Shock! Zogby Finds Bias Among College Professors
As legislation is introduced in more than a dozen states across the country to counter political pressure and proselytizing on students in college classrooms, a majority of Americans believe the political bias of college professors is a serious problem, a new Zogby Interactive poll shows.
Nearly six in 10 – 58 percent – said they see it as a serious problem, with 39 percent saying it was a “very serious” problem.
The online survey of 9,464 adult respondents nationwide was conducted July 5-9, and carries a margin of error of +/- 1 percentage point.
Predictably, whether political bias is a problem depends greatly on the philosophy of the respondents. While 91 percent of very conservative adults said the bias is a “serious problem,” just 3 percent of liberals agreed.
Conservatives have long held that college campuses are a haven for liberal professors. The activist group Students for Academic Freedom, founded by David Horowitz, has promoted state legislation invoking a “Students Bill of Rights” on campuses to protect conservative students from academic reprisals by professors who hold contradictory beliefs.
Men were much more likely than women to see the bias of professors as a problem – 64 percent of men agreed, while 53 percent of women said the same.
Whites were twice as likely to call it a “serious problem” as African-Americans, the survey showed.
July 10, 2007 - 04:43 PM on July 10th, 2007
This is impossibe!!!
For years we have been told there is no such thing! We have been told they are centrists, and that anything that disagrees with them is right-wing extremism!!!
July 10, 2007 - 05:27 PM on July 10th, 2007
I am SO glad I retired from that cesspool of liberal ideologues. Geesh, it’s taken me almost a year to recover. Worse, there are staff who agreed with me in more Republican values and they (as with me) kept our mouths shut for fear of retribution.
July 10, 2007 - 07:04 PM on July 10th, 2007
You’re confused. Zogby didn’t find that college professors were biased– rather only that a majority of his survey respondents believed them to be. Not the same thing, Peejz. Public opinion does not equate to a statement of fact.
As stated in the results, it showed the opinions of the participants followed their own personal values– which makes sense because what else are they going to base their opinion on?
Maybe the survey would have made more sense if it actually polled current students and/or recent college grads, but just randomly sampling a generic poll of ‘adults’ is only going to give opinions based on ideology, not necessarily the reality of what’s happening on campuses today.
July 10, 2007 - 07:24 PM on July 10th, 2007
I can assure you Tofu that the survey is correct. Academia is full of liberal bias and I might add lies.
July 10, 2007 - 07:41 PM on July 10th, 2007
3, Tofu, how about this bet. We go to a university. For each liberal professor I get to whack you with a tire iron. For each conservative professor you get to whack me. Want to take me up on that?
Side bet: Anyone believe we will find a conservative professor before I put Tofu in the hospital with permanent injuries?
July 10, 2007 - 08:29 PM on July 10th, 2007
“I can assure you Tofu that the survey is correct.”
BonBon…Tofu’s not saying that the poll is incorrect.
Re-read the post.
July 10, 2007 - 08:32 PM on July 10th, 2007
And you know what?
Thank god that college professors are LIBERAL.
The very definition of liberal makes this a smart choice.
—————-
From dictionary.com :
lib·er·al
adj.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded
—————————
Sounds like the right kind of person to be teaching and opening minds, no?
July 10, 2007 - 08:39 PM on July 10th, 2007
The reality is that a lot of professors outside of the hard sciences, and a few in them, lean way to the left. They also have no qualms about basing grades on personal bias rather than actual performance. AN example would be the visiting professor at Duke who flunked a student, not because he did below par work, but rather because he was on the Lacrosse Team. Then there are the 80+ professors at Duke who signed a letter demanding that the Lacrosse team be punished and the three students falsely accused of raping a woman who had the DNA from 5+ men in her panties, not one of theme the accused lacrosse players. NOT A ONE OF THOSE PROFESSORS APOLOGIZED!!! Duke on the other hand will be settling the lawsuits for years.
I once had a political science professor inform me that he had been a communist until he realized that communism didn’t work. If you take a long hard look at the vast majority of soft or social science professors, very few of them have EVER had positions that required them to actually be productive in a traditional sense. How many executives in the real world are in positions wherein they can not be fired for anything less than gross misconduct? Once a professor receives tenure, it is next to impossible to fire him. Look at Ward Churchill, the professor from Colorado who referred to the victims in the World Trade Center as “little Eichmans”. As a tenured professor, the university was essentially unable to get rid of him despite his writings being questionable (potentially plagiarized) and his qualifications, including his claim to native American ancestry, being falsified.
I just recently got into an argument with a woman who just received her Phd in Poli Sci about the value of gun control as a crime deterrent. She had been so conditioned to believe the propaganda about it working that even when presented with FACTS proving otherwise, refused to accept that her preconceived ideas were wrong. She even denigrated the work of multiple researchers that put her credentials to shame because their work disagreed with her ideas. Researchers who had held the same anti gun bias prior to conducting their multi year studies. Who is more open minded, the person that insists that they are right despite the facts, or the one who changes their opinion when that opinion turns out to be contradictory to the facts?
July 10, 2007 - 09:04 PM on July 10th, 2007
Hey San Fran, the only problem with that definition is that the liberal professors are extremely intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them. They also need to understand that progressive means moving towards a goal of improving something. That means that when historical facts show that reducing income tax rates INCREASES revenues, and the goal is to increase REVENUES, tax rate increases are counter productive to the goal and hence NOT progressive.
Likewise, repeated studies show that lengthy jail sentences for violent offenders reduce violent crime by acting as both a deterrent to others and as a means to prevent the repeat offender from recidivating. Hence, fighting to eliminate mandatory minimum sentencing will allow repeat offenders to recidivate more frequently and therefore increase violent crime. Therefore reduced jail sentences increase violent crime and are therefore NOT progressing towards the goal of reducing it.
Reputable studies show that criminals are more afraid of encountering an armed victim than of encountering a police officer. Recent events in Israel and the US have shown that the surest way to prevent mass murder is for armed individuals to stop the antagonist as soon as possible, through the use of force if necessary. Data also shows that in cities with more restrictive gun laws, crime is substantially higher than cities without such laws. Records also show that increased sentencing for offenders who use a firearm during the commission of a crime deters many criminals from using firearms. With all of this data in hand, if the goal is to reduce violent crime, doesn’t it make more sense to allow law abiding citizens free access to firearms while punishing severely those criminals who abuse them?
All of the positions that I have demonstrated as being in direct opposition to the stated goals are “Liberal” positions. Exactly how “Progressive” is it to reduce tax revenues, to not prevent predatory criminals from having access to victims, and to prevent victims from being able to defend themselves? Would not the more “traditional” goals of increasing tax revenues, locking away dangerous criminals until they are no longer able to prey on anyone, and allowing victims to defend themselves against attack simply be a much more intelligent course of action to follow?
July 10, 2007 - 09:26 PM on July 10th, 2007
8- If you look at the definition of ‘liberal’, it makes sense that most professors are liberal at this level of academics. Those of intellect are bound to flourish in careers in higher education where free thought and exploration of ideas is not only encouraged, but celebrated.
As for gun control being a deterrent, tell that to the families of the three citizens who were gunned down by a wacked-out Firefighter on New Years here in Cleveland. A Firefigther, by the way, who was granted a concealed/carry license.
July 10, 2007 - 09:28 PM on July 10th, 2007
Yikes, not New Years. July 4th. eek
July 10, 2007 - 09:38 PM on July 10th, 2007
“Those that can – do: those that can’t – teach.â€
July 10, 2007 - 09:43 PM on July 10th, 2007
12: Where is the ‘rolls eyes’ emoticon?
July 11, 2007 - 04:33 AM on July 11th, 2007
What a wonderful poll result!!
Could it be that regarding the left-right balance liberals would tend to not call it a “bias” but simply an “attitude”?
And what does this poll also tell us? Maybe that well-educated people tend more towards the political stance that you call “left”… I mean, it is not a hazard that dictators* like Stalin or Pol Pot first murdered the intellectual caste when establishing their reign of terror!
And now PCD & MK, I am waiting for your insults …or as I see it: your only means of defense!
*I just read an article about the US government medical representative Richard Carmona who mentioned the buzzword “censorship”…
July 11, 2007 - 05:01 AM on July 11th, 2007
San Fran….it was late and I was tired. But you know I learned liberals do NOT have open minds nor do they always teach in a fair and balanced way. For instance I took a class in Amer History and the Professor told the class Ronald Reagan gave away the Panama Canal. Do you know who really sold the Canal? In 1978?
PCD…there is one and only one Republican professor and that is Condi Rice and even she was a registered Democrat when she first started out.
July 11, 2007 - 05:33 AM on July 11th, 2007
14, Mattias, be happy you only suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune and not the physical punishment you have tichly earned.
Tofu, just goosestep along with your do nothing professors. How many liberals actually do something? IF we limit doing something to doing it with your own resources, then the number gets very small.
July 11, 2007 - 05:46 AM on July 11th, 2007
16- Sorry PCD,
Looks like I forgot your fists as a valid political means of argumentation. Besides (I had to look up the exact term myself), did you ever hear of the term “ochlocracy”?
July 11, 2007 - 06:05 AM on July 11th, 2007
17, you forget that muslims settle their differences by force.
July 11, 2007 - 06:13 AM on July 11th, 2007
9. FAO you make the assumption that liberals think in a reasonable, rationale way. The reality is that they turn away from anything logical or truthful that may not fit into their ideology. Case in point. With all the terror attacks during the Clinton administration no one ever said a word. The day of 9/11 we all sat in the conference room watching CNN and they were all saying, “How could Bush have let this happen.” It was then that I realized I didn’t even want to be around these bozos any longer.
There is debate and then there is a refusal to acknowledge facts. Liberals do not have open minds.
July 11, 2007 - 06:19 AM on July 11th, 2007
7. Here’s my definition of a liberal.
adjective. Close minded, intolerant, unable to debate an issue with any logic. Sometimes untruthful. A desire to have the government pay for everything yet control nothing.
July 11, 2007 - 06:21 AM on July 11th, 2007
Oh and a willingness to tax the working poor so they do not get ahead while at the same time protecting their rich cronies. Sounds like what the Republicans are always accused of but when I look at people like the rich celebrities and the media moguls who have the really big bucks and don’t spread the wealth I get pissed.
At least the corporations Republicans are always accused of helping employ people and produce goods and services.
July 11, 2007 - 06:47 AM on July 11th, 2007
20- if I see words like “intolerant”, I associate somebody like
“those muslim animals”-Mike Kilo with it
.. and if if it comes to “unable to debate an issue with any logic” it reminds me of “not the physical punishment you have tichly earned”-PCD…
Honestly: you conservatives don’t have the most public-compatible representatives talking for you on this site!!!
July 11, 2007 - 07:05 AM on July 11th, 2007
Well Matthias you do exactly what most libs do when confronted with an argument and that is to start placing blame and pointing fingers rather than giving logical arguments for a point of view.
Mike calls them muslim animals and why not? That’s exactly what they are. Just because libs are trying to stay pc in this country and bend over backwards trying to give the impression that somehow it’s our fault and not the jihadists who have declared war on us doesn’t mean that some of us aren’t entitled to express our thoughts as we see them.
As for PCD, he often expresses the frustration I always feel when listening to the lame, illogical reasoning behind your points of view.
Everyone is different and everyone reacts different. Get used to it. Be tolerant of others.
July 11, 2007 - 07:12 AM on July 11th, 2007
“Honestly: you conservatives don’t have the most public-compatible representatives talking for you on this site!!!”
Well, no matter what you opinion is of this it is true that the liberals on this site have the same problem.
July 11, 2007 - 07:52 AM on July 11th, 2007
14- You left this out:
July 11, 2007 - 08:00 AM on July 11th, 2007
“#10: Those of intellect are bound to flourish in careers in higher education where free thought and exploration of ideas is not only encouraged, but celebrated.”
Which is exactly what is NOT happening in that environment, don’t you understand? If you think free thought and exploration of ideas is encouraged in leftist-dominated academia then you are so far off the mark you may as well be on another planet.
Liberalism IS a form of mental illness…
July 11, 2007 - 08:18 AM on July 11th, 2007
23- “Mike calls them muslim animals and why not? That’s exactly what they are. …the jihadists who have declared war on us…”
I tell you why this asshole is not allowed to use such a disgusting term:
a) because [as you to some degree admit yourself] there are muslims on one hand and jihadists on the other
and
b) even amongst the radical muslims it was just a small minority who was ready to attack your country
You will find few liberals who will call you for your unjustified (and as it turns out politically totally useless) attack “christian animals”!
July 11, 2007 - 08:21 AM on July 11th, 2007
“You’re confused. Zogby didn’t find that college professors were biased– rather only that a majority of his survey respondents believed them to be. Not the same thing, Peejz. Public opinion does not equate to a statement of fact.”
Ahh, you mean like the public opinion polls regarding Iraq?
Avbit of consistancy is in order please. You folks live by public opinion polls, and now yopu must lie in the bed that you’ve made.
July 11, 2007 - 08:25 AM on July 11th, 2007
“b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded”
Because most college proffessors are tolerant and oppen minded!
/sarcasm
July 11, 2007 - 08:28 AM on July 11th, 2007
I would submit that the vast majority of “free thinkers” are NOT found in academia- this is a myth. Instead, they are found in private sector business, especially small business.
July 11, 2007 - 08:35 AM on July 11th, 2007
27. If you have read as much as I have about Islam and the problems, culture, etc. in the middle east you would begin to understand why it is imperative we fight them in order to maintain peace in the world. As for the very small minority of muslims who don’t agree with the ideology of Islam ruling the world they don’t speak out for fear of retribution. Make no mistake that fear is real. Would you like me to point you to some very good books to read?
July 11, 2007 - 08:58 AM on July 11th, 2007
31- As I see it, even since GW started his christian crusade and until today there is less than one third than the world’s muslim population living in countries (Palestine, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria) that are involved in military conflicts or terrorism and even in those you have huge parts that don’t approve violence.
“Make no mistake that fear is real.”
Whose fear?
I mean, you cannot deny that this is kind of a hen&egg-problem. If I lived in a [muslim] country and people attacked my neighbour country with some questionable justification (WMDs), claim to tolerate and liberate me and at the same time call me for my beliefs an “animal”… what kind of feelings would you think would I develop?! Just look at the scores:
US people killed by muslim terror acts on US soil=3,000+ : Muslims killed by military action on their own ground=XX,000+
Besides… I have an idea what kind of books you would recommend..
July 11, 2007 - 09:03 AM on July 11th, 2007
Well Mr. Know it all. First of all 9/11 wasn’t even the first attack. It goes way back to the Shah of Iran and the Carter administration. You have no idea what books I’m referring to so your argument is once again what the close minded liberals gut reaction typically is.
I’ve done my homework so why don’t you. There isn’t enough bandwidth here on the site to explain to you why your post represents ignorance.
July 11, 2007 - 09:20 AM on July 11th, 2007
“Just look at the scores:
US people killed by muslim terror acts on US soil=3,000+ : Muslims killed by military action on their own ground=XX,000+”
Completely inaccurate.
July 11, 2007 - 09:20 AM on July 11th, 2007
33- I gave you some estimated body count figures. Honestly: Who has the better reason to fear somebody?
And referring to your Shah vs. Carter-argument: What the fuck does my muslim wife has to do with those guys (or Iraq or Al Quaeda or Palestine or whatever war zone) that such an asshole like MK is allowed to call her an “animal”?!
The last guy who wrote a book that openly called a group animals due to their religion or race that I remember was Adolf Hitler! And we know what the result was… Is it such kind of book, that you refer to?
July 11, 2007 - 09:23 AM on July 11th, 2007
34- What are your figures?
July 11, 2007 - 09:29 AM on July 11th, 2007
34.
It’s not the figures that are inaccuarate, but how you portray them. It is a typical Michael Moore style twist of facts.
July 11, 2007 - 09:31 AM on July 11th, 2007
“What the fuck does my muslim wife has to do with those guys (or Iraq or Al Quaeda or Palestine or whatever war zone) that such an asshole like MK is allowed to call her an “animalâ€?!”
I don’t recall that he called her an animal. Got the quote?
July 11, 2007 - 09:45 AM on July 11th, 2007
35, Mattias, you argue in circles, closed circles. You don’t allow true facts in, but you spin out hyperbole and myths to justify yourself.
Mike thouroughly explained “Muslim Animal”. You got a problem with his definition? Does your wife fit Mike’s definition?
Mattias, you are the typical dumb Kraut who didn’t know what Hitler was doing to the Jews and had to be led by a bayonet in the back to the camps to get the truth through your square head.
July 11, 2007 - 09:48 AM on July 11th, 2007
#32: “As I see it, even since GW started his christian crusade and until today there is less than one third than the world’s muslim population living in countries (Palestine, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria) that are involved in military conflicts or terrorism and even in those you have huge parts that don’t approve violence.”
WHAT are you talking about? Muslim terrorism/violence is happening almost EVERYWHERE! What planet are you on? Earth to Matthias—come in Matthias…
July 11, 2007 - 11:19 AM on July 11th, 2007
40- If there is muslim terrorism all over the world, there must be victims all over the world.
So I repeat the question in your direction, Robert:
How many (non-muslim) people died as a result of radical muslim violence/terrorism (worldwide) and how many muslims died as a result of US/allied military action?
If somebody dares to speak of “muslim animals” based upon the thousands of muslim terror victims- what would somebody be allowed to call Christians or Americans regarding the tenthousands muslims that were killed in the last 6 years by the allied forces???
And Ted, how do I twist facts? I am not referring to military casualties amongst in Iraq of Afghanistan- I refer to civilian victims! People, that were as innocent as the ones that were buried under the collapsed WTC!
July 11, 2007 - 11:24 AM on July 11th, 2007
39- Mike’s terminology speaks for itself. If he referred to radicals, fundamentalists, or terrorists he could refer to “radical animals”, “fundamentalist animals” or “jihad animals”…
“Muslim animals” is a very clearly understable statement FULL STOP.
If I say that I think that Mike is a racist, intolerant asshole, there is also few to misunderstand or to blandish. I say it that way and I mean it that way!
July 11, 2007 - 11:29 AM on July 11th, 2007
“How many (non-muslim) people died as a result of radical muslim violence/terrorism (worldwide) and how many muslims died as a result of US/allied military action?”
Who knows the numbers? But the main point is the fundamental difference between terrorists deliberately targeting civilians and unavoidable collateral damage.
Another way to look at it: if the radicals didn’t start shit, there wouldn’t be shit. Kapische?
July 11, 2007 - 12:05 PM on July 11th, 2007
You can’t argue this kind of thing with liberals Robert. They deny muslims hate us, hurt us or for that matter have ever even started anything. It’s all Bush’s fault.
Matthias….there have been many, many people who have died at the hands of muslims terrorists. Just after Clinton shook hands with Terrofat the killing began in earnest in Israel and many died as a result of that handshake. Just because you close your eyes to the fight doesn’t mean it’s not there. Heaven help us all if we lose because of your liberal ideologies.
July 11, 2007 - 12:13 PM on July 11th, 2007
Re 42:
“Mike’s terminology speaks for itself.”
In other words, you don’t have a quote and you are basing this statement on assumptions and nothing real to stand on.
“”Muslim animals”is a very clearly understable statement FULL STOP.”
Yes, it is. It means Muslims that acts like animals. Does your wife act like an animal, ie support the Jihadist killing on innocents by a sect of Muslims middle east locations such as Iraq and Gaza?
If it were Christians doing the same thing, I am sure he would also call a spade a spade. This seems to speak less to his bigotry and more towards yours, as you obviously saw but ignore the recent convsation he had with another memeber of your ilk who was big enough to apologize for her assumptions.
“I say it that way and I mean it that way!”
How Hilter-esque of you.
July 11, 2007 - 12:16 PM on July 11th, 2007
“And Ted, how do I twist facts? I am not referring to military casualties amongst in Iraq of Afghanistan- I refer to civilian victims!”
No, you refered to tens of thousands of Iraqis who are “killed by military action on their own ground” implying that the US military killed them when the vast majority of those victims have NOT been killed by any military force, but by terrorists.
July 11, 2007 - 12:47 PM on July 11th, 2007
I would argue that the terrorists are even lower than animals; at best they are sub (less than) human. As such they need to be exterminated, like roaches, or a rabid animal.
BonBon you are correct about arguing with Liberals; we use logic, reason, and fact. They are unable to process such data.
July 11, 2007 - 12:53 PM on July 11th, 2007
If I was a graduate student going for my pHd in Psychology, I think i would select as a study for my thesis an anaylsis of the classic Liberal mind. Why are they the way they are? Is it mental illness alone, a physical defect in the brain, or both? Why is it that classic, knee-jerk Liberals are unable to reason? That would be a fascinating study.
July 11, 2007 - 01:17 PM on July 11th, 2007
Gang, all Mattias can wrap his little mind aroud is that the US is bad. We kill people. He can’t see the Muslim Animals killing indescriminately. He can’t see fact nor reason. I say we exclude him from any future conversations that touch on Muslim Animals.
July 11, 2007 - 01:19 PM on July 11th, 2007
Hi PCD….I vote for that. I have already sworn not to argue with some unreasonables on this site. One more doesn’t make that much difference.
July 11, 2007 - 01:30 PM on July 11th, 2007
“3, Tofu, how about this bet. We go to a university. For each liberal professor I get to whack you with a tire iron. For each conservative professor you get to whack me. Want to take me up on that?”
July 11, 2007 - 01:48 PM on July 11th, 2007
48- “If I was a graduate student going for my pHd in Psychology, I think i would select as a study for my thesis an anaylsis of the classic Liberal mind. Why are they the way they are? Is it mental illness alone, a physical defect in the brain, or both? Why is it that classic, knee-jerk Liberals are unable to reason?”
Classic, ‘knee-jerk Liberals’ do reason, which why saying ‘knee-jerk’ is inaccurate. What a liberal can do which a conservative cannot, is view issues from multiple angles. Converstative think is dull yes/no, black/white, you’re either with us or your with the terrorists thinking. That’s why a liberals first stance is normally not to suggest hitting or killing someone when we hear opinions which go against what we believe.
There are numerious expamples of this in our country, from conservative fundies shooting doctors who perform abortions to the Matthew Sheppard incident.
Mental illness? Look within yourselves first.
July 11, 2007 - 01:55 PM on July 11th, 2007
5- “Tofu, how about this bet. We go to a university. For each liberal professor I get to whack you with a tire iron. For each conservative professor you get to whack me. Want to take me up on that?
Side bet: Anyone believe we will find a conservative professor before I put Tofu in the hospital with permanent injuries?”
While I don’t normally respond to your ridiculous rantings, this one did intrigue me.
“Liberal” professors aren’t going to “hit” me because it would not be ideologically within their temperaments. Conservatives, on the other hand, who love to be violent, I’m sure we can find many professors of this type who would take a wack at you.
As for your ’side bet’ as you attempt to permanently injure me, I think you’d be dead before you had the chance. (those mild-mannered liberal professors can kick some ass when the rubber meets the road)
July 11, 2007 - 03:01 PM on July 11th, 2007
“What a liberal can do which a conservative cannot, is view issues from multiple angles.”
The problem is that this approach, unbounded by reason, logic, or morality, leads to sophistry.
Conservative: The vehicle failed to stop for the stop sign.
Liberal: Should there be a stop sign there? What if there was no stop sign there? What does it mean to stop? What is a stop sign? The stop sign is the real victim…etc., ad nauseum.
Sophistry is what destroyed the world’s first Democracy, Athens.
July 11, 2007 - 03:04 PM on July 11th, 2007
“Liberal”professors aren’t going to “hit”me because it would not be ideologically within their temperaments.”
You misread what PCD wrote. It would be PCD whacking you for each Lib Professor, NOT the Lib. And I’ve no doubt he is capable of fulfilling his responsibility in this matter…
July 11, 2007 - 03:42 PM on July 11th, 2007
55- point noted. And my opinion still stands. PCD is conservative and thus violent and thus would relish a chance to wack someone with a tire iron. His own challange offer proves his violent aspirations.
July 11, 2007 - 09:12 PM on July 11th, 2007
When it comes to the liberal thought process, I have to agree with Winston Churchill who said ” If you’re not a liberal at 20, you don’t have a heart. If you’re not a conservative at 40, you don’t have a brain.” As for me… Well, honestly on a recent survey I was rated as a liberal libertarian. When it comes to government, I believe that the government that governs least governs best. I’ve seen the level of efficiency in the US government, and I think it is better to leave the money in the hands of the private sector as much as possible. I don’t care what people do in their personal life as long as two conditions are met. They extend me the same courtesy, and don’t expect me to pay for it with my tax dollars. I don’t care about your sexlife, and my gun collection is none of your business. I don’t expect you to pay for my target shooting habit, you shouldn’t expect me to pay for your drug habit. I saw a great t-shirt the other day. It said ” A true liberal is liberal about guns too.” Try wearing that one to a sociology class sometime.
July 12, 2007 - 03:16 AM on July 12th, 2007
45- “”I say it that way and I mean it that way!â€
How Hilter-esque of you.”
So if it is “Hitler-esque” to express in a clear manner and to not try to find lame excuses for the bad manners or expression style or other people, it could be that you finally discovered the one and only good character attribute of Hitler…
July 12, 2007 - 03:21 AM on July 12th, 2007
So just to summarize your de facto non-responses to the circumstance that much more muslim civilians were slaughtered by US/allied military than vice versa:
You don’t care… Why should you??? Those muslims are no human beings- they are animals!
PS: Ted could you think of other aspects of being “Hitler-esque”?
July 12, 2007 - 05:47 AM on July 12th, 2007
“So if it is “Hitler-esque”to express in a clear manner and to not try to find lame excuses for the bad manners or expression style or other people,”
No- it is Hitler-esque of you to accuse a person of being something without really delving into the meat of what they really are. 6 million people were put to death because of this.
“So just to summarize your de facto non-responses to the circumstance that much more muslim civilians were slaughtered by US/allied military than vice versa…”
I didn’t say that at all you goose-stepping git. I said more people are killed by the terrorist than by an military force in Iraq, and that is clearly supported at even Iaqibodycount.com, a clearly anti-Iraqi War website.
here is EXACTLY what I said. Perhaps you should re-read it: “No, you refered to tens of thousands of Iraqis who are “killed by military action on their own ground”implying that the US military killed them when the vast majority of those victims have NOT been killed by any military force, but by terrorists”
If you are going to “summarize (my) defacto non-responses” at least have the commomn courtesy to do so accurately.
To your “summarization”, that was never even implied at all. You are either pulling a Michael Moore twisting of fact once again, or just are having comprehension issues.
July 12, 2007 - 05:52 AM on July 12th, 2007
“PS: Ted could you think of other aspects of being “Hitler-esqueâ€?”
Sure.
You obviously like the governement to control everything and have freedoms denied to other people even to the point of allowing them to die. You are a bigot to the nth degree, but deny it by cloaking your bigotrty in a shroud of excuses. (ie, when Hitler said the probelem with everything in Germany was the Jews
July 12, 2007 - 05:55 AM on July 12th, 2007
Regarding this whole convervative/liberal tendancy to violence/non-violence I have to say I’ve rarely seen such an idiotic conversation.
July 12, 2007 - 06:06 AM on July 12th, 2007
60- ” I said more people are killed by the terrorist than by an military force in Iraq, and that is clearly supported at even Iaqibodycount.com, a clearly anti-Iraqi War website.”
…which is the result of the likely to be expected civil war, that the attack on Iraq created! If you set fire to the fuse of a bomb- who is responsible for the explosion? You or the bomb?!
PS: The links on http://www.iraqibodycount.com point nowhere…
July 12, 2007 - 06:23 AM on July 12th, 2007
“:which is the result of the likely to be expected civil war, that the attack on Iraq created! If you set fire to the fuse of a bomb- who is responsible for the explosion? You or the bomb?!”
Incorrect- it isn’t the result of a civil war, but the result of terrorist attacks. Sending a homocide bomber into an area with children is NOT the act of someone engaged in a civil war.
”
PS: The links on http://www.iraqibodycount.com point nowhere: ”
Sorry…www.iraqibodycount.org
July 12, 2007 - 07:27 AM on July 12th, 2007
64- “Incorrect- it isn’t the result of a civil war, but the result of terrorist attacks. Sending a homocide bomber into an area with children is NOT the act of someone engaged in a civil war.”
Call it terrorism or whatever you want. fact is that before the war, there were not hundreds of innocent people dying each week. Your people took over the job (without anybody requesting) to bring freedom and peace to Iraq and you screwed it up! As long as Saddam murdered people it were his victims alone- now YOU are partly responsible for what happens! You opened Pandora’s box!
July 12, 2007 - 07:29 AM on July 12th, 2007
PS: http://www.iraqibodycount.org is down/empty as well…
July 12, 2007 - 07:38 AM on July 12th, 2007
“Call it terrorism or whatever you want. fact is that before the war, there were not hundreds of innocent people dying each week.”
That’s a falsehood also. Before the war there were hundred of innocent people dying each week, and many by the same people.
There is a distinct differene between civil war and terrorism, so I refuse to dismiss you “call it whatever you want” statment.
“As long as Saddam murdered people it were his victims alone- now YOU are partly responsible for what happens! You opened Pandora’s box!”
So, to you the murdering was okay as long as it was Sadaam doing it? Geez, there’s that Hilter-esque sense of right and wrong again!.
That said, I would like you to explain to me how we are responsible for terrorists killing innocent people? Pandora’s box was wide open long before we went into the area. The difference between you and I is that I am willing to fight for other people’s lives, freedoms and rights while you are content to watch people die as long as you enjoy your own freedom.
That is the bottom line here Matthias.
Seems to me this is a commonality that you have with the German people of the 30’s and 40’s.
July 12, 2007 - 07:39 AM on July 12th, 2007
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
July 12, 2007 - 08:08 AM on July 12th, 2007
“The difference between you and I is that I am willing to fight for other people’s lives, freedoms and rights while you are content to watch people die as long as you enjoy your own freedom.
That is the bottom line here Matthias. ”
One note Matthias: Have you ever considered the irony of the posaition you take? Really, if America would have done in the 40’s what you want us to do now in the middle east and the Global War on Terror then you’d in all likihood be wearing a brownshirt and bootstraps now.
I’m an isolationist, and even I see that.
July 12, 2007 - 08:37 AM on July 12th, 2007
Finally it worked with that link (#68) and what a terrific site it is! Download the list with names of victims and you will see, that the majority was killed by (non-terrorist) military action and that they were no soldiers!
“So, to you the murdering was okay as long as it was Sadaam doing it?”
That is not what I am saying, but your people entitled yourself to be the saviors of Iraq, and apart from the fact that there is a remarkable amount of Iraqui people who didn’t want to be “liberated” at all, you as the ones who took over a job were responsible for doing it properly and also you had to seriously concider all risks BEFORE taking action! War is not a game like domino, where one can start something and see how it evolves!
“The difference between you and I is that I am willing to fight for other people’s lives, freedoms and rights”
And that is your fundamental misunderstanding in Iraq: Many people there regard the US military as the occupiers, that they want to get rid of! And that is why people like Mike Kilo hates Muslims in general- because even those of which he thinks that they are supposed to grateful are not!
July 12, 2007 - 08:53 AM on July 12th, 2007
69- “Really, if America would have done in the 40’s what you want us to do now”
As often as I hear this argument on this site, I would suggest to make it part of your constitution… with the same logic you could say: Hey look how Hiroshima helped to end a war- so let’s drop the bomb at anybody who does play things our way and there will be peace everywhere!
And with the same logic I could say: there is a country, that attacks one country after another, that tortures people, that occupies foreign countries, that spies all over the world, that has more weapons of mass destruction than any other country in the world, with a president that deceives its people, a guy that frees his convicted partners in crime, a country that executes death row, a country that brings civil wars to other countries or lets other “liberated” countries become the drug export nation #1…
How would you call such a country, if it was not your own? “Hitler-esque”? That is how things sound like, if you simplify them to the bare bones…
July 12, 2007 - 09:04 AM on July 12th, 2007
“Finally it worked with that link (#68) and what a terrific site it is! Download the list with names of victims and you will see, that the majority was killed by (non-terrorist) military action and that they were no soldiers!”
That’s a false representation. They do not state who killed the civilian victims. While the victims were civilian, but the vast majority were killed by terrorist. As an example, here are the last 10 entries:
drive-by shooting
car bomb
gunfire, executed, tortured
gunfire, executed
drive-by shooting
car bomb, possibly suicide
concussion grenades, gunfire
gunfire
gunfire, executed
gunfire
Of these incidents, only 3 are possibly from the military, the ones listed as gunfire, as the military do not do drive by shootings, executiuons, etc.
Meanwhile, if you examine the targets, that com,pletely riules out our miltary as we do not as an example target “market area where labourers gather”.
“apart from the fact that there is a remarkable amount of Iraqui people who didn’t want to be “liberated”at all…”
The only people who wanted this were those who were in power- the Baathist and Sunni that ruled the area. When we arrived, we were greeted as liberators.
“you as the ones who took over a job were responsible for doing it properly and also you had to seriously concider all risks BEFORE taking action!”
And this is were we agree. This far, I am NOT happy with Bush during the occupation, and that IS our responsibilty. Every war goes poorly until it goes well. However, the answer is NOT to leave the area and not finish the job- it is our moral obligation to do so and to see this through until finsihed.
July 12, 2007 - 09:17 AM on July 12th, 2007
“As often as I hear this argument on this site, I would suggest to make it part of your constitution: with the same logic you could say: Hey look how Hiroshima helped to end a war- so let’s drop the bomb at anybody who does play things our way and there will be peace everywhere!”
That a disconnect of logic on your part. Dropping a bomb in Iraqi like we did in Japan would not save lives in the long run.
“And with the same logic I could say: there is a country, that attacks one country after another, that tortures people, with a president that deceives its people, a guy that frees his convicted partners in crime,, a country that brings civil wars to other countries or lets other “liberated”countries become the drug export nation #1:”
Defend these accusations. Most allare flasehoods, and I left them intact in the quote.
Are you so ignornat Matthias, or just a liar yourself?
These others I agree with, and really don’t care:
“that occupies foreign countries”
(of course we do- we occupied France and Germany too seemed to turn out well. Occupation, in and of itself, is not wrong. The reason however, can be,
“that spies all over the world”
(okay…so? How is that relevant or even bad?)
“that has more weapons of mass destruction than any other country in the world”
(Again- so? We’ve fully demonstarted that we are responsible enough to have these and that we are the balance agaiinst other countries who would readily use their if we didn’t have them)
“a country that executes death row..”
(Rightfully so, with due process and in a humane manner)
“How would you call such a country, if it was not your own? “Hitler-esqueâ€? That is how things sound like, if you simplify them to the bare bones:”
The fact here Matthias is that you’ve lied about many of those accusation. You are dealing in ad hominem attacks.
However given everything said and strwamed through logic and truth, I would not call such a country Hilter-esque.
I would call them a positive force in the world.
I’ve challenged you to back your accusations. Seeing that no one has been able to do so thus far, I see you cowering away into a corner also.
July 12, 2007 - 09:19 AM on July 12th, 2007
“The only people who wanted this were those who were in power- the Baathist and Sunni that ruled the area. When we arrived, we were greeted as liberators.”
And I guess, the shiites (like quite the rest of Iran) are also very happy that you removed Saddam…
Not to mention Al Quaeda, who had no chance to infitrate Iraq during Saddam’s reign…
Or the curds, who now have a better area of retreat for their PKK-terrorists coming from their assaults in Turkey
What a huge happy family! I really don’t understand how some of those people cannot like the US military?!
July 12, 2007 - 10:01 AM on July 12th, 2007
Do you every deal in fact matthais?
“And I guess, the shiites (like quite the rest of Iran) are also very happy that you removed Saddam:”
Yes they were, as they were one of the groups that Sadaam had tortured and executed on a regular basis
“Not to mention Al Quaeda, who had no chance to infitrate Iraq during Saddam’s reign:”
Yes, because this is a great excuse to keep Sadaam in power. “To keep al Queda out, let’s allow Sadaam to kill another half million people.”. Besides, it is a fact that Sadaam had ties with al Queda anyway (he also had a history of working with other terrorist organizations). The relationship, while not fully developed, stiill existed.
“Or the curds, who now have a better area of retreat for their PKK-terrorists coming from their assaults in Turkey.”
You are completely ignorant on this topic. I wonder where you get your information from?
Actually, they are “Kurds” not “curds”. The Kurdish area was mostly independant before we got there. Our arrival had little impact on what the do in Turkey, but more so their southern border. Or are you claimimng that Sadaam served as a buffer between the Kurds and Turkey?
Matthias, you have to do better than this. I’ve rebuffed sucessfully every comment you’ve made. Please do better in the future.
July 12, 2007 - 10:40 AM on July 12th, 2007
I’ve got a question for you Matthias:
You say your wife is a Muslim, but my understanding is that a Muslim woman can only marry a Muslim man.
Are you Muslim, or is your wife not follow the laws Islam, or is there something I am missing (such as another branch of Islam other than Shi’ite or Sunni)? Can you clarify this please?
July 12, 2007 - 01:11 PM on July 12th, 2007
GOOD CATCH, TED! I heard just this morning that a Muslim woman is expressly prohibited, under penalty of death, from marrying a non-Muslim!
You got some ’splainen to do, Matthias!
July 12, 2007 - 01:13 PM on July 12th, 2007
Post #76:
July 13, 2007 - 04:30 AM on July 13th, 2007
76- My wife is a muslima and I am a christian. It was quite a “fight” between her family and us but in the end “we won”. Unfortunately we were not (yet) able to celebrate a churchly kind of wedding.
Maybe this explains, why I have a very balanced view on both religions.
July 13, 2007 - 05:40 AM on July 13th, 2007
“Maybe this explains, why I have a very balanced view on both religions”
July 13, 2007 - 06:55 AM on July 13th, 2007
80- Nice, that I contribute to your personal exhilaration.
I must say, that I find few funny aspects about issues that cost thousands of people’s lives… but maybe that is a cultural difference between you and me…
July 13, 2007 - 07:18 AM on July 13th, 2007
Well Matthias….it just struck me funny. Having read all your posts I walk away with the impression NOT that you understand both religions but that you are close minded, naive and ill informed. That’s why I laughed. Hey, it’s better than getting angry.