ADVERTISEMENT

OT" Is Richmond, a liberal, liberal arts university?

TBSpyder

Graduate Assistant
Sep 24, 2011
3,627
170
63
I just received an email from UR's president, that fortified my fear about UR. I can't support a school, that embraces liberalism. I read the past about our university President, and he clearly wasn't a conservative. So we also know that our Board of Trustees are liberal. Wonder how man large donors feel that way. I love our basketball team, and feel bad about this feeling, on the other hand, I attended many schools, some of which need financial support more than UR.
 
No politics. How many times does this have to be said? It's like you guys cannot help yourselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spiders13
I support TBSpyder for calling out Crutcher on that asinine email. WTF Crutcher?
But I disagree with TBSpyder for posting his thoughts on the UR Bball forum.
Sports and politics mixed together sucks. See ESPN -- total train-wreck now. Depressing.
Let's keep Spidernation.com free of politics.
Love Liberals, love Conservatives, but most of all, love Spiders BBall!
Will Wade is a child. Skinny weirdo with cufflinks.
We can shoot free throws now. Mooney mixes up Defense now. Mooney sees the light!
We will win Wednesday.
Spider Trump-lovers and Spider Trump-haters unite v. VCU!
Peace,
Go Spiders!
 
Let's keep Spidernation.com free of politics.
Love Liberals, love Conservatives, but most of all, love Spiders BBall!
Will Wade is a child. Skinny weirdo with cufflinks.
We can shoot free throws now. Mooney mixes up Defense now. Mooney sees the light!
We will win Wednesday.
Spider Trump-lovers and Spider Trump-haters unite v. VCU!
Peace,
Go Spiders!

I'm okay with it on the off topic board but agree with this statement infinently. It's all a ploy by VCU to divide and conquer our fan base. Let's not lose site who the real enemy of the board is!
 
I end up feeling like I am "defending" liberalism on this board far more than I would like, but candidly I'm sick and tired of the word "liberal" having the same connotation as the word "asshole," "moron" or choose your own four-letter equivalent here.

For the record, I do not define myself as a liberal or conservative. But for whatever reason, people don't use the word "conservative" as if it were a four-letter word. Why is that? If they did, I'd be equally critical of that. Why can't we simply talk about what SPECIFICALLY we agree or disagree with instead of labeling things as "liberal" or "conservative"? I'm genuinely curious.

TB, you say our president "clearly" isn't conservative – as if it's a requirement that he should be. Why is that? Because you personally are conservative and will only respect a president who is? I'd hope we could move beyond that type of thinking. If there are specific decisions or actions he has taken that you disagree with, say so. Or stop donating if you truly can't support a school that you believe is too "liberal." Don't just insinuate "Well, he's a liberal so he clearly doesn't have the best interests of the school in mind."

As for the letter, unless I am missing something, I saw almost nothing in it that was controversial. He basically says that the university supports all of its students and the free exchange of ideas, as well as diversity. What would you have preferred that he say the opposite of that? Or write that it was about time someone forced all of our international students to be deported because some might be terrorists??

I'm pasting the entire letter below. I'm curious as to which parts, specifically, you all take issue with. I've bolded a few that I happen to agree with.

*********

Dear Members of the University Community,

I share the concerns expressed by many members of our Richmond community about the executive order issued by President Trump on Friday that targets refugees and immigrants from seven countries in Africa and the Middle East. Such exclusion based on national origin or religious beliefs is contrary to American ideals and threatens the mission of higher education.

We at Richmond are proudly part of a global community that invites ideas and people from all corners of the world. Each year, one in ten students at the University is an international student, and our educational model ensures that the majority of students spend at least one semester studying outside the United States, engaging with the complexities of global citizenship and bringing fresh perspectives back to our campus and classrooms when they return. The work of our staff and faculty crosses national boundaries, and their partners in scholarly and creative endeavors live and work around the world. We are nourished and inspired by the diversity of backgrounds and perspectives brought together in our intellectual community.

While the legal and political situation is unfolding, we are committed to supporting affected members of our community and collaborating with other academic organizations to ensure that universities in the United States are able to sustain their vital role in linking the people and ideas of the world. Our University General Counsel, Shannon Sinclair, is following the situation closely and working with other members of the senior leadership team to ensure that members of our community have the best available information about the effects of this order on their lives and scholarship during this time of uncertainty. We have long had in place a process for supporting students who cannot go home due to political or other reasons, and that process will expand as needed in response to this changing landscape. We welcome any questions you may have about specific challenges that this new environment poses to your ability to travel, work, or study. A list of contacts is provided at the bottom of this message.

Just a few miles from our campus, an historic marker and museum celebrate the role that Virginians played in establishing the principles of religious liberty so central to American values. On our own campus, Virginia Baptists founded a University fully aware that their own religious tradition had been seen in previous generations as a dangerous force. Thus, the University’s first president declared that “pupils of every creed and of no creed” would be welcomed into our community and “treated with equal justice and consideration.” Each generation at Richmond has worked to fulfill more completely the promise of those words. Today that spirit of welcome is evident at the University and in our statement of shared values. Our educational mission depends upon the free exchange of ideas and a shared commitment to welcoming those who seek to live and learn within our communities. I look forward to working with all of you to realize and defend these central tenets of our work.

Sincerely,

Ronald A. Crutcher
President
 
Last edited:
That email is too much. Is this a new trend - being hyped over every action the President of the United States takes? If "we" are "going there" I liked it much better when only Baptist ministers served as president of the University of Richmond. Some of you may agree and some may disagree just as some like Crutcher's letter and some don't. My position is irrelevant to you just as what Crutcher thinks about the executive order is to me. So now the University of Richmond wants to be only identified with one side of the political spectrum? Open mindedness thou art dead!
 
That email is too much. Is this a new trend - being hyped over every action the President of the United States takes? If "we" are "going there" I liked it much better when only Baptist ministers served as president of the University of Richmond. Some of you may agree and some may disagree just as some like Crutcher's letter and some don't. My position is irrelevant to you just as what Crutcher thinks about the executive order is to me. So now the University of Richmond wants to be only identified with one side of the political spectrum? Open mindedness thou art dead!
What specifically in his email was "too much" for you? I'm curious. Of course you're entitled to whatever opinion you have, but I'm just trying to understand what made the email inappropriate in your mind.

I would submit that the very nature of the issue he addressed shows that he and the university do have open minds – they want the school to be open to as many minds from different backgrounds and beliefs as possible and are naturally concerned for their students who come from these seven nations. I didn't take anything more from his email than that.
 
I would point out that the leaders of both Goldman Saks and JP Morgan (conservative leaning organizations to be sure) both issued statements to employees and customers opposing the order. This isn't just a simple conservative/liberal discussion. I am a conservative (according to everyone who tells me since I don't self-identify either way) but I am opposed to this ban. And I have no problem with the leader of what is a diverse community expressing his support for the entire community that he leads.
 
Somehow I missed the original email and only read the text as Eight posted it above. Thank you Eight. I read the email twice and I read it as simply looking out for our students from abroad. If I'm missing something please enlighten me.

BTW I understand other Universities are facing the same issue, here is the letter sent out from NYU:


Dear Members of the NYU Community,

As an immigrant to this country, a former green card holder, and now a citizen of the United States, I have a heavy heart this morning as I watch the events unfolding at our nation's borders and at airports abroad. The dreams and aspirations of many, including some of our own students', are at risk of being disrupted before they have begun. On the heels of this sudden federal government order banning entry into the U.S. from certain countries, which has frightened many in our University community and left them feeling uncertain, I want you to know about the steps we are taking to help our students and scholars from those nations.

As far as NYU is concerned, these are members in good standing of our academic community, no different from anyone else. NYU believes in the free movement of ideas and, though it is governments that control borders, we also believe in the accompanying free movement of people in pursuit of their academic work. We want the group of NYU colleagues and peers affected by this order to know that the University supports them. Their ability to carry on with their studies and their research, their ability to be present on our campus and participate fully and confidently in University life, and their welfare are foremost among NYU's concerns.

On Saturday, we wrote directly to students, faculty, and researchers from the seven nations cited in the order -- Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen -- and highlighted the enormous risk they would be taking should they choose to travel outside the United States while the order remains in effect. We also let them know that we have arranged for special information sessions to be conducted for them this coming week with an immigration expert from the faculty of the Law School and staff from our Office of Global Services so that they have a clearer picture of the order's implications and the unfolding legal challenges. Following these conversations, we will determine what additional steps we should take. NYU representatives are also supporting students who are facing more immediate challenges from the order.

NYU's position is not unique; the order will have an impact on many institutions of higher learning. There is strength in numbers, and we expect to work with peer institutions and with the groups that represent us nationally (see here a statement from the Association of American Universities, which represents NYU and other major research universities) to safeguard the rights, well-being, education, and scholarship of those affected by these or other changes to immigration policy.

It is hard not to see this latest development in the context of undocumented members of our community, whose status has also been the subject of much debate in Washington. I wrote to you in November about the steps we were taking to support them, but let me reiterate the key ones:

  • We will not permit federal officials on campus to gather information about immigrants in our community absent a subpoena or similar legal order;

  • Our Public Safety Officers do not and will not ask about the immigration status of members of the NYU community, nor will they voluntarily share such information with law enforcement;

  • We will vigorously uphold the privacy protections granted our students by federal law; and

  • The University's scholarship assistance to non-U.S.-citizens, which is independent of federal financial aid programs, will carry on regardless of changes to immigration policies.
As a scientist who studied and worked in four countries before becoming a citizen of the U.S., I know how important it is to be able to move across borders in peaceful pursuit of one's scholarship. I know, too, more than most given my background and my field, how much goodwill the U.S. earns for itself through the openness of its education system and how widely those who study here can spread American values. And I know, as well, that these developments are not just a matter of disrupted educational plans or lost opportunities or even damage to the academic enterprise; beyond all that, this order harms one of the most admired and cherished of American principles -- religious non-discrimination itself.

In the days to come, let us remain true to our community's values and adamant about supporting and making feel valued and welcome those whose status has been thrown into question by changes in government policy. Let us try to ease their anxieties and their burdens by making sure they know they are among friends who are committed to helping them.
 
Rao (whose family is from India) from VCU issued a similar statement over the weekend. Any schools with significant International Studies programs, or substantial numbers of international students have to issue these types of statements as a matter of policy, and for liability reasons.

The US Administration really jumped the gun on this immigration ban without considering the consequences. US corporations and universities had to respond without much time to prepare for the fallout. Typical "ready, fire, aim" mentality from our new leadership in the WH.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4169296/Syrian-Christian-family-turned-away-airport.html

As for UR, we are much less liberal than most of our peer institutions. You should read a bit about the policies of schools like the Ivies, Stanford, Vassar, Williams, Amherst, etc. before lamenting about how liberal our alma mater has become.
 
Last edited:
What specifically in his email was "too much" for you? I'm curious. Of course you're entitled to whatever opinion you have, but I'm just trying to understand what made the email inappropriate in your mind.

I would submit that the very nature of the issue he addressed shows that he and the university do have open minds – they want the school to be open to as many minds from different backgrounds and beliefs as possible and are naturally concerned for their students who come from these seven nations. I didn't take anything more from his email than that.

As in every human endeavor there are pluses and minuses to decisions that are made. More forethought in the issuance would have preempted people being stranded at airports. This decision made by The Commander in Chief and the Head of Homeland Security is to improve the safety of American citizens. Our Border Patrol approves of the decision. For a college to "weigh in" on the President of the United States' decision means absolutely nothing. From all appearances the "weighing in" was done to ingratiate a certain portion of those who comprise the university community and is grandstanding. How about if Crutcher issued a statement praising the dedication, sacrifice, and patriotism of the members of our nation's Armed Forces, our local police and fire departments, and our Border Patrol? That won't happen but would certainly be more to my taste.
 
Yep, Fr. John Jenkins at Notre Dame had a shorter but similar statement, and their provost for internationalization had a longer one.

Fr. Jenkins:

“The sweeping, indiscriminate and abrupt character of President Trump’s recent Executive Order halts the work of valued students and colleagues who have already passed a rigorous, post-9/11 review process, are vouched for by the university and have contributed so much to our campuses. If it stands, it will over time diminish the scope and strength of the educational and research efforts of American universities, which have been the source not only of intellectual discovery but of economic innovation for the United States and international understanding for our world; and, above all, it will demean our nation, whose true greatness has been its guiding ideals of fairness, welcome to immigrants, compassion for refugees, respect for religious faith and the courageous refusal to compromise its principles in the face of threats.

“We respectfully urge the president to rescind this order.”
 
As in every human endeavor there are pluses and minuses to decisions that are made. More forethought in the issuance would have preempted people being stranded at airports. This decision made by The Commander in Chief and the Head of Homeland Security is to improve the safety of American citizens. Our Border Patrol approves of the decision. For a college to "weigh in" on the President of the United States' decision means absolutely nothing. From all appearances the "weighing in" was done to ingratiate a certain portion of those who comprise the university community and is grandstanding. How about if Crutcher issued a statement praising the dedication, sacrifice, and patriotism of the members of our nation's Armed Forces, our local police and fire departments, and our Border Patrol? That won't happen but would certainly be more to my taste.
Thanks. I certainly respect you opinion. In this case, I would simply say that I think President Crutcher and all the other university presidents who have issued similar statements did so as a direct response to the possibility that some of their students may be negatively impacted by this EO. I really don't see anything political about it in that sense, and I would hope that regardless of whether this EO had come from a Republican, Democrat or independent the response would have been the same.

I would argue that reading this as some type of political statement by Crutcher and the others is looking too deeply at it. Yes, the statements happen to come after a decision by a Republican president, but that doesn't mean all these guys are anti-conservatism or uber-liberal. It just means (to me at least) that they have very real and immediate concerns about how their international students are going to be impacted by this.

Why didn't Crutcher issue a statement in support of the border patrol, armed forces and local police departments? Because this particular action did not affect any of those as they relate specifically to the University of Richmond.
 
have to laugh out loud on this one. if any of us cannot see what that message is then have to be in complete denial. will give some info for those of you who only watch, listen to or read liberal media, who will not educate you. research the McCARRAN-WALKER ACT or THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT OF 1952, a law enacted and passed by democrats. pretty simple, pretty straight forward and an excellent piece of legislation. jimmy carter used the act to end iranian immigration to the united states and force iranian students already in our country to check in with our government and them expelled 15,000 of them. something needed, he acted, well done jimmy. the clintons also banned iraqi immigrants temporaritly during their time in the white house. am very disappointed that trump chose to only limit immigration from seven of the 50+ muslim countries (seven designated by the obama administration) instead of all muslim countries and hope he expands this, something long overdue. also read trump's executive order and you will not see the word muslim used at any point. while the liberals, include our prez, are in an uproar, trump has already moved on to more things which he promised to do and is doing. the libs are always left in his dust complaining, whining, crying, about things which need to be done while he is onto the next item, that is funny.

when you place groups of people into the "protected group", if you are PC, then you cannot do anything or even call them what they are. when you are not PC and do not give certain groups "victim status", you can take care of business and that is what has been started here and hope it expands. let's be honest, what is more important, the security of our country, safety of our citizens or victim status of some PC group? yep, pretty easy answer.
 
Last edited:
[QUOTE="Eight Legger,

Why didn't Crutcher issue a statement in support of the border patrol, armed forces and local police departments? Because this particular action did not affect any of those as they relate specifically to the University of Richmond.[/QUOTE]

My point was not directed to issuing the statement of support at this particular time. Merely using that to illustrate Crutcher's knee jerk reaction at this time because Trump issued the order. Over the years many Spiders have served in the Armed Forces, some as Police, and probably some in the Border Patrol. Support for those organizations would show a different "leaning" than this reaction to our present Commander in Chief.
 
[QUOTE="Eight Legger,

Why didn't Crutcher issue a statement in support of the border patrol, armed forces and local police departments? Because this particular action did not affect any of those as they relate specifically to the University of Richmond.

My point was not directed to issuing the statement of support at this particular time. Merely using that to illustrate Crutcher's knee jerk reaction at this time because Trump issued the order. Over the years many Spiders have served in the Armed Forces, some as Police, and probably some in the Border Patrol. Support for those organizations would show a different "leaning" than this reaction to our present Commander in Chief.
Do university presidents ever issue general statements of support for any groups at random times? I'm not sure, but I would suspect not as a rule. Doesn't mean it might not be a good idea at times, but usually these types of statements are issued in response to a specific event or occurrence. Crutcher could wake up tomorrow and issue an email thanking UR grads who serve in the military, but it would seem a little random and out of place, no?
 
Last edited:
Agree it would appear random, but responding to any situation out of the purview of a University president is random to me. The city of Charlottesville is known for making random statements about something on the world stage that appeals to their liking that has absolutely nothing to do with the good governance of the city of Charlottesville. What purpose does any of it serve other than bringing attention to oneself? Everybody has an opinion but not everyone has the "need" to express it particularly when it is irrelevant to anyone else. This "expression of an opinion" by Crutcher smacks of politics no matter how it is dressed up. You and I have this message board so we can express irrelevant random opinions.............. and even engage in discussion about them!
 
Agree it would appear random, but responding to any situation out of the purview of a University president is random to me. The city of Charlottesville is known for making random statements about something on the world stage that appeals to their liking that has absolutely nothing to do with the good governance of the city of Charlottesville. What purpose does any of it serve other than bringing attention to oneself? Everybody has an opinion but not everyone has the "need" to express it particularly when it is irrelevant to anyone else. This "expression of an opinion" by Crutcher smacks of politics no matter how it is dressed up. You and I have this message board so we can express irrelevant random opinions.............. and even engage in discussion about them!

It's out of his purview in the sense that he cannot overturn the decision, of course. But in the sense that it directly affects some UR students, I think it's not inappropriate for him to say something.

Suppose we were a public school and Gov. McAuliffe or the General Assembly made some decision that slashed academic funding from the state in half. Would you want the president of our school to say nothing or issue a statement expressing concern about what those cuts would mean to our school? I'd hope for the latter, even though he wouldn't have any direct control over the decision. That's all I'm saying.
 
Last edited:
There is a simple explanation for why Trump didn't execute the EO against the 50 or so "Muslim" countries as spinner suggests. It's because the Trump Organization does too much business in those other Muslim countries. Trump does zero business in those seven countries listed in the EO.

This EO is simply Trump trying to cover his azz with respect to his campaign promise to ban immigration by all Muslims. We all know that religious profiling is impossible, immoral, and unconstitutional, so banning immigration from the seven "Muslim" countries where he does not have business holdings or interests is the next best thing. Like everything else Trump does, it is done quickly with little consideration to consequences nor any due diligence.

The sad and dangerous thing about this EO is that it will not make the US safer. In fact, it will have the opposite effect. Exactly zero acts of domestic terrorism were carried out by people from these seven countries. I predict that within the next 90 days, at least one major act of domestic terror will be carried out on our soil, and whomever does it will point to this EO as the reason why.

This EO is tantamount to the US kicking a hornet's nest, getting stung by hornets, and using getting stung as the justification to start a new scorched earth military campaign (with nukes on the table as Trump has already stated). I don't know about you, but I have an 18 year old son, and I don't want him getting killed in some desert somewhere in bumf*ck middle east so Trump can go in and take their oil, and then build a golf course when he is done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eight Legger
have to laugh out loud on this one. if any of us cannot see what that message is then have to be in complete denial. will give some of you who only watch, listen to or read liberal media. research the McCARRAN-WALKER ACT or THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT OF 1952, a law enacted and passed by democrats. pretty simple, pretty straight forward and an excellent piece of legislation. jimmy carter used the act to end iranian immigration to the united states and force iranian students already in our country to check in with our government and them expelled 15,000 of them. something needed, he acted, well done jimmy. am very disappointed that trump chose to only limit immigration from seven of the 50+ muslim countries (seven designated by the obama administration) instead of all muslim countries and hope he expands this, something long overdue. also read trump's executive order and you will not see the word muslim used at any point. while the liberals, include our prez, are in an uproar, trump has already moved on to more things which he promised to do and is doing. the libs are always left in his dust complaining, whining, crying, about things which need to be done while he is onto the next item, that is funny.
Why, Spinner, what a surprising post
Agree it would appear random, but responding to any situation out of the purview of a University president is random to me. The city of Charlottesville is known for making random statements about something on the world stage that appeals to their liking that has absolutely nothing to do with the good governance of the city of Charlottesville. What purpose does any of it serve other than bringing attention to oneself? Everybody has an opinion but not everyone has the "need" to express it particularly when it is irrelevant to anyone else. This "expression of an opinion" by Crutcher smacks of politics no matter how it is dressed up. You and I have this message board so we can express irrelevant random opinions.............. and even engage in discussion about them!
I don't think that Spinner has an opinion.
 
hey, kee, then why did the obama admin cite these seven countries as being ones where danger existed? the trump in bed with other countries will not fly other than in liberal circles because you have nothing left to hang your hat on, plain and simple. if you do your research, will find that the us has certain treaties, pacts, with a number of these 50 or so countries but not with the seven that obama and now trump, feel are dangerous, a threat. will stick with people who make decisions based on common sense as opposed to feelings and emotion. impossible to save the crutch on this one, he made a political statement which is OK, we all knew what his leanings were anyway, go for it, pile on if you wish crutch but trump has moved on to the next items on his list of promises. hope the crutch comes out on all the items on the list like the media and all the libs are doing. this is fun. it is like the media and the libs think if they stay in the street and continuously attack trump, he will quit. how simple minds work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spider fan
These are not the only seven countries where danger exists and you know it. Why did you cite the 50 or so others you wish would be on the travel ban? You and Herr Drumpf want to ban every Muslim country because you would rather just ban Muslims, but have enough modicum of understanding to know that is not possible.

Also, please check your civics textbook (perhaps blow the dust off of it first), it's not the McCARRAN-WALKER ACT, it's the McCarran-Walter Act, and it was enacted after WW2 to keep the commies out. And Truman, who was a great president who ended WW2, vetoed it because it would keep out too many good people. While you are blowing dust off your old UR textbooks, please take a look at your English textbook, and review the chapter on the correct use of paragraphs. Your English professors are likely "spinning" in their graves.

So spinner, why do you think it is that you have nearly 20k posts on this forum, yet only 394 likes? I have a comparatively paltry 2400 posts yet I have almost as many likes. Methinks you curmudgeon too much!
 
Alright keefusb you made me laugh and I mean that as a compliment. If as you age you don't become curmudgeonly you may not be aging properly...................
 
  • Like
Reactions: keefusb
Also the curmudgeonly among us, yours truly included, may have less "likes" if anybody is counting, because just like "assists" went uncounted in college basketball for a number of years, the "like" feature was not present on this board for a number of years. Therefore if one is so inclined the presumption could be that every post made before "likes" were counted would have received "likes". Just think how many points Johnny Newman would have scored if he had been credited for three whenever he sank a shot from that distance as a Spider? So to become really technical or whatever word you want to insert _ _ _ _ _ _ _ maybe there should be asterisks beside the number of "likes" for those who joined after certain years? Alright at least have another humor to credit me for a totally meaningless post among the many others I have made in that category over the years...................
 
  • Like
Reactions: keefusb
Alright keefusb you made me laugh and I mean that as a compliment. If as you age you don't become curmudgeonly you may not be aging properly

I'm old enough to get the old-timer discount at the Kroger store, but young enough that I don't hesitate to buy green bananas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spider fan
Kee, when you have nothing, you attack personally. no prob, understand how you feel about trump and me, but to me, just what i voted for, action. by the way, truman, a great prez, did veto but the dems who ran things did override that and it remains law, though fine-tuned. yes, understand you cannot keep all muslims from entering our country but that is what should happen until the jihad is completed and over. kind of like if you have a hundred snakes outside your home and need to bring then in with your fam, 97 of them are rat eaters, no poison but 3 are poisonous killers. do you bring all 100 into the house with your fam or do you just leave them outside. yep, pretty simple (this analogy in honor of Eight). there is nothing in our constitution or any law that says we have to immigrate anyone from any country. right now with what is going on around the world, let all of them stay in muslim countries, there are several very wealthy muslim countries where they can reside but doubt they want them. the other western world leaders who are taking in these folks don't like trump stopping the thousands we would have gotten and now they have to take them. the brits don't want them either, big reason they voted to leave but the eu leaders are trying to make them keep taking them anyway. again, once PCers place people in their protected network, stupidity rules and you cannot govern with brains, smarts, common sense. that has gone on for too long, way too long. welcome common sense governance. Kee, you may edit anything on here so it fits with your liking. personally, did not even know that people could like something or not and gosh, really do not care but understand that it means a lot to you and that is good.
 
Last edited:
if you have a hundred snakes outside your home and need to bring then in with your fam, 97 of them are rat eaters, no poison but 3 are poisonous killers. do you bring all 100 into the house with your fam or do you just leave them outside..

Here's another one for you: If you have 100 gun owners and 97 of them are good guys with guns but the other 3 are plotting to commit mass shootings at schools or theaters, do you let all 100 of them keep their guns, or...?

Somehow I suspect you're on the opposite side of that argument. Ironic, ain't it, when your own logic conflicts with your own logic.
 
Here's another one for you: If you have 100 gun owners and 97 of them are good guys with guns but the other 3 are plotting to commit mass shootings at schools or theaters, do you let all 100 of them keep their guns, or...?

Somehow I suspect you're on the opposite side of that argument. Ironic, ain't it, when your own logic conflicts with your own logic.
Just take the guns away from the 3 Muslims and all is well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spider fan
Gee whiz, spinner, I went back and read over my posts, and I really couldn't find the part where I attacked you personally. Maybe that dad-burned liberalism has made me soft in my head. Anyway, if I did say anything that hurt your feelings, I'm sure the mods here will step in as they usually do and lock things down nice and tight...

Funny thing is that I never took you to be the overly sensitive type. Perhaps a trip back to campus is in order, I hear Dr. Crutcher has established "safe zones" where folks can go and cry in private without anyone judging them.
 
Kee, you need to go back and reread buddy, attacked my ability to research the act, which is law, to write properly and that few people have hit the "like" button on my posts. really don't care, not sensitive, just pointing out when you have no real argument, attack personally and you did. can go back and give you a "like" for that one if it helps in your adjustment to having a prez who is doing the right thing. don't bet but if forced, would wager that the majority of americans favored his action on this and on protecting our borders, even some democrats. the only people in the streets, crying , whining, about every action which happens, are pathetic, uninformed types,college presidents, the media, along with a couple of posters. again, all these people must think, feel, that the continued onslaught of crap they are throwing around will have some impact. oh, it will, going to harm their party and drive away normal people who understand what needs to be done to make america great again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: keefusb
Questioning your knowledge of the McCarran-Walter act hardly constitutes a personal attack, you didn't even have the name right. As for your mastery of the paragraph, I reckon that was a pretty heinous low blow. One would have to be really thick-skinned to not feel crushed by that one.

I would love to hang out here all day, but I'm going to wait by my mailbox so I can collect that big check that George Soros promised he would send me.
 
Kee, you need to go back and reread buddy, attacked my ability to research the act, which is law, to write properly and that few people have hit the "like" button on my posts. really don't care, not sensitive, just pointing out when you have no real argument, attack personally and you did. can go back and give you a "like" for that one if it helps in your adjustment to having a prez who is doing the right thing. don't bet but if forced, would wager that the majority of americans favored his action on this and on protecting our borders, even some democrats. the only people in the streets, crying , whining, about every action which happens, are pathetic, uninformed types,college presidents, the media, along with a couple of posters. again, all these people must think, feel, that the continued onslaught of crap they are throwing around will have some impact. oh, it will, going to harm their party and drive away normal people who understand what needs to be done to make america great again.
Agree. I bequeath my likes to you. They're deserved.
 
gosh, so i got one letter wrong in my typing but you seemed to indicate that the law was vetoed and thus was never enacted, it most certainly was enacted. only put truman in there to let readers know that it was before ike who was elected in 1952. loved the toughness of truman and could use him today. reread and you will see that it was more than questioning knowledge but again, really do not care, it is law and has been used by two democrat presidents without the media getting their undies in a bind. does one see the bias? probably not. you stay with your thoughts, will stay with mine, am happy trump is checking off the list of things he promised during the campaign even if he does have to put up with a bunch of whining babies.

Eight, forgot about your gun deal, your best effort yet. down here everyone, except me, carries so it fits but if a muslim terrorist opens fire here, he is dead in less than 5 seconds with numerous different caliber bullets in his body. little over a year ago, two muslims pulled into a parking lot where a meeting was being held and they wanted to open fire on it, they barely made it out of their car before being laid to rest, never got off a shot. if the muslim terrorist in orlando had opened fire in a texas bar, gay or straight, would have been put down within 5 seconds. they do not want to mess around down here, they will not last long except of course on a military base where the soldiers are not allowed to carry, that muslim terrorist had a rifle and ammo and nobody else did, probably the only place in texas where he could have pulled that off. you get and know my meaning, we do not need to be bringing possible terrorists into our country, not smart, not prudent and hope trump keeps this up. what the rest of the world thinks is their prob and they can keep bringing them in and it will continue to deteriorate there.
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT