Damn, I hate this. Not. The study talks about Republicans, independents and Democrats. In each political propensity the study addresses 3 levels of identification. "Disadvantaged" was assigned to some Dems and pointed out they are poorly educated compared to the big picture. There is no equal or semantically equivalent depiction in the other levels or propensities.
Once again, conservatism proven to produce dumb people with low-effort skills
- Thread starter gui1tars
- Start date
Damn, I hate this. Not. The study talks about Republicans, independents and Democrats. In each political propensity the study addresses 3 levels of identification. "Disadvantaged" was assigned to some Dems and pointed out they are poorly educated compared to the big picture. There is no equal or semantically equivalent depiction in the other levels or propensities.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
lol.....as if Legion needed encouragement.....
You are a liar. I tried to reason with WB as I recognized almost immediately that we were kindred spirits on most issues. He busted out on ME and refused to admit his own mistakes after I had pointed them out to him. Fuck him and the horse he rode in on. Newbie or not I have some dignity and like WB I refuse to simply be fucked with.
You hate it because you understand you were caught out. The study defines groups of voters. At the beginning it specifically talks about the fact that the least educated among us, except for one group (the disadvantaged democrat) do not regularly vote. Because the study speaks to them at the beginning, the "disadvantaged conservative" (again they simply use different terminology, those disadvantaged not in the cities) doesn't regularly vote.
Let's see if you can be honest. The single largest group of uneducated voters (actually in the study because they actually regularly vote) was from what group?
Democrats, of course. But why? What makes them relatively uneducated and why do they vote? Do their problems exist in the other mentioned political propensities i.e. Republicans and independents? Straight up, NO, they do not and they are NOT discussed in your linked piece as you claim. Quote it and link it, please. It takes only elementary math and extrapolation and an only slightly better understanding of demographics to figure out why the "disadvantaged dems" account for the largest group of undereducated voters.
Thats an easy one....the "disadvantaged" account for the largest group of under-educated voters because the're lack of brain power requires them to take the lower
paying jobs, if they a lucky enough to find one they can do, or they are the ones that can't or won't take care of their own needs and demand others take
responsibility for their welfare.....
The reason they are Dems. is because they are the party that caters to their wants with social programs that confiscate goods from the workers and give to the
parasites.....in some warped sense of fairness......while Reps. only offer them extra help to better themselves and learn to get the extra help they need to
get them to a point where they can take personal responsibility for their own welfare.....that requires these people work harder to achieve those goals.....
You just can't have it all ways, navy gay tv channel. Make up your mind which position you want to take. Education, brain power, lucky job finders, can't work or won't work, Democrats, low wages, parasites, pick your poison, piss ant. Are farmers that draw subsidies parasites? Are corporations that demand and get tax breaks to the overall expense of the average taxpayers parasites? You ain't hitting on shit, dumbass, and I don't expect it to get any better.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
I think we have hit upon a pattern......governments use subsidies to encourage a particular activity......they use farm subsidies to encourage people to grow certain crops......they use corporations subsidies to buy more equipment......and they use welfare payments to encourage people to maintain a dependent life style.....
And only the kindness of a loving doG keeps jerks like you alive to write shit like that. It is a pattern, isn't it?
apple0154
MEOW
On the other hand perhaps even the host of a right wing board can spot the absurd comments and inappropriate behavior displayed by some of the right wing posters.
A fruitcake is a fruitcake.
We understand the frustration and anger of the right wing. Obama is making fundamental changes, changes to represent what the Constitution originally meant to convey and that is clearly spelled out in the Preamble.
First, let's make this clear. The Preamble "states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve."
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
So, what's the point of the Constitution? "To form a more perfect union, domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty." The Constitution has to be interpreted keeping those points in mind. When interpretating specific articles of the Constitution one has to ask themselves how their interpretation results in a more perfect union. How does their interpretation promote the general welfare? How is their interpretation synonymous with blessings?
Regarding the current case before the Supreme Court (ObamaCare) does knowing and refusing to correct the fact 45,000 die every year from a lack of medical insurance promote the general welfare? Does having family members needlessly dying insure domestic tranquility? Is 45,000/yr preventable deaths a blessing?
People talk about activist judges and that they're making laws from the bench but in most cases the judges are interpretating the Constitution to reflect the Founding Father's intentions and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve. It frequently appears those on the right view the articles in isolation as if they have no connection to a bigger meaning/purpose.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
So, debate Gatorman on the validity of the study quoted in the OP.
On the other hand perhaps even the host of a right wing board can spot the absurd comments and inappropriate behavior displayed by some of the right wing posters.
A fruitcake is a fruitcake.
We understand the frustration and anger of the right wing. Obama is making fundamental changes, changes to represent what the Constitution originally meant to convey and that is clearly spelled out in the Preamble.
First, let's make this clear. The Preamble "states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve."
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
So, what's the point of the Constitution? "To form a more perfect union, domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty." The Constitution has to be interpreted keeping those points in mind. When interpretating specific articles of the Constitution one has to ask themselves how their interpretation results in a more perfect union. How does their interpretation promote the general welfare? How is their interpretation synonymous with blessings?
Regarding the current case before the Supreme Court (ObamaCare) does knowing and refusing to correct the fact 45,000 die every year from a lack of medical insurance promote the general welfare? Does having family members needlessly dying insure domestic tranquility? Is 45,000/yr preventable deaths a blessing?
People talk about activist judges and that they're making laws from the bench but in most cases the judges are interpretating the Constitution to reflect the Founding Father's intentions and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve. It frequently appears those on the right view the articles in isolation as if they have no connection to a bigger meaning/purpose.
That kinda puts it in a nutshell, doesn't it, apple? Thank you very much.
After 112 posts? I'll do it anyway. What about it, durno?