Good God do I hate Elizabeth Warren

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Because you can, period. There is nothing illegal about it. It is that whole "Freedom of Speech" argument that they keep using to defend their actions when they shout down people.Well, I guess then being shouted down is going to be the expected outcome.



You mean someone whose views align with their own. Not at all. Murray's theories have been widely debunked. Invite some of the conservative economists. So do you think the people invited him agreed w/his view?

They invite Comedians to speak on campuses all the time. Is everything they say based on fact? Is everything that comes out of their mouth considered not offensive to anyone?

again, if you don't like him, don't come....or show up and try to engage in a civil discourse with him.

but instead we get this....real grown up of themI agree it is crazy. (didn't look at the link) Entitled kids. It is a shame they are coddled all their lives, being always told "good job", getting their way, getting trophys for participating. They where entitled bf they got to school.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...bhJ/story.html

nm

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Well, I guess then being shouted down is going to be the expected outcome.

That may be the expected, but the desired should be that they are escorted out of the event by security.

people paid to hear him speak, they don't get to decide whether you should be allowed to listen.

Saying that its OK to act like that is akin to giving a 2 year old that cookie to stop his temper tantrum...

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

That may be the expected, but the desired should be that they are escorted out of the event by security. I have never said there shouldn't be ramifications for someone's actions.

people paid to hear him speak, they don't get to decide whether you should be allowed to listen.

Saying that its OK to act like that is akin to giving a 2 year old that cookie to stop his temper tantrum...

I haven't once said it is ok - just that some reactions are going to be expected based on the actions.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I haven't once said it is ok - just that some reactions are going to be expected based on the actions.

And, after actions against free speech, happen over and over and are not stopped by those who should stop the suppression of speech, then eventually, reactions to the shutting down of free speech "are [as you say] going to be expected,". It's going to get crazy if the thugs who are stopping people from speaking are not stopped:

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So do you think the people invited him agreed w/his view?

It doesn't matter....moot point

Some may, some may have actually welcomed the chance to listen and form their own opinion of what he is saying. some may have come to behave like adults and debate his concepts.

Again, nobody has the right to deny you the right to listen to somebody speak, or to deny somebody the right to speak.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

nm

"I guess then being shouted down is going to be the expected outcome"

From liberals, yes. From conservatives, no. I would like to know why that is.

Why can conservatives tolerate that which offends them, but not liberals?

Paul, not speaking in absolutes by any means, just generalizations, OK?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"I guess then being shouted down is going to be the expected outcome"

From liberals, yes. From conservatives, no. I would like to know why that is.

Why can conservatives tolerate that which offends them, but not liberals?

Paul, not speaking in absolutes by any means, just generalizations, OK?

Your ignoring the fact that most people in college (according to Buckman) are libs. bc the farmers, factory workers and tradesman, etc. are all cons. So you have a much higher % of people in college who are lib vs cons. Adding in the fact that everyone has ignored the age of the people in college where that age pop. does stupid stuff. So applying that sample to the whole pop. is going to get you the wrong answer when you make a generalization.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Your ignoring the fact that most people in college (according to Buckman) are libs. bc the farmers, factory workers and tradesman, etc. are all cons. So you have a much higher % of people in college who are lib vs cons. Adding in the fact that everyone has ignored the age of the people in college where that age pop. does stupid stuff. So applying that sample to the whole pop. is going to get you the wrong answer when you make a generalization.

OK. Let's make this really simple, because you are going to bend over backwards to avoid admitting I am right...

If you look at all politically-motivated riots over the last 10 years (not just on college campuses), what % do you think were started by conservatives, and what % do you think were stared by liberals?

Gets tiresome, Paul. A little intellectual honesty would be appreciated. If you really think that liberals don't engage in riots at a rate that is disproportionate to their portion of the population, then we should stop responding to each other altogether.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

OK. Let's make this really simple, because you are going to bend over backwards to avoid admitting I am right...

If you look at all politically-motivated riots over the last 10 years (not just on college campuses), what % do you think were started by conservatives, and what % do you think were stared by liberals?

Gets tiresome, Paul. A little intellectual honesty would be appreciated. If you really think that liberals don't engage in riots at a rate that is disproportionate to their portion of the population, then we should stop responding to each other altogether.

As I said before you are assuming what a small % of the population does represents the whole population and assigning that thing to the full population - even though the demographics of the sample are totally different than the whole population. That is not intellectually honest.

That is like my saying the we know the kkk is racist and supports rep. therefore all reps. are racist. If you really think that cons. don't engage in racism at a rate that is disproportionate to their portion of the population, then we should stop responding to each other altogether.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

As I said before you are assuming what a small % of the population does represents the whole population and assigning that thing to the full population - even though the demographics of the sample are totally different than the whole population. That is not intellectually honest.

That is like my saying the we know the kkk is racist and supports rep. therefore all reps. are racist. If you really think that cons. don't engage in racism at a rate that is disproportionate to their portion of the population, then we should stop responding to each other altogether.

"you are assuming what a small % of the population does represents the whole population "

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I am not saying al liberals are rioters, or that all liberals support riots (though not many pundits criticize the rioters, most justify it). Again, I ask a simple question, and instead of answering, you point out some of my many flaws.

Here is what I am doing. I am asking you, if liberals are more prone to riot, than conservatives. I'm not saying all liberals do it, I am not saying all liberals condone it. I am asking if politically-motivated rioting exists more commonly on the left than the right.

Yes or no?

I happily concede all of my shortcomings, you don't need to point them out, this is a yes or no answer. And if the answer is yes (which it obviously is), here is the real question - why?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"you are assuming what a small % of the population does represents the whole population "

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I am not saying al liberals are rioters, or that all liberals support riots sure, that is exactly what you do. Very rarely do you specify the sub set you are talking about. (though not many pundits criticize the rioters, most justify it). Again, I ask a simple question, and instead of answering, you point out some of my many flaws.

Here is what I am doing. I am asking you, if liberals are more prone to riot, than conservatives.No, I don't think so. I'm not saying all liberals do it, I am not saying all liberals condone it. I am asking if politically-motivated rioting exists more commonly on the left than the right.I would agree that there are more liberals in college than conserv. in college who "riot" but I think there are more people in those "riots" who have no political affiliation or identification than identify as liberal. When BLM rioted, those folks were angry that they felt they were treated differently from whites - their policital party (if they even had one) had nothing to do with it. In some of the riots, some of the people are anarchists, some are doing it bc of the mob mentality and some are doing bc they want to steal things.

Yes or no?

I happily concede all of my shortcomings, you don't need to point them out, this is a yes or no answer. And if the answer is yes (which it obviously is), here is the real question - why?

You're making a broad generalization by assigning something to them that I don't think is correct.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

That is like my saying the we know the kkk is racist and supports rep. therefore all reps. are racist. If you really think that cons. don't engage in racism at a rate that is disproportionate to their portion of the population, then we should stop responding to each other altogether.

Not remotely the same thing. Because 99% of the republicans in DC, and the conservative pundits you see on TV, call out the KKK for what they are.

Very, very few liberal politicians, and very few liberal talking heads, suggest that the rioters are wrong because even offensive conservatives have the right to speak.

Every single host on Foxnews despises the Klan. How many hosts at CNN tell the college rioters to shut up and let Milo speak?

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by PaulS

That is like my saying the we know the kkk is racist and supports rep. therefore all reps. are racist.

Funny - history shows they were Dems and progressives

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Funny - history shows they were Dems and progressives

Obviously true, but his point (which is also true) is that today, most Klansmen probably vote Republican. Which is actually against their cause in my opinion, but that's a separate issue for another time.

It's also a safe bet that most Islamic radicals vote democrat. Same with drug dealers, black panthers, and welfare cheats. So I'm not sure either party wants to be identified by the worst elements in their voting base.

My point is that Republicans don't excuse the behavior of racists in their midst. But these liberal rioters, when do they ever get criticized by liberal pundits or liberal politicians? When do they ever get called fascists by liberals on CNN or ABC or NBC?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Funny - history shows they were Dems and progressives

Yes, historically but not anymore. Parties flipped flopped.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Adding in the fact that everyone has ignored the age of the people in college where that age pop. does stupid stuff. .

Your "answer" doesn't begin to explain why conservative college students (they do exist) don't riot when politics doesn't go the way they want. It doesn't happen. Abu Mumia Jamal gets to speak. Al Sharpton gets to speak., Bill Ayers gets to speak. Black Lives Matter gets to speak. Spike Lee gets to speak. Zero riots. Zip. Just peaceful protests.