[aberdeenwriter]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030300154.html


Teacher Jay Bennish ... has been sent on leave for remarks he made about US President George W. Bush during class, that some people compare Bush to Adolf Hitler.
Photo: AP

Colorado Teacher on Leave for Bush Comment
The Associated Press
Friday, March 3, 2006; 2:16 AM

AURORA, Colo. -- About 150 high school students walked out of class to protest a decision to put a teacher on leave while they investigate remarks he made about President Bush in class, including that some people compare Bush to Adolf Hitler.

The protest came Thursday as administrators began investigating whether Overland High School teacher Jay Bennish violated a policy requiring balancing viewpoints in the classroom, Cherry Creek School District spokeswoman Tustin Amole said.

"It was peaceful. The students yelled, but there was no fighting," Amole said. "Most of them did return to class."

A telephone number listed for Bennish, who has been teaching social studies and American history at Overland since 2000, had been disconnected.

Sophomore Sean Allen recorded about 20 minutes of Bennish's class during a Feb. 1 discussion about Bush's State of the Union speech and gave the recording to his father, who complained to the principal, Amole said.

"After listening to the tape, it's evident the comments in the class were inappropriate. There were not adequate opportunities for opposing points of view," she said.

Deborah Fallin, spokeswoman for the Colorado Education Association, which represents about 37,000 union teachers, said it will not represent Bennish because he is not a member, but said that Bennish has hired an attorney.

I think the teacher is a FBL and is as responsible to teach in a fair minded way as some of the FBL's here...which is to say, not at all.

Here's a CBS News report in text and in video so you can hear a bit of the offensive comments for yourself. He crossed the line I think.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1364883.shtml

[Kevin]

Just more political zealots that think it's their job to brainwa... er "inform" young minds how to also become political zealot sheep just like him.

I know a few people that told me the REASON they got into teaching was so they could shape the minds of the youth as they saw fit. That is was the job of teh teacher to teach political zealotry.

These teachers are just like ones that say, would push a religious view onto someone.

He deserves a long break to think about his actions.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Just more political zealots that think it's their job to brainwa... er "inform" young minds how to also become political zealot sheep just like him.

I know a few people that told me the REASON they got into teaching was so they could shape the minds of the youth as they saw fit. That is was the job of teh teacher to teach political zealotry.

These teachers are just like ones that say, would push a religious view onto someone.

He deserves a long break to think about his actions.

An example of Fuzziness in action.

[placebo1969]

I saw this a couple of days ago. How long will it take for this thread to spiral out of control about how the teacher was "wronged" by the school district? This teacher has some serious issues.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by placebo1969

I saw this a couple of days ago. How long will it take for this thread to spiral out of control about how the teacher was "wronged" by the school district? This teacher has some serious issues.

[hey!_Zeus]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Teacher Jay Bennish ... has been sent on leave for remarks he made about US President George W. Bush during class, that some people compare Bush to Adolf Hitler.

So he should be punished for telling the truth.

He has been compared to Hitler.

Hell, they probably don't even know who Hitler was.

[Kevin]

More fuzzy brain apologies.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Kevin

More fuzzy brain apologies.

Dig the sig!

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by hey!_Zeus

So he should be punished for telling the truth.

He has been compared to Hitler.

Hell, they probably don't even know who Hitler was.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186708,00.html

Click on "VIDEO" then "CAUGHT ON TAPE" to hear like 5 minutes of the teacher actually in the process of PREACHING to the kids, not teaching.

He is indoctrinating them and producing more un-thinking Fuzzy brains.

Colorado Teacher On Leave After Alleged Anti-Bush Remarks

AURORA, Colo. — The embattled Colorado teacher who was suspended after espousing critical remarks about President Bush and U.S. foreign policy has apparently decided to not file a lawsuit against the school that is investigating him.

Denver attorney David Lane, who has also represented such clients as University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill, said Friday that his client, geography teacher Jay Bennish, has decided not to file a lawsuit against the Cherry Creek School District. The news came after the school said it would relax its gag order against Bennish, which barred him from speaking to the media.

The district placed Bennish on administrative leave after one of his students submitted an audio recording of the teacher's in-class politicking, which included comparisons of Bush's State of the Union remarks and "things that Adolf Hitler used to say."

Although Bennish was suspended from teaching at Overland High School while school administrators investigate whether he violated a policy requiring balancing viewpoints in the classroom, Cherry Creek School District spokeswoman Tustin Amole insists that putting Bennish on leave was not a disciplinary move.

About 150 high school students walked out of class earlier Thursday to protest Bennish's suspension.

[vmarks]

There is a lot more than a Bush=Hitler comparison to consider: The teacher is making wild contentions and not supporting them (CIA attacked Cuba 7000 times? America is the biggest producer and consumer of cigarettes?) and leaping from subject to subject (Cuba, Cocaine, Cigarettes, Palestinians) and his mis-quoting Sec. of State Rice.

Remember if you will, this is a Geography course. Not politics, not history, but geography.

Read the transcript and see if you are not forced to admit that the teacher is stepping outside the bounds of the subject he is intended to teach.

A former student talks about Bennish's class:

http://secure.eonstreams.com/khow_am/3.01%20BRAD.mp3

The transcript of student Sean Allen's tape of the class in question:

http://a23.v18227d.c18227.g.vm.akama...GeoTeacher.mp3 is the tape audio

Bennish: [tape begins with class already underway. Bennish completing an unintelligble statement about Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez.] Why do we have troops in Colombia fighting in their civil war for over 30 years. Most Americans don't even know this. For over 30 years, America has had soldiers fighting in Colombia in a civil war. Why are we fumigating coca crops in Bolivia and Peru if we're not trying to control other parts of the world. Who buys cocaine? Not Bolivians. Not Peruvians. Americans! Ok. Why are we destroying the farmers' lives when we're the ones that consume that good.
Can you imagine? What is the world's number one single cause of death by a drug? What drug is responsible for the most deaths in the world? Cigarettes! Who is the world's largest producer of cigarettes and tobacco? The United States!

What part of our country grows all our tobacco? Anyone know what states in particular? Mostly what's called North Carolina. Alright. That's where all the cigarette capitals are. That's where a lot of them are located from. Now if we have the right to fly to Bolivia or Peru and drop chemical weapons on top of farmers' fields because we're afraid they might be growing coca and that could be turned into cocaine and sold to us, well then don't the Peruvians and the Iranians and the Chinese have the right to invade America and drop chemical weapons over North Carolina to destroy the tobacco plants that are killing millions and millions of people in their countries every year and causing them billions of dollars in health care costs?

Make sure you get these definitions down.

Capitalism: If you don't understand the economic system of capitalism, you don't understand the world in which we live. Ok. Economic system in which all or most of the means of production, etc., are owned privately and operated in a somewhat competitive environment for the purpose of producing PROFIT! Of course, you can shorten these definitions down. Make sure you get the gist of it. Do you see how when, you know, when you're looking at this definition, where does it say anything about capitalism is an economic system that will provide everyone in the world with the basic needs that they need? Is that a part of this system? Do you see how this economic system is at odds with humanity? At odds with caring and compassion? It's at odds with human rights.

Anytime you have a system that is designed to procure profit, when profit is the bottom motive -- money -- that means money is going to become more important potentially than what? Safety, human lives, etc.

Why did we invade Iraq?! How do we know that the invasion of Iraq for weapons of mass destruction-- even if weapons had been found, how would you have known, how could you prove--that that was not a real reason for us to go there.

There are dozens upon dozens of countries that have weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is one of dozens. There are plenty of countries that are controlled by dictators, where people have no freedom, where they have weapons of mass destruction and they could be potentially threatening to America. We're not invading any of those countries!

0345.

[Pause.]

I'll give you guys another minute or two to get some of these [definitions] down. I agree with Joey. Try to condense these a little bit. I took these straight out of the dictionary.

Anyone in here watch any of Mr. Bush's [State of the Union] speech last night? I'm gonna talk a little about some of things he had to say.

0452

...One of things that I'll bring up now, since some of you are still writing, is, you know, Condoleezza Rice said this the other day and George Bush reiterated it last night. And the implication was that the solution to the violence in the Middle East is democratization. And the implication through his language was that democracies don't go to war. Democracies aren't violent. Democracies won't want weapons of mass destruction. This is called blind, naive faith in democracy!

0530.

Who is probably the single most violent nation on planet Earth?!

Unidentified brainwashed student interjects: We are.

The United States of America! And we're a democracy. Quote-unquote.

Who has the most weapons of mass destruction in the world? The United States.

Who's continuing to develop new weapons of mass destruction as we speak?!
The United States.

So, why does Mr. Bush think that other countries that are democracies won't wanna be like us? Why does he think they'll just wanna be at peace with each other?! What makes him think that when the Palestinians get their own state that they won't wanna preemptively invade Israel to eliminate a potential threat to their security just like we supposedly did in Iraq?! Do you see the dangerous precedent that we have set by illegally invading another country and violating their sovereignty in the name of protecting us against a potential future--sorry--attack? [Unintelligible.]

0625.

Why doesn't Mexico invade Guatemala? Maybe they're scared of being attacked. Ok. Why doesn't North Korea invade South Korea?! They might be afraid of being attacked. Or maybe Iran and North Korea and Saudi Arabia and what else did he add to the list last night - and Zimbabwe - maybe they're all gonna team up and try and invade us because they're afraid we might invade them. I mean, where does this cycle of violence end? You know?

This whole "do as I say, not as I do" thing. That doesn't work. What was so important about President Bush's speech last night--and it doesn't matter if it was President Clinton still it would just as important) is that it's not just a speech to America. But who? The whole world! It's very obvious that if you listen to his language, if you listen to his body language, and if you paid attention to what he was saying, he wasn't always just talking to us. He was talking to the whole planet. Addressing the whole planet!

He started off his speech talking about how America should be the country that dominates the world. That we have been blessed essentially by God to have the most civilized, most advanced, best system and that it is our duty as Americans to use the military to go out into the world and make the whole world like us.

0759.

Sounds a lot like the things that Adolf Hitler use to say.

We're the only ones who are right. Everyone else is backwards. And it's our job to conquer the world and make sure they live just like we want them to.

Now, I'm not saying that Bush and Hitler are exactly the same. Obviously, they are not. Ok. But there are some eerie similarities to the tones that they use. Very, very "ethnocentric." We're right. You're all wrong.

I just keep waiting. You know, at some point I think America and Mexico might go to war again. You know. Anytime Mexico plays the USA in a soccer match. What can be heard chanting all game long?

0841

Do all Mexicans dislike the United States? No. Do all Americans dislike Mexico? No. But there's a lot of resentment--not just in Mexico, but across the whole world--towards America right now.

We told--Condoleezza Rice said--that now that Hamas got elected to lead the Palestianians that they have to renounce their desire to eliminate Israel. And then Condoleezza Rice also went on to say that you can't be for peace and support armed struggle at the same time. You can't do that. Either you're for peace or war. But you can't be for both.

What is the problem with her saying this? That's the same thing we say. That is exactly the same thing this current administration says. We're gonna make the world safe by invading and killing and making war. So, if we can be for peace and for war, well, why can't the Palestinians be for peace and for war?!

0950.

*Student Sean Allen, who is taping Bennish's rant, speaks up:*

Allen: Isn't there a difference of, of, having Hamas being like, we wanna attack Israelis because they're Israelis, and having us say we want to attack people who are known terrorists? Isn't there a difference between saying we're going to attack innocents and we're going to attack people who are not innocent?

1007

Bennish: I think that's a good point. But you have to remember who's doing the defining of a terrorist. And what is a terrorist?

Allen: Well, when people attack us on our own soil and are actually attempting to take American lives and want to take American lives, whereas, Israelies in this situation, aren't saying we want to blow up Palestine...

Bennish: How did Israel and the modern Israeli state even come into existence in the first place?

Allen: We gave it to them.

Bennish: Sort of. Why? After the Israel-Zionist movement conducted what? Terrorist acts. They assassinated the British prime minster in Palestine. They blew up buildings. They stole military equipment. Assassinated hundreds of people. Car bombings, you name it. That's how the modern state of Israel was made. Was through violence and terrorism. Eventually we did allow them to have the land. Why? Not because we really care, but because we wanted a strategic ally. We saw a way to us to get a hook into the Middle East.

If we create a modern nation of Israel, then, and we make them dependent on us for military aid and financial aid, then we can control a part of the Middle East. We will have a country in the Middle East that will be indebted to us.

Allen: But is it ok to say it's just to attack Israel? If it's ok to attack known terrorists, it's ok to attack Israel?

Bennish: If you were Palestinians, who are the real terrorists? The Israelis, who fire missiles that they purchased from the United States government into Palestinian neighborhoods and refugees and maybe kill a terrorist, but also kill innocent women and children. And when you shoot a missile into Pakistan to quote-unquote kill a known terrorist, and we just killed 75 people that have nothing to do with al Qaeda, as far as they're concerned, we're the terrorists. We've attacked them on their soil with the intention of killing their innocent people.

1215

Allen: But we did not have the intention of killing innocent people. We had the intention of killing an al Qaeda terrorist.

Bennish: Do you know that?

Allen: So, you're saying the United States has intentions to kill innocent people?

Bennish: I don't know the answer to that question.

Allen: But what gain do we get from killing innocent people in the Middle East? What gain does that pose to us?

Bennish: Let me ask you this. During the 1980s, Iran and Iraq were involved in an 8-year-long war. The United States sold missiles, tanks, guns, planes, to which side?

Unidentified student: Iraq?

Bennish: Both. The answer is both. Why would we send armaments to two sides that are fighting each other. That seems to be self-defeating. Don't we want one side to win? Not always! Sometimes you just want there to be conflict!

The British -- this is one of the grand strategies of the British imperial system--was to play local animosities off each other. To prevent them is to divide and conquer.

Do we really want the Middle East to unite as one cohesive political and cultural body?

No! Because then they could what? Threaten our supremacy.

We want to keep the world divided. Do we really want to kill innocent people? I don't know. I don't know the answer to that.

I know there are some Americans who do. People who work in the CIA. People who have to think like that. Those kind of dirty minds, dirty tricks. That's how the intelligence world works. Sometimes you do want to kill people just for the sake of killing them. Right?

Listen, between the years 1960 and 1962, the United States through the CIA conducted over 7,000 terrorist sabotage attacks against the small island nation of Cuba. Over 7,000 terrorist attacks were waged against just one little country called Cuba in a two year period, intentionally, let me rephrase that, intentionally blowing up medical supplies, intentionally burning down crops that feed their country, thereby creating starvation, right? Intentionally trying to make that system collapse. And we're willing to expend however many thousands of people died because we just want to get rid of Castro. And the sad reality is that there are some policy planners who are willing to let people die in order to achieve their objectives.

1506

Now, do I think President Bush says 'I'd like to go kill some innocent Palestianians?' I don't think he thinks like that. But I also know that he's not the only one making decisions. I also know that after September 11, President Bush got on TV and he said, 'You will feel our wrath. You will feel the full force of the United States military. There will be paybacks.' He said it again last night. He said, 'We've killed a lot of top-ranking al Qaeda members. And for those who aren't killed yet, you're day will come!' Right? That kind of language to me is very obvious.

1547

And when you go trying to kill one particular type of person, you know that you're gonna kill other people, too. And let me ask you this...

Allen: Later in that, he stated that he's [Osama bin Laden] trying to kill innocents...

Bennish: I understand that, but hold on, you have to understand something, that when al Qaeda attacked America on September 11, in their view, they're not attacking innocent people. Ok. The CIA has an office at the World Trade Center. The Pentagon is a military target. The White House was a military target. Congress is a military target. The World Trade Center is the economic center of our entire economy.

1625

The FBI, who tracks down terrorists and so on and so forth around the world, has offices in the World Trade Center. Some of the companies that work in the World Trade Center are these huge multinational corporations that are directly involved in the military-industrial complex in supporting corrupt dictatorships in the Middle East.

And so in the minds of al Qaeda, they're not attacking innocent people. They're attacking legitimate targets. People who have blood on their hands as far as they're concerned!

We portray them as innocent because they're our friends and neighbors, family, loved ones. One of my best friends from high school, elementary school, and birth, lives in lower Manhattan. You know, he was right there, he was four blocks away from it. So, anytime it comes close to home, you begin to see things differently.

1711

In no way am I implying, I don't know, you got to figure this stuff out for yourself, but I want you to think about these things--you know, think about this right here. [Apparently pointing to American flag.] Here's the real homeland security. Fighting terrorism since 1492! Ok. I mean, to many Native Americans, that flag is no different than the Nazi flag or the Confederate flag. It represents the people that came and stole their land, lied, brought disease, rape, pillage, destruction, etc. So it all depends upon varying people's perspectives
varying. And of course, we're going to see ourselves as being in the right , at least the majority of us, because that's us.

Allen: But we were the ones that were attacked first. On September 11, 2001,
we were the ones that were attacked. We were not attacking anybody until that point. Then we said ok, we're going into Afghanistan. Then we said ok, the Iraqi government has ties with al Qaeda. We're going to go into Iraq. We were the ones that were attacked.

Bennish: In actuality, if you remember back to my first day, the Sept. 11 attacks were, according to bin Laden, a direct response to our 1) support of the nation of Israel, which they consider to be a terrorist regime that does not have the right to control the land that the Palestinians lived on for over 1,500 years, and they also did it because of what George Clinton did--Bill Clinton, not George Clinton, they had a little documentary on him on PBS last night I was watching--Bill Clinton, when he launched the missile attacks into Afghanistan and Sudan and killed thousands of innocent Africans and Afghanistan people - Afghanis - that had nothing to do with al Qaeda or anything. In fact, in sudan, he blew up the country's largest pharmaceutical plant, which was producing medicines, alright, um, you know, that's as far as, in their eyes, that was retaliation for those attacks.

And so this whole idea of who attacked who first, how far back in time do you wanna go!? This is the whole thing with the Arab-Israeli conflict. Well, who was there first? Well, if you believe the Bible, you say, well, God gave the land of Canaan to the Israelites. But who was in that land when they got there? The Canaanites, who some archeologists would argue are the ancient descendants of the Palestinians. You know.

Other archeologists say the Hebrews didn't really come from Egypt. They were actually a group of Canaanites who decided they didn't like the other Canaanites and developed this story afterward to justify how they killed all their neighbors
and took over the land.

2002

Alright, and so this becomes very, very muddled. And I'm not in any way implying that you should agree with me. I don't even know if I'm necessarily taking a position. But what I'm trying to get you to do is to think, right, about these issues more in-depth, you know, and not just take things from the surface. And I'm glad you asked all your questions, because they're very good, legitimate questions. And hopefully that allows other people to begin to think about some of those things, too.

END

[smacintush]

I was wondering when this would come up here. Can't wait to see who steps up to defend him.

[Binarymix]

Freedom of Speech.

Not that I agree with what the teacher did, but it still applies.

[Spliffdaddy]

NO, freedom of speech doesn't apply in the workplace.

[DBursey]

The guy was representing points of view shared in varying degree the world over.

Myopia is contagious with your little group in here.

[vmarks]

DBursey, the guy wasn't hired to teach "points of view shared in varying degrees the world over."

He was hired to teach geography.

Geography is a component of the social studies; it's heavily emphasized in modern s.s. curricula, and even textbooks that aren't specifically geography texts sometimes use what are called the 5 Themes of Geography to examine human culture. The 5 Themes (easily remembered by the handy mnemonic my 6th graders came up with - Llamas poop in the Mississippi River) are Location, Place, Interaction between humans and the environment, Movement, and Resources.

BTW, since Movement includes the movement of people (migration), goods and money (trade), and ideas (communication), Bennish isn't at fault for examining ecomonic systems in a geography course. He's at fault because what he says about capitalism is a huge pile of BS, and because he pushes his own beliefs on his students without giving them an opportunity to really challenge what he's saying. He says that he wants his students to think about the issues and question existing viewpoints, but doesn't really seem interested in getting the kids to do that in class.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by smacintush

I was wondering when this would come up here. Can't wait to see who steps up to defend him.

Do you really think he should be disciplined for expressing left-wing ideas? The government doesn't sanction the politics of his teaching, so they suspend him? Wow.

If he's doing this every day rather than teaching geography, he should be required to improve his teaching or be disciplined. But I'd much rather have a passionate teacher who says stupid things (which this guy clearly did), than a boring teacher who doesn't give a sh!t about anything.

[Y3a]

The sad part is how long he's been blathering this crud on the students he was hired to "Teach" not brainwash.


Glad he got caught.

I hope this happens at a LOT of schools to show the administrators why their schools stink.

[hey!_Zeus]

OK...shoot him!

He did go too far but when I went to school, every teacher at one time or another gave their opinion about something that didn't have to do with the class/subject they were teaching.

Send him for counseling.

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

He is indoctrinating them and producing more un-thinking Fuzzy brains.

Funny how religious indoctination is perfectly acceptable, even commendable. There's nothing more "un-thinking" then taking what a book says and believing it without so much as a critical thought. Now that's fuzzy.

Having said that..this guy was out of line.

[hey!_Zeus]

Originally Posted by Moderator

Funny how religious indoctination is perfectly acceptable, even commendable. There's nothing more "un-thinking" then taking what a book says and believing it without so much as a critical thought. Now that's fuzzy.

Having said that..this guy was out of line.

SMACKDOWN!!!

and with very few words.

I went to a catholic grade school. Talk about brainwashing.

[Silky Voice of The Gorn]

He should have been suspended just for the hair.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Binarymix

Freedom of Speech.

Not that I agree with what the teacher did, but it still applies.

Sure, he has freedom of speech. And if he chooses to exercise his freedom of speech when he is being paid to do something else, his employer has the right to terminate his employment.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Y3a

The sad part is how long he's been blathering this crud on the students he was hired to "Teach" not brainwash.


Glad he got caught.

I hope this happens at a LOT of schools to show the administrators why their schools stink.

HALLELEUYAH!!!

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Moderator

Funny how religious indoctination is perfectly acceptable, even commendable. There's nothing more "un-thinking" then taking what a book says and believing it without so much as a critical thought. Now that's fuzzy.

You are showing your own fuzziness by being unable to stick to the topic. We aren't talking about religion. And anyone who thinks your brainfart of a post is a smackdown is sorry, indeed.

Having said that..this guy was out of line.

But this comment suggests there is hope for you.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by hey!_Zeus

SMACKDOWN!!!

and with very few words.

I went to a catholic grade school. Talk about brainwashing.

I absolutely will not give in to the urge to condemn the Catholic religion nor the Catholic system of education because of the example you present.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by vmarks

There is a lot more than a Bush=Hitler comparison to consider: The teacher is making wild contentions and not supporting them (CIA attacked Cuba 7000 times? America is the biggest producer and consumer of cigarettes?) and leaping from subject to subject (Cuba, Cocaine, Cigarettes, Palestinians) and his mis-quoting Sec. of State Rice.

Remember if you will, this is a Geography course. Not politics, not history, but geography.

Read the transcript and see if you are not forced to admit that the teacher is stepping outside the bounds of the subject he is intended to teach.

A former student talks about Bennish's class:

http://secure.eonstreams.com/khow_am/3.01%20BRAD.mp3

The transcript of student Sean Allen's tape of the class in question:

http://a23.v18227d.c18227.g.vm.akama...GeoTeacher.mp3 is the tape audio

[SNIP]

END

Thanks for posting the transcript, vmarks!

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

You are showing your own fuzziness by being unable to stick to the topic. We aren't talking about religion.

Neither was I. I'm talking about indoctrination.

In your world

Religious indoctrination = ok
Nationalist indoctrination = ok

but Anti-religious or Anti-nationalist indoctrination = not ok

The pledge of allegiance is indoctrination...both national AND religious. Do you have a problem with that?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Moderator

Neither was I. I'm talking about indoctrination.

In your world

Religious indoctrination = ok
Nationalist indoctrination = ok

but Anti-religious or Anti-nationalist indoctrination = not ok

The pledge of allegiance is indoctrination...both national AND religious. Do you have a problem with that?

I don't understand how people can undermine their own government. It's like shooting out the tires on your car because you don't like the black smoke coming out the exhaust. Or, setting fire to your own boat while out at sea because the GPS or Radar system malfunctions and orients a few degrees from true.

It doesn't make sense, it's going to hurt others and hurt you as well (really fuzzy brained, that!).

I have less of a problem with religious objection because God will or won't deal with you individually when the time comes.

[aberdeenwriter]

And remember, the left has NO transition plan to peace. If the USA suddenly became pacifist: executive, legislative and judicial branches and every voter in America...ALL Left wing pacifist, what would happen when we met up with OBL?

He would conquer us quickly and easily.

Same for any other foe or would be foe!

France would probably even try to grab a piece of us.

Understand?

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

I don't understand how people can undermine their own government. It's like shooting out the tires on your car because you don't like the black smoke coming out the exhaust. Or, setting fire to your own boat while out at sea because the GPS or Radar system malfunctions and orients a few degrees from true.

It doesn't make sense, it's going to hurt others and hurt you as well (really fuzzy brained, that!).

I have less of a problem with religious objection because God will or won't deal with you individually when the time comes.

You can love a country and despise an adminsitration. You could despise an administration because you love the country.

Funny because I bet you'd want Iranian's to undermine their government..so you see...you do understand.

and yes..I'm sure God's a big fan of having his name in the pledge of allegiance...I heard he was pissed about it not being there before the 1950's

[Moderator]

forget it

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Moderator

You can love a country and despise an adminsitration. You could despise an administration because you love the country.

Funny because I bet you'd want Iranian's to undermine their government..so you see...you do understand.

Well, the principle may have some validity. So, now all you need to do is figure out which side YOU are on. Because at a certain point this whole thing boils down to brass tacks. No more philosophical argumentation. Do you support THIS system of government that is flawed or do you support THAT system of government that is flawed?

Bottom line. Where do your loyalties lie?

Because when you finally DO choose you will be fighting like hell for that side and wondering what you could have done earlier to help you win in that moment.

What you can do NOW is stop supporting the other side by quitting your efforts to erode support for this government's efforts to win.

If I might suggest, immerse yourself in the details of what this Administration really is doing and stop just going by what the Bush bashers spout. Some of the things they say may be true but, like the Colorado Fuzzy Teacher, enough of the truth is mixed in with bullcrap so that a clear difference is drawn and you have forever doomed a new generation to the hell of being fuzzy. But more seriously, you have removed some of the pillars of support this country needs in future generations until one day everone IS pacifist and the whole USA becomes history.

and yes..I'm sure God's a big fan of having his name in the pledge of allegiance...I heard he was pissed about it not being there before the 1950's

As if it really mattered to you.

I wonder how He feels about your speaking about Him in such a manner.

[Moderator]

Do you support THIS system of government that is flawed or do you support THAT system of government that is flawed?

ahh..more "with us or against us" absolutism.

What you can do NOW is stop supporting the other side by quitting your efforts to erode support for this government's efforts to win.

I despise the (real) enemy with as much vigor as you I assure you. You want to know what really helped the enemy? Invading Iraq.

That was OBL's wet dream right there.

If I might suggest, immerse yourself in the details of what this Administration really is doing and stop just going by what the Bush bashers spout

Don't even get me started on what they're really doing...and really not doing. Mark my words...Worst President Ever.

I wonder how He feels about your speaking about Him in such a manner.

Your understanding of the nature of God is severly limited....the result of a sheltered upbringing I'm sure. You're unenlightened..though well intentioned. You should read more.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Moderator

You can love a country and despise an adminsitration. You could despise an administration because you love the country.

That's not what Bill Clinton said. He claims you can't love your country, and hate your government.

[Chuckit]

And if Bill Clinton said so, it must be true?

[Kevin]

Yup

During a speech at the Pentagon, President Bill Clinton declares: "In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals, who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity -- even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program. But if we act as one, we can safeguard our interests and send a clear message to every would-be tyrant and terrorist."

[placebo1969]

If a teacher did the same thing with a right wing bias, he or she should have the same punishment as the teacher in this topic. I listened to the audio clip. It sounds like a rambling lecture where he pushed his opinion on the kids. If this happened in college, that would be one thing, but high school kids don't have the same choices and/or life experiences to deal with it.

Slightly off topic, but interesting:
I read (can't remember where, sorry) that Bennish is a Rastafari and allegedly has a Rastafari flag in his room. If this is correct, that would be akin to me having a large cross in my classroom (if I was a teacher). I will see if I can confirm this.

[davesimondotcom]

First point: If a teacher wants to express any political view, from any side, he should preface it with "In my opinion..."

Second point: If this guy was professing the ideals of George W. Bush and a liberal student had recorded him, what would your opinion be? Would it change?

Third point: His freedom of speech isn't effected by him being suspended. Merely his job was effected. He can still talk all he wants. Freedom of speech has responsibilities - one of which is being accountable for the things you say.

Fourth point: The kid that recorded this is a gutsy kid. Not for the recording, but for debating the teacher straight up and not losing his temper. I can't say I would have had the guts to do that at his age.

Fifth point: What if the teacher hadn't been recorded? Then he puts things on his test that the kids need to regurgitate - things that agree with him. If you don't say that the Iraq war is wrong, you fail. That kind of thing.

It happens. Frequently. Not in high schools as much as in college, but it happens.

Simple fact is that politics should not be in the classroom without it being made clear that it is their opinion and others have other opinions.

What is it with teachers/professors in Colorado with bad hair and extremely left-wing views? Must be some sort of club.

[TheWOAT]

I've had classes taught by nuts from both sides. "Blacks don't deserve to have
a President until they straighten out their race" and "Ronald Reagan could have
stopped AIDS" were classic lines from Junior High history classes.
This teacher deserves a reprimand and also a refresher in what his role is as a
teacher.

[Spliffdaddy]

Oddly enough, the NEA refuses to represent this teacher because he isn't a union member.

I use the word 'oddly' becaue he is the epitome of what the NEA represents.

He would make an ideal NEA pesident.

[aberdeenwriter]

Hey, has anyone heard from Loki74, our resident High School conservative wunderkind?

It sound EXACTLY like something he'd do and say. Loki has the brains, good sense, self control AND the balls to do it!

[chris_h]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

And remember, the left has NO transition plan to peace. If the USA suddenly became pacifist: executive, legislative and judicial branches and every voter in America...ALL Left wing pacifist, what would happen when we met up with OBL?

He would conquer us quickly and easily.

Same for any other foe or would be foe!

France would probably even try to grab a piece of us.

Understand?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by chris_h

Alright sport, let's hear it.

How would you convince the Irans and Hamas,' N. Koreas and OBL's of the world to leave America in peace to pursue life, liberty and happiness in the manner that you and we are accustomed?

We await your brilliance.

[chris_h]

Even pacifists believe in self defense. To suggest that france would "grab a piece of us" if the left took over signals to me that you either aren't being serious, or that you are so out of touch with reality that I don't think I could find any common ground with you from which to launch a dialog on the the subject.

How would I convince OBL to leave us alone? By blowing him the F off the map.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by chris_h

Even pacifists believe in self defense. To suggest that france would "grab a piece of us" if the left took over signals to me that you either aren't being serious, or that you are so out of touch with reality that I don't think I could find any common ground with you from which to launch a dialog on the the subject.

How would I convince OBL to leave us alone? By blowing him the F off the map.

And by being peaceful you'd be able to flush him out of hiding? Ok, let's assume you'd be able to find him and blow him the F off the map.

And Zarqawi? And Zawahiri? And Ahmadinejad? And then some day, Mishaal?

Extreme Left Like Neville Chamberlain
Excerpt from How America Got It Right, by Bevin Alexander, page 228

Countries unwilling to take up the challenge of terrorism are like British prime minister Neville Chamberlain, who appeased Adolf Hitler, wishing the danger of Nazi Germany would go away. The majority of nations today keep a low profile and simply hope that the United States will take care of the terrorists, or that the terrorists will just go away on their own. But as Winston Churchill warned Chamberlain when he returned from Munich in 1938 after selling out Czechoslovakia to Hitler, “You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.”

Only the extreme Left in the United States has, like Chamberlain, chosen dishonor. It supported France’s and Germany’s do-nothing position on Iraq, hunted for any reason to condemn the action, and used the limited guerrilla war that developed in the Saddam-friendly “Sunni triangle” around Baghdad to demand our withdrawal from Iraq.

http://bevinalexander.com/excerpts/t...hamberlain.htm

Author Bevin Alexander (quoted above) uses an analogy that is helpful in getting a better grasp of it.

Think of America as an island. Everything we've done outside of America has been to keep ourselves safe on our island after the oceans no longer kept us protected. If you look at ANY of America's foreign involvements you'll be able to trace that involvement back to a threat to our safety.

So, when we show up on the door of some supposedly innocent terrorist or terrorist group or nation, rogue or not and we are armed to the teeth and ready to kick some ass, the implicit question is, "what is it about 'leave us the Fick alone,' don't you understand?"

[chris_h]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

And by being peaceful you'd be able to flush him out of hiding? Ok, let's assume you'd be able to find him and blow him the F off the map.[/url]

Virtually noone is against hunting down those "folks" who were responsible for attacking us. Iraq is not on that list.

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

http://bevinalexander.com/excerpts/t...hamberlain.htm
...
Only the extreme Left in the United States has, like Chamberlain, chosen dishonor. It supported France’s and Germany’s do-nothing position on Iraq, hunted for any reason to condemn the action, and used the limited guerrilla war that developed in the Saddam-friendly “Sunni triangle” around Baghdad to demand our withdrawal from Iraq.
...

The badge of dishonor falls squarely on those who lied to the public and tricked us into a war with Iraq, and then did a half-assed job.
I have friends who are soldiers over there now that I keep in constant touch with over email. We were not greeted as liberators. I do not believe, and everyone I know involved with the war confirms, that we did not come in initially with enough troops to stabilize the region, only shake S up.
Iraq was not a threat to the United States of America, but we turned it into one.

For what its worth, I believe in helping oppressed peoples throughout the world.
A real example of dishonorable behavior is the way we have ignored Darfur, for example. I think both the left and the right are guilty of that.

edit:
you edited alot more into your post while I was writing. I think we agree somewhat in principle.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by chris_h

Virtually noone is against hunting down those "folks" who were responsible for attacking us. Iraq is not on that list.




The badge of dishonor falls squarely on those who lied to the public and tricked us into a war with Iraq, and then did a half-assed job.
I have friends who are soldiers over there now that I keep in constant touch with over email. We were not greeted as liberators. I do not believe, and everyone I know involved with the war confirms, that we did not come in initially with enough troops to stabilize the region, only shake S up.
Iraq was not a threat to the United States of America, but we turned it into one.

For what its worth, I believe in helping oppressed peoples throughout the world.
A real example of dishonorable behavior is the way we have ignored Darfur, for example. I think both the left and the right are guilty of that.

edit:
you edited alot more into your post while I was writing. I think we agree somewhat in principle.

We are terribly off topic here. Please click the link and let's continue things in a new thread called, "How America Got It Right."

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...79#post2902979

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Binarymix

Freedom of Speech.

Not that I agree with what the teacher did, but it still applies.

So the gloves are off then, under free speech we can now teach CREATIONISM in school. Apparetly, we should then under the guise of free speech, be able to teach Creationism in math class.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hey!_Zeus

OK...shoot him!

He did go too far but when I went to school, every teacher at one time or another gave their opinion about something that didn't have to do with the class/subject they were teaching.

Send him for counseling.

You went to a Catholic School that your parent paid for. Blame them for you indoctrination! We're talking about public school.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

What is it with teachers/professors in Colorado with bad hair and extremely left-wing views? Must be some sort of club.

Yeah, club Colorado.