What political party do most law students belong to?

[What political party do you belong to?]

What political party do you belong to?

Democrat

Republican

Communist

Socalist

Independant/Other

[jeffislouie]

I just read the article.
It appears that I was correct and you, the guy who tried to pass the article off as disproving the liberal in academia bias, proved it for me.
So....
Thanks?

[Remedialone]

Ah yes, another apologist who thinks there are no victims...
Because the only way to define the word "victim" is if someone dies, right?
They blew up a statue dedicated to police casualties in the 1886 Haymarket Riot.  The blast broke nearly 100 windows and scattered pieces of the statue onto the Kennedy Expressway below. The statue was rebuilt and unveiled on May 4, 1970, and then blown up again by Weatherman on October 6, 1970.  The statue was again rebuilt.  I'm sure the decedents of slain police officers were quite happy and didn't feel victimized at all.  Neither did the owners of the businesses who had windows shattered. Nor were the people who's vehicles were damaged by the debri that fell onto the expressway.  These were VICTIMLESS crimes, right?  No one had to pay for them and no one was injured in any way.
And this was just the 'days of rage' nonsense these idiots put together.  No victims, huh?  The Days of Rage cost Chicago and the state of Illinois approximately $183,000.  That sure doesn't sound TOO bad, right?  Adjusted for inflation, that works out to around $1 million.  Still sound like a victimless group?  And who paid that sum?  Taxpayers.  Law abiding, hard working illinois citizens, that's who.  Victims, all.
But that's not all they did, now is it?
On 19 May, 1972, The Weather Underground placed a bomb in the women’s bathroom in the Air Force wing of The Pentagon. The damage caused flooding that devastated vital classified information on computer tapes.
The WOMENS bathroom.  Vital classified information.  Another 'victimless' crime?  Who cares, it was just the bathroom in the pentagon.  The women's bathroom.  It could have killed quite a few women, but that's okay, right?  It didn't, so it's okay....
Right?
Wrong.
As for the moron's who died building bombs, I say f- them, they got what they deserved.
Lest you forget, this is a group of american citizens who DECLARED WAR on the US.  There is a word for that....
What am I thinking of?
Oh, right.  Treason.
Sedition.
The worst crime against government possible.
Clever that you defend them and excuse them, then point the finger at us uneducated....

The Vietnam war cost the state of Illinois at least 3 Billion dollars. Who pays for that?  That is $12483506311.75 when adjusted for inflation.  Many groups of American citizens have declared war on the government, it is kind of a proud and noble tradition of this country, a tradition advocated b Thomas Jefferson and participated in by Republicans in 1933 when they attempted to overthrow Roosevelt.  The Whiskey Rebellion, The Battle of Athens, George Boxley, John Brown, Fries Rebellion, Shays Rebellion, Nat Turner.  Many of them have been exalted throughout US History.  "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."  -Thomas Jefferson

[Alecto]

I just read the article.
It appears that I was correct and you, the guy who tried to pass the article off as disproving the liberal in academia bias, proved it for me.
So....
Thanks?

oh man, you need to chill.  and first, I am not a dude. 

I didn't say that there was not a predominance of liberals in academia, I said there seems to be some self-selection going on.  it's not a conspiracy to shut out conservatives and indoctrinate thousands of young people with leftist viewpoints. If you think there's too much liberalism, then ascend the freakin' ivory tower!  if there are too many liberals, it's because conservatives are not taking on that career path. and have I read that book The Professors?  No, I haven't.  But I have been a grad student dealing with academia, and I have met a lot of people that have dealt in a very non-judgmental way with different political viewpoints.  Most of the people I've met have been very open to discussing the issues and considering a variety of different beliefs.  I think you have had a very unique experience, and if I were you I would hesitate before extrapolating that to higher education at large.

[jeffislouie]

Just so I understand you right, it's okay to cost the taxpayers of Illinois more money to make a point that war is bad and costs too much money?
Piling on has never been an ideology that I've agreed with.
As for the declaring war nonsense, the WU declared war on the US.  They were citizens, mostly over priveledged, highly educated civilians with no perspective and who thought it was 'cool' to protest.
They didn't change anything and, by their own admission, they were ineffective.
What's sad is that you equate what they did as heroic.
What they did was dangerous, irresponsible and could have very easily led to the deaths of innocents - all in an effort to end a war.
Was Vietnam a just war?  In my opinion no.
Did pulling out result in anything positive?
Not at all.
One of the generals from the viet cong side recently revealed that they were on the brink and about to give up.
Instead, the liberals in this country forced the US to give up.
Over a million people died when we left.  The vietcong took over and vietnam became a communist stronghold.
We could have won that war, just like we could win just about any war, if the left in this country had the good sense to let things play out appropriately.
Instead, they second guess everything to death and do so not for the good of the country, but so their leadership can further attain power.
I still fail to see the point of the WU.  They were opposed to the war in Vietnam, so they decided to perpetrate violent crimes in an effort to make change.
And they failed in every sense.
Of course, thanks to their liberal buddies, some of them never paid a price.  It must be nice to think that declaring war on the country is a good way to make change.
It isn't.
It IS a good way to make sure that people like me no longer identify as Democrat.
I was a card carrying member of the Democrat party since I was able to register to vote.  I voted for Clinton, Gore,  and Kerry.
Then, one day, I opened my eyes to the truth.

[Alecto]

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."  -Thomas Jefferson

That pretty much says it all.  I don't advocate violence, but vocal opposition is important. 

Also, I really resent all this prejudice going on.  Not all liberals or democrats or whatever are the same, just as all conservatives or republicans are not the same.  Some of us actually try to look at each issue instead of just sticking with the party line. 

[Remedialone]

Just so I understand you right, it's okay to cost the taxpayers of Illinois more money to make a point that war is bad and costs too much money?
Piling on has never been an ideology that I've agreed with.
As for the declaring war nonsense, the WU declared war on the US.  They were citizens, mostly over priveledged, highly educated civilians with no perspective and who thought it was 'cool' to protest.
They didn't change anything and, by their own admission, they were ineffective.
What's sad is that you equate what they did as heroic.
What they did was dangerous, irresponsible and could have very easily led to the deaths of innocents - all in an effort to end a war.
Was Vietnam a just war?  In my opinion no.
Did pulling out result in anything positive?
Not at all.
One of the generals from the viet cong side recently revealed that they were on the brink and about to give up.
Instead, the liberals in this country forced the US to give up.
Over a million people died when we left.  The vietcong took over and vietnam became a communist stronghold.
We could have won that war, just like we could win just about any war, if the left in this country had the good sense to let things play out appropriately.
Instead, they second guess everything to death and do so not for the good of the country, but so their leadership can further attain power.
I still fail to see the point of the WU.  They were opposed to the war in Vietnam, so they decided to perpetrate violent crimes in an effort to make change.
And they failed in every sense.
Of course, thanks to their liberal buddies, some of them never paid a price.  It must be nice to think that declaring war on the country is a good way to make change.
It isn't.
It IS a good way to make sure that people like me no longer identify as Democrat.
I was a card carrying member of the Democrat party since I was able to register to vote.  I voted for Clinton, Gore,  and Kerry.
Then, one day, I opened my eyes to the truth.

You say that nothing good was accomplished by pulling out of Vietnam?  Tell that to the American soldiers who would have been killed if we stayed.  Yes you are right, the left should always succumb to the judgment of the conservatives.  If we did that we could have avoided WWII because the conservative business leaders of America were the ones backing the Germans and trying to keep us out of the war so the profits could keep rolling along.  You originally brought up the haymarket statue?  Do you understand why that is so incendiary?  It would be like having a bronze noose in Philadelphia Mississippi to honor the brave men who lynched blacks.  To insinuate that well over half the country has never woken up proves that you have a dislove for this country and what makes it great.  I encourage you to open up your mind and gain some perspective.

[Papa Bear]

This isn't surprising at all. Intellectual, non-instrumental academia (law, for instance) is all about finding non-obvious, inward-looking problems and advancing solutions to them. The American brand of conservatism is not.

http://www.livescience.com/health/080507-liberal-conservative.html (not entirely on point, but still illustrative)

Okay, back to my journal petition...

[Martin Prince, Jr.]

One of the leaders of the violent Weather Underground group that is responsible for terrible attacks on innocent people who has NEVER disassociated herself from their criminal activities is now a teacher at Northwestern University School of Law.  Her name is Bernardine Dohrn.  The fact that she is allowed to teach ANYWHERE is a travesty of our justice system.

There were no innocent victims of the Weatherman organization. All of their bombings were announced in advance. The only deaths that resulted from their bombings were 3 of their own during the bomb-making process.

This just exposes part of the difficulty of arguing with right-wingers (especially the 27 percent that are still in the tank for Bush). If reality or historical fact does not mesh with their daily talking points they ignore it. A recent great example of this ahistorical "thinking" was the recent scuffle over Obama's "appeasement" and how he's supposedly another Chamberlain. Enjoy this takedown of another winger by Chris Matthews: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHleE7dfp28

Ah yes, another apologist who thinks there are no victims...[snip]

Unresponsive.

You write, and I quote: "[they] were responsible for terrible attacks on innocent people," with the clear implication of your language that they killed people. I don't endorse their methods (which is obvious from my response, your insinuations to the contrary not withstanding), but the historical record is quite clear: the only thing they damaged was property. Trying to hide your obfuscation behind several paragraphs worth of a wikipedia article won't change that.

[wrhssaxensemble]

The guy would have won his term anyways. Apparently you are not familiar with this state called Illinois that has a proud tradition of liberal politics on the national level (Adlai Stevens, Paul Simon, Abraham Lincoln).  To say that only the left would nominate such an inexperienced candidate during a time of war I will have to remind you that the conservatives put up Thomas Dewey during WWII who had been a governor for only 6 years and before him Wendell Willkie who I don't think ever held office. 

From what I heard, Ryan was polling pretty well before the sex scandal hit.... but come on, no one thinks/thought Keyes is a really serious candidate... heck he's running for president right now and no one knows/cares

And Lincoln was a conservative; he didn't want to end slavery at once but rather to adhere to the past decisions that it would not be expanded to the western territories and work from that.... he only moved for a complete abolition of slavery once the south rebelled.... read Harry Jaffa's Crisis of the House Divided sometime... just one of the books showing Lincoln's conservatism.


And at least Dewey was in office for 6 years; 50% more than Obama's 4 (at least 2 of which he spent running for president). You have a point in Wilkie, but if you read what I said, Obama is being nominated during war and a bad economy. The mobilization to war ended the depression and the market was beginning an upswing. Further, as you yourself, noted we as a nation were not yet at war. But even if we ignore that fact, only one of the factors would there (war), not both (war and bad downswining economy). Plus, its not much but at least Wilkie was a veteran which Obama clearly isn't. Granted that gives him no policy insight but it at least let him better understand the military than Obama or the Clintons ever will.

Besides, if Wilkie and Dewey are your comparaisons to Obama, then he is indeed in bad shape for this election.

I wouldn't recommend claiming a superior knowledge of history and implying conservatives don't know the past, especially considering most conservative arguments are based on the intent of the founder's unlike leftist arguments that essentially the constitution should mran whatever the hell the judges feel like it should mean etc. I for one have a PhD in History and know I am not the only one who has extenstively studied history, in particular American History.

[wrhssaxensemble]

Just so I understand you right, it's okay to cost the taxpayers of Illinois more money to make a point that war is bad and costs too much money?
[snip filler]

This is called "academic freedom," and it is the organizing principle of higher education. Anyone -- of any political persuasion -- who cannot accept that is not prepared to engage in scholarship.

True academic freedom would allow both sides to be heard... not the crap I and other students have had to put up with. I had one tenured professor announce on the first day that:

1. if you are a Republican, conservative, or think Marxism is an evil force get out of my class now
2. if you do not get out of my class now, I will find out that you are one of those things and will fail you.

then all his papers were ones like "who was a better president? Reagan or Carter?" and you said even one good thing about Reagan he'd give you at highest a D (learned that the hard way on the first paper)

I complained to the department and another more conservative member of the faculty and they were unable to do anything since he was tenured.

sadly, this is just one of the many things youd like to term as "academic freedom" that I have had to deal with in my academic career. I think academic freedom is an admirable goal but we are not experiencing it today by any stretch of the imagination.