• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Liberal Professor in Denver

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Of course, the notion of a liberal professor in academia is no surprise as it seems that more of them are at least left of center. However, few reach the level of Oneida Meranto at the Metropolitan State College in Denver. Read this links and see just how far over the board she has gone. She not only espouses an anti-American ideology, she actively forces conservative students from her classes and even tried to get some thrown out of school. I can relate with getting thrown out of a class by a liberal professor because I had a liberal professor get me tossed out of a class on race in eduaction at the University of Georgia due to my conservative views.

This is NOT appropriate in higher education. It should be about EXCHANGING ideas, not imposing them and getting students tossed because they disagree with you.

Check these links out:

http://www.campusmagazine.org/articledetail.aspx?id=43181413-7c76-4c93-8fb4-45715be501ff
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1620
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
17
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ludahai said:
Of course, the notion of a liberal professor in academia is no surprise as it seems that more of them are at least left of center. However, few reach the level of Oneida Meranto at the Metropolitan State College in Denver. Read this links and see just how far over the board she has gone. She not only espouses an anti-American ideology, she actively forces conservative students from her classes and even tried to get some thrown out of school. I can relate with getting thrown out of a class by a liberal professor because I had a liberal professor get me tossed out of a class on race in eduaction at the University of Georgia due to my conservative views.

This is NOT appropriate in higher education. It should be about EXCHANGING ideas, not imposing them and getting students tossed because they disagree with you.

Check these links out:

http://www.campusmagazine.org/articledetail.aspx?id=43181413-7c76-4c93-8fb4-45715be501ff
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1620
There's also a professor at the University of Colorodo who stated that the people who died on 9/11 deserved it. I believe Warren Churchill is his name. He needs to be fired.
 

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Last edited:

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,813
Reaction score
8,105
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It seems that thing these folks have hired a team of sherpas to climb is really just a mole hill.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
There's also a professor at the University of Colorodo who stated that the people who died on 9/11 deserved it. I believe Warren Churchill is his name. He needs to be fired.
He didn't say they deserved it. What he actually said was:

"I am not a "defender"of the September 11 attacks, but simply
pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and
destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that
destruction is returned. I have never said that people "should"
engage in armed attacks on the United States, but that such attacks are a
natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin
Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, "Those who make peaceful
change impossible make violent change inevitable."

Makes sense to me.
 

Youve Got To Be Kidding!

Active member
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
319
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I love freedom of speach and dissemination of views and ideas. Guess you dont. I personaly agree with everything I have read that he has said. I think your liberal media killed this dude economically and socially at least. Oh well.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Youve Got To Be Kidding! said:
I love freedom of speach and dissemination of views and ideas. Guess you dont. I personaly agree with everything I have read that he has said. I think your liberal media killed this dude economically and socially at least. Oh well.
What did I say? I go to that school. I'm just upset I couldn't take his class...
 

KevinWan

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
175
Reaction score
0
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kelzie said:
He didn't say they deserved it. What he actually said was:

"I am not a "defender"of the September 11 attacks, but simply
pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and
destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that
destruction is returned. I have never said that people "should"
engage in armed attacks on the United States, but that such attacks are a
natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin
Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, "Those who make peaceful
change impossible make violent change inevitable."

Makes sense to me.
Sure, it makes sense, BUT... I find it to be anti-american to the extreme. To say that the victims of 9/11 are "Little Eichmans," is just horrendous... And hes blatantly lying when he says is isn't "defending" the 9/11 attacks... He goes out of his way to find justifications for the terrorists... seems a little defensive to me. And how is U.S. policy "unlawful." ??? Face it, hes a terrorist sympathizer; plain and simple.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
KevinWan said:
Sure, it makes sense, BUT... I find it to be anti-american to the extreme. To say that the victims of 9/11 are "Little Eichmans," is just horrendous... And hes blatantly lying when he says is isn't "defending" the 9/11 attacks... He goes out of his way to find justifications for the terrorists... seems a little defensive to me. And how is U.S. policy "unlawful." ??? Face it, hes a terrorist sympathizer; plain and simple.
Why is it anti-American? He's arguing cause and effect. If we prop up dictators that kill thousands abroad, we can't claim innocence when our own people are attacked. He's not saying either of these actions are right, or justified. Read a little about American foreign policay after WWII, especially in South American and the Middle East. You'll understand why he says unlawful.

And this is what he said about the 9/11 victims:

"Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire" working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies."
 

KevinWan

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
175
Reaction score
0
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kelzie said:
Why is it anti-American? He's arguing cause and effect. If we prop up dictators that kill thousands abroad, we can't claim innocence when our own people are attacked. He's not saying either of these actions are right, or justified. Read a little about American foreign policay after WWII, especially in South American and the Middle East. You'll understand why he says unlawful.

And this is what he said about the 9/11 victims:

"Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire" working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies."
Why is it anti-American?? C'mon! What kind of question is that?? Propping up dictators is what the terrorists want, why else would they oppose what is happening in Afganistan and Iraq???? Dictatorships in South/Central American has close to nothing to do with the motivations of the 9/11 terrorists... The only laws that should dictate any nation's foreign policy should be military power... Whose going to stop us from breaking international laws?? Apparently not the U.N... Post WWII foreign policy was Cold War policy.. had we not done what we did we could still have to deal with the threat of nuclear war with the USSR.

Comparing 9/11 victims to NAZIS!!! Just because the people in the WTC may have been capitalists... helping the US economy... this makes them the equivalent of Adolf Eichmann????? They somehow help America prosper... and make foreign policy of propping up dictators in S. America (which the terrorists could care less about) flow easily. hmmm... sounds pretty "American capitalism (the heart of America) is evil... I call that Anti-American.
 

hawk2

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
Location
NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Kelzie said:
Why is it anti-American? He's arguing cause and effect. If we prop up dictators that kill thousands abroad, we can't claim innocence when our own people are attacked. He's not saying either of these actions are right, or justified. Read a little about American foreign policay after WWII, especially in South American and the Middle East. You'll understand why he says unlawful.

And this is what he said about the 9/11 victims:

"Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire" working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies."
This is an excerpt from Churchill's essay which offended so many people.....you be the judge.

[quote by Ward Churchill]There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . . Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire ? the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved ? and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" ? a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" ? counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in ? and in many cases excelling at ? it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in
hearing about it.

He later tried to say that he was only referring to a few "technicians" inside the towers........If you believe that then you believe in the tooth fairy.

This is the url where you can read the entire essay plus more comments:

http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read.html?id=2739

edited one time to add the url for a source.
 
Last edited:

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
hawk2 said:
This is an excerpt from Churchill's essay which offended so many people.....you be the judge.

[quote by Ward Churchill]There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . . Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire ? the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved ? and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" ? a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" ? counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in ? and in many cases excelling at ? it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in
hearing about it.

He later tried to say that he was only referring to a few "technicians" inside the towers........If you believe that then you believe in the tooth fairy.

This is the url where you can read the entire essay plus more comments:

http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read.html?id=2739

edited one time to add the url for a source.
More than 1/5th of the victims of 911 were fireman, policeman & EMTs...
There were also people who maintain the building and cafeteria workers.

I have a feeling they weren't the "technocratic corps" that Churchill was talking about...

What were they to him???? Necessary collateral damage????

Maybe Churchill would be more pleased if the terrorists just went through the whole building and JUST picked off the people who have to do with "mighty engine of profit".

Terrorist: "Are you a greedy American capitalist pig?"
Worker #1: "No...I'm here to fix the copier."
Terrorist: "OK...You're free to go...how about the guy next to you?"
Worker #2: "I'm the VP of this accounting firm."
BANG!

That would've worked alot better in Churchill's world?
 

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,661
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
For starters, I would say that Ward Churchill is certainly no liberal. I might call him a neomarxist or an authoritarian leftist or just a fraud, but he isn't a liberal. If he is representative of liberal opinion, then Fred Phelps and David Duke are representative of conservative opinion.

Political labels can be a trap, and once a creature like Ward Churchill is defined as "liberal", it seems that others who also define themselves as liberal might be a little too eager to rush to his defense. Much to their detriment, I might add, because folks paint themselves into a corner when they cast their lot with this sort of terrorist apologia replete with all the same specious notions of moral equivalency offered by the terrorists, themselves.

Ward Churchill, like many "academics" simply recycles that prevaillling orthodoxy that paints the world in terms of evil western imperialism, and is blind to any attrocity that does not fall within this world view. To read Ward Churchill is to read Juan Cole is to read Noam Chomsky. Not much originality there, as they all spout he same tired rhetorec.

Do we need to address the facts of terrorism in order to understand it? Yes. Do we need to take an objective look at how our own actions may contribute to the rise of terrorism? Yes, with the caveat that we do not need to accept culpability when none exists. Do we shift the responsibility for murder from those who commited the acts to the victims of their acts? Absolutely not, and this is where Ward Churchill and so many others have crossed the line. I don't think liberals are wise to cross it with them.
 

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Gardener said:
For starters, I would say that Ward Churchill is certainly no liberal. I might call him a neomarxist or an authoritarian leftist or just a fraud, but he isn't a liberal. If he is representative of liberal opinion, then Fred Phelps and David Duke are representative of conservative opinion.

Political labels can be a trap, and once a creature like Ward Churchill is defined as "liberal", it seems that others who also define themselves as liberal might be a little too eager to rush to his defense. Much to their detriment, I might add, because folks paint themselves into a corner when they cast their lot with this sort of terrorist apologia replete with all the same specious notions of moral equivalency offered by the terrorists, themselves.

Ward Churchill, like many "academics" simply recycles that prevaillling orthodoxy that paints the world in terms of evil western imperialism, and is blind to any attrocity that does not fall within this world view. To read Ward Churchill is to read Juan Cole is to read Noam Chomsky. Not much originality there, as they all spout he same tired rhetorec.

Do we need to address the facts of terrorism in order to understand it? Yes. Do we need to take an objective look at how our own actions may contribute to the rise of terrorism? Yes, with the caveat that we do not need to accept culpability when none exists. Do we shift the responsibility for murder from those who commited the acts to the victims of their acts? Absolutely not, and this is where Ward Churchill and so many others have crossed the line. I don't think liberals are wise to cross it with them.
I really have to say that for the most part, I agree with what you have to say. I don't believe for a minute that Ward Churchill or others of his ilk represent the mainstream liberal in the United States of America. I belive Kelzie is far more repreesntative of them. However, unlike Kelzie, many mainstream liberals are hoodwinked to believe that the likes of Churchill, or race-mongers like Jesse Jackson, truly represent mainstream liberal beliefs.

Would you be satisfied if I referred to Ward Churchill as an anti-American leftist, rather than a mainstream liberal?
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Gardener said:
For starters, I would say that Ward Churchill is certainly no liberal. I might call him a neomarxist or an authoritarian leftist or just a fraud, but he isn't a liberal. If he is representative of liberal opinion, then Fred Phelps and David Duke are representative of conservative opinion.

Political labels can be a trap, and once a creature like Ward Churchill is defined as "liberal", it seems that others who also define themselves as liberal might be a little too eager to rush to his defense. Much to their detriment, I might add, because folks paint themselves into a corner when they cast their lot with this sort of terrorist apologia replete with all the same specious notions of moral equivalency offered by the terrorists, themselves.

Ward Churchill, like many "academics" simply recycles that prevaillling orthodoxy that paints the world in terms of evil western imperialism, and is blind to any attrocity that does not fall within this world view. To read Ward Churchill is to read Juan Cole is to read Noam Chomsky. Not much originality there, as they all spout he same tired rhetorec.

Do we need to address the facts of terrorism in order to understand it? Yes. Do we need to take an objective look at how our own actions may contribute to the rise of terrorism? Yes, with the caveat that we do not need to accept culpability when none exists. Do we shift the responsibility for murder from those who commited the acts to the victims of their acts? Absolutely not, and this is where Ward Churchill and so many others have crossed the line. I don't think liberals are wise to cross it with them.
For being one of your first few posts, I find that was very well said!::lol:

Welcome to Debate Politics, Gardner!:2wave:

We're going to need a lot more of this out of you...:cool:
 

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,661
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ludahai said:
I really have to say that for the most part, I agree with what you have to say. I don't believe for a minute that Ward Churchill or others of his ilk represent the mainstream liberal in the United States of America. I belive Kelzie is far more repreesntative of them. However, unlike Kelzie, many mainstream liberals are hoodwinked to believe that the likes of Churchill, or race-mongers like Jesse Jackson, truly represent mainstream liberal beliefs.

Would you be satisfied if I referred to Ward Churchill as an anti-American leftist, rather than a mainstream liberal?

That's what I consider him, too, so you won't get any argument out of me!

I'm with you on Jesse Jackson, too, and the non reaction to his slur against New York as "Himeytown" was inexcusable. Racism is racism no matter the originator.
 

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,661
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
cnredd said:
For being one of your first few posts, I find that was very well said!::lol:

Welcome to Debate Politics, Gardner!:2wave:

We're going to need a lot more of this out of you...:cool:

Thanks, CN!

like that sig line of your btw.
 
Top Bottom