Do conservatives ever wonder WHY liberalism is prevalent in higher education?

[Oldstyle]

Somehow you now equate "liberalism" with knowledge. It's not. Some of the most ridiculous ideas out there right now are being put forth by supposedly intelligent liberals.

Are you equating conservatism with knowledge and the betterment of the average person?

I know it's "heresy" to you progressives...but YES...I am doing exactly that! Why? Because conservatism to me means doing things in a rational way...whether it be economics or with social issues. To claim that only liberals have the well being of the average person in mind is ridiculous.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Why are so many of you unwilling to admit that there IS a heavy liberal bias in higher education, Regent? Anyone who's attended public high school or college KNOWS it's there. When I took economics classes at UMASS back in the 70's that department's professors were essentially socialists. At that rather naive point of my life I accepted much of what they taught because THEY WERE PROFESSORS...THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT! It wasn't until I got out of college...and started running businesses that I slowly discovered that what they really had was a viewpoint with little practical experience to back it up. Socialism is one of those things that works well in theory yet never does as well in the real world. Capitalism...for all it's faults...has given the common worker a far better standard of living than any other system.

Most industrial countries on this planet, if not all, have mixed economies, socialism and capitalism. Can you name three countries that do not have a capitalistic/socialistic economy?

I've never made the contention that anyone has a "pure" version of either a capitalistic or a socialistic economy. My point is that it's laughably naive to make the claim that only liberalism has helped the common worker.

Can you provide examples where "only" conservatism "has helped the common worker"?

 

[Oldstyle]

Extreme socialism AKA communism is a failure. Extreme capitalism AKA unregulated free markets is just as much of a failure. Both have caused harm to the common worker. Well regulated capitalism with social safety nets is the middle ground that actually works best for the common worker.

And would you agree that it is a tendency for progressives to over-regulate capitalism as well as strive for a cradle to the grave "nanny state" that has now brought us to a point where it ISN'T working well for the common worker?

That is one perspective. Another is that the past 30 years of incessant deregulation have caused the economic collapse that has placed the social safety net in danger.

Please tell me you're joking? 30 years of "incessant deregulation"? We've added more regulation in the past 30 years than in the history of the world and we continue to do so now. The safety net is in danger because we've reached a tipping point where more people are taking out of the system than are paying in.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Somehow you now equate "liberalism" with knowledge. It's not. Some of the most ridiculous ideas out there right now are being put forth by supposedly intelligent liberals.

Are you equating conservatism with knowledge and the betterment of the average person?

I know it's "heresy" to you progressives

Please refrain from dictating what you imagine to be my position.

...but YES...I am doing exactly that! Why? Because conservatism to me means doing things in a rational way...whether it be economics or with social issues. To claim that only liberals have the well being of the average person in mind is ridiculous.

What is "irrationa"l about the economic and/or social way of doing things that conservatives are proposing to do in a "rational" manner? Please provide actual concrete examples of each.

 

[Oldstyle]

Most industrial countries on this planet, if not all, have mixed economies, socialism and capitalism. Can you name three countries that do not have a capitalistic/socialistic economy?

I've never made the contention that anyone has a "pure" version of either a capitalistic or a socialistic economy. My point is that it's laughably naive to make the claim that only liberalism has helped the common worker.

Can you provide examples where "only" conservatism "has helped the common worker"?

The difference in philosophy between liberals and conservatives at this point in history boils down to what each group feels government should do. Liberals feel that government should take care of people by imposing regulations...conservatives feel that government should allow people to prosper by not imposing regulations.

My take on the two positions is this...

Good regulation is a benefit. Bad regulation is a curse. At the present time we have too few of the former and too many of the latter.

 

[Oldstyle]

Are you equating conservatism with knowledge and the betterment of the average person?

I know it's "heresy" to you progressives

Please refrain from dictating what you imagine to be my position.

...but YES...I am doing exactly that! Why? Because conservatism to me means doing things in a rational way...whether it be economics or with social issues. To claim that only liberals have the well being of the average person in mind is ridiculous.

What is "irrationa"l about the economic and/or social way of doing things that conservatives are proposing to do in a "rational" manner? Please provide actual concrete examples of each.

Let's take Welfare as the classic example. Liberals feel that giving people welfare will help them. So we've had fifty years of welfare programs. What's happened to the very people that were supposed to be "helped"? You've got generations of families where nobody has held a job. Generations of families where there is no work ethic because there has always been a government hand out waiting for them. Has that REALLY helped those people? Has it REALLY improved their lot in life? It's been shown in study after study that welfare is in fact a sort of "prison" of it's own...and yet we continue to not only pursue that course...many seek to constantly add to it. That to me is irrational.

 

[Meathead]

What is "irrationa"l about the economic and/or social way of doing things that conservatives are proposing to do in a "rational" manner? Please provide actual concrete examples of each.

Wtf are you, a professor? And this question:

"What is "irrationa"l about the economic and/or social way of doing things that conservatives are proposing to do in a "rational" manner?"

What the hell does it mean? How, exactly, does one explain that something is irrational? First, it is incumbent for someone to prove a point before asking one to disprove it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I've never made the contention that anyone has a "pure" version of either a capitalistic or a socialistic economy. My point is that it's laughably naive to make the claim that only liberalism has helped the common worker.

Can you provide examples where "only" conservatism "has helped the common worker"?

The difference in philosophy between liberals and conservatives at this point in history boils down to what each group feels government should do. Liberals feel that government should take care of people by imposing regulations...conservatives feel that government should allow people to prosper by not imposing regulations.

My take on the two positions is this...

Good regulation is a benefit. Bad regulation is a curse. At the present time we have too few of the former and too many of the latter.

So you cannot provide any actual examples of conservatism helping the common worker, right?

Moving on, your current position is to claim that there are too many "bad regulations" in place. However during the past 30 years there is a track record of conservatives removing allegedly "bad regulations" only to result in some kind of economic scandal and/or collapse to a greater or lessor degree. So is this because conservatives are incapable of differentiating between "good" and "bad" regulations when it comes to deregulating or is it that those regulations served a purpose and that removing them enabled the negative economic outcome that they were intended to prevent in the first place?

 

[buckeye45_73]

I know it's "heresy" to you progressives

Please refrain from dictating what you imagine to be my position.

...but YES...I am doing exactly that! Why? Because conservatism to me means doing things in a rational way...whether it be economics or with social issues. To claim that only liberals have the well being of the average person in mind is ridiculous.

What is "irrationa"l about the economic and/or social way of doing things that conservatives are proposing to do in a "rational" manner? Please provide actual concrete examples of each.

Let's take Welfare as the classic example. Liberals feel that giving people welfare will help them. So we've had fifty years of welfare programs. What's happened to the very people that were supposed to be "helped"? You've got generations of families where nobody has held a job. Generations of families where there is no work ethic because there has always been a government hand out waiting for them. Has that REALLY helped those people? Has it REALLY improved their lot in life? It's been shown in study after study that welfare is in fact a sort of "prison" of it's own...and yet we continue to not only pursue that course...many seek to constantly add to it. That to me is irrational.

couldnt agree more.....

 

[Derideo_Te]

What is "irrationa"l about the economic and/or social way of doing things that conservatives are proposing to do in a "rational" manner? Please provide actual concrete examples of each.

Wtf are you, a professor?

No.

And this question:

"What is "irrationa"l about the economic and/or social way of doing things that conservatives are proposing to do in a "rational" manner?"

What the hell does it mean? How, exactly, does one explain that something is irrational? First, it is incumbent for someone to prove a point before asking one to disprove it.

It was Oldstyle who made the implication about irrationality. Perhaps you would be better served by asking him what he meant since we are both seeking the same answer.

 

[Meathead]

What is "irrationa"l about the economic and/or social way of doing things that conservatives are proposing to do in a "rational" manner? Please provide actual concrete examples of each.

Wtf are you, a professor?

No.

And this question:

"What is "irrationa"l about the economic and/or social way of doing things that conservatives are proposing to do in a "rational" manner?"

What the hell does it mean? How, exactly, does one explain that something is irrational? First, it is incumbent for someone to prove a point before asking one to disprove it.

It was Oldstyle who made the implication about irrationality. Perhaps you would be better served by asking him what he meant since we are both seeking the same answer.

Action needs to have ration, reaction can default. The proverbial ball is in your court.

 

[bripat9643]

Most industrial countries on this planet, if not all, have mixed economies, socialism and capitalism. Can you name three countries that do not have a capitalistic/socialistic economy?

I've never made the contention that anyone has a "pure" version of either a capitalistic or a socialistic economy. My point is that it's laughably naive to make the claim that only liberalism has helped the common worker.

Can you provide examples where "only" conservatism "has helped the common worker"?

Everything you buy is the result of the market economy - conservatism, in other words.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Wtf are you, a professor?

No.

And this question:

"What is "irrationa"l about the economic and/or social way of doing things that conservatives are proposing to do in a "rational" manner?"

What the hell does it mean? How, exactly, does one explain that something is irrational? First, it is incumbent for someone to prove a point before asking one to disprove it.

It was Oldstyle who made the implication about irrationality. Perhaps you would be better served by asking him what he meant since we are both seeking the same answer.

Action needs to have ration, reaction can default. The proverbial ball is in your court.

It is irrational of you to expect someone else to explain what Oldstyle was thinking when he made this allegation.

Because conservatism to me means doing things in a rational way...whether it be economics or with social issues.

The implication here was that liberals are doing things in an "irrational" manner when it comes to economics and social issues. Why do you assume that anyone else would know what Oldstyle was thinking when he made that allegation?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Everything you buy is the result of the market economy - conservatism, in other words.

-

 

[kaz]

The implication here was that liberals are doing things in an "irrational" manner when it comes to economics and social issues

Liberals are driven by emotion. It's irrational because even if you want to help someone, coming up with a plan that won't accomplish the task and implementing it anyway is not rational.

For example, the minimum wage. Liberals want to raise wages for low end workers. But businesses don't pay people more than they are worth, so every time the minimum wage goes up workers get fired in droves and it's that much harder for low end workers to get jobs. Either logic or looking at the economic data every time it happens would tell liberals that. But they ignore both logic and facts and pat themselves on the back for their generosity. Completely irrational.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Can you provide examples where "only" conservatism "has helped the common worker"?

The difference in philosophy between liberals and conservatives at this point in history boils down to what each group feels government should do. Liberals feel that government should take care of people by imposing regulations...conservatives feel that government should allow people to prosper by not imposing regulations.

My take on the two positions is this...

Good regulation is a benefit. Bad regulation is a curse. At the present time we have too few of the former and too many of the latter.

So you cannot provide any actual examples of conservatism helping the common worker, right?

Moving on, your current position is to claim that there are too many "bad regulations" in place. However during the past 30 years there is a track record of conservatives removing allegedly "bad regulations" only to result in some kind of economic scandal and/or collapse to a greater or lessor degree. So is this because conservatives are incapable of differentiating between "good" and "bad" regulations when it comes to deregulating or is it that those regulations served a purpose and that removing them enabled the negative economic outcome that they were intended to prevent in the first place?

Lets see, jobs, bennefits, you know free market capitalism....let me guess you think the min wage is a good idea and that helps workers, right?

 

[Derideo_Te]

The implication here was that liberals are doing things in an "irrational" manner when it comes to economics and social issues

Liberals are driven by emotion. It's irrational because even if you want to help someone, coming up with a plan that won't accomplish the task and implementing it anyway is not rational.

For example, the minimum wage. Liberals want to raise wages for low end workers. But businesses don't pay people more than they are worth, so every time the minimum wage goes up workers get fired in droves and it's that much harder for low end workers to get jobs. Either logic or looking at the economic data every time it happens would tell liberals that. But they ignore both logic and facts and pat themselves on the back for their generosity. Completely irrational.

Please provide credible independent nonpartisan verification for that statement.

 

[bripat9643]

Everything you buy is the result of the market economy - conservatism, in other words.

-

Don't have a comeback, eh?

 

[Derideo_Te]

The difference in philosophy between liberals and conservatives at this point in history boils down to what each group feels government should do. Liberals feel that government should take care of people by imposing regulations...conservatives feel that government should allow people to prosper by not imposing regulations.

My take on the two positions is this...

Good regulation is a benefit. Bad regulation is a curse. At the present time we have too few of the former and too many of the latter.

So you cannot provide any actual examples of conservatism helping the common worker, right?

Moving on, your current position is to claim that there are too many "bad regulations" in place. However during the past 30 years there is a track record of conservatives removing allegedly "bad regulations" only to result in some kind of economic scandal and/or collapse to a greater or lessor degree. So is this because conservatives are incapable of differentiating between "good" and "bad" regulations when it comes to deregulating or is it that those regulations served a purpose and that removing them enabled the negative economic outcome that they were intended to prevent in the first place?

Lets see, jobs, bennefits, you know free market capitalism....let me guess you think the min wage is a good idea and that helps workers, right?

Deregulated "free market capitalism" has cost millions of jobs and benefits.

 

[buckeye45_73]

The implication here was that liberals are doing things in an "irrational" manner when it comes to economics and social issues

Liberals are driven by emotion. It's irrational because even if you want to help someone, coming up with a plan that won't accomplish the task and implementing it anyway is not rational.

For example, the minimum wage. Liberals want to raise wages for low end workers. But businesses don't pay people more than they are worth, so every time the minimum wage goes up workers get fired in droves and it's that much harder for low end workers to get jobs. Either logic or looking at the economic data every time it happens would tell liberals that. But they ignore both logic and facts and pat themselves on the back for their generosity. Completely irrational.

Please provide credible independent nonpartisan verification for that statement.

you cant arbitrarily force a wage on someone.....or you have unintended consequences....like....outsourcing....illegal immigrants.....The reason McDonalds workers get paid shit, is the job isnt worth that much, it's for teenagers and entry level......yet democrats think people should be breadwinners with that job......it's called a McJob for a reason....

Again tell me why we dont raise the min wage to $100/hour?