Educator schools screening out conservatives
- Thread starter Silver Bullet
- Start date
I didn't catch the part about cheating before. I'm proud to say that while working as an adjunct faculty member I busted 3 cheaters and got them suspended from school. As a teaching assistant I busted 2 cheaters and one of them failed the class. (The other one insisted that he had no idea the other one was copying, and we didn't have enough evidence to prove him wrong.)
A lower letter grade is unacceptable for cheating. The only thing I can think of is that the allegation was trumped up and the school knew it. I've never seen such a thing myself, but I can't think of any other reason why a school would give such a light punishment for cheating.
A lower letter grade is unacceptable for cheating. The only thing I can think of is that the allegation was trumped up and the school knew it. I've never seen such a thing myself, but I can't think of any other reason why a school would give such a light punishment for cheating.
Peacekeeper
Inactive
I'm 36, a VFW, and thinking about going to college to be a teacher. If they ask me anything about my beliefs that could negatively impact my success at a public school program, I'd contact an attorney (it's nobody's business, IMO) and/or call FIRE. It shouldn't matter--First Amendment?
Virgil your post is troubling on a few levels, and sad that Dissent is only valid when it's from the Left.
You wouldn't be so alone here, either. (Kentucky)
Virgil your post is troubling on a few levels, and sad that Dissent is only valid when it's from the Left.
You wouldn't be so alone here, either. (Kentucky)
Rebar, are you just laying bait, or are you that uninformed about the history of southern politicians? Please don't try to make it seem that the democrats have any greater association with racism and the opposition to equal rights than brand X.
I brought up water fountains because many of you seem to forget where this diversity stuff comes from. A black man in a white diner was the diversity of the 1960s. That issue having been (somewhat) successfully dealt with, other minorities are stepping up for their own respect. I imagine that mainstream conservatives of tomorrow may feel similarly tolerant about gay marriage (for instance) as you all do about interracial marriage today. We are now embarrased to label an interracial marriage a "crime against nature", yet we carry on in the same way with this generation's despised citizens.
I can just imagine, twenty years from now, overhearing a mixed group of straight and gay conservatives talking about vegatarians or something as "those perverts the libs are forcing us to tolerate".
MeekAndMild
New member
It isn't just pure dumb luck that more and more well educated people are homeschooling their kids nowadays. I can forsee a time when we'll have another homeschooled president like Lincoln.
Democrats are always calling republicans racists, and minority republicans race-traitors. And not just the fringe either, the DNC chairman and one-time presidential candidate Howard Dean is constantly accusing republicans of racisim, and worse. Yet the real record of racism shows that the liberal/left is far more racist.
Look how Clarence Thomas was treated by the majority of the democratic senate. And it cannot be denied that Byrd was in the KKK, or that the Jim Crow South was solidly democratic either. In the NOLA disaster, much ado was made about the poor, but no one made the point that after 60 years of democratic city and state rule, so many blacks still lived in poverty.
Nearly all the policies put into effect by the liberal/left, supposedly to help the poor and downtrodden, has proven, and been well proven, to have had the opposite effect. Keeping the poor in failed public schools and dependent on government handouts is the policy of the liberal/left, not the republicans.
So yes, I state that liberal/leftists are in fact far more racist, far more interested in dividing people by sex, and class, and race, so that they can manipulate hate and envy for political advantage.
Rebar,
The democrats are the ONLY surviving party from when slavery was legal. You're leveraging the facts - neither party has a racist platform, and both contain racists. Furthermore, you're referencing a time when the Republican party was anything but conservative, and the Democrats were the effective liberals. But that has almost nothing to do with what I said, or even makes a coherent point. You can't say that Dems were the racists of the sixties when Lyndon Johnson was telephoning MLK on his birthday.
Whatever the history, the CURRENT Democratic party seems to support a "diversity" platform (whatever that is, from week to week), and the CURRENT Republican (freed the slaves) party makes a platform of promising to limit certain tax advantages and priveledges to certain conservatively defined groups.
Whether the individual politicians use those platforms against their intended goal or not hardly rewrites history into an enormous conspiracy theory whereby Howard Dean is actually trying to keep the brothers down. Ill conceived or not, liberals believe what their selling, just as conservatives do.
The thing that continues to surprise me is when conservatives of any stripe will embrace a formerly shunned minority (Rice, Powell), and in the next breath use the same language and slogans of Jim Crowe to decry people in the same positions as blacks 30 years ago. How this irony is lost on them is beyond me, but our political system wouldn't be what it is if it weren't so valiantly bolstered by ignorance.
The democrats are the ONLY surviving party from when slavery was legal. You're leveraging the facts - neither party has a racist platform, and both contain racists. Furthermore, you're referencing a time when the Republican party was anything but conservative, and the Democrats were the effective liberals. But that has almost nothing to do with what I said, or even makes a coherent point. You can't say that Dems were the racists of the sixties when Lyndon Johnson was telephoning MLK on his birthday.
Whatever the history, the CURRENT Democratic party seems to support a "diversity" platform (whatever that is, from week to week), and the CURRENT Republican (freed the slaves) party makes a platform of promising to limit certain tax advantages and priveledges to certain conservatively defined groups.
Whether the individual politicians use those platforms against their intended goal or not hardly rewrites history into an enormous conspiracy theory whereby Howard Dean is actually trying to keep the brothers down. Ill conceived or not, liberals believe what their selling, just as conservatives do.
The thing that continues to surprise me is when conservatives of any stripe will embrace a formerly shunned minority (Rice, Powell), and in the next breath use the same language and slogans of Jim Crowe to decry people in the same positions as blacks 30 years ago. How this irony is lost on them is beyond me, but our political system wouldn't be what it is if it weren't so valiantly bolstered by ignorance.
Handy:
That was a nice song-and-dance, really. Too bad you failed to address anything I said.
Byrd isn't someone from 100 years ago, he's a senator right now. The Thomas confirmation didn't happen 100 years ago, just about every democratic senator who made a mockery of it is in office today. While Johnson was calling MLK, the South King was trying to free was solidly democrat. Face it - the history, and current policies, of the democratic party is racist.
And while there might be "useful fools" who believe the three trillion dollars thrown down the toilet of the "great society" programs actually did a lick of good, the democratic leadership cannot but know that their programs are utter failures. That their racial quota system is patently unConsitutional as well as ineffective. That their poverty programs have kept the very people they cliam to help, mired even deeper. That their unholy alliance with the teacher's unions have damaged public schools to the point where 3rd world nations children are better educated then ours, despite enormous amounts of taxpayer cash poured into the schools, cash that cycles through the unions and into the democratic party's pockets. Yet there are still ignorant people who continue to support these policies.
And the republicans were never racist, and are not racist now. There can be no doubt that, if republicans were in charge in those 38 years of democratic majority, everyone white or black, rick or poor, would be far better off. Republicans want to treat everyone the same, as the consititution intended, not divide society up into categories and selectively help or hinder those groups who are defined as victims or exploiters.
The liberal/left agenda is morally and intellectually bankrupted. All they have left is Bush bashing and the race card. Neither is a policy that helps anyone, nor win elections. If Rice is nominated by the republicans, they'll even lose the race card, and since Bush cannot run again, they're left with - nothing. Nothing to offer the American people but higher taxes to fund failed programs, gun control, and anti-religous bigotry.
That was a nice song-and-dance, really. Too bad you failed to address anything I said.
Byrd isn't someone from 100 years ago, he's a senator right now. The Thomas confirmation didn't happen 100 years ago, just about every democratic senator who made a mockery of it is in office today. While Johnson was calling MLK, the South King was trying to free was solidly democrat. Face it - the history, and current policies, of the democratic party is racist.
And while there might be "useful fools" who believe the three trillion dollars thrown down the toilet of the "great society" programs actually did a lick of good, the democratic leadership cannot but know that their programs are utter failures. That their racial quota system is patently unConsitutional as well as ineffective. That their poverty programs have kept the very people they cliam to help, mired even deeper. That their unholy alliance with the teacher's unions have damaged public schools to the point where 3rd world nations children are better educated then ours, despite enormous amounts of taxpayer cash poured into the schools, cash that cycles through the unions and into the democratic party's pockets. Yet there are still ignorant people who continue to support these policies.
And the republicans were never racist, and are not racist now. There can be no doubt that, if republicans were in charge in those 38 years of democratic majority, everyone white or black, rick or poor, would be far better off. Republicans want to treat everyone the same, as the consititution intended, not divide society up into categories and selectively help or hinder those groups who are defined as victims or exploiters.
The liberal/left agenda is morally and intellectually bankrupted. All they have left is Bush bashing and the race card. Neither is a policy that helps anyone, nor win elections. If Rice is nominated by the republicans, they'll even lose the race card, and since Bush cannot run again, they're left with - nothing. Nothing to offer the American people but higher taxes to fund failed programs, gun control, and anti-religous bigotry.
Rebar,
I don't think, as I already said, that either party has all that much to be proud of. You can cite Byrd's past, or that of Orin Hatch. Does it matter?
Even the intimation that Dems are the only ones who waste tax money is laughable. Republicans just waste it on different stuff. Anyone want to buy an F/A-18E for the staggering sum of $175 million a copy? That's only a 500% overrun.
As for the south being all Dem in the '60s - they're all Rep now. Were all those people replaced with fresh, non-liberal, non-racist ones? Maybe the entire population of the North and South played musical chairs in 1978? It certainly isn't possible that both parties shifted their base and the (formerly) entirely racist Southern Democrats found egalitarism and Jesus with the party of Lincoln.
Liberals are foolish idealists - not racists. And the current definition of "liberal" is only about 30 years old, so please stop with the lecturing. In 1959 Nixon referred to his party as the truly liberal one - you figure that out.
I don't think, as I already said, that either party has all that much to be proud of. You can cite Byrd's past, or that of Orin Hatch. Does it matter?
Even the intimation that Dems are the only ones who waste tax money is laughable. Republicans just waste it on different stuff. Anyone want to buy an F/A-18E for the staggering sum of $175 million a copy? That's only a 500% overrun.
As for the south being all Dem in the '60s - they're all Rep now. Were all those people replaced with fresh, non-liberal, non-racist ones? Maybe the entire population of the North and South played musical chairs in 1978? It certainly isn't possible that both parties shifted their base and the (formerly) entirely racist Southern Democrats found egalitarism and Jesus with the party of Lincoln.
Liberals are foolish idealists - not racists. And the current definition of "liberal" is only about 30 years old, so please stop with the lecturing. In 1959 Nixon referred to his party as the truly liberal one - you figure that out.