Should I be careful what I say? Sparred with my professor on foreign policy...

[PaulConventionWV]

I'm taking a national intelligence class this semester for my political science degree. It's all about the CIA and the "intelligence community." My professor had worked for the CIA, and he was very proud of it. He considered himself to be a very intelligent man and I could tell he didn't like to be challenged, but that's just what I did. The class discussion, of course, revolved around the assumption that nothing was wrong or illegal or unconstitutional about the CIA or the actions of the executive branch concerning covert ops, such as Iraq.

He asked us why things were kept secret. Of course, most people, including him, came to the conclusion that it was to prevent the "adversary" from gaining knowledge of the US activities. I spoke up by saying that it was to hide it from the American public. He flatly denied that. I explained by saying that some of the things the CIA and the executive branch were doing overseas was illegal. He flatly denied that, to my surprise. I quickly learned that he was under the assumption that nothing in government was insidious in any way. He told me that the invasion of Iraq was constitutional because "the president is given certain powers to protect the national interests" (paraphrased).

After class, I asked him a question. The conversation was civil at first. We discussed the fourth and fifth amendments and the assassination of Al Awlaki. He admitted that his personal beliefs were that it was unconstitutional but was extra careful to stress that he thought the president had his own justifications for doing it. The question I asked him was this: "When you say the president has 'certain powers...' are you referring to the necessary and proper clause?"

He told me he was. I told him that I happened to have studied the necessary and proper clause and I proved to him that it did not mean what he thought it meant, that the president could do just anything he thought necessary. I told him how Hamilton, who had argued for the inclusion of the clause, justified it by saying that it was redundant and gave the president no new powers that were not already found in the constitution. I forget exactly how he responded, but I remember sensing bitterness in his voice. He mentioned that, when a student last semester made a certain point that I made, he had thrown something at that student and yelled at him. I thought it was pretty curious that he would mention that to me, but he didn't seem friendly at the end of the discussion.

Basically, I handed him his ass on the constitution. He even used as a refutation to the idea that Congress must declare war that, "If that were the case, then every war since WWII was unconstitutional." I told him that I would argue that, in fact, they were. The one thing that struck me, however, was that he didn't really seem to know much about the constitution and I demonstrably knew more than him, althought he had worked under the direction of the president as a member of the CIA.

My dad cautioned me, saying that I could get myself arrested for talking like this. Although I doubt this wil happen, I have to admit I was a bit concerned standing up to authority like that, and there was no question that he was the authority in that classroom. He directed the discussions in a way that ensured we could only bring up certain points and discuss certain ways and hold certain opinions to the exclusion of all "conspiracy theories" which he flat out told a few of us on the first day that "none of them are true."

What do you think? Did I do well? Should I be careful? It's going to be hard sitting through all the bullshit in that class and not speaking up, much less writing papers on all this bullshit without bringing up my true opinion which is clearly not welcomed in his class.

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

First of all, +rep to you for standing up to him. Second, NEVER back down from your beliefs. He may be the Professor but that does NOT make him a God. Question him and put him on the spot. I understand you want to have an easy path to your degree but we are well beyond the point where remaining silent is justified. It may be easy now but if you back down and remain silent than this man will raise a whole class of statist idiots who never question anything at all. You have a chance to rescue a few of them from this fate and plant seeds in their head that will lead to questioning authority, civil disobedience and activism to bring about a restoration of our Republic. So my advice would be to never shut up and just keep it going because even if your grade suffers you will stand a good chance of making the world a better place by changing another heart and mind along the way.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I'm taking a national intelligence class this semester for my political science degree. It's all about the CIA and the "intelligence community." My professor had worked for the CIA, and he was very proud of it. He considered himself to be a very intelligent man and I could tell he didn't like to be challenged, but that's just what I did. The class discussion, of course, revolved around the assumption that nothing was wrong or illegal or unconstitutional about the CIA or the actions of the executive branch concerning covert ops, such as Iraq.

He asked us why things were kept secret. Of course, most people, including him, came to the conclusion that it was to prevent the "adversary" from gaining knowledge of the US activities. I spoke up by saying that it was to hide it from the American public. He flatly denied that. I explained by saying that some of the things the CIA and the executive branch were doing overseas was illegal. He flatly denied that, to my surprise. I quickly learned that he was under the assumption that nothing in government was insidious in any way. He told me that the invasion of Iraq was constitutional because "the president is given certain powers to protect the national interests" (paraphrased).

After class, I asked him a question. The conversation was civil at first. We discussed the fourth and fifth amendments and the assassination of Al Awlaki. He admitted that his personal beliefs were that it was unconstitutional but was extra careful to stress that he thought the president had his own justifications for doing it. The question I asked him was this: "When you say the president has 'certain powers...' are you referring to the necessary and proper clause?"

He told me he was. I told him that I happened to have studied the necessary and proper clause and I proved to him that it did not mean what he thought it meant, that the president could do just anything he thought necessary. I told him how Hamilton, who had argued for the inclusion of the clause, justified it by saying that it was redundant and gave the president no new powers that were not already found in the constitution. I forget exactly how he responded, but I remember sensing bitterness in his voice. He mentioned that, when a student last semester made a certain point that I made, he had thrown something at that student and yelled at him. I thought it was pretty curious that he would mention that to me, but he didn't seem friendly at the end of the discussion.

Basically, I handed him his ass on the constitution. He even used as a refutation to the idea that Congress must declare war that, "If that were the case, then every war since WWII was unconstitutional." I told him that I would argue that, in fact, they were. The one thing that struck me, however, was that he didn't really seem to know much about the constitution and I demonstrably knew more than him, althought he had worked under the direction of the president as a member of the CIA.

My dad cautioned me, saying that I could get myself arrested for talking like this. Although I doubt this wil happen, I have to admit I was a bit concerned standing up to authority like that, and there was no question that he was the authority in that classroom. He directed the discussions in a way that ensured we could only bring up certain points and discuss certain ways and hold certain opinions to the exclusion of all "conspiracy theories" which he flat out told a few of us on the first day that "none of them are true."

What do you think? Did I do well? Should I be careful? It's going to be hard sitting through all the bullshit in that class and not speaking up, much less writing papers on all this bullshit without bringing up my true opinion which is clearly not welcomed in his class.

I once made my professor run out the door to avoid one of my questions. He still gave me an A. Making an A nowadays isn't as significant as it once was. The important thing is getting those bastards motivated to teach you something. Don't hold back. Ask for guidelines. See how just how far you can express yourself before they call homeland security.

To rile that bastard up even further, provide him with this answer:

The intelligence community is a carry over from the old puritan order, the pagan culture that existed prior to our Founders establishment of a new order within both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. As the old pagan order is working deceitfully today behind the scenes as the Holiest of the most Holy doing mysterious things that are proclaimed to be "in the best interest of our nation," in contrast to and in opposition with it, the new order of our American Civil Purpose works wholly outside of the electoral and political processes. As the intelligence community was established by a two party system by lawyers, with this legal instituted process often mistaken as a major advancement over The Declaration of Independence, with this being the establishment of a new order, and the U.S. Constitution, with this being the implementation of laws to advance the new order, the American Movement is the true innovation being the advancement working to benefit the disadvantaged people by returning them back to the revering of our Founding Fathers and to our American Civil Purpose they established for us as a natural law - Uncle Emanuel Watkins.

[tttppp]

I would try to get out of that class. I would state in writing, with examples, to the administrators how this professor does not understand the constitution and that you should not be forced to take a class by someone whose job has been to break the law for his career.

[Danke]

"My dad cautioned me, saying that I could get myself arrested for talking like this."

Say what?

[PaulConventionWV]

I would try to get out of that class. I would state in writing, with examples, to the administrators how this professor does not understand the constitution and that you should not be forced to take a class by someone whose job has been to break the law for his career.

Maybe just a hunch, but I have a feeling that wouldn't go over very well.

[tttppp]

Maybe just a hunch, but I have a feeling that wouldn't go over very well.

If you can't make the case to him, you have to make it to someone who will listen. If this professor is the type who likes a good discussion, you might not have a problem. But that doesn't sound like the case.

But you are right to some extent. Schools view you as students not customers, therefore have no rights.

[Natural Citizen]

You should be like Spicoli from fast times at Ridgemont except recreate the character as a geopolitical superstar. Set the tone for your peers in the classroom....question more.

Serioulsly though. That's pretty commendable that you took the time to address your figgers like that with him. The problem is that few are of the knowledge to do that...assuming they had the stones to get in the ring even if they did. You know?

[jdcole]

Asking somebody who is supposed to be teaching you to intellectually defend themselves is never wrong.

[dannno]

"My dad cautioned me, saying that I could get myself arrested for talking like this."

Say what?

lol, ya, arrested for what now?

I would let what you said stew with your prof. for a little bit and don't be too pushy about inserting your views, but don't be afraid to do so either. Unless you think it will affect your grade and your primary motivation is good grades, then you have to take that into consideration.

[thoughtomator]

Did I do well?

Depends on what your goal was going into it.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Ask him if he agrees with the CIA playing an instrumental role in having democratically elected leaders murdered like Patrice Lumuba.

[shane77m]

Well if PaulConventionWV were to stop posting we will have a pretty good idea why.

+rep for defending the Constitution.

[FrancisMarion]

I enjoyed reading that post. You are not going to get arrested.

Tell me, what is the course description in the syllabus? Verbatim please.

Classrooms are for learning. Questioning leads to that. You can bring up points with out being contentious by asking the proper questions. If you think that your involvement in a learning environment has effected your grade negatively at the end of the course. Well, you take that to the head of the Dept.

[tttppp]

I enjoyed reading that post. You are not going to get arrested.

Tell me, what is the course description in the syllabus? Verbatim please.

Classrooms are for learning. Questioning leads to that. You can bring up points with out being contentious by asking the proper questions. If you think that your involvement in a learning environment has effected your grade negatively at the end of the course. Well, you take that to the head of the Dept.

That is true. You could ask him questions and put him on the spot without being a dick. My concern would be more for the tests. It sounds like he is probably going to try to make you give the wrong answers to the tests.

[kathy88]

I bet he had a lot to think about after that. You did very well.

[dannno]

Ya if he threw an object at another student, you might want to not make your points in a manner that is too confrontational, unless you're looking to win some money in a lawsuit.

But educating other students and the professor is very important, just be tactful.

[TheTexan]

You're presumably in college to learn things. You won't learn anything from him. My opinion is drop the course.

If you're just after the piece of paper, then that's a different story. If that's the case I don't know what the fuck to tell you, that piece of paper isn't going to be worth shit anyway so may as well keep on preaching

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Maybe just a hunch, but I have a feeling that wouldn't go over very well.

If you could, ask his opinion on this statement:

The intelligence community is a carry over from the old puritan order, the pagan culture that existed prior to our Founders establishment of a new order within both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. As the old pagan order is working deceitfully today behind the scenes as the Holiest of the most Holy doing mysterious things that are proclaimed to be "in the best interest of our nation," in contrast to and in opposition with it, the new order of our American Civil Purpose works wholly outside of, above board of, and in the light in comparison to the dark electoral and political processes. As the intelligence community was established by a two party system of lawyers, with this legally instituted process often mistaken as a major advancement over The Declaration of Independence, with this being the establishment of a new order, and the U.S. Constitution, with this being the implementation of laws to advance the new order, the American Movement is the true innovation being the advancement working to benefit the disadvantaged people by returning them back to the revering of our Founding Fathers and to our American Civil Purpose they established for us as a natural law - Uncle Emanuel Watkins.

The Declaration of Independence being the new order > The U.S. Constitution being the implementation of laws to advance that new order > The American Movement returning us to the natural law > The natural law being our Civil Purpose > Our Civil Purpose holding to a new political spectrum > This political spectrum finally including "all men" as being born equally endowed with the same business agenda for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with this being express by having a figure of a king sitting on a throne as the owner of all things on one side of the political spectrum, a figure of a worthless prostitute living homeless on the street on the other side of it, and the rest of all Americans residing in the middle between the two.

[specsaregood]

"My dad cautioned me, saying that I could get myself arrested for talking like this."

Say what?

Simple slip of the tongue, clearly he didn't mean "arrested", but rather "extraordinary renditioned". Arrest would come with all that paperwork, lawyer and trial hassle, why bother?

[specsaregood]

//

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

his personal beliefs were that it was unconstitutional but was extra careful to stress that he thought the president had his own justifications for doing it.


The real word for that is ILLEGAL.



My dad cautioned me, saying that I could get myself arrested for talking like this.


Your dad is right, and he should be unhappy about that circumstance. Unfortunately, 'arrested' is no longer the stated penalty. The stated penalty is indefinte dention, in an undisclosed location, with no trial. Or assasination. Who knows?



Should I be careful?


Maybe. It depends on your level of commitment. If you believe that the 1st ammendment means what it says, then say whatever the fuck you want. If you believe you're a free person who has the right of free speech, then say whatever the fuck you want. If you do not fear those who would do you harm, then SAY whatever the fuck you want.

If you believe you will be killed for your words and you're willing to accept that, then decide accordingly.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

My dad cautioned me, saying that I could get myself arrested for talking like this. Although I doubt this wil happen, I have to admit I was a bit concerned standing up to authority like that, and there was no question that he was the authority in that classroom.

Nothing you said is illegal, unless you advocated and then were in the process of "imminent lawless action".

If he gives you a hard time, mention FIRE. If he does anything really unjustifiable, contact FIRE.

http://thefire.org/


edit:

Also, read your student speech code if you already haven't.

[neodivinity]

Good job, I would suggest you record your classes just in case anything should ever happen. Don't be confrontational which it diddn't seem you were being, but rather express your points in a calm manner, such will make it difficult for him to lash out and will discredit him for looking like a government boy douchebag. But be careful. You don't need to compromise your views, but it might be prudent to pick your spot on occassion. Sounds like a serious douchebag. Good luck. And remember the race for liberty is a long one and not a 50 yard dash. Don't give up however try to opperate on a cost benefit analysis.

[amy31416]

Document everything--many students bring tape recorders to lecture, why not his? If he lowers your grade due to questioning or being vindictive, you'll be able to make a case. I'm assuming you need this course for your major--otherwise I'd just say to drop it and inform his superiors why.

[LatinsforPaul]

Show your teacher this list and pass out a copy to every student in the class and ask for a group discussion ;) ...

A Timeline of CIA Atrocities (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html) :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

[Uriah]

Do NOT sit down and shut up. A classroom should be an open discourse not a rigid lecture from the pulpit.

[Danke]

Simple slip of the tongue, clearly he didn't mean "arrested", but rather "extraordinary renditioned". Arrest would come with all that paperwork, lawyer and trial hassle, why bother?

That make more sense. It is so hard to get rebels to understand sometimes. Very frustrating.

[FrancisMarion]

Course description?

[surf]

i'm proud of you dude. you sound intelligent enough to assess the situation and how it plays with your future - and if you can risk a bit of grade-pain from a dumbass "professor" you could use this as an opportunity to introduce your peers to something very relevant. of course, as is necessary in college, be prepared to regurgitate his spew on a test if called upon.


+rep

[Occam's Banana]

After class, I asked him a question. The conversation was civil at first. We discussed the fourth and fifth amendments and the assassination of Al Awlaki. He admitted that his personal beliefs were that it was unconstitutional but was extra careful to stress that he thought the president had his own justifications for doing it. The question I asked him was this: "When you say the president has 'certain powers...' are you referring to the necessary and proper clause?"

He told me he was. I told him that I happened to have studied the necessary and proper clause and I proved to him that it did not mean what he thought it meant, that the president could do just anything he thought necessary. I told him how Hamilton, who had argued for the inclusion of the clause, justified it by saying that it was redundant and gave the president no new powers that were not already found in the constitution. I forget exactly how he responded, but I remember sensing bitterness in his voice.

... "necessary and proper" ... "supreme law of the land" ... "general welfare" ...

Alexander Hamilton is laughing in Hell right now ...


Basically, I handed him his ass on the constitution. He even used as a refutation to the idea that Congress must declare war that, "If that were the case, then every war since WWII was unconstitutional." I told him that I would argue that, in fact, they were. The one thing that struck me, however, was that he didn't really seem to know much about the constitution and I demonstrably knew more than him, althought he had worked under the direction of the president as a member of the CIA.

The U.S. Constitution is - literally - nothing more than a rhetorical "feel good" device for most people (including this guy, it seems). They don't know much if anything about it or what it means or what it was intended to mean. They don't really care. It's just a decoration they trot out whenever it suits their convenience. It is used to adorn their excuses for whatever it is they want to do. But whenever the President (or Congress, or the courts) "have [their] own justifications" for doing something, the Constitution suddenly becomes irrelevant. These are not rational people who seek to base their positions on the consistent application of principles. These are people who regard the Constitution (and the principles it embodies) to be no more that a "goddam piece of paper" whenever it gets in their way.

[emazur]

CIA? This book might prove useful for you:
http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Ashes-History-Tim-Weiner/dp/0307389006
the CIA's response:
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol51no3/legacy-of-ashes-the-history-of-cia.html
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/press-release-archive-2007/legacy-of-ashes.html

[kcchiefs6465]

Short answer; Yes, censor your thoughts. There's the truth and then there's the right answer. Answer in the way he wants, pass his class, and be done with his propagandist ass. Of course a man who's probably collecting a pension for partaking in all kinds of unconstitutional and undoubtedly wicked shit (whether he's aware of the wickedry or not) is not going criticize the government. He would never have been in the position he was in had he done that. Very well could have been likened to a foreign spy and accused of treason. (extreme I know, but I doubt they'd take too kindly to a whistleblower in their midsts) Fuck 'em. It's quite easy not to become indoctrinated when you know the truth and decipher/ignore his bullshit rhetoric before it hits your ears.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

The U.S. Constitution is - literally - nothing more than a rhetorical "feel good" device for most people (including this guy, it seems). They don't know much if anything about it or what it means or what it was intended to mean. They don't really care.


That's what's so stupid. Instead of amending it, through the built in mechanism to do so, they just pretend it says something else. The founders were too stupid to put in a "this means what it says" clause because they never imagined that people would claim otherwise. They understood freedom is fragile, but they never imagined people were stupid enough to let rulers incoherently change the definitions of words.

[alucard13mmfmj]

tell your prof to refer to michael shueuer.. hell i bet shueuer was your professor's boss at some point.

[jclay2]

I'm taking a national intelligence class this semester for my political science degree. It's all about the CIA and the "intelligence community." My professor had worked for the CIA, and he was very proud of it. He considered himself to be a very intelligent man and I could tell he didn't like to be challenged, but that's just what I did. The class discussion, of course, revolved around the assumption that nothing was wrong or illegal or unconstitutional about the CIA or the actions of the executive branch concerning covert ops, such as Iraq.

He asked us why things were kept secret. Of course, most people, including him, came to the conclusion that it was to prevent the "adversary" from gaining knowledge of the US activities. I spoke up by saying that it was to hide it from the American public. He flatly denied that. I explained by saying that some of the things the CIA and the executive branch were doing overseas was illegal. He flatly denied that, to my surprise. I quickly learned that he was under the assumption that nothing in government was insidious in any way. He told me that the invasion of Iraq was constitutional because "the president is given certain powers to protect the national interests" (paraphrased).

After class, I asked him a question. The conversation was civil at first. We discussed the fourth and fifth amendments and the assassination of Al Awlaki. He admitted that his personal beliefs were that it was unconstitutional but was extra careful to stress that he thought the president had his own justifications for doing it. The question I asked him was this: "When you say the president has 'certain powers...' are you referring to the necessary and proper clause?"

He told me he was. I told him that I happened to have studied the necessary and proper clause and I proved to him that it did not mean what he thought it meant, that the president could do just anything he thought necessary. I told him how Hamilton, who had argued for the inclusion of the clause, justified it by saying that it was redundant and gave the president no new powers that were not already found in the constitution. I forget exactly how he responded, but I remember sensing bitterness in his voice. He mentioned that, when a student last semester made a certain point that I made, he had thrown something at that student and yelled at him. I thought it was pretty curious that he would mention that to me, but he didn't seem friendly at the end of the discussion.

Basically, I handed him his ass on the constitution. He even used as a refutation to the idea that Congress must declare war that, "If that were the case, then every war since WWII was unconstitutional." I told him that I would argue that, in fact, they were. The one thing that struck me, however, was that he didn't really seem to know much about the constitution and I demonstrably knew more than him, althought he had worked under the direction of the president as a member of the CIA.

My dad cautioned me, saying that I could get myself arrested for talking like this. Although I doubt this wil happen, I have to admit I was a bit concerned standing up to authority like that, and there was no question that he was the authority in that classroom. He directed the discussions in a way that ensured we could only bring up certain points and discuss certain ways and hold certain opinions to the exclusion of all "conspiracy theories" which he flat out told a few of us on the first day that "none of them are true."

What do you think? Did I do well? Should I be careful? It's going to be hard sitting through all the bullshit in that class and not speaking up, much less writing papers on all this bullshit without bringing up my true opinion which is clearly not welcomed in his class.


Bravo bravo. + rep. Don't back down. Their arguments hold little weight when questioned. You probably are dropping truth bombs on other students that you don't even realize. Probably the first time any of the other students have seen a reasoned argument. Keep at it no matter how dumb your professors are.

[Anti Federalist]

My dad cautioned me, saying that I could get myself arrested for talking like this.

Yes, your dad is right, it very could get you arrested.

Which proves your point better than 10,000 speeches could.

You could get arrested in America today for having an exchange of opinions in college classroom setting.

Change the wording slightly and reading the Declaration of Independence will get you arrested.

[UMULAS]

In what you said, I believe that you did nothing wrong (IF you literally did everything you wrote).

It was an open discussion and you expressed your opinion calmy. Then you had a nice conversation afterwards.

You didn't attack the proffesor (cause even teachers hate students that scorn them in public) and have to fight irrationally.

+rep.

[Carson]

PaulConventionWV,

Perhaps anything you feel you need to do to protect your country and it's Constitution are your certain powers. And your duty.

But then we don't really want to have to lower ourselves to the level of some of the opposition.


P.S. If your asking yourself, "Should I be careful what I say? Sparred with my professor on foreign policy..." then perhaps you should.

Then again maybe you already were a little careful.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Yes, your dad is right, it very could get you arrested.

Which proves your point better than 10,000 speeches could.

You could get arrested in America today for having an exchange of opinions in college classroom setting.

Change the wording slightly and reading the Declaration of Independence will get you arrested.

Not sure what he said that could get him arrested? He made no threats and advocated no law breaking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

It would be more likely the teacher would go to the schools Dean and charge him with breaking some absurd rule in the speech code.... this is usually how professors silence students.

[jmdrake]

1) +rep
2) You can't get arrested for what you did. And even if you could, you wouldn't. The system still at least needs the facade of legitimacy.
3) He could give you a less than deserving grade.

[ClydeCoulter]

I'm taking a national intelligence class this semester for my political science degree. It's all about the CIA and the "intelligence community." My professor had worked for the CIA, and he was very proud of it. He considered himself to be a very intelligent man and I could tell he didn't like to be challenged, but that's just what I did. The class discussion, of course, revolved around the assumption that nothing was wrong or illegal or unconstitutional about the CIA or the actions of the executive branch concerning covert ops, such as Iraq.

He asked us why things were kept secret. Of course, most people, including him, came to the conclusion that it was to prevent the "adversary" from gaining knowledge of the US activities. I spoke up by saying that it was to hide it from the American public. He flatly denied that. I explained by saying that some of the things the CIA and the executive branch were doing overseas was illegal. He flatly denied that, to my surprise. I quickly learned that he was under the assumption that nothing in government was insidious in any way. He told me that the invasion of Iraq was constitutional because "the president is given certain powers to protect the national interests" (paraphrased).

After class, I asked him a question. The conversation was civil at first. We discussed the fourth and fifth amendments and the assassination of Al Awlaki. He admitted that his personal beliefs were that it was unconstitutional but was extra careful to stress that he thought the president had his own justifications for doing it. The question I asked him was this: "When you say the president has 'certain powers...' are you referring to the necessary and proper clause?"

He told me he was. I told him that I happened to have studied the necessary and proper clause and I proved to him that it did not mean what he thought it meant, that the president could do just anything he thought necessary. I told him how Hamilton, who had argued for the inclusion of the clause, justified it by saying that it was redundant and gave the president no new powers that were not already found in the constitution. I forget exactly how he responded, but I remember sensing bitterness in his voice. He mentioned that, when a student last semester made a certain point that I made, he had thrown something at that student and yelled at him. I thought it was pretty curious that he would mention that to me, but he didn't seem friendly at the end of the discussion.

Basically, I handed him his ass on the constitution. He even used as a refutation to the idea that Congress must declare war that, "If that were the case, then every war since WWII was unconstitutional." I told him that I would argue that, in fact, they were. The one thing that struck me, however, was that he didn't really seem to know much about the constitution and I demonstrably knew more than him, althought he had worked under the direction of the president as a member of the CIA.

My dad cautioned me, saying that I could get myself arrested for talking like this. Although I doubt this wil happen, I have to admit I was a bit concerned standing up to authority like that, and there was no question that he was the authority in that classroom. He directed the discussions in a way that ensured we could only bring up certain points and discuss certain ways and hold certain opinions to the exclusion of all "conspiracy theories" which he flat out told a few of us on the first day that "none of them are true."

What do you think? Did I do well? Should I be careful? It's going to be hard sitting through all the bullshit in that class and not speaking up, much less writing papers on all this bullshit without bringing up my true opinion which is clearly not welcomed in his class.

Depends, how young are you (in heart). My son goes through these kinds of things all the time in class. My wife worries, I try to tell him "pick your fights, and remember the future".

[Anti Federalist]

"My dad cautioned me, saying that I could get myself arrested for talking like this."

Say what?

Pffffttt...yeah right, mole.

You skipped off and reported him to your girlfriend the second he posted that.

[Anti Federalist]

Not sure what he said that could get him arrested?

Man, you haven't been reading the news.

The law don't matter no more.

You can get arrested for anything, or nothing at all.

See Something Say Something.

[Anti Federalist]

2) You can't get arrested for what you did. And even if you could, you wouldn't. The system still at least needs the facade of legitimacy.


LoL - ;)

Oh and plus rep to the OP as well, good job.

[Carson]

What would Bart do?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?132690-Bestest-Picture-Thread-EVARRR&p=4826832&viewfull=1#post4826832

[Kregisen]

A classroom should be a place where knowledge and communication stimulates learning. Don't come off as a dick to your professor, but when he says something that you absolutely disagree with, speak up. Say something like "What if I believe this? What if there are different beliefs?", etc.

Also, talk to him outside of class, and make sure you let him know if you do "argue" with him during class, that it is not personal and you are simply trying to spurr debate in class.

Finally, show him this video and ask him what his thoughts are:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiekoXsNzYI

[dbill27]

I refused to show a state trooper my i.d when he stopped me walking on the side of the road last fall and asked for it with no justification. After arguing with him for at least 20 minutes he left without ever seeing my identification. If you're right and you know you're right, don't back down, besides, it's so much fun pissing off statists.

[idiom]

You use this forum. You are either one of them or on the terrorist short list so don't worry.

I would pay so much attention in that class and ask as many random questions as I could. It is an excellent opportunity to learn, not about the course matter, but about how the CIA and the admin think.

[XTreat]

Consider taping your lectures. Be sure to bring up Operation Ajax and the Gulf of Tonkin when he accuses you of conspiracy.

It's pretty much common knowledge now to anyone who isn't biased like your professor that the CIA imports drugs.

Read Dark Allaince by Gary Webb, watch this video of Gary Webb on CSPAN.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMI56pme2nQ&list=WL948A3CCEA010A0D1


Be careful, Gary Webb shot himself in the head (2x).

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Consider taping your lectures. Be sure to bring up Operation Ajax and the Gulf of Tonkin when he accuses you of conspiracy.

It's pretty much common knowledge now to anyone who isn't biased like your professor that the CIA imports drugs.

Read Dark Allaince by Gary Webb, watch this video of Gary Webb on CSPAN.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMI56pme2nQ&list=WL948A3CCEA010A0D1


Be careful, Gary Webb shot himself in the head (2x).



Makes me wonder if "journalists" "learn" about that in school.

[cheapseats]

IN LIFE:

People should always use CARE in their speech.

"When angry count to ten before you speak. If very angry, count to one hundred. " - Thomas Jefferson

"Speak when you are angry and you will make the best speech you will ever regret." - Ambrose Bierce

Recovery Circuit advice about running one's mouth is regularly REPEATED ("progress, not perfection") as RESTRAINT OF PEN & TONGUE.

Being an Irish Temper turbocharged by righteous anger ("a luxury we can't afford"), it was further suggested that I filter my output thusly:

Does it need to be said?
Does it need to be said NOW?
Does it need to be said BY ME?

[Those who follow this particular bouncing ball, especially those who ALLOW me to speak on this "private property" (lol), will kindly note that I withhold remarks on Rand Paul.]

IN SCHOOL:

Arguing AGAINST the professor will almost certainly impact your grade on subjective calls . . . C+ or B- . . . hmmm, lemme think. If your argument is sound, and you argue it reeeeeally well, WITHOUT any spelling/grammar/punctuation errors, it may be worth it to you to get an A- rather than an A. You'll both KNOW what's what. C+ rather than B- sucks.

IN AMERICA:

A five-year-old kindergartener was just suspended for "threatening" with a toy soapy-bubble-shooting gun that was NOT in her possession, nor even on the premises.

http://news.yahoo.com/pa-kindergartner-suspended-bubble-gun-remark-035057936.html

[Thor]

I am sure he still has some contacts in the CIA. Consider yourself on double secret probation.

[KingNothing]

Just be respectful, kind, and jovial. Find common ground, and joke around together. State your beliefs when you feel it necessary, but do so confidently and humbly.

Your professor isn't evil. In fact, his work in the CIA probably did, in some degree, keep us safe in some form or another, and he may not have witnessed many or any abuses of civil liberties or the constitution --- or at least none that he could not rationalize away.

Keep that in mind.

[KingNothing]

Depends, how young are you (in heart). My son goes through these kinds of things all the time in class. My wife worries, I try to tell him "pick your fights, and remember the future".

I worry that occasionally we may come as bratty know-it-alls, arrogant punks, or delusional psychopaths. That isn't at all what we want, but it is sometimes hard to avoid falling into those categories because we're almost always put on the defensive for taking an "outside the mainstream" point of view.

[KingNothing]

Of course a man who's probably collecting a pension for partaking in all kinds of unconstitutional and undoubtedly wicked shit (whether he's aware of the wickedry or not) is not going criticize the government. He would never have been in the position he was in had he done that. Very well could have been likened to a foreign spy and accused of treason. (extreme I know, but I doubt they'd take too kindly to a whistleblower in their midsts) Fuck 'em. It's quite easy not to become indoctrinated when you know the truth and decipher/ignore his bullshit rhetoric before it hits your ears.

You have to be kidding me. You know the CIA isn't the SS, right? You know that someone like say, Michael Scheuer, was in the CIA and continually praises it and the people he worked with and always says how he values his time there, right? Christ, he encourages people to seek employment with the agency.

We can't just go and generalize people like this, demonizing everyone who isn't just like us along the way. It's silly, it comes off as petulant, it wins us no friends and it does nothing to advance our cause.

[KingNothing]

My dad always gave me one piece of advice that I like to share with people from time to time: "Don't be a dick. Just don't be a dick. Be a gentleman as often as possible, but when you can't, remember not to be a dick." Interact with your professor however you want, and as long as you aren't a dick, I'm sure things will go fine.

[cheapseats]

...as long as you aren't a dick, I'm sure things will go fine.


There is no longer a basis in Reality for that kind of Trust.

This is excellent advice, however:


"Don't be a dick. Just don't be a dick. Be a gentleman as often as possible, but when you can't, remember not to be a dick."

[Danan]

That is true. You could ask him questions and put him on the spot without being a dick. My concern would be more for the tests. It sounds like he is probably going to try to make you give the wrong answers to the tests.

If I have to answer questions like, "Why is deflation bad and what should the central bank do to avoid it?" I generally write something like, "It is assumed to be the case that..." or "According to scholar X,Y,Z deflation has the following effects..." to save my own integrety. It still feels bad not to write a well thought out rebuttal, but there's normally no time for that during exams.

[PaulConventionWV]

You should be like Spicoli from fast times at Ridgemont except recreate the character as a geopolitical superstar. Set the tone for your peers in the classroom....question more.

Serioulsly though. That's pretty commendable that you took the time to address your figgers like that with him. The problem is that few are of the knowledge to do that...assuming they had the stones to get in the ring even if they did. You know?





Correct. I feel special being the one question with the relevant questions in a classroom full of brain-dead zombies. That's not to say some of them aren't smart. Some of them are. They just don't question authority like I seem to be compelled to do.

[QuickZ06]

+rep for not baking down and telling him how it really is. But if this guy was really good at his "old" job he should have already scanned this thread over and be in this thread in no time. *popcorn*

[PaulConventionWV]

I enjoyed reading that post. You are not going to get arrested.

Tell me, what is the course description in the syllabus? Verbatim please.

Classrooms are for learning. Questioning leads to that. You can bring up points with out being contentious by asking the proper questions. If you think that your involvement in a learning environment has effected your grade negatively at the end of the course. Well, you take that to the head of the Dept.

Copy-and-pasted from the syllabus:

Overview

This course will discuss the role that espionage, counterintelligence, and strategic deception play in US national security. It will define these terms, examine their "tradecraft," and explore their strengths and weaknesses. The course will address issues such as why people commit treason, the psychological relationship between the Case Officer and Asset, and the moral implications of using these tools to advance US national security.

Objectives

Students will understand the role that espionage, counterintelligence, and strategic deception play in US national security. They will appreciate the differences among these concepts, their basic tradecraft, as well as their strengths and weaknesses. Moreover, they will reflect on the moral implications and consequences associated with these tools.

Organization

This course will be taught as a seminar. Students will participate in discussions of the assigned reading, as well as of issues raised by the instructor and guest speakers during class time.

[PaulConventionWV]

Good job, I would suggest you record your classes just in case anything should ever happen. Don't be confrontational which it diddn't seem you were being, but rather express your points in a calm manner, such will make it difficult for him to lash out and will discredit him for looking like a government boy douchebag. But be careful. You don't need to compromise your views, but it might be prudent to pick your spot on occassion. Sounds like a serious douchebag. Good luck. And remember the race for liberty is a long one and not a 50 yard dash. Don't give up however try to opperate on a cost benefit analysis.

Thanks. I'm not sure if this is really relevant, but it's interesting to note that he has a birth defect that make his arms disproportionately smaller than the rest of his body. He has to use both hands to pick up a piece of paper, and lean down to do so. He will often transport things from his desk to his briefcase with his mouth... so the fact that he threw something at a student, I thought, was intriguing. He must have felt pretty strongly about it.

[PaulConventionWV]

Do NOT sit down and shut up. A classroom should be an open discourse not a rigid lecture from the pulpit.

He actually emphasizes this. The problem is that he will "set the stage" so to speak by asking questions he wants you to answer, and stopping a student when he strays out of the acceptable discussion parameters.

[PaulConventionWV]

tell your prof to refer to michael shueuer.. hell i bet shueuer was your professor's boss at some point.

Very good point. I shall look into that.

[tttppp]

Copy-and-pasted from the syllabus:

Overview

This course will discuss the role that espionage, counterintelligence, and strategic deception play in US national security. It will define these terms, examine their "tradecraft," and explore their strengths and weaknesses. The course will address issues such as why people commit treason, the psychological relationship between the Case Officer and Asset, and the moral implications of using these tools to advance US national security.

Objectives

Students will understand the role that espionage, counterintelligence, and strategic deception play in US national security. They will appreciate the differences among these concepts, their basic tradecraft, as well as their strengths and weaknesses. Moreover, they will reflect on the moral implications and consequences associated with these tools.

Organization

This course will be taught as a seminar. Students will participate in discussions of the assigned reading, as well as of issues raised by the instructor and guest speakers during class time.

There you go. Point out its weaknesses. If he is not giving you credit for that, he is not following his own sylabus.

[Carson]

What would the CIA do?

[SpreadOfLiberty]

Be careful....sure.....but still bring up points if you like. Heated arguments are not a good idea though.

Most people are won over subliminally anyways.

[Dystopian]

He actually emphasizes this. The problem is that he will "set the stage" so to speak by asking questions he wants you to answer, and stopping a student when he strays out of the acceptable discussion parameters.

Sounds like the mainstream media and modern day "political discourse".

[UWDude]

I think political science is the science of bullshit and lies.
As a history major, I have run into professors that feel the same way.
One said the reason he studies history is to prove political science professors wrong.
I took one political history class and hated it. It was like sitting in front of CNN an hour a day, and then regurgitating their simplistic viewpoints in 5 page papers.

Hated it, hated it, hated it. It was all bullshit.

[Working Poor]

When I was in college the students seemed to only want to know about was going to be on the test and the right answers. I found that I could prove some of the answers incorrect but I still had to give the proven incorrect answer if I wanted the answer to be counted correct. I hated it.

[otherone]

Copy-and-pasted from the syllabus:

The course will address issues such as why people commit treason, the psychological relationship between the Case Officer and Asset, and the moral implications of using these tools to advance US national security.


Yeah. Your class just sounds like a trumped up justification for torture.
Ask your prof if the US still qualifies as the "good' guys.

[loveableteddybear]

I'm taking a national intelligence class this semester for my political science degree. It's all about the CIA and the "intelligence community." My professor had worked for the CIA, and he was very proud of it. He considered himself to be a very intelligent man and I could tell he didn't like to be challenged, but that's just what I did. The class discussion, of course, revolved around the assumption that nothing was wrong or illegal or unconstitutional about the CIA or the actions of the executive branch concerning covert ops, such as Iraq.

He asked us why things were kept secret. Of course, most people, including him, came to the conclusion that it was to prevent the "adversary" from gaining knowledge of the US activities. I spoke up by saying that it was to hide it from the American public. He flatly denied that. I explained by saying that some of the things the CIA and the executive branch were doing overseas was illegal. He flatly denied that, to my surprise. I quickly learned that he was under the assumption that nothing in government was insidious in any way. He told me that the invasion of Iraq was constitutional because "the president is given certain powers to protect the national interests" (paraphrased).

After class, I asked him a question. The conversation was civil at first. We discussed the fourth and fifth amendments and the assassination of Al Awlaki. He admitted that his personal beliefs were that it was unconstitutional but was extra careful to stress that he thought the president had his own justifications for doing it. The question I asked him was this: "When you say the president has 'certain powers...' are you referring to the necessary and proper clause?"

He told me he was. I told him that I happened to have studied the necessary and proper clause and I proved to him that it did not mean what he thought it meant, that the president could do just anything he thought necessary. I told him how Hamilton, who had argued for the inclusion of the clause, justified it by saying that it was redundant and gave the president no new powers that were not already found in the constitution. I forget exactly how he responded, but I remember sensing bitterness in his voice. He mentioned that, when a student last semester made a certain point that I made, he had thrown something at that student and yelled at him. I thought it was pretty curious that he would mention that to me, but he didn't seem friendly at the end of the discussion.

Basically, I handed him his ass on the constitution. He even used as a refutation to the idea that Congress must declare war that, "If that were the case, then every war since WWII was unconstitutional." I told him that I would argue that, in fact, they were. The one thing that struck me, however, was that he didn't really seem to know much about the constitution and I demonstrably knew more than him, althought he had worked under the direction of the president as a member of the CIA.

My dad cautioned me, saying that I could get myself arrested for talking like this. Although I doubt this wil happen, I have to admit I was a bit concerned standing up to authority like that, and there was no question that he was the authority in that classroom. He directed the discussions in a way that ensured we could only bring up certain points and discuss certain ways and hold certain opinions to the exclusion of all "conspiracy theories" which he flat out told a few of us on the first day that "none of them are true."

What do you think? Did I do well? Should I be careful? It's going to be hard sitting through all the bullshit in that class and not speaking up, much less writing papers on all this bullshit without bringing up my true opinion which is clearly not welcomed in his class.
You seem like a stubborn kid whose future will be at Dunkin' Donuts. Dude, I've been through the college thing, you need to watch what you say. You're not going to be converting the left any more than I can convert Eric Foner from Soviet Communism.

[truelies]

............................
What do you think? Did I do well? Should I be careful? .......................................

You have already demonstrated that this prof is one of the enemy. You are NOT going to Reason him into upholding the Constitution and supporting Liberty. Treat him as a sensible person does a cop at a traffic stop- a thug to be deceived and manipulated by using his own vanity and sense of importance against him. Watch for the opportunity to take him down and when it comes grab it.

[coastie]

You seem like a stubborn kid whose future will be at Dunkin' Donuts. Dude, I've been through the college thing, you need to watch what you say. You're not going to be converting the left any more than I can convert Eric Foner from Soviet Communism.

This attitude has got us to where we are now.

That's right, sit down and shut up. Don't make waves. Just give up. It is what it is. You can't change it.:rolleyes:

This isn't about converting the left. To constrain yourself into such boxed in arguments is playing their game. When I was taking these classes, I never made it about left and right. It's about right and wrong. Period. You win every time you approach it like this.


OP-I sparred with my American National Government and Sociology professors almost daily(there are threads here on it). Do not shut up, do not back down-and most certainly do not "watch what you say". This is still the US, fuck them if they don't like what you say. This isn't about your professor, this about waking up the youth in the class. I even told my class once, "If I have to drag you idiots kicking and screaming toward the light of liberty, than so be it". If anything, they all laughed, and several woke up. Great job, +rep to you, screw the haters...but don't hate them. One day, they'll be on the other side of the FEMA fence, and we'll have to get them out. Then we can say, "told ya so".;)

[PaulConventionWV]

Yeah. Your class just sounds like a trumped up justification for torture.
Ask your prof if the US still qualifies as the "good' guys.

He would probably take the moral relativistic point of "We need to protect our interests".

Yes, though, we did talk about the CIA production "Zero Dark Thirty". Reviews from the class were things like "extremely accurate." Sure, whatever. We haven't talked a whole lot about torture yet since it's the beginning of the semester, although I suspect we will eventually. The brunt of what we've been discussing revolves around the sources of information and how the "system" works, i.e. cast and characters.

[PaulConventionWV]

You seem like a stubborn kid whose future will be at Dunkin' Donuts. Dude, I've been through the college thing, you need to watch what you say. You're not going to be converting the left any more than I can convert Eric Foner from Soviet Communism.

May I ask why you hold this view? What makes you think I'm stubborn? You don't even know how the conversation really played out. Now you're telling me I'm doomed to working at Dunkin' Donuts? Who are you to tell me what my future is?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Just be respectful, kind, and jovial. Find common ground, and joke around together. State your beliefs when you feel it necessary, but do so confidently and humbly.

Your professor isn't evil. In fact, his work in the CIA probably did, in some degree, keep us safe in some form or another, and he may not have witnessed many or any abuses of civil liberties or the constitution --- or at least none that he could not rationalize away.

Keep that in mind.

Differentiate between the false powers of manipulation and the power of the Truth. King Herod couldn't see the Truth standing in front of him because he was a drunkard. Governor Pilate did see the Truth standing before him, but he was being manipulated by his wife. This evil is just blind to what it is doing. The only reason an adult man would enjoy defeating a small boy in a game of chess is because he is s drunkard, or he is being deceived by the false powers of manipulation. The same is true of a government of advantaged people using their positions to cheat the disadvantaged.

[libertygrl]

Just the fact that you had to guts to stand up for what you believed in and had the knowledge to back it up deserves props in my book. You may not have convinced the teacher, but you may be influencing the minds of your classmates.

Sounds to me his ego may have been bruised and was more pissed off that a STUDENT had displayed more knowledge about the Constitution than the Professor. I'd say bring him a peace offering like a cup of coffee or an apple saying that you enjoyed the intellectual exchange and hope there was no hard feelings. Or, if you can can come up something humorous/ clever that may ease any left over tension. At least that's what I would do.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

He would probably take the moral relativistic point of "We need to protect our interests".

Yes, though, we did talk about the CIA production "Zero Dark Thirty". Reviews from the class were things like "extremely accurate." Sure, whatever. We haven't talked a whole lot about torture yet since it's the beginning of the semester, although I suspect we will eventually. The brunt of what we've been discussing revolves around the sources of information and how the "system" works, i.e. cast and characters.

To say "Our interests" is the same occult pagan intentions as saying "our national interest." In contrast, our Founders declared a clear "Civil Purpose." This is how the king has always operated. Rulers at one time were all drunkards. For example, the first Roman emperor to decide to exclude young boys from his harem was the one in power during the time of Christ. During any advancement upon the social contract between the rule of a tyrant on the throne and those being ruled as the prostitute living on the street, the king would have his council step in and compromise the commoner at a disadvantage.
Take the advent of Labor Unions for example. In the beginning, the Unions at one time were headed towards achieving for the people a civil advancement winning for them an administrative authority on the job. The "king" intercepted this civil movement settling on a legal compromise instead. In essence, rather than granting the people a face of authority, he allowed in Unions as part of the royal family. To a great degree, this is what became of The Declaration of Independence. As "all men" means "all men," in the end, legal definition did not allow in all men.
We are talking here about the establishment of the order first within the Declaration of Independence before the U.S. Constitution was established as laws to advance that order. In opposition, the old pagan order has been trying to establish law first for the sake of it in order to throw out the new order our Founders established.
This is why I'm always ranting and raving about this "Civil Purpose" nonsense. It check mates the king. The old pagan order has been trying to convince us that the new advancement over both The Declaration of Independence, the establishment of a new order, and The U.S. Constitution, laws implemented to advance that new order, was the two party system. In reality, the American Movement was the true advancement as it returns the people to the reverence of our Founders and the Civil Purpose they established for us as a natural law.

[Brian4Liberty]

If you are in California, you are not allowed to say anything critical of Israel:


California Passes Resolution Equating Criticism of Israel With Anti-Semitism
August 30, 2012
http://antiwar.com/blog/2012/08/30/california-passes-resolution-equating-criticism-of-israel-with-anti-semitism/

Might as well expand that to the entire US, as the Federal government might also investigate.


Feds probe University of California, Berkeley anti-Semitism allegations
October 4, 2012
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57526035/feds-probe-university-of-california-berkeley-anti-semitism-allegations/

[Brian4Liberty]

Copy-and-pasted from the syllabus:

Overview

This course will discuss the role that espionage, counterintelligence, and strategic deception play in US national security. It will define these terms, examine their "tradecraft," and explore their strengths and weaknesses. The course will address issues such as why people commit treason, the psychological relationship between the Case Officer and Asset, and the moral implications of using these tools to advance US national security.

Objectives

Students will understand the role that espionage, counterintelligence, and strategic deception play in US national security. They will appreciate the differences among these concepts, their basic tradecraft, as well as their strengths and weaknesses. Moreover, they will reflect on the moral implications and consequences associated with these tools.

Organization

This course will be taught as a seminar. Students will participate in discussions of the assigned reading, as well as of issues raised by the instructor and guest speakers during class time.

Interesting that the moral consequences are open for discussion. How about the legal implications? Does it mean that for those who are above the law, there are no legal implications, just moral ones?

[PaulConventionWV]

Just the fact that you had to guts to stand up for what you believed in and had the knowledge to back it up deserves props in my book. You may not have convinced the teacher, but you may be influencing the minds of your classmates.

Sounds to me his ego may have been bruised and was more pissed off that a STUDENT had displayed more knowledge about the Constitution than the Professor. I'd say bring him a peace offering like a cup of coffee or an apple saying that you enjoyed the intellectual exchange and hope there was no hard feelings. Or, if you can can come up something humorous/ clever that may ease any left over tension. At least that's what I would do.

Oh, I'm sure his ego is bruised, and I know I'm not going to convert him. I'm hoping he'll at least be careful what HE says in the future. The point of bringing some of this stuff up in class is to shift the discussion so that students start to question the infallibility of the goodness of government.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Just the fact that you had to guts to stand up for what you believed in and had the knowledge to back it up deserves props in my book. You may not have convinced the teacher, but you may be influencing the minds of your classmates.

Sounds to me his ego may have been bruised and was more pissed off that a STUDENT had displayed more knowledge about the Constitution than the Professor. I'd say bring him a peace offering like a cup of coffee or an apple saying that you enjoyed the intellectual exchange and hope there was no hard feelings. Or, if you can can come up something humorous/ clever that may ease any left over tension. At least that's what I would do.

The student showing up the professor? Sounds very Aristotilian. In contrast, it isn't possible to show where Plato the student began and Socrates the teacher ended. The master professor of the trilogy is the one in the middle. He had to be smarter than Socrates in order to so fully understand him to express him so well that people 2300 years later can understand him. Then he turned around and taught Aristotle.
Teachers act dumb. They do this because they accept arrogant contempt as healthy. They also realize how it can take students many years to understand the subject material at hand.

[otherone]

To say "Our interests" is the same occult pagan intentions as saying "our national interest."

In this case it's code for "Corporate Colonialism" ala Banana Wars.

[PaulConventionWV]

Interesting that the moral consequences are open for discussion. How about the legal implications? Does it mean that for those who are above the law, there are no legal implications, just moral ones?

That's what it sounds like. I was honestly sort of shocked by the fact that the teacher was never willing to discuss legal implications in any depth. It was only when I probed him that he spoke with me about it. I made sure to keep the conversation cordial and polite. Some people here seem to think we departed with our heads fuming, which is not the case. He merely seemed a bit peeved. I ended with an "Interesting conversation, though!" He had turned to leave and leaned his head back to say "Yeah, well, I'll see you later."

It was more an underlying sense of bitterness than any outward sign of contempt.

[bolil]

Easy for me to say, although I have been in similar situations, "Give him the bayonet."

[anaconda]

My dad cautioned me, saying that I could get myself arrested for talking like this.

Just curious: on what charge(s)?

Nice going by the way. Wondering what he would say about Operation Ajax, the United Fruit Company, etc?

[anaconda]

Yeah. Your class just sounds like a trumped up justification for torture.
Ask your prof if the US still qualifies as the "good' guys.

Maybe the CIA recruits heavily from his college.

[PaulConventionWV]

Just curious: on what charge(s)?

Nice going by the way. Wondering what he would say about Operation Ajax, the United Fruit Company, etc?

Trumped up bullshit charges. What else? The guy who spoke out against the 16th amendment was imprisoned, as well as many other activists like him. They were held without trial, which I might add, is now legal if I'm accused of being a terrorist.

Never heard of the United Fruit Company. I still don't have the details of operation Ajax.

[PaulConventionWV]

Just curious: on what charge(s)?

Nice going by the way. Wondering what he would say about Operation Ajax, the United Fruit Company, etc?

Trumped up bullshit charges. What else? The guy who spoke out against the 16th amendment was imprisoned, as well as many other activists like him. They were held without trial, which I might add, is now legal if I'm accused of being a terrorist.

Never heard of the United Fruit Company. I still don't have the details of operation Ajax.

[PaulConventionWV]

Maybe the CIA recruits heavily from his college.

Possibly. The former head of CIA recently spoke at our school.

[otherone]

Never heard of the United Fruit Company.

Here ya' go Bruvva...all you need to know about "national interests".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars

[heavenlyboy34]

+rep for the OP. You've got some skills. :cool: Personally, I would approach this by making my points in essay assignments/exams. As was mentioned earlier, if you do it in class, record it in case you need evidence if/when the prof expells you for making him look bad.

[pcosmar]

Maybe the CIA recruits heavily from his college.

CIA recruits everywhere.
Asset

noun
1. a useful and desirable thing or quality: Organizational ability is an asset.
2. a single item of ownership having exchange value.

[anaconda]

CIA recruits everywhere.


I know they were on a massive hiring spree not long ago.

[anaconda]

Here ya' go Bruvva...all you need to know about "national interests".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars

This Wiki article looks like it terminates with 1934. So I dug this up quickly to add:

http://members.tripod.com/group_13dc/megan/Guate.html