[matshark]

I agree with mallet. One of my good friends and a pastor at my church is a democrat. He is socially conservative but very much for the liberal fiscal plans. He also grew up in a part of Michigan where is entire family is a member of a union.

yes, and we see where liberal fiscal plans have gotten MI and CA. and just because you're part of a union, doesn't mean unions aren't very destructive forces in the business and political world. membership is forced. you must pay dues. (legalized extortion if you will) then they force so many concessions from employers that they are unable to remain profitable and must go into bankruptcy. (see Chrysler and GM) so maybe he should be rethinking that whole union/liberal fiscal policy thing. i mean, unemployment up there is like 12%. there's a good chance one of his family members just lost their job. maybe they'll have time to sit and think that all those auto workers that aren't unionized (i.e. honda, toyota, etc...) might be onto something afterall.

oh, and there's that other thing... that Democrat is next to Socialist.

I'm glad Liberty kicked the Dem Club to the curb. I'm not for being fair. I'm for doing what's right. And what's 'right' and what's 'fair' are not always the same thing.

I think this whole situation seems to have gone over your head. Obviously liberal fiscal policy is retarded to us. That doesn't mean you can't think that way and go to LU or be a Christian and hold those view points. That's what this is about. However, I have no problem with LU simply pulling their "support" from this group. It's really not a big deal as opposed to the disbanding that was originally reported.

no the situation hasn't gone over my head. i was simply answering a post. i stated before the LU was well within their rights to do what they did and i support that action 100%. but i stand by my statement that what's right is not always 'fair.' and im glad LU did what was right in this case. desite the hammering they took from WSET and N&A for it. WSET seemed to try and play the thing up and sensationalize it as much as possible which is disappointing - considering a lot fo their employees are LU grads. i would've thought they would make an extra effort to make sure they get the story right and obviously somebody didn't. i have no problem with stories that are legitimately critical of LU, but gimme a break when a private institution pulls their backing from a group that goes against what the institution stands for. political correctness is a run-away train and i hope it dies a quick and painless death.

[matshark]

Regardless of the change in story, Liberty has never been good with PR. Why would anyone expect anything different from your administration?

And the Republican plan is to spend and run up deficits too? I'm not sure if I see the difference between the two parties there. MI and CA were doing fine during a good economy as was SC (which is pretty republican). Any fiscal policy is going to be vulnerable to the ups and downs of the economy. I've always thought it would be a smarter move to budget by percentage rather than dollar amount. But even that isn't going to prevent shortfalls. I don't really have a problem with your union argument, they can be just as bad one way as being non-unionized can be the other way.

This whole socialist thing is ignorant and nothing but a big slippery slope argument....

Democrat : Socialist :: Republican : Anarchist

Yes, the Republican plan to run up big deficits and abandon conservatism is exactly the reason they are in disarray. The base of their party has abandonded them for abandoning the values that drew the base in the first place. When the R's start acting like Conservatives again instead of Dem-lite, maybe they will be a relevant party again.

Yes, while any fiscal policy will be vulnerable to ups and downs in the economy, taxes put the brakes on the economy, so when the economy slows down, the absolute WORST thing to do would be to raise taxes. (see CA) Likewise, raising taxes to raise revenue (although Reagan showed that lowering taxes actually increases revenue) can only have a positive effect if you don't increase spending. Unfortunately, people see more money coming in and think...OOOOOOOOOH! Money. Let's spend it. So then they increase spending, leading to a shortage of money.

What they should do is decrease taxes and decrease spending. (Shocking i know... the thought that to spend less money, one would have to cut expenses)

And the Democrat : Socialist :: Republican : Anarchist thing doesn't hold water.

The Dem's are actually espousing and advancing socialist ideals and policies. So Dem's = Socialist. The Republican's aren't really espousing ANYTHING, and they certainly aren't Anarchists. Further, because the R's are much further left now than the Founding Fathers were, you would be more correct to try and say Constitutionalists & Founding Fathers = Anarchists, which is completely absurd because Anarchists are against any form of government, which by definition the Founding Fathers and Constitutionalists CAN'T be, because they laid out the very form of government by which our nation was created.

So, your point is completely bogus and it's fallacial reasoning at its finest.

[ToTheLeft]

I see this as the equivalent of a state school shutting down a "Drink in the Dorms" club.

Let's say there's a school that says, in certain dorms, or on campus, you're not allowed to drink or possess alcohol. However, they know it happens. They don't hunt down every drinker and kick them out. But they're definitely not going allow, much less support, a club to meet on campus that directly goes against rules or ideals they have in place.

LU just has a longer list of rules and ideals, and a group that effectively supports pro-choice and pro-gay marriage and stem cell research and everything else is blatantly against what the school stands for. People are allowed to live on campus or go to the school if they believe in or support these things, LU doesn't shut down free speech, but they do let it be known that the school does not endorse or support anything like this.

It seems like the club agreed to stick with the ideals of the school, but didn't follow through on this promise... So you can't blame the school at all. If you ran a business or a school, and you made a rule that no one could wear pink socks, you wouldn't want a pink socks group on campus, would you?

[GoUNCA]

SuperJon, Your comments have really show a lot of maturity and have earned you a lot of respect in my eyes.

If you are anti-abortion, I have no problem with it. There is certainly a big dividing line for that issue. I've seen more than enough preserved fetuses of many ages and clothes hangar abortions, which have succeeded in pushing me into a middling position. I was born 12 years after Roe vs Wade. All I have heard my whole life is how it is going to be overturned. I've lived through a largely conservative time period and it didn't get done. Probably for a reason.

Third Rail: I'll never support any reduction for the rights of homosexuals. Even within the church. That is a bigger argument I'm more than happy to outline in the Chapel forum if anyone wants.

BUT, all this money talk reminds me of Matthew 22:21. Which is really the best (and worst) defense for a fundamentalist christian trying to put God on the side of a political figure.

I guess in the end any church taking a political position is going to inevitably end up badly because of the natural ebb and flow of political ideas (just look at the history of the Catholic Church, Anglican Church, Islam, and countless others).

[RubberMallet]

You know the US isnt part of Revelation, right?

uh...yeah its speculated to be right in there...

[GoUNCA]

Regardless of the change in story, Liberty has never been good with PR. Why would anyone expect anything different from your administration?

And the Republican plan is to spend and run up deficits too? I'm not sure if I see the difference between the two parties there. MI and CA were doing fine during a good economy as was SC (which is pretty republican). Any fiscal policy is going to be vulnerable to the ups and downs of the economy. I've always thought it would be a smarter move to budget by percentage rather than dollar amount. But even that isn't going to prevent shortfalls. I don't really have a problem with your union argument, they can be just as bad one way as being non-unionized can be the other way.

This whole socialist thing is ignorant and nothing but a big slippery slope argument....

Democrat : Socialist :: Republican : Anarchist

Yes, the Republican plan to run up big deficits and abandon conservatism is exactly the reason they are in disarray. The base of their party has abandonded them for abandoning the values that drew the base in the first place. When the R's start acting like Conservatives again instead of Dem-lite, maybe they will be a relevant party again.

Yes, while any fiscal policy will be vulnerable to ups and downs in the economy, taxes put the brakes on the economy, so when the economy slows down, the absolute WORST thing to do would be to raise taxes. (see CA) Likewise, raising taxes to raise revenue (although Reagan showed that lowering taxes actually increases revenue) can only have a positive effect if you don't increase spending. Unfortunately, people see more money coming in and think...OOOOOOOOOH! Money. Let's spend it. So then they increase spending, leading to a shortage of money.

What they should do is decrease taxes and decrease spending. (Shocking i know... the thought that to spend less money, one would have to cut expenses)

And the Democrat : Socialist :: Republican : Anarchist thing doesn't hold water.

The Dem's are actually espousing and advancing socialist ideals and policies. So Dem's = Socialist. The Republican's aren't really espousing ANYTHING, and they certainly aren't Anarchists. Further, because the R's are much further left now than the Founding Fathers were, you would be more correct to try and say Constitutionalists & Founding Fathers = Anarchists, which is completely absurd because Anarchists are against any form of government, which by definition the Founding Fathers and Constitutionalists CAN'T be, because they laid out the very form of government by which our nation was created.

So, your point is completely bogus and it's fallacial reasoning at its finest.

Yeah, and the national debt really went down with Reagan.....http://zfacts.com/p/318.html. We are all Keynesian now...so I'll just smile and leave it at that

You really missed the point on the anarchist part. Anarchists espouse less government in a radical way, so I was being hyperbolic when I used it. Duh. The more apt comparison would be to compare Republicans to Libertarians. Which would be a little left of anarchists. I have no idea why "socialist" is even considered such a evil word. It is such a red scare tactic. It probably should be pointed out there is a socialist serving in the House of Representatives now anyway (zero Libertarians).

I never labeled any of the founding fathers as anarchists.....Although, Thomas Jefferson certainly was pretty close judging by his letters...

[flamesbball84]

I see this as the equivalent of a state school shutting down a "Drink in the Dorms" club.

Let's say there's a school that says, in certain dorms, or on campus, you're not allowed to drink or possess alcohol. However, they know it happens. They don't hunt down every drinker and kick them out. But they're definitely not going allow, much less support, a club to meet on campus that directly goes against rules or ideals they have in place.

LU just has a longer list of rules and ideals, and a group that effectively supports pro-choice and pro-gay marriage and stem cell research and everything else is blatantly against what the school stands for. People are allowed to live on campus or go to the school if they believe in or support these things, LU doesn't shut down free speech, but they do let it be known that the school does not endorse or support anything like this.

It seems like the club agreed to stick with the ideals of the school, but didn't follow through on this promise... So you can't blame the school at all. If you ran a business or a school, and you made a rule that no one could wear pink socks, you wouldn't want a pink socks group on campus, would you?

Good points, but if the school didn't realize that the vast majority of Democratic candidates support something that goes against the ideals and beliefs of LU, then there's another issue in itself right there. If their true reason for removing support for the club is because the parent organization (aka Democratic party) goes against the ideals and beliefs of LU, then the club never should have been approved to begin with...

[flamesbball84]

I guess communications isn't the field of choice thus you would have known the "going into" wording undercuts your experience level as well as being inaccurate but alas, you still have your people skills working for you when you find out LC isn't a household name and down the east coast.

Do you even know what I currently work in and want to continue to work in? If you did, you'd know that LC has a strong reputation in the field. Of course, you'd know that if you would do research, which LU obviously failed to do in this whole Democratic club mess...

[ToTheLeft]

I see this as the equivalent of a state school shutting down a "Drink in the Dorms" club.

Let's say there's a school that says, in certain dorms, or on campus, you're not allowed to drink or possess alcohol. However, they know it happens. They don't hunt down every drinker and kick them out. But they're definitely not going allow, much less support, a club to meet on campus that directly goes against rules or ideals they have in place.

LU just has a longer list of rules and ideals, and a group that effectively supports pro-choice and pro-gay marriage and stem cell research and everything else is blatantly against what the school stands for. People are allowed to live on campus or go to the school if they believe in or support these things, LU doesn't shut down free speech, but they do let it be known that the school does not endorse or support anything like this.

It seems like the club agreed to stick with the ideals of the school, but didn't follow through on this promise... So you can't blame the school at all. If you ran a business or a school, and you made a rule that no one could wear pink socks, you wouldn't want a pink socks group on campus, would you?

Good points, but if the school didn't realize that the vast majority of Democratic candidates support something that goes against the ideals and beliefs of LU, then there's another issue in itself right there. If their true reason for removing support for the club is because the parent organization (aka Democratic party) goes against the ideals and beliefs of LU, then the club never should have been approved to begin with...

I think the point of them allowing the club was "We'll let you play your game, but here's the rules." And they pretty much knew they wouldn't follow the rules. Because they couldn't. But they let them try, probably to prove a point.

[flamesbball84]

I think the point of them allowing the club was "We'll let you play your game, but here's the rules." And they pretty much knew they wouldn't follow the rules. Because they couldn't. But they let them try, probably to prove a point.

There's more tactful ways to do it that doesn't end up alienating students and doesn't end up making the school come across as intolerant and unwilling to listen to or accept opposing viewpoints, and that's what it looks like now rather it be true or not.

[libertyFANatic123]

http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?s ... C5&u=52XTe

[Ed Dantes]

You know...

Many people believe the Republican Party has been marginalized. Many people believe that it's a party of religious nuts and anti-government wackos. It's also been an increasingly regionalized one as well (in the southeast primarily), meaning that it's going to be harder to win a national election, and it's been one devoid of leadership.

(In regards to the "leadership", who is assuming the mantle of the head of conservatism? I'd argue that Newt Gingrich is your best option, but that's another argument for another time).

IF the Republican party is done as a national party, which is a legitimate argument, what is so wrong with having the pro-lifers infiltrate (for lack of a better word) the Democratic party with the hopes of electing like-minded people? What is so wrong, from a Christian perspective, of a "Blue Dog Democrat"? What about the group "Democrats for Life"?

If, say, Colin Powell ran against Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey, Jr (pro-life Democrat) for President... is it so anathema to Liberty's purpose to support the Democrat?

[flamesbball84]

http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?s ... C5&u=52XTe

Not sure how 63.54% white supports his statement of being diverse, that's nearly 2/3 white...

[Ed Dantes]

Um, yeah. Wow.

Yeah, SJ's right.

#1) It's quite likely that the United States isn't mentioned in the Book of Revelation, because the book may not have been written about the End Times. Some credible scholars believe that John was writing about the fall of Jerusalem, and that Nero was the anti-christ, which happened some 1700 years before the founding of America. But I digress....

#2) You guys do know that if Roe v. Wade were overturned right this second, there would not be one less abortion performed in America. What would happen is that the issue would go to a vote in the individual state, and they'd probably agree on some law that permitted abortions in the first trimester, and stopped it in other cases unless the life of the mother was at stake.

Okay? Overturning Roe v. Wade will not end abortions.

What will? Changing the hearts of expected mothers. Providing avenues of adoption and such. Helping them with childcare. Educating them so they don't get into the situation in the first place. Lending a helping hand so they don't get into that situation. Social outreach.

I'd rather abortions be legal and rare than illegal and prevalent.

[ToTheLeft]

http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?s ... C5&u=52XTe

Not sure how 63.54% white supports his statement of being diverse, that's nearly 2/3 white...

America: 75% White
Liberty: 64% White

We're diverse, and you're (eh, maybe I shouldn't say you're dumb. Just... confused. Yeah, confused.)

[flamesbball84]

http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?s ... C5&u=52XTe

Not sure how 63.54% white supports his statement of being diverse, that's nearly 2/3 white...

America: 75% White
Liberty: 64% White

We're diverse, and you're (eh, maybe I shouldn't say you're dumb. Just... confused. Yeah, confused.)

If that's diversity, then LU is considered receptive to the democratic political ideals and beliefs. If you want diversity, check out the CUNY and SUNY school systems, they make LU's concept of diversity look like an absolute joke. To cite a few examples:

CUNY System:
Baruch: 39% asian, 31% white, 14% hispanic, 10% white
Brooklyn: 40% white, 22% asian, 18% black, 16% hispanic
Hunter College: 35% white, 27% asian, 20% hispanic, 10% black
Queens: 41% white, 28% asian, 18% hispanic, 8% black

SUNY System:
Albany: 54% white, 16% unreported, 10% hispanic, 9% black, 7% asian
Binghamton: 45% white, 20% unreported, 13% asian, 9% hispanic, 9% non-resident alien, 5% black
Buffalo: 59% white, 13% non-resident alien, 10% asian, 6% black, 4% hispanic
New Paltz: 58% white, 19% unreported, 11% hispanic, 5% black, 4% asian/non-resident alien
Purchase: 58% white, 19% unreported, 11% hispanic, 7% black, 3% asian
Stony Brook: 34% white, 26% asian, 22% unreported, 8% hispanic, 5% black/non-resident alien
Old Westbury: 33% black, 22% hispanic, 20% white, 14% unreported, 9% asian, 2% alien

Now who's diverse? Not Liberty by any means...

[SuperJon]

Shuk, you're an idiot.

In the SUNY schools, you've got at least 10% unreported. Let's assume half of the unreported is white:

Albany: 62% white
Binghamton: 55% white
Buffalo: 59% white
New Paltz: 67% white
Purchase: 67% white
Stony Brook: 45% white
Old Westbury: 27% white

Now, those numbers show that all but two SUNY schools are within 9% points or are higher percentages than Liberty.

Comparing SUNY schools to a school in Virginia is idiotic at best. The basic demographics of Virginia and New York are completely different. Even more than that, the demographics of Central Virginia and North Virginia are completely different.

And since when is the only basis of diversity the color of someone's skin? There are God only knows what that goes into diversity. A group of people with white guys from New Jersey, California, Michigan, Florida, and North Carolina is pretty well diverse. Those backgrounds and the culture behind those students is so completely different. Just because they're the same color doesn't mean they're not diverse.

[Ed Dantes]

Two food for thoughts:

#1) John McCain once called Falwell an 'agent of intolerance'... yet we threw our support behind him.
#2) We just had Ben Stein speak at graduation, largely because he released a movie that showed how some colleges are stifling debate on their campuses...

[flamesbball84]

Shuk, you're an idiot.

In the SUNY schools, you've got at least 10% unreported. Let's assume half of the unreported is white:

Albany: 62% white
Binghamton: 55% white
Buffalo: 59% white
New Paltz: 67% white
Purchase: 67% white
Stony Brook: 45% white
Old Westbury: 27% white

Now, those numbers show that all but two SUNY schools are within 9% points or are higher percentages than Liberty.

Comparing SUNY schools to a school in Virginia is idiotic at best. The basic demographics of Virginia and New York are completely different. Even more than that, the demographics of Central Virginia and North Virginia are completely different.

And since when is the only basis of diversity the color of someone's skin? There are God only knows what that goes into diversity. A group of people with white guys from New Jersey, California, Michigan, Florida, and North Carolina is pretty well diverse. Those backgrounds and the culture behind those students is so completely different. Just because they're the same color doesn't mean they're not diverse.

64% of Liberty's students are out of state, so nearly 2/3s of LU's students are out of state, not in Virginia, so the demographics of VA have a much lesser impact than you suggest...

On the other hand, LC is 81% white and has students from over 30 states, I believe. It is hardly anywhere close to being diverse. Same case for other largely white schools like Washingotn & Lee and Hampden-Sydney, for example.

Why not just assume all of the unreported are white to prove your point more? Regardless, those schools are more diverse than LU. Trying to argue that fact is pointless because you are wrong.

[flamesbball84]

Two food for thoughts:

#1) John McCain once called Falwell an 'agent of intolerance'... yet we threw our support behind him.
#2) We just had Ben Stein speak at graduation, largely because he released a movie that showed how some colleges are stifling debate on their campuses...

Suggestion #1: Liberty should stay out of politics all together, as has been stated multiple times on here. You could probably unearth something for just about every candidate out there that goes against what Liberty believes in, or they just made negative statements on Falwell, as is the case with McCain.

[BJWilliams]

I think that there is a need for CHristians to confront the culture and not avoid the culture and that includes politics. Now are there ways to do it and not make CHristians look really really bad...well yeah of course. I frankly do not think that the school should necessarily stay out of politics altogether necessarily. Students are being taught to get involved in the world we live in (and confront the culture as I mentioned at the outset) and by getting out of the political arena wouldnt that be going counter to what is being taught to the students? If Im wrong in what Im saying feel free to say so though

[flamesbball84]

I think that there is a need for CHristians to confront the culture and not avoid the culture and that includes politics. Now are there ways to do it and not make CHristians look really really bad...well yeah of course. I frankly do not think that the school should necessarily stay out of politics altogether necessarily. Students are being taught to get involved in the world we live in (and confront the culture as I mentioned at the outset) and by getting out of the political arena wouldnt that be going counter to what is being taught to the students? If Im wrong in what Im saying feel free to say so though

There's ways to be involved with politics without making political statements like LU clearly just did. I know this year, since it was presidential election year, many schools had events and whatnot to encourage people to get out and vote and be involved politically, but they didn't go out and make political statements like LU basically did by insinuating the Democratic Party is immoral. I don't recall LC coming out and saying so and so party doesn't fit the beliefs of LC or anything like that.

It's one thing to remove support because the club broke their promises, it's another when one of your main justifications for it is essentially a political statement, which is what LU did when they said the parent organization did not have the same beliefs as LU. They didn't come out and make a clear cut political statement, but their actions did all the talking.

The school should encourage political activity and voting and what not, but making political statements, rather directly or indirectly, should be considered out of bounds regardless of what the institution is and what they stand for.

[libertyFANatic123]

yay i started a war :-)

[bigsmooth]

so shuk, what field are you in?? you have no clue how successful our graduates have been. and LU grads have been successful in many fields. dude, please go away. you have come on this board and spewed racial crap and other idiotic comments. the only thing you know about LU is what you read in the media which is not accurate.

[Rocketfan]

Alright Mods, is there a reason we continue to let shuk post here? What is diffent now then the first time you banned him?