Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans: Pew Poll

Yes but why would those professors be liberal in the first place? The answer is because education frees your mind, and liberalism is simply a more educated outlook on life. That is why there are almost no such conservative leaning schools.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nope. And they wouldn't know jack shit about physics and biology. And they would be just as mean and ignorant and incompetent and psychologically fucked up (cf David Brooks's latest wtf moment) as the rest of the people who think they did.

Unless you think it's the University of Reality that produced the Limbaughs and Palins and Ws and Coulters and Rumsfelds and Haggards and Robertsons and Gannons and Joe Plumbers and various creationist, nuke-Iran, wall off Mexico, privatize the sidewalks, the Rapture is coming, Republican Party apparatchiks of this world.

I've noticed a much larger contribution from Regent University myself. That and legacy admissions to Ivy League prestige schools. But somehow we don't get many scientists from that demographic. Just Republicans.

Meanwhile, those actually attending the University of Hard Knocks (as opposed to just hanging out on campus and buying the sweatshirts) have a rich learning experience awaiting them in the coming semester - with lessons such as "Why Unions Were Invented" and "How Health Insurance Works" available to the studious.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Education doesn't free your mind. It only empowers one to free his or her own mind. And modern liberalism isn't an "educated outlook" so much as it's a forced altruism outlook.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

On this we can agree.

I do not consider myself a liberal in the classic sense of that word. However, for the most part, the liberals of which I have been aquainted are not ones who advocate an enforced altruism and never have been. If fact, I can often find themselves questioning their beliefs and actions...always trying to make sure they have and are doing the right thing...something one never sees conservatives do, ever.

 

So you don't know any liberals who believe that citizens should be taxed to provide social services? Because that is forced altruism.

 

If you are asking about majority rule, then Democrats or liberals are all for majority rule. If you are talking about democracy, then Democrats or liberals are all for democracy.

If you are talking about the right on an individual to fail to comply with the rule of the majority, then you are correct. Without some sort of rule one has anarchy. Do I agree with everything the Dems have on their agenda, no. But I am committed to the rule of law. I believe in the right of the state to tax and to spend. But spending should be frugal and appropriate. Social services are not a bad thing. I would rather have social services than people on the street hungery as is the case in many parts of the world today.

I suggest you look at the welfare reform put in place by Clinton, a Democrat. It is much better than what previously existed and much better than having people living in the streets. Social spending also helps keep a lid on crime.
So would I mind spending on social programs to keep down crime and violence, absoutely.

In society, you cannot expect everyone to agree with you. And that is a good thing that Republicans have not yet wrapped their heads around.

 

It's even worse than that: they display open contempt for the intellects their own membership. No self-respecting scientist is going to support a political machine that treats them as some kind of rube who is incapable of observation or critical thought.

More broadly, scientists are people who have lots of questions. Conservatives are people who think they have all the answers. These two identities are frequently exclusive of one another, even absent a rampantly anti-science political machine.

 

So you're changing your answer and you do know liberals who support forced altruism?

 

oh there are conservative leaning schools they just aren't accredited like bob jones university and life college.

 

not really you can't, despite how much the right and the extreme left want you to, force anyone to think something. Altruism is a thought; an idea.

 

Okay, so then replace the term "forced altruism" with "forcing people to behave in an altruistic manner under threat of violence".

 

There is no violence just the enforcement of laws.

 

Laws are enforced under the threat of violence. If I quit paying my taxes, would the government send Amish farmers and Buddhist monks to arrest me?

 

I am not changing my answer. You are changing the question. Do you belive in the rule of law? Do you belive in democracy? Your post suggests you do not.

 

Since when is paying your way and meeting your community obligations "altruism"?

I don't expect people who use electricity to behave with altruism. I do expect them to support the local school system that educates the future electrical engineers. Anything less is theft of service.

 

So-called "conservatives" support taxation and spending on public services too. Our entire government is one giant public service -- and they desperately want control of it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The problem, Joe, is that the fed gov should collect taxes from it's citizens in some equitible manner, then use that tax money .....ahhh, get this now ....FOR THE GOOD OF ALL CITIZENS, NOT JUST FOR A FEW INDIVIDUALS!

The fed gov, even in a democracy, should NOT be a charitable organization ...it should be for ALL of the people equally.

Joe, you don't want poor people? You don't want beggars on the streets? Fine, neither do I. So ...let's organize a PRIVATE charity to take care of those problems. Joe, you know, deep in your heart, that's it's just not right to take from some in order to give to select few. And yet you persist in advocating just such a scheme .....why?

Baron Max

 

it is for the good of all citizens??? or do you think having people is good for the economy and such?

 

On principal I agree with you, at present taxation is not equitable. And it is not fair to spend public funds for the good of just a select few. And such is now the case. Today government is used by private industry to protect their markets at the expense of the general public. Let me give you an example, a few years ago individuals were going across the border to buy prescription drugs because they could be purchased in Canada and Mexico for a lot less than could be purchased in the US. The drug companies sprinkled a little magic money on the president and congress and the next thing you know we have Medicare Prescription Drug program. Instead of allowing free markets to solve the problem, drug and insurance companies shifted the expense to the government. You want more examples, history is replete with such examples of market interference by governement at the behest of private industry and the victims are the American people.

You complain about the Welfare folks, but the biggest government gives-a-ways occur under the noses of the Republicans stalwarts without notice. The market restrictions in the healthcare industry are just appauling. In a freemarket economy, these inefficienies would never be allowed to perpetuate as they have for decades. And now we have a big healthcare problem that is only going to get worse if nothing is done to fix it. The biggest problem is not welfare. The biggest problem is industry using government to restrict and protect their markets at the expense of the American people.

Industry is important. It supplies jobs. But industry should not use government to avoid open and competitive markets for all goods and services not just a select few.

 

So if I'm following you, we should not provide education unless everyone is in school, roads unless everyone drives, or health care unless everyone is sick.

Let's start by not providing contract enforcement, trade treaties, and sophisticated legal infrastructure, unless everyone is rich.