<p>peanuts and tomato juice...whahaaat?? lol...</p>
<p>damn the 60 second rule!</p>
<p>Teachers are liberal because they can afford to indoctrinate fertile young minds with their non intellectual dogma. Communism has failed in the real world, but it thrives in American academia. Besides, I wish to clarify a point. I am upset by the use of the world liberal in the modern context. A liberal is a person who wants the greatest amount of liberty for other people (respecting individual rights and the corollaries that follow). Today's 'liberals' are not like that. I think a more appropriate term would be progressive. I mean, what similarity is there between Barbara Boxer, a modern 'liberal', and Grover Cleveland, a classical liberal?</p>
<p>It's not that they can afford it, they have the ability to do it since they have those minds right in front of them 5 hours a week.
Today's liberals are certainly different from what liberals used to be back in the day. However, the conservatives are not the same either, they are getting more and more radical.</p>
<p>Todays conservatives are more liberal than todays liberals. Look at Dubya and Reagan. Both of them significantly increased spending during their administration. They spent more than either Carter or Clinton. In reality, the two sides are in agreement on one thing; a war on individual rights. The liberals do this by increasing taxes, grabbing guns, speech codes, etc..The conservatives do this by regulating drugs, advocating religion, etc.</p>
<p>^ And they both put us in a real nasty deficit!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Todays conservatives are more liberal than todays liberals.
[/quote]
That doesnt make much sense :) thats why they call them "liberals", because they are more liberal than the others, the conservatives.
I dont see what's wrong with deficit. Maybe you will explain me :) The country had deficit after the war for independence, after the war of 1812, after the "panicks" of early 19th century, after the civil war, after the world war 2. Still standing, still a union :)</p>
<p>The NEA and AFT (two teachers unions) together spent at least $50 million for Clinton's 1996 campaign ($9 million directly) - the AFL-CIO spent $35 million. </p>
<p>And at the Democratic national convention, the teacher's union caucus is more than 10% of all the delegates - more than any one state. It has a tremendous amount of power within the democratic party.</p>
<p>I believe this is because being a high school teacher isn't very difficult, but it is very important. The philosophy of payment in proportion to importance of job is a liberal philosophy, while conservatives would prefer to see scarce resources (employees who work jobs that require more specialized skills) get top billing.</p>
<p>"Teachers are liberal because they can afford to indoctrinate fertile young minds with their non intellectual dogma. Communism has failed in the real world, but it thrives in American academia. Besides, I wish to clarify a point. I am upset by the use of the world liberal in the modern context. A liberal is a person who wants the greatest amount of liberty for other people (respecting individual rights and the corollaries that follow). Today's 'liberals' are not like that. I think a more appropriate term would be progressive. I mean, what similarity is there between Barbara Boxer, a modern 'liberal', and Grover Cleveland, a classical liberal?"</p>
<p>Finally, a voice of sanity.</p>
<p>Today's conservatives are what used to be called classical liberals. Classical liberalism and contemporary conservatism are the exact same thing. Contemporary liberalism is really socialism.</p>
<p>"Teachers = Thinking
Thinking = Liberalism</p>
<p>..therefore,
Teachers = Liberal</p>
<p>(logical, isn't it??)"</p>
<p>OK, your idiocy has been officially established.</p>
<p>i don't think any classical liberal would support domestic spying, unjustified invasion of foreign countries, or torture.</p>
<p>i don't mind opposing viewpoints, but most conservatives today are just shills who will label anyone in disagreement with the administration as socialist/communist/terrorist/whatever is the enemy du jour, as fides has so wonderfully shown us.</p>
<p>Today's conservatives are not classical liberals. They are still protectionists, anti immigration, too religious, war on drugs, etc. But they are a bit better than modern liberals, I must say.</p>
<p>To answer the original question, most university professors today are on the left side of the political spectrum because those in charge of hiring professors -- almost always liberals -- are hiring their own and them alone. If you are openly and unabashedly conservative, no matter how stunning your academic qualifications are, you are likely going to have a lot of trouble getting hired as a professor. Because of this well-known left-wing bias, many brilliant students (who happen to be conservatives) who would otherwise go on to grad school and get their doctorates, are choosing not to do so. If they are going to be discriminated against for their beliefs, to the point of being denied jobs that they deserve just as much as their liberal counterparts, why should they? So they usually end up going to law school or business school instead.</p>
<p>"Today's conservatives are not classical liberals. They are still protectionists, anti immigration, too religious, war on drugs, etc. But they are a bit better than modern liberals, I must say."</p>
<p>If you went back in time to the 1800's and talked politics with a self-professed liberal, you would swear to God he was a conservative.</p>
<p>Conservatives don't want to become teachers, they go and get MBAs and go into business. That leaves only liberals to fill in the education void.</p>
<p>"i don't think any classical liberal would support domestic spying, unjustified invasion of foreign countries, or torture."</p>
<p>Maybe, maybe not. But you should know that the Bush Doctrine is *neo*conservative -- that is, big-government conservatism. Your average paleoconservative doesn't exactly agree with Bush on those issues, especially the domestic spying. The Bush administration has largely alienated traditional conservatives.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
i don't mind opposing viewpoints, but most conservatives today are just shills who will label anyone in disagreement with the administration as socialist/communist/terrorist/whatever is the enemy du jour, as fides has so wonderfully shown us.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Now now, you're defining the opposition out of the debate. Let's be reasonable and concede that there are plenty of rational, logical conservatives. And that there are some looneys on the left as well.</p>
<p>"i don't mind opposing viewpoints, but most conservatives today are just shills who will label anyone in disagreement with the administration as socialist/communist/terrorist/whatever is the enemy du jour, as fides has so wonderfully shown us."</p>
<p>Not that I agree with your assessment -- in fact, I call it a load of crap -- but are you implying that liberals don't do this? Are you actually serious? Anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly agree with the liberal doctrine of Godlessness and political correctness these days is branded a "fascist," a "racist," a "sexist," a "zealot," a "fanatic," a "homophobe," and worse by the lib-left. If you cannot see this, sir, you are blind. Contemporary liberals have gone totally insane with flippant and empty rhetoric, not to mention outright slander, in an attempt to disqualify their opponents from dialogue. It is sickening.</p>