[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

"Of potential concern for Mr. Obama’s strategists, a third of voters
surveyed said they knew someone who does not support the Illinois
Democrat because he is black."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27350891/

I know you feel that racism is "predominately erased" in the US. You
also called the fact that Boon and I had both heard that view
expressed "anecdotal" and downplayed it. Here's some hard evidence for
you that you are wrong.

The only explanation that I can come up with to support your "racism
is predominately erased" comment is that, through the six degrees of
seperation, these 1/3 of the voters all know the same single
individual who won't vote for Obama based on race.

[Vinylanach]

On Oct 24, 3:33*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
"Of potential concern for Mr. Obama’s strategists, a third of voters
surveyed said they knew someone who does not support the Illinois
Democrat because he is black."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27350891/

I know you feel that racism is "predominately erased" in the US. You
also called the fact that Boon and I had both heard that view
expressed "anecdotal" and downplayed it. Here's some hard evidence for
you that you are wrong.

The only explanation that I can come up with to support your "racism
is predominately erased" comment is that, through the six degrees of
seperation, these 1/3 of the voters all know the same single
individual who won't vote for Obama based on race.

Like I said, I got into a friendship-ending argument with someone who
was offended when I mentioned that racism would emerge toward the end
of the election campaigns. Why are these people in such denial about
the fact that racism still exists in our country? Why do they take it
personally? Is it guilt?

My life was turned upside down by the Los Angeles riots of 1992. That
was only 16 years ago. Have we really "fixed" everything in that
relatively short time?

Of course not!

Boon

[Vinylanach]

On Oct 24, 9:38*am, Vinylanach wrote:
On Oct 24, 3:33*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
"Of potential concern for Mr. Obama’s strategists, a third of voters
surveyed said they knew someone who does not support the Illinois
Democrat because he is black."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27350891/

I know you feel that racism is "predominately erased" in the US. You
also called the fact that Boon and I had both heard that view
expressed "anecdotal" and downplayed it. Here's some hard evidence for
you that you are wrong.

The only explanation that I can come up with to support your "racism
is predominately erased" comment is that, through the six degrees of
seperation, these 1/3 of the voters all know the same single
individual who won't vote for Obama based on race.

Like I said, I got into a friendship-ending argument with someone who
was offended when I mentioned that racism would emerge toward the end
of the election campaigns. *

I just sent her an email with a link to this article. Let's see how
she responds.

If anything, my misanthropy has certainly been encouraged by the fact
that people just can't admit when they are wrong anymore. I know that
the Internet has gone a long way in fostering this idiocy (see Arny
for a multitude of examples), but I'm really getting sick of it.
Spirited debate is one thing, but IMO only an intelligent person will
say, "I was wrong," or "You changed my mind...thanks." The last
couple of times I admitted that I was wrong about something, it
garnered responses like "Huh? What do you mean?" and "Wait...say that
again. I've never heard that before."

We're losing our ability to compromise and be open to new ideas.
That's the single biggest thing that will doom us as a society.

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Vinylanach said:

If anything, my misanthropy has certainly been encouraged by the fact
that people just can't admit when they are wrong anymore. I know that
the Internet has gone a long way in fostering this idiocy

You're right about that point. I think the trend was fostered by Dubya as
much as anything else. It was probably Rove's idea to call political
opponents "traitors".

[Clyde Slick]

On 24 Oct, 06:33, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
"Of potential concern for Mr. Obama’s strategists, a third of voters
surveyed said they knew someone who does not support the Illinois
Democrat because he is black."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27350891/

I know you feel that racism is "predominately erased" in the US. You
also called the fact that Boon and I had both heard that view
expressed "anecdotal" and downplayed it. Here's some hard evidence for
you that you are wrong.

The only explanation that I can come up with to support your "racism
is predominately erased" comment is that, through the six degrees of
seperation, these 1/3 of the voters all know the same single
individual who won't vote for Obama based on race.


I thought everyone knew Bratzi.

[Clyde Slick]

On 24 Oct, 06:33, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
"Of potential concern for Mr. Obama’s strategists, a third of voters
surveyed said they knew someone who does not support the Illinois
Democrat because he is black."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27350891/

I know you feel that racism is "predominately erased" in the US. You
also called the fact that Boon and I had both heard that view
expressed "anecdotal" and downplayed it. Here's some hard evidence for
you that you are wrong.

The only explanation that I can come up with to support your "racism
is predominately erased" comment is that, through the six degrees of
seperation, these 1/3 of the voters all know the same single
individual who won't vote for Obama based on race.

How about this:
that two thirds of all the people, considering all the people that
each
person knows, they do not know even one person
who does not support Obama because of his race.

[Clyde Slick]

On 24 Oct, 12:38, Vinylanach wrote:
On Oct 24, 3:33*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
"Of potential concern for Mr. Obama’s strategists, a third of voters
surveyed said they knew someone who does not support the Illinois
Democrat because he is black."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27350891/

I know you feel that racism is "predominately erased" in the US. You
also called the fact that Boon and I had both heard that view
expressed "anecdotal" and downplayed it. Here's some hard evidence for
you that you are wrong.

The only explanation that I can come up with to support your "racism
is predominately erased" comment is that, through the six degrees of
seperation, these 1/3 of the voters all know the same single
individual who won't vote for Obama based on race.

Like I said, I got into a friendship-ending argument with someone who
was offended when I mentioned that racism would emerge toward the end
of the election campaigns. *Why are these people in such denial about
the fact that racism still exists in our country? *Why do they take it
personally? *Is it guilt?

My life was turned upside down by the Los Angeles riots of 1992. *That
was only 16 years ago. *Have we really "fixed" everything in that
relatively short time?

Of course not!

Boon-

I thought the guy in the truck was callled Dennis somethingorother.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 24, 7:30*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 24 Oct, 06:33, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
"Of potential concern for Mr. Obama’s strategists, a third of voters
surveyed said they knew someone who does not support the Illinois
Democrat because he is black."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27350891/

I know you feel that racism is "predominately erased" in the US. You
also called the fact that Boon and I had both heard that view
expressed "anecdotal" and downplayed it. Here's some hard evidence for
you that you are wrong.

The only explanation that I can come up with to support your "racism
is predominately erased" comment is that, through the six degrees of
seperation, these 1/3 of the voters all know the same single
individual who won't vote for Obama based on race.

How about this:
that two thirds of all the people, considering all the people that
each
person knows, they do not know even one person
who does not support Obama because of his race.

You cannot say that based on this survey.

That is not a valid conclusion. Try a different, smarter one.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 24, 7:28*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 24 Oct, 06:33, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
"Of potential concern for Mr. Obama’s strategists, a third of voters
surveyed said they knew someone who does not support the Illinois
Democrat because he is black."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27350891/

I know you feel that racism is "predominately erased" in the US. You
also called the fact that Boon and I had both heard that view
expressed "anecdotal" and downplayed it. Here's some hard evidence for
you that you are wrong.

The only explanation that I can come up with to support your "racism
is predominately erased" comment is that, through the six degrees of
seperation, these 1/3 of the voters all know the same single
individual who won't vote for Obama based on race.

I thought everyone knew Bratzi.

Speaking of one-dimensional net morons, isn't it funny that all GOIA
and 2pid can do these days is come in and give people a hard time, and
then pat themselves on the back about what good trolls they are?

Poor 2pid cannot talk politics these days, as his beloved republican
party has self-destructed. You know him: what else does he have to
live for? LOL!

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

Poor 2pid cannot talk politics these days, as his beloved republican
party has self-destructed. You know him: what else does he have to
live for? LOL!

Good point to bring, out on, lOt"S. I believe there's only one topic ever
broached on RAO in which Yapper can speak his 'mind' like everybody else and
not get mocked for his stupidity. Sadly, that topic seems to have passed out
of his field of vision.

[Clyde Slick]

On 25 Oct, 09:26, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Oct 24, 7:30*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 24 Oct, 06:33, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
"Of potential concern for Mr. Obama’s strategists, a third of voters
surveyed said they knew someone who does not support the Illinois
Democrat because he is black."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27350891/

I know you feel that racism is "predominately erased" in the US. You
also called the fact that Boon and I had both heard that view
expressed "anecdotal" and downplayed it. Here's some hard evidence for
you that you are wrong.

The only explanation that I can come up with to support your "racism
is predominately erased" comment is that, through the six degrees of
seperation, these 1/3 of the voters all know the same single
individual who won't vote for Obama based on race.

How about this:
that two thirds of all the people, considering all the people that
each
person knows, they do not know even one person
who does not support Obama because of his race.

You cannot say that based on this survey.

That is not a valid conclusion. Try a different, smarter one.-

you are wrong.
Most people know about 100 to 200 other people, maybe more on average,
from work, family, school,
hobbies, clubs, neighbors, etc.
67% of the respondents claimed that not one of all those
acquaintances uttered the anti black black statement.
However, 33% did have knowledge of "at least"
one of their many acquaintnces suttered such a racist statement.
But the survey did not say, for that set of respondnets, many people
that
each of them knew said such a thing.

Again, you need to consider that each person knows a whole lot'of
other people.
So that 33% know a person who holds such a racist sentiment does not
at
all signify a large amount of racism.
Anyone who knows 100, 200, other people, well, one
of them is bound to be a racist scmuck.


This survey really doesn't say anything at all, it measures nothing,
and is incompetent.
You can design a survey that 'appears' to give
you any result you want to get.

[Clyde Slick]

On 25 Oct, 09:29, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Oct 24, 7:28*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 24 Oct, 06:33, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
"Of potential concern for Mr. Obama’s strategists, a third of voters
surveyed said they knew someone who does not support the Illinois
Democrat because he is black."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27350891/

I know you feel that racism is "predominately erased" in the US. You
also called the fact that Boon and I had both heard that view
expressed "anecdotal" and downplayed it. Here's some hard evidence for
you that you are wrong.

The only explanation that I can come up with to support your "racism
is predominately erased" comment is that, through the six degrees of
seperation, these 1/3 of the voters all know the same single
individual who won't vote for Obama based on race.

I thought everyone knew Bratzi.

Speaking of one-dimensional net morons, isn't it funny that all GOIA
and 2pid can do these days is come in and give people a hard time, and
then pat themselves on the back about what good trolls they are?

Poor 2pid cannot talk politics these days, as his beloved republican
party has self-destructed. You know him: what else does he have to
live for? LOL!-

"At least" we won;t have to worry aqbout Hillary for 8 more years.

[Clyde Slick]

On 25 Oct, 09:26, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Oct 24, 7:30*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 24 Oct, 06:33, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
"Of potential concern for Mr. Obama’s strategists, a third of voters
surveyed said they knew someone who does not support the Illinois
Democrat because he is black."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27350891/

I know you feel that racism is "predominately erased" in the US. You
also called the fact that Boon and I had both heard that view
expressed "anecdotal" and downplayed it. Here's some hard evidence for
you that you are wrong.

The only explanation that I can come up with to support your "racism
is predominately erased" comment is that, through the six degrees of
seperation, these 1/3 of the voters all know the same single
individual who won't vote for Obama based on race.

How about this:
that two thirds of all the people, considering all the people that
each
person knows, they do not know even one person
who does not support Obama because of his race.

You cannot say that based on this survey.

That is not a valid conclusion. Try a different, smarter one.-

The survey does not lend itself to any conclusions,
it is meaningless. It says nothing as to how many people have a racist
attitude towards Obama. It only talks about
how many people know a person that does,
and we each know a lot of people.
Lordy, I know a person who admitted to groping a
body of a dead child. that doesn't mean
such people are prevalent in this society.

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...
On 25 Oct, 09:26, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Oct 24, 7:30 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 24 Oct, 06:33, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
"Of potential concern for Mr. Obama’s strategists, a third of voters
surveyed said they knew someone who does not support the Illinois
Democrat because he is black."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27350891/

I know you feel that racism is "predominately erased" in the US. You
also called the fact that Boon and I had both heard that view
expressed "anecdotal" and downplayed it. Here's some hard evidence for
you that you are wrong.

The only explanation that I can come up with to support your "racism
is predominately erased" comment is that, through the six degrees of
seperation, these 1/3 of the voters all know the same single
individual who won't vote for Obama based on race.

How about this:
that two thirds of all the people, considering all the people that
each
person knows, they do not know even one person
who does not support Obama because of his race.

You cannot say that based on this survey.

That is not a valid conclusion. Try a different, smarter one.-

The survey does not lend itself to any conclusions,
it is meaningless. It says nothing as to how many people have a racist
attitude towards Obama.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1/3 know someone who won't vote for him because he is black.
Everyone knows many who will vote for him only because he is
black.

Shhh! Alan Keyes will be disappointed.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 25, 6:29*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 25 Oct, 09:26, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Oct 24, 7:30*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 24 Oct, 06:33, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
"Of potential concern for Mr. Obama’s strategists, a third of voters
surveyed said they knew someone who does not support the Illinois
Democrat because he is black."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27350891/

I know you feel that racism is "predominately erased" in the US. You
also called the fact that Boon and I had both heard that view
expressed "anecdotal" and downplayed it. Here's some hard evidence for
you that you are wrong.

The only explanation that I can come up with to support your "racism
is predominately erased" comment is that, through the six degrees of
seperation, these 1/3 of the voters all know the same single
individual who won't vote for Obama based on race.

How about this:
that two thirds of all the people, considering all the people that
each
person knows, they do not know even one person
who does not support Obama because of his race.

You cannot say that based on this survey.

That is not a valid conclusion. Try a different, smarter one.-

you are wrong.

Nope.

Most people know about 100 to 200 other people, maybe more on average,
from work, family, school,
hobbies, clubs, neighbors, etc.
67% of the respondents claimed that not one of all those
acquaintances uttered the anti black black statement.

No, Clyde, they didn't. All you can possibly deduce from this is that
67% did not say that they knew someone who did, NOT that they did not
know anybody who did. That's a large difference.

You're trying to say that "33% of people surveyed said they 'really
like' Asparagus" also equals "67% of the people surveyed don't like
asparagus". That doesn't work, Clyde.

You are excluding non-responses, for example, which would have to be
included in the 67%. 33% actually saying that they knew someone who
held Obama's race against him does NOT mean that 67% do not. And it's
still a damned large number.

And your 100-200 people does not matter. Most people would not say
something like that to someone they did not know pretty well. Bratzi
is an exception. So you need to bring it down to close friends and
family IMO.

However, 33% did have knowledge of "at least"
one of their many acquaintnces suttered such a racist statement.
But the survey did not say, for that set of respondnets, many people
that
each of them knew said such a thing.

Again, you need to consider that each person knows a whole lot'of
other people.

And you need to consider who you'd say such a thing to. The person who
said it to me feels very comfortable around me. It wasn't a casual
business acquaintance. Think about it. "You know, Shhhh!, I can't vote
for Obama because he's black."

So that 33% know a person who holds such a racist sentiment does not
at all signify a large amount of racism.

Are you kidding?

Anyone who knows 100, 200, other people, well, one
of them is bound to be a racist scmuck.

Try a better argument.

This survey really doesn't say anything at all, it measures nothing,
and is incompetent.
You can design a survey that 'appears' to give
you any result you want to get.

Sure you can, Clyde. It's 'obvious' that this survey was 'looking' for
racism.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 25, 8:01*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 25 Oct, 09:26, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Oct 24, 7:30*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 24 Oct, 06:33, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
"Of potential concern for Mr. Obama’s strategists, a third of voters
surveyed said they knew someone who does not support the Illinois
Democrat because he is black."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27350891/

I know you feel that racism is "predominately erased" in the US. You
also called the fact that Boon and I had both heard that view
expressed "anecdotal" and downplayed it. Here's some hard evidence for
you that you are wrong.

The only explanation that I can come up with to support your "racism
is predominately erased" comment is that, through the six degrees of
seperation, these 1/3 of the voters all know the same single
individual who won't vote for Obama based on race.

How about this:
that two thirds of all the people, considering all the people that
each
person knows, they do not know even one person
who does not support Obama because of his race.

You cannot say that based on this survey.

That is not a valid conclusion. Try a different, smarter one.-

The survey does not lend itself to any conclusions,
it is meaningless. It says nothing as to how many people have a racist
attitude towards Obama. It only talks about
how many people know a person that does,
and we each know a lot of people.

What it says is that of the people surveyed, 33% know somebody who
have voiced a concern about Obama based on Obama's race. That is
racism, Clyde.

You have two people here who have heard the same thing. It's funny to
me that, rather that look at the evidence and admit that racism is
still a problem in the US you try to come up with inane
justifications.

Unbury your head, Clyde.

Lordy, I know a person who admitted to groping a
body of a dead child. that doesn't mean
such people are prevalent in this society.

If a survey said that, of those surveyed, 33% knew somebody who had
groped a dead child, would you put up the same lame argument?

LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 25, 6:29*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

"At least" we won;t have to worry aqbout Hillary for 8 more years.

In four you'll get Palin again. LOL!

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

"At least" we won;t have to worry aqbout Hillary for 8 more years.

In four you'll get Palin again. LOL!

Speaking of the Palin horrorshow, one of McPOW's campaign managers said she
sees herself as the future of the republican party. That'll have Lincoln
spinning in his grave.

[Clyde Slick]

On 26 Oct, 12:00, "ScottW" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

...
On 25 Oct, 09:26, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"



wrote:
On Oct 24, 7:30 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 24 Oct, 06:33, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
"Of potential concern for Mr. Obama’s strategists, a third of voters
surveyed said they knew someone who does not support the Illinois
Democrat because he is black."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27350891/

I know you feel that racism is "predominately erased" in the US. You
also called the fact that Boon and I had both heard that view
expressed "anecdotal" and downplayed it. Here's some hard evidence for
you that you are wrong.

The only explanation that I can come up with to support your "racism
is predominately erased" comment is that, through the six degrees of
seperation, these 1/3 of the voters all know the same single
individual who won't vote for Obama based on race.

How about this:
that two thirds of all the people, considering all the people that
each
person knows, they do not know even one person
who does not support Obama because of his race.

You cannot say that based on this survey.

That is not a valid conclusion. Try a different, smarter one.-

The survey does not lend itself to any conclusions,
it is meaningless. It says nothing as to how many people have a racist
attitude towards Obama.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1/3 know someone who won't vote for him because he is black.
Everyone knows many who will vote for him only because he is
black.

ScottW

Another useless 'number', not that
it is in any way correct.
Are you including black people who supposedly only
will vote for him because he is black?
I hope not, because 93% of the black vote
went to honkeys Gore and Kerry.
That leaves only 7% of the blacks
that could even possibly vote for Obama
"because he is black".

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

Another useless 'number', not that
it is in any way correct.
Are you including black people who supposedly only
will vote for him because he is black?
I hope not, because 93% of the black vote
went to honkeys Gore and Kerry.

So the answer is 2,753,588 angels, right?

That leaves only 7% of the blacks
that could even possibly vote for Obama
"because he is black".

That Hughley comedian has a new show on CNN. They did a segment on a
republican rally in North Carolina. Too bad you didn't see the segment. It
demonstrated beyond any doubt that racism is anything but dead in this
country.

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

Clyde Slick said:

Another useless 'number', not that
it is in any way correct.
Are you including black people who supposedly only
will vote for him because he is black?
I hope not, because 93% of the black vote
went to honkeys Gore and Kerry.

So the answer is 2,753,588 angels, right?

That leaves only 7% of the blacks
that could even possibly vote for Obama
"because he is black".

That Hughley comedian has a new show on CNN. They did a segment on a
republican rally in North Carolina. Too bad you didn't see the segment. It
demonstrated beyond any doubt that racism is anything but dead in this
country.

This?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T2VCe4Um1I

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 26, 2:13*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,





*"ScottW" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
....
On 25 Oct, 09:26, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Oct 24, 7:30 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 24 Oct, 06:33, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
"Of potential concern for Mr. Obama’s strategists, a third of voters
surveyed said they knew someone who does not support the Illinois
Democrat because he is black."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27350891/

I know you feel that racism is "predominately erased" in the US. You
also called the fact that Boon and I had both heard that view
expressed "anecdotal" and downplayed it. Here's some hard evidence for
you that you are wrong.

The only explanation that I can come up with to support your "racism
is predominately erased" comment is that, through the six degrees of
seperation, these 1/3 of the voters all know the same single
individual who won't vote for Obama based on race.

How about this:
that two thirds of all the people, considering all the people that
each
person knows, they do not know even one person
who does not support Obama because of his race.

You cannot say that based on this survey.

That is not a valid conclusion. Try a different, smarter one.-

The survey does not lend itself to any conclusions,
it is meaningless. It says nothing as to how many people have a racist
attitude towards Obama.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1/3 know someone who won't vote for him because he is black.
Everyone knows many who will vote for him only because he is
black.

Shhh! Alan Keyes will be disappointed.

If what 2pid claims is true, Keyes "coulda been a contenda".

I think we all know how full of **** 2pid is though.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 27, 6:31*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Shhhh! said:

"At least" we won;t have to worry aqbout Hillary for 8 more years.

In four you'll get Palin again. LOL!

Speaking of the Palin horrorshow, one of McPOW's campaign managers said she
sees herself as the future of the republican party. That'll have Lincoln
spinning in his grave.

No, as Honest Abe is sitting with God right now, and no doubt was
privy to the call that God made to Ms. Palin to save the republicans
from the ravages of secular society. Abe was probably also right there
when God called bushie.

I'm sure that Abe (and probably 2pid for that matter) understands
God's reasoning far better than we mere mortals, just as God, Abe and
2pid must also be experts in US Army counterinsurgency tactics.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

I'm sure that Abe (and probably 2pid for that matter) understands
God's reasoning far better than we mere mortals, just as God, Abe and
2pid must also be experts in US Army counterinsurgency tactics.

Were they engraved into stone tablets and brought down from a mountaintop?

[Clyde Slick]

On 27 Oct, 18:33, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Oct 25, 6:29*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 25 Oct, 09:26, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Oct 24, 7:30*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 24 Oct, 06:33, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
"Of potential concern for Mr. Obama’s strategists, a third of voters
surveyed said they knew someone who does not support the Illinois
Democrat because he is black."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27350891/

I know you feel that racism is "predominately erased" in the US. You
also called the fact that Boon and I had both heard that view
expressed "anecdotal" and downplayed it. Here's some hard evidence for
you that you are wrong.

The only explanation that I can come up with to support your "racism
is predominately erased" comment is that, through the six degrees of
seperation, these 1/3 of the voters all know the same single
individual who won't vote for Obama based on race.

How about this:
that two thirds of all the people, considering all the people that
each
person knows, they do not know even one person
who does not support Obama because of his race.

You cannot say that based on this survey.

That is not a valid conclusion. Try a different, smarter one.-

you are wrong.

Nope.

Most people know about 100 to 200 other people, maybe more on average,
from work, family, school,
hobbies, clubs, neighbors, etc.
67% of the respondents claimed that not one of all those
acquaintances uttered the anti black black statement.

No, Clyde, they didn't. All you can possibly deduce from this is that
67% did not say that they knew someone who did, NOT that they did not
know anybody who did. That's a large difference.


you distinguish between what they said and what they know, same for
the other
33%. People lie to pollsters.

You're trying to say that "33% of people surveyed said they 'really
like' Asparagus" also equals "67% of the people surveyed don't like
asparagus". That doesn't work, Clyde.


if you ask them "Do you like aparagus, yes or no"
it is pretty clear.


You are excluding non-responses, for example, which would have to be
included in the 67%. 33% actually saying that they knew someone who
held Obama's race against him does NOT mean that 67% do not. And it's
still a damned large number.

And your 100-200 people does not matter. Most people would not say
something like that to someone they did not know pretty well. Bratzi
is an exception. So you need to bring it down to close friends and
family IMO.


it doesn't matter, the question was dod they know any body who said
it,
yes or no. youare not excluding all those acquaintnces form the
yesses.
If you want to exclude them form the
'no's', you end up with a worthless poll.
anyway, its worthless even without counting that factor



However, 33% did have knowledge of "at least"
one of their many acquaintnces suttered such a racist statement.
But the survey did not say, for that set of respondnets, many people
that
each of them knew said such a thing.

Again, you need to consider that each person knows a whole lot'of
other people.

And you need to consider who you'd say such a thing to. The person who
said it to me feels very comfortable around me. It wasn't a casual
business acquaintance. Think about it. "You know, Shhhh!, I can't vote
for Obama because he's black."


that has nothing to do with the poll, and the
poll has nothing to do with measuring the extent of racism.


So that 33% know a person who holds such a racist sentiment does not
at all signify a large amount of racism.

Are you kidding?

Anyone who knows 100, 200, other people, well, one
of them is bound to be a racist scmuck.

Try a better argument.

This survey really doesn't say anything at all, it measures nothing,
and is incompetent.
You can design a survey that 'appears' to give
you any result you want to get.

Sure you can, Clyde. It's 'obvious' that this survey was 'looking' for
racism.-

by asking such a stupid question, probably it was, unless
they are just downright oncompetent.

[Clyde Slick]

On 27 Oct, 18:36, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Oct 25, 8:01 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 25 Oct, 09:26, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Oct 24, 7:30 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 24 Oct, 06:33, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
"Of potential concern for Mr. Obama's strategists, a third of voters
surveyed said they knew someone who does not support the Illinois
Democrat because he is black."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27350891/

I know you feel that racism is "predominately erased" in the US. You
also called the fact that Boon and I had both heard that view
expressed "anecdotal" and downplayed it. Here's some hard evidence for
you that you are wrong.

The only explanation that I can come up with to support your "racism
is predominately erased" comment is that, through the six degrees of
seperation, these 1/3 of the voters all know the same single
individual who won't vote for Obama based on race.

How about this:
that two thirds of all the people, considering all the people that
each
person knows, they do not know even one person
who does not support Obama because of his race.

You cannot say that based on this survey.

That is not a valid conclusion. Try a different, smarter one.-

The survey does not lend itself to any conclusions,
it is meaningless. It says nothing as to how many people have a racist
attitude towards Obama. It only talks about
how many people know a person that does,
and we each know a lot of people.

What it says is that of the people surveyed, 33% know somebody who
have voiced a concern about Obama based on Obama's race. That is
racism, Clyde.

You have two people here who have heard the same thing. It's funny to
me that, rather that look at the evidence and admit that racism is
still a problem in the US you try to come up with inane
justifications.

Unbury your head, Clyde.

Lordy, I know a person who admitted to groping a
body of a dead child. that doesn't mean
such people are prevalent in this society.

If a survey said that, of those surveyed, 33% knew somebody who had
groped a dead child, would you put up the same lame argument?

LOL!- Ascunde citatul -

- Afiºare text în citat -

wow, two people each know someone who is a racist.

[Clyde Slick]

On 28 Oct, 15:20, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 27, 6:59*pm, Jenn wrote:





In article ,
*George M. Middius wrote:

Clyde Slick said:

Another useless 'number', not that
it is in any way correct.
Are you including black people who supposedly only
will vote for him because he is black?
I hope not, because 93% of the black vote
went to honkeys Gore and Kerry.

So the answer is 2,753,588 angels, right?

That leaves only 7% of the blacks
that could even possibly vote for Obama
"because he is black".

That Hughley comedian has a new show on CNN. They did a segment on a
republican rally in North Carolina. Too bad you didn't see the segment. It
demonstrated beyond any doubt that racism is anything but dead in this
country.

This?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T2VCe4Um1I

* LoL. * Only racism demonstrated was Hughley stumping for
a 2012 platform with one basis, being black.

ScottW- Ascunde citatul -

- Afiºare text în citat -

If Shhh! were a litle bit prettier, he could
qualify for doing a Michelle Obama impression.

[Clyde Slick]

On 27 Oct, 18:36, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Oct 25, 8:01*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 25 Oct, 09:26, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Oct 24, 7:30*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 24 Oct, 06:33, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
"Of potential concern for Mr. Obama’s strategists, a third of voters
surveyed said they knew someone who does not support the Illinois
Democrat because he is black."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27350891/

I know you feel that racism is "predominately erased" in the US. You
also called the fact that Boon and I had both heard that view
expressed "anecdotal" and downplayed it. Here's some hard evidence for
you that you are wrong.

The only explanation that I can come up with to support your "racism
is predominately erased" comment is that, through the six degrees of
seperation, these 1/3 of the voters all know the same single
individual who won't vote for Obama based on race.

How about this:
that two thirds of all the people, considering all the people that
each
person knows, they do not know even one person
who does not support Obama because of his race.

You cannot say that based on this survey.

That is not a valid conclusion. Try a different, smarter one.-

The survey does not lend itself to any conclusions,
it is meaningless. It says nothing as to how many people have a racist
attitude towards Obama. It only talks about
how many people know a person that does,
and we each know a lot of people.

What it says is that of the people surveyed, 33% know somebody who
have voiced a concern about Obama based on Obama's race. That is
racism, Clyde.

You have two people here who have heard the same thing. It's funny to
me that, rather that look at the evidence and admit that racism is
still a problem in the US you try to come up with inane
justifications.

Unbury your head, Clyde.

Lordy, I know a person who admitted to groping a
body of a dead child. that doesn't mean
such people are prevalent in this society.

If a survey said that, of those surveyed, 33% knew somebody who had
groped a dead child, would you put up the same lame argument?

LOL!-

[Clyde Slick]

On 27 Oct, 18:36, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Oct 25, 8:01*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 25 Oct, 09:26, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Oct 24, 7:30*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 24 Oct, 06:33, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
"Of potential concern for Mr. Obama’s strategists, a third of voters
surveyed said they knew someone who does not support the Illinois
Democrat because he is black."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27350891/

I know you feel that racism is "predominately erased" in the US. You
also called the fact that Boon and I had both heard that view
expressed "anecdotal" and downplayed it. Here's some hard evidence for
you that you are wrong.

The only explanation that I can come up with to support your "racism
is predominately erased" comment is that, through the six degrees of
seperation, these 1/3 of the voters all know the same single
individual who won't vote for Obama based on race.

How about this:
that two thirds of all the people, considering all the people that
each
person knows, they do not know even one person
who does not support Obama because of his race.

You cannot say that based on this survey.

That is not a valid conclusion. Try a different, smarter one.-

The survey does not lend itself to any conclusions,
it is meaningless. It says nothing as to how many people have a racist
attitude towards Obama. It only talks about
how many people know a person that does,
and we each know a lot of people.

What it says is that of the people surveyed, 33% know somebody who
have voiced a concern about Obama based on Obama's race. That is
racism, Clyde.

You have two people here who have heard the same thing. It's funny to
me that, rather that look at the evidence and admit that racism is
still a problem in the US you try to come up with inane
justifications.

Unbury your head, Clyde.

Lordy, I know a person who admitted to groping a
body of a dead child. that doesn't mean
such people are prevalent in this society.

If a survey said that, of those surveyed, 33% knew somebody who had
groped a dead child, would you put up the same lame argument?

LOL!-

When you find that poll, let me know.

[Clyde Slick]

On 27 Oct, 21:51, George M. Middius wrote:
Clyde Slick said:

Another useless 'number', not that
it is in any way correct.
Are you including black people who supposedly only
will vote for him because he is black?
I hope not, because 93% of the black vote
went to honkeys Gore and Kerry.

So the answer is 2,753,588 angels, right?

That leaves only 7% of the blacks
that could even possibly vote for Obama
"because he is black".

That Hughley comedian has a new show on CNN. They did a segment on a
republican rally in North Carolina. Too bad you didn't see the segment. It
demonstrated beyond any doubt that racism is anything but dead in this
country.

i never claimed it was dead, i said it is not prevalent,
and it has lessened lots over the past 40 some years.
I don't think it is as mucch of a problem as you think it is.
But it is not dead.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 28, 2:20*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 27, 6:59*pm, Jenn wrote:





In article ,
*George M. Middius wrote:

Clyde Slick said:

Another useless 'number', not that
it is in any way correct.
Are you including black people who supposedly only
will vote for him because he is black?
I hope not, because 93% of the black vote
went to honkeys Gore and Kerry.

So the answer is 2,753,588 angels, right?

That leaves only 7% of the blacks
that could even possibly vote for Obama
"because he is black".

That Hughley comedian has a new show on CNN. They did a segment on a
republican rally in North Carolina. Too bad you didn't see the segment. It
demonstrated beyond any doubt that racism is anything but dead in this
country.

This?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T2VCe4Um1I

* LoL. * Only racism demonstrated was Hughley stumping for
a 2012 platform with one basis, being black.

LoL. 2pid and Clyde agree that racism is no longer an issue in the US.

That's good enough for me. LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 28, 12:09*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Shhhh! said:

I'm sure that Abe (and probably 2pid for that matter) understands
God's reasoning far better than we mere mortals, just as God, Abe and
2pid must also be experts in US Army counterinsurgency tactics.

Were they engraved into stone tablets and brought down from a mountaintop?

No, but they were crafted with infinite wisdom.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 28, 3:55*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 27 Oct, 18:33, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Oct 25, 6:29*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 25 Oct, 09:26, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Oct 24, 7:30*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 24 Oct, 06:33, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
"Of potential concern for Mr. Obama’s strategists, a third of voters
surveyed said they knew someone who does not support the Illinois
Democrat because he is black."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27350891/

I know you feel that racism is "predominately erased" in the US.. You
also called the fact that Boon and I had both heard that view
expressed "anecdotal" and downplayed it. Here's some hard evidence for
you that you are wrong.

The only explanation that I can come up with to support your "racism
is predominately erased" comment is that, through the six degrees of
seperation, these 1/3 of the voters all know the same single
individual who won't vote for Obama based on race.

How about this:
that two thirds of all the people, considering all the people that
each
person knows, they do not know even one person
who does not support Obama because of his race.

You cannot say that based on this survey.

That is not a valid conclusion. Try a different, smarter one.-

you are wrong.

Nope.

Most people know about 100 to 200 other people, maybe more on average,
from work, family, school,
hobbies, clubs, neighbors, etc.
67% of the respondents claimed that not one of all those
acquaintances uttered the anti black black statement.

No, Clyde, they didn't. All you can possibly deduce from this is that
67% did not say that they knew someone who did, NOT that they did not
know anybody who did. That's a large difference.

you distinguish between what they said and what they know, same for
the other
33%. People lie to pollsters.

Yes, they do. In your view they all only lie one way though. And you
still have not addressed non-responses.

I thought you knew about polling. I guess the other thing was a fluke.

You're trying to say that "33% of people surveyed said they 'really
like' Asparagus" also equals "67% of the people surveyed don't like
asparagus". That doesn't work, Clyde.

if you ask them "Do you like aparagus, yes or no"
it is pretty clear.

Except there are also answers: "I don't know" "I choose not to answer
that" "I haven't decided" "I haven't thought about it and have no
opinion" and so on.

I though you understood polling.

You are excluding non-responses, for example, which would have to be
included in the 67%. 33% actually saying that they knew someone who
held Obama's race against him does NOT mean that 67% do not. And it's
still a damned large number.

And your 100-200 people does not matter. Most people would not say
something like that to someone they did not know pretty well. Bratzi
is an exception. So you need to bring it down to close friends and
family IMO.

it doesn't matter, the question was dod they know any body who said
it,
yes or no. youare not excluding all those acquaintnces form the
yesses.

All you can say based on that poll is that 33% reported knowing
somebody who held Obama's race against him. Sorry, Clyde, but that's
it.

If you want to exclude them form the
'no's', you end up with a worthless poll.

No, you end up with a poll where 33% of those who responded reported
knowing someone who held Obama's race aginst him.

anyway, its worthless even without counting that factor

Those 33% didn't report what they reported?

However, 33% did have knowledge of "at least"
one of their many acquaintnces suttered such a racist statement.
But the survey did not say, for that set of respondnets, many people
that
each of them knew said such a thing.

Again, you need to consider that each person knows a whole lot'of
other people.

And you need to consider who you'd say such a thing to. The person who
said it to me feels very comfortable around me. It wasn't a casual
business acquaintance. Think about it. "You know, Shhhh!, I can't vote
for Obama because he's black."

that has nothing to do with the poll, and the
poll has nothing to do with measuring the extent of racism.

No, it just strongly suggests (to a thinking person) that it is still
alive and well.

So that 33% know a person who holds such a racist sentiment does not
at all signify a large amount of racism.

Are you kidding?

Anyone who knows 100, 200, other people, well, one
of them is bound to be a racist scmuck.

Try a better argument.

This survey really doesn't say anything at all, it measures nothing,
and is incompetent.
You can design a survey that 'appears' to give
you any result you want to get.

Sure you can, Clyde. It's 'obvious' that this survey was 'looking' for
racism.-

by asking such a stupid question, probably it was, unless
they are just downright oncompetent.

Why would that be a stupid question, Clyde? Because you don't like the
answer? LOL!

Here, look at this. Keep 2pid in mind as you do. And here's a quote
that very much pertains to the poll we've discussed:

"In "the Heartland," racism has been largely taken out of the public
arena; it is now expressed on an individual level – behind closed
doors, and within one's own mind."

http://observer.case.edu/Archives/Vo...16/Story_1419/

Don't worry, Clyde: I don't expect that you'll ever "get it". And I
suppose the poll was taken in the north where, according to you,
racism is a bigger problem. LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 28, 2:20*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 27, 6:59*pm, Jenn wrote:





In article ,
*George M. Middius wrote:

Clyde Slick said:

Another useless 'number', not that
it is in any way correct.
Are you including black people who supposedly only
will vote for him because he is black?
I hope not, because 93% of the black vote
went to honkeys Gore and Kerry.

So the answer is 2,753,588 angels, right?

That leaves only 7% of the blacks
that could even possibly vote for Obama
"because he is black".

That Hughley comedian has a new show on CNN. They did a segment on a
republican rally in North Carolina. Too bad you didn't see the segment. It
demonstrated beyond any doubt that racism is anything but dead in this
country.

This?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T2VCe4Um1I

* LoL. * Only racism demonstrated was Hughley stumping for
a 2012 platform with one basis, being black.

I'm surprised 2pid wasn't upset by the woman who "learned that America
was a great place". She should have already known that. LOL!

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

[A segment. on Hughley's show] demonstrated beyond any doubt
that racism is anything but dead in this country.

i never claimed it was dead, i said it is not prevalent,

You said "erased", liar. "Dead" is a lot closer to "erased" than "not
prevalent" is. Liar, liar, liar.

and it has lessened lots over the past 40 some years.

You have no evidence to support that. We're talking about racism, which is a
type of belief or feeling, not a behavior.

What has changed in that time span is the overt behavior of law-abiding
citizens. The main reason for that change is that new laws were enacted.
(It's no longer legal to make a hiring decision because of skin color. Same
for housing rentals.) That's not just my opinion, but also the opinion of
lawyers and sociologists and journalists. If you doubt the accuracy of my
statement, you can google it just like I did.

One more point: If you were right about racism being erased, that would make
America the only country in the history of the world in which racism was
erased. How likely is that? The only reason Finns don't hate Arabs or
Chinese is because they don't have to live and work next to them.

In case you've forgotten, hatred of Jews is widespread. Before there was an
America to homogenize religions and races, Jews didn't make a big effort to
fit in. Here's an example (only 10 seconds):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMGtLzBhJhQ

[Clyde Slick]

On 28 Oct, 20:19, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Oct 28, 3:55*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 27 Oct, 18:33, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Oct 25, 6:29*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 25 Oct, 09:26, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Oct 24, 7:30*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 24 Oct, 06:33, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
"Of potential concern for Mr. Obama’s strategists, a third of voters
surveyed said they knew someone who does not support the Illinois
Democrat because he is black."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27350891/

I know you feel that racism is "predominately erased" in the US. You
also called the fact that Boon and I had both heard that view
expressed "anecdotal" and downplayed it. Here's some hard evidence for
you that you are wrong.

The only explanation that I can come up with to support your "racism
is predominately erased" comment is that, through the six degrees of
seperation, these 1/3 of the voters all know the same single
individual who won't vote for Obama based on race.

How about this:
that two thirds of all the people, considering all the people that
each
person knows, they do not know even one person
who does not support Obama because of his race.

You cannot say that based on this survey.

That is not a valid conclusion. Try a different, smarter one.-

you are wrong.

Nope.

Most people know about 100 to 200 other people, maybe more on average,
from work, family, school,
hobbies, clubs, neighbors, etc.
67% of the respondents claimed that not one of all those
acquaintances uttered the anti black black statement.

No, Clyde, they didn't. All you can possibly deduce from this is that
67% did not say that they knew someone who did, NOT that they did not
know anybody who did. That's a large difference.

you distinguish between what they said and what they know, same for
the other
33%. People lie to pollsters.

Yes, they do. In your view they all only lie one way though. And you
still have not addressed non-responses.

I thought you knew about polling. I guess the other thing was a fluke.

You're trying to say that "33% of people surveyed said they 'really
like' Asparagus" also equals "67% of the people surveyed don't like
asparagus". That doesn't work, Clyde.

if you ask them "Do you like aparagus, yes or no"
it is pretty clear.

Except there are also answers: "I don't know" "I choose not to answer
that" "I haven't decided" "I haven't thought about it and have no
opinion" and so on.


show me the poll, all i see form you are wild suppositions.
All you are doing is impeaching your own poll,
the one you brought up in the first place.




I though you understood polling.

You are excluding non-responses, for example, which would have to be
included in the 67%. 33% actually saying that they knew someone who
held Obama's race against him does NOT mean that 67% do not. And it's
still a damned large number.

And your 100-200 people does not matter. Most people would not say
something like that to someone they did not know pretty well. Bratzi
is an exception. So you need to bring it down to close friends and
family IMO.

it doesn't matter, the question was dod they know any body who said
it,
yes or no. youare not excluding all those acquaintnces form the
yesses.

All you can say based on that poll is that 33% reported knowing
somebody who held Obama's race against him. Sorry, Clyde, but that's
it.



some poll!!!
and that is not what it said, anyway.




If you want to exclude them form the
'no's', you end up with a worthless poll.

No, you end up with a poll where 33% of those who responded reported
knowing someone who held Obama's race aginst him.



it is not not waht it said.

anyway, its worthless even without counting that factor

Those 33% didn't report what they reported?





However, 33% did have knowledge of "at least"
one of their many acquaintnces suttered such a racist statement.
But the survey did not say, for that set of respondnets, many people
that
each of them knew said such a thing.

Again, you need to consider that each person knows a whole lot'of
other people.

And you need to consider who you'd say such a thing to. The person who
said it to me feels very comfortable around me. It wasn't a casual
business acquaintance. Think about it. "You know, Shhhh!, I can't vote
for Obama because he's black."

that has nothing to do with the poll, and the
poll has nothing to do with measuring the extent of racism.

No, it just strongly suggests (to a thinking person) that it is still
alive and well.



alive, but not well





So that 33% know a person who holds such a racist sentiment does not
at all signify a large amount of racism.

Are you kidding?

Anyone who knows 100, 200, other people, well, one
of them is bound to be a racist scmuck.

Try a better argument.

This survey really doesn't say anything at all, it measures nothing,
and is incompetent.
You can design a survey that 'appears' to give
you any result you want to get.

Sure you can, Clyde. It's 'obvious' that this survey was 'looking' for
racism.-

by asking such a stupid question, probably it was, unless
they are just downright oncompetent.

Why would that be a stupid question, Clyde? Because you don't like the
answer? LOL!


its the 'knowing some one who said" that
is stupid, in the context of a poll question.
it is completely ill defined as to waht
knowing someone means. Just one example: f I saw some idiot
on tv and I I saw and heard him say such a thing,
there is a question as to whether I woluld answer
ues or no to the poll question.
technically I don't really know him, however,
I could easily say I know someone who said that.
Knowing someone and knowing "of' someone is
different. So the question is quite vaguely worded.
Pollstrers need to pay aqtention to
the particular wording of questions.,
We all know, from "the Beast" that language
can be very slippery.




And here's a quote
that very much pertains to the poll we've discussed:

"In "the Heartland," racism has been largely taken out of the public
arena; it is now expressed on an individual level – behind closed
doors, and within one's own mind."

http://observer.case.edu/Archives/Vo...16/Story_1419/



thanks for making my point
Now I 'know someone" who said such a thing.
I have no ****ing idea who this author is, but now
"I know someone" who said racism is privatized.
I will remmeber that, in case a pollster calls me
to ask me a stupid question.



Don't worry, Clyde: I don't expect that you'll ever "get it". And I
suppose the poll was taken in the north where, according to you,
racism is a bigger problem. LOL!- Ascunde citatul -



NOTE!!!!!!
Your own selecdted author said this:
"For example, the de facto racial segregation of America's cities, of
which
Cleveland may be the première example. Euphemistic phrases such as
"urban crime" and "property value" are used by privileged and middle
class
white people to justify their aversion to acknowledging the
ghettoized
condition of America. It is to the point where people try to assuage
their
potential feelings of guilt by denying that poverty and racism exist
at all,
or even more worrisomely, try to make the case that somehow
impoverished
minorities "deserve" their lot."

But who knows, LOL, maybe he was talking about Cleveland, MS!!!

http://www.clevelandmschamber.com/

[Clyde Slick]

On 28 Oct, 21:57, George M. Middius wrote:
Clyde Slick said:

[A *segment. on Hughley's show] demonstrated beyond any doubt
that racism is anything but dead in this country.
i never claimed it was dead, i said it is not prevalent,

You said "erased", liar. "Dead" is a lot closer to "erased" than "not
prevalent" is. Liar, liar, liar.

Liar, Liar, Liar, george, I said
"substantially ersased".


and it has lessened lots over the past 40 some years.

You have no evidence to support that. We're talking about racism, which is a
type of belief or feeling, not a behavior.



Not according to Wiki
Though the term racism usually denotes race-based prejudice,
violence,
discrimination, or oppression, the term can also have varying and
hotly contested definitions.



What has changed in that time span is the overt behavior of law-abiding
citizens. The main reason for that change is that new laws were enacted.
(It's no longer legal to make a hiring decision because of skin color. Same
for housing rentals.) That's not just my opinion, but also the opinion of
lawyers and sociologists and journalists. If you doubt the accuracy of my
statement, you can google it just like I did.

One more point: If you were right about racism being erased, that would make
America the only country in the history of the world in which racism was
erased. How likely is that? The only reason Finns don't hate Arabs or
Chinese is because they don't have to live and work next to them.

In case you've forgotten, hatred of Jews is widespread. Before there was an
America to homogenize religions and races, Jews didn't make a big effort to
fit in. Here's an example (only 10 seconds):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMGtLzBhJhQ

"substantially erased"

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

You have no evidence to support that. We're talking about racism, which is a
type of belief or feeling, not a behavior.

Not according to Wiki
Though the term racism usually denotes race-based prejudice,
violence, discrimination, or oppression, the term can also have varying and hotly contested definitions.

You're back in jackass mode. Bye.

[Clyde Slick]

On 28 Oct, 23:46, George M. Middius wrote:
Clyde Slick said:

You have no evidence to support that. We're talking about racism, which is a
type of belief or feeling, not a behavior.
Not according to Wiki
Though the term racism usually denotes race-based prejudice,
violence, discrimination, or oppression, the term can also have varying and hotly contested definitions.

You're back in jackass mode. Bye.

buzz me when you're ready to come back out of your hidey hole.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 28, 10:28*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 28 Oct, 21:57, George M. Middius wrote:

Clyde Slick said:

[A *segment. on Hughley's show] demonstrated beyond any doubt
that racism is anything but dead in this country.
i never claimed it was dead, i said it is not prevalent,

You said "erased", liar. "Dead" is a lot closer to "erased" than "not
prevalent" is. Liar, liar, liar.

Liar, Liar, Liar, george, I said
"substantially ersased".

BZZZZZT. You said "predominately erased". Christ, you can't even
remember what you've said.

Quit drinking while posting.

and it has lessened lots over the past 40 some years.

You have no evidence to support that. We're talking about racism, which is a
type of belief or feeling, not a behavior.

Not according to Wiki
Though the term racism usually denotes race-based prejudice,
violence,
discrimination, or oppression, the term can also have varying and
hotly contested definitions.

Which of these is not true in the US:

1. People of color have the same opportunities as caucasians.

2. White people have a built-in privilege and do not need to consider
some things that people of color do.

3. Racism is still a very large issue 45 years after the Civil Rights
Act.

4. 2pid is smart.

What has changed in that time span is the overt behavior of law-abiding
citizens. The main reason for that change is that new laws were enacted..
(It's no longer legal to make a hiring decision because of skin color. Same
for housing rentals.) That's not just my opinion, but also the opinion of
lawyers and sociologists and journalists. If you doubt the accuracy of my
statement, you can google it just like I did.

One more point: If you were right about racism being erased, that would make
America the only country in the history of the world in which racism was
erased. How likely is that? The only reason Finns don't hate Arabs or
Chinese is because they don't have to live and work next to them.

In case you've forgotten, hatred of Jews is widespread. Before there was an
America to homogenize religions and races, Jews didn't make a big effort to
fit in. Here's an example (only 10 seconds):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMGtLzBhJhQ

"substantially erased"

"Predominately erased".

"To dominate or prevail over."

http://www.answers.com/topic/predominate

"Substantially"

"Considerable in importance, value, degree, amount, or extent"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/substantially

Neither applies.