PDA

View Full Version : OBAMA: 'Open up your hearts and your minds' to racialist prof



Rockntractor
03-07-2012, 11:19 PM
Ben Shapiro 1 hour ago
Below is footage of Barack Obama praising and hugging Professor Derrick Bell. It was spliced and diced by the media to avoid showing just how close Obama was to Bell. More than that, a close associate of the Obama campaign, Harvard Law School’s Professor Charles Ogletree, admitted on our exclusive tape, “We hid this throughout the 2008 campaign. I don’t care if they find it now.”

Well, we found it. And it is damaging, because Barack Obama was as close or closer to Derrick Bell than he ever was to Jeremiah Wright. Obama didn’t merely sit in the pews – or not -- for Derrick Bell. He didn’t just hang out with Derrick Bell for prayers. He said:

“Open up your hearts and your minds to the words of Professor Derrick Bell.”

If we did, here’s what we’d be opening our hearts and minds to. This is a close associate of Jeremiah Wright, a man who was quoted by Jeremiah Wright regularly. This is a man who posited that the civil rights movement was too moderate because it accepted the status quo, and believed that the entire legal and constitutional system had to be transformed in radical fashion. This is a man so extreme that, as we’ve reported, he wrote a story in 1993 in which he posited that white Americans would sell black Americans into slavery to aliens to relieve the national debt, and that Jews would go along with it.

There’s far more coming on Derrick Bell. This is just the beginning. And this video is a smoking gun showing that Barack Obama not only associated with radicals, he was their advocate. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/07/buzzefeed-selectively-edits-obama-tape

noonwitch
03-08-2012, 09:35 AM
Big deal. This is not really going to affect anyone's vote-the only people who will be outraged are the people who wouldn't ever vote for Obama anyway.

The issue is the economy-if the GOP can't win on that, they don't have a very good candidate.

txradioguy
03-08-2012, 09:46 AM
Big deal. This is not really going to affect anyone's vote-the only people who will be outraged are the people who wouldn't ever vote for Obama anyway.

The issue is the economy-if the GOP can't win on that, they don't have a very good candidate.

:rolleyes:

Odysseus
03-08-2012, 11:38 AM
Obama's lauditory comments towards Derrick Bell require some context. Here's his bio from discoverthenetworks.org:



DERRICK BELL



http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/photos/big-bell.jpg





Professor at New York University School of Law
Proponent of “Critical Race Theory”
Supporter of race preferences favoring nonwhites in business and academia
Died in October 2011

Born in November 1930, Derrick Bell may be considered the founder, or at least the godfather, of “Critical Race Theory,” an academic tradition in which race plays the same role as class plays in the Marxist paradigm. In the mid-1970s Bell was a pioneer in this field. He was not only angered by what he viewed as the slow progress of racial reform in the United States, but he also held that the gains brought about by the civil rights laws of the 1960s were being eroded in the 1970s.

Bell believed then, as he did for the rest of his life, that whites would support civil rights protections for blacks only if those protections would also promote white self-interest and social status. Since Bell viewed racial minorities as a permanently oppressed caste -- and he saw racism as a normal, permanent aspect of American life -- he reasoned that equality before the law was unfair to blacks, whose moral claims were superior to those of whites. Bell endorsed a journal called Race Traitor, which is dedicated to the “abolition of whiteness,” and whose motto is “Treason to the white race is loyalty to humanity.”

Professor Bell (and his fellow Critical Race theorists) held that existing legal structures are, like American society at large, racist in their very construction. Critical Race Theory suggests that to combat this “institutional racism,” oppressed racial groups have both the right and the duty to decide, for themselves, which laws are valid and are worth observing. Critical Race Theory also promotes the use of storytelling narratives in law-review articles to better reflect the “oral traditions” of black experience. Bell used the technique of placing legal and social commentary into the mouths of invented characters extensively in his writings. While acknowledging that this “style of storytelling” was “less rigorous than the doctrine-laden, citation-heavy law review pieces,” he employed it nonetheless.

Bell earned a bachelor’s degree from Duquesne University in 1952 and a law degree from the University of Pittsburgh in 1957. The first job of his legal career was in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Justice Department. He left that position after a short time to work as an attorney for the NAACP (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6160) Legal Defense Fund, where he became a protégé of Thurgood Marshall.

In the immediate aftermath of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s 1968 assassination, members of Harvard University (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6678)’s Black Law Students Association pressured their school to hire a minority professor; this led eventually to Bell’s hiring in 1971 as the first black faculty member in the law school’s history. From the very outset of his stay at Harvard, Bell was acutely aware of the fact that he lacked the qualifications that had traditionally been prerequisites for an appointment at Harvard: he had neither graduated with distinction from a prestigious law school, nor clerked for the Supreme Court, nor practiced law at a major firm. Yet he mocked such criteria as being nothing more than the exclusionary constructs of a racist white power structure that traditionally had sought to deny blacks an opportunity to teach at the nation’s elite schools.

In 1980 Professor Bell left Harvard to become the dean of the University of Oregon School of Law. He resigned from that position in 1985, ostensibly as an act of protest against the fact that the school had failed to grant tenure to an Asian female professor. A number of Professor Bell’s colleagues at Oregon, however, viewed this as a contrived, face-saving pretext for leaving a position from which he was about to be fired. They believed that Bell, who had largely become an “absentee dean” known for spending more time on the lecture circuit than at Oregon, was slated for imminent termination.

Bell joined the faculty of Stanford Law School in 1986 and immediately became a source of controversy. Many of his students there complained that he was not using his lecture time to teach principles of law, but rather as a platform from which to indoctrinate his captive audience to his leftwing theories and worldviews. Cognizant of Bell’s glaring deficiencies as a teacher but afraid to openly address them, Stanford quietly instituted a lecture series designed to help his students learn the course material that Professor Bell was not teaching them. Perceiving this as a racial affront, Bell left Stanford and returned to Harvard in the fall of 1986.

In April 1990 Professor Bell demanded that Harvard Law School hire a black woman -- specifically the visiting professor Regina Austin (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/individualProfile.asp?indid=2168) (who was also an adherent of Critical Race Theory) -- as a tenured faculty member. Though Harvard had a longstanding policy that forbade the hiring of visiting professors during the year of their residence at the school, Bell made Austin’s hiring a “non-negotiable demand.”

When the law school would not cave to Professor Bell’s pressure, he protested by taking a leave of absence from his $120,000-per-year teaching post. He explained that black female law students were in desperate need of “role models” with whom they could identify. Although 45 percent of Harvard Law’s faculty appointments since 1980 had gone to minorities and women, none of them were both black and female -- hence Bell’s objection. But even if Harvard had agreed to grant tenure to Professor Austin, Bell would not have been satisfied. As he would later write in a law-review article condemning schools for hiring “token” minorities: “The hiring of a few minorities and women -- particularly when a faculty is under pressure from students or civil rights agencies -- is not a departure from … this power-preserving doctrine” of white male supremacy.

In 1990-91, Professor Bell taught a civil rights course at Harvard without pay, though he later acknowledged that he had gotten himself placed as a “consultant” on the payroll of a “major entertainment figure.” To express his displeasure with Harvard in definitive terms, in the spring of 1991 Bell announced that he would take a one-year visiting professor’s position at New York University Law School. He later extended this to two years, and later still announced that he would spend a third year at NYU. This third year would require not only NYU’s waiver of time limits on visiting professorships, but also Harvard’s waiver of its firm policy forbidding professors to be on leave for more than two years. Harvard dean Robert Clark stated that if Bell did not return to his post, the latter would lose his place on Harvard’s faculty. Bell refused to return and thus lost his job. After that, Bell continued to teach at NYU.

Bell was a passionate proponent of racial preferences as a means of minimizing what he viewed as the potentially disastrous effects of white Americans’ inherent racist impulses. He viewed black professors who did not enthusiastically embrace affirmative action as traitors to the black race; they "look black but think white," said Bell.

A few of Professor Bell’s more notable quotes (all of them from his 1992 book Faces at the Bottom of the Well) on the subject of race include the following:

"Despite undeniable progress for many, no African Americans are nsulated from incidents of racial discrimination. Our careers, even our lives, are threatened because of our color."
"[T]he racism that made slavery feasible is far from dead . . . and the civil rights gains, so hard won, are being steadily eroded."
"... few whites are ready to actively promote civil rights for blacks."
"[D]iscrimination in the workplace is as vicious (if less obvious) than it was when employers posted signs 'no negras need apply.'"
"We rise and fall less as a result of our efforts than in response to the needs of a white society that condemns all blacks to quasi citizenship as surely as it segregated our parents."
"Slavery is, as an example of what white America has done, a constant reminder of what white America might do."
"Black people will never gain full equality in this country. … African Americans must confront and conquer the otherwise deadening reality of our permanent subordinate status."
"Tolerated in good times, despised when things go wrong, as a people we [blacks] are scapegoated and sacrificed as distraction or catalyst for compromise to facilitate resolution of political differences or relieve economic adversity."
Bell authored several books on race and the law, including Silent Covenants: Brown V. Board of Education and the Unfulfilled Hopes for Racial Reform (2004); Ethical Ambition: Living a Life of Meaning and Worth (2002); Race, Racism, and American Law (2000); Constitutional Conflicts (1997); Confronting Authority: Reflections of an Ardent Protester (1994); Faces at the Bottom of the Well: The Permanence of Racism (1992); And We Are Not Saved: The Elusive Quest for Racial Justice (1989); and Civil Rights: Leading Cases (1980).

Bell died of cancer on October 5, 2011.






Bell was also extremely close to Jeremiah Wright.

Tipsycatlover
03-08-2012, 11:47 AM
Bell sounds just like the kind of hero the left wants and needs.

Odysseus
03-08-2012, 12:47 PM
Thomas Sowell on Bell:

Was Derrick Bell a radical when Barack Obama told us all to open our hearts and minds? Thomas Sowell was asked about Bell at the time. Here’s what he said:
SOWELL: Oh, political purposes. I just a couple of days ago was told by someone from Wellesley that there's a divestment campaign at Wellesley, demonstrations, the whole thing, and that those black girls who did not want to participate in that were threatened with violence -- and that's not unique. At Stanford the Hispanic students, some Hispanic students, have complained that the Hispanic establishment has threatened them if they don't want to go along with what's being said and done, and they claim that only 15% of the Hispanic students at Stanford have ever attended a single event sponsored by the Hispanic establishment, which speaks boldly in their name. Ah, and so you have this kind of thing going on at these schools across the country. Again, notice, that once, once you let in the students who cannot make, meet the academic standards, you're going to end up having to let in professors who can't meet the academic standards. You're going to have to create courses that don't meet the academic standards.


LAMB: Correct me on the, on the names and everything. Derrick Bell?


SOWELL: Yes.


LAMB: Harvard Law School, black man.


SOWELL: Yes.


LAMB: Threatened the law school if they didn't hire a black woman, he's going, he's leaving?


SOWELL: Well, if I understand it correctly, he's taking unpaid leave until such time as they hire a woman of color, as he says. Well, he's also said that by black, he does not mean skin color, he means those who are really black, not those who think white and look black. And so what he is really saying is he wants ideological conformity in the people that are hired to fill this position. That's not uncommon either. I know a black woman, for example, who had a Ph.D. -- she's had a book published, she has another contract on another book, she's taught at a couple of very nice places, she has a devil of a time getting a job -- not a job in a prestigious institution, a job teaching at a college. And the reason is that she gets shot down, blackballed, whatever, by people who don't like her ideology. That's happening not only racially, it's also happening where race is not an issue. In a law school, I learned recently, there's a woman who was being considered for a tenured position, and all the men voted for her and all the woman voted against her, because she does not follow radical feminism, and so you're getting these ideological tests, so that at the very time that there's all this mouthing of the word diversity, there is this extremely narrow ideological conformity that is being enforced wherever people have the power to enforce it.


LAMB: What did you think of Derrick Bell's whole plan?

SOWELL: Well, his chances of success will depend on whether or not he has overestimated his importance to the Harvard Law School. I think it would be a tragedy if they caved in, and I was very pleased to see that they seemed to show some backbone, which is quite rare among academics.

LAMB: Now, what do you think of the press treatment of him?

SOWELL: It's been quite gentle.

LAMB: You mean, is he a hero?

SOWELL: To me?

LAMB: No. Basically, I mean, from the press coverage, you've seen, is he a hero to the ...?

SOWELL: Well, he's looked at as an idealist who is self-sacrificing and so on. I suppose one could, if one wanted to look at it that way, have seen Hitler that way in his early days. It's just a question of where that kind of idealism leads. He has launched a despicable attack on a young black professor at the law school who doesn't go along with this. A young man named Randall Kennedy, who has written a very thoughtful, intelligent article last June in the Harvard Law Review, questioning some of the assumptions that people are making, people like Derrick Bell and doing it in a very gentlemanly as well as very logical way, empirical way, and that's not what they want. They want the conclusion to be that -- they want him to march in lock step and he won't do it, and they're doing their best to make life impossible for him.

LAMB: What do you think Harvard will do?

SOWELL: I've heard that Kennedy -- and I don't know this -- I've heard that he has tenure, so I think that he may be all right.

LAMB: But, I mean, what do you think they'll do with ...

SOWELL: Derrick Bell?

LAMB: Yes.

SOWELL: I hope that they will resist it, and since it's gotten so much publicity, I'm not sure they could stand to cave in to it. I was very pleased to see that Alan Dershowitz of Harvard had criticized this and that he picked up the fact that what Bell is really asking for is not only that people be hired by race, but that they be hired to fit Derek Bell's ideology.

LAMB: What would happen if this was going on at Stanford Law School?

SOWELL: They'd have caved in long ago.

LAMB: Stanford Law School would have?

SOWELL: Yes. I think so. It's a judgment call, but that's my judgment.

LAMB: Why would they do it so quickly?

SOWELL: Just looking at their track record. They have perfected the technique of preemptive surrender.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/03/07/Sowell%20On%20Bell

DumbAss Tanker
03-08-2012, 01:15 PM
If we did, here’s what we’d be opening our hearts and minds to. This is a close associate of Jeremiah Wright, a man who was quoted by Jeremiah Wright regularly. This is a man who posited that the civil rights movement was too moderate because it accepted the status quo, and believed that the entire legal and constitutional system had to be transformed in radical fashion. This is a man so extreme that, as we’ve reported, he wrote a story in 1993 in which he posited that white Americans would sell black Americans into slavery to aliens to relieve the national debt, and that Jews would go along with it.

Outrageous! But, speaking purely hypothetically of course, how much might the aliens be offering per unit, FOB their ship...?

:popcorn:

ETA: And just what sized order might we be talking about here?

enslaved1
03-08-2012, 01:25 PM
I was expecting a lot more from the build up to releasing this footage. People who are honest and paying attention already now all this about O, people who aren't will continue to refuse to accept that the man is a full bore leftwing radical ideologue.

SaintLouieWoman
03-08-2012, 01:32 PM
Big deal. This is not really going to affect anyone's vote-the only people who will be outraged are the people who wouldn't ever vote for Obama anyway.

The issue is the economy-if the GOP can't win on that, they don't have a very good candidate.


Admittedly I'm outraged by this and also admit that I would NEVER vote for Obama. My hope is that the American electorate is not so uneducated nor so jaundiced that nothing matters to them. My hope is that independents will consider Obama's true colors (and not talking about skin color but beliefs) this time around and weigh heavily the direction this country will take if he's President for another 4 years.

DumbAss Tanker
03-08-2012, 01:42 PM
My hope is that the American electorate is not so uneducated nor so jaundiced that nothing matters to them.

At this point I'd settle for jaundiced, as opposed to voting for a total boob just because of his skin color, or out of pure avarice because they think he's going to rain other people's money on them.

Starbuck
03-08-2012, 01:45 PM
Admittedly I'm outraged by this and also admit that I would NEVER vote for Obama. My hope is that the American electorate is not so uneducated nor so jaundiced that nothing matters to them. My hope is that independents will consider Obama's true colors (and not talking about skin color but beliefs) this time around and weigh heavily the direction this country will take if he's President for another 4 years.
Hear, hear!

But your hope that the America electorate is uneducated is in vain. The American electorate is self serving in addition to being uneducated and uninformed. They vote for their party as if it were a football team, with no goal in mind except winning and celebrating that win. They call for budget restraints until those restraints effect them. Then they howl that someone else got the money.

wwworkingguy
03-08-2012, 02:10 PM
What becomes clear from this 1st Breitbart exposé is that the purposeful suppression of information by the press was determined and purposeful. This is truly despicable. We have a true partnership between most of the press and the radical left.

Odysseus
03-08-2012, 02:13 PM
I was expecting a lot more from the build up to releasing this footage. People who are honest and paying attention already now all this about O, people who aren't will continue to refuse to accept that the man is a full bore leftwing radical ideologue.

People who are paying attention know this, but the vast majority of the electorate doesn't know it, thanks to the media gatekeepers. One of the Breitbart editors was on CNN and Soledad O'Brien desperately tried to derail this by pretending that there was nothing controversial about Derrick Bell, but one of her own panelists, a black woman, was concerned about the media's refusal to report it. But, the people who aren't paying attention, the so-called independent voters, are now being exposed to it, as well as to the media's failure to report honestly on their favorites. In addition, Derrick Bell was never shy about being a loon. There's all kinds of video of him preaching his theories, and they are pure poison. Juxtaposing Obama's voice-over with Bell's moonbattery is an ad that will write itself.

Cicero
03-08-2012, 04:42 PM
I think this information is important as it exposes Obama and the press for what they are. The problem we face is how do we get average voters to take the time to connect the dots in a meaningful and logical way. Part of the issue with modern politics that that we have a short attention span.

If an enterprising superpac were so inclined they could make a great commercial out of this. have Oblahblah on one side of the screen saying open your hearts and minds to professor Bell and a few choice quotes from the good professor on the other side of the screen we might have something that could actually make an impact.

It still irks me that the McCain campaign never vetted this guy themselves.

Janice
03-08-2012, 06:17 PM
http://i.imgur.com/2gNgl.png

The 0bamicide of America is not complete.

We need 4 more years!

Odysseus
03-08-2012, 11:15 PM
I think this information is important as it exposes Obama and the press for what they are. The problem we face is how do we get average voters to take the time to connect the dots in a meaningful and logical way. Part of the issue with modern politics that that we have a short attention span.

If an enterprising superpac were so inclined they could make a great commercial out of this. have Oblahblah on one side of the screen saying open your hearts and minds to professor Bell and a few choice quotes from the good professor on the other side of the screen we might have something that could actually make an impact.

It still irks me that the McCain campaign never vetted this guy themselves.

McCain was perfectly happy being a good loser, but ultimately, the operative word was "loser".

Rockntractor
03-08-2012, 11:19 PM
McCain was perfectly happy being a good loser, but ultimately, the operative word was "loser".

I think the person McCain intended to win won. I wouldn't even be surprised if he voted for Obama.

txradioguy
03-09-2012, 03:57 AM
It still irks me that the McCain campaign never vetted this guy themselves.

They did...but McCain's campaign manager threatened to quit if McCain said one bad word about Obama.

He's the same "expert" showing up on MSNBC scolding the Republican candidates for mentioning anything bad abot Obama right now...and has called out Rush for mentioning Obamas past radical ties as well.

AmPat
03-09-2012, 10:39 AM
Big deal. This is not really going to affect anyone's vote-the only people who will be outraged are the people who wouldn't ever vote for Obama anyway.

The issue is the economy-if the GOP can't win on that, they don't have a very good candidate.
It is a big deal, or should be. If this were the other party, you would be howling in the streets over it. As for our candidate, any of them is infinitely better than the DimoRAT candidate.

Odysseus
03-09-2012, 10:49 AM
They did...but McCain's campaign manager threatened to quit if McCain said one bad word about Obama.

He's the same "expert" showing up on MSNBC scolding the Republican candidates for mentioning anything bad abot Obama right now...and has called out Rush for mentioning Obamas past radical ties as well.

McCain should have let him quit, or better yet, fired him.

JB
03-09-2012, 08:01 PM
This is not really going to affect anyone's voteI would tend to agree. Even if this made "the news", five minutes after the news was over people would be saying...who the hell is Professor Derrick Bell?

If Wright and Ayers didn't do the guy any damage in 2008, this surely won't.

AmPat
03-09-2012, 10:25 PM
I would tend to agree. Even if this made "the news", five minutes after the news was over people would be saying...who the hell is Professor Derrick Bell?

If Wright and Ayers didn't do the guy any damage in 2008, this surely won't.
Correct! Our Press has come a long way from destroying a candidate for a simple spelling error to protecting a hard left Marxist with terrorist friends and racist Pastors.

Odysseus
03-10-2012, 12:45 AM
I would tend to agree. Even if this made "the news", five minutes after the news was over people would be saying...who the hell is Professor Derrick Bell?

If Wright and Ayers didn't do the guy any damage in 2008, this surely won't.

Unless, of course, we make it a point to let people know who Derrick Bell was, and why this matters. Breitbart would have been all over that if he'd lived.

Adam Wood
03-10-2012, 12:55 AM
I would tend to agree. Even if this made "the news", five minutes after the news was over people would be saying...who the hell is Professor Derrick Bell?

If Wright and Ayers didn't do the guy any damage in 2008, this surely won't.Pretty much. If "God damn America" didn't shake these people right to their core, then some convoluted relationship with yet another radical Leftist probably isn't going to ring any bells, either.

This is one of the reasons that I have said from ages back that we really should have a very narrow focus on the economy. If there's one thing Clinton got right, it was "it's the economy, stupid." People may not like "God damn America," they may not like Bill Ayers blowing up police officers, they may not like Obama matriculating under some abject kook, but at the end of the day, they still look up and see $3.759 at the gas station, they see a shitload of people without jobs, they see an unholy amount of money bulldozed down a black hole in Failulous. People vote in the here and now, not in the history of what once was. Used to be that someone could count on their experience as some sort of war hero as something to carry the day. Not any more. We're in a thirty-second world these days, and I don't think that there's any changing that in the immediate future.

AmPat
03-10-2012, 01:01 PM
Today's voting public fails to know, apply, or even see the relationship between past events and behavior as a predictor of future results. We need to have a civics test, proof of citizenship, raise the voting age to 21, and show a vested interest (such as tax returns or property ownership), in this country before we allow people to vote.

Wei Wu Wei
03-11-2012, 02:48 PM
The class was on racism, how is this in any way inappropriate?

This is why the right hates education, because a good education exposes you to different ideas, ideas that challenge your old way of thinking, that conflict with predominant worldviews, that upset the status quo.

That is the point of good education, is anyone familiar with Socrates? His entire method was to unsettle, to upset, to disturb what people believed they knew.

The "natural" state of Man isn't a blank slate, that goes through life a blank slate until some college professor fills them with ideology. No, by the time one gets to college, one is already FULL of ideology. Even, or should I say especially people who believe that they are outside of ideology are knee deep in ideology. A good education is supposed to crack that ideology to make room for growth.

It takes an extremely insecure person to hate anything that isn't comforting their pre-existing ideas, to hate anything that challenges their ideological preconceptions, to fear anyone who might say anything "controversial". Intellectually insecure people like this only want universities to be nothing more than trade schools, a place where you go to get a degree to get a certain job. They don't want any thinking to take place, no doubt to take place, no questioning of the world to take place, just a stupid mindless workshop to get job skills. Well that's not what universities are for.

m00
03-11-2012, 02:55 PM
McCain was perfectly happy being a good loser, but ultimately, the operative word was "loser".

But the liberal media told us he had the best chance to win!

m00
03-11-2012, 02:58 PM
That is the point of good education, is anyone familiar with Socrates? His entire method was to unsettle, to upset, to disturb what people believed they knew.

Wasn't Socrates a pederast?

SaintLouieWoman
03-11-2012, 05:08 PM
The class was on racism, how is this in any way inappropriate?

This is why the right hates education, because a good education exposes you to different ideas, ideas that challenge your old way of thinking, that conflict with predominant worldviews, that upset the status quo.

That is the point of good education, is anyone familiar with Socrates? His entire method was to unsettle, to upset, to disturb what people believed they knew.

The "natural" state of Man isn't a blank slate, that goes through life a blank slate until some college professor fills them with ideology. No, by the time one gets to college, one is already FULL of ideology. Even, or should I say especially people who believe that they are outside of ideology are knee deep in ideology. A good education is supposed to crack that ideology to make room for growth.

It takes an extremely insecure person to hate anything that isn't comforting their pre-existing ideas, to hate anything that challenges their ideological preconceptions, to fear anyone who might say anything "controversial". Intellectually insecure people like this only want universities to be nothing more than trade schools, a place where you go to get a degree to get a certain job. They don't want any thinking to take place, no doubt to take place, no questioning of the world to take place, just a stupid mindless workshop to get job skills. Well that's not what universities are for.

I've had the opposite experience. Most of the liberals that I encounter have absolutely no interest whatsoever in anyone's experience but their own. I've run into them after 22 years of volunteering with some very liberal people. They have the mindset that everyone thinks the way they do and have no hesitation whatsoever to make very condescending remarks about conservatives and/or Republicans. They sneer at them. The libs in "flyover country" do the same thing---sneer at conservatives, but the libs from the East coast sneer at everyone coming from the Midwest and particularly at conservatives.

It never seems to cross their thought patterns that perhaps there might be people present who would take offense. The more condescending they are, the more deeply conservative I become. I don't do well with haughty.

Bailey
03-11-2012, 05:14 PM
I've had the opposite experience. Most of the liberals that I encounter have absolutely no interest whatsoever in anyone's experience but their own. I've run into them after 22 years of volunteering with some very liberal people. They have the mindset that everyone thinks the way they do and have no hesitation whatsoever to make very condescending remarks about conservatives and/or Republicans. They sneer at them. The libs in "flyover country" do the same thing---sneer at conservatives, but the libs from the East coast sneer at everyone coming from the Midwest and particularly at conservatives.

It never seems to cross their thought patterns that perhaps there might be people present who would take offense. The more condescending they are, the more deeply conservative I become. I don't do well with haughty.



To people like Wewe you only grow if you go from a conservative view point to a liberal one. No people like him just confirms my conservative views.

AmPat
03-11-2012, 05:21 PM
The class was on racism, how is this in any way inappropriate?
No, it was yet another idiot liberal "professor" who knew nothing of the real world attempting to brain wash another generation of students.

This is why the right hates education, because a good education exposes you to different ideas, ideas that challenge your old way of thinking, that conflict with predominant worldviews, that upset the status quo.
The right doesn't hate education, you may stop lying now. The left are the morons censoring books in public schools.

That is the point of good education, is anyone familiar with Socrates? His entire method was to unsettle, to upset, to disturb what people believed they knew.
The point of a good education is to teach skills and truth and then allow students to synthesize that knowledge. It should not be the point of education to propagandize and brain wash, although it is the objective or point of people like your master, O Blah Blah.

The "natural" state of Man isn't a blank slate, that goes through life a blank slate until some college professor fills them with ideology. No, by the time one gets to college, one is already FULL of ideology. Even, or should I say especially people who believe that they are outside of ideology are knee deep in ideology. A good education is supposed to crack that ideology to make room for growth. Especially if they don't agree with the leftist ideology of the Comrade Professor.


It takes an extremely insecure person to hate anything that isn't comforting their pre-existing ideas, to hate anything that challenges their ideological preconceptions, to fear anyone who might say anything "controversial".
It takes a really stupid liberal to expand his false premise into such a stupid statement. Your pre-packaged, leftist issued talking points have been thourougly debunked and you have been repeatedly schooled and thrashed over your ridiculous ideology, yet you continue. Take your "hate" meme and shovel it elsewhere.
Intellectually insecure people like this only want universities to be nothing more than trade schools, a place where you go to get a degree to get a certain job. They don't want any thinking to take place, no doubt to take place, no questioning of the world to take place, just a stupid mindless workshop to get job skills. Well that's not what universities are for.If I send my children to school, I want precisely that; job and life skills that will help them make their way in the world. I do not spend money top pay for "professors" who spout leftist idiocy and churn out useless drones that attend Occuturd gatherings. You call it intellectually insecure," I call it intelligent decisions.

Wei Wu Wei
03-11-2012, 07:26 PM
I've had the opposite experience. Most of the liberals that I encounter have absolutely no interest whatsoever in anyone's experience but their own. I've run into them after 22 years of volunteering with some very liberal people. They have the mindset that everyone thinks the way they do and have no hesitation whatsoever to make very condescending remarks about conservatives and/or Republicans. They sneer at them. The libs in "flyover country" do the same thing---sneer at conservatives, but the libs from the East coast sneer at everyone coming from the Midwest and particularly at conservatives.

I can't argue with this. There are certainly many liberals who are just as close-minded, just as uninterested in other points of view, and just as unwilling to critically examine their own preconceptions. I run into them all the time as well.

Interestingly enough, I find the political rantings of liberals to be far worse and more insufferable than those of conservatives. I've noticed many liberals I know in real life tend to be rude and crude while most conservatives are very nice, polite, and friendly. Of course not all the liberals I know are rude, some of them are the kindest people I've ever met, and I know some conservatives assholes. Oddly enough, I find that I enjoy talking with conservatives in real life very much, and those conversations are always civil and polite and we enjoy each others company without any hard feelings. However, on the internet, every conservative I find seems to be filled with boiling hatred.

Anyway, yes I see it from conservatives and from liberals alike.



It never seems to cross their thought patterns that perhaps there might be people present who would take offense. The more condescending they are, the more deeply conservative I become. I don't do well with haughty.

Why is that? If someone believes X and is condescending, that is in no way a justification for belief in Y. I have noticed this particularly in conservatives, that they seem to hold opinions or support causes for looks like spite. It's as if subscribing to a belief somehow "gets back" at a rude, condescending, elitist liberal.

I mean, I may claim that a certain steakhouse is absolutely delicious and wonderful with great service, but me being a rude condescending ass isn't a good reason to believe that their steak is awful and their service is bad.

AmPat
03-11-2012, 08:35 PM
News flash Wei Wei:
You sure do throw around the hate word alot. Has it occured to you that staunch opposition doesn't automatically include hatred? Grow up!

Novaheart
03-11-2012, 09:49 PM
The class was on racism, how is this in any way inappropriate?

I understand that one person's crock of shit is another person's intriguing idea. At the same time, the notion of "collegiate" and "university" that some academics have is similar to the self created culture of policedom which leads to police overreach and policy creation where you have police officers saying "It's our policy." in response to "It's unconstitutional."

Working from memory here on Bell, the two operational notions that law and justice are essentially systems to oppress black people and that history is entirely a matter of opinion are the primary pillars of Afrocentrist bullshit. It's not too far a walk from there to Francis Cresswell and Len Jeffries with their "melanin theory", Louis Farrakhan with his "original man" and "tribe of Shabazz" bullshit, and of course the entire body of work of Marcus Garvey and Ivan Van Sertima.

A degree from Howard University is already suspect because of this kind of shit. These men, if indulged by any respected body, will destroy any credibility that black people educated in a black educational institution might have.

Rockntractor
03-11-2012, 10:47 PM
I understand that one person's crock of shit is another person's intriguing idea. At the same time, the notion of "collegiate" and "university" that some academics have is similar to the self created culture of policedom which leads to police overreach and policy creation where you have police officers saying "It's our policy." in response to "It's unconstitutional."

Working from memory here on Bell, the two operational notions that law and justice are essentially systems to oppress black people and that history is entirely a matter of opinion are the primary pillars of Afrocentrist bullshit. It's not too far a walk from there to Francis Cresswell and Len Jeffries with their "melanin theory", Louis Farrakhan with his "original man" and "tribe of Shabazz" bullshit, and of course the entire body of work of Marcus Garvey and Ivan Van Sertima.

A degree from Howard University is already suspect because of this kind of shit. These men, if indulged by any respected body, will destroy any credibility that black people educated in a black educational institution might have.

Every now and then you truly redeem yourself.http://gfxlovers.com/smilies/imgs/agreement/agreement007.gif (http://gfxlovers.com/smilies)

AmPat
03-11-2012, 11:46 PM
Every now and then you truly redeem yourself.http://gfxlovers.com/smilies/imgs/agreement/agreement007.gif (http://gfxlovers.com/smilies)

Color me shocked as well, but I agree.:scared:

m00
03-12-2012, 02:10 AM
I can't argue with this. There are certainly many liberals who are just as close-minded, just as uninterested in other points of view, and just as unwilling to critically examine their own preconceptions. I run into them all the time as well.

Interestingly enough, I find the political rantings of liberals to be far worse and more insufferable than those of conservatives. I've noticed many liberals I know in real life tend to be rude and crude while most conservatives are very nice, polite, and friendly. Of course not all the liberals I know are rude, some of them are the kindest people I've ever met, and I know some conservatives assholes. Oddly enough, I find that I enjoy talking with conservatives in real life very much, and those conversations are always civil and polite and we enjoy each others company without any hard feelings. However, on the internet, every conservative I find seems to be filled with boiling hatred.

I say this as someone who doesn't feel like their political position can be accurately represented as a point on a R/L line: self-identified liberals are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay worse, both in real life and on the internet. Because the internet is anonymous, it brings out the inner jackass in most people. So you will get your share from the right.

But if you want to compare apples to apples, go post on DU. Seriously. Post something innocuous like "I really believed in Obama when he campaigned on transparent government & protecting our civil liberties. But with the NDAA... I'm kind of nervous about the expansion of executive authority. Does anyone know if he plans on going back to the themes in his 2008 stump speech? You. Will. Be. Banned.

txradioguy
03-12-2012, 04:37 AM
News flash Wei Wei:
You sure do throw around the hate word alot. Has it occured to you that staunch opposition doesn't automatically include hatred? Grow up!


Wee Wee is of the typical Libtard mindset that any criticism...any thought opposite to the hive mentality he subscribes to is automactically considered hateful.