#FireColbert

The discussions around speakers at these College and University campuses seems to imply that Colleges are a cohesive unit (i.e., Berkeley should invite liberals and Oral Roberts should invite conservatives).

They aren't. It was the Berkeley Republicans who invited Coulter to speak. They should be able to listen to her.

 

I would rather they invite someone from the Cato Institute or other conservative think tank. Same goes with liberal speakers that are more of entertainers. Regardless, I wouldn't stop them from spending their speaker funds on her if they wish or prevent her from speaking.

An aspect of this not mentioned is that these speakers cost tens of thousands of dollars when they are of a celebrity nature. When I was a grad student at UT, we proposed some guest speakers. One wanted 25 grand, the other 8 grand. We didn't even attempt to justify the 25 grand one.

Al Gore waived his speaking fee for UT when I was an undergrad, but I believe it is in the six figures by a very large margin. A vice president with six figure fee for public speaking? Ayfkm?

 

**** sleeve is usually in reference to a vagina

 

Susan Rice's testimony - which she initially and freely offered to provide Congress, but later refused, when invited to provide it - will prove enlightening, if she is subpoenaed.

The possibility that Russia likely tried to influence any number of elections - be it here, elsewhere, in 2016 or anytime before - seems plausible.

If proven that they attempted it, whatever effect it may have had, if any, remains unknown.

To assert that Trump or his camp had any knowledge of it, actively collided with them in doing so, or that any credibly sufficient proof of this exists, seems so unlikely and remote as to border the preposterous. The fact is that there isn't one scintilla of credible evidence to support this claim. None. Or, if any prefer it, there is exactly equal amount of evidence to support the Trump-colluded-or-knew-about-the-Russians-trying-to-influence-the-election biz as there is to support the allegation that I am actually Butch Jones - because each are "none" and "zero".

You or anyone else can want it to matter, can hope to will it into existence or perpetuate it, can seek to deluge the discussion with enough innuendo and frequent half-assed conspiracy theories as to hold out hope that it will someday be accepted as fact, or serve as an incessant distraction of Trump's agenda (how's that working, thus far, as his avalanche of EO's unabatedly continues, and he continues think so little of your side and it's Russian allegations as to have just personally shit-canned the FBI Director).

I neither blame nor begrudge you, or anyone else, for wishing the same. We all have different strategies, each with varying degrees of likely success, and hope - however ill-conceived and blindly held - is almost always a good thing.

So, fight on. But I'm just offering that you may not be able to now foresee how this whole "Russian investigation" plays out, and there is no guarantee that you will be at all happy with what else it likely will, and should, bring to light, instead.

Fight the power, man. I'm for you.

 

Many of the leaders of today (in both Party's) were once and initially called kooks and accused of being nothing more than mere provocateurs.

A recognized group of students at UC-Berkeley invited her to speak. She should have been allowed to speak, and without fear that others would seek to deny her right to free speech, and the students right to free and peacable assembly, with the threat of violence.

I sincerely hope that she and other conservative speakers return, and that all necessary measures to ensure for the free exercise of their rights are well protected and provided for - whatever that looks like.

 

The college republicans at Berkeley must feel like Custer at little big horn

 

I have as much authority as you do to label people bigoted or stupid because they don't blindly follow the cult of whichever left-wing protest group you venerate this week.

 

Tenny, I have yet to say that I think the Trump campaign, much less Trump, have colluded with the Russians. However, I have mentioned for a while now, that this thing is not going away and some Trump people are going to have some issues with their Russia connections, both of which have been correct. If you want to continue to think this will have no effect, especially now that Trump is trying to throw his weight around to squelch the thing, is going to go over well, then you are entitled to think this.

As far as Trump goes, yeah, how is that working out for him? How effective have those EO's been? You're certainly bludgeoning me with his ineffectiveness on this one. I'm, actually, more content than I thought I'd be as he seems far more interested in participating in pissing matches with the media, rooting out anyone from under him who doesn't kowtow and engaging in personal vendettas with politicians who oppose him.

Where this whole Russia scenario goes; I'm not sure and haven't said much to that effect. However, I don't think it's going to go away with the "sees so little of the Dems and Russia investigation that he shit-cans the FBI Director" action of Trump.

 

Maybe satellite radio. Is that what you're talking about? Because I've never heard anything like that.

 

Many on the right have the same issue but instead of protest group, they call it church on Sunday morning.

 

How do you know you don't? Or I don't? When did I label someone bigoted or stupid for not blindly following something?

 

Do we need to rehash that conversation? I think there's a thread for it somewhere.

 

So they should just stick to speaking to people who agree with them? That's sound.

 

I completely get it. When I hear standup by Louis CK, Bill Burr, Anthony Jeselnik and the like, i understand its for a laugh. Colbert, though not a standup comedian, is still a comedian I guess. So I'll give him that. I've said multiple times that I don't care that he said it. I wpuld just like to see the right afforded the same ability.

We can talk about hypitheticals and what the profession of the individual is and what medium they are using to make their statement all day. Some of you obviously believe that is pivotal to the argument. I recognize it but believe it simply undermines the broader point. Which is basically one sides ability to whatever they want and the other sides inability to say nearly anything.

Now, is that unfair? Yeah. Like you said, life isn't fair. We've all been around long enough to know that. Doesn't mean you can't point it out every now and then.

 

Of course not, but to think you're going to get even treatment is absurd.

 

That isn't true though. We're talking small, small numbers of people. It isn't one side's ability, it is one, maybe 5 tops, people's ability to say whatever they want.

Now there may be 5 on the left and none on the right, so it looks like the right isn't given fair treatment... but it is still just a rare 5.

And I'd say the five are Stewart, Colbert, John Oliver, Samantha B and maybe Tina Fey.

 

Unfortunately, you're right. At least allow them to speak. Disagree all you want, at least give it a listen.

 

But those rare 5 are given exception to talk to millions. Their influence is numerous. So it may be just 5 individuals, as you say but they are representing a large group of people.

 

You pulling shit out of your ass because I disagree with you on politics is a continual hashing. I will not stop hashing it as long as you are doing it. I get it, you want the high ground all to yourself.

 

Decision to cancel is usually made by law enforcement.