Radical Liberal Professors...

[talloulou]

You are right, but how do you feel about the indoctrination of the Hollywood John Wayne version of history in school? Should we wait until kids are adults to let them learn to think critically and evaluate based on all the facts? Teachers at any level that present only one side of an issue are indoctrinating!

Actually I believe in teaching my children to look for bias everywhere and I would fully support any teacher who pointed out bias. I also would have no problem with high school students being offered one, two, three, or all sides of any topic just as long as propaganda isn't pushed as fact! I don't consider any of that similar to the wacky professor syndrome.

Of course no one can ever be completely objective, but as an ex U.S. History and Political Science teacher I tried my very best to present all sides to an issue and then graded kids on how they used the facts and critical thinking to form an opinion! My students would challenge me if I said the Sun was out! "Is that fact or opinion, Mr. D? What facts is that opinion based on Mr. D?" The object was to teach them to think, not what to think!

I would definitely have supported that type of teaching.

Teach a person to think and if your ideas are correct they will accept them! If your ideas are wrong, they will teach you!

I get the gist of what you're saying but at the same time two obviously intelligent people can disagree strongly on certain topics. It all comes down to perspective and while we may agree on the facts we may not agree on what the facts mean and we don't all share the same perspective.....that's how two people who are both intelligent and have respect for one another can go to their graves agreeing to disagree....perspective!

 

[talloulou]

The term "liberal" is misused and it no longer means what it's supposed to mean. Also democrat really shouldn't be synonymous with liberal. Nor is radicalism and liberalism really synonymous. Unfortunately the term liberal has been perverted much like the word feminist. Many people who cringe and shrink away from the word liberal probably have some pretty liberal viewpoints. Just like many who wave their I'm a liberal and I'm proud flag are so full of hate and bigotry that they appear to be as confused about the term "liberal" as some christians are about the term "christian".

 

[ptsdkid]

Ptskid.

You seam to clain any devaiation from the party line or questioning of the status quo is anti-american. E.G Questioning capatalism is unamerican, questioning the iraq war is anti american, helping the victims of capatalism through social secuirity is anti-american . If this is so then its only logical for me to assume that to be american is to follow the party line without question and persecute anyone who thinks independant thus differing from the party line. Isnt that in itself the antithesis to the democratic ideals that america sopossedly stands for?

***It isn't just the questioning of capitalism, and the questioning of the Iraq war that makes liberals anti-American. Its what they do in substituting their defeatist ideology that is the key ingredient here. Liberals are not deviating from their party line here in questioning capitalism and war; they have always preferred socialism/unions to capitalism, and dovish peace rallies to war.

When liberal senators call our troops terrorists, and liberal congressmen travel to the war zone in Iraq and side with the enemy while taking pot shots at America's reason for being there, and having others call for immediate withdrawl of troops i.e. Murtha--then they don't give me much reason to call them anything but traitors or anti Americans.

So it isn't so much that people need to follow the party line, rather, its they need to keep their mouth shut while we're at war, or while the economy is running smoothly etc. If you feel the need to bash the president at will, then see if you can't get Hillary elected in 2008 so you'll have nothing left to complain/whine about.

 

[talloulou]

*

So it isn't so much that people need to follow the party line, rather, its they need to keep their mouth shut while we're at war, or while the economy is running smoothly etc. If you feel the need to bash the president at will, then see if you can't get Hillary elected in 2008 so you'll have nothing left to complain/whine about.

The wacky professor syndrome has nothing to do with people keeping their mouth shut. As an American you should feel free to speak your mind, ask questions, and verbally point out anything that you don't agree with.

The wacky professor syndrome is when some lunatic spews his craziness as truth and wisdom upon impressionable young people. They don't present their opinions as opinions....they present them as fact. They don't give facts and then discuss the different and opposing sides when it comes to interpreting those facts. They use propaganda to shape the truth to fit their wacky reality of the world.

To confuse the two......1)speaking out against policies you don't agree with vs 2)being a wacky professor....... just highligts the fact that wackiness has run rampant here in the US.

However I will agree that poliltical leaders who visit other countries and give speeches that bash the US in some cases have really crossed the line and though I wouldn't be quick to call them Anti-American I would be quick to decide that they don't have America's best interest at heart. There is a distinction between disagreeing, voicing an opinion, and bashing. Political figures should not under any circumstance openly BASH the US overseas, at least not if they want my vote.

 

[Mr. D]

You might want to reconsider private accounts, even if it means the transfer of 6% of your money into a stock market that has proven itself over the years to be worthy of producing a very nice nestegg for retirees.

I have no problem if he government offers it as an ad-on without reducing Social Security! That's not the motive behind this change or they would! Many Americans won't save for retirement now, why would they nod! They'll wind up on welfare roles at 65 with reduced S.S.! You and I will wind up with the bill!

 

[Blue Collar Joe]

I have no problem if he government offers it as an ad-on without reducing Social Security! That's not the motive behind this change or they would! Many Americans won't save for retirement now, why would they nod! They'll wind up on welfare roles at 65 with reduced S.S.! You and I will wind up with the bill!

Mr. D, that is exactly what they are proposing!! Social Security won't be solvent in twenty years. It will be bankrupt. People would still be required to pay into social security, but they would also be required to pay into the privatized retirement plan.
It would give them a lot more money at retirement than SSI would. SS will never go away, but it would be reduced. Read up on it some more.

 

[Mr. D]

The term "liberal" is misused and it no longer means what it's supposed to mean. Also democrat really shouldn't be synonymous with liberal. Nor is radicalism and liberalism really synonymous. Unfortunately the term liberal has been perverted much like the word feminist. Many people who cringe and shrink away from the word liberal probably have some pretty liberal viewpoints. Just like many who wave their I'm a liberal and I'm proud flag are so full of hate and bigotry that they appear to be as confused about the term "liberal" as some christians are about the term "christian".

I suspect you are right! That's why politicians use the word "progressive" to get away from the conservative Republican scapegoat labeling of liberal! In my view a liberal is simply someone will to consider more "new" approaches to problems than to trying to fall back on the so called "tried and true traditional" answers. I'm very liberal on crime and punishment because the existing approach doesn't work and makes the problem worse. I'm very conservative about child rearing because much, "not all" of past methods worked well! Children are harmed from no discipline or being disciplined with fear and rage, not from a smack on the hand or butt when misbehaving! Children understand the difference! It's today's parents that don't! My grandkids mind me better than their parents because I'll smack their butts or hands without any anger or instilling guilt "only" when they directly defy me! They look at me in surprise as if to say, "You mean, you really meant that? You weren't just babbling threats like so many parents do?" We just go right past it without a meanless lecture or a cross look! I just change the subject with a smile and we move on!

People who think, can't be liberal or conservative on all issues or they are an unthinking ideolog!

 

[Mr. D]

Mr. D, that is exactly what they are proposing!! Social Security won't be solvent in twenty years. It will be bankrupt. People would still be required to pay into social security, but they would also be required to pay into the privatized retirement plan.
It would give them a lot more money at retirement than SSI would. SS will never go away, but it would be reduced. Read up on it some more.

Nope! That's not what I proposed. I said (1.) require people to contribute "more" into a Social Security program so it will be solvent and a true retirement program as the polls say people want, (2.) allow those in bonifide retirement programs like cops and teachers to opt out "if" they wish, and (3.) provide a government regulated privatized "additional" free standing retirement program that is voluntary for those who want it!

The main reason S.S. does not return as much as personal saving "MAY" return is because of government raids on the money and not investing it wisely! (I can show you some private investors who haven't done that well with their retirement accounts also!)

The knowlege of how to grow S.S. funds is there and being used by private annuities everyday. It's not rocket science!!!! All we have to do is use it!

Reducing employers contributions is the real goal of Bush's plan! That's why he won't really ever consider fixing S.S.! Like so many things his gang don't like but can't politically kill, they starve it to death by not funding it. If you don't like a regulation or law, don't fund enforcement and you make the law moot! That's a favorite Bush trick!

When people don't put enough into Bush's privatized retirement fund program and they can't live on reduced Social Security, I don't want them coming the the county hospital, medicade, and the welfare office! That's exactly what will happen to many who don't have the self control to save! Real Conservatives should be able to see that one coming!