The top diversity officer at Gallaudet University has been suspended because she signed a petition indicating a preference for a referendum on a gay marriage proposal.
Why is the left largely unable to see the hilarious hypocrisy on this issue?
The suspension makes a mockery of liberals supposed support of the idea of diversity. Wouldn't the folks that embrace diversity celebrate the expression of a diverse range of ideas on social issues?
But of course diversity as the left sees it has nothing whatsoever to do with ideas. When it comes to ideas, a strictly enforced uniformity prevails.
A more honest university would replace their diversity officials with conformity/thought police.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
We see the same thing with the left when it comes to compromise. Not too interested in it until they are out of power. Then their idea of compromise is the rest of us caving in and doing it their way. Nice racket, eh?
Oh look another GOPocritical comment from a ring-in-the-nose supporter of the GOPstructionists.
Seriously? Gallaudet U?
GH, I have thought a few times about the dangers of elevating the concept of compromise too high. If one side is always willing to compromise, the other will simply increase their demands over time. Another way to think about it is to realize that the one always willing to compromise has no principles that they are willing to fight for. DN.
GH, I have thought a few times about the dangers of elevating the concept of compromise too high. If one side is always willing to compromise, the other will simply increase their demands over time. Another way to think about it is to realize that the one always willing to compromise has no principles that they are willing to fight for. DN.
Denis, the beauty of Reagan is his unwillingness to compromise with the Soviets. He just wanted to beat them, and to his everlasting glory he prevailed.
Along the way he compromised with Democrats. He agreed to raise taxes $1 for every $2 in spending cuts. Well, 'ol Tip Oneil never cut the spending. Which ballooned the deficit. And then we have knobs like Sean who seem to think raising taxes is a good idea. Idiots! They'll never learn. No, compromise with Democrats is bad for the health of the nation. They must be defeated. Then they can continue to play silly diversity games when nobody else is watching (or caring).
Kudos Denis on providing your comment to Gearheaded twice, in an attempt to overcome his disfunctional reading reading comprehension!
I see two revealing aspects to your comments. The first is that you beleive the Republicon leadership has "principles". They don't. Except that is for the principle that greed is good and the only thing better is power.
The second aspect I see in both your comment and Gearheaded's response is the failure to recognize that people with different views also have principles and that as citizens of a republic they also deserve to have their values represented.
Your positions of no compromise are not only an utter betrayal of America's founding principles, but a road to permanent gridlock and decline.
And finally, Gearheaded calls me an "idiot" while simple-mindedly blaming Tip for Reagan's debt, (no doubt parroting RW-radio GOPropaganda) when no budget can be enacted without the president's (Reagan's) signature. But, I guess we cannot expect one with such poor reading comprehension skills to be adept at the higher function of critical thinking, now can we? Pity.
sean, to drop the dept piled up while Reagan was president solely on the steps of the Executive, entirely absolving congress, is the height of ignorance, hypocrisy and idiocy.
Pretty much sums you up in a pretty little package, eah sean? Heh.
Professsor Nemo's civic lesson for the day: (to prevent embarrassing yourself sean, grab your crayons and take notes)
sean, "...no budget can be enacted without the president's (Reagan's) signature."
Wrong! A President certainly can veto the budget but congress can override that veto thus enacting the budget laws without the President's signature. So sean, when you posted this, did you lie or are you just dumb? Heh.
Yeah Nemo, but Reagan DIDN'T VETO the budget so your point is moot. Furthermore, I did not absolve congress at all, I merely pointed out the simple-mindedness of Gearheaded's laying all the blame of Tip O'Neal and absolving Reagan. How's THAT for turnabout!?
OH and you know what else? Gearheaded's statement that Reagan refused to compromise with the Soviet Union is total mythological BS. In fact, he negotiated arms control treaties with the Soviets and his recognition that Gorbachev was someone who could be worked with to end the cold war was one of the best things he'll be known for historically.
Sean, which is better? Having a budget, or not having one? Let's see...
Reagan's tax cuts provided an economic boom that doubled tax receipts to the treasury. Pretty good so far. Except spending increased about three times faster yet. Not good, especially with a Democrat congress in control. But you choose to blame Reagan.
But wait, it gets better (not!)
Because now we have no budgets (with the Dems in total control for at least two years) Obama should rightfully get blamed for running trillion+ dollar deficits for four years straight, right?
Spin away, little man.
Most of the additional debt incurred under Obama is due to the two Bush wars he inherited that he is winding down, wars which he included on the books in the budget, something Bush never did.
Then there is continuing cost of Bush's unfunded Medicare Part D prescription program.
And of course there are the Bush tax cuts, prior to which we had a surplus and were on track to pay down our national debt in a decade or so.
By the way budget hawk and numbers wonk (NOT!) Lyin' Ryan voted for all of those.
You can put some blame on Obama for the stimulus, but of course he did that in response to the Great Republicon Recession and it's plummeting government revenues. It saved or created about 3,000,000 jobs accourding to the non-partisan CBO. Those jobs are people paying taxes, making house payments and not going on unemployment and food stamps so there's a positive revenue effect there too.
One unfortunate thing about the stimulus is that Obama compromised with the Republicons so that a third of it was tax cuts, which are not very stimulative, at all especially in the short term.
I thought we'd been over all this before, but I suppose repetition is key to retention and comprehension.
Then of course there is Mitt-the-Twit's budget plan that add $4 trillion to the debt unless he raises taxes on the middle class, as I aptly documented in a comment to the last post, which of course you've chosen to ignore. That's O.K., I understand that hiding under a pile of coats is your only defense.
A presidency squandered.
Someone else that disagrees with Sean. But that isn't saying much.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/330505/presidency-squandered-victor-davis-hanson
@Denis, "the other side will simply increase their demands over time."
Pretty much what has happened over the years with union thugs holding a gun to school boards and municipalities heads. Had them trained so well, they extend contracts when they don't need to.
@Sean Puff Daddy Fiddy:
Don't you still owe Nemo fiddy dollars? Pay up, moocher.
Obama's busted dreams, broken promises:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOT3WCSJNf0&feature=youtu.be
Incapable of responding to a factual argument, Gearheaded resorts to a series short pronouncements of faith (because GH sezso!), strange references to something called a "fiddy" and external links of dubious quality and objectivity, intended to distract and change the subject away from his own logical short-comings.
In other words, I won the debate . . . again!
Sean, I don't hold a position of "no compromise" as you suggest. Rather, for compromise to be an effective problem solving tool, certain conditions must be in place. At a minimum, those on either side of an issue must be reasonable. If one side sees compromise as the first of serial demands as a strategy to move the needle constantly in their direction, then they have failed the reasonableness criteria, at which point it is better not to compromise with them at all. A perfect real world example would be middle east negotiations, at least with those who have as their final objective the total annihilation of Israel.
@Sean: Your facts are tortured. Bush's highest deficit was 400B. Obama routinly hits 1.3T That's frightening, and is Obamas fault. Almost 6T of new debt track record.
And as demonstrated time and again throughout history, when Bush cut taxes, revenues to the treasury increased. It's the spending that went out of control, including part D which I wasn't in favor of anyway.
It is Obama who raises taxes on the middle class, thumbing his nose at 10 years of reasonable Bush tax rates. The ironic thing is he has to do nothing at all to raise taxes. Just let the existing rates expire, which he vowed to do. Do nothing. Pretty good sumation of his presidency. Can your addled mind comprehend that?
Here is a hint: You need to be thinking of something other than ALEC conspiracies in order for that to sink in. Obama not only hates the successful, he has no regard for the masses either. But happily supports totalitarian diversity, along with promoting a false security that got American embassy personal killed. He (and Hillary) have blood on thier hands.
Any debate you profess to be winning is only because the rest of us recognise the odd parallel universe from which you speakith from.
Denis, You value of compromise is being betrayed by the party you support. They have generally refused to negotiate and have engaged in obstruction for four year with their single-minded goal of defeating Obama, putting the interest of their party before that of the American people. And THAT is from what constitutes the "mainstream" of the party leadership, a term I use with great trepidation.
Then you have the Teaswilling faction of the party who have said things like compromise is capitulation and they'll have no part of it. These people think that what they want is all that matters and that other American's values and principles don't count at all. They're not adult statesmen and women, they're blue faced babies holding their breath until they get their way.
Gearheaded, Bush's highest budget deficit was more on the order of $600B and that doesn't count the wars because they were not included in his budgets, but rather funded through annual emergency spending measures throughout his presidency. Obama put these legacy costs in his budgets, a much more honest approach to governing.
I suggest you do a little research on what is most responsible for driving up the current deficits, hint the Bush tax cuts, the wars, the great GOPcession (driving down revues and medicare Part D, which I wasn't in favor of either, but your people shoved through without paying for. I'll get you some nice graphs if you'd like, which help you, considering your reading comprehension deficit.
Oh and Obama has NOT raised taxes as you stated, sorry, wrong again.
I realy think it's time for me to leave the field here. There's no point in my racking up more runs in extra innings after pitching a shutout.
I can tell you from experience that the deaf are, as a group, fiercely independent and some take this to extremes. I had a deaf technician when I was a professor at Northwestern and she was wonderful and talented. But she made it increasingly clear that the boom box I had in the lab was not welcome, and I eventually got rid of it. We were actually in a VA building and had fire drills often, and we could have obtained a vibrating pager that was integrated with the fire alarm but she absolutely refused, so I always had to know where she was to make sure she got out. I gave up trying to explain that this was not a symbol of a handicap and by not getting it she was putting us BOTH in danger. Combine this with the poll that showed that many deaf couples would choose to abort a child that was determined to be "hearing" and you see independence taking on bizarre twists. Recall the demonstrations when Galludet was considering a hearing person for President?
If there is a point to the above post, I am apparently deaf to it.
Post a Comment