Printable View
Unfortunately it seems about 80% of the posts made in this section contain personal attacks and/or debates about who is smarter. Not that there aren't some good facts and ideas discussed but you really have to swim through the filth to get to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vteckidd
I challenge anyone to find a thread in this section without any personal attacks (although I'm pretty sure its impossible).
I have noticed in a lot of your posts you use vulgarity or talk down to people. That is the language of the ignorant when they can't articulate their point.Quote:
Originally Posted by blurred visions
I do however, desire more glistening jewels of your intellect. Don't let me down.
Thursday? I still have yesterday's episode on the DVR, I didn't get to watch it because my roommates were watching LOST last night. Its funny, I walked into the house last night and my roommate says:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vteckidd
"Who the hell is taping Glenn Beck? What the..."
"I am, I got into a debate with..."
"Are for fucking kidding me?"
"I got into a debate with some folks about how terrible Glenn Beck is and then I got the "I bet you never watched a single episode" spiel, so I agree'd to watch one episode from beginning to end and comment on it."
"Oh, carry on then"
:lmfao:
Keith Olbermann and MSNBC is just as bad as anything on FOX news, they both pander to their own demographics. And the hypocrisy of both make me equally angry.
I think you guys are still stuck in the left, right paradigm. There is no left or right, it's just to keep you guys busy griping at each other every day. We would be in the same rut that we are in if we would of got McCain in. Turn off the news, please and do something for this country before it goes down the toilet. Oh and those that agree that we needed the patriot act are the dumbest people on the planet.
Oh and Beck didn't organize any tea parties and Beck is just a puppet, like the rest of the news goons out there and politicians. :goodjob:
I was travelling all day yesterday so i wasnt home to TIVO yesterays episode.
Tonight i have some business meetings so i wont be home either (i already left so i cant TIVO it)
But we can do tomorrows episode or fridays
I like the fact that Total Blender comes across as the token "liberal" in a virtual sea of southern republicans. I like that...I like it alot = )
But I do particularly enjoy this little gem given by our fiendish friends at FOX news that I can only assume was produced immediately following a rotation of handjobs for the dark lord of Satan himself. But I am not sure exactly how much christian republican prayer will be required to absolve themselves from all that evil jizz.
According to this an education has a tendency to make you against school prayer, for gay-rights and an abortion supporting liberal faggot, I suppose the research shows their reasoning is sound.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5l1X1JLmKog
Im not southern nor a republican
Me neither, but this is Import Atlanta....which places it firmly in the bible belt, which then means typically those states and areas lean heavily to the right. of course not everyone is a right-wing republican but most people are in the south, especially in rural areas. Someone like Total Blender is probably harassed at work whenever these conversations come up, or even talked down upon by his own family.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vteckidd
It would be like if a christian "fundie" struck up a conversation in downtown San Francisco on Haight street, you are almost asking to be ridiculed and scoffed at. It's tough to be a "liberal" in the south. But at the same time it's fun if you can cause anger and frustration in casual conversation.
Then again if I tried to describe my own political ideologies I would be ridiculed and laughed at by BOTH sides of the isle...so my opinion is probably null and void.
Not really, I mean most of my extended family (aunts, uncles, cousins, etc) are republicans but its not that big of a deal. We just avoid talking about politics, or we can agree to disagree. My immediate/close family (Mom, Dad, Sister, a few cousins) all have a similar political stance, so we all get along great.Quote:
Originally Posted by StreetHazard
As far as work goes... I work at a university, probably 90% of my coworkers are more liberal than I am.:ninja:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StreetHazard
Wow, that video is completely ridiculous and it is exactly what I would expect out of Fox.
Take this quote from the commentator:
"So what is the answer here? How do we fix this? If degrees are making it more likely to support same-sex marriage, abortion, less likely to support school prayer, and American work ethic, how do you fix this?"
This is exactly the Fox manipulation that is to be expected. "Fox News: Fair and Balanced....This just in, college grads are most likely liberal, this is a problem, what can be done to fix this problem?"
I have given too much rep in the last 24hrs. I'll get you back later. :goodjob:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vteckidd
Quote:
Originally Posted by blurred visions
Wow you guys totally missed the entire fucking point of that whole report.
I agree "how can we fix it" is the wrong terms to use he should have said "how do we make colleges teach kids facts and not opinions". In other words you go to college to be taught information, its up to YOU to decode how to interpret that information and decide for yourself how to align yourself with your core values.
That report is accurate. mAnY higher learning institutions teach hardcore liberal policies because they employ hardcore liberal professors who teach their brand of hardcore liberal material.
That's not their job , their job is to teach facts and curriculum with some opinion, their job isn't to indoctrinate their students.
In college professors are not bound by any laws or curriculum to teach from. They teach what they want.
That whole report is saying from an study of 14000 students most of them couldn't answer basic historical or civics questions, but they had overwhelming liberal social issue views.
IE they aren't being taught information they are being told how to think. I have no problem with someone that naturally thinks o a liberal level. We are all entitled to our opinions. But to pay a university and have that university brainwash or indoctrinate it's students to think a certain way is WRONG.
It's wrong if liberals do it it's wrong if conservatives do it.
Can you guys not get that?
he doesnt have a job, he's in school....it all sounds good when we' in school....then we go get a job and the cold hard realities of life start to come to fruition like the government wont put food on the table, wont pay for my clothes and isnt gonna give me a car payment or pay my mortgage:2cents:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vteckidd
It's amazing how small business people think. I LOV3 talking to small business owners and hearing their points of view. It's these people that employ 80% of our work force. It's these people that are going to hire you or increase your wages etcQuote:
Originally Posted by NevrNufTorq
it's fascinating to me how these small business owners and partners really see and understand the issues.
that's the way brother:goodjob:dont even wanna start on how i have 100+ people that i have to worry about their families they support if i dont make the right choices for the business....too bad the government doesnt even have to worry about the checks they write but i'd be thrown in jail for running my business the way they run our government:2cents:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vteckidd
Dude said he's in grad school, and I haven't met a grad student yet who didn't also have a job or even 2 jobs in addition to school. Most of the developmental, freshman, sophomore classes are taught by grad students at the bigger schools. Graduate students also usually work as research assistants, lab technicians, etc etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by NevrNufTorq
About "liberal indoctrination," not really. We learned about "the shock doctrine" and its critics in economics in the same unbiased fashion that we learned about Keynesian economics and it's critics. In poly sci we spent equal time discussing constructionism and the "elastic clause" and the bases for both. VTECKIDDDD's #1 homie, former 7th district rep. Bob Barr is a adjunct professor of political science over at Kennesaw State. He gave a speech at GA Highlands in Cartersville just the other day...
Who said I was a bob barr fan?
I didn't say ALL universities, I said MOST. The report was about a study done on 14000 students and it's results.
If you disagree you would need to find a report showing the opposite and conducted in the same manor. I'm not saying one doest exist, but to say "nah not true" is wrong because according to THEIR results this is what they found.
lol. i read the title and stopped there.
I watch FOX and MSNBC for pure entertainment purposes. I try to get the stuff I am actually interested in off the internet. Glenn, and Bill O'Reilly along with Keith Olbermann fill me with giggles, glee and joy for only as long as they hold my attention. I watch Pat Robertson on the 700 club the same way while pointing at the screen and howling with laughter. It's a shame so many people take these people seriously.
Last night i watched the 2am broadcast of BECK and ,while eccentric, i dont see at anypoint where he said something that WASNT true.
I counted 4 times he openly bashed the republicans and George Bush and the current GOP Leadership. 2 other times he subtley bashed the GOP.
The only problem i had with last nights show was that he went a little overboard on the fear speech but i can understand WHY he did it. In his opinion,as well as mine, we have a HUGE ticket that is going to be cashed in at one point or another in terms of the money we have borrowed. Any CHART will tell you that the US MONETARY supply (IE Money injected into the system) has gone up by something like 1000% in the last 15 years.
We no longer owe China the most, we now owe JAPAN. China has stopped buying our debt and is doing some minor selloffs.
We owe the FED 5.1 TRILLION in monies borrowed.
There is 2 TRILLION DOLLARS parked on the side in the FED that has NOT BEEN INJECTED into the economy yet.
When that money gets put into the system, you are going to see MASSIVE inflation. Sure une,ployment will come down but your job is going to be worth less as inflation will drive your costs up.
All he was saying last night was "get out of debt if you can, learn a skill" like being able to grow a garden, or produce your own food because when bread costs $30 a loaf you may not be able to afford it.
I dont think it will get THAT BAD,but theres nothing against being overprepared. Again you have to be able to cut through the crap and grasp the real point of the conversation. Im sure the liberals will just say "OMG HES PREACHING DOOM AND GLOOM HES A FEAR MONGERER " completely missing the entire point of the piece.
I don't disagree that more college educated people are liberal though, what I disagree with is that this is because of "liberal indoctrination" from the professors. I don't see any report that you have posted that shows evidence of "liberal indoctrination," so if you have info that proves it, then post it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vteckidd
I didn't watch Beck yesterday, I thought we had agree'd upon today as the day. Yesterday's should still be on the DVR though, or we can do discuss today's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
heh! are you two serious? LOL :lmfao:
Colleges and universities rely on a lot of grant funding. Grants require a description of what is to be taught prior to the securing of the grant. If you wish to receive the grant, you must teach what the grantor wants you to teach. Why do you think that colleges fire professors for not teaching the circulum that the board has approved? It is a system that is designed to indoctrinate young adults, who are highly impressionable, into falling in line with the promoted agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
PS: Political Science and Politics Journal found that an overwhelming amount of professors were liberal, and that there was a shift in the political leanings of the students. They published the raw data from the study - so you can draw your own conclusions.
The number of students self-identifying as “far left” more than doubles while the “far right” cohort drops nearly a third. There’s a ten percent drop in conservatives and a 25 percent jump in liberals. That’s indoctrination. Luckily, it also appears that a lot of students are smart enought to see past the teachings as well.
Theres nothing at or below Bachelor's degree level that requires grant funding. The grants you are speaking of are for research and higher-level acedemic projects. Basic 1000 - 4000 level classes are paid for from tuition, the lottery, and other sources.Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
The link below is from the BOR website. You'll see that while there is a "sponsored" column, the amount of money is a drop in the bucket compared to the total expenditure on instruction.
https://app.usg.edu/portal/page/port...FDM/FY05EP.pdf
It is true that the professors have to submit proposals and get approval for the subjects they want to teach, but they submit their the directors of their department, to the deans of their schools, and finally to the Board of Regents. The 18 voting members of the Board of Regents serve 7 year terms and are all appointed by the Governor and approved by the state Senate.
Our Governor, and our state Senate are firmly in GOP control. Also, many of the college presidents are Republicans and appoint their fellow Republicans to committees and boards. I'm not insinuating that there's a right-wing conspiracy in the way curriculae are approved, quite the opposite. If there were some sort of political conspiracy involved I highly doubt the GOP would allow classes like "Transgender theory" or whatever.
College has brought me more into the moderate perspective if anything, remember a lot of what influences you is discussion with STUDENTS instead of mainly professors. Any good professor will establish an equal sided discussion, it's more about simply asking questions and enabling a student to think/learn on a broader spectrum than it is about trying to directly influence opinions. My political science professor is most likely a liberal but it's hard to tell because he won't directly support most policies, but ask us how we feel and try to get everyone's voice out in the classroom. These studies must be coming from the wrong colleges....
Just to remind everyone that correlation is not causation.Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
My theory is that before college, a large number of people live in a relatively sheltered/closed world in social aspects. They don't question their local customs and values as much. This is why they tend to be more socially conservative. Once in college, they are exposed to a wide range of social groups, and are in an environment which allows them to experiment and question much more of the world. I believe this is what causes them to become more socially liberal, regardless of their professors.
Since you only linked to a small chart and not the whole study, can you tell me how does this study disprove my theory and prove indoctrination instead?
The studies made by liberal scholars disagree with you. Daniel Klein, for example: http://www.gmu.edu/depts/economics/klein/Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
"Even if it were true that students totally took a Bart Simpson attitude toward their college professors and were completely uninfluenced by them, I still think it would be a tragedy that during those four years, they were not getting the good stuff," Klein said. There is an "opportunity cost" when students graduate in four years and haven't been exposed (or have only been exposed to negative ideas about) Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, Klein said. Too many students graduate with a "complete zero" in those and other people worth knowing, Klein said. So political leanings matter, he added, even without the assumption of indoctrination.
The majority of professors in the AAUP might disagree with you.
Some no-politically aligned information:
http://www.noindoctrination.org/cgibin/news.cgi
http://www.noindoctrination.org/cgibin/related.cgi
So, you can't disagree with the data posted earlier?
You are correct, correlation is not causation.Quote:
Originally Posted by bu villain
It doesn't disprove your theory. Your theory is a reasonable one. Your conclusion is just that - your conclusion. My conclusion is different, but that is just my conclusion. People interpret information differently.
Selected quotes from the article posted by David8814wguy:
PS: Political Science & Politics (2008), 41: 773-783 Cambridge University Press
Indoctrination U.? Faculty Ideology and Changes
in Student Political Orientation
Mack D. Mariani, Xavier University
Gordon J. Hewitt, Hamilton College
We find little evidence, however, that
faculty ideology is associated with
changes in students’ ideological orientation.
The students at colleges with more
liberal faculties were not statistically
more likely to move to the left than students
at other institutions.(773)
The study, which
included 3,890 students, found that conservative
students received grades equal
to or higher than more liberal students;
in fact, conservatives actually scored
higher grades than liberals in the fields
of business and economics and there
was no difference between the grades
received by liberals and conservatives
in sociology, African American studies,
and other more liberal fields of study (775)
The study is limited, however, in that it examines
the impact of faculty ideology on
students taking a single course. Additional
research is needed to take into account
the effect of faculty ideology on
student ideology across multiple classes
or over the duration of a college career.
The indoctrination argument is fundamentally
an argument about change, the
main point being that liberal professors
indoctrinate students to become more
liberal over the course of their college
careers. Thus, in order to assess whether
there is evidence of indoctrination, additional
empirical research is needed that
takes into account both faculty ideology
and changes in student political orientation
that occurs between the time that
students start and finish college.(775)
So the article from whence your table comes did not come to a definite conclusion. One of the things the authors suggest is that conservatives are more prone to select careers in other fields than academia because they can make more money in business, technology and other fields.
Another thing the study fails to account for is the political affiliations of the parents, as there are many studies that show young people are likely to have the same affiliations at their parents. I suppose a better study would begin by comparing the beliefs of the students to their parents and then track the students through all 4 years of college to see if and how their orientation shifts.
Maybe you could submit a research proposal for such a study to some conservative watchdog foundation like the CSPC study from the first article (now called the David Horrowitz Freedom Center). :goodjob:
David Horrowitz is truly an awful person, who circulates "hit list" style pamphlets and books featuring liberal academics. See also: The murder of Dr. George Tiller by right-wing extremists.
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/08...CLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
Pennsylvania actually took Horrowitz to task and had a big to-do about "academic freedom," the results were inconclusive and Horrowitz and his supporters could not come up with specific evidence of conservative students being discriminated against to back up their claims.
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/11/16/tabor
That's why I gave you Daniel Klein's insight. He is a known liberal. He is one of the many liberal professors that say that the establishment is liberal. He disagreed with the study - which was done by one Republican and one Democrat. To deny that the majority of professors have a liberal bias is simply sticking your head in the sand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
Does this bias affect the thinking of students? It would be irrational to deny it. It is also irrational to deny that parents' ideology would not affect their children's thinking. Every interaction that a person has WILL have some affect - however, some will leave a greater impression.
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/03/27/politics
I have a question for you. Why do you think that the majority of children that come from a conservative family, tend to become more liberal in their viewpoint by the time they graduate college, and then tend to return to more conservative tendencies later in life? Perhaps because interaction over the course of their life makes impressions? ;)
BTW - Personally, I feel that BOTH opposing viewpoints should be taught without bias, and let the students learn and decide for themselves.
I won't deny that more educated people and professors tend to be progressives, yet I don't see any evidence that they are teaching with a progressive bias. Professors have their curriculae evaluated by the board of regents and they also go through evaluations in their departments based on the evaluations students fill out at the end of each term. There are several checks and balances that keep professors in line.
Also, since you are saying people start conservative like their parents, then go liberal after college, then go back to conservative, lets see your data and research on that.
I read Klien's page (the one that looks like a GeoSites page circa 1993) and he doesn't seem liberal to me at all...
I think when he says "classical liberal" he means the more 19th century style of librealism... AKA the age of the Robber Barons. We call that style of "liberalism" by the name of conservatism today. :goodjob:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Kline
Just making a quick point. Say what you will about fox news being a little bit more towards the right, but CNN and almost all other news journalism are very left winged.
Nothing is said about that because it tends to be the "norm" however when one station tends to disagree with the liberal agenda all the sudden they are "a cult". Fucking wow.
Care to back that statement up with some research? CNN had conservative commentators Dobbs, Beck, and Nancy Grace as their prime time lineup just last year. Beck and other conservatives like Stossel are leaving the other networks because Fox is offering them a shit ton more money. According to Wikipedia, Glenn Beck is raking in $23 million a year, more thandouble what Peyton Manning makes (11 million).Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin51982
Then we basically agree. I would not say that all liberal professors teach with bias; however, it is undeniable to say that many still will let their personal bias infuence their teaching style, and not all to the same degree. Some will be more controlled than others obviously, due to human nature. That is true for any teacher, both those that are liberal and conservative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
I would agree that checks and balances work for the most part, but you cannot say that some universities are more extreme. Berkley can hardly be considered balanced.
No research data. I simply have observed that here in the South for many years. I would suspect that children from liberal parents, and that chose to go to a conservative school, would be more liberal later in life also.Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
It sure appears that the majority of conservatives consider him a liberal. I can understand an extremist liberal such as yourself considering him to be a conservative though, since he is on the right of you. :taun:Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
Here's you a good read from Klein:
http://www.criticalreview.com/2004/pdfs/klein_stern.pdf
if you can honestly say that NBC abc CNN and CBS aren't traditionally thought as "liberal left media" you have your head in the sand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
I've only gotten to the second page of the Klien article you posted, and I find this:Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
We do not address what is taught in the classroom, which would require
a much different research approach. Our chief concern here is to establish
the data in their fullness. Aside from some passing remarks, we do not
discuss what the data mean. In particular,we do not address the following
big questions:
Why are academics so preponderantly Democratic, and why has the
preponderance increased since 1970? This is a huge, complex matter;
we prefer to establish the dependent variable and let others speculate
about its causes.
Do professors exert a left-wing influence on students? Again, this is
complex and speculative, best left aside here.
In policy views (as opposed to voting behavior), how does the professoriate
compare to the general public? Our survey questions were asked only
of the members of six scholarly associations. Thus, we do not have a
basis for direct comparison to public opinion.
The numbers are what they are, but the authors of this paper have
developed the numbers in particular ways. The reader will want to
know where we are coming from. Thus, we say openly that our sensibilities
are classical liberal/libertarian. (Klien, 258)
So it seems Klien's study is, like all of these arguments, more about the sheer percentages of affiliations among professors and not about what they actually teach. He states his bias as "classical liberal," and again, classical liberal is not synonymous with the social liberalism as identified with the Left nowadays.
Like I said, it's a good read. I meant nothing more by it than that. I figured you might like the link. I agree that this paper by him was more on professor's affiliations, which we recently had posted about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
Do you truly believe that the majority of professors teaching are currently unconvinced enough of their own political viewpoint (conservative or liberal) that they would consider student's opinions equally without bias?
Now, back to the original topic - media bias, not education.
What do you think of this?
During his speech at the University of Mississippi in Oxford, Miss., part of the third annual Stuart J. Bullion Lecture, Time magazine Managing Editor Richard Stengel defied the traditional notion that journalists should be unbiased.
"I didn't go to journalism school," Stengel said. "But this notion that journalism is objective, or must be objective is something that has always bothered me - because the notion about objectivity is in some ways a fantasy. I don't know that there is as such a thing as objectivity."
"[F]rom the time I came back, I have felt that we have to actually say, ‘We have a point of view about something and we feel strongly about it, we just have to be assertive about it and say it positively,'" Stengel said. "I don't think people are looking for us to ask questions, I think they're looking for us to answer questions."
Basically, he claims that the media cannot report objectively, and admits to having a bias in his publishing.
Time Magazine is blatently liberal. And there is nothing wrong with that, as long as they are honest in letting readers know that they are.
Fox is definitely conservative, and everyone knows it as well. So what is the issue?
Personally I feel just because you can't stop all bias in journalism, doesn't mean that everyone should just completely abandon objective reporting. That's like saying we shouldn't fight crime because there will always be criminals. Objective reporting is a good goal even when reporters fall short. That being said, there is a place for perspectives, like the opinion section of a newspaper, but it shouldn't be 80% of the newspaper.Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
Also I think a lot of people would feel a lot better about Fox if they said they were conservative but they don't. They say they are fair and balanced which implies impartiality.