Liberal teacher to students: Hate America!

[Riverwind]

The teacher may be good or bad, but Hitler gets waaaay too much respect around here. I really don't get it, like he was simply misunderstood or something. Hitler had his good points?

Through a series of small steps that seemed innocuous at the time, Hitler was able to turn a democratic state into a fascist dictatorship that then started the biggest bloodbath in human history. It is extremely important that everyone understand how Hilter did this so they can be vigilent and ensure such events never happen again.

What's on all of the other tapes? The school board disagrees with you, they suspended his ass.

I am pretty sure the serial taper released his most damning material so I suspect what is on the other tapes is not a big issue. The school board is an elected body that smelled a scandal and will happily put together whatever kangaroo court is necessary to ensure they get re-elected.

Do any of you remember the case of a teacher here in B.C. who wrote several letters to the editor of the small paper in his town? I believe he talked about the gay issue in traditional terms, shall we say.

That may have been an over-reaction as well - it depends on the actual content of the letter.

[Riverwind]

Yes, the whole tape. Yes I can. Can you?

What he said is the objective of the capitalist system is to maximize profits and that social progress is not an objective of the system. This is a definition from Economics 101 and is hardly controversial.

[geoffrey]

The teacher may be good or bad, but Hitler gets waaaay too much respect around here. I really don't get it, like he was simply misunderstood or something. Hitler had his good points?

Through a series of small steps that seemed innocuous at the time, Hitler was able to turn a democratic state into a fascist dictatorship that then started the biggest bloodbath in human history. It is extremely important that everyone understand how Hilter did this so they can be vigilent and ensure such events never happen again.

Remember Nazism and fascism weren't really the same in many aspects, fascism doesn't neccessarily require racial hatred. Both belong to the larger totalitarianism method of governance, but they aren't the same. Fascism was a valuable counter-tool to the communist threat in Europe, Italy was not executing Jews or anyone for racial concerns. While obviously we don't like the concept of an authoritarian regime now, in its time in history, it had a place. Franco and Mussolini did much to prevent communism from being the dominant political force in the world.

Nazism speaks of race, fascism speaks of state. Fascism was one of the first forms of government to bsae their leadership on ability instead of wealth or lineage, arguably beating democracy to this in a few states.

Not that I justify the violence conducted by Mussolini in World War 2 by saying, "well, communism was halted."

Just thought that if your giving history lessons, I'll expand on it.

My opinion of both nazism and fascism are extremely negative just to clarify.

Yes, the whole tape. Yes I can. Can you?

What he said is the objective of the capitalist system is to maximize profits and that social progress is not an objective of the system. This is a definition from Economics 101 and is hardly controversial.

Economics 101 would also teach you that economics is simply a mean to an ends, that ends be a more prosperous society.

[Riverwind]

Remember Nazism and fascism weren't really the same in many aspects, fascism doesn't necessarily require racial hatred.

I agree. At that is part of the story of how Hitler came to power: he was able to appeal to the xenophobes/racists with his talk of Aryan race, he appealed to the law and order types with fascist policies and he appealed to German nationalists with his talk of pride in the country. People in each of these groups did not care much for the others but they were willing to tolerate the others inside a Nazi party coalition.

The rise of the Nazi party is a case study of how extremists that represent a minority of the population can take hold of a democratic society by aligning themselves with other extremists that have different but not necessarily contradictory goals.

[Montgomery Burns]

Black Dog:

Except that he didn't.

QUOTE

"I'm not saying Bush and Hitler are exactly the same, obviously they're not. OK? But there are some eerie similarities to the tones that they use."

How convenient of you to ignore this:

He started off his [sOTU] speech talking about how America should be the country that dominates the world. That we have been blessed essentially by God to have the most civilized, most advanced, best system and that it is our duty as Americans to use the military to go out into the world and make the whole world like us.

Bullshit. I watched Bush's SOTU addy and he said no such thing. I have even posted the transcript on this thread.

Then Bennish says:

Sounds a lot like the things that Adolf Hitler use to say.

And if you don't like me using the word liberal, how about leftist? He is the epitome of a leftist--he hates America. He is spouting leftwing talking points that you see and hear every day.

Btw, look at his picture.

Can't you easily imagine Bennish protesting with all those leftist radicals and their death to America and Israel signs?

[Montgomery Burns]

Drew Bedson:

At the end of the tape, he says that he is glad they asked all those questions as it indicates they have an understanding on globalisation and the cause and effect.

No. He starts talking about globalization after his anti-American tirade. He even says that they will eventually do a unit on it and then he lays the groundwork for his definition: Essentially, globalization is about the world shrinking, not literally but metaphorically.

I suggest people listen to the tape. I report, you decide.

He lied about what Bush said in the SOTU addy and then lied again when he said this:

Do you see how this economic system [capitalism] is at odds with humanity? At odds with caring and compassion? It's at odds with human rights.

It has been proven time and time again that capitalism is more humane, caring, and compassionate versus socialism and communism.

Good grief. Why is this guy even "teaching" idiocy like this in a sophomore geography class?

[Riverwind]

And if you don't like me using the word liberal, how about leftist? He is the epitome of a leftist--he hates America. He is spouting left wing talking points that you see and hear every day.

Monty, you have no right to claim that someone 'hates America' because he has a different opinion about US foreign policy.

It has been pr oven time and time again that capitalism is more humane, caring, and compassionate versus socialism and communism.

What planet are you talking about? Pure capitalism is the most vicious, uncompassionate economic system available. However, most societies do not have true capitalist systems - they have hybrids that try to balance the need for economic freedom with the need to have some social values that are not subject to market forces.

[America1]

Yes, the whole tape. Yes I can. Can you?

What he said is the objective of the capitalist system is to maximize profits and that social progress is not an objective of the system. This is a definition from Economics 101 and is hardly controversial.

This is a world geography class, what is he even bringing up econ? Regardless of his out-of-bounds topic, he gave a ridiculous (and extremely 1 sided) rant about "evil" capitalism while boasting a communist/socialist ideology. Giving no mention to capitalism’s great successes and listing not even 1 communist/socialist failures (which there are many).

What does George Bush and Hitler have to do with economics (or world geography for that matter).

BTW, since when did economic models try to/need to consider "social progress" as a factor in a successful methodology?

[America1]

And if you don't like me using the word liberal, how about leftist? He is the epitome of a leftist--he hates America. He is spouting left wing talking points that you see and hear every day.

Monty, you have no right to claim that someone 'hates America' because he has a different opinion about US foreign policy.

It has been pr oven time and time again that capitalism is more humane, caring, and compassionate versus socialism and communism.

What planet are you talking about? Pure capitalism is the most vicious, uncompassionate economic system available. However, most societies do not have true capitalist systems - they have hybrids that try to balance the need for economic freedom with the need to have some social values that are not subject to market forces.

Spoken like a true communist/socialist. Since when did economic models need to provide "some social values"?

[Riverwind]

What does George Bush and Hitler have to do with economics (or world geography for that matter).

Geography in high school usually covers political and social science as well so the topic was perfectly appropriate.

Since when did economic models need to provide "some social values"?

This is exactly what the teacher said. Does that make you a communist?

[America1]

What does George Bush and Hitler have to do with economics (or world geography for that matter).

Geography in high school usually covers political and social science as well so the topic was perfectly appropriate.

Since when did economic models need to provide "some social values"?

This is exactly what the teacher said. Does that make you a communist?

Geography does not cover politics (Political Science and/or history cover Politics) and it certainly doesn't cover economics.

I don't even understand you 2 phrase. How does me asking you a question about "economics have nothing to do with social values" make me a communist?

Answer the questions: What do economic systems have to do with "social values"? Are you a communist?

[Riverwind]

Geography does not cover politics (Political Science and/or history cover Politics) and it certainly doesn't cover economics.

In high school it does - geography is a catch all course that covers material from a broad range of topics including politics and economics.

I don't even understand you 2 phrase. How does me asking you a question about "economics have nothing to do with social values" make me a communist?

On the tape the teacher made the same statement that capitalism has nothing to do with social values and the two should not be confused. In other words, you are agreeing with what the teacher said - does that mean you are a communist too?

[America1]

Geography does not cover politics (Political Science and/or history cover Politics) and it certainly doesn't cover economics.

In high school it does - geography is a catch all course that covers material from a broad range of topics including politics and economics.

I don't even understand you 2 phrase. How does me asking you a question about "economics have nothing to do with social values" make me a communist?

On the tape the teacher made the same statement that capitalism has nothing to do with social values and the two should not be confused. In other words, you are agreeing with what the teacher said - does that mean you are a communist too?

I'm not sure where you're from but, Geography had nothing to do with politics or economics in my High school, Political Science taught that.

"On the tape the teacher made the same statement that capitalism has nothing to do with social values and the two should not be confused. In other words, you are agreeing with what the teacher said - does that mean you are a communist too?

That's weird b/c here is a transcript of him confusing the economics and "social values".

"Capitalism: If you don't understand the economic system of capitalism, you don't understand the world in which we live. Ok. Economic system in which all or most of the means of production, etc., are owned privately and operated in a somewhat competitive environment for the purpose of producing PROFIT! Of course, you can shorten these definitions down. Make sure you get the gist of it. Do you see how when, you know, when you're looking at this definition, where does it say anything about capitalism is an economic system that will provide everyone in the world with the basic needs that they need? Is that a part of this system? Do you see how this economic system is at odds with humanity? At odds with caring and compassion? It's at odds with human rights.

Anytime you have a system that is designed to procure profit, when profit is the bottom motive -- money -- that means money is going to become more important potentially than what? Safety, human lives, etc."

[Black Dog]

This is a world geography class, what is he even bringing up econ? Regardless of his out-of-bounds topic, he gave a ridiculous (and extremely 1 sided) rant about "evil" capitalism while boasting a communist/socialist ideology. Giving no mention to capitalism’s great successes and listing not even 1 communist/socialist failures (which there are many).

First: where did he use the term "evil" in connection to capitalism? Second, where did he endorse communism or socialism?

Spoken like a true communist/socialist. Since when did economic models need to provide "some social values"?

He's not saying they do, is he? He's saying that pure capitalism removes these things from the equation entirely. Which is true.

[Drew Bedson]

Bullshit. I watched Bush's SOTU addy and he said no such thing. I have even posted the transcript on this thread.

In this decisive year, you and I will make choices that determine both the future and the character of our country. We will choose to act confidently in pursuing the enemies of freedom -- or retreat from our duties in the hope of an easier life. We will choose to build our prosperity by leading the world economy -- or shut ourselves off from trade and opportunity. In a complex and challenging time, the road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting -- yet it ends in danger and decline. The only way to protect our people, the only way to secure the peace, the only way to control our destiny is by our leadership -- so the United States of America will continue to lead. (Applause.)

Abroad, our nation is committed to an historic, long-term goal -- we seek the end of tyranny in our world. Some dismiss that goal as misguided idealism. In reality, the future security of America depends on it. On September the 11th, 2001, we found that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7,000 miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country. Dictatorships shelter terrorists, and feed resentment and radicalism, and seek weapons of mass destruction. Democracies replace resentment with hope, respect the rights of their citizens and their neighbors, and join the fight against terror. Every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer -- so we will act boldly in freedom's cause. (Applause.)

Far from being a hopeless dream, the advance of freedom is the great story of our time. In 1945, there were about two dozen lonely democracies in the world. Today, there are 122. And we're writing a new chapter in the story of self-government -- with women lining up to vote in Afghanistan, and millions of Iraqis marking their liberty with purple ink, and men and women from Lebanon to Egypt debating the rights of individuals and the necessity of freedom. At the start of 2006, more than half the people of our world live in democratic nations. And we do not forget the other half -- in places like Syria and Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Iran -- because the demands of justice, and the peace of this world, require their freedom, as well. (Applause.)

President George W. Bush delivers his State of the Union Address at the Capitol, Tuesday, Jan. 31, 2006. White House photo by Eric Draper No one can deny the success of freedom, but some men rage and fight against it. And one of the main sources of reaction and opposition is radical Islam -- the perversion by a few of a noble faith into an ideology of terror and death. Terrorists like bin Laden are serious about mass murder -- and all of us must take their declared intentions seriously. They seek to impose a heartless system of totalitarian control throughout the Middle East, and arm themselves with weapons of mass murder.

Their aim is to seize power in Iraq, and use it as a safe haven to launch attacks against America and the world. Lacking the military strength to challenge us directly, the terrorists have chosen the weapon of fear. When they murder children at a school in Beslan, or blow up commuters in London, or behead a bound captive, the terrorists hope these horrors will break our will, allowing the violent to inherit the Earth. But they have miscalculated: We love our freedom, and we will fight to keep it. (Applause.)

In a time of testing, we cannot find security by abandoning our commitments and retreating within our borders. If we were to leave these vicious attackers alone, they would not leave us alone. They would simply move the battlefield to our own shores. There is no peace in retreat. And there is no honor in retreat. By allowing radical Islam to work its will -- by leaving an assaulted world to fend for itself -- we would signal to all that we no longer believe in our own ideals, or even in our own courage. But our enemies and our friends can be certain: The United States will not retreat from the world, and we will never surrender to evil. (Applause.)

He seemed to say it there. Now, to me, a North American who thinks America is the best thing going, I have no problem with that and, actually welcome his 'leadership.' However, in the minds of the people of the world whom are recuiting centers for Al Queda, Bush's leadership has a whole different meaning and is often used to mean ivasion, support for dictators who subjegate people and so on and forth. I suggest you have a look at the way North America is viewed by these people as it is from an entirely different perspective.

No. He starts talking about globalization after his anti-American tirade. He even says that they will eventually do a unit on it and then he lays the groundwork for his definition: Essentially, globalization is about the world shrinking, not literally but metaphorically.

His Lawyer said that the course was

designed to to examine social, economic, religious and political aspects of geography.

It has been proven time and time again that capitalism is more humane, caring, and compassionate versus socialism and communism.

Quite true. However, people don't like to be forced and, right at this moment, the enemy is using fear against us. This guy is just echoing how much of the world sees the US and the message they are getting in their jaded world. In that world, Bush's remarks sound ominous and can be construed as Hitleresque.

[Black Dog]

It has been proven time and time again that capitalism is more humane, caring, and compassionate versus socialism and communism.

Nonsense. Capitalism is an ideology and economic system and thus posesses no inherent attributes such as compassion or humanity. Now, it just happens that western nations with quasi-capitalist economies also have better records on human rights etc. than others. However, it's arguiable whether that's a product of capitalism or the the liberal democratic values that underpin these societies. Basicaly, there's no single model of capitalism (but if you think capitalism is inherently compassionate, I'd suggest reading some Ayn Rand).

[America1]

It has been proven time and time again that capitalism is more humane, caring, and compassionate versus socialism and communism.

Nonsense. Capitalism is an ideology and economic system and thus posesses no inherent attributes such as compassion or humanity. Now, it just happens that western nations with quasi-capitalist economies also have better records on human rights etc. than others. However, it's arguiable whether that's a product of capitalism or the the liberal democratic values that underpin these societies. Basicaly, there's no single model of capitalism (but if you think capitalism is inherently compassionate, I'd suggest reading some Ayn Rand).

The you MUST agree that when Bennish said (Capitialism) "Do you see how this economic system is at odds with humanity? At odds with caring and compassion? It's at odds with human rights." He Must be INCORRECT in his assertions b/c as you said "Capitalism is an ideology and economic system and thus posesses no inherent attributes such as compassion or humanity. "

[Black Dog]

The you MUST agree that when Bennish said (Capitialism) "Do you see how this economic system is at odds with humanity? At odds with caring and compassion? It's at odds with human rights." He Must be INCORRECT in his assertions b/c as you said "Capitalism is an ideology and economic system and thus posesses no inherent attributes such as compassion or humanity. "

I might disagree with the language he uses, but the fundamental point is that capitalism is a ideology based on maximizing profit and promoting self-interest. Practicioners of capitalism, it has been argued, have no social responsibility. So, it logically follows that an economic system geared towards self-interest is at odds with the greater good (it can be argued that capitalism pronmotes the greater good because self-interest leads to social benefits, but the counter would be that those benefits are merely incidental and not integral to the system).

[America1]

The you MUST agree that when Bennish said (Capitialism) "Do you see how this economic system is at odds with humanity? At odds with caring and compassion? It's at odds with human rights." He Must be INCORRECT in his assertions b/c as you said "Capitalism is an ideology and economic system and thus posesses no inherent attributes such as compassion or humanity. "

I might disagree with the language he uses, but the fundamental point is that capitalism is a ideology based on maximizing profit and promoting self-interest. Practicioners of capitalism, it has been argued, have no social responsibility. So, it logically follows that an economic system geared towards self-interest is at odds with the greater good (it can be argued that capitalism pronmotes the greater good because self-interest leads to social benefits, but the counter would be that those benefits are merely incidental and not integral to the system).

Next time you get caught in a logical trap, as you did above, just shut up and don't try to parse your way out. You sound like a fool.

[gerryhatrick]

Next time you get caught in a logical trap, as you did above, just shut up and don't try to parse your way out. You sound like a fool.

And next time you've been drinking just go to bed. We're trying to raise the level of debate around here.

[August1991]

What he said is the objective of the capitalist system is to maximize profits and that social progress is not an objective of the system. This is a definition from Economics 101 and is hardly controversial.

Define "social progress".

[August1991]

I might disagree with the language he uses, but the fundamental point is that capitalism is a ideology based on maximizing profit and promoting self-interest. Practicioners of capitalism, it has been argued, have no social responsibility. So, it logically follows that an economic system geared towards self-interest is at odds with the greater good (it can be argued that capitalism pronmotes the greater good because self-interest leads to social benefits, but the counter would be that those benefits are merely incidental and not integral to the system).

Capitalism (or more accurately, the free market) harnesses self-interest and turns it into the public good. Otherwise greedy individuals co-operate and work together. It achieves this through the use of prices - simple mathematics.

In the absence of markets with prices, then we are left to fall back on the traditional ways to co-operate that we, as a species, have done for millions of years. In general, the traditional ways don't work as well as market prices. But they do work. Family relations are a good example of a mechanism of co-operation without market prices.

As to this teacher, I think he admirably wants everyone to get along and work together but he just hasn't thought through how that would be realistically possible.

[America1]

Next time you get caught in a logical trap, as you did above, just shut up and don't try to parse your way out. You sound like a fool.

And next time you've been drinking just go to bed. We're trying to raise the level of debate around here.

what are you his mom? Let him defend himself.

So, ok, next time I'll just let him dip and dodge his OWN WORD until he finds solid ground to support his beliefs instead of calling him on his logical F-up.

[Montgomery Burns]

Yes, the whole tape. Yes I can. Can you?

What he said is the objective of the capitalist system is to maximize profits and that social progress is not an objective of the system. This is a definition from Economics 101 and is hardly controversial.

This is what he literally said:

"Do you see how this economic system is at odds with humanity? At odds with caring and compassion? It's at odds with human rights."

Which is utter rot. Just like the rest of his Hate-America rant. It has been proven time and time again that capitalism is more humane, carring, and compassionate compared to socialism. Alas, he will probably not be fired for having 20 minute rants that have nothing to do with geography. Apparently (surprise!) the school board is very liberal. Plus, it is virtually impossible to fire someone who is in an union.

I saw Sean Allen's mom on Fox News. She is a Democrat, but after Sean Hannity asked if she was questioning liberalism, she said yes. Perhaps another neo-(new)-conservative will join the ranks.

I saw the video (on the internet) of Bennish on NBC's Today Show. Bennish said that the other 30 mins of the 50 minute class "provided the balance" to his anti-America distribe. I don't believe him.

I got a chuckle when Matt Lauer said, *cue dark foreboding music* "I understand that they shopped this tape around to conservative news sources."

Poor Matt didn't get a chance at it first, so the liberal MSM could put their spin on it.

[Black Dog]

Next time you get caught in a logical trap, as you did above, just shut up and don't try to parse your way out. You sound like a fool.

Translation: "Oh shit, my little rhetorical trap blew up in my face leaving me holding the bag: better pat myself on the back, declare victory and run like hell."