This guy needs to be fired-forget the arguments about free speech!

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mystic

Joined
Mar 5, 2003
Messages
8,461
Location
Colorado
The stuff that is being found out about Ward Churchill, the CU professor, is amazing. There have been alleged assaults and alleged intimidation of other faculty members. There are ongoing questions about his educational credentials, service in Vietnam, whether he is really Native American, his honesty, etc.

If any of this stuff is true, he needs to be fired. It goes way beyond questiona about freedom of speech.

I saw a radio station person being interviewed on FOX News recently. The stuff he was bringing up was incredible-hard to believe. The guy said that his radio station had done research into Churchill's past. It was just unbelievable stuff.
 
Like I said..I want him to stay to continually remind the Communists at CU that they are out of step. And it will be fun to watch them squirm as the Alumni starts to curb contributions.
 
He also refused, and is refusing to sign an oath to uphold the constitution of the state of Colorado and the United States, which is a violation of state law in CO for the job he's in. Oh, I found out where the "Indian" in him came from; a great great great great stepgrandmother. He literally has no Native American blood in him.
twak.gif
 
I watched Churchill on CSPAN. He's infected a lot of impressionable youth already.

I hope these youths question Churchill with the same vigor they might question a hard right winger. Then again, their grade might suffer.
dunno.gif
 
quote:
Originally posted by cousincletus:

quote:
Originally posted by ruking77:
And to think a guy like Kerry ran for president!!??
cheers.gif

Click to expand...
Let's not go there. Bush sure seems to screw up everything he touches.
nono.gif

Click to expand...
And you are totally missing the point! While Churchill is not the same as Kerry, they certainly go hand in glove on the "left"

[ February 18, 2005, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: ruking77 ]
 
Drew99GT, that is one of the things that I heard brought up. He could probably be fired on that basis alone. But that is far from all.

On the FOX News show that I saw, a guy from some radio station was being interviewed. The radio station personnel have done research on Churchill. Allegedly, for example, Churchill's WIFE assaulted a Native American, and then allegedly Churchill spit on this person. Churchill also allegedly intimidated a faculty member (I think it was a woman) at the CU university.

He has claimed that he was: 1) A public information officer in Vietnam; 2) a decorated combat veteran. The last information I heard concerning all of this was that he was a truck driver.

The college where he received his MA degree was an 'experimental' college where there was no grading and other strange stuff. That college since that time has become an accredited college.

Nobody has been able to document any solid evidence that Churchill has any Native American blood. At best he may have had an ancestor who married an American Indian. Nobody has been able to find any blood relationship. And yet he was hired as an American Indian minority group candidate INSTEAD of something like 20 other qualified candidates.

There are alleged ties (at least in the past) between Churchill and a radical group in America who were trying to make bombs (some of these people blew themselves up in an accident).

To me, Churchill seems more like a con man then a college professor. The people who really should be ashamed of themselves are the people who hired him.
 
Okay, here we go again.

While I do not agree with Churchill, the following must be brought up.

The repeated use of the word "alleged". Hmmm, innocent until PROVEN guilty - isn't that what this country is about? Where is the proof? Alleged means there has yet to be adequate proof provided. All I see are accusations from people who dislike Churchill.

Churchill has placed himself in a very bad spot, and people are going to attack every move he makes. Does this mean they are telling the truth?

Many people CLAIM to have done much research on Churchill (he must be a pretty important guy to get this many people wound up), and are very open with their findings, but have yet to provide any proof of their findings.

FWIW, I can provide you with research that says Fram produces the best oil filters in the world, and back this up with facts. Are you gonna believe me? A fact is a fact, and I could provide more factual information than the people who have done this socalled research on Churchill. When you are biased prior to performing research, the outcome is going to be in your favor.

Human nature is to disobey. This country was built on civil disobedience. Chucrchill, while not exactly disobeying anybody, is carrying on a US tradition of questioning the status quo.

Where are the facts? Just because somebody said so doesn't cut it for me anymore than it did for any of you during the last election. Some of the top news anchors were attacked by most of you for being biased. Why are you listening to any of them now?

I WANT FACTS! SHOW ME FACTS!
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mystic:
Nobody has been able to document any solid evidence that Churchill has any Native American blood.
Click to expand...
At the same time, nobody has disproven his claims to be an American Indian either. Innocent until proven guilty. Once again, prove he isn't at least 1/16 American Indian.
 
quote:
Originally posted by medic:

While I do not agree with Churchill, the following must be brought up.

The repeated use of the word "alleged". Hmmm, innocent until PROVEN guilty - isn't that what this country is about? Where is the proof? Alleged means there has yet to be adequate proof provided. All I see are accusations from people who dislike Churchill.


Human nature is to disobey. This country was built on civil disobedience. Chucrchill, while not exactly disobeying anybody, is carrying on a US tradition of questioning the status quo.


I WANT FACTS! SHOW ME FACTS!
Click to expand...
More facts needed, yes indeed. Of course, each side will instantly assail the other's experts as somehow invalid, asserting their "facts" are falsehoods.

Churchill isn't carrying on the healthy tradition of questioning the status quo, he's carrying on the tradition of being an inflammatory a**hole who's not helping anybody; he's just inspiring rancor among others. His behavior and views do not appear to be constructive or even useful to me.
 
Well, if Churchill was BOTH a public information officer in Vietnam AND a decorated combat veteran then he was a very busy guy in Vietnam.

And I want freedom of speech the same as anybody else but when somebody says that my country should not even exist then I feel offended. But of course it does not matter if I am offended or not. I am a white guy and I call myself an American. Maybe if I started calling myself an Irish-American and saying that I am a member of an minority group that has been mistreated in this country (all of the silly Irish jokes and Catholic humor (ever watch 'South Park') suddenly it would matter if I was offended or not.

People want the head of the president of Harvard because of some remarks he made-stuff like women not being as good in mathematics, etc. Why can't people who feel offended by Churchill's comments demand his termination? Because Churchill is PC and the Harvard president is not? Is it okay to make silly remarks about white men but not women, Native Americans, etc.?

Unlike some people I actually read Churchill's silly essay (even though it was almost unbearable to read the entire sickening mess). Churchill has written some other stuff as well, much of which has been placed on the internet. You can deny that you said something but it is kind of hard to deny that you published essays. And Churchill has defended (in public before a crowd of some one thousand people) much of the stuff he has said. He did backpedal just a bit and said that the cleaning people, children, tourists, etc., killed in the 9-11 'heroic' attacks were not Nazis. So I guess even Churchill can admit he made some mistakes.

It is amazing in our society that a person will either get into trouble making silly remarks or stay out of trouble making silly remarks depending on who the person is making fun of. Make fun of a white guy or white men in general and that is okay. Say something silly about women or people in a minority group and you are probably history.

Isn't a silly remark a silly remark? Regardless if the remark is made about women, white guys, Native Americans, or whatever? Frankly racial 'humor' or silly remarks about women are offensive to me. But should not what Churchill said about this country be offensive and considered hate speech as well? Maybe I WILL start calling myself an Irish-American and a member of a minority group. Maybe then my opinion about things and if I am offended by something or not will count.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

dave1251
  • Locked
Exxon Mobil
Replies
19
Views
16K
MolaKule
Back
Top Bottom