On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 15:22:43 -0400, Spinner & Lugnut
opined:

The lower one's level of education, the more likely one is to be a
liberal. The less education one has, the lower one's average income is
likely to be.

Liberalism is a refuge for those living in envy of the accomplishments
of others.

Not true. I'm a liberal, have an Expedition, a big expensive house, big pool
and I don't have to work. Next.

I dont believe in giving people handouts. The majority of people on welfare are
children. I want them to get everything they need to grow up to be people with good
jobs. Poor nutrition early in life damages IQ, poor health care leads to chronic
illness, poor schooling leads to unemployability. Poor PARENTING leads to a lack of
discipline which leads to a life of chaos, so I dont believe in "welfare" to parents
and children without quality control. I got a whole program in mind for putting
women on welfare to work ... train them to be child care workers in child care
facilities attached to grade schools as a start. The work, they get schooling, their
kids benefit, other working women get cheap, good, safe child care.
The majority of women on welfare are white and live in towns and rural areas. the
average "time" on welfare is about 2 years. the average number of children is 2-3.
most if not all of them are on welfare cause the fathers arent supporting their
children.
There are people who simply cannot work. Most of them are mentally ill and as a
scientist with a genetics minor I will say that the literature indicates most of it
is genetic and/or genetic predisposition, not their fault and most cannot yet be
controlled with medications. I foresee they will be in the future and if diagnosed
early enough and treated early enough all those people will be functional.

most of our tax money goes to the military. As anti-war as I am even I dont want to
see that funded by charity. http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
Ingrid

"slandscaping" wrote:
so don't subsidize it and take away their will to pursue their own bounty in
this amazing world of plenty
If the income tax were eliminated we would
all have more money to put into these organizations.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

actually, the data is quite clear. the higher the level of education the better the
development of critical thinking skills, the more progressive and liberal. The
entire middle east is a classic example of the correlation between complete
ignorance, poverty and religious fanaticism. We got our home grown crop of course.
As a university professor my income is working class, but I am sure plenty of blue
collar workers make more than I do, unionized ones much more.
I am one of those lucky person getting paid for what I would do for free.
Ingrid

Spinner & Lugnut wrote:
The lower one's level of education, the more likely one is to be a
liberal. The less education one has, the lower one's average income is
likely to be.
Liberalism is a refuge for those living in envy of the accomplishments
of others.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

sigh... undergraduate education is more memorization than thinking. grad school
demands critical thinking skills. Ingrid

"gregpresley" wrote:
"What irritates is that those who go on to postgraduate education head out
in the wrong direction (52-44)."
(Meaning that they voted for Gore, not Bush.)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

"subtle" subtle@ niwhere.com wrote in
:


"Salty Thumb" wrote in message
...

mwhahahahaha, LMAO!

The grain of truth is if you equate being educated with being well
trained, the corollary is true. The higher one's level of training
(like a dog adept at performing tricks), the more likely one is to be
a conservative. The higher the level of indoctrination, the higher
one's average income is likely to be. Obedience is richly rewarded
... and if you are disobedient or disloyal, well then, like fish in
the sea, there are plenty of dogs in the country. You don't need any
education for that, you just need to be a good dog. Likely, you,
being well trained, but poorly educated, aren't able to
differentiate.

Gratuitous grandious generalization

Not a gratuitous but perhaps a grandiose generalization, yet certainly one
more thoroughly grounded in reality than your friend's (or was it your
own?) assertion. (Omitting references to reality being a unnecessary and
misleading generalization of my generalization.)

Take the set of people with over 6 figure earnings as photographed in the
March 14, 2004 Parade Magazine:

WM Donald Trump, Real estate mogul, $100 mil
WM Rush Limbaugh, Radio host, $32 mil
WF Judy Sheindlin, TV Judge, $25 mil
BF Halle Berry, Actress, $15 mil
BM Kobe Bryant, Pro Basketball player, $13.5 mil
WF Marilyn Monroe, screen legend, $8 mil - DEAD
WF Annika Sorenstam, Pro golfer, $5.5 mil
WM Bud Selig, Baseball commissioner, $5 mil
WM Simon Cowell, record producer, $2.3 mil
WF Hilary Duff, actress/singer, $2+ mill
** Funny Cide, Thoroughbred, $2 mil - A HORSE, FEEL FREE TO OMIT
WM Pete Rose, (listed as) Author, $1 mil
WF Anna Nicole Smith, Reality-TV star, $1 mil
WM Ronald Pierce, Harness race driver, $495,000

$400K roughly in order of appearance
WM Dick Cheney, VP, 198.600
WF Ruth Bader Ginsburg, SCJ, 190,100
?F Avier Gaitan, Attorney, $105,500
AM Kent Lue, Accounting manager, $100,300
AF Marlyn Acuram, Home-care provider, $100,000
WM Scott Stanley, Rx drug salesman, $155,000
WM J. Tucker Beck, Real estate agent, $103,100
?M Michael K. Powell, Chairman, FCC, $142.500 - Collin Powell's kid
WM Mark Bozich, Account executive, $150,000
WM Shawn Hencye, Private Investigator, $210,000
WM Walter Nullet, Ship's captain, $169,000
WM Tim Lockwood, Sales Manager, $180,000
WM Panfilo Contreras, Director, nonprofit, $103,000
BF Genevia G. Fulbright, CPA, $100,000
BM Ron Sims, County Executive, $155,000
WF Lisa Cariquist, Office space planner, $110,000
BM Jimmie Dotson, Police Chief, $124,100
BM Kenneth Ellerbe, Deputy fire chief, $102,000

Being a touchy-feely liberal (or so the statistics you provided below would
indictate), I will give you my impression of the above lists. It is a
small, reasonably unbiased sample space of 31 high income earners.

I admit there is direct data on neither political affilation nor education
level. [I provide the race and sex since you might think it is relevant,
given the statistics you cite below. I omitted the ages and locations.]
However, it is my *sense* that the following generalizations (*) can be
inferred:

* The highest earning people on the list do not necessarily have higher
"education" than those lower. Therefore income does not scale
proportionally with education.

* The majority of the people on the list, are on the list because they are
either highly skilled (read: trained, not educated) at what they do or got
the job because of "internal connections". (If not, then how are
applicants differentiated?)

# At lower skill levels, selection of individuals for employment from a
pool of equally skilled individuals is resolved by considering who the
applicant knows or what additional effort the applicant is willing to
accept. (If not, then how are applicants differentiated?) During
employment, selected persons are able to accelerate their skill level, even
quickly surpassing other applicants who previously may have been more
qualified, resulting in higher training and higher income.

* The majority of the people on the list are conservatives (by polls, high
income people are more likely to be conservatives) and not necessarily
because, they believe or can explain or compare conservative philosophy in
detail (having accepted training in lieu of education) but merely because
it is convenient and loyal to be so.

# People who do not conform or are replaced and lose opportunities.
(Rush Limbaugh axed by Disney/ESPN for Donovan McNabb remark. Bill Mahr
(not on list) axed by Disney/ABC for anti-patriotic remarks.) Attempts to
challenge the status quo can be critically disadvantangeous.

Certainly I make unsubstantiated and grandiose claims based on a limited
sample space to contradict your friend's previous claim but they should be
easy enough to refute if you are correct. Perhaps some industrious college
educated thinker-sensor conservative would care to provide more data. You
should be able to check political affliation on voter registrations and
certainly the top list (above $400,000) should have public biographies with
educational accomplishments.

Smerfs like to make (and smerflings like to repeat) grandiose
generalizations that appear plausible but upon inspection, aren't
truly representative of reality, being true only in specific senses
contrived for their own sake. The higher one's level of education
(which implies being able to think for one's self and not merely
vomit back someone else's ruminations), the less likely one is going
to be conned by the propaganda.

It's my sense that liberal propoganda is rampant in higher education
and that it takes independent thinking and analysis to overcome it.

Propaganda or open discussion? In "higher education", ideas are supposedly
open to challenge, unlike in one sided presentations provided by
perspective "news" programs, decrees from the government, or views
distilled by religious or other special interest organizations. It's a
wonder that liberal views are even given any credence in higher education
if you claim that the majority of college educated persons are or turn
conservative. In fact it is tactically unsound to target a comparatively
minor population of supposedly free thinking persons when supposedly in a
democracy, the power is wielded by the general populace, and it would be
far more effective to generate "mob" support by inflaming popular opinion
through mass media, which is what conservatives have traditionally done,
and as you can see from the radio station announcement, liberals, for
better or worse are jumping on the bandwagon.

Exactly how did you come to the conclusion you shared above, or were
you just repeating something you heard? If you really are
'educated', you'll be able to provide some basis for you claims or at
least have a discussion on the topic.

And yet you present no evidence for your opposite claims.

I thought I'd give the person I'm responding to a chance to respond first.
But if you insist are the any particular claims your are interested in that
I haven't already answered in this reply?

Statistically, you're more likely to be a Republican and/or
conservative if you'

a.. a man
b.. a college graduate
c.. in the top income bracket
d.. an evangelical Christian
e.. living in a rural area
f.. a Thinker-Sensor
Statistically, you're more likely to be a Democrat and/or liberal if
you'

a.. a woman
b.. a senior citizen
c.. gay
d.. nonwhite
e.. living in an urban area
f.. a Feeler-Intuitor
Here are the references used for the list above and other resources
for further reading on this subject.

The Harris Poll: Party Affiliation
Results of year 2000 survey of 13,000 adults.

That's all very well and not especially relevant.

In fact your example shows another point I made, that your generalizations
appear plausible, but upon inspection aren't truly representative of
reality, being true only in specific senses.

The chart certainly doesn't show that one's conservative (or non-liberal)
affinity increases as one's education level increases. It does show that
there were more conservatives with college degrees than liberals with
college degrees. It does not show that getting a higher degree increases
the likelihood of turning or being a conservative, as, assuming a
representative sample space, the data is severely biased towards
undergraduate degrees. You might as well say that conservative affinity
isn't a result of going to college, but a result of being wealthy and being
able to pay for college.

The relation to the claim is so tenuous, I wonder if you wrote it and the
following bibliography yourself, or if it's part of some "standard" reply
that you get at Republican camp.

Here are the references used for the list above and other resources for
further reading on this subject.

The Harris Poll: Party Affiliation
Results of year 2000 survey of 13,000 adults.

2000 Exit Polling
Demographic data from exit polling during the 2000 elections.

Republican Voting Trends
Regression analysis.

U.S. Demographics
Major demographic groupings in the United States.

Party Negativity or Neutrality?
Research paper analyzes long-term trends in party alignment.

An Alternative Analysis of Mass Belief Systems: Liberal, Conservative,
Populist, and Libertarian
Policy analysis from the Cato Institute.

The Party of the Rich?
Commentary from Dean Esmay.

Preserve, Protect, Defend
Commentary from Michael Spencer: "Republicans seek to preserve what is
essential about American life, while Democrats seek to replace what is
essential with their own liberal brand of tyranny. There are many,
many other differences, but this is the persuasive one."

I'd like to know what exactly you in particular consider essential about
American life.

Communication Styles and the Florida Ballot Flap
Scott Hogenson links politics and the Myers-Briggs analysis of
personality and communication styles.

The Gender Gap's Back
Two factors explain almost all of the gender gap in presidential
politics.


Other than citing sources, is there any specific point you'd like to make?

wrote:


most of our tax money goes to the military.

Can you cite a source for this? Of course not.

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:29:39 -0400, April invalid opined:



wrote:


most of our tax money goes to the military.

Can you cite a source for this? Of course not.

Well, let's see...this year alone 125 billion with a b dollars will be spent on
Iraq. That's enough money to buy everyone in the nation all their prescription
drugs, or feed everyone and give them all a check up and dental exam. But, we
are busy nation building in a nation which hates us. Do I really have to cite
this?

"escapee" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 15:22:43 -0400, Spinner & Lugnut
opined:

The lower one's level of education, the more likely one is to be a
liberal. The less education one has, the lower one's average income is
likely to be.

Liberalism is a refuge for those living in envy of the accomplishments
of others.

Not true. I'm a liberal, have an Expedition, a big expensive house, big
pool
and I don't have to work. Next.

not that this is an important point or anything....but arguing from the one
to the many doesn't hold up since he used the word likely.

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:53:29 GMT, wrote:

I dont believe in giving people handouts. The majority of people on welfare are
children. I want them to get everything they need to grow up to be people with good
jobs. Poor nutrition early in life damages IQ, poor health care leads to chronic
illness, poor schooling leads to unemployability. Poor PARENTING leads to a lack of
discipline which leads to a life of chaos, so I dont believe in "welfare" to parents
and children without quality control. I got a whole program in mind for putting
women on welfare to work ... train them to be child care workers in child care
facilities attached to grade schools as a start. The work, they get schooling, their
kids benefit, other working women get cheap, good, safe child care.
The majority of women on welfare are white and live in towns and rural areas. the
average "time" on welfare is about 2 years. the average number of children is 2-3.
most if not all of them are on welfare cause the fathers arent supporting their
children.
There are people who simply cannot work. Most of them are mentally ill and as a
scientist with a genetics minor I will say that the literature indicates most of it
is genetic and/or genetic predisposition, not their fault and most cannot yet be
controlled with medications. I foresee they will be in the future and if diagnosed
early enough and treated early enough all those people will be functional.

most of our tax money goes to the military. As anti-war as I am even I dont want to
see that funded by charity. http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
Ingrid

"slandscaping" wrote:
so don't subsidize it and take away their will to pursue their own bounty in
this amazing world of plenty
If the income tax were eliminated we would
all have more money to put into these organizations.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.


Good Grief. Pass the Scotch.

http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
http://www.fcnl.org/issues/mil/sup/m...taxes-FY02.htm
http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/taxes_may01.html
I thought I had included at least the first link. Ingrid


April invalid wrote:



wrote:


most of our tax money goes to the military.

Can you cite a source for this? Of course not.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

"garden guy" wrote in message
news

Education:

Should we support a true market in education -- one in which parents and
students would not be stuck with a bad local school, because they could
choose another?

Should we implement measures such as tax credits so that parents will have
the financial ability to choose among schools?

Should we provide financial incentives for businesses to help fund schools
and for individuals to support students other than their own children?

Should we eliminate the U.S. Department of Education, which spends
billions
on education and educates no one?

I better knock it off. Time for work.

PS: Liberals tend to be top posters.

You must be a teacher, Gardenguy, because you certainly know everything
that's wrong with public education. It would certainly help if more
conservatives became teachers and brought their insights into improving
public education from the front line, particularly considering all the money
lavished by the public on teacher salaries. You must be smiling as you take
your pay check to the bank and plan your early retirement. It certainly
would help if conservatives funded scholarship for conservative students
interested in reforming public education. I'm sure conservatives would
receive far more applicants for these educational scholarship candidates
than they could fund.

I have to disagree with you about the U.S. Department of Education. I
definitely think the U.S. Department of Education is doing it's job because
their head did call the NEA, your union, an agent of terrorism. What
observation could be more profound? You must have missed that speech at the
Republican Governors' Convention.

You also missed mentioning vouchers for private academies. Why shouldn't
parents be able to take the education dollars spent on their children in
public schools and spend this money on schools where funds aren't wasted on
special education and special need students? Private schools can spend all
their money on education and not have to waste it on these high cost
students whom they aren't required to admit. Private academies can also
expel troublemakers, which improves the learning environment. After all, the
purpose of education is to educate, not baby-sit.

You really did inform everyone about the best of the conservative agenda for
education. Thanks for your insight.

John

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:12:04 GMT, wrote:

sigh... undergraduate education is more memorization than thinking. grad school
demands critical thinking skills. Ingrid

What really matters is the correlation of IQ to political affiliation. Degrees
may prove intelligence, but in many cases it only proves that your parents were
wealthy enough to buy them for you.

No kidding conservatives are better educated. Degrees are expensive.
Intelligence is innate.

--
John GOTTS http://linuxsavvy.com/staff/jgotts

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:51:52 GMT, "garden guy" opined:


"escapee" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 15:22:43 -0400, Spinner & Lugnut
opined:

The lower one's level of education, the more likely one is to be a
liberal. The less education one has, the lower one's average income is
likely to be.

Liberalism is a refuge for those living in envy of the accomplishments
of others.

Not true. I'm a liberal, have an Expedition, a big expensive house, big
pool
and I don't have to work. Next.

not that this is an important point or anything....but arguing from the one
to the many doesn't hold up since he used the word likely.


I understand he said "likely," but in the city where we live, 67% of the
population has been to higher education, and 24% of graduates, attended graduate
school and up. This, for the most part, a very liberal town. Our president is
a big dumbo. He is declared to be a Harvard Business School graduate, but has
failed in every business he operated. Including, IMO, our great nation. He
came in when we were in the black, now we are in more debt than ever in the
history of the nation.

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 02:54:40 -0500, John Gotts opined:

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:12:04 GMT, wrote:

sigh... undergraduate education is more memorization than thinking. grad school
demands critical thinking skills. Ingrid

What really matters is the correlation of IQ to political affiliation. Degrees
may prove intelligence, but in many cases it only proves that your parents were
wealthy enough to buy them for you.

No kidding conservatives are better educated. Degrees are expensive.
Intelligence is innate.

My mother attended college at the age of 54 and paid for it, had a 4.0, was
nominated Valedictorian and graduated, graduate school as Summa Cum Laude. (I
may not have spelled things correctly.)

So, she is vastly a liberal, lives in New York, owns a home ON the water, and
her back deck overhangs a wildlife preserve estuary where ospreys nest. She has
money to spare and still works at the age of 70, full time. Her IQ is somewhere
in the 150s, and she would vote for President Clinton again in a heartbeat,
should he ever run again. As would I.

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:12:04 GMT,
wrote:

sigh... undergraduate education is more memorization than thinking.
grad school
demands critical thinking skills. Ingrid

Ingrid, would you just clarify for furrin readers what Americans mean
by undergraduate education and grad school? Thanks

Janet