• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Radical Liberal Professors...

ptsdkid

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
1,704
Reaction score
10
Location
New Hampshire
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
For those of you concerned or interested in getting the skinny on the garbage and anti-American rhetoric that is being taught in our Universities, I suggest you read 'The Professors' by David Horowitz...the 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America.

Horowitz exposes 101 academics--representative of thousands of radicals who teach our young people--who also happen to be alleged ex-terroists, racists, murderers, sexual deviants, anti-Semites, and al-Qaeda supporters. Horowitz blows the cover on academics who:

--say they want to kill white people
--promote the views of the Iranian mullahs
--support Osama bin Laden
--lament the demise of the Soviet Union
--defend pedophilia
--advocate the killing of ordinary Americans

Most of these professor left over left wing radicals from the 1960's.
 
David Horowitz is a well known right-wing crackpot. Everyone knows it. This book is most likely a biased piece of FOX news garbage.
 
Che said:
David Horowitz is a well known right-wing crackpot. Everyone knows it. This book is most likely a biased piece of FOX news garbage.


***Everything Horowitz quotes in the book are facts straight from the mouths of these anti American educators. I take it you are one of those that walk in lock step with the Ward Churchill's of academic land.
 
Horowitz exposes 101 academics--representative of thousands of radicals who teach our young people--who also happen to be alleged ex-terroists, racists, murderers, sexual deviants, anti-Semites, and al-Qaeda supporters. Horowitz blows the cover on academics who:

--say they want to kill white people
--promote the views of the Iranian mullahs
--support Osama bin Laden
--lament the demise of the Soviet Union
--defend pedophilia
--advocate the killing of ordinary Americans

so what exactly have they been saying...we needs some quotes with context
 
Che said:
David Horowitz is a well known right-wing crackpot. Everyone knows it. This book is most likely a biased piece of FOX news garbage.

Actually he was a well known leftist who saw the light.
 
Strange ptskid, you claim this book represents radicals. By definition I am a radical, a person who wants to change society at its roots(hence the name radical).

--say they want to kill white people
That is racism, racism is a reactionary thought. And that is completely dumb****.
--promote the views of the Iranian mullahs
Iran is a totalitarian-theocratic state, down with it!
--support Osama bin Laden
It is true we do have different views on him, unlike most others we do not see him as "an evil man to be killed", nor do we see him as a "freedom fighter". Personally I don't think he's much of a threat, and we try to study why he did it.
--lament the demise of the Soviet Union
I'm glad the USSR collapsed, it gives us commies a larger sandbox. No longer are we controlled by Moscow, and no longer are we just Soviet spies.
--advocate the killing of ordinary Americans
Dumb**** too.

Maybe you should find something that really represents radicals, something that we say we support, not just some dumb book that claims to, or that you think does. Because from your list, I have never seen a radical support any of those claims, except the 4th one, some Stalinists cry over that, they cannot learn to accept such things, or learn that the Soviet state was more of a deformed worker's state than anything alse.
 
Last edited:
If your college aged kid can't survive listening to "liberal professors" and "conservative professors" without being brain washed then keep him in your basement with his comic books! He won't be able to cope with a new idea anyway! Show him John Wayne movies!

One of the reasons so many college professors are considered radically liberal is because they may be the first exposure students have had to ideas that have not been filtered through cleansed and biased public school textbooks that teach every countries cultural myth version of the world! They could find out that the Indians didn't really sell Manhattan for a string of beads, or Cuba wasn't a paradise for the common man before Castro ruined it! Somebody might even tell them about operation Condor in Latin America! What's that?:roll:
 
Last edited:
Mr. Horowitz is an alleged ex-terroist, racist, murderer, sexual deviant, anti-Semite, and al-Qaeda supporter.
 
ptsdkid said:
For those of you concerned or interested in getting the skinny on the garbage and anti-American rhetoric that is being taught in our Universities, I suggest you read 'The Professors' by David Horowitz...the 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America.

Horowitz exposes 101 academics--representative of thousands of radicals who teach our young people--who also happen to be alleged ex-terroists, racists, murderers, sexual deviants, anti-Semites, and al-Qaeda supporters. Horowitz blows the cover on academics who:

--say they want to kill white people
--promote the views of the Iranian mullahs
--support Osama bin Laden
--lament the demise of the Soviet Union
--defend pedophilia
--advocate the killing of ordinary Americans

Most of these professor left over left wing radicals from the 1960's.

Define "anti-americanism"
 
Among those professors of whom I am aware through their writings, I would say most are reprensible people and I have nothing but contempt for them. These people are not liberals by a long shot, however, as most are in middle eastern studies and represent ideologies that are hardly liberal. They are either marxists or have an agenda driven by sympathies to the virulent right wing ideologies as represent by Islamism.

One professor who stands out as undeserving is Tod Gitlin, who is more representative of liberal ideology. Todd has been very outspoken against the antisemitism and tacit support for Islamism endemic to much of the radical left and he is not a fifth columnist as are many of the others.

People need to learn to distinguish between the actual points of views espoused by those too easily summed up through the labeling of "liberal" or conservative", and just as there are huge differences between George Will and Fred Phelps, so too are their huge differences between folks like Tod Gitlin and many of these jihadist professors.

Manichean world views serve little purpose other than to lessen the intellectual burdon on the one who espouses such. It takes a lot more work to distinguish between varous shades and degrees than it does to just apply a label and then shoot from the hip, and while the latter may supply some degree of comfort, it is really just laziness. The world is always more complicated than any of us realize.

In any case, I agree in part with Horowitz, but I also disagree in part.
 
Gardener said:
Among those professors of whom I am aware through their writings, I would say most are reprensible people and I have nothing but contempt for them. These people are not liberals by a long shot, however, as most are in middle eastern studies and represent ideologies that are hardly liberal. They are either marxists or have an agenda driven by sympathies to the virulent right wing ideologies as represent by Islamism.

One professor who stands out as undeserving is Tod Gitlin, who is more representative of liberal ideology. Todd has been very outspoken against the antisemitism and tacit support for Islamism endemic to much of the radical left and he is not a fifth columnist as are many of the others.

People need to learn to distinguish between the actual points of views espoused by those too easily summed up through the labeling of "liberal" or conservative", and just as there are huge differences between George Will and Fred Phelps, so too are their huge differences between folks like Tod Gitlin and many of these jihadist professors.

Manichean world views serve little purpose other than to lessen the intellectual burdon on the one who espouses such. It takes a lot more work to distinguish between varous shades and degrees than it does to just apply a label and then shoot from the hip, and while the latter may supply some degree of comfort, it is really just laziness. The world is always more complicated than any of us realize.

In any case, I agree in part with Horowitz, but I also disagree in part.


***Whether you choose to call these professors Marxists, Socialists, Communists or Liberals--the point here is that their teachings are un-American (anti-American) and are exactly 180 degrees from the proud patriotic Conservative's viewpoint--be it as a minority conservative professor, or from an ordinary conservative citizen's standpoint.
 
Che said:
David Horowitz is a well known right-wing crackpot. Everyone knows it. This book is most likely a biased piece of FOX news garbage.

That's a pretty lazy, half-assed rebuttal. One thing that generally leads me to defend Republicans so much more than Democrats is that Republicans usually operate on bald facts and transparency. It is usually the left who has to distort things to get support from my experience. I seriously doubt your apparently baseless assertion here.
 
This liberal smearing of all things American, white, conservative, and Christian does not stop with taxpayer-funded universities either. Check out the thread about "liberal indoctrinization" in the today's news forum.
 
I saw Horowitz's book at Barnes & Noble... didn't bother to touch it. I already know there's an army of far-left college professors. I had one. He called the Clinton's "right wingers" and half the class soaked it up like dry sponges.

I left high school about as liberal as they come, under the all too common assumption that I knew everything, conservatives were brainwashed, etc.
Over that first year, being subjected to the endless stream of crap from my professor, I found myself drifiting away from my professor and many of my peers. I thought I was an "open minded liberal" entering college. Ironically, the more I opened my mind, the more conservative I became (except socially.)
 
I don't give a crap about radical college professors. As long as you can choose to pay for the class or not why give a crap? As long as they don't start that crap in high school or jr high. Hopefully by the time my kids are college age their foundation will be strong enough that they aren't able to be brainwashed by some wacky professor.
 
talloulou said:
I don't give a crap about radical college professors. As long as you can choose to pay for the class or not why give a crap? As long as they don't start that crap in high school or jr high. Hopefully by the time my kids are college age their foundation will be strong enough that they aren't able to be brainwashed by some wacky professor.

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!

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! Many conservative parents don't want kids to hear anything but the culturally acceptable version of history because their kids may not wind up thinking just like them! They want them to learn what is accepted by them, not think on their own! That's usually the real issue!

Teach a person to think and if your ideas are correct they will accept them! If your ideas are wrong, they will teach you! Anyone old enough to remember Crosby Stills, Nash and Young! "Teach your Children!"
 
Whether you choose to call these professors Marxists, Socialists, Communists or Liberals--the point here is that their teachings are un-American (anti-American) and are exactly 180 degrees from the proud patriotic Conservative's viewpoint--be it as a minority conservative professor, or from an ordinary conservative citizen's standpoint.

you just have to laugh. why is being liberal or even marxist unamerican
 
Willoughby said:
you just have to laugh. why is being liberal or even marxist unamerican

Not that the term has any meaning of course...
 
Willoughby said:
you just have to laugh. why is being liberal or even marxist unamerican


***I'm the one doing the laughing here. Would it be the American thing to support our troops during war? If yes, then how would you explain John Kerry's position of first rallying behind protestors in 1972 to oppose the Vietnam war? Then, how would you classify Kerry's statement that our troops in Iraq are terrorists? First he voted to give the president the right to go to war, then he was against the war. First he voted for the appropriations for our troops, then he voted against it. This sounds more than just being a flip-flopper--the guy is basically a traitor to the American cause.

And Marxism is a form of socialism where the unions become the mediocre goal in which to enslave people. Marxism is the exact opposite of Capitalism. And Capitalism is what made this country the strongest economic nation on earth.

What you might want to do here to defend liberalism or marxism from being labeled un-American--is to put forth every issue, every ideal, or every house resolution etc that helped make this country great. You could start with the failed welfare reforms from the Great Society and work your way forward if you like. Be specific in your praise of liberalism and marxism. Please do not refer to George Orwell's utopian book '1984' to get your ideas. That will not cut it. I'm looking for concrete accomplishments.
 
Originally posted by pstdkid:
***I'm the one doing the laughing here. Would it be the American thing to support our troops during war? If yes, then how would you explain John Kerry's position of first rallying behind protestors in 1972 to oppose the Vietnam war? Then, how would you classify Kerry's statement that our troops in Iraq are terrorists? First he voted to give the president the right to go to war, then he was against the war. First he voted for the appropriations for our troops, then he voted against it. This sounds more than just being a flip-flopper--the guy is basically a traitor to the American cause.

And Marxism is a form of socialism where the unions become the mediocre goal in which to enslave people. Marxism is the exact opposite of Capitalism. And Capitalism is what made this country the strongest economic nation on earth.

What you might want to do here to defend liberalism or marxism from being labeled un-American--is to put forth every issue, every ideal, or every house resolution etc that helped make this country great. You could start with the failed welfare reforms from the Great Society and work your way forward if you like. Be specific in your praise of liberalism and marxism. Please do not refer to George Orwell's utopian book '1984' to get your ideas. That will not cut it. I'm looking for concrete accomplishments.
Let's start with Dick Cunningham. How American was what he did?
 
Would it be the American thing to support our troops during war?
no not in all circumstances
 
ptsdkid said:
First he voted to give the president the right to go to war, then he was against the war. First he voted for the appropriations for our troops, then he voted against it. This sounds more than just being a flip-flopper--the guy is basically a traitor to the American cause.

I'm not a Kerry fan, but if you had wanted to understand rather than support an ideology you'd know that Kerry voted based on spun intelligence like we all got! He voted to support the war before funding was nailed down! When Bush decided to fund the war by destroying existing social problems he was against, and putting it on our national credit card rather than paying for it as we go along (as in the Clinton years "Pay Go") Kerry voted against it! He felt if the war was worth fighting it was worth paying for IN THE LIGHT OF DAY with the American public understanding the cost! Haliburton didn't want it that way! Borrow and spend blank checks are better!!!



ptsdkid said:
Be specific in your praise of liberalism and marxism. Please do not refer to George Orwell's utopian book '1984' to get your ideas. That will not cut it. I'm looking for concrete accomplishments.

Of course liberalism and Marxism are not the same and you will see any accomplishment as the evil of a liberal version of Darth Vader but . . . .

Yes, the rotten liberals are responsible for:

Women’s Voting rights
Social security lifting many elderly out of poverty
The Voting Rights Act ending Jim Crow laws giving Afro Americans the vote
Ending Segregation
Medicare
Medicaid
The Civil Rights Act
The Clean Air Act
The Clean Water Act

Many Conservatives fought every one of these accomplishments tooth and nail and they are still trying to gut some of that legislation today by putting the corporation leaders in federal agencies to remove protections of the environment. Let's also reduce employers contributions to Social Security with the Privatization Accounts scam so when people don't save enough because the have no self discipline they'll fall back on the welfare system when they are old and broke! At least the employers saved money!
 
Last edited:
UnAmerican is calling someone else unAmerican because they don't think like you! When people call others unAmerican it is their confession they don't get what being an American means!:roll:
 
Yes, the rotten liberals are responsible for:

Women’s Voting rights
Social security lifting many elderly out of poverty
The Voting Rights Act ending Jim Crow laws giving Afro Americans the vote
Ending Segregation
Medicare
Medicaid
The Civil Rights Act
The Clean Air Act
The Clean Water Act

Many Conservatives fought every one of these accomplishments tooth and nail and they are still trying to gut some of that legislation today by putting the corporation leaders in federal agencies to remove protections of the environment. Let's also reduce employers contributions to Social Security with the Privatization Accounts scam so when people don't save enough because the have no self discipline they'll fall back on the welfare system when they are old and broke! At least the employers saved money![/QUOTE]


***You listed those liberal programs as being accomplishments. Some are social accomplishments to a degree, while others have simply failed as being nothing more than a boondoggle. Those programs you listed have done nothing to strengthen our country both militarily, industrially and economically. It is the corporations, little and big businesses that keep our economy firing on all cylinders. It is liberal initiatives of regulations that stymie the progress of these businesses. Liberal initiatives to raise our taxes exponentially have also created downturns in the business cycle, and thus, higher unemployment.

Social Security is going broke, and privatization of accounts be it for SS or medical accounts makes perfect sense. I believe a recipient of Social Security would end up getting -1% return (figuring in inflation) on all the monies he had dished out in the plan over his lifetime upon retirement by keeping SS the same as it is now. Compare that to someone who invested just 6% (Bush's plan) of his lifelong earned monies into a private account consisting of stocks in the DOW 500--and he would get a +7.5% net gain on his monies. 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.
 
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?
 
Back
Top Bottom