Liberty U. bans campus Democratic club

[BoomerD]

I just find it ironic that "Liberty University" would ban a club because of a political view.

I guess "Liberty" only applies as long as you think the way we want you to think.

 

[Possessed Freak]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I will say this as a long time member, and that is if anyone took the tone you have about people who have a religion and instead substituted gay they would have been long gone.

This is not a very tolerant forum.

Please do not take this as a mod callout because it is not. However, why the hypocrisy? As a senior moderator one would think you could push for at least equal responses to the bigotry regardless of its nature.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Not that I agree with the school in any way, but your thread title is very misleading. Disagreeing with the agendas of gays is different from hating gays.

All depends.

You see the phrase 'gay agenda' is a propaganda phrase. It conjures pictures of some army of communists out to overthrow the nation.

If the 'gay agenda' is for everyone in the school to try gay sex once to see if they like it, that's bad.

But when the 'gay agenda' is, say, to not be stoned to death or imprisoned for being gay; is to have the right to be a teacher or adopt chidren equally; is to be able to marry the person they love equally; then opposing *that* 'gay agenda is to support bigoted discrimination and inequality and that is a gay-hating agenda.

I guarantee you that blacks don't want the return of slavery for them. If a state had a movement that was pushing that return to slavery, and blacks opposed it, the supporters of slavery could say they had a 'black agenda' to oppose it, to make it sound like it was some radicall agenda that non-blacks had no obligation to support. But that propaganda phrase would mask the fact that the issue was not only a 'black agenda', but justice.

No doubt just saying this will get me flamed by some, but not everyone agrees with what you say, and by not agreeing that's hatred.

I've heard both sides of the story and I think I can tell you how the "gay agenda" is defined by them. The concern is that they believe that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. Now that means that their religious beliefs won't allow them to accept it. That does not mean that they wish to harm anyone, but they do not see it as right. Some actively oppose it for that reason. Others figure that it's something that they have to tolerate, but not accept.

I know more of the latter, and their concern is that people go around calling them haters because they tolerate but do not feel compelled to accept what they are told is morally right. Their point is that the very act of disagreeing is considered hatred. The "agenda" is to make everyone think the same on this issue. You will either think "correctly" or you will be labeled as haters when perhaps the tags are reversed. Conform or be cast out by society.

I very much admire the open-minded tolerance you intend to show here. I have, however, some questions and doubts.

It's all well and good to hold religious beliefs about what is morally right and what is morally wrong. I believe, for example, that when you torture people you sin against your own soul, and you do so whether there is a God or not because the which we think of and call the the soul is real whether there is a God or not, and that your soul, my soul, and the soul of every other person is identical. To sin against another is to sin against yourself and to so is to destroy ones chance of self realization and doing so condemns one to a the hell of a shadow life bereft of spiritual joy unimagined and which, sadly, religious folk childishly believe comes after death in heaven, and the fools who believe in nothing imagine does not exist at all.

There is, therefore, a real and absolute truth obtainable by any person who finds and becomes what he really is, the true-self hidden in every human being, the separation from which creates all suffering, and the acting out of the blind yearning for which creates all evil.

We know that homosexuality is not a choice, those of us who are honest, and we know that your religious affiliation is pure accident of birth and environment.

It therefore cannot be that the belief that homosexuality is evil has equal weight objectively to the fact that is is something some people are born to be.

We know also that the belief that homosexuality is evil leads to violence toward homosexual people and has for thousands of years, thousands of years of torture and misery for people who are born gay. Naturally, there are going to be some enlightened folk who separate the sin from the sinner, who hate the sin and love the sinner as they say, but such people are as rare and any other developed spiritual people.

The norm of religious bigotry is evil toward those who are the object of that bigotry, and I have explained the reasons for this over and over again. We hate ourselves and dump that hate on others to escape dumping it on ourselves. We also psychically kill our gay children so they will not be exposed to ridicule. We beat the enemy to it because we are insane.

Naturally, advanced people will have to love the religious bigot and not his bigotry, but the act of contemptualizing bigots drives no natural impulse underground. Being a bigot is not a natural part of the human soul. It is not a choice because every bigot was created by other bigots, but it is not a natural state and if it is stomped out of existence by ridicule it won't be any loss to me.

People are sheep and when the sheep say bigotry is baaaaaahd there will be far fewer bigots and far less evil done by them.

This, however, is my opinion. I always have hope for bigots and that their bigotry will self end by them seeking the light. But bigotry is dependent on self hate and I see nothing in the way of realization in that regard anywhere but in me. I remain convinced that we would rather go extinct than face how we feel.

There was this guy who came from one land to another. These two people looked down on each other, and what they believed about each other was not in question.

At this time there was another man who while in his own country (the same country the first man was now travelling) who was beaten and left for dead.

Well, another fellow countryman came by and saw him and didn't want to get involved. It was beneath his station. Another came buy and thought it was too bad but he hadn't time to help.

Finally the foreign traveler came by and saw someone who he would have avoided under almost any circumstance. You see he was a bigot because he did not accept the other, as was the norm. Neither would the fellow who was hurt have had anything differently.

So he passed by. Nope. He saw the person and only thought of helping him. He cleaned and bandaged him and took him to an inn. He told the inkeeper to take care of him and gave money. Further he told him that if it wasn't enough then he would come back and compensate him for any cost.

Having done this, the bigot left the other and went on his way.

Tags are wonderful things. You can use them to label anyone you disagree with. You might even be right.

That hardly defines who people really are.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
I just find it ironic that "Liberty University" would ban a club because of a political view.

I guess "Liberty" only applies as long as you think the way we want you to think.

It's the republican way.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: Phokus
If conservatives controlled our nation's universities, this is what would happen to every single one of them.

I work at a uni, do you know how much of a minority Republicans are in staff and faculty? While not outright banned, being openly republican I am the target of blame and as I mentioned before I was called a racist by a tenured faculty member ("only racists voted for McCain").

I work at a public university, and when I said I voted for McCain there were nervous laughs.

And this is in a red state.

Oh no, not nervous laughs and being called a racist by 1 faculty member, not that!!!!!

Get back to me when you get kicked out and banned based on your political affiliation.

 

[Possessed Freak]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Oh no, not nervous laughs and being called a racist by 1 faculty member, not that!!!!!

Get back to me when you get kicked out and banned based on your political affiliation.

Has this happened to you?

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: Phokus

Oh no, not nervous laughs and being called a racist by 1 faculty member, not that!!!!!

Get back to me when you get kicked out and banned based on your political affiliation.

Has this happened to you?

In a way, yes... i worked at a bank back in 2003-2005 where the manager and director i worked with were both outspoken republicans. The manager would openly denigrate liberal politics/politicians and made fun of people who were going to vote for kerry. And the manager listen to Rush Limbaugh on his radio all the way turned up. I didn't really care, but i remember a couple of times Rush was talking about black people and how the democrats were using them/keeping them down and we had a couple of black co-workers and you could clearly see they were uncomfortable.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I will say this as a long time member, and that is if anyone took the tone you have about people who have a religion and instead substituted gay they would have been long gone.

This is not a very tolerant forum.

Please do not take this as a mod callout because it is not. However, why the hypocrisy? As a senior moderator one would think you could push for at least equal responses to the bigotry regardless of its nature.

That's a fair question, and I'll answer it as best I can.

First note that I purposefully referred to myself as "member". I have two hats here. One is me expressing my opinion, and the other is my accepted role as someone who provides order. That isn't "fairness", nor is it my obligation to provide balance.

Imagine for a minute that your were a law enforcement officer in a town. When you are on duty you are charged with carrying out the law within the context of that law. It's a good town and while you might want things to be different, there is no justification to use your authority and weapons to make the town in your image.

Remember tolerance is not acceptance. Other moderators will not have my POV, but we treat each other respectfully. What I really wish for isn't conformity, but civility here.

Again we could crack down on things so that everyone would be gone. Of what value would that be?

I once heard that freedom of speech without the freedom to offend is useless. Up to a point I agree.

HTH.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: Phokus

Oh no, not nervous laughs and being called a racist by 1 faculty member, not that!!!!!

Get back to me when you get kicked out and banned based on your political affiliation.

Has this happened to you?

In a way, yes... i worked at a bank back in 2003-2005 where the manager and director i worked with were both outspoken republicans. The manager would openly denigrate liberal politics/politicians and made fun of people who were going to vote for kerry. And the manager listen to Rush Limbaugh on his radio all the way turned up. I didn't really care, but i remember a couple of times Rush was talking about black people and how the democrats were using them/keeping them down and we had a couple of black co-workers and you could clearly see they were uncomfortable.

Back when Bush Sr was running against Clinton there were students at Dartmouth who were afraid to speak their minds in support of Bush. One who was too vocal had his car trashed. They conformed out of fear. I fail to see much difference between those who would harm another for their views regardless of the issue.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Phokus
In a way, yes... i worked at a bank back in 2003-2005 where the manager and director i worked with were both outspoken republicans. The manager would openly denigrate liberal politics/politicians and made fun of people who were going to vote for kerry. And the manager listen to Rush Limbaugh on his radio all the way turned up. I didn't really care, but i remember a couple of times Rush was talking about black people and how the democrats were using them/keeping them down and we had a couple of black co-workers and you could clearly see they were uncomfortable.

Back when Bush Sr was running against Clinton there were students at Dartmouth who were afraid to speak their minds in support of Bush. One who was too vocal had his car trashed. They conformed out of fear. I fail to see much difference between those who would harm another for their views regardless of the issue.

There is a difference. Harming someone for their views because it doesn't align with yours is clearly against the law. Firing someone for their views because it doesn't align with yours is not against the law.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: Phokus

Oh no, not nervous laughs and being called a racist by 1 faculty member, not that!!!!!

Get back to me when you get kicked out and banned based on your political affiliation.

Has this happened to you?

In a way, yes... i worked at a bank back in 2003-2005 where the manager and director i worked with were both outspoken republicans. The manager would openly denigrate liberal politics/politicians and made fun of people who were going to vote for kerry. And the manager listen to Rush Limbaugh on his radio all the way turned up. I didn't really care, but i remember a couple of times Rush was talking about black people and how the democrats were using them/keeping them down and we had a couple of black co-workers and you could clearly see they were uncomfortable.

Back when Bush Sr was running against Clinton there were students at Dartmouth who were afraid to speak their minds in support of Bush. One who was too vocal had his car trashed. They conformed out of fear. I fail to see much difference between those who would harm another for their views regardless of the issue.

Oh no, one student who had no authority trashed another student's car.

Well, could be worse, you could be a white female student who pretended a SCARY BLACK OBAMA SUPPORTER sexually assaulted you and carved a "B" into your face, trying to use racism to get racists all riled up and vote McCain.

http://www.thepittsburghchanne...s/17789356/detail.html

 

[Phokus]

http://rawstory.com/08/news/20...-bans-democratic-club/

The group?s staff adviser, Maria Childress, told the paper, ?His bottom line was, ?You can?t be a Democrat and be a Christian and be a university representative.??

Ironically, the group opposes abortion and same-sex marriage ? but that wasn?t enough for Liberty University officials.

Rightwing Christians: we want FEWER people to follow christ.

 

[Possessed Freak]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Remember tolerance is not acceptance. Other moderators will not have my POV, but we treat each other respectfully. What I really wish for isn't conformity, but civility here.

Again we could crack down on things so that everyone would be gone. Of what value would that be?

Of this I completely understand. It is why when I started posting here I brought up Ad Hominem attacks in the Issues forum (and got a response that I just can't fathom... members can be targets of ad hominem attacks, moderators can not). I believe there is a way to properly debate and I know there unacceptable ways of debating. I do not understand why this forum can not address this and issue some stern warnings and eventually ban those who can not remain civil to each other.

Anywho, on topic... Phokus, I am sorry your manager was an ass to you. I understand that there are vocal idiots on both sides of the political spectrum, I hope you at least acknowledge it is not one sided especially in higher education.

 

[Moonbeam]

H: There was this guy who came from one land to another. These two people looked down on each other, and what they believed about each other was not in question.

At this time there was another man who while in his own country (the same country the first man was now travelling) who was beaten and left for dead.

Well, another fellow countryman came by and saw him and didn't want to get involved. It was beneath his station. Another came buy and thought it was too bad but he hadn't time to help.

Finally the foreign traveler came by and saw someone who he would have avoided under almost any circumstance. You see he was a bigot because he did not accept the other, as was the norm. Neither would the fellow who was hurt have had anything differently.

So he passed by. Nope. He saw the person and only thought of helping him. He cleaned and bandaged him and took him to an inn. He told the inkeeper to take care of him and gave money. Further he told him that if it wasn't enough then he would come back and compensate him for any cost.

Having done this, the bigot left the other and went on his way.

Tags are wonderful things. You can use them to label anyone you disagree with. You might even be right.

That hardly defines who people really are.[/quote]

I think I defined who I think people really are, the image of God. I use the term bigot to refer to anybody who bases his views of others on religious text, who imputes to the text some truth that must be true because it is TRUE as if the word of God. Such people may have the one and only truth but because there are a million only truths and all of them are the only one, you understand I have my doubts. I do not value text that is true because it says it must be. So I would say that anything that lessens the number of such fools in the world and reduces the hate they bring, seems like something good to me.

The only argument I see is whether ridicule of bigots in the long run has any effect. In the long run, as I have said, I don't see evidence we will face what we feel.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Phokus
In a way, yes... i worked at a bank back in 2003-2005 where the manager and director i worked with were both outspoken republicans. The manager would openly denigrate liberal politics/politicians and made fun of people who were going to vote for kerry. And the manager listen to Rush Limbaugh on his radio all the way turned up. I didn't really care, but i remember a couple of times Rush was talking about black people and how the democrats were using them/keeping them down and we had a couple of black co-workers and you could clearly see they were uncomfortable.

Back when Bush Sr was running against Clinton there were students at Dartmouth who were afraid to speak their minds in support of Bush. One who was too vocal had his car trashed. They conformed out of fear. I fail to see much difference between those who would harm another for their views regardless of the issue.

There is a difference. Harming someone for their views because it doesn't align with yours is clearly against the law. Firing someone for their views because it doesn't align with yours is not against the law.

It strikes me, also, that ridiculing bigots is in a whole different league than keeping a bigot's car. To make a bigot uncomfortable about his belief system because of the harm it does not give one the right to violate the very rights you want him to extend to those for whom he has bigotry. I think bigotry is morally contemptible but it is only in the actions of bigots, where they violate other rights, that you can take any other action than moral protest, as in when they violate other people's rights themselves.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Remember tolerance is not acceptance. Other moderators will not have my POV, but we treat each other respectfully. What I really wish for isn't conformity, but civility here.

Again we could crack down on things so that everyone would be gone. Of what value would that be?

Of this I completely understand. It is why when I started posting here I brought up Ad Hominem attacks in the Issues forum (and got a response that I just can't fathom... members can be targets of ad hominem attacks, moderators can not). I believe there is a way to properly debate and I know there unacceptable ways of debating. I do not understand why this forum can not address this and issue some stern warnings and eventually ban those who can not remain civil to each other.

Anywho, on topic... Phokus, I am sorry your manager was an ass to you. I understand that there are vocal idiots on both sides of the political spectrum, I hope you at least acknowledge it is not one sided especially in higher education.

Well, until 'liberal' universities start banning republicans from free speech/freedom of assembly, i don't know why you guys are comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Remember tolerance is not acceptance. Other moderators will not have my POV, but we treat each other respectfully. What I really wish for isn't conformity, but civility here.

Again we could crack down on things so that everyone would be gone. Of what value would that be?

Anywho, on topic... Phokus, I am sorry your manager was an ass to you. I understand that there are vocal idiots on both sides of the political spectrum, I hope you at least acknowledge it is not one sided especially in higher education.

Unfortunately I don't think he does get it. My impression is that only his side can be the victim and the other only the oppressor.

So M, out of curiosity, what do you make of this? When a person dismisses out of hand the harm his chosen side does and concentrate only on what was done to people he agrees with.

When a person decides that harm is done when it only happens to people he shares beliefs with, is that not bigotry?

When ones philosophy is so superior in his eyes that beating someone or destroying their property is of no consequence as long as it's done to those of "lesser" morality, is that not hatred?

To my mind, when one actively chooses to attack (not just disagree with) another it's the act itself which is evil. Apparently that's not the case here.

What curious creatures these humans be.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Remember tolerance is not acceptance. Other moderators will not have my POV, but we treat each other respectfully. What I really wish for isn't conformity, but civility here.

Again we could crack down on things so that everyone would be gone. Of what value would that be?

Of this I completely understand. It is why when I started posting here I brought up Ad Hominem attacks in the Issues forum (and got a response that I just can't fathom... members can be targets of ad hominem attacks, moderators can not). I believe there is a way to properly debate and I know there unacceptable ways of debating. I do not understand why this forum can not address this and issue some stern warnings and eventually ban those who can not remain civil to each other.

Anywho, on topic... Phokus, I am sorry your manager was an ass to you. I understand that there are vocal idiots on both sides of the political spectrum, I hope you at least acknowledge it is not one sided especially in higher education.

Well, until 'liberal' universities start banning republicans from free speech/freedom of assembly, i don't know why you guys are comparing apples to oranges.

No, you just do it this way

How about the George Washington College Democrats who came up with this gem

We want to marginalize College Republicans as much as possible?.We want to make sure that GW is an even more uncomfortable environment for Republicans and conservatives who seek to destroy our country.

I've never been a GWB supporter, and suspect you were playing with toys when I and others were opposing a lot of ills his kind brought about.

Notwithstanding, there are a number of reasonable Liberals AND Conservatives whom are worth listening to even of you personally do not agree with them.

I really see little difference between those who hate on the right and those who do so on the left.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
I think Liberty actually has a decent academic reputation --- not like Bob Jones U.

As a private university I guess they can ban what they want but does that not disqualify then for certain Federal funds, student loans, etc. ???

It doesn't really. They are a Tier 4 school by US News and World Report standards.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Remember tolerance is not acceptance. Other moderators will not have my POV, but we treat each other respectfully. What I really wish for isn't conformity, but civility here.

Again we could crack down on things so that everyone would be gone. Of what value would that be?

Of this I completely understand. It is why when I started posting here I brought up Ad Hominem attacks in the Issues forum (and got a response that I just can't fathom... members can be targets of ad hominem attacks, moderators can not). I believe there is a way to properly debate and I know there unacceptable ways of debating. I do not understand why this forum can not address this and issue some stern warnings and eventually ban those who can not remain civil to each other.

Anywho, on topic... Phokus, I am sorry your manager was an ass to you. I understand that there are vocal idiots on both sides of the political spectrum, I hope you at least acknowledge it is not one sided especially in higher education.

Well, until 'liberal' universities start banning republicans from free speech/freedom of assembly, i don't know why you guys are comparing apples to oranges.

You mean like this attempt to price them out?

Or this example?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Remember tolerance is not acceptance. Other moderators will not have my POV, but we treat each other respectfully. What I really wish for isn't conformity, but civility here.

Again we could crack down on things so that everyone would be gone. Of what value would that be?

Of this I completely understand. It is why when I started posting here I brought up Ad Hominem attacks in the Issues forum (and got a response that I just can't fathom... members can be targets of ad hominem attacks, moderators can not). I believe there is a way to properly debate and I know there unacceptable ways of debating. I do not understand why this forum can not address this and issue some stern warnings and eventually ban those who can not remain civil to each other.

Anywho, on topic... Phokus, I am sorry your manager was an ass to you. I understand that there are vocal idiots on both sides of the political spectrum, I hope you at least acknowledge it is not one sided especially in higher education.

Well, until 'liberal' universities start banning republicans from free speech/freedom of assembly, i don't know why you guys are comparing apples to oranges.

You mean like this attempt to price them out?

Or this example?

So your examples are that controversial speakers have to help pay for security when a club not associated with the school invites them. (as they do in all cases), and students not associated with the university being asses.

Good call.

 

[Moonbeam]

H: So M, out of curiosity, what do you make of this? When a person dismisses out of hand the harm his chosen side does and concentrate only on what was done to people he agrees with.

When a person decides that harm is done when it only happens to people he shares beliefs with, is that not bigotry?

M: No, I don't think it is unless in some formal belief one holds based on some sort of supposedly venerable text. Bigotry has to be the transfer of authority from ones own moral conscience to some external unquestionable authority in my opinion. It is, however just as morally sick. In one case on can't question because it would defy God or something related, in the other case a person doesn't question because he is unconscious of his prejudice and thinks there IS nothing to question.

H: When ones philosophy is so superior in his eyes that beating someone or destroying their property is of no consequence as long as it's done to those of "lesser" morality, is that not hatred?

M: Of course it is. As I said you can't take somebody else's rights away because they do that to others. It is the same thing with capital punishment. You can't kill people to show it's wrong to kill.

If all things are relative and there is no truth then all opinions are equal. I do not believe this is the case and I think real world experience verifies this.

H: To my mind, when one actively chooses to attack (not just disagree with) another it's the act itself which is evil. Apparently that's not the case here.

All that is required for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing. There are all kinds of ways that things can be attacked.

H: What curious creatures these humans be.

M: Things are always hard to deal with when we try to shoehorn one person's intent into some hypothetical that may in fact not be real. It is tempting, no, to say that torture is OK were innocent lives may be lost without the information, but the number of such cases is, according to experts I've heard from, say no such examples exist and therefore needn't be accounted for in the discussion.

And isn't one of the reasons that people are moral is because they can feel shame? But alas people's capacity to feel shame has been destroyed by their self hate. Only weak people allow themselves to feel, or so we are trained, no? Maybe your way insulates people from feeling a shame they should feel. Or maybe they just get better at hiding it. Perhaps the trick is to know which is which.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Remember tolerance is not acceptance. Other moderators will not have my POV, but we treat each other respectfully. What I really wish for isn't conformity, but civility here.

Again we could crack down on things so that everyone would be gone. Of what value would that be?

Of this I completely understand. It is why when I started posting here I brought up Ad Hominem attacks in the Issues forum (and got a response that I just can't fathom... members can be targets of ad hominem attacks, moderators can not). I believe there is a way to properly debate and I know there unacceptable ways of debating. I do not understand why this forum can not address this and issue some stern warnings and eventually ban those who can not remain civil to each other.

Anywho, on topic... Phokus, I am sorry your manager was an ass to you. I understand that there are vocal idiots on both sides of the political spectrum, I hope you at least acknowledge it is not one sided especially in higher education.

Well, until 'liberal' universities start banning republicans from free speech/freedom of assembly, i don't know why you guys are comparing apples to oranges.

You mean like this attempt to price them out?

Or this example?

So your examples are that controversial speakers have to help pay for security when a club not associated with the school invites them. (as they do in all cases), and students not associated with the university being asses.

Good call.

No, the groups are charged for the extra security due to you libs threatening to disrupt(and follow through often enough) the events. But I suppose that's ok to people like you.

 

[techs]

And so it goes. A religion based on the teaching of universal love and brotherhood bans a political party that believes in universal health care, civil rights, clean air and water, social justice, etc.
It's a good thing Jesus isn't alive today. No telling what he might do.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Remember tolerance is not acceptance. Other moderators will not have my POV, but we treat each other respectfully. What I really wish for isn't conformity, but civility here.

Again we could crack down on things so that everyone would be gone. Of what value would that be?

Of this I completely understand. It is why when I started posting here I brought up Ad Hominem attacks in the Issues forum (and got a response that I just can't fathom... members can be targets of ad hominem attacks, moderators can not). I believe there is a way to properly debate and I know there unacceptable ways of debating. I do not understand why this forum can not address this and issue some stern warnings and eventually ban those who can not remain civil to each other.

Anywho, on topic... Phokus, I am sorry your manager was an ass to you. I understand that there are vocal idiots on both sides of the political spectrum, I hope you at least acknowledge it is not one sided especially in higher education.

Well, until 'liberal' universities start banning republicans from free speech/freedom of assembly, i don't know why you guys are comparing apples to oranges.

You mean like this attempt to price them out?

Or this example?

Not even close to banning a political group outright, nice try though.