|
Eh, I think there is a degree of truth in what he is saying.
Most people, regardless of party, identify with an ideology based on social issues with little or no understanding of economics. Also while the parties have vastly different rhetoric about economics and foreign policy, both parties in practice clearly believe in spending a lot of money, regulating the market when it does something they don't like, and going to war at the drop of a hat. Where the parties seem to have the most difference is in social policy. The current election may be an exception to that (many of these GOP candidates are preaching economic views outside the general mainstream), unless Romney is the nominee.
Academia liberalizes you socially in two major ways.
One, they preach tolerance of different religions and sexual orientations. This is probably the main way colleges "force" liberalism on people. This is also reinforced just by living on campus -- for example, one of the main predictors of support for gay marriage is whether or not someone is friends with any gay people. On a college campus, you're going to meet and socialize with gay people. For that matter, a college campus is going to give you the opportunity for a lot of sexual experiences, which social conservatives believe are wrong and dangerous.
Second, there are just some things that social conservatives believe that are difficult for a educated person to believe in the face of evidence. People who are educated in science generally believe that humans evolved through natural selection, for example. People who are educated in psychology (biology as well) aren't going to believe that you choose your sexual orientation. Also, this may be more controversial for me to say, but I find social conservatism far more riddled with illogical thinking than other political philosophies. College teaches you to think, and many subjects require a higher degree of logical thinking than you'd likely have to use if you just never went to college. For example, even though it is a completely neutral subject politically, mathematics is one of the most liberal departments. Along similar lines, many socially conservative arguments tend to rely on anecdotal evidence, while any sort of science/economic/financial degree will hammer data collection into you.
So yes, in some ways attending college will a) outright force a degree of liberalism (tolerance and exposure to things the religious right dislikes) b) teach people some facts that social conservatives deny c) train people to think in a rational manner that makes some socially conservative arguments seem silly.
This critique doesn't apply nearly as much to economic "conservatism" (ie liberal capitalism), and it applies equally to the far-left ideologies as the far-right ideologies in economics anyway -- in fact, a truly far-left economic philosophy like communism will find itself rejected by even the most left-leaning Econ professor. But like I said, most people on both sides tend to identify with a party over social issues, and just kind of trust whatever they say on economics.
|
On February 25 2012 04:39 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote:Show nested quote +I have no idea what you're talking about. Intellectuals criticize the state all the time. What magical world do you live in?
Yes, intellectuals criticize the state. But they also justify it. They preach statism. And in exchange they share in the plunder. The reality is the state is nothing more than a vast criminal conspiracy. It is at war with society. And in return for promoting statism ivory tower intellectuals enjoy a very luxurious existence. How many hours a week does your typical university professor teach for? How much money does the government give universities every year? To say nothing of the fact that the entire system of college subsidies is just another transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. Really I don't see how anyone can suggest that the system of wealth redistribution is moral... it's nothing short of theft, we are all constantly robbing each other imaging that we can get everyone else to pay for everything. But there's no free lunch and the result of such a system is economic chaos.
Are you saying that you are an anarchist?
I will say that you have no clue of what you speak.
|
On February 25 2012 07:01 Signet wrote:
Eh, I think there is a degree of truth in what he is saying.
Most people, regardless of party, identify with an ideology based on social issues with little or no understanding of economics. Also while the parties have vastly different rhetoric about economics and foreign policy, both parties in practice clearly believe in spending a lot of money, regulating the market when it does something they don't like, and going to war at the drop of a hat. Where the parties seem to have the most difference is in social policy. The current election may be an exception to that (many of these GOP candidates are preaching economic views outside the general mainstream), unless Romney is the nominee.
Academia liberalizes you socially in two major ways.
One, they preach tolerance of different religions and sexual orientations. This is probably the main way colleges "force" liberalism on people. This is also reinforced just by living on campus -- for example, one of the main predictors of support for gay marriage is whether or not someone is friends with any gay people. On a college campus, you're going to meet and socialize with gay people. For that matter, a college campus is going to give you the opportunity for a lot of sexual experiences, which social conservatives believe are wrong and dangerous.
Second, there are just some things that social conservatives believe that are difficult for a educated person to believe in the face of evidence. People who are educated in science generally believe that humans evolved through natural selection, for example. People who are educated in psychology (biology as well) aren't going to believe that you choose your sexual orientation. Also, this may be more controversial for me to say, but I find social conservatism far more riddled with illogical thinking than other political philosophies. College teaches you to think, and many subjects require a higher degree of logical thinking than you'd likely have to use if you just never went to college. For example, even though it is a completely neutral subject politically, mathematics is one of the most liberal departments. Along similar lines, many socially conservative arguments tend to rely on anecdotal evidence, while any sort of science/economic/financial degree will hammer data collection into you.
So yes, in some ways attending college will a) outright force a degree of liberalism (tolerance and exposure to things the religious right dislikes) b) teach people some facts that social conservatives deny c) train people to think in a rational manner that makes some socially conservative arguments seem silly.
This critique doesn't apply nearly as much to economic "conservatism" (ie liberal capitalism), and it applies equally to the far-left ideologies as the far-right ideologies in economics anyway -- in fact, a truly far-left economic philosophy like communism will find itself rejected by even the most left-leaning Econ professor. But like I said, most people on both sides tend to identify with a party over social issues, and just kind of trust whatever they say on economics.
Great post. I agree 100% and I feel like this is a big part of it. Just to add, I think that a lot of people who consider themselves religious were raised to be such. And they tend to have varying degrees of enthusiasm for it. Some people just coast along being religious, some take it really seriously, some people hardly seriously at all. I think that the people either mid or low religiousness will tend to fall off of it after spending 4 years away from family and not having it be so important. Not to mention, as you said, taking science classes. Taking philosophy classes are perhaps just as big a role in dissolving religious faith, as you learn about all the sorts of religions and whatnot in such a academic, neutral, information based manner. Its hard to really put any amount of weight behind a certain religion when you learn about a variety of them within the same class. It becomes more clear that they are not as much a lifestyle as they are a rough sketch of how people ought to live, and most religions agree on the big stuff.
|
On February 25 2012 07:01 Signet wrote:
Eh, I think there is a degree of truth in what he is saying.
Most people, regardless of party, identify with an ideology based on social issues with little or no understanding of economics. Also while the parties have vastly different rhetoric about economics and foreign policy, both parties in practice clearly believe in spending a lot of money, regulating the market when it does something they don't like, and going to war at the drop of a hat. Where the parties seem to have the most difference is in social policy. The current election may be an exception to that (many of these GOP candidates are preaching economic views outside the general mainstream), unless Romney is the nominee.
Academia liberalizes you socially in two major ways.
One, they preach tolerance of different religions and sexual orientations. This is probably the main way colleges "force" liberalism on people. This is also reinforced just by living on campus -- for example, one of the main predictors of support for gay marriage is whether or not someone is friends with any gay people. On a college campus, you're going to meet and socialize with gay people. For that matter, a college campus is going to give you the opportunity for a lot of sexual experiences, which social conservatives believe are wrong and dangerous.
Second, there are just some things that social conservatives believe that are difficult for a educated person to believe in the face of evidence. People who are educated in science generally believe that humans evolved through natural selection, for example. People who are educated in psychology (biology as well) aren't going to believe that you choose your sexual orientation. Also, this may be more controversial for me to say, but I find social conservatism far more riddled with illogical thinking than other political philosophies. College teaches you to think, and many subjects require a higher degree of logical thinking than you'd likely have to use if you just never went to college. For example, even though it is a completely neutral subject politically, mathematics is one of the most liberal departments. Along similar lines, many socially conservative arguments tend to rely on anecdotal evidence, while any sort of science/economic/financial degree will hammer data collection into you.
So yes, in some ways attending college will a) outright force a degree of liberalism (tolerance and exposure to things the religious right dislikes) b) teach people some facts that social conservatives deny c) train people to think in a rational manner that makes some socially conservative arguments seem silly.
This critique doesn't apply nearly as much to economic "conservatism" (ie liberal capitalism), and it applies equally to the far-left ideologies as the far-right ideologies in economics anyway -- in fact, a truly far-left economic philosophy like communism will find itself rejected by even the most left-leaning Econ professor. But like I said, most people on both sides tend to identify with a party over social issues, and just kind of trust whatever they say on economics.
While this is true, it is merely a side-effect of the fact that socially conservative views are very largely based on ignorance and a fairly sheltered existence. Yes, it sounds harsh, but it's the truth. Like you said, there's very little (if any) logical or scientific backing to most (if any) conservative social views. The problem is that Santorum is picturing universities like some factory where professors actively try to brainwash their students into becoming politically left-leaning, when this is clearly not the case.
|
On February 25 2012 04:14 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 03:56 junemermaid wrote:On February 24 2012 22:16 Doublemint wrote://edit: Though I should add that yes, I don´t see how the catholic church can "compromise" on the contraception/abortion issue, and therefore Santorum got a point. But seeing how much society changed after the 60s and the fact that catholics rather dismiss those rules nowadays gets the church in a very uncomfortable situation, and their only answer seems to get back to the "roots" and alienate themselves even more from believers. At least that´s mainly the case in Europe - can´t tell much about the US since Christians for the most part there have not been a part of the "club" for quite some time^^. I should read up more on evangelicals etc.  The actual Bible says nothing about abortion and there is plenty of scripture to indicate that a newborn <1 year old does not have the same worth as a normal person. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html Taking snippets of the gospel and interpreting them literally is not the way it´s done (it´s actually the same way fundamentalists do it as well), and I am not a theologian by any means. So please don´t take it personally when I don´t accept this blunt form of criticism. Maybe we got someone here who can shed more light here(philosophy/theology major)
As a historian i can tell you that it doesn't really matter a lot what the bible says. What 2000 years of tradition says is much more important to our modern church. In fact what 300 years of tradition says is considered far more important :p
As silly as it is, most of the controversial issues the catholic church argues about have no basis in the bible. Priests must not marry? No abortion? No contraceptives? None of that has anything to do with the bible. Celibacy among priests was invented in the 12th century etc.
I am not quite sure what the USA "rights" use to justify their arguments, but the Catholic church basically argues like this:
What the holy seat says must be right! (Which also isn't backed up by the bible btw.)
The holy seat said XY in 1600!
Therefor it must be so!
Arguing with people like that is frustrating at best, so i stopped bothering quite a few years ago. There are many good things about christian values, but frankly they have become warped and perverted since the bible was written.
|
On February 25 2012 07:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 07:01 Signet wrote:
Eh, I think there is a degree of truth in what he is saying.
Most people, regardless of party, identify with an ideology based on social issues with little or no understanding of economics. Also while the parties have vastly different rhetoric about economics and foreign policy, both parties in practice clearly believe in spending a lot of money, regulating the market when it does something they don't like, and going to war at the drop of a hat. Where the parties seem to have the most difference is in social policy. The current election may be an exception to that (many of these GOP candidates are preaching economic views outside the general mainstream), unless Romney is the nominee.
Academia liberalizes you socially in two major ways.
One, they preach tolerance of different religions and sexual orientations. This is probably the main way colleges "force" liberalism on people. This is also reinforced just by living on campus -- for example, one of the main predictors of support for gay marriage is whether or not someone is friends with any gay people. On a college campus, you're going to meet and socialize with gay people. For that matter, a college campus is going to give you the opportunity for a lot of sexual experiences, which social conservatives believe are wrong and dangerous.
Second, there are just some things that social conservatives believe that are difficult for a educated person to believe in the face of evidence. People who are educated in science generally believe that humans evolved through natural selection, for example. People who are educated in psychology (biology as well) aren't going to believe that you choose your sexual orientation. Also, this may be more controversial for me to say, but I find social conservatism far more riddled with illogical thinking than other political philosophies. College teaches you to think, and many subjects require a higher degree of logical thinking than you'd likely have to use if you just never went to college. For example, even though it is a completely neutral subject politically, mathematics is one of the most liberal departments. Along similar lines, many socially conservative arguments tend to rely on anecdotal evidence, while any sort of science/economic/financial degree will hammer data collection into you.
So yes, in some ways attending college will a) outright force a degree of liberalism (tolerance and exposure to things the religious right dislikes) b) teach people some facts that social conservatives deny c) train people to think in a rational manner that makes some socially conservative arguments seem silly.
This critique doesn't apply nearly as much to economic "conservatism" (ie liberal capitalism), and it applies equally to the far-left ideologies as the far-right ideologies in economics anyway -- in fact, a truly far-left economic philosophy like communism will find itself rejected by even the most left-leaning Econ professor. But like I said, most people on both sides tend to identify with a party over social issues, and just kind of trust whatever they say on economics. While this is true, it is merely a side-effect of the fact that socially conservative views are very largely based on ignorance and a fairly sheltered existence. Yes, it sounds harsh, but it's the truth. Like you said, there's very little (if any) logical or scientific backing to most (if any) conservative social views. The problem is that Santorum is picturing universities like some factory where professors actively try to brainwash their students into becoming politically left-leaning, when this is clearly not the case.
"Liberal indoctrination" in college has been a conservative bogeyman for years and it jives well with his target audience. I know because my born-again high school US history teacher force fed us conservative views as he railed against the liberals in higher education. When he heard I was going to go to an Ivy league he just commented that he hoped he had done enough to counteract whatever liberal views I was going to be fed in college. That's the kind of person Santorum is targeting. Of course, its completely pants on head retarded but it hits the base well. Deeply religious and never graduated college? Its okay, you're working a real job, not like those professors with no common sense who just sit around in their ivory tower teaching kids its okay to be gay. BIG GOVERNMENT funds these professors and institutions, gives out the LOANS to kids so they can go to college and control them and even makes them liberal, turning them into loyal voters and soldiers in the war against christ.
|
On February 25 2012 07:44 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 07:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 25 2012 07:01 Signet wrote:
Eh, I think there is a degree of truth in what he is saying.
Most people, regardless of party, identify with an ideology based on social issues with little or no understanding of economics. Also while the parties have vastly different rhetoric about economics and foreign policy, both parties in practice clearly believe in spending a lot of money, regulating the market when it does something they don't like, and going to war at the drop of a hat. Where the parties seem to have the most difference is in social policy. The current election may be an exception to that (many of these GOP candidates are preaching economic views outside the general mainstream), unless Romney is the nominee.
Academia liberalizes you socially in two major ways.
One, they preach tolerance of different religions and sexual orientations. This is probably the main way colleges "force" liberalism on people. This is also reinforced just by living on campus -- for example, one of the main predictors of support for gay marriage is whether or not someone is friends with any gay people. On a college campus, you're going to meet and socialize with gay people. For that matter, a college campus is going to give you the opportunity for a lot of sexual experiences, which social conservatives believe are wrong and dangerous.
Second, there are just some things that social conservatives believe that are difficult for a educated person to believe in the face of evidence. People who are educated in science generally believe that humans evolved through natural selection, for example. People who are educated in psychology (biology as well) aren't going to believe that you choose your sexual orientation. Also, this may be more controversial for me to say, but I find social conservatism far more riddled with illogical thinking than other political philosophies. College teaches you to think, and many subjects require a higher degree of logical thinking than you'd likely have to use if you just never went to college. For example, even though it is a completely neutral subject politically, mathematics is one of the most liberal departments. Along similar lines, many socially conservative arguments tend to rely on anecdotal evidence, while any sort of science/economic/financial degree will hammer data collection into you.
So yes, in some ways attending college will a) outright force a degree of liberalism (tolerance and exposure to things the religious right dislikes) b) teach people some facts that social conservatives deny c) train people to think in a rational manner that makes some socially conservative arguments seem silly.
This critique doesn't apply nearly as much to economic "conservatism" (ie liberal capitalism), and it applies equally to the far-left ideologies as the far-right ideologies in economics anyway -- in fact, a truly far-left economic philosophy like communism will find itself rejected by even the most left-leaning Econ professor. But like I said, most people on both sides tend to identify with a party over social issues, and just kind of trust whatever they say on economics. While this is true, it is merely a side-effect of the fact that socially conservative views are very largely based on ignorance and a fairly sheltered existence. Yes, it sounds harsh, but it's the truth. Like you said, there's very little (if any) logical or scientific backing to most (if any) conservative social views. The problem is that Santorum is picturing universities like some factory where professors actively try to brainwash their students into becoming politically left-leaning, when this is clearly not the case. "Liberal indoctrination" in college has been a conservative bogeyman for years and it jives well with his target audience. I know because my born-again high school US history teacher force fed us conservative views as he railed against the liberals in higher education. When he heard I was going to go to an Ivy league he just commented that he hoped he had done enough to counteract whatever liberal views I was going to be fed in college. That's the kind of person Santorum is targeting. Of course, its completely pants on head retarded but it hits the base well. Deeply religious and never graduated college? Its okay, you're working a real job, not like those professors with no common sense who just sit around in their ivory tower teaching kids its okay to be gay. BIG GOVERNMENT funds these professors and institutions, gives out the LOANS to kids so they can go to college and control them and even makes them liberal, turning them into loyal voters and soldiers in the war against christ.
Did Santorum go to university?
|
On February 25 2012 07:48 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 07:44 ZeaL. wrote:On February 25 2012 07:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 25 2012 07:01 Signet wrote:
Eh, I think there is a degree of truth in what he is saying.
Most people, regardless of party, identify with an ideology based on social issues with little or no understanding of economics. Also while the parties have vastly different rhetoric about economics and foreign policy, both parties in practice clearly believe in spending a lot of money, regulating the market when it does something they don't like, and going to war at the drop of a hat. Where the parties seem to have the most difference is in social policy. The current election may be an exception to that (many of these GOP candidates are preaching economic views outside the general mainstream), unless Romney is the nominee.
Academia liberalizes you socially in two major ways.
One, they preach tolerance of different religions and sexual orientations. This is probably the main way colleges "force" liberalism on people. This is also reinforced just by living on campus -- for example, one of the main predictors of support for gay marriage is whether or not someone is friends with any gay people. On a college campus, you're going to meet and socialize with gay people. For that matter, a college campus is going to give you the opportunity for a lot of sexual experiences, which social conservatives believe are wrong and dangerous.
Second, there are just some things that social conservatives believe that are difficult for a educated person to believe in the face of evidence. People who are educated in science generally believe that humans evolved through natural selection, for example. People who are educated in psychology (biology as well) aren't going to believe that you choose your sexual orientation. Also, this may be more controversial for me to say, but I find social conservatism far more riddled with illogical thinking than other political philosophies. College teaches you to think, and many subjects require a higher degree of logical thinking than you'd likely have to use if you just never went to college. For example, even though it is a completely neutral subject politically, mathematics is one of the most liberal departments. Along similar lines, many socially conservative arguments tend to rely on anecdotal evidence, while any sort of science/economic/financial degree will hammer data collection into you.
So yes, in some ways attending college will a) outright force a degree of liberalism (tolerance and exposure to things the religious right dislikes) b) teach people some facts that social conservatives deny c) train people to think in a rational manner that makes some socially conservative arguments seem silly.
This critique doesn't apply nearly as much to economic "conservatism" (ie liberal capitalism), and it applies equally to the far-left ideologies as the far-right ideologies in economics anyway -- in fact, a truly far-left economic philosophy like communism will find itself rejected by even the most left-leaning Econ professor. But like I said, most people on both sides tend to identify with a party over social issues, and just kind of trust whatever they say on economics. While this is true, it is merely a side-effect of the fact that socially conservative views are very largely based on ignorance and a fairly sheltered existence. Yes, it sounds harsh, but it's the truth. Like you said, there's very little (if any) logical or scientific backing to most (if any) conservative social views. The problem is that Santorum is picturing universities like some factory where professors actively try to brainwash their students into becoming politically left-leaning, when this is clearly not the case. "Liberal indoctrination" in college has been a conservative bogeyman for years and it jives well with his target audience. I know because my born-again high school US history teacher force fed us conservative views as he railed against the liberals in higher education. When he heard I was going to go to an Ivy league he just commented that he hoped he had done enough to counteract whatever liberal views I was going to be fed in college. That's the kind of person Santorum is targeting. Of course, its completely pants on head retarded but it hits the base well. Deeply religious and never graduated college? Its okay, you're working a real job, not like those professors with no common sense who just sit around in their ivory tower teaching kids its okay to be gay. BIG GOVERNMENT funds these professors and institutions, gives out the LOANS to kids so they can go to college and control them and even makes them liberal, turning them into loyal voters and soldiers in the war against christ. Did Santorum go to university?
Surprisingly, according to wiki he went to Penn State. I guess I was expecting something like Bob Jones or some other super religious institution. I'm guessing it was okay for him to go though because he was a College Republican and worked to battle the oppressive liberal establishment.
|
United States7483 Posts
On February 25 2012 07:48 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 07:44 ZeaL. wrote:On February 25 2012 07:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 25 2012 07:01 Signet wrote:
Eh, I think there is a degree of truth in what he is saying.
Most people, regardless of party, identify with an ideology based on social issues with little or no understanding of economics. Also while the parties have vastly different rhetoric about economics and foreign policy, both parties in practice clearly believe in spending a lot of money, regulating the market when it does something they don't like, and going to war at the drop of a hat. Where the parties seem to have the most difference is in social policy. The current election may be an exception to that (many of these GOP candidates are preaching economic views outside the general mainstream), unless Romney is the nominee.
Academia liberalizes you socially in two major ways.
One, they preach tolerance of different religions and sexual orientations. This is probably the main way colleges "force" liberalism on people. This is also reinforced just by living on campus -- for example, one of the main predictors of support for gay marriage is whether or not someone is friends with any gay people. On a college campus, you're going to meet and socialize with gay people. For that matter, a college campus is going to give you the opportunity for a lot of sexual experiences, which social conservatives believe are wrong and dangerous.
Second, there are just some things that social conservatives believe that are difficult for a educated person to believe in the face of evidence. People who are educated in science generally believe that humans evolved through natural selection, for example. People who are educated in psychology (biology as well) aren't going to believe that you choose your sexual orientation. Also, this may be more controversial for me to say, but I find social conservatism far more riddled with illogical thinking than other political philosophies. College teaches you to think, and many subjects require a higher degree of logical thinking than you'd likely have to use if you just never went to college. For example, even though it is a completely neutral subject politically, mathematics is one of the most liberal departments. Along similar lines, many socially conservative arguments tend to rely on anecdotal evidence, while any sort of science/economic/financial degree will hammer data collection into you.
So yes, in some ways attending college will a) outright force a degree of liberalism (tolerance and exposure to things the religious right dislikes) b) teach people some facts that social conservatives deny c) train people to think in a rational manner that makes some socially conservative arguments seem silly.
This critique doesn't apply nearly as much to economic "conservatism" (ie liberal capitalism), and it applies equally to the far-left ideologies as the far-right ideologies in economics anyway -- in fact, a truly far-left economic philosophy like communism will find itself rejected by even the most left-leaning Econ professor. But like I said, most people on both sides tend to identify with a party over social issues, and just kind of trust whatever they say on economics. While this is true, it is merely a side-effect of the fact that socially conservative views are very largely based on ignorance and a fairly sheltered existence. Yes, it sounds harsh, but it's the truth. Like you said, there's very little (if any) logical or scientific backing to most (if any) conservative social views. The problem is that Santorum is picturing universities like some factory where professors actively try to brainwash their students into becoming politically left-leaning, when this is clearly not the case. "Liberal indoctrination" in college has been a conservative bogeyman for years and it jives well with his target audience. I know because my born-again high school US history teacher force fed us conservative views as he railed against the liberals in higher education. When he heard I was going to go to an Ivy league he just commented that he hoped he had done enough to counteract whatever liberal views I was going to be fed in college. That's the kind of person Santorum is targeting. Of course, its completely pants on head retarded but it hits the base well. Deeply religious and never graduated college? Its okay, you're working a real job, not like those professors with no common sense who just sit around in their ivory tower teaching kids its okay to be gay. BIG GOVERNMENT funds these professors and institutions, gives out the LOANS to kids so they can go to college and control them and even makes them liberal, turning them into loyal voters and soldiers in the war against christ. Did Santorum go to university?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum#Early_life_and_education
"Santorum attended Pennsylvania State University for his undergraduate studies, serving as chairman of the university's College Republicans chapter and graduating with a Bachelor of Arts with honors in political science in 1980.[26] He then completed a one-year Master of Business Administration program at the University of Pittsburgh's Joseph M. Katz Graduate School of Business, graduating in 1981.
Santorum received a JD with honors from the Dickinson School of Law in 1986."
So he did receive an education, but it's in political science and law, nothing science related or education related.
Oh, not sure if this has come up, but Santorum is pro-torture.
|
On February 25 2012 07:00 Chaosvuistje wrote:If this thread was a boat, it would be stuck in the sahara right now. I'll try to dig a channel so we can steer it back on topic again. Show nested quote +Plans from Gingrich, Santorum and Romney Would Result with Highest Debt Ratios![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FxCzd.jpg) Based on data PDF from US Budget Watch from CRFB, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget — analysis from libertarian Reason Magazine: How is it that Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich would end up increasing the federal debt? It’s pretty simple, really: They would cut taxes, but wouldn’t cut spending to match. Santorum’s policies would reduce spending by a little more than $2 trillion, but would cut taxes by $6 trillion. Gingrich would cut slightly more in spending—about $2.7 trillion—but would cut taxes by $7 trillion and actually add $1.6 trillion in spending to overhaul Social Security, among other policy changes. Romney’s vague plans score better, but wouldn’t reduce the debt, and would probably push it slightly higher than it otherwise would have been. Ron Paul, on the other hand, would cut taxes, but he’d cut spending even more. His tax cuts would reduce the tax burden by $5.2 trillion; meanwhile, he would reduce spending by $7.2 trillion. Source: http://www.pensitoreview.com/2012/02/23/rating-candidates-economic-plans-obama-and-ron-paul-plans-produce-lowest-debt-to-gdp-rate/
Where does the number for Obama come from? I may have missed something, but I didn't see it calculated in the report.
Ugh, I'd vote for a socially moderate Republican with an actual plan to tackle the deficit. I guess that's not what the Tea Party is looking for after all.
|
On February 25 2012 08:05 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 07:00 Chaosvuistje wrote:If this thread was a boat, it would be stuck in the sahara right now. I'll try to dig a channel so we can steer it back on topic again. Plans from Gingrich, Santorum and Romney Would Result with Highest Debt RatiosBased on data PDF from US Budget Watch from CRFB, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget — analysis from libertarian Reason Magazine: How is it that Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich would end up increasing the federal debt? It’s pretty simple, really: They would cut taxes, but wouldn’t cut spending to match. Santorum’s policies would reduce spending by a little more than $2 trillion, but would cut taxes by $6 trillion. Gingrich would cut slightly more in spending—about $2.7 trillion—but would cut taxes by $7 trillion and actually add $1.6 trillion in spending to overhaul Social Security, among other policy changes. Romney’s vague plans score better, but wouldn’t reduce the debt, and would probably push it slightly higher than it otherwise would have been. Ron Paul, on the other hand, would cut taxes, but he’d cut spending even more. His tax cuts would reduce the tax burden by $5.2 trillion; meanwhile, he would reduce spending by $7.2 trillion. Source: http://www.pensitoreview.com/2012/02/23/rating-candidates-economic-plans-obama-and-ron-paul-plans-produce-lowest-debt-to-gdp-rate/ Where does the number for Obama come from? I may have missed something, but I didn't see it calculated in the report. Ugh, I'd vote for a socially moderate Republican with an actual plan to tackle the deficit. I guess that's not what the Tea Party is looking for after all.
If you find such a specimen could you clone him and send a few over to Europe as well? Constructive plans on how to tackle a deficit seem to be in fairly short supply nowadays...
|
On February 25 2012 07:59 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 07:48 nihlon wrote:On February 25 2012 07:44 ZeaL. wrote:On February 25 2012 07:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 25 2012 07:01 Signet wrote:
Eh, I think there is a degree of truth in what he is saying.
Most people, regardless of party, identify with an ideology based on social issues with little or no understanding of economics. Also while the parties have vastly different rhetoric about economics and foreign policy, both parties in practice clearly believe in spending a lot of money, regulating the market when it does something they don't like, and going to war at the drop of a hat. Where the parties seem to have the most difference is in social policy. The current election may be an exception to that (many of these GOP candidates are preaching economic views outside the general mainstream), unless Romney is the nominee.
Academia liberalizes you socially in two major ways.
One, they preach tolerance of different religions and sexual orientations. This is probably the main way colleges "force" liberalism on people. This is also reinforced just by living on campus -- for example, one of the main predictors of support for gay marriage is whether or not someone is friends with any gay people. On a college campus, you're going to meet and socialize with gay people. For that matter, a college campus is going to give you the opportunity for a lot of sexual experiences, which social conservatives believe are wrong and dangerous.
Second, there are just some things that social conservatives believe that are difficult for a educated person to believe in the face of evidence. People who are educated in science generally believe that humans evolved through natural selection, for example. People who are educated in psychology (biology as well) aren't going to believe that you choose your sexual orientation. Also, this may be more controversial for me to say, but I find social conservatism far more riddled with illogical thinking than other political philosophies. College teaches you to think, and many subjects require a higher degree of logical thinking than you'd likely have to use if you just never went to college. For example, even though it is a completely neutral subject politically, mathematics is one of the most liberal departments. Along similar lines, many socially conservative arguments tend to rely on anecdotal evidence, while any sort of science/economic/financial degree will hammer data collection into you.
So yes, in some ways attending college will a) outright force a degree of liberalism (tolerance and exposure to things the religious right dislikes) b) teach people some facts that social conservatives deny c) train people to think in a rational manner that makes some socially conservative arguments seem silly.
This critique doesn't apply nearly as much to economic "conservatism" (ie liberal capitalism), and it applies equally to the far-left ideologies as the far-right ideologies in economics anyway -- in fact, a truly far-left economic philosophy like communism will find itself rejected by even the most left-leaning Econ professor. But like I said, most people on both sides tend to identify with a party over social issues, and just kind of trust whatever they say on economics. While this is true, it is merely a side-effect of the fact that socially conservative views are very largely based on ignorance and a fairly sheltered existence. Yes, it sounds harsh, but it's the truth. Like you said, there's very little (if any) logical or scientific backing to most (if any) conservative social views. The problem is that Santorum is picturing universities like some factory where professors actively try to brainwash their students into becoming politically left-leaning, when this is clearly not the case. "Liberal indoctrination" in college has been a conservative bogeyman for years and it jives well with his target audience. I know because my born-again high school US history teacher force fed us conservative views as he railed against the liberals in higher education. When he heard I was going to go to an Ivy league he just commented that he hoped he had done enough to counteract whatever liberal views I was going to be fed in college. That's the kind of person Santorum is targeting. Of course, its completely pants on head retarded but it hits the base well. Deeply religious and never graduated college? Its okay, you're working a real job, not like those professors with no common sense who just sit around in their ivory tower teaching kids its okay to be gay. BIG GOVERNMENT funds these professors and institutions, gives out the LOANS to kids so they can go to college and control them and even makes them liberal, turning them into loyal voters and soldiers in the war against christ. Did Santorum go to university? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum#Early_life_and_education"Santorum attended Pennsylvania State University for his undergraduate studies, serving as chairman of the university's College Republicans chapter and graduating with a Bachelor of Arts with honors in political science in 1980.[26] He then completed a one-year Master of Business Administration program at the University of Pittsburgh's Joseph M. Katz Graduate School of Business, graduating in 1981. Santorum received a JD with honors from the Dickinson School of Law in 1986." So he did receive an education, but it's in political science and law, nothing science related or education related.Oh, not sure if this has come up, but Santorum is pro-torture.
And what the fuck is this? Political science is all about thinking critically (ie. "turning people liberal").
|
On February 25 2012 09:56 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 07:59 Whitewing wrote:On February 25 2012 07:48 nihlon wrote:On February 25 2012 07:44 ZeaL. wrote:On February 25 2012 07:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 25 2012 07:01 Signet wrote:
Eh, I think there is a degree of truth in what he is saying.
Most people, regardless of party, identify with an ideology based on social issues with little or no understanding of economics. Also while the parties have vastly different rhetoric about economics and foreign policy, both parties in practice clearly believe in spending a lot of money, regulating the market when it does something they don't like, and going to war at the drop of a hat. Where the parties seem to have the most difference is in social policy. The current election may be an exception to that (many of these GOP candidates are preaching economic views outside the general mainstream), unless Romney is the nominee.
Academia liberalizes you socially in two major ways.
One, they preach tolerance of different religions and sexual orientations. This is probably the main way colleges "force" liberalism on people. This is also reinforced just by living on campus -- for example, one of the main predictors of support for gay marriage is whether or not someone is friends with any gay people. On a college campus, you're going to meet and socialize with gay people. For that matter, a college campus is going to give you the opportunity for a lot of sexual experiences, which social conservatives believe are wrong and dangerous.
Second, there are just some things that social conservatives believe that are difficult for a educated person to believe in the face of evidence. People who are educated in science generally believe that humans evolved through natural selection, for example. People who are educated in psychology (biology as well) aren't going to believe that you choose your sexual orientation. Also, this may be more controversial for me to say, but I find social conservatism far more riddled with illogical thinking than other political philosophies. College teaches you to think, and many subjects require a higher degree of logical thinking than you'd likely have to use if you just never went to college. For example, even though it is a completely neutral subject politically, mathematics is one of the most liberal departments. Along similar lines, many socially conservative arguments tend to rely on anecdotal evidence, while any sort of science/economic/financial degree will hammer data collection into you.
So yes, in some ways attending college will a) outright force a degree of liberalism (tolerance and exposure to things the religious right dislikes) b) teach people some facts that social conservatives deny c) train people to think in a rational manner that makes some socially conservative arguments seem silly.
This critique doesn't apply nearly as much to economic "conservatism" (ie liberal capitalism), and it applies equally to the far-left ideologies as the far-right ideologies in economics anyway -- in fact, a truly far-left economic philosophy like communism will find itself rejected by even the most left-leaning Econ professor. But like I said, most people on both sides tend to identify with a party over social issues, and just kind of trust whatever they say on economics. While this is true, it is merely a side-effect of the fact that socially conservative views are very largely based on ignorance and a fairly sheltered existence. Yes, it sounds harsh, but it's the truth. Like you said, there's very little (if any) logical or scientific backing to most (if any) conservative social views. The problem is that Santorum is picturing universities like some factory where professors actively try to brainwash their students into becoming politically left-leaning, when this is clearly not the case. "Liberal indoctrination" in college has been a conservative bogeyman for years and it jives well with his target audience. I know because my born-again high school US history teacher force fed us conservative views as he railed against the liberals in higher education. When he heard I was going to go to an Ivy league he just commented that he hoped he had done enough to counteract whatever liberal views I was going to be fed in college. That's the kind of person Santorum is targeting. Of course, its completely pants on head retarded but it hits the base well. Deeply religious and never graduated college? Its okay, you're working a real job, not like those professors with no common sense who just sit around in their ivory tower teaching kids its okay to be gay. BIG GOVERNMENT funds these professors and institutions, gives out the LOANS to kids so they can go to college and control them and even makes them liberal, turning them into loyal voters and soldiers in the war against christ. Did Santorum go to university? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum#Early_life_and_education"Santorum attended Pennsylvania State University for his undergraduate studies, serving as chairman of the university's College Republicans chapter and graduating with a Bachelor of Arts with honors in political science in 1980.[26] He then completed a one-year Master of Business Administration program at the University of Pittsburgh's Joseph M. Katz Graduate School of Business, graduating in 1981. Santorum received a JD with honors from the Dickinson School of Law in 1986." So he did receive an education, but it's in political science and law, nothing science related or education related.Oh, not sure if this has come up, but Santorum is pro-torture. And what the fuck is this? Political science is all about thinking critically (ie. "turning people liberal").
Well it's more about understanding how and why other people don't think critically. Subsequently, we're able to do absolutely nothing about it
|
United States7483 Posts
On February 25 2012 09:56 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 07:59 Whitewing wrote:On February 25 2012 07:48 nihlon wrote:On February 25 2012 07:44 ZeaL. wrote:On February 25 2012 07:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 25 2012 07:01 Signet wrote:
Eh, I think there is a degree of truth in what he is saying.
Most people, regardless of party, identify with an ideology based on social issues with little or no understanding of economics. Also while the parties have vastly different rhetoric about economics and foreign policy, both parties in practice clearly believe in spending a lot of money, regulating the market when it does something they don't like, and going to war at the drop of a hat. Where the parties seem to have the most difference is in social policy. The current election may be an exception to that (many of these GOP candidates are preaching economic views outside the general mainstream), unless Romney is the nominee.
Academia liberalizes you socially in two major ways.
One, they preach tolerance of different religions and sexual orientations. This is probably the main way colleges "force" liberalism on people. This is also reinforced just by living on campus -- for example, one of the main predictors of support for gay marriage is whether or not someone is friends with any gay people. On a college campus, you're going to meet and socialize with gay people. For that matter, a college campus is going to give you the opportunity for a lot of sexual experiences, which social conservatives believe are wrong and dangerous.
Second, there are just some things that social conservatives believe that are difficult for a educated person to believe in the face of evidence. People who are educated in science generally believe that humans evolved through natural selection, for example. People who are educated in psychology (biology as well) aren't going to believe that you choose your sexual orientation. Also, this may be more controversial for me to say, but I find social conservatism far more riddled with illogical thinking than other political philosophies. College teaches you to think, and many subjects require a higher degree of logical thinking than you'd likely have to use if you just never went to college. For example, even though it is a completely neutral subject politically, mathematics is one of the most liberal departments. Along similar lines, many socially conservative arguments tend to rely on anecdotal evidence, while any sort of science/economic/financial degree will hammer data collection into you.
So yes, in some ways attending college will a) outright force a degree of liberalism (tolerance and exposure to things the religious right dislikes) b) teach people some facts that social conservatives deny c) train people to think in a rational manner that makes some socially conservative arguments seem silly.
This critique doesn't apply nearly as much to economic "conservatism" (ie liberal capitalism), and it applies equally to the far-left ideologies as the far-right ideologies in economics anyway -- in fact, a truly far-left economic philosophy like communism will find itself rejected by even the most left-leaning Econ professor. But like I said, most people on both sides tend to identify with a party over social issues, and just kind of trust whatever they say on economics. While this is true, it is merely a side-effect of the fact that socially conservative views are very largely based on ignorance and a fairly sheltered existence. Yes, it sounds harsh, but it's the truth. Like you said, there's very little (if any) logical or scientific backing to most (if any) conservative social views. The problem is that Santorum is picturing universities like some factory where professors actively try to brainwash their students into becoming politically left-leaning, when this is clearly not the case. "Liberal indoctrination" in college has been a conservative bogeyman for years and it jives well with his target audience. I know because my born-again high school US history teacher force fed us conservative views as he railed against the liberals in higher education. When he heard I was going to go to an Ivy league he just commented that he hoped he had done enough to counteract whatever liberal views I was going to be fed in college. That's the kind of person Santorum is targeting. Of course, its completely pants on head retarded but it hits the base well. Deeply religious and never graduated college? Its okay, you're working a real job, not like those professors with no common sense who just sit around in their ivory tower teaching kids its okay to be gay. BIG GOVERNMENT funds these professors and institutions, gives out the LOANS to kids so they can go to college and control them and even makes them liberal, turning them into loyal voters and soldiers in the war against christ. Did Santorum go to university? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum#Early_life_and_education"Santorum attended Pennsylvania State University for his undergraduate studies, serving as chairman of the university's College Republicans chapter and graduating with a Bachelor of Arts with honors in political science in 1980.[26] He then completed a one-year Master of Business Administration program at the University of Pittsburgh's Joseph M. Katz Graduate School of Business, graduating in 1981. Santorum received a JD with honors from the Dickinson School of Law in 1986." So he did receive an education, but it's in political science and law, nothing science related or education related.Oh, not sure if this has come up, but Santorum is pro-torture. And what the fuck is this? Political science is all about thinking critically (ie. "turning people liberal").
Political science is more about determining how others think and how to convince them to lean in certain directions than anything else, it isn't about logic or critical thinking.
|
On February 25 2012 07:48 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 07:44 ZeaL. wrote:On February 25 2012 07:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 25 2012 07:01 Signet wrote:
Eh, I think there is a degree of truth in what he is saying.
Most people, regardless of party, identify with an ideology based on social issues with little or no understanding of economics. Also while the parties have vastly different rhetoric about economics and foreign policy, both parties in practice clearly believe in spending a lot of money, regulating the market when it does something they don't like, and going to war at the drop of a hat. Where the parties seem to have the most difference is in social policy. The current election may be an exception to that (many of these GOP candidates are preaching economic views outside the general mainstream), unless Romney is the nominee.
Academia liberalizes you socially in two major ways.
One, they preach tolerance of different religions and sexual orientations. This is probably the main way colleges "force" liberalism on people. This is also reinforced just by living on campus -- for example, one of the main predictors of support for gay marriage is whether or not someone is friends with any gay people. On a college campus, you're going to meet and socialize with gay people. For that matter, a college campus is going to give you the opportunity for a lot of sexual experiences, which social conservatives believe are wrong and dangerous.
Second, there are just some things that social conservatives believe that are difficult for a educated person to believe in the face of evidence. People who are educated in science generally believe that humans evolved through natural selection, for example. People who are educated in psychology (biology as well) aren't going to believe that you choose your sexual orientation. Also, this may be more controversial for me to say, but I find social conservatism far more riddled with illogical thinking than other political philosophies. College teaches you to think, and many subjects require a higher degree of logical thinking than you'd likely have to use if you just never went to college. For example, even though it is a completely neutral subject politically, mathematics is one of the most liberal departments. Along similar lines, many socially conservative arguments tend to rely on anecdotal evidence, while any sort of science/economic/financial degree will hammer data collection into you.
So yes, in some ways attending college will a) outright force a degree of liberalism (tolerance and exposure to things the religious right dislikes) b) teach people some facts that social conservatives deny c) train people to think in a rational manner that makes some socially conservative arguments seem silly.
This critique doesn't apply nearly as much to economic "conservatism" (ie liberal capitalism), and it applies equally to the far-left ideologies as the far-right ideologies in economics anyway -- in fact, a truly far-left economic philosophy like communism will find itself rejected by even the most left-leaning Econ professor. But like I said, most people on both sides tend to identify with a party over social issues, and just kind of trust whatever they say on economics. While this is true, it is merely a side-effect of the fact that socially conservative views are very largely based on ignorance and a fairly sheltered existence. Yes, it sounds harsh, but it's the truth. Like you said, there's very little (if any) logical or scientific backing to most (if any) conservative social views. The problem is that Santorum is picturing universities like some factory where professors actively try to brainwash their students into becoming politically left-leaning, when this is clearly not the case. "Liberal indoctrination" in college has been a conservative bogeyman for years and it jives well with his target audience. I know because my born-again high school US history teacher force fed us conservative views as he railed against the liberals in higher education. When he heard I was going to go to an Ivy league he just commented that he hoped he had done enough to counteract whatever liberal views I was going to be fed in college. That's the kind of person Santorum is targeting. Of course, its completely pants on head retarded but it hits the base well. Deeply religious and never graduated college? Its okay, you're working a real job, not like those professors with no common sense who just sit around in their ivory tower teaching kids its okay to be gay. BIG GOVERNMENT funds these professors and institutions, gives out the LOANS to kids so they can go to college and control them and even makes them liberal, turning them into loyal voters and soldiers in the war against christ. Did Santorum go to university?
You might be surprised (due to the level of intelligence in debates), but all GOP candidates this year have post-graduate education (furthermore, most candidates have post-graduate education in the last 50 years or so). Santorum and Romney both have MBA and JD; Gingrich has a PhD in history; Ron Paul is, as you may know, a medical doctor.
|
You might be surprised (due to the level of intelligence in debates), but all GOP candidates this year have post-graduate education (furthermore, most candidates have post-graduate education in the last 50 years or so). Santorum and Romney both have MBA and JD; Gingrich has a PhD in history; Ron Paul is, as you may know, a medical doctor.
I actually think the four of them are pretty intelligent, if not very intelligent. Gingrich may be a bit eccentric, but he's certainly not stupid. The candidates portray themselves as carefully crafted characters; the real men beneath are putting on a calculated show. Santorum has some views that are very old fashioned and extreme, but it's not because of stupidity. I think Paul's main problem is his charisma and inability to take charge of the debates like the other three candidates have done at times.
|
On February 25 2012 11:48 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 09:56 HellRoxYa wrote:On February 25 2012 07:59 Whitewing wrote:On February 25 2012 07:48 nihlon wrote:On February 25 2012 07:44 ZeaL. wrote:On February 25 2012 07:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 25 2012 07:01 Signet wrote:
Eh, I think there is a degree of truth in what he is saying.
Most people, regardless of party, identify with an ideology based on social issues with little or no understanding of economics. Also while the parties have vastly different rhetoric about economics and foreign policy, both parties in practice clearly believe in spending a lot of money, regulating the market when it does something they don't like, and going to war at the drop of a hat. Where the parties seem to have the most difference is in social policy. The current election may be an exception to that (many of these GOP candidates are preaching economic views outside the general mainstream), unless Romney is the nominee.
Academia liberalizes you socially in two major ways.
One, they preach tolerance of different religions and sexual orientations. This is probably the main way colleges "force" liberalism on people. This is also reinforced just by living on campus -- for example, one of the main predictors of support for gay marriage is whether or not someone is friends with any gay people. On a college campus, you're going to meet and socialize with gay people. For that matter, a college campus is going to give you the opportunity for a lot of sexual experiences, which social conservatives believe are wrong and dangerous.
Second, there are just some things that social conservatives believe that are difficult for a educated person to believe in the face of evidence. People who are educated in science generally believe that humans evolved through natural selection, for example. People who are educated in psychology (biology as well) aren't going to believe that you choose your sexual orientation. Also, this may be more controversial for me to say, but I find social conservatism far more riddled with illogical thinking than other political philosophies. College teaches you to think, and many subjects require a higher degree of logical thinking than you'd likely have to use if you just never went to college. For example, even though it is a completely neutral subject politically, mathematics is one of the most liberal departments. Along similar lines, many socially conservative arguments tend to rely on anecdotal evidence, while any sort of science/economic/financial degree will hammer data collection into you.
So yes, in some ways attending college will a) outright force a degree of liberalism (tolerance and exposure to things the religious right dislikes) b) teach people some facts that social conservatives deny c) train people to think in a rational manner that makes some socially conservative arguments seem silly.
This critique doesn't apply nearly as much to economic "conservatism" (ie liberal capitalism), and it applies equally to the far-left ideologies as the far-right ideologies in economics anyway -- in fact, a truly far-left economic philosophy like communism will find itself rejected by even the most left-leaning Econ professor. But like I said, most people on both sides tend to identify with a party over social issues, and just kind of trust whatever they say on economics. While this is true, it is merely a side-effect of the fact that socially conservative views are very largely based on ignorance and a fairly sheltered existence. Yes, it sounds harsh, but it's the truth. Like you said, there's very little (if any) logical or scientific backing to most (if any) conservative social views. The problem is that Santorum is picturing universities like some factory where professors actively try to brainwash their students into becoming politically left-leaning, when this is clearly not the case. "Liberal indoctrination" in college has been a conservative bogeyman for years and it jives well with his target audience. I know because my born-again high school US history teacher force fed us conservative views as he railed against the liberals in higher education. When he heard I was going to go to an Ivy league he just commented that he hoped he had done enough to counteract whatever liberal views I was going to be fed in college. That's the kind of person Santorum is targeting. Of course, its completely pants on head retarded but it hits the base well. Deeply religious and never graduated college? Its okay, you're working a real job, not like those professors with no common sense who just sit around in their ivory tower teaching kids its okay to be gay. BIG GOVERNMENT funds these professors and institutions, gives out the LOANS to kids so they can go to college and control them and even makes them liberal, turning them into loyal voters and soldiers in the war against christ. Did Santorum go to university? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum#Early_life_and_education"Santorum attended Pennsylvania State University for his undergraduate studies, serving as chairman of the university's College Republicans chapter and graduating with a Bachelor of Arts with honors in political science in 1980.[26] He then completed a one-year Master of Business Administration program at the University of Pittsburgh's Joseph M. Katz Graduate School of Business, graduating in 1981. Santorum received a JD with honors from the Dickinson School of Law in 1986." So he did receive an education, but it's in political science and law, nothing science related or education related.Oh, not sure if this has come up, but Santorum is pro-torture. And what the fuck is this? Political science is all about thinking critically (ie. "turning people liberal"). Political science is more about determining how others think and how to convince them to lean in certain directions than anything else, it isn't about logic or critical thinking.
Come on...
I'm doing my masters in political science. It's about a lot of things, but certainly not about "how to convince people" of anything (neither is it about logic or critical thinking). If some unis offer classes about how to convince people of anything, those classes certainly aren't anywhere near center of the curriculum in any way at all. McGill doesn't have anything resembling that anyway.
So no, political science is NOT about convincing people to lean in certain directions. (And frankly the though that it might be is quite ridiculous)
|
On February 25 2012 12:16 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +You might be surprised (due to the level of intelligence in debates), but all GOP candidates this year have post-graduate education (furthermore, most candidates have post-graduate education in the last 50 years or so). Santorum and Romney both have MBA and JD; Gingrich has a PhD in history; Ron Paul is, as you may know, a medical doctor. I actually think the four of them are pretty intelligent, if not very intelligent. Gingrich may be a bit eccentric, but he's certainly not stupid. The candidates portray themselves as carefully crafted characters; the real men beneath are putting on a calculated show. Santorum has some views that are very old fashioned and extreme, but it's not because of stupidity. I think Paul's main problem is his charisma and inability to take charge of the debates like the other three candidates have done at times.
Yes. The truly stupid candidates have already imploded.
|
On February 25 2012 12:21 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 12:16 Voltaire wrote:You might be surprised (due to the level of intelligence in debates), but all GOP candidates this year have post-graduate education (furthermore, most candidates have post-graduate education in the last 50 years or so). Santorum and Romney both have MBA and JD; Gingrich has a PhD in history; Ron Paul is, as you may know, a medical doctor. I actually think the four of them are pretty intelligent, if not very intelligent. Gingrich may be a bit eccentric, but he's certainly not stupid. The candidates portray themselves as carefully crafted characters; the real men beneath are putting on a calculated show. Santorum has some views that are very old fashioned and extreme, but it's not because of stupidity. I think Paul's main problem is his charisma and inability to take charge of the debates like the other three candidates have done at times. Yes. The truly stupid candidates have already imploded.
Frankly the 2020 moon base was nothing short of stupid.
|
On February 25 2012 12:21 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 12:16 Voltaire wrote:You might be surprised (due to the level of intelligence in debates), but all GOP candidates this year have post-graduate education (furthermore, most candidates have post-graduate education in the last 50 years or so). Santorum and Romney both have MBA and JD; Gingrich has a PhD in history; Ron Paul is, as you may know, a medical doctor. I actually think the four of them are pretty intelligent, if not very intelligent. Gingrich may be a bit eccentric, but he's certainly not stupid. The candidates portray themselves as carefully crafted characters; the real men beneath are putting on a calculated show. Santorum has some views that are very old fashioned and extreme, but it's not because of stupidity. I think Paul's main problem is his charisma and inability to take charge of the debates like the other three candidates have done at times. Yes. The truly stupid candidates have already imploded.
Idk. I see the race as more of a genetic algorithm with a very limited number of tries. You know, when looking for that baneling-roach all-in asap, and by the 20th iteration, it still tells you that you need 3 hatches before pool and only 12 drones. That's where the GOP candidate generation process has stopped. Granted, it's better than the 8 hatches, 3 spawning pool build, but come on...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
