Waco1947 said:
This is silliness. You have no proof.
Proof of what?
Waco1947 said:
This is silliness. You have no proof.
Con. Jordan is one of the back benchers. He interrupts the guy trying to answer the question "Could you...?" with "It's a fact."riflebear said:
quash said:Con. Jordan is one of the back benchers. He interrupts the guy trying to answer the question "Could you...?" with "It's a fact."riflebear said:
No, Congressman, a question is not a fact. You may have inserted a fact in there, but questions are not facts.
Next time try this: "Is it a fact that Donald Trump is president?" Then, if the guy answers "Well, it depends..." you can jump in and tell him it's a fact.
Florda_mike said:quash said:Con. Jordan is one of the back benchers. He interrupts the guy trying to answer the question "Could you...?" with "It's a fact."riflebear said:
No, Congressman, a question is not a fact. You may have inserted a fact in there, but questions are not facts.
Next time try this: "Is it a fact that Donald Trump is president?" Then, if the guy answers "Well, it depends..." you can jump in and tell him it's a fact.
^^^ Your brain ....... on drugs!
Don't do drugs!!!
It shows the academe is not rushing toward the apocalypse. Acorns, not sky.riflebear said:Agree or disagree w/ this?quash said:
Acorns.Sam Lowry said:I think it implies the opposite. If this example were representative of academe, they wouldn't refer to it as "amazing."quash said:It shows the academe is not rushing toward the apocalypse. Acorns, not sky.riflebear said:Agree or disagree w/ this?quash said:
I'm not really interested in trying to reduce it to acorns vs. sky. I do know that identity politics are a significant force in academe. If anything, the tweet tends to prove it more than not.quash said:Acorns.Sam Lowry said:I think it implies the opposite. If this example were representative of academe, they wouldn't refer to it as "amazing."quash said:It shows the academe is not rushing toward the apocalypse. Acorns, not sky.riflebear said:Agree or disagree w/ this?quash said:
The tweet acknowledges the problem but is also one, of many, responses by educators, administrators and liberal advocates for free speech. This thread pointedly ignores the opposition to grievance studies, identify politics, etc. in favor of a blinkered view.Sam Lowry said:I'm not really interested in trying to reduce it to acorns vs. sky. I do know that identity politics are a significant force in academe. If anything, the tweet tends to prove it more than not.quash said:Acorns.Sam Lowry said:I think it implies the opposite. If this example were representative of academe, they wouldn't refer to it as "amazing."quash said:It shows the academe is not rushing toward the apocalypse. Acorns, not sky.riflebear said:Agree or disagree w/ this?quash said:
Doc Holliday said: