OT-Are you voting Republican?

[Ehwmatt]

You're right. There is a huge conspiracy involving educators, universities, Zapruder's grandson, and Barbara Boxer. Our aim is to take over the world, but we're going to start by giving Republicans undeserved poor grades in political science classes. This helped us cover up Clinton's murder of dozens of his political adversaries in the 1970's, as well as Foster.

You poor conservatives ain't seen nothin' yet.

It's well-documented by both unofficial surveys and professional polls that there is EXTREMELY disproportionate numbers of liberal professors to conservative professors at the upper levels of education. It's not like professors are coy about it, most of my professors will freely admit their views if not announce them in class uninvited - I never said there was a conspiracy. I just think it's probably good to be keen on your professor's views if you are writing papers dealing with political stances or sensitive issues for him or her - if you write something they totally disagree with, it takes a VERY intellectually honest professor to give your arguments as much of a chance. I've had one that was like that - my con law professor. Definitely liberal, but willing to look at an issue from the other side of the coin.

This has nothing to do with liberals being evil or anything else, it's just the unavoidable human nature of the whole situation - when it comes to politics and religion, we tend to be relatively close-minded once we decide on a certain view or set of views. If the intellegentsia in universities were mainly coming from a conservative tree, I'd tell people with more liberal views the same thing - be mindful of what you're saying in your class work.

[RedWingFan]

Very true. But every teacher in America combined makes less than Exxon's profit margin in 2007, and they didn't have enough power to prevent Bush's unanimously disastrous Every Child Left Behind Act.

So what? They do have enough power to shoot down their failed beuracracy which is the public school system by denying school vouchers or child tax credits. What business do you know of that improves without competition?

[Ehwmatt]

Very true. But every teacher in America combined makes less than Exxon's profit margin in 2007, and they didn't have enough power to prevent Bush's unanimously disastrous Every Child Left Behind Act.

So what? They do have enough power to shoot down their failed beuracracy which is the public school system by denying school vouchers or child tax credits. What business do you know of that improves without competition?

Aside from that, I think most teachers will tell you they don't enter education with the intention of taking home a CEO's pay. Don't forget, you have to consider the stuff that's not found under the "Salary" heading of the contract: Great benefits like summers off, done at 3 o' clock virtually every day, lengthy holiday breaks, tenure (for professors), and to be frank, a pretty low pressure job provided your not teaching in an inner city/impoverished school district.

Teaching's not a bad gig at all.

[strangegrey]

Bush has increased the size of the Federal Government more than any President in the 20th or 21st centuries.

7w, I thought you were a liberal? From your perspective, that's a bad thing? I don't get it. It's ok for Clinton, Carter and LBJ to bloat out the government, but not Bush?

Clinton reduced the ranks of the Federal Government by 25% during his eight years in office - after it hit record highs under Bush Sr. (who was a very good President) and Reagan.

Agreed...but I think you either missed my point, or skirted/avoided it.

The question I asked, is how, as a liberal could you be down on Dubya, for increasing the size/role of the federal government, when that's the marching orders of every democrat elected to office?


Your point about Clinton is actually not a very good one, as he was the only democrat president in recent years to reduce government expenditures and reign in budget. He's very much an enigma, compared to his peers like Carter, LBJ, etc...Clinton, fiscally, is actually more 'republican' than Dubya has been.

[Calbear94]

Less government = less corruption.

LBJ and FDR are two of the worst Presidents, in my opinion, because of their big government programs. Throw Woodrow Wilson in there too.

Calbear, as much as I dislike Truman, his use of the atomic bomb is NOT a negative.

I believe that he did what he thought he had to do, and that a majority of Americans at that time would have supported the bomb's use to avoid a prolonged war in the Pacific. Still, I have a hard time dealing with the thought of wiping out two cities and killing 150,000 Japanese men, women, and children. Truman should have tried intimidating the Japanese with a test on a desolate island in the Pacific (such tests did not happen until after the war).

The larger problem is that with the dawn of the atomic age, the genie has been let out of the bottle. The consequences have been a long nuclear age which still continues today, trillions of dollars being spent on nuclear programs and missile defense, and destabilization throughout the world (East, Central, Southwest and South Asia, Eastern Europe, etc). It was foolish to develop and use this technology and to delude oneself into thinking that only the U.S. would have say in how this technology would be used.

[strangegrey]

Less government = less corruption.

LBJ and FDR are two of the worst Presidents, in my opinion, because of their big government programs. Throw Woodrow Wilson in there too.

Calbear, as much as I dislike Truman, his use of the atomic bomb is NOT a negative.

I believe that he did what he thought he had to do, and that a majority of Americans at that time would have supported the bomb's use to avoid a prolonged war in the Pacific. Still, I have a hard time dealing with the thought of wiping out two cities and killing 150,000 Japanese men, women, and children. Truman should have tried intimidating the Japanese with a test on a desolate island in the Pacific (such tests did not happen until after the war).

The larger problem is that with the dawn of the atomic age, the genie has been let out of the bottle. The consequences have been a long nuclear age which still continues today, trillions of dollars being spent on nuclear programs and missile defense, and destabilization throughout the world (East, Central, Southwest and South Asia, Eastern Europe, etc). It was foolish to develop and use this technology and to delude oneself into thinking that only the U.S. would have say in how this technology would be used.

Hard to argue with any of that....

but I'll submit this, Calbear. How could truman or anyone one else *know* what a mess nuclear weapons would be 60 years after the fact. in fact, the US exploded a TON of them in the pacific after WWII...and only after alot of the testing, were some of the more fallout-related issues pertaining to nuclear weapons discovered.


Militarily, driving the japanese all the way back to Japan would have been FAR more costly in both US-military and Japanese-military lives than the cost of life brought about by both fat boy and little man. Imagine 20-30 Iwo Jimas, before we could really force the Japanese military into submission. In order to do that, the US military was going to need an injection of troops. The only injection source was battle weary troops from the just completed European war. Regardless, it would have been very ugly.

The decission, the right one at the time, was to end the war swiftly and get on with it. Can't fault truman for the unforseen consequences of his actions.

[Calbear94]

Very true. But every teacher in America combined makes less than Exxon's profit margin in 2007, and they didn't have enough power to prevent Bush's unanimously disastrous Every Child Left Behind Act.

So what? They do have enough power to shoot down their failed beuracracy which is the public school system by denying school vouchers or child tax credits. What business do you know of that improves without competition?

Aside from that, I think most teachers will tell you they don't enter education with the intention of taking home a CEO's pay. Don't forget, you have to consider the stuff that's not found under the "Salary" heading of the contract: Great benefits like summers off, done at 3 o' clock virtually every day, lengthy holiday breaks, tenure (for professors), and to be frank, a pretty low pressure job provided your not teaching in an inner city/impoverished school district.

Teaching's not a bad gig at all.

You're kidding, right? Have you ever been a teacher? Try adding at least 20 hours per week doing lesson plans, test preps, and grading papers. The 45min to 1 hr that teachers get for planning is not nearly enough to get all of this done, especially considering the number of meetings and conferences that are scheduled during these periods. If teaching was such an easy job, the schools would be doing a much better job of retaining young teachers.

[RedWingFan]

Your point about Clinton is actually not a very good one, as he was the only democrat president in recent years to reduce government expenditures and reign in budget. He's very much an enigma, compared to his peers like Carter, LBJ, etc...Clinton, fiscally, is actually more 'republican' than Dubya has been.

Not so much of an enigma when you figure the role Congress played in the '90's. Clinton vetoed welfare reform twice then signed it right before the '98 campaign.

[Calbear94]

Less government = less corruption.

LBJ and FDR are two of the worst Presidents, in my opinion, because of their big government programs. Throw Woodrow Wilson in there too.

Calbear, as much as I dislike Truman, his use of the atomic bomb is NOT a negative.

I believe that he did what he thought he had to do, and that a majority of Americans at that time would have supported the bomb's use to avoid a prolonged war in the Pacific. Still, I have a hard time dealing with the thought of wiping out two cities and killing 150,000 Japanese men, women, and children. Truman should have tried intimidating the Japanese with a test on a desolate island in the Pacific (such tests did not happen until after the war).

The larger problem is that with the dawn of the atomic age, the genie has been let out of the bottle. The consequences have been a long nuclear age which still continues today, trillions of dollars being spent on nuclear programs and missile defense, and destabilization throughout the world (East, Central, Southwest and South Asia, Eastern Europe, etc). It was foolish to develop and use this technology and to delude oneself into thinking that only the U.S. would have say in how this technology would be used.

Hard to argue with any of that....

but I'll submit this, Calbear. How could truman or anyone one else *know* what a mess nuclear weapons would be 60 years after the fact. in fact, the US exploded a TON of them in the pacific after WWII...and only after alot of the testing, were some of the more fallout-related issues pertaining to nuclear weapons discovered.


Militarily, driving the japanese all the way back to Japan would have been FAR more costly in both US-military and Japanese-military lives than the cost of life brought about by both fat boy and little man. Imagine 20-30 Iwo Jimas, before we could really force the Japanese military into submission. In order to do that, the US military was going to need an injection of troops. The only injection source was battle weary troops from the just completed European war. Regardless, it would have been very ugly.

The decission, the right one at the time, was to end the war swiftly and get on with it. Can't fault truman for the unforseen consequences of his actions.

The Manhattan project employed thousands of people. Atomic research involved many international scientists. The spy game had evolved considerably since Matahari's days during WWI. If we knew what Hitler, and then later what Stalin was up to, then we should have known that Stalin would find out about the program. One of the most embarassing moments in the history of US foreign policy is when Truman is sitting across from Stalin giving hints about the bomb, and Stalin is sitting there like the cat that ate the canary, likely doing his best not to bust up laughing.

Although maligned here, I think Wilson was one of the few U.S. presidents during the 20th century to understand that U.S. can not achieve its goals of promoting peace and democracy around the world (and therefore at home vis-a-vis a sense of security) by undertaking problems around the world alone. How can we expect to be taken seriously when we develop (and use) the most destructive technology ever known to mankind and then expect other countries around the world to voluntarily cooperate in ridding the world of nuclear weapons?

[Calbear94]

You're right. There is a huge conspiracy involving educators, universities, Zapruder's grandson, and Barbara Boxer. Our aim is to take over the world, but we're going to start by giving Republicans undeserved poor grades in political science classes. This helped us cover up Clinton's murder of dozens of his political adversaries in the 1970's, as well as Foster.

You poor conservatives ain't seen nothin' yet.

It's well-documented by both unofficial surveys and professional polls that there is EXTREMELY disproportionate numbers of liberal professors to conservative professors at the upper levels of education. It's not like professors are coy about it, most of my professors will freely admit their views if not announce them in class uninvited - I never said there was a conspiracy. I just think it's probably good to be keen on your professor's views if you are writing papers dealing with political stances or sensitive issues for him or her - if you write something they totally disagree with, it takes a VERY intellectually honest professor to give your arguments as much of a chance. I've had one that was like that - my con law professor. Definitely liberal, but willing to look at an issue from the other side of the coin.

This has nothing to do with liberals being evil or anything else, it's just the unavoidable human nature of the whole situation - when it comes to politics and religion, we tend to be relatively close-minded once we decide on a certain view or set of views. If the intellegentsia in universities were mainly coming from a conservative tree, I'd tell people with more liberal views the same thing - be mindful of what you're saying in your class work.

This is a cop-out. Professors, regardless of their field, have spent on average 5-7 learning their craft (to teach and do research). Acquisition of knowledge in the social and physical sciences is based on the scientific method. In all of these fields, Ph.D candidates are taught about objectivity, and increasingly about ethics. Every good instructor or teacher, regardless of their own political views, teaches their students to think critically (i.e. to identify bias). Most love what they do...educating and encouraging young minds.

If a student has a contrary viewpoint regarding anything that comes up in class or in the readings, they have the ability to do research and investigate the facts...particularly those that are brought to light out of primary sources or secondary sources (if corroborated). This obviously requires extra effort from the students because they have to defend their positions. Also, due to their many years of professional training most professors can easily spot weaknesses in the student's arguments. Virtually every professor I have known has welcomed intellectual debate from and among their students whether at the end of a lecture, in discussion groups, or in office hours.

[Calbear94]

LBJ was only carrying on in the tradition of JFK's New Frontier, Truman's Fair Deal, and FDR's New Deal.

Historically-speaking, I don't think you are giving LBJ enough credit here for 'being his own man'. While he certainly was a New Deal politician (from Texas, which was much more liberal then), he was arguably more committed to civil rights than JFK was. At first, JFK had been politically cautious when considering equal rights for blacks. When LBJ took over after the assassination, he wasted very little time in pushing through the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964. Some of LBJ's Great Society programs were built on groundwork done by JFK. While I do believe that JFK would have done more had he been given the time and the support of Republican-controlled Congress, I believe that LBJ deserves to be given credit for being so progressive on issues such as clean air, education, equal employment, etc. Of course, his mistakes regarding Vietnam will forever tarnish his presidential legacy, which is really too bad. This is similar to Truman, whose legacy was tarnished by his decision to use the Atomic bomb.

HOLY SHIT are you wrong here. LBJ wanted civil rights to happen about as much as the Grand Dragon of the KKK. It was the REPUBLICANS that made the historic civil rights acts happen...LBJ only signed because he had no choice as they would have overridden a veto.

The great society did nothing but gut our inner cities and kill off encentive for people to do for themselves, it REALLY created the welfare state as we have it now, and turned our african-american communities into slums for a large part.

Yeah THANKS LBJ!

As majority leader in the Senate, LBJ championed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the first piece of national legislation of its kind since Reconstruction. To compare him to the leadership of KKK is not only patently false, but extremely malicious.

As for Congressional Republicans, it is true that Republican votes were necessary to achieve passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Conveniently omitted from the rant above, however, are the following facts:

1.) While the Democratic Party had a 2/3 majority in the House in 1964 (and a simple majority in the Senate), a large bloc in the party at that time consisted of Southern Democrats, who were political conservatives regarding rights for blacks. Their constituents were primarily white southerners who did not welcome social change.

2.) While LBJ was a Democrat from the South (he was from Texas, not SC, GA, AL, etc), and he was also a committed New Dealer. While FDR did not, and arguably could not due to the political and economic climate of the 1930s/40s, pursue rights for African-Americans, his wife Eleanor did much social work that improved the lives of blacks in small, but often significant ways. LBJ followed his own conscience and was not beholden to socially conservative southern values.

3.) Voting on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was split along geographical lines, not party lines. Members of Congress from northern states mostly voted for it, while those from southern states mostly did not, as the stats below show. These stats also show that Northern Democrats actually voted for it in slightly higher percentages in both the House and the Senate than did Northern Republicans. Interestingly, but not very significantly, not a single Republican from the South, neither from the House nor the Senate, voted for it.

[edit] Vote totals
Totals are in "Yea-Nay" format:

The original House version: 290-130 (69%-31%)
The Senate version: 73-27 (73%-27%)
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%-30%)

[edit] By party
The original House version:[7]

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:[7]

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[7]

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

[edit] By party and region
Note : "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

For an even-handed assessment of Johnson's presidential record on civil rights, check out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFlXpoA-MQY

[The_Noble_Cause]

But, the innocence ends there. The chilling reality is that things get a lot more frightening when we parse this latest highfalutin promise in a highfalutin campaign with Obama’s foreign policy stance. This is a Carterian candidate who believes soft diplomacy can melt the steel hearts of the ayatollahs. This is a candidate who has explicitly pledged that he would meet with the ruthless dictators of overt enemies of the West, like Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with nary a precondition. This is a candidate who “just wants to talk.” And, scarily enough, somewhere in his heart, he really believes that we can change the minds of men and countries like Ahmadinejad and Iran.

Now, Obama believes that a renewed U.S. commitment to nonproliferation treaties would somehow put pressure on bellicose, nations that are in the process of going nuclear. One can envision Obama sitting down with Ahmadinejad and the ayatollahs, getting beaten so bad that post-Kruschev JFK would blush, and somehow coming away believing that these men are good for their word. All of this begs two questions: Does Obama really believe he can purge the world of nukes in four, or even eight years? Would he be naïve enough to disarm us on the good faith that our enemies would follow suit? That might be a reach, but it would be perilous to find out.

Meanwhile, back in reality, the Bush White House has just announced a US envoy will begin diplomatic talk with Iran over their nuclear capabilities as early as this weekend. This comes on the heels of N. Korea's recent nuclear disarmament, also reached through tough diplomacy.
Your post is total ad-hominem bullshit.

[The_Noble_Cause]

The question I asked, is how, as a liberal could you be down on Dubya, for increasing the size/role of the federal government, when that's the marching orders of every democrat elected to office?

Government is only a tool.
Case in point: FEMA was damn effective under Clinton.

[conversationpc]

Meanwhile, back in reality, the Bush White House has just announced a US envoy will begin diplomatic talk with Iran over their nuclear capabilities as early as this weekend. This comes on the heels of N. Korea's recent nuclear disarmament, also reached through tough diplomacy.
Your post is total ad-hominem bullshit.

So if you think the North Korea situation is a success, are you then prepared to give Bush props for that?

[The_Noble_Cause]

Meanwhile, back in reality, the Bush White House has just announced a US envoy will begin diplomatic talk with Iran over their nuclear capabilities as early as this weekend. This comes on the heels of N. Korea's recent nuclear disarmament, also reached through tough diplomacy.
Your post is total ad-hominem bullshit.

So if you think the North Korea situation is a success, are you then prepared to give Bush props for that?

As Churchill would say, "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war."
Diplomacy is always preferable.

[strangegrey]

How can we expect to be taken seriously when we develop (and use) the most destructive technology ever known to mankind and then expect other countries around the world to voluntarily cooperate in ridding the world of nuclear weapons?

I'm sorry. You lose practically all of your credibility with such a statement. Trust me (or do your own research), *other* countries were developing nuclear weapons in the 40s. If we hadn't someone else would have. Germany was desperately trying to get one working, Russia was working on theirs....

To sit there and suggest that Nuclear proliferation was something that we were solely responsible for is just assinine (and displays/exposes your rather uneducated view on it)...Throughout the cold war Nuclear escalation was a TWO WAY street. Would you suggest the rather idiotic point of view that we simply stockpiled nuclear weapons without a concern that someone else was doing the same?

It's rediculous and patently immature to suggest that our efforts to develop the nuclear bomb were not only irresponsible, but hypocritical (because we should have known back then that we would spearhead efforts to limit/stop nuclear weapon development). i would submit, given our experience with not only developing nuclear weapons, but extensively testing and deploying them, that we are the most QUALIFIED to lead the rest of the world in efforts to rid them.

How do you sleep at night hating america as much as you do?

[bradwjensen]

Ron Paul for me, even if I have to write-in his name.. because I know he is the only true one who will actually change this country for the better, or at all.

I also like and believe in Dennis Kucinich who is now rightfully working on an Impeachment of Devil Bush! I say, get Bush and Cheney as far away from power as possible, and make them look as bad as they truly are, even if it is late. Better late than never!

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

[Michael Leigh]

I don't know if this has been posted or not.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiQJ9Xp0 ... com/27bstr

My vote goes to McCain this Year.Though I am disgusted with both parties,I don't believe in most of what Obama is about.
You Can't run around screaming "Change,Change,Change" without having any real platform other then raising taxes, and exploding government more then what it is now.
I'm not wild about either, but I feel McCain is the lesser of 2 evils.
I really wish there was a legit Libertarian or Independent candidate.
We really need a 3rd party in this country and I suggest we call it the "Common Sense Party".

[bradwjensen]

I don't know if this has been posted or not.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiQJ9Xp0 ... com/27bstr

My vote goes to McCain this Year.Though I am disgusted with both parties,I don't believe in most of what Obama is about.
You Can't run around screaming "Change,Change,Change" without having any real platform other then raising taxes, and exploding government more then what it is now.
I'm not wild about either, but I feel McCain is the lesser of 2 evils.
I really wish there was a legit Libertarian or Independent candidate.
We really need a 3rd party in this country and I suggest we call it the "Common Sense Party".

You should never vote for the lesser of the two evils. I suggest either not voting, or write-in someone who is true and deserves it.

[BobbyinTN]

Liberal all the way. Republicans seem lost in time and I think they've disabled their emotion chip.

If by Republicans you mean conservatives, you are way off base.

Here is the difference between Conservatives and Liberals...conservatives do not act solely on the basis of emotions...while liberals act on emotion (if it feels good do it kind of thing) regardless of if the emotion is good or bad.

Bullshit. That's simply a conservatives take on a liberal. Liberals want what is right for everyone, conservatives want what is right for themselves.

[conversationpc]

Liberal all the way. Republicans seem lost in time and I think they've disabled their emotion chip.

If by Republicans you mean conservatives, you are way off base.

Here is the difference between Conservatives and Liberals...conservatives do not act solely on the basis of emotions...while liberals act on emotion (if it feels good do it kind of thing) regardless of if the emotion is good or bad.

Bullshit. That's simply a conservatives take on a liberal. Liberals want what is right for everyone, conservatives want what is right for themselves.

Bullshit. That's simply a liberals take on a conservative.

Hypocrite.

[Tito]

Good clarification Stu. I would submit, that while FDR's intent might not have been to start the hand out gravy train, the effect was still there....and that's just as bad, when you're making policy from the oval orafice. In government, people have to consider the ramifications of policy before enacting it. In this case, perhaps FDR couldn't see past the great depression, with regards to the new deal. But regardless, the social programs that came out of it paved the way for LBJ, Carter and others to destroy the work ethic of people in this country.

Exactly right! You give them (the government) an inch they will take a mile. That is why so called "common sense" laws are usually bad, they open up pandora's box.

[RossValoryRocks]

Liberal all the way. Republicans seem lost in time and I think they've disabled their emotion chip.

If by Republicans you mean conservatives, you are way off base.

Here is the difference between Conservatives and Liberals...conservatives do not act solely on the basis of emotions...while liberals act on emotion (if it feels good do it kind of thing) regardless of if the emotion is good or bad.

Bullshit. That's simply a conservatives take on a liberal. Liberals want what is right for everyone, conservatives want what is right for themselves.

You are absolutely right I want what right for myself and my family first, everyone else is second. That is how it should be. I don't want you liberals dperiving me and mine of a better life to give money to non-working, lazy fucks who contribute NOTHING to society. I will happily pay my fair share to keep our roads maintained, our nation safe etc etc.

I will post more later on how you snivelling liberal fucks (and THAT is an Ad Hominem attack TNC since you don't seem to know what one is) are fucking up our country far worse than Bush could ever dream of....you pathetic pieces of shit really sicken me.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Liberals want what is right for everyone, conservatives want what is right for themselves.

Well thats half right!!! you just left half of the sentence out I ve added the rest in bold!


Liberals want whats right for everyone, because they think they are better, smarter people than everyone else conservatives want what is right for themselves, because they realise that they arent smarter , and better than everyone else and have no right to be so arrogant as to tell them

[RedWingFan]

Liberals want what is right for everyone, conservatives want what is right for themselves.

What the hell I'll take a shot at this one as well.

Liberals want what they believe is right ENFORCED ON everyone, conservatives want what is guaranteed by the Constitution and Declaration.

[Ehwmatt]

Meanwhile, back in reality, the Bush White House has just announced a US envoy will begin diplomatic talk with Iran over their nuclear capabilities as early as this weekend. This comes on the heels of N. Korea's recent nuclear disarmament, also reached through tough diplomacy.
Your post is total ad-hominem bullshit.

And your post just reeks of intellectual depth. The post was about Obama's starry-eyed visions more than his possibly foreign policy naivete. But, you were so happy to demean someone with different views (like usual) that you couldn't be bothered to parse it correctly, could you? I've yet to see you contribute one thing to any debate on any subject without getting personal and vicious. While we're talking about logical fallacies like ad hominem (some of my most liberal friends thanked me for not resorting to ad hominem on Obama when I shared this with them), let's talk about the red herring. You know, when someone brings something seemingly relevant to take attention away from the main argument? Carry on.

[Ehwmatt]

This is a cop-out. Professors, regardless of their field, have spent on average 5-7 learning their craft (to teach and do research). Acquisition of knowledge in the social and physical sciences is based on the scientific method. In all of these fields, Ph.D candidates are taught about objectivity, and increasingly about ethics. Every good instructor or teacher, regardless of their own political views, teaches their students to think critically (i.e. to identify bias). Most love what they do...educating and encouraging young minds.

If a student has a contrary viewpoint regarding anything that comes up in class or in the readings, they have the ability to do research and investigate the facts...particularly those that are brought to light out of primary sources or secondary sources (if corroborated). This obviously requires extra effort from the students because they have to defend their positions. Also, due to their many years of professional training most professors can easily spot weaknesses in the student's arguments. Virtually every professor I have known has welcomed intellectual debate from and among their students whether at the end of a lecture, in discussion groups, or in office hours.

A cop out how? I've always been an A student, I'm not bitter about anything or making excuses for anything. True objectivity is nearly impossible to obtain. The situation you describe is definitely the benevolent ideal, but real? Definitely not in my and several of my friend's, both liberal and conservative, experiences.

One thing I will definitely agree with you on is professors do welcome debate in lecture, discussion group, or office hours. I'm just not ready to say that they are as tolerant of views that go against theirs, no matter how strong or porous the argument, as they are of views that align with their own, regardless of how strongly or weakly they are expressed.

[Ehwmatt]

You're kidding, right? Have you ever been a teacher? Try adding at least 20 hours per week doing lesson plans, test preps, and grading papers. The 45min to 1 hr that teachers get for planning is not nearly enough to get all of this done, especially considering the number of meetings and conferences that are scheduled during these periods. If teaching was such an easy job, the schools would be doing a much better job of retaining young teachers.

My sister is a high school English and Spanish teacher and I know full well what teaching entails. The profession does not entail nearly the work as many others, she freely admits it. Teachers probably deserve a higher salary for the bullshit they have to put up with, but it is certainly not a terrible profession to work in as far as benefits and time commitment.

And being a tenured professor is an outstanding job, no matter which way you slice it.

[Ehwmatt]

Meanwhile, back in reality, the Bush White House has just announced a US envoy will begin diplomatic talk with Iran over their nuclear capabilities as early as this weekend. This comes on the heels of N. Korea's recent nuclear disarmament, also reached through tough diplomacy.
Your post is total ad-hominem bullshit.

So if you think the North Korea situation is a success, are you then prepared to give Bush props for that?

Heh, touche.

[7 Wishes]

Liberals want what they believe is right ENFORCED ON everyone, conservatives want what is guaranteed by the Constitution and Declaration.

To an extent, this is true. Yet conservatives have no respect for personal privacy laws (i.e. the wiretapping issue) in some contexts, yet want the full protection of their interpretation of the law in others (i.e. gun control). So both parties are guilty of being wishy-washy and hypocritical.

I'm so frustrated with both candidates right now. Does anyone remember the episode of the Simpsons where Kong and Kodos bio-duplicate themselves into facsimiles of Dole and Clinton? When their alien identities are finally revealed, someone in the audience exclaims, "I think I'll vote for a third-party candidate!"

To which Kodos responds, "Go Ahead! Throw away your vote!"