Political bias in Universities (at least US universties) is widely accepted actually.  It's something that was actually directly taught in my sociology of buisness class... by a leftwing guy actually.

In general

Right Wing biased fields tend to be Math, Economics and Buisness.

Left Wing biased fields tend to be... everything else.

Most of the time you don't write papers based on the facts, but based on your professors opinions.

I made it a habit of acing all my classes from highschool on just based on analyzing my teacher and writing papers that fit perfectly with their views.

Here is a quick link about one study.  http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/node/39861

Economics interestingly leftwing here... though it may have to do with the selection of the schools, as there are some schools that cater exclusivly to keynsian ideas still.

In the Christian religion (which is generally what conservatives from Western nations base their ideas on), isn't it a sin to kill someone, and isn't it god's job to judge and punish humans? Obviously something like killing a person because they're "guilty" isn't something that a Christian should be doing.

Given that you've never held a job, run a business, or hired anyone, I believe you don't know enough about the subject to make such an assertion.

Economic liberty to those that work, employ people, or run a business is just as valid as those that engage in personal liberties. Furthermore, heavily liberal ideologies also support redistribution of all workers' incomes in various fashions means that they are directly pre-empting your work with their own views of where your livelihood should go. Additionally, it means in some cases, you may or may not buy certain goods or services to which they deem are improper for society (such as fatty food taxes, wage and salary caps by economic sector, price controls). These things are just as egregious as the state deciding who you can marry, what you can say in a public domain, what you may smoke or drink, and the like. To say that personal liberties trump economic liberties is an incredibly unintelligent statement to make. No, both types of liberty are equally as important. Both either allow you freedom, just in different sectors.

When you get into employment and see that the government requiring 30% of your work time to pay for their goals, you will find out that liberty from excessive economic regulation is just as valid as liberty from excessive personal regulation.

The worse media outlet existent in your country is by far Fox News, though I hope all the scandals involving Rupert Murdoch and the misinformation and other illegal activities his media empire is doing wake people up (though I think it's too late for the Fox News lovers).

And while I usually tend to ignore all aspects other than the substance of a post, I think it's appropriate (given the topic) to point out that anti-intellectualism has taken its toll on you.

I actually don't think they're on the same level. And if I have to choose, I'll choose the side that's defending what I care about more. Still, conservatives are hardly liberal even in economic matters. They're the chief opponents of things like legalizing drugs or prostitution, and unlike liberals who give somewhat compelling reasons for things they want to restrict/ban something, conservatives base their arguments on irrational things like religion (basically their dislike of personal freedoms extends in the economical sphere also).

liberals (in america) are completely inconsistant in what they value as rights, it constintly changes in order to gain a bigger voter base. they pander and change just so they can get votes.

and in our country our rights are God given, not by government

I actually don't think they're on the same level. And if I have to choose, I'll choose the side that's defending what I care about more. Still, conservatives are hardly liberal even in economic matters. They're the chief opponents of things like legalizing drugs or prostitution, and unlike liberals who give somewhat compelling reasons for things they want to restrict/ban something, conservatives base their arguments on irrational things like religion (basically their dislike of personal freedoms extends in the economical sphere also).

what murdock has done has no baring on Fox news reporting. (and if you really want to get into that i can destroy you with George Soros, Jerrery emmelt, and Zucker).

its very evident that you dont watch our news, or have a basic understanding of our political climate. you choose to live in ignorance because you do not wish to think for your self, but instead follow the establishment progressive line of thinking, under the geise of calling it intellectuallism. please inlighten yourself and visit some of our universities, like public sector unions they are in bed with government, thy get liberal politicians elected by raising money, in turn the politicians give them money, and other favorable treatment, and the liberals get a constant voter base from the indoctronation centers. 

the media refuses to to any investigative juornalism, they dont cover stories, and distort the truth to keep people like obama in office. they work for him essentially. people like you (though you dont know much) have a vendetta against Fox because they are the only news agency the presents a point of view that doesnt get a tingle up their leg when obama speaks. watch Fox business and you might learn something about economics too.

Not really. Both sides have tons of irrationality to them.

"Drugs are bad because they are unhealthy!"

"Trans-fats are bad because they are unhealthy!"

"Prostitution is a moral outrage! You shouldn't be able to engage in such activity!"

"Hate speech is a moral outrage! You shouldn't be able to say such mean things!"

"We must ban pornography! It degrades women!"

"We must cap carbon! It hurts the environment!"

Both sides engage in illogical, baseless restrictions against freedom. To argue that liberals do it out of more compelling arguments is astounding. One uses junk science and the other uses religion, but they still offer baseless arguments to restrict freedom.

The key is that economic liberties need to be balanced with economic rights: we have a human right to the health care we need, to at least a secondary education, to food and shelter, and to a healthy living environment, and that's where we need certain restrictions on economic liberties which impugn those rights

Just like how we enter into the social contract for mutual protection (e.g. you have reasonable assurance that i am disincentivized from shooting you in the head, so long as you forfeit your right to shoot me in the head if you so chose), we enter a social contract for a certain degree of mutual prosperity

I draw the line further in than Communism, simply because Central Planning clearly cannot work (largely because it would be the same business analysts who don't know dick about where consumer tastes are going in the private sector that would be planning this for the public sector), but i do say that our goals should be primarily utilitarian, as in what is best for the many, rather than driven by self-interest