Lord_Baull: Does the GOP understand that America's future depends on a bright, well-educated populace? Does any conservative understand this?

But intelligent, educated people are harder to control.

Lord_Baull: Does the GOP understand that America's future depends on a bright, well-educated populace? Does any conservative understand this?

No, because the GOP's future depends on a dull, poorly-educated populace. A bright future for America and a bright future for the GOP seem to be mutually exclusive.

passinthru: Yeah, those Westboro Baptist home schooled children are just brilliant.

There's a reasonable chance they are, actually. The family is almost entirely lawyers, and successful ones at that. I suspect they put a strong weight on the value of education.

Those Education/Voting numbers, I wonder, do they include people with no educational record (say, immigrants) as "No HS Education" if they didn't graduate an American-style High School?

odinsposse: pdee: gadian: FubarBDilligaf: "Most" do no not. In fact, there is a distinct correlation to higher education and voting Republican.

No HS education - 63% D, 35% R
HS Education - 52% D, 46% R
Some College - 51% D, 47% R
College Grad - 50% D, 48% R
Post Grad - 58% D, 40% R

All that data tells me is that more democrats were voting.

He did mention that these numbers were from the last presidential election. IIRC Obama(D) won that one.

Also the data shows exactly what he claimed. Less educated = more likely to vote Democrat. Which addresses the point of the lying article. Actualy if the headline were correct then libs should support this law because: Less educated = more likely to vote Democrat.

It also shows that more educated = more likely to vote democrat. You can't dimiss the outlier on top and hold up outlier on the bottom as great evidence.

You might be able to if you compare the number of postgrads versus the number of high school dropouts.
Anyone who has spent time in academia (or has family in it) can tell you it's just as politicized as the bible belt, just the other way.

Super_pope: beta_plus: What a family that didn't want to have unionized public school teachers educate their kids and wanted to send them to a school that allows prayer looks like:

A private school with prayer? You mean you have proof Fartbongo sent them to a madrasa? The fool's finally overplayed his hand! Now everyone will know he's been a secret Muslin all along!

Christian private schools do exist.

I guess now the GOP really is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This is a very stupid law. It is something to throw to the fundies so the GOP can please their base. A few parents will object to evolution and sex ed. It will waste time and resources of the school system and disrupt classrooms when 1 or a few students have to be dismissed out of the classroom when those subjects come up.

All great reasons to point out the law is stupid. But why the need to lie about it?

Do you think there is anybody out there who is going to take the time to write up an objection to every individual thing that the school teaches? And then take the time to meet with school admins about each objection? If there are parents who really dont want their kids to learn anything then they can just claim home school and be done with it. The claim that there will be lots of parents who want their kid to go to school all day and be taught nothing has to be the most ridicules straw man ever.

TFA and subby remind me of so called drug education. 'We need to lie about how bad drugs are to scare kid away from taking them.' Only in this case 'We need to lie about Republicans to scare people from voting for them.' The truth is bad enough with out having to resort to lying.

This also make me think there might be a use for this law. How about having a bunch a parents object to the schools DARE program.

lack of warmth: Super_pope: beta_plus: What a family that didn't want to have unionized public school teachers educate their kids and wanted to send them to a school that allows prayer looks like:

A private school with prayer? You mean you have proof Fartbongo sent them to a madrasa? The fool's finally overplayed his hand! Now everyone will know he's been a secret Muslin all along!

Christian private schools do exist.

*sigh*

/Well I thought it was funny

odinsposse: It also shows that more educated = more likely to vote democrat. You can't dimiss the outlier on top and hold up outlier on the bottom as great evidence.

Says the guy ignoring every stage between the two.

AmorousRedDragon: FubarBDilligaf: Okaayyyy....let's see, if you are a HS graduate, you're more likely to vote Republican....if you have some college, you're more likely to vote republican...if you graduate college, you're more likely to vote republican....yeah, still says what I said it did.

Can you show me this, maybe in the form of mathematics? I'm fond of numbers.

Sure!

63 (the percentage of those without HS diplomas who vote D) - 52 (those with a HS diploma who vote D) = 11. Then you take that 11 as a percentage of the 63 (complex math here, if you couldn't grasp the percentages, no way in hell you're going to get this kind of division) and you come up with about a 17.5% drop in those who vote Democrat, that's about 1 in 6. I'd like to go into more detail, but really, if you couldn't get the percentages, what would be the point?

Out of curiosity, does that line of trolling ever work for you?

This text is now purple: He read them correctly.

pdee: Also the data shows exactly what he claimed.

Thanks to both of you for that. I'm not about to attempt to draw too many correlations between the data, but there does seem to be a definite trend that appears in most of the last several Presidential election results. It would be easy to dismiss them, but they are social and economic factors and there is a correlation. I'm not about to try to guess why that correlation exists. Granted, I have my suspicions, but then, they tend to suit my biases and at least I'm aware that I do have those biases, and that I do see the data within that influence.

This text is now purple: odinsposse: pdee: gadian: FubarBDilligaf: "Most" do no not. In fact, there is a distinct correlation to higher education and voting Republican.

No HS education - 63% D, 35% R
HS Education - 52% D, 46% R
Some College - 51% D, 47% R
College Grad - 50% D, 48% R
Post Grad - 58% D, 40% R

All that data tells me is that more democrats were voting.

He did mention that these numbers were from the last presidential election. IIRC Obama(D) won that one.

Also the data shows exactly what he claimed. Less educated = more likely to vote Democrat. Which addresses the point of the lying article. Actualy if the headline were correct then libs should support this law because: Less educated = more likely to vote Democrat.

It also shows that more educated = more likely to vote democrat. You can't dimiss the outlier on top and hold up outlier on the bottom as great evidence.

What you're not seeing is the magnitude of the population in the categories. There are more people towards the bottom of those groups than towards the top. The post-grad category is like the 1%.

But that isn't true for voting populations. From CNN (new window)

Not a high school graduate - 4% of voters
HS graduate - 20% of voters
Some college - 31% of voters
College or more - 44% of voters

I only did a quick search so I didn't see a postgraduate breakout.

sprawl15: Philip Francis Queeg: . If it happened so often, you should be able to provide plenty of documentation of factories closing because they could find anyone to hire.

Please provide evidence to back up your assertion that there is a plethora of well qualified plumbers and electricians where you live.

Sure thing champ!

During these difficult economic times, many of our members have been unemployed or working short hours for many months and some for years. To assist our members and their families in need, Local 501 has arranged for the Aurora Interfaith Mobile Food Pantry to distribute food and cleaning products at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, January 25, 2012 at the Local 501 Union Hall.

We encourage any member and his/her family to register for this program by completing the online form or by calling the General Office at (630) 978-4501. You will be asked for your name and number of family members. This information allows the food pantry to bring the appropriate amount of food and products.
(new window)

Now, I'm sure you will be providing documentations about the factories closing because there aren't enough lower educated workers.

I'm going to be fascinated to see that. Seems like there are more than enough unemployed lower educated workers to go around.

Unemployment rate Education attained Median weekly earnings
in 2010 (Percent) in 2010 (Dollars)

1.9% Doctoral degree $1,550
2.4 Professional degree 1,610
4.0 Master's degree 1,272
5.4 Bachelor's degree 1,038
7.0 Associate degree 767
9.2 Some college, no degree 712
10.3 High-school graduate 626
14.9 Less than a high school diploma 444

8.2 All Workers 782

heinekenftw: So New Hampshire is now under 13th Century English law? Wow . . . and I thought Maine was dumb.

No, this and the Magna Carta thing are a couple crack pot bills that will be introduced by a few what could be considered functionally retarded members of our House. I'm not a big fan of Gov. Lynch but he will hopefully veto both of these in a heartbeat if they even managed to reach his desk.

FubarBDilligaf: odinsposse: It also shows that more educated = more likely to vote democrat. You can't dimiss the outlier on top and hold up outlier on the bottom as great evidence.

Says the guy ignoring every stage between the two.

Yes, that 2% shift is a great trend. This is why people are making fun of you.

Well the good news: if the request must be made in writing, you'll only have one generation of this bullshat.

Philip Francis Queeg: Sure thing champ!

That shows absolutely nothing about their qualifications, only that they can't get work. Is it because there's too many? Because they're terrible and nobody hires them? Because they have cooties? You're simply showing that there are people who exist who can't get a job, which is distinct from your original claim.

Were this the standard, I could simply link a chart showing decline in manufacturing jobs and say that was proof enough; you would rightly point out that I'm claiming a causal relationship and not providing causal proof. Hold yourself up to your own standards, 'champ', and try again.

This text is now purple: odinsposse: pdee: gadian: FubarBDilligaf: "Most" do no not. In fact, there is a distinct correlation to higher education and voting Republican.

No HS education - 63% D, 35% R
HS Education - 52% D, 46% R
Some College - 51% D, 47% R
College Grad - 50% D, 48% R
Post Grad - 58% D, 40% R

All that data tells me is that more democrats were voting.

He did mention that these numbers were from the last presidential election. IIRC Obama(D) won that one.

Also the data shows exactly what he claimed. Less educated = more likely to vote Democrat. Which addresses the point of the lying article. Actualy if the headline were correct then libs should support this law because: Less educated = more likely to vote Democrat.

It also shows that more educated = more likely to vote democrat. You can't dimiss the outlier on top and hold up outlier on the bottom as great evidence.

What you're not seeing is the magnitude of the population in the categories. There are more people towards the bottom of those groups than towards the top. The post-grad category is like the 1%.

Actually, that's really true. The post-grads were around 17% of voters, and the non-HS grads were 4%, I've done the math before with the 2008 election and at that time it showed a slight education favor to the R's (about 9 months or so, making way too many assumptions)* but the GSS data seems much better, and, IIRC, it only shows a few month difference in the education levels of the "average" from either party. I'd have to look around for other data, but I would guess there is also a very strong correlation between level of education and likelihood of voting. Which would make them a disproportional representation of society overall. I have a hard time believing that 17% of society has a Post Grad degree.

*Given the fact that the results are going to be skewed by who wins, and that the numbers don't reflect how people actually see themselves, but only how they voted, it's basically a crap data set anyway. I use it because it's an available data set, and it, over the years, has shown a fairly steady correlation between education, income, and voting patterns. It won't let you absolutely say, but you can draw some "more likely" conclusions from it. The problem is that if a D wins, the generic comment is that people are "most likely" to vote D, and if a R wins the opposite (barring 2000 as a rare exception) is true.

beta_plus: What a family that didn't want to have unionized public school teachers educate their kids and wanted to send them to a school that allows prayer looks like:

[cdn.babble.com image 575x385]

You are right. It isn't like he would have a special need to send hi kids to a school that specializes in teaching and providing security for kids with very high profile parents.

/Stop being an idiot.

FubarBDilligaf:

63 (the percentage of those without HS diplomas who vote D) - 52 (those with a HS diploma who vote D) = 11. Then you take that 11 as a percentage of the 63 (complex math here, if you couldn't grasp the percentages, no way in hell you're going to get this kind of division) and you come up with about a 17.5% drop in those who vote Democrat, that's about 1 in 6. I'd like to go into more detail, but really, if you couldn't get the percentages, what would be the point?

So basically more people voted democrat then? Where does party afiliation come in here?

odinsposse: only did a quick search so I didn't see a postgraduate breakout.

Try this one. (new window)

odinsposse: Yes, that 2% shift is a great trend. This is why people are making fun of you.

Yeah, the same people who think facts have a bias, which is why they're ignoring the facts that don't suit their bias. I can live with them "making fun of me".

odinsposse: FubarBDilligaf: odinsposse: It also shows that more educated = more likely to vote democrat. You can't dimiss the outlier on top and hold up outlier on the bottom as great evidence.

Says the guy ignoring every stage between the two.

Yes, that 2% shift is a great trend. This is why people are making fun of you.

No HS education - 63% D, 35% R
HS Education - 52% D, 46% R
Some College - 51% D, 47% R
College Grad - 50% D, 48% R
Post Grad - 58% D, 40% R


Looks like a lot more than 2%. Sense TFA wants us to believe this law will result in millions of people without ANY education this should be great for Democrats!

I took a quick dive in to Google and all 3 members of the House to proposed this bill are Free Stater's so I'm not too surprised...

Free State Project (new window)
If you notice even by their own member counter, less then 1000 members are form New Hampshire.

sprawl15: Philip Francis Queeg: Sure thing champ!

That shows absolutely nothing about their qualifications, only that they can't get work. Is it because there's too many? Because they're terrible and nobody hires them? Because they have cooties? You're simply showing that there are people who exist who can't get a job, which is distinct from your original claim.

Were this the standard, I could simply link a chart showing decline in manufacturing jobs and say that was proof enough; you would rightly point out that I'm claiming a causal relationship and not providing causal proof. Hold yourself up to your own standards, 'champ', and try again.

Length of Apprenticeship:
Five (5) years
Minimum of 1,080 hours of classroom instruction.
Apprentices receive on-the-job training.
Apprentices in their first two years will attend day school
(September - May) one day a week and work the remaining 4 days.

Apprentices in their 3rd-5th years will attend class in the
evening (September - May) one day a week and work the remaining 4 days.
(new window)

The Local isn't accepting applications for aprenticeship this year at all. Pretty odd if there is a massive shortage of plumbers, isn't it?


Yet you have still not supplied a single iota of evidence to support a single one of your assertions. Tme for you to put up or shut up Champ.

Of course you won't d that because everything you've said is a steaming pile of bullshiat.

FubarBDilligaf: Yeah, the same people who think facts have a bias, which is why they're ignoring the facts that don't suit their bias. I can live with them "making fun of me".

The facts in this case don't seem to have any bias at all. There are big differences at the top and bottom levels of eduaction and practiaclly none in the middle. You're the one desperately trying to make it fit your bias based on a data set you already said you didn't like.

pdee: Looks like a lot more than 2%. Sense TFA wants us to believe this law will result in millions of people without ANY education this should be great for Democrats!

I'm sorry you can't follow along. Maybe a friendly democrat can bring you up to speed.

CPennypacker: FubarBDilligaf:

63 (the percentage of those without HS diplomas who vote D) - 52 (those with a HS diploma who vote D) = 11. Then you take that 11 as a percentage of the 63 (complex math here, if you couldn't grasp the percentages, no way in hell you're going to get this kind of division) and you come up with about a 17.5% drop in those who vote Democrat, that's about 1 in 6. I'd like to go into more detail, but really, if you couldn't get the percentages, what would be the point?

So basically more people voted democrat then? Where does party afiliation come in here?

Where do you think those 17.5% of voters went? If they didn't vote Democrat then they voted.........(=/- a few)

2/3rds (roughly) of people without a High School diploma vote Democrat, only about 1/2 of those with one do. Which means that there is about a 1/6th shift from voting Democrat to voting for Republicans around graduating from high school. If you use having a High School diploma as a sign of being educated (which is somewhat reasonable) then it's reasonable to argue that NOT having one is a sign of being uneducated. And among the uneducated there is a huge, and significant, trend to vote Democratic. If you are uneducated (without a HS diploma) not only are you more likely, but you are significantly MOST likely to vote Democrat. If go to "some college" the numbers shift again, slightly, toward the right. If you graduate college, again, the numbers shift, slightly, to the right. If you go on to get a post graduate degree, then the numbers shift, significantly, to the left. (Which I think has more to do with that kind of mentality dealing more with the conceptual than the actual, and I'll freely admit that in concept liberalism is better than conservatism, it's when it has to deal with reality that it runs into problems) Which means making comments to the point that those who vote Republican are ignorant, or dumber than those who vote Democrat, is a direct contradiction of the "facts" that liberals seem to think are always in their favor. Does that answer your question?

Move over, Florida and Texas, New Hampshire wants to join the stupid brigade!

odinsposse: FubarBDilligaf: Yeah, the same people who think facts have a bias, which is why they're ignoring the facts that don't suit their bias. I can live with them "making fun of me".

The facts in this case don't seem to have any bias at all. There are big differences at the top and bottom levels of eduaction and practiaclly none in the middle. You're the one desperately trying to make it fit your bias based on a data set you already said you didn't like.

Still ignoring the facts that don't suit your bias I see. And moving the goal posts. Nice that you're not limiting yourself to only one logical fallacy.

saintstryfe: Those Education/Voting numbers, I wonder, do they include people with no educational record (say, immigrants) as "No HS Education" if they didn't graduate an American-style High School?

Exit polling is a verbal q and a. If the person being polled considered themselves something then that is what they are. I know of no polling that can backcheck the respondants.

Philip Francis Queeg: The Local isn't accepting applications for aprenticeship this year at all. Pretty odd if there is a massive shortage of plumbers, isn't it?

Again, your link shows nothing about quality. People can go through all the schooling or training in the world, yet still be terrible at their job. Method of apprenticeship doesn't speak to internal quality controls. With all evidence you've presented, you can't disprove the hypothetical claim that the unions are out of work because they spend too much time in the classroom which drastically increases their prices and decreases their practical capacity. Were your evidence actual proof of a causal relationship, such a hypothetical claim would be obviously false.

You're also now claiming a causal relationship between lack of availability of jobs and availability of apprentice relationships. Please provide an economic study that shows how current shortages of available work in one labor union directly lead to a lack of apprentice slots within that labor union. Of note: you're assuming also that shortage of available work to a union is directly caused by shortage of work to the profession, which is a false assumption as seen by the American steel industry. If you want to keep down this path, show a decrease in available work to the profession rather than to a specific union.

odinsposse:
pdee: Looks like a lot more than 2%. Sense TFA wants us to believe this law will result in millions of people without ANY education this should be great for Democrats!

I'm sorry you can't follow along. Maybe a friendly democrat can bring you up to speed.

*sigh*

Clearly you have spent so much time in the comments that you have forgotten what was in TFA. If TFA assertion were correct the only statistic from the listed chart that relates to TFA is the 'no HS education' line.

No HS education - 63% D, 35% R

Again sense you continue to fail at comprehension if this law were to mean more people without a HS education then it would result in more democrats. Especialy sense this is the group with the most bias. The rest of the chart really does not relate to TFA.

sprawl15: Philip Francis Queeg: The Local isn't accepting applications for aprenticeship this year at all. Pretty odd if there is a massive shortage of plumbers, isn't it?

Again, your link shows nothing about quality. People can go through all the schooling or training in the world, yet still be terrible at their job. Method of apprenticeship doesn't speak to internal quality controls. With all evidence you've presented, you can't disprove the hypothetical claim that the unions are out of work because they spend too much time in the classroom which drastically increases their prices and decreases their practical capacity. Were your evidence actual proof of a causal relationship, such a hypothetical claim would be obviously false.

You're also now claiming a causal relationship between lack of availability of jobs and availability of apprentice relationships. Please provide an economic study that shows how current shortages of available work in one labor union directly lead to a lack of apprentice slots within that labor union. Of note: you're assuming also that shortage of available work to a union is directly caused by shortage of work to the profession, which is a false assumption as seen by the American steel industry. If you want to keep down this path, show a decrease in available work to the profession rather than to a specific union.

And as I predicted, still not a shred of evidence of your alleged shortage of plumbers. Way to go Champ. Does pulling claims out of your ass like that hurt?

Philip Francis Queeg:

If you don't want to prove that your area has an overabundance of capable plumbers, don't make the claim. Or just have a conversation like a normal person instead of a reactionary dickhead so you don't have to provide 3 scholarly articles every response.

sprawl15: Philip Francis Queeg:

If you don't want to prove that your area has an overabundance of capable plumbers, don't make the claim. Or just have a conversation like a normal person instead of a reactionary dickhead so you don't have to provide 3 scholarly articles every response.

If you don't want to prove that there is a shortage of plumbers, don't make the claim.

pdee: odinsposse:
pdee: Looks like a lot more than 2%. Sense TFA wants us to believe this law will result in millions of people without ANY education this should be great for Democrats!

I'm sorry you can't follow along. Maybe a friendly democrat can bring you up to speed.

*sigh*

Clearly you have spent so much time in the comments that you have forgotten what was in TFA. If TFA assertion were correct the only statistic from the listed chart that relates to TFA is the 'no HS education' line.

No HS education - 63% D, 35% R

Again sense you continue to fail at comprehension if this law were to mean more people without a HS education then it would result in more democrats. Especialy sense this is the group with the most bias. The rest of the chart really does not relate to TFA.

Why do people keep putting up that stat? It seems all of you that are using this stat to show more dems are uneducated seemed to gloss over the fact that this group only made up 4% of the people that voted. Lets put that into perspective, if 100 people voted that would be 4 people. You are trying to prove your argument that Republicans are more educated than Democrats based on what a group that makes up 4% of the total voters did.

Also people with out any high school education tend not to vote because they feel disenfranchised. The Democratic party does a better job of reaching out to those people and encouraging them to vote than the Republican party does.

The My Little Pony Killer: Move over, Florida and Texas, New Hampshire wants to join the stupid brigade!

As a Texan, I'm outraged that you would try to lump a northeastern state with us. We have our own brand of Southern Stupidity down here and we don't need no buffalo wings to f*ck it up yankee-style.

Philip Francis Queeg: If you don't want to prove that there is a shortage of plumbers, don't make the claim.

Let me show you how one can quickly do some research so you can go back to looking for evidence to support your claims. First, you can put in a quick string in Google relevant to your search term, like "shortage of plumbers". I'm feeling lucky, today, so lets just beeline to the first article Google can find.

It appears to be from Popular Mechanics, titled "Can New Programs Fix America's Plumber Drain?" and appropriately enough it focuses on the lack of new plumbers and "a general aging of the journeymen".

It provides a few links, one to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which states:

"Job opportunities are expected to be very good, with demand for skilled plumbers, pipelayers, pipefitters, and steamfitters expected to outpace the supply of well-trained workers in this craft. Some employers report difficulty finding workers with the right qualifications. In addition, many people currently working in these trades are expected to retire over the next 10 years, which will create additional job openings. "

It also mentions a study by Ridgid, which pins the problem on the lack of people attending vocational classes. Sadly it doesn't provide a direct link to this study, so we won't take it purely at face value, but it's an interesting tidbit to be thrown in.

Your turn.

The GOP knows they can't get anybody with an education who isn't in the 1% to vote for them, so they're just trying to get new voters while they're young now. Next stop: Cigarette machines in the cafeterias!

sprawl15: Philip Francis Queeg: If you don't want to prove that there is a shortage of plumbers, don't make the claim.

Let me show you how one can quickly do some research so you can go back to looking for evidence to support your claims. First, you can put in a quick string in Google relevant to your search term, like "shortage of plumbers". I'm feeling lucky, today, so lets just beeline to the first article Google can find.

It appears to be from Popular Mechanics, titled "Can New Programs Fix America's Plumber Drain?" and appropriately enough it focuses on the lack of new plumbers and "a general aging of the journeymen".

It provides a few links, one to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which states:
"Job opportunities are expected to be very good, with demand for skilled plumbers, pipelayers, pipefitters, and steamfitters expected to outpace the supply of well-trained workers in this craft. Some employers report difficulty finding workers with the right qualifications. In addition, many people currently working in these trades are expected to retire over the next 10 years, which will create additional job openings. "
It also mentions a study by Ridgid, which pins the problem on the lack of people attending vocational classes. Sadly it doesn't provide a direct link to this study, so we won't take it purely at face value, but it's an interesting tidbit to be thrown in.

Your turn.

And from your own source: Demand for plumbers is projected to exceed the supply, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and a general aging of the journeyman ranks will likely create job openings faster than they're filled.

No shortage, just a projection of a future shortage.

Job opportunities are expected to be very good-employment in the field is projected to expand 10 percent between 2006 and 2016-but some employers have reported difficulty finding qualified tradespeople to do the work.

What's this? Anecdotal evidence? That can't be! Not coming from you!

Let's see what it has to say about the study, shall we?

The Ridge Tool Company, which owns the plumbing tool brand Ridgid, has commissioned a study on the issue: "Where Have All the Plumbers Gone?" One place potential plumbers have not gone, concludes the study, is to vocational classes in public schools. Fewer classes mean fewer tradespeople: Only 16 percent of the 1000-plus high schoolers Ridgid interviewed said they had taken or were planning on taking a vocational class in the skilled trades. But once they actually took such a class, the respondents became twice as likely to consider pursuing the trade as a career. Enrolling in those classes has become more difficult in the past decades, as computers have filled the school classrooms formerly populated by drill presses and pipe vises.

Huh, it talks about the availability of certain classes in High Schools. It says nothing about the problem being too many kids going to college and getting too much education as you originally claimed. What a shocking development.

Still your turn Champ.

ongbok: pdee: odinsposse:
pdee: Looks like a lot more than 2%. Sense TFA wants us to believe this law will result in millions of people without ANY education this should be great for Democrats!

I'm sorry you can't follow along. Maybe a friendly democrat can bring you up to speed.

*sigh*

Clearly you have spent so much time in the comments that you have forgotten what was in TFA. If TFA assertion were correct the only statistic from the listed chart that relates to TFA is the 'no HS education' line.

No HS education - 63% D, 35% R

Again sense you continue to fail at comprehension if this law were to mean more people without a HS education then it would result in more democrats. Especialy sense this is the group with the most bias. The rest of the chart really does not relate to TFA.

Why do people keep putting up that stat? It seems all of you that are using this stat to show more dems are uneducated seemed to gloss over the fact that this group only made up 4% of the people that voted. Lets put that into perspective, if 100 people voted that would be 4 people. You are trying to prove your argument that Republicans are more educated than Democrats based on what a group that makes up 4% of the total voters did.

Also people with out any high school education tend not to vote because they feel disenfranchised. The Democratic party does a better job of reaching out to those people and encouraging them to vote than the Republican party does.

How can you have so much trouble with comprehension?

This all started with subby linking to TFA. TFA made the blatantly false assertion that the GOP passed a law that would end compulsory education.

Next Fark libs repeated ad nauseum that the GOP want people to no receive a basic education because it will make them vote Republican.

Then FubarBDilligaf posted stats from the last presidential election which shows that people who did not get a HS education and who voted, predominately voted for Democrats. Totally negating the argument that preventing education would help the GOP.

The fact that the no HS education group only represents 4% of the vote has nothing to do with the fact the the voters from that group vote overwhelmingly Democrat.

Now if you want to claim the Republicans are so stupid that the think that preventing people from receiving a HS education will help the GOP when in reality it will help the democrats then go ahead.

I going to guess by the amount of butt-hurt you express at the suggestion that Democrats are less educated the Republicans indicates you are a Democrat. I am further going to guess that your inability to follow the conversation indicates you must be one of those Democrats who failed to graduate HS.

Philip Francis Queeg: No shortage, just a projection of a future shortage.

You did look at what the projection is based on before making such a bold statement, correct?

Philip Francis Queeg: Huh, it talks about the availability of certain classes in High Schools.

It talks about how people do not tend to go to technical schools without previous exposure to vocational classes, which they claim is contributing to the shortage of plumbers. They wish to increase exposure to vocational classes, which would lead to more people attending technical schools, which would lead to increased plumbers.

Philip Francis Queeg: It says nothing about the problem being too many kids going to college and getting too much education as you originally claimed.

I never said that's what the Rigid study claimed. For reference: "sprawl15: It also mentions a study by Ridgid, which pins the problem on the lack of people attending vocational classes." Try not to bring more strawmen into the argument.

Philip Francis Queeg: Still your turn Champ.

Since your entire counterargument consisted of a strawman and not reading the link - while completely ignoring the PM article itself - while refusing to provide any substantial rebuttal, I'm going to have to disagree.

Baloo Uriza: The GOP knows they can't get anybody with an education who isn't in the 1% to vote for them, so they're just trying to get new voters while they're young now. Next stop: Cigarette machines in the cafeterias!

You should try reading some of the comments before you post. You will look less stupid that way.

sprawl15: You did look at what the projection is based on before making such a bold statement, correct?

Yes, I did. However the basis for the projection of a future condition does not transfer that condition to the present. The shortage is projected, not current.

sprawl15: It talks about how people do not tend to go to technical schools without previous exposure to vocational classes, which they claim is contributing to the shortage of plumbers. They wish to increase exposure to vocational classes, which would lead to more people attending technical schools, which would lead to increased plumbers.

And still nothing about your original claim about to many people getting a college education at the start of this discussion.. Funny that.

sprawl15: I never said that's what the Rigid study claimed. For reference: "sprawl15: It also mentions a study by Ridgid, which pins the problem on the lack of people attending vocational classes." Try not to bring more strawmen into the argument.

Yes I understand that you are trying to change the basis of the discussion since your original claims have no basis in fact. Sticking with your original position isn't a strawman on my part.

And so it is still your turn to show any current shortage of plumbers as a result of too many people getting a college education, let alone your fantasy that factories closed because they couldn't find enough low education people to employ.

Or you could just admit that your original statement didn't have much of a basis in reality.

CPennypacker: madcan34: It's called home schooling and people have been doing it for years with great academic success. It kind of dings the student in a social aspect however.

Every home schooled kid I've ever met thinks the world is 5,000 years old and Darwin was a pawn of the devil

Uh, wow, thanks...-.-

/Some parents homeschool because they have an actual education and want to pass it on to kids, especially high-IQ or special-needs children, and the homeschool group I grew up in was actually a well-planned-out system for real education
//It's the religious ones you're talking about
///For the record: Subby\TFA's author's concerns are valid, though they would still be subjected to standardized tests (though I'm not sure what would happen if their children failed the tests, which may be where said concerns are coming from), but this is more likely to be used to get out of biology\geology\basic science classes.

Philip Francis Queeg: Yes, I did. However the basis for the projection of a future condition does not transfer that condition to the present. The shortage is projected, not current.

...based on a trend from 2008 of shortage of plumbers. Are you suggesting that somehow someone could provide factual evidence of the future having a shortage of plumbers? I don't think fartbongo loans out his time machine, but I'll send him an e-mail.

Philip Francis Queeg: And still nothing about your original claim about to many people getting a college education at the start of this discussion.. Funny that.

Of course not. That wasn't in the article. I was showing you how to do basic research, you may want to try it. I'm not feeling SO lucky that I expect a complete dissertation on everything I talk about to fall from the sky on the first Google result.

Philip Francis Queeg: And so it is still your turn to show any current shortage of plumbers as a result of too many people getting a college education

Hey hey, moving the goalposts, I see. You set the request: "If you don't want to prove that there is a shortage of plumbers, don't make the claim." Don't be mad that you asked the wrong question.

Do you have any evidence of there being no plumber shortage whatsoever yet? I'm not going to bother providing more links for you to not read until you play by your own rules.

After seeing this news story, can you blame them?
School Defends "Occupy" Song For 8-year-olds

Ah, so this must be why Gingrich thinks he'll have support in NH...

pdee: ongbok: pdee: odinsposse:
pdee: Looks like a lot more than 2%. Sense TFA wants us to believe this law will result in millions of people without ANY education this should be great for Democrats!

I'm sorry you can't follow along. Maybe a friendly democrat can bring you up to speed.

*sigh*

Clearly you have spent so much time in the comments that you have forgotten what was in TFA. If TFA assertion were correct the only statistic from the listed chart that relates to TFA is the 'no HS education' line.

No HS education - 63% D, 35% R

Again sense you continue to fail at comprehension if this law were to mean more people without a HS education then it would result in more democrats. Especialy sense this is the group with the most bias. The rest of the chart really does not relate to TFA.

Why do people keep putting up that stat? It seems all of you that are using this stat to show more dems are uneducated seemed to gloss over the fact that this group only made up 4% of the people that voted. Lets put that into perspective, if 100 people voted that would be 4 people. You are trying to prove your argument that Republicans are more educated than Democrats based on what a group that makes up 4% of the total voters did.

Also people with out any high school education tend not to vote because they feel disenfranchised. The Democratic party does a better job of reaching out to those people and encouraging them to vote than the Republican party does.

How can you have so much trouble with comprehension?

This all started with subby linking to TFA. TFA made the blatantly false assertion that the GOP passed a law that would end compulsory education.

Next Fark libs repeated ad nauseum that the GOP want people to no receive a basic education because it will make them vote Republican.

Then FubarBDilligaf posted stats from the last presidential election which shows that people who did not get a HS education and who voted, predominately voted for Democrats. Totally negating th ...

The point about the 4% wasn't quite pointed at you as it was to others that were pointing that out. But I did address your point that more uneducated voters vote for democrats in my post by saying that people without HS diplomas normally don't vote and the Democrats spend more time an energy on getting those people to vote than Republicans do.

So no I don't have any problem with comprehension, but you seem to have a temper issue that makes you unable to read and process everything that is put in front of you before you go off on an angry tantrum. Now that is a sign of an inferior education. Which is the type the Republicans want people to get, which is exactly what is being proposed here, because people with that type of education tend to do what you just did, get all excited and angry over something without fully reading or hearing it, then act out of emotion to it before they are able to hear it fully explained to them so they can have a full understanding of it.

This is the type of crap that gets people voting against their own self interest after people like Santorum make incendiary racist speeches like his one about black people and welfare. After hearing something like that a poorly educated white person with temper issues may pound his fist on his table and proclaim "That's right those blacks need to stop taking my money, I'm going to vote Republican and show them". When if they actually were to listen fully to what he said and got past the incendiary part long enough to do some research, they would have found out he is full of crap and the rest of his policies are also full of crap. The same thing happened with death panels and medicare. You use incendiary words when talking to a group of poorly educated people and you can get them riled up to the point were they stop listening and will vote against their own interest.

sprawl15: ..based on a trend from 2008 of shortage of plumbers. Are you suggesting that somehow someone could provide factual evidence of the future having a shortage of plumbers? I don't think fartbongo loans out his time machine, but I'll send him an e-mail.

The future is immaterial to this discussion. The claim was that there is not only currently a shortage of plumbers, but that shortage of low education workers led to the decline of manufacturing in the US in the past. Things that are currently happening, or happened in the past can certainly be proven.

sprawl15:

Philip Francis Queeg: And still nothing about your original claim about to many people getting a college education at the start of this discussion.. Funny that.

Of course not. That wasn't in the article. I was showing you how to do basic research, you may want to try it. I'm not feeling SO lucky that I expect a complete dissertation on everything I talk about to fall from the sky on the first Google result.


So we come back to the fact that your original statement had no basis in actual fact. It wouldn't hurt you too much to actually admit that. Or maybe it would.

sprawl15:


Do you have any evidence of there being no plumber shortage whatsoever yet?

I never said there was no shortage whatsoever. I said there was no shortage in my area, and there isn't.

Besides now you are demanding that a negative be proved, where you have failed to show any evidence of your positive claim that there is currently a shortage of plumbers.

Until you can provide actual evidence your claims, there really isn't anything more to discuss. Your claims remain just that: claims, not facts worthy of discussion.

Philip Francis Queeg: The future is immaterial to this discussion.

Then why are you whining that a current trend of lack of plumbers isn't proof of future lack of plumbers?

Philip Francis Queeg: I said there was no shortage in my area, and there isn't.

Prove it.

Philip Francis Queeg: Besides now you are demanding that a negative be proved, where you have failed to show any evidence of your positive claim that there is currently a shortage of plumbers.

Asking for evidence of "There are too many plumbers" is considered proving a negative to you? wow.jpg

Philip Francis Queeg: Besides now you are demanding that a negative be proved, where you have failed to show any evidence of your positive claim that there is currently a shortage of plumbers.

If you don't consider the BLS statistics to be 'evidence', then we're not going to get anywhere. What would constitute evidence to you, if not collated data from the last 4 years?