Perhaps if you actually bothered to read the content you'd better understand the points being made and you'd know that most of the chapters were not written by state employees and certainly none have corner offices. In fact, your "favorite" chapter was written by students. Clearly, you know nothing of what you speak. In fact, arguing for social justice is indeed defending the United States. And the timing is impeccable. The fires burning in LA were fomented by the activation of military forces against the AMERICAN PEOPLE by the very person who did nothing to stop the Jan 6 riot/insurrection as 140+ police officers were attacked and the capitol damaged and fouled. Not only did he do nothing, but he then pardoned ALL 1500+ of them, including 130+ convicted of violence against an officer (which include members of the violent extremist group The Proud Boys. That's law & order for you.
Did you actually read the book—beyond some of the chapter titles—and understand the insightful, professionally and socially responsible, compassionate perspectives of the articles and contributors?
I would imagine that you are directing the same energy and expressing the same moral outrage and distaste for organizations like Turning Point, which, despite their overtly racist agenda, have been allowed on campus to spew their racist, hateful rhetoric openly. Where is your outrage over those folks? You presented an empty think piece filled with your feelings and no valid scholarly arguments to counter the information presented in the book. Laughably, you speak of the Constitution while simultaneously trying to suppress academic freedom of expression. Yawn.
Given the lack of scholarship in this article and his inability to refute the book's claims provides me with all the information I need about his "expertise," and it leaves me uninterested in his position on just about everything. However, feel free to continue enjoying his conservative boot-licking propaganda.
That’s quite a presumption. Have you read his work? He’s been open to public debate on a number of subjects. But it sounds like you’ve made your conclusion, and I’m willing to bet it’s half baked given the dismissive attitude. But maybe I’m wrong! Engage on it rather than assuming you know the totality of his position.
It also doesn’t take a research article to point out the basic logical problems in the book. If they want a book that requires that level of thought they need to avoid making simple mistakes in reasoning.
Well, isn’t this well-timed tactlessness? Thank you for informing the public.
Perhaps if you actually bothered to read the content you'd better understand the points being made and you'd know that most of the chapters were not written by state employees and certainly none have corner offices. In fact, your "favorite" chapter was written by students. Clearly, you know nothing of what you speak. In fact, arguing for social justice is indeed defending the United States. And the timing is impeccable. The fires burning in LA were fomented by the activation of military forces against the AMERICAN PEOPLE by the very person who did nothing to stop the Jan 6 riot/insurrection as 140+ police officers were attacked and the capitol damaged and fouled. Not only did he do nothing, but he then pardoned ALL 1500+ of them, including 130+ convicted of violence against an officer (which include members of the violent extremist group The Proud Boys. That's law & order for you.
Your comment proves my point! Thank you. I’ll be using it for a post on the logical fallacies of the social justice movement.
No surprise, given the upside down world you live in.
Did you actually read the book—beyond some of the chapter titles—and understand the insightful, professionally and socially responsible, compassionate perspectives of the articles and contributors?
Yes, we use passages from it as examples of unconscious liberal bias.
Brilliant, per usual.
I would imagine that you are directing the same energy and expressing the same moral outrage and distaste for organizations like Turning Point, which, despite their overtly racist agenda, have been allowed on campus to spew their racist, hateful rhetoric openly. Where is your outrage over those folks? You presented an empty think piece filled with your feelings and no valid scholarly arguments to counter the information presented in the book. Laughably, you speak of the Constitution while simultaneously trying to suppress academic freedom of expression. Yawn.
Does Turning Point receive federal or state tax money to taught on campus?
Given that he has written on the 1st amendment and the constitution, he might know a thing. Maybe two. 😉
The Declaration of Independence and God: Self-Evident Truths in American Law
https://a.co/d/4gvNtv7
Given the lack of scholarship in this article and his inability to refute the book's claims provides me with all the information I need about his "expertise," and it leaves me uninterested in his position on just about everything. However, feel free to continue enjoying his conservative boot-licking propaganda.
That’s quite a presumption. Have you read his work? He’s been open to public debate on a number of subjects. But it sounds like you’ve made your conclusion, and I’m willing to bet it’s half baked given the dismissive attitude. But maybe I’m wrong! Engage on it rather than assuming you know the totality of his position.
It also doesn’t take a research article to point out the basic logical problems in the book. If they want a book that requires that level of thought they need to avoid making simple mistakes in reasoning.
I’ve been following your illogic.