Nahhh -- Our Colleges Don't Push A Liberal Agenda -- No way!!

GBFan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2013
Messages
1,455
Rutgers University professors and students are crying foul over the school's decision to invite former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to speak at this year's commencement ceremony.

Rutgers' New Brunswick Faculty Council passed a resolution last week calling on the university's board of governors to rescind its invitation to Rice, who will receive $35,000 and an honorary doctorate for the speech, The Star-Ledger reported.

The resolution said Rutgers should not honor Rice because of her role in the war in Iraq and the Bush administration’s policy of "enhanced interrogation techniques," such as waterboarding, the report said.

"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 faculty resolution said.

Some students have also criticized the university's decision.

"Do the positive aspects of her personal accomplishments really outweigh the destruction of war she contributed to during her political career? She was a major proponent of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which has been arguably the worst and most destructive decision in the history of U.S. foreign policy," The Daily Targum
external-link.png
editorial staff said in a recent op-ed that called Rice's selection "questionable."

Rice served as provost at her alma mater, Stanford University, before serving as President George W. Bush's national security adviser and secretary of state. In 2006, some students turned their backs as Rice addressed graduates and received an honorary degree at Boston College.

Republican New Jersey Assemblywoman Mary Pat Angelini criticized the Rutgers faculty group for protesting Rice's selection, calling the protest "appalling and an embarrassment to our state," The Star-Ledger reported.

"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 in a statement.

School administrators are standing by their decision.

Greg Trevor, a spokesperson for the school, told New Brunswick Today, "Dr. Rice is a highly accomplished and respected diplomat, scholar and author, and we are excited that she has agreed to address our graduates and guests at commencement."
 
Werbung:
Well, BushFan, your attitude is not surprising.

LOL --- Bush fan??????? What's that got to do with this discussion? Is this another one of those subjects that you can't refute, so you're forced back into the Alinsky playbook and attack the poster? How vapid ....

BTW - the name comes from the fact that I grew up 90 miles from Lambeau Field, am a lifelong Green Bay fan, and even own stock in the team.
 
LOL --- Bush fan??????? What's that got to do with this discussion? Is this another one of those subjects that you can't refute, so you're forced back to the Alinsky playbook and attack the poster? How vapid ....

BTW - the name comes from the fact that I grew up 90 miles from Lambeau Field, am a lifelong Green Bay fan, and even own stock in the team.
I guess that proves it, I will go let the Republican professors that I had that they must be liberal now.

Don't bother --- they've already been replaced.
 
LOL --- Bush fan??????? What's that got to do with this discussion? Is this another one of those subjects that you can't refute, so you're forced back into the Alinsky playbook and attack the poster? How vapid ....
BushFan, when all you do is copy and paste crap from the news as an OP with no commentary, why do you expect anyone else would make a serious reply.
 
BushFan, when all you do is copy and paste crap from the news as an OP with no commentary, why do you expect anyone else would make a serious reply.

I coulda sworn the idea was to post issues, and encourage substantive discussion. You apparently believe the idea is to pontificate so that the rest of the world can bask in the light of your ever so superior intelligence. My position on the issues is clear based on my subsequent comments, but I purposely avoid initial comments in order to elicit commentary from others. If I were here to soothe my ego, then I would take your approach - I would climb to the top of the podium and bray endlessly about how much I know about the subject.

The problem you are having with my posting methodology is very simple ... your style is to attack a single factoid in a larger subject, thus hoping to invalidate the whole subject so that it masks the fact that you are woefully ignorant of the issue being discussed. Failing that, you attack the poster, thus deflecting attention from your lack of understanding/knowledge of the subject at hand. You can't establish your own position, instead you have to leech off the posts of others.

Your post, as most of what you post, is indicative of that. You can't refute the facts, so you turn to your favorite obfuscation. You don't bother to address the subject - instead, you launch an ever-so-devastating personal attack that will keep me awake nights.

In short, you're a fraud.

But, I have no desire to spend my time highlighting your flaws - you have to live with them. I just get to laugh at them.
 
You are confused. I have no intention of commenting on Rutgers. It's just a news story. What is there for anyone to refute. What I am commenting on is that your style of copying and pasting news stories is is mentally cheap and not worth responding to, except to respond that your OPs are pretty cheap.

What is amusing is the hypocrisy of you attacking me while accusing me of attacking you on your intellectual laziness. In short you are a fraud.
 
You are confused. I have no intention of commenting on Rutgers. It's just a news story. What is there for anyone to refute. What I am commenting on is that your style of copying and pasting news stories is is mentally cheap and not worth responding to, except to respond that your OPs are pretty cheap.

What is amusing is the hypocrisy of you attacking me while accusing me of attacking you on your intellectual laziness. In short you are a fraud.

Then, I suggest that you stay true to your beliefs ... and don't respond to my posts. That will please ever so many of us.
 
Then, I suggest that you stay true to your beliefs ... and don't respond to my posts. That will please ever so many of us.
Naw. When you copy news articles as OPs that serve no purpose other than divisive mongering, I think it's quite appropriate to reply. Besides, I think it does please you, my faithful pen-pal.
 
Naw. When you copy news articles as OPs that serve no purpose other than divisive mongering, I think it's quite appropriate to reply. Besides, I think it does please you, my faithful pen-pal.
The article GBFan posted is an opinion piece, that I will agree. The stats that are quoted are from studies done by UCLA, hardly a right leaning university.

And, are you denying the fact that Rutgers' New Brunswick Faculty Council passed a resolution last week calling on the university's board of governors to rescind its invitation to Rice for pure partisan political reasons?

Sorry, Lag ..... I will have to agree with GBFan on this one. Your efforts to deflect the topic at hand on a post that you say "I have no intentions of commenting on" certainly appears to be the same ol' liberal trick we all see you guys do when you don't want to discuss the topic at hand.
 
Hey TexTea, my BFF. I wasn't denying anything pertaining to the article. How can I? It's just a statement of events. Liberal trick? C'mon; is that the way you guys always look at life - liberals always do this conservatives always do that. That is so dark and gloomy.

My intention wasn't to deflect that topic, it was more of a meta analysis of the divisive nature of the topics that GB posts. I do admit I was off-topic if there was a topic.
 
C'mon; is that the way you guys always look at life - liberals always do this conservatives always do that. That is so dark and gloomy.
I would say no ... not always. But, when you attempt to deflect from the topic at hand, a trick that liberals often use, then you can expect that some may call you out on it.

My intention wasn't to deflect that topic, it was more of a meta analysis of the divisive nature of the topics that GB posts.
The current regime is the most divisive in the history of this Country. Obama has succeeded in dividing this Country down every racial and economic line imaginable. A play straight out of Obama's mentor Saul Alinski's "Rules for Radicals" as GBFan mentioned.

This is the nature of political debate in this Country at the moment and you can thank our Marxist president for this intentional division.

I do admit I was off-topic if there was a topic.
I believe the topic is clear and valid as well. Universities in this Country are left-leaning and some all out communist.

Rutger's claims that Rice played a prominent role in the administration’s effort to mislead the American people about the presence of weapons of mass destruction.

We all know that there was also international intelligence suggesting the presence of WMD's as well.

This was not, as liberals like to portray, an effort solely made up by the Bush administration.

Unlike Obama's lies. Obama lied to the American people about keeping their insurance. This was intentional and solely a product of the regime ... no one else, as was his lies about Benghazi.

Do you think Rutger's would rescind an invitation if the messiah accepted to do a speech there?

Now .... there is clearly your bias that his topic is about.
 
Werbung:
Your first paragraph says I was deflecting from the topic.

Your second paragraph deflects to Obama: dividing the country.
Your third paragraph deflects to Obama: Marxist president.
Your eighth paragraph deflects to Obama: insurance, Benghazi.
Your ninth paragraph deflects to Obama : Obama – messiah.

Over half of the words in your post were about Obama, not about Rutgers U.

Who is deflecting from the topic?

You are trying to change the topic to Obama. That would just lead to bitter bickering? How can we do that and still keep our amiable rapport?
 
Back
Top