Hockey, you're right of course.
That's why I tried to mention that she was probably a very moderate conservative and laughing her way to the bank. No one is that stupid.

Drath, I'm bored of the adroomi thing. We both seem to be night owls, and we both think you are misguided. Deal with it.

Please explain the difference between "liberal indoctrination" and "liberal breeding grounds". If you have indoctrinated students into liberal thought you have created a liberal. Gee, isn't that the same as a metaphorical breeding ground? I thought you went to college. Of course, this doesn't happen at all colleges, you should of looked more carefully when choosing a college. Johns Hopkins was very conservative.

God and the right wing... I will say this, those on the right would never require that one believe in god. But their specific beliefs require that one believe in god in order to agree. As an example: "intelligent design" (and oxymoron, but we'll go with it), the concept that a soul is granted at conception (no god=no soul=just a cluster of cells), the idea that gay marriages are in any way destroying the sanctity of marriage (which has no sanctity if you don't believe in god). These all require god as a base to begin believing in them.

Amelia, since when have I based my opinion on emotion? in post 45 I simply took the very broad "facts" which Drath stated and showed that they must NOT be facts, otherwise individuals who are very clearly not "college liberals" would be labeled that way. I then went on to argue that if colleges were "liberal indoctrination (or breeding) grounds" then we would not have the large number of educated right wingers in gov't. Remember, if they are in congress, the supreme court, or the executive branch, they went to college for a number of years. That sounds like logic to me, not emotion.

Coulter has publically asked for the repeal of the right of women to vote. She also has stated that women have no business in the military since they "are not smart enough."

Is she a Muslim?

Adroomi, does that mean we can hold you to every crazy racist thing you have said? I know you were being sarcastic (most of the time) but lets pretend you meant it all with as much honesty as you can muster.

Also Adroomi, you have seen more "most clueless" post then Wellstone had proudest days. At least I'm off the hook. Still wondering why you liberals think think with your emotions makes you think you're smart....

Anyone... anyone.... droomi.....

I alway liked being ignored in these threads, shows me you have no answer. Tey does it better then you,that boy can never respond.

vic/doomi, if you went to college you would never have typed this: "Of course, this doesn't happen at all colleges, you should of looked more carefully when choosing a college. Johns Hopkins was very conservative."

Anyone who went to college knows the correct term is "should have", not "should of". I remember vic posting about why he didn't jump into political threads. He said people got too mean and called names. Just look at him now! Its funny because he didn't start until I told his alias I didn't like him 🙂

Liberal indoctrination: Faculty & Staff training students to be good little liberals.

Liberal breeding grounds: liberals having sex (with God knows who or what).

There you go again. I did not say all college students are liberal, you did. Some of us are smart enough to see through the indoctrination process and think for ourselves. Most Republicans in college keep quiet. I was more outspoken. Coming out Republican in college can affect your grades, so I don't blame them. It only happened to me once and I fought back and won. They don't call us the Fighting Irish for nuttin'.

I think it was you who mentioned Horowitz earlier. You said he is trying to restrict freedoms in college. Funny way to read him. He's trying to make it an even playing field. Do yourself a favor and read "Why the Left Hates America" ~ Daniel Flynn. He gives a list of Republicans who have been attacked while trying to speak on campus. Himself included. I'm sure you saw the video of two liberals throwing pies at Ann Coulter. (The school didn't do anything to the students - hmmm, wonder why?)

I was watching an interview with her and the interviewer said something like "When those students hit you with the pies". He was interrupted by Ann who said "They didn't hit me. Fortunately they were liberals and threw like girls"! That woman cracks me up!

doomi (gotta try and keep track of which alias I'm talking to): You aren't going to pull me into a shouting match. I stating my feelings about you in a way even you can understand. A man would take it and move on. Not you though. You want to start a war. Well have fun playing with yourself (I love a good double entendre! I know you think big words confuse me, but play along). Well forget it doomi, you just keep showing your true colors and I'll show mine.

Ann Coulter uses sarcasm to get her point across. If you don't understand that you probably shouldn't be having adult conversations. Taking one-liners out of an article and not giving the whole picture is sophomoric.

don't they got lots of softmoricks at liberal colagees?

And I hope you ontondrey gets better. Never heard of getting that tawice thow. owch!

Amelia, I didn't ignore you. I posted specifically in response to your question about "thinking with emotions". None of these statements have any emotional basis, in fact one could argue that a generalized statement (such as "all colleges are liberal indoctrination grounds") is much more emotional.

Drath,
I asked you to stop with the vic/doomi thing. We all had a little giggle over it. We are separate individuals and I have never met Adroomi. There is a good chance that there are many things we would disagree on.

I don't believe I was in any way mean to you. If I hurt your feelings, I'm sorry. However, your experience in college was different than mine. I have attended two colleges, both which had outspoken college republican organizations: Johns Hopkins University and The University of Wisconsin, Madison. Just because you felt marginalized at St Martin's college, does not mean that all colleges are grounds of liberal indoctrination. I really doubt that Bringham Young University could be considered liberal. My point was, if being in a school which had a large number of republicans in the student body was important to you, perhaps you should have chosen a different college. (By the way, which St. Martin's is this, I got a number of returns when I did a search).

Now on to vocabulary, I hate that our discussion has been reduced to this but:
breeding ground: n.
A place where animals breed.
A place or set of circumstances that encourages the development of certain ideas or conditions: a laboratory that is a breeding ground for new inventions.
Therefore, both statements are identical. True, you did not state that all college graduates are liberals. However, assuming that colleges are "liberal breeding grounds" (note above, same thing, I prefer it because it flows better) then one must assume that some sort of special "anti-liberal resistance" is required to come out of college right wing. If this is the case, then fewer than 50% of all college graduates would be republican (running on the idea that 50% went in and not every one could "resist").

This would lead to fewer republicans in all aspects of educated careers, including politics. Democrats would win outright in that case. Since this isn't happening, we have to assume that there isn't any sort of indoctrination going on.

Its funny, but I never felt indoctrinated. Lets see, in all my classes we never discussed politics: Biochem, Chem, Organic Chem, Calc, Multivariable Calc, Genetics, Devel. Bio, Russian Language (multiple years), Physics and various seminars on Biophysics and Biochemistry... nope, never got indoctrinated. In fact, I can tell you that none of those professors listed above would have given a rats a$$ what your political leaning was. You either know the answer to the question or you don't.

vic, its more than coincidence between you and doomi. You do everything the same. Using alias' to back oneself up on a message board is as old as message boards. It doesn't get any less sad though.

Your logic is flawed. "If this is the case, then fewer than 50% of all college graduates would be republican (running on the idea that 50% went in and not every one could 'resist')."

You went on to say "This would lead to fewer republicans in all aspects of educated careers, including politics. Democrats would win outright in that case. Since this isn't happening, we have to assume that there isn't any sort of indoctrination going on."

Where your logic fails is people vote. It only takes one Republican to challenge a Democrat. Then the voters take over. Nice try though.

I went to two schools as well and it was the same at both. Furthermore, I gave you the name of a good book to read on the subject. You can also go to David Horowitz's website for more examples. The St. Martin's I attended is in Lacey, WA.

You never felt indoctrinated eh? Maybe because you're already a leveral. That's like me saying I don't feel out of place at a Country bar.

sigh... I tossed you a softball there drathhy

The point I tried to make when listing all my courses is that POLITICS NEVER CAME UP. What self respecting biochemistry professor is going to start jabbering on about the current state of politics? They don't have enough time to teach everything they currently have to teach. How is a biochemistry professor going to give a lower grade to a student because of their political beliefs? A student's political beliefs do not change the laws of science.

The point I tried to make, which seemed to go over your head, was that you choose your studies and company. Particular courses/professors who Horowitz goes after are "women's studies" or other politically charged courses where a specific doctrine IS being taught. So? the students enrolling in these courses know what the curriculae consists of, just as students attending a college are aware of the student body makeup. To put it simply, I would not saunter into a redneck bar and demand that they stop playing country-western.

"But victor, ALL the colleges are liberal and NONE of them have courses which have a conservative bent!!" Stop, whining. We both know this is not true. There are specific colleges founded with a right wing slant to them (BYU) and there are other colleges where specific departments are known for their conservative thoughts. As an example, economics taught at a number of schools varies from liberal to conservative economic thought. An example would be the Chicago school of economic thought, taught at the University of Chicago and well known for a very libertarian economic message.

Oh, and true. It only takes one republican to challenge the democrats. Are you suggesting that the current political system consists of one educated republican for each slot, supported by an entire populace of highschool educated voters?

I think that some of your colleagues might take umbrage to your suggestion that they are not educated.

Oh, and true. It only takes one republican to challenge the democrats. Are you suggesting that the current political system consists of one educated republican for each slot, supported by an entire populace of highschool educated voters?

I think that some of your colleagues might take umbrage to your suggestion that they are not educated.

Isn't St Martin's a Catholic school? Just how liberal is a school that was based upon the ideals of Catholic Monks?

Drathaar, did you attend the campus as a resident, or did you attend satellite courses on a military base?

What did you major in?

What degree did you earn?

I'm asking this because I'm trying to figure out where you are coming from.

So far, the only thing I can get from your discussion, is that you attended a few night courses, and you're only view of college life is what you read in some slanted perceptionists book.

Rug,
Okay...help me out here.

Coulter makes her living stating "facts" as Drathaar calls them about liberals. She puts these "facts" along with her thoughts into books that people read, and accept as the "truth." Don't believe that, look at Drathaars post.....he literally swallows her "facts" hook, line, and sinker, and then regurgitates them as fact to others.

One of the "facts" she states in one of her books is that women should not be allowed to vote because they are not smart enough. She also states that women should not be in the military.

When I bring this up, you tell me to "disregard" this as some sort of joke that she didn't mean to say, and that she really didn't mean. A slip of the tongue so to speak. A slip of the tongue? It was printed in a book! Why didn't the editors catch that slip, and why didn't she put a disclaimer in there saying..."hey, I was joking about the women not voting thing."

Am I supposed to believe everything Coulter puts in her books, or just certain things? Which one's are the one's to believe? She states everything as fact.

I read Coulter, and I see a marketing genius that has used her Doctorate to enable her to research things just well enough to put random thoughts into well-versed "stories" that fools looking for answers will suck up like sugar. Add to that a great set of legs (that she makes a point to show off) and a vagina between her legs and she is the dream child money-making machine that her publisher fantasized about all these years! She sells BOOKS by golly, and she's good at it. She has a HOOK I tell you. Poor Drathaar is already dying to read her latest work before it is even released. Why I bet he's even already ordered one! Mo Money! Mo Money! Mo Money! (as Daman and Keenan used to say).

The woman is releasing her book and using "666" as a selling point. Motley Crue, Black Sabbath, Ronnie James Dio all did that too. Good marketing. The only difference was, the Christians were offended. With Coulter, they're sucking it up.

Wow, Christians dying to buy a book because it's published on "666." Go figure.

Sigh...doomi says that. Go figure.

vic, I know you had to take General courses your first two years. After that it CAN get better, but not always. If you think teachers don't bring politics into non-political classes you don't watch the news. Remember the Geography teacher in Colorado? Granted, that was High School, but its a recent example.

Horowitz wants equality in education, period. He wants the discrimination against Republicans stopped. He wants accurate text books. You have a problem with that? Of course you do, you're a liberal and liberals don't like an even playing field. They tend to get whipped when that happens.

Tell me, how many "Right" colleges are there? You are talking about a handful of schools vs hundres of Lefty schools. Don't try to equate them.

doomi, the answer to all your questions can be found on these very boards. Look it up. But never did I say I attended a few night courses. I DID say I worked nights while going to school. Your reading comprehension needs work...among other things.

doomi, many people have tried to dispute Ann's facts. All have failed. If you actually pick up one of her books (instead of copying and pasting a review by some liberal) you will notice something about her sources. She actually names them. Read a book by a liberal and try to find the source. You usually end up with "He said, She said".

Its why she is attacked so much. They can't get her on the facts, so they get personal. And nobody gets personal like the "peaceful" democrats.

Okay...then I'll ask the questions again. As I said, I'm trying to understand where you are coming from:

1. Did you attend the campus as a resident, or did you attend satellite courses on a military base?

2. What did you major in?

3. What degree did you earn?

4. Isn't St Martin's a Catholic school?

"If you think teachers don't bring politics into non-political classes you don't watch the news."

That's a really silly thing to say. What news? O'Reilly, who gets paid to say things like that? You must be mistaking "commentary" for "news."

Why would one need to watch the news in order to establish whether or not politics is brought into the classroom? Why not just sit in a classroom a while and see for oneself?

Drathaar,
I DO read Coulters books. It's what good researchers and well-rounded folks do....they look at things from ALL perspectives and then make a judgement based upon education, experience, morals, and "feeling."

You said:

"many people have tried to dispute Ann's facts. All have failed. If you actually pick up one of her books (instead of copying and pasting a review by some liberal) you will notice something about her sources. She actually names them. Read a book by a liberal and try to find the source. You usually end up with "He said, She said"."

So, are you agreeing with me that she states "women should not be allowed to vote and they should NOT be in the military?" If so, then are you also disagreeing with Rugrunner who claims this statement of hers to NOT be a fact?

Coulter "selectively" backs up her facts. Most of them are very crude and misleading. Only a fool would NOT see the attention grabbing ploys she uses.

"In fact, her footnotes do a poor job of supporting the assertions she makes. Many assertions go unfootnoted; many others are not supported by the footnote cited. Still others show signs of selective quotation, where once the entire article or quotation is examined, it implacably points in some direction other than what Ms. Coulter would like us to think."


"My conclusion is that one of her books has 780 footnotes for the main purpose of having 780 footnotes. They're pure ballast. How else to explain, e.g., this: She asserts that Hollywood celebrities and trial lawyers make large donations to the Democratic Party. No one really doubts this. But she adds a footnote anyway. The footnoted article is about contributions by Disney executives to the Senate campaign of Hillary Clinton. The article says nothing about the Democratic Party, Hollywood celebrities or trial lawyers. True, Clinton is a Democrat, Disney is in the entertainment business, and the article mentions that lawyers (never singling out "trial lawyers") have been generous to Clinton. But the article simply does not support the global assertions about the Democratic Party, etc. It is absolutely incredible that Ms. Coulter could not have found a supporting citation if she had looked. Instead, she just cited the first article she found on Lexis/Nexis that was even in the right ballpark. Or so it seems to me."

This means that the footnotes are worse than useless, they are misleading. Don't be misled.

She a fraud, a sideshow, and a moneymaking machine that is no different than a man selling cure-all hair tonic in a travelling circus.

There's a sucker born every minute, and you are a big one it appears.