In response to "Iraqi insurgents have right to resist American force" by Kyle Szarzynski:

Well…well… liberal tripe coming out of Madison, who would have thunk it? Vote with a phone bill, but try renting a movie. That’s Madison, Wisconsin for you. Backward. Dishonest. Full of hippies and anarchists, a circus of Leftists and Islamists, an anti-American cesspool. I’m surprised the Kyle left the Joooosssss out of his "presentation." Surely they had something to do with it, or maybe it was the Crusaders. You go, boy, you go!

In response to "In U.S. elections, voter IDs a must" by Ryan Masse:

Ryan, for what it’s worth, there is not such thing as an explicit “right” to vote. There’ve been numerous tries to add that to the Constitution, but many circumstances (such as the 14th amendment) make voting almost a de facto right, and said efforts have thus failed so far." Additionally, many would argue that the absence of a well-defined right to vote is what may allow states to do what you’re suggesting. Weird, huh?

In response to "Sex offenders deserve to be rehabilitated, not exiled" by Bassey Etim:

Politicians didn’t do their homework before enacting these sex offender laws. Instead they have perpetuated myths about sex offenders and failed to deal with the complex realities of sexual violence against children. "

-Sarah Tofte, researcher for the US Program of Human Rights Watch and author of “No Easy Answers.”

In response to "Students have a right to concealed firearms" by Sara Mikolajczak:

Have you ever noticed how stupid most people are, especially the redneck-gun packin’ sort? "Once they figure out that they don’t have to put a 2′ lift on their Ford to compensate for their tiny manhood, then we can talk about letting them hide guns in their pants. "USA, USA, USA!!!

Yeah, that’s all we need, a scared girl wearing Uggs or an urban-cowboy vigilante having a shoot-out with a psycho in Madison. Tell me how that ends. Guns won’t protect you, but common sense probably will.

In response to "The case for accepting polygamy" by Andy Granias:

When did this article become about Warren Jeffs? He was used not in support of his practices but as an example of the stigma polygamy has engendered — and it has engendered quite the stigma. If you want to legalize gay marriage, you have to legalize polygamy. No, that doesn't mean child molestation or bestiality or anything else that harms other individuals. If consenting adults agree, then marriage should be legal, between anyone. I disagree with anything but marriage between one man and one woman, but I understand the point Mr. Granias attests.

In response to "Ahmadinejad invite unpatriotic insult" by Joe Trovato:

Yes. The free and open exchange of ideas is fundamentally un-American. The new America I mean. The one without a constitution.

In response to "Well done, Columbia" by the Editorial Board:

It is too bad Hitler didn’t come and speak here during the 1930s in a similar type of forum. After all, we very possibly could have gone to war sooner as a result, for American Isolationists, Nazi apologists, and Pacifists would have seen Hitler more for what he was: a despicable and power hungry human being.' This week's events will not be the last time free speech assists a wicked person in revealing their own immorality. "-David Lapidus'

In response to "Viewpoint issues derail gravy train" by Jason Smathers:

I think one can make reference to a viewpoint or seek to define a viewpoint (per information given by the organization) without “evaluating” the viewpoint and thereby maintain “viewpoint neutrality.” "Let’s think about it in terms of the SOL example. I think that one can clearly make a distinction between the group’s overarching, meta-level “ideology” or “viewpoint;” that teaching education on safe sex is a valuable goal, and the means of doing so that are appropriate or contribute to it in a significant way; namely, vibrators. It is not a perfect delineation, but I think it is clear enough. If the SSFC is mindful to not discriminate based on “ideology” (and sets an unassailable precedence of such) then I think that the ambiguity of “significance” is a powerful and important tool, enabling it to strike down appropriations based on a number of considerations.