Ward Churchill - NOT a Native American? Fire him.

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 03:59
VIEWED: 16391
PAGE 7 of 16

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

SIGNYM

Friday, March 4, 2005 12:33 AM

My point was that Iraq was not a threat to us or to its neighbors. My point still stands, yours doesn't. But just like Bush, you will dance to evade responsibility. Typical. (sigh)

As far as the YOUR analogy goes... What are you trying to say? That Jews were innocent but that Iraqis deserve to die? Unless you tell me otherwise, seems to be your logic. Is it?

RUE

Friday, March 4, 2005 3:35 AM

AURaptor,

Quote:
Bait and switching by bringing up irrelevent issues doesn't really get us anywhere.

Ward Churchill - NOT a Native American? Fire him.

This WAS the title of this thread, wasn't it?
Didn't you then go on to make a bunch of statements repeated over many days about getting jobs under false pretenses? (see below) How is my Guckert posting NOT relevant? You do know he got his 'in' to the press room without being a journalist, don't you?

Just wondering how far you are willing to carry on with an absurdly obvious double standard, that's all.

Quote:
Never mind issues of 'free speech', this clown seems to have used fraud and deception to attain a position that wasn't ever meant for him. Wednesday, February 23, 2005 12:08
Did he get his positon on false pretenses ? Yes or no? It doesn't have to be solely on his minority status, but any favoritism he might have received which he didn't deserve warrents investigating. Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 13:20
He's claimed a false heritage and it landed him a $100,000 + tenured position. Not bad work, if you can find it. Friday, February 25, 2005 - 04:58
That IF WC lied about his heritage , and because of that lie, his classification as a minority in any way helped him obtain his position, then it's well with in C.U. right to fire this guy. Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 05:06
People go to jail for lying, Presidents get impeached for lying, and football coaches at Notre Dame lose their job for lying. Thats what. Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 14:57

RUE

Friday, March 4, 2005 3:47 AM

Finn, Finn, Finn,

I see you've abandoned your statements. Didn't even address them when you should have defended them. Assuming of course you posted something you believed in.

So here is a selection of these double-duty statements:

Quote:
Considering the idiotic things this clown has said, I find it hard to believe that he could have made it through the system without considerable hand waiving. Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 20:42
He's a fruitcake. Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 22:12
I think that if he acquired his position through fraud and that can be determined, then I think he should be dismissed immediately. Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 23:06

But, it's apparent that your REAL issue is not with how he got his job - that was just a throw-away position of nominal support for the baying vigilante breeds. You're issue is with what Churchill says. You have a problem with free speech.

And, you do want to distract from that Guckert em-'bare*ss'-ment.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, March 4, 2005 4:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Finn, Finn, Finn,

I see you've abandoned your statements. Didn't even address them when you should have defended them. Assuming of course you posted something you believed in..

What reason do I have to defend those statements? I meant every word of them; that’s all you need to know.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But, it's apparent that your REAL issue is not with how he got his job - that was just a throw-away position of nominal support for the baying vigilante breeds. You're issue is with what Churchill says. You have a problem with free speech.

Yeah. My issue is with what Churchill said. You’ve managed to deduce through tricky logic and slight of hand what I’ve already told you. Good deduction, Einstein.

Maybe instead of deriving the obvious you might try a little critical analysis of your own thoughts. You could start with, what exactly about disagreeing with what someone says means I “have a problem with free speech.” Condonation of murder is generally something I do tend to disagree with, call me crazy. You seem to disagree with me; does that mean you have a problem with free speech? Or does that little loophole only apply to me? If you believe disagreeing with what someone says is against the axiom of free speech, then the only way anyone could have free speech is if everyone agreed, which seems rather self-defeating logic.

Although I do want to thank you for good laugh.

And your Guckert hang up is your story not mine.

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, March 4, 2005 5:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
As I understand it, Churchill said some unpopular things and the right-wing vigilantes decided to make an example of him, not by debating the issues, but by digging up dirt.
Yep. That's probably the way you understand it.

Me too

. That's the way I understand it. If Churchill isn't who he is, then his statements aren't greeted with the same response.

I honestly think we as a country are too close (temporally) to the tragic events of September 11th to discuss them dispassionately.

On an unrelated note, I do see the similarities Rue pointed out between AURaptor's original post and some of the commentary I've read on the James Guckert story. I was actually hoping someone would start a Guckert thread. If I needed additional proof that the mainstream media in this country is not liberal, the fact that this story has not gained traction over the past month would be it. I mean, just imagine the same events playing out eight years ago. The press would've had a field day.

In terms of Ward Churchill, I also see similarities to the Lawrence Summers thing (although, granted, there is a difference between calling for somone to step down from an academic administrative position and calling for someone to lose tenure). I'm not sure the Summers case qualifies as a witch hunt but some of the rhetoric I've been reading makes me nervous. I much prefer the point of view that Dean (now Chancellor) Denton presented in a piece for the UC Santa Cruz paper where she talks about using this as an opportunity (a little background - Denice Denton was attending the conference where Summers made his remarks. At the time she was Dean of Engineering at UW. Now she is the Chancellor of UC Santa Cruz. I've had the pleasure of listening to her speak on a couple of occasions on the topic of minority issues in engineering education and she's one of my personal academic heroes.).
http://currents.ucsc.edu/04-05/02-07/opinion-denton.asp

Once again, I think I'm all over the map on this one...

RUE

Friday, March 4, 2005 6:05 AM

Finn,

You have rigorous 'job' standards outrage over their violation for Churchill, but not for Guckert. You expressed no perception that Guckert might be a, let's see ...

Quote:
fruitcake

or that

Quote:
if he acquired his position through fraud and that can be determined, then I think he should be dismissed immediately.

If hiring-fraud is SO abhorrent to you, where's your outrage and hyperbole over Guckert's fraud? Or are your standards merely ones of convenience?

Regarding the free speech issue, you did a pretty good job of hand-washing. It's not that YOU want to do anything to Churchill PERSONALLY because of his publicly expressed opinions.
But you did call for dismantling colleges b/c of his statements.

Quote:
Higher education in this country is pretty damn Left-wing, but I can’t believe it’s this stupid. Although I could be wrong, but if this clown is a fair representation of American Academia, we just need to shut down the colleges and start over from scratch. Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 20:42

And then you posited his removal by third parties b/c of what he said.

Quote:
Although, given the lunacy of some of his statements I can certainly understand if the tax payers of Colorado don’t want to pay this guy to teach their children. Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 23:06

Then you characterized his comments as 'hate speech', a designation I'm sure you know has legal, criminal implications.

Quote:
In fact, I believe it no different from hate speech. Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 06:55

And then you implied that Churchill shouldn't be allowed free speech b/c it would implant Nazism in the US.

Quote:
But considering how people dismiss and justify fruitcakey comments, and how willing we seem to be to put a person like Churchill in a position where he can implant fruitcakey ideas in impressionable minds ...

OTOH, maybe you did leave a good trail for your position that only some opinions should be heard in this land of free speech.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, March 4, 2005 1:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Finn,

You have rigorous 'job' standards outrage over their violation for Churchill, but not for Guckert. You expressed no perception that Guckert might be a, let's see ...
Quote:
fruitcake
or that
Quote:
if he acquired his position through fraud and that can be determined, then I think he should be dismissed immediately.
If hiring-fraud is SO abhorrent to you, where's your outrage and hyperbole over Guckert's fraud? Or are your standards merely ones of convenience?

This discussion is about Churchill. This Guckert thing is something unrelated that you dragged in, apparently out of the blue. How do you know what I think about Guckert? You’re kind of conceited to simply assume that I think about something.

Also I never said or in any way implied that Churchill shouldn’t be allowed free speech. That’s some story you made up. Here’s an idea, let’s examine something I said without running through the rue-filter first.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t know who all is calling for his dismissal. I think that if he acquired his position through fraud and that can be determined, then I think he should be dismissed immediately. Other then that, I’m not going to call for his dismissal based on the kinds of comments he’s made. Although, given the lunacy of some of his statements I can certainly understand if the tax payers of Colorado don’t want to pay this guy to teach their children.

Huh, that does throw a monkey wrench in your little story. Funny, how with all the comments of mine you took out of context, this one seemed to be missed.

So let me see, I openly and quite fervidly disagree with statements made by Churchill condoning the murder of innocent people, and you throw a fit because I don’t agree with him? What exactly do you have against me disagreeing with Churchill?

AURAPTOR

Friday, March 4, 2005 2:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
My point was that Iraq was not a threat to us or to its neighbors. My point still stands, yours doesn't. But just like Bush, you will dance to evade responsibility. Typical. (sigh)

As far as the YOUR analogy goes... What are you trying to say? That Jews were innocent but that Iraqis deserve to die? Unless you tell me otherwise, seems to be your logic. Is it?

Not a threat to its neighbors ? Oh dear lord!! Did you munch on lead paint as a child ? Iraq attacked 4 of its neighbors under Saddam, and wasn't complying to U.N. or cease fire agreements. Geee, sounds pretty stable to me. Your point is only on top of your head, and no where else. There is no evasion going on here except from you, which seems to be your s.o.p.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Friday, March 4, 2005 2:20 PM

Quote:
RUE
"You can see anything, if you use the right filters ..."

Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 21:35

AURaptor,

Quote:
Bait and switching by bringing up irrelevent issues doesn't really get us anywhere.

Ward Churchill - NOT a Native American? Fire him.

This WAS the title of this thread, wasn't it?
Didn't you then go on to make a bunch of statements repeated over many days about getting jobs under false pretenses? (see below) How is my Guckert posting NOT relevant? You do know he got his 'in' to the press room without being a journalist, don't you?

Just wondering how far you are willing to carry on with an absurdly obvious double standard, that's all.

Does Guckert have tenure? Does Guckert make a living off of the very people he ridicules and compares to NAZIs ? I susppose if you want to compare the tenured position of a University prof to that of merely asking the President some valid questions ...sure, you may have a point. But so what ? By bringing Guckert into this discussion, you draw attention away from the orginal issue of Tonto (aka Ward Churchill ). Guckert's situation has no bearing on Tonto's in the least, but to serve as a red herring.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, March 4, 2005 2:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Me too . That's the way I understand it. If Churchill isn't who he is, then his statements aren't greeted with the same response.

It is true that Churchill’s position as an instructor of peoples’ children is definitely likely to make aforementioned peoples rather uneasy. But in general, if one is labeled a “right-wing vigilante” for not agreeing with someone who condones the intentional murder of 3000 innocent people, then there is something terribly wrong with the Left.

It is likely that I will disagree with some of the more Left-wing types on this board, just as I am likely to disagree with some of the more Right-wing types, what I can’t understand is why I can’t come to this thread and find unanimous agreement on the absurdity of what Churchill has said. Why there is a discussion at all on the ‘befittingness’ of the murder of 3000 people is unconscionable. One should not need be labeled “too close” to 9/ll in order to realize that there was nothing befitting about it.

But I come to this board and what I find is right the opposite. You’re trying to deflect the argument away from Churchill with some thin ‘Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy’ argument. SignyN is outwardly defending Churchill, and Rue is trying to deflect the issue to some Guckert thing while giving me some Orwellian crap about not disagreeing with what Churchill says. Now I don’t believe that any of you actually believe that condoning murder is a good thing(an assumption on my part), so why is it such a difficult thing for us to agree on this matter?

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE