Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Lies my leftist professors told me   (politicallyright.com) divider line 440
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

29261 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Feb 2004 at 7:16 AM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



440 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-02-01 10:16:58 AM  
Noam Chomsky is a very smart man, but being very smart in one field is no guarantee of insight in another. The only reason he gets away with it is because, short of war, failures in politics are not as photogenic as disintegrating shuttles and nuclear meltdowns.
 
2004-02-01 10:19:08 AM  
DrBenway...

Heh heh.

BTW, haven't seen one since Windows XP. Very very stable.
 
2004-02-01 10:19:16 AM  
I think Ishkur sumed that up pretty nicely.

My professors, some left leaning and some (probably to the shock of Mr. Cassidy) right leaning, never flat out said points like that. Attempting to sum up 9 abstract and complicated subjects in one sentence (as Cassidy claims his professors did) or even in two paragraphs (like ol' J.D. did in his 'article') will force a writer to leave out a lot of the details. If he really did graduate with a degree in History, chances are he spent time in classes that were dedicated to a lot of detail of the subjects he brought up and would realize it's not always as clean cut as "it is, or it isn't."
 
2004-02-01 10:19:40 AM  
By the way, everyone complaining about the article's writer did get that this is posted on the website "politicallyright.com" didn't they? So anything they say shouldn't come as any great surprise to anybody.
 
2004-02-01 10:20:58 AM  
I think this young man's opinions are more naive than anything. The spiel about progressing into a nation where all colors and creeds live in harmony is laughable; one of the most revered, "good" wars in which the Nazis were defeated was fought with a segregated Army. In terms of history, the Civil Rights movement is still quite young.

His understanding of imperialism is slightly off as well. Granted, the US didn't take the same approach as most European nations (enslave population, rape the land, etc). However, we used our influence to gain favorable trading conditions. Notably, through various treaties and acquisitions we created a doctrine of "island hopping" in the Pacific (before Nimitz used the same) where coaling stations were located. I could go on and on...

What seems to be the most ludicrous, though, is his defiance of the Constitution's status as a "living document." This isn't a recent trend--I'm sure the Founding Fathers were aware that Supreme Court judges over the years would vary in their interpretations.

But whatever, America, unlike every other nation, has never done anything wrong. The Founding Fathers were all red-blooded Christians, and these colors don't run!
 
2004-02-01 10:23:02 AM  
"trapped behind enemy lines in academia"

Don't go behind enemy lines and get yourself
an education or anything ... remain a good right
wing christian and never read anything again!!

i think the church of scientology also tells
it's members not to read or listen to any media

way to go getting yourself in the same league as
the crazy crackpot cult created by a pulp science
fiction author (you know, the same man who wrote
battlefield earth)
 
2004-02-01 10:27:18 AM  
I had a right wing professor for my accounting class in college. He started the class one day telling about how he saw Sinbad do some stand-up at one of the Indian Casinos and told us how funny Sinbad was and how great of a performer he was. That's as bad a lie as any in that article.
 
2004-02-01 10:27:39 AM  
chow dig - "I'm all for helping the poor, but I don't believe the government should be doing it. I believe local charities and churches are the best places for assisting poor families. Less middle men and you can actually see the difference it makes within your area/city/state."

Ah, and here we are at the very centre of the policy debate. Woo! If we have similar goals, as it seems we do, it then becomes a purely rational debate. Whats more efficient: government handouts or soup kitchens.

I can't argue against points you (or Bush) would make regarding the positivity of chairty as I don't know enough about the effectiveness. I think I can make a few points though.

1. Government as religion. Religion once ruled the lives of all good Christians and was in the past the best source of charity. This doesn't apply today though as the church is significantly weakened in terms of financial strength and membership. Not many people care and contribute to the workings of the church anymore. EVERYBODY contributes to government.

There are exceptions of course. In Egypt, the Islamic Brotherhood takes care of the poor, and often is organized to handle disaster relief long before official government aid arrives. Of course, thides to the poor are an obligation within the Koran, so Islam may not be the best thing to compare our situation to.

2. European efficiency. European governments are welfare states. The result has been lower crime, higher life expectancy, and better quality of life. They do have slower relative economic growth, though could be attributed to fewer natural resources, as well as welfare.

3. Bush's Department of Faith-Based Initiatives. Bush is the staunchest supporter of what you propose, and even he developed a government body to enhance charitable welfare.

Just some thoughts.
 
2004-02-01 10:29:58 AM  
Tenacious_O:

I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination. I live in a studio apartment and currently have about $250 in the bank.

The problem I have with forcible income redistribution is that I think that the inherent violation of the rights of the person who you're taking it away from and the disincentives it creates are more damaging to society than the inequality it's trying to fix.
 
2004-02-01 10:31:26 AM  
TENACIOUS{Greater social spending = reduced crime, increased life expectancy, and a generally higher standard of life. Yay!)
.
WOW, talk about your simplistic arguments. We had an enourmous increase in social spending in the period of the
60's and 70's followed by an enourmous increas in crime and
other pathologies. Income has increased at the same time
so has the number of people in poverty. Life expectancy has increased due to better medicine not goverment programs.
You are living in a fantasy land. Outside of basic education, public health clinics, and a basic safty net for they poorest people, almost all other goverment social spending has been a gargantuan rip off.
 
2004-02-01 10:33:31 AM  
I guess I am one of these left-leaning academics, but I've got to join the chorus of people who insist they've never heard half the claims on this guy's site from any academic (the other half are arguably true, as others have pointed out). And I remember that when I was an undergraduate, my favorite history professor had a marked right-wing bias. He taught ancient history, but he gleefully explained how central planning destroyed the Ur III dynasty, and in asides predicted (before the fall of the Berlin Wall) the immanent collapse of the Soviet Union (he also predicted the fall of the U.S. in the not too distant future, interestingly).

But of course he knew a lot about history, so his political views, while clearly right wing, were far more complex than those of a Coulter. And he was, by the standard definition, a Marxist historian (though he'd never call himself that). I expect the author of this piece is unaware that being a Marxist historian doesn't involve advocating communism, but rather involves no more than thinking the struggles between rich and poor factions are an especially important force in history.
 
2004-02-01 10:40:00 AM  
More than one close friend who entered college as a Christian graduated as a devout follower of the America-loathing MIT professor Noam Chomsky.

While I object to being called a leftist, I can't help but agree with Cosmic_Music that this is a particularly odious canard. Whether or not J.D. Cassidy is capable of wrapping his head around it, the implication of his statement is that being a Christian and being a student of Chomsky are mutually exclusive. That claim is of course patently absurd on its face and, at the risk of sounding like an intellectual snob, typical of a graduate of the worst college in Ahmerst.

As for the rest of the piece, I found it amusing that as a self-styled conservative, his sense of self and pride in his "heritage" are based on his admiration of the history of the state (more specifically, the US government). I feel I can be called a conservative precisely because I'm anti-state.
 
2004-02-01 10:40:12 AM  
What is this leftist fascination with White Guilt? I, personally, have not enslaved anyone. Why should I feel guilty about that? And Tenacious, why do you feel that people that are more successful then you owe you something?
 
2004-02-01 10:40:59 AM  
hubiestubert,

Where have all the moderates gone?

Oh wait there is not much room for moderates in "Your either with us or against us" nevermind...

//one moderate that isn't voting for Bush.
 
2004-02-01 10:41:09 AM  
This is realy about the worst series of arguments I've seen. "Elastic Clause," hello...
 
2004-02-01 10:41:18 AM  
Lie Number Five: The Palestinians Are Victims Of Israel:


When a professor unleashes this lie in class, he is doing so with the hope that most of his students do not have a grasp on the complex history of the Middle East. In response to this lie, you may want to begin by asking your professor why the Palestinians walked away from the peace table in 2000 and kicked off an intifada, after the Israelis agreed to 95% of their demands. Chances are, your professor will not be able to answer this question.


Any professor worth his salt should be able to answer this. Arafat agreed to the Oslo Accords, which would have brought peace between Israel and Palestine and created a Palestinian state, but that was ended by Yitzak Rabin's assassination. After the assassination of Rabin by an Orthodox Jex because of his willingness to trade land for peace, Yassir Arafat was afraid that if he accepted Barak's proposal (which was more generous than Rabin's), he would be assassinated.

/taught by a conservative history teacher
 
2004-02-01 10:41:29 AM  
wrffr - "The problem I have with forcible income redistribution is that I think that the inherent violation of the rights of the person who you're taking it away from and the disincentives it creates are more damaging to society than the inequality it's trying to fix."

I won't argue the rights statement cuz they're no fun. Each side is too cut-and-dried.

I like that you articulated the disincentives argument, though I have to argue against it. My argument will of course say that people are inherently good and not entirely cold reason... Locke, Rousseau, Marx... blah blah blah. In the end, the only way I can refute what you say is with a comparative analysis of the US versus a more leftist country with similar levels of development. In these comparisons, Europe, Canada, Japan always have greater positive traits than the US, corelating with greater welfare states. YEAH!

Wait... That was me being purely rational... Crap.
 
2004-02-01 10:41:41 AM  
tenacious{2. European efficiency. European governments are welfare states. The result has been lower crime, higher life expectancy, and better quality of life. They do have slower relative economic growth, though could be attributed to fewer natural resources, as well as welfare.}
.
Better check you current sources. Crime is way up in recent years in Europe. especially England.
European goverments WERE more socialistic than USA but not any more. Taxes are actually lowere in much of Europe and
they have retreated from the "industrial planning" they
used to favor.
As for "quality of life" that can be very subjective.
My main argument with pro-socialists like you is simply this. How much is enough? Our goverment has grown in power,
size, cost, and arrogence, every day of my life and I am 45.
Why not an honest debate over exactly what we want goverment to do and what we want to do for ourselves. We could come to some comprmise and then put EFFECTIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS on exactly how much goverment can
intrude in our lives and how much they can tax us.
You might find that many of us would be willing to put up
with a fair amout of it if we knew it wouldnt get any worse.
 
2004-02-01 10:42:53 AM  
Impudent Domain - Your first rant about this turning blindly to illegals, brings up the point of how much money are you willing to contribute to the gov't to patrol every inch of the border and in actuality building those walls that you chided labboypros sarcastic comment about. Because the people that come over illegally know they wouldn't get in (or don't have the patience) to go through the correct procedures to become a legal immigrant. You said that turning blindly to illegal immigrants allows an influx of people who steal cheap labor jobs from people already (legally) here from having them.

In a supply/demand economy the whole basis of cheap labor is built on the fact that there are more people willing/able to do it at that wage thus driving the wages down. So if the labor was already cheap to begin with, there are already too many people wanting/able to do it. Besides sooner or later most of those jobs (that are able to) will end up out of the US anyway (and be cheaper). Thus driving MORE mid-level wages down (compared to inflation) and creating more "low-wage" jobs. Isn't this cycle fun?
 
2004-02-01 10:43:16 AM  
The leftists didn't file into the nation's campi because they wanted to undermine America. They did it because that's the only venue that would give people with these viewpoints a paycheck. There's a reason the left adores big governement: a taxpayer-funded (i.e. no customers to please and a steady source of funding) job where you can't be fired no matter how useless or unproductive you are is the only hope for survival for most of them.
 
2004-02-01 10:43:31 AM  
Wow, that is crap.

This is a great example of someone who has just enough brain to form a thought... but not enough brain to delve into it (eg Lie #1).

Particularly amusing is Lie #3, since the Right Wing seems most successful in that regard (judicial activism).

More total bullshiat: ...it was deemed incompatible with the Judeo-Christian view of human equality encapsulated in the Constitution. IIRC, the framers had the Enlightenment in mind ... Further, saying that the Judeo-Christian view was of simple human equality is historically inaccurate.

I've never heard a Professor say anything remotely along the lines of lies #7 and #8.

The author of this falls into the popular trap of painting the world as overly black/white. The author frequently confuses reasoning with fact. Further, I've taken many history classes and I cannot remember a Professor ever coming even close to anything like these...
 
2004-02-01 10:43:37 AM  
Socialism takes all incentive away from workers.

No, it won't. This common argument against Marx is a slippery slope extension of his actual argument. Marx argued that no one should own significant human capital like land or a factory. If you look in the context of WHEN he was making this argument you can see his reasons for doing so. Factory owners were abusing factory workers, and this still goes on in so called "communist" societies like China. The slippery slope argument comes about that no one will want to work because no one would be able to buy crap like 400 acres of land or a factory. A little tiny bit of logic will tell you this is false. You'll still have to work to buy what you want. Many people work today without the goal of buying a factory. In fact, you might even have to work harder in that Marxist controlled factory because in addition to go going there and building stuff, you'd have to sell it yourself too, or pay someone to sell it for you.

I'll add in the disclaimer that I don't actually believe Marx was right about this. Though shame on me for actually reading the communist manifesto so I could argue against the ideas Marx (and Engles) actually put forward.
 
2004-02-01 10:44:21 AM  
"This county only practiced slavery for 200 years."
we ended slavery in 1976?


Yeah, doncha know that Columbus landed on the 4th of July, 1776 with a load of slaves on board?!
 
2004-02-01 10:46:51 AM  
I'm glad to see all the good conservative farkers have finally gotten back from church to dispell all this leftist dribble that's been going on in this thread.
 
2004-02-01 10:49:52 AM  
2004-02-01 10:43:16 AM jjorsett

Wrong/overly simplistic. Sure, this might be true in some areas of academia (deconstructionism/english...), it's not true of many areas (science, engineering...).

And you know something, I've listened to these kinds of complaints (There's a reason the left adores big governement: a taxpayer-funded (i.e. no customers to please and a steady source of funding) job where you can't be fired no matter how useless or unproductive you are is the only hope for survival for most of them.) for years. In my experience, people who like to complain in this manner also do almost no work themselves. In fact, the hardest workers I know are "damn commies".
 
2004-02-01 10:57:22 AM  
Impudent Domain

Man, I wanna jump all over that but I don't have my handy-dandy little stats cd with me. I won't argue against that confront about my stats, but I will suggest you check some sources.

Crime may be up in Great Britain, but is it higher than the US?

Quality of life is subjective. Good point. I won't do the whole "Judge a country based on how it treats its prisoners" thing, but I will suggest looking at the ammount of poor in different countries.

You sure about taxes being lower than the US in some European states? I'd check that one, and then look at which countries are lower.

I like your constitutional argument, though ya seem to be promoting a revolution. Watch out for Uncle Rumsfeld, good buddy! ;-) You do a good job of pointing out a sort of philosophical contradiction in the constitution. The Gov't is set up to be so conservative, fundamental constitutional change is extremely difficult. While the US is considered to have by far the weakest state in the developed world, our electoral system makes change brought on by the population EXTREMELY difficult. Staggered elections and fixed dates make fundamental change suiting the times very difficult indeed.
 
2004-02-01 11:01:19 AM  
The leftists didn't file into the nation's campi because they wanted to undermine America. They did it because that's the only venue that would give people with these viewpoints a paycheck. There's a reason the left adores big governement: a taxpayer-funded (i.e. no customers to please and a steady source of funding) job where you can't be fired no matter how useless or unproductive you are is the only hope for survival for most of them.

Yet they apparently control all the media too. And Hollywood. Two of the largest private sector institutions in the world.

Now, how does that work out, exactly?
 
2004-02-01 11:01:41 AM  
I think we should only have religious schools and learn only what the Bible teaches us.

Then we won't have ANY bias in our schools.

:P
 
2004-02-01 11:02:11 AM  
Minnesota Teenage Republicans

"We had all the money!
We got all the votes!
Now we've got all the fun!"
- P. J. O'Rourke


Proposed Activities Schedule
----------------------------


February - "Respect Iowans for a Month" Month
Chew fingernails with us as we watch the Iowans "do caucus"!
(Ha ha.) And on President's Day, remember that neither
Washington nor Lincoln was a Democrat. Or a damn liberal.

March... - ... On To Victory!
Come to the meeting with a videotape of your favorite
negative advertisement so far.

April - You Can't Own Too Many Guns Month
15: Watch Daddy's lawyers finish his taxes!
19-23: Five-day waiting period of silence in memory of
the martyrs of Waco
27-28: Spring Camping trip (camouflage is NOT optional this year)

May - Let's Put the Fun back into Fundamentalism!
Are YOU ready for the Apocalypse? Come to our weekly
lecture series on "A Creation Scientist Explains
Social Darwinism."

June - Gated Community (non-)Progressive Dinner
Private school is out! Let's celebrate by shuttling our
sport-utility vehicles between Bearpath and North Oaks for
a (non-)progressive dinner, courtesy of the Teenage
Republican Ladies' Auxiliary!

July - Convention Crazy Days
We can't all afford to go to San Diego (well, we could, but
our folks won't let us), so we'll get together in front
of a big-screen and party with the Majority Party! The Teenage
Ladies' Auxiliary will make snacks and also score us some beer.
A local foreign exchange student will translate Buchanan's
1992 speech back into the original German for us.

August - Annual Canoe Trip
Join our trek into the BWCAW as we scout for unharvested
old-growth timber kept from our rightful Wise Use by
those shortsighted environmentalists.

September - Fall Rush
Discuss current events! Meet every afternoon during Study Hall
to listen to Rush on headphones and get the REAL story.

October - Bookburning Month
Huddle around OUR bonfire this fall as we incinerate
many immoral, subversive, and obscene children's books
recently forced off school library shelves!

Also, on Halloween: Join us as we cruise the
suburbs and pull up Wellstone lawn signs!

November - The Agony of Humilation, Disgrace, and Infamy
Watch the discredited liberal elite crash and burn
at our Election Eve blowout! A charity betting pool
will be run by the Ladies' Auxiliary on the Electoral
College outcome.

December - A New Volvo from Daddy!
Happy holidays! See you next year at the Dole Inauguration!
 
2004-02-01 11:09:11 AM  
Dismissing Marx because he extended his economic theories of history into Communism is foolish. He was brilliant. He was a shiat, too, but he was brilliant.

Before Marx and Engels, the theory of history as the competition between economic systems did not exist. Give the devil his due.

There are problems with all this asshat's statements but I'll just do this one.
 
2004-02-01 11:13:13 AM  
ddsilver When you take up to 50% of the profits I made from sale of stock (capital gains tax), and give them to heroin-addicted welfare mothers who have no intention of doing anything with the money other than buying lotto tickets....who are you being nice to?

First of all, the majority of welfare recipients used to be rural people (I don't know if this is still the case after the welfare reforms Clinton signed), so they're probably spending their money on crystal meth, not heroin.

Secondly, assuming you have a diverse portfolio, the money they take in taxes from your profits and give to poor people won't make a dent. The reason being poor people don't save money, that's what makes them poor. They take that money and spend it on things like food, housing, lottery tickets and drugs. The companies that sell these goods (other than drugs and lotto tickets) are probably companies you own stock in (again, assuming you have a diverse portfolio). Which helps keep the stock price up which helps you earn back more of your investment.

Someone else had the argument that taking money from one person and giving it to another against their will is unfair is a very good one, one I don't have a strong argument against.
 
2004-02-01 11:13:36 AM  
I always heard that college professors leaned to the left. When I got to college in the fall semester I ended up with some hippie for an English teacher who spend most of his time talking about how we should in harmony with our enivronment, and giving us readings about why econiomics does not work.
 
2004-02-01 11:13:47 AM  
beefaroni No, you are paying capital gains taxes (which are currently nowhere near the 50% mark you threw out earlier, or even the 33% mark you used later) because to not do so would be to dispropotionately shift the tax burden onto people who actually work for their income.

Capital gains income isn't something you worked for...sure, you did a little research and watched the stock price, and you can congratulate yourself for having made a wise investment. But you didn't DO anything to earn that money.


now hold on ... i worked my butt off to earn the money
that I invested in the stock market...

FURTHERMORE ...
I tightened my belt and went without things in the short
term because I was putting that money away, no matter how
you slice it, it is a struggle to put away 25% of every paycheck

FURTHERMORE ... the money I put in was a loan to
the 'working man' I gave them my money now so they
could buy the infrastructure & resources they need to
turn a profit ... "it takes money to makes money"
... hell ... as a Student/Teacher I kinda consider
myself the 'working man'

FURTHERMORE ... I paid taxes on that money BEFORE
I put it into the markets ... now I pay it again on its
way out? that's taxing a dollar that has already been
taxed ... double taxation ... opression!

the money I make out of cap gains is very much earned
 
2004-02-01 11:14:38 AM  
gee, where are all of these liberal proffessors at my school?

I had a statistics prof who would constantly inject right-wing commentary into his class.

Of course, don't tell the guy who wrote this article. It might shatter his illusion that all college profs are evil, liberal scum.
 
2004-02-01 11:18:20 AM  
I would argue that America is an Imperialist nation. But it is an altogether different type of imperialism than we talk about in history books. It is through controlling industry and trade. It is on a corporate level. American policies allow corporations to take over an entire culture and control prices of crops and goods over seas.Corporations have a stranglehold on American Government, and in turn on our global policies.
 
2004-02-01 11:19:47 AM  
Obviously they're giving out BA's in History in Crackerjack boxes these days. Answering left-wing lies, bullshiat, and silly-assed generalizations with right-wing lies, bullshiat, and silly-assed generalizations does not grow new ideas.

It seems to be true that America is splitting into two ideological camps, each of which wants the other to fark off and die. Where there was once a middle ground, now there're only two packs of baboons making threat gestures and howling "fark you!"
 
2004-02-01 11:21:17 AM  
"Yeah, doncha know that Columbus landed on the 4th of July, 1776 with a load of slaves on board?!"

That would the Spanish. Go condemn them.

Up until 1776 (really 1787)"america" had no say, we were under the control of London, which oddly enough, is why a little war was fought. Once we gained independence and could run our own affairs it took 78 to abolish slavery from all of the america states (the northern states having gotten rid of it earlier).
 
2004-02-01 11:22:48 AM  
ahh, I see the ilegal inmigration issue came up again....

Ever tried getting into the USA? You have to pay a visa that is well above what these people earn (USD 300, IIRC), and then submit to a series of tests and inteviews in which they basically treat you as cattle. After those, the inmigration official may arbitrarily decide to deny you entrance, and if he does, you lose the visa.
Its no wonder hardly anyone even tries the "proper" method.

Its amusing how most Americans seem to picture the ilegals as dirty Mexicans trying to steal jobs from decent Americans. In reality, they are desperate starving people, often with high school or even university degrees, who end up scrubbing toilets for less than minimum wage. They work much harder and are probably better qualified than any American applying for the same positions!
 
2004-02-01 11:22:57 AM  
man, this is disappointing. I'm with the Republicans until they start spewing Christian fundie conservative crap. I'm with the Democrats until they start blabbering up-with-people-isms and Hollywood elistist crap and the no-blood-for-oil crap and the tax-you-back-to-the-stone-age crap.

Crap. It's disappointing.
 
2004-02-01 11:23:38 AM  
who needs to get their hands dirty actually holding land, when you can do it the clean, American way and just own all of the stock options?
 
2004-02-01 11:23:58 AM  
321--Nah, we're out there. Just labeled "Liberals" because we don't adhere to the the Republican Party Line...
 
2004-02-01 11:24:00 AM  
da_buddah: FURTHERMORE ... I paid taxes on that money BEFORE I put it into the markets ... now I pay it again on its way out? that's taxing a dollar that has already been taxed ... double taxation ... opression!


If you paid taxes on the principle you invested when you cashed out and paid capital gains taxes, then you're an idiot who didn't do his taxes right.

Capital gains taxes are not paid on the principle you invested, as you have already paid income taxes on that money. It is paid on the money you made on that investment, not on the principle.

What makes you think that you shouldn't have to pay taxes on the money that you made? not on the principle, but on the money you made? Why should THAT be the one area of money that isn't taxed?
 
2004-02-01 11:25:07 AM  
From article Lie Number Five: The Palestinians Are Victims Of Israel....

His arguments are too simplified of the situation to be of any worth.

Never during this time was there a movement among Palestinians to liberate their nation from Egypt and Jordan.

That's true "statement". But did Egypt or Jordan set up communities in the West Bank that were defended by Egyptian and Jordanian armies that only Egyptian and Jordanians were allowed to enter? No? But Israel IS DOING that (they're called "settlements"). And might be a big goddamn reason those hippy commie professors say Israel is being unfair to the Palestinians.
 
2004-02-01 11:26:25 AM  
cola
Wow, Sweden isn't a world power? Maybe because we're a small country up north somewhere with a barely 9 million population? Comparing us to the USA is just plain ridiculous..

And how many people did britian have when it was kicking everyone's ass back when it was actually an empire ?

Or Germany when hitler geared it up and was kicking everyone's ass (well until the US stepped in and kicked everyone's ass more efeciently /spelling?/ )

You're a small country, big deal. Power is not contained in population size or area. Power is what you are willing to do to maintain control, and how well you execute control.
 
2004-02-01 11:36:23 AM  
I think this guy forgot to mention the Spanish American War. there, now your argument makes no sense.

I could just see some poor, 19 year old college republican who thinks he knows everything raise his hand only to get eaten alive by one of these profs. Its not as though a PHD will be stumped by some kid to went to politicallyright.com and read some cheesedick article
 
2004-02-01 11:38:32 AM  
If the constitution is so static why does the GOP spend so much time trying change it and subvert it.
 
2004-02-01 11:38:55 AM  
Wow the rationalizations on that web site are so spurious it's astonishing that anyone would believe them.

We see what we want to see, I guess.
 
2004-02-01 11:44:05 AM  
man, do conservatives hate higher education or what? the biggest threat that universities pose to them is that college educated people are less like to believe the "it doesn't matter how true it is but how many times we repeat it" blather that is today's GOP.

anything other than a marketing degree or an MBA (all praise the corporations) is a threat to conservatives. people thinking for themselves and coming to their own conclusions is a threat to the GOP.

more guns, less education.
 
2004-02-01 11:46:03 AM  
That was easily the most idiotic thing i've ever read.

Every "lie" was either entirely true and had a terrible explanation, or is simply nothing any proffessor tells you ("socialism works better than capitalism", "the republican party is the party of racism")

I love how he tries to debunk "Howard Zinn's claim" that america is imperialist by.... well totally ignoring every example of american imperialism. All he says is "well look at all the times we didn't take over countries! isn't that cool!"

The claim to american imperialism on a physically militaristic level is always about america when it was younger (and taking over other little countries). No one claims America is currently (or for the past 50 years) trying to take over countries. But we have done it it a lot in the past.
 
2004-02-01 11:46:55 AM  
Um, which is the "largest state college in Massachusetts"?

As a Harvard alum, I am offended that my taxes went to pay for this yokel's education. In a true capitalistic society, he would have received only the vocational training that he merits, and not wasted so many resources with his struggling grasp of history.
 
Displayed 50 of 440 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report