Quote Originally Posted by ClericBlackDave View Post
You can't help yourself. That is the problem with political diehards, and why these discussions usually have about 0% usefulness outside the academic sphere.


Please produce said data that is "fact". Then please explain to me how the data was collected, the "N" size (if you don't know what that means, then there isn't a point to my saying it).


Then also tell me who commisioned the study to have this data collected, where the funding came from, and what the parameters were for this data (if it exists)


Oh yeah and also explain the research design and why they probably "decided" to leave out several other relevant variables. Did they control for heteroskedaticity? Did the data have any sort of selection bias? For that matter, was it "fudged" by doing any interesting permeutations to the data?


Do all of that w/o there being a shread of bias, and then maybe, MAYBE you can state it as fact.


But please don't tell me because you and the economist said so, its fact. If you think thats true, I think you should invest a few G to take a few basic classes in politics and political science

I know guys who can do Calculus in their sleep, but have a hard time with their multiplication tables.

I know at least one person who aced her JD but couldn't reason her way out of a wet paper bag.

Common sense, dude. Look around you. I don't need to commission a study to see what's obvious. If you do, I wonder about you. Children who don't have a strong two-parent influence are behind the eight ball and are allowed to make bad decisions.