should there be something like the SAT that people have to get a certain score on before they're eligible to vote? and should they have to pass the test every time they vote. hmmm, i should turn Facebook back on before i get booted from here for spamming and only have the unread LOF forums or Outlook to post in.

yah, the general theme would be "We're sorry, but you are too stupid to vote at this time. Please try again later".

yea, you cant be voting based on your religion.

also cant be voting if your only news source is Fox.

solved 99% of the problem.

not to say the left doesnt have its mass idiots. i consider myself a social libertarian so meh.

And who writes the Q's for this competency test?
Old wealthy white guys? no, thanks

i figured that they were already written since we have 12 years of public education available. i was thinking maybe like test for 6th grade level stuff. basic math, reading and writing.

how about just name three candidates that will be on the ballot.

That would be a nice thing to have, but the politicians would never go for that. Remember, they depend upon the stupid people to remain in office. Hence the governments warning label program and improvements in medical technology which guarantees that the stupid people aren't affected by the fatal effects of being stupid and outbreed the smart people, thus more stupid people can vote and the votes are what counts to keep them in office.

The Democrats would not allow this, it'd be the end of their party.

How exactly would an "old wealthy white guy" write questions differently than a "young poor black guy"?

Klown: As an educator, test bias is a very real thing. How do they write different questions? Well, I'll leave math out of this, because while perhaps someone could argue how an equation could imply cultural values identity, I'm certainly not that guy.

However, as far as any other portions of the test that are more narrative or expository in structure (reading, social sciences, etc.), there's the fact that most narratives imply a certain cultural viewpoint, and for someone who does not share that viewpoint, you're putting them at a disadvantage. Furthermore, there's the actual language that it's being written in. Standard English isn't really a native language to anyone (we all have regional dialects and slang that differentiates our natural spoken language from what is written), but at the same time, Standard English is much closer to Midlands/Northern dialects than other regional and ethnic dialects, which would put many people in other regions or of other ethnicities at a disadvantage.

Cerberus: That's a pretty dark viewpoint on why we try to help people stay alive. I hope that's just you being sarcastic and that you don't really hold that cynical of an outlook on the state of the nation.

Klown: On your other point, really? Democrats are incompetent and stupid? I'd be happy to look at high school and college graduation rates for the most common red states vs. the most common blue states. In fact, here ya go: http://www.eduinreview.com/...ducated-than-republicans/

It's from a blog post that goes all the way back to 2008, but I'd imagine the data hasn't changed so dramatically to invalidate the point the article makes.



Regardless, this type of law wouldn't ever happen because it's unconstitutional. I'm not quite motivated enough to check out case law on the topic, but I'm pretty sure all the voting restrictions that used to be associated with the denial of voting rights to black Americans in the South were all struck down via the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Dibs: I haven't argued much with you, since I don't tend to get on AT as much, but I certainly hope that if you're going to make the case that we should deny people the right to vote, that you're not one of those people who argue that the constitution is sacrosanct and that anyone who would suggest anything that might go against the Constitution is un-American.

I'm just looking for justice. the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. don't think mine are protected anymore in the US. what's to argue about? I'd already be gone if i could afford it.

i was actually kinda hoping that was the reason why. otherwise, i can't see why we're going deeper and deeper in to debt trying to pay to keep all those people alive. figured everytime somebody got put on life support another Democrat was created.

Your red state vs blue state argument is not relevant when comparing the voters of each party. You need to compare the actual voters. For example, California may look good in your statistics implying that Democrats are super smart. Now, compare the Democratic voters in Cali with the Republican voters and you'll see something entirely different.

I don't understand your point about test bias. Because rich old white guys use different dialects than rich old black guys? How do I understand Obama when he talks? He's a rich old black guy and I'm a young middle class white guy. If he wrote a test, I wouldn't be able to pass it? Can you give me an example of a question that a rich old white guy might write compared to one a black guy might write? On a separate point, why is "rich old white guy" a legitimate way to demean someone? It is constantly used by the left as an insult and as a way to delegitimize someone.

Look around at the state of the nation. It's pretty dark out there, dude. We are failing at almost everything except killing each other.

I'd like to avoid being required to shoot Democrats for being Enemies Of The State. do y'all have a plan tbat doesn't require me to shoot one or two of y'all?

"Can you give me an example of a question that a rich old white guy might write compared to one a black guy might write?"

rich white guy: what were the positives or benefits of the slave trade between ~1700 and ~1860?

rich black guy: what were the positives or benefits of ignoring entirely the tenth amendment to the united states constitution?

?

Pres. Obama doesn't speak in African-American Vernacular English though (AAVE hereafter). You understand him because he speaks in Standard English. If he spoke in AAVE, then you'd have to decode what he said. I don't point this out in any kind of snarky way. I'm an English major who's taken several linguistics classes including one I'm sitting in, ignoring the lecture right now.

Having said that, imagine if you're taking the English portion of the ACT and you're suddenly being expected to utilize the rules of grammar, the standard spellings, and other aspects of British English rather than Standard American English. You might also have a similar problem with the reading sections based on the syntax choices, because most likely there will be some word choices you won't know.

It's similar to if a Hispanic student, who is bilingual but is stronger in Spanish, had to take a Physics test in English. He might be conversationally fluent in English, but he might struggle with the scientific jargon of physics in English. Does that make him incompetent? You could argue perhaps it does in English (but that's debatable), but certainly not in science.

I'm not necessarily arguing that this is a horrible awful thing. I think it depends on what you're trying to actually test, and that's a whole different conversation than I'm planning on engaging in here.

aave is racist. i think you meant jive talk?

I think he meant "Ebonics". This is what the Philly public school system calls the class they have in it anyway.

three, count them three (3) terms for black talk?

It has always puzzled me that most African Americans struggle so hard with English, yet when you meet one that speaks Spanish, he speaks spanish quite elegantly. I don't understand how that works. Anyone have any suggestions about why? Also, they do French quite well too.

let me axe you dis, bred'jrin?
yo guys, respects, respects to your moms

French and Spanish are languages from warmer climates. English is a cold climate language.

So what are you saying here, Dibs? That black peoples mouths don't work so well in cold climates? Or that white peoples ears don't work in warm climates?

probably saying that i forgot that France is just across the English Channel from England.

oh, like canada? a social democracy with universal health care and lax marijuana laws looking to legalize?

perhaps england, with a virtual lock on gun ownership universal health care and a serious issue with tea.

maybe mexico? oh wait, you cant immigrate to mexico and become a citizen without having a degree in a field they want speak fluent spanish, and risk being killed or robbed by some cartel member who decides you die today.

wait wait, i got it. portugal. a country that virtually decriminalized all drugs and has a higher alcoholism rate than all the irish in boston.

move to another country, its not that expensive honestly. however, if you want the standard of living you are used too and the quality of life you expect in the US... prepare to not have any guns, pay 30-50% or more of your income in taxes, and live in what you probably think is a communist country.

btw, the more educated people about politics, global events, science, technology and religious impact tend to be more liberal. the ones that know the most about religion tend to be atheists on top of that.

we are truly behind as a country, and its not because of people wanting welfare, its because of the economic impact on the lower class basically strangling them to the point where its slavery, and they have no hope of ever getting out. its because we have gradually killed our educational system with systematic cuts in funds, support, and quality of educators. we used to be the innovators, now we are playing catch up. its because people like you, vote in politicians who let the wages stagnate while the interest rate and cost of living skyrockets. the people making minimum wage now, have less income than they did in 1970. by far. they have lost the ability to afford nice schools, day care, medical care, and the hope of sending a child to college without crushing loans, the hope of a scholarship, or grants.



dibs - "I'd like to avoid being required to shoot Democrats for being Enemies Of The State. do y'all have a plan tbat doesn't require me to shoot one or two of y'all?"


lolwut.

why do you mention more educated people as being liberal and state that education system is broken on the same post? are they liberal because the education system isn't about teaching people how to use their brains? hmm, the education system is probably more geared to creating gladiators to compete in sports so that the populace has something to keep them distracted. 12 years of school and it only qualifies most people for minimum wage jobs? think it's there just to train people what to think, not how to think.

The schools are failing because the Ivory Tower Academicians have decreed that only those people who have studied in one of the approved educational curricula can teach. Thus the brilliant engineer that could demonstrate how something works and how to figure it out is excluded from the classroom in favor of the liberal arts major who has learned to game the academic system is there instead. Being educated does not guarantee someone is smart, merely educated.

It's BS MS and PHD, right? Bullfluff, More fluff and Piled Higher and Deeper.

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/...say-not-really-for-nj-pa/

oh, guess maybe living in NJ is just bad for my freedom. i have to move to a different state to find me some better rights?

Cerberus: Don't get yourself involved in a discussion about education. It's clear you either don't value educators or don't understand that teaching is something that isn't as easy as it looks.

because the more educated you are, the more liberal you tend to be. the statistics go hand in hand. the higher poverty rates, drug rates, violent crime rates, teen pregnancy rates, and STD rates all belong to the lower income less educated section of society. its not because they are liberal they dont work, its because the system has failed them they are more liberal. its obvious from your posts you have never researched or lived in modern poverty and have never had to deal with these issues. research the fluffing subjects before you talk out your ass.

and yes, k-12 is a joke. its not because its government money, its because its controlled by people who arent educators. the school boards in TX tend to have the largest impact on the nation when it comes to testing and curriculum. issue is, most of the board has never been a teacher, and has no degree that suits them to that job. they are not qualified to hold that position in pretty much every possible way. this idea that we dont need to pay our teachers a decent wage is hilarious. when you pay 30k a year, you get the lower end of the graduating class. when you pay 80-100k a year and support them, you get the teachers who actually know the subject, care, and will work hard. not to say we dont have exceptions, its just the vast majority of our teachers should not be teaching. the reason we are falling behind is complicated, but the easiest solution and its pretty universal - raise the standard of education drastically. higher education rates have proven correlation with lower violent crime, drug use, pregnancy, STD spread and poverty. basically everything a society wants to succeed.

also standardized testing is a massive failure and needs to be rejected by all levels of society.


ps: the differences between a BS and a PhD are fluffing massive. if you cant comprehend that, dont involve yourself in a conversation regarding intelligence.

and i want to reiterate some of my viewpoints so you dont think im some tree hugging hippy.

i have 3 shotguns, 3 aks, 1 30'06, 1 sks, 2 mosin nagants, and a spring xd.

i tend to lean towards the austrian side of economics.

i think you should be required(if mentally and physically capable) to work for the city or state in some capacity to receive welfare, be it cleaning the roads, painting graffiti, or maybe even helping at a subsidised day care center. doesnt have to be much, 10 hours a week is all i would want.

i think weed should be legal, and all other drugs decriminalized and handled with care and medical help for the heavier users. help them get methadone free, they wont rob you. it costs roughly 15-20k a year to keep an addict in methadone, it costs over 40k a year to keep them in prison. either way they dont commit crimes, and one is 20k cheaper. simple fluff.

i think we need to be more proactive in reusable and renewable resources. we spend a fraction of what we should be spending on solar and wind power. we could be powering the US by 2020 purely with solar but no one wants to spend the money. FREE fluffING POWER FOR THE ENTIRE POPULATION FOR LIFE, but its to expensive? lolwut.

I believe that for the most part cops are unneeded and harmful to society.

just some of my beliefs so you know im not berkley klingon insane.

the more educated you are then the more liberal you can afford to be. the question would be who paid for the education because it's not free. hmm, unpro is another academia nutt. hope you don't have any children old enough to shoot those guns.

Twain, I'm a professional technology trainer, and I have been for a very long time. I've worked in technical education for most of my adult life. And you're right, I don't value most of the educators we have, they are lazy and stupid by and large. The good teachers are rare, the vast majority of them depend on their union to keep their jobs.

They simply don't care is the problem, they got theirs by sitting through those classes, not that they really learned much, but they sat their asses in that chair and thus they have the right to exclude people who didn't sit in that chair for the requisite amount of time.

I've met Doctors who were among the stupidest people I've ever met and I've met people who didn't graduate from high school whose ability to learn and think is astounding. Just having an education is no guarantee of intelligence as much as it is a possible indicator of perseverance.

not at all, the more education you receive the more liberal you start to lean. its not like phd candidates are all born communists who will never accept any other potential viewpoint.

what news source would you consider "unbiased?"

how many times does communism have to fail before those oh so educated left wing phd holders realize they aren't all that smart, after all?

have to cut their funding first. they'll always think that they're smarter than the average beer as long as the idiots keep paying them.

you mean the socialist wannabe communists who don't quite understand the difference between the two, and go to four years of university, and come out still not knowing the difference?

the problem with communism is not the system, its the people. as long as we live in a society that covets material things and regards status symbols as important, we can never have a system of government like that. the idea itself is perfectly sound, its the implementation that has no hope in hell.

also, i dont consider any news source unbiased. some are just so beyond help that hoping to see quality world/national news is just a dream.

i read news from the BBC, Al Jazeera(its really good for middle eastern news), NBC, CBS, rueters, and i get a lot of weird stuff from http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/ a site which has a definate liberal bias in what they talk about but do tend to post factual reporting.

"also, i dont consider any news source unbiased."

nobody is unbiased. to suggest you are, is both a lie to yourself and everybody else.

"the problem with communism is not the system, its the people."

i don't see your point.. the system was created by the people that the problem lies with, but the problem doesn't extend to what they create? maybe i'm reading too far into it, i don't know, an argument isn't my desire (but a discussion i would much welcome)

since nine eleven, as a canadian, i have watched american news. i watched my girl, dana perino on cnn, i watched my boy tony snow (rip) on cnn. once erica hill left ac360, i left cnn. (um, assuming my dates are right, heh) i went entirely to fox news, and have from socialist canadian accepted news, or american liberal news, have entirely relied on the FAR, FAR, FAR less biased news source, fox news.

i tried both, i chose one. instead of hating one, go in with an open mind, and choose for yourself, not what you were "taught" to believe, but what you determine to be the truth.

anything else is a lie, one perpetrated by somebody else, and you are the tool of they utilize.

unpro tends to be right on one key point, although even as someone who probably votes 80% Democrat, I'll put a caveat on it:

Education does tend to correlate to ideology. It tends to be true (not in all cases) that people with the highest education levels are progressive/liberal/Democrat, whatever term you wish to use. It also tends to be true that in blue states, most of the people with the LOWEST education tend to be Democrats as well.

As far as why the people with the highest education tend to be Democratic probably is more correlative with the type of jobs that tend to require advanced degrees. My guess (truly a guess, perhaps I'm wrong) is that lawyers and doctors tend to be split between conservative and liberal, but the other main job that tends to require (or at least be highly beneficial) to have an advanced degree is education. While neither side has done a decent job of showing educational leadership, Democrats tend to put more money into education than Republicans, so clearly educators have not only an economic motivation to be Democrats, but also feel they are more valued by Democratic politicians.

I'd bet that while I'm sure there are a bunch of Democratic MBA's out there, that's probably a degree classification that tends to skew Republican, since those people have more of an economic interest in voting for Republicans.

So yes, unpro is absolutely right that there is a correlation with the most educated people tending to skew towards being Democrats, but I will acknowledge that it's probably less about the education that makes them likely Democratic voters and more about the fact that their profession of choice is what makes them likely Democratic voters.

braden: I find it hilarious that you call Fox News far far far less biased than other news stations.

The thing that makes Fox News successful is exactly that it is not only very biased but very effective as pushing that bias forward in a narrative that virtually every one of their personalities is capable of embracing.

MSNBC has attempted to do the same thing, but is nowhere near as successful.

CNN has attempted to be more centrist, and certainly are, and I would argue that of the news sources on American television, CNN is, far and away, the most unbiased. This is not to say there are not perceptible biases from their personalities, but CNN at least attempts to be a centrist news station, whereas neither MSNBC or Fox News can say that.

On a related note, I don't blame either of the other two stations for embracing their biases, because Fox News is far and away the #1 ratings grabber of the three, with MSNBC slowly climbing, and CNN pretty much stagnating.

It's pretty clear that everyone in America that watches 24 hour news simply wants to listen to personalities that will tell them what they want to hear.

looks more like teachers are Democrats simply because their career depends on being in a union. plus from what I've seen, they get paid extra for having useless degrees above and beyond the call of duty. but if teachers are the most educated, then they're not the ones paying for their education? guess it depends on whether or not they're paid with public or private money. is there any private money left in the US?

twain, you're an increcibly intelligent person and i respect what you say as much as i do anybody elses on this board, fooglmog likely being the one i would defer to the easiest, but you have proven time and time again that you are a well articulated, well informed person. so when i disagree with you, i trust you understand it's merely a difference of opinion and not an insult.

"braden: I find it hilarious that you call Fox News far far far less biased than other news stations."

as i [think i?] explained, i base it purely on empirical evidence, where i gain nothing in perpetrating any lie. so why might i?

"MSNBC has attempted to do the same thing, but is nowhere near as successful."

i do not watch msnc, at all, in my life, so i can not comment past my comment on my not being able to comment :P

"CNN has attempted to be more centrist, and certainly are, and I would argue that of the news sources on American television, CNN is, far and away, the most unbiased. This is not to say there are not perceptible biases from their personalities, but CNN at least attempts to be a centrist news station, whereas neither MSNBC or Fox News can say that."

fox gives us open discussion, fair argument (outside of sean hannity, i agree with him often, but his rhetoric is as bad as anybodys)- we have bob beckel, we have juan williams, we have kirsten powers, all of whom are liberal leaning and recurring guests on many fox shows, where they are treated with respect, dignity, and class (and any number of other people, debbie wasserman schultz i see often, etc, etc)

when you openly discuss both sides, without disdain for the one you disagree with, i have trouble calling this bias.

but, if i'm looking at the obverse side of a coin, you're looking at the reverse side, so we'll never win, right?

yes, i am right now, as i type this, watching fox news- the oreilly factor, the replay at 11pm est.

anderson might try his damnedest in his life to be unbiased, but he doesn't run twenty four hours a day, and everybody else minus rick sanchez (what is metres in american?????) is horribly, horribly biased. i'd accept lou dobbs, but i think they fired him, too?

"On a related note, I don't blame either of the other two stations for embracing their biases, because Fox News is far and away the #1 ratings grabber of the three, with MSNBC slowly climbing, and CNN pretty much stagnating."

now i nothing but ask, but are you suggesting msnbc and cnn get a pass on their obvious bias just to "close" the gap between fox and them, ratings wise?

might i ask, i know naught i admit, but might i ask how many nightly viwers of fox lean left or centrist?

i count it as eleven fifty one pm, rerun, but juliet huddy is an angel, an adorable woman, one i disagree with often, but i will happily defer to such a pretty face

fox gets more fluff because they are more obvious about it, they also tend to blatantly lie and then claim "communication errors".... constantly. you would think they dont have access to phones, emails, or other news outlets showing the exact same story but truthfully.

what i mean by my communism statment is simple. the idea is fine, and humans are capable of amazing ideas. this does not mean we are capable of implementing those ideas correctly sometimes. think of it like the airplane. it was thought of thousands of years ago in different forms, but it wasnt until recent time that it was capable of being done.

the idea of communism is like the plane in the sense that we can come up with the idea, we can imagine how amazing and world altering the philosophy could be. we just cant possibly implement it in our current society with our morals and standards. same as the plane couldnt be built with the technology or knowledge of the time.

or the theory that planets revolve around the sun. it was in the 1700s the writings on the theory became unbanned. it wasnt until recently that the vatican apologized. admitting mistakes for the treatment of scientists including copernicus and galileo. even now in the US we have a massive push to undermine hundreds of years of scientific advancement in the name of religion because of dogma and ignorance. this kind of thought process and behaviour is part of the reason we dont get to enjoy the potential of communism. not researching the subjects, not having open debate, and using any excuse to deem the idea bad without a logical reason behind it.

braden: as long as we don't cross into name-calling, I'll never take offense. :)

My point about the 24 hour news stations and their bias is that I understand why FNC presents the news the way they do: it produces ratings. Likewise, I understand why MSNBC is basically trying to emulate FNC except with a liberal bias. It has produced ratings (It's notable that MSNBC is the only one of the three 24 hour news stations that has been gaining viewership the last few years--of course it's also notable that while FNC is losing viewers, they're still incredibly far out ahead).

My parents are avid FNC watchers, so any time I'm at their house, I tend to end up seeing quite a bit of FNC, and while they may put liberal voices on the station as guests, typically they aren't given equal time, they're not the most articulate commentators, and they're often cut off (and FNC has, to my knowledge, no actual hosts that would be considered liberal/Democratic pundits).

Knowing how my parents think about politics (based on their viewership of FNC), I've pretty much come to the theory that 24 hour news stations are an awful, awful thing. In order to keep viewership, they have to sensationalize every little thing. I think the Obama Pepsi meme points this out in a pretty amusing way. Here's an example of the picture: http://soulclassy.wordpress.com/...depth-analysis-of-a-meme/

MSNBC has become sycophantic concerning Pres. Obama. FNC is pretty much openly at war with Pres. Obama, and no one watches CNN, so whatever they say doesn't really matter anyway.