hokiewolf said:

---

There's no nuances allowed in arguments according to some here. You can not have a personal opinion on abortion but also believe it isn't the governments right to dictate policy on what you can or can't do in your personal life. There's no contradiction there

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Where is the contradiction? To me, it doesn't matter what his personal opinion is on abortion, but that doesn't contradict a stance that governement shouldn't be in the business of morality legislation

---

hokiewolf said:

---

To me, That's an opinion on government overreach, not a personal opinion on abortion.

What I don't like about morality legislation is that it's based upon what political party is in control at the time of the legislation passing. For instance, the health care law where health care was deemed a moral right. It's not, it's a service. It's not the governments job to dictate how a service operates. Saying health care is a moral right implies that you as a person have the right to dictate how and when a provider provides care. That creates ciaos and scarcity.

BTW, in case it isn't clear, I don't think government should be in the business of funding abortion either.

---

hokiewolf said:

---

To me, That's an opinion on government overreach, not a personal opinion on abortion.

What I don't like about morality legislation is that it's based upon what political party is in control at the time of the legislation passing. For instance, the health care law where health care was deemed a moral right. It's not, it's a service. It's not the governments job to dictate how a service operates. Saying health care is a moral right implies that you as a person have the right to dictate how and when a provider provides care. That creates ciaos and scarcity.

BTW, in case it isn't clear, I don't think government should be in the business of funding abortion either.

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Add it to your collection. I'm sure you have plenty.

---

hokiewolf said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Add it to your collection. I'm sure you have plenty.

---

I do, they're all very nuanced

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Yeah.... sorry pal. There's some gray area with your "libertarian" view on abortion. And I believe RWW said he had "no opinion" and then gave us his opinion.

As far as what is on that website I don't peruse outlandish sites that spout meaningless drivel. It's about as practical as the QANON nonsense or the BLM jargon. None of the above will ever be a viable political party or option for those of us who can think for ourselves and don't rely on MSM to give us our talking points like you and your party, you know, the SOCIALIST PARTY.

And yes I call you and your party SOCIALISTS because whether you want to openly admit it that is exactly what you are and what your political beliefs and policies you support are.

Sorry if you don't like it.

It's like a speed bump. You'll get over it.

---

ncsualum05 said:

---

For me... you have to break it down...

Abortion:
Personal opinion based on morality and my faith.... against it. I do feel there are cases where it's necessary when baby is gone or mother's life in jeopardy. Perhaps a rape/ assault. But I feel it should not be used by a woman who gets pregnant and decides the child is inconvenient so termination is the option. There are plenty who would adopt.

Opinion as it relates to US government... get out of it. Let states set laws as they see fit. I do think it should be against the law federally for anything late term other than the exceptions I noted above about life in danger. Planned Parenthood should not exist period and is awful. Tax dollars should not be funding any of this.

Gay Marriage:

My faith and personal opinion is that marriage was set forth by God as a union between man and woman. Homosexuality is defined as a sin in the bible so as a result I don't think there should be any gay marriage. However my faith also demands that I not judge and love everyone no matter what. So I have absolutely nothing against anyone who is gay. I have also committed sexual sins along with many others in my life.

Opinion as far as government/ life goes.... I do believe everyone regardless of lifestyle deserves a union of sorts that would grant it the same rights here as a typical US married couple would have. I don't believe in discrimination of such a union as with regards to trusts and estates, etc.

Well... that was a lot. Hope that makes sense.

---

Quote:

---

The recent hiring of New York Times columnist Nikole Hannah-Jones as a faculty member in UNC-Chapel Hill's Hussman School of Journalism raises serious red flags about how the university is being run.

Last week, the Martin Center's Jay Schalin reported on Hannah-Jones's appointment to the Knight Chair in Race and Investigative Journalism at UNC. Hannah-Jones is the founder of the infamous 1619 Project, which seeks to reframe American history as fundamentally racist.

As Schalin notes, Hannah-Jones's hiring "signals a degradation of journalistic standards," which should deter any serious student from applying to the journalism school.

...

In other words, trustees can in effect give away their authority to the chancellor or the chancellor's "designees."
But the policy's lack of clarity isn't its only flaw. The larger and more serious problem is that boards of trustees are not required to review a candidate before he or she is offered a job.

The tendency toward groupthink has become a prevailing problem within many university departments, and faculty may be tempted to choose colleagues by ideology rather than academic credentials. Given this high degree of politicization inside the academy, it is imperative that, at public institutions that exist for the good of all the people, there must be some sort of outside review to prevent the appointment of unsuitable candidates such as Hannah-Jones.

---

Quote:

---

The University of North Carolina (UNC) Board of Trustees gathered for a special meeting Wednesday and voted 94 to approve the tenure application of Nikole Hannah-Jones, author of the "1619 Project" published by the New York Times.

Last week, Hannah-Jones and her legal team submitted a letter to the university stating that she would refuse to join the UNC faculty under a fixed-term employment contracted unless she was granted the "security" of tenure. The document accused a major conservative political donor involved with the school of interfering to kill her tenure application. It also alleged that by denying Jones tenure, the school engaged in discrimination that could warrant a federal lawsuit, citing a number of potential legal violations including "political influence in violation of North Carolina law."

The 1619 edition of the New York Times magazine, in which Hannah-Jones played a pivotal writing role, has been criticized by many historians as a "very unbalanced, one-sided account" that is "wrong in so many ways." The project's objective is to inculcate a revisionist re-framing of American history in students, teaching that slavery is intrinsic to the country's national fabric.

---

PackFansXL said:

---

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/unc-grants-nikole-hannah-jones-tenure-after-1619-project-backlash/

Quote:

---

The University of North Carolina (UNC) Board of Trustees gathered for a special meeting Wednesday and voted 94 to approve the tenure application of Nikole Hannah-Jones, author of the "1619 Project" published by the New York Times.

Last week, Hannah-Jones and her legal team submitted a letter to the university stating that she would refuse to join the UNC faculty under a fixed-term employment contracted unless she was granted the "security" of tenure. The document accused a major conservative political donor involved with the school of interfering to kill her tenure application. It also alleged that by denying Jones tenure, the school engaged in discrimination that could warrant a federal lawsuit, citing a number of potential legal violations including "political influence in violation of North Carolina law."

The 1619 edition of the New York Times magazine, in which Hannah-Jones played a pivotal writing role, has been criticized by many historians as a "very unbalanced, one-sided account" that is "wrong in so many ways." The project's objective is to inculcate a revisionist re-framing of American history in students, teaching that slavery is intrinsic to the country's national fabric.

---

So she got the job by writing about racism, threatened a lawsuit to get tenure, and now gets to teach your neighbor's kids to be racists.

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Sorry to disappoint but I don't have a party. I actually look at things from both sides and see them for what they are. I understand that may be hard for someone like you on the far right or someone on the far left to understand. People like you on the far right and others on the far left are the problem. It's the reason NOTHING gets done at any point, ever.

---

ZAXPACK15 said:

---

aaaannnndddd after all that, she goes to Howard U.

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Sorry to disappoint but I don't have a party. I actually look at things from both sides and see them for what they are. I understand that may be hard for someone like you on the far right or someone on the far left to understand. People like you on the far right and others on the far left are the problem. It's the reason NOTHING gets done at any point, ever.

---

That's factually not true! Nothing gets done because the constitution creates significant structure to make it hard for anything to get done.

The real reason nothing gets done is because of the uniparty. People that try to do the constitutional thing are called out as radicals! I would suggest you seek true constitutional government before party affiliation (that's right don't have a party affiliation). You look at things from both sides. Guess what? Both side could be unconstitutional!!!

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

ZAXPACK15 said:

---

aaaannnndddd after all that, she goes to Howard U.

---

I will get the real behind the scene on this one. I know why they voted the way they did; however, I wasn't expecting this outcome.

---

ZAXPACK15 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

ZAXPACK15 said:

---

aaaannnndddd after all that, she goes to Howard U.

---

I will get the real behind the scene on this one. I know why they voted the way they did; however, I wasn't expecting this outcome.

---

I know that there were rumblings before the vote that she might not accept the offer so I bet some of those yes votes might have been hedging to that end. They get to be on the record as voting yes but still don't have to deal with her after all.

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

I think this is what happened

They created an arranged deal for her to move on. She would drop her suit if the Trustee's gave her Tenure and she would move on to another university.

Right now, I'm getting cryptic messages from my contact. BTW, my contact/friends spouse voted yes to her tenure.

---