American Universities: Conservatives Need Not Apply

Have liberals ever really done anything for themselves? I mean, other than to talk a lot, cajol, coerce or threaten others to do it for them?

I honestly can't think of a single example where liberals have actually done anything meaningful in the world. But on the other hand, examples of conservative accomplishments abound.

Baron Max
 
The New Deal, which brought us out of the depression and helped create the largest middle class in the history of the planet, that's all.
 
I thought Word War II brought us out of the depression? Also, we are now strapped with a near bankrupt government due to the New Deal plan of Social Security.
 
spidergoat said:
The New Deal, which brought us out of the depression and helped create the largest middle class in the history of the planet, that's all.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but who put the system into place?

I think, if the New Deal is actually a liberalist policy, it was still accomplished by those who did the work ....which in almost all cases is the conservatives.

Baron Max
 
Pandaemoni said:
If the history department has its collective head up its ass too far to see that he's making a legitimate point, and honestly believes that he isn't, then I don't see why they should hire him. If they're wrong then they'll look foolish in the long run. There is no "viewpoint affirmative action."
Click to expand...
The hiring or not of this specific guy is what brought the issue up, but regardless of his merits, the fact stands that there is not a single Republican among the 27 history profs. And I'll bet that stat holds across damn near all public universities.

You can't seriously tell me that it just so happens that the Republican/Conservative candidate if inferior in every case! What we have is a bunch of party line ideologues who will not tolerate disent. If your views differ from theirs, you will not be hired.

Regarding the suggestion someone made about Oral Roberts University. Same problem there, except at least that's a private school. I don't want students exposed to only the religious viewpoint either.

College is supposed to teach you how to think, not what to think. Sadly, that idea has gone by the wayside.

We need people from both sides of the political spectrum teaching. Especially in areas like History or Political Science. Your viewpoint makes all the difference in these areas.
 
why said:
I thought Word War II brought us out of the depression? Also, we are now strapped with a near bankrupt government due to the New Deal plan of Social Security.
Click to expand...
Social Security has almost nothing to do with the bankruptcy of the US Government.

It's been running a surplus for many years now, for one thing, and is a stand-alone program not incorporated into the government budget, for another.

The US is bankrupt because it insists on buying its military on credit, and it spends more on its military than the rest of the planet together.

The only influence SS has had on US government debt is loaning its surplus to pay for the military. The US government would prefer to borrow from SS, rather than the Chinese, perhaps because the debt to SS can be more easily repudiated when the crunch comes.
baron said:
I think, if the New Deal is actually a liberalist policy, it was still accomplished by those who did the work ....which in almost all cases is the conservatives.
Click to expand...
That is not a joke. Self-styled "conservatives" actually believe that.
madanth said:
You can't seriously tell me that it just so happens that the Republican/Conservative candidate if inferior in every case!
Click to expand...
Strike the "conservative" (there are many conservative Dems, and you were talking about Republicans, not conservatives) and actually, you can seriously posit that. It's not that it "just so happens", it's that in the past forty or fifty years the Republican Party has taken leave of factual reality in several important respects. If you align your Party with cult-level religious reality denial, you are going to find your Party underrepresented among the most accomplished in many reality based fields.
 
Last edited:
Baron Max said:
Perhaps, but who put the system into place?

I think, if the New Deal is actually a liberalist policy, it was still accomplished by those who did the work ....which in almost all cases is the conservatives.

Baron Max
Click to expand...

So you are maintaining that the New Deal only worked because conservatives made it work? You're so precious. You'd better better off arguing that the New Deal failed and that WWII brought us out of the Depression.
 
Why? said:
I thought Word War II brought us out of the depression? Also, we are now strapped with a near bankrupt government due to the New Deal plan of Social Security.
Click to expand...

Or maybe its because of the rampant borrowing of money by conservatives like reagan and bush 2
 
What happened during WWII? The government took over the means of production and distribution of goods, that's pure socialism.
 
iceaura said:
Social Security has almost nothing to do with the bankruptcy of the US Government.

It's been running a surplus for many years now, for one thing, and is a stand-alone program not incorporated into the government budget, for another.

The US is bankrupt because it insists on buying its military on credit, and it spends more on its military than the rest of the planet together.

The only influence SS has had on US government debt is loaning its surplus to pay for the military. The US government would prefer to borrow from SS, rather than the Chinese, perhaps because the debt to SS can be more easily repudiated when the crunch comes.
Click to expand...
That is complete bull. "Entitlements" already make up the majority of the Federal Budget, not defense. And as the baby boomers retire, the cost of them is going to explode.

It's also funny that you complain about the fact that the government is "borrowing" the Social Security surplus. What the fuck else should they be doing with it? Every time some conservative (and it's always a conservative) proposes creating individual accounts for social security money, the libs run around screaming like it's the end of the world and work up the geezers into a frenzy until the proposal is defeated.

The evil George Bush himself even tryed to create individual accounts, but the dems demagogued the issue to death.
 
spidergoat said:
What happened during WWII? The government took over the means of production and distribution of goods, that's pure socialism.
Click to expand...
We were fighting for our lives. Such measures are justified in that kind of situation. Afterwards our economy really boomed because the rest of the world was blown all to hell while we were relatively unscathed.
 
madanth said:
That is complete bull. "Entitlements" already make up the majority of the Federal Budget, not defense.
Click to expand...
If you are counting SS among the "entitlements", it's been running a surplus - the government has not borrowed a dime to pay for SS.

Or, IIRC, Medicare etc., which have been breaking even.

Something like 2/3 - it's difficult to get a good number, because the budget is not set up to make it easy - of the federal budget goes to military stuff in one form or another. That includes a good share of the "entitlements", a lot of the science and infrastructure stuff - and essentially all of the debt service.
madanth said:
What happened during WWII? The government took over the means of production and distribution of goods, that's pure socialism. ”

We were fighting for our lives. Such measures are justified in that kind of situation.
Click to expand...
So when the matter is serious, you're willing to do what works and drop your ideological BS?

Too bad we ran the Iraq war with the ideology intact.
 
But the recovery from the depression started before WWII, that's why most Republicans were not in favor of entering the war until Pearl Harbor made it unavoidable.
 
Something occurred to me, a rather basic point. Think of it: conservatives have places to go that will cater to them, but don't want to go:

Allegedly Liberal Schools:

• Harvard
• Stanford
• Notre Dame
• Univ. of Michigan
• Univ. of California
• Pacific Lutheran Univ.

Known Conservative Schoos:

• Bob Jones Univ.
• Oral Roberts Univ.
• Northwest Christian College​

The thing is that conservatives would rather get degrees from the liberal schools. Apparently, they're now complaining that they can't get a prestigious degree from Harvard or U-Mich while taking the conservative (cause-oriented) class load of a BJU.

So let's stop and consider: Should we really lower the bar just so conservatives can feel better about themselves?

Just out of curiosity ... does anyone know if Pepperdine University (home of a prestigious law school whose faculty includes Dean Kenneth W. Starr) still requires its undergrads to attend chapel?
 
Last edited:
tiassa said:
The thing is that conservatives would rather get degrees from the liberal schools.
Click to expand...
And they have, apparently escaping indoctrination in the process.

They also want to be faculty and administration at the allegedly liberal schools. And in this they have been successful as well, although at somewhat lower rates - affirmative action admission of the children of alumni does not extend to faculty, or even higher levels of administration.

One can be Condi Rice and be provost of Stanford, but one cannot be a professor of biology there without an accurate comprehension of the theory of evolution, or a professor of geology there and insist on the Noachian Flood as described in the Old Testament. So political bias will be perforce visible, and faculty at more respected universities will not reflect the political demography of the United States as a whole.
 
Tiassa said:
Something occurred to me, a rather basic point. Think of it: conservatives have places to go that will cater to them, but don't want to go:

So let's stop and consider: Should we really lower the bar just so conservatives can feel better about themselves?
Click to expand...
No one wants to lower standards. We want both ends of the political spectrum represented in classes where such bias is significant. Again, do you really think that every single Republican to apply was unqualified? Every single one? Should history only be studied a PUBLIC universities from a left wing perspective? Does that not create a warped view of reality?

I went to college, I sat thru lectures given by left wing blow hards. I was not impressed by the intellect of many of them. Having a leftist perspective, if anything, is the path of least resistance at a university. To be conservative in such a setting is a sure sign that one is a free thinker.

I have a 17 year old son who'll be going to college next year. I've already told him he'll be exposed to left wing wacko's, anti-Americanism, and people who'll blame all the world's ills on white males. I've encouraged him to read some Ayn Rand, Adam Smith, and Hayek this year. (He's already finished Atlas Shrugged.)

I know I have to teach the conservative perspective at home, because it sure as hell won't be presented as anything but a caricature at the university.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top