Comments by
Page 1 of 1
Posted on March 5 at 9:51 p.m.Suggest removal
As this entire argument seems to be founded on a flyer, please accept my apologies for the limited nature of a single piece of paper. Maybe you should have stopped and actually talked to some of us about what we really believe.
I agree, the intellectual laziness is astounding. If students or faculty at this institution actually cared about something other than their own degrees or pay rates, maybe some of those "dispossessed" that you refer to may not be as dispossessed as they actually are.
This generation's status quo is worse.
Posted on March 4 at 12:53 a.m.Suggest removal
To JJ: I never asked for more taxes or reallocation of funds, and I am sorry that an online interaction is not providing the nuances of a real conversation. I would be more than happy to have a dialogue about these things in person, that's what this is about.
To Chris: Your "economists" are the exact problem I am talking about here. Vaguely quoting liberal economists on the efficiencies of the World Bank and the IMF is not exactly proof that such liberal economic institutions are beneficial. The imposition of regulations and "reforms" by financial institutions on developing nations based on statistics and data is not exactly the solution to poverty. Again, this format is not exactly appropriate for legitimate discussion. We'll be on the oval tomorrow.
Posted on March 3 at 11:40 p.m.Suggest removal
To Boren: We are not interested in your statistics or quotations. We are questioning a larger problem than this year's budget. A problem that desperately needs to be addressed. We don't want more money or lower fees. We want to sit down on the South Oval tomorrow and talk about the failures of the current system and the possibility of something new. You are welcome to join.
Posted on March 3 at 3:20 p.m.Suggest removal
In response to Chris: even the most basic and shallow research into IMF and World Bank histories will quickly reveal the violent and oppressive nature of both of these institutions. To think they legitimately bring liberation of any form is more naive than any "drum circle" will ever be.
The fact that both of these comments are only able to provide solutions involving the expansion of the current system is discouraging, but equally telling. This is not about liberal talking points or higher taxes, but rather, about a recognition of the failures of corporatist and capitalist institutions, and solidarity with those who are crowded out by those same broken ideals.
Of course this is not about partisanship, I'm frankly offended that you would even imply such a thing.
Posted on October 7 at 10:10 a.m.Suggest removal
Seems like a presidential candidate running uncontested would qualify as being "contrary to the intent of the framers" as well. Obviously there is something wrong with the system currently in place, and as far as I can tell, SDS is just trying to boost participation in a student government that nobody seems to care about.
Page 1 of 1
Posted on March 8 at 11:27 a.m.Suggest removal
First of all, the demonstration on the South Oval on Thursday was never described by us as a "protest". Those are your words. We never set out to convert anyone by evangelistic flyers or through getting "mad...loud and angry".
Rather, we demonstrated in solidarity with friends in California that are currently in a situation that very few students here know or care about. We sent out notices and handed out flyers letting people know where we would be, that we would like to talk, and a little bit of why. The rest was up to you. And yes, we chose the South Oval, as our target was students and ideas, not Boren and reforms.
We were putting a face to an idea. Creating a space for discussion. But apparently you are much more comfortable in front of your computer screen. We were simply letting people know that there are those of us who disagree with the state of affairs and are looking for something new. If anyone took the time to actually approach us and talk, that's most likely what they got.
And yes, we will always answer absurd questions and situtions with an appropriate, absurd response.
It's funny to me that OUR VIEW called for voicing of our discontent, and when that same discontent is voiced, you immediately discredit it. I saw very few editorial board members causing a ruckus in support of higher education on Thursday. Actually, I saw fewer editorial board members even at a picnic on Thursday. Apparently you had something better to do than voice your own discontent.
Sorry if we weren't loud enough for you. Maybe we were just being realistic, knowing that the political atmosphere in Oklahoma is apathetic at best, and a picnic would be more constructive than the alternative.
On