this is a horrifying statistic: 40% of colleges have 0 Republican professors

[Wyatt earp]

Colleges generally demand people be educated and intelligent, and recognize reality. Many Republicans just don't qualify. They do qualify for places like Bob Jones U where all you have to do is believe in the same god they do and reject science, math, geology, history, and physics.

How many Republicans are employed by theist 'colleges'. (they aren't colleges)

Those they can do, those that cant...well...


They teach.




.

 

[Indeependent]

Professors are overwhelmingly liberal. Do universities need to change hiring practices?

Should we care that US universities are 'too liberal'? | Heather Long

College faculties a most liberal lot, study finds
College Faculties A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds (washingtonpost.com)

Liberal intolerance is on the rise on America’s college campuses

And even when the bias is acknowledged, the left uses absolutely laughable rationale to justify it, i.e. comparing Nascar to a university.

Since Liberalism is what founded this country and wrote its Constitution, forgive me if I fail to see a reason for alarm just because some bloggo-wag declares "Boo".

Off the topic anyway, since the thread was trying to make a point about political party affiliation --- which is certainly not the same thing. People affiliate with a political party for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with personal philosophies including developmental tradition and ability to participate in local and/or state affairs. Nobody, however, needs a freaking political party to teach at a university.

The OP --- who has, as is typical of him, run away now that he got his name on the internets --- continues to labor under this fatally simplistic false dichotomy that declares all sentient beings must fall into one of two bags, labeled "Republican" and "Democrat", the mindlessness of which is self-evident.

The colonists allowed late term abortion?
What kind of an idiot are you?

Pineapples only come from countries with an R in their name? What kind of an idiot are you?

Funny how Israel has technology to grow whatever they want.
Moron.

Funnier how you make up strawman posts that have zero to do with anything in the post quoted.

Hallucinator.

You brought up pineapples.
Which, of course, was an ad hominem.

 

[Wyatt earp]

the future of America is not bright!

Homogeneous: The Political Affiliations of Elite Liberal Arts College Faculty | National Association of Scholars

Republicans are not that bright

They make better truck drivers than professors

Besides, they hate education

Then it must be those evil liberal business owners not paying a " living wage" huh sport?

 

[rightwinger]

the far right agenda to drag America back to the 1950s.

That's funny----- the 1950's were one of the economically and socially healthiest and most prosperous times in our nation's history with some of the lowest tensions at a time when the Middle Class boomed!

No, it had its recessions, politically and socially and economically, even for the white, and for the people of color, in California or in the South or Michigan or New York, it was no picnic.

Thank you for confirming my point.

And we are doing so much better today? Did you miss the worst recession since the 30's? Rioting, looting and burning in Baltimore and other cities? Stagnant jobs, no pay raises, school shootings, threats of missile attacks? Race riots and social tension everywhere? Protests at colleges just for trying to give a different POV? Thanks for making my point. More people were happier and more prosperous and with more hope for the future in the 1950s than today.

1950s were great if you were white, male and Christian

America was FOUNDED by white, male Christians! White Christians were the majority of the nation. So you agree that the 1950s was great for the majority of people. Then someone said: Let's make it great for the rest of the people, the Blacks, the Women, the minorities and Gays. But have we succeeded in that goal? If it is better for the Blacks, why are they more unhappy now than ever? If it is better for the women then why all the #MeToo lawsuits? If it is better for the minorities and Gays, then why all the unrest, lawsuits and protests? It has gotten somewhat better for some of these groups, BUT AT THE EXPENSE OF WHITE CHRISTIANS. So if the majority of people feel they are worse off, then the net gain for making it a little better for some minority groups is a STEP BACK. It is no gain for all if the majority must suffer so that a few can get ahead. If the present was really a better time, then it would truly be better for ALL, and no group has it "great" as it once was in the 1950s. Except the very rich.

When we make the Middle Class and America great again as it was in the 1950s for ALL people across the board, then you can tell me that we have actually "progressed." And perhaps that is the best explanation of the promise made by Trump: to make America great again for the Middle Class and for the Middle Class to enclose a wider diversity of people. Now whether or not Trump can really do that, especially with all the opposition, is another matter. But the question of whether the 1950s was great is moot-- -- -- it WAS. It just wasn't great for EVERYONE. The goal was to KEEP it that great and for more people; I submit that today we have FAILED in that goal to keep it that great for ANYONE, white, black, gay, anyone. The liberal agenda has failed because it sought to make America better for a few minority groups, but AT THE EXPENSE of the majority.

A great country if it has rules to ensure the best opportunities are reserved for white, male, Christians

Sucks for everyone else

 

[Pogo]

And even when the bias is acknowledged, the left uses absolutely laughable rationale to justify it, i.e. comparing Nascar to a university.

---- You're actually suggesting that this one guy sitting way too close to his mic, is "the left"?

"The left" is one guy, really? And they say logical fallacy is dead.
Okay, they don't say that. And this is why they don't.

He doesn't "compare NASCAR (it's an acronym) to a university" at all. He uses it as a random comparison to critique the reasoning. Loosely too, making the strawman argument that "98% of the NASCAR crowd would be Republicans". Assuming for the momentary sake of argument that that's true, take the same survey fifty years ago and you'd plausibly find that "98% of them were Democrats".

Not that I believe either of those figures but the results would follow those lines, and it would continue to mean what it does --- nothing.

 

[Pogo]

Since Liberalism is what founded this country and wrote its Constitution, forgive me if I fail to see a reason for alarm just because some bloggo-wag declares "Boo".

Off the topic anyway, since the thread was trying to make a point about political party affiliation --- which is certainly not the same thing. People affiliate with a political party for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with personal philosophies including developmental tradition and ability to participate in local and/or state affairs. Nobody, however, needs a freaking political party to teach at a university.

The OP --- who has, as is typical of him, run away now that he got his name on the internets --- continues to labor under this fatally simplistic false dichotomy that declares all sentient beings must fall into one of two bags, labeled "Republican" and "Democrat", the mindlessness of which is self-evident.

The colonists allowed late term abortion?
What kind of an idiot are you?

Pineapples only come from countries with an R in their name? What kind of an idiot are you?

Funny how Israel has technology to grow whatever they want.
Moron.

Funnier how you make up strawman posts that have zero to do with anything in the post quoted.

Hallucinator.

You brought up pineapples.
Which, of course, was an ad hominem.

You think you're a pineapple just because you're prickly? OK I admit I had not considered that.

Correct, I brought up pineapples and countries with an R in their name, which had zero to do with anything you posted, just as you brought up "colonists" and "abortions", which have nothing to do with anything I posted.

And you think somebody else is the moron.

 

[rightwinger]

Why don’t Republicans become professors?

Because it takes more than a HS education

 

[toobfreak]

That's funny----- the 1950's were one of the economically and socially healthiest and most prosperous times in our nation's history with some of the lowest tensions at a time when the Middle Class boomed!

No, it had its recessions, politically and socially and economically, even for the white, and for the people of color, in California or in the South or Michigan or New York, it was no picnic.

Thank you for confirming my point.

And we are doing so much better today? Did you miss the worst recession since the 30's? Rioting, looting and burning in Baltimore and other cities? Stagnant jobs, no pay raises, school shootings, threats of missile attacks? Race riots and social tension everywhere? Protests at colleges just for trying to give a different POV? Thanks for making my point. More people were happier and more prosperous and with more hope for the future in the 1950s than today.

1950s were great if you were white, male and Christian

America was FOUNDED by white, male Christians! White Christians were the majority of the nation. So you agree that the 1950s was great for the majority of people. Then someone said: Let's make it great for the rest of the people, the Blacks, the Women, the minorities and Gays. But have we succeeded in that goal? If it is better for the Blacks, why are they more unhappy now than ever? If it is better for the women then why all the #MeToo lawsuits? If it is better for the minorities and Gays, then why all the unrest, lawsuits and protests? It has gotten somewhat better for some of these groups, BUT AT THE EXPENSE OF WHITE CHRISTIANS. So if the majority of people feel they are worse off, then the net gain for making it a little better for some minority groups is a STEP BACK. It is no gain for all if the majority must suffer so that a few can get ahead. If the present was really a better time, then it would truly be better for ALL, and no group has it "great" as it once was in the 1950s. Except the very rich.

When we make the Middle Class and America great again as it was in the 1950s for ALL people across the board, then you can tell me that we have actually "progressed." And perhaps that is the best explanation of the promise made by Trump: to make America great again for the Middle Class and for the Middle Class to enclose a wider diversity of people. Now whether or not Trump can really do that, especially with all the opposition, is another matter. But the question of whether the 1950s was great is moot-- -- -- it WAS. It just wasn't great for EVERYONE. The goal was to KEEP it that great and for more people; I submit that today we have FAILED in that goal to keep it that great for ANYONE, white, black, gay, anyone. The liberal agenda has failed because it sought to make America better for a few minority groups, but AT THE EXPENSE of the majority.

A great country if it has rules to ensure the best opportunities are reserved for white, male, Christians

Sucks for everyone else

Wrong, Norton, its a great country period, which would be even greater if we took government out of everything and let the free market be free to cater to all people equally according to market demands, and quit lumping people into various classes of social victimhood. I think if you ask most people on the street, they will tell you they really do not care about or judge a person by skin colour, hair, age, sex, or background, just their willingness to contribute to the american dream. All people need is the OPPORTUNITY, rather than being lumped into some slum district or neighborhood where they get classified as to their societal worth and potential.

 

[rightwinger]

No, it had its recessions, politically and socially and economically, even for the white, and for the people of color, in California or in the South or Michigan or New York, it was no picnic.

Thank you for confirming my point.

And we are doing so much better today? Did you miss the worst recession since the 30's? Rioting, looting and burning in Baltimore and other cities? Stagnant jobs, no pay raises, school shootings, threats of missile attacks? Race riots and social tension everywhere? Protests at colleges just for trying to give a different POV? Thanks for making my point. More people were happier and more prosperous and with more hope for the future in the 1950s than today.

1950s were great if you were white, male and Christian

America was FOUNDED by white, male Christians! White Christians were the majority of the nation. So you agree that the 1950s was great for the majority of people. Then someone said: Let's make it great for the rest of the people, the Blacks, the Women, the minorities and Gays. But have we succeeded in that goal? If it is better for the Blacks, why are they more unhappy now than ever? If it is better for the women then why all the #MeToo lawsuits? If it is better for the minorities and Gays, then why all the unrest, lawsuits and protests? It has gotten somewhat better for some of these groups, BUT AT THE EXPENSE OF WHITE CHRISTIANS. So if the majority of people feel they are worse off, then the net gain for making it a little better for some minority groups is a STEP BACK. It is no gain for all if the majority must suffer so that a few can get ahead. If the present was really a better time, then it would truly be better for ALL, and no group has it "great" as it once was in the 1950s. Except the very rich.

When we make the Middle Class and America great again as it was in the 1950s for ALL people across the board, then you can tell me that we have actually "progressed." And perhaps that is the best explanation of the promise made by Trump: to make America great again for the Middle Class and for the Middle Class to enclose a wider diversity of people. Now whether or not Trump can really do that, especially with all the opposition, is another matter. But the question of whether the 1950s was great is moot-- -- -- it WAS. It just wasn't great for EVERYONE. The goal was to KEEP it that great and for more people; I submit that today we have FAILED in that goal to keep it that great for ANYONE, white, black, gay, anyone. The liberal agenda has failed because it sought to make America better for a few minority groups, but AT THE EXPENSE of the majority.

A great country if it has rules to ensure the best opportunities are reserved for white, male, Christians

Sucks for everyone else

Wrong, Norton, its a great country period, which would be even greater if we took government out of everything and let the free market be free to cater to all people equally according to market demands, and quit lumping people into various classes of social victimhood. I think if you ask most people on the street, they will tell you they really do not care about or judge a person by skin colour, hair, age, sex, or background, just their willingness to contribute to the american dream. All people need is the OPPORTUNITY, rather than being lumped into some slum district or neighborhood where they get classified as to their societal worth and potential.

WRONG

It was not a great country. It as a country that enforced second rate citizenship for blacks, denied opportunities to women, minorities, the handicapped and gays

 

[toobfreak]

And we are doing so much better today? Did you miss the worst recession since the 30's? Rioting, looting and burning in Baltimore and other cities? Stagnant jobs, no pay raises, school shootings, threats of missile attacks? Race riots and social tension everywhere? Protests at colleges just for trying to give a different POV? Thanks for making my point. More people were happier and more prosperous and with more hope for the future in the 1950s than today.

1950s were great if you were white, male and Christian

America was FOUNDED by white, male Christians! White Christians were the majority of the nation. So you agree that the 1950s was great for the majority of people. Then someone said: Let's make it great for the rest of the people, the Blacks, the Women, the minorities and Gays. But have we succeeded in that goal? If it is better for the Blacks, why are they more unhappy now than ever? If it is better for the women then why all the #MeToo lawsuits? If it is better for the minorities and Gays, then why all the unrest, lawsuits and protests? It has gotten somewhat better for some of these groups, BUT AT THE EXPENSE OF WHITE CHRISTIANS. So if the majority of people feel they are worse off, then the net gain for making it a little better for some minority groups is a STEP BACK. It is no gain for all if the majority must suffer so that a few can get ahead. If the present was really a better time, then it would truly be better for ALL, and no group has it "great" as it once was in the 1950s. Except the very rich.

When we make the Middle Class and America great again as it was in the 1950s for ALL people across the board, then you can tell me that we have actually "progressed." And perhaps that is the best explanation of the promise made by Trump: to make America great again for the Middle Class and for the Middle Class to enclose a wider diversity of people. Now whether or not Trump can really do that, especially with all the opposition, is another matter. But the question of whether the 1950s was great is moot-- -- -- it WAS. It just wasn't great for EVERYONE. The goal was to KEEP it that great and for more people; I submit that today we have FAILED in that goal to keep it that great for ANYONE, white, black, gay, anyone. The liberal agenda has failed because it sought to make America better for a few minority groups, but AT THE EXPENSE of the majority.

A great country if it has rules to ensure the best opportunities are reserved for white, male, Christians

Sucks for everyone else

Wrong, Norton, its a great country period, which would be even greater if we took government out of everything and let the free market be free to cater to all people equally according to market demands, and quit lumping people into various classes of social victimhood. I think if you ask most people on the street, they will tell you they really do not care about or judge a person by skin colour, hair, age, sex, or background, just their willingness to contribute to the american dream. All people need is the OPPORTUNITY, rather than being lumped into some slum district or neighborhood where they get classified as to their societal worth and potential.

WRONG

It was not a great country. It as a country that enforced second rate citizenship for blacks, denied opportunities to women, minorities, the handicapped and gays

CERTAINLY. It has never been a perfect country, but show me one that is and better? Then I gotta ask why you ain't living there?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hasty generalizations by the right and libertarians are . . . gasp . . . scandal . . . hasty generalizations.

It takes education for one to become a professor.

If the professoriate is liberal, then it means the conservatives/libertarians lost in the competition of education.

 

[Foxfyre]

And even when the bias is acknowledged, the left uses absolutely laughable rationale to justify it, i.e. comparing Nascar to a university.

---- You're actually suggesting that this one guy sitting way too close to his mic, is "the left"?

"The left" is one guy, really? And they say logical fallacy is dead.
Okay, they don't say that. And this is why they don't.

He doesn't "compare NASCAR (it's an acronym) to a university" at all. He uses it as a random comparison to critique the reasoning. Loosely too, making the strawman argument that "98% of the NASCAR crowd would be Republicans". Assuming for the momentary sake of argument that that's true, take the same survey fifty years ago and you'd plausibly find that "98% of them were Democrats".

Not that I believe either of those figures but the results would follow those lines, and it would continue to mean what it does --- nothing.

I think you didn't read my post carefully is what I think.

 

[Pogo]

And even when the bias is acknowledged, the left uses absolutely laughable rationale to justify it, i.e. comparing Nascar to a university.

---- You're actually suggesting that this one guy sitting way too close to his mic, is "the left"?

"The left" is one guy, really? And they say logical fallacy is dead.
Okay, they don't say that. And this is why they don't.

He doesn't "compare NASCAR (it's an acronym) to a university" at all. He uses it as a random comparison to critique the reasoning. Loosely too, making the strawman argument that "98% of the NASCAR crowd would be Republicans". Assuming for the momentary sake of argument that that's true, take the same survey fifty years ago and you'd plausibly find that "98% of them were Democrats".

Not that I believe either of those figures but the results would follow those lines, and it would continue to mean what it does --- nothing.

I think you didn't read my post carefully is what I think.

I think so carefully did I in fact read it that I even watched the video. Composition Fallacy -- nailed it.

So carefully, and it didn't take much, that I immediately saw that whereas the thread was about political party affilations, your entire post didn't even mention them but instead veered off to the mobile goalpost of "Liberal" --- which I'm pretty sure is not a political party.

Wasn't that "careful" enough? If there's more, I missed it and you're off the hook.

Love ya Foxy

 

[JakeStarkey]

Too many Americans left and right fall because of composition bias so naturally: they twist the evidence to fit their premise, because they 'feel' the premise is so right.

 

[rightwinger]

1950s were great if you were white, male and Christian

America was FOUNDED by white, male Christians! White Christians were the majority of the nation. So you agree that the 1950s was great for the majority of people. Then someone said: Let's make it great for the rest of the people, the Blacks, the Women, the minorities and Gays. But have we succeeded in that goal? If it is better for the Blacks, why are they more unhappy now than ever? If it is better for the women then why all the #MeToo lawsuits? If it is better for the minorities and Gays, then why all the unrest, lawsuits and protests? It has gotten somewhat better for some of these groups, BUT AT THE EXPENSE OF WHITE CHRISTIANS. So if the majority of people feel they are worse off, then the net gain for making it a little better for some minority groups is a STEP BACK. It is no gain for all if the majority must suffer so that a few can get ahead. If the present was really a better time, then it would truly be better for ALL, and no group has it "great" as it once was in the 1950s. Except the very rich.

When we make the Middle Class and America great again as it was in the 1950s for ALL people across the board, then you can tell me that we have actually "progressed." And perhaps that is the best explanation of the promise made by Trump: to make America great again for the Middle Class and for the Middle Class to enclose a wider diversity of people. Now whether or not Trump can really do that, especially with all the opposition, is another matter. But the question of whether the 1950s was great is moot-- -- -- it WAS. It just wasn't great for EVERYONE. The goal was to KEEP it that great and for more people; I submit that today we have FAILED in that goal to keep it that great for ANYONE, white, black, gay, anyone. The liberal agenda has failed because it sought to make America better for a few minority groups, but AT THE EXPENSE of the majority.

A great country if it has rules to ensure the best opportunities are reserved for white, male, Christians

Sucks for everyone else

Wrong, Norton, its a great country period, which would be even greater if we took government out of everything and let the free market be free to cater to all people equally according to market demands, and quit lumping people into various classes of social victimhood. I think if you ask most people on the street, they will tell you they really do not care about or judge a person by skin colour, hair, age, sex, or background, just their willingness to contribute to the american dream. All people need is the OPPORTUNITY, rather than being lumped into some slum district or neighborhood where they get classified as to their societal worth and potential.

WRONG

It was not a great country. It as a country that enforced second rate citizenship for blacks, denied opportunities to women, minorities, the handicapped and gays

CERTAINLY. It has never been a perfect country, but show me one that is and better? Then I gotta ask why you ain't living there?

America TODAY is better than America of the1950s

 

[JakeStarkey]

No American really wants to go back to the 1950s.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressives have successfully destroyed the educational system and converted it into a government dependent voters manufacturing facility.

80% of the kids who "gradute" Big City Democrat Party high schools can't read or write

 

[Pogo]

Progressives have successfully destroyed the educational system and converted it into a government dependent voters manufacturing facility.

80% of the kids who "gradute" Big City Democrat Party high schools can't read or write

Good news Frank ---

OP's sterling research :::cough::cough::: shows that there are exactly the same number of Republican college professors as there were witnesses in McCarthy's HUAC hearings.

Film at 11.

That aside, I had no idea until now that there were "Democrat Party High Schools". This site is damned edumacational.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressives have successfully destroyed the educational system and converted it into a government dependent voters manufacturing facility.

80% of the kids who "gradute" Big City Democrat Party high schools can't read or write

Good news Frank ---

OP's sterling research :::cough::cough::: shows that there are exactly the same number of Republican college professors as there were witnesses in McCarthy's HUAC hearings.

Film at 11.

That aside, I had no idea until now that there were "Democrat Party High Schools". This site is damned edumacational.

Remember when McCarthys HUAC blacklisted Zero Mostel? What a black day in American history. And then Sen. "Have you no decency" Welsh chided McCarthy for accusing a Welsh staffer of having Communist ties, who as it turns out, actually did have Communist ties

 

[Wyatt earp]

America was FOUNDED by white, male Christians! White Christians were the majority of the nation. So you agree that the 1950s was great for the majority of people. Then someone said: Let's make it great for the rest of the people, the Blacks, the Women, the minorities and Gays. But have we succeeded in that goal? If it is better for the Blacks, why are they more unhappy now than ever? If it is better for the women then why all the #MeToo lawsuits? If it is better for the minorities and Gays, then why all the unrest, lawsuits and protests? It has gotten somewhat better for some of these groups, BUT AT THE EXPENSE OF WHITE CHRISTIANS. So if the majority of people feel they are worse off, then the net gain for making it a little better for some minority groups is a STEP BACK. It is no gain for all if the majority must suffer so that a few can get ahead. If the present was really a better time, then it would truly be better for ALL, and no group has it "great" as it once was in the 1950s. Except the very rich.

When we make the Middle Class and America great again as it was in the 1950s for ALL people across the board, then you can tell me that we have actually "progressed." And perhaps that is the best explanation of the promise made by Trump: to make America great again for the Middle Class and for the Middle Class to enclose a wider diversity of people. Now whether or not Trump can really do that, especially with all the opposition, is another matter. But the question of whether the 1950s was great is moot-- -- -- it WAS. It just wasn't great for EVERYONE. The goal was to KEEP it that great and for more people; I submit that today we have FAILED in that goal to keep it that great for ANYONE, white, black, gay, anyone. The liberal agenda has failed because it sought to make America better for a few minority groups, but AT THE EXPENSE of the majority.

A great country if it has rules to ensure the best opportunities are reserved for white, male, Christians

Sucks for everyone else

Wrong, Norton, its a great country period, which would be even greater if we took government out of everything and let the free market be free to cater to all people equally according to market demands, and quit lumping people into various classes of social victimhood. I think if you ask most people on the street, they will tell you they really do not care about or judge a person by skin colour, hair, age, sex, or background, just their willingness to contribute to the american dream. All people need is the OPPORTUNITY, rather than being lumped into some slum district or neighborhood where they get classified as to their societal worth and potential.

WRONG

It was not a great country. It as a country that enforced second rate citizenship for blacks, denied opportunities to women, minorities, the handicapped and gays

CERTAINLY. It has never been a perfect country, but show me one that is and better? Then I gotta ask why you ain't living there?

America TODAY is better than America of the1950s

I thought you repeatedly said that you could buy a car, rent an apartment back then on just making minimum wage?