I signed this very Pro-American petition

If you ask me, brains are only polluted if a parent is teaching hatred


Yes hatred is a cause but the main cause is just ignorance.
Parents with all their good intentions pass there ignorance
down from one generation to the next. It is amazing how
high a percentage of children never questions their parents
beliefs no matter how wrong they may be.

In this day and age with many of the churches corrupt
with new found power it's fine by me if most of the
College professors are liberal activists. At least its
something that will help balance out the conservative
ignorance that plauges this country
 
bbnt said:
Yes hatred is a cause but the main cause is just ignorance.
Parents with all their good intentions pass there ignorance
down from one generation to the next. It is amazing how
high a percentage of children never questions their parents
beliefs no matter how wrong they may be.

In this day and age with many of the churches corrupt
with new found power it's fine by me if most of the
College professors are liberal activists. At least its
something that will help balance out the conservative
ignorance that plauges this country

You would do well to be very careful before you go around equating religious belief, or conservatism, with ignorance. While I think there may be some Christian sects that tend to discourage intellectual investigation and some churches that ARE very corrupt, I think you would have been very surprised if you'd sat in my Methodist church and heard our FEMALE minister say that no one should accept Christianity unless they thoroughly tested the truth for themselves. I have also in my church heard a pastor say that he had no problem with what science says about creation.

And what makes you think that conservatives have not questioned and tested their beliefs? I certainly have. I have spent a long time doing research, wrestling with philosophical and theological questions, seeking information, and working with my positions on things to make sure that they have logical consistency and integrity. You have no idea about that process I went through (and am still in...my understanding is far from perfect at this point). Ultimately I came to the conclusion that the beliefs I was raised with were good ones--but don't DARE mistake that for lack of consideration, because I didn't just take it at face value.

So I'd ask you to pose yourself some very hard questions: Are you certain that you know all there is to know about conservatives or the religious? Are you certain you've done the full amount of research from sources of ALL ideological slants, on the issues that liberals and conservatives have taken stances on? If you are going to assert that all conservatives are ignorant, you need to make absolutely sure that your learning is entirely up to par--and that means thoroughly investigating and considering even views you don't agree with so that you are entirely sure you understand what you're talking about. Blanket generalizations don't meet the cut for academic rigor--in fact, I find it rather ironic that a self-described liberal such as yourself, who is supposed to espouse "tolerance"--displays such behavior as related to those with whom he disagrees. That seems rather hypocritical.
 
bbnt said:
... It is amazing how high a percentage of children never questions their parents beliefs no matter how wrong they may be.
Some people might say the same thing about liberal parents and their children.
 
no I don't know all, but I have been alive long enough
and have seen and experienced enough to stand by
my opinions.

All you really need to do is see the election of this
current President twice and you'll have an
understanding of just what corrupt churches and
ignorant conservatives can do
 
bbnt said:
no I don't know all, but I have been alive long enough
and have seen and experienced enough to stand by
my opinions.

All you really need to do is see the election of this
current President twice and you'll have an
understanding of just what corrupt churches and
ignorant conservatives can do

All I am getting from your statements are a lot of assertions without any sort of evidence to back them up...opinion statements rather than fact statements. Now, I think Bush is far from a perfect president--personally I would like to see a third party in this country that takes the moderates from both parties and combines them into one political force--but all I see from you are blanket statements and ASSumptions made without research. Sometimes, being the one who has experienced something doesn't give you sufficient distance to make a proper judgment. Other times the experience helps--but you need to combine that with other perspectives before you make critical judgments.
 
Everything everyone posts is nothing but their opinions.
Half of the facts posted are just someone elses
opionions that are passed off as facts and the other half
are nothing more than someones interpretation of other
peoples so called facts.


All anyone has is there opinion based on what they
have learned. The only real thing in this thread that
can't really be disputed is Heath must be related to
RavenSteve in some way.
 
bbnt said:
Everything everyone posts is nothing but their opinions.
Half of the facts posted are just someone elses
opionions that are passed off as facts and the other half
are nothing more than someones interpretation of other
peoples so called facts.
Unfortunately, people are not taught the difference between facts and opinions.


... The only real thing in this thread that
can't really be disputed is Heath must be related to
RavenSteve in some way.
I don't think so. Heath professes to be a Christian; RS never did. Also, RS displayed a lot more rage and bitterness.
 
Unfortunately, people are not taught the difference between facts and opinions.

Unfortunately many things passed off as facts
can be interpreted many differant ways.

I don't think so. Heath professes to be a Christian; RS never did. Also, RS displayed a lot more rage and bitterness.

I think he is the anti-christ or at best maybe a RS lite
 
Rose Immortal said:
I would like to see a third party in this country that takes the moderates from both parties and combines them into one political force

In Canada, we have several parties.

Liberal, Conservative, New Democratic Party, Green Party, Bloc and more. I really don't understand why the USA continues to have just two major parties for so many, many years.

It's ridiculous.
 
Banjo said:
In Canada, we have several parties.

Liberal, Conservative, New Democratic Party, Green Party, Bloc and more. I really don't understand why the USA continues to have just two major parties for so many, many years.

It's ridiculous.

With a two-party system that's been going on for well over 200 years, I'm not exactly sure HOW a third party could viably gain ground unless one of the two main parties collapsed. That's been the precedent in American history, the pattern that's repeated 2 or 3 times when a major party has collapsed. There have been a few third-party runs while both major parties were fairly strong, but all they've done is upset the election in favor of a major party that wouldn't have won otherwise (example: Ross Perot causing Clinton to win). I think these historical patterns are a major reason why people in the U.S. don't want to try to form a major third party--there's a sense that it's futile, that voting for a third party is like throwing one's vote away. I'm not saying it's a good thing...it just is.

The one thing about having a lot of parties like Canada does--it seems like you'd have a lot of trouble with getting a majority in order to get any legislation passed. I'm not trying to snipe; I'm just curious.
 
bbnt said:
I am grateful for liberal Professors, they have the
mighty task of trying to teach students who have had
their brains polluted by conservative parents


I concur, bbnt!

And by pastors in churches that don't walk the walk or believe what they preach!
 
You Know What's Funny Right Now?

Underneath my name, I put the words, "Resident Journalist," and no one has started attacking the news media yet. Is this funny or what? :mrgreen:
 
There's nothing Christian in the spirit of Churchill's words...quite frankly, he seems like a very cruel, coldhearted man and I cannot trust a word out of the mouth of someone with such a repugnant character.
 
Rose Immortal said:
There's nothing Christian in the spirit of Churchill's words...quite frankly, he seems like a very cruel, coldhearted man and I cannot trust a word out of the mouth of someone with such a repugnant character.
Not to mention how he lied about his credentials and background, and plagarized others' works.

Not a very good role model for students.
 
LOL!!
Even the best of the liars tell truth sometime.
I totally agree that we need to take a fresh look at what has been passed as "fact" and I applaud the attempt, if not the result.
 
Reba said:
Not to mention how he lied about his credentials and background, and plagarized others' works.

Not a very good role model for students.

I wasn't aware of this one... :confused: If that be the case...
 
pek1 said:
I wasn't aware of this one... :confused: If that be the case...
Afraid so.

AMERICAN INDIAN MOVEMENT GRAND GOVERNING COUNCIL

Ward Churchill was scheduled to speak at Hamilton College in Clinton, New York on February 3, 2005. His appearance was canceled by the college after he caused a public furor over his loathsome remarks about the 9-11 tragedy in New York. AIM's Grand Governing Council has been dealing with Churchill's hateful attitude and rip-off of Indian people for years.

The American Indian Movement Grand Governing Council representing the National and International leadership of the American Indian Movement once again is vehemently and emphatically repudiating and condemning the outrageous statements made by academic literary and Indian fraud, Ward Churchill in relationship to the 9-11 tragedy in New York City that claimed thousands of innocent people’s lives.

Churchill’s statement that these people deserved what happened to them, and calling them little Eichmanns, comparing them to Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann, who implemented Adolf Hitler’s plan to exterminate European Jews and others, should be condemned by all.

The sorry part of this is Ward Churchill has fraudulently represented himself as an Indian, and a member of the American Indian Movement, a situation that has lifted him into the position of a lecturer on Indian activism. He has used the American Indian Movement’s chapter in Denver to attack the leadership of the official American Indian Movement with his misinformation and propaganda campaigns.

Ward Churchill has been masquerading as an Indian for years behind his dark glasses and beaded headband.
He waves around an honorary membership card that at one time was issued to anyone by the Keetoowah Tribe of Oklahoma. Former President Bill Clinton and many others received these cards, but these cards do not qualify the holder a member of any tribe. He has deceitfully and treacherously fooled innocent and naïve Indian community members in Denver, Colorado, as well as many other people worldwide. Churchill does not represent, nor does he speak on behalf of the American Indian Movement.

New York’s Hamilton College Kirklands Project should be aware that in their search for truth and justice, the idea that they have hired a fraud to speak on Indian activism is in itself a betrayal of their goals.
http://www.aimovement.org/moipr/churchill05.html

Nova Scotia School Sends CU A Report on Churchill Essay

University of Colorado officials investigating embattled professor Ward Churchill received documents this week purporting to show that he plagiarized another professor's work. Officials at Daihousie University in Nova Scotia sent CU an internal 1997 report detailing allegations about an article Churchill wrote.

"The article ... is, in the opinion of our legal counsel, plagiarism," Daihousie spokesman Charles Crosby said in summarizing the report's findings.

Churchill did not return calls to his home or office Thursday seeking comment.

Daihousie began an investigation after professor Fay G. Cohen complained that Churchill used her research and writing in an essay without her permission and without giving her credit. Although the investigation substantiated her allegations, Cohen didn't pursue the matter because she felt threatened by Churchill, Crosby said.

Crosby said Cohen told Daihousie officials in 1997 that Churchill had called her in the middle of the night and said, "I'll get you for this."

Cohen still declines to talk publicly about her experience with Churchill, but she agreed the Daihousie report could be shared with CU officials, Crosby said, because "whatever concerns she may have about her safety are outweighed by the importance she attaches to this information getting out there."

Crosby declined a request for a copy of the report but said it does not contain information about the alleged threat from Churchill.

It is not clear if CU officials are aware of the alleged threat. A CU spokeswoman said officials there would not comment on any matter related to an ongoing review of Churchill's work.

A three-person panel is reviewing that to determine if he meets the standards of professional integrity set by CU.

The CU Board of Regents ordered the review after the public outcry over an essay Churchill wrote comparing victims of the Sept 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to notorious Nazi bureaucrat Adolph Eichmann. Since then, Churchill has come under fire for some of his other writings and speeches, his scholarship, his claim of American Indian ancestry, and even his artwork.

The review panel, led by Interim Chancellor Phil DiStefano, originally was expected to issue its report this week but said it likely won't be released before Monday and perhaps later.

In 1991, Churchill edited a book of essays published in Copenhagen, Denmark, which included a piece by Cohen on Indian treaty fishing rights in the Northwest and Wisconsin. When publishers wanted to reprint the essay in the United States, Cohen declined to allow her essay to appear, Crosby said.

So Churchill penned an essay on the same topic under the name of the Institute for Natural Progress, a research organization he founded with Winona LaDuke. In the contributors section of the book, Churchill said he took the lead role in preparing the essay.
 
Reba,

I stand corrected.

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. :thumb:
 
pek1 said:
Reba,
I stand corrected.
Thank you for bringing that to my attention. :thumb:
No problem. Apparently he had a lot of people fooled for a long time.
 
Back
Top