Why? What is the Goal? What will he say?

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Well, this is going to stir it up for sure . . . Statistically speaking, there are fewer single mothers on the right. Fewer divorces. Less school dropout. More educational degrees earned. .

WRONG

Harris Poll, Sept 2008

Demographic Analysis


Looking at education levels, McCain does best, with a twelve point lead, among people with only a high school education or less. Obama leads by ten points among college graduates and 20 points among those with a post graduate education.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

That's why actual data is handy.

I don't have actual data handy, but the last time I saw it (it's been about 10 years) it indicated that bachelor's degree holders were more likely to vote for Republican candidates, while those with both less and more education (high school or lower and graduate degrees) were more likely to vote for Democratic candidates.

There was also a startling degree of correlation between area of study and voting preferences for those with graduate degrees (although not nearly as much for those with bachelor's degrees). Things got really interesting when you asked graduate degree holder's to self-identify their politics. If I remember correctly some vast majority of those with Ph.D.'s in sociology and allied fields self-identified as "progressive" rather than "Democrat", while the group most likely to self-identify as "libertarian" (at rates something like 15 times the average) were Ph.D. holders in economics.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

You don't happen to have some data that's not about specific candidates, do you?

Your data doesn't really contradict Turtle's point, since he's talking generalities, and you're looking at a single, specific, election.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[turtlespeed 220]

Quote

Quote

Statistically speaking, there are fewer single mothers on the right. Fewer divorces. Less school dropout. More educational degrees earned.

I don't really think that family structure or divorce rate is something I want the government involved in. Those are intensely personal decisions, best left to individuals (and their families)--not government functionaries.

I've made choices about how I want to raise my children, what family structure I want to live in (and want to raise them in), and what emphasis I want to put on education for me, and for them.

Everyone else has a right to make those choices for themselves, too. If that means they make decisions I wouldn't, then that's their right.

I wasn't saying that the govt has ANY right to that - OR our personal information - (which they will have at their beckonb call once the records are theirs to do with what they want.)

I agree with your POV completely here. I was simply stating that the left will encompass the minorities, the poor, and are more likely to be from an unstructured family. Not that anyone has the right to interfere with whatever decisions are made once they are there.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 2,026]

Hey Marc,

Remember that fact checking site you recommended to us a while back?


Here is what it says on this issue.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

That said, how do you define "took better care of their children?"

Wendy P.

You know, protecting them from scary things, like facts and other viewpoints. Best to keep them home where it's safe and not expose them to anything that might make them think on their own. [/stir pot]

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Hey Marc,

Remember that fact checking site you recommended to us a while back?


Here is what it says on this issue.

Cool, thanks

Florida can do what they want. Me? I am going to wait and see like I have indicated all along. (refer to the subject line)

What about you?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[futuredivot 0]

You know, "And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."
Sits a lot better with me than
"What is the president trying to tell me?
What is the president asking me to do? "

"Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us? "
"Why does President Obama want to speak with us today?
How will he inspire us?
How will he challenge us?"
"What resonated with you from President Obama’s speech?"

It's the push from DC and the organized discussion agenda. If someone just noted that the President was giving a speach on education and some educators were going to watch it in class and discuss it. It would be beneath notice.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Everything depends on the message dont you think?

Absolutely. Maybe people should wait to find out what the delivered message is before they start fear mongering. But then again, if the intended goal is to promote divisiveness and to ensure that Obama fails at absolutely any effort, then waiting to hear what he actually says may be counterproductive. Best to put the straw man out there and set it afire.

of course - it's SOP for any party with the other party's guy in the hotseat

I dunno. Seems like this raises the bar to a level I have never seen before in my life. I can not think of a single time I have ever heard of masses of people planning to take their kids our of school for a day so that they won't have to listen to the President of the US say something.

That the parents actually believe listening to the PRESIDENT is going to harm their kids.

Can you?

Some idiots decided to take a perfectly reasonable talk from the President telling kids to stay in school and get good grades (BTW, the ONE thing that really is the magic bullet for success in life) and turn it into something sinister.

Fucking grow up people.

+1. No matter what this guys says these people are going to find a problem with it, taking ANY opportunity to burn the guy at the stake and keep kicking and screaming like school children who have not gotten their way on the playground. Honestly, I don't think he is dumb enough to enovoke children to push his political agenda on.

I will be the first person to burn this guy at the stake if he decideds to air something in the classroom that says, "Government run healthcare is good, MMmm K, kiddies?" But I am willing to bet my first born on it that he doesn't, and purely sticks to an atta boy go getter speech to do well in school, focus on your studies and education because it is the key to the future and success in ones life. Since I am willing to take a step back and say, "wow, holy crap... that's fucked up," if he goes in and pushes his agenda, are all of the fear mongers spilling paranoia all over their place and ripping their kids out of school willing to take a step back and say, "wow... he gave a good speech supporting education in school. I was wrong."?? PROBABLY NOT.

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

Quote

That's why actual data is handy.

I don't have actual data handy, but the last time I saw it (it's been about 10 years) it indicated that bachelor's degree holders were more likely to vote for Republican candidates, while those with both less and more education (high school or lower and graduate degrees) were more likely to vote for Democratic candidates.

There was also a startling degree of correlation between area of study and voting preferences for those with graduate degrees (although not nearly as much for those with bachelor's degrees). Things got really interesting when you asked graduate degree holder's to self-identify their politics. If I remember correctly some vast majority of those with Ph.D.'s in sociology and allied fields self-identified as "progressive" rather than "Democrat", while the group most likely to self-identify as "libertarian" (at rates something like 15 times the average) were Ph.D. holders in economics.

I find it funny that most Ivy League and high end institutions tend to be in blue areas on the map.

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

That's why actual data is handy.

I don't have actual data handy, but the last time I saw it (it's been about 10 years) it indicated that bachelor's degree holders were more likely to vote for Republican candidates, while those with both less and more education (high school or lower and graduate degrees) were more likely to vote for Democratic candidates.

There was also a startling degree of correlation between area of study and voting preferences for those with graduate degrees (although not nearly as much for those with bachelor's degrees). Things got really interesting when you asked graduate degree holder's to self-identify their politics. If I remember correctly some vast majority of those with Ph.D.'s in sociology and allied fields self-identified as "progressive" rather than "Democrat", while the group most likely to self-identify as "libertarian" (at rates something like 15 times the average) were Ph.D. holders in economics.

I find it funny that most Ivy League and high end institutions tend to be in blue areas on the map.

So you use that to validate your belief that that means the "blue" is smarter and better.

Just like others value their self-identity.

Regardless of whether you're Republican OR Democrat, I'm guessing that BOTH value their children and want to protect them. How they choose to do that and regarding what topics varies... but the basic point is that some people feel this "Public Service Announcement" is a threat. You can devalue that opinion by insulting or name calling or you can just accept that others have different views. Your choice.

[riddler 0]

I didn't vote for Obama because he's African American. I voted for him for other reasons. But I want to say that I'm excited to see an African American President address school-age children.

I live in the city, and next to section 8 (low-income) apartments. Many of the children there are poor and feel that they'll never be anything but poor, and yes, some of them feel that they can't be successful in a white-man's world. I know that they are just repeating what their parents are saying. But if just a few kids see an African American President addressing them, one who is articulate and educated, even after he himself made mistakes as a young man, and they think to themselves that they really can make themselves into something better, then all of the rest of the controversy is irrelevant to me.

The possibilities are exciting.

Edit for grammar.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[Royd 0]

Quote

I'd love to see people discuss the issues around here. Unfortunately, most of the debate around here revolves around lies, exaggerations, and yes, paranoid fantasies promulgated by the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and O'Reilly.

On this topic, there is no rational way to discuss it. It's like having a rational discussion about the boogeyman with a four year old. The kid will keep believing that the boogeyman is hiding in the closet no matter how many times you explain how unlikely it is.

And no, I'm not calling anyone a four-year old, just the mindset that Obama MUST have an ulterior motive for everything he does is akin to the irrational fear of a child.

It's really all about following the bouncing ball.
Did you not hear him say that he wants a civilian army, as powerful as the national army?
Where would he get such recruits? He already seems to have labor unions and ACORN on board.
Anyone who has studied cults, and Obama has way too many markers, as a leader, to ignore, knows that cajoling works better than coercion, to get into someone's head. Jim Jones surely didn't start out with a pitcher of cyanide laced Kool Aid.
Obama's problem is that his end agenda, can only be achieved, through deceit, and many of the adults, who bought the original charisma, are starting to wise up.

He would love to take all of the glory for radical political change in this country, but in his greed, he has moved too hard and too fast...His next move is instill his ideaology into young heads, full of mush.[Limbaugh]
And, yes, I believe that Obama does nothing, without a subversive, agenda driven purpose.

[Royd 0]

Quote

: And this one is about education -- study hard. At least that's what I read.

This, from someone, who claims to be a Harvard educated lawyer, but can't even open a thousand page document, before signing it..... Yeah, that's an example, I would want my kids to follow.

[Royd 0]

Quote

Looking at education levels, McCain does best, with a twelve point lead, among people with only a high school education or less. Obama leads by ten points among college graduates and 20 points among those with a post graduate education.

Seems, they must have missed the lesson, on getting their ears tickled, with smooth words.

[riddler 0]

Quote

from someone, who claims to be a Harvard educated lawyer

Claims? Oh, wait, I get it. The next right-wing sound bit will be "lied about his college education". This goes nicely with "not really a US born citizen". What's left after that? Not really the President?

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

from someone, who claims to be a Harvard educated lawyer

Claims? Oh, wait, I get it. The next right-wing sound bit will be "lied about his college education". This goes nicely with "not really a US born citizen". What's left after that? Not really the President?

There must a web site where you can generate your own Harvard diploma, just like the one the "birthers" use to generate Kenyan birth certificates.

It's time the righties read Aesop's fables about the perils of crying "Wolf".

As President Bush said so eloquently, www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Royd 0]

from someone, who claims to be a Harvard educated lawyer

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

Claims? Oh, wait, I get it. The next right-wing sound bit will be "lied about his college education". This goes nicely with "not really a US born citizen". What's left after that? Not really the President?

Point being, all the certifcates in the world, don't mean squat, if, in the end, you sign and approve a 1.000 page document, without ever cracking the cover.
BTW. why would such an outstanding scholar of law, hide everything he has ever done, from public view.....If I were top of my class, in anything, I'd at least have patch, a bumper sticker, or something.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

If I were top of my class, in anything, I'd at least have patch, a bumper sticker, or something.

An attitude that explains the conditional in your statement.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

That's why actual data is handy.

I don't have actual data handy, but the last time I saw it (it's been about 10 years) it indicated that bachelor's degree holders were more likely to vote for Republican candidates, while those with both less and more education (high school or lower and graduate degrees) were more likely to vote for Democratic candidates.

There was also a startling degree of correlation between area of study and voting preferences for those with graduate degrees (although not nearly as much for those with bachelor's degrees). Things got really interesting when you asked graduate degree holder's to self-identify their politics. If I remember correctly some vast majority of those with Ph.D.'s in sociology and allied fields self-identified as "progressive" rather than "Democrat", while the group most likely to self-identify as "libertarian" (at rates something like 15 times the average) were Ph.D. holders in economics.

I find it funny that most Ivy League and high end institutions tend to be in blue areas on the map.

So you use that to validate your belief that that means the "blue" is smarter and better.

Just like others value their self-identity.

Regardless of whether you're Republican OR Democrat, I'm guessing that BOTH value their children and want to protect them. How they choose to do that and regarding what topics varies... but the basic point is that some people feel this "Public Service Announcement" is a threat. You can devalue that opinion by insulting or name calling or you can just accept that others have different views. Your choice.

I am fine with their views. Their kids, their choice, but what I am NOT fine with is that if this was president Bush doing this same exact speech, these people probably wouldn't be causing all of the fuss. And what I am NOT fine with is all of these people causing all of the fuss not willing to be objective and fair enough to step back and say, "wow, I made a big deal out of nothing and made a mistake by saying he would push his political agenda," if he does in fact come out and give a non political speech about staying in school just like Bush did in 91.

As for the blue on the map vs. where the Ivy Leagues are, I could care less since I did not go to an Ivy League, so it in fact has ZERO to do with my self identity (even less because of the fact that I am a INDEPENDENT). Rather, it was just a pure and simple physical observation to let the other poster know that he might have been wrong in his previous statement about republicans tending to be the more educated ones in more educated areas and such... just playing devils advocate.

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[kbordson 8]

Quote

I am fine with their views. Their kids, their choice, but what I am NOT fine with is that if this was president Bush doing this same exact speech, these people probably wouldn't be causing all of the fuss. And what I am NOT fine with is all of these people causing all of the fuss not willing to be objective and fair enough to step back and say, "wow, I made a big deal out of nothing and made a mistake by saying he would push his political agenda," if he does in fact come out and give a non political speech about staying in school just like Bush did in 91.

In the other thread about the same topic, I typed in my notes from a class that I took in the 90's about Rhetoric of Campaigns and Revolutions.

I can now say for a FACT. Yes, I did have a problem with President Bush giving that speech. I have notes in my hand writing questioning the motives and the rhetoric.

So... about what others might think/feel, I can't and won't judge. About what I feel. Nope, not being biased just because it's President Obama.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

...what I am NOT fine with is that if this was president Bush doing this same exact speech, these people probably wouldn't be causing all of the fuss.

Right. The fuss would be coming from the other side of the political spectrum. You know, those folks who were "anti-war", so long as the war was in Iraq, but are now pro-war, simply because it's moving to Afghanistan.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Quote

...what I am NOT fine with is that if this was president Bush doing this same exact speech, these people probably wouldn't be causing all of the fuss.

Right. The fuss would be coming from the other side of the political spectrum. You know, those folks who were "anti-war", so long as the war was in Iraq, but are now pro-war, simply because it's moving to Afghanistan.

um, the real war was always in Afghanistan. That's where the guys are who attacked us. Iraq was Bush's own adventure.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

..the "real" war ...

I bet that war seems pretty real to the folks dying, no matter where they are.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

Quote

I am fine with their views. Their kids, their choice, but what I am NOT fine with is that if this was president Bush doing this same exact speech, these people probably wouldn't be causing all of the fuss. And what I am NOT fine with is all of these people causing all of the fuss not willing to be objective and fair enough to step back and say, "wow, I made a big deal out of nothing and made a mistake by saying he would push his political agenda," if he does in fact come out and give a non political speech about staying in school just like Bush did in 91.

In the other thread about the same topic, I typed in my notes from a class that I took in the 90's about Rhetoric of Campaigns and Revolutions.

I can now say for a FACT. Yes, I did have a problem with President Bush giving that speech. I have notes in my hand writing questioning the motives and the rhetoric.

So... about what others might think/feel, I can't and won't judge. About what I feel. Nope, not being biased just because it's President Obama.

Then I respect your views/opinions/feelings on this topic even more. Unfortunately, I don't feel the masses who are the strongest voices protesting about this speech can say the same for their objectiveness and background.

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)