Obama Attacked From The Left

[Newby]

Academia? You are indeed outnumbered... lol

 

[PoliticalChic]

That is a significant shift coming from a group that is entrenched in the obsessively liberal world of academia!

Since you mention academia, please allow me to jump in with an extraneous thought.

Every Democrat politician shouts how we should give more aid for college loans and grants, but none of them shout for billion-dollar-endowed colleges to drop tuition.

Do they know that increased government loans will simply result in higher tuition?

Could it be the left-wing slant of the colleges that protects them. ( Did you know that Barnard has an Alger Hiss Chair?)

And why do schools pay for 'supervisors' to teach new teachers to teach, when they graduated from colleges with education departments that claimed to do just that?

How about a computer program that tracks teachers, and notes which colleges did the worst job of preparation- and then remove the accreditation from that college????

Had to get it off my chest.

 

[Sinatra]

Academia? You are indeed outnumbered... lol

Yes I was. Most are wonderful caring people, albeit politically misguided, but of course, their livelihoods depend upon the government doling out their earnings.

A few are willing to admit the inherent liberal bias of the system, and actually fight to be more fair in their own lectures and published works, but sadly, they remain a distinct minority.

I don't miss that part of that former life, but I do miss the intellectual wars we would wage. Guess that would explain my presence in a forum such as this. I still keep in contact with many of my former colleagues, but not nearly as often as when I was part of that odd and at times wonderfully infuriating world...

 

[Sarah G]

Good one! You weren't talking about your messiah?

There are 3 equal branches... 2 are Democratic, we're looking for that third.

I think you've got your finger on it, and it is a scary thought.

I didn't agree with many of President Bush's moves, but the basic reason for voting for him was the Supreme Court.

His two picks may have saved this country.

It appears that President Obame may be picking replacements for the Liberal members- at least that is my fervent hope.

You are absolutely right, I would have voted for him for that very reason if I were crazy enough to be a repub.

 

[Newby]

Academia? You are indeed outnumbered... lol

Yes I was. Most are wonderful caring people, albeit politically misguided, but of course, their livelihoods depend upon the government doling out their earnings.

A few are willing to admit the inherent liberal bias of the system, and actually fight to be more fair in their own lectures and published works, but sadly, they remain a distinct minority.

I don't miss that part of that former life, but I do miss the intellectual wars we would wage. Guess that would explain my presence in a forum such as this. I still keep in contact with many of my former colleagues, but not nearly as often as when I was part of that odd and at times wonderfully infuriating world...

My husband works at a university, and like you said most are very caring and well intended people, but the bias is amazing. He tries to avoid the topic of politics as much as humanly possible.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are absolutely right, I would have voted for him for that very reason if I were crazy enough to be a repub.

Let's assume that the terms Repubican and Conservative are interchangeable.

Just for informational purposes, what, exactly do you find "crazy" about the following:


1)Conservatives believe that there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent. The result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster. Liberals believe in private morality and these differ for each person. These beliefs are aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses.

2)Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).

3)Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

4)Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect. Consider the results of the rule of ideologues of the last century.

5)Freedom and property are linked. Private property results in a more stable and productive society. Private property and retaining the fruits of one’s labor has been proven successful from the Puritan’s Bradford, to the Stakhanovite Revolution!

6)Conservatives believe in voluntary community and charity, based on duties to each other, as opposed to involuntary collectivism. This explains why conservative give more charity than liberals.

7)Conservatives view people as both good and bad, and for this reason believe on restraints on power, as in checks and balances, while liberals see power as a force for good, as long as the power is in their hands.

8)Liberals and Conservatives differ in the way to proceed. For Conservatives, data informs policy. (“More Guns, Less Crime” and“Mass murderers apparently can’t read, since they are constantly shooting up ‘gun-free zones.’”- Coulter) We use Conservative principles to the best of our ability, but when confronting new and original venues, we believe in testing, and analysis of the results of the tests. For liberals, feeling passes for knowing; it is based on emotion often to the exclusion of thinking.

9)Conservatives view results differently from Liberals. Liberals respond to success and material wealth with envy and hostility, encourage class warfare and an attempt to obviate any chance that it might happen again. The exception is when it is a Liberal with the wealth. Conservatives see success as the validation and culmination of the application of Conservative principles, most prominently Liberty.

10)Since Liberals see their view as a higher calling that that of Conservatives, they mistakenly believe that it is entirely appropriate for then to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects. Notice how the Liberal replaces intellect with emotion. This is, no doubt, based on a medieval concept of recognizing witches and demons. In fact, Liberals attempt to deal with opponents in similar fashion: recall Clarence Thomas’ “High Tech Lynching.”

 

[rayboyusmc]

His two picks may have saved this country.

For whom? From what?

Dogmatic bullcrap. The left and the right go together.

Having a supreme court packed with right wing activists is a sure path to destruction as having it stacked with all left wing activists.

This belief that only the right can save this country is total partisan poop. You don't own the truth.

 

[Sarah G]

You are absolutely right, I would have voted for him for that very reason if I were crazy enough to be a repub.

Let's assume that the terms Repubican and Conservative are interchangeable.

Just for informational purposes, what, exactly do you find "crazy" about the following:


1)Conservatives believe that there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent. The result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster. Liberals believe in private morality and these differ for each person. These beliefs are aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses.

2)Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).

3)Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

4)Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect. Consider the results of the rule of ideologues of the last century.

5)Freedom and property are linked. Private property results in a more stable and productive society. Private property and retaining the fruits of one’s labor has been proven successful from the Puritan’s Bradford, to the Stakhanovite Revolution!

6)Conservatives believe in voluntary community and charity, based on duties to each other, as opposed to involuntary collectivism. This explains why conservative give more charity than liberals.

7)Conservatives view people as both good and bad, and for this reason believe on restraints on power, as in checks and balances, while liberals see power as a force for good, as long as the power is in their hands.

8)Liberals and Conservatives differ in the way to proceed. For Conservatives, data informs policy. (“More Guns, Less Crime” and“Mass murderers apparently can’t read, since they are constantly shooting up ‘gun-free zones.’”- Coulter) We use Conservative principles to the best of our ability, but when confronting new and original venues, we believe in testing, and analysis of the results of the tests. For liberals, feeling passes for knowing; it is based on emotion often to the exclusion of thinking.

9)Conservatives view results differently from Liberals. Liberals respond to success and material wealth with envy and hostility, encourage class warfare and an attempt to obviate any chance that it might happen again. The exception is when it is a Liberal with the wealth. Conservatives see success as the validation and culmination of the application of Conservative principles, most prominently Liberty.

10)Since Liberals see their view as a higher calling that that of Conservatives, they mistakenly believe that it is entirely appropriate for then to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects. Notice how the Liberal replaces intellect with emotion. This is, no doubt, based on a medieval concept of recognizing witches and demons. In fact, Liberals attempt to deal with opponents in similar fashion: recall Clarence Thomas’ “High Tech Lynching.”

Republican and Conservative are interchangable. Your entire copy and paste is quite self-serving and ridiculous. Only when you look at your party as an entity would you come up with something like this.

 

[PoliticalChic]

His two picks may have saved this country.

For whom? From what?

Dogmatic bullcrap. The left and the right go together.

Having a supreme court packed with right wing activists is a sure path to destruction as having it stacked with all left wing activists.

This belief that only the right can save this country is total partisan poop. You don't own the truth.

If one had to judge based upon your posts, it would sure look like we do.

Tell me, are you slapping that riding crop against your jodphurs as you bark, er speak?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's assume that the terms Repubican and Conservative are interchangeable.

Just for informational purposes, what, exactly do you find "crazy" about the following:


1)Conservatives believe that there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent. The result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster. Liberals believe in private morality and these differ for each person. These beliefs are aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses.

2)Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).

3)Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

4)Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect. Consider the results of the rule of ideologues of the last century.

5)Freedom and property are linked. Private property results in a more stable and productive society. Private property and retaining the fruits of one’s labor has been proven successful from the Puritan’s Bradford, to the Stakhanovite Revolution!

6)Conservatives believe in voluntary community and charity, based on duties to each other, as opposed to involuntary collectivism. This explains why conservative give more charity than liberals.

7)Conservatives view people as both good and bad, and for this reason believe on restraints on power, as in checks and balances, while liberals see power as a force for good, as long as the power is in their hands.

8)Liberals and Conservatives differ in the way to proceed. For Conservatives, data informs policy. (“More Guns, Less Crime” and“Mass murderers apparently can’t read, since they are constantly shooting up ‘gun-free zones.’”- Coulter) We use Conservative principles to the best of our ability, but when confronting new and original venues, we believe in testing, and analysis of the results of the tests. For liberals, feeling passes for knowing; it is based on emotion often to the exclusion of thinking.

9)Conservatives view results differently from Liberals. Liberals respond to success and material wealth with envy and hostility, encourage class warfare and an attempt to obviate any chance that it might happen again. The exception is when it is a Liberal with the wealth. Conservatives see success as the validation and culmination of the application of Conservative principles, most prominently Liberty.

10)Since Liberals see their view as a higher calling that that of Conservatives, they mistakenly believe that it is entirely appropriate for then to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects. Notice how the Liberal replaces intellect with emotion. This is, no doubt, based on a medieval concept of recognizing witches and demons. In fact, Liberals attempt to deal with opponents in similar fashion: recall Clarence Thomas’ “High Tech Lynching.”

Republican and Conservative are interchangable. Your entire copy and paste is quite self-serving and ridiculous. Only when you look at your party as an entity would you come up with something like this.

Not true about the provenance of my list.

And, based on your response, none are "crazy," and you are simply closed minded.

 

[Sinatra]

That is a significant shift coming from a group that is entrenched in the obsessively liberal world of academia!

Since you mention academia, please allow me to jump in with an extraneous thought.

Every Democrat politician shouts how we should give more aid for college loans and grants, but none of them shout for billion-dollar-endowed colleges to drop tuition.

Do they know that increased government loans will simply result in higher tuition?

Could it be the left-wing slant of the colleges that protects them. ( Did you know that Barnard has an Alger Hiss Chair?)

And why do schools pay for 'supervisors' to teach new teachers to teach, when they graduated from colleges with education departments that claimed to do just that?

How about a computer program that tracks teachers, and notes which colleges did the worst job of preparation- and then remove the accreditation from that college????

Had to get it off my chest.

Oh dear - this would take some time!

I will start by saying this - the education department within almost all universities is the most despised by members of other departments. One, because they receive such substantial funding, but primarily because there is a wide held belief that those who are part schools of education are not really part of a true field of academics. While I don't agree entirely with that view, the fact remains, professors of education are openly despised by other professors.

Just prior to my leaving academics and devoting full time to my private business, there was a huge dustup between two department heads - one from the sociology department (which members of other departments view as nearly lacking as the education department) and the other from the education department. They fought in the context of letters written back and forth and published in the school paper. It made for great entertainment, and the students thought it was a hoot, but in the end, the education department was utterly humiliated by this sociology professor. Ah, so then this education department chair proceeds to file a grievance against the sociology department chair and threatens a lawsuit against the entire university for the affair, claiming "a loss of standing in the education community."

The university president then becomes involved, and admonishes the sociology professor and requires a public apology. Several other professors write letters of support (I being one) and in turn rebuke the university president.

Ah, but then the plot thickens! In comes the regional A--U office (the education department chair was a woman of mixed race) who also threatens a lawsuit against the university for fostering a "hostile work environment" based in part on a "lack of race and gender sensitivity" Apparently some students took to mocking this education professor for their less than stellar written war of words debate with the sociology chair. She claimed to be forced to take medication for stress, was unable to work, faced severe depression...etc. This was played out over a number of months.

Long story short - the sociology chair stepped down as chair and took sabbatical. As for the education department chair? Well-well-well, within a year she was given a high ranking administrative position in the Office of Student Diversity (she now is in charge of that office with an annual budget of nearly $2 million dollars, a large office just down from the University President's, a full time staff of 7, and a six-figure salary) It was nothing less than a good old fashioned A--U shakedown!

Since that time, the disdain other professors feel toward the education department has only grown...

 

[twogreen2c]

I stopped reading your drivel when you denied that Bush/Chaney/Scooter Libby outted Valerie Plames because Joe Wilson, her husband, blew the wistle on WMD's.

Come on Sealy, when are you going to get it, it's Cheney with an "e". It's annoying you continue to make this error even after I have corrected you like 4 times now. Your assignment is to either type "Cheney" 100 times or stop referring to him.