# Why academia shuns Republicans



## BigDaddy

The editorial below was published in today's edition of the Grand Forks Herald. It's an interesting read and a plausible explanation why some regard academics as liberal.



> Posted on Tue, Dec. 14, 2004
> VIEWPOINT : Why academia shuns Republicans
> 
> By Jonathan Chait
> 
> LOS ANGELES - A few weeks ago, a pair of studies found that Democrats vastly outnumbered Republicans among professors at leading universities. Conservatives gleefully seized upon this to once again flagellate academia for its liberal bias.
> 
> Am I the only person who fails to understand why conservatives see this finding as vindication? After all, these studies show that some of the best-educated, most-informed people in the country overwhelmingly reject the GOP. Why is this seen as an indictment of academia, rather than as an indictment of the Republican Party?
> 
> Conservatives have a ready answer. The only reason faculties lean so far to the left is that deans, administrators and entire university cultures systematically discriminate against conservatives.
> 
> They don't, however, have much evidence to back this up. Mostly, they assume that the leftward tilt is prima facie evidence of anti-conservative discrimination. (Yet, when liberals hold up minority underrepresentation at some institutions as proof of discrimination, conservatives are justifiably skeptical.)
> 
> Conservative pundit George Will recently tied the dearth of conservative professors to the quasi-Marxist outlook in African American studies, women's studies and cultural studies. And at many campuses, those departments certainly don't amount to much more than left-wing propaganda factories. It's also true that radical multiculturalist theory - which sees white male oppression as the key to everything - has taken root in plenty of more mainstream disciplines.
> 
> This no doubt makes things hard on prospective conservative academics, not to mention mainstream liberal ones. A historian I know (a liberal) used to complain that history departments showed little interest in the traditional research he did, only caring about subjects like "buggery in the British navy."
> 
> But the rise of fashionable left-wing scholarship can be blamed for only a tiny part of the GOP's problem. The studies showing that academics prefer Democrats to Republicans also show that this preference holds in hard sciences as well as social sciences. Are we to believe that higher education has fallen prey to trendy multiculturalist engineering, or that physics departments everywhere suppress conservative quantum theorists?
> 
> The main causes of the partisan disparity on campus have little to do with anything so nefarious as discrimination. First, Republicans don't particularly want to be professors. To go into academia - a highly competitive field that does not offer great riches - you have to believe that living the life of the mind is more valuable than making a Wall Street salary. On most issues that offer a choice between having more money in your pocket and having something else - a cleaner environment, universal health insurance, etc. - conservatives tend to prefer the money and liberals tend to prefer the something else. It's not so surprising that the same thinking would extend to career choices.
> 
> Second, professors don't particularly want to be Republicans. In recent years, and especially under George W. Bush, Republicans have cultivated anti-intellectualism. Remember how Bush in 2000 ridiculed Al Gore for using all them big numbers?
> 
> That's not just a campaign ploy. It's how Republicans govern these days. Last summer, my colleague Frank Foer wrote a cover story in the New Republic detailing the way the Bush administration had disdained the advice of experts. And not liberal experts, either. These were Republican-appointed wonks whose know-how on topics such as global warming, the national debt and occupying Iraq were systematically ignored. Bush prefers to follow his gut.
> 
> In the world of academia, that's about the nastiest thing you can say about somebody. Bush's supporters consider it a compliment. "Republicans, from Reagan to Bush, admire leaders who are straight-talking men of faith. The Republican leader doesn't have to be book smart," wrote conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks a week before the election. "Democrats, on the other hand, are more apt to emphasize being knowledgeable and thoughtful. They value leaders who see complexities, who possess the virtues of the well-educated."
> 
> It so happens that, in other columns, Brooks has blamed the dearth of conservative professors on ideological discrimination. In fact, the GOP is just being rejected by those who not only prefer their leaders to think complexly but are complex thinkers themselves. There's a problem with this picture, all right, but it doesn't lie with academia.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Chait is a senior editor at the New Republic.


----------



## mr.trooper

Um....Yea.

think its a little of both. I think Reps are discriminated against because Dems think we are all Red-necked hicks. But also, some of the reason is because we are in many ways red-necked hicks  me included, and I am proud to be a "*******". The thing is, this creates problems for the Repubs who are NOT, and wish to pursue higher academic studies. I have had people tell me that they are surprised I am in college when they find out I'm a Republican. 
How stupid is that? :idiot:


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I

College professors I know are Dems because they are a part of the "socialist" world. They have government jobs and love getting their government raise called a "step" every year whether they deserve it or not. Some of my good clients are professors, they hate paying taxes yet think their "steps" are justified no matter what.


----------



## Storm

My experience from college and now when I sub, as I posted earlier, is that most teachers on both the college and high school level are liberals. I agree with Remi, they have government jobs and are satisfied with a steady wage with benefits. They think this should be entitled to everyone, and it doesn't matter if you work or not. Everyone should be the same. This is socialism and has proven that it doesn't work. This mentality then trickles down to their moral and ethical thinking. Nothing is wrong and we shouldn't ever point out that anything or person is wrong, unless of course they are a Republican, George Bush Supporter, or a Christian, and heaven for bid if they are all three. Then it is open season and you can even go as far as making up lies to bash them. Much like Dan Rather did during the election when he broadcasted across the country that Bush somehow got out of military service because of his father. This was later proven to be a totally made up story by a Bush hater in Texas. But of course the media and probably every Liberal college professor ran with it. The trickle down effect of Liberalism then moves into the moral areas such as same sex marriage, abortion on demand and so forth. Once again we can't stand up and say that how wrong such things are because everyone should have the same rights, not matter how unethical it is. Liberals with preach tolerance for the homosexual movement, abortion movement, environmental movement, but as soon as a conservative speaks there is no tolerance for their opions. This just shows their true colors and what they are about. I think our country is moving more to the right because of what we have seen in the past of Liberalism. It doesn't work, all you have to do is look at Europe, and Russia and see the results. It is scarry for me to see high school teachers brain washing students about George Bush and the Republican party. But the truth always comes out.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Remmi_&_I said:


> College professors I know are Dems because they are a part of the "socialist" world. They have government jobs and love getting their government raise called a "step" every year whether they deserve it or not. Some of my good clients are professors, they hate paying taxes yet think their "steps" are justified no matter what.


Can you think of a better way to gradually increase the pay of professors? Certainly you cannot pay a professor who has been teaching for 10 years the same as one who has been teaching for 10 days, and you cannot let the students decide if they deserve a raise because then the studies would pander to the students, ergo less homework and learning, more fun time and joking around.

As for people being surprised about your education and political affiliation trooper, it is because in recent history the lower classes were republican, because the party did the most good for them. That is no longer how it is however, the republicans do very little to support the lower class.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Many times it is the only job they can keep! I had 5 Prof in college that where Rep and the rest Dem's. 4 of the 5 had hands on interests in businesses not related to the school. One farmed and was in real estate sales,one ran a successfully retail store, one was involved in a manufacturing facility, the other owned two convenient stores and hand rental property. The fifth was a retired military man who just enjoyed being around young minds.

Of the rest of the Profs only one had any business connections and he was a lawyer, who had a active practice. All 4 have left the teaching profession for the same reason. Lack of accountability to the students for what is being taught. All had seen enough dumbing down of the students and where being pressured to lower the standards for the classes they taught to keep the graduation higher.

Inter sting thing about these Prof is that none of them took attendance for the classes they taught, it was the first lesson in teaching that you and you alone where responsible to yourself. All the others made being in class part of the grade. Yet all would allow those that skipped to bring up the grade point with extra credit work.

Funny thing also was the time that the classes where held. The Rep classes all where first or second period classes with the others being later in the day. Seldom did I see people missing class for those early periods as much as I did in the others. It amazed me to here students comment about not wanting to miss anything.


----------



## seabass

Remmi_&_I said:


> College professors I know are Dems because they are a part of the "socialist" world. They have government jobs and love getting their government raise called a "step" every year whether they deserve it or not. Some of my good clients are professors, they hate paying taxes yet think their "steps" are justified no matter what.


Maybe I went to the wrong schools or took the wrong classes... but the professors I know conduct a great deal of research along with their teaching responsibilities. In order to keep their jobs secure they must maintain grant money flowing in by sending research articles out. Publish or perish, as they say. This is socialism?


----------



## Storm

Militant Tiger Wrote:

"because in recent history the lower classes were republican, because the party did the most good for them. That is no longer how it is however, the republicans do very little to support the lower class."

I'm not sure where you get this idea that Republicans made up the lower class. In the past, the Republican Party has been made up of business owners and the upper middle class to the upper class. Basically white collar workers. Democrats have traditional assiciated themselves with more of the Blue collar workers which means Unions. Also minorities and women. This still is true today, except that unions are getting weaker and more and more middle class, blue collar voters are voting Republican.

The comment of "The Republicans do very little to support the lover class." sounds like a great sound bite from the John Kerry campaign. Can you be more specific? The Republicans have created some of the largest tax cuts in U.S. history. This means the lower class can keep more money to spend how ever they choose. This also means the middle class and upper class with also have more money to spend since they won't have to pay more taxes. This spurs the economy and creats more jobs. This will allow the lower class to get a job, or maybe even a better job so that they can move up to the middle class.

If I read you right your next statement will be that the wealthy get the largest tax cuts, at least that is what John Kerry and the Democratic party would say. And the answer is, of course they will get the largest tax cuts because they pay the most in taxes and should get a larger tax cut. But everyone will pay less taxes under the Republican Party, because they believe in letting YOU decide what to do with your money, not the Federal Government. Democrats love to promote class warfare to try to incite the lower class, and middle lower class into resenting rich people so that they will vote Democrat. It just seems strange when John Kerry and his wife make millions and are in the caterogy of the elite rich, they are exactly the people that the Dems want you to hate and try to align with the Republican Party.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"I'm not sure where you get this idea that Republicans made up the lower class. In the past, the Republican Party has been made up of business owners and the upper middle class to the upper class."

Yes this is why the south and plains states voted overwhelmingly for Bush, they are well known for their majority of upper middle class citizens and upper class...

"This still is true today, except that unions are getting weaker and more and more middle class, blue collar voters are voting Republican. "

I wasn't aware that a organization itself could have a class but I'll play your game. If what you say held true then Michigan with its large number of auto unions should have gone overwhelmingly bush right? Wrong, the majority of unions wanted Kerry in office.

"The comment of "The Republicans do very little to support the lover class." sounds like a great sound bite from the John Kerry campaign. Can you be more specific? The Republicans have created some of the largest tax cuts in U.S. history. This means the lower class can keep more money to spend how ever they choose. This also means the middle class and upper class with also have more money to spend since they won't have to pay more taxes. This spurs the economy and creats more jobs. This will allow the lower class to get a job, or maybe even a better job so that they can move up to the middle class. "

Wow that almost sounds too good to be true. In fact lets take it one step further and have no taxes, then everyone can spend their cash as they choose as we will have a super-economy! right? Without taxes nothing gets done, and is most likely why this administration has gotten little done.


----------



## pointer99

Militant_Tiger said:


> Wow that almost sounds too good to be true. In fact lets take it one step further and have no taxes, then everyone can spend their cash as they choose


damn good idea.....i'm fer it.

yup i'm a business owner. i like making my on way. don't ask for no help from uncle sam and don't want no interferance either.

don't want to pay no taxes to pay for anyones advanced school cause after reading some of your posts i don't feel i am gettin my moneys worth.

trouble with education is it teaches people how to get a job. needs to teach them how to create jobs.

pointer


----------



## Plainsman

Get rid of all taxes. I guess resorting to the ludicrous to make a point. Unless you were serious of course. We need taxes, but when is enough enough, and when is it so much it retards the economy? We really are not arguing if we need taxes. Everyone wants to keep their money, but we are all realistic enough to know we need taxes. The real debate is where is the limit that will provide the government sufficient resources without dragging down the economy. Keep in mind that all forms of government have an inherent propensity for growth. Like cancer.

Storm, welcome aboard. I really enjoyed your post. My brother is a retired school teacher. He was in it for 40 or 41 years. I also have a teaching degree, but went other directions. My brothers observations would coincide perfectly with yours. What you had to say fit in perfectly with what he has observed since he began teaching in 1959. Where do you think MT got his opinions. From NEA to teacher, to little (read youthful) brains in the classroom waiting like sponges. The politicians play it up also. Remember when some of the leading democrats had their picture taken with children in a lunchroom. They said the republicans were trying to starve the children. The kids sucked it up too, even as they dumped most of their food in the garbage can. The power of suggestion I guess. The democrats don't think they need to be right, they just need to say it is so and far to many suck it up as truth. Remember before the election - Bush was wired, Bush didn't fulfill his commitment to the national guard yada yada yada.

Pointer, good to hear from you again. Didn't know if you died, or were still celebrating Bush wining. You left one thing out. They are taught how to get a job. You stated they need to know how to create jobs. Along that same line, they need to be taught how to do a job after they get it.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"don't want to pay no taxes to pay for anyones advanced school cause after reading some of your posts i don't feel i am gettin my moneys worth. "

You don't think that higher levels of public education are worth it because I don't agree with your political opinions. You fail to realize that the best investment is education, as it is an investment in the future. This again proves that the republicans only live in the here and now.

"Get rid of all taxes. I guess resorting to the ludicrous to make a point. Unless you were serious of course. We need taxes, but when is enough enough, and when is it so much it retards the economy? "

This site proves you wrong fairly well
http://www.gcglaw.com/resources/taxation/proposal.html

"Most people who own dividend-paying stocks tend to be wealthy and elderly. Eliminating taxation of this revenue source, which this sliver of our population would receive anyway, will not encourage these wealthy and elderly people to purchase more durable goods. The elimination of this tax will not cause the dividend recipients to buy new cars, television, computers, cell phones, thereby putting Americans to work building and selling such goods."

And this one has shows a few things as well
http://www.faireconomy.org/research/BushStimulus.html

"Where do you think MT got his opinions. From NEA to teacher, to little brains in the classroom waiting like sponges."

On the contrary, I have derived NONE of my opinions from my schooling.

"The democrats don't think they need to be right, they just need to say it is so and far to many suck it up as truth. Remember before the election - Bush was wired, Bush didn't fulfill his commitment to the national guard yada yada yada. "

You mean like the republican talking points? Say something enough and it must be true. Par instance, "Kerry is the most liberal senator", or "Saddam has nuclear weapons" (don't tell me that this was based on intelligence that was thought to be true, so was the Rather scandal) Also, it is true that Bush did not fulfill his requirements in the national guard, whether Dan Rather's intelligence was right or wrong.


----------



## mr.trooper

What ever happened to ASKING for a raise, and your employer granting it if he thought you were a hard worker? or are my morals out-dated?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

mr.trooper said:


> What ever happened to ASKING for a raise, and your employer granting it if he thought you were a hard worker? or are my morals out-dated?


Absolutely not trooper, but it is a little different with professors. You cant very well put the principal in every classroom all the time, and if you were to hire people to evaluate them you would waste yet more money. As I said you can't leave it up to the students to rate them, therefore the raise by time is the only viable method. The hope of this method is that teachers who are bad will be fired before they make it very many years.


----------



## pointer99

Plainsman said:


> Pointer, good to hear from you again. Didn't know if you died, or were still celebrating Bush wining.


sorry to report.......i died...... suiside after reading one too many of militant tigers posts. :beer:

short eulogy....in the presence of three paid mourners.

quite sad really. :eyeroll:

pointer


----------



## Plainsman

MT, the sites you referenced prove nothing. They are simply opinions like yours and mine. Do you ever wonder how famous and respected economists can have opposing opinion? Because like psychology it is not a hard science. Most of it is theoretical. They support their theory with reams of data. Most of the data has been manipulated by various statistical programs. You and I can both find dozens of publications, peer reviewed and gray literature, to support our assertions.

Every time I get a raise it is spent. My assertion is people get tax returns and spend them. As a matter of fact that is true of all but my wealthy acquaintances. If that is true in North Dakota it is likely elsewhere. Therefore it is my opinion that larger tax returns equal more expenditures, equal a stimulated economy. I don't need an economist to tell me that, I have observed it time after time. My data MT since the 1950's.


----------



## Storm

MT,

I'm sorry that I didn't make myself as clear as I should of, but will try again to make some important facts that you either misunderstood or took out of context.

1. Unions vote Democrat for the most part, always have and always will. But unions do not hold as much power as they use to. In other words less of the working population is union. Also where a union worker was guranteed to vote democrat in the past, some are now voting Republican even though they belong to a union.

2. The mid-west and south are not the wealthest segments of the country. In fact the south is the poorest segment of the U.S. Have you even been to Alabama, Mississippi, Louisana? Many people living in poverty. I would say the east coast, specifically the Northeast has the highest per capata income, state that Kerry took in the election. You are right about one thing, Michigan is heavily union, but Bush almost won the state, in fact it was close enough for a recount, but this didn't take place because Bush won Ohio and already had enough electoral votes to take the presidency. This is proof that more union members voted Republican (see #1 above) Ohio is probably the second largest union state in the nation and we all know Bush won that state.

3. Last but not least, we do need taxes, but how much is the question. You don't want to slow down the economy by raising taxes. Something the Bush administration hasn't done a very good job about is spending. The Republicans spent money like Democrats in the first 4 years. They through money at every program possible, and lowered taxes, thus push up the deficit.

That's all for now, and MT I'm not trying to put you down or anything negative like that. I just want you to see the truth for what it is.


----------



## Storm

"MT" was in reference to Militant Tiger


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"They through money at every program possible, and lowered taxes, thus push up the deficit. "

The only difference is that democrats take a little thought before throwing cash at a program like "No child left behind".

"1. Unions vote Democrat for the most part, always have and always will. But unions do not hold as much power as they use to."

Which is exactly why so many people are losing their jobs these days. People no longer see the use of unions. This is because the republican fat cats have decided that it is more important to put a few more dollars in their pocket than it is to help keep up the economy and keep people in work.

"The mid-west and south are not the wealthest segments of the country. In fact the south is the poorest segment of the U.S. Have you even been to Alabama, Mississippi, Louisana? Many people living in poverty."

Which of course has nothing to do with their intelligence levels, and therefore who they voted for, right?

"That's all for now, and MT I'm not trying to put you down or anything negative like that. I just want you to see the truth for what it is."

Correction you want me to see your truth, keep trying if you like.


----------



## jamartinmg2

MT..... I thought we were starting to make some progress with you!  Labor unions are losing power in this country because they have driven wages up so high that manufacturing companies find it more profitable to move their ops to countries where labor is cheaper. In my opinion, the economy is making a natural adjustment here. People have, and will, lose their jobs in manufacturing as long as this continues to happen. I'm sorry to say that in some segments of the economy, wages have gotten so high, due to union intervention, that companies are either forced out of business or they have to move out of the country to turn a profit. The success of the the economy relies, to some extent, on the ability of the workforce to be able to react, and change, in an evolving economy.


----------



## mr.trooper

First off, if they have noone to eveluate teachers classroom preformance, and they dont trust the students to do so, then how are you guna know wich teachers are the bad teachers?

"Which of course has nothing to do with their intelligence levels, and therefore who they voted for, right?"

--You yourself have said many times this was a campain of MORALS and that such MORAL issues were the hinges of this ellection. SO how does their intelligence have any sway on how they vote in a moral election? unless you are saying that only uneducated idiots have high moral standards...


----------



## seabass

mr.trooper said:


> "Which of course has nothing to do with their intelligence levels, and therefore who they voted for, right?"
> 
> --You yourself have said many times this was a campain of MORALS and that such MORAL issues were the hinges of this ellection. SO how does their intelligence have any sway on how they vote in a moral election? unless you are saying that only uneducated idiots have high moral standards...


I have a feeling there was some sarcasm in MT's posts Mr. Trooper. See, for some reason the republicans view themselves as the moral high ground.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"Labor unions are losing power in this country because they have driven wages up so high that manufacturing companies find it more profitable to move their ops to countries where labor is cheaper."

Wrong, the labor unions have been driving up wages to keep up with inflation. I'm sure that you would prefer that the people in our factories worked for a cup of warm spit, but that isin't going to happen. The fact of the matter is that even if the average factory wage was 4 dollars an hour, our companies would still be shipping work overseas if it was more profitable.

"First off, if they have noone to eveluate teachers classroom preformance, and they dont trust the students to do so, then how are you guna know wich teachers are the bad teachers?"

The idea is that if teachers are poor, the more initiated students will go to the higher powers with a complaint. However if you left raises up to a survey given to all of the students at the end of the semester, as I said the teaching would pander to what the students wanted, not what was best for them.

"--You yourself have said many times this was a campain of MORALS and that such MORAL issues were the hinges of this ellection. SO how does their intelligence have any sway on how they vote in a moral election? unless you are saying that only uneducated idiots have high moral standards..."

Boy howdy did you read my statement wrong. I was refering to their wages, not their morals as to who they voted for. My line of logic is that because they don't make as much money as other areas, they don't get as good of schooling as other areas, which thus causes them to vote heavily for the republicans, and deny themselves a decent education yet again. The circle continues.


----------



## Plainsman

Militant_Tiger said:


> "
> Boy howdy did you read my statement wrong. I was refering to their wages, not their morals as to who they voted for. My line of logic is that because they don't make as much money as other areas, they don't get as good of schooling as other areas, which thus causes them to vote heavily for the republicans, and deny themselves a decent education yet again. The circle continues.


So MT, am I getting this right? The people in the south and other states that voted for Bush are undereducated people (read stupid)and that is why they voted for Bush. Furthermore because they voted for Bush they will receive even less education ( because it is general knowledge that Bush doesn't want to educate people )and become even more ignorant. This will perhaps cause them to vote for another conservative in the future. MT, do you think their right to vote should be removed and the process of electing a president left to the more sophisticated, elite liberal states?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"So MT, am I getting this right? The people in the south and other states that voted for Bush are undereducated people (read stupid)and that is why they voted for Bush. Furthermore because they voted for Bush they will receive even less education ( because it is general knowledge that Bush doesn't want to educate people )and become even more ignorant. This will perhaps cause them to vote for another conservative in the future. MT, do you think their right to vote should be removed and the process of electing a president left to the more sophisticated, elite liberal states?"

Yes Plainsman that sums it up nicely, I do believe that the general populous who voted for Bush did less critical thinking about the issues than those who voted for the democrats. I also think that Bush has done a terrible job with the education system, his no child left behind plan failed miserably, and he has done nothing to rectify it. Of course I do not think that their right to vote should be removed, that would be unAmerican and I suggest nothing of the sort. I actually have no idea where that comment came from, I am just stating my opinion as to why the poorer regions of the south vote the way they do.


----------



## mr.trooper

I think i can help:

you see, to us it sure sounded lik eyou said southerners voted for bush and are thus stupid. You then went on to explain that what you meant was that they are stupid because they are undereducated, wich is bushs fault, and thus they voted for bush because he made them stupid...so basiclay you still said they voted for bush because they are stupid.

Im trying realy hard to find an alternate meaning, but im just not seeing it.

Again, are you assumeing that all Republicans are stupid Hicks, and All Democrats are P.H.D's? Sure sounds like you are. Maybee you just need to rephrase something or some such :wink:

Also, why cant there be a middle grond on the Profesors issue? it doesnt have to be 100% on the students word, but if 290 out of 300 student think the professor ir the best teacher on Earth its probably true. just do something like this: dont tell the students what the evaluation forms are for, and just use them to see if a teacher should get a larger, or smaller raise than before? why cant you make students like you and still present relevant and challenging information?isnt THAT what a good professor is?


----------



## tail chaser

Did I read that right? Did the topic say "Why acadamia shuns Republicans"

Maybe some of you forgot but in North Dakota the Teachers Union (North Dakota Education Association) endorsed a Republican! You might argu the topic should be seperated into gen ed and higher ed but by the subject of most of the posts not many of you know the difference. Yet most of you think you are smart enough to comment and spew your negative thoughts! Here is an idea whats the solution? So many of you can point out a problem so lets here the ideas you have of fixing the problem. You conservatives out there that can't help your 12 year old finish their homework becuase you don't understand it, seem to have all the answers so lets here them! How would you fix the problems in education? If some of you are so bold as to generalize teachers don't know what they are doing perhaps you should list your employment and we could all have a go at your profession?

You armchair educators make me sick and I'm not even in education. If you don't like the system do something to fix it insted of complaining about it.
TC


----------



## Storm

I don't know where to start here but feel like I need to address a few things that were said in previous post by "Tiger, and SeaBass."

Unions are getting weaker because they have abused their power and have totally gotten away from what there purpose was. I have friends that are union, and as I stated, work with teachers that are union almost everyday so have some idea what they are about. Unions were set up so that workers were not taken advantage of and paid a fair wage. This is a great idea and needed to be done. After several years and gaining more power, the unions realized that they could call the shots, or else they would strike and force the business to shut down. This also was o.k. if union workers were striking because of worker neglect or safety issues. But now they aren't, they are now striking because they aren't getting a big enough raises to make all the workers happy. Or they want better benefits. So if you own a business and you have a really bad year because sales were down by 25% can you afford to give your union workers a raise that is going to make them happy. You better or else they are going to strike and close your plant. So after this happens a few times, the business says forget the unions they want to much money and are hurting productivity so lets move to Mexico, or China, or India. They have NO UNIONS and we can make more money. Why do you think WAL-MART is so large and only getting larger??? I can tell you why, NO UNIONS are allowed in Wal-Mart. The day they do go union, there prices will go up and up and up. Then Wal-Mart will go broke since there whole existance is based on low prices. I just love hearing teachers talk in the teachers lounge about striking. "If we don't get more money or benefits, we need to strike." That's real cool go on strike so children aren't getting an education so that you can get more money and benfits.

SeaBass: I have to address one thing you wrote and it was in reference to Republicans thinking they have the moral high ground. I will only point out the facts. The Democratic Party has embraced causes that contradict the Bible and what has been known to be ethical for the last 2,000 years. The Democratic Party platform is for legalized abortion on demand. This doesn't matter if a women wants to abort her child at 6 weeks or in the last hours before being born. Abortion is an intrinsic evil on our society. I want to speak a little bit about partial-birth abortion which the Democratic Party endorses (John Kerry was for this, as is Hillary Clinton and all the other Liberals). Partial Birth abortion takes place when the fetus is at full term and moments before he or she is born. The abortion doctor takes a perfectly healthy 9 month old baby induces the women into giving birth and then pulls the head out just far enough so that he can jab a pair of scissors into the base of the skull of the baby killing it. Then he inserts a suction hose into the hole and sucks the brains out of the dead fetus collapsing the skull. This will make for an easier delivery. The Democrat Party is also for same sex marriage. What is so difficult about this is that the homosexual movement is trying as hard as they can to gain legitimacy for their cause. What better way than to push same sex marriage. They want everyone to think that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle. For 2,000 years homosexuality has been viewed as a sin, and is spoken about several times in the Bible as being a grave sin. Just look into the past and see what happens when homosexuality is embraced by a society. Read up on Sodam and Gomorah in the Bible, or look at what happend to the Roman Empire as homosexuality took hold. The Republican Part platform is for LIFE. The Republican Party platform is for marriage being defined as a union between one man and one women. That it why it is a fact that the Republican party is on a more ethical path. Not saying they are perfect, but there is a difference between being for partial-birth abortion, and being for LIFE.

I will probably get some wild responses to this message, but I feel the truth should be told. And if you doubt what each party platform is, look it up on line and see.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

mr.trooper said:


> I think i can help:
> 
> you see, to us it sure sounded lik eyou said southerners voted for bush and are thus stupid. You then went on to explain that what you meant was that they are stupid because they are undereducated, wich is bushs fault, and thus they voted for bush because he made them stupid...so basiclay you still said they voted for bush because they are stupid.
> 
> Im trying realy hard to find an alternate meaning, but im just not seeing it.
> 
> Again, are you assumeing that all Republicans are stupid Hicks, and All Democrats are P.H.D's? Sure sounds like you are. Maybee you just need to rephrase something or some such :wink:
> 
> Also, why cant there be a middle grond on the Profesors issue? it doesnt have to be 100% on the students word, but if 290 out of 300 student think the professor ir the best teacher on Earth its probably true. just do something like this: dont tell the students what the evaluation forms are for, and just use them to see if a teacher should get a larger, or smaller raise than before? why cant you make students like you and still present relevant and challenging information?isnt THAT what a good professor is?


I do not think all democrats scholars, I know some moronic democrats, but not many. I also do not think all republicans morons, I know several republicans personally who have thought deeply about the issues and agreed with the republicans on more points with the democrats but not many.

As for the south and Bush, it is a well known and documented fact that the poorer regions are more often than not less educated that more wealthy areas. Because of the fact stated by one of you that the south has many poor regions, I do feel that there is a certain element of ignorance that lead to their position in the election.

"SeaBass: I have to address one thing you wrote and it was in reference to Republicans thinking they have the moral high ground. I will only point out the facts. The Democratic Party has embraced causes that contradict the Bible and what has been known to be ethical for the last 2,000 years."

Seperation of church and state? We don't need no stinking seperation of church and state!

As for partial birth abortion, as you stated it makes birth easier, if used to save lives im fine with it. As for abortion in general, im fine with that. If you feel that it is bad, thats great don't have your family do it, but you have no right to impose your belief on someone else. The exact same goes for homosextuality. If they feel that it is a lifestyle they want to lead who are you to stop them? Will you go to hell because men hold hands and have sex?

"The Republican Part platform is for LIFE."

No, the republican party is for the forcing of bible law on people of all religons, and is therefore wrong.

"I will probably get some wild responses to this message, but I feel the truth should be told. And if you doubt what each party platform is, look it up on line and see."

I don't think you will ever be able to understand this, but that is YOUR truth. That is not my truth, nor seabass, nor any other democrat. You are welcome to your truth but again don't try to impose it on others.


----------



## Storm

"Tiger":

I have a hard time following what you are trying to say or what point you are trying to make, except that you are somewhat of a Liberal Democrat. Maybe it has something to do with your age. But I do think that it is good that you are talking about these things. Most teenagers or college students could care less.

Let me ask you a question. Would you be o.k. with your neighbor taking their new born baby that is one day old out into the backyard and shooting he or she in the head with a gun because they cry to much at night?

When I talk about telling the facts, I am pointing out what the Democratic Party platform is. In other words this is what they stand for. Also what the Republican Party platform is and what they stand for. That isn't what I think or believe, or as you put it MY TRUTH, this is what the facts are concerning each parties platform.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Storm said:


> "Tiger":
> 
> I have a hard time following what you are trying to say or what point you are trying to make, except that you are somewhat of a Liberal Democrat. Maybe it has something to do with your age. But I do think that it is good that you are talking about these things. Most teenagers or college students could care less.
> 
> Let me ask you a question.  Would you be o.k. with your neighbor taking their new born baby that is one day old out into the backyard and shooting he or she in the head with a gun because they cry to much at night?
> 
> When I talk about telling the facts, I am pointing out what the Democratic Party platform is. In other words this is what they stand for. Also what the Republican Party platform is and what they stand for. That isn't what I think or believe, or as you put it MY TRUTH, this is what the facts are concerning each parties platform.


What kind of an question is that? How can you possible compare a thinking breathing human being to a semi developed, but not yet thinking nor breathing possibility of a human. This is like trying to say that an egg is the same thing as a chicken, it is not.

"I have a hard time following what you are trying to say or what point you are trying to make, except that you are somewhat of a Liberal Democrat. '

This is likely because generally alone I argue with a half dozen other republicans at a time, it is rather hard to keep things in an orderly manner when you have to argue a dozen different points.

"When I talk about telling the facts, I am pointing out what the Democratic Party platform is. In other words this is what they stand for. Also what the Republican Party platform is and what they stand for. That isn't what I think or believe, or as you put it MY TRUTH, this is what the facts are concerning each parties platform."

Again, you are wrong. You have pointed out thus far that the democrats are for the killing of babies. The democrats stand for allowing people to make their own choices, helping the impoverished, and maintaining equality and high social standards. What the republicans are for, I really don't know. I am however confident that if tomorow fox news and all of their affiliates spewed out that abortion was just fine, half of you would sway with it.


----------



## Plainsman

Storm

There is no doubt about the point you make on the republican and democratic party platforms. Both parties state what they stand for and are proud of it. I think the problem MT has with your assertions is that he can't defend the death of a soon to be born child. I know liberals who play music to their "fetus" in the second trimester because they believe that they began to learn at that age. Still they say that even minutes before birth they are not human. They do not like to talk about partial birth abortion and prefer to call it pro choice. As if a name change will wipe away the reality of what is happening. It's simply the act of turning your eyes from a horrendous act that your conscience can not reconcile.


----------



## Storm

Tiger,

You never did answer the question I ask you? From how you responded, it sounds like you don't think a new born baby is the same thing as an unborn baby in the third trimester. The only difference between the two is about 24 hours of life.

Plainsmen made a great point, if a person wants their baby it is called a baby all throughout the pregnency. If it is an unwanted baby, it is called a glob of tissue, or choice as Tiger stated.

A good example is the Scott Peterson case in Califronia. As we all know he was convicted of killing his wife and unborn baby boy. He was tried on two counts of murder and convicted. Even in the liberal state of California they recognized the unborn baby as a life. Now what is difference between Scott Peterson killing his unborn son and an abortion doctor killing an unborn baby? There is none.

Another example to think about is a simple acorn. Tiger you can plant that simple acorn in the ground. Water it and over time it will sprout into a seedling. If you take care of that seedling it will continue to grown until eventually it will be a huge oak tree. Now did that acorn look anything like an oak tree? No, but that simple acorn that weighs less than an ounce has all the genetic capability of becoming a huge oak tree. The same is true about a human fetus. It starts as a small life that doesn't look much like you or I, but if taken care that small life has all the genetic capability of becoming like you or I. That's how you started life, That's how I started life, and that's how everyone will ever start life.

So I will ask you the question one more time, if your neighbor decided to make a choice and it was to kill there one day old son would you be o.k. with that? Really think about it.


----------



## Storm

Tiger,

I forgot one last thing. If a Republican, Fox News, Democrat, or Rush Limbaugh say that abortion is o.k. or a choice they will always be wrong.


----------



## pointer99

Storm said:


> Tiger,
> 
> You never did answer the question I ask you? From how you responded, it sounds like you don't think a new born baby is the same thing as an unborn baby in the third trimester. The only difference between the two is about 24 hours of life.
> 
> Plainsmen made a great point, if a person wants their baby it is called a baby all throughout the pregnency. If it is an unwanted baby, it is called a glob of tissue, or choice as Tiger stated.
> 
> A good example is the Scott Peterson case in Califronia. As we all know he was convicted of killing his wife and unborn baby boy. He was tried on two counts of murder and convicted. Even in the liberal state of California they recognized the unborn baby as a life. Now what is difference between Scott Peterson killing his unborn son and an abortion doctor killing an unborn baby? There is none.
> 
> Another example to think about is a simple acorn. Tiger you can plant that simple acorn in the ground. Water it and over time it will sprout into a seedling. If you take care of that seedling it will continue to grown until eventually it will be a huge oak tree. Now did that acorn look anything like an oak tree? No, but that simple acorn that weighs less than an ounce has all the genetic capability of becoming a huge oak tree. The same is true about a human fetus. It starts as a small life that doesn't look much like you or I, but if taken care that small life has all the genetic capability of becoming like you or I. That's how you started life, That's how I started life, and that's how everyone will ever start life.
> 
> So I will ask you the question one more time, if your neighbor decided to make a choice and it was to kill there one day old son would you be o.k. with that? Really think about it.


storm,

very good points. i asked mt the same question a while back on partial birth abortion. he never got back to me.

i don't consider abortion a political issue. to me it is moral. i also used the peterson analogy.

i think i am going to stop discussing politics. but will continue to discuss moral and current events issues.

politics are just too polar.......except for mt........i think it's bi-polar for him. :beer:

pointer


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Storm said:


> Tiger,
> 
> You never did answer the question I ask you? From how you responded, it sounds like you don't think a new born baby is the same thing as an unborn baby in the third trimester. The only difference between the two is about 24 hours of life.
> 
> Plainsmen made a great point, if a person wants their baby it is called a baby all throughout the pregnency. If it is an unwanted baby, it is called a glob of tissue, or choice as Tiger stated.
> 
> A good example is the Scott Peterson case in Califronia. As we all know he was convicted of killing his wife and unborn baby boy. He was tried on two counts of murder and convicted. Even in the liberal state of California they recognized the unborn baby as a life. Now what is difference between Scott Peterson killing his unborn son and an abortion doctor killing an unborn baby? There is none.
> 
> Another example to think about is a simple acorn. Tiger you can plant that simple acorn in the ground. Water it and over time it will sprout into a seedling. If you take care of that seedling it will continue to grown until eventually it will be a huge oak tree. Now did that acorn look anything like an oak tree? No, but that simple acorn that weighs less than an ounce has all the genetic capability of becoming a huge oak tree. The same is true about a human fetus. It starts as a small life that doesn't look much like you or I, but if taken care that small life has all the genetic capability of becoming like you or I. That's how you started life, That's how I started life, and that's how everyone will ever start life.
> 
> So I will ask you the question one more time, if your neighbor decided to make a choice and it was to kill there one day old son would you be o.k. with that? Really think about it.


If I have a television, and I don't want it anymore I have the right to destroy it or throw it away. If you come into my house and break my television, it is illegal. The difference is that if the mother, the one who will give birth to and take care of that child knows that she cannot do its life justice, nor can they give it away because of concerns that it will suffer an even worse fate, abortion is their choice. I will restate my point, if you think abortion wrong, by all means prohibit your family from practicing it. If you think it wrong however you are overstepping your bounds by barring someone else from it. I can't believe that all of you are so for the death penalty, and yet so against abortion even when in some areas more than 1/3 of those put to death are later found innocent.


----------



## huntin1

I graduated college with honors, (actually with a 3.5 GPA overall) but I voted republican, so I must be an ignorant backwoods hick. I guess I'm too stupid to take part in this conversation. :roll: :roll:   :lol: :lol: :lol:

huntin1


----------



## Plainsman

Talk about pulling generalizations out of mid air. MT, since when have I ever stated I am for the death penalty? I have stated in the past that I think we baby prisoners to much. We should put the murderers and such on an island. Drop some lumber and some nails and hammers, and if they want shelter for their rotten hide let them build it. Drop some seeds, if the want vegetables let them grow them. I can recover an innocent person from that island, but not from the grave. You sure make some wild a$$ statements to put those who debate you in a bad light.

Where did you ever dig up that data that 1/3 of prisoners sentenced to death are innocent. I seriously doubt that our system is that bad.
If you talk to those in prison, heck they are all innocent. Did you find that data on another radical bleeding heart web site, or did you simply think that was a close approximation in your mind?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Plainsman said:


> Talk about pulling generalizations out of mid air. MT, since when have I ever stated I am for the death penalty? I have stated in the past that I think we baby prisoners to much. We should put the murderers and such on an island. Drop some lumber and some nails and hammers, and if they want shelter for their rotten hide let them build it. Drop some seeds, if the want vegetables let them grow them. I can recover an innocent person from that island, but not from the grave. You sure make some wild a$$ statements to put those who debate you in a bad light.
> 
> Where did you ever dig up that data that 1/3 of prisoners sentenced to death are innocent. I seriously doubt that our system is that bad.
> If you talk to those in prison, heck they are all innocent. Did you find that data on another radical bleeding heart web site, or did you simply think that was a close approximation in your mind?


Gee Plainsman did you ever think that I was refering to all of the pro life republicans on this site and not just specifically you?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article ... 412&scid=6

No it was not a bleeding heart site. They were proved innocent by DNA testing in most cases. I think its pretty hilarious that you assume everything I post must be wrong, or from a bleeding heart site, or just some random number that I came up with.

"I graduated college with honors, (actually with a 3.5 GPA overall) but I voted republican, so I must be an ignorant backwoods hick. I guess I'm too stupid to take part in this conversation."

There is a saying that goes something like "not all republicans are morons, but most morons are republicans".


----------



## huntin1

Militant_Tiger said:


> There is a saying that goes something like "not all republicans are morons, but most morons are republicans".


Yeah, I've seen that saying too, only it read, "not all liberals are morons, but most morons are liberals"

huntin1


----------



## Plainsman

Militant_Tiger
Gee Plainsman did you ever think that I was refering to all of the pro life republicans on this site and not just specifically you? [/quote said:


> Exactly MT, I did think you were referring to all republicans on this site. Which would include me.
> 
> I guess I don't share your philosophy that intelligence dictates political affiliation. I think political affiliation is dictated by what each party states they are for in their party platform. To think it has something to do with intelligence is simply self flattery.
> 
> "Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan


----------



## Storm

Tiger Posted:

"If I have a television, and I don't want it anymore I have the right to destroy it or throw it away. If you come into my house and break my television, it is illegal. The difference is that if the mother, the one who will give birth to and take care of that child knows that she cannot do its life justice, nor can they give it away because of concerns that it will suffer an even worse fate, abortion is their choice. I will restate my point, if you think abortion wrong, by all means prohibit your family from practicing it. If you think it wrong however you are overstepping your bounds by barring someone else from it. I can't believe that all of you are so for the death penalty, and yet so against abortion even when in some areas more than 1/3 of those put to death are later found innocent."

Tiger what we need to pin down here is, when do you believe life begins? Do you think it begins at conception, 16 weeks after conception, 24 weeks after conception? The last itme I checked, women gave birth to children not television sets. We are talking about human life, not some object. If women were giving birth to t.v.'s than I would agree with you, but they aren't. You keep stating that if I believe abortion is wrong than don't allow my family to have one, but don't tell anyone else they can't have one. So this brings me back to my original question to you that you won't answer. If i use your logic, I should allow my neighbor to take his new baby out into the backyard and kill he or she because the parents made a choice that the baby cries to much at night. Now i would never do this to my child, but hey I don't have any right telling my neighbor what to do. Do you see how flawed this logic is.

The death penalty is a whole nother topic, but Tiger they do relate. Not all Republicans are for the death penalty and I am one of them. I don't believe anyone has the right to take a life unless protecting your own life or anothers life. As a civilized nation we have the ability to lock a person up for life, which in my opinion if much more difficult than putting that inmate out of their misery. And you are right there have been innocent people put to death, and right now there are more than likely innoncent people sitting on death row. But it isn't 1/3 of the population. The death penalty is fueled by bitterness and revenge. I can understand why the loved ones of a murdered person would want to kill the inmate, but it doesn't make it right.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"Exactly MT, I did think you were referring to all republicans on this site. Which would include me. "

My point was that it was refering to the general populous of pro life repubs, not you in specific. There will obviously be exceptions.

"Tiger what we need to pin down here is, when do you believe life begins? Do you think it begins at conception, 16 weeks after conception, 24 weeks after conception? The last itme I checked, women gave birth to children not television sets. We are talking about human life, not some object. If women were giving birth to t.v.'s than I would agree with you, but they aren't. You keep stating that if I believe abortion is wrong than don't allow my family to have one, but don't tell anyone else they can't have one. So this brings me back to my original question to you that you won't answer. If i use your logic, I should allow my neighbor to take his new baby out into the backyard and kill he or she because the parents made a choice that the baby cries to much at night. Now i would never do this to my child, but hey I don't have any right telling my neighbor what to do. Do you see how flawed this logic is. "

In my opinion life begins as conscious thought develops. The reason that someone shooting their child outside of their home is wrong is because they would be taking a being which is capable of conscious thought. If they did not want the child they should have had it aborted before conscious thought developed, and thus life began.

I've got a question Plainsman and storm, how many children have you adopted? How many hours this month have you helped out a child in a big brother program? What percentage of your pay have you devoted to a childrens organization this year? Again I am stunned by the hypocracy of republicans, you see them protesting outside of abortion clinics, but once the child is born they are nowhere to be found.


----------



## Bobm

> In my opinion life begins as conscious thought develops. The reason that someone shooting their child outside of their home is wrong is because they would be taking a being which is capable of conscious thought. If they did not want the child they should have had it aborted before conscious thought developed, and thus life began.


Tiger you better watch out based on your standard you could still be aborted :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Militant_Tiger

No Bob you misread, I said CONSCIOUS thought not conservative thought!


----------



## Storm

Tiger,

It took a little bit of time and looked up a word in the Webster's Dictionary.

The definition of conscious is: recognizing the existence, truth or fact of something, in the state of knowing what goes on around one. Marked by ones rational powers.

So do you think that a one day old baby actually has conscious thought. Do They really know what is gong on around them? Can you remember your first memory, and how old were you. I would say the average person would be around 3-4 years old. So according to your logic babies aren't really alive until conscious thought, even though they have brain waves, eat, sleep, cry and so on. So every child 3 and under should be open game for abortion.

Tiger I enjoy the fact that you keep writing back, and respect you for debating this issue with me. I really do, but I need to give you a small tip if I may. Don't generalize groups of people. This strand started when I was pointing out the platform of each party, that isn't a generalization but a fact. I know some Democrats that are pro-life. And I also know of some Republicans that are pro-choice. It seems as though you have this chip on shoulder about Republicans. Not all Republicans are ultra Rich. Not all Republicans are against the poor. The same is true for Democrats. You asked what I do for children or how many children I have adopted. I have one daughter who is 5 going on 6, and thank goodness she is at the age of conscious thought. My wife and I plan on having as many children as God blesses of with. I wouldn't mind having 10 children. If for some reason my wife couldn't have anymore children, then we would adopt by all means. We have friends in our small town who take pregnant teenage girls into their homes and encourage them not to have abortions. Usually they have been removed from their parents home for one reason or another. I am very active in out Church and help with childrens programs. This past week I spent a day working with profoundly handicapped children at a special school in Omaha. We are talking about children who ranged in age from 5-21 who couldn't do much of anything but sit in a wheelchair or bed. Many of them didn't have conscious thought, but are just as special as my 5 year old daughter. So Tiger I would encourage you to keeping helping the poor and less fortunant, but also think about the most vulnerable people in our society, the unborn.


----------



## Plainsman

Militant_Tiger said:


> "I've got a question Plainsman and storm, how many children have you adopted? How many hours this month have you helped out a child in a big brother program? What percentage of your pay have you devoted to a childrens organization this year? Again I am stunned by the hypocracy of republicans, you see them protesting outside of abortion clinics, but once the child is born they are nowhere to be found.


I can't speak for everyone else MT, but I trust that the church I give to puts the money in a good place, where all the needy benefit.

I didn't adopt any children MT. We had many medical bills. As much as I like to hunt, I didn't own a centerfire rifle until I was 40 years old. Now that my children are grown I am a little old for such thoughts.


----------



## huntin1

Militant_Tiger said:


> I've got a question Plainsman and storm, how many children have you adopted? How many hours this month have you helped out a child in a big brother program? What percentage of your pay have you devoted to a childrens organization this year? Again I am stunned by the hypocracy of republicans, you see them protesting outside of abortion clinics, but once the child is born they are nowhere to be found.


Let's turn this right back around MT, I'd like to hear your answers to the questions you asked. At your age I would'nt expect that you have adopted a child, but how much time and money have you put into childrens programs this past year.

As for me, $200 of my own money went directly to childrens programs sponsered by the ND Fraternal Order of Police, which by the way, I am the state president of. Since this time last year I personally have devoted about 80 hours to childrens programs such as Shop With a Cop, Bicycle Rodeo etc. No, I have not adopted any children, I have 4 and 1 grandchild. If we could not have had children, we would have adopted.

As for the hypocracy of republicans, I am far more stunned by the hypocracy of liberal democrats. The conservative republicans that I know give far more time and money to various programs than the liberal democrats that I know. Republicans do it and are embarrassed when someone tries to thank them, democrats do less and then shout it to the world, patting themselves on the back for all they claim to do. I also find it amazing that liberal democrats think nothing of killing a defensless unborn child, but coddle, pamper and try to free, rapists and murderers.

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Storm said:


> Tiger,
> 
> It took a little bit of time and looked up a word in the Webster's Dictionary.
> 
> The definition of conscious is: recognizing the existence, truth or fact of something, in the state of knowing what goes on around one. Marked by ones rational powers.
> 
> So do you think that a one day old baby actually has conscious thought. Do They really know what is gong on around them? Can you remember your first memory, and how old were you. I would say the average person would be around 3-4 years old. So according to your logic babies aren't really alive until conscious thought, even though they have brain waves, eat, sleep, cry and so on. So every child 3 and under should be open game for abortion.
> 
> Tiger I enjoy the fact that you keep writing back, and respect you for debating this issue with me. I really do, but I need to give you a small tip if I may. Don't generalize groups of people. This strand started when I was pointing out the platform of each party, that isn't a generalization but a fact. I know some Democrats that are pro-life. And I also know of some Republicans that are pro-choice. It seems as though you have this chip on shoulder about Republicans. Not all Republicans are ultra Rich. Not all Republicans are against the poor. The same is true for Democrats. You asked what I do for children or how many children I have adopted. I have one daughter who is 5 going on 6, and thank goodness she is at the age of conscious thought. My wife and I plan on having as many children as God blesses of with. I wouldn't mind having 10 children. If for some reason my wife couldn't have anymore children, then we would adopt by all means. We have friends in our small town who take pregnant teenage girls into their homes and encourage them not to have abortions. Usually they have been removed from their parents home for one reason or another. I am very active in out Church and help with childrens programs. This past week I spent a day working with profoundly handicapped children at a special school in Omaha. We are talking about children who ranged in age from 5-21 who couldn't do much of anything but sit in a wheelchair or bed. Many of them didn't have conscious thought, but are just as special as my 5 year old daughter. So Tiger I would encourage you to keeping helping the poor and less fortunant, but also think about the most vulnerable people in our society, the unborn.


Again you all amaze me with your hypocracy. First it is that children in the womb have conscious thought, then it is that they have to be 3 years old to have conscious thought. Remembering is not thought, a baby knows what it needs and it knows methods to get what it needs, that is conscious thought.

"Don't generalize groups of people"

You mean like all of the peta supporting tofu eating hunter hating fishing despising liberals? Practice what you preach.

"You asked what I do for children or how many children I have adopted. I have one daughter who is 5 going on 6, and thank goodness she is at the age of conscious thought. My wife and I plan on having as many children as God blesses of with. I wouldn't mind having 10 children. If for some reason my wife couldn't have anymore children, then we would adopt by all means. "

So in other words you will help out the children that you forced to be born into a terrible enviornment if it suits your needs. I really don't get how this makes sense to you.

"I can't speak for everyone else MT, but I trust that the church I give to puts the money in a good place, where all the needy benefit. "

Bull****

"I didn't adopt any children MT. We had many medical bills. As much as I like to hunt, I didn't own a centerfire rifle until I was 40 years old. Now that my children are grown I am a little old for such thoughts."

Yet you still dont donate any money to childrens organizations now? Do think that your petty excuse of not being able to own a rifle is worse than the lives of children in orphanages?

"Let's turn this right back around MT, I'd like to hear your answers to the questions you asked. At your age I would'nt expect that you have adopted a child, but how much time and money have you put into childrens programs this past year. "

This is exactly my point. I do not force anyone to give birth to a child, I am thus not responsible for the children that they have. You however ban women from having abortions, and the lives of those children rests in your hands.

"If we could not have had children, we would have adopted. "

Again, adopt when it suits your needs

"I also find it amazing that liberal democrats think nothing of killing a defensless unborn child, but coddle, pamper and try to free, rapists and murderers. "

A life is a life, you have no right no play God. If you want to be pro life you can't play both sides of the card.


----------



## huntin1

Militant_Tiger said:


> This is exactly my point. I do not force anyone to give birth to a child, I am thus not responsible for the children that they have. You however ban women from having abortions, and the lives of those children rests in your hands.
> 
> "I also find it amazing that liberal democrats think nothing of killing a defensless unborn child, but coddle, pamper and try to free, rapists and murderers. "
> 
> A life is a life, you have no right no play God. If you want to be pro life you can't play both sides of the card.


Bull**** meter is topping out.

Using your own liberal doctrine and the democratic distribute the wealth ideals, you as a citizen are responsible to provide for everyone else. I do not force any woman to give birth, nor do I force them to get pregnant. Abortion as a form of birth control is wrong regardless of what you make it out to be. If you don't want a baby, don't have sex, or at the very least practice some type of birth control before the child is conceived.

As to your last statement, perhaps you should study the Bible a bit. God has recognized the fact that man will need to judge the crimes of other men, what crime did that unborn child commit. Liberals want to play God when it comes to deciding the life of an unborn child, but no one else is entitled to decide the life of a serial killer, boy talk about hypocracy.

huntin1


----------



## Plainsman

"I can't speak for everyone else MT, but I trust that the church I give to puts the money in a good place, where all the needy benefit. "

*b#llsh*t *

Why do you say that? I don't understand. Do you think the church is unwise in it's allocation of funds?

"I didn't adopt any children MT. We had many medical bills. As much as I like to hunt, I didn't own a centerfire rifle until I was 40 years old. Now that my children are grown I am a little old for such thoughts."

*Yet you still dont donate any money to childrens organizations now? Do think that your petty excuse of not being able to own a rifle is worse than the lives of children in orphanages?*

What I intended to get across by saying I didn't own a rifle until I was 40, was that I had no money to spare. Although conservatives care about children, we care for our own first. Every penny we had went towards that. If I am not mistaken there are wonderful couples waiting for children, and there are none available. Many here at our church in North Dakota grew tired of waiting and went to eastern Europe. Also, what I was trying to get across is that money donated to churches, much goes to children.

"I also find it amazing that liberal democrats think nothing of killing a defensless unborn child, but coddle, pamper and try to free, rapists and murderers. "

*A life is a life, you have no right no play God. If you want to be pro life you can't play both sides of the card.*

I didn't see anywhere that hunt1 was advocating killing them, simply that liberals coddle criminals. You know very well that handguns sneak out of the house at night to shoot innocent children. We can't be so harsh on the druggies that shoot people over turf can we? After all it's the guns fault. I realize that this isn't the typical reaction of the typical liberal.

We don't blame all liberals, but which party do you think PETA people belong to? Which party is pro abortion? Which party is for prisoner early out for good behavior? Which party is anti firearms? Which party wanted to extend the pseudo assault weapon ban? Members of which party support same sex marriage? Which party supports socialist government functions? Which party has some members who want religion out of every aspect of American life. Which party has members that think America needs permission from the UN to protect itself? I could go on and on, but you get the idea. However you assert that conservatives are the bad guys???????????? I don't follow.

We are not going in circles MT, it may look that way, but we are simply following your convoluted reasoning. We are consistent, there is life before birth. I think storm said that because cognizant cerebral contemplation was your definition requirement of life that you would be willing to end the existence (not life) of up to three year old post fetal objects.

Long before Rush Limbaugh ever uttered the words I said liberals put symbolism before substance.

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan


----------



## Storm

Easy Tiger, no reason to get all upset and start cussing. I did forget to comment on one other thing you had written. You wrote:

"The difference is that if the mother, the one who will give birth to and take care of that child knows that she cannot do its life justice, nor can they give it away because of concerns that it will suffer an even worse fate, abortion is their choice."

Go back Tiger and read this passage real closely. Do you actually think a child can suffer and even worse fate than being aborted. It doesn't get much worse than that. So if a child is given up for adotion and the family who adopts him or her is abusive to that child, that is worse than killing them. If you ever get a chance go up and ask a teenager and your adult that can from a tough background and didn't have an ideal life. Ask them, hey do you ever wish your mom would of aborted you? I would be amazed if anyone would say, "yes now that you mention it, I wish I would of been aborted."

Unfortunantly Tiger we are living in a culture of death. There tends to be this mind set that we are doing people a favor or we are being humane by killing them. This can be seen with abortion, assisted suicide, euthanasia, and now I even heard a report about legislation suggested for euthanasia of children with termanl illnesses. This is already being done in Europe. People are looked upon as burdens, and babies are looked upon as objects. It is a very slippery slope and we are sliding.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"Using your own liberal doctrine and the democratic distribute the wealth ideals, you as a citizen are responsible to provide for everyone else. I do not force any woman to give birth, nor do I force them to get pregnant. Abortion as a form of birth control is wrong regardless of what you make it out to be. If you don't want a baby, don't have sex, or at the very least practice some type of birth control before the child is conceived.

As to your last statement, perhaps you should study the Bible a bit. God has recognized the fact that man will need to judge the crimes of other men, what crime did that unborn child commit. Liberals want to play God when it comes to deciding the life of an unborn child, but no one else is entitled to decide the life of a serial killer, boy talk about hypocracy. "

There will always be people having unprotected sex when they don't want a child. There will always be abortions. Do you want the abortion to happen in a doctors office or in a back alley with a coathanger where you risk two lives?

In the Bible it also states that killing is a sin. It does not matter is someone has killed before, you do nothing more than commit another sin by killing them back. My point is not that you are not taking what can be a life with abortion, my point is that you cannot be pro life if you support the death penalty but want to banish abortion.

"Why do you say that? I don't understand. Do you think the church is unwise in it's allocation of funds? "

If you honestly think that the funds given to the church go to foundations which help children you are blind.

"What I intended to get across by saying I didn't own a rifle until I was 40, was that I had no money to spare. Although conservatives care about children, we care for our own first. Every penny we had went towards that. If I am not mistaken there are wonderful couples waiting for children, and there are none available. Many here at our church in North Dakota grew tired of waiting and went to eastern Europe. Also, what I was trying to get across is that money donated to churches, much goes to children. "

So what you are saying is that its not your problem because its not your kid, right? If you have a few pennies and a warm cup of spit to spare by the time you are a senior thats a OK right?

"I didn't see anywhere that hunt1 was advocating killing them, simply that liberals coddle criminals. You know very well that handguns sneak out of the house at night to shoot innocent children. We can't be so harsh on the druggies that shoot people over turf can we? After all it's the guns fault. I realize that this isn't the typical reaction of the typical liberal."

It is not that liberals coddle criminals, but that republicans would rather see 10 innocent men be killed to make sure one guilty man is killed, than to have one criminal get away. Liberals like to have due process of law, and republicans like public lynchings.

"We don't blame all liberals, but which party do you think PETA people belong to? Which party is pro abortion? Which party is for prisoner early out for good behavior? Which party is anti firearms? Which party wanted to extend the pseudo assault weapon ban? Members of which party support same sex marriage? Which party supports socialist government functions? Which party has some members who want religion out of every aspect of American life. Which party has members that think America needs permission from the UN to protect itself? I could go on and on, but you get the idea. However you assert that conservatives are the bad guys???????????? I don't follow. "

What say we disect this one by one-
"PETA people belong to?" Which party do you think the members of the KKK belong to?

Which party is pro abortion? Which party would rather see mothers and children die in back allys so they can keep a clear conscience?

"Members of which party support same sex marriage?" Members of which party would like to keep a social restraint on gays. People feel obligated to marry the opposite sex by society and end up cheating with other men in the public parks, much better than maintaining the "sanctity" of marriage.

"Which party supports socialist government functions?" Is this the part where you point a finger at hippies, call them communists and hold a nice big witch trial over it?

"Which party has members that think America needs permission from the UN to protect itself?" Members of which party would rather see more unsensible and costly wars brought up out of a previous vendetta?

"However you assert that conservatives are the bad guys???????????? I don't follow. " Indeed how could I ever think such a thing?

"Long before Rush Limbaugh ever uttered the words I said liberals put symbolism before substance. "

You do realize that if we slapped an eagle and some patriotism on a war we could invade sweden today and half of America would support it. Get real.

"Go back Tiger and read this passage real closely. Do you actually think a child can suffer and even worse fate than being aborted. It doesn't get much worse than that."

Indeed going back to God is a far worse fate than living in a broken home with a crack addicted mother or being shipped from orphanage to orphanage your whole childhood such that you never find purpose in your life. Far worse.

"If you ever get a chance go up and ask a teenager and your adult that can from a tough background and didn't have an ideal life. Ask them, hey do you ever wish your mom would of aborted you? I would be amazed if anyone would say, "yes now that you mention it, I wish I would of been aborted.""

I have known many such a person, I have also heard them utter numerous times how they wish they were dead, did they truely mean this?
I really don't know. Do I know that their lives are a living hell, you bet.

"Unfortunantly Tiger we are living in a culture of death. There tends to be this mind set that we are doing people a favor or we are being humane by killing them. This can be seen with abortion, assisted suicide, euthanasia, and now I even heard a report about legislation suggested for euthanasia of children with termanl illnesses. This is already being done in Europe. People are looked upon as burdens, and babies are looked upon as objects. It is a very slippery slope and we are sliding."

Yes we do live in a culture of death, where an invasion is looked at as a minor event, even though thousands and thousands of innocent people will be killed. We live in a society where if you kill someone, the problem is solved by killing them. Why do you frown upon the euthenasia of a child who is destined to die in just a matter of weeks? Do you enjoy watching people suffer?


----------



## Plainsman

*What say we disect this one by one- 
"PETA people belong to?" Which party do you think the members of the KKK belong to? *

Perhaps very very far right, but I don't think they like either of us.

*Which party is pro abortion? Which party would rather see mothers and children die in back allys so they can keep a clear conscience? *

It's hard to believe that someone would actually think that someone else would like to see someone die in a back alley. Isn't this thinking itself very radical? Besides MT your not worried about the baby remember?

*"Members of which party support same sex marriage?" Members of which party would like to keep a social restraint on gays. People feel obligated to marry the opposite sex by society and end up cheating with other men in the public parks, much better than maintaining the "sanctity" of marriage.*

Are you insinuating that same sex marriage maintains the sanctity of marriage?

*"Which party supports socialist government functions?" Is this the part where you point a finger at hippies, call them communists and hold a nice big witch trial over it? *

That is a throwback to the 1960's. I don't think anyone does that today. Are there even what a person calles hippies around anymore. Where do you come up with this stuff?

*"Which party has members that think America needs permission from the UN to protect itself?" Members of which party would rather see more unsensible and costly wars brought up out of a previous vendetta? *

Somebody wants to see a war? Since when?

*You do realize that if we slapped an eagle and some patriotism on a war we could invade sweden today and half of America would support it. Get real. *

Now honestly tell me do you think half of America is that stupid. Really, tell us about that.

It disturbs me that you think churches don't help children. Do you think churches serve any useful function?

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Plainsman said:


> *What say we disect this one by one-
> "PETA people belong to?" Which party do you think the members of the KKK belong to? *
> 
> Perhaps very very far right, but I don't think they like either of us.
> 
> *Which party is pro abortion? Which party would rather see mothers and children die in back allys so they can keep a clear conscience? *
> 
> It's hard to believe that someone would actually think that someone else would like to see someone die in a back alley. Isn't this thinking itself very radical? Besides MT your not worried about the baby remember?
> 
> *"Members of which party support same sex marriage?" Members of which party would like to keep a social restraint on gays. People feel obligated to marry the opposite sex by society and end up cheating with other men in the public parks, much better than maintaining the "sanctity" of marriage.*
> 
> Are you insinuating that same sex marriage maintains the sanctity of marriage?
> 
> *"Which party supports socialist government functions?" Is this the part where you point a finger at hippies, call them communists and hold a nice big witch trial over it? *
> 
> That is a throwback to the 1960's. I don't think anyone does that today. Are there even what a person calles hippies around anymore. Where do you come up with this stuff?
> 
> *"Which party has members that think America needs permission from the UN to protect itself?" Members of which party would rather see more unsensible and costly wars brought up out of a previous vendetta? *
> 
> Somebody wants to see a war? Since when?
> 
> *You do realize that if we slapped an eagle and some patriotism on a war we could invade sweden today and half of America would support it. Get real. *
> 
> Now honestly tell me do you think half of America is that stupid. Really, tell us about that.
> 
> It disturbs me that you think churches don't help children. Do you think churches serve any useful function?
> 
> "Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan


"Perhaps very very far right, but I don't think they like either of us."

And PETA is the very very far left, they don't like us meat eaters either.

"It's hard to believe that someone would actually think that someone else would like to see someone die in a back alley. Isn't this thinking itself very radical? Besides MT your not worried about the baby remember?"

Abortions WILL happen, whether done professionally or not. If you do not allow abortion clinics, you support letting mothers and babies die in back allys.

"Are you insinuating that same sex marriage maintains the sanctity of marriage?"

Are you insinuating that if two gays are allowed to marry that your marriage will no longer be valid in the eyes of the Lord, that marriage will no longer be sacred?

"That is a throwback to the 1960's. I don't think anyone does that today. Are there even what a person calles hippies around anymore. Where do you come up with this stuff? "

You tell me that the liberals support socialism and then tell me to get out of the sixties, are you kidding?

"Now honestly tell me do you think half of America is that stupid. Really, tell us about that. "

One month before the election HALF of Americans sampled thought that Saddam was one of the leaders of the 9/11 attacks. I really have no faith in the intelligence of our people anymore.

"It disturbs me that you think churches don't help children. Do you think churches serve any useful function? "

Absoultely, they bring the information of a higher power and thus a greater meaning to life. I do not however think that they put all, most or even some of their funds into helping out childrens organizations however.

"An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind." -Mohandas Ghandi


----------



## Storm

Tiger,

We are going around in circles here so this is my last post on this subject. The pro-life statement has been made, as has your pro-death side. I wanted to just talk about abortion, but you keep jumping around to the kkk, Iraq was, death penalty and so forth. What this comes down to is faith. If you don't have any belief in a higher power or the notion that we all will be held accountable for out actions upon our death, it is difficult to move on with this subject. I don't know how old you are, but I am assuming that you are quite young with many years left. At some point you are going to go through a really hard time. When you do, and everyone does alway remember there is a higher power who will help you. Seek him out and he will always be there for you, but you have to ask him into your life. I went through a really tough time about 5 years ago, and for the first time in my life I ask God into my life, and my life hasn't been the same since. Through my suffering I found God and it was well worth any suffering I went through. I'm sure I will be talking with yous some more Tiger and God Bless.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"We are going around in circles here so this is my last post on this subject. The pro-life statement has been made, as has your pro-death side. I wanted to just talk about abortion, but you keep jumping around to the kkk, Iraq was, death penalty and so forth. What this comes down to is faith. If you don't have any belief in a higher power or the notion that we all will be held accountable for out actions upon our death, it is difficult to move on with this subject. "

Your side has stated that it wants to burn the candle at both ends, you can't take the life of an innocent child but you can take the life of an prisoner. You are not pro life, you are pro clearing your conscience and pro killing. The issues of the kkk, Iraq and the death penalty were brought up by plainsman, I simply showed that you have your extremes and faults as well. This does not come down to faith. If it did you would resist from killing anyone unborn fetus, prisoner or otherwise because as the ten commandments state it is wrong. Killing is the greatest of sins, but for you it is ok in some instances.


----------



## Storm

O.K. Tiger this for sure it my last post. As I stated earlier I am against the death penalty. You are exactly right about the death penalty issue. The death penalty is wrong for several reason, but God's cammandment of thou shall not kill is the biggest reason why it is wrong. And it is hypocritical to say one is pro-life but if you are a condemed man we are going to kill you. This line of thinking just gives ammunition to the Liberals and rightly so. Good job Tiger, now apply that logic to the unborn.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Storm said:


> O.K. Tiger this for sure it my last post. As I stated earlier I am against the death penalty. You are exactly right about the death penalty issue. The death penalty is wrong for several reason, but God's cammandment of thou shall not kill is the biggest reason why it is wrong. And it is hypocritical to say one is pro-life but if you are a condemed man we are going to kill you. This line of thinking just gives ammunition to the Liberals and rightly so. Good job Tiger, now apply that logic to the unborn.


There is a difference in that way of logic, I commend you on your decision to be against the death penalty and abortion. Unfortunately I know that as I have said there will always be abortions in dark corners of the city or in a doctors office. I do not want to risk both the life of the mother and the child. I would like to see counseling before and after abortions offered for free to ensure that it is the best and only choice for the mother, and afterwards to help to cope with psychology of losing a child.


----------



## Plainsman

Militant_Tiger said:


> The issues of the kkk, Iraq and the death penalty were brought up by plainsman


I think you better read back in the posts.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"We don't blame all liberals, but which party do you think PETA people belong to? Which party is pro abortion? Which party is for prisoner early out for good behavior? Which party is anti firearms? Which party wanted to extend the pseudo assault weapon ban? Members of which party support same sex marriage? Which party supports socialist government functions? Which party has some members who want religion out of every aspect of American life. Which party has members that think America needs permission from the UN to protect itself? I could go on and on, but you get the idea. However you assert that conservatives are the bad guys???????????? I don't follow. "

"I think you better read back in the posts."

As I said, you brought up the issues and I showed that you have your extremes as well.


----------



## Plainsman

Go further back MY ( page 1 ) where you said all us conservatives want the death penalty. I think you also mentioned 1/3 were innocent. You have been squirming hard to duck storms question. In circles we have gone until I can hardly remember the original subject. Storm is a wise man, and like him I am done with this little bout.

Before I forget Merry Christmas MY, and everyone else also.


----------



## huntin1

Well MT, all of my Bibles, (I have four) including a Harper Collins Study Bible, have the particular commandment we are talking about as "Thou shalt not commit murder" they also say that "When a man takes the life of another, so to shall his life be taken."

As far as the death penalty, yes I am for it, in certain circumstances.

As for abortion, I believe that there are circumstances when abortion is warranted. To save the life of the mother for instance. But abortion as a form of birth control is wrong.

This will also be my last post on this, we are going in circles. I am not going to change your mind and you are not going to change mine.

Have a Merry Christmas!

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Plainsman said:


> Go further back MY ( page 1 ) where you said all us conservatives want the death penalty. I think you also mentioned 1/3 were innocent. You have been squirming hard to duck storms question. In circles we have gone until I can hardly remember the original subject. Storm is a wise man, and like him I am done with this little bout.
> 
> Before I forget Merry Christmas MY, and everyone else also.


What exactly is storms question that I have been squirming to not answer. I am not aware of said question.

""When a man takes the life of another, so to shall his life be taken." "

This is from the old testament before Jesus gave his teachings. I don't know about you but I follow him.


----------



## rap

moved to "my liberal professor, for militantiger"


----------



## Militant_Tiger

rap said:


> i recently got sick of all the babble my liberal english professor threw upon us each day in class, argued with him for the entire period, everyday he came in bashing republicans and bush. i think i won the debate and everyone in the class had a good time seeing me go up against the professor... it was fun to prove his points were wrong, wrong, wrong, and am glad someone finally spoke up against the constant barage of propoganda... anyways, what the hell does any of his babble about republicans destroying the world have to do with composition 120? i can't figure it out?


Here is another question, what did that have to do with the topic at hand?


----------



## rap

i'm replyin to the subject heading and talking about liberal professors at universities...............


----------



## rap

wait,,,,, since you have a problem with my post... i will make my own topic......


----------



## indsport

Whatever happened to the original topic of professors? My 0.02; as I have said in my previous posts, no generalization of the liberality or conservatism about professors should be made. I attended or worked in 4 different universities in differing parts of the US. A west coast school had a majority of liberals but conservatives were also present. A southern university had more conservatives than liberals but no more out of balance. The basic idea of any university is to teach you how to critically think for yourself and reach your own conclusions. At none of the universities I have ever attended was I ever "indoctrinated" or told which political party or philosophy to follow. As a parent, I suggest any parent allow their children who attend college to learn to think for themselves and reach their own conclusions, not blindly follow their parents or any viewpoint.


----------



## Bobm

Indsport the idea that higher education is balanced politically is ridiculous, everyone that end their kids to college should realize that there is an attemp at indoctrination and spend time with their kids showing them the faults of the liberals idealogies. Thankfully many liberal ideas are slowly being proven to be unworkable and the country is slowly moving to the right. Too bad its such a slow process qalthough I do enjoy watching the socialists in academia wring the hands, the always threaten to move to a different country now theres a program I would support :lol: :lol: :lol:

Academia, Stuck To the Left

By George F. Will

Sunday, November 28, 2004; Page B07

*Republicans Outnumbered

In Academia, Studies Find *

-- The New York Times, Nov. 18

Oh, well, if studies say so. The great secret is out: Liberals dominate campuses. Coming soon: "Moon Implicated in Tides, Studies Find." :lol:

One study of 1,000 professors finds that *Democrats outnumber Republicans at least seven to one* in the humanities and social sciences. That imbalance, more than double what it was three decades ago, is intensifying because younger professors are more uniformly liberal than the older cohort that is retiring.

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:*

*Cornell: 166 liberals, 6 conservatives.

Stanford: 151 liberals, 17 conservatives.

Colorado: 116 liberals, 5 conservatives.

UCLA: 141 liberals, 9 conservatives*

The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reports that in 2004, of the top five institutions in terms of employee per capita contributions to presidential candidates, the third, fourth and fifth were Time Warner, Goldman Sachs and Microsoft. The top two were the University of California system and Harvard, both of which gave about 19 times more money to John Kerry than to George W. Bush.

But George Lakoff, a linguistics professor at Berkeley, denies that academic institutions are biased against conservatives. The disparity in hiring, he explains, occurs because conservatives are not as interested as liberals in academic careers. Why does he think liberals are like that?


> "Unlike conservatives, they believe in working for the public good and social justice."


 *That clears that up.* :eyeroll: :eyeroll: 
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.

It is a reasonable assumption, given that in order to enter the profession, your work must be deemed, by the criteria of the prevailing culture, "relevant." Bauerlein says that various academic fields now have regnant premises that embed political orientations in their very definitions of scholarship:

"Schools of education, for instance, take constructivist theories of learning as definitive, excluding realists (in matters of knowledge) on principle, while the quasi-Marxist outlook of cultural studies rules out those who espouse capitalism. If you disapprove of affirmative action, forget pursuing a degree in African-American studies. If you think that the nuclear family proves the best unit of social well-being, stay away from women's studies."

This gives rise to what Bauerlein calls the "false consensus effect," which occurs when, because of institutional provincialism, "people think that the collective opinion of their own group matches that of the larger population." There also is what Cass Sunstein, professor of political science and jurisprudence at the University of Chicago, calls "the law of group polarization." Bauerlein explains: "When like-minded people deliberate as an organized group, the general opinion shifts toward extreme versions of their common beliefs." They become tone-deaf to the way they sound to others outside their closed circle of belief.

When John Kennedy brought to Washington such academics as Arthur Schlesinger Jr., John Kenneth Galbraith, McGeorge and William Bundy and Walt Rostow, it was said that the Charles River was flowing into the Potomac. Actually, Richard Nixon's administration had an even more distinguished academic cast -- Henry Kissinger, Pat Moynihan, Arthur Burns, James Schlesinger and others.

Academics such as the next secretary of state still decorate Washington, but *academia is less listened to than it was. It has marginalized itself, partly by political shrillness and silliness * :lol: that have something to do with the parochialism produced by what George Orwell called "smelly little orthodoxies."

Many campuses are intellectual versions of one-party nations -- except such nations usually have the merit, such as it is, of candor about their ideological monopolies. In contrast, American campuses have more insistently proclaimed their commitment to diversity as they have become more intellectually monochrome.

They do indeed cultivate diversity -- in race, skin color, ethnicity, sexual preference. *In everything but thought*. :eyeroll:


----------



## indsport

To Bobm, I have been associated with academia and/orscience for 35 years. One state university where I worked for 6 years was predominately conservative professors. (over 60% conservative) Other universities where i went to school or worked (another 8 years). The difference I found at the two universities was quite simple; the socalled liberal universities allowed all poiints of view, conservative (from John Burch to every other sripe of conservative, including allowing the kkk to lecture at a class by invitation) whereas the conservative school did not allow any viewpoint other than conservative to be presented in class. The "liberal" schools allowed and welcomed dissent, whereas the conservative schools never did. From friends and scientists currently in academia, schools have become much more conservative than 20 years ago. From a personal viewpoint, what I would have called the moderate viewpoint of 20-40 years ago is now gone from campuses and I view most campuses as having moved to the right, with old fashioned McCarthy loyalty oaths, and censureship, particularly in the midwest

Secondly, even if only the liberal viewpoint is presented, why would a conservative family send their children to college?

Third, George Bush's family sent both George's to that bastion of liberal thought, Harvard and it did not seem to change their conservative values. Does that mean that all the other conservative children sent to school are indoctrinated as liberals? What about the rest of the entire Bush administration? A vast majority of them are still conservative but went to so called liberal schools and it did not change them into little liberals. 
Sorry, the so called liberal bias argument is not logical.


----------



## Bobm

> Third, George Bush's family sent both George's to that bastion of liberal thought, Harvard and it did not seem to change their conservative values. Does that mean that all the other conservative children sent to school are indoctrinated as liberals?


 No but some are and the effort is made by the liberal profs to do so.


> What about the rest of the entire Bush administration? A vast majority of them are still conservative but went to so called liberal schools and it did not change them into little liberals.


 I never said it did, all I said is that colleges are liberally biased faculty wise, I never said that we would fall for their nonsense.


> Sorry, the so called liberal bias argument is not logical


. Its not only logical its indisputable the numbers are there. So what? you raise your kids right and most of them won't fall for the liberal BS, and the ones that do will change when they get out into the real world. I always think its funny how ashamed most liberals are that they are liberals. :lol: They just hate to have it pointed out to them.


----------



## Plainsman

Logical or not aside it is fact. Ask them today, they will tell you, and the vast majority are liberal. An old joke from the past " when asked directions to Washington D. C. ---- go to Harvard and turn left". Why do you think the NEA is so liberal? Because college professors have pounded liberal ideas into young brains who have gone out into the teaching world. They now push liberalism in the schools, and support a liberal representation of their profession. Please don't tell me this isn't so, I don't care how many colleges you worked for in the past my brother retired from teaching four years ago, and his wife this year. If you are conservative you are constantly harassed in the teachers lounge. Mostly indirectly with stories about how stupid conservatives are. As sportsmen we should be upset. Have you seen all the antihunting material that is presented in the schools. I challenge you to find the other aspect presented.

As far as liberal colleges welcoming dissent, you have had the opposite experiences I have had. When I was in college if you expressed conservative values they would become disrespectful in class, in front of other students. One purpose, to quash all resistance to their indoctrination. Everything you stated in your previous post went against the experience I had back in the 1960's.

Man, what school were you at that let the KKK on campus. I would not condone such people, but I also would not condone bringing them on campus for the purpose of ridiculing them in front of students. Bad behavior is bad behavior KKK, or college professor. They perhaps should have been locked in a room together and the survivor prosecuted.


----------



## zogman

> Posted: 19 Dec 2004 12:51 Post subject:
> 
> As far as liberal colleges welcoming dissent, you have had the opposite experiences I have had. When I was in college if you expressed conservative values they would become disrespectful in class, in front of other students. One purpose, to quash all resistance to their indoctrination. Everything you stated in your previous post went against the experience I had back in the 1960's.


 DOUBLE DITTO HERE

AND YOU EITHER KEPT YOUR MOUTH SHUT OR YOUR GPA SUFFERED


----------



## Plainsman

My experience was they would spend much more time going over any essay that you presented. The old saying going over it with a fine tooth comb was what they did. They couldn't outright get you, but they could be much more critical of every answer, every lab project, everything you did. They hated your guts. This was particularly true in the "liberal arts" as compared to economics, science, or math. Psychology, English, Music, *sociology*, or anyone who thought he had an art talent wanted to bring back crucifixion if you didn't agree with their liberal philosophy.


----------



## Bobm

Had a sociology prof in 1970 that did nothing but rant against the vietnam war and the USA, this guy was a communist and made no attempt to conceal it, my roommate was the middle linebacker and had broken his wrist in practice so he started taping the "lectures". When that jerk realized he had been recording his so called lectures, boy did he panic :lol: . He didn't have tenure yet and he ended up getting fired over those tapes, it was very gratifying.


----------

