Your info source is funded by the Koch Brothers, ExxonMobile and Philip Morris.
truthseakr wrote:
https://econjwatch.org/articles/faculty-voter-registration-in-economics-history-journalism-communications-law-and-psychology
Funding sources wrote:
Your info source is funded by the Koch Brothers, ExxonMobile and Philip Morris.
LOL . . . The Koch Brothers are "investing" 400 million in the 2018 elections to get as many purchasable republicans elected as possible. Paul Ryan got $500k from the Bros just for getting the tax bill through the House of Representatives.
Hardloper wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
BS. You are quoting a story from The Washington Times? Really? The Fox News of print.
Okay Flagbro, let's see your source for your "60-40" split on liberal professors then
Flag cannot quote one study because there are none....He pulls stats out of his anus.
Read the study and tell me what part of it you think is erronious...
Do you think they lied about the findings or changed the data ...or what?
Please show me ANYTHING to support your stats of a 60-40 split....
Good evening! How are all you LRC stable geniuses doing this fine PM?
foo fighter wrote:
foo wrote:
This brings up a good point. Many conservatives don’t believe in climate change, which in effect is a denial of science and the scientific method. There is another faction of conservatives who believe the earth is only 5000 years old and that any tools used to date the Earth at 4.6 billion years must be flawed. Other conservatives don’t believe in Darwinism and evolution even as the fossil record continues to validate it as time passes.
So, why would science and engineering departments at colleges/universities hire professors that don’t believe in/understand basic scientific concepts?
Libs claim all science is settled when history has shown it's not. Libs believe the propaganda spewed by so-called scientists who kneel at the altar of the "global warming" gods....errrrr, "climate change" gods, since they can't make up their minds what to call it. Darwinism/evolution is a theory and not a scientific law, yet libs preach it as a concrete truth- never to be debated. Liberals by definition are supposed to open-minded to the probabilities, yet they preach no dissent allowed. They worship bad science as fact.
You might want to recheck your science and history. The “theory” of evolution is scientific fact - there is a story behind the attachment of the word “theory” to it, in case you are ever really interested in knowing the truth.
Liberals are open minded to the probabilities within the spectrum of what is possible. God does not exist hence no reason to be open-minded about it, especially as it relates to any matters of science or biology.
foo fighter wrote:
foo wrote:
This brings up a good point. Many conservatives don’t believe in climate change, which in effect is a denial of science and the scientific method. There is another faction of conservatives who believe the earth is only 5000 years old and that any tools used to date the Earth at 4.6 billion years must be flawed. Other conservatives don’t believe in Darwinism and evolution even as the fossil record continues to validate it as time passes.
So, why would science and engineering departments at colleges/universities hire professors that don’t believe in/understand basic scientific concepts?
Libs claim all science is settled when history has shown it's not. Libs believe the propaganda spewed by so-called scientists who kneel at the altar of the "global warming" gods....errrrr, "climate change" gods, since they can't make up their minds what to call it. Darwinism/evolution is a theory and not a scientific law, yet libs preach it as a concrete truth- never to be debated. Liberals by definition are supposed to open-minded to the probabilities, yet they preach no dissent allowed. They worship bad science as fact.
And here my friends is the perfect Trumpette. Yes, of course, ignorance should be shown the same respect as knowledge. Fairy tales should be given the same respect as science. All to be fair and balanced!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!
ROFLOLROFLOLROFLOLROFLOLROFLOLROFLOL!!!!!!!
truthseakr wrote:
blah blah blah
Come on, Lying Gary, don't be scared to own your own posts. No need to hide behind your little friend here.
Lying Gary
nuf said wrote:
truthseakr wrote:
Dude....The study was published in 'Econ Journal Watch'......The Washington Times is merely quoting it.....Are you saying Econ Journal Watch is biased?.....lol......
The Econ Journal Watch is run by the Atlas Network which draws inspiration from Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged. Funding sources include the Koch Brothers, Exxon Mobil and Philip Morris.
Word.
Once again, I need to put this back on track...
Mueller is coming.
The clown is done.
For probably the first time ever, I agree with DiscoGary and Hardloper on this and disagree with Flagpole. Indeed, there are probably a lot more liberals in acedemia than conservatives.
However, the reason is not because universities/colleges are biased against conservatives, it’s because they are hiring the best qualified people to lead their STEM programs. Since many conservatives choose to deny scientific principles, more liberals are hired as professors.
foo wrote:
For probably the first time ever, I agree with DiscoGary and Hardloper on this and disagree with Flagpole. Indeed, there are probably a lot more liberals in acedemia than conservatives.
However, the reason is not because universities/colleges are biased against conservatives, it’s because they are hiring the best qualified people to lead their STEM programs. Since many conservatives choose to deny scientific principles, more liberals are hired as professors.
Actually STEM/finance programs are a lot less liberal than the humanities.
foo wrote:
For probably the first time ever, I agree with DiscoGary and Hardloper on this and disagree with Flagpole. Indeed, there are probably a lot more liberals in acedemia than conservatives.
However, the reason is not because universities/colleges are biased against conservatives, it’s because they are hiring the best qualified people to lead their STEM programs. Since many conservatives choose to deny scientific principles, more liberals are hired as professors.
It is not as high as they suggest.
I agree that it is higher and for the reasons you say, but not as much as they say.
I'm not about to show study for study, but there are ones out there that say everything from 12-1 to 5-1 to CLOSER to my 60-40 claim. Part of it depends on what liberal or conservative means. One study I saw recently said this -- 55% liberal, 45% moderate or conservative. Ok...not that helpful, but what is considered conservative on a "liberal" campus?
So, just to further the discussion beyond the percentage which we all agree is in favor of liberals, why is this so important to Republicans?
Did ANYONE here form their political opinions based on what some professor said in a class? The only professor I ever had that said anything even remotely political was in a political science class were it was accepted. Even when I was in graduate school for English education in California, the professors said nothing about their views on politics. I suppose some of you might say things have changed, but my wife is a college professor, and she tells me none of her colleagues discuss politics in any way in class. The Right uses the once in a while outrageous situation from an outlier university like Berkely to show that all college professors are liberal and warping the minds of young people. Just bogus.
Anyone who deals with facts is labeled as a liberal by Conservatives -- main stream media, lawyers, scientists, teachers and professors. These are all educated people, so the rip by Conservatives is on educated people...this was a BRILLIANT strategy as it got a whole bunch of the country who are not educated feeling they had a place and now a right and reason to feel that educated people don't know anything with mouthpieces like Rush and Hannity telling them that their common sense is better than any facts some educated Einstein might tell them.
Flagpole wrote:
nuf said wrote:
The Econ Journal Watch is run by the Atlas Network which draws inspiration from Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged. Funding sources include the Koch Brothers, Exxon Mobil and Philip Morris.
Word.
Well, we're still waiting for your better source Flagbro
Fat hurts wrote:
Hardloper wrote:
Bernie Sanders spoke at Liberty University... the students listened to his socialist nonsense and went
Bernie Sanders is not a gay rights activist.
Plenty of conservatives have spoken at Berkley. It was when the speaker was truly extreme that things got out of hand.
The point is that the same thing would have happened to a truly extreme left winger at Liberty or Bob Jones. But actually, nobody that extreme would ever be scheduled to speak on campus in the first place. The dictators at those schools run a pretty tight ship.
And the fact that Bob Jones promotes one ideology is why they don't get public funding like Cal State or Berkeley. And it is more than just 'extreme' conservatives (more than just 'conservatives').
Trollminator wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
This is true, but it is much closer to 60-40 liberal vs. conservative simply because of the number of conservative colleges in this country (not 12-1 as was presented). Also important to note that the conservative colleges are not the best ones. Best and brightest are always more liberal.
Also, we have to remember that there are more people in the US who identify as liberal vs. those who identify as conservative. When that is the case, yes, there will be more liberals in most jobs.
This is another huge sore spot for conservatives. Social backwardness and bible study are part of the core conservative agenda and as we all know most liberals are well aware it’s not some bearded guy in the clouds that is going to ensure America stays on the global throne.
Let me set you straight about one thing. Bible study is NOT part of the core conservative agenda.
Most conservatives are biblically illiterate. In fact, studies show evangelical Christians rate only 1% higher on biblical literacy than the general population. In other words, evangelical Christians don't study the Bible more than anyone else.
I don't have stats to prove this, but I believe that among those who do study the Bible, more are politically liberal than conservative. When you study the Bible, all that talking Jesus did about caring for poor, the sick, and the immigrant really gets to you.
Fat hurts wrote:
Let me set you straight about one thing. Bible study is NOT part of the core conservative agenda.
Most conservatives are biblically illiterate.
As is true in other areas, there are some things that conservatives simply don't want to know about the Bible.
They don't want to know that JC himself said that the law of the Torah applies to them ("till Heaven and Earth pass away"), because they want to do things like working (which includes driving or carrying money) on Saturdays, eating pigs, and getting tattoos.
And they certainly don't want to give to the poor and needy. "Let those freeloaders get jobs, like us!"
ajrtjr wrote:
They don't want to know that JC himself said that the law of the Torah applies to them ("till Heaven and Earth pass away"), because they want to do things like working (which includes driving or carrying money) on Saturdays, eating pigs, and getting tattoos.
Lest anyone misinterpret these things, Jesus did not teach that we can't work on Saturday, eat pork, and get tattoos.
When he said he has not come to abolish the law, he was referring to its spiritual significance. He went on to reinterpret the law in a way that emphasized matters of the heart over the list of do's and dont's. This is quite clear if you read his words in context.
This is also quite clear in other writings of the New Testament, especially in the book of Hebrews.
