My high school textbook seems politically biased and factually incorrect.

[Dr Grump]

I do that with my dog sometimes, try to figure out what she's thinking....

Well at least you're at the right level...

 

[Annie]

Dear Idiot,


when have you EVER been proven correct in your accessments of the effect of policy?

You and the republican party have been proven wrong on what you claimed the effect of policy would be.


Let me make this simple for you.


You and Your party have been proven historically wrong in the ideas you put forward.

You insist we use failed ideas.


You were voted down for just that reason.

Umm, Excuse me? I'm for intelligent debate, if I wanted to be yelled at with no basis I would have taken up debating with kids at my high school; I sorta thought the people on debate websites would understand that you don't get anywhere with your ideas if you demean everyone while sharing them.

And, no, for the most part, we have been right. Look at Lincoln. Look at Eisenhower. Look at Reagan.

Now do you want to do a proper response and tell me where I'm going wrong on saying my textbook is biased, or just act like Obama, Reid, and Pelosi's propaganda engines?

We've no proof of it, but seems one thing both the right and left agree with in general, TM is brain damaged, just ignore.

 

[Dr Grump]

Also, here's a paragraph that attempts to briefly describe the motives of the 9/11 terrorists, linking it to opposition of globalization:

"A much more extreme opposition to globalization led to the attack by al-Qaeda terrorists against the United States on September 11, 2001, with support of the Taliban then in control of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda selected targets- the World Trade Center and the Pentagon-they considered especially visible symbols of US domination of globalization trends in culture, politics, and economy. Afghanistan's Taliban leaders justified such actions as banning television and restricting women's activities as consistent with local traditions, and such punishments as public floggings and severing of limbs as a necessary counterbalance to strong forces of globalization."

Okay, there's nothing factually wrong here, I just think it left out a very important detail. It didn't mention the Taliban's and al-Qaedas religious beliefs, which are a very important detail to include because they pretty much control they're behavior. They don't restrict women's activities to stay consistent with "local traditions", as my textbook claims, they do it because of they're radical beliefs!

Their local traditions are their radical beliefs. Their traditions go back 1200 years. So no, it is not wrong.

I think the opposition to globalisation is pretty close to the mark, but I would put it more succinctly - they are pissed off at the US interferring in their part of the world, by either propping up, or enabling, tyrannical regimes..

 

[Dr Grump]

Umm, Excuse me? I'm for intelligent debate, if I wanted to be yelled at with no basis I would have taken up debating with kids at my high school; I sorta thought the people on debate websites would understand that you don't get anywhere with your ideas if you demean everyone while sharing them.

And, no, for the most part, we have been right. Look at Lincoln. Look at Eisenhower. Look at Reagan.

Now do you want to do a proper response and tell me where I'm going wrong on saying my textbook is biased, or just act like Obama, Reid, and Pelosi's propaganda engines?

Lincoln and Eisenhower would not recognise the repub party of today. And you can probably lay the blame -that's right, blame, not kudos - squarely at the feet of Raygun as to why your party is so unpopular these days..

 

[lizzie]

Okay so I've been thinking for a while now that my AP Human Geography textbook is biased or factually incorrect, but I wanted to see if other people agreed. Let me tell you why I think so. By the way, I'm a freshman in a public high school, so if they're distributing politically biased textbooks, they are acting in an unconstitutional manner..

you are neither smart enough nor knowledgeable enough to have an opinion on what is 'biased'.

the text book isn't biased. you are.

and you should be sent to your room without supper.

now go study and learn something.

my son is a sophmore in a public high school and i'd whup him if he sounded as silly as you.

(although i do applaud your being political... even if you're still ignorant).

Okay...I'm not sure whether to be offended or think that you actually agree with me that they're is bias going on here. Tell me, specifically why am I wrong about these parts of my textbook being biased and incorrect?

You aren't wrong, and now you see why you find bias in textbooks. They are written with ideology and agenda in mind, rather than objective facts.

 

[Politicskid]

Dear Idiot,


when have you EVER been proven correct in your accessments of the effect of policy?

You and the republican party have been proven wrong on what you claimed the effect of policy would be.


Let me make this simple for you.


You and Your party have been proven historically wrong in the ideas you put forward.

You insist we use failed ideas.


You were voted down for just that reason.

Umm, Excuse me? I'm for intelligent debate, if I wanted to be yelled at with no basis I would have taken up debating with kids at my high school; I sorta thought the people on debate websites would understand that you don't get anywhere with your ideas if you demean everyone while sharing them.

And, no, for the most part, we have been right. Look at Lincoln. Look at Eisenhower. Look at Reagan.

Now do you want to do a proper response and tell me where I'm going wrong on saying my textbook is biased, or just act like Obama, Reid, and Pelosi's propaganda engines?

We've no proof of it, but seems one thing both the right and left agree with in general, TM is brain damaged, just ignore.

He needs a new name. How about "Propaganda Matters"?

 

[daveman]

Umm, Excuse me? I'm for intelligent debate, if I wanted to be yelled at with no basis I would have taken up debating with kids at my high school; I sorta thought the people on debate websites would understand that you don't get anywhere with your ideas if you demean everyone while sharing them.

And, no, for the most part, we have been right. Look at Lincoln. Look at Eisenhower. Look at Reagan.

Now do you want to do a proper response and tell me where I'm going wrong on saying my textbook is biased, or just act like Obama, Reid, and Pelosi's propaganda engines?

Lincoln and Eisenhower would not recognise the repub party of today. And you can probably lay the blame -that's right, blame, not kudos - squarely at the feet of Raygun as to why your party is so unpopular these days..

Yes, the GOP is so unpopular it lost the White House by only a few percentage points, and kept the House.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Deflection, concern troll, does not work on this Board well.

Well the concern troll kid is simply repeating the mantra.

Why do you seem to think that because I'm younger than you, I'm incapable of critical thinking? Do you deny that my original post here took some independent thought?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Actually, . . . WH: 2mm plus votes and 332 to 206 EC, and added two seats to the Senate for the Dems.

Stay accurate, slim, yes, it was a mandate for Bush in 2000 and Obama today.

Obama is office because of folks like you, daveman, who hurt our candidate's chances.

Umm, Excuse me? I'm for intelligent debate, if I wanted to be yelled at with no basis I would have taken up debating with kids at my high school; I sorta thought the people on debate websites would understand that you don't get anywhere with your ideas if you demean everyone while sharing them.

And, no, for the most part, we have been right. Look at Lincoln. Look at Eisenhower. Look at Reagan.

Now do you want to do a proper response and tell me where I'm going wrong on saying my textbook is biased, or just act like Obama, Reid, and Pelosi's propaganda engines?

Lincoln and Eisenhower would not recognise the repub party of today. And you can probably lay the blame -that's right, blame, not kudos - squarely at the feet of Raygun as to why your party is so unpopular these days..

Yes, the GOP is so unpopular it lost the White House by only a few percentage points, and kept the House.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why do you seem to think that because I'm younger than you, I'm incapable of critical thinking? Do you deny that my original post here took some independent thought?

No worries, it's Jakematters who is incapable of thought.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well at least you're at the right level...

If I want to communicate with a dumb animal, I post with you...

 

[daveman]

Actually, . . . WH: 2mm plus votes and 332 to 206 EC, and added two seats to the Senate for the Dems.

Stay accurate, slim, yes, it was a mandate for Bush in 2000 and Obama today.

Obama is office because of folks like you, daveman, who hurt our candidate's chances.

Yes, and we all know you had a tingle down your leg when Mitt conceded.

Obama boot-licker.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Says the champion nose-diver of the AF.

Actually, . . . WH: 2mm plus votes and 332 to 206 EC, and added two seats to the Senate for the Dems.

Stay accurate, slim, yes, it was a mandate for Bush in 2000 and Obama today.

Obama is office because of folks like you, daveman, who hurt our candidate's chances.

Yes, and we all know you had a tingle down your leg when Mitt conceded.

Obama boot-licker.

 

[daveman]

Says the champion nose-diver of the AF.

See, you can't even make up interesting insults.

Dumbass kid.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Don't have to. As scum is, scum does, and you daveman are extremist right scum.

 

[Ernie S.]

Why do you seem to think that because I'm younger than you, I'm incapable of critical thinking? Do you deny that my original post here took some independent thought?

No worries, it's Jakematters who is incapable of thought.

Fake hates any thought that isn't completely devoid of conviction.I have far more respect for a hopeless Liberal like Jillian, than I do for Fake. At least she is firm in her convictions. Fake is firm only in his desire to be without convictions at all.
I call people like him, "radical Moderates"

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are a far right wack extremist, whose political philosophy is not worth much more than a second's consideration.

I am firm in my conviction to help rid the GOP of the haters and their nonsense threatening to turn a great party into a skid row imitation of it, drunken and stumbling along.

Why do you seem to think that because I'm younger than you, I'm incapable of critical thinking? Do you deny that my original post here took some independent thought?

No worries, it's Jakematters who is incapable of thought.

Fake hates any thought that isn't completely devoid of conviction.I have far more respect for a hopeless Liberal like Jillian, than I do for Fake. At least she is firm in her convictions. Fake is firm only in his desire to be without convictions at all.
I call people like him, "radical Moderates"

 

[Unkotare]

I am firm in my conviction to help rid the GOP of the haters and their nonsense

You are firmly full of shit, democrat.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thus we see the mediocrity and nonsense from one of the silly haters on the extreme edge of our GOP. Martinez, Boehner, Rubio, Christie, Jindall, and the rest are saying you guys have to change, that we will not be the "party of stupid", anymore. Either change or you will be dismissed. Probably the later, because haters hate.

Now watch Unkotare post something very foolish below.

I am firm in my conviction to help rid the GOP of the haters and their nonsense

You are firmly full of shit, democrat.

 

[Unkotare]

Thus we see the mediocrity and nonsense from one of the silly haters on the extreme edge of our GOP.

There is no "our GOP" as far as you are concerned, Lefty. Nobody is buying your little act, so you are only performing for yourself.



Your audience is an ignorant fool.