Author Topic: just heard on O'Reilly (Read 2149 times)

DiabloTX · « **Reply #15 on:** August 29, 2003, 08:57:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by LePaul
So what's more disturbing to y'all...the fact O'Reilly made a good point with valid data....or that the data is accurate?

Some of ya seem to be shooting the messenger.

I have never had a problem with O'Reilly, especially after having to deal with Brokaw, Jennings and Rather for the last umpteen years.

I find the data disturbing, but not surprising. It's amazing how much this is out there for all to see but when it is brought up into a discussion, the screams from the other side are as such that the whole thing is a racist slant on the problem. Granted, what I would like to see is the number of out of wedlock babies born to younger females now as compared to just 10 years ago (thanks Clinton!

). Seems like everywhere I turn I see some young thang pushing a baby buggy...by herself.

muckmaw · « **Reply #16 on:** August 29, 2003, 08:57:52 AM »

In before lock...

Dr. Skuzzy..paging Dr. Skuzzy

Dead Man Flying · « **Reply #17 on:** August 29, 2003, 09:15:41 AM »

The statistic is accurate, at least according to this Census Bureau report from 1995. What it doesn't contain is evidence of this conjecture that "welfare mothers" drive the disparity in premarital birthrates.

They even offer an interesting, rudimentary logistic regression analysis at the end of the article. I'm baffled, however, by a number of methodological shortcomings in their analysis.

First, they use a 90-percent confidence level for statistical analysis when a 95-percent confidence level is standard for social science work. Second, they exclude income as an independent variable when I feel it probably explains the greatest amount of variance of anything else they included. Income is probably important enough to bias race results by its exclusion.

-- Todd/Leviathn

Eagler · « **Reply #18 on:** August 29, 2003, 09:16:25 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by muckmaw
In before lock...

Dr. Skuzzy..paging Dr. Skuzzy

why?

because facts are not PC friendly? sorry facts are facts

Mickey1992 · « **Reply #19 on:** August 29, 2003, 09:24:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler
the majority of them "on assistance" are AA females

What assistance are you talking about? The majority of people receiving Food Stamp assistance are white (41% in 2002).

Sixpence · « **Reply #20 on:** August 29, 2003, 09:26:30 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by LePaul
So what's more disturbing to y'all...the fact O'Reilly made a good point with valid data....or that the data is accurate?

Some of ya seem to be shooting the messenger.

I just don't think there is a need to single out a race. I mean, alot of us Irish, Italian, etc., were also minorities when we came to this country. And we were discriminated against. But in time we blended in well. But the African Americans, because they looked so different, didn't blend in. They still had separate bathrooms in the 60's? I'de say 90% in the "poor" bracket? It's gonna take some time for them to catch up. Don't get me wrong, i'm not for racial quotas or anything like that, I think it is reverse discrimination(or should I just say discrimination?). But don't show me a stat about African Americans that has been tainted by history. Especially with MLK in the news. I just don't think it's appropriate.

That's all from me, i'm outta this one.

NUKE · « **Reply #21 on:** August 29, 2003, 10:25:42 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
One must be weary of O'Reilly's "No Truth...err Spin Zone" statistics.

ack-ack

You're right Ack Ack. I like Fox news and I used to like O'reilly, but then after watching him for a while, I began to realise how he quickly glosses over points that reveal weaknesses in his arguments.

now Hannity and Combs is a good show....I like the debates on that one.

boxboy28 · « **Reply #22 on:** August 29, 2003, 10:33:56 AM »

In before the lock
My 2 Cent is same as said above.
They use it as a job money money for ever kid!@

Then you seem them driving around in there cadillac escilade
And the ***** dont have a JOB.
Her JOB is spiting out kids (thats her yearly pay increase)

Gadfly · « **Reply #23 on:** August 29, 2003, 10:37:18 AM »

Going by that census report, white women have had the greatest Increase in out of wedlock births since the 1930s, from 6% to 30%, while blacks have merely doubled the number of out of wedlock births.

BGBMAW · « **Reply #24 on:** August 29, 2003, 10:39:09 AM »

im pro gun...

im pro abortion....

Im votn for ArnolD!!...leave my guns alone

please feel free to not have so many frikn babies...with no real means of support..

real support meaning,,IF YOU CANT PAY FOR YOUR Golly-gee BABY FACTORY!!!!

Love
BiGB

xoxox

"baby free and lovn it" i thank the scientist almighty for birth control pills:D

midnight Target · « **Reply #25 on:** August 29, 2003, 10:40:06 AM »

Nothing wrong with valid statistics, unless invalid conclusions are reached with them.

So the real question is why is this relevant and does it really have anything to do with race?

midnight Target · « **Reply #26 on:** August 29, 2003, 10:41:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by boxboy28
In before the lock
My 2 Cent is same as said above.
They use it as a job money money for ever kid!@

Then you seem them driving around in there cadillac escilade
And the ***** dont have a JOB.
Her JOB is spiting out kids (thats her yearly pay increase)

Who exactly is "THEY" ?

DiabloTX · « **Reply #27 on:** August 29, 2003, 10:43:21 AM »

You know MT, "Them"...

NUKE · « **Reply #28 on:** August 29, 2003, 10:46:42 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by boxboy28
In before the lock
My 2 Cent is same as said above.
They use it as a job money money for ever kid!@

Then you seem them driving around in there cadillac escilade
And the ***** dont have a JOB.
Her JOB is spiting out kids (thats her yearly pay increase)

If people react stupid and spew garbage or even hatred in reaction to a statistic that was posted here, to heck with those people.....those are the kind of people that lack judgement and possibly shouldn't be here.

I posted because I genuinly believed that statistic to be extremely unbelievable. If that stat is true, something is very badly broken in our system and needs to be fixed.

Mini D · « **Reply #29 on:** August 29, 2003, 10:54:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Nothing wrong with valid statistics, unless invalid conclusions are reached with them.

So the real question is why is this relevant and does it really have anything to do with race?

Why do I get the feeling we could sit down and discuss this for hours? I think you and I might have particular commonalities that give us some insight that others posting in this thread have no clue about.

It's not a shocking statistic. It's also something most people could take for face value and form virtually any conclusion from.

MiniD