At Oberlin, a Tipping Point

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Jul 25, 2018
1,590
438
163
48
Boulder, CO
#41
I'd be curious to know if any of the student protesters will now admit they were in the wrong or if they are too far down the indoctrinated rabbit hole to ever recover.
This reminds me a bit of what went on at Mizzou, with some of the staff & administration digging in their heels in solidarity with the students & actually encouraging the escalation of the situation, regardless of the facts. It's like they chose a side early, & then simply can't admit they were wrong, so they double down.

The irony here is that in a place of higher education, Oberlin staff felt more compelled to drive a false narrative & to cover up any facts that conflicted with their narrative. An opportunity presented itself to talk about basic right & wrong here, but they took the false flag of racism & ran with it, & literally tried to destroy a longtime local business.
 

Cowboy2U

Federal Marshal
Mar 31, 2008
11,212
1,674
1,743
#42
This reminds me a bit of what went on at Mizzou, with some of the staff & administration digging in their heels in solidarity with the students & actually encouraging the escalation of the situation, regardless of the facts. It's like they chose a side early, & then simply can't admit they were wrong, so they double down.

The irony here is that in a place of higher education, Oberlin staff felt more compelled to drive a false narrative & to cover up any facts that conflicted with their narrative. An opportunity presented itself to talk about basic right & wrong here, but they took the false flag of racism & ran with it, & literally tried to destroy a longtime local business.
Reminds me of MSM, two opinion fools slapping each other on the back blathering what a good job they did covering Trump. Jackasses.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
69,922
49,876
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#43
From The Oberlin Review editorial page:

Media Coverage of Gibson’s Verdict Misses the Mark
Editorial Board|June 18, 2019

Earlier this month, a jury awarded Gibson’s Bakery $11 million following a month-long trial stemming from the bakery’s lawsuit against Oberlin College and Vice President and Dean of Students Meredith Raimondo. Then, last Thursday, it added $33 million in punitive damages. This stunning decision — which strikes a serious blow against free speech on college campuses across the country — has garnered significant attention in major media outlets such as CNN and The New York Times, as well as on social media and various personal blogs.

The tension between the College and Gibson’s began in November 2016, when three Black students were involved in a physical altercation outside of Gibson’s after Allyn Gibson, son of store owner David Gibson, accused one of the students of shoplifting. The three students were arrested. Shortly thereafter, Oberlin students alleged that Allyn had racially profiled the students and launched a protest and boycott of the bakery. A year later, Gibson’s sued, alleging that the College and Raimondo had participated in smearing its reputation.

Unfortunately, much of the coverage and commentary has either inaccurately represented the lawsuit and the events that led up to it, or has only presented parts of the larger story. An extensive timeline of events is outlined in a recent Review article covering news of the verdict (“Jury Rules for Gibson’s, Assigns $44 Million in Damages,” June 14, 2019). Readers looking for more background on the verdict should consult that article.

As stories about the verdict transition from breaking news coverage to think pieces about the impact of the jury’s decision, the Editorial Board wants to identify three of the key ways that existing coverage has skewed or misrepresented events leading up to the trial.

The first concerns the Oberlin Police Department report that was filed following the initial altercation outside Gibson’s in November 2016. The document filed by responding officers was wildly prejudiced in favor of Gibson’s, as it only included statements from owner David Gibson, his son Allyn Gibson, and a Gibson’s employee. David and the employee both backed up Allyn’s version of events, giving them near-complete control of the narrative in the report and, consequently, in the media.

Noticeably absent from the police report was the perspective of any of the three Black students involved in the initial incident, not to mention the witnesses who originally called police out of concern for the students’ safety or who saw the altercation. Officers did include the line, “It should be noted that as the reporting officer was interviewing all three subjects several other individuals who were also on scene at the time of the incident and who were initially interfering with officers attempting to gain control of the situation, began stating that Allyn was the aggressor and the black man didn’t do anything wrong.” This is the only suggestion in the entire report that anything took place outside of the Gibson’s’ version of events.

This omission is meaningful — particularly in a country with a long and shameful history of manipulating testimony and evidence to criminalize people of color, especially Black people. That report defined the narrative that, from the beginning, was parroted by mainstream outlets and right-wing blogs alike to vilify the three Black students and those who came to their defense. By immediately assuming the students’ guilt, the report significantly impacted the way this story is discussed in the public sphere — even today.

Second, many people have bought into the narrative presented in court by Gibson’s’ attorneys that the College acted as a ‘Goliath’ in encouraging students to crush a small, locally-owned family business. While it’s true that the College is often not the most considerate neighbor, in this situation the accusation is entirely contrived, and the support that it has found not just from personal blogs, but major media outlets as well, is misleading.

Former Student Senate Chair Kameron Dunbar, OC ’19, put it best in a recent New York Times article when he said, “Part of the narrative that has been built up is that Oberlin’s administration weaponized students against Gibson’s out of malice. I find that concept to be pretty insulting. We’re autonomous” (“Oberlin Helped Students Defame a Bakery, a Jury Says. The Punishment: $33 Million,” June 14, 2019).

Whatever you think of the protests and boycott of Gibson’s, the responsibility for them lies squarely with students. Nobody at Oberlin — student, administrator, or otherwise — has ever contested this fact and, indeed, students continue to openly take ownership of their actions. On campus, the idea that administrators could somehow orchestrate a student protest is laughable; Oberlin students prize their independence above nearly all else. If anything, students at the time felt that administrators were dragging their feet — especially after it was announced that the College would resume its contract with Gibson’s in early 2017.

In this context, the narrative of the ‘Goliath’ college egging on its students completely deteriorates. It’s true that Raimondo was at the protests, but she was simply attempting to ensure the safety of all involved — as dictated within the responsibilities of her job. Any other framing is incomplete, and we urge both journalists and readers to critically evaluate the facts of the College’s involvement.

Finally, many journalists and commentators — although not all — appear to believe that the salient question at hand is whether the three students involved in the initial altercation were actually guilty of shoplifting, or if students were right to protest the bakery and characterize that incident as racial profiling. Many outlets have even used the names of the three students in their coverage of the trial — an irresponsible decision given that the three students were not parties to the lawsuit and have nothing to do with the legal questions at hand.

We encourage readers and journalists to reject this framing of the story. The core question of the trial was whether Oberlin College and its dean of students are on the hook for statements made by their students. The chilling answer from the jury was a resounding yes. That decision should broadly concern everybody who believes in freedom of speech and student autonomy.

Throughout the trial, the Gibsons maintained that the College should have stepped in on the bakery’s behalf; the College’s argument was that administrators could only try to maintain the safety of all parties involved, and that any attempt to dictate student speech would be blatantly outside the scope of responsible leadership.

The jury sided with the Gibsons — a decision with profoundly disturbing implications for free speech at Oberlin and on college campuses across an increasingly authoritarian country. Conservative commentators often talk about a supposed crisis of free speech on campuses, wherein students wield the sword of political correctness to silence dissenting opinions. To the contrary, this verdict is a real warning shot against free speech. The fact that those same commentators have widely lauded the verdict reveals their hypocrisy and lays their thinly-veiled agenda bare.

Ultimately, we believe that the story of the verdict should be discussed out in the open, because the jury’s decision — as it stands — sets a concerning precedent that must be challenged. However, these discussions must take place with the full picture in mind, otherwise they won’t get anywhere useful. This piece is a starting point for expanding those conversations, but it is by no means the end.

In this difficult moment, we hope that Oberlin students are not discouraged from continuing the kind of sustained and brave activism that emerged following the initial November 2016 incident at Gibson’s. We hope that students continue to validate and support the experiences of their peers, even as some silence them and others attempt to force their institution to do the same. We also hope that students continue the good work of building relationships with community members, and that tension arising from the verdict does not impact the many positive, symbiotic partnerships that exist between students and the broader community.

And, in the very near term, we hope that the College will appeal the jury’s verdict and continue to fight for the right of its students — and the rights of students across the country — to identify injustice and speak out firmly against it.
 
Jul 22, 2011
1,608
2,290
743
#44
From The Oberlin Review editorial page:

Media Coverage of Gibson’s Verdict Misses the Mark
Editorial Board|June 18, 2019

Earlier this month, a jury awarded Gibson’s Bakery $11 million following a month-long trial stemming from the bakery’s lawsuit against Oberlin College and Vice President and Dean of Students Meredith Raimondo. Then, last Thursday, it added $33 million in punitive damages. This stunning decision — which strikes a serious blow against free speech on college campuses across the country — has garnered significant attention in major media outlets such as CNN and The New York Times, as well as on social media and various personal blogs.

The tension between the College and Gibson’s began in November 2016, when three Black students were involved in a physical altercation outside of Gibson’s after Allyn Gibson, son of store owner David Gibson, accused one of the students of shoplifting. The three students were arrested. Shortly thereafter, Oberlin students alleged that Allyn had racially profiled the students and launched a protest and boycott of the bakery. A year later, Gibson’s sued, alleging that the College and Raimondo had participated in smearing its reputation.

Unfortunately, much of the coverage and commentary has either inaccurately represented the lawsuit and the events that led up to it, or has only presented parts of the larger story. An extensive timeline of events is outlined in a recent Review article covering news of the verdict (“Jury Rules for Gibson’s, Assigns $44 Million in Damages,” June 14, 2019). Readers looking for more background on the verdict should consult that article.

As stories about the verdict transition from breaking news coverage to think pieces about the impact of the jury’s decision, the Editorial Board wants to identify three of the key ways that existing coverage has skewed or misrepresented events leading up to the trial.

The first concerns the Oberlin Police Department report that was filed following the initial altercation outside Gibson’s in November 2016. The document filed by responding officers was wildly prejudiced in favor of Gibson’s, as it only included statements from owner David Gibson, his son Allyn Gibson, and a Gibson’s employee. David and the employee both backed up Allyn’s version of events, giving them near-complete control of the narrative in the report and, consequently, in the media.

Noticeably absent from the police report was the perspective of any of the three Black students involved in the initial incident, not to mention the witnesses who originally called police out of concern for the students’ safety or who saw the altercation. Officers did include the line, “It should be noted that as the reporting officer was interviewing all three subjects several other individuals who were also on scene at the time of the incident and who were initially interfering with officers attempting to gain control of the situation, began stating that Allyn was the aggressor and the black man didn’t do anything wrong.” This is the only suggestion in the entire report that anything took place outside of the Gibson’s’ version of events.

This omission is meaningful — particularly in a country with a long and shameful history of manipulating testimony and evidence to criminalize people of color, especially Black people. That report defined the narrative that, from the beginning, was parroted by mainstream outlets and right-wing blogs alike to vilify the three Black students and those who came to their defense. By immediately assuming the students’ guilt, the report significantly impacted the way this story is discussed in the public sphere — even today.

Second, many people have bought into the narrative presented in court by Gibson’s’ attorneys that the College acted as a ‘Goliath’ in encouraging students to crush a small, locally-owned family business. While it’s true that the College is often not the most considerate neighbor, in this situation the accusation is entirely contrived, and the support that it has found not just from personal blogs, but major media outlets as well, is misleading.

Former Student Senate Chair Kameron Dunbar, OC ’19, put it best in a recent New York Times article when he said, “Part of the narrative that has been built up is that Oberlin’s administration weaponized students against Gibson’s out of malice. I find that concept to be pretty insulting. We’re autonomous” (“Oberlin Helped Students Defame a Bakery, a Jury Says. The Punishment: $33 Million,” June 14, 2019).

Whatever you think of the protests and boycott of Gibson’s, the responsibility for them lies squarely with students. Nobody at Oberlin — student, administrator, or otherwise — has ever contested this fact and, indeed, students continue to openly take ownership of their actions. On campus, the idea that administrators could somehow orchestrate a student protest is laughable; Oberlin students prize their independence above nearly all else. If anything, students at the time felt that administrators were dragging their feet — especially after it was announced that the College would resume its contract with Gibson’s in early 2017.

In this context, the narrative of the ‘Goliath’ college egging on its students completely deteriorates. It’s true that Raimondo was at the protests, but she was simply attempting to ensure the safety of all involved — as dictated within the responsibilities of her job. Any other framing is incomplete, and we urge both journalists and readers to critically evaluate the facts of the College’s involvement.

Finally, many journalists and commentators — although not all — appear to believe that the salient question at hand is whether the three students involved in the initial altercation were actually guilty of shoplifting, or if students were right to protest the bakery and characterize that incident as racial profiling. Many outlets have even used the names of the three students in their coverage of the trial — an irresponsible decision given that the three students were not parties to the lawsuit and have nothing to do with the legal questions at hand.

We encourage readers and journalists to reject this framing of the story. The core question of the trial was whether Oberlin College and its dean of students are on the hook for statements made by their students. The chilling answer from the jury was a resounding yes. That decision should broadly concern everybody who believes in freedom of speech and student autonomy.

Throughout the trial, the Gibsons maintained that the College should have stepped in on the bakery’s behalf; the College’s argument was that administrators could only try to maintain the safety of all parties involved, and that any attempt to dictate student speech would be blatantly outside the scope of responsible leadership.

The jury sided with the Gibsons — a decision with profoundly disturbing implications for free speech at Oberlin and on college campuses across an increasingly authoritarian country. Conservative commentators often talk about a supposed crisis of free speech on campuses, wherein students wield the sword of political correctness to silence dissenting opinions. To the contrary, this verdict is a real warning shot against free speech. The fact that those same commentators have widely lauded the verdict reveals their hypocrisy and lays their thinly-veiled agenda bare.

Ultimately, we believe that the story of the verdict should be discussed out in the open, because the jury’s decision — as it stands — sets a concerning precedent that must be challenged. However, these discussions must take place with the full picture in mind, otherwise they won’t get anywhere useful. This piece is a starting point for expanding those conversations, but it is by no means the end.

In this difficult moment, we hope that Oberlin students are not discouraged from continuing the kind of sustained and brave activism that emerged following the initial November 2016 incident at Gibson’s. We hope that students continue to validate and support the experiences of their peers, even as some silence them and others attempt to force their institution to do the same. We also hope that students continue the good work of building relationships with community members, and that tension arising from the verdict does not impact the many positive, symbiotic partnerships that exist between students and the broader community.

And, in the very near term, we hope that the College will appeal the jury’s verdict and continue to fight for the right of its students — and the rights of students across the country — to identify injustice and speak out firmly against it.
Ahh 2019, when colleges teach kids not to learn.
 

CTeamPoke

Legendary Cowboy
Jun 18, 2008
44,342
47,031
1,743
Dallas, TX
#45
It's that way in tech companies too. I know people that work for Google and Twitter and several other companies that are conservative and Christian and have to basically keep quiet.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
I currently work for a major tech firm and this is now my third at such a company... never once experienced anything like this. Quite the opposite, actually.
 

Cro

we need some celery and a can of fake snow
A/V Subscriber
Apr 6, 2010
4,080
2,153
743
Edmond
#46
I'd be curious to know if any of the student protesters will now admit they were in the wrong or if they are too far down the indoctrinated rabbit hole to ever recover.
not a chance. the culture is to never admit wrongdoing and to always blame others for the shitty situations they find themselves in...........
 

CTeamPoke

Legendary Cowboy
Jun 18, 2008
44,342
47,031
1,743
Dallas, TX
#48
Are you conservative and/or Christian?
Christian, yes. Openly. As are most of the senior leaders at all three companies. All public with HQ in Silicon Valley. Do they separate their Church life from their professional lives? Yes. It isn't Chick Fil A. But they talk about going to church and bring people of faith.

Conservative... Compared to this board I'm a leftist commie. In real life I'm pretty in the middle on almost everything. I believe in public access to state and federal owned lands. I hold some other liberal views like that one. But I'm also firmly pro second amendment. I hold other conservative views similarly.
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
7,600
3,653
743
49
#49
From The Oberlin Review editorial page:

Media Coverage of Gibson’s Verdict Misses the Mark
Editorial Board|June 18, 2019

Earlier this month, a jury awarded Gibson’s Bakery $11 million following a month-long trial stemming from the bakery’s lawsuit against Oberlin College and Vice President and Dean of Students Meredith Raimondo. Then, last Thursday, it added $33 million in punitive damages. This stunning decision — which strikes a serious blow against free speech on college campuses across the country — has garnered significant attention in major media outlets such as CNN and The New York Times, as well as on social media and various personal blogs.

The tension between the College and Gibson’s began in November 2016, when three Black students were involved in a physical altercation outside of Gibson’s after Allyn Gibson, son of store owner David Gibson, accused one of the students of shoplifting. The three students were arrested. Shortly thereafter, Oberlin students alleged that Allyn had racially profiled the students and launched a protest and boycott of the bakery. A year later, Gibson’s sued, alleging that the College and Raimondo had participated in smearing its reputation.

Unfortunately, much of the coverage and commentary has either inaccurately represented the lawsuit and the events that led up to it, or has only presented parts of the larger story. An extensive timeline of events is outlined in a recent Review article covering news of the verdict (“Jury Rules for Gibson’s, Assigns $44 Million in Damages,” June 14, 2019). Readers looking for more background on the verdict should consult that article.

As stories about the verdict transition from breaking news coverage to think pieces about the impact of the jury’s decision, the Editorial Board wants to identify three of the key ways that existing coverage has skewed or misrepresented events leading up to the trial.

The first concerns the Oberlin Police Department report that was filed following the initial altercation outside Gibson’s in November 2016. The document filed by responding officers was wildly prejudiced in favor of Gibson’s, as it only included statements from owner David Gibson, his son Allyn Gibson, and a Gibson’s employee. David and the employee both backed up Allyn’s version of events, giving them near-complete control of the narrative in the report and, consequently, in the media.

Noticeably absent from the police report was the perspective of any of the three Black students involved in the initial incident, not to mention the witnesses who originally called police out of concern for the students’ safety or who saw the altercation. Officers did include the line, “It should be noted that as the reporting officer was interviewing all three subjects several other individuals who were also on scene at the time of the incident and who were initially interfering with officers attempting to gain control of the situation, began stating that Allyn was the aggressor and the black man didn’t do anything wrong.” This is the only suggestion in the entire report that anything took place outside of the Gibson’s’ version of events.

This omission is meaningful — particularly in a country with a long and shameful history of manipulating testimony and evidence to criminalize people of color, especially Black people. That report defined the narrative that, from the beginning, was parroted by mainstream outlets and right-wing blogs alike to vilify the three Black students and those who came to their defense. By immediately assuming the students’ guilt, the report significantly impacted the way this story is discussed in the public sphere — even today.

Second, many people have bought into the narrative presented in court by Gibson’s’ attorneys that the College acted as a ‘Goliath’ in encouraging students to crush a small, locally-owned family business. While it’s true that the College is often not the most considerate neighbor, in this situation the accusation is entirely contrived, and the support that it has found not just from personal blogs, but major media outlets as well, is misleading.

Former Student Senate Chair Kameron Dunbar, OC ’19, put it best in a recent New York Times article when he said, “Part of the narrative that has been built up is that Oberlin’s administration weaponized students against Gibson’s out of malice. I find that concept to be pretty insulting. We’re autonomous” (“Oberlin Helped Students Defame a Bakery, a Jury Says. The Punishment: $33 Million,” June 14, 2019).

Whatever you think of the protests and boycott of Gibson’s, the responsibility for them lies squarely with students. Nobody at Oberlin — student, administrator, or otherwise — has ever contested this fact and, indeed, students continue to openly take ownership of their actions. On campus, the idea that administrators could somehow orchestrate a student protest is laughable; Oberlin students prize their independence above nearly all else. If anything, students at the time felt that administrators were dragging their feet — especially after it was announced that the College would resume its contract with Gibson’s in early 2017.

In this context, the narrative of the ‘Goliath’ college egging on its students completely deteriorates. It’s true that Raimondo was at the protests, but she was simply attempting to ensure the safety of all involved — as dictated within the responsibilities of her job. Any other framing is incomplete, and we urge both journalists and readers to critically evaluate the facts of the College’s involvement.

Finally, many journalists and commentators — although not all — appear to believe that the salient question at hand is whether the three students involved in the initial altercation were actually guilty of shoplifting, or if students were right to protest the bakery and characterize that incident as racial profiling. Many outlets have even used the names of the three students in their coverage of the trial — an irresponsible decision given that the three students were not parties to the lawsuit and have nothing to do with the legal questions at hand.

We encourage readers and journalists to reject this framing of the story. The core question of the trial was whether Oberlin College and its dean of students are on the hook for statements made by their students. The chilling answer from the jury was a resounding yes. That decision should broadly concern everybody who believes in freedom of speech and student autonomy.

Throughout the trial, the Gibsons maintained that the College should have stepped in on the bakery’s behalf; the College’s argument was that administrators could only try to maintain the safety of all parties involved, and that any attempt to dictate student speech would be blatantly outside the scope of responsible leadership.

The jury sided with the Gibsons — a decision with profoundly disturbing implications for free speech at Oberlin and on college campuses across an increasingly authoritarian country. Conservative commentators often talk about a supposed crisis of free speech on campuses, wherein students wield the sword of political correctness to silence dissenting opinions. To the contrary, this verdict is a real warning shot against free speech. The fact that those same commentators have widely lauded the verdict reveals their hypocrisy and lays their thinly-veiled agenda bare.

Ultimately, we believe that the story of the verdict should be discussed out in the open, because the jury’s decision — as it stands — sets a concerning precedent that must be challenged. However, these discussions must take place with the full picture in mind, otherwise they won’t get anywhere useful. This piece is a starting point for expanding those conversations, but it is by no means the end.

In this difficult moment, we hope that Oberlin students are not discouraged from continuing the kind of sustained and brave activism that emerged following the initial November 2016 incident at Gibson’s. We hope that students continue to validate and support the experiences of their peers, even as some silence them and others attempt to force their institution to do the same. We also hope that students continue the good work of building relationships with community members, and that tension arising from the verdict does not impact the many positive, symbiotic partnerships that exist between students and the broader community.

And, in the very near term, we hope that the College will appeal the jury’s verdict and continue to fight for the right of its students — and the rights of students across the country — to identify injustice and speak out firmly against it.
This person is totally glossing over the actual emails from staff, the fact that the lady was actually handing out fliers and was purposefully trying to keep press away from the protest. Also the fact that there were witnesses that said when Gibson came out of the bakery to confront the students about shoplifting, they attacked him first. It's crazy.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
7,600
3,653
743
49
#50
It's that way in tech companies too. I know people that work for Google and Twitter and several other companies that are conservative and Christian and have to basically keep quiet.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
I currently work for a major tech firm and this is now my third at such a company... never once experienced anything like this. Quite the opposite, actually.
Oh I know there are tech companies that are actually good. I Facebook friend know some Christians that work at them. But most of the biggest are hostile if you don't tow the "straight white Christians" are bad line.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

#1 Pokes Fan

Territorial Marshal
Mar 27, 2012
5,120
5,552
743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#51
This person is totally glossing over the actual emails from staff, the fact that the lady was actually handing out fliers and was purposefully trying to keep press away from the protest. Also the fact that there were witnesses that said when Gibson came out of the bakery to confront the students about shoplifting, they attacked him first. It's crazy.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Why don't you take all of your fancy facts and....



1561387057151.png
 
Nov 8, 2007
3,269
1,116
1,743
Bartlesville
#52
This person is totally glossing over the actual emails from staff, the fact that the lady was actually handing out fliers and was purposefully trying to keep press away from the protest. Also the fact that there were witnesses that said when Gibson came out of the bakery to confront the students about shoplifting, they attacked him first. It's crazy.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Right? I'm supposed to believe that the MSM went against every other racial incident in the last 3 years and was helping out the white business owners? I find that harder to believe.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
69,922
49,876
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#53
Christian, yes. Openly. As are most of the senior leaders at all three companies. All public with HQ in Silicon Valley. Do they separate their Church life from their professional lives? Yes. It isn't Chick Fil A. But they talk about going to church and bring people of faith.

Conservative... Compared to this board I'm a leftist commie. In real life I'm pretty in the middle on almost everything. I believe in public access to state and federal owned lands. I hold some other liberal views like that one. But I'm also firmly pro second amendment. I hold other conservative views similarly.
That's liberal?
 
Nov 6, 2010
714
279
613
#55
Christian, yes. Openly. As are most of the senior leaders at all three companies. All public with HQ in Silicon Valley. Do they separate their Church life from their professional lives? Yes. It isn't Chick Fil A. But they talk about going to church and bring people of faith.

Conservative... Compared to this board I'm a leftist commie. In real life I'm pretty in the middle on almost everything. I believe in public access to state and federal owned lands. I hold some other liberal views like that one. But I'm also firmly pro second amendment. I hold other conservative views similarly.
LOL, I feel the same way. This board will make a fairly normal dude feel like a left wing loony pretty quick. One thing I'd like to ask though, on your second amendment stance. When you say you are "firmly pro", does that mean anything goes?? Because I feel I'm pro second amendment too, until I start to talk about it on this board. Then I realize when I feel there should be some limitations, I'm suddenly General Mao.
 

CTeamPoke

Legendary Cowboy
Jun 18, 2008
44,342
47,031
1,743
Dallas, TX
#56
LOL, I feel the same way. This board will make a fairly normal dude feel like a left wing loony pretty quick. One thing I'd like to ask though, on your second amendment stance. When you say you are "firmly pro", does that mean anything goes?? Because I feel I'm pro second amendment too, until I start to talk about it on this board. Then I realize when I feel there should be some limitations, I'm suddenly General Mao.
I'm for background checks and making it a bit more of a pain in the ass to obtain a weapon. I'm also not for open carry.

But I think there needs to be a very, very defined set of rules in place that are not open to any interpretation... and I worry that giving an inch will result in me losing my rights, which would not be ok. People with mental instability and past violence issues should not own guns... but I worry that if you set the parameters on that too loosely, then we will all suffer.

I also feel that it should be much, much more difficult to get a drivers license and have a kid.
 
Nov 6, 2010
714
279
613
#57
I'm for background checks and making it a bit more of a pain in the ass to obtain a weapon. I'm also not for open carry.

But I think there needs to be a very, very defined set of rules in place that are not open to any interpretation... and I worry that giving an inch will result in me losing my rights, which would not be ok. People with mental instability and past violence issues should not own guns... but I worry that if you set the parameters on that too loosely, then we will all suffer.

I also feel that it should be much, much more difficult to get a drivers license and have a kid.
Well, my son failed his written test for his learners permit this morning, so take a bit of solace there.
 

CTeamPoke

Legendary Cowboy
Jun 18, 2008
44,342
47,031
1,743
Dallas, TX
#58
Well, my son failed his written test for his learners permit this morning, so take a bit of solace there.
Yikes.

I'm being totally serious. I think that you should have to take an immersive driving test every 7 years to prove that you aren't an idiot. Should be easier to lose a license too. Too many idiots on the road.

And yes... I understand the hardships this would place on underprivileged communities.

Same with making it tougher to have a kid... I get that there's "eugenics" implications with that and some personal liberty taken away... but if you don't have the means to raise a child then you shouldn't have one.
 
Nov 6, 2010
714
279
613
#59
Yikes.

I'm being totally serious. I think that you should have to take an immersive driving test every 7 years to prove that you aren't an idiot. Should be easier to lose a license too. Too many idiots on the road.

And yes... I understand the hardships this would place on underprivileged communities.

Same with making it tougher to have a kid... I get that there's "eugenics" implications with that and some personal liberty taken away... but if you don't have the means to raise a child then you shouldn't have one.
Well, you're probably left of me on both of those. I think the driving issues are more distraction related than continued qualification (phones).

As to the child having privileges, you'd not only have to allow abortion, but mandate it, and good luck with that, cause you ain't gonna keep folks from fuc****.,