Nope!
No deferments, means no deferments. Period, end of sentence. No special treatment of the lazy ass rich boy who's father has connections. Nope none of that crap!
Homey played that game.
The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
No deferments, means no deferments. Period, end of sentence. No special treatment of the lazy ass rich boy who's father has connections. Nope none of that crap!
Homey played that game.
Wagner added in his email that the previous day’s chalkings represented “values regarding diversity and respect that clash with Emory’s own.”
In the joint email sent on behalf of CC and SGA, representatives wrote that they “remain unapologetically dedicated to inclusion, diversity and equity,” and that both institutions will stand in solidarity with any Emory students who have encountered a lack of safety and support.
The far left loves to use these buzz words: Diversity, Respect, Inclusion and Equity. They stand behind the meanings of these words as long as the words fit their narrow meaning (agenda). We celebrate and embrace diversity, equity, respect and inclusion...except when it goes against our core beliefs like diversity, equity, respect, inclusion and Donald Trump chalkings.
Or a presidential candidate!
Can count to cheeseburger. Hopes to be a SEAL in the Air Force. Or just a seal.
Not fair....... You know what I mean.
Can count to cheeseburger. Hopes to be a SEAL in the Air Force. Or just a seal.
What Moot said. 
I noted that physically unable to perform [or something of that nature, like severe mental retardation, is crazy, is Jeffrey Dahmer, etc., but figured just the catch-all "physically unable to perform" would suffice) and it got shot down with people who fall outside of the "physically unable to perform" category. So, I had no choice but to be unfair.
I noted that physically unable to perform [or something of that nature, like severe mental retardation, is crazy, is Jeffrey Dahmer, etc., but figured just the catch-all "physically unable to perform" would suffice) and it got shot down with people who fall outside of the "physically unable to perform" category. So, I had no choice but to be unfair.
Wize guys.What Moot said.
I noted that physically unable to perform [or something of that nature, like severe mental retardation, is crazy, is Jeffrey Dahmer, etc., but figured just the catch-all "physically unable to perform" would suffice) and it got shot down with people who fall outside of the "physically unable to perform" category. So, I had no choice but to be unfair.
Prolly a 50/50 chance......spose?
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
The overwhelming majority of research in social science in general, and authoritarianism is particular, has always been done within the confines of academia (including the article linked above). The research on social science done outside of academia is usually done by someone with an agenda looking for a predetermined conclusion, so most of that research can be easily dismissed (unless you have the same agenda and you've found the droids you are looking for). Academia is, of course, the clubhouse bastion of liberalism and liberals, thus most of the research is skewed to the left, either in observation and experiment, or in the interpretation and conclusions. That doesn't mean there is anything inherently wrong or flawed in the research, as long as you keep that caveat in mind.
Most of the research into authoritarianism has been done from the 1970s to the present, and most are reflective of contemporaneous times. Very few social scientists have researched the history of authoritarianism in terms of kings and queens and clan and tribal leaders, and more importantly the followers who fiercely defended those leaders. Doing so can often throw a paradoxical wrench into the works, so they tend to stick to the recent present, the lifetimes of the people who are alive now, or more specifically, since the rise of Hitler. It's almost as if social science believes Hitler invented authoritarianism. He did not, of course, but still, the underlying principles remain in the contemporary research, skewed or not, so it's important to read and understand the research, and it's natural skew. You just have to be careful of the research that draws conclusions so as to make a determination of whether or not the authoritarianism is inherently good or bad.
The short video at this link (DNews - YouTube) gives a mostly neutral telling of why voters choose authoritarian leaders (and the spots that aren't neutral are obvious and markedly funny). It's well worth watching even if you don't care about social science authoritarianism, because it will give you a better understanding of not only in how and why some people vote the way they do, but in everyday interactions with them.
Here's an interesting article by John Dean on authoritarianism, or really why Trump can't win and why you shouldn't vote for him. The first two paragraphs give it away. His research was done outside of academia and clearly for an agenda, so his observations and conclusions, especially the ones that are diametrically opposed to the academic research, show a clear agenda. He needed to alter some of the characteristics of an authoritarian leader in general so as to fit Trump specifically within the political agenda pigeonhole. The article was written back in August when nobody thought Trump would be in the race for more than a month or two, so he crafted his article and conclusions accordingly. If he'd stuck to the actual research, it would be a very different article. Still, worth reading.
For anyone wanting to really get into it, I recommend the primary source of Dean's work, a summary of Dean's source really, a 200-page book that's been made available free online by Bob Altemeyer, an American-born professor of psychology at the University of Manitoba. The book is The Authoritarians. It's thorough, well researched (obsessively researched) and entertaining (for such a dry subject). It's also liberally skewed to the left, as can be expected, something Altemeyer admits while at the same time attempts to deny. A paradox which he even points out. The questions are skewed to favor a certain result, which he also points out. The book was written in 2006, so it gave him a chance to write about the authoritarians giving Junior a pass on the Patriot Act and torture, but unfortunately it did not give him a chance to write about the authoritarians giving Obama a pass on extrajudicial executions of American citizens or of renewing the Patriot Act and ramping up the abuses at Gitmo (along with a long laundry list of others). Still, it's worth the read.
"Never before in all our history have these forces [of organized money] been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me, and I welcome their hatred." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1936
Silly me, I thought Americans with authoritarian inclinations would be more of a predictor that one is a Bernie Sanders supporter. The government's teat is where the power is. Once you start suckling it's difficult to be weaned and you lose your personal freedom. Bernie's supporters want the government to nurture them from cradle to grave but don't see that as a form of authoritarianism.
Update to previous story: Trump asks 'Can I press charges?'
Trump MOCKS reporter who claimed campaign manager battered her
Trump MOCKS reporter who claimed campaign manager battered her
Now down to serious Business the whole Election is a Joke anyway. Hillary said this morn that she don't get no donations from oil. Yet she got millions of dollars from Soros hmmm Hello . Trump I think is only running so that Clinton can be President. If Donald was running a serious Election he wouldn't be such a goof. As you know most likely Clinton will be President. George Soros is backing it to the Hilt and do your Home work.. If you got any smarts to you throw the Bean counters out. You see Soros is a part of that group that meets 2 twice a year and which dictates to the world. Hmm Denial you can do that all you want. Shelled one Marvel Comics for you: Done Deal!! Far as the Doctor Detroit's and Buddy Loves and BJ's is this world. Smooth Talking U good at that but strike 3 on the Lies. President Putin of Russia already put a Bounty on Soros Head. Well Sh..... Hell I am a team and I am not running. Wife needs one more Operation and that's 7000 what I got to pay. Ins don't pay for 2nd surgeon. Not Running and the economy is in the dumps company says no freight. Ins. Tri care Prime is joke. You all voted for that Crapers we got in office. Its time: Rogue. Enough is enough.
Last edited:
YUPPER SAYS ALOT !!!
LOOK REALLY CLOSE WHO DO YOU SEE . SEE YOU MONDAY
Last edited: