Need Help Dealing With Liberal Professor

[ProudAmerican]

So you admit that you DODGE posts. You asked me to give you a link that shows where it says we cannot invade on humanitarian issues. Well, I gave you one and you ran away from it. If the answers scare you so much, then don't ask the questions. Why are you so afraid?

I asked you for something specific and you gave me a book to read.

go ahead and copy and paste the part that says we need permission to intervene in a humanitarian crisis.

I wont hold my breath.

then post the part of our constitution that states we must recieve UN permission to intervene in a humanitarian crisis.

stop acting like you know wtf you are talking about.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
I asked you for something specific and you gave me a book to read.

go ahead and copy and paste the part that says we need permission to intervene in a humanitarian crisis.

I wont hold my breath.

Here you go.

Chapter VI of the UN Charter:
Article 37
Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council.

If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter6.htm

Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
then post the part of our constitution that states we must recieve UN permission to intervene in a humanitarian crisis.

stop acting like you know wtf you are talking about.

I never said I did.

US Constitution (partial):
Article VI

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlevi.html

 

[DeeJayH]

Here you go.

I never said I did.

now wasnt that simple enough, even if you do not have those quotes sitting right on your desktop, which i believe you do
I thought the way you posted the link to the whole 'Manifesto' was kind of schmucky, no offfense

i still differ with your interpretation of it though

 

[aquapub]

Before one of the mods goes moving this to another section please note this directly relates to Iraq.

In my western humanities course right now I have (as usual) an insanly liberal professor. About every other sentence he mentions that WMD were never found in Iraq and that Bush is an unethical man and that he lied blah blah blah.

The woman next to me has a son in Iraq and she just about starts crying every time he goes in to how Bush is wasting American lives. I'm getting really sick of holding my tongue so I would like some help from some fellow conservatives on the best way to respond, and how the argument will go.

I know hes trying to bait out the conservatives in his class by saying all this inflamitory stuff so I want to be well prepaired for the argument hes going to give me.

I'm thinking to start with a few of these:

"All the best intelligence in the world said that he still had WMD, and Saddam didn't give the weapons inspectors any chance to disprove that. He repeatedly violated UN sanctions be restricting their access and sometimes expelling them altogether."

or

"Saddam violated numerous (how many?) UN sanctions but the security council refused to take action due to three nation's financial interest in Iraq and the oil for food program. Without unilateral action nothing would have been done."

or

"We found the WMD. He was hiding in a spider hole."

or

"Are you saying it's a bad thing that a man as evil as Saddam was taken out of power?"

I don't know. Fellow conservatives please give me a few more arguments as well as what you think his responses to those statements will be. I want to be well prepaired to debate this guy and make him look like the douche he is in front of his class.

I went through something just like this last year in a class called, "American Issues and Problems."

I have a lot of great one liners you could use to shut his lying ass up in a hurry, but the best thing you can do is this:

1) Chronicle everything he says. Credibility and timing are everything in this situation.

2) Go to TownHall.com and look up Accuracy in Academia and any other conservative campus watchdog groups.

3) Keep in touch with a Republican club on campus about all this (if you have one) for the duration of the course, but express upfront your concerns about your grades, and don't keep anyone else informed about it at all.

4) As soon as you've passed the guy's class (presuming you won't have to take this ass again for anything else), send a copy of everything he has lied about and distorted to the Dean, the watchdog groups, Sean hannity, and Bill O'Reilly.

If you feel uncomfortable with any of this, request anonymity.

This worked for me. That teacher still has no idea who turned him in, but his curriculum and dicta now more accurately reflect events that actually happened, and without the bogus smears.

 

[ProudAmerican]

i still differ with your interpretation of it though

That really is the key isnt it.

I dont read it the way he thinks he reads it at all.

I didnt see anywhere in there that America must get U.N. permission to resolved a humanitarian crisis.

and its pretty clear CONGRESS didnt read it the way he reads it either. If they did, the president would have charges brought against him.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by DeeJayH
now wasnt that simple enough, even if you do not have those quotes sitting right on your desktop, which i believe you do
I thought the way you posted the link to the whole 'Manifesto' was kind of schmucky, no offfense

i still differ with your interpretation of it though

At least it wasn't cheesy. I would hate to be known for schmucky cheesy posts.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
That really is the key isnt it.

No that's not the key. What are you doing here? This isn't a verbal playground or sandbox. It's a debate forum. If you make an assertion, and I refute that assertion (with facts, sources and links), the onus is on you to rebut (with facts, sources and links), but you don't. You don't bring anything new to the conversation. Thereby invalidating your arguement. So what are you doing here?

Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
I dont read it the way he thinks he reads it at all.

I think it is pretty clear without a whole lotta room for interpretation. Your just so close-minded your not going to allow anything to change what your comfortable thinking.

Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
I didnt see anywhere in there that America must get U.N. permission to resolved a humanitarian crisis.

You are trying to apply a condition of a lower hierarchy to a higher one. You cannot arbitrarily decide the people of a nation are in need of humanitarian assistance without the UN being involved. Unless that nation specifically requests our help. You cannot send troops into the sovereign land of another country unless you adhere to the conditions of the links I have posted. I have refuted your assertion and justified my position with facts and links. Does the door swing both ways?

Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
and its pretty clear CONGRESS didnt read it the way he reads it either. If they did, the president would have charges brought against him.

Congress won't bring charges because they are a bunch of ******s with no balls.

 

[ProudAmerican]

No that's not the key. What are you doing here? This isn't a verbal playground or sandbox. It's a debate forum. If you make an assertion, and I refute that assertion (with facts, sources and links), the onus is on you to rebut (with facts, sources and links), but you don't. You don't bring anything new to the conversation. Thereby invalidating your arguement. So what are you doing here?

feel free to ignore me and move on anytime you like.
and the only links you showed was your interpretation of something. The president, Congress, and many of the American people dont interpret it the way you do. Many of us do not believe America needs the permission of the UN to act in our best intrest or the best intrest of any other nation. The UN has proven itself to be innefective.

think it is pretty clear without a whole lotta room for interpretation

good for you. heres a newsflash, many people dissagree. namely the President, Congress, and a large number of the American people.

You cannot arbitrarily decide the people of a nation are in need of humanitarian assistance without the UN being involved.

obviously we can. WE DID. actually we didnt. we had the agreement and help of many other nations.

Congress won't bring charges because they are a bunch of ******s with no balls.

or heres an idea. they BELIEVED in what they did, and dont see any broken laws to bring forth charges on.

who else here thinks article VI of the constitution had anything whatsoever to do wtih the UN or anything other than the states within this country?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
feel free to ignore me and move on anytime you like.
and the only links you showed was your interpretation of something. The president, Congress, and many of the American people dont interpret it the way you do. Many of us do not believe America needs the permission of the UN to act in our best intrest or the best intrest of any other nation. The UN has proven itself to be innefective.

Just speak for yourself. You don't speak for the American people. You only speak for yourself. I did not post my re-write of the subject material. I posted the material itself. We are the UN. The UN is part of US. I posted the very section that we agreed to follow when we joined the UN and then we ratified it with our Congress thus making it part of our Constitution. It is our law. Do you advocate breaking the law?

Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
good for you. heres a newsflash, many people dissagree. namely the President, Congress, and a large number of the American people.

No, you disagree. Which you have every right too.

Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
obviously we can. WE DID. actually we didnt. we had the agreement and help of many other nations.

What nations are those?

Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
or heres an idea. they BELIEVED in what they did, and dont see any broken laws to bring forth charges on.

Obviously, that is a possibility.

Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
who else here thinks article VI of the constitution had anything whatsoever to do wtih the UN or anything other than the states within this country?

We don't make treaties within our own country. Name me one state to state treaty. Treaties are made with other nations.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Just speak for yourself. You don't speak for the American people. You only speak for yourself

youre right. the last election spoke for me.

as did Congress.

We are the UN

great. we gave ourself permission to do what we deemed necessary.

No, you disagree. Which you have every right too.

it an absolute FACT that the president and congress agreed with me. not you. sure now that its POLITICAL many cowardly congressmen have changed their mind, but we know how they voted WHEN IT COUNTED.

What nations are those?

I dont feel like looking it up. unlike some here, I have a job, a family, and a life. if its your contention that ONLY America is fighting this war, well....everyone here knows you are wrong. thats good enough for me.

Obviously, that is a possibility.

I think hell just froze over.

We don't make treaties within our own country

really? we never had any treaties with the Indians? or any peace agreements from the Civil War?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
it an absolute FACT that the president and congress agreed with me. not you. sure now that its POLITICAL many cowardly congressmen have changed their mind, but we know how they voted WHEN IT COUNTED.

They voted on faulty info............ the war had already started by then. An impeachable offense.

Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
I dont feel like looking it up. unlike some here, I have a job, a family, and a life. if its your contention that ONLY America is fighting this war, well....everyone here knows you are wrong. thats good enough for me.

Fair enough. I just wanted to see if you knew what your talking about. I already know you don't.

Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
I think hell just froze over.

Hey, Bob bought a beer!

Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
really? we never had any treaties with the Indians? or any peace agreements from the Civil War?

Technically, they were other nations at the time. But you get an "E" for effort.

 

[ProudAmerican]

They voted on faulty info............ the war had already started by then. An impeachable offense.

if it were an impeachable offense, then WHY IN THE WORLD did Congress give the ok, rather than staring impeachment proceedings.

If there were sometihng to impeach, Kennedy ,Kerry, Dean, Feinstien and the rest of the loony radicals would have done it. period.

Fair enough. I just wanted to see if you knew what your talking about. I already know you don't.

of course I do!! :2razz: we didnt go it alone and you know it. nough said.
the fact that I wont take the time to look up the exact number of allies and who they were doesnt change the fact that you know it wasnt a unilateral war.

Technically, they were other nations at the time. But you get an "E" for effort.

thanks, but I alread knew you were wrong and I was right.

:mrgreen:

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Many of us do not believe America needs the permission of the UN to act in our best intrest or the best intrest of any other nation. The UN has proven itself to be innefective.

Then why did Saddam need the UN's permission to act in his best interest? Or Iran? Or Palestine? Etc etc ad infinitum.

good for you. heres a newsflash, many people dissagree. namely the President, Congress, and a large number of the American people.

I'd say thats rather irrelevant. Since when has the president cared about international law and constitutional bounds? If Congress disagrees with Article VI they should pass an ammendment to change it. In terms of that "large number" of yours..it doesn't matter...the majority of Americans don't even bother to vote and I highly doubt that the majority of Americans know anything about international law other than what they hear on the news or read in a newspaper.

who else here thinks article VI of the constitution had anything whatsoever to do wtih the UN or anything other than the states within this country?

Article VI says "all treaties...." which means it's all inclusive.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

if it were an impeachable offense, then WHY IN THE WORLD did Congress give the ok, rather than staring impeachment proceedings. If there were sometihng to impeach, Kennedy ,Kerry, Dean, Feinstien and the rest of the loony radicals would have done it. period.

You obviously don't understand how this works. Impeachment procceedings require a 2/3 majority of the Senate to convict. The dems do not have a 2/3 majority and the republicans would never impeach a president in war time even if he did something illegal.

we didnt go it alone and you know it. nough said.
the fact that I wont take the time to look up the exact number of allies and who they were doesnt change the fact that you know it wasnt a unilateral war.

The U.K. - 11,761 troops

Korea - 2,300 troops

Italy - 2,800 troops - leaving this year

Spain - Out

Poland - 1,500 troops - leaving this year

Romania - 830 troops

Georgia - 900 troops

Japan - Humanitarian aid.

Denmark - 550 troops - leaving this year

Australia - 450 troops - leaving this year

El Salvador - 380 troops

Azerbaijan - 150 troops

Mongolia - 145 troops

Albania - 125 man peacekeeping force

Latvia - 122 troops

Czech Republic - Out

Lithuania - 120 troops

Slovakia - 85 engineers

Armenia - 46 soldiers

Bosnia and Herzegovina - 36 soldiers

Estonia - 35 soldiers

Macedonia - 42 soldiers

Kazakhstan - 29 engineers

Bulgaria - Out

Ukraine - Out

Nicaragua - Out

Honduras - Out

Norway - Out

Dominican Republic - Out

Phillippines - Out

Thailand - Out

Hungary - Out

New Zealand - Out

Portugal - Out

Singapore - Out

Netherlands - 6 liason officers

Moldova - Out

Tonga - Out


Lol so as you can see..this coalition is a joke..most of the big players are out and one by one the others are calling it quits and most of the nations at the Iraq Donars Conference still haven't payed the coalition their financial committments.

 

[akyron]

Netherlands - 6 liason officers
.

Thank God the Netherlands made it. Bhagdad would have taken hella longer to get to without em.

 

[teacher]

I don't know. Fellow conservatives please give me a few more arguments as well as what you think his responses to those statements will be. I want to be well prepaired to debate this guy and make him look like the douche he is in front of his class.

Bite the bullet. Take the F. Do the following. When he goes on a rant stand up and tell him just what cnredd said to say. Then tell him he sucks. Memorize all my posts and repeat word for word if you want to destroy him in debate. I had a liberal American government professor at the college I went to. Most everyone in that class was 18 or 19 and intimidated. I was just out of the Army. When she went to tell us to take notes on why Ronald Reagan was a terrorist I had all I could stand and proceeded to make her life hell. I failed opinion papers. Be the first one to stand up to him and more will follow your lead. Or try this. Take daily notes on his rants. Post that days rant here and we will send you back armed to the teeth.

Or do you want to do this right?

Start a rumor he's gay. Buy a small French flag, stick in an apple and leave it on his desk. Let the air out of his cars tires. Goosestep when you enter and exit the class room. Pretend to sneeze saying "bullshit". Wear a Rush Limbaugh t-shirt. Get one of those fart noise makers and squeeze it everytime he stands or sits. Have a t-shirt made up that reads "Free the Women". Start an underground smear campaign on the net. Put a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker on his car. E-mail him child porn from a school computer. Wear a tweed jacket with leather elbow patches and hang a pipe put of your mouth when in class. Paint eyeballs on your eyelids and sleep in his class. Buy and wear a Hitler mustache. Get creative. Don't give in. Take the F. In no time he'll be calling in sick.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by teacher:
E-mail him child porn from a school computer.

Are you drunk? Don't do this!

 

[teacher]

Are you drunk? Don't do this!

Trouble with the FBI Billo? Over 6000 posts? Holy wore out keyboards Batman. And I thought my life was sad. Hey, the political cartoon thread. I made my own cartoon. Shirley, that helps me in the "most creative" election? And do you remember which came first? My cartoons or your power points? The teacher massive head one was about the first, wasn't it? 6000? One night long ago I posted on every forum real quick so it was all me for a while.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by teacher:
Trouble with the FBI Billo? Over 6000 posts? Holy wore out keyboards Batman. And I thought my life was sad. Hey, the political cartoon thread. I made my own cartoon. Shirley, that helps me in the "most creative" election? And do you remember which came first? My cartoons or your power points? The teacher massive head one was about the first, wasn't it? 6000? One night long ago I posted on every forum real quick so it was all me for a while.

I think the fight is over.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Thank God the Netherlands made it. Bhagdad would have taken hella longer to get to without em.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[ProudAmerican]

Then why did Saddam need the UN's permission to act in his best interest? Or Iran? Or Palestine? Etc etc ad infinitum.

Im not hypocritical on this issue. I believe the UN is a joke, no matter what country we are talking about.

I'd say thats rather irrelevant

of course you would.

Since when has the president cared about international law and constitutional bounds?

yeah, we have a rogue leader that acts without considering the constitution. the evil Bush regime is an outlaw regime with no regard to the law. :roll:

If Congress disagrees with Article VI they should pass an ammendment to change it.

yeah while EVERYONE is concerned with the threat of WMDs (and I believe they thought it was a legitimate threat....just from reading General Tommy Franks book) they had time to pass an ammendment to change the constitution.

I agree that now that the threat has been neutralized, this is something we should be doing.

In terms of that "large number" of yours..it doesn't matter...the majority of Americans don't even bother to vote

well the ones that did vote certainly spoke loud and clear......and thats what I would say DOES MATTER.

 

[Hoot]

Dear Free Thinker, I say listen to your professor. You might learn something? There is no adequate defense for Bush. Perhaps you're calling him liberal, simply because he's right?

 

[justone]

To my opinion you are somewhat blinded by you emotions and prejudgments. I am afraid you do not believe in common senesce of the audience listening to your professor. I do not think fighting will make things better.
I would suggest asking questions – politely.
I may imagine the professor will lie or shut you up. But let the audience decide and make a list of lies. Lies will do no good the professor. The truth will be useful for you even if you are not right. You want to learn – ask questions. An Example:
Did other countries violate UN treaties?
Can you tell us which countries or block of countries violated and to what extend?
What was reaction on the violations?
Did Soviet Union, China ever violated the treaties and what was the result?
Which country or block of countries violated the most?
What in your opinion US should do and how to react?
Is it true that 2 Communist countries out of original 5(?) UN founders were dictatorships?
Did the dictators have in their programs and goals to support and spread violence and murder (no exclusion mark of all their revolutions – and you count dead in millions)
in other countries of the treaty? _Chrushev banging his shoe-etc.
Are you interested to put yourself in shoes of the Presidents in such reality – not only Bush but Kennedy and others.
Do you think Chrushev violeted any treaties when he put his nuclear rockets in Cuba? Which ones? (I see no violation). If he did not do you think Kennedy was really going to start war (without any attack on US!) if Crushev did not withdraw the rockets. Was Kennedy going to ask UN?
Which terrorist organizations ever signed the treaties? Which terorganizations ever followed?
What is the way to deal with terrorists? Would these steps you mentioned be like meeting their demands? Do you think the demand to whip Israel is -----, should we whip Israel?----Should we let them do?---- Do you think they would not have other demands after that – are sure? What do you think about their demand of the only right religion?
Are wars the unavoidable reality? Do we have to let army go? If don’t - who decides what and how it should operate? Is army kept for case of war and with a goal to win a war? Is it true that in war science it is accepted that the attack is the best way to defend?
Is it true that the attack can be successful only if it is kept in secret?
I have heard the common opinion that if we deal with terrorists in the way any close to the way they do us will become like them. In WWII our grandfathers were bombing Germany – more than Japan, including Nukes- and came home with really bloody hands – so we are already like them?
When war is won is all the means justified opposite to when war is lost all means are damned? Would it be right to say that the task of a military commander is to kill as many enemies as possibly and preserve as many lives his soldiers as possible at all costs?
IF not - would the soldiers follow the commands how they are expected? ask the opinion of somebody just out of army- that somebody may not be able to hold it back – act as a peace maker.
And so forth. You can think and filter the questions and add some more in the same way.
Do not fall for phrases and slogans – be a simple guy. I may think the audience would be interested to hear the answers and make conclusions.
Do not expect all of them will be for you; the professor may have good points.
But the result should be learning for everyone – find good questions.

 

[The Real McCoy]

I had a borderline communist professor in my Contemporary World Issues class. The Clinton administration quotes on Iraqi WMDs didn't work with this guy because according to him, Bill and Hillary Clinton are "right-wingers."

 

[vergiss]

I would go to the dean and say the teacher's liberal agenda is getting in the way of his assigned teaching and upsetting some of the students. But, you know. That or Sean Hannity.

Yes, good idea.