Ann Coulter - Negroes With Guns

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by jfrog

LOL. Considering most of the recent statistics show democrats are more likely to be educated (think young college students, the kind that got BHO elected) then I'd say you have no basis for the claim that democrats want to keep people ignorant. For as intelligent of a woman as you are MissB, you can do alot better than that and that overly biased article you posted.

How about this article? Citing statistics from the Census Bureau regarding the 2004 and 2008 elections:

http://voices.yahoo.com/presidential...599.html?cat=7

"Based on data from the United States Census and renowned Cook Partisan Voting Index (CPVI), congressional districts with more educated residents are more likely to pledge their electoral votes to Republican presidential candidates. Conversely, congressional districts with less educated residents are more likely to pledge their electoral votes to Democratic presidential candidates....

...As a point of probable interest, seven of the ten most educated congressional districts are partisan Republican districts and three are partisan Democratic districts. All ten of the least educated congressional districts are partisan Democratic districts. As a preliminary matter, the following is a list of these twenty congressional districts, their general geographic areas, high school (or higher) graduation percentages, and their Cook Partisan Voting Index (CPVI) values:"

IMO, this isn't a reflection of the intelligence of the average Democrat, but rather the tendency of the party to pander to those with lower education--often disingenuously, I might add. Misinformation is king and the MSM is the liberal politician's best friend.

[canam]

da facts are da facts,deal with it libs.

[canam]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

That's debatable. From Wiki:

"...Its predecessor had been an exclusively partisan Democratic organization in the South. The second Klan grew in the Midwest, where for a time, its members were courted by both Republicans and Democrats. The KKK state organizations endorsed candidates from either party that supported its goals; Prohibition in particular helped the Klan and some Republicans to make common cause in the Midwest. In the South, however, the southern Klan remained Democratic, closely allied with Democratic police, sheriffs, and other functionaries of local government. With continuing disfranchisement of most African Americans and many poor whites, the only political activity took place within the Democratic Party."

If and when the KKK does align itself with Republicans, it would only be because they share a platform on limiting immigration and opposing Affirmative Action. The latter I will never understand. Affirmative Action is one of the most racist measures ever created. It assumes two things: 1. The inherent racism on the part of employers or educators, and 2. The inherent weaknesses in a particular race causing the need for special concessions to be made in order for them to compete.

JD, I lived in Louisiana for awhile, and I can assure you that some of the most nasty racists I know are Democrats--not Republicans. They don't try to hide it, either. It would be a mistake to think that those old racist hacks have changed their party affiliation. They only recent reason I can think of for them to do that would be their party electing a half-black President. THAT might cause a few Klansmen or White Power elitists to make a move, but I doubt it.

The idea that Republicans are racist is an idea that has been successfully pandered by the MSM and a few ignorant politicians or public figures, but anyone who knows about the Klan and history knows that Democrats are the ones who have historically oppressed minorities. IMO, Democrats are still oppressing minorities with the emphasis placed on the nanny state-- not encouraging them into education and the workplace instead of remaining on government support and thus never allowing them to become strong, independent citizens. It is to the Democrats' political advantage to keep this ruse going, because it insures votes--no matter how ignorantly those votes are placed. Democrats need to keep people ignorant and dependent in order to get votes.

[canam]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Is there anyone who is willing to make the argument that today's Democrat Party is the same Democrat Party of the 1950's and prior?

I know of a few that are willing to make the argument that today's Republican Party has more in common with the Democrat Party of years ago-- but most Republicans today don't like that comparison.

The comparison wouldn't bother me so much if I there was no truth to such a comparison, but there is. Even still, most Republicans are not Klansmen, but you ask a Klansmen TODAY what party they will usually vote for and I GUARANTEE they won't say Democrat.

yess i am they just disguise it better

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

How about this article? Citing statistics from the Census Bureau regarding the 2004 and 2008 elections:

http://voices.yahoo.com/presidential...599.html?cat=7

"Based on data from the United States Census and renowned Cook Partisan Voting Index (CPVI), congressional districts with more educated residents are more likely to pledge their electoral votes to Republican presidential candidates. Conversely, congressional districts with less educated residents are more likely to pledge their electoral votes to Democratic presidential candidates....

...As a point of probable interest, seven of the ten most educated congressional districts are partisan Republican districts and three are partisan Democratic districts. All ten of the least educated congressional districts are partisan Democratic districts. As a preliminary matter, the following is a list of these twenty congressional districts, their general geographic areas, high school (or higher) graduation percentages, and their Cook Partisan Voting Index (CPVI) values:"

IMO, this isn't a reflection of the intelligence of the average Democrat, but rather the tendency of the party to pander to those with lower education--often disingenuously, I might add. Misinformation is king and the MSM is the liberal politician's best friend.

Let me help you out

I found this on CNN. I can't find the results of any FOX exit polls. If you can I'd be happy to see the numbers.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

It's clear that Obama got more educated voters than McCain. He also got more uneducated voters than McCain. In fact Obama's largest lead over McCain was with those that had no high school education. His 2nd largest lead was with those who had a postgraduate level education.

I imagine if we looked at average education levels then Obama would be behind just like the study you cited shows. However, Obama's average being less doesn't mean educated people were less likely to vote for him, it simply means that very uneducated people were very likely to vote for him. I'm sure you can see the difference.

Also, I reject the hypothesis that a district with a better high school graduation percentage is a more educated district. What if you had 100% high school graduates with no college and no college graduates? Or if you had 90% PHD holders and 10% high school dorpouts. By the study you cited the district with no college graduates would be considered more educated. I think its obvious how flawed that is.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Let me help you out

I found this on CNN. I can't find the results of any FOX exit polls. If you can I'd be happy to see the numbers.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

It's clear that Obama got more educated voters than McCain. He also got more uneducated voters than McCain. In fact Obama's largest lead over McCain was with those that had no high school education. His 2nd largest lead was with those who had a postgraduate level education.

I imagine if we looked at average education levels then Obama would be behind just like the study you cited shows. However, Obama's average being less doesn't mean educated people were less likely to vote for him, it simply means that very uneducated people were very likely to vote for him. I'm sure you can see the difference.

Not really.

In that particular election, Obama won by a large margin, meaning that voters from EVERY educational background were more likely to have voted for Obama. That isn't a reflection of general voter activity in all elections.

Also, several articles I read skewed the results by referring to the number of educated people who voted democratically versus the total population of a particular state or district rather than the total number of VOTERS. Since not all people in a district vote, if you use population as a determining factor in your statistics as opposed to the number of actual voting constituents, the results will be way, way off. An example of this kind of sloppy (or slick) data presentation would be, "In red states, the education of the average resident is lower." The education of the average resident is irrelevant; the education of the average voter is what's important.

[MissBrattified]

Also of interest: http://images.nbra.info/docs/library...r%202Feb11.pdf

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Not really.

In that particular election, Obama won by a large margin, meaning that voters from EVERY educational background were more likely to have voted for Obama. That isn't a reflection of general voter activity in all elections.

Also, several articles I read skewed the results by referring to the number of educated people who voted democratically versus the total population of a particular state or district rather than the total number of VOTERS. Since not all people in a district vote, if you use population as a determining factor in your statistics as opposed to the number of actual voting constituents, the results will be way, way off. An example of this kind of sloppy (or slick) data presentation would be, "In red states, the education of the average resident is lower." The education of the average resident is irrelevant; the education of the average voter is what's important.

The first study you cited did just that... It looked at the education level of the state/district as a hole instead of the education level of the voters. So by your own admission that first study you cited is skewed?

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by jfrog

The first study you cited did just that... It looked at the education level of the state/district as a hole instead of the education level of the voters. So by your own admission that first study you cited is skewed?

Haha!!! I didn't even notice that! Good call. I noticed it in several other articles and was annoyed by it, but for some reason I read right through it in the Yahoo article. In a hurry---is my excuse for that one.

Yes, skewed, but more importantly, less relevant. I don't care about the average education of a district; I care about the average education of the voters in a district. I want to know the percentage of educated voters (college and beyond) who vote conservatively versus the percentage of uneducated voters who vote conservatively.

Voters in general tend to be more educated and have higher income than non-voters, which is why using total population instead of voter populations leads to skewed conclusions about voter activity. The exit poll you posted also had an interesting statistic (which I had seen before but forgotten): 11% of the voters [polled] were new voters, and 69% of them voted for Obama. I would be curious to know how many of those new voters were in college or college grads.

I think we're digressing from the main point of my thread, which is to point out the correlation between gun control, liberal ideology and racism.

Another shocking example of this is Margaret Sanger, founder of planned parenthood. Her views on abortion and euthanasia were horrifyingly racist at their core--and racist seems too mild a word. To put it bluntly, she believed in genocide in order to "control" populations of people who were poor or genetically inferior or inferior races. She was philosophically as bad as Hitler, but yet she is held up as an icon of feminine rights by the liberal left and her terrifying ideas have been both embraced and whitewashed. Again, why would any minority group support an organization with such a horrid founder? It would be akin to black people suddenly showing support for the KKK. IMO, it boils down to a lack of education and the spread of misinformation by the MSM. That, and the fact that I'm pretty sure your average high school text book isn't going to mention Mrs. Sanger in anything less than glowing terms--nor will the connection between the KKK and Democrats by mentioned. Heaven forbid our young people should know the TRUTH about our political history.

[Dordrecht]

What's wrong with black people having guns?
They serve in the army, don't they?