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

[Oldstyle]

This nation has had welfare programs since it began and will continue to have welfare programs. That welfare money goes back into the economy almost immediately and isn't sent to the Cayman islands for safekeeping.

If the Founding Fathers had been put in a time machine and brought forward to 2013 they wouldn't even recognize what this country has become. Welfare as we know it didn't exist until 1935...one hundred and fifty nine years after this country began.

The founders were well aware of nation's changing, had they not just created a new independent nation, and then in 1787 they even changed that new nation's government with a newer one. In the process of creating that new nation's government had even made arrangements for the new nation's government to changed even further.
Welfare began with the new nation, ever hear of county poor farms?
Do you think there will be changes to this nation in the next 159 years that many of us would not recognize?

Your lack of knowledge about what a "poor farm" consisted of is rather staggering. The reason they were CALLED poor "farms" was that they were working farms where the able bodied residents were expected to WORK for their sustenance. They had zero resemblance to what welfare is today.

 

[buckeye45_73]

If the Founding Fathers had been put in a time machine and brought forward to 2013 they wouldn't even recognize what this country has become. Welfare as we know it didn't exist until 1935...one hundred and fifty nine years after this country began.

The founders were well aware of nation's changing, had they not just created a new independent nation, and then in 1787 they even changed that new nation's government with a newer one. In the process of creating that new nation's government had even made arrangements for the new nation's government to changed even further.
Welfare began with the new nation, ever hear of county poor farms?
Do you think there will be changes to this nation in the next 159 years that many of us would not recognize?

Your lack of knowledge about what a "poor farm" consisted of is rather staggering. The reason they were CALLED poor "farms" was that they were working farms where the able bodied residents were expected to WORK for their sustenance. They had zero resemblance to what welfare is today.

wow if anything, poor farms were small buisnesses.....liberals dont know anything....govt handouts in the 19th century....are you serious? They had the homestead act, which gave people some land...but guess what it was up to you to take care of it and if you didnt, buh bye....I love merit and performace over liberal policies like welfare, afirmative action and other bs crap.

 

[Billy000]

I don't buy that at all. Mostly because there are fundamental differences between liberalism and socialism. While they may be vaguely similar, they are too different to entertain the idea they are the same thing.

If there's a difference, then you should be able to explain it. It appears you decline to do so.

Well, if you're lazy and dumb to do the research yourself, I guess I'll explain it to you.

Liberalism wants to LIMIT the extremes of wealth and poverty. Socialism wants to ELIMINATE the extremes of wealth and poverty. Considering the rich are only getting richer, and the middle class is shrinking, we need liberal policies. That's right. (Small) government influence. See my signature for the facts on the wealth in this country.

Here is another important distinction. Modern day socialism rejects the idea of capitalism. Liberalism does not. Liberals do not want to change our economic system. However, the idea of corporate America having unchecked power is a scary thought. We need laws to LIMIT their power.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I don't buy that at all. Mostly because there are fundamental differences between liberalism and socialism. While they may be vaguely similar, they are too different to entertain the idea they are the same thing.

If there's a difference, then you should be able to explain it. It appears you decline to do so.

Well, if you're lazy and dumb to do the research yourself, I guess I'll explain it to you.

Liberalism wants to LIMIT the extremes of wealth and poverty. Socialism wants to ELIMINATE the extremes of wealth and poverty. Considering the rich are only getting richer, and the middle class is shrinking, we need liberal policies. That's right. (Small) government influence. See my signature for the facts on the wealth in this country.

Here is another important distinction. Modern day socialism rejects the idea of capitalism. Liberalism does not. Liberals do not want to change our economic system. However, the idea of corporate America having unchecked power is a scary thought. We need laws to LIMIT their power.

If true, then why after all 40+ years of all these liberal policies are the rich getting richer? Every 4 years democrats tell us this.....so apparently their programs suck at it.....second of all who is against SOME laws.....liberals want more than a few....the problem with liberalism, is none of the people who preach it, practice it....
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=0

Liberals are full of shit.....they tell others what to do and some of you drones fall for it.....look I dont care how much a person makes, if he's not killing people or doing something crazy bad(and no that does not include profit).....good for whoever is making cash.....I'm honest and consistant you arent!


Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”

 

[Billy000]

If there's a difference, then you should be able to explain it. It appears you decline to do so.

Well, if you're lazy and dumb to do the research yourself, I guess I'll explain it to you.

Liberalism wants to LIMIT the extremes of wealth and poverty. Socialism wants to ELIMINATE the extremes of wealth and poverty. Considering the rich are only getting richer, and the middle class is shrinking, we need liberal policies. That's right. (Small) government influence. See my signature for the facts on the wealth in this country.

Here is another important distinction. Modern day socialism rejects the idea of capitalism. Liberalism does not. Liberals do not want to change our economic system. However, the idea of corporate America having unchecked power is a scary thought. We need laws to LIMIT their power.

If true, then why after all 40+ years of all these liberal policies are the rich getting richer? Every 4 years democrats tell us this.....so apparently their programs suck at it.....second of all who is against SOME laws.....liberals want more than a few....the problem with liberalism, is none of the people who preach it, practice it....
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=0

Liberals are full of shit.....they tell others what to do and some of you drones fall for it.....look I dont care how much a person makes, if he's not killing people or doing something crazy bad(and no that does not include profit).....good for whoever is making cash.....I'm honest and consistant you arent!


Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”

Your article doesnt say much. Religion is key in this issue. Liberals tend to be secular. That is why they give less to charity. However, religious liberals, on average, give just as much as religious conservatives do. Who out of all is the most stingy? SECULAR CONSERVATIVES.

This isn't me talking. Your article made all of the above clear.

Your article also makes it clear that conservatives favor cutting social justice programs. What does that say about them?

 

[bripat9643]

I don't buy that at all. Mostly because there are fundamental differences between liberalism and socialism. While they may be vaguely similar, they are too different to entertain the idea they are the same thing.

If there's a difference, then you should be able to explain it. It appears you decline to do so.

Well, if you're lazy and dumb to do the research yourself, I guess I'll explain it to you.

Liberalism wants to LIMIT the extremes of wealth and poverty. Socialism wants to ELIMINATE the extremes of wealth and poverty. Considering the rich are only getting richer, and the middle class is shrinking, we need liberal policies. That's right. (Small) government influence. See my signature for the facts on the wealth in this country.

Of course, whenever you ask a liberal how much they want limit wealth, they only say "more than we are Right now." After each new attempt to "limit" wealth, liberals want more limits. As you take their demands to the limit, you end up with the same thing as the socialist want: absolute equality of incomes.

In reality, there is no difference.

Here is another important distinction. Modern day socialism rejects the idea of capitalism. Liberalism does not. Liberals do not want to change our economic system. However, the idea of corporate America having unchecked power is a scary thought. We need laws to LIMIT their power.

actually, liberals do reject capitalism. They claim they don't, but they reject every principal it's founded on. For example, liberals despise the profit motive. You can't claim the profit motive is evil and then claim you support capitalism.

 

[Billy000]

If there's a difference, then you should be able to explain it. It appears you decline to do so.

Well, if you're lazy and dumb to do the research yourself, I guess I'll explain it to you.

Liberalism wants to LIMIT the extremes of wealth and poverty. Socialism wants to ELIMINATE the extremes of wealth and poverty. Considering the rich are only getting richer, and the middle class is shrinking, we need liberal policies. That's right. (Small) government influence. See my signature for the facts on the wealth in this country.

Of course, whenever you ask a liberal how much they want limit wealth, they only say "more than we are Right now." After each new attempt to "limit" wealth, liberals want more limits. As you take their demands to the limit, you end up with the same thing as the socialist want: absolute equality of incomes.

In reality, there is no difference.

Here is another important distinction. Modern day socialism rejects the idea of capitalism. Liberalism does not. Liberals do not want to change our economic system. However, the idea of corporate America having unchecked power is a scary thought. We need laws to LIMIT their power.

actually, liberals do reject capitalism. They claim they don't, but they reject every principal it's founded on. For example, liberals despise the profit motive. You can't claim the profit motive is evil and then claim you support capitalism.

Your first point applies to both conservatives and liberals on the political spectrum. There are moderates and extremists. They can't agree about which laws are appropriate. You can't expect all liberals to have consistency if conservatives don't either.

Your second point is a complete contradiction. How could liberals reject all of the principles of capitalism when they say they don't reject capitalism itself? That doesn't make any sense.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Well, if you're lazy and dumb to do the research yourself, I guess I'll explain it to you.

Liberalism wants to LIMIT the extremes of wealth and poverty. Socialism wants to ELIMINATE the extremes of wealth and poverty. Considering the rich are only getting richer, and the middle class is shrinking, we need liberal policies. That's right. (Small) government influence. See my signature for the facts on the wealth in this country.

Of course, whenever you ask a liberal how much they want limit wealth, they only say "more than we are Right now." After each new attempt to "limit" wealth, liberals want more limits. As you take their demands to the limit, you end up with the same thing as the socialist want: absolute equality of incomes.

In reality, there is no difference.

Here is another important distinction. Modern day socialism rejects the idea of capitalism. Liberalism does not. Liberals do not want to change our economic system. However, the idea of corporate America having unchecked power is a scary thought. We need laws to LIMIT their power.

actually, liberals do reject capitalism. They claim they don't, but they reject every principal it's founded on. For example, liberals despise the profit motive. You can't claim the profit motive is evil and then claim you support capitalism.

Your first point applies to both conservatives and liberals on the political spectrum. There are moderates and extremists. They can't agree about which laws are appropriate. You can't expect all liberals to have consistency if conservatives don't either.

Your second point is a complete contradiction. How could liberals reject all of the principles of capitalism when they say they don't reject capitalism itself? That doesn't make any sense.

billy that's bs, liberals have NO, nada, ZERO consistancy.......none at all.....shall I keep going?
They can say they like capitalism while passing every law, regulation to destroy it.....faking isnt that hard, and some people buy it (ahem, liberal drones do)

 

[buckeye45_73]

Well, if you're lazy and dumb to do the research yourself, I guess I'll explain it to you.

Liberalism wants to LIMIT the extremes of wealth and poverty. Socialism wants to ELIMINATE the extremes of wealth and poverty. Considering the rich are only getting richer, and the middle class is shrinking, we need liberal policies. That's right. (Small) government influence. See my signature for the facts on the wealth in this country.

Here is another important distinction. Modern day socialism rejects the idea of capitalism. Liberalism does not. Liberals do not want to change our economic system. However, the idea of corporate America having unchecked power is a scary thought. We need laws to LIMIT their power.

If true, then why after all 40+ years of all these liberal policies are the rich getting richer? Every 4 years democrats tell us this.....so apparently their programs suck at it.....second of all who is against SOME laws.....liberals want more than a few....the problem with liberalism, is none of the people who preach it, practice it....
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=0

Liberals are full of shit.....they tell others what to do and some of you drones fall for it.....look I dont care how much a person makes, if he's not killing people or doing something crazy bad(and no that does not include profit).....good for whoever is making cash.....I'm honest and consistant you arent!


Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”

Your article doesnt say much. Religion is key in this issue. Liberals tend to be secular. That is why they give less to charity. However, religious liberals, on average, give just as much as religious conservatives do. Who out of all is the most stingy? SECULAR CONSERVATIVES.

This isn't me talking. Your article made all of the above clear.

Your article also makes it clear that conservatives favor cutting social justice programs. What does that say about them?

conservatives give far more than liberals of their OWN money, social justice is using OTHER peoples money and then liberals dont even like to pay taxes.....they're beyond hypocrits....
now onto the seculart arguement, did you just say something nice about religious people....holy shit, they practice what they preach, unlike atheist liberals who dont do shit, but want to force eveyone else to pay for their bs......no thanks.......sell that to some dumb idiot....I like people who practice what they preach.

 

[Billy000]

Your article doesnt say much. Religion is key in this issue. Liberals tend to be secular. That is why they give less to charity. However, religious liberals, on average, give just as much as religious conservatives do. Who out of all is the most stingy? SECULAR CONSERVATIVES.

This isn't me talking. Your article made all of the above clear.

Your article also makes it clear that conservatives favor cutting social justice programs. What does that say about them?

conservatives give far more than liberals of their OWN money, social justice is using OTHER peoples money and then liberals dont even like to pay taxes.....they're beyond hypocrits....
now onto the seculart arguement, did you just say something nice about religious people....holy shit, they practice what they preach, unlike atheist liberals who dont do shit, but want to force eveyone else to pay for their bs......no thanks.......sell that to some dumb idiot....I like people who practice what they preach.

You have such a narrow view of people don't you? You assume because I am liberal, that automatically means I have something against religious people. I don't. I have nothing against the rich either. You need to see through stereotypes if you are to have an informed opinion on an ideology.

Why would liberals not want to pay taxes if the policies they push for would affect them?

 

[Billy000]

Of course, whenever you ask a liberal how much they want limit wealth, they only say "more than we are Right now." After each new attempt to "limit" wealth, liberals want more limits. As you take their demands to the limit, you end up with the same thing as the socialist want: absolute equality of incomes.

In reality, there is no difference.



actually, liberals do reject capitalism. They claim they don't, but they reject every principal it's founded on. For example, liberals despise the profit motive. You can't claim the profit motive is evil and then claim you support capitalism.

Your first point applies to both conservatives and liberals on the political spectrum. There are moderates and extremists. They can't agree about which laws are appropriate. You can't expect all liberals to have consistency if conservatives don't either.

Your second point is a complete contradiction. How could liberals reject all of the principles of capitalism when they say they don't reject capitalism itself? That doesn't make any sense.

billy that's bs, liberals have NO, nada, ZERO consistancy.......none at all.....shall I keep going?
They can say they like capitalism while passing every law, regulation to destroy it.....faking isnt that hard, and some people buy it (ahem, liberal drones do)

Regulations are necessary. Do you know who has publically stated that regulations are necessary? Self made business man and republican Mitt Romney. This wasnt during his liberal days. He said this at a debate during the primaries.

 

[buckeye45_73]

conservatives give far more than liberals of their OWN money, social justice is using OTHER peoples money and then liberals dont even like to pay taxes.....they're beyond hypocrits....
now onto the seculart arguement, did you just say something nice about religious people....holy shit, they practice what they preach, unlike atheist liberals who dont do shit, but want to force eveyone else to pay for their bs......no thanks.......sell that to some dumb idiot....I like people who practice what they preach.

You have such a narrow view of people don't you? You assume because I am liberal, that automatically means I have something against religious people. I don't. I have nothing against the rich either. You need to see through stereotypes if you are to have an informed opinion on an ideology.

Why would liberals not want to pay taxes if the policies they push for would affect them?[/quote]


Good question, because they're hypocrits, they dont give to charity, they dont pay taxes yet insist the rich dont pay enough AND they want to increase spending.....doesnt make sense does it?

And narrow? Nope, realistic, yeah liberals never say anything about religious people.....except in the media, hollywood, and on this board.....and they never bitch about the rich, never.....do you read this board? do you watch the news? to you pay attention to campaigns? and you still dont see it......hmmmmmm

 

[buckeye45_73]

Your first point applies to both conservatives and liberals on the political spectrum. There are moderates and extremists. They can't agree about which laws are appropriate. You can't expect all liberals to have consistency if conservatives don't either.

Your second point is a complete contradiction. How could liberals reject all of the principles of capitalism when they say they don't reject capitalism itself? That doesn't make any sense.

billy that's bs, liberals have NO, nada, ZERO consistancy.......none at all.....shall I keep going?
They can say they like capitalism while passing every law, regulation to destroy it.....faking isnt that hard, and some people buy it (ahem, liberal drones do)

Regulations are necessary. Do you know who has publically stated that regulations are necessary? Self made business man and republican Mitt Romney. This wasnt during his liberal days. He said this at a debate during the primaries.

Who said they werent? I'm for some, not a bunch.....are those too technical for you? The fact is, you dont need to pass laws with 4 digits in pages.....this stuff can be much simpler and easier to understand.....but then what would lawyers and politicians do? cant hide other bs in bills and such.....

 

[SanTropez]

Ever spend a great deal of time within a 'higher education' institution without actually going to school there?? Look outwards, especially since you don't have to worry about taking classes and getting grades. Higher education facilities are A CLOSED SYSTEM where many ideas and ideals are bounced off the walls within that particular institution, and they reinforce the same ideas from the same individuals, especially since they have to "publish or perish." Anyone that stays there for a long period of time assimilates to the Same Thinking of their colleagues and there is not much influx of other lines of thinking. The professors publish and research their own biases over & over, publish even more (they have to or they don't get tenure), and dig in deep. I'm speaking of the Social Sciences mostly; science and technology are different.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Ever spend a great deal of time within a 'higher education' institution without actually going to school there?? Look outwards, especially since you don't have to worry about taking classes and getting grades. Higher education facilities are A CLOSED SYSTEM where many ideas and ideals are bounced off the walls within that particular institution, and they reinforce the same ideas from the same individuals, especially since they have to "publish or perish." Anyone that stays there for a long period of time assimilates to the Same Thinking of their colleagues and there is not much influx of other lines of thinking. The professors publish and research their own biases over & over, publish even more (they have to or they don't get tenure), and dig in deep. I'm speaking of the Social Sciences mostly; science and technology are different.

Very true, humanities are a joke in most cases.....not all...but most......and hard science guys laugh at social sciences........

 

[SanTropez]

Ever spend a great deal of time within a 'higher education' institution without actually going to school there?? Look outwards, especially since you don't have to worry about taking classes and getting grades. Higher education facilities are A CLOSED SYSTEM where many ideas and ideals are bounced off the walls within that particular institution, and they reinforce the same ideas from the same individuals, especially since they have to "publish or perish." Anyone that stays there for a long period of time assimilates to the Same Thinking of their colleagues and there is not much influx of other lines of thinking. The professors publish and research their own biases over & over, publish even more (they have to or they don't get tenure), and dig in deep. I'm speaking of the Social Sciences mostly; science and technology are different.

Very true, humanities are a joke in most cases.....not all...but most......and hard science guys laugh at social sciences........

There's always been a disconnect between the two sides - hard sciences and social sciences. It's interesting to straddle both worlds from the outside and listen to what's being said and published. The hard science people always thought the other side was flaky

 

[Billy000]

Ever spend a great deal of time within a 'higher education' institution without actually going to school there?? Look outwards, especially since you don't have to worry about taking classes and getting grades. Higher education facilities are A CLOSED SYSTEM where many ideas and ideals are bounced off the walls within that particular institution, and they reinforce the same ideas from the same individuals, especially since they have to "publish or perish." Anyone that stays there for a long period of time assimilates to the Same Thinking of their colleagues and there is not much influx of other lines of thinking. The professors publish and research their own biases over & over, publish even more (they have to or they don't get tenure), and dig in deep. I'm speaking of the Social Sciences mostly; science and technology are different.

That is such bullshit. What exactly gives you this insight? How would you know about the psychology of students and professors? The only way you would know such a thing is if it was published in a social science study! Otherwise, you are making guesses. Social science studies go through the same rigorous process like any hard science study. The pursuit of objectivity is just as important. There is no bias. I will admit that the conclusions in social science studies are less concrete than studies of hard science, but peer reviewed studies are peer reviewed studies. Bias is impossible if a study is peer reviewed.

 

[editec]

People who cannot stand uncertainty tend to hate the social sciences.

Totally understandable, of course.

If you think every question MUST HAVE a right answer then you do not have the kind of mind that will thrive in these fields of study.

 

[kaz]

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

Now THAT is a sweeping claim! Please explain how something that has in fact CREATED millions of jobs and provided heretofore unknown benefits for the average worker has suddenly become such a bad thing?

Created??? No, seriously now - created?!?

Just curious - how does one "create" millions of jobs when unemployment stood in the 7% range at the time he took office and it has never gone below 8% after he took office?

And in addition to that, the labor force, the total number of employed people shrank.

The answer to your question as to how it happened is called "liberal math."

 

[regent]

The founders were well aware of nation's changing, had they not just created a new independent nation, and then in 1787 they even changed that new nation's government with a newer one. In the process of creating that new nation's government had even made arrangements for the new nation's government to changed even further.
Welfare began with the new nation, ever hear of county poor farms?
Do you think there will be changes to this nation in the next 159 years that many of us would not recognize?

county poor farms were run by the county, not the federal government. If they existed today people like you would be screaming that they were despicable.

True, but still government run, and also true, people like me would be screaming that they were despicable. But that's the basic argument here, some people want to change things hopefully for the better and some want to keep them as they were 159 years ago. Others al would want America to pass laws to keep medical care the same for the next 159 years, to allow the future generations to decide what is best for them?
As conservatives discover every day it is difficult to keep things the same, change seems inevitable. Liberals want to direct the change, conservatives stop the change.
The arguments conservatives have against change are such arguments as: what we have now is the best, changes will destroy America, change is un-American, our founders did not want change, and so on. But America and the world keep changing the the poor-houses are gone and medical care will change, no matter.