# University of Hawaii/Ward Churchill-LOSERS!



## Karazenpo (Feb 23, 2005)

Look, those that have come to know me and my posts over the years know that I'm fair and open minded and attempt to use diplomacy to settle disputes rather than name calling and insults. I always try to see the other side. I try.... but this moron, idiot, fuitcake, loser, liar, imbecile, nazi, Ward Churchhill is an insult, embarrassment to all that is American. Please, before anyone hits me with left wing 'EXTREMIST' liberal progressive b.s. (I said left wing 'extremist') about freedom of speech, 1st ammendment rights and all that happy horsesh_t just totally research this a-hole and know exactly what you're talking about. Despite what he has said about 9/11 victims, the 'Ikemans' (Americans murdered, yes, that's how this embecile referred to them as that they deserved to DIE!), he also condoned the Oklahoma bombing, yes, check it out, this moron condoned it! Remember the daycare center? The babies, the children and innocent adults? The University of Hawaii paid him to speak!!! and there were rounds of applause for him! WTF!!! I hope the hell there isn't gong to be some idiots answering this post in defense of not only this lying dirtbag but the University of Hawaii for hosting him but in this country, who knows? This guy gets into an American University to teach our kids through 'Affirmative Action' on the pretence that he's an American Indian of which is complete b.s., I'm as much of an American Indian as he is and believe me, I'm not. Please send letters or e-mails to the University of Hawaii in protest to this or any where else this idiot is hosted to speak.


----------



## KenpoTess (Feb 24, 2005)

Mod Note

Moving to Study where you most likely will have more replies 

~Tess
-MT S. Mod


----------



## PeachMonkey (Feb 24, 2005)

First, there's nothing left-wing or extremist about insisting about constitutional rights for all.

 Second, you've misrepresented Churchill's statements.  He stated that American foreign policy led directly to the 9/11 attacks, and that we should not be surprised when "chickens come home to roost".  He also referred to the victims (and himself, and all of us) as "little Eichmanns", meaning that none of them directly committed injustices but that all of them, by not intervening in US foreign policy, had direct responsibility for the injustices of that policy and for the attacks themselves.

 As for the Oklahoma city bombing, there is exactly one anecdotal account of a student claiming that Churchill said, in class, that the "FBI deserved it".  Not that, as you claim, innocent babies deserved to be murdered.  This account isn't even substantiated.

 One can debate the logic and justice of Churchill's statements, of course, but it's best to actually do so from the actual information rather than from propaganda.

 In a world where right-wing attack ideologues can get away with calling anyone who disagrees with them traitors, where popular columnists can call for the targeted murder of journalists, and where our own government suggests that anyone who dissents with them is assisting "the enemy", I refuse to demand the boycott or removal of an academic (or any other) citizen.


----------



## ginshun (Feb 24, 2005)

First of all, I think that this guy has every right to say whatever he wants, that is what freedom of speech is all about.

 The thing is, whether or not a place pays him to speak, or whether he keeps his job at a public funded university has nothing to do with freedom of speech.  Sure he can say what he wants, but freedom of speech doesn't protect him from getting fired for what he says.

 The University of Wiscosin - Whitewater is supposed to have him speak I think too.  There is still debate going on as to whether or not they are going to let him though.  I think that the school itself decided that they would let him, but the state legistlature or some state body here has condemed it, and is trying to get him cacelled.

 While I believe that he has the right to say what he wants, I don't think that my tax dollars should have to go towards paying for that scumbag to speak to and try to influence the opinions of the college students in my state.

 Thats my take on him anyway.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Feb 24, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> While I believe that he has the right to say what he wants, I don't think that my tax dollars should have to go towards paying for that scumbag to speak to and try to influence the opinions of the college students in my state.


 Welcome to the world of academic freedom, which is why tenure was created.  If the waves of public sentiment determine what kind of speech, opinions, and research should be protected by universities, then we will lose the advantages of higher education.  Anytime people find someone's opinion distasteful, they will be able to have that professor or researcher removed, having a devastating chilling effect.

 It continues to amaze me how people propose blatantly dictatorial and fascist measures out of their love for the United States, a country founded on principles diametrically opposed to both doctrines.


----------



## Karazenpo (Feb 24, 2005)

Sorry, you're opinion, fine but this guy hates America and just like there are right wing extremists, there are left wing extremists too and he's one of them. He goes well beyond any freedom of speech or first ammendment rights. Perhaps you have not heard of any of the fallout this caused amongst family members of the 9/11 victims but who cares about them, right? Let's protect Churchill's constitutional rights while he steps on everyone in his way. He's a great role model for our youth, no wonder why society is so screwed up. I misrepresented Churchill, lol, gimme a break! If this guy's your hero, fine, and if you wish to defend him, well, that's fine too, maybe Churchill and his supporters should relocate to France or somewhere else.

Again sorry for being so passionate on this but c'ome on, that's the problem with tenure, some of these teachers think they can get away with these far, far left wing fundamentalists viewpoints and brainwash some of those who are easily led and you know that can happen. If you want to talk constitiutional rights and first ammendment then let's pay with our tax dollars for a representative of the Aryan Nation to speak, how about the KKK? Where do we draw the line? or do we? This is ridiculous and it's funny, because you know what they say a conservative is? A liberal who was mugged! Perhaps if you lost someone close to you in 9/11 you'd have a different attitude toward this scumbag! By the way, I misrepresented him? Ha! How about Churchill misrepresenting himself as an Amercian Indian to manipulate the system of 'Affirmative Action' and land that tenure? By the way I'm not fully conseravative or fully liberal, i make independant decisions on  how I personally feel about specific topics and situations. I don't see the world in either black or white.  There are many gray areas. There was a time I was a registered Democrat and a staunch supporter of Jack and Bobby Kennedy. The Democrats that my father and grandfather voted for are not the democrats of today and the Kennedys must be rolling over in their graves right now! I doubt if I'll respond anymore to this. I'll let the public decide in the sense just keep abreast of the media on this issue and we'll see what happens to this scumbag's fate. by the way, nothing personal against anyone of you, just passionate and venting on this issue. Thanks for the response. Take & be safe, Joe


----------



## modarnis (Feb 24, 2005)

>>He goes well beyond any freedom of speech or first ammendment rights.>>

Not according to the current interpretations of the First Amendment by the Supreme Court.  While I may not like what he has to say, robust, free exchange of ideas about issues of the day are exactly what the First Amendment contemplates.


----------



## ginshun (Feb 24, 2005)

> Welcome to the world of academic freedom, which is why tenure was created. If the waves of public sentiment determine what kind of speech, opinions, and research should be protected by universities, then we will lose the advantages of higher education. Anytime people find someone's opinion distasteful, they will be able to have that professor or researcher removed, having a devastating chilling effect.


  I'm sorry but that is B.S.  And that is why people shouldn't be tenured.  Public sentiment *should *determine what kind of speech, opinions and research are be conducted at publicly funded schools.  If this was a guy giving speeches on how all minorities should be rounded up and kicked out of the US or not allowed to vote would you be defending his rights as adimantly?  I really don't, know maye you would. I don't find that idea any more ludicris or offensive that what he is saying right now.  For gods sake the guy hates this country and is publisizing the idea that we deserved what happened on 9/11!  If he were employed and speaking for private orgaizations I wouldn't have near as big of a problem with him, but my (and many others) tax dollars are paying for this guys salary and for him to speak at a state funded school.

 A difference of opinion is one thing, but this guy is nuts, the stuff that he says boarders on sedition.  And as far as his tenure goes, it seems that the guy has major character flaws and lies which bring into question whether or not he should have ever been tenured.


----------



## Karazenpo (Feb 24, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> I'm sorry but that is B.S.  And that is why people shouldn't be tenured.  Public sentiment *should *determine what kind of speech, opinions and research are be conducted at publicly funded schools.  If this was a guy giving speeches on how all minorities should be rounded up and kicked out of the US or not allowed to vote would you be defending his rights as adimantly?  I really don't, know maye you would. I don't find that idea any more ludicris or offensive that what he is saying right now.  For gods sake the guy hates this country and is publisizing the idea that we deserved what happened on 9/11!  If he were employed and speaking for private orgaizations I wouldn't have near as big of a problem with him, but my (and many others) tax dollars are paying for this guys salary and for him to speak at a state funded school.
> 
> A difference of opinion is one thing, but this guy is nuts, the stuff that he says boarders on sedition.  And as far as his tenure goes, it seems that the guy has major character flaws and lies which bring into question whether or not he should have ever been tenured.



I wasn't going to post again but I can't help myself, lol. Ginshun, excellent post, I couldn't have said it better!


----------



## ginshun (Feb 24, 2005)

To quote Mr. Churchill:

_I want the state gone: transform the situation to U.S. out of North America. U.S. off the planet. Out of existence altogether.


_I don't know about anyone else, but this sure as hell isn't the message I want government funded university professors teaching the youth of America.


----------



## modarnis (Feb 24, 2005)

>>Public sentiment should determine what kind of speech, opinions and research are be conducted at publicly funded schools. If this was a guy giving speeches on how all minorities should be rounded up and kicked out of the US or not allowed to vote would you be defending his rights as adimantly? I really don't, know maye you would. I don't find that idea any more ludicris or offensive that what he is saying right now. >>

That is not how our founding father's viewed freedom of speech.  While I disagree with this guys views, I understand how dissenting viewpoints stimulate  robust and fruitful discussion.

For some basic information on freee speech,  I would suggest these US Supreme Court cases as a primer

Schenk v US 249 US 47

Abrams v. US  250 US 616  (of particular interest is the reasoning in Justice Holmes dissent)  here is one germane quote:

>>> Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.>>>

Chaplinsky v New Hampshire  315 US 568


Findlaw.com has a great overview of the First Amendment and relevant jurisprudence.  It is difficult to have a productive discussion on free speech without a fundemental understanding of the decades of handwringing done by the Supreme Court to balance a variety of interests.  I would suggest spending some time with the evolution of the "Clear and Present Danger Test"  as it relates to free speech


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 24, 2005)

As a grad of the University of Colorado at Boulder, I agree--I should very much like to see some quotes and documentation.

As a professor, sorry. This is EXACTLY why we should have tenure--to protect not only this idjit, but the endless legions of rightist idjits I've heard from over the last thirty years. 

Gosh, call me a crazy leftist. I have the old-fashioned, tradition American notion that there should be SOME place in our society where people can go and lean and study without having to worry quite so much about a) the market, b) public yahooism from the likes of Sean Hannity and Michael Savage.

For one thing, then maybe students have a chance of learning that evidence, actual evidence is good--and that flaps blown up by multi-millionarie talk show hosts who profit by fanning hate, stupidity, ignorance and by promoting the interests of the wealthy are probably not getting blown up to help ANYBODY who's posted on this thread.

Churchill's probably an idiot--wouldn't be the first, nor the last to be a professor. But so is the guy I teach with--math professor--who regularly tells his students, mostly women, that they should be home cooking and cleaning because that's their place.


----------



## Karazenpo (Feb 24, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> As a grad of the University of Colorado at Boulder, I agree--I should very much like to see some quotes and documentation.
> 
> As a professor, sorry. This is EXACTLY why we should have tenure--to protect not only this idjit, but the endless legions of rightist idjits I've heard from over the last thirty years.
> 
> ...



Robert, you and I may not agree all the time but I consider you a 'good guy' college professor with tenure-a professional, and that math professor, although out of line, I don't think is dangerous from what you said (although I'm sure he's pissing off a lot of women,lol) but this guy Churchill is downright scary, know what I mean? Man, he shouldn't be put in a position of trust and influence with the younger generation. "Joe"


----------



## ginshun (Feb 24, 2005)

modarnis said:
			
		

> >>Public sentiment should determine what kind of speech, opinions and research are be conducted at publicly funded schools. If this was a guy giving speeches on how all minorities should be rounded up and kicked out of the US or not allowed to vote would you be defending his rights as adimantly? I really don't, know maye you would. I don't find that idea any more ludicris or offensive that what he is saying right now. >>
> 
> That is not how our founding father's viewed freedom of speech. While I disagree with this guys views, I understand how dissenting viewpoints stimulate robust and fruitful discussion.
> 
> ...


 You can quote all the supreme court cases you want, I agree with them.  I have always maintianed that this guy should be able to say whatever he wants.

 The thing is, I don't think that the issues we are talking about have anything to do with free speech.  To my knowlege, nobody here or anywhere else has ever said that he doesn't have the right to say the things that he is saying.

 What people are disputing is whether or not public money should go to him to express his opinions to our nations youth.  In my eyes, public opinion of the guy and his ideas is a perfect measure of whether or not public money should be given to him.  It has nothing to do with his free speech.

 Should he be able to give the speeches he is giving and express his opinions?  Absolutely, that is free speech, he can say anything he wants.

 Should we, as the public have to pay him to give these speeches and teach this stuff?  Hell no.


----------



## Karazenpo (Feb 24, 2005)

"Should we, as the public have to pay him to give these speeches and teach this
stuff?  Hell no."

Exactly, like I stated before, this goes beyond the bounds of freedom of speech, perhaps I should have clarified myself better, I thought I did, he should not have a captive audience at the expense of the taxpayers, that is not a first ammendment right!


----------



## PeachMonkey (Feb 24, 2005)

Karazenpo said:
			
		

> Man, he shouldn't be put in a position of trust and influence with the younger generation. "Joe"


 First off, the last time I checked, college students are supposed to be young adults forming their own opinions and ideas.  How can they do that if we select and forcefeed only certain viewpoints?

 Second, what if a majority of Americans decided that they didn't think, say, evolutionary scientists should be put in a position of trust or influence, as you say?  Or female professors?  Or black professors?  Or conservative professors?  Should we then be able to slience them based on their views?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Feb 24, 2005)

Karazenpo said:
			
		

> Exactly, like I stated before, this goes beyond the bounds of freedom of speech, perhaps I should have clarified myself better, I thought I did, he should not have a captive audience at the expense of the taxpayers, that is not a first ammendment right!


 How does he have a captive audience?  Is anyone being forced to take his courses, or to enroll at CU-Boulder?

 Moreover, are you certain that his salary is paid from taxpayer funds rather than tuition, or research grants, or endowments?  In those cases, your argument has even fewer legs to stand on.

 In the end, this sort of reactionary behavior serves only to silence education and the free exchange of ideas.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 24, 2005)

Aren't some of you the same guys who were shocked and horrified that a group of protesters were trying to run Army recruiters off campus where, you felt, that had a perfect right to be?

If you want to be bothered by this guy, do some research. Find out what he actually said; find out what his publications are, find out what his teaching and admin service record is. Then, you can yack about whether or not he shoulda been tenured. It's quite possible that he's another tub-thumping phony--but find out, first.

The attacks are specifically directed against his ideas, and the attackers ahve been specifically saying that they DO NOT WANT his views represented at a public university. Beyond the fact that, mirabile dictu, this is PRECISELY the line I heard on Hannity the other night--you've just declared that you want his ideas suppressed as much as possible.

It's the same argument that gets advanced to run them evil-lutionists and them gays out...


----------



## ginshun (Feb 24, 2005)

_ Second, what if a majority of Americans decided that they didn't think, say, evolutionary scientists should be put in a position of trust or influence, as you say? Or female professors? Or black professors? Or conservative professors? Should we then be able to slience them based on their views?_

 First off, we are not talking about an entire group of people or ideas here, we are talking about one professor, one who happens to think, by his own admission, that the USA should be wiped off the planet.  But ya, if the majority of people decided that evolution was BS, then I would accept that it not be taught at government funded schools.  Let them teach anything they want in private schools.  What this comes down to is that personally, I think that the public should have some say in what is being taught at a publicly funded learning center.  Apparently you are of the opinion that  a professor can say anything he wants, without any regard for what the general public has to say.


_  How does he have a captive audience?  Is anyone being forced to take his courses, or to enroll at CU-Boulder?

_Nobody is forced to do anything.  I'd be willing to bet that there are some people at that that university, for which his is a required class.And anybody who has his class better pay attention if they want a good grade.

_ Moreover, are you certain that his salary is paid from taxpayer funds rather than tuition, or research grants, or endowments? In those cases, your argument has even fewer legs to stand on.

_I will concede that taxes don't pay his entire salary, but if he is a teacher at a state college, then a portion of his salary can sure be considered to come from the money that that school gets from the government.  I really don't think that it is divided up so that tuition pays for the professors salaries, and the money that the school gets from the government pays for something else.

_  In the end, this sort of reactionary behavior serves only to silence education and the free exchange of ideas._

 Again, nobody is saying that this guy is can't express his ideas all he wants.  He can shout them from the highest mountain throught the worlds biggest megaphone for all I care.  I just think that the people should have some say as to what is being taught in a state funded university.

 Plus I think he is a total douchebag, and wouldn't consider him telling students that we deserved 9/11 to be "education"  but that doesn't really help the relavence of my point at all, so I won't mention it.

 Whoops


----------



## PeachMonkey (Feb 24, 2005)

So you're advocating:

 -- the transformation of higher education from a process of research, study, debate, dialectic, and actual, gosh, _education_ into one of publically-approved opinions being repeated, by rote

 -- the censuring, silencing, and firing of an academic based entirely on his written points of view

 I thought we grew past this kind of McCarthy-esque crap some time ago.

 Moreover, you clearly don't understand public university finance.  Different professors are funded in different ways depending on their courses of study, their expertise, prestige, experience, and the amount of money they bring into the institution.  Neither of us know how Churchill is funded (let alone what he's really teaching -- you know only about his public statements), so to suppose that your "taxpayer dollars are in use" is simply unsupportable.


----------



## Karazenpo (Feb 24, 2005)

How does he have a captive audience? Is anyone being forced to take his courses, or to enroll at CU-Boulder?

Nobody is forced to do anything. I'd be willing to bet that there are some people at that that university, for which his is a required class.And anybody who has his class better pay attention 


ginshun answered for me, that would have been my exact response. Further, you really have to be kidd'n me. Do you really think this guy is playing with a full feed bag? Man, no wonder the Reverand Jim Jones got so many people to drink the kool aid! Don't tell me, I'm out of line again. Jim Jones had the right to do what he did and I'm infringing on his constitutional rights of being free to practice any religion he wants even though instead of the communal wafer you get the cyanide cocktail. I'm sorry, how stupid and disrespectful of me of this man's rights? Want some Kool Aid?, lol. Nobody seems to want to touch the American Indian scam to get his tenure, I notice.


----------



## OUMoose (Feb 24, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Apparently you are of the opinion that  a professor can say anything he wants, without any regard for what the general public has to say.


I hold that opinion as well.  Why?  Because society as a whole would stagnate if it weren't for people not afraid to shake up "the general public".  I can think of a few people through history who had a similar drive... Columbus... Gallileo...  Rosa Parks...  MLK Jr...



			
				ginshun said:
			
		

> Nobody is forced to do anything.  I'd be willing to bet that there are some people at that that university, for which his is a required class.And anybody who has his class better pay attention if they want a good grade.


Not saying this to be snide, but did you go to college?  I did, and I can guarantee that there were some teachers there that I had to take that I thought were nuttier than fruit cake.  I memorized what they wanted me to mentally regurgitate on a piece of paper, and tossed the rest.  Why?  Because I was able to reason the difference and form my own opinions.  Many times, outside of class, these same teachers had some very thought provoking opinions that lead to some quite memorable debates.  That's what college is about, in my opinion.  The pencil and paper crap is just there to justify the cost.  YMMV.



			
				ginshun said:
			
		

> I will concede that taxes don't pay his entire salary, but if he is a teacher at a state college, then a portion of his salary can sure be considered to come from the money that that school gets from the government.  I really don't think that it is divided up so that tuition pays for the professors salaries, and the money that the school gets from the government pays for something else.


I agree.  So what happens when those "red" states have a professor teaching "blue" ideas?  cut em? 


			
				ginshun said:
			
		

> Again, nobody is saying that this guy is can't express his ideas all he wants.  He can shout them from the highest mountain throught the worlds biggest megaphone for all I care.  I just think that the people should have some say as to what is being taught in a state funded university.


They do.  If they don't like it, don't go there.  There's nothing saying you can't transfer schools once you're in (unless you have a scholarship or something, but I digress).


----------



## OUMoose (Feb 24, 2005)

Karazenpo said:
			
		

> Nobody seems to want to touch the American Indian scam to get his tenure, I notice.


Because the conversation is on his ideals vs. school funding for his speeches, not his lineage.


----------



## Karazenpo (Feb 24, 2005)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> Because the conversation is on his ideals vs. school funding for his speeches, not his lineage.



Yes, it is also about his lineage and says a lot about his character for that's exactly how he got his tenured position so he he could have a forum to speak too. They are looking into that now for a way to terminate his tenure for it was under the false pretence he was an American Indian and got his position through 'Affirmative Action'. You also have PeachMonkey stating we're misrepresenting Churchill's positions, well, pardon me, if anyone is misrepresenting himself it's this lunatic!


----------



## Karazenpo (Feb 24, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> First off, the last time I checked, college students are supposed to be young adults forming their own opinions and ideas.  How can they do that if we select and forcefeed only certain viewpoints?
> 
> Second, what if a majority of Americans decided that they didn't think, say, evolutionary scientists should be put in a position of trust or influence, as you say?  Or female professors?  Or black professors?  Or conservative professors?  Should we then be able to slience them based on their views?



First PeachMonkey you stated: First off, the last time I checked, college students are supposed to be young adults forming their own opinions and ideas. Okay, well tell me this. How old were those people who drank the cyanide cocktail, you know, the Kool Aid from the good Reverand Jim Jones? 
How old were they?

PeachMonkey:  Or female professors?  Or black professors?  Or conservative professors?  Should we then be able to slience them based on their views?[/QUOTE]

Peachmonkey, get with it. The man is a lunatic by any normal person's standards. I don't care if the professor is the color purple with pink poka dots, if he or she's a lunatic then ya, get them the hell out of there. Maybe you want to give your tax dollars to a nut but many, many more of us would rather not! Ya know, some of you take the liberties this country gives us to extremes without any forethought of the consequences. Remember, rights and freedom isn't a guarrantee to everyone, you break the law you lose them. i'm not saying any criminal laws are being broken but c'ome on, where's your common sense, your character, your standards of conduct. We still have those responsibilities as Americans. Believe me, getting this creep out of there is not going to jeopardize the tenure of good professors out there, you know it and I know it. I think the problem is certain Americans have this thing that government officials stay up nights plotting how to take some of our liberties away from us and this is another one of those plots from the evil conservative right wing fascist pigs. What paranoia! Incredible and you know what, your fascist pig comment is getting pretty old, know what mean? I think the 60's, lol.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 24, 2005)

"Hide witch, hide
The good folk come to burn thee
Their keen enjoyment hid behind
The Gothic mask of duty."

Just so we know what we're really talking about.

1. Does anybody have the full text of what this guy said, or a collection of reliable witnesses, or access to a videotape? I will bet that NOBODY attacking this guy has actually read his own words, or checked on exactly what he said in what context. Boy, there's standards for scholarship that we should be teaching students.

2. Lovely. If a majority decides evil-lution is wrong, folks like me must stop teaching it. This is because scientific facts are now subject to a vote.

3. 'Scuse me--ain't you the guys who keep complaining that leftists and liberals have excluded conservatives from the educational system for their views? So now, you want to exclude this guy for his views. Fine; you've demonstrated that you're not arguing fairness or objectivity, you're arguing bullying and power.

4. It's about, "his lineage and his character." Huh. really. Funnily enough, this is EXACTLY, word for word, what I heard Hannity say. Way to a) think for yourself, b) avoid political correctness.

5. Bill Mahre and the Dixie Chicks had their lives changed for the hoorawing over their ideas on very much the same issue. But hey--no bullying witch hunt here.

6. I'd rather my tax dollars go to an academic nut than the B-2 bomber and Star Wars, if we really want to get into the whole sanity thing. And I might note that there are any number of academics whose views I find as morally repugnant as you find this guy's, and I wouldn't demand that they be fired.


----------



## DavidCC (Feb 24, 2005)

I know the university was investigaitng his background and qualifications for the position, have their findigns been published?  Until they are Prof Joe you are jumping to conlcusions about that topic.


I don't like the guy's ideas, as much as I don't like Hannity's or Ingraham's either.  But letting public opinion guide university curriculuum?  That's crazy talk! The earth would still be flat.


As bad a taste as he leaves behind, it is probably beter that he be out in the open.  At least now we all know what he is about, we can discuss his ideas in a forum that he does not control (classroom).  He could be holding private rallies at his farm :/


----------



## Karazenpo (Feb 24, 2005)

Robert, the bottom line is the guy is a lunatic. I bet if there was a police officer in your community who the vast majority of citizens believed without question that he was a lunatic would you want him stopping you some night at 2:00 am? I'm sure they's send him to a shrink and get him immediately off the department. Dangerous people can wear different faces, some can be physically dangerous but others can assault the mind, hey, some people are easily suceptible, does it mean we should not look out for thme because they are, as what PeachMonkey stated, 'young adults', again, I reference the Reverand Jim Jones, a mass murder who's only real weapon was his demented mind!


----------



## Karazenpo (Feb 24, 2005)

DavidCC said:
			
		

> I know the university was investigaitng his background and qualifications for the position, have their findigns been published?  Until they are Prof Joe you are jumping to conlcusions about that topic.
> 
> 
> I don't like the guy's ideas, as much as I don't like Hannity's or Ingraham's either.  But letting public opinion guide university curriculuum?  That's crazy talk! The earth would still be flat.
> ...



Hi David, look, I've been dealing with all types of people with all types of agendas for nearly three decades in law enforcement. I've had a pretty interesting and distinguished career and I learned an awful lot, more then I did in any schools and more than I did as a graduate of the Massachusetts State Police Acedemy 72nd M.P.O.C., I learned from actual experience and I'm saying this, Ward Churchill is bad news, nothing good can come from him and his tainted lectures and his warped sense of reality and belief system. In a sense, he's no one new to society, after a while everyone you meet will remind you of another from the past, I swear these guys get recycled. Simple question, if you had a daughter and she said to you Dad, I really want your opinion, this guy asked me out but I will go by your advice, his name is Ward Churchill......needless to say. Several supporting him on this forum do have the right ideas in my opinion but you're backing the wrong dog in the race. Your time would be better spent on good people that sometimes get swallowed up by the system and could use your support and help, Churchill, however, isn't one of them. Time will tell.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Feb 24, 2005)

Karazenpo said:
			
		

> They are looking into that now for a way to terminate his tenure for it was under the false pretence he was an American Indian and got his position through 'Affirmative Action'.



... a move that began only after his points of view offended people.  How courageous, and genuine... another example of modern-day McCarthyism.

Regardless, if he attained his tenure under false circumstances then he quite possibly deserves to have it stripped.  Given that such investigations are actually underway, saying that the man misrepresented himself until evidence is produced violates another classic American tenet, that of being innocent until proven guilty.  Why do you hate America so much?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Feb 24, 2005)

Karazenpo said:
			
		

> How old were those people who drank the cyanide cocktail, you know, the Kool Aid from the good Reverand Jim Jones?
> How old were they?



Jim Jones was a religious cult leader, and had victims that spanned a wide range of ages.  This is not even slightly relevant when discussing a college professor who holds unpopular political beliefs.



			
				Karazenpo said:
			
		

> The man is a lunatic by any normal person's standards.



Actually, I disagree with you (not that I'm convinced either of us are "normal"), just as I disagree with much of what Churchill says.   The point here has nothing to do with this man or his beliefs, it is the principle of academic freedom that's at risk -- if a professor holds unpopular beliefs, and can be removed from a witchhunt, that's fundamentally unAmerican.



			
				Karazenpo said:
			
		

> Remember, rights and freedom isn't a guarrantee to everyone, you break the law you lose them. i'm not saying any criminal laws are being broken but c'ome on, where's your common sense, your character, your standards of conduct.



You're right, no laws appear to have been broken.  And there's nothing in the Constitution that says you have to have common sense, character, intelligence, or any of that stuff to deserve the same level of rights and protections as anyone else.



			
				Karazenpo said:
			
		

> Believe me, getting this creep out of there is not going to jeopardize the tenure of good professors out there, you know it and I know it.



Actually, no, you're wrong.  As long as lynch mobs get to define what a "good" professor is, this jeopardizes academic freedom in its entirety.



			
				Karazenpo said:
			
		

> Incredible and you know what, your fascist pig comment is getting pretty old, know what mean? I think the 60's, lol.



I never called you a pig.  And if you don't like being called a fascist, stop espousing fascist beliefs.


----------



## Karazenpo (Feb 24, 2005)

I never called you a pig. And if you don't like being called a fascist, stop espousing fascist beliefs.


And so what are you? A socialist/communist then? Believe me, Peach, I've grown a rather thick skin over the years, comes with the job, I really don't care what you call me it's just that is such an overused name calling tactic by liberals just like you being called a socialist/communist, know what I mean? it kind of gets sickening that's all. By the way, in all sincerity, excellent debate, I haven't had a good political type discussion like this in a while, gets the blood pumping, lol. Gotta go, just got some terrible news, my wife's best friend passed away, cancer.........I'll catch you tommoro. "Joe"


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 24, 2005)

Karazenpo said:
			
		

> He goes well beyond any freedom of speech or first ammendment rights.


I am pondering the possibility of this statement, and finding it conflicted in and of itself.



			
				ginshun said:
			
		

> If this was a guy giving speeches on how all minorities should be rounded up and kicked out of the US or not allowed to vote would you be defending his rights as adimantly?


I probably wouldn't be defending his right ... but, I also wouldn't be listening to his Nationwide Syndicated Talk Radio Show.




			
				ginshun said:
			
		

> What people are disputing is whether or not public money should go to him to express his opinions to our nations youth.


So, let us debate then, the root of your argument. As I see, you are discussing two root arguments.  
1 - Freedom of speech has limitations.
2 - Because of financial assistance, the public should be able to dictate 'speech' in institutions of higher education? 

I don't think you are arguing #1 .
On position #2 - I don't think my financial assistance should be used to develop 'missle shield systems' that don't work, and will quite probably never work. How do I exercise control over that financial aspect of my tax dollars?

I trust you see my point. We don't get to pick and choose. Either we value higher education, and support it; or we don't, and we don't. Which are you proposing?



I think somebody is listening to too much Bill O'Reilly.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 24, 2005)

Generally speaking, tenured faculty may be removed from their positions if:

a) they are guilty of "moral turpitude," (which used to be defined, famously, as, "getting caught in bed with a live boy or a dead co-ed);

b) they are convicted of a felony;

c) their program is abolished;

d) they have seriously lied on their application.


The thing to do, if he's really said such objectionable things (still waiting on more than hearsay!) is to have him censured by his Academic Senate, receive a letter of admonition from the University, or have him censured by a group like the AARP. 

Regrettably for some, our Supreme Court has spent some two hundred years asserting that it is precisely unpopular speech that the Bill of Rights was created to protect. Oops, those silly Constitutionalists.

There are many countries on this earth in which the government and the mob control intellectual life, political thought, and dissent. I hear Iran is nice this time of year...


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 24, 2005)

*ginshun in bold:*

*Public sentiment should determine what kind of speech, opinions and research are be conducted at publicly funded schools.  * 

Absolutely not.  A scholar ought never be intellectually restricted because of public opinion.  If you advocate this, then you no doubt approve of scholars being censured and fired for their questionable conservative comments, correct?   You wouldn't set a double standard, certainly.  Would you?

I think this guy is a flake and will lose his job due to academic fraud.  He should have never been hired in the first place due to his questionable credentials.  He has an honorary PhD.

But no...he shouldn't be fired based on popular opinion for what he says publicly.

*If this was a guy giving speeches on how all minorities should be rounded up and kicked out of the US or not allowed to vote would you be defending his rights as adimantly? * 

Yes, I would.  And I think this guy is a nutbar.

*For gods sake the guy hates this country and is publisizing the idea that we deserved what happened on 9/11! * 

I wasn't aware that "love of country" was an academic credential.

*If he were employed and speaking for private orgaizations I wouldn't have near as big of a problem with him, but my (and many others) tax dollars are paying for this guys salary and for him to speak at a state funded school.*

So you're from Colorado?  You pay taxes there?  Or are you from Hawaii?  Which?

* A difference of opinion is one thing, but this guy is nuts, the stuff that he says boarders on sedition.  * 

As defined by the 1798 laws, or those passed in 1918?  Which?

*Karazenpo in bold:*

*He's a great role model for our youth, no wonder why society is so screwed up.*

It is?  How is our society screwed up?  Compared to what period in history?  How did Churchill screw up our whole society, given that he's only 57?

*maybe Churchill and his supporters should relocate to France or somewhere else.*

Ah, the old "America, love it or leave it" line.  I was worried a conservative would post in a thread and NOT mention France.  Thanks for meeting my expectations.

Maybe you and your conservative ilk all should move to Great Britain!  If you don't want to support and defend the Constitution, leave America!  Get on the boat and go back where you came from!  Leave America for Americans who believe in the First Amendment (the one with two letter _m's_, not the one with three.)

<GASP!>

My God...I...I...ranted like a conservative.  I used excessive exclamation marks, made histrionic and jingoistic statements, and offered suggestions that violated reason and insulted the intelligence.

_And it felt gooooooood._

I feel so...naughty.

Will this make me grow hair on my palms?



Regards,


Steve


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 24, 2005)

Not on your palms, no.

The thing that's at once depressing and hilarious about this argument is that these are the guys who're always going off about conservatives being persecuted by "liberal intellectuals," always lecturing about political correctness, always ranting about the Party line, always preaching about thinking new thoughts--but boy, let one dippy prof say something unusual, and the repetitions of what they heard on, "Crossfire," and the demands tro ride this guy out of town on a rail for saying what he thinks, they just stretch on forever.

And it also shows a real ignorance of the Constitution. You CANNOT go, "beyond free speech," or past First Amendment rights--you can be in trouble if you clearly advocate violence...and oh by the way, where were you guys when G. Gordon Liddy got on the air and told his audience to shoot the FBI and ATF agents in the head, not the chest, because, "they wear body armor?" Where were you guys when Ollie North broke about six sets of American laws, and not only traded arms for hostages against the explicit will of the Congress and Senate, but used some of the proceeds to finance death squads--also against Congressional explicit mandates? Where were you guys when Falwell and Robertson got on the air and declared that 9/11 was God's punishment for this country's evil, and there'd be more of the same coming if we didn't all become fundamentalists right quick? You all seem curiously silent when we have right-wing nut groups building compounds and screeching about the Jews, or creeps go around firebombing women's clinics and shooting doctors. You don't seem to have much to say when tub-thumping pseudo-patriots whip up hatred so they can start wars based on WMDs (whoops...an teensy error), or collaboration with Al Quaida (whoops there too...), or...? You don't seem to have much to say about (for example) the endless procession of bumper stickers advocating violence, hatred, and loathing of women that I see everywhere.

And funnily enough, neither do the Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world. 

But let one goofy college professor get on a soapbox, and oh my GOD, the end of America is at hand.


----------



## JAMJTX (Feb 25, 2005)

"And there's nothing in the Constitution that says you have to have common sense, character, intelligence, or any of that stuff to deserve the same level of rights and protections as anyone else."

True.  But shouldn't a college professor be expected to show common sense, character, intelligence, etc?  And if a professor does turn out to be a liar, a moron, have no common sense and embarrasses the univerisity, they should be able to fire him.

 He may have the right to say what he wants.  But the tax payers do not have to fund it.  And in the case of Ward, they are being forced to fund it by continuing to pay his salary.

 If for nothing else, he should be fired for pretending to be a Native American in order to get the job.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 25, 2005)

JAMJTX said:
			
		

> He may have the right to say what he wants. But the tax payers do not have to fund it. And in the case of Ward, they are being forced to fund it by continuing to pay his salary.


How do I stop paying for the friggin' war I don't approve of in Iraq?

The country has every right to fight it, but tax payers do not have to fund it. (Unless the war is declared by Congress - as described in the Constitution).


----------



## ginshun (Feb 25, 2005)

_I hold that opinion as well. Why? Because society as a whole would stagnate if it weren't for people not afraid to shake up "the general public". I can think of a few people through history who had a similar drive... Columbus... Gallileo... Rosa Parks... MLK Jr..._

 Pesonally I make a distinction between someone argueing scientific research or argueing for minority rights, and someone who argues that the entity of the USA should be wiped off the planet. I guess maybe I am crazy.


_ Not saying this to be snide, but did you go to college? I did, and I can guarantee that there were some teachers there that I had to take that I thought were nuttier than fruit cake. I memorized what they wanted me to mentally regurgitate on a piece of paper, and tossed the rest. Why? Because I was able to reason the difference and form my own opinions. Many times, outside of class, these same teachers had some very thought provoking opinions that lead to some quite memorable debates. That's what college is about, in my opinion. The pencil and paper crap is just there to justify the cost. YMMV._

 Yes, I did go to college, and no offence taken. Maye being that I have engineering degree, I just never had to deal with guys like this. There were very few things in my college class work in which opinion had anything to do with it.
 I do see your point, and sure it is good to make people see both sides of issues. I guess I just fail to see anything constructive or thought provoking in anything that this guy says.

_
  How do I stop paying for the friggin' war I don't approve of in Iraq?_

_The country has every right to fight it, but tax payers do not have to fund it. (Unless the war is declared by Congress - as described in the Constitution).



_ I think that you are right, it is pretty much the same thing. We elect representatives to speak for us on both of these matters. If our elected officials in Congress decide we should go to war then we do. Does everyone agree with it? Of course not.
 The same rules should apply here. The people that are part of the school board, or whatever group control this guys job, were either elected to those postions or they were appointed by someone who was. (I don't know enough about the power structure of state funded colleges to know exactly). They should be given the same power. If they decide that this guys stays, then he stays, thats fine, I can disagree with it the same way you disagree with the war. What I am saying is they should also be allowed to make the decision to fire him for the ideals he holds, without fear of him and the ACLU sueing them and the university if that is thier decision.


 And just for the record, I have never watched Bill O'Reilly's show, and I think that Hannity is nothing more than a yes man for the republican party, which I am not a part of.

 When it comes right down to it, obviously I would just assume the guy be removed. All I am saying, is that if the University thinks the same thing, they should be allowed to do it.

 I am sure that they are going to try and prove the allagations of fraud/lieing on his application, simply to avoid the huge debate that we are having here, but in the case that those things turn out to not be true, they should still be able to fire him if that is what they feel is in the best interest of the university, for whatever reason they see fit.


----------



## Karazenpo (Feb 25, 2005)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karazenpo
He goes well beyond any freedom of speech or first ammendment rights.  


I am pondering the possibility of this statement, and finding it conflicted in and of itself.


Michael, I later elaborated on this issue and it is not conflicting at all. When I stated well beyond freedom of speech   my point was it is not a freedom of speech issue when we, the taxpayers are compensating him for it. Don't I have rights too? I do not wish to pay to hear this clown spout off. Something else I'd like to add. I don't know where this Churchill is going but there is a time when what starts out to be a freedom of speech becomes a disorderly person which can escalate into a riot. I will not argue this one because I've seen it in my job, you haven't unless you've worked in law enforcement and the arrest and convictions have been upheld. If this Bozo continues his rants and it should escalate into disruptions, or breaches of the peace, and causes violent reactions by the weak minded then we have a problem. Don't tell me this can't happen because it has. I remember back in college S.D.S (Students for a democratic Society) instigated violent reactions which led to arrests at various college campuses to the point some colleges would not welcome their appearances and would call the authorities to have them removed. Now, you can stick your head in the sand and pretend these things don't happen or you can deal with it.

It was also nice to see David Duke, you know former Louisiana State Representative (right wing extremist) and former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan stick up for Churchill's rights and freedom of speech on television last night. That right there should tell you there's something wrong with this picture! 

Next, don't any of you even care how this man's comments are weighing on the survivors of the 9/11 victims, show some compassion and respect!

Some mention Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. There is no bigger buffoon than the liberal Alan Combs. Last night he was speaking up for N.A.M.B.L.A. (North American Man Boy Love Association). Let me clarify it. Someone started a program where he went after members of NAMBLA to expose them to the public and for investigation. He put them on a wanted list and offered a $1000 reward. One pedifile who was married with kids turned himself in for the reward (go figure) He also stated although he thinks about children in a sexual way all the time he hasn't acted on it.(yet)  WOW, you should of heard Combs all concerned about this man (and others like him) rights, he sounded like a complete a-hole. Hey, ladies & gents, we're now talking about child molesters yet the liberals can't come forward and adjust their viewpoints for the protection of our children, no, of course not, they have to kick up some b.s. and worry about N.A.M.B.L.A. members rights and protection. Well, I'm all broken up over a pedifile's rights. So while you making fun of Hannity and O'Reilly, take a good look at a typical far left liberal reaction (Combs) to NAMBLA. I do admit Hannity is strong right wing but you're off base with O'Reilly, I've seen him swing to the left, to the right and down the middle. man, some of you see things in black and white, what's wrong with being an independant thinker and also checking out the gray areas? Thanks for the discussion. Joe


----------



## Ray (Feb 25, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The country has every right to fight it, but tax payers do not have to fund it. (Unless the war is declared by Congress - as described in the Constitution).


It's my recollection that, although congress did not declare war, they voted to give the pres permission via the Use of Force Resolution.  I know of no Supreme Court ruling, nor case under consideration, that seriously challenges the legality of the president's actions, do you?

As for Churchill:  I agree that he has the right to free speech.  I don't believe the federal gov't will put him in jail for his book or views.  By the same token, as an employee of a private firm, I fully believe that if I espoused the views that Churchill has AND it became publicized as Churchill has then I would not be suprised that my employer would want to remove me from a position where I deal with customers and suppliers.  And it is my employer's right to remove me.  So, I must conclude that the gov't, as an employer, has the right to terminate [from a job, not execute] an employee for public statements...but that the gov't doesn't have the right to imprision or fine Churchill for his statements.  

Also, Churchill speaks historically incorrect of the crusades.  Yes, terrible things were done by some of the crusaders - they went way overboard in their actions; but the crusades were a reaction to the killing and harrassment of Christians in the middle east.

Look at the territories that are Islamic and superimpose a map of early Christian lands upon it.  Do you suppose that those areas were converted to Islam peacfully? Do you think that Islamic missionaries went door-to-door as Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons do?  Nope.  Many people who did not convert were killed; others were enslaved.  All who held to their original faith were subject to (legal) harrassment and (legal) assault and extra taxes.

Yes, Churchill may write a book and he may speak his mind.  But he shouldn't be suprised to get the same consequences as some one privately employeed.  And he should expect to be challenged on what he says.


----------



## Ray (Feb 25, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> It's my recollection that, although congress did not declare war, they voted to give the pres permission via the Use of Force Resolution


And Kerry voted "yea" even though he disagreed with it, only because he thought Bush wouldn't do anything about it.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Feb 25, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> <snip>
> As for Churchill: I agree that he has the right to free speech. I don't believe the federal gov't will put him in jail for his book or views. By the same token, as an employee of a private firm, I fully believe that if I espoused the views that Churchill has AND it became publicized as Churchill has then I would not be suprised that my employer would want to remove me from a position where I deal with customers and suppliers. And it is my employer's right to remove me. So, I must conclude that the gov't, as an employer, has the right to terminate [from a job, not execute] an employee for public statements...but that the gov't doesn't have the right to imprision or fine Churchill for his statements.
> 
> <snip>
> ...


Well well. An interesting tangent to be *pondered*. The major difference between those of us who are 'privately employed' and Churchill or civil servants or teachers is that, despite our seniority in our jobs, we can be *let go* for just about any offense if our employer is creative. On the other hand, teachers and civil servants basically have to either retire or be carried out feet first in order to be *let go*. So, if that is the case (and it is), how do you propose to weed out the bad 'uns, other than what Robert has suggested vis-a-vis academics?

The crack about women on page one was _not _appreciated.  Maybe I *should* stay in the kitchen and clean the house.  That way, my husband can shovel all this snow and have a heart attack, and then he can work even longer hours because of the loss of our second income so we'll _*never*_ see him.  Maybe I shouldn't have gotten that college degree.  Darn.

Freedom of speech is one of the most precious rights we have as Americans.  Also, our right to disagree and freely state that disagreement.  

As to the hate groups which exist, I hope there's someone out there who loves them.  What a shame to be abhorred and then die alone.  But it's certainly their right to believe what they do.

As for 9/11, no one will forget those innocent people who were killed because they were in the right place (at work or traveling) at the wrong time.


----------



## modarnis (Feb 25, 2005)

>>I don't know where this Churchill is going but there is a time when what starts out to be a freedom of speech becomes a disorderly person which can escalate into a riot. I will not argue this one because I've seen it in my job, you haven't unless you've worked in law enforcement and the arrest and convictions have been upheld. If this Bozo continues his rants and it should escalate into disruptions, or breaches of the peace, and causes violent reactions by the weak minded then we have a problem. Don't tell me this can't happen because it has. I remember back in college S.D.S (Students for a democratic Society) instigated violent reactions which led to arrests at various college campuses to the point some colleges would not welcome their appearances and would call the authorities to have them removed. Now, you can stick your head in the sand and pretend these things don't happen or you can deal with it.>>

And violent actions and speech are certainly dealt with differently by the Supreme Court.  Since you brought up the SDS incident,  here is the case  HEALY v. JAMES, 408 U.S. 169 (1972)  which deals with this group's rights to speech and free association.

There are numerous cases about free speech and dissenting opinions on college campuses both private and public in our Supreme Court's history.  In all of them, the notion of a marketplace of ideas is relevant.  The court has been very sensitive to the potential chilling effect of regulations of speech that does not give rise to fighting words or express conduct


----------



## ginshun (Feb 25, 2005)

> On the other hand, teachers and civil servants basically have to either retire or be carried out feet first in order to be *let go*. So, if that is the case (and it is), how do you propose to weed out the bad 'uns?


 Exactly what I am wondering.  It seems that a bunch of people hear feel that since he has tenure, he should just be allowed to say anything he wants, and should have to answer to nobody.

 Aren't a teachers ideals part of whether or not he is a good teacher?  Apperently not.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Feb 25, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Exactly what I am wondering. It seems that a bunch of people hear feel that since he has tenure, he should just be allowed to say anything he wants, and should have to answer to nobody.
> 
> Aren't a teachers ideals part of whether or not he is a good teacher? Apperently not.


I don't know that you can hold teachers to standards other than those you would for everyone.  Granted, they are in a unique position to alter *one's* opinions and, in some cases, *one's* life, but I don't know that a clear judgment can be made concerning whether someone's ideals are *good* or *bad*.  By whose standards?  Yours may not be the same as mine.  Does that make mine better than yours, or vice versa?  Nope.  There are parameters within which teachers are expected to operate, and only when they step out of those boundaries can they be censured or worse (see Robert's post upthread.)

Example:  my senior year of high school (back in the Dark Ages), my Social Studies teacher was a gay man (referred to back then as a fag or a swish.)  He was probably one of the best teachers I had during my primary and secondary education, and one of the very very few whose name I remember and whose classes had the most profound effect on me and my life.  Am I gay because I was in his classroom and was absorbing his opinions about the arts and history?  Absolutely not.  He was a wonderful teacher and a class act in spite of what he had to endure daily from some of his students (I don't think I need to draw you a diagram.)  Where would I be without his influence on my life?  Probably not in the arts.  Our school board recognized his value as a teacher and chose to ignore his personal lifestyle.  In certain places these days he'd probably be under close scrutiny by certain people and subject to harassment to try to get him fired.

As kids these days say, he *rocked*.

RIP Mr. Blake.:angel:


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 25, 2005)

*JAMJTX in bold:
* 

*But shouldn't a college professor be expected to show common sense, character, intelligence, etc?  * 

Common sense?  That's defined as sound, practical judgement.  Would you fire a respected developmental biologist who acquired AIDS from having unprotected sex?  Would you fire an English professor who was jailed for DUI?  Neither of these activities show common sense, and have some political controversy attached to them due to their stigma...but they have NOTHING to do with the abilities of those professors as educators or as scholars.

*And if a professor does turn out to be a liar, a moron, have no common sense and embarrasses the univerisity, they should be able to fire him.*

That depends on several things...none of which have anything to do with whether YOU think of him.

The American Assembly of University Professors stated in 1940:

_College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution._

Churchill's comments are themselves not enough to get him fired without some sort of due process.  The AAUP gives detailed means of providing a professor that form of due process.  In otherwards, he can't be fired merely because what he says is unpopular with the taxpayers or the administration.

Currently his position is under review.  If he's fired, it'll likely be because of what he did as an academic, not what he said as a political firebrand.


*He may have the right to say what he wants.  But the tax payers do not have to fund it.  And in the case of Ward, they are being forced to fund it by continuing to pay his salary.*

Taxpayers have to pay taxes.  Funding is brought about by administrations and legislatures.  We don't get a choice insofar as funding. You have no choice but to fund welfare, and I have no choice but to fund the war...unless, that is, we want to go to jail for tax evasion.




Regards,


Steve


----------



## ginshun (Feb 25, 2005)

> I don't know that you can hold teachers to standards other than those you would for everyone.


 
 I don't want him held to different standards, I want him held to the same standards. If I got on a stage, in front of news camera and all of America, and gave the same speaches that this guy is giving, I'd be fired. I have no doubt about it. Whether or not I am speaking of behalf of my company, what I say reflects on them, and I think it should for a university professor too.

 And as far as the AAUP goes, it must be nice to be able to tell your employer what they are allowed to fire you for. Apperently I am in the wrong proffession.


----------



## modarnis (Feb 25, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Exactly what I am wondering.  It seems that a bunch of people hear feel that since he has tenure, he should just be allowed to say anything he wants, and should have to answer to nobody.
> 
> Aren't a teachers ideals part of whether or not he is a good teacher?  Apperently not.



So a student couldn't learn from a teacher who may have a different belief structure?  I would think things like effective communication of the particular curriculum would be the primary measure of their teaching ability.  Do they make the subject matter interesting, get the relevant points across, and ultimately the students retaining the knowledge in a manner where they can apply it would  be more important than what someones ideals are.

Communicating narrow, government regulated ideas would be indoctrination and not teaching in my opinion


----------



## modarnis (Feb 25, 2005)

>>And as far as the AAUP goes, it must be nice to be able to tell your employer what they are allowed to fire you for. Apperently I am in the wrong proffession.>>

Again there is a long line of Supreme Court cases that deal with regulation of speech by private versus public employers.  Private employers are not bound by the First Amendment when the speech would occur on their property or time

Public employers are only allowed to regulate speech  for content neutral reasons(things like time place or manner).  Any regulation for content based reasons is subject to strict scrutiny.

Like it or not, its the state of the law on the subject.  If one takes the time to read some of the cases I cited earlier, the reasoning of the Supreme Court will make more sense.  Findlaw.com has a great primer on all aspects of First Amendment jurisprudence.  In an hours worth of reading one can get the Cliff's notes version of a law school class on First Amendment


----------



## ginshun (Feb 25, 2005)

modarnis said:
			
		

> So a student couldn't learn from a teacher who may have a different belief structure? I would think things like effective communication of the particular curriculum would be the primary measure of their teaching ability. Do they make the subject matter interesting, get the relevant points across, and ultimately the students retaining the knowledge in a manner where they can apply it would be more important than what someones ideals are.
> 
> Communicating narrow, government regulated ideas would be indoctrination and not teaching in my opinion


 Different belief structures are one thing, but preaching that the USA should be wiped off the face of the planet is something else, IMO at least.  


 I still just don't see this as a case of first ammendment rights.  Nobody is trying to silance him.  All I am saying is that the university should be allowed to fire him if they want to, based on whatever they see fit.

  If this guy was a neo-nazi preaching how whites should start a race war and kill all the minorities whould there be any outrage at the university wanting to fire him?  Myabe, but I doubt it.  I honestly don't see the two situations as much different.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 25, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> And as far as the AAUP goes, it must be nice to be able to tell your employer what they are allowed to fire you for. Apperently I am in the wrong proffession.



What profession would that be?  

The AAUP doesn't set standards for what people are allowed to be fired for.  They set standards for academic freedom and for proper review of abuse of those freedoms.  They have no legally binding enforcement power over any academic institution.

So no.  Churchill can not tell his employers what they can fire him for.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 25, 2005)

1. Good to know that Hannity and Coombs have become the standard for intellectual discourse. And good to know that people who are parroting the politically-correct right-wing line of Hannity, Limbaugh, Larsen et al simply pulled their words out of the luminiferous ether because they never heard of them.

2. Unlike others, college professors are paid not only to teach, but to come up with wacky ideas and discuss them with students. That's their job. 

3. If Churchill's students and colleagues are too gutless to argue back, whose problem is that? Look at the post upstream, from somebody who described his own life as a student as one of mindless memorization and regurgitation--whose fault is that? You don't have to take these classes. You are perfectly empowered to argue back. The prof behaves badly, talk to the guy. That doesn't work, file a complaint. {Insert religious name here}, show a little moxie, and a little responsibility for your own education!

4. I'm going to track down, a little, what was up with Hamilton College, where this particular flap started. I smell one of our new right-wing student police groups; they're appearing everywhere now, and they're getting outside financing to go after professors whose views they don't like.


----------



## ginshun (Feb 25, 2005)

> You are perfectly empowered to argue back. The prof behaves badly, talk to the guy. That doesn't work, file a complaint. {Insert religious name here}, show a little moxie, and a little responsibility for your own education!


 That all sounds great on paper.  Until you find yourself fighting for the next few years to get the F taken off your transcipts.   And don't even try to insinuate that proffesors (left or right wing) don't fail students or reduce their grade if they disagree with their point of view, especially if they raise a daily fuss in class.

 Plus what kind of a learning environment is it if a student either has to stifle his opinions or worry about them adversly affect his grade?  

 What kind of a grade do you think the campus leader of the young Republicans club gets in one of Mr. Churchills classes if they stand up for there opinions?  Based on listening to some of the guys speaches and reading some of his essays I bet I can guess.


----------



## OUMoose (Feb 25, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> from somebody who described his own life as a student as one of mindless memorization and regurgitation--whose fault is that?


The teachers, as it's hard to argue math...  :whip:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 25, 2005)

OOOOH, an "F." Would that this was the only consequence of speaking out the world had to offer. Instead, all over the world professors and students are getting killed, tortured and imprisoned for speaking out, and Americans have sunk so low that they cannot express what they deeply feel to be their convictions because they might get an, "F." 

Just incidentally, my nearly-universal experience with good teachers was that they loved engaged students who read the material and argued. it was the ones who didn't read and sat in class like lumps that they got cranky with. 

For an actual thoughtful discussion of the issue, I suggest reading all the essays on the Hamilton College student paper website. 

http://spec.hamilton.edu/insight.cfm

And color me surprised at finding out that this whole thing got whipped up when something called the Kirkland Project invited Prof. Churchill as one of their controversial speakers, some profs/students had problems with him and with the Project, they called Bill O'Reilly, and good old Bill whipped up an e-mail, letter, and phone campaign. Surpirse, surprise, surprise.

Sorry, but I am truly offended by this, "F." business. College profs in China get thrown in jail in god knows where if they speak up. A teacher in Algeria got BEHEADED in front of her class a few years back--seems some fundamentalists objected to women teaching. In Africa and in Southern Mexico and Latin America, assorted death squads come kill you if you disagree with the government. There are good teachers and students all over the world, standing in line outside refugee camps with everything they own in a blue plastic bucket, hoping there's still rice and millet left when they get to the head of the line, and you're sweating the, "F."

Oh--read about the career of H. Bruce Franklin, an excellent writer, scholar and teacher who got canned from a tenured position at Cornell around 1972 for opposing the Vietnam War. This crap's been going on a long time.


----------



## ginshun (Feb 25, 2005)

I will agree, in the large sceem of things, an F in college doesn't seem like a huge deal.  (And I will admit, that it wasn't for me, I had to retake more than one class, stupid Fluid Dynamics :angry: )  But to your average college kid trying to get into law or med school, it is potentially disasterous.  At the very least it is enough insentive to not rock the boat.

 and last time I checked, I wasn't calling for a death squad to hunt this guy down.  Just questioning whether or not university officials should be allowed to fire him.


----------



## modarnis (Feb 25, 2005)

>>Just incidentally, my nearly-universal experience with good teachers was that they loved engaged students who read the material and argued. it was the ones who didn't read and sat in class like lumps that they got cranky with.>>

I would echo these sentiments.  I had several classes in law school with a professor who held views completely opposite mine.  She always enjoyed being engaged in a well reasoned debate.  That'w what she was paid to do, to encourage people to think.  

When I have a tough case with issues in her area of expertise, I always call her to get some perspective on what the other side may be thinking.  We never succeeded in changing each other's views, but I certainly appreciated being taken to task on mine.  It has paid off tremendously in the real world


----------



## ginshun (Feb 25, 2005)

I would tend to agree also, all the teachers that I have had welcomed debate and didn't hold personal beliefs against me.  I also know that this is not always the case.  

 What happens when it is not?


----------



## Ray (Feb 25, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> I will agree, in the large sceem of things, an F in college doesn't seem like a huge deal. (And I will admit, that it wasn't for me...


Scheme not sceem.  But that's beside the point about getting F's.


----------



## ginshun (Feb 25, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Scheme not sceem.  But that's beside the point about getting F's.


 What can I say?  I was an Engineering major, not an English major.

 besides, who kares bout spelln anyhoo?


----------



## Ray (Feb 25, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> What can I say? I was an Engineering major, not an English major.
> 
> besides, who kares bout spelln anyhoo?


I am so sorry. I think it was a sucky thing for me to do, but who could resist?

An engineer?  Anyone can toot the whistle, but it takes and engineer to drive the train.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 25, 2005)

Karazenpo said:
			
		

> Michael, I later elaborated on this issue and it is not conflicting at all. When I stated well beyond freedom of speech my point was it is not a freedom of speech issue when we, the taxpayers are compensating him for it. Don't I have rights too? I do not wish to pay to hear this clown spout off. Something else I'd like to add. I don't know where this Churchill is going but there is a time when what starts out to be a freedom of speech becomes a disorderly person which can escalate into a riot. I will not argue this one because I've seen it in my job, you haven't unless you've worked in law enforcement and the arrest and convictions have been upheld. If this Bozo continues his rants and it should escalate into disruptions, or breaches of the peace, and causes violent reactions by the weak minded then we have a problem. Don't tell me this can't happen because it has. I remember back in college S.D.S (Students for a democratic Society) instigated violent reactions which led to arrests at various college campuses to the point some colleges would not welcome their appearances and would call the authorities to have them removed. Now, you can stick your head in the sand and pretend these things don't happen or you can deal with it.
> 
> It was also nice to see David Duke, you know former Louisiana State Representative (right wing extremist) and former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan stick up for Churchill's rights and freedom of speech on television last night. That right there should tell you there's something wrong with this picture!
> 
> ...


The statements people are upset about were made by Mr. Churchill on September 12, 2001. Why are they only being raised now? Because O'Reilly is spouting about it for several hours a week. 

If you don't want to listen to Churchill .... DON'T. Walk out of the room. I hears some did that to President Summers at Harvard. 

As for not wanting your tax dollars to pay him ... are you a tax payer in Colorado? If not, problem solved. But, as others have responded to it, I am sure you say my post that we don't get to choose where our tax dollars are spent. (Oh, if only).  --- and Yes -- I know Congress voted to abdicate its responsibility -- Throw the bums out.----


Good for David Duke ... at least he understands the freedom of speech is *freedom *to say what you want. And we all should defend it, especially if it something we find repulsive.

And please ... note that I am ignoring any reference to Alan Colmes and NAMBLA.


----------



## DavidCC (Feb 25, 2005)

Karazenpo said:
			
		

> Simple question, if you had a daughter and she said to you Dad, I really want your opinion, this guy asked me out but I will go by your advice, his name is Ward Churchill.......


And if he was not expressing his ideas in a public forum, how would I know what a nutjob he is???  That's why I said it is better to have him out in the open, where we can keep an eye on him.  If not for his right to free speech, I would have to say no for some other reason. (becasue I always say NO)


----------



## Hawkeye (Feb 25, 2005)

Universities are full of academics who speak out against all forms of human conditions.  Someone posted "we as taxpayers" you as tax payers don't support professors at universities.  They are paid by those who pay to attend - contrary to some people's belief.

If we supress freedom of speech we won't have this board.  Because as soon as someone disagrees with something posted we would be "fired".

Universities exist for one major purpose to provoke thought.  That is exactly what Mr. Churchill does.  As evidenced by this over reacting post.

I have only heard extremely negative response to Mr. Churhill's comments from those who have not had the fortunate experience to attend one or more universities which encourage free discourse and thought provoking commentary.


----------



## Karazenpo (Feb 25, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. Good to know that Hannity and Coombs have become the standard for intellectual discourse. And good to know that people who are parroting the politically-correct right-wing line of Hannity, Limbaugh, Larsen et al simply pulled their words out of the luminiferous ether because they never heard of them.
> 
> 2. Unlike others, college professors are paid not only to teach, but to come up with wacky ideas and discuss them with students. That's their job.
> 
> ...



C'ome on Robert. who is your standard for intellectual discourse, Barbara Boxer and Ted (over the bridge and drown her  and get away with it because you have the left wing power at the time)) Kennedy?  Ask Mary Jo's family about it. Really, we can go on and on with that one and get absolutely nowhere. So let's not go there on that one please.


----------



## Karazenpo (Feb 25, 2005)

DavidCC said:
			
		

> And if he was not expressing his ideas in a public forum, how would I know what a nutjob he is???  That's why I said it is better to have him out in the open, where we can keep an eye on him.  If not for his right to free speech, I would have to say no for some other reason. (becasue I always say NO)



See David you and I are reasonable because I will say openly I agree on your post. I know you agree on some of my viewpoints but hardcore liberals like PeachMonkey and robery never ever concede or give us credit if they inwardly think we made a point. Think about it and go over all their posts, they are never wrong, are they? Anyone, go look, they are laways rights. They take excrpts and say what/ You're wrong on this, you're wrong on that, you're wrong on this too, check it out. typical far left wing, no one is ever right but them. Remember the Fonz? 'Happy Days'! he could never get it out of his mouth that he was, was, was wrrrr, wrrrooo, wwwwrrrooonnn, couldn't say it! LOL.


----------



## Karazenpo (Feb 25, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The statements people are upset about were made by Mr. Churchill on September 12, 2001. Why are they only being raised now? Because O'Reilly is spouting about it for several hours a week.
> 
> If you don't want to listen to Churchill .... DON'T. Walk out of the room. I hears some did that to President Summers at Harvard.
> 
> ...



 Michael, that's an old one about walking out of the room, it's like changing the channel. However, I think you are mistaken on that point only because it was brought up earlier that some at the college are 'captive' audiences.  Several of us brought that up, I was one. Some students have to take that course from this fruitcake and get a decent mark from him. They really have no choice so they may have to kiss butt for it, degrading yes, but some do it.
No, we can't always choose where our tax dollars are spent but in this case, if some of us would grow some balls and complain about this Churchill deal, well then, maybe we can make a difference, don't you think?

Hey, so waht if O'rReilly is the reason for this? So what? Didn't you want to know? Didn't the the friends and relatives of the 9/11 victims want to know? or would you rather hide your head in the sand? Isn't his slogan, 'I'm looking out for you', what the hell is wrong with that? Guys like Churchill aren't looking out for us!

Please, I'm from Massachusetts and have some input here, give me just a little credit for that so please, I said please, don't put Dr. Summers in the same category as that maniac Churchill.

Michael, you stated and this is a direct quote, out of context you may say but you said it in defense of the man no matter how you want to spin it:
"Good for David Duke ..."

I hate to play the race card so I'll go easy but for those who don't know David Duke he is the former "Imperial Wizard" of the Klu Klux Klan. Michael, I'd call that one back if I were you because nothing that man could say would give crediability to any debate. You might as well  say 'Good for Adolph Hitler"..., no, Michael, you don't think? Why? Hitler inspired the KKK and is the head figure, isn't he? they use his Nazi symbol or am I wrong again? Here end of the lesson.

I'll give you an 'attaboy' for not siding with Alan C. on the NAMBLA issue.

PS: Michael, I know I'm a little hard on my responses but as you, I am very passionate about this country and the bad guys. Please don't take it personal, this goes for everyone here. I'm passionate about kempo but I'm an entirely different person when discussing martial arts, they're two different animals, that's why I can only stay on these political forums so long, then I need a BREAK. Thanks. With respect, Joe


----------



## PeachMonkey (Feb 25, 2005)

Karazenpo said:
			
		

> C'ome on Robert. who is your standard for intellectual discourse, Barbara Boxer and Ted (over the bridge and drown her  and get away with it because you have the left wing power at the time)) Kennedy?  Ask Mary Jo's family about it. Really, we can go on and on with that one and get absolutely nowhere. So let's not go there on that one please.



What exactly does the Chappequidic (sp) incident have to do with the fascist vitriol that the right-wing attack machine, in the forms of Hannity, Savage, and the like constantly push?  

And why are you so unable to focus on actual points of discussion instead of launching into insults?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Feb 25, 2005)

Karazenpo said:
			
		

> I know you agree on some of my viewpoints but hardcore liberals like PeachMonkey and robery never ever concede or give us credit if they inwardly think we made a point.



So you're not only putting words in my mouth and assuming my gender, but now you're reading my mind too?  Have you read each of my 700+ posts, as well as private message conversations to determine if I ever concede or give credit?

Why are you so determined to insult those you disagree with?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 25, 2005)

1. What's my standard for intellectual discourse? Glad you asked. To begin with, it is NOT bringing up Senator Kennedy's tragedies of some thirty years ago because I could not think of a way to respond to getting caught at echoing the Hannity/Limbaugh party line. Indeed, one of the signs that this country is in trouble is that we've replaced the public face of intelllectualism that used to include guys like Mark van Doren and Lionel Trilling and Hannah Arendt and Susan Sontag with multi-millionaire blowhards like the, "Crossfire," boys. 

2. What's my standards? Glad you asked. Among books written by people I've actually had as teachers on these sorts of issues--you asked, remember--I recommend E.P Thompson, "The Poverty of Theory," and Robert Scholes' recent book (whose title I disremember) on the profession of letters in the contemporary American academy. I also tend to approch these sorts of issues through the intellectual lenses offered by Barbara Johnson's work--see, "Apostrophe, Animation and Abortion," in her "A World of Difference," for example. 

3. Uh...at the risk of making sense...David Duke was cited because a) he stuck up for free speech, always a good thing, and b) as a bit of irony, given that even a racist KKK Wizard appeared to understand why we should encourage dissent. But how charming to bring up NAMBLA, and what a good reminder of Tailgunner Joe's good old smear tactics. Hey, did you know that Ward Churchill was personally responsible for Stalin?

4. If folks aren't repelled or even mildly bothered by the concept of a politically biased, multimillionaire talk-show host launching a well-financed and supported campaign against a lecturer in order to whip up hatred, keep his ratings high, and sell his latest book--you do realize that this schmuck is actually hawking, "Bill O'reilly For Kids," now?--well, what can one say?

5. What in the HELL are people so scared of? It's a college professor doing EXACTLY what college professors are supposed to be doing--encouraging people to think. Eeeew, lawzy me. Fer crying out loud, the students who wrote in to Hamilton College's newspaper and argued about it understand the whole thing way better--read them, at the link I posted, fer crissake. There's yer intellectual discourse--exactly as it should be.

6. This is a free society. Sorry 'bout that. I'd think folks would be proud that in THIS country, you can say what you want without so much fear or favor.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Feb 25, 2005)

Karazenpo said:
			
		

> ome students have to take that course from this fruitcake and get a decent mark from him. They really have no choice so they may have to kiss butt for it, degrading yes, but some do it.



Even if, as you're assuming (since you don't actually know, once again), that Churchill's courses are required, no one has to kiss his butt.  First, as Robert has pointed out clearly, there are worse things than failing a course in college.  Second, I have yet to experience any teacher at any level who will fail a student for disagreeing with them -- if the student is capable of arguing logically, they are normally thrilled to have an independent thinking student on their hands.



			
				Karazenpo said:
			
		

> No, we can't always choose where our tax dollars are spent but in this case, if some of us would grow some balls and complain about this Churchill deal, well then, maybe we can make a difference, don't you think?



It's nice to see that the difference you're interested in making is in the repression of freedom and education.



			
				Karazenpo said:
			
		

> Please, I'm from Massachusetts and have some input here, give me just a little credit for that so please, I said please, don't put Dr. Summers in the same category as that maniac Churchill.



Why not?  They're both academics who have made statements that people want to see them punished for.  Both should be protected under the same standard.

Michael, you stated and this is a direct quote, out of context you may say but you said it in defense of the man no matter how you want to spin it:
"Good for David Duke ..."



			
				Karazenpo said:
			
		

> nothing that man could say would give crediability to any debate. You might as well  say 'Good for Adolph Hitler"..., no, Michael, you don't think? Why? Hitler inspired the KKK and is the head figure, isn't he? they use his Nazi symbol or am I wrong again? Here end of the lesson.



Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.  Giving credit to someone for doing the right thing isn't the same thing as endorsing the evil they do.



			
				Karazenpo said:
			
		

> PS: Michael, I know I'm a little hard on my responses but as you, I am very passionate about this country and the bad guys.



I'm not Michael, but I have to point out that people that happen to disagree with you on many of these issues are also very passionate about their country.  I hope you recognize that when you throw around insults about "far left wing liberals", telling us to "love it or leave it", it's hard to not take these things personally.

My preference would be for a spirited political debate based on actual facts where we can avoid telling one another to leave the country that we love.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Feb 25, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> This is a free society. Sorry 'bout that. I'd think folks would be proud that in THIS country, you can say what you want without so much fear or favor.



This is, in fact, the primary issue, and the only real one that should matter.

There have been, and still are, many societies where freedom can be suppressed by the state and by the whims and wills of outraged people.  America was founded largely to repudiate such concepts, and Americans have fought and died to protect those freedoms for over two centuries.

Many Americans were stripped of their livelihoods and freedoms as recently as the 50's (and even the 70s) for daring to voice opinions that didn't match the common party line.  Maybe many of us simply don't know anything about that history; maybe they're entirely comfortable with that sort of thing.

Regardless of the reasons, trying to suppress academic freedom stands against everything that helped bring society out of the Dark Ages, and helps make America stand out against societies of oppression and dictatorship.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 25, 2005)

Karazenpo said:
			
		

> Michael, that's an old one about walking out of the room, it's like changing the channel. However, I think you are mistaken on that point only because it was brought up earlier that some at the college are 'captive' audiences. Several of us brought that up, I was one. Some students have to take that course from this fruitcake and get a decent mark from him. They really have no choice so they may have to kiss butt for it, degrading yes, but some do it.
> No, we can't always choose where our tax dollars are spent but in this case, if some of us would grow some balls and complain about this Churchill deal, well then, maybe we can make a difference, don't you think?
> 
> Hey, so waht if O'rReilly is the reason for this? So what? Didn't you want to know? Didn't the the friends and relatives of the 9/11 victims want to know? or would you rather hide your head in the sand? Isn't his slogan, 'I'm looking out for you', what the hell is wrong with that? Guys like Churchill aren't looking out for us!
> ...


OK Joe .. let's break this down ... 

No body is required to do anything in College. If something is that offensive to you, drop the class. There are plenty of other courses you can take. And Higher Education is not mandatory in this country. 

O'Reilly is not 'Looking Out for Anyone'. He is desperately distributing bread and circuses. Distracting the citizenry from the machinations of power. He is creating a lens of hatred and giving it a focal point.

I'm a Massachusetts Native myself ... and watch carefully the parallels between Churchill and Summers. They will be clear, because the same media is playing to the same rules with both persons. And don't forget about that  nutcase from Massachusetts we almost put in the Governors chair a few years back. Silber .... Now there was a democrat I was glad lost an election.

Concerning David Duke - take the argument away from David Duke, and give it to Thomas Jefferson, or Abraham Lincoln. The argument is valid. Either the first amendment means we can freely make statements about anything, provided they don't cause the physical damage (yelling FIRE in a crowded theater) without reprise, or the first amendment doesn't mean that. If Grand Imperial Wizard says it is okay for the professor to profess a thing because the first amendment says so ... it really is irrelevant who is making the statement. 

If Adolf Hitler said the First Amendment guarantees that Churchill can say what he wants, Hitler would be correct.

The truth about me and Churchill is that *I have no idea what he said*. The only source I have for his statements are this thread, and what O'Reilly has been screaching from his radio program. I look at the whole discussion with about the same seriousness I give to the folks who claim a surface-to-air missile brought down TWA 800. Nice theory ... Yawn!.

But, if we start making statements about 'Free Speech Going Too Far', then you capture my attention. 

Thanks - Mike


----------



## Karazenpo (Feb 25, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> OK Joe .. let's break this down ...
> 
> No body is required to do anything in College. If something is that offensive to you, drop the class. There are plenty of other courses you can take. And Higher Education is not mandatory in this country.
> 
> ...



Hey Mike, thanks for you response and again in all sincerity I want no hard feelings what-so-ever and I do get the feeling you realize that. My Dad always tells me not to argue politics but it's hard to resist. I still don't agree with your rebuttal at all but I'm not going to address it again because we're both set in our ways and nothing wrong with that either, lol. I will however only address this. You stated: O'Reilly is not 'Looking Out for Anyone'. He is desperately distributing bread and circuses. Distracting the citizenry from the machinations of power. He is creating a lens of hatred and giving it a focal point.

Mike, I totally disagree with this completely and I would love to see if I could somehow pull some strings and get you on the O'Reilly Factor, don't get me wrong, not that i have any clout, I'm reaching, but I'd like to try. From debating you I think you would go for this, okay? I'm not trying to put you on the spot, I swear it, but your statement against O'Reilly would make one helluva segment on his show, you have to agree on that, lol. Take care & be safe, Joe


----------



## Karazenpo (Feb 25, 2005)

I'm not Michael, but I have to point out that people that happen to disagree with you on many of these issues are also very passionate about their country. I hope you recognize that when you throw around insults about "far left wing liberals", telling us to "love it or leave it", it's hard to not take these things personally.

My preference would be for a spirited political debate based on actual facts where we can avoid telling one another to leave the country that we love.
__________________

Okay, PeachMonkey, I hear ya on that but you don't think I perceive your digs and inuendos and others just because you sugar coat it. C'ome on now, here we go again. The difference between me and you is I say it bluntly and you dress t up a little but it's still a matter of delivery. It's like the martial arts, whether you use a direct hard technique or an indirect soft technique it still hurst when it hits. 

My problem with you and some others is did you hear what I said: "Okay, PeachMonkey, I hear ya".   

You won't give me or anyone else for that matter even that much. I will always concede to someone and have when they make a good point but your attitude and others (I won't say liberals anymore, see I'm conceding again) is that you are always right. hell, you can't see that!!!!!!! Go back and read ever post you ever wrote! It's absurd. You are never, ever wrong. Everyone else is but you! It must be nice to be perfect. What a crock of sh_t! Sorry, but the facts are in your posts. Now, this may piss you off but I'm willing to bet you don't have a boyfriend/husband and if you had a husband you're divorced, sorry, you may say irrelavent and none of my business but it goes perfectly in line with your attitude! I wouldn't bring this up, I really wouldn't, but there's no healthy discussion you can have with someone who is always right! Michael and I don't debate that way and neither do many others. Hey, PeachMonkey, no offense but what the hell, no one is right all the time, I'm the first to change my position on things nad have and said the magic words 'stand corrected' but I'm willing to bet oyu never have, have you? No, not on this forun anyway. Wonder Woman, I guess. God bless you.


----------



## Karazenpo (Feb 25, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> What exactly does the Chappequidic (sp) incident have to do with the fascist vitriol that the right-wing attack machine, in the forms of Hannity, Savage, and the like constantly push?
> 
> And why are you so unable to focus on actual points of discussion instead of launching into insults?



I insult like you, the only difference is we have soft and hard, direct and indirect. You don't think I perceive your digs and iuendos because you dress it up a little? You're soft and indirect, I'm hard and direct, much like Shotokan vs. Kung Fu but the bottom line is both methods hurt when they hit! You're no different with your insults, you just have a more sutle (sp.?) way of doing it. Ted Kennedy? Simple. You can't make the analogy of the most liberal left wing politician in Massachusetts second only to John Kerry?? Hey, my crystal ball, why do I bet you voted for John Kerry? You say a lot about me and mine but who won the damn election in this country? Who one the majority? Overall? Everything!, the seats? Who? Get over it, will you! George W. & Co. won fair and square and by a good margin despite the lies of Dan Rather and CBS News. Move on! You lost, it's that simple. I hope you realize how foolish Barbara Boxer looked a little while ago and Uncle Ted, the 'bridge man" is no better either. Move on!!!!


----------



## Karazenpo (Feb 25, 2005)

PeachMonkey, I'm going to ask for one favor and one favor only then I'm out of this section and sticking to the martial arts foums. Please, give me your honest feelings about Ward Churchill. No b.s., no holds barred. I don't want to hear about any rights or anything because that is not what I'm asking. I'm asking you if he is your type of person. Is he someone who's views you relate to, someone that you believe in. If he ran for political office, would you vote for him? You have made such a strong stand on this that I think the members of this discussion forum have the right to know this. Plus, your freedom of speech, you should have no problem expressing your viewpoints to my questions. Again, no b.s., no rhetoric, no dancing around the questions, no spin, just please give honest answers to the above questions. I think that's fair enough for you know how I stand.  Thank you for the debate, take care & be safe. Respectfully, "Joe"


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 25, 2005)

1. Joe, you need to read Jacques Lacan's essay, "Aggressivity in Psychoanalysis." Or else Tindbergen's experiments with male stickleback fish and mirrors. 

2. Your last four posts will stand as an example of what you apparently think of as being intellectual discourse.

3. As far as I'm concerned, this has become a class issue. Joe, you're pissed because you identify intellectual life as upper class, and because you live in a society that exploits working class labor to support intellectual life, among other things. Then, your society--via people like Hannity and O'Reilly--turns around and tells you that a) you're here to serve upper class interests; b) this is because you're not good enough to be an intellectual; c) this is perfectly OK, and how God planned things to be. They're worse than wrong--they're lying.

4. See the topic of "ressentiment," as discussed in Frederic Jameson, "The Political Unconscious."

5. You should be pissed, Joe. Just not at us--or more precisely, you shouldn't be pissed at us for the reasons you think you should be pissed at us. You shouldn't be pissed because we look down on you ("we?"), or because we are pointy-head America-hating intellectuals who are all just dying to join NAMBLA. You shouldn't be pissed because we don't support our troops, or the hard-working cops who help keep us safe. You should be pissed because the way ideology works in this country, it is far too easy for guys like me to overlook or look down on--let's go all Wobblies here--the working-class stiffs who fix our cars and collect our garbage and, "guard us while we sleep."
6. So--you wanna be pissed at Prof. Churchill? Fine. Be pissed at him because because he depends on privilege to make his point. And because he's haughty. And because you've been lied to about who your enemies are. And because the guys who you think are, "on your side," for ex Hizzoner Bush and Bill O'Reilly--also depend on privilege and haughtiness to make their points.

7. But you should be glad that for all its flaws, this is still the United States. A place where it's almost true that Sad Sam in Anton Myrer's, "Once an Eagle," (read it...you'd like it; I know I did) can quote Shakespeare and piss everybody off:

"The weight of this sad time we must obey/Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say."


----------



## Karazenpo (Feb 25, 2005)

HA, HA, HA!!!!!!!!!!!! It's a little after 11:00pm my time and I thought I'd catch some t.v. Well guess what? Remember a few posts ago I said time will tell and things would escalate to violence and you guys put me down? Remember? Well a reporter uncovered information that Mr. Churchill stole someone elses work. There is more to it than that but it's a breaking story and more will be coming out. He ASSAULTED the reporter and before anyone questions me on this, IT WAS ON FILM, YES CAUGHT ON TAPE. Good old Ward got violent 'TWICE' when this reporter attempted to inquire about this situation. 

PeachMonkey, Robert and Company who supports good old Ward better regroup so you can make 101 excuses for this pathetic imbecile but many of us would respect you more if you just admitted what an idiot loser he is. YOU HAVE TO SEE THE TAPE BECAUSE HE ACTS EXACTLY LIKE YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE ME ACT IN A SITUATION LIKE THAT SO YOU COULD BE ALL OVER ME!
However, that's the difference bewteen good old Ward and me and that's why I just can't understand your thinking but that's okay, it's your opinion BUT you have to see this tape for his actions are uncalled for, unruly, assaulting, moronic and I guarrantee to you I'll be back soon to post of his FIRING! Freedom of speech, huh? You mean freedom to assault, I said it would escalate to violence sooner or later, slowly but surely, little by little but your pompous attitudes put me down. well, who's laughing now? What was my title of this post, was it something like: 'LOSER"!!!!!!, LOL, LOL.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 25, 2005)

Uh...who supported Ward Churchill, exactly?

Looks like somebody's gonna be sorry in the morning.


----------



## Karazenpo (Feb 25, 2005)

Robert, I didn't see your last post until I just posted  the one after you. I really don't have anything to add because the proof is in Mr. Churchill's actions. I feel vindicated that my instincts, training and experience guided me in the right direction about this guy. Maybe some of you think law enforcement experience is nothing but it's life experience and you really do learn a lot about people and things. Robert, that was a good post in Kenponet about the internet part, I agree with you but sometimes wonder why we continue to stay on it. Sometimes I think it's an addiction. Well, like I told you once before, I do read your into posts and respect your opinions but we just disagree a lot but it doesn't mean we're bad people or can't like each other. Take care my friend, it's almost midnight my time and I've got to go to work tommoro. Signing off, be safe, Joe


----------



## Karazenpo (Feb 25, 2005)

Alright Robert, I just caught your last post as I was going off line. I don't get it, what do you mean?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 25, 2005)

have a good night Joe; thanks for the discussion, however over-heated.


----------



## Karazenpo (Feb 25, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> have a good night Joe; thanks for the discussion, however over-heated.



Okay, goodnight Robert and thank you too.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 25, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> I'm sorry but that is B.S.  And that is why people shouldn't be tenured.  Public sentiment *should *determine what kind of speech, opinions and research are be conducted at publicly funded schools.  If *this was a guy giving speeches on how all minorities should be rounded up and kicked out of the US* or not allowed to vote would you be defending his rights as adimantly?



Michelle Malkin did just that with her book In defense of Internment.  Hannity has had her on the radio and on the Hannity/Combs several times.  No body is screaming for her to be removed.  I get to see her face every morning on Fox while I lift weights.  How many millions has she influenced?  Compare that to the handful of wackjob teachers out there...


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 25, 2005)

Regarding the "New-Media"...Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, O'Reilly et al...



> Circus Stars
> 
> Do you remember the marionettes at the circus?
> How they plied their trade next to the popcorn booth
> ...



Here is a good working definition of fascism...



> *The 14 Defining
> Characteristics Of Fascism *
> 
> by Dr. Lawrence Britt
> ...



upnorthkyosa


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 26, 2005)

Karazenpo said:
			
		

> HA, HA, HA!!!!!!!!!!!! It's a little after 11:00pm my time and I thought I'd catch some t.v. Well guess what? Remember a few posts ago I said time will tell and things would escalate to violence and you guys put me down? Remember? Well a reporter uncovered information that Mr. Churchill stole someone elses work. There is more to it than that but it's a breaking story and more will be coming out. He ASSAULTED the reporter and before anyone questions me on this, IT WAS ON FILM, YES CAUGHT ON TAPE. Good old Ward got violent 'TWICE' when this reporter attempted to inquire about this situation.
> 
> PeachMonkey, Robert and Company who supports good old Ward better regroup so you can make 101 excuses for this pathetic imbecile but many of us would respect you more if you just admitted what an idiot loser he is. YOU HAVE TO SEE THE TAPE BECAUSE HE ACTS EXACTLY LIKE YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE ME ACT IN A SITUATION LIKE THAT SO YOU COULD BE ALL OVER ME!
> However, that's the difference bewteen good old Ward and me and that's why I just can't understand your thinking but that's okay, it's your opinion BUT you have to see this tape for his actions are uncalled for, unruly, assaulting, moronic and I guarrantee to you I'll be back soon to post of his FIRING! Freedom of speech, huh? You mean freedom to assault, I said it would escalate to violence sooner or later, slowly but surely, little by little but your pompous attitudes put me down. well, who's laughing now? What was my title of this post, was it something like: 'LOSER"!!!!!!, LOL, LOL.


Let's review.

College professor makes statement
Nations second (third?) richest radio personality attacks college professor
Radio personality incites listeners to protest colleges who hired college professor
Radio personality listeners achieve cancellation of the college professors paid speaking engagements 
People all over the country are calling for college professors head on a platter (metaphorically in most cases)
College professor gets in a fight with a reporter.

Could it be a papparazzi effect?
Could it be a cornered animal will fight back?

Nope ..  it is proof that the college professor is dangerous. Thus, justifying the premise that someone must call for his head.

Great ... just great.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 26, 2005)

Karazenpo said:
			
		

> . . . .The University of Hawaii paid him to speak!!! and there were rounds of applause for him! WTF!!! I hope the hell there isn't gong to be some idiots answering this post in defense of not only this lying dirtbag but the University of Hawaii for hosting him but in this country, who knows? This guy gets into an American University to teach our kids through 'Affirmative Action' on the pretence that he's an American Indian of which is complete b.s., I'm as much of an American Indian as he is and believe me, I'm not.


It seems that the Honolulu Star Bulletin mis quoted Mr. Churchill concerning his ethnic background. I wonder how much of this argument is taking place because of the original article's incorrect language.


http://starbulletin.com/2005/02/24/news/story3.html



			
				Honolulu Star-Bulletin said:
			
		

> *Churchill misquoted in article on UH speech*
> Star-Bulletin staff
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## modarnis (Feb 26, 2005)

>>HA, HA, HA!!!!!!!!!!!! It's a little after 11:00pm my time and I thought I'd catch some t.v. Well guess what? Remember a few posts ago I said time will tell and things would escalate to violence and you guys put me down? Remember? Well a reporter uncovered information that Mr. Churchill stole someone elses work. There is more to it than that but it's a breaking story and more will be coming out. He ASSAULTED the reporter and before anyone questions me on this, IT WAS ON FILM, YES CAUGHT ON TAPE. Good old Ward got violent 'TWICE' when this reporter attempted to inquire about this situation>>

So this guy is a jerk.  This still does not indicate that his speech gives rise to the kind of violence in others that would warrant restricting his speech.  As much as I may disagree with anyones words, I at least have a well grounded understanding of the rights to free speech.  I posted some relevant links.  There are a few who have posted on this thread that should take the time to read them.  Unfortunately Joe, all of the folks you have attacked at least understand our constitutional framework


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 26, 2005)

*Karazenpo in bold:

Go back [Peachmonkey] and read ever post you ever wrote! It's absurd. You are never, ever wrong. Everyone else is but you! It must be nice to be perfect. * 

No.  Peach will tell you I'm often right.  I think he thinks Michael and Robert are often right.  I should say "correct," as we are never right in the political sense.  Or rarely so.

*Now, this may piss you off but I'm willing to bet you don't have a boyfriend/husband and if you had a husband you're divorced, sorry, you may say irrelavent and none of my business but it goes perfectly in line with your attitude! * 

Last I checked he had a girlfriend.

*I wouldn't bring this up, I really wouldn't, but there's no healthy discussion you can have with someone who is always right! * 

On the contrary.  You can try and prove him wrong.  That's not only healthy, that's fun...if you have the ability to do it.  

*Hey, PeachMonkey, no offense but what the hell, no one is right all the time, I'm the first to change my position on things nad have and said the magic words 'stand corrected' but I'm willing to bet oyu never have, have you? No, not on this forun anyway. Wonder Woman, I guess.*

Start with this insofar as changing your position.  Peach is a guy.  A heterosexual male.   

Ooops.  I just noticed they pulled the plug on you.  I always notice this too late, it seems.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Tgace (Feb 26, 2005)

The guy does have the freedom to say what he wants...he wasnt imprisoned was he? I have the freedom to tell my boss whatever I want, doesn't mean I cant get fired. Granted tenure, freedom of thought (within the scope of "University jurisdiction") are improtant and firing the guy seems extreme. But the guys not being put in a camp or executed or imprisoned or anything. If theres a problem its at the university level. Just as the guy has the right to spout the crap he spouts...we all have the right to complain, protest and write letters about the guy too.


----------



## Danjo (Feb 26, 2005)

After reading this, I must say that I do find it ironic that a person that says publicly that they want to do away with the US, then stands on his US Constitutional rights for his own purposes. If you want to get rid of the US, then you want to get rid of it's Constitutional protections also.


I can't believe Prof. Joe got suspended for this. Was it because he mistook Peachmonkey's gender? Please tell me he can come back soon.


----------



## GAB (Feb 26, 2005)

Danjo said:
			
		

> After reading this, I must say that I do find it ironic that a person that says publicly that they want to do away with the US, then stands on his US Constitutional rights for his own purposes. If you want to get rid of the US, then you want to get rid of it's Constitutional protections also.
> 
> 
> I can't believe Prof. Joe got suspended for this. Was it because he mistook Peachmonkey's gender? Please tell me he can come back soon.


 
Hi Danjo,

 I think he just ran up against the inner sactum of the sactimonious of Martial Talk..I can't believe McRobertsons remarks either??? Joe gets suspended...LOL

Then Hardheaded comes up and plays dumb, Oh that was so tricky...

I believe in freedom of speech also, I guess that is why I have been suspended and kicked off of boards??? I don't trash talk, I am just relentless...

Regards, Gary


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 26, 2005)

Hey, if you guys are comfortable with a small group of students getting a right-wing, multimillionaire talk show host to help them oppose the free exchange of ideas, our Constitutional guarantees of free speech, and the principle of academic freedom, what could I possibly say to convince you otherwise?


----------



## psi_radar (Feb 27, 2005)

I graduated at CU boulder as an "unconventional" student. That means I was an old guy (late 20's), and unfortunately wasn't a full contributing part of its partying status. I've stayed in the area because it's abolutely beautiful. I love it.

Locally, we're not too bent out of shape on this issue. Obviously Fox News and others have taken this bonehead's views and made it a moneymaker. The exposure is a little embarassing, after all, we had the Ramsey case and other incompetence to deal with as well. Sometimes we seem like we're the nexus of poor police work, stupidity, and corrupt sports teams. And so it goes.

Ward Churchill used hyperbole to make a point, a point which is understandable if you cut through the bull. He is saying we, that is the United States, have a history of hegemony, genocide, and improper projection of our force to influence our will on other peoples. And by not actively protesting these policies, we are all complicit in our government's actions, and reap what we sow. 

I don't agree with his methods, and I'm skeptical about his credentials, but the man does have a point, if you get past the 7-second sound bites. 

When I saw the towers get hit, my first spoken reaction was, let's find these people and turn their land into a glass parking lot. Then I started thinking about the innocents in between. Many bottles of single malt later, I realized this situation was like any other disease. You can either treat the symptoms (eliminate the threat) , or try and treat the root illness, which lies somewhere in our foreign policy.  There's money, religion, energy. A lot to do, but it doesn't end with a man who voices dissent in university. I think we're subverting our own doubts and guilt on this relatively unsignificant man whose words have struck a very uncomfortable tone--one in which we must ask ourselves--did we have it coming? People around the world are extremely angry with us, pre 9'11 and post. Why?


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 27, 2005)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> When I saw the towers get hit, my first spoken reaction was, let's find these people and turn their land into a glass parking lot. Then I started thinking about the innocents in between. Many bottles of single malt later, I realized this situation was like any other disease. You can either treat the symptoms (eliminate the threat) , or try and treat the root illness, which lies somewhere in our foreign policy.  There's money, religion, energy. A lot to do, but it doesn't end with a man who voices dissent in university. I think we're subverting our own doubts and guilt on this relatively unsignificant man whose words have struck a very uncomfortable tone--one in which we must ask ourselves--did we have it coming? People around the world are extremely angry with us, pre 9'11 and post. Why?



Mr. Churchill is one among many who sees the hurt we have inflicted in the past and who thinks that we can correct that hurt by bringing a peacefull and concilliatory message.  Mr. Churchill, if you actually read his writing, advocates using our national treasure to make the lives of the people involved better then they were before...and in that way, we spread freedom, peace and goodwill for America throughout the world.  

Question - Is our current path contrary to those goals???

Check out this thread...I'm feeling a little predictable and have decided to stir things a bit.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22051


----------



## GAB (Feb 27, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Hey, if you guys are comfortable with a small group of students getting a right-wing, multimillionaire talk show host to help them oppose the free exchange of ideas, our Constitutional guarantees of free speech, and the principle of academic freedom, what could I possibly say to convince you otherwise?


Hi McRobertson,

I am very much concerned with the right wing the left wing and any other radical group...I have got to tell, you I have been on a few campus's myself and some of the stuff Angela Davis preached was pretty scary... But like you say freedom is what we are after hear, I guess this board is just not quite so free...

Rules, we play by rules, good!!! 

I just am curious about who pulls the switch and why. I believe they should tell anyone who is curious as to the reason...Let us be able to verify or learn, after all we are the peer...

I am sure this board is not a democratic org....You need autocrat's but after awhile and you see some get away with it and others can't, well you know what I mean....

Think, learn, and try to emulate the good and throw away the bad...

Regards, Gary


----------



## PeachMonkey (Feb 27, 2005)

GAB said:
			
		

> ...and you see some get away with it and others can't, well you know what I mean....


 So why the concern about Joe's suspension but no similar protests of "sanctimony" when Robert was recently suspended?  Or does that break your model of "some getting away and others can't"?


----------



## GAB (Feb 27, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> So why the concern about Joe's suspension but no similar protests of "sanctimony" when Robert was recently suspended? Or does that break your model of "some getting away and others can't"?


Peach Monkey,

I did not see that Robert was suspended, Guess I was to busy in the trench's
on another subject...

I believe you are a very good group of Constitutional talkers. I like the constitution I have taken many oaths to uphold and fight for it...

Regards, Gary


----------



## TonyM. (Feb 27, 2005)

For me, PSI radar has caught the correct.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 27, 2005)

People, Topics when debated get heated, and sometimes lines are crossed.  When that happens, we have the option to suspend or ban as we see fit.  This is true on every BBS there is.  In this case, a 1 week suspension was issued for a line being crossed.  It will be lifted in a few days and Karazenpo will be welcome back.

Debate as much as you want folks, but remember, even if you disagree with the other position you are still required to act in a mature manner.  Especially those of you claiming high rank.  If a "Black Belt" means anything more than you paid a fee to some organization or were someones best buddy. Too often we encounter high ranks who lack any illusion of maturity, professionalism or simply courtesy. - Please note, I am not referring to Prof. Joe here. - 


Gary,
  You past generous support of this board is greatly appreciated.  What we do not appreciate are your continued shots, slings and arrows aimed at our staff due to your inabillity to stay within our posted rules.  At their core, they are simple: Stay on Topic, Be Polite, and treat others as you would be treated.  If you do not like the way this site is run, then go elsewhere. If you have a valid complaint, then post it in the correct place, which it the Support Forum, so that we may address it.  Burying your shots in numerous threads does nothing towards resolving any legitimate complaints you may have.  You take issue with the fact that you have been suspended in the past.  Get over it.  So have I. So have several of my staff, and my own instructor was suspended as well. Most folks take the 'Well this sucks but maybe I did get a little hot. Ill keep it a bit cooler next time.' attitude. 

Oh and you're right, it's not a Democracy here...not even a Republic. It's a Constitutional Monarchy.  I'm the King, Seig is my Prime Minister.  

Now, to the Constitution issue, let me quote something from one of my other forums:


> *About "Free Speech"*
> Freedom of Speech is a worthy concept and one which I support wholeheartedly. Indeed it is one of the founding principles of this forum. However, it is important to understand the limitations of this principle and not to abuse it.
> 
> You must understand that, especially in regard to website discussion forums, the argument "What about my right to free speech?" simply doesn't hold water either legally or morally.
> ...




Now, if there is additional concerns about these tangental issues, PLEASE! start a thread in the Support Forum and we will be happy to examine and address them.


----------



## GAB (Feb 27, 2005)

TonyM. said:
			
		

> For me, PSI radar has caught the correct.


Hi All,

I truly believe all of the persons had some good stuff... Got a bit heated but it was not over done by any means in my Humble Opinion...

If you take the post by HHJH. It is very apparent why Joe got his, if in fact HHJH know's what he is talking about, and not just perpetuating his take, or the secret of his fellow poster... 

I believe there are numerous posters that are the same person different location like the library or the school or their job or whatever...

They are only fooling themselves, not others but hey, no biggie...I don't do it and that is all that matters to me...

I have a feeling this is pretty much over so I will probably be blamed for its demise... BOO HOO...

Regards, Gary


----------



## kenpo tiger (Feb 27, 2005)

Gary,

Why are you always looking for a conspiracy?  If you've ever 'spoken' with the gentlemen (and they are) you mention as being the core of co-conspirators, you'd see that they:
1) love a good or even great debate
2) are well-read and will almost always post well-thought-out and thoughtful ideas and concepts as well as replies
3) really aren't the horrible people they are made out to be by some on these boards.

Reason I like MT is precisely _because_ of the tight moderation.  Tempers tend to flare around here and it's good to see that someone notices and does something about it.

I hope you all are able to temper your martial skills better than your oratorial ones.   kt

PS - Peach, I am in the dark as to _Robert's_ (of all people) suspension.  When did that happen?  And, my Shakespeare prof in college flunked a couple people on their essays regarding Richard III because they disagreed with his take.  He's also the same prof who asked if he had freshmen in his class (yes, two of us who'd placed out of Eng101) and was outraged that we were allowed to register for his class despite no caveat that it was for anyone other than those who had taken Eng101.  So much for liberal Massachusetts thinkers... (FYI, I was NOT one of the ones given an F on that essay.)


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 27, 2005)

Couple months back. It was felt--with some justice, I think--that I was chasing a couple guys from thread to thread, and even more that I was acting like a moderator for no good reason. (There was another issue with somebody other than me behaving quite badly, but I'm not going to get into that.) I still think it was a little weird, but not all that weird. 

In this particular case, though--and without getting into things that the moderators' post above already handled--the interesting thing is the way that Professor Churchill's name rapidly got linked to child molesting and other sexual issues.

It's pretty typical, these days--if you don't toe the Republican Party Line, you ain't no Real American and you Don't Like Women. People have picked this crap up from Stern, Leykis, Limbaugh and the rest of 'em, without even knowing it.

The worst thing about Churchill, I think, is that he kinda sounds like another one of those self-righteous academics I've met more than once...and above all, he's apparently failing to model and to teach the kind of civility that should be primary. In this, though, he's certainly no worse than any number of strident, bellicose right-wingers I've read and heard...you can read David Horowitz or Allan Bloom any day, and it's at least as bad once you decode it. And para-academics like Oliver North or Bob Jones are considerably worse.

Then too, it's interesting that the Hamilton College students mostly seemed to have just the right response, discussing and arguing exactly as college students should oughta be doing. Then in the other corner--BILL O'REILLY, CHAMPION OF AMERICAN JUSTICE, who just so happens to have a brand new book out that he wants to promote.


----------



## GAB (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi KT,

I guess I am just a conspiracy kind of guy...LOL

Are you telling me NOT...I am not talking about this particular group only..Just look at all the different names and the different posts and the ones I am
talking about that are not Card Carrying Supporting members and all that stuff...4% on MT are supporting members...

I know You probably don't think sears and ammco and goodyear never cheated anyone either, I guess my mind has been in to many locations, along with my body, been into way to many fights... (streets..for you Robert)...

Just write me off as Brain Degradation, like Dr. Dave has... 

Not the fact that I have been in to much stuff to not be a continuous skeptic...And such a nice boy when I was young....

To many none profile and all that good stuff... Come on please KT as sharp as you are, are you really that naive....

Regards, Gary






QUOTE=kenpo tiger]Gary,

Why are you always looking for a conspiracy? If you've ever 'spoken' with the gentlemen (and they are) you mention as being the core of co-conspirators, you'd see that they:
1) love a good or even great debate
2) are well-read and will almost always post well-thought-out and thoughtful ideas and concepts as well as replies
3) really aren't the horrible people they are made out to be by some on these boards.

Reason I like MT is precisely _because_ of the tight moderation. Tempers tend to flare around here and it's good to see that someone notices and does something about it.

I hope you all are able to temper your martial skills better than your oratorial ones. kt

PS - Peach, I am in the dark as to _Robert's_ (of all people) suspension. When did that happen? And, my Shakespeare prof in college flunked a couple people on their essays regarding Richard III because they disagreed with his take. He's also the same prof who asked if he had freshmen in his class (yes, two of us who'd placed out of Eng101) and was outraged that we were allowed to register for his class despite no caveat that it was for anyone other than those who had taken Eng101. So much for liberal Massachusetts thinkers... (FYI, I was NOT one of the ones given an F on that essay.)[/QUOTE]


----------



## kenpo tiger (Feb 27, 2005)

GAB said:
			
		

> Hi KT,
> 
> I guess I am just a conspiracy kind of guy...LOL
> 
> ...


----------



## GAB (Feb 28, 2005)

Hi KT,

I think there is a Santa Claus... I also believe in the Easter Bunny...

Why else would we do it if it wern't true???:uhyeah: Just look at all the children
who believe...Starting out life in a fairy tail and always wanting to believe in a life after death and other such things...Interesting 

I mean look at the Academy Awards, they believe something, we all have or own thoughts.

God, Country and there own Talent, and Editing and Makeup and, oh well. I am glad that Million Dollar baby won some more awards, I really liked that movie...

I was watching that and thought about Sandra Dee how that world ate her up yet we all want to believe it is so beautiful..Goes back to naive.

I think the ones who are carrying "Study" to new heights are truly good debaters, Well informed and in most other countries would be in prison...

But if you count them there arn't but a handful. And Karazenpo was alone and he put up his side and got suspended...

Higher education does that for you I guess...

While the working stiffs just go home and have a family and eat american pie and pay their taxes and find the other pasture greener, but when they count their money at the end of the year, low and behold they made more than the average teacher, must really gall them... (the teacher) 

Like Roy Clark said "thank God and Greyhound she is gone" I like that song...
"She" can be anything...

Like I say, I like the board but, I am not so sure it likes me...I will have to dwell on that one for awhile...rules you got to love um...

Regards, Gary


----------



## kenpo tiger (Feb 28, 2005)

Gary, I don't think Karazenpo's suspension had anything to do with being ganged up on.  He is certainly capable of defending himself.  I think it may have been due to the tenor of his responses.  It's also just a suspension which, as was pointed out, isn't forever and does serve to cool things off a bit for all parties concerned.


Would that that could be done for those who get too full of themselves and believe they can say anything under the guise of academic freedom.


----------



## psi_radar (Feb 28, 2005)

GAB said:
			
		

> Hi All,
> 
> I truly believe all of the persons had some good stuff... Got a bit heated but it was not over done by any means in my Humble Opinion...
> 
> ...



Hi Gary, 

I'm not part of any conspiracy. However troubling you may find it, there are others out there who have come to the same conclusions purely as a mechanism of their own free thought.


----------



## GAB (Feb 28, 2005)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> Hi Gary,
> 
> I'm not part of any conspiracy. However troubling you may find it, there are others out there who have come to the same conclusions purely as a mechanism of their own free thought.


Hi, More power to you, and others.. I have no conspiracy theory. Words placed in topic...I just went a long with it...Lots of head games on the web. those that do need to get a life.

I do have a problem with those who have several different names and play games...I ran into that on another board and got removed from it for stating my thoughts.. What I heard is the ones who play this game the most have multiple places to post and are on AOL, hard to track...

I ran one down and found out they have a good influental job, I was threatened and their knees turned to jelly...Pathetic...

Regards, Gary


----------



## kenpo tiger (Feb 28, 2005)

Gary,

How could someone have multiple identities in this forum?  I have enough trouble keeping track of my one and only!   Besides, what purpose would it serve?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 28, 2005)

It's happened.  I have 2 accounts, 1 business,  1 personal/testing.  Multiple accounts are however against the rules.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Feb 28, 2005)

I've been curious about Gary's conspiracy theories of "multiple posters", but have avoided commenting until now; however, he seems unwilling to let it die.

 I'm not sure why the fact that I wasn't discussing my gender in this thread must somehow mean that HHJH and I (or is it Robert and I?  or all three of us?) are the same person.  I didn't correct Joe's suggestions because my gender is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand (as were many of his wandering, insulting diatribes related to my gender, among other things).

 That fact that I'm a "he" has come up before; both Steve and Fiesty Mouse know me in person.  I'm a student at Steve's school.  Steve wasn't "outing" me to point this out.

 This also isn't the first time that someone I've spoken with has decided to assume from the name "PeachMonkey" that I must be female, and throw some kind of gender-based insult.  None of them have been worth responding to.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 28, 2005)

> That fact that I'm a "he" has come up before


 I'm pretty sure I'd seen it before somewhere, but am disinclined to afford this claim any credibility if you don't cite a reference. :rofl:


----------



## GAB (Mar 1, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> I've been curious about Gary's conspiracy theories of "multiple posters", but have avoided commenting until now; however, he seems unwilling to let it die.
> 
> I'm not sure why the fact that I wasn't discussing my gender in this thread must somehow mean that HHJH and I (or is it Robert and I? or all three of us?) are the same person. I didn't correct Joe's suggestions because my gender is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand (as were many of his wandering, insulting diatribes related to my gender, among other things).
> 
> ...


Hi Peach,

As far as this group goes I am not pointing fingers I think Robert has said many times he is in Larry Tatums school, So Ca. You and HH are in Indiana as is Feisty. So you have your own threads and posts and then talk about them in school or at the Dojo.. Big deal...

I am just saying, I ran into it on another board and did a lot of research and got expunged when I brought it up with the owner and was not real polite about it...

Peach Monkey, Peach's are testicles in EPAK so I am not sure and I really don't care... What I was doing was just trying to figure what happened, and I am not so sure it was this that got him, I think it was the Abu Ali failure to listen to the moderators... Or a combination of both...Speculation is dangerous but it is still profitable in the right place and time..

You can be an it, for all I care, you are good at what you do, and I enjoy your post's...

Regards, Gary


----------



## kenpo tiger (Mar 1, 2005)

The scariest part of who you are, Peach, is that your intelligence and knowledge are light years ahead of most who are your seniors.

Funny how guys go for gender bashing terms the moment they feel threatened.


----------



## GAB (Mar 1, 2005)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> The scariest part of who you are, Peach, is that your intelligence and knowledge are light years ahead of most who are your seniors.
> 
> Funny how guys go for gender bashing terms the moment they feel threatened.


Come on KT Guys??? Some persons!!! 

He was'nt threatened he was so mad he was just totally angry, major adrenaline rush, had a beer or two and typed...Joe threatened!

I don't think so, the only way you threaten Joe, is with a gun and his hands better be tied or he will get you...

Tough dude...."Don't mistake his kindness for weakness"...

Regards, Gary


----------



## PeachMonkey (Mar 1, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure I'd seen it before somewhere, but am disinclined to afford this claim any credibility if you don't cite a reference. :rofl:


 Silly Flatlander, always insisting on evidence 

 Sometime I'll do a search for any times that Fiesty, HHJH, KT, or anyone else has called me "he" or referred to me as one of "the boys".  I'll report on the results and we'll see whether or not I was wrong.


----------



## GAB (Mar 1, 2005)

KT,

Do I smell conspiracy in Peach's post? Or is that evasion...LOL

I really like your style...

Regards, Gary


----------



## ginshun (Mar 1, 2005)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Gary,
> 
> How could someone have multiple identities in this forum?  I have enough trouble keeping track of my one and only!   Besides, what purpose would it serve?


 I haven't been here long enough to make judgements, but I have seen it on other web boards where people make multiple accounts simply to give Thier main account positive feedback.

 Just an FYI.


----------



## DavidCC (Mar 1, 2005)

claiming "Its one person with multilpe accts" is often a desperate tactic employed when losing a flame war.  it is almost never true.  I'm notsaying that's what happened here, I don't evenknow who claimed it...  this is just what I have observed on the hindernet.


----------



## GAB (Mar 1, 2005)

DavidCC said:
			
		

> claiming "Its one person with multilpe accts" is often a desperate tactic employed when losing a flame war. it is almost never true. I'm notsaying that's what happened here, I don't evenknow who claimed it... this is just what I have observed on the hindernet.


DavidCC,

To know one, is to know ten thousand.

In physc wards they have multi personalities...On the web they have multi e-mail usually at Hot mail or Yahoo...Then they fit the profile, where they can have 5/6 or 7 accounts. 

When I found out who that person was an confronted it...I would have given a hundred dollar bill if I could have been in the same room and watched it turn to Jello... We are talking fear...

But I didn't follow it up... The chase and the catch was all I wanted. Then they went back to their sick life...  I still know and that is what counts...

Regards, Gary


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 1, 2005)

_*Moderator's Note:*

*Please return to the original topic.

 -Shesulsa
 -MT Moderator*_


----------



## Karazenpo (Mar 5, 2005)

Hello everyone. I would like to just address the past situation in a cool, calm and collective manner with a little sense of humor here and there, then I'm leaving 'The Study' (that should make some happy, lol)).  I know this is long, real long but please bear with it, it's my final post here. I have been 'trashed' by some while I was unable to respond (that's brave & honorable, isn't it?) so please let me exercise my first ammendment rights, they are for me too, aren't they? Just give me that much thank you.

First, I do not apologize for my beliefs and convictions to anyone but I do apologize to Kaith and the staff for any violation of the rules and policies of this forum. I totally understand you did what you felt neccessary and I respect that. I know you don't really know me but if you did you would know that I respect authority and if I was sent a 'PM' and told of the problem I would have most certainly cooperated in full. I'll touch a little more on this later.  I was under the assumption there was more tolerence in political discussions, I stand corrected.  After all, I'm from Massachusetts and some of the dispicable things I heard Senator Ted Kennedy say about our sitting President in a time of war, on television, radio and in the newspapers, well, I felt I was mild compared to him, lol.

I would like to say that I fell off my chair when I found out that PeachMonkey is a guy. I would however like to clarify something. I asked PeachMonkey of his gender fairly early on and he stated it shouldn't matter or something to that affect. Well, it does matter in the sense that when we are challenged in our beliefs and someone takes any extremely bold and strong stance it's nice to know who we are talking too, that's all, no big thing. It is commonly known that men and women see things differently. Nothing chauvanistic or sexist about that!  Isn't there a best seller for both genders out there entitled, "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus"? Very popular book and the ladies liked it as much as the men from what I recall. If someone has a problem with that, well, then it's their problem, not mine. 

If you scroll down from Karazenpo you will see my real name and if you look in the upper left hand corner you will also see where I hail from. Now, Robert, I would have to say you agree with me on what I am about to say but so no one thinks I'm taking a liberty here with you by saying that, let me quote you. On Kenponet someone wrote a negative remark about a video clip of a technique that one of Robert's friend's posted. The person who made the negative comment did not use their name. Robert responded and I quote: " I call that bold talk from someone who won't use his own good name." Robert posted again later, these are other excerpts, quote: "I mean, hell, if you used your own name, I might have to add it to the list of people I have a lot of respect for."  "As it is, I understand that you're just this anonymous guy on the Internet with some kind of weird, petty little grudge that he can't bring himself (and it is always guys, ain't it?) to state clearly." "I use my own name, especially when I talk smack to people." end quote- Yes, I agree with you, Robert and I couldn't have said it better myself! I trust that you are consistant and feel the same way in my situation and you don't go which 'way the wind blows'. PeachMonkey used 'bold talk' and so did I but I attached a name to my posts and if he did the same thing their wouldn't have been any confusion on my part as to his gender. His profile was of no help either, read it, unless he's changed it. I still feel Churchill's views are utter lunacy and in the opinions of the vast majority, he's a 'traitor'. My assumption? No, not at all, although I agree with it. Just read the newspapers (and most of them are liberal biased too!), watch the news and listen to the radio, it's all there. 

***SPECIAL NOTE: I don't have a problem with everyone that does not use their real name. This is directed, like Robert stated, to those posters who make bold statements against others.........and if I may add slanderous statements and those who are also 'strongly' opinionated.  So, please, if you post anonymously and don't fit into that above catergory, please take no offense for my viewpoints are not directed toward you. Respectfully, "Joe"

However, there is one thing that I respect Ward Churchill for and that despite his way out, controversial views which upset a lot of people, he has the guts to attach a name to his statements, 'his name' and he doesn't hide under anonymity. Churchill doesn't throw a bomb and then runs and hides while it explodes.  He stays there and takes the shrapnel along with his detractors. Robert and I have had several discussions on several forums over the years and we've had some pretty heavy opinions on issues. We differ on many issues and agree on some. However, I have to say as much as Robert has had some very strong opinions and as I have just found out he was even suspended once (like me), well, you have to respect this guy because his name is on 'every single post' he writes and he makes no mystery of where he trains or what he does for a living.  When Robert throws a bomb he's still there when the smoke clears, you know who he is and he's a very proud man, he's confident and secure about himself. PeachMonkey, take a lesson from him.  I'm looking forward to further conversations with Robert in the future on the martial arts.

Robert, I am not a Republican as you implied, never was, I told you that. To repeat again, I was a registered Democrat who decided to go Independant. I am neither left nor right, I call it like I see it. You also stated Howard Stern is a right winger and listed him along with Limbaugh. Robert, please, in all due respect, you are in error because Stern is obviously to the left, totally supported John Kerry, constantly ridiculed Bush and is one of the biggest fighters on first ammendment rights in this country! I thought everyone knew that. And guess what? I basically like Howard, he can be very entertaining at times, other times I agree, I have to turn him off, lol, for he can get a little annoying to say the least, lol.  I am also a fan of Senator Joe Lieberman, a Democrat and think he would have made a good president also. Just one other thing Robert. You stated to some of my supporters, a little sarcastically, that we should all get together in our little group of right wingers, something like that. Well Robert, don't you guys have your little group of left wingers? You see what I mean, why is it all right for you guys but not for us? Why are your first ammendment rights and freedom of speech more valid then ours? It's like bullying us. I see hyprocrisy with that or little fascism as PeachMonkey would say and remember, I'm an 'Independant' thank you. Enough said on that matter.

I was called 'fascist' and was told to look it up. I know about Benito Mussolini and really didn't have to look it up but in case I was missing something, I did. See, I'm not one sided like some and I listen to what everyone brings to the table whether I agree with it or not. I saw the words dictator, racist and war mongers and that stuck out in my mind.  Bold statement from PeachMonkey, ya think? Well, let's clear this up once and for all. I voted in the November 2nd FREE elections, people that look forward to voting in FREE elections don't believe in dictatorships, I know I certainly don't! My Dad fought against one of the greatest and most ruthless dictators of all time, Adolph Hitler, so please, show some respect and don't even go there. Racist? Please don't even go there either!!! You don't even know me or else you would feel foolish catergorizing me like that because some of my political views are to the right of yours BUT they have NOTHING to do with RACE!  Gimme a break! Again, bold words I think from someone who hides behind a keyboard. These are the popular definitions of facism, PeachMonkey, so when you call someone a facist that is what you're labeling them as, if you think not, then I suggest you look it up! Himmmm, Robert Byrd, former KKK was the head of the Democatic Party, lol. You guys are a riot! Did you hear Howard Dean's (the new leader of the Democratic Party), racist remarks on 02/11/05? probably not......but I'm sure you will.  Believe me, not that the right doesn't have their 'characters' too, of course they do, but it seems that some of you here wish to close your eyes to the skeletons in the left wing closets and are always ready to pounce on the right. Remember, it was you, Peach, who classified me as a 'fascist', my beliefs as 'fascism' and told me to go look it up and these are definitions I found. War monger? Again, you don't know me. Yes, I believe in a strong military, it is common knowledge that the vast majority of the left wing doesn't.  Believing in a strong military is no different than you taking your kickboxing lessons or any self defense art for that matter. You take it because you'll have it in case you need it in these violent times and that's exactly why we need a strong military so we have it when people (monsters) fly airplanes into our buildings. It is what it is. 

Another 'small', lol, problem I had with the left was this. Didn't it make you think why Usama bin Laden would come out with a video tape shortly before our national election stating that all states supporting George Bush will be targeted by Al Queda and those supporting John Kerry will get a pass. These aren't my words, they were his. Let's not spin this, but isn't it obvious what that tells you? Usama wanted Bush out and Kerry in??? I'd be concerned with a statement like that from the most wanted and dangerous enemy to world peace and security! Hello? Is anyone home?

Next, high taxes. Democrats believe that we who work hard for a living, should share our money with those who don't and in my opinion, the many who take ADVANTAGE and ABUSE our system. Yes, there are some programs I believe in, remember, I'm neither right nor left, I call it the way I see it in the best interest for our country. I don't tie myself down to one belief system. I do not see things in black and white as some do, but I investigate the gray areas. Again, you don't know me or what my experiences are on this particular issue either. So you say, what do I know of abuses? I'll give two of many examples I personally have knowledge of. 1) I worked as a narcotics detective at one time. We busted this guy who was making a lucrative business selling crack cocaine. He had like seven, eight kids, a wife and they were on welfare, housing and food stamps yet our investigation turned up that he was buying brand new cars, top of the line- loaded, and shipping them off to Puerto Rico for members of his family. To me,  giving part of my pay check to this guy and his family is not only socialism at it's 'best' but is a down right 'crime of unarmed robbery'!  2) A woman I know, on Section 8 Housing with two kids opens up her own business, buys a Mercedes for her and a BMW for her young daughter. The business and the cars are all under her sister's name, the loans, everything. Now, get this. Housing pays most of her rent then there's a small percentage she pays in relation to her income (which as I stated is' hidden'), well, guess who her landlord is? Her parents! Yes, her parents applied to be landlords for Section 8.  We, the people that earn a living legitimately, have to kick in and pay her rent, health insurance, whatever and it all goes back into the pockets of her and her family!  Welcome to liberal Massachusetts!  It was finally investigated after years of abuse and fraud and from what my sources told me she got another break. Give up the Section 8 now and we won't go after you to make retribution! Nice country, this liberal side of America, isn't it?  So that is why I tend to get offended when I hear some of this 'socialist' rhetoric. Maybe some here are sheltered to these situations and I am not saying that condescendingly at all, but my occupation makes these situations more aware to me than some, I'm sure you can all understand that. 

I think we can all agree abuses go on everywhere which leads me to this point. Churchill. Abuse of 'Affirmative Action'? by misrepresnting himself, let me change that to 'LYING' to get his tenured position. I mentioned that before but it seemed to go over some people's heads. Well, it' coming to light now!!! "Sometimes and I said 'sometimes' freedom of speech is used as an excuse for adults behaving badly".

 Our troops. Please, go talk to their families here at home and ask them these questions. Don't get me wrong, I know some families are opposed to U.S. policies but what I mean is our men and women in the middle east right now, how heart broken they get and how morale plummets when they hear the way some talk back here in the United States. Yes, 'Freedom of Speech', but how about some sensitivity and compassion for those in the trenches who are laying it on the line every day. We all have a voice in the voting booth so use it but right now, imho and those of many others, we should all be a little more considerate, aware and less self serving, maybe 'conservative' is the word (how ironic that is) when speaking negatively knowing it hurts these fine young men and women who unselfishly serve. Believe me, talk like that does not do them any good and certainly won't bring them back any earlier unless it's in a body bag because they lose their incentive to fight. That's not suppressing freedoms or speech, or being 'fascist', that's providing aid and comfort to our troops rather than aid and comfort to our enemies, and some talk that goes around, Churchill's let's say, borders on that. However, with more information out on this guy lately in reference to his lectures and speeches, many now feel he has crossed that line. If some of my students who are currently serving ever caught wind of these posts, they would have been 'banned' from here with their comments, that you can take to the bank! The problem, imho, with those that pass judgement on our military and military situations is the same as many 'so-called self defense' experts in the martial arts. You've got 'arm chair managers' who never toted a rifle in combat criticizing our armed forces and you have self defense instructors who never got into an honest to goodness street fight in their lives but now they're all EXPERTS, aren't they? Wow........

 It was said, I think by PeachMonkey when I stated he was always right and never gave any 'kudos' during debates and I think it was two names that were mentioned that PeachMonkey stated he had agreed with and I was wrong. Well of course, you gave the names of those with your same belief system, c'ome on now, I was talking about a 'debate', giving credit when the other side makes a point, not your supporters, how one sided is that? or isn't that arrogance thinking the other side has nothing to bring to the table? 

Robert, you stated about the right wingers tying in child molesters to the liberals. That was taken a little out of context from my post.  I was making a point why I'm independant in reference to Hannity & Colmes. Alan Colmes had to take that stand for only one reason, he's left wing liberal and has to take the opposite side of Sean Hannity no matter what the issue. He ended up sounding totally absurd and I think he knew it. I don't agree with Hannity on every single view either and sometimes Colmes does make a point-'kudos' to Alan! My point is what I said about black and white, no gray areas and what some of you here are guilty of in my book. If, who you perceive as a conservative right winger makes a statement or takes a position on an issue to the right, some lefties automatically without forethought decide to take the opposite view-period without even really listening. Agreed, this goes the other way with some conservatives also. That is my point. Both are guilty and that's why I'm an Independant. This is what I see on Hannity & Colmes and what I see here.  

Insult Bill O'Reilly all you want but I've seen him go after conservatives with the same zeal and vigor he goes after liberals! He calls it like he sees it and can prove that if you call him on it. Looks independant to me! The left ridicules Fox News but CNN is fine, they damn O'Reilly and Hannity but Dan Rather is the toast of the town. How about that left wing executive of a major news network ( CNN?) who had to resign after publically and erroneously stating that U.S. soldiers were murdering news reporters in Iraq? How about Chris Mathews (Left wing bomb thrower) on 'Hardball'? He won't let an opposing guest get a word in edgewise and constantly talks over them. He is a perfect example of a 'Spin Zone". You can't see this bias? Some on this forum bring up the O'Reilly's and the Hannity's but draw a blind eye when it comes to the left! That's another one of my pet peeves. Is this fair and balanced? You can say that the right has it's bomb throwers too, Ann Coulter is one, fine, I'll go along with that but Bill O'Reilly isn't one of them.  Just call it a jump ball, a draw, but just don't paint a one sided picture!  Look in your own back yard before you criticize what's in someone elses. Remember glass houses, stones and those who shouldn't be throwing them!  By the way if some of you did your homework you would find that in 8 1/2 years O'Reilly did not have to RETRACT ONE STORY, NOT ONE which probably means nothing to some for it's only a FACT but I bet Dan Rather wishes he could say the same, lol. You know Dan, the guy on CBS NEWS who has the "Fonz" disease, he can't say the word 'wrong' like some other people I know. Hey, remember CNN's cracker jack left wing reporter Peter Arnette? He was fired, wasn't he? It was exposed that he was actually fabricating news stories which slandered our military and the U.S. government? Actually more than slander, the stories were criminal in nature and the left was jumping up and down before all the facts were in. Some real heavy stuff!!! Check it out. By the way, who's Jason Blair?  Remember him? Fired for fabricating newspaper stories. He wasn't an Independant or Conservative either. My point is all political parties, right to left, have to stop pointing fingers and get on with the job at hand. Fair enough?

Another issue I stated was liberal left wing newspapers and cited several recent editorials. Would anyone hear like to debate me on that statement because I already won and it's all fact, not opinion. O'Reilly and Fox took a survey of all the major newspapers in this country and their columnists and contributors and asked each and everyone their position, right or left, liberal or conservative, republican or democrat.  It came out 4 to 1 liberal. Fact! Don't argue with me over it, go to the Fox website, get a hold of one of their reps or O'Reilly's people and they have the documentation to prove it. O'Reilly stated just contact them if you wish to challenge these findings.  So, was I wrong on that statement too? 

'Democracy Domino Effect': Keeping up with the current situation everyone here probably has heard about the Lebanese pulling out from Syria and wanting their independance, freedom and free elections. There is also current talk in Saudi Arabia of giving women the right to vote! Of course we have Afganistan and Iraq. Mike Barnacle is a  columnist (Democrat) for the Boston Globe. He was a staunch supporter of John Kerry and also hosts a show on talk radio and is highly respected. I like Mike and listen to him all the time. Mike said after hearing all this maybe we will find out 15-20 years from now George Bush was right about his foreign policy, pushing freedom and democracy in the middle east, much like the fall of communisim during the Reagan era.  Americans want everything right away. "I want, I need, I have to have and I have to have it NOW!" You even see it in the martial arts, how long will it take me to make my black belt?  One of his co-hosts, I think it was Dan Shauhnessy admired Mike for his fair and honest viewpoint, calling it like he sees it and not being partisan when assessing this situation.  Mike is someone anyone can have a good and fair debate with because in Mike's house there are no black & white t.v.'s, just different shades of color. Hooray for Mike! Good guy! I don't see that honesty and  anti-partisanship here. MSNBC on 03/03/05, the Imus Show (Imus voted left in '04 but had backed George W.'s Dad previously), he equally trashes both right and left. He had the current ratings: MSNBC way down, CNN, a nose dive with Arron Brown (who I liked and followed during the Gulf War) was down a whopping 26 per cent and Fox was the only news network who's ratings have soared and they are currently at the top pf the pack, way ahead of everyone else. These are FACTS, not opinion, so trash Fox all you want, the facts speak for themselves. Ya, I know, the vast majority is all wrong and what are facts, anyway?

Boston, Ma., not far from me, the Curly case, the young boy who was found murdered several years ago by a member of N.A.M.B.L.A., don't get uptight anyone, I'm not tying liberals into being members of NAMBLA, just let me finish. The boy's father has filed a law suit that could very well SHUT DOWN this organization but guess what? The A.C.L.U, yes, the American Civil Liberties Union, took NAMBLA's case and appointed them a high powered attorney. It's times like this, PeachMonkey, that I don't mind at all being called FASCIST! Thank you. ( that's a 'joke' for I don't want to hurt my suit, you'll see what I mean later on, lol). I know for a fact the ACLU have refused legitimate cases from good people on the grounds they weren't high profile or as one victim was told: 'big enough'! Research it. Ginshu is correct in stating they only take high profile-high publicity cases to make a name for themselves for in law practice, the more you get your name out there, the more green stuff you make!  Start doing your homework on the ACLU, you may be surprised at what you find if you dig. They have done some good work also, however, sometimes the bad can out weigh the good. If you ever had a child sexually molested or murdered by some deviant sexual predator, you would know where I'm coming from. For those who tuned in late and may not know NAMBLA stands for the North American Man Boy Love Association and they are protected by our first ammendment rights........Did someone say that sometimes Freedom of Speech is used as an excuse for adults behaving badly??? Gee, who said that? Check out the A.C.L.U.'s current track record on protecting Al Queda operatives, many of our citizens and soldiers are getting pretty upset over it and as for the others? How quick some forget (9/11) or perhaps they detach themselves because they weren't victims either directly or indirectly. Pretty sad, I think. There's a saying a conservative was a liberal who was mugged. Some have to know and understand the difference of Constitutional rights and those rights in times of warfare as applied to terrorists and terroism, big difference. Even here, do you not think your rights of freedom cannot be taken away lawfully, that you can forfeit them either temporarily or permanently? No? Does San Quentin ring a bell?, lol. 

In all due respect to the Administration here for I just wish to make another point. I now understand your rules and policies and they state that M/T  may suspend or ban without warning. Again, no problem, for I respect authority but I'm directing this not to Kaith but to some on 'The Study'. My freedom of speech was taken away here for a week and I had absolutely no due process, didn't even see it coming, wasn't notified and was never explained why. As they say, no courtesy call, no warning. I am not and never was a trouble maker here but I feel I was a very responsible contributor and I have always tried to help others. I have been on M/T a long time and have many posts, have made friends whom I've visited and they've visited me, yet, that all went for not, but that was their call so I didn't go crying about it, I just accepted it. It seemed to have happened immediately after my mistakenly taken 'sexist' remark which I innocently explained in this post but was never given the opportunity to explain prior. The topic was heated and everyone responded in similiar attitudes, no one was a saint and others I noticed certainly didn't seem to respect the principles and opinions of those they debated with. I stated I was passionate about my beliefs on these issues and attempted to put accross that my posts were not to be taken to personal. So be it, but I could imagine how that would have gone down with some here who have criticized me if it happened to them instead.....

Who's that guy that just shot himself, Hunter Thompson, is that his name? He's liberal isn't he? I should say wasn't he? Left wing? How come it's DOCUMENTED that he sent threatening e-mails to Bill O'Reilly about killing him and blowing his head off? FACT! Do your homework and check it out and remember to take a good look at what goes on in your own backyards before you throw stones at someone else for wouldn't you say that was an attempt to intimidate and stifle Mr. O'Reilly's FIRST AMMENDMENT RIGHTS!!! Fascist, ya think? No, not Hunter, he's not a right wing Republican, must be some kind of mistake, lol. Someone told me to do my homework on Churchill? Sorry, but I did and I had more, and it was worse but I thought what I wrote was enough! Guess not. I suggest you all do your homework before jumping on someone else.

I was told to look up the definition of facism as you recall. Well, I'm asking PeachMonkey (I'm still laughing, with many others, trust me, of calling a man 'PeachMonkey') look up the definition of 'hypocrisy' and while you're at it review the U.S. Constituition that you say you KNOW SO MUCH ABOUT! Maybe a 'fascist' cop (as you refer to me as) has to make you aware of this but we have the RIGHT in this country, you know, America, to face our ACCUSERS, to know their names and identities. However, Peaches, you have made a bold and outrageous statement that I am a 'FASCIST'! Well, give me my rights under the Constitition and give me your real name instead of hiding. Now, please let me have my freedom of speech and first ammendment rights here without being admonished. Many feel that those who 'snipe' under a cover of darkness reveal a lack of integrity and intestinal fortitude from a very insecure individual of low self esteem. Some would rather hide in the bushes and take pot shots at others in the security of anonymity.  Remember, no sniping. Here's the definition of 'Sniping' from Seig posted on  MartialTalk Support under 'Rules and Policies':

Since some people do not seem to understand what sniping is, Merriam Webster defines it as:
Main Entry: 2snipe
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): sniped; snip·ing
1 : to shoot at exposed individuals (as of an enemy's forces) from a usually concealed point of vantage
2 : to aim a carping or snide attack 

 Who does this definition fit? Guys like Robert or myself who shoot from the hip and not from a concealed point of vantage or someone with bold and slanderous statements who hides under  anonymity?  Robert, I hope you agree with me on this one because, seriously, I'm counting on you that you practice what you preach (your Kenponet posts).  Please don't let me down, we often disagree but you know I'm right on this one! PeachMonkey and anyone else that wishes to to be that outspoken and opinionated while hiding you're head in the sand of anonymity, I have no use for. I know, not that you care, lol. The only Constitution some believe in, is what fits them and their views at the moment.  Such hypocrisy, how can anyone deny that? I have comfort knowing that those who read this in an UNBIASED MANNER WILL SEE THE OBVIOUS!

PeachMonkey likes to say "that's not relevant" to me, fine. Well, here's what I say is not 'relevant'. Someone who uses 'bold' and 'accusatory statements in political discussions and hides behind anonymity IS NOT RELEVANT to me! One of the ladies (kenpo tiger) stated (I hope it was a lady and I'm not mistaken again, lol) that guys like me when threatened by a woman's stand on an issue resorts to remarks about their gender. Sniping, ya think?, lol. Do you have a name or are you anonymous too?  PLEASE LISTEN CLOSELY TO MY WORDS. MY COMMENT WAS NOT GENDER BASED, I WOULD HAVE SAID IT IF I THOUGHT PEACHMONKEY WAS A GUY ALSO, IT SIMPLY MEAN'T I THINK IT IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE A RELATIONSHIP OR LIVE WITH OR BE MARRIED TO SOMEONE, BE IT "MALE OR FEMALE", WHO ARE "ALWAYS RIGHT!!!", NOW WHAT PART OF THAT DON'T UNDERSTAND? PLEASE GET THAT STRAIGHT THIS TIME AROUND. THANK YOU. I had even used that statement to a guy once. I'll tell you what though, okay, if you want, I'll give you that, but you have to take this in return. I have found that when someone gives an opinion or takes a stand that is to the right and conservative and the liberal left is backed into a corner they immediately cry FASCIST!!!  That's really getting old but it wasn't me that originally brought it up, was it, Peaches? So, deal with it. I was going to say never argue with a liberal but that would be wrong, what I mean't is don't argue with a liberal or anyone for that matter who doesn't put their real name to their 'ballsy' talk for anyone can talk big from behind a closed door. 

Hmmmmmmmmm....Fascist..on a public forum, my real name and profession as police officer and martial arts studio owner posted for all to view..... could hurt my job, my livelihood....How many 'hits' does this forum get a day? How many regsitered members? Hmmmmmmm...Libelous? Defamation? Slander? Get your checkbook out. No joke, like I said before, you don't know me. Maybe I should run this past my attorney. After all, my RIGHTS may have been violated. PeachMonkey, I would like your true full name please, after all, you wouldn't want to see my 'rights' trampled on, would you? Hell, that would be fascism.  Wouldn't it? LOL. Hypocrisy at it's best. Go figure...........

You know what else I find amusing? I had posted back then that Churchill had taken it beyond freedom of speech and Whoaaaaaaaaa! one of you, don't recall and don't really care who, but one of you got seriously down on my case for that-How do you go beyond freedom of speech you said? Well, don't ask me, ask Ward Churchill because since then I've heard that same statement I made all over the media from others, including from those to the left, so who's laughing now? 

I wish to thank everyone who supported me here openly and all the pm's I got of which I answered personally. Thank you very much, I truly appreciate each and every one of you! I sincerely do. I am now out of here and if anyone wishes to bash me, well, if it makes you feel good inside, go for it for I could care less.  One has to grow a thick skin in this lifetime and I'm working on it, lol. Oh, I do feel better about the fascist comment because  last night I was reminded that Clint Eastwood was called a fascist during the 70's because of his portrayal of Inspector Harry Callahan of the 'Dirty Harry' series of movies. At least I'm in good company, lol.  Sorry for the length but like I said it's my last post here and I wanted to address my accusers and detractors. For those who continue the fight here, who are Independant or Conservative, ya better go out and buy that New York Times (liberal paper) best seller by Ann Coulter: How to Talk with a Liberal 'if you must', lol, because you don't have a chance with some who are ALWAYS RIGHT (that's ironic too, huh?, funny, LEFT wingers who are always RIGHT, LOL, I LIKE THAT ONE! ). Okay, some of you can go jump up and down now, rant and rave, hide behind anonymity and start hitting the keys or you can 'SHOW SOME HEART' and send me a PM, I'll give you my phone number and I'll debate any part of this post on the phone personally for if you are secure in your beliefs as I am then you have no need for an audience- "Here end of the lesson".  Respectfully submitted and peace to all, Professor Joe Shuras, who is proud to be an American 'infidel' in 2005!


Note: To the far left-before anyone of you start to psycho anaylize my quotes below, don't get too deep into it, they're only in 'jest', lol, not the 'sayings' though, just the 'quotes'. If you wish to psycho anaylize you can start with Ward Churchill, Hunter Thompson and Abdul Ali. That should keep you busy for awhile.

Quotes of the Day:

"Do you feel lucky?"  "Well do ya, punk?"   "Go ahead, make my day" " You're a good man and good man always know his limitations"-Inspector Harry Callahan, Badge #2211, Police Department, City of San Francisco.

Some of my favorite sayings:

"Sometimes, 'Freedom of Speech' is used as an EXCUSE for adults behaving badly."  "A Conservative was a Liberal who was mugged."   "Left Wingers who are Always Right". "My point is all political parties, right to left, have to stop pointing fingers and get on with the job at hand". "Here end of the lesson."

Closing quote:

"It was fun."-Captain James T. Kirk, Commanding the United Starship Enterprise-NCC 1701-taken from his dying words on  Star Trek: 'Generations'. 

Amen.  
   *(oh no!, I may have offended the far left, I brought religion into this, I apologize for my indiscretion, lol.)


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 5, 2005)

I would like to tangent for a moment to touch on 1 point here briefly.  A full discussion of forum policy, etc, should be done in the Support Forum.  



> In all due respect to the Administration here for I just wish to make another point. I now understand your rules and policies and they state that M/T may suspend or ban without warning. Again, no problem, for I respect authority but I'm directing this not to Kaith but to some on 'The Study'. My freedom of speech was taken away here for a week and I had absolutely no due process, didn't even see it coming, wasn't notified and was never explained why. As they say, no courtesy call, no warning.



Briefly:
- There were several in-thread warnings which were deemed ignored.
- We normally do notify in these cases. In this case, I failed to send the notice. My apologies for that oversight.
- Due Process and Constitutional Rights do not apply on message boards, unless said boards are run by US Government agencies.

If anyone wishes to discuss this, please, start a new thread in the Support Forum and we will happily address any concerns there, so as to not disrupt this thread further.

Thank you.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 5, 2005)

Dear Joe:

As is my general wont, I was quoting Robert Duvall's character in, "True Grit," who responded to John wayne's Rooster Cogburn by saying:

"I call that bold talk, from a one-eyed fat man."

Us gerontions will recollect what happened next.

Joe, I often disagree. And I need time to digest you complex and intelligent post. But--as I've often been reminded by Dark Kenpo Lord, like anybody DOESN'T know it's Clyde--beautiful emotional content, and spirit of the attack...for what my remarks are worth.

I'll think, and respond.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Mar 6, 2005)

Robert,
I think that Karazenpo feels like we all ganged up on him.  I have sent a pm, since he stated he's out of the Study, which he has not answered.  He wanted to know why I don't sign my name.  Well, you know perfectly well who and what I am -- I have posted same many times -- I just don't like having my real first name used in an open forum where non-members can read.  Call me a touch paranoid, but I like to know to whom I am speaking.

As to Kenponet, I lurk and do not post.  Too rough in there.  Besides, I learn more by reading and listening to what my senior kenpoists have to say than posting.


----------



## Danjo (Mar 12, 2005)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Debate as much as you want folks, but remember, even if you disagree with the other position you are still required to act in a mature manner. Especially those of you claiming high rank. If a "Black Belt" means anything more than you paid a fee to some organization or were someones best buddy. Too often we encounter high ranks who lack any illusion of maturity, professionalism or simply courtesy. - Please note, I am not referring to Prof. Joe here. -


Then why mention it in a political forum? What does having a black belt have to do with political opinion? A political forum is SUPPOSED to get heated. You guys were out of line on this one in my opinion. Sure you're not a US Govt. website, but that's a cop-out. You do certain things because you can, it seems, not because you should. It doesn't seem to me that Prof. Joe was any more inflamatory than peachmonkey. Incidently, PeachMonkey, "Monkey grabs peach" is a technique for grabbing one by the testicles. Just thought you should know that your name means "one who grabs men's testicles" in case you want to change it to another anonymous pseudonym.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 12, 2005)

BTW what did "Gab" do to get himself banned?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Mar 12, 2005)

Danjo said:
			
		

> Incidently, PeachMonkey, "Monkey grabs peach" is a technique for grabbing one by the testicles. Just thought you should know that your name means "one who grabs men's testicles" in case you want to change it to another anonymous pseudonym.


 Gee, thanks, Danjo.  In addition to being completely irrelevant to the topics at hand, I had _no idea whatsoever_ as to the origins of my name until you and Karazenpo pointed it out to me.

 [/sarcasm]

 The origins of the name are a bit more lighthearted (while being, as many have guessed, based on "Monkey steals the peach!"), but, as with most of the stuff Joe threw at me, they have absolutely _nothing to do with Ward Churchill_.  Think that might have had anything to do with Joe's suspension?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 12, 2005)

Danjo said:
			
		

> Then why mention it in a political forum? What does having a black belt have to do with political opinion? A political forum is SUPPOSED to get heated. You guys were out of line on this one in my opinion. Sure you're not a US Govt. website, but that's a cop-out. You do certain things because you can, it seems, not because you should. It doesn't seem to me that Prof. Joe was any more inflamatory than peachmonkey. Incidently, PeachMonkey, "Monkey grabs peach" is a technique for grabbing one by the testicles. Just thought you should know that your name means "one who grabs men's testicles" in case you want to change it to another anonymous pseudonym.


 It can get heated without resorting to disrespectful behavior  You are welome to your opinion, however the fact remains: This is private property. Our rules are clearly posted and every member of this forum read them prior to registering. (You had to check the box indicating you did.  If you didn't read them you are still bound by them legally.)

 Prof. Joe was suspended for ignoring multiple in-thread warnings. Other warnings to others involved may or may not have been sent to various people involved. We suspended his account for 1 week.  He has since requested his account here be closed, which we honored.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 12, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> BTW what did "Gab" do to get himself banned?


 GAB was banned for continuing behavior that he had been previously warned and suspended over.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 12, 2005)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> GAB was banned for continuing behavior that he had been previously warned and suspended over.


:asian:


----------



## Seig (Mar 13, 2005)

*This is the final say on the matter*, then either get back on topic or I lock the thread. It was my decision to suspend Joe. It was based on the fact that he ignored several in-thread warnings* and* chased a member across threads, hijacking those threads to continue his attack. I received nearly a dozen complaints from _different_ members about this in addition to my staff. I would have suspended anyone who acted in the same manner; regardless of who they were. 

Seig
MT Ops Admin


----------

