OT - Mason Gets $5 million Gift to School of Economics

[Pikapppatri8]

Interesting and good news.

https://www2.gmu.edu/news/511461

 

[CHRISTOPHER JAMES JOLLAY]

Haha, Mason accepting more Koch Brothers money. Eat shit, non-economics understanding, Chavez-praising lib-tards.

That should be enough to banish this thread by tomorrow...

 

[Pikapppatri8]

That should increase the amount of people looking for safe spaces.

 

[MasonCrew]

Man the comments in the wapo article are brutal. I guess diversity proponents really only care about skin color which seems to be definitively racist to me.

 

[GSII]

are we rejecting a Koch Basketball Arena?

 

[Leesburg Chankenstank III]

The Kochs single handedly turned Wichita State's hoops team from nothing to a perennial national contender in less than a decade.

Can't Mason Basketball get just a little bit of that love?

 

[Pikapppatri8]

Man the comments in the wapo article are brutal. I guess diversity proponents really only care about skin color which seems to be definitively racist to me.

I don't read that dishrag any more.
Diversity proponents tend be the biggest racists out there.

Now show me the money bitch!!

 

[GreenLantern]

Hey, I won't complain when anyone gives the University money. I am not a Koch blocker!

 

[Walter]

Most of the Koch haters are ignorant of the fact that the Koch are libertarians - not alt right - and did not support Trump.

 

[GreenLantern]

Most of the Koch haters are ignorant of the fact that the Koch are libertarians - not alt right - and did not support Trump.

They are also big supporters of public television so while I disagree with them on a lot of things, in the area of the Arts they support my views

 

[GMUgemini]

Most of the Koch haters are ignorant of the fact that the Koch are libertarians - not alt right - and did not support Trump.

I’m pretty sure Koch hate predates Trump.

The only issue I’d have with the money is to ensure that the department remains independent and not churning out pro-libertarian papers to satisfy the donors. That’s the only thing that matters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pikapppatri8]

I’m pretty sure Koch hate predates Trump.

The only issue I’d have with the money is to ensure that the department remains independent and not churning out pro-libertarian papers to satisfy the donors. That’s the only thing that matters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you have a problem with University departments that get money from leftwing donors like SOROS, the Ford Foundation or the Kellog Foundation where programs are headed y 80% left-wingers?

If not - you could survive a handful of right of center/libertarian leaning programs to provide some semblance of intellectual balance and provide a place of higher education that doesn't simply indoctrinate left wing progressive drones that are divorced from logic or critical reasoning and end up sitting in Starbucks sipping a latte while swiping away on their phone complaining about capitalism and white privelege.....but I digress.

 

[GMUgemini]

Do you have a problem with University departments that get money from leftwing donors like SOROS, the Ford Foundation or the Kellog Foundation where programs are headed y 80% left-wingers?

If not - you could survive a handful of right of center/libertarian leaning programs to provide some semblance of intellectual balance and provide a place of higher education that doesn't simply indoctrinate left wing progressive drones that are divorced from logic or critical reasoning and end up sitting in Starbucks sipping a latte while swiping away on their phone complaining about capitalism and white privelege.....but I digress.

Let me be clear, as a college professor at a research I university I don’t care where the money comes from so long as it doesn’t come with strings attached.

Let me tell you, the last thing you need as a professor is the department director coming in to your office telling you to message your work because a big, fat check might be coming in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jack Strop]

Do you have a problem with University departments that get money from leftwing donors like SOROS, the Ford Foundation or the Kellog Foundation where programs are headed y 80% left-wingers?

If not - you could survive a handful of right of center/libertarian leaning programs to provide some semblance of intellectual balance and provide a place of higher education that doesn't simply indoctrinate left wing progressive drones that are divorced from logic or critical reasoning and end up sitting in Starbucks sipping a latte while swiping away on their phone complaining about capitalism and white privelege.....but I digress.

Whose "logic and critical reasoning": Yours (LOL)? The fake-news estate's? The Coulter/Limbaugh/Bannon love child's? Logic is not always 100% correct. Especially logic derived from alternative facts. If you disagree then you need to go back and catch up on your Star Trek: The Original Series re-runs.

 

[Pikapppatri8]

Let me be clear, as a college professor at a research I university I don’t care where the money comes from so long as it doesn’t come with strings attached.

Let me tell you, the last thing you need as a professor is the department director coming in to your office telling you to message your work because a big, fat check might be coming in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hey I would agree - but your posting a steaw man argument against conservatives. If you want to see "departmentally driven" indoctrinations - go to most major universities where liberal professors in cahoots with left wing administrations to quash intellectual curiosity.

Case in point - my son's best friend in high school is at VA Tech and in their data science class they were discussing modeling bias. He brought up the recent story about how NOAA and the European Climate Organization modified raw data to increase average temperature by 2.4 degrees celsius to "achieve preconceived outcomes" when the data models didn't give them the result they thought they would get.

Well the professor didn't go into any technical discussion --- he went on a rant about climate change (in a data class) and told my son's friend -- "We don't need your kind here".

I am more concerned about that as being the norm than any chance money from the Koch brothers might do to "influence" teaching at Mason.

 

[Pikapppatri8]

Whose "logic and critical reasoning": Yours (LOL)? The fake-news estate's? The Coulter/Limbaugh/Bannon love child's? Logic is not always 100% correct. Especially logic derived from alternative facts. If you disagree then you need to go back and catch up on your Star Trek: The Original Series re-runs.

No logic and critical reasoning period. There are legion of stories where professors (all left wing) go on emotional rants in their class and crush anyone who might questions their statements or offer up arguments - backed by facts --- just to have a conversation are met with diatribes and threats to their grades.

I am open to having my thoughts and positions being challenged by those on the left - when they are reasoned. But look at your post - its filled with invective and emotion. And you talk about fake news but look right past some pertinent facts. CNN and CBS, and NBC have the highest rates of stories having to be retracted when evidence of doctored videos and made up "anonymous" sources come to light.

It also becomes apparent that the left went from free speech and questioning policy positions to emotional rants when you see their modern discourse.

1.) Maybe we should look at deregulation to help job growth -- Liberal response?? You are racist white male blinded by privilege?

2.) Remember the democrat response to the tax cuts -- Worst thing ever that will destroy the US!! We even had members of the Congressional Black Caucus say a tax cut was racist -- yes a tax cut. And then we have Pelosi's rant about crumbs that were so rediculous that the more sane members of the Democrat party had to shut her up because the facts on the ground were making it more popular.

3.) We can go to climate change where actual raw data and facts have been bent by institutions so "models" can fit the narrative". When evidence both presented by government institutions and private investigative organizations uncover how the data is gamed and changed to fit the narrative - there is no sane response based on reason -- they scream "climate denier" and say you should be punished akin to burning at the stake (yes there have been members in the Democrat party that said people who don't believe in "man-man climate change" should be punished legally). Interestingly we can point to the failure of their own predictions to point to facts on where there were wrong. 100% of the predictions by this crowd have not come true -- ZERO. Thats a fact. Yet they cling to it like a religion.

So while your post is filled with emotional invective --- its appears you are projecting a bit onto those of us who simply questions the premise of your long held positions.

Now onto more important points - GO MASON - We got $5 million bucks!!

 

[Jack Strop]

Jesus of Jupiter, PiKapp!! Invective? Emotion? REALLY? How many cups of coffee did you drink this morning? You're the one who just posted the spittle spattered raging rants above. You're the one who creates delusional, paranoid conspiracy with everything that is not within your point of view. You seem to accept very few new ideas. You're so afraid of new ideas that you actively seek the means to refute them before you even consider their efficacy (the definition of rock-solid conservativism gone amuck). You sound like the Catholic Church of 700 years ago burning scientists and philosophers at the stake who posit that the world is not flat. Heretic! Heretic! My how little has changed.

I actually had a professor at Mason in 1988 display a slide on the projector containing a cartoon that graphically condemned abortion. When a female student questioned his rationale he ducked behind his authority as a professor and stated, "This is a university, we should be open to controversial ideas." As expected, a furious debate began to brew within the class and the professor stopped it, saying, "Just except my view point and we'll move on." Talk about your "conservative" professor conspiracies, will ya! And this didn't happen to a friend of a friend or the son of an aquaintance. I was there!

You just did the same thing as the professor above did. You drop a bomd shell, hear no explosion, tell everyone your view, and unceremoniously cut off debate—nothing to see here, folks. Just accept it and move on. Dude—bite my big and hairy left toe!

You are no intellectual, PiKapp. Don't even pretend that you are. Intellecuals seek the truth and don't contort logic by ignoring variables in their equations for what's lazy and convenient. Intellectuals understand that it's what they don't know that requires the closest examination and not trepidation. Intellectuals don't start with the conclusion and then seek only the "facts" to confirm it. It's actually the other way around. But, if you were an intellectual, then I wouldn't have had to explain that to you.

Oh, and... GO MASON!

 

[Pikapppatri8]

I actually had a professor at Mason in 1988 display a slide on the projector containing a cartoon that graphically condemned abortion. When a female student questioned his rationale he ducked behind his authority as a professor and stated, "This is a university, we should be open to controversial ideas."

if that is what he said - which would be surprising even 20 years ago - then he was wrong. I am more than happy to debate the abortion issue and discuss point by point. I have converted 5 former pro abortionists and to pro life stance.

No for proof regarding my statement on your invective --- I will use your own words against you .

You are no intellectual, PiKapp. Don't even pretend that you are. Intellecuals seek the truth and don't contort logic by ignoring variables in their equations for what's lazy and convenient. Intellectuals understand that it's what they don't know that requires the closest examination and not trepidation.

You're the one who creates delusional, paranoid conspiracy with everything that is not within your point of view. You seem to accept very few new ideas. You're so afraid of new ideas that you actively seek the means to refute them before you even consider their efficacy (the definition of rock-solid conservativism gone amuck).

 

[Pikapppatri8]

Now to challenge your assessment of my post:

Here is what you said:

Jesus of Jupiter, PiKapp!! Invective?Emotion? REALLY? How many cups of coffee did you drink this morning? You're the one who just posted the spittle spattered raging rants above. You're the one who creates delusional, paranoid conspiracy with everything that is not within your point of view.

Ok here are the "rants" I made in my post.

2.) Remember the democrat response to the tax cuts -- Worst thing ever that will destroy the US!! We even had members of the Congressional Black Caucus say a tax cut was racist -- yes a tax cut. And then we have Pelosi's rant about crumbs that were so rediculous that the more sane members of the Democrat party had to shut her up because the facts on the ground were making it more popular.

Hmm - lets look at some facts:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) declared unequivocally on Monday that the GOP tax overhaul is the worst legislation ever considered by Congress.

“I have said that this was stiff competition by some of the other things they have put forth, is the worst bill in the history of the United States Congress,” Pelosi said during House floor debate on the tax proposal.

At a press conference before Monday’s vote, a reporter asked Pelosi about Democrats’ hyperbolic descriptions of the legislation, even though many people may see a modest tax cut despite others getting a tax increase, while a lot of the benefits go to businesses.

“No, it is the end of the world. The debate over health care is life and death. This is Armageddon,” Pelosi replied.
Link ==> http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...l-the-worst-bill-in-the-history-of-the-united

Now facts to prove that other democrats had to force her to walk back her comments as the tax cuts impact made it more popular.

"Democrats in Congress have started quieting Pelosi's crumb arguments on tax cut as impacts in economy have increased its popularity" http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-gop-tax-law-favorability-approval-trump-2018-2

So it seems my point there was somewhat reasoned and backed by fact and fairly decent logic.

 

[Pikapppatri8]

Here is another statement you said was a ranting invective.

3.) We can go to climate change where actual raw data and facts have been bent by institutions so "models" can fit the narrative". When evidence both presented by government institutions and private investigative organizations uncover how the data is gamed and changed to fit the narrative - there is no sane response based on reason -- they scream "climate denier" and say you should be punished akin to burning at the stake (yes there have been members in the Democrat party that said people who don't believe in "man-man climate change" should be punished legally). Interestingly we can point to the failure of their own predictions to point to facts on where there were wrong. 100% of the predictions by this crowd have not come true -- ZERO. Thats a fact. Yet they cling to it like a religion.

Ok here are some factual points that support what I said:

"the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) getting caught yet again exaggerating global warming by tinkering with raw temperature data.

The recent cold snap that hit the northeastern U.S. and broke temperature records is inconvenient to their narrative, so they’re doing what they do best: erasing it. This time, they adjusted past temperatures so they would look colder than they actually were and made the recent temperatures look warmer than the reality, making the recent cold snap seem less severe in their chart. It’s not just a matter of fractions of degrees or a small margin of error; the adjustments actually work out to involve 3.1 degrees Fahrenheit.
Paul Homewood grew suspicious when he saw how NOAA dealt with the extremely cold winter that New York experienced in 2013-2014. It was labeled by the National Weather Service as one of the coldest winter in the state, with temperatures finishing at least 4 degrees lower than normal in places like Buffalo and Rochester. Yet somehow, NOAA had recorded it as the 30th coldest winter in its own charts for New York.

After comparing local records with NOAA’s charts, Homewood found some huge inaccuracies. The mean temperatures for January 2014, for example, were 2.7 degrees less than those of January 1943 according to the raw data, yet NOAA found the difference to only be 0.9 degrees."

Link ==> http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/02...tence-fiddling-with-the-raw-temperature-data/

Data Manipulation at NOAA is a pattern:

You might be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt if it weren’t for the fact that this type of deception has happened on many other occasions. For example, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center reported that in 2012, the average temperate in the U.S. was 77.6 degrees F, which they said marked “the warmest July and all-time warmest month on record for the nation in a period of record that dates back to 1895.” They added that the previous warmest July was that of 1936, when the average temperature was 77.4 degrees.

Later, however, they quietly revised that without making any announcements, with researchers discovering they had reinstated July 1936 as the country’s hottest month on record. Last year, The Daily Mail reported that a NOAA whistleblower said the group had fast-tracked a paper with manipulated data in order to convince the COP21 conference that global warming had not been slowing down in recent years, inspiring world leaders at the time to sign the Paris agreement on climate change.

In a 2014 report by the Telegraph outlining how the U.S. has been cooling since the 1930s rather than warming, evidence uncovered by Steven Goddard is used to illustrate how NOAA has been replacing real temperatures in its records with data that was fabricated by computer models in order to downgrade past temperatures and exaggerate more recent ones to make the warming effect appear far more dramatic.

Link ==> https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-02...e-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming-hoax.html

Also Major Predictions by the Climate Models Have Not Occurred:


Remember Tuvalu? The Island that was going to disappear in 5 years (back in 2007) -- Well its actually growing.

TUVALU, the Pacific nation long seen as a prime candidate to disappear as climate change forces up sea levels is actually growing in size. A University of Auckland study by Professor Paul Kench and co-researcher Dr Murray Ford examined changes in the geography of Tuvalu's nine atolls and 101 reef islands between 1971 and 2014, using aerial photographs and satellite imagery.

They found the total landmass of Tuvalu of 26 square kilometres, which is just bigger than Auckland's Rangitoto Island, had a net increase of 2.9 per cent during the period of study, 40 years. This represented 73 hectares (180 acres) of land increase, despite competing sea-level rise rates of over 3.5 mm per year simultaneously.

This peer-reviewed scientific study published recently, flies in the face of sensationalised rhetoric for over a decade by Enele Sopoaga, Prime Minister of Tuvalu, about 965 kilometres north of Fiji.

Link ==> http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=439111

Predictions did not happen as indicated -- In 2005 Al Gore said snow would become a faint memory in 7 years. He actually said that and everyone carried it as fact.

Well -- we knew what really happened now don't we.

IN fact so many of the predictions have been proven wrong --- that many scientists are saying the predictions and concerns were overblown and that there was incentives to be "alarmists".

https://www.independent.co.uk/infac...al-warming-carbon-budget-nature-a7955991.html

In a speech last year to a meeting of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), Matt Ridley, a hereditary peer and former chairman of the Northern Rock bank, laid out the ‘sceptic’ philosophy.

Mainstream scientists had a “vested interest in alarm” that was making them exaggerate the risks of global warming, he claimed. And there was no need to worry because “environment predictions of doom” were “always” wrong.

So it seems a little bit of skepticism of climate change is not beyond the pale and supported by historical fact of 30 years as compared to model predictions.

Yet when you make a harmless statement like that - the left still screams "climate denier"! which is an emotional response not bounded by reason or logic.