0
   

My beliefs as a conservative

 
 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 07:42 pm
I meant evil terrorists. I consider you to be of the friendly variety.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 07:43 pm
Not many neocons or creationists think so...
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 07:45 pm
SCoates wrote:
Balogne? I didn't know they started letting terrorists on A2K. Evil or Very Mad


apparently, anyone left of far right is designated "a radical, liberal, terrorist supporting, america hater". by a few, anyway.
0 Replies
 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 07:46 pm
(Uh-oh... my disguise isn't convincing enough. I need to try to be less rational before I'm found out)

Natural selection is a false concept, because even the strongest animals can get killed.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 08:39 pm
SCoates wrote:
And when you agree with terrorists, you're basically hating americans.


Certainly agreeing with the terrorist's philosophy would indicate a hatred for America and the establishment, or any other governmental body whereas a radical faction uses terrorism to make it's point.

Has it been insinuated that disagreeing with Bush means an agreement with terrorists?

Hmm...interesting. If you disagree with Bush, thereby practicing your constitutional right of dissent and the ability to question your own governmental authority, and you are labeled a terrorist for doing so, then the U.S. constitution facilitates a hatred towards the very country it was designed to govern.

Is this a neoconservative philosophy?
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 08:53 pm
Good analysis, Dookletix. To ostracize the person because he disagrees with the government is a symptom of facism if you ask me.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 08:55 pm
JLNobody wrote:
Good analysis, Dookletix. To ostracize the person because he disagrees with the government is a symptom of facism if you ask me.


my point exactly.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 11:14 pm
Good.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 02:18 am
JLNobody wrote:
Good.


sorry if i confused you, jln. no "rangers" or "pioneers" around my house.

:wink:
0 Replies
 
username removed 3 18 05
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 05:49 pm
Anti-Americanism is a moral imperative.

There is no defense for a country with America's record. Period.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 06:02 pm
deathtothetroops wrote:
Anti-Americanism is a moral imperative.

There is no defense for a country with America's record. Period.


borrring...
0 Replies
 
username removed 3 18 05
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 06:05 pm
Gravity is boring too.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 06:06 pm
deathtothetroops wrote:
Anti-Americanism is a moral imperative.

There is no defense for a country with America's record. Period.


Perhaps you might want to start another thread regarding your specific subject (hating America). You'll be assured of a lively response.
0 Replies
 
username removed 3 18 05
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 06:07 pm
What's wrong with this thread---is it reserved for ahistorical nincompoops?
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 06:10 pm
deathtothetroops wrote:
What's wrong with this thread---is it reserved for ahistorical nincompoops?


No, but it is generally reserved for those who wish to participate in a more civil debate.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 06:12 pm
See, deathtothetroops, unlike other former sites like Abuzz.com, this one is constantly monitored and moderated. Insults will not be tolerated.

Can you guess what would happen if you continue down this path?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 08:20 pm
Death,
I find your nick and your attitude to be very offensive.
I lost buddies in Iraq and Afghanistan,and lost 3 fingers in Iraq.
You have the right to have that nick,but be aware that most people find it offensive.
If that was your aim,you accomplished it.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 08:28 pm
the usual intent of a provocateur is to provoke, I find this amusing.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Mar, 2005 08:40 am
jacoby link

Quote:
The New PC
Crybaby Conservatives
by Russell Jacoby


Print this article
E-mail this article
Write to the editors
Take Action Now!
T he Yale student did not like what he heard. Sociologists derided religion and economists damned corporations. One professor pre-emptively rejected the suggestion that "workers on public relief be denied the franchise." "I propose, simply, to expose," wrote the young author in a booklong denunciation, one of "the most extraordinary incongruities of our time. Under the "protective label 'academic freedom,'" the institution that derives its "moral and financial support from Christian individualists then addresses itself to the task of persuading the sons of these supporters to be atheistic socialists."

For William F. Buckley Jr., author of the 1951 polemic God and Man at Yale: The Superstitions of "Academic Freedom" and a founder of modern American conservatism, the solution to this scandal was straightforward: Fire the wanton professors. No freedom would be abridged. The socialist professor could "seek employment at a college that was interested in propagating socialism." None around? No problem. The market has spoken. The good professor can retool or move on.


<snip>

Quote:
Today's accusations against subversive professors differ from those of the past in several respects. In a sign of the times, the test for disloyalty has shifted far toward the center. Once an unreliable professor meant an anarchist or communist; now it includes Democrats. Soon it will be anyone to the left of Attila the Hun. Second, the charges do not (so far) come from government committees investigating un-American activities but from conservative commentators and their student minions. A series of groups such as Campus Watch, Academic Bias and Students for Academic Freedom enlist students to monitor and publicize professorial conduct. Third, the new charges are advanced not against but in the name of academic freedom or a variant of it; and, in the final twist, the new conservative critics seem driven by an ethos that they have adopted from liberalism: affirmative action and a sense of victimhood, which they officially detest.


<snip>

Quote:
More leftists undoubtedly inhabit institutions of higher education than they do the FBI or the Pentagon or local police and fire departments, about which conservatives seem little concerned, but who or what says every corner of society should reflect the composition of the nation at large? Nothing has shown that higher education discriminates against conservatives, who probably apply in smaller numbers than liberals. Conservatives who pursue higher degrees may prefer to slog away as junior partners in law offices rather than as assistant professors in English departments. Does an "overrepresentation" of Democratic anthropologists mean Republican anthropologists have been shunted aside? Does an "overrepresentation" of Jewish lawyers and doctors mean non-Jews have been excluded?

Higher education in America is a vast enterprise boasting roughly a million professors. A certain portion of these teachers are incompetents and frauds; some are rabid patriots and fundamentalists--and some are ham-fisted leftists. All should be upbraided if they violate scholarly or teaching norms. At the same time, a certain portion of the 15 million students they teach are fanatics and crusaders. The effort, in the name of rights, to shift decisions about lectures and assignments from professors to students marks a backward step: the emergence of the thought police on skateboards. At its best, education is inherently controversial and tendentious. While this truth can serve as an excuse for gross violations, the remedy for unbalanced speech is not less speech but more. If college students can vote and go to war, they can also protest or drop courses without enlisting the new commissars of intellectual diversity.


long and interesting

the new PC indeed

seems A2K isn't the only place that has id'd the new PC-holders as right of centre
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Mar, 2005 04:58 pm
ehBeth, that was both interesting and valid, at least it appears that way from the perspective of my quarter of a century teaching in universities. My main task, as a responsible left-of-center prof. was to require of all students that they document their (ideologically grounded) claims and listen to opposition statements.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 04:27:24