re: #17 Obdicut

Nothing in what you cited in any way disproved or even challenged what I said, you know that, right?

Really? FTA:

It is part of an attempt to steer the discipline away from the champions of the free market and deregulation who, the billionaire financier believes, share the blame for the global economic crisis.

The institute, as yet unnamed, is being funded by the New York-based Institute for New Economic Thinking (Inet), a think-tank and educational and grant-giving organisation founded last October with a $50 million pledge from Mr Soros to stimulate debate about the role of government regulation in the economy and financial markets.

Is that confusing? He gave money to start a new department that specializes in the brand of economics he espouses.

Another link:
Converting the Preachers: George Soros launches a $50 million effort to purge economics of its free-market zeal.

newsweek.com

Oh, they are. They’re just not a place for propping up failed, idiotic economic ideals because some particular billionaire thinks they’re nifty.

See above.

That’s, of course, not what i said. Why do you need to resort to lying, Rogue? What is up with you that you can’t just make your argument? Is it really that weak?

I said that there are a lot of points of view that it’s damaging to teach to students— unless what you’re teaching them is how wrong that point of view is. Creastionism shouldn’t be taught in science class.

Hilarious. You somehow don’t realize this applies to what Koch is doing. That’s the depth of your self-reflection, right there.

Comedy.

Don’t tell me that your glibertarian idiocy includes fondness for the Austrian and Chicago School, please. Even you can’t be that wacky, can you?

Can you point out where I said anything close to untrue? Of course you can’t. The argument we’re having is over an economics chair not Holocaust revisionism and not creationism. You want someone to decide what’s right and what is wrong when it comes to academic studies and I say students can’t make that decision unless they have an understanding of varying viewpoints. Unless you’re an acolyte who believes there is only one tool (economic theory) to combat an issue then the more varied and differing arguments the better.

“glibterian”? Really? The ad-hom shows the weakness of your argument.