# Why Professors are Predominantly leftist.



## PoliticalChic (Apr 16, 2010)

Why Professors are Predominantly leftist.
Thomas C. Reeves

"Polls and studies have shown consistently that professors, especially in the humanities and social sciences, side with the Left in political and cultural matters. So do public schoolteachers, whose unions are major contributors to the Democratic Party. This bias contrasts sharply, of course, with the dispassionate search for truth that scholars and teachers claim to revere. There are many reasons, no doubt, for the bent shown by professors in the humanities and social sciences, but the most obvious, it seems to me, is envy.

1.	Take the issue of money--always a good place to begin with things American. Academics outside business and the sciences often labor for many long years in college and graduate school in order to obtain a doctorate. More than a few collect their diplomas sporting some gray in their hair along with a briefcase full of debts. If we are lucky enough to land a tenure-track position in higher education, a large "if" over the last four decades, we frequently start at a salary that a skilled blue collar worker might expect a few years out of high school. Don't think about salaries at Harvard; consult the data on most academics published in the Chronicle of Higher Education. A friend's son, a brand new pharmacist, recently started work at a local drug store with a salary that exceeded my University of Wisconsin System salary when I retired as a full professor.

2.	And so many of us move into older, deteriorating, often dangerous areas, telling all who listen that we made the choice deliberately and that we, being humanists, have a natural desire to live among the poor and oppressed. In my experience, some English and anthropology professors actually believe this nonsense, and enjoy dressing as factory workers and displaying furniture obviously purchased at a rummage sale.

3.	The education of the professor's children is another sticky point. Good private schools are out of reach financially, and religious schools are, well, religious. That leaves the public schools, which all good humanists officially champion. Those who know better feel obligated to remind colleagues and neighbors that young people learn a lot about "real life" while evading bullies, drug dealers, and gangs, and being instructed by teachers whose true calling in life was employment at Wal-Mart.

4.	Many academics not only envy people with money, but also those who enjoy political authority. Professors are more confident than most that they have the truth and are convinced that, if given the opportunity, they would rule with intelligence, justice, and compassion. The trouble is that few Americans, at least since the time of Andrew Jackson, will vote for intellectuals. (The widespread assumption that Presidents who have Ivy League degrees are intellectuals is highly debatable. The Left declared consistently that George W. Bush, who had diplomas from Yale and Harvard, was mentally challenged. Barak Obama, who was not really a professor, has sealed his academic records.)

5.	(To see how intelligently and objectively academics use the authority they have, examine the political correctness that suffocates the employment practices and intellectual lives of almost all American campuses. Aberlour's Fifth Law: "Political correctness is totalitarianism with a diploma.")

6.	Thirdly, there is the issue of occupational mobility and professional advancement. High income neighborhoods have constant turnover because of promotions and advancement. Professors, on the other hand, are more often than not (especially the white males) stuck on a campus for many years without a prayer of moving up or outWatching their former students scale the heights of prosperity and power can cause considerable chagrin.

7.	One way to compensate for this bleak and futureless existence is to become involved in left-wing causes. They give us a sense of identity in a world seemingly owned and operated by Rotarians. And they provide us with hope. In big government we trust, for with the election of sufficiently enlightened officials, we might gain full medical coverage, employment for our children, and good pensions. These same leftist leaders might redistribute income "fairly," by taking wealth from the "greedy" and giving it to those of us who want more of everything. A "just" world might be created in which sociologists, political scientists, botanists, and romance language professors would achieve the greatness that should be theirs."

MercatorNet: What do professors want?


----------



## Anguille (Apr 16, 2010)

*Why Professors are Predominantly &#8216;leftist&#8217; ?*

Because they have brains.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 16, 2010)

The OP is dead on.

Anguille, per usual, is backwards and at odds with reality. Liberalism does not equate brains, or socialist countries would be shining beacons of success.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Apr 16, 2010)

Anguille said:


> *Why Professors are Predominantly leftist ?*
> 
> Because they have brains.



Really? I think thats debatable.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 16, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > *Why Professors are Predominantly leftist ?*
> ...


Only to the mindless.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 16, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Why Professors are Predominantly leftist.
> Thomas C. Reeves


Mr Reeves is just jealous.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 16, 2010)

We're all jealous. Who wouldn't want to be poor, bitter, and deluded?


----------



## Ravi (Apr 16, 2010)

> 6.	Thirdly,



wtf?


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 16, 2010)

Here we are again with the right SPEWING HATE  on any education and the people who seek education.

The facts have a liberal bias.

That is why educated people lean left.

When a group of people tell you education is bad for you and EXAULT  the people with the most money as the best people in a society and that everyone who doesnt agree with the wealthy is just envious and has nothing good to say then you can surely bet those people are the Kingmakers lackeys.


The right wants you to HATE and devalue education, science, news reporters, people who are anti war and anyone or anything that would demminish the power of the WEALTHIEST members of our society.

They want you uneducated, uninformed, believing any myth they say and ready to die for it.


Just how stupid can people be?


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 16, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Liberalism does not equate brains, or socialist countries would be shining beacons of success.



Non sequitur


that's like saying 'Apples aren't delicious, otherwise Allie would like peaches'


----------



## del (Apr 16, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Here we are again with the right SPEWING HATE  on any education and the people who seek education.
> 
> The facts have a liberal bias.
> 
> ...



<biting tongue>


----------



## Oddball (Apr 16, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Here we are again with the right SPEWING HATE  on any education and the people who seek education.
> 
> The facts have a liberal bias.
> 
> ...


Wrong again, dingbat.

People in general like intellectuals and smart people...It's academic snobs that they loathe and mistrust.

There's a HUGE difference.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 16, 2010)

No one is stopping cons from being teachers except themselves.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 16, 2010)

Why would the objects of such overt disdain of academe hang around?


----------



## Ravi (Apr 16, 2010)

Dude said:


> Why would the objects of such overt disdain of academe hang around?


Why are you here?


----------



## Oddball (Apr 16, 2010)

Don't quit your day job.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Apr 16, 2010)

Ravi said:


> No one is stopping cons from being teachers except themselves.



Yep.  And Conservatives have an enormous amount of power using the pocket book if they don't like the political composition of higher education.  Send your child to a different school that is more palable to your tastes.  Give money to Conservative think tanks and encourage them to offer grants to professors in line with their views (Grant money is a powerful influence on the tenure process).  And that's just a start.

There are a lot of factors stopping Teachers from voting Republican or leaning Right however.  If you're in education, you know the value of education.  Most Republicans once elected will opt to cut Education when budget balancing time comes.  Motivated self interest assures that if you value education, you won't vote for a party that prioritizes it for cuts when times are lean.


----------



## Si modo (Apr 16, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Here we are again with the right SPEWING HATE ....


Could you please point out that 'hate' you see in the OP?  I'm having a bit of a hard time seeing it.  I'm not quite on your wavelength there, so help me out.


----------



## Si modo (Apr 16, 2010)

Dude said:


> Why would the objects of such overt disdain of academe hang around?


Abso-freaking-lutely.  A main reason I got out.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 16, 2010)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > No one is stopping cons from being teachers except themselves.
> ...


And what of the enormous amount of money that could be spent on education their kids, that is expropriated from them to support gubmint schools that teach values incompatible with those tastes? 



Dr.Traveler said:


> There are a lot of factors stopping Teachers from voting Republican or leaning Right however.  If you're in education, you know the value of education.  Most Republicans once elected will opt to cut Education when budget balancing time comes.  Motivated self interest assures that if you value education, you won't vote for a party that prioritizes it for cuts when times are lean.


Right...The parasites seldom vote to cut themselves  off from the host.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Apr 16, 2010)

Dude said:


> Why would the objects of such overt disdain of academe hang around?



Why do soldiers stay in hostile nations?  Why do Christian missionaries stay in non-Christian nations?

If you believe that your job is important, and the message you're sending out is important, you stick it out.

And there are a lot of things that Conservatives could do to support Conservative voices in academia.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 16, 2010)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > No one is stopping cons from being teachers except themselves.
> ...


Hey, that beats whining about it doesn't it?


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Apr 16, 2010)

Dude said:


> Right...The parasites seldom vote to cut themselves  off from the host.



You don't vote for Democrats because you see that as voting against your own self interest.  Its the exact same thing.

I was a Republican most of my life.  If DeLay/Frist/Bush hadn't pushed me out of the GOP with their insane hypocrisy, I'd have probably left it by now already thanks to the GOP's general attitude towards education.  I value education and research.  The GOP doesn't seem to share my values.  Why should I vote for them?

If the GOP wants more Conservative teachers, you may want to make your message more palatible to teachers.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 16, 2010)

Maybe those types aren't motivated by their politics first and foremost.

Maybe they want to move on, live their lives and be left alone by the ivory tower technocratic know-it-alls of academe.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Apr 16, 2010)

Dude said:


> And what of the enormous amount of money that could be spent on education their kids, that is expropriated from them to support gubmint schools that teach values incompatible with those tastes?



That's a whole different topic than what I was talking about.  You're talking about a voucher system, and you may be surprised to find I support that.  Most of the states in the Union have a voucher system of some kind running in Higher Education (Look for scholarships to state institutions).  I believe that it should be possible to give parents more choice on where their students go to school without all of the doom and gloom that people assure us will result.


----------



## Si modo (Apr 16, 2010)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Why would the objects of such overt disdain of academe hang around?
> ...


Because the 'war' I went in fighting was ignorance of organic chemistry, not politics.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 16, 2010)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > And what of the enormous amount of money that could be spent on education their kids, that is expropriated from them to support gubmint schools that teach values incompatible with those tastes?
> ...


I'm talking about nothing of the sort...I'm talking about people paying out-of-pocket for services rendered.

Vouchers are nothing more than food stamps for schools.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Apr 16, 2010)

Dude said:


> Maybe those types aren't motivated by their politics first and foremost.
> 
> Maybe they want to move on, live their lives and be left alone by the ivory tower technocratic know-it-alls of academe.



So you're saying they don't believe in the value their beliefs and profession as highly, and have other motivations?

Then that's a problem for Conservatives, and there are ways you could support, right now at this moment, Conservative teachers who DO value their political beliefs and profession high enough to stick it out.

I'm not being snarky, but I think you're probably closer to explaining why Professors are leftist than the OP.  The Leftists simply belive in their jobs and political beliefs more and are therefore more willing to stick out crappy pay and crappy hours.

I know I could leave my job for an 8 to 5 job and make a LOT more money.  But I like my job and think its important.  So I stick it out.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 16, 2010)

Dude said:


> Maybe those types aren't motivated by their politics first and foremost.
> 
> Maybe they want to move on, live their lives and be left alone by the ivory tower technocratic know-it-alls of academe.


Then they can stop bitching about 'the ivory tower technocratic know-it-alls of academe', since they have no desire to do anything to change it.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 16, 2010)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe those types aren't motivated by their politics first and foremost.
> ...


I fail to see how the general mindset that you're doing everyone else a big fat favor by your mere existence is constructively instructive to anyone.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Apr 16, 2010)

Dude said:


> I'm talking about nothing of the sort...I'm talking about people paying out-of-pocket for services rendered.
> 
> Vouchers are nothing more than food stamps for schools.



Ahhh... 

I'm in favor of that as long as you make education available to those that can't afford it.  Education coupled with hard work is the single best way to improve your lot in life.  I grew up below the poverty line and I'm now upper middle class.  My child has a life that is so much better than my own childhood that its impossible to compare the two.  That was all made possible by a VERY good public education.

That's why I find the state of Public Education important.  Education should open doors, but a lot of students I'm seeing come out of Public education end up just trapped in poverty.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Apr 16, 2010)

Dude said:


> I fail to see how the general mindset that you're doing everyone else a big fat favor by your mere existence is constructively instructive to anyone.



I'm good at my job.  Very good.  So yeah, continuing to do it is a benefit to my community.

Call it ego if you want, but its ego based in fact.  If I didn't know I was good at my job, I'd have left it for a better paying job a long time ago.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 16, 2010)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > I'm talking about nothing of the sort...I'm talking about people paying out-of-pocket for services rendered.
> ...


Food and clothing are available the same way, and we have  no starving naked chilluns running around.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Apr 16, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Because the 'war' I went in fighting was ignorance of organic chemistry, not politics.



Then fight that war.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 16, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe those types aren't motivated by their politics first and foremost.
> ...


The way to change it is make academe subject to market forces...Which it currently isn't.

Now, get back to class, you little putz.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 16, 2010)

Dude said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Here we are again with the right SPEWING HATE  on any education and the people who seek education.
> ...



The right spews hate on teacher and professors all day long.

They deny science whenever they dont like the results the science finds.

They rail against universities and their studies.

They rewrite History to suit their political aims all the time.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 16, 2010)

That, Dude, its due in large part the food stamps and other social programs.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 16, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...


I don't hate the skunk merely because I do not like its smell.

Get a grip, dingbat.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 16, 2010)

Dude said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...




Really? Not subject to market forces? The rich can send their kids to any school they want and vouchers help poorer people do the same. That *is* subjecting them to market forces, as those schools nobody wants to go to are clearly failing. Let me guess, you want to further cut funding to the schools that perform poorly so they can't woo better teachers or get new materials?


----------



## Si modo (Apr 16, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



Answer the question, idiot.  Or stop polluting the thread with your moronic posts.





Si modo said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Here we are again with the right SPEWING HATE ....
> ...


----------



## Ravi (Apr 16, 2010)

Dude said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


 What an egotistical twit you are...looking down your nose at everyone and whining that others are looking down their nose at you.


----------



## Samson (Apr 16, 2010)

Dude said:


> Maybe those types aren't motivated by their politics first and foremost.
> 
> Maybe they want to move on, live their lives and be left alone by the ivory tower technocratic know-it-alls of academe.



Maybe they couldn't "get any' from underclassmen/wimmin?


----------



## Si modo (Apr 16, 2010)

JBLeukemia and Truthmatters are posting.  There goes the neighborhood.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Apr 16, 2010)

Dude said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Higher Education is pretty close to Free Market all told.  Students can go anywhere they wish, study what they want, as long as they can pay for it.  If a school charges insane tuition, its because they know people will pay it.  If people stop paying, the tuition will have to go down.  If  a school offers "Women's Studies" classes it is because they know people will take it.  If people don't take it, the classes don't make and the professor is let go.  (Termination of a degree program can null even Tenure).

It certainly could get closer to Free Market, and there's pushes in many many states to do that.  The only thing that is really "Non-Free Market" about Higher education right now is the scholarship and GI money flowing into the system.  And even that has a reason to be there and often will follow a student if they change schools (with in reason).


----------



## Samson (Apr 16, 2010)

Dude said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



You've tasted them too, huh.

Yep, nothing like skunk.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Apr 16, 2010)

Dude said:


> Food and clothing are available the same way, and we have  no starving naked chilluns running around.



There are plenty of starving children around.  Way too many to be blunt about it.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 16, 2010)

Si modo said:


> JBLeukemia and Truthmatters are posting.  There goes the neighborhood.




I brilliant and eloquent rebuttal


----------



## Oddball (Apr 16, 2010)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Higher Education is pretty close to Free Market all told.  Students can go anywhere they wish, study what they want, as long as they can pay for it.  If a school charges insane tuition, its because they know people will pay it.  If people stop paying, the tuition will have to go down.  If  a school offers "Women's Studies" classes it is because they know people will take it.  If people don't take it, the classes don't make and the professor is let go.  (Termination of a degree program can null even Tenure).
> 
> It certainly could get closer to Free Market, and there's pushes in many many states to do that.  The only thing that is really "Non-Free Market" about Higher education right now is the scholarship and GI money flowing into the system.  And even that has a reason to be there and often will follow a student if they change schools (with in reason).


Like hell it is.

If grocery stores had things like state funding, Pell Grants and various and sundry other freebies to fund them, hamburger would likely run about $20.00 lb.

Funny, though, how nobody seems to whine-n-cry about academic "price gouging".


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 16, 2010)

So, basically, Dude is complaining because only the rich should be able to go to university?


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Apr 16, 2010)

Dude said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Higher Education is pretty close to Free Market all told.  Students can go anywhere they wish, study what they want, as long as they can pay for it.  If a school charges insane tuition, its because they know people will pay it.  If people stop paying, the tuition will have to go down.  If  a school offers "Women's Studies" classes it is because they know people will take it.  If people don't take it, the classes don't make and the professor is let go.  (Termination of a degree program can null even Tenure).
> ...



The products in the Grocery store DO have a lot of funding behind them, and items in the grocery store often have tax breaks associated to them (in most states there is no sales taxes on "essentials").  Many states have "Tax Holidays" that benefit grocery stores by encouraging consumers to purchase items and stock up.

There essentially is no completely "Free Market" industry in the United States (though Hollywood may come the closest), but the freedom a student has to choose where they go for a post HS degree puts a lot of free market forces into play in Higher Education.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 16, 2010)

> There essentially is not completely "Free Market" in the United States



The US has a mixed economy

There are people who don't know this?


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 16, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Here we are again with the right SPEWING HATE  on any education and the people who seek education.
> 
> The facts have a liberal bias.
> 
> ...


I don't know...  How stupid CAN people be?  Or is this rhetorical?

But thank you for being illustrative on that point. People will have to work to be dumber than this post.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 16, 2010)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Traveler said:
> ...



Granted that although there are numerous subsidies etcetera that end up going to Big Food, they pale in comparison to the state funded moochery that goes on in higher education.

Another aspect of why academe is predominantly leftist are teacher's unions, which  foster the collectivist mindset ethos within the ranks...Inject contracted fee-for-service "free agent" teachers into the equation (which the unions wouldn't _*dare*_ stand for) and the whole situation would reorder itself.


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 16, 2010)

more likely because reality has a liberal bias, they teach facts, not talking points and ideology.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Apr 16, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> > There essentially is not completely "Free Market" in the United States
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There are a lot of people that don't.  No industry in the US is completely Free Market.  I doubt there's an industry anywhere in the world that is, as Free Markets tend towards Monopolies, and monopolies are frequently more than willing to use political, economic, and military power to reduce competition.  Without a referee, anything even remotely similar to a Free Market will deteriorate, with a referee, it isn't Free Market.  Such is life.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 16, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> more likely because reality has a liberal bias, they teach facts, not talking points and ideology.


Oh, Harriet!


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 16, 2010)

Anguille said:


> *Why Professors are Predominantly leftist ?*
> 
> Because they have brains.



And they are honest, more often than not its the conservatives, especially on this forum, that twist the truth and lie and spout talking points over reality


----------



## Wry Catcher (Apr 16, 2010)

Why are professors progressive?
For the same reason Journalists are primarily a bit left of center, both professors and journalists have IQ's generally 120 and above.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 16, 2010)

Dr.Traveler said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > > There essentially is not completely "Free Market" in the United States
> ...


Wow....Speaking of leftist talking points that won't die.

Monopolies _*depend*_ upon outside aggression (most often from politicians and bureaucrats) in an otherwise free market.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Apr 16, 2010)

Dude said:


> Granted that although there are numerous subsidies etcetera that end up going to Big Food, they pale in comparison to the state funded moochery that goes on in higher education.
> 
> Another aspect of why academe is predominantly leftist are teacher's unions, which  foster the collectivist mindset ethos within the ranks...Inject contracted fee-for-service "free agent" teachers into the equation (which the unions wouldn't _*dare*_ stand for) and the whole situation would reorder itself.



They exsist in Higher Education (though they don't in Public K-12).  Adjuncts, Teaching Assistants, and Lecturers are contracted, non-tenured, fee for service free agents.  On top of that you have the non-Tenure track Visiting Professors who are typically on a year to year contract basis.  This may differ State to State, but they aren't union (I've had most of those jobs and was never in a union).  In fact, where I'm at there is no "Teacher's Union" at the higher education level.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 16, 2010)

Dude said:


> =
> 
> Monopolies _*depend*_ upon outside aggression (most often from politicians and bureaucrats) in an otherwise free market.




Actually, it took outside intervention from the State to break the monopolies and trusts.

hence anti-trust....

How do people in america not know this stuff?


----------



## Oddball (Apr 16, 2010)

Wry Catcher said:


> Why are professors progressive?
> For the same reason Journalists are primarily a bit left of center, both professors and journalists have IQ's generally 120 and above.


Right...The believe that they're smarter and everyone else, to the point that they can direct everyone else's lives, therefore the must be. 

IOW, they're above-board snobs.


----------



## Samson (Apr 16, 2010)

Hated because you are Jealous Fuckers who wish you had a job that allowed you to meet lots of 20-something wimmins, and gave you time to write government grants:



> You see, the downside to all of these government grants funding programs is that with so many of them, it can be very time-consuming to find the ones that you qualify for and get through all of the ones that you don&#8217;t.  That is precisely why Federal Grant Source exists &#8211; to help you quickly and easily find grants that apply to you, and then take you through all of the necessary steps in order to get that money in your hands.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 16, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > =
> ...


Right...They create the monopolies, via things like mineral rights awards and right-of-way regulation, then ride in on the white charger to "save" us all.

Twain was right....What you "know" that just ain't so.


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 16, 2010)

Wry Catcher said:


> Why are professors progressive?
> For the same reason Journalists are primarily a bit left of center, both professors and journalists have IQ's generally 120 and above.



Yup, journalist report the facts, hence they have a "liberal bias". Universities teach the facts, hence they have a "liberal bias"


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Apr 16, 2010)

Dude said:


> Monopolies _*depend*_ upon outside aggression (most often from politicians and bureaucrats) in an otherwise free market.



I think we're in a Chicken and Egg argument here.  Monopolies often form because the company that eventually forms the monopoly had the best product at the best price. They then have financial resources they can turn into political power which they use to protect their advantage.  Monopolies do depend on outside factors that often *they* bring into the game.

There are exceptions (government mandated monopolies), but often a monopoly forms under free market competition, and perpetuates their advantage by sabotaging the Free Market the first chance they get.

That's why Free Markets are the unicorns of Finance.  To have one, you have to have a mechanism to protect competition.  Once you have that, it isn't a Free Market anymore.  At best its a hybrid.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 16, 2010)

Dude said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Here we are again with the right SPEWING HATE  on any education and the people who seek education.
> ...


Lemme distill that for you.

People hate elitists.  

But to elucidate even more...

People hate elitists, particularly those who abuse their power over others.  Specifically, newly minted graduates and children who find themselves captive audiences to megalomaniacs in tweed who have no justification for their ego as well.  For they have done nothing worthy of meriting what the REAL world would call 'achievement'.


----------



## Defiant1 (Apr 16, 2010)

It's really simple:

Those that can, do.  Those that can't, teach.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 16, 2010)

Looks to me that Dude is pointing out that because of screwed up leftist theories of what a market is, combined with the envy of educators towards those who DO achieve and make money, prices are artificially high with little reason for it.

Personally, I think it'd be fun to make all tax supported university unable to charge tuition.  Free to all LEGAL citizens, or they' have to go private and get no tax money.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Apr 16, 2010)

Samson said:


> Hated because you are Jealous Fuckers who wish you had a job that allowed you to meet lots of 20-something wimmins, and gave you time to write government grants:



I have to say, that any romantic interest you might have in a 20 something goes away after about 20 minutes of conversation.  And if you're just looking to get laid by a 20 something, becoming a professor is working too hard.  Just get a bartender's job at the local college bar.  Its a lot easier, a lot less hours, and you'll meet more girls than you will in a classroom.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 16, 2010)

Defiant1 said:


> It's really simple:
> 
> Those that can, do.  Those that can't, teach.


and those who can't teach, report.  Those who can't report, blog.


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 16, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...




You know what's even worse? Ignorant elitists  Those that are completely misinformed, uneducated and ignorant that think they are smarter than others when in fact they are vastly inferior.

Educated or not, most people don't like arrogant assholes that think they are better than everybody else,  of any kind.

And the majority of college professors and PhDs in general are really modest and nice people.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 16, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> more likely because reality has a liberal bias, they teach facts, not talking points and ideology.


Okay, we've found a dumber post.  Good effort Dr. Gregg.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 16, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


You really shouldn't post while looking in the mirror "Dr.".


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 16, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > more likely because reality has a liberal bias, they teach facts, not talking points and ideology.
> ...



Brilliant retort I suppose this is what you call a smart post? 

Journalists report facts, universities report facts.  Conservatives cry its liberal bias, what's not factual about that?


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 16, 2010)

I think maybe they never met many proffs


----------



## xotoxi (Apr 16, 2010)

Ravi said:


> > 6.    Thirdly,
> 
> 
> 
> wtf?


 
I was wondering the same thing.

Then I remembered that this is one of Political Chic's signature copy and paste threads, and she just screwed up with the numbering.


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 16, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



and you wonder why people complain about elitists when they think responses like this are intelligent responses  THey know they are lacking in intelligence and are jealous


----------



## Samson (Apr 16, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> I think maybe they never met many proffs



I think maybe that you are a turnip.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 16, 2010)

Anguille said:


> *Why Professors are Predominantly leftist ?*
> 
> Because they have brains.



Perhaps you missed this sentence:
"This bias contrasts sharply, of course, with the dispassionate search for truth that scholars and teachers claim to revere."


----------



## Oddball (Apr 16, 2010)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Monopolies _*depend*_ upon outside aggression (most often from politicians and bureaucrats) in an otherwise free market.
> ...


Not at all.

The freest of markets tend toward what's known as the rule of threes. That being in any free marketplace, the big players will generally winnow themselves down or merge up to three big players (i.e. McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's or Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Target), with the smaller players more generally tending toward regional, local and/or niche markets.

Conversely, without gubmint granted rights-of-way and mineral rights to be bought off, people like the Rockefellers could never amassed their monopoly powers over the railroad and oil markets.


----------



## Bfgrn (Apr 16, 2010)

Why Professors are Predominantly &#8216;leftist.&#8217; 

There is not a truth existing which I fear... or would wish unknown to the whole world. 
Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 16, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Gregg said:
> ...


Right... jealous of a self aggrandized global disaster cargo cultist leftwing nutter.

What's not to love?  Do you have to check your ego with your luggage when you travel or is it better to ship it by rail because it's too heavy to fly?

Note, I'm not the one with an inferiority complex claiming to be a doctor.


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 16, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



and he digs himself deeper into the idiocy 

No need to claim anything, my transcripts do it for me.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 16, 2010)

Ravi said:


> No one is stopping cons from being teachers except themselves.



I can only interpret this comment as either naivete or dishonesty, and I'll let you decide which it is.

From "The Death of Feminism," by Chesler:

"Academic feminists who received tenure, promotion, and funding, tended to be pro-abortion, pro-pornography (anti-censorship), pro-prostitution (pro-sex workers), pro-surrogacy, and anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, and anti-Americanproponents of simplistic gender-neutrality (women and men are exactly the same) or essentialist: men and women are completely different, and women are better. They are loyal to their careers and their cliques, not to the truth.  [In their writing, they] have pretended that brilliance and originality can best be conveyed in a secret, Mandarin language that absolutely no one, including themselves, can possibly understandand this obfuscation of language has been employed to hide a considerable lack of brilliance and originality and to avoid the consequences of making oneself clear."


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 16, 2010)

Education is good for all people.

Hating on people for being educated is an idiots persuit


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 16, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Gregg said:
> ...


Why yes... yes they do.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 16, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Education is good for all people.
> 
> Hating on people for being educated is an idiots persuit


Nobody is hating on anyone, dingbat.

Unless, of course, you consider pointing out the blatant and obvious collectivist leftist bias in academe as "hate".


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 16, 2010)

Dude said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Education is good for all people.
> ...



ACtually more like you guys hating on the fact that facts often don't support your stances and beliefs, hence why you try to demonize those that are well educated and aware of the facts


----------



## Oddball (Apr 16, 2010)

Of course, socialist authoritarian useful idiot goobers like you don't mind monopolies when laying claim to having the "facts".


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 16, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Why are professors progressive?
> ...



Let's just see how your post computes in the real world...

I heard the original interview and found this excerpt on the net. Here is one of your journalists, or, as I like to call them, stenographers, 'reporting the facts.'

"November 11, 2008 
Historian Michael Beschloss was interviewed Monday on Don Imus radio show and he made the claim that President-elect Obamas IQ is off the charts and that he is the smartest president we have ever had. Here is the meat of the conversation:
Quote:
Historian Michael Beschloss: Yeah. Even aside from the fact of electing the first African American President and whatever ones partisan views this is a guy whose IQ is off the charts  I mean you cannot say that he is anything but a very serious and capable leader and  you know  You and I have talked about this for years 

Imus: Well. What is his IQ?

Historian Michael Beschloss:  our system doesnt allow those people to become President, those people meaning people THAT smart and THAT capable

Imus: What is his IQ?

Historian Michael Beschloss: Pardon?

Imus: What is his IQ?

Historian Michael Beschloss: Uh. I would say its probably - hes probably the smartest guy ever to become President. 

You can find the full audio on the show here. WTKK - Imus In The Morning, 96.9 WTKK, Boston*-*Imus in the Morning guest: Michael Beschloss 11/10/08

You have to fast forward to about 13 minutes in to get the good stuff. So Im thinking that I would like to know the historians IQ. Im thinking that its somewhere around catatonic or idiot. Too much Kool-Aid. How can someone claim that an IQ is off the charts when they dont even know what that persons IQ is and for that matter, where the hell are Obamas school records period? Did he even have good grades? Did he have good grades when he was snorting cocaine? Hes hiding all his transcripts in his bid to be transparent, so well never know. And what is even more laughable - does this Beschloss guy even know the IQs of any of the presidents. You know that Reagan sure was an idiot. And how about that Jefferson guy, all he could do was write a Declaration of Independence. 

Washington sure was stupid, he was just a military genius. And Madison, dont even get me started. Obama hasnt done a damn thing yet and he is already a genius and I heard some poll today that has a 60%+ approval rating for him. Never mind that he only got 52% of the vote."


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Apr 16, 2010)

Dude said:


> [
> Not at all.
> 
> The freest of markets tend toward what's known as the rule of threes. That being in any free marketplace, the big players will generally winnow themselves down or merge up to three big players (i.e. McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's or Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Target), with the smaller players more generally tending toward regional, local and/or niche markets.
> ...



Ok, I follow where you're coming from.  Let's assume you're correct.  Even in this scenario, from what I've seen the "Big Three" have a tendancy to do their best to sabotage the Free Market as quick as possible by keeping down competitors through price fixing, or turning economic resources into political resources they can then use to gain an advantage in the market place.

In the end, the result is the same.  the Free Market undermined unless you have a referee to keep competition free.  That's why I assert you can't find a truly "Free Market."  It consolidates to 1 or 3, and then undermines the Market at the first opportunity.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 16, 2010)

Educated people are not a HAZARD to a country.

Science is good.

Any sane person would look at the fact that most well educated people trend liberal as an indication that liberalism is based firmly in science and facts.

These fools all scramble to say this fact means Education is bad.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 16, 2010)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


Care to provide some real world examples of that flight of fancy?


----------



## Bfgrn (Apr 16, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > No one is stopping cons from being teachers except themselves.
> ...



Wow, 2 for the price of one...autobiographies of Thomas C. Reeves and now PoliticalChic


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 16, 2010)

Dude said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Care to show us some examples of where the free market ever produced the "Magic" you claim it will?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 16, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > > 6.    Thirdly,
> ...



Ah, Toxic, tell me, what is the appropriate greeting for one of your educational background, is it 'mooooooo,' or 'baaaaaaa'?

Whenever I 'cut and paste' it is to document a premise: never because of a lack of articulation.

Having gone to an actual college, not farm school, we were taught how to write and document, footnote, etc.

As for the 'thirdly," none of the OP is my writing. Had you availed yourself of the link that I provided, you would find the article is intact, if abbreviated. Try the twelth paragraph.

I believe an apology is in order.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 16, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Traveler said:
> ...


I already gave two!

Having trouble reading for comprehension, dingbat?


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 16, 2010)

You can not provide any evidence that your free market ideas will work as you claim they will huh dude?


----------



## Oddball (Apr 16, 2010)

Either read and comprehend the examples I already gave or go play out on the freeway, dingbat.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 16, 2010)

Post numbers?


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 16, 2010)

If you actually had examples you would happily repost the information over and over to solidify your point.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 16, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > No one is stopping cons from being teachers except themselves.
> ...


Um...no. 

This is the funniest part of your wingnut C&P: _They are loyal to their careers and their cliques, not to the truth_

You are not loyal to the truth and in fact I doubt you have any interest in it. Nice slam of women teachers though, I'll give you that.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 16, 2010)

nope , none in this thread


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 16, 2010)

Dude slides into the ether


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 16, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...




Umm, in the real world picking one example and thinking it applies to all is NOT REALITY


----------



## Oddball (Apr 16, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Dude slides into the ether


I slid into nothing, dingbat.

I provided examples , yet your reading comprehension skills appear to rank just behind your spelling.

Either keep up or shut up.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 16, 2010)

Ravi said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Nice deflection.

The quote, from an feminist tome, and I recommend it to either gender...

speaks directly to your misstatement.

It casts the lie to your suggestion that conservatives have an equal chance at positions, tenure, advancement, as compared to progressives in academia.

Surprised you failed to understand that, as it was written quite simply by Ms. Chesler.

You must be having a bad day, as none of your post comes close to true: 'You are not loyal to the truth,' 'slam of women teachers'...


And "wingnut" !!!!  Wow, so clever, so original, creative, even innovative.  I'm so surprised others haven't thought to use it, as it is so dispositive!


I suggest more good reading, as it has been know to aid one's writing...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 16, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Gregg said:
> ...



Not that I would accuse you of dishonesty, but would a correct reading of your post be that if I were to provide two, or three such examples, say, of a journalist claiming that listening to President Obama speak sent chills up his leg, or say, the President spoke so well that the journalist 'forgot he was black'...

would you then be genuflecting, shouting 'huzzah' and telling all your friends, or friend if that is the limit, how I have convinced you that your original point was absurd?

Or is the post simply a way of dissociating my point from your post? In other words, that you had no good answer...is that it?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 16, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Why Professors are Predominantly leftist.
> Thomas C. Reeves
> 
> "Polls and studies have shown consistently that professors, especially in the humanities and social sciences, side with the Left in political and cultural matters. So do public schoolteachers, whose unions are major contributors to the Democratic Party. This bias contrasts sharply, of course, with the dispassionate search for truth that scholars and teachers claim to revere. There are many reasons, no doubt, for the bent shown by professors in the humanities and social sciences, but the most obvious, it seems to me, is envy.
> ...



Dang!  I thought for a moment this might be your opinion, instead of a cut and paste.

lol, no actually, I didn't.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 16, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Why Professors are Predominantly leftist.
> ...



Actually, it was both.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 16, 2010)

I have not read the OP, but my bet is that the theory will be something along the lines of:  "they can't get a job in the real world where conservative ideals rule the day."

Now let me see if I am right.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 16, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> 2.	*And so many of us move into older, deteriorating, often dangerous areas, telling all who listen that we made the choice deliberately and that we, being humanists*, have a natural desire to live among the poor and oppressed. In my experience, some English and anthropology professors actually believe this nonsense, and enjoy dressing as factory workers and displaying furniture obviously purchased at a rummage sale.



Damn I am good.  Though, there was significantly more psychobabble than I expected to justify an asinine position.


----------



## rdean (Apr 16, 2010)

FROM PC:

"Polls and studies have shown consistently that professors, especially in the humanities and social sciences, side with the Left in political and cultural matters.

If that's true, then the mere 6% of scientists that are Republican are the largest conservative group among the "educated"?

So you are saying Republicans lack the educated in the humanities and social sciences, as well as physics, mathematics, biology, physiology, botany, geology, paleontology, astronomy, plate tectonics....

What about literature, music, art, do they also lack eduction in those?

Perhaps this is why the white wing believes Obama wants "death panels" and to "kill grandma"?  Why they believe he wants to take over America.  Why they think they suddenly have less rights?  In other words, the white wing is uneducated and stupid?  

Because to believe all these ridiculous notions, you would have to be both, "Stupid and uneducated." To know they are ridiculous, and to say them anyway has just one word, "Treason".


----------



## KissMy (Apr 16, 2010)

Communist always post surveys showing Big Government beneficiaries (ie: scientist) support Big Government Democrats. SHOCKING!!!

Also proving, the more effective Government educational indoctrination has on a student the more likely that student will continue on to higher levels of educational indoctrination. Again SHOCKING!!!

Thus proving, the more Government educational indoctrination one has the more they support Big Communist Government Democrats. Utterly SHOCKING!!!

They put total faith in scientist who dream up crazy theories that are popular & political yet are continuously proven totally wrong. The more popular the theory the more funding & theories are build upon these wrong theories. When experiments prove the prevailing popular theory wrong it is dismissed & more experiments are designed until one agrees with the theory in order to get more funding.

Lets see a list of wrong Conservative Scientific Theories vs a list of wrong Democratic Scientific Theories. There would be no comparison. Conservatives deal with more facts & less fiction.


----------



## beowolfe (Apr 16, 2010)

One day you guys will realize that you're making arguments out of both sides of your mouths.

In a thread about state salaries, you complain about college professors making too much money.  On this thread you're cheering the idea that professors are underpaid and can't afford private schools for their children.  Make up your minds.  It can't be both.

And BTW, Reeves is one of those he's describing.  And I've got to tell you, that if, as a PhD, a first year pharmacist earns more, he's is probably not a quality PhD, or his contract negotiation skilss are sorely lacking.


----------



## rdean (Apr 16, 2010)

KissMy said:


> Communist always post surveys showing Big Government beneficiaries (ie: scientist) support Big Government Democrats. SHOCKING!!!
> 
> Also proving, the more effective Government educational indoctrination has on a student the more likely that student will continue on to higher levels of educational indoctrination. Again SHOCKING!!!
> 
> ...



You're worse than a dumbass.  because you are laughable.  Obviously, you don't know any scientists, and I suspect, never will.  Which is probably good.  As soon as you start to talk, the room would become quiet.  Then it would erupt into laughter.  You would become extremely agitated for being laughed at.  Then you would stomp out, angry and 
embarrassed.  

When a new medicine is invented or a new process or a better way of making something, who do you think is behind it? Not Republicans.  For sure.

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

Most scientists identify as Democrats (55%), while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans. When the leanings of independents are considered, fully 81% identify as Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party, compared with 12% who either identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP. Among the public, there are far fewer self-described Democrats (35%) and far more Republicans (23%). Overall, 52% of the public identifies as Democratic or leans Democratic, while 35% identifies as Republican or leans Republican. 

Majorities of scientists working in academia (60%), for non-profits (55%) and in government (52%) call themselves Democrats, as do nearly half of those working in private industry (47%).


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Apr 16, 2010)

Dude said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



The Automobile industry for starters.


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 16, 2010)

rdean said:


> FROM PC:
> 
> "Polls and studies have shown consistently that professors, especially in the humanities and social sciences, side with the Left in political and cultural matters.
> 
> ...



Not that I dont' agree with you on many topics, but even I'm getting sick of the "6% of scientist" stuff.


----------



## rdean (Apr 16, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > FROM PC:
> ...



It's only three words out of a hundred.


----------



## Father Time (Apr 16, 2010)

Can someone give me the gist of this, I'd rather not read through the massive wall of text.

From skimming it, it seems like it's saying "they're just jealous of people with money so they become leftists"

That can't be right though.


----------



## beowolfe (Apr 16, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Which part was yours?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 16, 2010)

beowolfe said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



You can't be that dense, so this post must be your version of 'clever.'

1. I posted the article.

2. As a general truth, one posts articles that are a) interesting, and/or b) find some resonance with one's opinion.

3. From time to time a poster who disagrees, but is less than articulate in terms of having the ability to explain their disagreement, will write "Which part was yours?"


Did I sum it up pretty well?


----------



## beowolfe (Apr 16, 2010)

Father Time said:


> Can someone give me the gist of this, I'd rather not read through the massive wall of text.
> 
> From skimming it, it seems like it's saying "they're just jealous of people with money so they become leftists"
> 
> That can't be right though.



Having read the article, it's some right wing professor's attempt to categorize other professors political views.  To me, it sounds like someone bemoaning the fact that he doesn't make as much money as he'd like.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 16, 2010)

Father Time said:


> Can someone give me the gist of this, I'd rather not read through the massive wall of text.
> 
> From skimming it, it seems like it's saying "they're just jealous of people with money so they become leftists"
> 
> That can't be right though.



Broad sweeping generalizations are as academically lazy is perpetually borrowing other people's intellectual property with little or no comment for "debate".


----------



## KissMy (Apr 16, 2010)

rdean said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > *Communist always post surveys showing Big Government beneficiaries (ie: scientist) support Big Government Democrats.* SHOCKING!!!
> ...



*Thanks for proving my point once again you Dumb-ass Communist.*


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 16, 2010)

KissMy said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...


What point is that? That you are dumbass hack?


----------



## Samson (Apr 16, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> beowolfe said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



If only you summarized everything so well, my dahlink.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 16, 2010)

Father Time said:


> Can someone give me the gist of this, I'd rather not read through the massive wall of text.
> 
> From skimming it, it seems like it's saying "they're just jealous of people with money so they become leftists"
> 
> That can't be right though.


The long and the short of it is that academe is pretty much a country club, with screening criteria of a much more highly politicized nature.


----------



## The T (Apr 16, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...


 
Pot? Say hello to _kettle._


----------



## The T (Apr 16, 2010)

Father Time said:


> Can someone give me the gist of this, I'd rather not read through the massive wall of text.
> 
> From skimming it, it seems like it's saying "they're just jealous of people with money so they become leftists"
> 
> That can't be right though.


 
Nah they THINK it is about that. This is more a matter of Liberty, to which they support those that will certainly rob it of them too if they don't TOW the line.

Which means they're on the wrong team as an individual.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 16, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


The rest of your post makes me skeptical of the highlighted claim


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 16, 2010)

Dude said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > Can someone give me the gist of this, I'd rather not read through the massive wall of text.
> ...


What''s preventing the right-wingers from starting their own schools? Oh yeah, the market, where people want a real degree and not the meaningless crap Ken Ham received.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 17, 2010)

Samson said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > beowolfe said:
> ...



But, Sweeeeet-Tart, you under no obligation to read...the post is not followed by the dreaded short answer pop quiz, no erasing, no crossing out.

I cannot be held accountable if my posts are so interesting that you can't stop yourself...



The answer, for you, may be mithridatism: read just a tiny bit,,,then a bit more,,,etc.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 17, 2010)

Republicans: education is bad


Democrats: education is our future


----------



## editec (Apr 17, 2010)

> *Why Professors are Predominantly &#8216;leftist.&#8217; *


 
*Begging the question, much?*

The flaw in your theory is that you equate "leftist" with people who are_ not aligned to the right._

Most college professors I know are independents.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 17, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Father Time said:
> ...



Well, they've always got "Hillsdale" or whatever.  I find it hilarious that, with all the bitching about "liberal Universities" no single institution in this country that I can think of has adopted an official policy that supports "liberal political though".  However, Hillsdale is specifically marketed as a "conservative alternative" and no liberal whines about it.

Probably because the reputation of universities like that and "Bob Jone University" is so bad.  

I don't understand some conservative's animosity towards higher education.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 17, 2010)

More lib lies. Conservatives don't despise higher education. We despise liberals. 

Particularly dishonest ones who lie.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 17, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> More lib lies. Conservatives don't despise higher education. We despise liberals.
> 
> Particularly dishonest ones who lie.



I said "some conservatives".


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 17, 2010)

That's convenient.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 17, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> That's convenient.



Yeah, well, it's not liberals who are always on here bitching about the atmosphere at the typical American University.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 17, 2010)

The atmosphere at the typical liberal university is toxic and anti-American, thanks to the anti-American pieces of shit who  hold sway there.


----------



## Samson (Apr 17, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Universities and Government are the major employers of "Social Scientists," and almost all social science supports socialist POV.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 17, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> The atmosphere at the typical liberal university is toxic and anti-American, thanks to the anti-American pieces of shit who  hold sway there.



And you guys wonder why we don't take you seriously.

I got my undergrad degree at a "liberal" college from '97 to '01 and was on an ROTC scholarship.  I had to wear a uniform at least one day a week to class and so forth.  I never got any flak from my classmates or my professors.  

Then, after I got out of the Army, I went back to undergrad to do my med-school pre-reqs and never witnessed or experienced any flak from my classmates or professors, though most of them knew I was a veteran and the war was highly unpopular.  

Now I am in grad school and have yet to witness this "toxic anti-American" attitude you guys are so bent out of shape about.

I don't doubt that there are professors who inappropriately spout of their personal political views to a class, I doubt it's on par with the amount of bitching you guys do about it.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 17, 2010)

I was a business major at Georgia State University and received a BBA in 1985. My last quarter there I had an open 5 hour elective area where I could take any course in the entire university for those 5 hours.
I signed up for Civil War History. The professor I had was an off the wall looney tune liberal. He informed us that this course was not to be about any of the battles of the Civil War or anything about the militaries the first day. I should have dropped it and taken basket weaving but it fit my time schedule so I endured.
The study course guideline was all about the social mores of the people, the scientific advancements of the day and a bunch of other bull shit. We read three books on Booker T. Washington describing him as an Uncle Tom step n fetchit negro of his time. The professor wanted no other opinions in the class. All of his tests were 70 % subjective, essay, and 30 % multiple choice which was against the university guidelines by a long shot.
The kicker was the final term paper that was required. I wrote mine on photography during the Civil War. All through my time in the business school at GSU I had to write a term paper for almost every class. The professor would make corrections, obervations and ideas on a seperate piece of white blank paper and put that in with the returned and graded paper. The paper itself was intact with no marks on it. The last week of this history class I received my term paper back with red ink scribbled all through it. I protested to him and he advised he could do as he wanted. I went to the department head and he stated that he would look into it. The essays I wrote in all of the tests this man gave were all given C at best.
I received a C in this class and it did not really matter as I was graduating. However, I was going to attempt to make life hard for this prick. I prepared my case against him showing how he had violated the test rules, as they were no test could be more than 40% essay, and the department head stated he would get back to me. 18 months later I received a call that the next day at 8 am in Atlanta they would have a departmental "hearing"on my case. I told him to fuck himself. 
If you do not want a liberal professor take engineering or business at the university.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 17, 2010)

Samson said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



That's a statement that just begs for quantification.


----------



## Samson (Apr 17, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > The atmosphere at the typical liberal university is toxic and anti-American, thanks to the anti-American pieces of shit who  hold sway there.
> ...




As an undergrad, with little exception all I took was math, chemistry, physics, and engineering classes. These profs and courses spent no time on social issues.

Then as a grad, I took education and business courses, and with little exception, there was almost always social commentary, often including an "anti-establishment" POV.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 17, 2010)

At my sons HIGH SCHOOL there was a government teacher who during an election year refused to allow anything on the walls to show anything but Bush.

Some of these kids were old enough to vote and this teacher allowed no one to say ANYTHING against Bush.


----------



## Samson (Apr 17, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Really?


I would hope it was self evident.

Do you think GM employs as many MS Anthropologists as Mechanical Engineers?

Do you think GE employs BA Ed instead of Electrical Engineers?


----------



## boedicca (Apr 17, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...




Here you go:

_A new study takes what many believe to be the closest and clearest look yet at American professors' political and social views. The study surveyed 1,417 full-time professors at schools ranging from community colleges to elite research universities, and broke down the results by professors' disciplines, ages, and other factors. The authors presented their findings in October at Harvard University, leading to a full day of stimulating presentations and debate among the assembled academics.

44% of professors who responded to the survey classified themselves as liberal, 46% as moderate, and 9% as conservative. The study's authors, Neil Gross and Solon Simmons, were surprised to find so many moderate professors, but other academics attending the presentation disagreed with their conclusions. Much of the conservatism and moderation in higher education cropped up in certain subcategories: the health science professions, for example, and community colleges and non-elite universities.

At community colleges, 37% of professors identified themselves as liberal, 44% as moderate, and 19% as conservative. Professors at liberal arts colleges were most likely to identify themselves as liberal: 61% were liberal, and just 4% conservative. Elite Ph.D.-granting institutions were fairly close behind, with 57% liberal, 33% moderate and 10% conservative.

Business and health sciences professors helped to boost the representation of moderate and conservative views at both elite and non-elite Ph.D.-granting universities, compared to liberal arts colleges. 20.5% of health sciences professors are liberal, 20.5% are conservative, and 59% are moderate. Business professors are another less liberal group, with 24.5% conservative, 54% moderate, and 21.5% liberal.

*Predictably, humanities and social sciences professors were most likely to lean left. 17.6% of social sciences professors declared a Marxist political identity. Marxism also claimed 5% support in the humanities, and negligible support in other disciplines. 88% of social sciences professors voted for John Kerry in 2004, and 84% of humanities professors. Half of the social sciences professors who did not vote for Kerry voted for non-mainstream candidates, leaving the Republican Party with just 6% of their vote. Only health sciences professors supported Bush in 2004, by a narrow margin of 52% of votes for Bush and 48% for Kerry. Overall, 78% of academics voted for Kerry.* _

Study Examines Professors' Political and Social Views


----------



## Rozman (Apr 17, 2010)

Isn't there an expression? Those that can, DO.Those that can't, teach ! Bunch of angry Libs out there that HATE Corporations,businesses and the like that actually go out and try to realize their dreams and make a little or a lot of money so family members can have a better life.Then there are those like the Libs that want government to run everything,they want government to dole out benefits and salary that government knows best what is good for people or just what the government feels people deserve.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 17, 2010)

Why are profs lefties?

That's easy.  None of them want to get a real job.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 17, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> The atmosphere at the typical liberal university is toxic and anti-American, thanks to the anti-American pieces of shit who  hold sway there.


What's keeping you from starting your own universities?

Oh yah, America rejects your bullshit-you fail in the market.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 17, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> At my sons HIGH SCHOOL there was a government teacher who during an election year refused to allow anything on the walls to show anything but Bush.
> 
> Some of these kids were old enough to vote and this teacher allowed no one to say ANYTHING against Bush.




So we've established that their are assholes in the world and they can be found just about anywhere


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 17, 2010)

boedicca said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Thanks.  That support's Samson's claim.  It also points out that roughly half of college professors do not consider themselves to be liberal, though when n = 1400 it's not a terribly large study.  

A little hard to claim that liberals dominate the American University system by the statistics you posted.


----------



## boedicca (Apr 17, 2010)

Samson said Universities - the study included community and state colleges, as well as universities.

The elite universities are far more liberal - and the social studies professors are much more left leaning than the average.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 17, 2010)

Truthmatters said:
			
		

> At my sons HIGH SCHOOL there was a government teacher who during an election year refused to allow anything on the walls to show anything but Bush.
> 
> Some of these kids were old enough to vote and this teacher allowed no one to say ANYTHING against Bush.



interesting.  In all the schools I went to in the Twin Cities, I think only one did not have a shrine to Obama near the entrance of the school.  I constantly see parking lots full of teacher's cars with Obama, Wellstone! (who's still dead) and Franken bumperstickers in them, even today.

And the one school I can't recall seeing anything pro Obama was because nothing political was there.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 17, 2010)

Rozman said:


> Isn't there an expression? Those that can, DO.Those that can't, teach !



Yeah, and it's a stupid statement.  Where did the people who "do" learn how to "do"?  Do you think doctors, lawyers, engineers, or architects spring forth from magic pods?

Futhermore, most teachers "do" as well.  If you are in higher learning, it is expected that you research and publish.  If you are in academic medicine, when you are teaching medical students on rounds, you are still seeing patients and caring for them.    



> Bunch of angry Libs out there that HATE Corporations,businesses and the like that actually go out and try to realize their dreams and make a little or a lot of money so family members can have a better life.Then there are those like the Libs that want government to run everything,they want government to dole out benefits and salary that government knows best what is good for people or just what the government feels people deserve.



Following the belief that many people do the job they do because it's what they love doing, and not purely for financial gain, why would professors seek to go into corporate America when their drive in life is to study Lord-knows-what?  Not everyone is dying to be Gordon Gecko from Wall Street.

While life in academia isn't going to make anyone rich, it's a pretty good life on the whole when you consider all the other factors.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 17, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> interesting.  In all the schools I went to in the Twin Cities, I think only one did not have a shrine to Obama near the entrance of the school.  I constantly see parking lots full of teacher's cars with Obama, Wellstone! (who's still dead) and Franken bumperstickers in them, even today.



Heaven forbid teachers exercise their first amendment rights!

What a bunch of fucking commies!


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 17, 2010)

boedicca said:


> The elite universities are far more liberal - and the social studies professors are much more left leaning than the average.



BZZT! 

We were doing so well with actual data.

I guess I'll say it again:

"That statement begs for quantification".


----------



## boedicca (Apr 17, 2010)

I already posted the study, bub.

Try reading for comprehension and retention.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 17, 2010)

Samson said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Not the part about the utility of a social science degree, the part about the political leaning of social scientists.

Boedicca covered you.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 17, 2010)

Education makes people more liberal and that is just a fact.

Knowing MORE makes people more understanding of other human beings.

Republicans just hate that shit


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 17, 2010)

boedicca said:


> I already posted the study, bub.
> 
> Try reading for comprehension and retention.



I commented on your study.  You then made further made a statement that the numbers were skewed because it included community colleges, etc.

That begs for quantification.

Or not, but I am not going to accept your opinion on the matter as fiat truth.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 17, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > interesting.  In all the schools I went to in the Twin Cities, I think only one did not have a shrine to Obama near the entrance of the school.  I constantly see parking lots full of teacher's cars with Obama, Wellstone! (who's still dead) and Franken bumperstickers in them, even today.
> ...


I'm not the one maintaining that educators are overwhelmingly leftist.  They don't have a right to marinate kids in their politics though.  Like the children, their right to free speech ended at the school house door.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 17, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Education makes people more liberal and that is just a fact.
> 
> Knowing MORE makes people more understanding of other human beings.
> 
> Republicans just hate that shit


No, leftist educators make people more liberal becauuse they have a captive audience and history of abusing their position.

Today, 2+2= bush lied


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 17, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Having a bumper sticker on your car =/= "marinating kids in their politics".

Thought I agree with you that teachers shouldn't bring their personal politics into the classroom.


----------



## Samson (Apr 17, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > I already posted the study, bub.
> ...



Nor do you accept the study, Boe sited.

Nor do you accept common knowledge, (where do you imagine PhD Sociology work?)

I'm comforted, though, in not having expended much energy with you.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 17, 2010)

Samson said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



WTF are you talking about?  I said the study backs up your point.

I also pointed out that, by virtue of the study, 1/2 of professors are either moderate or conservative versus the 1/2 that is liberal.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 17, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I swear, Minnesnowta libs must screen who they sell their used cars to, for people who pledge not to rip the stupid Wellstone! stickers off of them.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 17, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



How many Hillsdale and Bob Jones type colleges receive state funding?.....Zero.

It only follows that institutions supported by central control, confiscation and redistribution, and an overall collectivist ethos would have mostly faculty and staff who support and peddle that mindset.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 17, 2010)

Dude said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



How does that follow, son?  Where is your data, where is your evidence, where is your analysis, where is your flipping mind?  Fail.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 17, 2010)

Get real, Jakey boy.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 17, 2010)

Samson said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Not at the business school at GSU. Not once did I ever hear any social commentary in any business class.
How is there social commentary in accounting, finance and IT?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 17, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Education makes people more liberal and that is just a fact.
> 
> Knowing MORE makes people more understanding of other human beings.
> 
> Republicans just hate that shit



"there are death panels in the health care bill" and "fags wanting to get married will destroy the sanctity of marriage" is always believed by the uneducated.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 17, 2010)

Dude said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



Bob Jones and Hillsdale both have financial aid departments. Their students receive taxpayer paid for loans and grants just like any other college and university.
Throw in their tax exempt status as a religion and they are geting over more than all the others.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 17, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Education makes people more liberal and that is just a fact.
> ...



Yeah, take that attitude over to your friends who say that incest should be legal because anyone should  be able to marry anyone they want.

And there are death panels in the health care bill. Obama and his hand-picked socialist pigs determining what is covered and what isn't. That's a death panel.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 17, 2010)

Our educational system has been systematically sabotaged by Progressives. Look at how many HS students can't identify 3 Founding Fathers,  can't tell us when the War of 1812 was fought and think that the American Revolution was to kill Indians.

Progressives NEED, desperately need uneducated people totally beholden to the State for their very existence.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 17, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Excellent rebuttal of another dude-dude ism.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 17, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...


Wrong-o!


> In the 1970s, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare insisted that Hillsdale start counting students by race and sex or lose federal loans for students.
> 
> Hillsdales charter declares the college open to students regardless of nation, color or sex. In 1956, Hillsdale refused to play in the Tangerine Bowl because it wouldnt allow its black players on the field.
> 
> Hillsdale decided not to take any federal funds or the strings attached. No student loans, no Pell grants  nothing.



Hillsdale versus Harvard | Tulsa Beacon


----------



## Oddball (Apr 17, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Excellent rebuttal of another dude-dude ism.


You lose too, dickweed.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 17, 2010)

I knew you could not handle it.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 17, 2010)

Dude said:


> How many Hillsdale and Bob Jones type colleges receive state funding?.....Zero.



That depends on if you count federal student loans and research grants or not.  If not, then any private university can make the same claims.  

If you do count them, then I wouldn't call lack of receiving federal research grants a badge of honor.  It's universally viewed as a bad thing to have a limited amount of research going on at a University.



> It only follows that institutions supported by central control, confiscation and redistribution, and an overall collectivist ethos would have mostly faculty and staff who support and peddle that mindset.



That's just silly.  The average professor at a University probably couldn't map out the money flow from the finance department to their department or paycheck.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 17, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Not at the business school at Tulane either.  If anything, I would speculate that the faculty in a B-School are more conservative.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 17, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > It only follows that institutions supported by central control, confiscation and redistribution, and an overall collectivist ethos would have mostly faculty and staff who support and peddle that mindset.
> ...


It's not silly at all...I'm talking structure, not content.

Or, you can tell the man who boozes by the friends he chooses.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 17, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Yeah, take that attitude over to your friends who say that incest should be legal because anyone should  be able to marry anyone they want.



Which is who, exactly?



> And there are death panels in the health care bill. Obama and his hand-picked socialist pigs determining what is covered and what isn't. That's a death panel.



If you think rationing is a new phenomenon to medicine and not inevitable, I invite you to look at the history of dialysis in this country.  

In the mid-60s, panals of Drs., clergy, and other various people were trying to ethically decide who should and should not receive dialysis.  Those that got it lived.  Those that didn't, died.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 17, 2010)

The overall "collectivist" mentlality on this board is the one shared by the reactionaries here.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 17, 2010)

Blow it out your ass, Joke.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 17, 2010)

Dude said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



So, if you want your kid to go to Hillsdale, you'd better be able to pay out of pocket.

Hillsdale also won't allow ROTC on it's campus.  Ironic that a "conservative" college bans something that my liberal college, Tulane, welcomed with open arms.  Guess I am glad my burning desire was never to go to that school.  

Also, since Hillsdale receives no research funding, career-wise, it's a dead end for a Ph.D.  

Yeah.  Sounds like a superior institution they've got going on up there.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 17, 2010)

Typical collectivist attitude of a fascist reactionary, dude.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 17, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


Pretty much.

So much for that "well, they get gubmint money too" angle.

Right, Joke?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 17, 2010)

editec said:


> > *Why Professors are Predominantly leftist. *
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You should get out more.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 17, 2010)

Dude said:


> So much for that "well, they get gubmint money too" angle.
> 
> Right, Joke?



Yeah, so much for that.  

Point to you.

As pointed out in the link, Hillsdale won't even accept ROTC scholarships.  Harvard still does that.  Or at least they did when I was in ROTC.  I had a friend from Harvard.  

I can see why Hillsdale markets to a conservative base.  If you can pay enough to send your kids to a academic daycare center, then you won't have to worry about them associating with the rest of the "dregs" of society who have to take out loans to finance their education.  

Again, lack of research funding is not viewed as a good thing in higher education.


----------



## Father Time (Apr 17, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



So do you go screaming about death panels every time an insurance company changes what they'll cover?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 17, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> I was a business major at Georgia State University and received a BBA in 1985. My last quarter there I had an open 5 hour elective area where I could take any course in the entire university for those 5 hours.
> I signed up for Civil War History. The professor I had was an off the wall looney tune liberal. He informed us that this course was not to be about any of the battles of the Civil War or anything about the militaries the first day. I should have dropped it and taken basket weaving but it fit my time schedule so I endured.
> The study course guideline was all about the social mores of the people, the scientific advancements of the day and a bunch of other bull shit. We read three books on Booker T. Washington describing him as an Uncle Tom step n fetchit negro of his time. The professor wanted no other opinions in the class. All of his tests were 70 % subjective, essay, and 30 % multiple choice which was against the university guidelines by a long shot.
> The kicker was the final term paper that was required. I wrote mine on photography during the Civil War. All through my time in the business school at GSU I had to write a term paper for almost every class. The professor would make corrections, obervations and ideas on a seperate piece of white blank paper and put that in with the returned and graded paper. The paper itself was intact with no marks on it. The last week of this history class I received my term paper back with red ink scribbled all through it. I protested to him and he advised he could do as he wanted. I went to the department head and he stated that he would look into it. The essays I wrote in all of the tests this man gave were all given C at best.
> ...



A beautiful, and telling post.

It's hard to believe that, as common as this situation is, our friends on the left refuse to conceive of this reality.


From a book I quoted earlier:

"It is not an education when a mid-term exam contains a required essay on the topic Explain Why President Bush Is A War Criminal, as did a criminology exam at the University of Northern Colorado, in 2003.
[http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/pdf/saf_promise.pdf] 

And from a book I quoted earlier:


"Higher Education Research Institute at the UCLA  published a survey in 2002, of 55,521 professors at 416 colleges and universities nationwide. They found that 48% of the professors identified themselves as liberal or far left; 34% as middle of the road.  In 2004, Klein and Western published a study of the voter registration of the professors at U of C, Berkeley, and at Stanford, over 1000 professors, and concluded that the findings supported the one party campus conjecture. At Berkeley, 9.9 to 1, and at Stanford, 7.6 to 1 of Democrats to Republicans. Ideological diversity does not exist on most campuses.
In 2005 Klein and Stern surveyed 1,678 professors, and found that faculty is heavily skewed toward Democratic, and the most lopsided fields are Anthropology (30.2 to 1) and Sociology (28 to 1).

Most professors obsessively believe that Europe is culturally more sophisticated  and mature than America. Barry and Judith Rubin explain, in their book Hating America: A History, that European intellectuals are bothered by Americans refusal to defer to a refined upper class and to recognize their own inferiority. They conclude that anti-Americanism is put forth by these intellectuals, who have influence in the realm of ideas: books, media and universities."

I have come to realize that one of the problems of those on the left is the echo chamber in which they live. This board may be their only interface with the real world.


----------



## Father Time (Apr 17, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > I was a business major at Georgia State University and received a BBA in 1985. My last quarter there I had an open 5 hour elective area where I could take any course in the entire university for those 5 hours.
> ...



It's anecdotal evidence contradicted by other anecdotal evidence elsewhere in this thread. Strange that you'd ignore those that contradict what you want to believe.

Oh and professors leaning left is not proof that they're slanting the curriculum to the left.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 17, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Education makes people more liberal and that is just a fact.
> 
> Knowing MORE makes people more understanding of other human beings.
> 
> Republicans just hate that shit



Depends on the meaning of 'education.' For some, it means the formal setting of grade schoool through college...

For others, experience in the real world.

A modern parable:

Father/Daughter Talk 
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of "the redistribution of wealth."

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. 

 He responded by asking how she was doing in school.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Conservative party."


----------



## logical4u (Apr 17, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Here we are again with the right SPEWING HATE  on any education and the people who seek education.
> 
> The facts have a liberal bias.
> 
> ...



Maybe, many in our society 'know' that no matter how smart you are, if you are a coal miner, a fisherman, a logger or a hundred other dangerous jobs, you can still be killed at work.  That slip of paper does not make a difference when it comes to working in a dangerous profession.  Education, DOES NOT HAVE TO BE FORMAL, there is a school most of us attend, either in place of college or in addition to college... it is the school of hard knocks (also known as paying your dues), and every time you start a new job, you will be forced to attend a 'crash course'.

The left seems to believe that intellect is more important than wisdom.  For those of us that work in dangerous jobs, intellect without wisdom (some call it experience) will get you killed quicker than 'trying your luck'.  What looks good on paper doesn't necessarily work in REALITY.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 17, 2010)

Dude said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



You beat me to the Hillsdale note.
I tried to add a rep, but it wouldn't  allow.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 17, 2010)

logical4u said:


> Maybe, many in our society 'know' that no matter how smart you are, if you are a coal miner, a fisherman, a logger or a hundred other dangerous jobs, you can still be killed at work.  That slip of paper does not make a difference when it comes to working in a dangerous profession.  Education, DOES NOT HAVE TO BE FORMAL, there is a school most of us attend, either in place of college or in addition to college... it is the school of hard knocks (also known as paying your dues), and every time you start a new job, you will be forced to attend a 'crash course'.
> 
> The left seems to believe that intellect is more important than wisdom.  For those of us that work in dangerous jobs, intellect without wisdom (some call it experience) will get you killed quicker than 'trying your luck'.  What looks good on paper doesn't necessarily work in REALITY.



Yeah, yeah, yeah.  We all know that a college education doesn't make someone intelligent or smart anymore than the lack of one makes someone dumb or what-have-you.  It's brought up on every thread about this.

Statistically speaking though, earning potential increases for every year of education.

Which is why it is strange that some conservatives love to hate higher education.


----------



## Foxfyre (Apr 17, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> I have come to realize that one of the problems of those on the left is the echo chamber in which they live. This board may be their only interface with the real world.



I haven't had time to read every post, but did somebody earlier say that those not aligned with the 'Right" aren't necessarily "Left"?  

That is the most succinct summation of the problem I think.  Most liberals don't believe they are liberal.  They believe they are perfectly rational, normal, and have it all together while all the rest of us are out of sync with the real world.

As a journalism major and being part of the media off an on throughout my adult life, I see the problems in academia as the same that exists in most of the mainstream media.

Those anti-establishment, anti-traditional values, and sometimes anti-America children of the 60's eventually put away their hookahs and beads and became productive members of the middle class but they didn't lose all that dogma.  And eventually it was they who achieved senority in the news rooms and in academia and were mostly impressed by and hired people who believed and talked as they did.   Conservatives were either mostly not hired or found themselves in such a philosophically hostile environment that they left and found other things to do.

And now the Left takes pride that they dominate in both realms and sometimes look down their noses at those on the Right who they see as less 'nice people' or  'less intellectual' or 'less well educated'.

And of course that perpetuates the problem and lopsidedness that exists.  As George Will once commented based on that study you cite, the Left values diversity in everything but thought.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 17, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> I have come to realize that one of the problems of those on the left is the echo chamber in which they live. This board may be their only interface with the real world.



This board is the "real world"?

What an idiotic statement in all regards.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 17, 2010)

Father Time said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



You might sound so much more intelligent, or at least close to average, if you limited the words that you use in your posts to words you can actually define.

an·ec·dot·al (nk-dtl)
adj..
 Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis.

Now, read the definiton again. And again.

Now re-read this from post #195

"Higher Education Research Institute at the UCLA published a survey in 2002, of 55,521 professors at 416 colleges and universities nationwide. They found that 48% of the professors identified themselves as liberal or far left; 34% as middle of the road. In 2004, Klein and Western published a study of the voter registration of the professors at U of C, Berkeley, and at Stanford, over 1000 professors, and concluded that the findings supported the one party campus conjecture. At Berkeley, 9.9 to 1, and at Stanford, 7.6 to 1 of Democrats to Republicans. Ideological diversity does not exist on most campuses.
In 2005 Klein and Stern surveyed 1,678 professors, and found that faculty is heavily skewed toward Democratic, and the most lopsided fields are Anthropology (30.2 to 1) and Sociology (28 to 1)."



Does this fit the definition of 'anecdotal'?

Do you fit the definition of 'normal'?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 17, 2010)

Most reactionary whingers think they are conservative: they are not.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 17, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Those anti-establishment, anti-traditional values, and sometimes anti-America children of the 60's eventually put away their hookahs and beads and became productive members of the middle class but they didn't lose all that dogma.  And eventually it was they who achieved senority in the news rooms and in academia and were mostly impressed by and hired people who believed and talked as they did.   Conservatives were either mostly not hired or found themselves in such a philosophically hostile environment that they left and found other things to do.



That's a fabulous theory.  Now support it.


----------



## Father Time (Apr 17, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



I was referring to the 'beautiful and telling post' you quoted, not the polls.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 17, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Now re-read this from post #195
> 
> *"Higher Education Research Institute at the UCLA published a survey in 2002, of 55,521 professors at 416 colleges and universities nationwide. They found that 48% of the professors identified themselves as liberal or far left;* 34% as middle of the road. In 2004, Klein and Western published a study of the voter registration of the professors at U of C, Berkeley, and at Stanford, over 1000 professors, and concluded that the findings supported the one party campus conjecture. At Berkeley, 9.9 to 1, and at Stanford, 7.6 to 1 of Democrats to Republicans. Ideological diversity does not exist on most campuses.
> In 2005 Klein and Stern surveyed 1,678 professors, and found that faculty is heavily skewed toward Democratic, and the most lopsided fields are Anthropology (30.2 to 1) and Sociology (28 to 1)."



Which means that, in the best study (by virtue of the largest n value), less than half of professors in this nation consider themselves to be liberal.

What are you guys bitching about again?


----------



## Father Time (Apr 17, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Education makes people more liberal and that is just a fact.
> ...



So do you have any good stories or just partisan dribble?

It sounds like something straight out of this
snopes.com: Glurge Gallery (Glurge Gallery)


----------



## Father Time (Apr 17, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Now re-read this from post #195
> ...



They always need something to bitch about it, doesn't matter if it's justified or not.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 17, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > I have come to realize that one of the problems of those on the left is the echo chamber in which they live. This board may be their only interface with the real world.
> ...



This board, and alternative viewpoints that one finds, are the closest that many leftists will ever have to deal with in terms of opposing ideas.

The truth is one that I have found quite often: those on the left know and accept only what the left views as truth.

We on the right know what the left knows, as we are inundated with their views in the media and the more prominent aspects of the culture, and we are aware of the truth that study of history, and experience has revealed.

1. Every totalist regime has caused death, torture, slavery.

2. Geoges Sorel, the father of syndicalism, and major contributor to socialism, fascism, progressivism, instilled in leftist proponents the importance of lies and myths. 
"His identification of the need for a deliberately-conceived "myth" to sway crowds into concerted action was put to use by the Fascist and Communist movements of the 1920s and after."  Georges Sorel

Based on the acceptance of leftist mythology you folks are, generally, quite easy to manipulate.

As in 'Hope and Change.'


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 17, 2010)

Father Time said:


> They always need something to bitch about it, doesn't matter if it's justified or not.



Hey, if conservatives want to relegate their kids to being a permanent underclass by refusing to support their academic endeavors, I guess it's their right. 

I would think it's massively unfair, but their right.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 17, 2010)

Father Time said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Father Time said:
> ...



So, then, where in you post will I find you statement along the lines that most of academia is left leaning?

And your statement that this bias doesn't find its way into the curriculum or classroom, that is an excellent example of 'anecdotal.'


----------



## Father Time (Apr 17, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Ok do tell me where I said those things.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 17, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> This board, and alternative viewpoints that one finds, are the closest that many leftists will ever have to deal with in terms of opposing ideas.
> 
> The truth is one that I have found quite often: those on the left know and accept only what the left views as truth.
> 
> We on the right know what the left knows, as we are inundated with their views in the media and the more prominent aspects of the culture, and we are aware of the truth that study of history, and experience has revealed.



What's really funny about your admitted thought process is that you actually believe this crap. 

Why don't you save the bandwidth and just type "Conservatives good.   Liberals baaaaaaaaaaaaaad." over and over?

I like to have fun on here, but I don't for a second think one side has all the answers and the other is inherently bad.  Perhaps I benefited from my education in that regard.

You forfeit any claims of academic honesty by your absolute statements that are absurd on their face. 

I am left to wonder what "real world" you live in where the only people that are actually living in it think exactly as you do.   



> Based on the acceptance of leftist mythology you folks are, generally, quite easy to manipulate.



As if group-think is relegated to one political ideology.


----------



## Father Time (Apr 17, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> The truth is one that I have found quite often: those on the left know and accept only what the left views as truth.
> 
> we are aware of the truth that study of history, and experience has revealed.



In summary.

Leftists live in an echo chamber convincing themselves they're right.

We on the right _KNOW_ that we're right.

Oh the irony.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 17, 2010)

Father Time said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > The truth is one that I have found quite often: those on the left know and accept only what the left views as truth.
> ...



"Folks, all I ask is that you tune in three hours a day, every day......."


----------



## Foxfyre (Apr 17, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Those anti-establishment, anti-traditional values, and sometimes anti-America children of the 60's eventually put away their hookahs and beads and became productive members of the middle class but they didn't lose all that dogma.  And eventually it was they who achieved senority in the news rooms and in academia and were mostly impressed by and hired people who believed and talked as they did.   Conservatives were either mostly not hired or found themselves in such a philosophically hostile environment that they left and found other things to do.
> ...



Naw, I'll just cite it as my opinion based on life experience, extensive reading, and based on a degree of a position of authority.  I'll just point to the study PolChic posted and another oft posted one from UCLA defining leftwing bias identified in the media as evidence the situation exists and refer you to writings of such historians as Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, and others who have thoroughly researched the phenomenon.  You'll find lots of leftwing sites who will dispute my theory, but I don't think you will be able to find any objective source to do so.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 17, 2010)

Father Time said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



I sure do! 
(Just don't read it before bedtime)

The Red Banner Youth Brigade

The Kwan family met the Youth Brigade in their living room, which had shrunk to the size of a prison cell due to the number of shouting youth surrounding the family. They gazed at the youth in bewilderment unable to understand the evil that they had done.
Do you repent? Do you confess to clinging to the old values?
Confess and seek reeducation and we will spare you!
You are guilty of old thought, old culture, old values
You have built a lackeys empire on the backs of the people!
Kwan and his wife, along with their twelve-year-old son were bound and defenseless. 
You are part of the old
The tall leader of the cadre engages in a furious dialectic, spittle flying from his mouth.  
You are part of the old! Do you repent?
With every line he spoke, he swung the black baton, heavy as a cricket bat.
You will reform your decadent ways!
The old ways are a threat to the collective good of the people!
You will die if you retain your old beliefs!
Repent! Reject the old! Admit you have been seduced by unbeneficial and decadent thought!
It continued for endless minutes- until the blows the student rained down stole the life from the family. The iron-tipped baton left bloody forms at his feet as he recited the catechism the students thirstily sought to hear.

From The Stone Monkey, by Jeffery Deaver

You might like this one, too.

"Through 1966, secondary schools and colleges closed in China. Students -- many from the age of nine through eighteen -- followed Maoist directives to destroy things of the past that they believed should be no part of the new China: old customs, old habits, old culture and old thinking -- the "four olds." In a state of euphoria and with support from the government and army, the students went about China's cities and villages, wrecking old buildings, old temples and old art objects. To make a new and wonderful China, the Red Guards attacked as insufficiently revolutionary their parents, teachers, school administrators and everyone they could find as targets, including "intellectuals" and "capitalist roaders" within the Communist Party."
Filled with righteousness, the power of their numbers, and support from Mao, the campaigns for revolutionary change became violent. People seen as evil were beaten to death. Thousands of people died, including many who had committed suicide.
Mao's China


Hey, should I add some about the great left-wing heros who infiltrated Democrat administrations????

Just say the word.

See how easy it is when one is educated?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 17, 2010)

Father Time said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Father Time said:
> ...



Exactly.

You neglected to say 'those things.'


----------



## Father Time (Apr 17, 2010)

Now I wonder should I counter with stories of people being persecuted for having new ideas and forced to submit to tradition for traditions sake.

Or should I just laugh at the pathetic attempt to associate new ideas with totalitarianism and forced acceptance?

I think I'll choose the latter.


----------



## Father Time (Apr 17, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Your point being?


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 17, 2010)

Father Time said:


> Now I wonder should I counter with stories of people being persecuted for having new ideas and forced to submit to tradition for traditions sake.
> 
> Or should I just laugh at the pathetic attempt to associate new ideas with totalitarianism and forced acceptance?
> 
> I think I'll choose the latter.



You mean there is another option aside from laughter when it comes to PC's diatribes?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 17, 2010)

Laugher is the appropriate response for PoliticalChic.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 17, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > I have come to realize that one of the problems of those on the left is the echo chamber in which they live. This board may be their only interface with the real world.
> ...



Excellent.

A cogent, informed post based on real live experience. 

" Most liberals don't believe they are liberal."
Intuitive analysis. 
It is because they haven't studied enough of the history of the left, of repercussions of leftist thought.
Even when the proof is right in front of them, as though they were afraid of the realizations that their axioms are flawed.


And "As a journalism major ..." you were able to cut through the fog. A sign of a superior intellect.

"Those anti-establishment, anti-traditional values, and sometimes anti-America children of the 60's eventually put away their hookahs and beads and became productive members of the middle class but they didn't lose all that dogma."
Succinct.

But we must give them their props! They infiltrated, and bided their time. And it gained them a Presidency!

November will tell which way America will go.


----------



## Father Time (Apr 17, 2010)

Is it just me or does it seem like PC will jump onto any theory without question if it makes liberals look bad?


----------



## Father Time (Apr 17, 2010)

Oh and a little off topic but please note PC has just said liberals don't really have much encounter with the real world which will be interesting to note if she ever wants to call them elitists.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 17, 2010)

Father Time said:


> Is it just me or does it seem like PC will jump onto any theory without question if it makes liberals look bad?



and all while claiming that liberals lack critical thinking skills?

It's not just you.


----------



## Foxfyre (Apr 17, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > Now I wonder should I counter with stories of people being persecuted for having new ideas and forced to submit to tradition for traditions sake.
> ...



Well since you don't apparently have anything at all with which to dispute PC's 'diatribes', lets explore that George Will article I cited earlier and which so far you have ignored.  He apparently did some pretty thorough research and cites some pretty impressive sources for his conclusions:

Excerpt



> . . . .Another study, of voter registration records, including those of professors in engineering and the hard sciences, found nine Democrats for every Republican at Berkeley and Stanford. Among younger professors, there were 183 Democrats, six Republicans.
> 
> But we essentially knew this even before the American Enterprise magazine reported in 2002 on examinations of voting records in various college communities. Some findings about professors registered with the two major parties or with liberal or conservative minor parties:
> 
> ...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 17, 2010)

Father Time said:


> Now I wonder should I counter with stories of people being persecuted for having new ideas and forced to submit to tradition for traditions sake.
> 
> Or should I just laugh at the pathetic attempt to associate new ideas with totalitarianism and forced acceptance?
> 
> I think I'll choose the latter.



Actually,I don't believe that you can live up to your threat: you cannot counter the horrors of the leftist regimes anywhere, nor anytime: I challenge you to show comparable atrocities.

So, pick up the gauntlet, let's see if you are 'au fait...'

"&#8220;In its many enthroned variations, from Lenin's 1917 revolution to the recent MarxistLeninist regimes of Africa, communism has killed upwards of 100 million people65 million in China alone. Courtois and his colleagues do not simply unfold the numbers relentlessly and numbingly. Instead, they painstakingly explore the many ways the killing was done-from summary execution to forced deportations, from mass starvation to the gulag-and examine its many pretexts.&#8221;
The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression 
Foreign Affairs (Book Review); New York; Nov/Dec 1999; Robert Legvold;


Last century: over one hundred million slaughtered.

And the great hero of the left, FDR, laughing about Soviet agents in his administration.
If you are unfamiliar with that, I would be happy to aid in your education.

Wise up.


----------



## logical4u (Apr 17, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe, many in our society 'know' that no matter how smart you are, if you are a coal miner, a fisherman, a logger or a hundred other dangerous jobs, you can still be killed at work.  That slip of paper does not make a difference when it comes to working in a dangerous profession.  Education, DOES NOT HAVE TO BE FORMAL, there is a school most of us attend, either in place of college or in addition to college... it is the school of hard knocks (also known as paying your dues), and every time you start a new job, you will be forced to attend a 'crash course'.
> ...



Conservatives do not 'hate' higher education; they consider the 'value', before participating.  In many cases, the value (increased salary) is not worth the cost (time, effort and financial) involved. 

We do get frustrated with people that have 'an education' (from a higher 'learning' institution), getting a job position that pays better than ours, and then, they want us (those that chose a different path) to 'train them'.  Then they jump to the next better paying job, making us farther behind in 'real' duties (because we were short one while they were 'training', plus the time they took from us for required work).  

To be fair, I have to say, one of the smartest people I ever did meet, was an engineer with an advanced degree.

Conservatives also get frustrated with 'degrees' being touted as necessary for 'every' job that pays well.  It may not need it, but some 'degreed person' in personnel thinks it is unfair for a person that digs ditches and changes light bulbs to be paid more than them; so when they write the job description and requirements, they cost the employer 'qualified applicants' for applicants that look good on paper.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 17, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Laugher is the appropriate response for PoliticalChic.



So that's where the term 'grinning idiot' comes from!


----------



## Father Time (Apr 17, 2010)

"you cannot counter the horrors of the leftist regimes"

Thank you for twisting what I actually said I'd do. This is about people being punished for not accepting new ideas but I can find people being punished for not accepting old ideas.

Like Galileo, or Christians being killed in ye olde Rome.

Although do tell me what was the point of your stories in the first place, that considering new ideas will lead to forcing people to accept those new ideas?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 17, 2010)

Father Time said:


> "you cannot counter the horrors of the leftist regimes"
> 
> Thank you for twisting what I actually said I'd do. This is about people being punished for not accepting new ideas but I can find people being punished for not accepting old ideas.
> 
> Like Galileo, or Christians being killed in ye olde Rome.



I'm pretty sure the folks who were slaughtered and maimed thought they were 'punished'.

And your stretch back two thousand years to find some example that, of course, has nothing to do with the political concepts under debate here, speaks volumes of the vapid nature of your thinking.


----------



## Father Time (Apr 17, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > "you cannot counter the horrors of the leftist regimes"
> ...



Unlike your stories of dictatorships that no one was supporting or mentioning which were clearly relevant to this discussion eh?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 17, 2010)

Father Time said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Father Time said:
> ...



Your inability to respond to the challenge, and the use of vulgarity, pretty much defines you.


----------



## Father Time (Apr 17, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



I gave you instances of people being punished for having new ideas, which is what this was about despite your attempts to turn everything into 'dem evil stupid lefties' vs. everyone else.

The least you can do is be honest about what the original challenge was.

And harping on the use of profanity is stupid, really really stupid, and it's something I'd expect from someone with nothing substantive.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 17, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Well since you don't apparently have anything at all with which to dispute PC's 'diatribes',



How does one dispute a diatribe, exactly?  People are entitled to their opinions.  Regardless of how asinine they are.



> lets explore that George Will article I cited earlier and which so far you have ignored.



Because I find Will to be an incessant bore.  As has been cited by several studies on here, the % of professors who consider themselves to be "liberal" is less than 50%.

Hardly the "liberal domination" of academia that conservatives get all tizzied up about.    

The only thing I found relevant about the Will piece is this:



> . . . .A filtering process, from graduate school admissions through tenure decisions, tends to exclude conservatives from what Mark Bauerlein calls academia's "sheltered habitat." In a dazzling essay in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Bauerlein, professor of English at Emory University and director of research and analysis at the National Endowment for the Arts, notes that the "first protocol" of academic society is the "common assumption" -- that, at professional gatherings, all the strangers in the room are liberals.



since it claims discrimination.  Even with that, it's largely anecdotal.  Will can no more prove that there is a political bias in the tenure process than I can prove that the core of Jupiter is a huge diamond.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 17, 2010)

logical4u said:


> We do get frustrated with people that have 'an education' (from a higher 'learning' institution), getting a job position that pays better than ours, and then, they want us (those that chose a different path) to 'train them'.  Then they jump to the next better paying job, making us farther behind in 'real' duties (because we were short one while they were 'training', plus the time they took from us for required work).



Why?  Like it or not, there is value to a degree and people with degrees are going to be favored for higher salaried positions over those without them (in general).


----------



## Foxfyre (Apr 17, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Well since you don't apparently have anything at all with which to dispute PC's 'diatribes',
> ...



Okay my turn to ask for a source or support for your opinion.  A number of studies, cited by PC, G Will, and myself, iclearly identifies a liberal bias in academia AND the media.

What is your authoritative source for your opinion that the number of professors who consider themselves to be liberal is less than 50%?  Do you have one that cites a scientific poll or study as we have cited to support our opinion>?

And further, how do you argue against my point that liberals mostly consider themselves to be in the mainstream and the 'normal' ones while the rest of us who express views consdiered to be right of center or conservative to be the ones who are out of the mainstream?

Whether or not you consider Will a bore, he is not stating the facts he stated in a vacuum.  Most liberals in academia or the media automatically assume that those among them are liberal.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 17, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> And the great hero of the left, FDR, laughing about Soviet agents in his administration.
> If you are unfamiliar with that, I would be happy to aid in your education.



FDR is considered, without a doubt, the greatest American President of the 20th Century.

Ironically, his effectiveness is still evident today and can be viewed by conservatives need to denigrate him.

Ironically, the denigration is usually while sticking up for a drunken fiend like Joseph McCarthy.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 17, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Okay my turn to ask for a source or support for your opinion.  A number of studies, cited by PC, G Will, and myself, iclearly identifies a liberal bias in academia AND the media.
> 
> What is your authoritative source for your opinion that the number of professors who consider themselves to be liberal is less than 50%?  Do you have one that cites a scientific poll or study as we have cited to support our opinion>?



It would be from PC:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2218495-post195.html



> "Higher Education Research Institute at the UCLA published a survey in 2002, of 55,521 professors at 416 colleges and universities nationwide. They found that 48% of the professors identified themselves as &#8216;liberal&#8217; or &#8216;far left;&#8217; 34% as &#8216;middle of the road.



Being a believer in statistics, I am impressed with any study where n=55,521.  I don't think you could do much better than that on this issue.  Anyways:  Via simple math:  52% of professors in this country don't consider themselves to be liberal or far left.  

If we reduce this to simple liberal vs. conservative logic, as PC loves to do:  that means that 52% of them are conservative.  

However, we both know that manner of thinking is silly, especially in light of the fact that 34% consider themselves to be middle of the road.  

At any rate, I think we can safely say that, in light of the actual numbers, the "liberal domination" of academia is somewhat of a canard.  



> And further, how do you argue against my point that liberals mostly consider themselves to be in the mainstream and the 'normal' ones while the rest of us who express views consdiered to be right of center or conservative to be the ones who are out of the mainstream?



By pointing out that it is your opinion that you can, in no way quantify.  Unless you think you can speak for about 20,000 individuals.  

You have observer bias on this issue.  You want to see a liberal domination of higher education, so when the numbers don't square with that, you have to explain it away somehow.  



> Whether or not you consider Will a bore, he is not stating the facts he stated in a vacuum.  Most liberals in academia or the media automatically assume that those among them are liberal.



Will is stating an opinion.  Once again, he can no more prove it than I can prove that the core of Jupiter is a large diamond.  If Will, or a faculty member, could prove they were denied tenure for political reasons, the case would be being made in a court and not on some lame op-ed piece.

But to be an editorialist, you have to know how to pluck the right heart-strings.  

Being in the media, you should know that.


----------



## midcan5 (Apr 17, 2010)

My gawd that is one stupid OP.  Why does the right find it necessary to constantly define the left?  Most people are conservative in their personal life, most people are liberal in the here and now, because they live in the here and now. Ideas are open and that makes them left leaning or liberal, that's just the way it is. Conservatism as a living philosophy is simply reactionary, it doesn't like change. Comfort can be comfortable, change is unknown and thus alien to conservatives.

Jonathan Haidt on the moral roots of liberals and conservatives | Video on TED.com

"The uncompromising attitude [conservative attitude] is more indicative of an inner uncertainty than a deep conviction. The implacable stand is directed more against the doubt within than the assailant without." Eric Hoffer

The Rhetoric of Reaction - Albert O. Hirschman - Harvard University Press

*"Hirschman draws his examples from three successive waves of reactive [conservative] thought that arose in response to the liberal ideas of the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man, to democratization and the drive toward universal suffrage in the nineteenth century, and to the welfare state in our own century. *In each case he identifies three principal arguments invariably used: (1) the perversity thesis, whereby any action to improve some feature of the political, social, or economic order is alleged to result in the exact opposite of what was intended; (2) the futility thesis, which predicts that attempts at social transformation will produce no effects whatever--will simply be incapable of making a dent in the status quo; (3) the jeopardy thesis, holding that the cost of the proposed reform is unacceptable because it will endanger previous hard-won accomplishments. He illustrates these propositions by citing writers across the centuries from Alexis de Tocqueville to George Stigler, Herbert Spencer to Jay Forrester, Edmund Burke to Charles Murray. Finally, in a lightning turnabout, he shows that progressives are frequently apt to employ closely related rhetorical postures, which are as biased as their reactionary counterparts. For those who aspire to the genuine dialogue that characterizes a truly democratic society, Hirschman points out that both types of rhetoric function, in effect, as contraptions designed to make debate impossible. In the process, his book makes an original contribution to democratic thought. The Rhetoric of Reaction is a delightful handbook for all discussions of public affairs, the welfare state, and the history of social, economic, and political thought, whether conducted by ordinary citizens or academics."


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 17, 2010)

midcan5 said:


> My gawd that is one stupid OP.  Why does the right find it necessary to constantly define the left?  Most people are conservative in their personal life, most people are liberal in the here and now, because they live in the here and now. Ideas are open and that makes them left leaning or liberal, that's just the way it is. Conservatism as a living philosophy is simply reactionary, it doesn't like change. Comfort can be comfortable, change is unknown and thus alien to conservatives..............



Brilliant and rep-worthy.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 17, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...




As opposed to the capitalist deciding what's covered and what's not based on how much your care will lower his bonus at the end of the fiscal year?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...vate-insurance-and-theyre-not-going-away.html


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 18, 2010)

Father Time said:


> Is it just me or does it seem like PC will jump onto any theory without question if it makes liberals look bad?




yet when you ask her what she believes in...


it's Liberalism


She's still naive to think that the classical doctrine can work, even though history proves her wrong


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 18, 2010)

Dude said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...


no... these are newly printed.  They're still shiny and without rips.  Patron saint of MN libs I guess worshiping at the feet of their political martyr.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 18, 2010)

midcan5 said:


> My gawd that is one stupid OP. * Why does the right find it necessary to constantly define the left? *


What I find most telling about the Right is, while they habitually define the Left, they have a cow if the Left hits them with the Golden Rule and defines the Right. They say only the Right can define the Right. 

Apparently only the Right can define anything. After all, they have also anointed themselves as the ultimate definers of the Constitution, the "intent" of the Founding Fathers, the meaning of the words used by others they "sort of" quote, and everything else for that matter.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 18, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> the meaning of the words used by others they "sort of" quote



Like PC and her quotemines? Like her trying to use half of a man's sentence to claim that a statement about how America is a single People and would stand ready for forge new constitutions and laws as a single People even if the current system were somehow taken out of the picture meant he wanted to destroy America?


----------



## sitarro (Apr 18, 2010)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Why would the objects of such overt disdain of academe hang around?
> ...


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 18, 2010)

"If you are 20 and not a liberal, you have no heart.  If you are 30 and aren't conservative, you have no brain."  Winston Churchill.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 18, 2010)

You reactionaries are not conservatives.  You are agenda-driven activist whackos of the far, far whinge right.  America knows what you are, and that is why you are being rejected.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 18, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> "If you are 20 and not a liberal, you have no heart.  If you are 30 and aren't conservative, you have no brain."  Winston Churchill.


Churchill never said that, and you know it.

All CON$ervoFascists can do is make up phony quotes because they know they can't argue the facts since they have no facts to argue.



> If you're not liberal when you're young...
> 
> There is no record of Churchill ever speaking these words, and it is highly unlikely that he would have because Churchill himself did precisely the opposite. He entered politics as a Conservative and was a Conservative at age 25. He switched to the Liberal Party at age 29 and was a Liberal at age 35. (He returned to the Conservatives at age 49.) Also, his beloved wife, Clementine, was a life-long Liberal, and Churchill would hardly have delivered such an indirect insult to her.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 18, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> > My gawd that is one stupid OP. * Why does the right find it necessary to constantly define the left? *
> ...


Define or be defined.


Since the left can't define themselves for what they are --Fabian socialists who hide behind stolen monikers (liberal) and vagaries (progressive)-- because nobody would have anything to do with them, the task is available for others to do so.

As for the intent of the founders, they were made clear in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, which are written in very plain English. But Orwell already covered the proclivity of socialists to twist and ignore the meanings of words in *1984*, didn't he?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 18, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> You reactionaries are not conservatives.  You are agenda-driven activist whackos of the far, far whinge right.  America knows what you are, and that is why you are being rejected.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5R-voFL4ZL8]YouTube - Deep Purple-You Fool No One (live 1974)[/ame]


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 18, 2010)

Dude said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > midcan5 said:
> ...


One other thing about CON$, they can always RATIONALIZE their hypocrisy!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 18, 2010)

Taking over academia was one part of the plan: academia, the media and a political party (the Dems)

Progressive can lie all day long about the Greatness of FDR, Gorby won the Cold War, LBJ's love for Negroes and what a great deal Socialism is.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 18, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> "If you are 20 and not a liberal, you have no heart.  If you are 30 and aren't conservative, you have no brain."  Winston Churchill.



Winston Churchill never said that.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 18, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > "If you are 20 and not a liberal, you have no heart.  If you are 30 and aren't conservative, you have no brain."  Winston Churchill.
> ...


That's where I got it attributed to.  He was an extremely witty man.  But if you can point me to the proper attribution, I'd be happy.

The statement's still true.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 18, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



The validity of the statement is your opinion.  

I don't know who said it, but it wasn't Churchill.

Quotes Falsely Attributed


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 18, 2010)

bigfitz is entitled to an opinion, no matter how wrong it is.  This is America after all.


----------



## Father Time (Apr 18, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



No kidding, does he really believe that libs, or anyone for that matter, can't define for themselves what they believe and need others to do it for them? How smug.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 18, 2010)

No, that makes sense that cons would need that for themselves (think Sean, Rush, Sarah, Michelle, etc, to tell them what to think and how to be), so the wierdos think the center and the left needs it as well.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 18, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigfitz is entitled to an opinion, no matter how wrong it is.  This is America after all.


Better to be right in governance and wrong in quote attribution I guess.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 18, 2010)

Don't worry, fitz, you will be right on neither.

Weren't you the loon that was attributing something hoaky to Abraham Lincoln a couple of months ago?


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 18, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...


No one of note ever said it.
It is a typical false quote made up by CON$ who are rightly too ashamed to take credit for it.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 18, 2010)

Just fighting for scraps of victory in a lost argument that have nothing to do with the issue.

Time to leave the dogs to go after the bones in the straw while the feast is on the table.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 18, 2010)

yes, fitz, you have lost again.  move on.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 18, 2010)

What's to lose?

Professors are leftists except in a few relegated departments in 75% of the universities in the nation.  You can look at polling data for whom they vote for for more confirmation.

All you got to pick at is who is really the one who made the (true) observation that is distilled into that quote you claim is misattributed to Churchill... but then have not shown me who it really belongs to.

So yes, you're arguing about scraps of bone on the floor in the hay with the rats, because the original thesis of this discussion still has not been effectively refuted.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 18, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> What's to lose?
> 
> Professors are leftists except in a few relegated departments in 75% of the universities in the nation.  You can look at polling data for whom they vote for for more confirmation.
> 
> ...


You gotta love the way CON$ operate. They make up a phony quote spoken by no one and then they demand you tell them who said it. 

Your claim of leftist professors is just as phony as your quote.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 18, 2010)

del said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Here we are again with the right SPEWING HATE  on any education and the people who seek education.
> ...



Are you sick


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 19, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> What's to lose?
> 
> Professors are leftists except in a few relegated departments in 75% of the universities in the nation.  You can look at polling data for whom they vote for for more confirmation.
> 
> ...



You made the misattribution to Churchill, who never said anything such thing.  This is why you continually lose points, because you simply don't pay close attention or you refuse to accept facts.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 19, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigfitz is entitled to an opinion, no matter how wrong it is.  This is America after all.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5CoGJevTuo]YouTube - Deep Purple - You Fool No One[/ame]


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 19, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> No, that makes sense that cons would need that for themselves (think Sean, Rush, Sarah, Michelle, etc, to tell them what to think and how to be), so the wierdos think the center and the left needs it as well.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5CoGJevTuo]YouTube - Deep Purple - You Fool No One[/ame]


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 19, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > What's to lose?
> ...


and yet you haven't been able to correct me.  Only to assert that I'm wrong.

I await your correction eagerly.  Otherwise, I think there's a scrap of chicken bone over in the corner the rats haven't gotten to


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 19, 2010)

Fitz, son, there is nothing to show that you are right.  That's problem.  You have not offered anything.


----------

