Geography teacher placed on leave for hanging foreign flags in classroom

[Colin]

No, your logic for that is that leftists hate Pinochet, and have said Pinochet does not deserve to be demonized.

When did anyone mention Pinochet in this thread? I haven't seen any flagrant Pinochet backing in this thread.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No, your logic for that is that leftists hate Pinochet, and have said Pinochet does not deserve to be demonized.

When did anyone mention Pinochet in this thread? I haven't seen any flagrant Pinochet backing in this thread.

I'm referring to a previous statement of his where he basically said Pinochet was unfair demonized by the left and is only hated by people who hate America.

[angus]

Teacher On Leave For Hanging Foreign Flags

ah well, at least a teacher wasn't hanged for leaving foreign flags

[Smash255]

Still, I wonder if some of the people who think he should be able to fly foreign flags would oppose flying the American flag on the grounds that it might 'offend' somebody?

LOL.  Dazzleman since I came here you seem to have a consistent reputation of distorting issues, exaggerating them, assuming liberal viewpoints, and declaring incorrect hyposcrisies.  Our flag should be flown in government buildings, it is our country for goodness sakes!  Who is offended?  All the foreign nationals?  WTF?  No one sincerely advacates that.

You haven't heard the stories about people at colleges being asked to remove flags from their rooms because it might offend some of the other students.

You talk as if I make this stuff up, but I don't.  It's out there.

They are private institutions and with many more foreign nationals.  i don't think the flags should be taken down, but that at least is somewhat rational.

It's not rational at all.  I would never go to another country, and then claim to be 'offended' at the sight of their flag.  It's absurd.  If they're offended by our flag, they shouldn't be here.

These "stories" you hear seem to be like the "stories" O'Reilly told last year about the school in Wisconsin and banning Christmas....   

Anyway in these "stories" are you talking about the U>S flag or the Confederate flag or omething of that ilk.  Btw I'm not far removed from college (graduated two years ago, went to a college and dormed at a school that had a large foreign nattional student body, a very liberal school and I never heard of thee "stories" you speak of...

Not tto mention their is a difference between asking someone to remove a flag and basically expelling them for not doing so..

I hope you're right, but I'm not convinced.  I'm deeply, deeply suspicious of politically correct people and their twisted logic.

In other words you have absurd conspiracy theories not backe dup by any facts......

No, I simply know how these people think.  They are far more sympathetic to the views of people hostile to the US than those who favor the US position.  This has been proven over and over again.

Thats a bunch of bs, with absolutley no factual basis what so ever.  You have been watching WAy too much O'Reilly and listening to limbaugh, hannity & Coulter WAYYY too much if you believe that garbage.

[Alcon]

No, I simply know how these people think.  They are far more sympathetic to the views of people hostile to the US than those who favor the US position.  This has been proven over and over again.

With due respect, why do you think that you have any more intimate knowledge of how these people think than any of this?  The vast majority of people around me are these people who you insult as being hostile to the United States, and I can tell you that it is bullcrap.  They are hostile to what they see as negative aspects of U.S. policy, which is a manifestation of the country's government, not the country's people or virtues.  I do not like your "many of these liberals are subversive" posts.

[MODU]

I agree.  There is nothing wrong with displaying foreign flags in the classroom (especially in a history/geography class), as long as they are smaller than the US flag.

What difference does that make?  I wouldn't care if they were all the same size.

US Flag etiquette.  No flag should be larger than the US flag.  True, the can be the same size (and I should have clarified that point).

[Platypus]

...and are they allowed to be flown without the US flag being flown?

IE, could there be a massive Fijian flag by itself, or would it need to be accompanied by an equally-massive US flag?

[MODU]

...and are they allowed to be flown without the US flag being flown?

IE, could there be a massive Fijian flag by itself, or would it need to be accompanied by an equally-massive US flag?

On a permanent display, no.  On temporary display, yes.
(From my understanding of the code.)

[dazzleman]

No, I simply know how these people think.  They are far more sympathetic to the views of people hostile to the US than those who favor the US position.  This has been proven over and over again.

With due respect, why do you think that you have any more intimate knowledge of how these people think than any of this?  The vast majority of people around me are these people who you insult as being hostile to the United States, and I can tell you that it is bullcrap.  They are hostile to what they see as negative aspects of U.S. policy, which is a manifestation of the country's government, not the country's people or virtues.  I do not like your "many of these liberals are subversive" posts.

I respect you Alcon, and I'm sorry if you don't like some of my posts.  There are plenty of posts I don't like either.

I tell the truth about the way I see things.  In my opinion, real political correctness (and a relatively small number of people subscribe to it, though their influence is magnified by their positions in the media, college campuses, etc.) is inherently hostile to the US.  That's the way I see it, and I'm not going to say otherwise.

I have a longer historical view than many people here.  My view of the left and national security goes back to the 1960s and 1970s, not 3 or 4 years ago.

Think of it this way -- suppose you thought, with some reason, that somebody hated you.  No matter how many times they loudly denied they hated you, you'd never really believe them until they demonstrated in some way that they liked you.  That's what we really need to see from the left.  Some demonstration that they respect American values, rather than just shrill denials that they are disloyal.

[Alcon]

I respect you Alcon, and I'm sorry if you don't like some of my posts.  There are plenty of posts I don't like either.

I tell the truth about the way I see things.  In my opinion, real political correctness (and a relatively small number of people subscribe to it, though their influence is magnified by their positions in the media, college campuses, etc.) is inherently hostile to the US.  That's the way I see it, and I'm not going to say otherwise.

I have a longer historical view than many people here.  My view of the left and national security goes back to the 1960s and 1970s, not 3 or 4 years ago.

Think of it this way -- suppose you thought, with some reason, that somebody hated you.  No matter how many times they loudly denied they hated you, you'd never really believe them until they demonstrated in some way that they liked you.  That's what we really need to see from the left.  Some demonstration that they respect American values, rather than just shrill denials that they are disloyal.

Why do you find what you are saying any more realistic than the wide, sweeping generaliations that the right wing hates middle-class Americans and gays and the like, no matter how many "shrill" denials they produce?

[dazzleman]

I respect you Alcon, and I'm sorry if you don't like some of my posts.  There are plenty of posts I don't like either.

I tell the truth about the way I see things.  In my opinion, real political correctness (and a relatively small number of people subscribe to it, though their influence is magnified by their positions in the media, college campuses, etc.) is inherently hostile to the US.  That's the way I see it, and I'm not going to say otherwise.

I have a longer historical view than many people here.  My view of the left and national security goes back to the 1960s and 1970s, not 3 or 4 years ago.

Think of it this way -- suppose you thought, with some reason, that somebody hated you.  No matter how many times they loudly denied they hated you, you'd never really believe them until they demonstrated in some way that they liked you.  That's what we really need to see from the left.  Some demonstration that they respect American values, rather than just shrill denials that they are disloyal.

Why do you find what you are saying any more realistic than the wide, sweeping generaliations that the right wing hates middle-class Americans and gays and the like, no matter how many "shrill" denials they produce?

The far right doesn't like gays.  I don't deny that.  As far as middle class Americans, much of the far right is middle class, so that doesn't make sense.  I think it's fairer to say that the far right isn't particularly concerned about the fate of the poor, within the grand scheme of things.

Each extreme end of the political spectrum has their likes and dislikes, so it's ridiculous to deny them.  And the far left is too elitist and cynical to really have a positive view of traditional American values, or the majority of the American people.  I've heard enough extreme liberals express their opinions on people who live in "red" states to know that.  These people think they're better than everybody else, and disdain the majority of their countrymen.

I really wish I could believe otherwise.  I wish I could believe that people on the far left really love America, and just want to make it better.  But all my instincts tell me otherwise.  I'm waiting in vain for some positive evidence to really convince me that I'm wrong, but you're not offering any, and neither is anybody else.

[Alcon]

Wait, so is it extremist liberals trying to subvert America, or just the sort of academic, politically correct college city types?  Which broad, sweeping generalisations are which, here?

[dazzleman]

Wait, so is it extremist liberals trying to subvert America, or just the sort of academic, politically correct college city types?  Which broad, sweeping generalisations are which, here?

They are one in the same, for the most part.  What is the difference between the two?

I don't even say they're actively trying to subvert the country.  They're just inclined to blame America first for any problem.  Jeane Kirkpatrick, a Democrat herself, first identified them in her 1984 speech to the Republican convention.  She was right.

Keep in mind that this is not an attack on anybody who happens to be left of center.  What I'm saying applies to people much further left.  And I get my opinions about this purely from my own observations of these people, and have held these opinions since long before anybody heard of Fox News, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, etc.  As I said, I'd love to change this particular opinion, if somebody would offer me some positive evidence that I'm wrong, rather than just nasty comments in return.  Ridiculing that which it cannot refute is one of the left's favorite tactics.

[afleitch]

They're just inclined to blame America first for any problem.

Responsibilty begins at home. Many of America's problems are America's doing, just like many of Britains problems are also our own doing. It is not unpatriotic to take responsibilty for your mistakes, learn from them and improve on them. As Clinton said, "There's nothing wrong with America that can't be fixed by what's right with America." These may include foreign policy decisions as well as those rooted in domestic policy. American's criticising American policy is healthier than non American's criticising policy

[dazzleman]

They're just inclined to blame America first for any problem.

Responsibilty begins at home. Many of America's problems are America's doing, just like many of Britains problems are also our own doing. It is not unpatriotic to take responsibilty for your mistakes, learn from them and improve on them. As Clinton said, "There's nothing wrong with America that can't be fixed by what's right with America." These may include foreign policy decisions as well as those rooted in domestic policy. American's criticising American policy is healthier than non American's criticising policy

That doesn't mean that everything wrong in the world is the fault of the US.  You're missing the point here.

Also, offering a positive alternative once in a while might help, if you think a policy is incorrect.  There's a big difference between helpful and constructive suggestions, even criticism, and relentless negativity.

[afleitch]

They're just inclined to blame America first for any problem.

Responsibilty begins at home. Many of America's problems are America's doing, just like many of Britains problems are also our own doing. It is not unpatriotic to take responsibilty for your mistakes, learn from them and improve on them. As Clinton said, "There's nothing wrong with America that can't be fixed by what's right with America." These may include foreign policy decisions as well as those rooted in domestic policy. American's criticising American policy is healthier than non American's criticising policy

That doesn't mean that everything wrong in the world is the fault of the US.  You're missing the point here.

I never said that. You're missing the point and I'm a little offended that you have. I've always been a staunch supporter of American foreign policy and I don't lay everything, or even anything at the feet of the United States. Neither can I be accused of 'relentless negaitivity' with regards to the US position, because I've always taken a hawkish stance on foreign policy. All I'm saying is there is no harm in Americans criticising their own policy, whether that be domestic or foreign if they see reason to do so. It is not unpatriotic to question America's direction; the same goes for those who say foreign policy is not hawkish enough.

[dazzleman]

They're just inclined to blame America first for any problem.

Responsibilty begins at home. Many of America's problems are America's doing, just like many of Britains problems are also our own doing. It is not unpatriotic to take responsibilty for your mistakes, learn from them and improve on them. As Clinton said, "There's nothing wrong with America that can't be fixed by what's right with America." These may include foreign policy decisions as well as those rooted in domestic policy. American's criticising American policy is healthier than non American's criticising policy

That doesn't mean that everything wrong in the world is the fault of the US.  You're missing the point here.

I never said that. You're missing the point and I'm a little offended that you have. I've always been a staunch supporter of American foreign policy and I don't lay everything, or even anything at the feet of the United States. Neither can I be accused of 'relentless negaitivity' with regards to the US position, because I've always taken a hawkish stance on foreign policy. All I'm saying is there is no harm in Americans criticising their own policy, whether that be domestic or foreign if they see reason to do so. It is not unpatriotic to question America's direction; the same goes for those who say foreign policy is not hawkish enough.

Sorry to have offended you Andy.  That wasn't my intention.  The 'relentless negativity' to which I was referring was that of the far left, not you.

I agree with your point.  I think constructive criticism of policies you don't agree with, together with positive suggestions for improvement, and for dealing with the challenge that the policy was meant to address, is the best course.

I don't advocate unquestioning support of government policies.  But what I see from the far left is not constructive criticism or positive suggestion, but strong negativity.

I fear that if we in the west don't get out act together soon, the threat from islamic fascism will rise to the point where it will take a calamitous war to put an end to it.  My fears have grown as Iran has emerged as a major regional power, intent on exporting its hateful ideology and using terror as a means to do so.  This never was just about hunting down shadowy terror groups, and it is even less so now.

The situation reminds me of pre-World War II, when the democracies spent their time arguing among themselves as the German threat grew.  The French, in particular, spent their time vociferously attacking whatever government happened to be in power, if it was of the opposition party.  And they ended up with nazi occupation.

I'd love to hear some proof that the far left doesn't disdain ordinary Americans, and cares more about safeguarding our freedom and security than it cares about hating President Bush.

[afleitch]

Thats okay

I think with Iran we have to be careful; we need to continue to hammer the point across that it is the President, not the people or the nation who is a threat. What was ironic was that until his election, Iran was taking baby steps towards progress; it was one of the few nations in the Middle East where students and youth (and it is a young country demographically) waved US flags in demonstrations, rather than burn them. Ahmadinejad has never had a popular base, so he tried to build one through lies and propaganda. He was elected (or appointed) Mayor of Tehran on a turnout that was less than 15%. It was apathy that propelled him to office both as mayor and as president and I hope that those young students, and remember they have a voting age of 16, who did not vote have realised the mistake they have made by the 'inaction'. I want to see policy that appeals to their values and their wishes for freedom and to counterbalance Ahmadinejad's self serving propaganda.

On a further note, its amazing how far a thread on flags in classroom can diverge I've probably not helped, so apologies.

[Alcon]

Well, since you have decided that I must prove to you that the left isn't subversive first, there's not much I can do.  I'm surrounded by liberal academics, and I don't see their distaste for the Bush administration or America's foreign policy action as any more "subversive" than the GOP's distaste for liberal American policies.

Do you not see many statements by people like Ann Coulter to be subversive, in that they challenge the First Amendment?  Like when Coulter said that the New York Times' editorial building should be destroyed?

[dazzleman]

Well, since you have decided that I must prove to you that the left isn't subversive first, there's not much I can do.  I'm surrounded by liberal academics, and I don't see their distaste for the Bush administration or America's foreign policy action as any more "subversive" than the GOP's distaste for liberal American policies.

Do you not see many statements by people like Ann Coulter to be subversive, in that they challenge the First Amendment?  Like when Coulter said that the New York Times' editorial building should be destroyed?

Alcon, don't you see you're proving my point?

All you need do is come up with a few examples of positive contributions that the left has made to the national discourse on the issue of defeating islamic fascist terrorism.

The problem is there really aren't any.  When it comes to this issue, the position of the left seems to be defined solely on what they hate.

And if you consider Coulter subversive, what about Michael Moore suggesting that the World Trade Center suicide bombers should only have picked targets in states the voted for Bush?  Aside from its sheer hatefulness, it shows his utter stupidity on two other levels -- 1. the WTC attack was planned long before Bush was president; it had nothing to do with Bush, but with the US; and 2. plenty of people who worked in the WTC voted for Bush, as did many people who work in NYC skyscrapers (believe me, I know).

[dazzleman]

Thats okay

I think with Iran we have to be careful; we need to continue to hammer the point across that it is the President, not the people or the nation who is a threat. What was ironic was that until his election, Iran was taking baby steps towards progress; it was one of the few nations in the Middle East where students and youth (and it is a young country demographically) waved US flags in demonstrations, rather than burn them. Ahmadinejad has never had a popular base, so he tried to build one through lies and propaganda. He was elected (or appointed) Mayor of Tehran on a turnout that was less than 15%. It was apathy that propelled him to office both as mayor and as president and I hope that those young students, and remember they have a voting age of 16, who did not vote have realised the mistake they have made by the 'inaction'. I want to see policy that appeals to their values and their wishes for freedom and to counterbalance Ahmadinejad's self serving propaganda.

On a further note, its amazing how far a thread on flags in classroom can diverge I've probably not helped, so apologies.

Andy, the answer you gave here is exactly the type of thing that should be happening.  We need to look at these problems from all angles and all viewpoints in order to arrive at the best possible solution.  Kudos for your response.

[Alcon]

What would you considered to be an example of the right adding to the "international discourse" on this issue?

If Moore said this (can you provide a source?), I consider it equally subversive.  But what relevance does that have to what Coulter said being subversive or not?

What would you consider adding to the "international discourse" that did not involve supporting military action?

[Smash255]

Well, since you have decided that I must prove to you that the left isn't subversive first, there's not much I can do.  I'm surrounded by liberal academics, and I don't see their distaste for the Bush administration or America's foreign policy action as any more "subversive" than the GOP's distaste for liberal American policies.

Do you not see many statements by people like Ann Coulter to be subversive, in that they challenge the First Amendment?  Like when Coulter said that the New York Times' editorial building should be destroyed?

Alcon, don't you see you're proving my point?

All you need do is come up with a few examples of positive contributions that the left has made to the national discourse on the issue of defeating islamic fascist terrorism.

The problem is there really aren't any.  When it comes to this issue, the position of the left seems to be defined solely on what they hate.

Umm what??  Something stated by many on the left who were opposed from the Iraq War from the strt (myself included) is that we should focus our attention, energy and Military on just that.  Those who are the greatesr threats to us, which are  islamic Fundamentalists and Facsists, and not on someone who wasn't.

But lets not let facts get in the way of your blinded hate....

[dazzleman]

Well, since you have decided that I must prove to you that the left isn't subversive first, there's not much I can do.  I'm surrounded by liberal academics, and I don't see their distaste for the Bush administration or America's foreign policy action as any more "subversive" than the GOP's distaste for liberal American policies.

Do you not see many statements by people like Ann Coulter to be subversive, in that they challenge the First Amendment?  Like when Coulter said that the New York Times' editorial building should be destroyed?

Alcon, don't you see you're proving my point?

All you need do is come up with a few examples of positive contributions that the left has made to the national discourse on the issue of defeating islamic fascist terrorism.

The problem is there really aren't any.  When it comes to this issue, the position of the left seems to be defined solely on what they hate.

Umm what??  Something stated by many on the left who were opposed from the Iraq War from the strt (myself included) is that we should focus our attention, energy and Military on just that.  Those who are the greatesr threats to us, which are  islamic Fundamentalists and Facsists, and not on someone who wasn't.

But lets not let facts get in the way of your blinded hate....

But what is your strategy?  In all honesty, and I mean no disrespect, I only see the left working to thwart any efforts to defeat islamic fascism.  Please point out some positive contributions, something that the left is for, rather than against, in order to eliminate the threat from this new form of fascism.

[dazzleman]

What would you considered to be an example of the right adding to the "international discourse" on this issue?

If Moore said this (can you provide a source?), I consider it equally subversive.  But what relevance does that have to what Coulter said being subversive or not?

What would you consider adding to the "international discourse" that did not involve supporting military action?

Alcon, why have you put "international discourse" in quotes?  I don't believe I used that term, whatever it means.

I don't want to get into arguing minutiae here.  I don't intend to look for a link to the Michael Moore quotes because I'm not that good at internet searches, but I'll believe you on Ann Coulter if you believe me on Micheal Moore.  In any case, it's tit for tat minutiae.

You still haven't answered my original question, which is to name some positive things that the left has supported and proposed in order to defeat islamic fascism.  And no, impeaching President Bush doesn't count.