Did the Obama admin actually wiretap reporters? I'm sorry, memory is a bit foggy. I thought it was they had asked for phone records while looking for a leaker, which is really not good but also not the same thing as actually listening in on calls. I think they 'tracked movement' or something along those lines as well. Also, not good. Damn, must be getting old, but I think I spoke out about it at the time right here on this forum. Anyway, I will Google that a bit more later when I have some time.
Google Sharyl Attkinsson. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-confirms-sharyl-attkissons-computer-hacked/
Is shouting down the same as violating the first amendment? I don't support this kind of stuff in general, but asking for a friend....
Suuure you're asking for a friend. The 1st Amendment is specifically designed to restrain government. That doesn't mean that individuals don't keep each other from being able to speak freely. You have to understand that while the 1st Amendment might not apply to a private university, those that would shout others down are certainly violating the spirit of the law, if not the amendment. How that applies to a public University is another matter and that's the battle that is currently being fought. There is precedent for this with regard to public schools. One case that comes to mind is Tinker v. Des Moines.
It's a bit ironic that Tinker was about peace arm bands being worn at school. Oh how the left has changed!
Also, if 2% of liberals on campus show up to do this, does this men the other 98% support them?
Where did those numbers come from? It doesn't mean that all of them support those disruptive actions. But the fact that it happens, the fact that the universities often do nothing or even support it, and the student body rarely, if ever, organizes a movement to combat it, that's rather telling isn't it?
As for UNC, I believe Tancredo returned to speak with little to no incident, so it has definitely improved here locally. Speaking of diversity in thought, I noticed that when Ben Shapiro came to visit UNC, they made it a point that he was not going to debate anyone, even when it was requested. He does pretty well in those situations, so I thought it was a bit surprising.
So let me get this straight. Shapiro doesn't agree to debate, when it's quite possible that the goal was to get someone on stage to shut him down by shouting him down. But you failed to also note that what Shapiro typically does is give a speech outlining his view and then he takes questions from the crowd. Yet, you construe his unwillingness to turn his speech portion into a debate as not tolerating diversity of thought? That's pretty thin.
I don't think either 'side' values diversity of thought when they are trying to push their agenda. Look what has happened recently to say Tomi Lahren when she said she was pro choice, or pretty much any conservative who is pro choice or supports Medicare expansion. Both sides do their thing I guess. But you are right in this specific case, where you don't see conservatives shouting down liberal speakers on campus. That is true. I imagine it has a large part to do with their numbers and fear of confrontation or whatever.
What happened to Tomi Lauren had to do with Glenn Beck. She'll continue to have lots of right of center followers, which goes to show that the right is certainly willing to tolerate a bit of division. I've got lots of libertarian and conservative friends. They often disagree with each other on lots of topics. But only those on the left have been the ones to end a friendship over a difference of opinion. I've seen it happen many times since November.
Conservatives are usually a lot more polite that liberals. Look out the disparity in violence when it comes to left wing protests and right wing ones. That's a huge clue. Conservatives and libertarians largely want to be left alone. Liberals are the ones that think they know best how to order the world. As such, they are the ones that have been confrontational as of late. It wasn't always this way. The roles were reversed in the 1960's. But times change.
From what I know, there is a split - some students actually believe that what they consider 'hate speech' is not the same as allowing 'free speech' which doesn't make much sense to me. There is perhaps a bit of support for this view of the years with 'fighting words' and that kind of language in decisions. But the ACLU and many others have spoken out against such a line of thinking very clearly. (I guess that shows some diversity of thought, eh? As there are many, many liberal ACLU supporters.) Others think that although these people have a right to speak, they don't have a right to not be shouted out or disrupted. The final split would be those who cross the line and throw things or set off fire alarms or whatever, I guess anarchists.
I see the left often claims that the violent members of their tribe are anarchists. Sorry, but I'm not buying that. That's passing the buck, and not accepting responsibility for the actions of leftists.
There's also a constant stream for the right saying 'if you are for universal health care you are a communist who hates America' and such. If you support abortion at all, liberals are also said to want to murder babies and somehow love abortion, as opposed to loving a choice for others.
No matter how much you want to believe otherwise, abortion ends a life. End of story. Full stop. "Loving to legally kill" isn't what I would consider a virtue. Obviously, your mileage varies.
You're also restating opposition for universal healthcare in the most negative way possible. One of the most cherished American traditions is a senses of independence. While that has withered over time, it hasn't gone away completely. Many people are simply concerned about giving government the power to make our healthcare decisions. You have to understand that going to this system might mean that everyone gets some kind of coverage. But the tradeoff for this is choice. I never seen lefties that are willing to admit this. What I see instead is such a system described only in a positive light.
Debate is happening right here and all across the country every day, it is clearly not dead as you say.
Debate is dead or dying precisely because of people like you. I don't mean that to sound quite so personal, but look what you said above. Look how you characterized opposition to universal healthcare. Look back at the race baiting that you've done on this forum.
Real debate has to do with discussing the relative merits of policies. It involves distilling those ideas down to their elements and determining whether or not those things are workable solutions. It involves an honest discussion that involves what the person is actually saying.
In our discussions, you have struggled mightily to respond to what I've actually said and instead resorted to strawmen. And the fact of the matter is, you're one of the most reasonable people on the left that I've encountered. That's a sad state of affairs.
But before you get your boxers in a bunch, understand that this phenomenon is not limited to the left. It is something that characterizes both sides. Look back at the talk shows of yesteryear and you'll find people like Milton Friedman debating things with Donahue. You'll find discussions between Gore Vidal and William Buckley.
What do we have today? Screeching heads talking over one another in an attempt to produce the pithiest sound byte. The left's idea of debate is to shut someone down by accusing them of racism or bigotry. It's the force of the accusation, not the argument, that is killing debate.
It may have gotten a bit more heated, but such is the ebb and flow of life. I'm sure people had similar thoughts in the civil rights era. Have some belief in what many scientists are saying? You hate America and all people who have a business. Bring up racial disparities in applying the law? You must be a racebaiter obsessed with race. Support enforcing existing gun laws more or thinking about changing gun laws? You want to take everyone's guns.
You're once again making generalizations. The left says that unless you believe what some scientists are saying you're a denier. Bill Nye said "deniers" should be incarcerated. Right here in Chatham County, the commissioners used environmental laws as a means to suspend and impede businesses from being established here. That's a fact. Bringing up racial disparities isn't racist. Unless you're a white person. And then it suddenly is. The left isn't "supporting existing gun laws". That's absolute nonsense. They want more restrictions. I'm honestly laughing at this characterization. (remember Feinstein saying "Mr. and Ms. America, turn them in"?)
People on the right in this state have said they want to round up the gays inside a barbwire fence and watch them die. However, as far as common ground, I think you and I share some here in that I agree that stifling free speech is not the path that any elected official should take and that not allowing open debate on campus stages is bad. I also agree with you that allowing new media folks in is good.
I've heard black people say the same about white people. Are you particularly concerned that's a possibility in either case? I'm not. I won't stand by and let it happen.
However, I don't actually believe the polling was manipulated as you seem to claim. I believe that many people simply voted for Trump on the down low and that many people who voted were never polled. I've taken this message to Chapel Hill and in fact complained that they didn't do a better job with the first Tancredo situation. I'm not taking any credit, but clearly they listened and did much better the second time around. I'm definitely not afraid of being beaten by anyone, lol.
Please explain to me the disparity between polling and the election results. I find it really unlikely that it would swing that many percentage points based on people voting "on the down low".
If in fact many people who voted were never polled...then that's yet another problem with the poll, isn't it? Yip, take some time, and instead of giving me a knee-jerk reaction, as you are so apt to do, check out "oversampling" and you'll see what I mean.
I'm not afraid of being beaten either. I'm a big fellow, which usually dissuades most people from trying to harm me. But I've also spent the majority of my adult life learning how to defend myself and my family.
Good for you when it comes to going to UNC and voicing concerns. If in fact that actually happened. It doesn't square with your online persona here, which makes excuses or downplays that which the left is responsible for.