MSU professor William Penn pulled from classroom after attack on Republicans

  • Thread starter Thread starter stinkcat_14
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mickey_Finn said:
WOW Sam that"s a little harsh isn’t it? Remember you are talking about a decorated veteran who devoted his life to public service. Also, in retrospect we would have been better of with him in 1972.😉

ATB
Click to expand...
In other words, McGovern winning in '72 would have brought about the shameless abandoning of the Vietnamese sooner. McGovern was principled, indeed. But his principles were the wrong ones.

Ishii
 
If college classes are full of left wing propaganda, can anyone explain why the best selling economics textbook is by Greg Mankiw, who was appointed by Bush to the Council of Economic Advisers? I mean why would liberal professors choose a book by a republican for their classes?
 
ishii said:
In other words, McGovern winning in '72 would have brought about the shameless abandoning of the Vietnamese sooner. McGovern was principled, indeed. But his principles were the wrong ones.

Ishii
Click to expand...
As opposed to Nixon’s shameful “peace with honor,” while invading Cambodia and Laos in passing? But who wants to revisit Vietnam, that tragic episode in our nation’s history, anyway? It’s done and over. I was just responding to Bob’s reference to George McGovern.
 
meltzerboy said:
As opposed to Nixon’s shameful “peace with honor,” while invading Cambodia and Laos in passing? But who wants to revisit Vietnam, that tragic episode in our nation’s history, anyway? It’s done and over. I was just responding to Bob’s reference to George McGovern.
Click to expand...
No, Meltzerboy, I can’t let that go by. How can you compare in terms of moral gravity, the action of Nixon to go into Cambodia to go after communists, with that of the liberal/left congress which tied president Ford’s hands - preventing him from authorizing the military to help in any way, the south Vietnamese as they were about to be overrun by the communists. The fall of Saigon was not inevitable: only a couple of years earlier the north had been repelled by American airpower - which could have been used again. And why was it such a shameful event? Because of what happened as a result - which was the brutal oppression of the south Vietnamese people by the communists.

You may want to forget it - but I think we need to be continually reminded of what the left is capable of. In fact, they have never been called to task for what they did. Mind you - I am not here to sing the praises of Nixon, but to set the record straight and add a little historical and moral perspective between what Nixon did and what the McGovernite wing of the Democrat party did.

Ishii
 
stinkcat_14 said:
If college classes are full of left wing propaganda, can anyone explain why the best selling economics textbook is by Greg Mankiw, who was appointed by Bush to the Council of Economic Advisers? I mean why would liberal professors choose a book by a republican for their classes?
Click to expand...
Assuming what you’re saying is accurate, perhaps the bias in academia is not as pronounced in the economic departments as in other departments. Also, perhaps Greg Mankiw is not very conservative - as Bush wasn’t really a conservative at all - he was a big spending, war president.

Ishii
 
robwar said:
My point is that someone came on and argued pretty forcefully that according to their experience that they have never seen liberal bias at the college level but their so called expertise is is 24 years of existence and that experience in a university in the south and not based on repeated studies and surveys and complaints that not only some of us have actually experienced but are pointing to like the links another just posted can be called into question.
Click to expand...
Exactly, robwar. Not only a mere 24 years of existence (the least of my objections) but also one college - in the relatively conservative south, no less. Some people need to get out and see what is going on around the country, not assume that what is happening in their narrow breadth of experience is the case for everyone else.

Ishii
 
ishii said:
Exactly, robwar. Not only a mere 24 years of existence (the least of my objections) but also one college - in the relatively conservative south, no less. Some people need to get out and see what is going on around the country, not assume that what is happening in their narrow breadth of experience is the case for everyone else.

Ishii
Click to expand...
I’ve seen at least 10 college campuses on-hand, including many in the South, Pacific Coast, and New England. I have a huge breadth of experience with them, and my undergraduate college was an extremely liberal campus in New England. And guess what? I noticed that there was a bias in the student body based on where you lived. If you went to UT-Austin, you were liberal. If you went to UC-Santa Cruz, you were liberal. If you went to UTD or UTSA, you were very conservative. If you went to college in New England, you were liberal. If you went to college in the deep south or in Appalachia, you were conservative. Likewise, the professor distribution was pretty much the same outside the women and gender studies programs. It’s even more polar in high school; public high schools in conservative areas of Texas were crazy conservative and had mostly Republican teachers and administrators outside of the English department; vice versa for liberal areas of Texas.

However, conservative viewpoints were viewed as having equal dignity at my university, despite being a extremely liberal student body overall.

So your only objection to me specifically is my age, which is actually an advantage in this discussion, not an impediment.
 
SMGS127 said:
I’ve seen at least 10 college campuses on-hand, including many in the South, Pacific Coast, and New England. I have a huge breadth of experience with them, and my undergraduate college was an extremely liberal campus in New England. And guess what? I noticed that there was a bias in the student body based on where you lived. If you went to UT-Austin, you were liberal. If you went to UC-Santa Cruz, you were liberal. If you went to UTD or UTSA, you were very conservative. If you went to college in New England, you were liberal. If you went to college in the deep south or in Appalachia, you were conservative. Likewise, the professor distribution was pretty much the same outside the women and gender studies programs. It’s even more polar in high school; public high schools in conservative areas of Texas were crazy conservative and had mostly Republican teachers and administrators outside of the English department; vice versa for liberal areas of Texas.

However, conservative viewpoints were viewed as having equal dignity at my university, despite being a extremely liberal student body overall.

So your only objection to me specifically is my age, which is actually an advantage in this discussion, not an impediment.
Click to expand...
No, my main objection to your argument is that it is 100% anecdotal - and grossly simplistic. Oh, and also wrong.

Ishii
 
ishii said:
Exactly, robwar. Not only a mere 24 years of existence (the least of my objections) but also one college - in the relatively conservative south, no less. Some people need to get out and see what is going on around the country, not assume that what is happening in their narrow breadth of experience is the case for everyone else.

Ishii
Click to expand...
And some people need to realize that universities aren’t all about forcing political ideas in people’s faces.

You even doubted a conservative economics book because Bush wasn’t conservative enough for you. :rolleyes: Good luck with being happy with politics, ever.
 
KendraDZ1902 said:
And some people need to realize that universities aren’t all about forcing political ideas in people’s faces.

You even doubted a conservative economics book because Bush wasn’t conservative enough for you. :rolleyes: Good luck with being happy with politics, ever.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you understand politics - conservatism/liberalism, left/right etc. It is obvious - because if you did, you wouldn’t be calling Bush a conservative. At best he was a moderate - who spent a great deal, and even signed into law large new entitlements like prescription drug benefit. Just because someone has an R next to their name doesn’t mean they are conservative, Kendra. Your confusion on this sheds light on why you don’t seem to grasp the liberal/left bias in academia. But, having discussed the issue with you now for a couple of days, I acknowledge that you went to a non-liberal college, the Greek system wasn’t liberal, and, by golly, if a professor was biased in your class you wouldn’t be influenced.

Ishii
 
ishii said:
I don’t think you understand politics - conservatism/liberalism, left/right etc. It is obvious - because if you did, you wouldn’t be calling Bush a conservative. At best he was a moderate - who spent a great deal, and even signed into law large new entitlements like prescription drug benefit. Just because someone has an R next to their name doesn’t mean they are conservative, Kendra. Your confusion on this sheds light on why you don’t seem to grasp the liberal/left bias in academia. But, having discussed the issue with you now for a couple of days, I acknowledge that you went to a non-liberal college, the Greek system wasn’t liberal, and, by golly, if a professor was biased in your class you wouldn’t be influenced.

Ishii
Click to expand...
I totally understand the difference. What you don’t get is that you doubted a book, that you have never read, because of one person who endorsed it. I also said he “wasn’t conservative enough for you,” totally different than calling him a raging right wing conservative. Some extreme liberals would say that he was too conservative for them. It is all about perspective. Don’t put words in my mouth.
 
KendraDZ1902 said:
I totally understand the difference. What you don’t get is that you doubted a book, that you have never read, because of one person who endorsed it. I also said he “wasn’t conservative enough for you,” totally different than calling him a raging right wing conservative. Some extreme liberals would say that he was too conservative for them. It is all about perspective. Don’t put words in my mouth.
Click to expand...
You’re implying that anyone who Does not think that Bush was conservative or conservative enough is some kind of raging right winger with no perspective. Not true at all. Furthermore you are assuming that the economics book written by a Bush appointee is somehow a conservative economics book. Have you read it?
 
ishii said:
You’re implying that anyone who Does not think that Bush was conservative or conservative enough is some kind of raging right winger with no perspective. Not true at all. Furthermore you are assuming that the economics book written by a Bush appointee is somehow a conservative economics book. Have you read it?
Click to expand...
No. That isn’t what I said, at all. You shouldn’t doubt a book that has been considered conservative just because one person endorsed it. I’m not doubting or supporting what is in the book. I just feel that people shouldn’t write off a book with the excuse being that the person endorsing the book isn’t as conservative or too moderate than what you would have liked the endorser to be. 🤷 That’s just silly. It wasn’t like Bush was some crazy liberal. I could see if Obama endorsed a book and people were calling it conservative that one could just laugh and say that it couldn’t possibly be conservative.
 
KendraDZ1902 said:
No. That isn’t what I said, at all. You shouldn’t doubt a book that has been considered conservative just because one person endorsed it. I’m not doubting or supporting what is in the book. I just feel that people shouldn’t write off a book with the excuse being that the person endorsing the book isn’t as conservative or too moderate than what you would have liked the endorser to be. 🤷 That’s just silly. It wasn’t like Bush was some crazy liberal. I could see if Obama endorsed a book and people were calling it conservative that one could just laugh and say that it couldn’t possibly be conservative.
Click to expand...
This is tedious. But I am beginning to understand how you discuss things: you latch on to one point, distort it, then make it the focus of your post.

Let me explain: my original response to the post in question about the economics book was to suggest that maybe perhaps the author of the economics book *** was not very conservative*** which wouldn’t be too surprising because Bush wasn’t all that conservative himself on balance. Notice the word “perhaps”. Notice how I also didn’t call Bush a “crazy liberal.” I merely proposed the possibility that it might not be wise to take it for granted that just because someone was appointed by Bush that the book they write must therefore be conservative!

Ishii
 
ishii said:
No, Meltzerboy, I can’t let that go by. How can you compare in terms of moral gravity, the action of Nixon to go into Cambodia to go after communists, with that of the liberal/left congress which tied president Ford’s hands - preventing him from authorizing the military to help in any way, the south Vietnamese as they were about to be overrun by the communists. The fall of Saigon was not inevitable: only a couple of years earlier the north had been repelled by American airpower - which could have been used again. And why was it such a shameful event? Because of what happened as a result - which was the brutal oppression of the south Vietnamese people by the communists.

You may want to forget it - but I think we need to be continually reminded of what the left is capable of. In fact, they have never been called to task for what they did. Mind you - I am not here to sing the praises of Nixon, but to set the record straight and add a little historical and moral perspective between what Nixon did and what the McGovernite wing of the Democrat party did.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Are you therefore in favor of an air strike or perhaps an invasion of Syria, which oppresses its own people? You are espousing the old domino theory of communism. The situation in Vietnam was more complex than that.
 
ishii said:
This is tedious. But I am beginning to understand how you discuss things: you latch on to one point, distort it, then make it the focus of your post.

Let me explain: my original response to the post in question about the economics book was to suggest that maybe perhaps the author of the economics book *** was not very conservative*** which wouldn’t be too surprising because Bush wasn’t all that conservative himself on balance. Notice the word “perhaps”. Notice how I also didn’t call Bush a “crazy liberal.” I merely proposed the possibility that it might not be wise to take it for granted that just because someone was appointed by Bush that the book they write must therefore be conservative!

Ishii
Click to expand...
Geez Louise I didn’t say that you called him a crazy liberal. I said that he wasn’t conservative enough or he was too moderate. I then said he wasn’t a crazy liberal. It isn’t like a book is claiming to be conservative and being endorsed by Obama. Who is a crazy lib. My goodness. You are claiming I distort things? You seem to have that problem too.
 
KendraDZ1902 said:
Geez Louise I didn’t say that you called him a crazy liberal. I said that he wasn’t conservative enough or he was too moderate. I then said he wasn’t a crazy liberal. It isn’t like a book is claiming to be conservative and being endorsed by Obama. Who is a crazy lib. My goodness. You are claiming I distort things? You seem to have that problem too.
Click to expand...
And as for the substance of my post? (Which you didn’t address)
 
ishii said:
And as for the substance of my post? (Which you didn’t address)
Click to expand...
Sorry, you claimed that I said that you said that Bush was a crazy liberal and I didn’t want to distort anything else, or have you distort anything else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top