Topic has more than 25 posts. Pages: First 1 2 3 4 Last
|most of my professors were not liberal. you can not teach class in political theory or practice and only present one side and not the other. then it would be biased would it not? so it would be fair to say that classes in political theory and practice are not often 'liberal' but a lot more balanced and fair minded.
furthermore, as i went to a school in washington, dc and the government paid for the good majority of my schooling as i was a congressional scholar (i was awarded the honour when a REPUBLICAN was in office), i would think they would make every effort to have me in a program that was fair and unbiased. after all had i stayed in the course plan i was in i was expected to work for the government for a number of years to repay the loan. but since you've never gone to college and since you're chock full of ignorance i wouldn't expect you to understand that.
it's all good and well that you THINK college professors are more liberal... but you have said you're only a high school junior. you haven't gone to college. you haven't experienced college lectures. and in all fairness unless you went to every college in every city and town in america and interviewed and collected data about the professors i think it would be fairly hard to make a lump statement they were all 'liberal' or 'communist'.
and since we're getting into this area that you seem to think you know so much about, liberals even at their purest form ARE NOT communists. they're socialists. since you no doubt have no knowledge what the difference is i'll tell you: in socialism the government is formed so that as a whole everyone benefits in some form such as national health care or social security but it is important to note that in socialism you also must PUT into the system at some point, you can not just draw off of it. in communism everyone gets something without regard to whether you put something in or ever will.
so before you go off with your sweeping generalizations and your oh so stupid throwing about of political terms that you have no clue what they mean i suggest you crack open a book about government.
|to the person who asked me about going to war with israel.
i do not have a problem with war when it is necessary. i do not believe what we did to the iraqii people was necessary and i believe it was unjustified and illegal.
i have no problem with countries and groups such as the plo and the lebanese taking retalitory actions against the israelis for their unprovoked and unexcuseable actions. i have no problem with the people of israel in general and though i am not myself jewish i am descended from jews (as my first and last names clearly point out)... but i do not think that the world can turn a blind eye to their actions and their attacks on other countries because they fear being labeled anti-semetic.
i am not for the us waging war against israel, but it would be nice if for once i could see the us stand up against them for their violation of the un resolutions. for their attacks on neighbouring countries. for anything. because until someone stands up to them on this it will continue.
|Well said....but if he can't even tell the difference between "anti-war" and "communism," I doubt he can understand the difference between communism and socialism
Hey alfabettezoupe...I added you to my LJ list, hope you don't mind~
|The entire world is messed up if you ask me.
I do think that George Bush is doing a better job than Al Gore would have done in his place. I also tend to believe that regardles who the president is, the United States seems to survive. I mean, look at all the loosers we have had as presidents in the past. I am not saying that everyone has to like Bush, only that I believe him to be "The Right Man".
I did not like Clinton, but I have nothing against Clinton except the fact that he lied. In fact, I think a president who does weed and sex has a good hands off aproach on politics. Also, I do think that it was wrong for someone to ask Clinton if he had sexual relations with Lewenski. I mean, he had to answer becasue neither yes nor no would have incriminated him, so the fifth admendment provided no protection. I would have liked for him to say something like, "My sexual relations are my personal business. I refuse to anser this question. Try to force me if you wish."
|wow. namecalling. furious fights. someone about to snap. lengthy replies. looks a lot to me like the religion section (joke, yet true)
The truth of the matter is that Iraq was oppressed by Sadam. We can all agree on that. We can also agree that he has killed some of his people (understatement). Now, this is the debate: Is the US a world police force? and Should we have gon against UN and Europe?
I believe that the US has been a world police force for a long time, since Teddy I believe. Then we came up with the UN. This was the second League of Nations, the first having failed. The UN is to promote peace. How can we talk peace with a "man" who wants to kill all Americans? Added on to the FACT that he had weapons of mass destruction (oh, they're there, just buried in the desert so in case he comes back...) Also added on that the UN is weak nowadays (falling into the same rut as the first) There are people who would say, "Give peace talks a chance!" To that I say "We have!!! He won't listen!!!" As to the deaths of American soldiers, that is an organized group, yes like the taliban, who wants to see Americans dead. Also realize, in American History, right after the Revolution, there was a confusion what the term "liberty" included (speech? or also looting?) Shay led a rebellion of men, who didn't want to pay their debts, against the gov, which is exactly what the constitution did. So, perhaps we should teach these newly liberated people how to still be civil yet free.
(Hey! look at that! no name calling! Amazing!)