Mahmoud Khalil

  • Thread starter Thread starter dukeman92
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 115
  • Views: 3K
  • Politics 
What specifically did this guy do that was "terrorist supporting"? None of the articles provide details?

Being pro-Palestine isn't automatically pro -terrorist.
 

I don't necessarily like the federal government requiring expulsions/suspensions, but I don't see anything wrong with the requirements overall. Basically, if you want to receive federal money, you have to manage anti-Semitism/pro-terrorist behavior appropriately, which, for several universities (those represented in the Congressional hearing), means actually doing something.
 
I don't necessarily like the federal government requiring expulsions/suspensions, but I don't see anything wrong with the requirements overall. Basically, if you want to receive federal money, you have to manage anti-Semitism/pro-terrorist behavior appropriately, which, for several universities (those represented in the Congressional hearing), means actually doing something.
Least surprising thing I’ve seen on this board in a while.
 
I don't necessarily like the federal government requiring expulsions/suspensions, but I don't see anything wrong with the requirements overall. Basically, if you want to receive federal money, you have to manage anti-Semitism/pro-terrorist behavior appropriately, which, for several universities (those represented in the Congressional hearing), means actually doing something.
Aren't you a libertarian, supposedly?

The First Amendment prohibits the government from using the carrot of federal funding to achieve what it cannot achieve by other means. It is plainly illegal to say, "we're not going to give you funds unless you eliminate these courses." That is a day one law school level principle.
 
Aren't you a libertarian, supposedly?

The First Amendment prohibits the government from using the carrot of federal funding to achieve what it cannot achieve by other means. It is plainly illegal to say, "we're not going to give you funds unless you eliminate these courses." That is a day one law school level principle.
In regard to the legality of the federal government's attempted control of courses, I agree.

I was more talking about the issue of student behavior and the universities apparent unwillingness to address a variety of behaviors by "pro-Palestine" students.
 
I haven't seen any evidence that this guy did anything wrong at all. Anyone who has been on this board or the previous board knows that I am pretty pro-Israel. If this guy was out actively recruiting members for Hamas or something I could see deporting him out of concerns for him being a security threat, but there is no evidence (that I have seen) that he has done anything of the sort. The only statements I have seen that are attributed to him are actually pretty moderate. This whole situation is crazy and is nauseating.

The scary thing is that if you take away the ability of people to peacefully and lawfully express their beliefs, they might be more inclined to express those beliefs in other ways. Part of me wonders if that is what Trump is hoping for.
 
The scary thing is that if you take away the ability of people to peacefully and lawfully express their beliefs, they might be more inclined to express those beliefs in other ways. Part of me wonders if that is what Trump is hoping for.
Watch yourself. The board considers this to be an inappropriate post.
 

Trump demands unprecedented control at Columbia, alarming scholars and speech groups​


 
Aren't you a libertarian, supposedly?

The First Amendment prohibits the government from using the carrot of federal funding to achieve what it cannot achieve by other means. It is plainly illegal to say, "we're not going to give you funds unless you eliminate these courses." That is a day one law school level principle.
He's a moron, evidently.
 
Back
Top