Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 107
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by KypDurron
    My intention, to try to bring it back to the original topic, is to show why I thought (my opinion) that Most university professors are Democrats because of evidence of lack of values they have seen in the current administration.
    Me thinks you have put the cart before the horse... "Most university professors have seen evidence of lack of values in the current administration BECAUSE they are Democrats"
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    Me thinks you have put the cart before the horse... "Most university professors have seen evidence of lack of values in the current administration BECAUSE they are Democrats"
    touche
    Remember: You are an unique, individual person...just like everyone else
  3. #63  
    Just found this site:
    http://www.politicalgraveyard.com.
    Looks like Democrats do get convicted more

    I am indeed going to give 5 examples....Just not sure If I'll do it before or after the thanksgiving break.
    Remember: You are an unique, individual person...just like everyone else
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by KypDurron
    Just found this site:
    http://www.politicalgraveyard.com.
    Looks like Democrats do get convicted more

    I am indeed going to give 5 examples....Just not sure If I'll do it before or after the thanksgiving break.
    Great find, but how did you come to your conclusion? The best I could do was count the number of references to the word "democrat" and "republican" in the "Policticians who got into trouble or disgrace" category. Republican - 119 Democrat - 239. Not very accurate for 2 reasons. First this counts every reference to the words or portions of words and most of the entries use these words more than once. Secondly I think the 2 parties are vastly different than they were during the first half of our history, which could badly skew any analysis one way or the other.

    Great find though. I've bookmarked it.
  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    Great find, but how did you come to your conclusion? The best I could do was count the number of references to the word "democrat" and "republican" in the "Policticians who got into trouble or disgrace" category. Republican - 119 Democrat - 239. Not very accurate for 2 reasons. First this counts every reference to the words or portions of words and most of the entries use these words more than once. Secondly I think the 2 parties are vastly different than they were during the first half of our history, which could badly skew any analysis one way or the other.

    Great find though. I've bookmarked it.
    I agree with the word count...I read each name and tried to keep track of how many of each party. Democrats seem to be around much longer than Republicans, but not sure why.
    I counted backwards, till 1990. Last 14 years Democrats outnumber Republicans by at least 8. One Republican was pardoned by George W.
    Remember: You are an unique, individual person...just like everyone else
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    You don't really believe that Most university professors became Democrats/liberal since George Bush came to office? That's what your statement implies?

    No one should be surprised by the liberal bent of academia. Most university professors are liberal because of in breeding. This is just the nature of the beast. Higher education, outside of the physical sciences, requires the probing of all points of view and it thrives on the free and open discussion of the issues. All good things, but unfortunately, in my opinion, this is fertile ground for progressive liberalism.

    Now consider the Professors in this environment. Many, if not most, have known nothing but an academic life. Too many have little if any practical experience in the real world. They go from under graduate work, to masters studies, to teaching, to doctorate studies, to professorships to academic administrative positions. This in breeding naturally results in Professors with liberal views of the world which can often progress to their emergence as radical leftists. As was earlier pointed out these are the folks doing making the decisions on hiring and tenure of their fellow professors... In-Breeding.

    Even more unfortunate, in my opinion again, is that this liberal bent has in recent history bled into the physical and natural sciences, with professors expressing their political views in classrooms never intended for such discussions.

    Consider the students learning in this environment. Now, realize that many are in fact the next generation of professors and you can see the never ending circle that generates the liberal bent of higher education in this country.

    Anyone for imposing political quotas on academic hiring practices to encourage political diversity in our colleges and univerities???

    Hope this doesn't mean you are not going to give us your 5 examples of Republican corruption. I was really looking forward to it.
    I think that you can dance around this issue, but basically most people have a choice after finishing their education. Those who stay in academics do so because they are interested in the pursuit of knowledge and teaching. Those who want to make a lot more money go into the private sector. More democrats choose the former, while more republicans choose the latter. I think it is that simple.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 11/22/2004 at 02:45 PM.
  7.    #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    I think that you can dance around this issue, but basically most people have a choice after finishing their education. Those who stay in academics do so because they are interested in the pursuit of knowledge and teaching. Those who want to make a lot more money go into the private sector. More democrats choose the former, while more republicans choose the latter. I think it is that simple.
    How pleasantly prejudicial. :-) On the whole I think it explains a great deal of the differential distribution. Surely there is a selection bias, but I also think there are institutional factors at play. For instance, if there are more liberals than conservatives, a conservative may look elsewhere not because he wants to be a rich ol' ******* but because he doesn't want to deal with the politics of it all (same can be said for a liberal facing an interview with Goldman Sachs).
  8. #68  
    "think that you can dance around this issue, but basically most people have a choice after finishing their education. Those who stay in academics do so because they are interested in the pursuit of knowledge and teaching. Those who want to make a lot more money go into the private sector. More democrats choose the former, while more republicans choose the latter. I think it is that simple"

    wow. hows that for going out on a limb and making a sweeping generalization!

    no i dont think its that simple. that is trying to stereotype republicans. id think youd know better than that. i believe you leave yourself vulnerable there, cellmatrix.
  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    I think that you can dance around this issue, but basically most people have a choice after finishing their education. Those who stay in academics do so because they are interested in the pursuit of knowledge and teaching. Those who want to make a lot more money go into the private sector. More democrats choose the former, while more republicans choose the latter. I think it is that simple.
    And your point is?

    You simply support my hypothesis. The reason academics stay in academia their entire career is immaterial. The point is that they do.

    Inbreeding!
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    And your point is?

    You simply support my hypothesis. The reason academics stay in academia their entire career is immaterial. The point is that they do.

    Inbreeding!
    I am the first in my family to go to college, but I am a university professor, am I inbred?
  11. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    "think that you can dance around this issue, but basically most people have a choice after finishing their education. Those who stay in academics do so because they are interested in the pursuit of knowledge and teaching. Those who want to make a lot more money go into the private sector. More democrats choose the former, while more republicans choose the latter. I think it is that simple"

    wow. hows that for going out on a limb and making a sweeping generalization!

    no i dont think its that simple. that is trying to stereotype republicans. id think youd know better than that. i believe you leave yourself vulnerable there, cellmatrix.
    It is the choice that most people make, after they leave graduate school, do I want to stay and pursue knowledge/teach or do I want to make more money in the private sector. The survey KR has given us shows that 7 to 1, democrats more than republicans choose the former. I do not think I am not injecting any opinion here, the facts speak for themselves.

    And please do not get me wrong, I think both are equally important in our society. We need people to go into the private sector and we need people to further knoweldge and teach, both are good jobs, one is not better than the other.

    So I am not trying to denigrate anyone's job here, not yours, not mine. I am just trying to make a living like eveyone else. I have my moral values and I have a sense of pride in what I do. What really pisses me off if when someone tries to tell me that because I am liberal or because of my job, I am somehow inferior in my morals or in my view of the world. Especially, I think it is pretty low to insult a person's job in order to make a political point.

    I think everyone should be given an equal chance to have their views heard. That is why I try to be polite and listen to yours, I may joke, but I try to be civil, and enjoy a sense of comradery with all of you.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 11/22/2004 at 11:57 PM.
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    I am the first in my family to go to college, but I am a university professor, am I inbred?
    Come on cllmatrix, you are a university professor, you can recognize a metaphor can't your? I am referring to academic inbreeding.

    You may or may not fit the mold as not all college professors do, but let's assume you do. By virtue of having been a student you are then in part the product of your education which was presided over by far more liberals than conservatives and in fact today often stifles conservative thinking. Then you elect to become join the academia as a professor. If this becomes your lifelong pursuit, then you really fit the mold. As a liberal professor you only naturally breed more liberal professors from the stock of students behind you.... inbreeding.

    Don't take things so personally, for all I know you were a car mechanic for 15 years before you became a professor. Not that theirs anything wrong with that!!
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    Come on cllmatrix, you are a university professor, you can recognize a metaphor can't your? I am referring to academic inbreeding.

    You may or may not fit the mold as not all college professors do, but let's assume you do. By virtue of having been a student you are then in part the product of your education which was presided over by far more liberals than conservatives and in fact today often stifles conservative thinking. Then you elect to become join the academia as a professor. If this becomes your lifelong pursuit, then you really fit the mold. As a liberal professor you only naturally breed more liberal professors from the stock of students behind you.... inbreeding.

    Don't take things so personally, for all I know you were a car mechanic for 15 years before you became a professor. Not that theirs anything wrong with that!!
    OK, I realize you are not trying to insult me in my job, but have a point of view that you are trying to put forward. Sorry if I was touchy before, but just from an objective standpoint, I have to disagree with your views about liberal inbreeding.

    Let me give you a personal example, I was instrumental in hiring our first new assistant professor in our dept in the last several years. I trained him as a resident for two years in the clinics and advised him on his research, helped him to get started on his research funding. I advocated and pushed for him. Why, because he is an excellent scientist and a very good clinician. He also happens to be a staunch republican, voted for Bush this last election, agrees with your views quite a bit more than mine. But his political views had nothing to do with my total support for him. Now he is a valued colleague, we collaborate on research projects, and it is great to have him in the department.

    Anyway, I bring up this example to show how the idea that academics is trying to either brainwash their students to be liberal, or to preferentially inbreed liberal students is a patent misconception.

    I think just about any college professor would prefer a competent republican colleague to an incompetent democratic colleague in their department. The politics is not important, the expertise that they contribute to the department is. Academics is just like any job in that respect.
  14. #74  
    In an environment where diversity is present, democratic ideology tends to thrive.
    Multi-cultural cities. Multi-cultural universities. To hire someone just because of their political background is just wrong. I totally disagree that professors tend to 'interbreed'.
    If anything, someone with different views is preferred.
    In business, however, 'interbreeding' does occur, even more than at colleges. Nepotisim is still very common. Hiring friends and family members occurs ALL the time. I have seen people fire very competent employees just so they could bring their old buddy in house, and usually less competent than the original person.
    In the private sector, you bring a candidate that you like, maybe have 3 or 4 of your people interview him/her, have HR look them over and check references, etc. You tell your CEO or your Managing Director that 'you vouch for this candidate' or that 'you take full responsibility' and they are in. Really easy.
    In colleges and universities, committees are created just to hire people. The process takes much longer and usually everyone has to agree before bringing the person in.
    You almost never bring a person in to "consult for a while" and see if they work out. You tell your department head or the dean that 'you vouch for this candidate', it means nothing. They still have to go through the hiring process. Achiving tenure is even harder.
    In Business, becoming a 'principal' or equivalent in a big 5 consulting firm is easier, IMO. You lead a couple of projects, you are there for x number of years, you travel to y number of client locations, you become principal.
    Faster and easier than tenure.
    Remember: You are an unique, individual person...just like everyone else
  15. #75  
    Interesting discussion. I'm glad that my web site (Political Graveyard) has been of some use to y'all.

    I think anyone who browses the trouble-and-disgrace page will quickly realize that neither party has a monopoly on corrupt politicos.

    There might be somewhat more Democrats listed there, for several reasons.

    First, it's not a complete list. States where research is easy for me, or in which I have active volunteers (e.g., Michigan, Illinois, and New York) are better represented (throughout the entire database) than others, and they happen to be states with big cities, which traditionally had Democratic machines that didn't worry too much about ethics. Philadelphia had a Republican machine which was a carbon copy of the Democratic ones, but Pennsylvania is a lot harder for me to research.

    Second, several of the states with long histories of corruption (e.g., Texas and Louisiana) are in the South, where the Democratic ticket reigned supreme until just a few decades ago.

    Another caveat. As pointed out in the page header, not every person listed is a scoundrel. To cite the most famous example, Robert Morris ended up in debtor's prison because he went broke financing the American Revolution. Others were prosecuted for purely political reasons.

    I'm taking office as county clerk and register of deeds on January 1st (I was elected this past November 2), and I hope to have a complete new version of the web site online before then. The number of politicos listed will expand from 120,000 to about 133,000, and predictably, the trouble and disgrace list will be longer too.
  16. #76  
    A quick note: The academic in breeding I offer as a possible reason for the over population of liberal Professors in our Universities in no way is intended to denigrate academia. I am simply describing what one would expect to happen on our campuses of higher learning. I respect and hold the professors of this world in a loftier position then I do most other professions. I do wish however that conservatism was allowed it's fair share of influence on our campuses.
  17. #77  
    Polygon: Thanks for your information. Look forward to looking at the report.
    Remember: You are an unique, individual person...just like everyone else
  18. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    A quick note: The academic in breeding I offer as a possible reason for the over population of liberal Professors in our Universities in no way is intended to denigrate academia. I am simply describing what one would expect to happen on our campuses of higher learning. I respect and hold the professors of this world in a loftier position then I do most other professions. I do wish however that conservatism was allowed it's fair share of influence on our campuses.
    I disagree with your theory, but if you find it useful, more power to you!
  19. #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by KypDurron
    corruption exists in all parties, I'm sad to say. The level of corruption that the Bush administration has is, however, so much worse than anyone before him.
    You must be forgetting Bill Clinton who had the Communist government of China illegally fund his re-election campaign in 1996 in return for him helping them steal weapons technology from the United States. The weapons technology only included guidance systems that could be used to launch missiles at our homeland. Thanks Bill.

    To cover the whole thing up he created a bureaucracy designed to block any information sharing capability between the CIA and FBI who were working on different ends of the investigation and could've pieced it together if they had been allowed to communicate. Only after the election were they able to piece it together when the CIA leaked what they knew to the Washington Post out of frustration at which point the FBI could put it together with what they knew. Over 70 Congressmen pleaded the fifth at Congressional investigationals over DNC fund raising.

    Ultimately the information blocking bureau, set up by Janet Reno as part of the Justice Dept, contributed heavily to the FBI and CIA's failure to share info that could've possibly prevented 9/11. Thanks again Bill. But the most important thing was that you got re-elected - You were the most selfish and corrupt person to ever become president and a traitor to the country.
    ROOTING for WebOS makes me more sympathetic to Cubs fans.
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob-C
    You must be forgetting Bill Clinton who had the Communist government of China illegally fund his re-election campaign in 1996 in return for him helping them steal weapons technology from the United States. The weapons technology only included guidance systems that could be used to launch missiles at our homeland. Thanks Bill.

    To cover the whole thing up he created a bureaucracy designed to block any information sharing capability between the CIA and FBI who were working on different ends of the investigation and could've pieced it together if they had been allowed to communicate. Only after the election were they able to piece it together when the CIA leaked what they knew to the Washington Post out of frustration at which point the FBI could put it together with what they knew. Over 70 Congressmen pleaded the fifth at Congressional investigationals over DNC fund raising.

    Ultimately the information blocking bureau, set up by Janet Reno as part of the Justice Dept, contributed heavily to the FBI and CIA's failure to share info that could've possibly prevented 9/11. Thanks again Bill. But the most important thing was that you got re-elected - You were the most selfish and corrupt person to ever become president and a traitor to the country.
    Yes..Bill Clinton set the standard...Bush surpassed it in 4 years.
    Remember: You are an unique, individual person...just like everyone else
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions