JohnnyD

Then perhaps you'd like to share with us, the research you've done independently that refutes their conclusions? Not intended for me??? Sorry, I thought you were being sarcastic. My bad. Nope. Made me think agout it in a whole new way.

wrong again broken record...maybe if you say it a hundred more times, we'll get bored and write you off. So you believe this teacher is being unfairly attacked for his opinions? Or do you believe all teachers should be fired for bringing up their personal opinions? Which?

Then perhaps you'd like to share with us, the research you've done independently that refutes their conclusions? Not intended for me???

Woosh

Of course not. I would say exactly the same thing if he made a pro-Bush rant. It is completely relevant, because this man could lose his career over his opinion (which you disagree with). Similarly, if this man were facing the loss of his career over an opinion with which you agreed, you would say he is being wronged. That is an impossible standard to hold any human being to.

Then you would certainly agree that any discussion of religion should be completely limited to debate class? What about economics? Debate class only? Edit: Why stop there. You think Shakespeare sucks? Debate class for that limey bastard. Poetry? Seriously, are we really spending our tax dollars on this coffee house crap? Creative writing. I called this class: "How to write some real garbage and call it art" in college. Debate class for the creative writing.

I contend that you don't know that as a fact, and you should not call us liars. Have you listened to it yet? Of course. It is not something I would characterize as "spewing hate". I've also heard the kids father give an interview. This whole thing happened the day after the state of the union address. Its only getting attention now because the family went to the media. I know people who teach in that school district and I know that teachers in general need to go to greater lengths to gain and hold the interest of students. If you are going to tell me Fox News would have this on if this was a spirited pro-Bush rant, I call bullshit. If you're going to tell me your opinion of this whole thing would be exactly the same if this was a pro-Bush rant, again, I call bullshit. Not that anybody even cares whether these kids are actually learning anything or not, but people are suggesting that we need to remove all opinions from the classroom (or to the point, opinions they disagree with). Its simply not possible. You can't remove the human element from the education process without removing the humans. If your teacher has an opinion about something (gasp, everyone has opinions) and you can say: I am hearing you and I disagree with you; your brain is actually engaged and you may actually be learning something......the horror.......the horror......

I trust consumer reports. I am completely reconsidering my opinion on hybrids. Thanks for the article.

Wipe all the lipstick you want on that pig. Fact is, you would turn completely around if you agreed with the message. You can keep dancing around it, but not admitting it is less than honest.

Indoctrinating our youth!!!!!!!!!!

no, that's incorrect. the difference is that in the setting of being a HS history teacher, one needs to be impartial and needs to discuss issues with the goal of furthering knowledge, fostering rational thought, and instilling excitement about learning. that's not what this teacher did. he used his position to shape his students viewpoint to match his own. i would say that's wrong no matter what the opinion of the teacher is/was. You disagree with the opinion? End of discussion.

So you disagree with his opinion, therefore he should be fired. If he just as spiritedly said the exact opposite thing, that would be just fine with you. There are a lot of ways to try not to say that this boils down to agreement/disagreement with this teachers opinion, and I'm sure this thread will be full of them. Thing is: They're all opinions too.

The difference is you don't agree with the opinion. If you did you would take the exact opposite position. That's a big difference.

See? This was a history class, not a debate team. The teacher has a lesson plan they are expected to follow. What part of that is so hard to understand? So imagine this: The teacher says the US is bringing freedom and democracy to the middle east and does not torture or detain prisoners against the Geneva Conventions. A student records this, gets it played on Air America radio and seeks to have the teacher disciplined or fired because of his "right-wing rants." What would you say about that? I will bet my left nut that you would change your view 180 degrees depending on whether you agree or disagree with what is being said. That's the problem.

See?

Another wonderful example of bypassing the substance for the semantics. People who agree will say: "Free Speech!" People who disagree will say: "Indoctrinating our Youth!" Undoubtedly, you will see pages of this crap go back and forth with out a single mention of how good of a teacher is this guy or is he trying to stimulate people into actually _using_ their brains. Nope, forget that. "Free Speech!" "Indoctrinating our youth!"

Without getting on either side of it, how can someone propose a law that goes completely against every bit of training LEOs have ever received and expect things to improve? Regardless of whether you are for or against shooting to wound, just passing a law isn't going to change anything except get cops put on trial, which will make the population less safe because there are more cops on trial and fewer on the job. Not to mention tax payers will have to foot the bills for both the cops on administrative leave while their trials are pending and the DAs whose case load is increased. Election year politics.

Thank you for your service. Now please delete that post. Anyone can read this stuff and some people would really hold it against you if you give them a chance. Suck it up - chin up, chest out. Continue to march.

That guy was WAY out of line. I would file a complaint and be sure to repeat exactly what he said and provide copies of the literature he gave you. I also can't help but wonder what the reaction would have been if the cop was of middle eastern descent and said something along the exact same lines, but substituted allah for god. I'd be willing to bet the reaction would be very different and that is a good indication of how wrong that guy was to do that.

Actually, I think this deal would be even worse if it was made with anybody not named Bush in the white house. This deal may seem good right now while Bush is pres. There is no denying the influence his family has in the UAE. What truly scares me is four or five years down the road when the influence is gone and this discussion has been long forgotten.

If you honestly believe this, there is nothing I could possibly say to make you think any differently. I also gave you some free advice. Take it or don't. Good luck to you.

The absurdity of that statement is flat out staggering. Are you not the same guy who came on here soliciting ways to screw over the company you were working for in case you couldn't make it through the academy? Take some free advice from annuls of AggieDave and PhillyKev: Keep your work life off dz.com. It could return to haunt you.

I think I might have killed that thing too.

What about the real issue - National Security. Are you saying you support turning over operational management of our ports to a country with known ties to terrorists?

Are you saying that I did NOT have to kill all those babies? What about the kittens? I'm so confused. That's what happens when you jack-off too much. So you're saying that I am going dumb on top of going blind? I must be a conservative.