Carson would use Dept of Education to censor US colleges.

[RampantAndroid]

Same Republicans who are telling us money is speech want to suppress actual free speech. But not on their, side, they will have "very strict guidelines" to make sure it's only opposition speech that's suppressed.

Wait, so TEACHING your beliefs is free speech? It's fine to STATE your beliefs, but IMO it is not at all acceptable to try to...for lack of a better word, indoctrinate kids. I had one high school history teacher that was very liberal, and would spend 15 minutes at least every other class telling us how terrible Bush was, how terrible H. W. Bush, Reagan, conservatives and so on were. She also sucked at teaching real history.

I later took AP US History from a different teacher senior year. I know him personally to be left leaning (and he hates Reagan) but that didn't stop him from teaching facts. I never was able to perceive what his views really were for the entire school year, and he would generally avoid questions asking for his beliefs.

One of those two is what I want kids to see. The other is worthy of disciplinary action.

 

[Meghan54]

Time to wake up! Get your ass out of bed!

http://www.theguardian.com/educatio...ts-attend-compulsory-sexual-consent-workshops
http://www.worldmag.com/2015/10/cal...require_sexual_consent_lessons_in_high_school
http://studentaffairs.usc.edu/mandatory-online-courses-for-students/
http://sexualviolence.ucdavis.edu/education_training.html
and about 200 more unique Google hits with a single search: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mandatory+sexual+consent+courses

Yeah, because all men are just "rapists in waiting", right? What a load of horseshit.

Well, at least you characterized your post well with your last sentence.

Having students at least spend some time learning about sexual conduct and alcohol is bad because?????

 

[Victorian Gray]

Well, at least you characterized your post well with your last sentence.

Having students at least spend some time learning about sexual conduct and alcohol is bad because?????

It's bad because it's the wimmins and the leftists and all the people that I don't agree with because I am culture warrior. Hear me roar!

 

[LegendKiller]

Well, at least you characterized your post well with your last sentence.

Having students at least spend some time learning about sexual conduct and alcohol is bad because?????

Because it frames all males as raping penises.

At this point I would tell my sons to either get a notarized consent and video tape it under mutual consent or abstain. These days all males can be considered rapists by colleges. They arent given a shred of reasonable doubt.

 

[bozack]

Because a lot of so called liberals are liberals when you agree with them and authoritarian pricks if you have an opposing view by doing things like giving you a failing grade.

Bernie Sanders being able to speak at Liberty University is an example of how colleges should treat opposing ideas, not the BS we have at most so called liberal universities today.

This, I went to a rather liberal college in a very left leaning state and was a political science major, the amount of "preference" towards a particular party was brutal.

As for the OP, this was Carson and Glenn Beck, so its never gonna happen as you'd have everyone going off the deep end complaining about censorship...

I am on the fence, on one side I wish my professors had done a better job of at least trying to be a bit more neutral instead of blatantly wearing their party affiliation on their sleeve and shouting down anyone in class who disagreed with them, but I also feel college should be about freedom of ideas and opinions which includes professors, back in my time I just nut up and dealt with it, but with the studies saying today's kids are completely incapable of standing on their own the concern would be they are far less self reliant and way more easily manipulated instead of standing up for their own ideas/ideals.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Because it frames all males as raping penises.

At this point I would tell my sons to either get a notarized consent and video tape it under mutual consent or abstain. These days all males can be considered rapists by colleges. They arent given a shred of reasonable doubt.

Hope you were wearing the really, really, really, bright red clown nose when you wrote that.

 

[LegendKiller]

Hope you were wearing the really, really, really, bright red clown nose when you wrote that.

Every single boy is pretty much told from the beginning that they are wrong to have sex with a woman unless there is a 100% certainty she is stone-cold sober and consents fully, permanently, without change, and with full proof. That means that they are *ALWAYS* wrong, at all times. They are nothing but rapists. To oogle at a woman is rape. To approach a woman is effectively rape. To have sex with a woman while you both are drunk, rape. A scorned woman can make the claim, at any time, that she was raped and, if there is any shred they had sexual relations, he is guilty, automatically, before a trial even begins.

If a trial finds him innocent, it is a travesty, and even if it comes out that she made a fake claim, it is hailed as a victory for all woman to shine the light on the "rape culture".

Look at Lena Dunham. It is almost certain that her "rape story" was a sham. Yet she is heralded as a hero.

It must be a complete mindfuck to boys these days.

 

[fskimospy]

Every single boy is pretty much told from the beginning that they are wrong to have sex with a woman unless there is a 100% certainty she is stone-cold sober and consents fully, permanently, without change, and with full proof. That means that they are *ALWAYS* wrong, at all times. They are nothing but rapists. To oogle at a woman is rape. To approach a woman is effectively rape. To have sex with a woman while you both are drunk, rape. A scorned woman can make the claim, at any time, that she was raped and, if there is any shred they had sexual relations, he is guilty, automatically, before a trial even begins.

If a trial finds him innocent, it is a travesty, and even if it comes out that she made a fake claim, it is hailed as a victory for all woman to shine the light on the "rape culture".

Look at Lena Dunham. It is almost certain that her "rape story" was a sham. Yet she is heralded as a hero.

It must be a complete mindfuck to boys these days.

Quick thing: your rage against Lena Dunham is really weird.

You seem very threatened by strong women. I sense a shitload of insecurity from you.

 

[LegendKiller]

Quick thing: your rage against Lena Dunham is really weird.

You seem very threatened by strong women. I sense a shitload of insecurity from you.

Hey look everybody! Jr. Pshrink trying to play Freudian buttfuckery.

Unlike you, I have a problem with liars. But you're OK with Billery.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Every single boy is pretty much told from the beginning that they are wrong to have sex with a woman unless there is a 100% certainty she is stone-cold sober and consents fully, permanently, without change, and with full proof. That means that they are *ALWAYS* wrong, at all times. They are nothing but rapists. To oogle at a woman is rape. To approach a woman is effectively rape. To have sex with a woman while you both are drunk, rape. A scorned woman can make the claim, at any time, that she was raped and, if there is any shred they had sexual relations, he is guilty, automatically, before a trial even begins.

If a trial finds him innocent, it is a travesty, and even if it comes out that she made a fake claim, it is hailed as a victory for all woman to shine the light on the "rape culture".

Look at Lena Dunham. It is almost certain that her "rape story" was a sham. Yet she is heralded as a hero.

It must be a complete mindfuck to boys these days.

Funny how billions of other men don't seem to have the issues you seem to have.

Here's a new nose for you.

And what is this 'thing' you have with Dunham. It's looking rather creepy at this point in time.

 

[LegendKiller]

Funny how billions of other men don't seem to have the issues you seem to have.

Here's a new nose for you.

And what is this 'thing' you have with Dunham. It's looking rather creepy at this point in time.

But millions of boys are being told that they are going to rape women.

 

[Victorian Gray]

But millions of boys are being told that they are going to rape women.

No, no they are not. Maybe you need a bigger nose?

 

[MagickMan]

Well, at least you characterized your post well with your last sentence.

Having students at least spend some time learning about sexual conduct and alcohol is bad because?????

Because it's an assumption of guilt without a shred of evidence, not that you guys really care about proof. It's about control and indoctrination, just like the far-Right and their religions.

 

[MagickMan]

No, no they are not. Maybe you need a bigger nose?

Yes, yes they are, you ignorant, vapid twat.

Look at Lena Dunham. It is almost certain that her "rape story" was a sham. Yet she is heralded as a hero.

Apparently if a girl does it to her little sister with a toothbrush it's wonderful and "liberating". :\

 

[Victorian Gray]

Yes, yes they are, you ignorant, vapid twat.



Apparently if a girl does it to her little sister with a toothbrush it's wonderful and "liberating". :\

Ooohhh, gave yourself a couple of little tingles there didn't you.

 

[CZroe]

More like "I'm going to have the water department turn off the water to anyone who says anything bad about me".
Colleges have always been progressive its part of being young.
Scandal not found we all know neither of these guys are competent.

They have to go back to well water.

 

[shady28]

Can anyone even imagine the right wing freakout if Hillary said something like "I'm going to use the federal department of education to investigate colleges for political bias"? I think the internet would run out of Hitler pictures.

Since Carson is on their political sports team I imagine there will be barely a peep.

You mean like this :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy

"In 2013, the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) revealed that it had selected political groups applying for tax-exempt status for intensive scrutiny based on their names or political themes. This led to wide condemnation of the agency and triggered several investigations, including a Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal probe ordered by United States Attorney General Eric Holder.[1][2]"

 

[Newell Steamer]

You mean like this :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy

"In 2013, the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) revealed that it had selected political groups applying for tax-exempt status for intensive scrutiny based on their names or political themes. This led to wide condemnation of the agency and triggered several investigations, including a Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal probe ordered by United States Attorney General Eric Holder.[1][2]"

Read your own damn link.

In October 2015, the Justice Department notified Congress that there would be no charges against the former IRS official Lois Lerner or against anyone else in the IRS. The investigation found no evidence of illegal activity or the partisan targeting of political groups and found that no IRS official attempted to obstruct justice. The DOJ investigation did find evidence of mismanagement and Lerner's poor judgement in using her IRS account for personal messages but said "...poor management is not a crime."[167][168]

Also, this was in the news as of this week for God's sake.

 

[shady28]

Read your own damn link.



Also, this was in the news as of this week for God's sake.

You mean the results of Justice Dept / FIB probe that said what they did wasn't illegal, the same justice department and FBI that report to Democrat Barak Obama?

Lois Lerner who ran the IRS was found in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions. She has 'retired'.

http://www.atr.org/obama-justice-department-lets-lois-lerner-walk-free

"The Obama Justice Department makes it official: the IRS can discriminate against tea party groups -- and they don't care," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.

“Due to the circuitous process implemented by Lerner, only one conservative political advocacy organization was granted tax-exempt status between February 2009 and May 2012. Lerner’s bias against these applicants unquestionably led to these delays, and is particularly evident when compared to the IRS’s treatment of other applications, discussed immediately below.”

Yeah uh-huh, that's legit. You would best be advised that what goes around, comes around. It's called slippery slope. The precedent has been set. You cannot undo it.

Oh and this one is choice from their findings :

“The IRS’s treatment of these organizations was almost universally consistent with Lerner’s personal political views – this is, supporting Democratic candidates and opposing conservative tax-exempt organizations that engaged in political speech. Conservative organizations that sought to participate in the nation’s political discourse, such as the Tea Party, drew the strongest ire from Lerner.”

So yeah you're right, it is now legal to discriminate against political parties by implementing policies that do so.

So if this is what you liberals wanted, why the fuck are you whining about it now?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Can we also go after churches for promoting conservative political agendas? You promote a candidate or political agenda and you lose your tax exempt status! :sneaky:

 

[brycejones]

You mean the results of Justice Dept / FIB probe that said what they did wasn't illegal, the same justice department and FBI that report to Democrat Barak Obama?

Lois Lerner who ran the IRS was found in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions. She has 'retired'.

http://www.atr.org/obama-justice-department-lets-lois-lerner-walk-free





Yeah uh-huh, that's legit. You would best be advised that what goes around, comes around. It's called slippery slope. The precedent has been set. You cannot undo it.

Oh and this one is choice from their findings :




So yeah you're right, it is now legal to discriminate against political parties by implementing policies that do so.

So if this is what you liberals wanted, why the fuck are you whining about it now?

We already have a thread started by a knuckle head on this very subject. Still waiting for it to "explode".

 

[fskimospy]

You mean the results of Justice Dept / FIB probe that said what they did wasn't illegal, the same justice department and FBI that report to Democrat Barak Obama?

Lois Lerner who ran the IRS was found in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions. She has 'retired'.

http://www.atr.org/obama-justice-department-lets-lois-lerner-walk-free


Yeah uh-huh, that's legit. You would best be advised that what goes around, comes around. It's called slippery slope. The precedent has been set. You cannot undo it.

Oh and this one is choice from their findings :

So yeah you're right, it is now legal to discriminate against political parties by implementing policies that do so.

So if this is what you liberals wanted, why the fuck are you whining about it now?

Do me a favor: can you describe a set of circumstances that could have happened where you would have come to the conclusion that there was no such political targeting by the IRS?

I bet you can't.

 

[bozack]

Do me a favor: can you describe a set of circumstances that could have happened where you would have come to the conclusion that there was no such political targeting by the IRS?

I bet you can't.

umm sure, they could have not targeted specific types of groups for review and instead reviewed all groups equally, in the same documented and timely fashion, or they could perform no review on any group and just allow them all to get processed.

 

[fskimospy]

umm sure, they could have not targeted specific types of groups for review and instead reviewed all groups equally, in the same documented and timely fashion, or they could perform no review on any group and just allow them all to get processed.

Have you actually read the report of what happened? If so, my question stands.

Edit: the DOJ cleared them of any criminal wrongdoing. If that's not good enough for you, then what would be? My guess is nothing, which means that you're not actually open to facts or logic.

 

[bozack]

Have you actually read the report of what happened? If so, my question stands.

Have you read the report? if so please specify why exactly you feel nothing could have been handled differently? thanks!

the good thing is that she retired, good riddance.