact, people like me did have an impact in the [2016] election, or why would they waste their time, why would they care?” he said.

Noting that he’s been “advancing a hard-hitting narrative about the media and a hard-hitting narrative about the ‘Destroy Trump’ movement and a hard-hitting narrative about how there is no Russia-Trump collusion,” he said of his critics: “Probably they don’t want me around for the 2018 elections and the 2020 elections. So I do believe if they can shut me down, silence me, there’s political benefits for them.”

Hannity said he’s opposed calls to boycott controversial left-leaning hosts like HBO’s Bill Maher and CBS’s Stephen Colbert, and that if people don’t like what someone is saying on TV they can change the channel or turn off it off.

But pressuring advertisers, he said, can “silence the voice.”

“Maybe they think that they’ll be able to mount my head on a trophy and put it in their living room somewhere,” he said. “But what is the net impact of all of this?”

Conservatives, he said, may react by going “after [MSNBC’s} Rachel Maddow. And then maybe they’ll go after [MSNBC’s] Lawrence O’Donnell. And then maybe they’ll go after [CNN’s] Anderson Cooper.”

Hannity said it’s great to have hosts with views “so diametrically opposed to mine” on competing networks.

“The danger here is so profound in as much as what we’re really saying is, ‘You’d better not cross this line or this line or this ― and the line keeps changing ― or we’re going to shut you down or we’re going to intimidate you.’ I actually think that coming from that side of the aisle it is the greatest hypocrisy ever.”

Still, the controversy that has embroiled Hannity didn’t stem from his long-running conservative views or unapologetic support of President Trump. He’s drawn heavy scrutiny for using his radio and TV platforms to promote a baseless theory about Rich’s death.

Over the past week, Hannity has aired a clip of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange seeming to imply in a Dutch TV interview that Rich was a source for his organization. Hannity said Assange told him Russia wasn’t the source of the Democratic emails and that he viewed the WikiLeaks chief’s comments to Dutch TV as suggesting Rich was.

Though Hannity at least temporarily backed off the Rich story on Tuesday night, it remains to be seen if enough damage was done from an advertiser standpoint.

Hannity said he’s worked in an environment every day for decades “knowing people want to get me fired.”

“The great thing is, in my heart, I’m at peace,” he said. “I know I did nothing wrong.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sean-hannity-kill-shot_us_5925e4e1e4b0265790f4a432?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Straw Man on May 24, 2017, 09:17:30 PM
LOL - somehow liberals are controlling what Faux News does

how does that work?


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 25, 2017, 07:58:17 AM
LOL - somehow liberals are controlling what Faux News does

how does that work?

________________________

Portland Burrito Shop Forced to Close After Getting Hounded for ‘Stealing From Mexico’
heatst.com ^ | May 23, 2017 | William Hicks
Posted on 5/24/2017, 8:09:43 PM by lowbridge

Kali Wilgus and Liz “LC” Connelly, owners of Portland pop-up shop Kooks Burritos, just wanted to make and sell some really great burritos. So when they were on a trip to Puerto Nuevo, Mexico, they “picked the brains” of the local tortilla ladies and brought those recipes back to the States.

“I picked the brains of every tortilla lady there in the worst broken Spanish ever, and they showed me a little of what they did,” Connelly told Willamette Weekly. “They told us the basic ingredients, and we saw them moving and stretching the dough similar to how pizza makers do before rolling it out with rolling pins. They wouldn’t tell us too much about technique, but we were peeking into the windows of every kitchen, totally fascinated by how easy they made it look. We learned quickly it isn’t quite that easy.”

Whelp, apparently this interview sparked an Internet shitstorm, which ended in Kooks Burritos shutting down and the two white women who owned it scrubbing social media of the business’ existence.

Wilgus and Connelly were accused of cultural appropriation by the Internet mob, and even the theft of PoC’s recipes.

(Excerpt) Read more at heatst.com ...


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on May 29, 2017, 02:07:05 PM
Absolutely outstanding commentary. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqo4v-GiMYc


Title: Re: More Liberal Censorship
Post by: Dos Equis on June 23, 2017, 04:43:46 PM
School Photoshopped Trump Shirts Out of Yearbook

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq1M3z8UdgU