Um, Clyde, how do you explain this? [Archive]

Vinylanach

October 24th 08, 06:02 PM

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_]

October 24th 08, 06:49 PM

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

October 25th 08, 01:28 AM

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

October 25th 08, 01:30 AM

Clyde Slick

October 25th 08, 01:37 AM

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!

October 25th 08, 02:26 PM

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!

October 25th 08, 02:29 PM

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_]

October 25th 08, 05:21 PM

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

October 26th 08, 12:29 AM

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

October 26th 08, 12:29 AM

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

October 26th 08, 01:01 AM

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

October 26th 08, 07:13 PM

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!

October 27th 08, 10:33 PM

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!

October 27th 08, 10:36 PM

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!

October 27th 08, 10:37 PM

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_]

October 27th 08, 11:31 PM

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

October 28th 08, 01:47 AM

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_]

October 28th 08, 01:51 AM

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_]

October 28th 08, 01:59 AM

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!

October 28th 08, 03:04 AM

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!

October 28th 08, 03:02 PM

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_]

October 28th 08, 05:09 PM

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

October 28th 08, 08:55 PM

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

October 28th 08, 08:56 PM

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

October 28th 08, 08:58 PM

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

October 28th 08, 11:03 PM

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

October 28th 08, 11:03 PM

Clyde Slick

October 28th 08, 11:05 PM

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!

October 28th 08, 11:37 PM

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!

October 28th 08, 11:58 PM

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!

October 29th 08, 12:19 AM

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/Volume_39/Issue_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!

October 29th 08, 12:26 AM

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_]

October 29th 08, 01:57 AM

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

October 29th 08, 03:19 AM

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/Volume_39/Issue_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

October 29th 08, 03:28 AM

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_]

October 29th 08, 03:46 AM

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

October 29th 08, 05:30 AM

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!

October 29th 08, 07:15 AM

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.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

October 29th 08, 08:01 AM

On Oct 28, 10:19*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> 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.

Nope. Not wild at all.

Go here, and go to "related articles". It's PDF:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/us/politics/24poll.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

> All you are doing is impeaching your own poll,
> the one you brought up in the first place.

LOL! Clyde, you made a dumb claim based on no evidence. Racism is
quite alive and well in the US.

> > 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!!!

That's all you can ever tell from a poll question.

> and that is not what it said, anyway.

Yes, it is.

> > > 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.

Yes, it is.

"Is there anyone you know who DOES NOT support Barack Obama mainly
because Obama is black?"

Y= 33%, N=65%, DK/NA=2%

> > No, it just strongly suggests (to a thinking person) that it is still
> > alive and well.
>
> alive, but not well

Since when is 1/3 "sick"?

You never answered: if 33% said that they knew someone who fondled a
dead child, what would you think of that? That dead-child-fondling is
"on the way out"? LMAO!

> > 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.

You're reaching to try to justify your ill-advised position. That's
obvious.

> *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/Volume_39/Issue_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.

Are you staying at 2pid's house? Sometimes you seem to have an ability
to think. Other times this ability inexplicably and suddenly leaves
you.

> > 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!!!

Wow! Yet another great 'point' in support of your ignorance! LOL!

> http://www.clevelandmschamber.com/

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

October 29th 08, 08:02 AM

On Oct 28, 10:46*pm, 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.

think he's satying at 2pid's house. There must be something in the
water there.

Clyde Slick

October 29th 08, 11:59 AM

On 29 Oct, 03:15, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> 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.
>

My original comment staring
this discussion was 'substantially',

>
> Which of these is not true in the US:
>
> 1. People of color have the same opportunities as caucasians.
>

Opportunity is related to class, and where one lives
and goes to school, and whether one has decent, caring,
and attentive parents.

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

I don't think that white people have a built in privilege.
I think rich and middle class peoples have built in]
privileges.

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

It is an issue but much less of an issue than beofre. Stupid self
destructive
behavior is more of an issue

> 4. 2pid is smart.

yes, finally something i can agree with

Clyde Slick

October 29th 08, 12:06 PM

On 29 Oct, 04:01, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Oct 28, 10:19*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Nope. Not wild at all.
>
> Go here, and go to "related articles". It's PDF:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/us/politics/24poll.html?pagewanted=....
>
> > All you are doing is impeaching your own poll,
> > the one you brought up in the first place.
>
> LOL! Clyde, you made a dumb claim based on no evidence. Racism is
> quite alive and well in the US.
>
> > > 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!!!
>
> That's all you can ever tell from a poll question.
>
> > and that is not what it said, anyway.
>
> Yes, it is.
>
> > > > 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.
>
> Yes, it is.
>
> "Is there anyone you know who DOES NOT support Barack Obama mainly
> because Obama is black?"
>
> Y= 33%, N=65%, DK/NA=2%
>
> > > No, it just strongly suggests (to a thinking person) that it is still
> > > alive and well.
>
> > alive, but not well
>
> Since when is 1/3 "sick"?
>

LOL!!
its not that 1/3 of the people don't support him mainly
because he is black, its that 1/3 of the people
said that they 'knew' someone who said that.
People 'know' lots of people.
65% of the people don't
even "know' one person who said that.

and it is so poorly worded.
knowing some one and 'knowing of' someone
are different things, and the responents
may have construed it to be
'knowing 'of' someone.
just one example of the stupidity of this poll.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

October 29th 08, 12:56 PM

On Oct 29, 7:06*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 29 Oct, 04:01, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > wrote:
> > On Oct 28, 10:19*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:

> > > it is not not waht it said.
>
> > Yes, it is.
>
> > "Is there anyone you know who DOES NOT support Barack Obama mainly
> > because Obama is black?"
>
> > Y= 33%, N=65%, DK/NA=2%
>
> > > > No, it just strongly suggests (to a thinking person) that it is still
> > > > alive and well.
>
> > > alive, but not well
>
> > Since when is 1/3 "sick"?
>
> LOL!!
> its not that 1/3 of the people don't support him mainly
> because he is black, its that 1/3 of the people
> said that they 'knew' someone who said that.

I understand that, Clyde. 1/3 of the people surveyed "know" someone
who "DOES NOT support Barack Obama mainly because Obama is black".
That's a significant number considering that not everybody
*verbalizes* thoughts like that.

Whatever, Clyde. You just roll along in your ignorance.

> People 'know' lots of people.

We've been through this already. Try a newer, better argument.

> 65% of the people don't
> even "know' one person who said that.

Yup. They do not know one person who *verbalized* it, Clyde.

1/3 of those surveyed know somebody who *verbalized* it. That's a huge
number for something "predominately erased".

But you go ahead and laugh, Clyde.

> and it is so poorly worded.

Yes, I suppose "Do you know anybody who called Obama a n***er"
would've been more to the point, yes?

> knowing some one and 'knowing of' someone
> are different things, and the responents
> may have construed it to be
> 'knowing 'of' someone.

Didn't you accuse me of weak postulates recently? They could have
"construed" it to mean just about anything. LOL!

> just one example of the stupidity of this poll.

We seem to have hit a nerve. It isn't a "stupid poll" and the question
was worded just fine. You just don't agree with the answer people
gave.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

October 29th 08, 01:44 PM

On Oct 29, 6:59*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 29 Oct, 03:15, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > 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.
>
> My original comment staring
> this discussion was 'substantially',

Hm. I misread this:

"depends how much racism you mean, sure, there is some, but
it is predoninantly erased."

From: Clyde Slick >
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
Subject: Re: Holy ****: The Palin/Couric interview
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 13:24:43 -0700 (PDT)

Message-ID:
>

"predoninantly" could be "substantially", I suppose. It could also be
"primordial".

> > Which of these is not true in the US:
>
> > 1. People of color have the same opportunities as caucasians.
>
> Opportunity is related to class, and where one lives
> and goes to school, and whether one has decent, caring,
> and attentive parents.

So the ghetto is self-perpetuating. Lower-income areas have
underfunded schools, so that's out too. Now if a child is locked in
the ghetto with poor schools and has loving, "decent" and "attentive"
parents, does that trump the other two?

> > 2. White people have a built-in privilege and do not need to consider
> > some things that people of color do.
>
> I don't think that white people have a built in privilege.

Of course not. How uncomfortable that would make you feel!

"Black drivers are more likely to be stopped in Missouri than white
and Hispanic motorists, and minorities are twice as likely to be
searched and arrested than whites."

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2008/05/30/mo-minority-drivers-are-stopped-searched-higher-ra/

* White drivers were more likely than both black and
Hispanic drivers to be stopped by police for speeding.
Subsequent to being stopped for speeding, blacks(78%)and
Hispanics(85%)were more likely than whites(70%)to receive
a ticket.

* Among traffic stops of young male drivers in 2002, 11%
were physically searched or had their vehicle searched by
police. Among these young male drivers who were stopped,
blacks (22%) and Hispanics(17%)were searched at higher
rates than whites (8%).

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/cdsp02.txt

Look at page four:

www.gabsnet.com/cincinnatimonitor/December%202007.pdf

Studies affirmed that minorities, particularly black Americans, were
more likely to be stopped out of suspicion and searched than whites
during routine traffic stops. Though race made a significant
difference in making stops and searching vehicles, additional data
indicated that race had little impact in arrests or citations.

The disparity between white and black executions was found
predominately in the South. Later studies showed blacks had a 22
percent chance of receiving the death penalty for murdering a white,
compared to a white offender having only an 8 percent chance. The
death penalty was applied in only 1 percent of cases involving a black
murdering a black, and in 3 percent of cases involving a white
murdering a black. A death sentence was four times more likely to be
imposed if the victim was white. Between 1976 and 1995 only two whites
were executed for murdering a black.

Further differences were discovered in the rate of offenders having
their death sentences commuted (reduced) to life sentences. Some 20
percent of white death row offenders had their sentences commuted,
compared to only 11 percent of blacks between 1914 and 1958 in
Pennsylvania. At the end of the twentieth century some 40 percent of
death row inmates were black.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/12138/Race-Ethnicity.html

But I'm sure that you're right, Clyde. After all, minorities are
genetically predisposed to a life of crime. It's a well-known fact.

> I think rich and middle class peoples have built in]
> privileges.

OK, this may be progress. If the vast majority of the wealth is in the
hands of, say, straight white christian males, might that not put
others at a disadvantage?

This may help you:

http://mmcisaac.faculty.asu.edu/emc598ge/Unpacking.html

> > 3. Racism is still a very large issue 45 years after the Civil Rights
> > Act.
>
> It is an issue but much less of an issue than beofre. Stupid self
> destructive behavior is more of an issue

See the article I provided concerning this.

> > 4. 2pid is smart.
>
> yes, finally something i can agree with

So you agree with the only one that isn't true. Interesting.

Clyde Slick

October 29th 08, 10:27 PM

On 29 Oct, 08:56, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Oct 29, 7:06*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 29 Oct, 04:01, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > wrote:
> > > On Oct 28, 10:19*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > it is not not waht it said.
>
> > > Yes, it is.
>
> > > "Is there anyone you know who DOES NOT support Barack Obama mainly
> > > because Obama is black?"
>
> > > Y= 33%, N=65%, DK/NA=2%
>
> > > > > No, it just strongly suggests (to a thinking person) that it is still
> > > > > alive and well.
>
> > > > alive, but not well
>
> > > Since when is 1/3 "sick"?
>
> > LOL!!
> > its not that 1/3 of the people don't support him mainly
> > because he is black, its that 1/3 of the people
> > said that they 'knew' someone who said that.
>
> I understand that, Clyde. 1/3 of the people surveyed "know" someone
> who "DOES NOT support Barack Obama mainly because Obama is black".
> That's a significant number considering that not everybody
> *verbalizes* thoughts like that.
>
> Whatever, Clyde. You just roll along in your ignorance.
>
> > People 'know' lots of people.
>
> We've been through this already. Try a newer, better argument.
>
> > 65% of the people don't
> > even "know' one person who said that.
>
> Yup. They do not know one person who *verbalized* it, Clyde.
>
> 1/3 of those surveyed know somebody who *verbalized* it. That's a huge
> number for something "predominately erased".
>
> But you go ahead and laugh, Clyde.
>
> > and it is so poorly worded.
>
> Yes, I suppose "Do you know anybody who called Obama a n***er"
> would've been more to the point, yes?
>
> > knowing some one and 'knowing of' someone
> > are different things, and the responents
> > may have construed it to be
> > 'knowing 'of' someone.
>
> Didn't you accuse me of weak postulates recently? They could have
> "construed" it to mean just about anything. LOL!
>
> > just one example of the stupidity of this poll.
>
> We seem to have hit a nerve. It isn't a "stupid poll" and the question
> was worded just fine. You just don't agree with the answer people
> gave.-

You have a comprehension problem.
I have no problem with the answer, it is
entirely expected. I would have expected
an even higher percentage.
My problem is with your extrapolation that
the answer offers some significant insight in the
question of how prevalent is racism in 2008 American society.

Clyde Slick

October 29th 08, 10:33 PM

On 29 Oct, 09:44, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Oct 29, 6:59*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 29 Oct, 03:15, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> > My original comment staring
> > this discussion was 'substantially',
>
> Hm. I misread this:
>
> "depends how much racism you mean, sure, there is some, but
> it is predoninantly erased."
>
> From: Clyde Slick >
> Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
> Subject: Re: Holy ****: The Palin/Couric interview
> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 13:24:43 -0700 (PDT)
>
> Message-ID:
> >
>
> "predoninantly" could be "substantially", I suppose. It could also be
> "primordial".
>
> > > Which of these is not true in the US:
>
> > > 1. People of color have the same opportunities as caucasians.
>
> > Opportunity is related to class, and where one lives
> > and goes to school, and whether one has decent, caring,
> > and attentive parents.
>
> So the ghetto is self-perpetuating. Lower-income areas have
> underfunded schools, so that's out too. Now if a child is locked in
> the ghetto with poor schools and has loving, "decent" and "attentive"
> parents, does that trump the other two?
>
> > > 2. White people have a built-in privilege and do not need to consider
> > > some things that people of color do.
>
> > I don't think that white people have a built in privilege.
>
> Of course not. How uncomfortable that would make you feel!
>
> "Black drivers are more likely to be stopped in Missouri than white
> and Hispanic motorists, and minorities are twice as likely to be
> searched and arrested than whites."
>
> http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2008/05/30/mo-minority-driv...
>
> * White drivers were more likely than both black and
> Hispanic drivers to be stopped by police for speeding.
> Subsequent to being stopped for speeding, blacks(78%)and
> Hispanics(85%)were more likely than whites(70%)to receive
> a ticket.
>
> * Among traffic stops of young male drivers in 2002, 11%
> were physically searched or had their vehicle searched by
> police. Among these young male drivers who were stopped,
> blacks (22%) and Hispanics(17%)were searched at higher
> rates than whites (8%).
>
> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/cdsp02.txt
>
> Look at page four:
>
> www.gabsnet.com/cincinnatimonitor/December%202007.pdf
>
> Studies affirmed that minorities, particularly black Americans, were
> more likely to be stopped out of suspicion and searched than whites
> during routine traffic stops. Though race made a significant
> difference in making stops and searching vehicles, additional data
> indicated that race had little impact in arrests or citations.
>
> The disparity between white and black executions was found
> predominately in the South. Later studies showed blacks had a 22
> percent chance of receiving the death penalty for murdering a white,
> compared to a white offender having only an 8 percent chance. The
> death penalty was applied in only 1 percent of cases involving a black
> murdering a black, and in 3 percent of cases involving a white
> murdering a black. A death sentence was four times more likely to be
> imposed if the victim was white. Between 1976 and 1995 only two whites
> were executed for murdering a black.
>
> Further differences were discovered in the rate of offenders having
> their death sentences commuted (reduced) to life sentences. Some 20
> percent of white death row offenders had their sentences commuted,
> compared to only 11 percent of blacks between 1914 and 1958 in
> Pennsylvania. At the end of the twentieth century some 40 percent of
> death row inmates were black.
>
> http://law.jrank.org/pages/12138/Race-Ethnicity.html
>
> But I'm sure that you're right, Clyde. After all, minorities are
> genetically predisposed to a life of crime. It's a well-known fact.
>
> > I think rich and middle class peoples have built in]
> > privileges.
>
> OK, this may be progress. If the vast majority of the wealth is in the
> hands of, say, straight white christian males, might that not put
> others at a disadvantage?
>
> This may help you:
>
> http://mmcisaac.faculty.asu.edu/emc598ge/Unpacking.html
>
> > > 3. Racism is still a very large issue 45 years after the Civil Rights
> > > Act.
>
> > It is an issue but much less of an issue than beofre. Stupid self
> > destructive behavior is more of an issue
>
> See the article I provided concerning this.
>
> > > 4. 2pid is smart.
>
> > yes, finally something i can agree with
>
> So you agree with the only one that isn't true. Interesting.-

Again, there is a need for further information before you can amke
such claims
of racism and preference.
You need to know the reason the officer made the stop.
You need to know the driving behavior
You need to know whether or not the
cop knew of the race or ethnicity before he made the stop.
You need to know the percentage of sucessful
prosecutions related to thse arrests.

Your data exists in a void, and is relatively meaningless.

MiNe 109

October 29th 08, 11:11 PM

In article
>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

>
> Your data exists in a void, and is relatively meaningless.

There was another poll that took into account some of your objections.

Stephen

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

October 30th 08, 01:52 AM

On Oct 29, 5:27*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 29 Oct, 08:56, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > We seem to have hit a nerve. It isn't a "stupid poll" and the question
> > was worded just fine. You just don't agree with the answer people
> > gave.-
>
> You have a comprehension problem.
> I have no problem with the answer, it is
> entirely expected. I would have expected
> an even higher percentage.
> My problem is with your extrapolation that
> the answer offers some significant insight in the
> question of how prevalent is racism in 2008 American society.

I already covered that one, Clyde, way up in the first post:

"...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."

That's because racism is "predominately erased", you see.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

October 30th 08, 01:57 AM

On Oct 29, 5:33*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 29 Oct, 09:44, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Oct 29, 6:59*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 29 Oct, 03:15, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > 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.
>
> > > My original comment staring
> > > this discussion was 'substantially',
>
> > Hm. I misread this:
>
> > "depends how much racism you mean, sure, there is some, but
> > it is predoninantly erased."
>
> > From: Clyde Slick >
> > Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
> > Subject: Re: Holy ****: The Palin/Couric interview
> > Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 13:24:43 -0700 (PDT)
>
> > Message-ID:
> > >
>
> > "predoninantly" could be "substantially", I suppose. It could also be
> > "primordial".
>
> > > > Which of these is not true in the US:
>
> > > > 1. People of color have the same opportunities as caucasians.
>
> > > Opportunity is related to class, and where one lives
> > > and goes to school, and whether one has decent, caring,
> > > and attentive parents.
>
> > So the ghetto is self-perpetuating. Lower-income areas have
> > underfunded schools, so that's out too. Now if a child is locked in
> > the ghetto with poor schools and has loving, "decent" and "attentive"
> > parents, does that trump the other two?
>
> > > > 2. White people have a built-in privilege and do not need to consider
> > > > some things that people of color do.
>
> > > I don't think that white people have a built in privilege.
>
> > Of course not. How uncomfortable that would make you feel!
>
> > "Black drivers are more likely to be stopped in Missouri than white
> > and Hispanic motorists, and minorities are twice as likely to be
> > searched and arrested than whites."
>
> >http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2008/05/30/mo-minority-driv...
>
> > * White drivers were more likely than both black and
> > Hispanic drivers to be stopped by police for speeding.
> > Subsequent to being stopped for speeding, blacks(78%)and
> > Hispanics(85%)were more likely than whites(70%)to receive
> > a ticket.
>
> > * Among traffic stops of young male drivers in 2002, 11%
> > were physically searched or had their vehicle searched by
> > police. Among these young male drivers who were stopped,
> > blacks (22%) and Hispanics(17%)were searched at higher
> > rates than whites (8%).
>
> >http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/cdsp02.txt
>
> > Look at page four:
>
> >www.gabsnet.com/cincinnatimonitor/December%202007.pdf
>
> > Studies affirmed that minorities, particularly black Americans, were
> > more likely to be stopped out of suspicion and searched than whites
> > during routine traffic stops. Though race made a significant
> > difference in making stops and searching vehicles, additional data
> > indicated that race had little impact in arrests or citations.
>
> > The disparity between white and black executions was found
> > predominately in the South. Later studies showed blacks had a 22
> > percent chance of receiving the death penalty for murdering a white,
> > compared to a white offender having only an 8 percent chance. The
> > death penalty was applied in only 1 percent of cases involving a black
> > murdering a black, and in 3 percent of cases involving a white
> > murdering a black. A death sentence was four times more likely to be
> > imposed if the victim was white. Between 1976 and 1995 only two whites
> > were executed for murdering a black.
>
> > Further differences were discovered in the rate of offenders having
> > their death sentences commuted (reduced) to life sentences. Some 20
> > percent of white death row offenders had their sentences commuted,
> > compared to only 11 percent of blacks between 1914 and 1958 in
> > Pennsylvania. At the end of the twentieth century some 40 percent of
> > death row inmates were black.
>
> >http://law.jrank.org/pages/12138/Race-Ethnicity.html
>
> > But I'm sure that you're right, Clyde. After all, minorities are
> > genetically predisposed to a life of crime. It's a well-known fact.
>
> > > I think rich and middle class peoples have built in]
> > > privileges.
>
> > OK, this may be progress. If the vast majority of the wealth is in the
> > hands of, say, straight white christian males, might that not put
> > others at a disadvantage?
>
> > This may help you:
>
> >http://mmcisaac.faculty.asu.edu/emc598ge/Unpacking.html
>
> > > > 3. Racism is still a very large issue 45 years after the Civil Rights
> > > > Act.
>
> > > It is an issue but much less of an issue than beofre. Stupid self
> > > destructive behavior is more of an issue
>
> > See the article I provided concerning this.
>
> > > > 4. 2pid is smart.
>
> > > yes, finally something i can agree with
>
> > So you agree with the only one that isn't true. Interesting.-
>
> Again, there is a need for further information before you can amke
> such claims
> of racism and preference.

Which is readily available in the sources I took excerpts from. Quit
drinking and go read. I didn't quote mindless blogs.

> You *need to know the reason the officer made the stop.
> You need to know the driving behavior
> You need to know whether or not the
> cop knew of the race or ethnicity before he made the stop.
> You need to know the percentage of sucessful
> prosecutions related to thse arrests.

I'm sure most, of not all, of that data is there. Instead of
posturing, why not go prove me wrong? LOL!

> Your data exists in a void, and is relatively meaningless.

A couple of points, Clyde:

1. That wasn't my data. It came from such places as Rand Corporation
and the US Department of Justice. If you weren't lazy, you could go
investigate it yourself.

2. It is not "meaningless data".

You and 2pid are alike: you want everything handed to you on a
platter. History shows that doing so makes no difference. Either
you'll continue to diagree or drop the subject, just like 2pid does.

Clyde Slick

October 30th 08, 03:20 AM

On 29 Oct, 21:57, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Oct 29, 5:33*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 29 Oct, 09:44, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Oct 29, 6:59*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 29 Oct, 03:15, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > 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.
>
> > > > My original comment staring
> > > > this discussion was 'substantially',
>
> > > Hm. I misread this:
>
> > > "depends how much racism you mean, sure, there is some, but
> > > it is predoninantly erased."
>
> > > From: Clyde Slick >
> > > Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
> > > Subject: Re: Holy ****: The Palin/Couric interview
> > > Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 13:24:43 -0700 (PDT)
>
> > > Message-ID:
> > > >
>
> > > "predoninantly" could be "substantially", I suppose. It could also be
> > > "primordial".
>
> > > > > Which of these is not true in the US:
>
> > > > > 1. People of color have the same opportunities as caucasians.
>
> > > > Opportunity is related to class, and where one lives
> > > > and goes to school, and whether one has decent, caring,
> > > > and attentive parents.
>
> > > So the ghetto is self-perpetuating. Lower-income areas have
> > > underfunded schools, so that's out too. Now if a child is locked in
> > > the ghetto with poor schools and has loving, "decent" and "attentive"
> > > parents, does that trump the other two?
>
> > > > > 2. White people have a built-in privilege and do not need to consider
> > > > > some things that people of color do.
>
> > > > I don't think that white people have a built in privilege.
>
> > > Of course not. How uncomfortable that would make you feel!
>
> > > "Black drivers are more likely to be stopped in Missouri than white
> > > and Hispanic motorists, and minorities are twice as likely to be
> > > searched and arrested than whites."
>
> > >http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2008/05/30/mo-minority-driv....
>
> > > * White drivers were more likely than both black and
> > > Hispanic drivers to be stopped by police for speeding.
> > > Subsequent to being stopped for speeding, blacks(78%)and
> > > Hispanics(85%)were more likely than whites(70%)to receive
> > > a ticket.
>
> > > * Among traffic stops of young male drivers in 2002, 11%
> > > were physically searched or had their vehicle searched by
> > > police. Among these young male drivers who were stopped,
> > > blacks (22%) and Hispanics(17%)were searched at higher
> > > rates than whites (8%).
>
> > >http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/cdsp02.txt
>
> > > Look at page four:
>
> > >www.gabsnet.com/cincinnatimonitor/December%202007.pdf
>
> > > Studies affirmed that minorities, particularly black Americans, were
> > > more likely to be stopped out of suspicion and searched than whites
> > > during routine traffic stops. Though race made a significant
> > > difference in making stops and searching vehicles, additional data
> > > indicated that race had little impact in arrests or citations.
>
> > > The disparity between white and black executions was found
> > > predominately in the South. Later studies showed blacks had a 22
> > > percent chance of receiving the death penalty for murdering a white,
> > > compared to a white offender having only an 8 percent chance. The
> > > death penalty was applied in only 1 percent of cases involving a black
> > > murdering a black, and in 3 percent of cases involving a white
> > > murdering a black. A death sentence was four times more likely to be
> > > imposed if the victim was white. Between 1976 and 1995 only two whites
> > > were executed for murdering a black.
>
> > > Further differences were discovered in the rate of offenders having
> > > their death sentences commuted (reduced) to life sentences. Some 20
> > > percent of white death row offenders had their sentences commuted,
> > > compared to only 11 percent of blacks between 1914 and 1958 in
> > > Pennsylvania. At the end of the twentieth century some 40 percent of
> > > death row inmates were black.
>
> > >http://law.jrank.org/pages/12138/Race-Ethnicity.html
>
> > > But I'm sure that you're right, Clyde. After all, minorities are
> > > genetically predisposed to a life of crime. It's a well-known fact.
>
> > > > I think rich and middle class peoples have built in]
> > > > privileges.
>
> > > OK, this may be progress. If the vast majority of the wealth is in the
> > > hands of, say, straight white christian males, might that not put
> > > others at a disadvantage?
>
> > > This may help you:
>
> > >http://mmcisaac.faculty.asu.edu/emc598ge/Unpacking.html
>
> > > > > 3. Racism is still a very large issue 45 years after the Civil Rights
> > > > > Act.
>
> > > > It is an issue but much less of an issue than beofre. Stupid self
> > > > destructive behavior is more of an issue
>
> > > See the article I provided concerning this.
>
> > > > > 4. 2pid is smart.
>
> > > > yes, finally something i can agree with
>
> > > So you agree with the only one that isn't true. Interesting.-
>
> > Again, there is a need for further information before you can amke
> > such claims
> > of racism and preference.
>
> Which is readily available in the sources I took excerpts from. Quit
> drinking and go read. I didn't quote mindless blogs.
>
> > You *need to know the reason the officer made the stop.
> > You need to know the driving behavior
> > You need to know whether or not the
> > cop knew of the race or ethnicity before he made the stop.
> > You need to know the percentage of sucessful
> > prosecutions related to thse arrests.
>
> I'm sure most, of not all, of that data is there. Instead of
> posturing, why not go prove me wrong? LOL!
>
> > Your data exists in a void, and is relatively meaningless.
>
> A couple of points, Clyde:
>
> 1. That wasn't my data. It came from such places as Rand Corporation
> and the US Department of Justice. If you weren't lazy, you could go
> investigate it yourself.
>

by 'your' data, I mean the data "you" presented.\
You presented it.
whoever derived it, ti\\it doesn''t matter.
I did not say it was not true.
I said it is meaningless.
You could also have said, truly, as fact, that
a disproportionate ratio of blacks are
prosecuted for felonies, and a disproportionate
number of blacks are convicted of felonies.
You could also say that a disproportionate
number of blacks are victims of crimes, as fact.

Now, by way of explanation, you should
consider that a disporportionate number
of heavily black populated areas have
disproportionately higher crime rates.
And aqlso consider that many poor black residential
areas have a dosproportionally
higher amount of police presence, to protect
all those disproportionally black potential
victims of crime. that would be a factor deriving
a disproportionate number of blacks being stopped and/or
arrested.

Now as far as your death row verbage, you coomplain
that that only 2 whites were executed for
killing blacks, but you don't say
how amny were on death row for that.
You need to show all the relevant statistics, not just
selected statistics.
Also, mining execution data brings up crimes
that actually occurred as early as the seventies and 80's,
when racism was more prevalent than now, as cases have lingered
on death row for decades

> 2. It is not "meaningless data".
>

it most certainly is.
trying to find out if racism exists
by asking people if they know someone who
said somethingis is patently stupid.

> You and 2pid are alike: you want everything handed to you on a
> platter. History shows that doing so makes no difference. Either
> you'll continue to diagree or drop the subject, just like 2pid does.-

Don't expect me to agree with your errors.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

October 30th 08, 07:58 AM

On Oct 29, 10:20*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 29 Oct, 21:57, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Oct 29, 5:33*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 29 Oct, 09:44, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Oct 29, 6:59*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > On 29 Oct, 03:15, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 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.
>
> > > > > My original comment staring
> > > > > this discussion was 'substantially',
>
> > > > Hm. I misread this:
>
> > > > "depends how much racism you mean, sure, there is some, but
> > > > it is predoninantly erased."
>
> > > > From: Clyde Slick >
> > > > Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
> > > > Subject: Re: Holy ****: The Palin/Couric interview
> > > > Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 13:24:43 -0700 (PDT)
>
> > > > Message-ID:
> > > > >
>
> > > > "predoninantly" could be "substantially", I suppose. It could also be
> > > > "primordial".
>
> > > > > > Which of these is not true in the US:
>
> > > > > > 1. People of color have the same opportunities as caucasians.
>
> > > > > Opportunity is related to class, and where one lives
> > > > > and goes to school, and whether one has decent, caring,
> > > > > and attentive parents.
>
> > > > So the ghetto is self-perpetuating. Lower-income areas have
> > > > underfunded schools, so that's out too. Now if a child is locked in
> > > > the ghetto with poor schools and has loving, "decent" and "attentive"
> > > > parents, does that trump the other two?
>
> > > > > > 2. White people have a built-in privilege and do not need to consider
> > > > > > some things that people of color do.
>
> > > > > I don't think that white people have a built in privilege.
>
> > > > Of course not. How uncomfortable that would make you feel!
>
> > > > "Black drivers are more likely to be stopped in Missouri than white
> > > > and Hispanic motorists, and minorities are twice as likely to be
> > > > searched and arrested than whites."
>
> > > >http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2008/05/30/mo-minority-driv...
>
> > > > * White drivers were more likely than both black and
> > > > Hispanic drivers to be stopped by police for speeding.
> > > > Subsequent to being stopped for speeding, blacks(78%)and
> > > > Hispanics(85%)were more likely than whites(70%)to receive
> > > > a ticket.
>
> > > > * Among traffic stops of young male drivers in 2002, 11%
> > > > were physically searched or had their vehicle searched by
> > > > police. Among these young male drivers who were stopped,
> > > > blacks (22%) and Hispanics(17%)were searched at higher
> > > > rates than whites (8%).
>
> > > >http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/cdsp02.txt
>
> > > > Look at page four:
>
> > > >www.gabsnet.com/cincinnatimonitor/December%202007.pdf
>
> > > > Studies affirmed that minorities, particularly black Americans, were
> > > > more likely to be stopped out of suspicion and searched than whites
> > > > during routine traffic stops. Though race made a significant
> > > > difference in making stops and searching vehicles, additional data
> > > > indicated that race had little impact in arrests or citations.
>
> > > > The disparity between white and black executions was found
> > > > predominately in the South. Later studies showed blacks had a 22
> > > > percent chance of receiving the death penalty for murdering a white,
> > > > compared to a white offender having only an 8 percent chance. The
> > > > death penalty was applied in only 1 percent of cases involving a black
> > > > murdering a black, and in 3 percent of cases involving a white
> > > > murdering a black. A death sentence was four times more likely to be
> > > > imposed if the victim was white. Between 1976 and 1995 only two whites
> > > > were executed for murdering a black.
>
> > > > Further differences were discovered in the rate of offenders having
> > > > their death sentences commuted (reduced) to life sentences. Some 20
> > > > percent of white death row offenders had their sentences commuted,
> > > > compared to only 11 percent of blacks between 1914 and 1958 in
> > > > Pennsylvania. At the end of the twentieth century some 40 percent of
> > > > death row inmates were black.
>
> > > >http://law.jrank.org/pages/12138/Race-Ethnicity.html
>
> > > > But I'm sure that you're right, Clyde. After all, minorities are
> > > > genetically predisposed to a life of crime. It's a well-known fact.
>
> > > > > I think rich and middle class peoples have built in]
> > > > > privileges.
>
> > > > OK, this may be progress. If the vast majority of the wealth is in the
> > > > hands of, say, straight white christian males, might that not put
> > > > others at a disadvantage?
>
> > > > This may help you:
>
> > > >http://mmcisaac.faculty.asu.edu/emc598ge/Unpacking.html
>
> > > > > > 3. Racism is still a very large issue 45 years after the Civil Rights
> > > > > > Act.
>
> > > > > It is an issue but much less of an issue than beofre. Stupid self
> > > > > destructive behavior is more of an issue
>
> > > > See the article I provided concerning this.
>
> > > > > > 4. 2pid is smart.
>
> > > > > yes, finally something i can agree with
>
> > > > So you agree with the only one that isn't true. Interesting.-
>
> > > Again, there is a need for further information before you can amke
> > > such claims
> > > of racism and preference.
>
> > Which is readily available in the sources I took excerpts from. Quit
> > drinking and go read. I didn't quote mindless blogs.
>
> > > You *need to know the reason the officer made the stop.
> > > You need to know the driving behavior
> > > You need to know whether or not the
> > > cop knew of the race or ethnicity before he made the stop.
> > > You need to know the percentage of sucessful
> > > prosecutions related to thse arrests.
>
> > I'm sure most, of not all, of that data is there. Instead of
> > posturing, why not go prove me wrong? LOL!
>
> > > Your data exists in a void, and is relatively meaningless.
>
> > A couple of points, Clyde:
>
> > 1. That wasn't my data. It came from such places as Rand Corporation
> > and the US Department of Justice. If you weren't lazy, you could go
> > investigate it yourself.
>
> by 'your' data, I mean the data "you" presented.\
> You presented it.
> whoever derived it, ti\\it doesn''t matter.
> I did not say it was not true.
> I said it is meaningless.
> You could also have said, truly, as fact, that
> a disproportionate ratio of blacks are
> prosecuted for felonies, and a disproportionate
> number of blacks are convicted of felonies.
> You could also say that a disproportionate
> number of blacks are victims of crimes, as fact.
>
> Now, by way of explanation, you should
> consider that a disporportionate number
> of heavily black populated areas have
> disproportionately higher crime rates.
> And aqlso consider that many poor black residential
> areas have a dosproportionally
> higher amount of police presence, to protect
> all those disproportionally black potential
> victims of crime. that would be a factor deriving
> a disproportionate number of blacks being stopped and/or
> arrested.
>
> Now as far as your death row verbage, you coomplain
> that that only 2 whites were executed for
> killing blacks, but you don't say
> how amny were on death row for that.
> You need to show all the relevant statistics, not just
> selected statistics.
> Also, mining execution data brings up crimes
> that actually occurred as early as the seventies and 80's,
> when racism was more prevalent than now, as cases have lingered
> on death row for decades
>
> > 2. It is not "meaningless data".
>
> it most certainly is.
> trying to find out if racism exists
> by asking people if they know someone who
> said somethingis is patently stupid.
>
> > You and 2pid are alike: you want everything handed to you on a
> > platter. History shows that doing so makes no difference. Either
> > you'll continue to diagree or drop the subject, just like 2pid does.-
>
> Don't expect me to agree with your errors.

LOL!

Only a televised public lynching by the KKK in full regalia will
satisfy Clyde that racism is still a large problem in this country.
Even then he'd probably argue that "not all of the KKK would've
lynched him".

Did I say that I already knew you wouldn't "get it"? You and 2pid
deserve each other. I'm very glad you found each other. There's
nothing sadder to me than unrequited love.