Indoctrinate U is one of the most important documentaries of the year.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think his point was irrefutable - as I said I'd sooner discuss the topic but IMO the thread wasn't started for that purpose, and calling people dishonest who have taken the time to elaborate on the subject when the OP has offered next to nothing himself is disingenuous and more than a little offensive.

As to Marc's spelling - well it tends to go hand in hand with his general belligerent attitude.

Not to nitpick - but the sentence structure comment actually related to my post...

You want to keep it on the topic and then finish with your little jabs or visa versa.

"Not to nitpick, but" Bud, that is an obvious nitpick!

So what. Where's your opinion on the subject of higher education then?

Have you been to university? On second thoughts that's probably a silly question isn't it....

Stick and jab,stick and jab! The subject I beleive is not on higher education but the liberal majority within it. I think the effect of being pwnd is getting to you. As far as the topic goes? I agree with lucky.

Sure you do. And like Lucky I'm sure you don't want to actually discuss the current state of university education (in your case I personally think you're incapable of doing so) as much as use a trailer to a documentary neither of you have seen to get a cheap shot in at alleged liberals, while at the same time rubbishing the credibility of people who took the time to reply in detail.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I don't think his point was irrefutable - as I said I'd sooner discuss the topic but IMO the thread wasn't started for that purpose, and calling people dishonest who have taken the time to elaborate on the subject when the OP has offered next to nothing himself is disingenuous and more than a little offensive.

As to Marc's spelling - well it tends to go hand in hand with his general belligerent attitude.

Not to nitpick - but the sentence structure comment actually related to my post...

You want to keep it on the topic and then finish with your little jabs or visa versa.

"Not to nitpick, but" Bud, that is an obvious nitpick!

So what. Where's your opinion on the subject of higher education then?

Have you been to university? On second thoughts that's probably a silly question isn't it....

Stick and jab,stick and jab! The subject I beleive is not on higher education but the liberal majority within it. I think the effect of being pwnd is getting to you. As far as the topic goes? I agree with lucky.

Sure you do. And like Lucky I'm sure you don't want to actually discuss the current state of university education (in your case I personally think you're incapable of doing so) as much as use a trailer to a documentary neither of you have seen to get a cheap shot in at alleged liberals, while at the same time rubbishing the credibility of people who took the time to reply in detail.

Im gonna have to take the high road here and go to work.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think his point was irrefutable - as I said I'd sooner discuss the topic but IMO the thread wasn't started for that purpose, and calling people dishonest who have taken the time to elaborate on the subject when the OP has offered next to nothing himself is disingenuous and more than a little offensive.

As to Marc's spelling - well it tends to go hand in hand with his general belligerent attitude.

Not to nitpick - but the sentence structure comment actually related to my post...

You want to keep it on the topic and then finish with your little jabs or visa versa.

"Not to nitpick, but" Bud, that is an obvious nitpick!

So what. Where's your opinion on the subject of higher education then?

Have you been to university? On second thoughts that's probably a silly question isn't it....

Stick and jab,stick and jab! The subject I beleive is not on higher education but the liberal majority within it. I think the effect of being pwnd is getting to you. As far as the topic goes? I agree with lucky.

Sure you do. And like Lucky I'm sure you don't want to actually discuss the current state of university education (in your case I personally think you're incapable of doing so) as much as use a trailer to a documentary neither of you have seen to get a cheap shot in at alleged liberals, while at the same time rubbishing the credibility of people who took the time to reply in detail.

Im gonna have to take the high road here and go to work.

That'll be a welcome change.

[Sister Fracas 5]

[Ban Hammer 13,349]

where's the kittens frances?

[Sister Fracas 5]

where's the kittens frances?

[HAL 9000 96]

All these Commies in academia...

And the CIA still has easy picking for recruits on almost any campus...

And academia continues to produce citizens that continue voting for the current state of political thought in the USA...

It seems that we're either fear-mongering up to the right wing agenda of scaring people even more into more submission in this country and/or the extreme right wing is losing ground yet again somewhere else than Washington.

Hollywood anyone? Oh wait... that was back in the 50s with Joseph McCarthy.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I suggested that Lucky's comments in this thread being limited to insulting one-liners demonstrates his unwillingness to discuss the topic that he started. Others took the time to respond in detail based on their experience - he chose to ignore them completely. I think that's quite rude. IMHO.

Exactly. I like Rich even though we disagree on many things, but as long as I've known him here - he rarely if ever engages into much a debate. Instead he likes to throw verbal hand grenades to provoke people. It's hard to tell if he ever takes himself too seriously.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here's an actual bonafide case where a few local, but powerful Right Wingers put pressure on the Chancellor of UCI to remove his job offer of Founding Dean of Law School to the well known liberal law professor, Erwin Chemerinsky. Fortunately, the issue was resolved, but there is concern as to how much outside influence exists with regard to the University from local politics.

...

That morning, Michael Drake, chancellor of the University of California, Irvine, flew to North Carolina to meet with Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of Duke University’s School of Law. Just three weeks earlier, Drake had hired Chemerinsky to become the founding dean of UC Irvine’s law school, which is scheduled to open in 2009. Immediately, local conservatives had flooded Drake’s office with telephone calls blasting Chemerinsky as an outspoken “liberal” who was too “partisan” for the job. Chemerinsky says he only got wind of the conservative effort to blackball him within minutes of picking up Drake at the airport. “In the first few sentences, he made clear he wasn’t going to hire me,” Chemerinsky told the Weekly in an interview last week. “He said I had proven to be too politically controversial. He said he knew I was liberal but he didn’t realize the extent to which conservatives would be out to get me; he didn’t expect the intense opposition. He never told me who the opposition was, and frankly I didn’t ask. I certainly had the impression there was strong opposition, that it played a key role in the withdrawing of the offer.”

In the next six days, Drake’s decision to unhire Chemerinsky—and Chemerinsky’s statements to the national media that Drake told him he’d underestimated the strength of Orange County Republicans who were “out to get me”—drew near-universal condemnation from liberal and conservative legal scholars. It also became a major source of embarrassment to UCI and almost—almost—the stuff of legend for Orange County conservatives who appeared to revel in their ability to blackball a noted lefty from taking the helm of a major law school in their back yard.

http://www.ocweekly.com/news/news/who-almost-dunnit/27810/

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I suggested that Lucky's comments in this thread being limited to insulting one-liners demonstrates his unwillingness to discuss the topic that he started. Others took the time to respond in detail based on their experience - he chose to ignore them completely. I think that's quite rude. IMHO.

Exactly. I like Rich even though we disagree on many things, but as long as I've known him here - he rarely if ever engages into much a debate. Instead he likes to throw verbal hand grenades to provoke people. It's hard to tell if he ever takes himself too seriously.

I had to go to work guys. Pardon me for having to leave for work at 5 am. If I was on welfare would you guys like me better?

edit: PST West Coast!!!

Edited October 12, 2007 by LuckyStrike

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I had to go to work guys. Pardon me for having to leave for work at 5 am. If I was on welfare would you guys like me better?

No, I like you better when you earn your keep.

[almaty 19]

same here..but i miss brother rich..he usually has a a good point..and bring humor

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

same here..but i miss brother rich..he usually has a a good point..and bring humor

Not here though.

[almaty 19]

same here..but i miss brother rich..he usually has a a good point..and bring humor

Not here though.

pwned...that was good..but i disagree...he is funny at times..and makes valid points...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I suggested that Lucky's comments in this thread being limited to insulting one-liners demonstrates his unwillingness to discuss the topic that he started. Others took the time to respond in detail based on their experience - he chose to ignore them completely. I think that's quite rude. IMHO.

Exactly. I like Rich even though we disagree on many things, but as long as I've known him here - he rarely if ever engages into much a debate. Instead he likes to throw verbal hand grenades to provoke people. It's hard to tell if he ever takes himself too seriously.

I had to go to work guys. Pardon me for having to leave for work at 5 am. If I was on welfare would you guys like me better?

edit: PST West Coast!!!

If you cross the border illegally, I'll invite you over for dinner.