Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
  On 4/17/2025 at 12:58 PM, placeholder said:

What illegal behavior are you referring to?

Expand  

 

I guess you slept through the Pro-Palestine Encampment and the Claudine Gay fiasco.  Not hard to believe the way the MSM was spinning it.

Posted
  On 4/17/2025 at 1:01 PM, bubblegum said:

Sound like Pol Pot. Kill the educated.

Expand  

 

See, this is just the perverted thinking the left comes up with, completely oblivious to the fact that Pol Pot WAS the left. So this is exactly what the left would do. Trump, being an infinitely more humane and wise leader, merely wants those universities to stop the leftist lunacy. Sounds very resasonable to me. 

 

Don't worry, none of the gender-studies socialist worker anti-capitalists will be killed. That's what they would do to us. We don't do it to them. Because we are better than leftists.

  • Heart-broken 1
  • Love It 1
Posted
  On 4/17/2025 at 1:32 PM, Cameroni said:

 

See, this is just the perverted thinking the left comes up with, completely oblivious to the fact that Pol Pot WAS the left. So this is exactly what the left would do. Trump, being an infinitely more humane and wise leader, merely wants those universities to stop the leftist lunacy. Sounds very resasonable to me. 

 

Don't worry, none of the gender-studies socialist worker anti-capitalists will be killed. That's what they would do to us. We don't do it to them. Because we are better than leftists.

Expand  

Whatever the truth of your comments, even lunacy is protected speech. You clearly haven't a clue about the First Amendment. Let me give you a hint: it wasn't created to defend popular speech.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
  On 4/17/2025 at 1:36 PM, placeholder said:

Whatever the truth of your comments, even lunacy is protected speech. You clearly haven't a clue about the First Amendment. Let me give you a hint: it wasn't created to defend popular speech.

Expand  

 

They're still free to run their "No means No" and "Contracts before Kissing" campaigns, their anti-capitalist dreams. Just not on the US taxpayer's backs. That's all.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
  On 4/17/2025 at 6:57 AM, placeholder said:

Early Targets of Harvard Funding Cuts: Tuberculosis, ALS Research

Harvard University scientists are facing the prospect of laying off staff, euthanizing research animals and bringing yearslong science projects to a halt as a freeze on federal funds looms.

On Monday, after the university rejected government demands to change how it runs and admits students, the Trump administration said it would stop $2.26 billion in funds previously awarded to the school as part of an investigation into how the university dealt with antisemitism.

Stop-work orders began arriving soon after. 

https://archive.ph/mjuDP

 

Clearly the Trump administration believes Harvard is way too prejudiced against Tuberculosis and ALS.

 

Expand  

How do I start a GoFundMe?

Posted
  On 4/17/2025 at 1:54 PM, Cameroni said:

 

They're still free to run their "No means No" and "Contracts before Kissing" campaigns, their anti-capitalist dreams. Just not on the US taxpayer's backs. That's all.

Expand  

How exactly are the US taxpayaers funding "No means No" and "Contracts before Kissing" campaigns? Harvard, home the Harvard School of Business, has its anti-capitalist dreams funded by the US Taxpayer? Harvard, a major fosterer of high-tech startups has anti-capitalist dreams? Thanks for the reflexive spewing. How exactly is the US taxpayer funding all this? By supporting tuberculosis research?

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
  On 4/16/2025 at 4:35 PM, bannork said:

Explaining the university's position on the matter, Garber said, "No government —regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”

Expand  

 

Absolutely.  No more government funding or tax-free status, and universities do whatever they want!

 

If they're treated like a private businesses, maybe they will waste less money and provide a better service at a more reasonable price.

Posted
  On 4/17/2025 at 6:30 AM, Cameroni said:

Excellent news. The leftist influence on campuses needs to be mericlessly eradicated. 

Expand  

 

And universities need to be dragged into the modern era.  They are no longer only for the elite and those who want to go into intellectual careers.

 

They need a good shake up with a lot of fat trimmed off.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
  On 4/17/2025 at 2:00 PM, placeholder said:

How exactly are the US taxpayaers funding "No means No" and "Contracts before Kissing" campaigns? Harvard, home the Harvard School of Business, has its anti-capitalist dreams funded by the US Taxpayer? Harvard, a major fosterer of high-tech startups has anti-capitalist dreams? Thanks for the reflexive spewing. How exactly is the US taxpayer funding all this? By supporting tuberculosis research?

Expand  

 

"But it’s that lack of a standard definition for affirmative consent that has led some colleges like Harvard not to adopt it.

Harvard’s policy forbids what it calls “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” stating that “conduct is unwelcome if a person did not request or invite it and regarded the unrequested or uninvited conduct as undesirable or offensive.” Earlier this week, 28 current and former Harvard law professors said the policy could deny due process process to those who are accused and that its definition of unwanted conduct was too broad and vague. Student activists, meanwhile, said the definition doesn’t go nearly far enough, and urged Harvard to change its definition to one of affirmative consent, saying in a petition that “the absence of a ‘no’ does not mean ‘yes,’ and our university policy should explicitly recognize that.”

Mia Karvonides, the university’s Title IX officer, said that Harvard uses a standard that is “consistent with the standard in all federal civil rights laws that apply in an education setting,” and that even its peers in the Ivy League don’t truly use an affirmative consent standard as they don’t require a verbal yes at every turn
“The closest any college comes to a defined affirmative-consent approach is Antioch College,” Karvonides said. “Under their policy, consent is given step by step at every point of engagement during an intimate encounter. You must verbally ask and verbally get an answer for every point of engagement. ‘May I kiss you? May I undo your blouse?’ ”

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/means-enough-college-campuses

 

They have gone insane. Literally. These people are not rational anymore.

  • Agree 1
  • Heart-broken 1
Posted
  On 4/17/2025 at 2:08 PM, Cameroni said:

 

"But it’s that lack of a standard definition for affirmative consent that has led some colleges like Harvard not to adopt it.

Harvard’s policy forbids what it calls “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” stating that “conduct is unwelcome if a person did not request or invite it and regarded the unrequested or uninvited conduct as undesirable or offensive.” Earlier this week, 28 current and former Harvard law professors said the policy could deny due process process to those who are accused and that its definition of unwanted conduct was too broad and vague. Student activists, meanwhile, said the definition doesn’t go nearly far enough, and urged Harvard to change its definition to one of affirmative consent, saying in a petition that “the absence of a ‘no’ does not mean ‘yes,’ and our university policy should explicitly recognize that.”

Mia Karvonides, the university’s Title IX officer, said that Harvard uses a standard that is “consistent with the standard in all federal civil rights laws that apply in an education setting,” and that even its peers in the Ivy League don’t truly use an affirmative consent standard as they don’t require a verbal yes at every turn
“The closest any college comes to a defined affirmative-consent approach is Antioch College,” Karvonides said. “Under their policy, consent is given step by step at every point of engagement during an intimate encounter. You must verbally ask and verbally get an answer for every point of engagement. ‘May I kiss you? May I undo your blouse?’ ”

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/means-enough-college-campuses

 

They have gone insane. Literally. These people are not rational anymore.

Expand  

And what has that got to do with denying funds for medical and hi-tech research?

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
  On 4/17/2025 at 2:08 PM, BangkokReady said:

 

And universities need to be dragged into the modern era.  They are no longer only for the elite and those who want to go into intellectual careers.

 

They need a good shake up with a lot of fat trimmed off.

Expand  

And what has this got to do with the First Amendment?

 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
  On 4/17/2025 at 2:10 PM, placeholder said:

And what has that got to do with denying funds for medical and hi-tech research?

Expand  

 

Quite a lot. Harvard can thank its political activist feminists and socialists for creating an environment that is oppressive for students and teaches them useless ideology like "stop and ask for consent before you touch the breast, stop and ask for consent before you kiss", that capitalism is bad and all the other leftists nonsense. 

 

Of course Trump only has limited levers against Harvard. A stop to federal funding is one lever. Indeed, if it does not work, he could appropriate endowments by passing legislation.

 

Whatever levers there are they have to be used to bring all these universities back to heel and to focus on what they are meant to do, educate and research. Not peddle third rate leftist ideology.

Posted
  On 4/17/2025 at 2:17 PM, Cameroni said:

 

Quite a lot. Harvard can thank its political activist feminists and socialists for creating an environment that is oppressive for students and teaches them useless ideology like "stop and ask for consent before you touch the breast, stop and ask for consent before you kiss", that capitalism is bad and all the other leftists nonsense. 

 

Of course Trump only has limited levers against Harvard. A stop to federal funding is one lever. Indeed, if it does not work, he could appropriate endowments by passing legislation.

 

Whatever levers there are they have to be used to bring all these universities back to heel and to focus on what they are meant to do, educate and research. Not peddle third rate leftist ideology.

Expand  

Those levers can't be used if they used in violation of the First Amendment.

  • Agree 1
Posted
  On 4/17/2025 at 1:10 PM, impulse said:

 

I guess you slept through the Pro-Palestine Encampment and the Claudine Gay fiasco.  Not hard to believe the way the MSM was spinning it.

Expand  

The protests were not sponsored by the university.

The university was constrained by the rights of participants to engage in their protests.

  • Like 1
Posted
  On 4/17/2025 at 2:19 PM, BangkokReady said:

 

No idea.  Why does it need to relate to the First Amendment?

Expand  

Because it's an attempt to punish Harvard over the issue of Free Speech. The Federal Govt has no  right to punish an institution because it's unhappy with what is being said or written.

  • Agree 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
  On 4/17/2025 at 2:17 PM, Cameroni said:

 

Quite a lot. Harvard can thank its political activist feminists and socialists for creating an environment that is oppressive for students and teaches them useless ideology like "stop and ask for consent before you touch the breast, stop and ask for consent before you kiss", that capitalism is bad and all the other leftists nonsense. 

 

Of course Trump only has limited levers against Harvard. A stop to federal funding is one lever. Indeed, if it does not work, he could appropriate endowments by passing legislation.

 

Whatever levers there are they have to be used to bring all these universities back to heel and to focus on what they are meant to do, educate and research. Not peddle third rate leftist ideology.

Expand  

 

How would you know?

You certainly did not attend Harvard nor witnessed the activities that you claim.

Did you even graduate from a nationally accredited university?

  • Agree 1
Posted
  On 4/17/2025 at 2:21 PM, Patong2021 said:

 

How would you know?

You certainly did not attend Harvard nor witnessed the activities that you claim.

Did you even graduate from a nationally accredited university?

Expand  

 

I was at Oxford University in the UK, it is exactly the same there. The first I saw was a Doc Martens wearing feminist with a shaved head peddling a "No means No" campaign.

Posted
  On 4/17/2025 at 7:43 AM, placeholder said:

I think the main issue apart from the attempt at suppression of speech, is the fact that the undergraduate portion of the University is only a small part of Harvard. It is one of the leading centers of scientific research in the country.The kind of research America desperately needs more of. Not just that. But a lot of that research is done by gifted people from abroad who are attracted to the kind of facilities that Harvard offers. Given the Trump administration recent immigration actions, the US will probably be seeing a lot less of them.

Expand  

The Brain Drain has been going on for a long time due to the antiquated quota system that we have in place, but there's no question that Trump is going to make it a lot worse with his anti-immigrant, anti foreigner rhetoric. 

 

We don't want you we don't need you, Americans are so smart. 

  • Like 1
Posted
  On 4/17/2025 at 7:29 AM, MicroB said:

 

Yeah, spelling might be improved.

 

Still, which way did the uneducated Russian masses in 1917 lean?

 

Pete Hegseth; are you saying now he's a left wing plant? RFK Jr; another Harvard graduate. So is Elise Stefanik, your president's pick to represent him to the world. Vivek Ramaswamy, you know, the bloke who helped out Musk on DOGE, a Harvard old boy.

 

First time round, the 45th President favoured Harvard graduates. Steve Bannon, Jared  Kushner, Wilbur Ross, Mike Pompeo, Elaine Chao, Alexander Acosta, Rod Rosenstein,  the Mooch, Kayleigh McEnany, Rachel  Brand, Sarah Flores, Jeffrey Rosen, Stacy Cline Amin, John Bash, Ann Donaldson, Gregory Katsas, Michael McGinley, Schuyler Schouten, Zina Bash, Avrahm Berkowitz, Kenneth Juster, Gilbert Kaplan, and Henry J. Kerner.

 

Of course, all of these graduates will likely agree with a statement that a Harvard education allowed them to think for themselves. If you disgree with that, ergo they are all leftist plants, and the President has been negligant.

 

All of them, by your reckoning, under "leftist influence" and need to be "mericlessly"  (sic) eradicated.

 

You have a 50/50 chance of getting dementia or cancer. Your chances of surviving either depend on university research.

Expand  

But why even spend all this money on this costly research when you can just eat a Trump-style McDonald's diet and remain healthy your entire life? 

  • Haha 1
Posted
  On 4/17/2025 at 2:20 PM, placeholder said:

Because it's an attempt to punish Harvard over the issue of Free Speech. The Federal Govt has no  right to punish an institution because it's unhappy with what is being said or written.

Expand  

 

Well, there are many areas in which universities need to be reformed.

  • Haha 1
Posted
  On 4/17/2025 at 2:35 PM, spidermike007 said:

But why even spend all this money on this costly research when you can just eat a Trump-style McDonald's diet and remain healthy your entire life? 

Expand  

You mean this?

  • Haha 2
Posted

Below are quotes from prominent Republicans picked out by long time Republican pollster Sarah Longwell  in a thread posted to X on Wednesday. 

She explains, "Because Republicans believed the IRS under Obama was targeting conservative groups, there are tons of clips of R elected officials passionately arguing that the government targeting the tax exempt status of groups because of their political beliefs is un-American and illegal. FYI."

1.  Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) proclaimed that the IRS targeting political adversaries is "as wrong as things can be in this country."

2. Vice President JD Vance, at the time not in political office, told Fox News' Laura Ingraham, "This is about whether we have functional constitutional government in this country. If the IRS can go after you because of what you think or what you believe or what you do, we'd no longer live in a free country.“

3.  Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), "I can also assure you that were this a Republican president, a Republican Attorney General, and a Republican IRS that were targeting Democrats, I at least would speak out just as vigorously against it because if we are going to respect rule of law, the apparatus of the federal government cannot and should not be used as a partisan tool to bludgeon your enemies."

4. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who, when he was serving as the senator for Florida, had a similar message.

"Great news folks. @SecRubio will not stand for the federal government or its agencies targeting institutions or organizations because of their political beliefs. That’s third-world stuff that can’t be allowed to happen here.''

'I would speak out vigorously!' Republicans who once decried IRS weaponization now silent

Oh, how the lambs are silent now!

  • Agree 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Topics

  • Popular Contributors

  • Latest posts...

    1. 12

      Thailand Live Monday 9 June 2025

    2. 0

      Thaksin Shinawatra's Perceived Privilege Rocks Thai Government

    3. 12

      Thailand Live Monday 9 June 2025

    4. 0

      Undercover with Youth Demand: A New Era of Radical Protest and Political Ambitions

    5. 0

      Rethink in Germany: revamp shelter system in case of Russian attack

    6. 0

      Islamist Refugee at Centre of Pro-Palestinian Protest Sparks Uproar Over Two-Tier Policing

  • Popular in The Pub

×
×
  • Create New...