Obama Struggles To Limit Damage In Pastor Row As WHITE VOTERS Slip Away

[Pale Rider]

Obama Struggles To Limit Damage In Pastor Row As WHITE VOTERS Slip Away


Listen for a few minutes to Joey Vento, owner of a south Philadelphia institution that serves gut-busting sandwiches through a takeaway hatch, and the scale of Barack Obama's problems become apparent. Obama is having the worst week of his campaign. It is, some believe, a week that threatens his chances of becoming president.

"That minister, that was terrible, all his sayings. He's preaching hatred," Vento said. "The thing I didn't like about Obama; you're telling me for 20 years you been going to that church and you never heard that?"

Vento, 68, was speaking about Obama's former pastor and spiritual adviser, Jeremiah Wright, whose sermons have been aired repeatedly on US television denouncing the US as racist.

The clips have alienated the white voters, such as Vento, that Obama needs in his next contest with Hillary Clinton, to be held in Philadephia and the other towns and cities of Pennsylvania on April 22. But it goes further than that. The danger for Obama is not just that he could lose badly in Pennsylvania but that senior Democrats will wonder whether the loss of white votes could cost him the November general election.

The latest poll in Pennsylvania by Public Policy Polling puts Clinton on 56% and Obama on 30%. The same polling organisation showed her having overtaken Obama in North Carolina, which is also still to hold its primary: she has 43% to his 42%.

Phil Singer, spokesman for Clinton, told reporters: "It's no secret that the Obama campaign is in political hot water."

Story continues here... (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/22/uselections2008.barackobama)

[Yurt]

if hillary's pastor of 20 years said this about black people and said their ministry focused on white people, this poll wouldn't even exist, she would have been forced to withdraw.

rev. wright is correct, racism is alive and well.......except his source of racism is wrong.

[krisy]

I was talking to a co worker yesterday who told me that she was considering Obama. Now,she said absolutely not. Anyone who is supporting him really ought to think about this Wright stuff.

Fox news also said yesterday that the Obama camp is furious with them for pounding this story so hard. :salute:

[Yurt]

I was talking to a co worker yesterday who told me that she was considering Obama. Now,she said absolutely not. Anyone who is supporting him really ought to think about this Wright stuff.

Fox news also said yesterday that the Obama camp is furious with them for pounding this story so hard. :salute:

oh, so sad for bambam, a news outlet that is not fawning over him and basically campaigning for him.

[retiredman]

oh, so sad for bambam, a news outlet that is not fawning over him and basically campaigning for him.

after the fiftieth time you show the same youtube soundbite, it really does cease to become "News", though, doesn't it?

[Pale Rider]

after the fiftieth time you show the same youtube soundbite, it really does cease to become "News", though, doesn't it?

Sometimes it takes a lot of times to be seen before some thick headed people get it..... sound like anyone you know?

[retiredman]

nice dodge.

Let's go back and put Watergate on the nightly news....just in case the really numb were unaware of it. Watergate 24/7 .... or Clinton's impeachment trial...same thing...let's play it over and over and over again....is that really NEWS?

[Yurt]

after the fiftieth time you show the same youtube soundbite, it really does cease to become "News", though, doesn't it?

don't forget how long it took for the thread "native land" to be proven true by the media and finally voiced by some blacks as well.

[April15]

If the preacher says something and you did not, how is it that the onus is on you? That would be like me saying something on this board that was treasonable and the board being equally guilty of it.

[Kathianne]

If the preacher says something and you did not, how is it that the onus is on you? That would be like me saying something on this board that was treasonable and the board being equally guilty of it.

If one belongs to an association, say the KKK for 20 years, another can be pretty certain that the person in question agrees to a degree with the association.

Now if one is running for office, has never had an affiliation with said organization, but gets their endorsement, well then one can be said to be of amiable to their endorsement, but not necessarily of the same mindset.

[April15]

If one belongs to an association, say the KKK for 20 years, another can be pretty certain that the person in question agrees to a degree with the association.

This is very true; to a degree not whole heartedly

Now if one is running for office, has never had an affiliation with said organization, but gets their endorsement, well then one can be said to be of amiable to their endorsement, but not necessarily of the same mindset.

I would think in todays political climate endorsements are made to detract as well as enhance.

[Yurt]

If the preacher says something and you did not, how is it that the onus is on you? That would be like me saying something on this board that was treasonable and the board being equally guilty of it.

if this board had a heavy racist slant, and you belonged to this board for 20 years and never said anything against the racism......

that analogy works

[Kathianne]

I would think in todays political climate endorsements are made to detract as well as enhance.

thus, your point?

[Pale Rider]

nice dodge.

Let's go back and put Watergate on the nightly news....just in case the really numb were unaware of it. Watergate 24/7 .... or Clinton's impeachment trial...same thing...let's play it over and over and over again....is that really NEWS?

Sure... let's do that. In fact, if you want to detract from a recent incident by rehashing something that happened twenty years ago, why stop there? Why don't we rehash something from 100 years ago? Why not 1,000? Heck, let's just rehash shit from the days of the CAVE MAN! YEAH! Outstanding idea mfm... :talk2hand:

Ya know... the longer you try and defend hussein and his America hating, racist preacher and church of twenty years, the more outrageous your ideas get.

[middleground]

No surprise here. Race has always been the most common tool of dividing up the lower class. I doubt that Obama is going to turn this country into an "anti-white" nation if he gets elected. And I dont see his preacher getting any cabinet positions so its pretty much a non-story. Of course his opponents will beat on the drum whenever they get the chance.

Obama is a populist. There is no doubt about that. But I certainly dont see him as threat to white people. With affirmative action all but destroyed, about the only thing he could even do is push for urban welfare programs and even if he did it would need to get through an awful lot of white people in congress before it could happen. The worst he could do is help poor people.

This just looks like the negro capitalist communist conspiracy. Just the thing we needed to draw out that latent white racism.

[Dilloduck]

No surprise here. Race has always been the most common tool of dividing up the lower class. I doubt that Obama is going to turn this country into an "anti-white" nation if he gets elected. And I dont see his preacher getting any cabinet positions so its pretty much a non-story. Of course his opponents will beat on the drum whenever they get the chance.

Obama is a populist. There is no doubt about that. But I certainly dont see him as threat to white people. With affirmative action all but destroyed, about the only thing he could even do is push for urban welfare programs and even if he did it would need to get through an awful lot of white people in congress before it could happen. The worst he could do is help poor people.

This just looks like the negro capitalist communist conspiracy. Just the thing we needed to draw out that latent white racism.

How about a Clinton conspiracy ? :poke:

[NATO AIR]

What is ignored here is the strong possibility Iraq will get worse over the course of the year, which will bring it back to the forefront of discussion, which will weaken McCain because he has not shown any imagination on the issue and has but one answer to it; "more". As in "more war, more troops, more death, more money, more failure".

The white voters will return to Obama in droves. This is an election that will be decided by Iraq, as McCain pointed out himself in January.

The tragedy here is, had Bush listened to McCain 4 years ago on the virtues of a surge, we wouldn't be in such bad shape.

The problem now is that as America has finally figured out the basics of counterinsurgency and stopped being incompetent on almost every measure, the Iraqis now and will continue to figure out the basics of politics, particularly power-sharing and compromise.

All this race nonsense is hubub compared to the declining economy and the Iraqi insistence on "winner takes all" ethnic relations and politics. McCain is dreadfully weak in response to both of those problems.

[MtnBiker]

The white voters will return to Obama in droves.


That is yet to be determind. Here is some food for thought;



http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/obamas_problem_with_white_vote.html

[NATO AIR]

That is yet to be determind. Here is some food for thought;



http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/obamas_problem_with_white_vote.html

interesting point by the author. A sad state of affairs no amount of good speeches and honest discussion will fix for years to come.

[Nuc]

A lot of things that are said on ANY pulpit by ANY priest, minister, pastor or preacher are ridiculous. That's the nature of religion and the idea of preaching.

If we attend a church, synagogue, temple or mosque does that mean we agree with everything that's said there?

Anybody who agrees with everything any religious professional says is insane. We go to church for fellowship not because the preachers speak infallible truth.

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

A lot of things that are said on ANY pulpit by ANY priest, minister, pastor or preacher are ridiculous. That's the nature of religion and the idea of preaching.

If we attend a church, synagogue, temple or mosque does that mean we agree with everything that's said there?

Anybody who agrees with everything any religious professional says is insane. We go to church for fellowship not because the preachers speak infallible truth.
IF I went to a church where the pastor was preaching racist shit like blame all the worlds troubles on blacks I'D be outta there Immediately. there is no place for racism in religion. unless your a Muslim then Islam is not a religion but a cult

[Kathianne]

IF I went to a church where the pastor was preaching racist shit like blame all the worlds troubles on blacks I'D be outta there Immediately. there is no place for racism in religion. unless your a Muslim then Islam is not a religion but a cult

Yep. I'm Catholic and I've never heard any kind of 'blacks...' or Episcopals believe ..... If I did, bye. I posted about my experience as a kid, in a Presbyterian church. Luckily for me, the folks that brought me had the clout to deal with.

[retiredman]

I am not black. I know of no member at DP that IS black. I would surmise, however,that being black and growing up in a black church which practiced the historical traditions of black liberation theology, might give one a sense of insight and empathy into this issue that none of us non-black folks possesses.

[Kathianne]

I am not black. I know of no member at DP that IS black. I would surmise, however,that being black and growing up in a black church which practiced the historical traditions of black liberation theology, might give one a sense of insight and empathy into this issue that none of us non-black folks possesses.

could be, but that wasn't Barack. He entered that Church as an adult, by a mile.

[retiredman]

could be, but that wasn't Barack. He entered that Church as an adult, by a mile.

My comment was meant to put the outrage at Reverent Wright in some context. My point is: black liberation theology is not hateful of white people as individuals, but of white authority and white discriminatory power. Being white, it is difficult for us to comprehend it or place it in any context.

[DragonStryk72]

Well, as it turns out, Obama seems to have pulled it together on this front, with his speech on Race & Politics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU

My dad pisses me off, seriously pisses me off, and not because we're "so much alike". We exist just enough in opposition to each other to make sure that we will get into the worst possible arguments. When we do argue, he focuses on winning at any cost, whereas I attempt to have the argument while still retaining my dignity. Now, that said, I love my dad, and no, I couldn't step away from him, I've tried that, it doesn't work.

Further, I believe that there are two families you make in this life: the family you're born to, nothing you can do about that, and the family that you create for yourself, from the people whom you love and admire. This pastor was family to Barack, even if he was shouting at the top of his lungs things that Barack would shout at the top of his lungs against.

[Kathianne]

I am not black. I know of no member at DP that IS black. I would surmise, however,that being black and growing up in a black church which practiced the historical traditions of black liberation theology, might give one a sense of insight and empathy into this issue that none of us non-black folks possesses.

Could be, but that wasn't Barack. He 'grew up' with White grandparents and elite schools. Give us a break.

[Noir]

nice dodge.

Let's go back and put Watergate on the nightly news....just in case the really numb were unaware of it. Watergate 24/7 .... or Clinton's impeachment trial...same thing...let's play it over and over and over again....is that really NEWS?

Well it all depends on the gray meaning of the word 'news'

Definition-
–noun (usually used with a singular verb)
1. a report of a recent event; intelligence; information: His family has had no news of his whereabouts for months.
2. the presentation of a report on recent or new events in a newspaper or other periodical or on radio or television.
(Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.com))

Looking at the above you can clearly see 'recent event' now again 'recent' is open for debate but Watergate and the impeachment trail were -i'd assume- covered at great length when they were 'recent' and therefore 'news' but it is now no longer 'news' and is now 'history' it seems you really are clutching at straws here. So they showed it 5 times, how many times did you want them to show it? 2? 3?...4? at what point did it stop becoming news? It seems to have been a bad blow for obama but you can not blame the media, if you give them a chance they'll be on you like a pack of wolves, this time Obama was the unlucky one.

[retiredman]

Could be, but that wasn't Barack. He 'grew up' with White grandparents and elite schools. Give us a break.


and he moved to the south side of chicago and became immersed in the issues of the black community.

AND AGAIN...the issue is not Barack Obama but white people throwing hissy fits about Jeremiah Wright without having any contextual framework to judge him.

[Pale Rider]

A lot of things that are said on ANY pulpit by ANY priest, minister, pastor or preacher are ridiculous. That's the nature of religion and the idea of preaching.

If we attend a church, synagogue, temple or mosque does that mean we agree with everything that's said there?

Anybody who agrees with everything any religious professional says is insane. We go to church for fellowship not because the preachers speak infallible truth.

Horse dung brother.... there's thousands upon thousands of churches in this country, and every single person here has the freedom to attend which ever one he/she wants. If I went to a church like hussein's, and the first thing I heard was the "black" this, and the "black" that, and that my race of people INVENTED Aides to KILL the black man, and Goddamn America, and on and on we all hate whitey, I'd get my mother fuckin' ass otta there before I thought I was next to be KILLED! THERE IS NO EXPLAINING AWAY OR APOLOGIZING for the kind of racist ranting and frothing at the mouth hatred husseins church and minister subscribed to.... NONE! Had ****WHITE PEOPLE**** pulled a stunt like that in a church, the blacks would riot in the streets by the millions. DO NOT try and poo poo this away like it's a five year olds birthday party prank. This racism that "WHITES" are so frequently and vehemently accused of having DOES NOT RESIDE IN THE WHITES, BUT IN THE BLACKS, and the sooner white people get over this latent guilt trip they're on about slavery, and stop thinking we OWE black people something, the sooner we can square this whole situation and deal with racism fairly across the board. Not just when white people do it. The day has come when it's BLACK PEOPLE'S turn to fess up to their own INCREDIBLE, DEEP, SMOLDERING HATRED AND RACISM towards white people.

[Pale Rider]

and he moved to the south side of chicago and became immersed in the issues of the black community.

AND AGAIN...the issue is not Barack Obama but white people throwing hissy fits about Jeremiah Wright without having any contextual framework to judge him.


YOU FUCKING THINK WHAT YOU WANT mfm... YOU DISMISS IT, YOU APOLOGIZE FOR IT, YOU LIE TO YOURSELF, YOUR WIFE, YOUR CHILDREN, YOUR PARENTS, YOUR FRIENDS AND GOD ABOVE, BUT DO NOT TELL ME AGAIN THAT HUSSEIN AND HIS MOTHER FUCKING CHURCH AND MINISTER ARE NOT RACIST, AND THEN HAVE THE GALL TO DARE AND BLAME IT ON THE WHITE PEOPLE FOR BEING CONCERNED ABOUT IT AS IF IT'S OUR FAULT........... YOU NEED A HUGE REALITY CHECK ASS HOLE..........

[Sitarro]

My comment was meant to put the outrage at Reverent Wright in some context. My point is: black liberation theology is not hateful of white people as individuals, but of white authority and white discriminatory power. Being white, it is difficult for us to comprehend it or place it in any context.

I wonder if American Indians would comprehend it since what was done to them dwarfs the things that were done to blacks. Read "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee" an explain to me why they aren't whining like blacks do.

[stephanie]

My comment was meant to put the outrage at Reverent Wright in some context. My point is: black liberation theology is not hateful of white people as individuals, but of white authority and white discriminatory power. Being white, it is difficult for us to comprehend it or place it in any context.

good friggin grief..


You don't hear the Asians, Chinese, Germans, etc, etc, etc. still whining about how they were treated when they got here...

WHY IS THAT???

[stephanie]

double post.
my mistake..

[retiredman]

good friggin grief..


You don't hear the Asians, Chinese, Germans, etc, etc, etc. still whining about how they were treated when they got here...

WHY IS THAT???

hmmm...maybe because they all arrived here as human beings and not property? because their ancestors weren't tied to the whipping post when they didn't pick cotton fast enough? because their foremothers weren't routinely raped at will by OUR forefathers?

[retiredman]

YOU FUCKING THINK WHAT YOU WANT mfm... YOU DISMISS IT, YOU APOLOGIZE FOR IT, YOU LIE TO YOURSELF, YOUR WIFE, YOUR CHILDREN, YOUR PARENTS, YOUR FRIENDS AND GOD ABOVE, BUT DO NOT TELL ME AGAIN THAT HUSSEIN AND HIS MOTHER FUCKING CHURCH AND MINISTER ARE NOT RACIST, AND THEN HAVE THE GALL TO DARE AND BLAME IT ON THE WHITE PEOPLE FOR BEING CONCERNED ABOUT IT AS IF IT'S OUR FAULT........... YOU NEED A HUGE REALITY CHECK ASS HOLE..........

I WILL fucking think what I want and I will tell you whatever the fuck I chose to tell you whenever I fucking chose to, and you will either bend over and take it, or you'll put me on ignore. your choice. :coffee:

[retiredman]

I wonder if American Indians would comprehend it since what was done to them dwarfs the things that were done to blacks. Read "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee" an explain to me why they aren't whining like blacks do.

again....getting their asses kicked in a long series of wars is different than being sold as property.

[Dilloduck]

again....getting their asses kicked in a long series of wars is different than being sold as property.

how much will it take per black to make it even?

[retiredman]

how much will it take per black to make it even?

why don't you ask them?:lol:

[Dilloduck]

why don't you ask them?:lol:

I asked you. What do you consider a fair price?

[retiredman]

I asked you. What do you consider a fair price?

I have no idea. I believe that the only people who can judge the fairness of any sort of efforts made to redress the immoral aftermath of slavery and Jim Crow would be black people who have grown up under the yoke of such oppression. Like I said, why don't you ask them? Or are you a "typical white person" who is afraid to go talk to blacks? ;)

[Dilloduck]

I have no idea. I believe that the only people who can judge the fairness of any sort of efforts made to redress the immoral aftermath of slavery and Jim Crow would be black people who have grown up under the yoke of such oppression. Like I said, why don't you ask them? Or are you a "typical white person" who is afraid to go talk to blacks? ;)

Idiots like you crack me up----assuming to know my personal relationships with blacks is laughable.

[retiredman]

Idiots like you crack me up----assuming to know my personal relationships with blacks is laughable.

why then would you ask ME such a question if you knew any blacks that could give you a meaningful answer instead of a guess? Why haven't you asked them long before today if the question was actually legitimate?

[Dilloduck]

why then would you ask ME such a question if you knew any blacks that could give you a meaningful answer instead of a guess? Why haven't you asked them long before today if the question was actually legitimate?

Because I am intersted in hearing YOUR opinion on what it will take to repay them for their misery. DOH !!!

[retiredman]

Because I am intersted in hearing YOUR opinion on what it will take to repay them for their misery. DOH !!!

I don't think that monetary reparations are the answer. I think a society that is committed to moving towards equality in the marketplace and the workforce will cause the grievance to dissipate over generations.

[Dilloduck]

I don't think that monetary reparations are the answer. I think a society that is committed to moving towards equality in the marketplace and the workforce will cause the grievance to dissipate over generations.

Do you think it would help if blacks took advantage of their opportunities or can they just filibuster all the way to equality?

[retiredman]

Do you think it would help if blacks took advantage of their opportunities or can they just filibuster all the way to equality?

every little bit will help... from all sides

[Dilloduck]

every little bit will help... from all sides

do the blacks know this ?

[retiredman]

do the blacks know this ?

why don't you ask all your black friends?

[Dilloduck]

why don't you ask all your black friends?

oh they know it----they all work and don't bitch.

[retiredman]

oh they know it----they all work and don't bitch.


so...if you knew the answer, why did you ask me?

[theHawk]

after the fiftieth time you show the same youtube soundbite, it really does cease to become "News", though, doesn't it?

It is news. Its big news that the once invincible Obama who was drawing in record crowds of Dems to the polls is now exposed as a liar and a supporter of a flamming racist, marxist pig like Wright.

Like a typical liberal, Obama blames "FoxNews" for all of this, and not his own dumb ass for lying to the American people and for pretending to be a "uniter" when all he has done is suscribe to racist tripe for 20 years.

[No1tovote4]

I have no idea. I believe that the only people who can judge the fairness of any sort of efforts made to redress the immoral aftermath of slavery and Jim Crow would be black people who have grown up under the yoke of such oppression. Like I said, why don't you ask them? Or are you a "typical white person" who is afraid to go talk to blacks? ;)
So, I can pick the number that is okay to Native Americans to pay us back for that treatment? How long should Native Americans hold that anger if generation after generation are ruined by it?

[bullypulpit]

As I have said before, the snippets of Reverend Wright's sermons played to death by the right wing media...the right wing blogosphere and any other outlet the right wing-nuts can get access to...were and are taken out of context.

Now, I know the RWN sheeple who frequent this board won't bother, but the rest, and most, will take the time to see these sound-bites in their full context.

You can see them <a href=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lonnee-hamilton/placing-reverend-wrights_b_92738.html>HERE</a> and <a href=http://www.truthabouttrinity.blogspot.com/>HERE</a>. The sheeple needn't bother.

[No1tovote4]

As I have said before, the snippets of Reverend Wright's sermons played to death by the right wing media...the right wing blogosphere and any other outlet the right wing-nuts can get access to...were and are taken out of context.

Now, I know the RWN sheeple who frequent this board won't bother, but the rest, and most, will take the time to see these sound-bites in their full context.

You can see them <a href=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lonnee-hamilton/placing-reverend-wrights_b_92738.html>HERE</a> and <a href=http://www.truthabouttrinity.blogspot.com/>HERE</a>. The sheeple needn't bother.
I trust Obama when he calls them divisive and counterproductive and lost in a stagnant world that does not exist.

I prefer not to listen to Christian anger, regardless of what side it comes from. Even if it calls "White America" the US of KKK A.

[Abbey Marie]

I trust Obama when he calls them divisive and counterproductive and lost in a stagnant world that does not exist.

I prefer not to listen to Christian anger, regardless of what side it comes from. Even if it calls "White America" the US of KKK A.

What's realy ironic is seing Bully defend religion.

[bullypulpit]

I trust Obama when he calls them divisive and counterproductive and lost in a stagnant world that does not exist.

I prefer not to listen to Christian anger, regardless of what side it comes from. Even if it calls "White America" the US of KKK A.

Tell ya what..Watch the sermons not the sound-bites. The meaning is entirely different when seen in context. Sometimes "Christian" anger is justified. Or was Jesus just having a bad day when he drove the money changers from the Temple?

[bullypulpit]

What's realy ironic is seing Bully defend religion.

Religion, isn't really the problem. It's the hypocrites who claim to act in the name of their favorite religion. Gives everyone a bad name.

[CockySOB]

Kyle-Anne Shiver at American Thinker (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/is_obama_trying_to_bamboozle_u.html) does an excellent job on deconstructing Obama.

Of course, Librull Sheeple need not follow the link as it might blow your preconceptions and misconceptions about Obama out of the water.

[No1tovote4]

Tell ya what..Watch the sermons not the sound-bites. The meaning is entirely different when seen in context. Sometimes "Christian" anger is justified. Or was Jesus just having a bad day when he drove the money changers from the Temple?
I'm not a Christian. And there is no context of "US of KKK A" that can possibly make it better unless they are making fun of the people who would use it seriously from a pulpit. This isn't the 1800s, or even the 60s, things have progressed. He needs to as well. Shoot, Obama himself stated so. Again, I'll trust the very man you attempt to protect and therefore continue to link in people's minds as you attempt to wish away divisiveness with pretense.

As it is, I will admit to having watched them in context. The only one it really changes is the "coming home to roost" thing. The others are specifically divisive comments even in context.

[theHawk]

Religion, isn't really the problem. It's the hypocrites who claim to act in the name of their favorite religion. Gives everyone a bad name.

You mean the Rev Wright types? :laugh2:

[retiredman]

Kyle-Anne Shiver at American Thinker (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/is_obama_trying_to_bamboozle_u.html) does an excellent job on deconstructing Obama.

Of course, Librull Sheeple need not follow the link as it might blow your preconceptions and misconceptions about Obama out of the water.

hatred of the demeaning and denigrating and debilitating effects of racism is not synonymous with racial hatred.

[Dilloduck]

hatred of the demeaning and denigrating and debilitating effects of racism is not synonymous with racial hatred.

how can those effects be rectified ?

[Dilloduck]

so...if you knew the answer, why did you ask me?

Because I wanted your opinion, dumbass. This intentionally ignorant act of yours is silly.

[retiredman]

how can those effects be rectified ?
with time and effort.

a few generations... a few black presidents...

one way to NOT rectify them is to pretend they don't exist.

[Sitarro]

oh they know it----they all work and don't bitch.

This does seem to be a phenomenon of the northern part of the country and maybe New Orleans' former rental residents. The intelligent black men and women I work with, that I have asked, think it's a silly idea. They feel in the long run it would just divide whites and blacks more. These same people are also either Clinton or McCain supporters, they don't want the first black President to be a screw up with no experience. The former military tend to be McCain supporters. They do say that if there are free handouts they will be happy to take them but don't feel it will be enough to shut up the whiners anyway..... they are also embarrassed by the Jacksons, Sharptons and Wrights of the world.

[Dilloduck]

with time and effort.

a few generations... a few black presidents...

one way to NOT rectify them is to pretend they don't exist.


time and effort :laugh2: Love those pinpoint responses that I can roll over in my head to see if I think they will work or not------Obama style vague BS

[Sitarro]

with time and effort.

a few generations... a few black presidents...

one way to NOT rectify them is to pretend they don't exist.

Ray Nagin could run for the Presidency and wish for a chocolate nation.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[bullypulpit]

Kyle-Anne Shiver at American Thinker (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/is_obama_trying_to_bamboozle_u.html) does an excellent job on deconstructing Obama.

Of course, Librull Sheeple need not follow the link as it might blow your preconceptions and misconceptions about Obama out of the water.

Reads more like another RWN stirring up the tempest in a teapot that the Rev. Wright's out of context remarks really are. I read Ms. Shriver's piece, and it's nothing new. Just more of the same tired crap the right has been dishing out since the sound bites hit the web and the airwaves. There is no 'there' there. The right won't engage in a debate on the real issues concerning Americans...from the war in Iraq the nation's parlous economic health...because they know they'll lose. So, they engage in cheap personal attacks, as in those through Rev Wright, to throw red meat to the knuckle-dragger...er...less politically sophisticated...base of the GOP and the more sophisticated, but willing dupes that make up another significant GOP minority.

[bullypulpit]

Ray Nagin could run for the Presidency and wish for a chocolate nation.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

And you could give your ears a good tug and pop yer head outta yer rectum. But pigs'll have wings before that happens. :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[Yurt]

Reads more like another RWN stirring up the tempest in a teapot that the Rev. Wright's out of context remarks really are. I read Ms. Shriver's piece, and it's nothing new. Just more of the same tired crap the right has been dishing out since the sound bites hit the web and the airwaves. There is no 'there' there. The right won't engage in a debate on the real issues concerning Americans...from the war in Iraq the nation's parlous economic health...because they know they'll lose. So, they engage in cheap personal attacks, as in those through Rev Wright, to throw red meat to the knuckle-dragger...er...less politically sophisticated...base of the GOP and the more sophisticated, but willing dupes that make up another significant GOP minority.

you mean like your post....

[Trigg]

So, they engage in cheap personal attacks, as in those through Rev Wright, to throw red meat to the knuckle-dragger...er...less politically sophisticated...base of the GOP and the more sophisticated, but willing dupes that make up another significant GOP minority.

I hardly see questioning Obama's affiliation with a racist church for 20yrs as "personal attacks".

Seems some enlightened libs also didn't like Obama's defense of Wright, are they all knuckle-draggers also???????


Wrights sermon on the U.S. of KKK A isn't IMO taken out of context, he meant to say what he said. I'll agree with noonetovote 4 the only one that can be seen as out of context is the "chickens coming home to roost" sermon.

please feel free to defend the KKK sermon

[Sitarro]

And you could give your ears a good tug and pop yer head outta yer rectum. But pigs'll have wings before that happens. :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

How mean spirited of you. Drinking that bedpan fluid again bullshitty?:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[Pale Rider]

you mean like your post....

Like 99% of his posts...

[CockySOB]

Reads more like another RWN stirring up the tempest in a teapot that the Rev. Wright's out of context remarks really are. I read Ms. Shriver's piece, and it's nothing new. Just more of the same tired crap the right has been dishing out since the sound bites hit the web and the airwaves. There is no 'there' there. The right won't engage in a debate on the real issues concerning Americans...from the war in Iraq the nation's parlous economic health...because they know they'll lose. So, they engage in cheap personal attacks, as in those through Rev Wright, to throw red meat to the knuckle-dragger...er...less politically sophisticated...base of the GOP and the more sophisticated, but willing dupes that make up another significant GOP minority.

Wrong again, Bully. It's the disingenuous partisan hacks like yourself who will continue to divide the nation along ethnic lines. And you do it all because you want to see your own party in power.

Ms. Shiver made some excellent points which the Obama supporters want desperately to dismiss, but which cannot be dismissed out of hand.

By the way, did you bother reading anything about Black Liberation Theology and it being the foundation for the Trinity United Church of Christ? Are you aware that this "theology" is based in large part on the philosophy espoused by James Cone in his many written works?

[Pale Rider]

hatred of the demeaning and denigrating and debilitating effects of racism is not synonymous with racial hatred.

Pure psychobabble... :talk2hand:

You want a prime example of racism, there's no need to look any further than hussein and his racist church and preacher.

[retiredman]

Pure psychobabble... :talk2hand:

You want a prime example of racism, there's no need to look any further than hussein and his racist church and preacher.


a prime example of racism is someone who feels that the black race is more violent BY NATURE than the others. THAT is a textbook definition of racism.

[Nukeman]

a prime example of racism is someone who feels that the black race is more violent BY NATURE than the others. THAT is a textbook definition of racism.
Yet your willing to overlook "Rev" wright saying that the white man (all whites in general) keep the black man down and is reponsible for all their problems. Is he not as guilty or does he get a pass due to his skin color, which I might add, is VERY VERY VERY light, in fact I would think he would be considered well beyond "high yellow".

[Pale Rider]

a prime example of racism is someone who feels that the black race is more violent BY NATURE than the others. THAT is a textbook definition of racism.

That's not racism... that's a fact. Sorry you're having such a hard time accepting that.

[CockySOB]

That's not racism... that's a fact. Sorry you're having such a hard time accepting that.

It's your opinion drawn from what you perceive as fact. But we've had that argument before, so I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise.

Let p = "Statistically, blacks commit more crimes proportionally than other ethnicities."
Let g = "Blacks are genetically predisposed to commit violent crime more than other ethnicities."

You're trying to say that p implies g, but that implication is only true if p is false, or if p and g are both true. Unfortunately, there has been no proof established to show that proposition g is true. So by default, the implication you believe is true is in fact, undetermined at this point.

As far as logical fallacies go, this would be "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" or a false causal relationship between propositions.

Now if proposition g above ever gets proven true, then your implication would hold true, but if not then the implication fails.

[Kathianne]

That's not racism... that's a fact. Sorry you're having such a hard time accepting that.

I don't ascribe to blacks being more predisposed to violence. Nor do I go along with whites being more prejudiced. I do now go along with MFM being a biased partisan. He'd sell his grandma too, to gain votes.

[retiredman]

I don't ascribe to blacks being more predisposed to violence. Nor do I go along with whites being more prejudiced. I do now go along with MFM being a biased partisan. He'd sell his grandma too, to gain votes.


So I am partisan for calling Pale Rider a racist for continuing to believe that blacks are more violent BY NATURE?

And keep my family out of it, please.

[Kathianne]

So I am partisan for calling Pale Rider a racist for continuing to believe that blacks are more violent BY NATURE?

And keep my family out of it, please.

No, you are partisan for excusing TUCC. How much more powerful it would be from a member of that congregation, albeit states away to say it was wrong? But instead, you are applauding racism, pure and strong. Congratulations.

[retiredman]

No, you are partisan for excusing TUCC. How much more powerful it would be from a member of that congregation, albeit states away to say it was wrong? But instead, you are applauding racism, pure and strong. Congratulations.

I ask you to read this and to watch the embedded video:

http://www.ucc.org/news/responding-to-wright.html

are you suggesting that the national president of the United Church of Christ is a partisan democratic hack who applauds racism pure and strong?

[Pale Rider]

I don't ascribe to blacks being more predisposed to violence. Nor do I go along with whites being more prejudiced. I do now go along with MFM being a biased partisan. He'd sell his grandma too, to gain votes.

Well... I do. I think there's overwhelming evidence to support that belief.

I do however, agree with your assessment on what mfm is capable of when it comes to his partisanship.

[retiredman]

Well... I do. I think there's overwhelming evidence to support that belief.

I understand that you do..... and I just want you to realize that such an opinion makes you a RACIST!

CockySOB nailed it in #80

[Kathianne]

Well... I do. I think there's overwhelming evidence to support that belief.

IMHO nothing that can't be explained by holding socioeconomic variables to account. IMO it's not nature, but nurture/culture.

[Pale Rider]

I understand that you do..... and I just want you to realize that such an opinion makes you a RACIST!

CockySOB nailed it in #80

Horse shit dumbo... I merely point out the facts. You can't handle it.

[Pale Rider]

IMHO nothing that can't be explained by holding socioeconomic variables to account. IMO it's not nature, but nurture/culture.

That's alright. Everyone is certainly free to believe what they want. Myself, I think blacks create their own environment with their behavior, and that behavior includes a predisposition to violence at a degree higher than any other race. It's documented. That's all.

[Kathianne]

That's alright. Everyone is certainly free to believe what they want. Myself, I think blacks create their own environment with their behavior, and that behavior includes a predisposition to violence at a degree higher than any other race. It's documented. That's all.

and not for the first or probably last, we agree to disagree. I don't think it's a predisposition, but rather a bow to what has happened, intentional and not.

[retiredman]

Horse shit dumbo... I merely point out the facts. You can't handle it.

CockySOB nailed it.... you can't refute post 80.... just continue to ignore it, like you have.:lol:

[Pale Rider]

It's your opinion drawn from what you perceive as fact. But we've had that argument before, so I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise.

Let p = "Statistically, blacks commit more crimes proportionally than other ethnicities."
Let g = "Blacks are genetically predisposed to commit violent crime more than other ethnicities."

You're trying to say that p implies g, but that implication is only true if p is false, or if p and g are both true. Unfortunately, there has been no proof established to show that proposition g is true. So by default, the implication you believe is true is in fact, undetermined at this point.

As far as logical fallacies go, this would be "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" or a false causal relationship between propositions.

Now if proposition g above ever gets proven true, then your implication would hold true, but if not then the implication fails.
I point out the obvious knowing I'm going to be called a racist by imbeciles like mfm. I'm speaking what most people will think, but are afraid to espouse, even the experts. Being called a racist seems to have mystical abilities in silencing white people.

But look at what mfm says... he says that he's in full agreement with rev wright who contends that whitey created Aides to kill the black man. Now that's never been proven either, but since a black man said it, there's no way it can be racist. Double standard SOB... double standard, and I will NOT knuckle under to it for another second. I'm going to speak my mind just as sons a bitchin' freely as all these blacks can't be racist apologist liberal jingle nuts lunatics. Fuck 'em if they don't like it... as a matter of fact, I hope they don't.

[Pale Rider]

CockySOB nailed it.... you can't refute post 80.... just continue to ignore it, like you have.:lol:

Read the above you jack off fucking tiwt.... ha fucking ha....

[retiredman]

Read the above you jack off fucking tiwt.... ha fucking ha....


you ignored his logical argument entirely.... because you had to. You could not refute it.

why am I not surprised?:lol:

[Kathianne]

All I've gotten out of this thread. Pale is of the mindset that blacks are predisposed to violence. I disagree.

MFM thinks they have a right to be violent, or at least an excuse, for all the wrongs done to them. I disagree.

[Pale Rider]

you ignored his logical argument entirely.... because you had to. You could not refute it.

why am I not surprised?:lol:

Don't need to. My belief is mine, and his is his. Big deal. But facts are facts, and the facts are blacks are far more violent than any other race. Deal with it.

[retiredman]

All I've gotten out of this thread. Pale is of the mindset that blacks are predisposed to violence. I disagree.

MFM thinks they have a right to be violent, or at least an excuse, for all the wrongs done to them. I disagree.


Now... it certainly is true that Pale thinks that the black race is more violent by nature (clear and unambiguous racism which you seem incapable of calling him on)

but I have never said that blacks have a right to be violent or even that they have an excuse.

[retiredman]

Don't need to. My belief is mine, and his is his. Big deal. But facts are facts, and the facts are blacks are far more violent than any other race. Deal with it.


his logic blew holes in your racist opinion and you can't refute it.

that is funny.

[Kathianne]

Now... it certainly is true that Pale thinks that the black race is more violent by nature (clear and unambiguous racism which you seem incapable of calling him on)

but I have never said that blacks have a right to be violent or even that they have an excuse.

Like Wright, it's implied. As for Pale's take, I've been more than clear on my own. Get real.

[CockySOB]

I ask you to read this and to watch the embedded video:

http://www.ucc.org/news/responding-to-wright.html

are you suggesting that the national president of the United Church of Christ is a partisan democratic hack who applauds racism pure and strong?

Didn't you just get done telling us that UCC is "congregational" church? Wouldn't that necessarily mean that the individual congregations have more autonomy in determining their individual (congregational) beliefs? If so, would that not indicate that the statements by the national president for the UCC may not be an accurate reflection of the belief structure for any given congregation?

And if the UCC is "congregational" then it stands to reason that Obama stayed with that congregation because its belief system was one he could get behind 100%? Or at least the overwhelming majority of their beliefs were shared by Obama?

[CockySOB]

CockySOB nailed it.... you can't refute post 80.... just continue to ignore it, like you have.:lol:

Don't you wish you were eloquent like me? :finger3:

BTW, I do disagree with Pale's conclusion about violence being in blacks' nature/genetics. But I think his form of racism isn't nearly as damaging as the afore-mentioned "soft-racism" which the Democrats and the liberal left positively reeks of. Read up on Frederick Douglass and "What the Black Man Wants." Society can help the black man best by simply leaving him alone to succeed or fail on his own. Anything else, no matter how well intentioned, will damage the black man. Simply let him alone.

[Pale Rider]

his logic blew holes in your racist opinion and you can't refute it.

that is funny.

Does nothing of the sort jingle nuts. It could be just as much fact one way as it could be the other. However, a close look at the facts would bear out more a leaning towards my assertion than the opposite.

[Pale Rider]

Don't you wish you were eloquent like me? :finger3:

BTW, I do disagree with Pale's conclusion about violence being in blacks' nature/genetics. But I think his form of racism isn't nearly as damaging as the afore-mentioned "soft-racism" which the Democrats and the liberal left positively reeks of. Read up on Frederick Douglass and "What the Black Man Wants." Society can help the black man best by simply leaving him alone to succeed or fail on his own. Anything else, no matter how well intentioned, will damage the black man. Simply let him alone.

Why do you call me racist? I'm making what I see as an informed conclusion to facts. What on earth is racist about that?

[retiredman]

Didn't you just get done telling us that UCC is "congregational" church? Wouldn't that necessarily mean that the individual congregations have more autonomy in determining their individual (congregational) beliefs? If so, would that not indicate that the statements by the national president for the UCC may not be an accurate reflection of the belief structure for any given congregation?

And if the UCC is "congregational" then it stands to reason that Obama stayed with that congregation because its belief system was one he could get behind 100%? Or at least the overwhelming majority of their beliefs were shared by Obama?

absolutely. and the overwhelming majority of the beliefs of MY congregation are those that are held by the congregation itself and not necessarily by my pastor.

BTW, Did you read Thomas's statement or watch the embedded video?

[retiredman]

Why do you call me racist? I'm making what I see as an informed conclusion to facts. What on earth is racist about that?
you conclusion is that one race is more violent BY NATURE than others. That is a racist conclusion. No different than saying that one race smells worse than the others or one race is inherently smarter than the others... racist sentiments, all.

[No1tovote4]

No, you are partisan for excusing TUCC. How much more powerful it would be from a member of that congregation, albeit states away to say it was wrong? But instead, you are applauding racism, pure and strong. Congratulations.
One did. Obama. What I find powerfully amazing is that Obama states that they are "racially divisive" (read: nice way to say "racist") but the Obama worshippers can't get past protection mode long enough to read it.

[CockySOB]

All I've gotten out of this thread. Pale is of the mindset that blacks are predisposed to violence. I disagree.

MFM thinks they have a right to be violent, or at least an excuse, for all the wrongs done to them. I disagree.

Exactly.

[Pale Rider]

you conclusion is that one race is more violent BY NATURE than others. That is a racist conclusion. No different than saying that one race smells worse than the others or one race is inherently smarter than the others... racist sentiments, all.

Really.... hmmm.... so fuck the facts huh? I came to an informed conclusion about black people that isn't good, and I'm white, that makes me a racist.

Yeah... sure... I see your logic there.

[retiredman]

Really.... hmmm.... so fuck the facts huh? You came to an informed conclusion about black people that isn't good, and you're white, that makes you a racist.

Yeah... sure... I see your logic there.


there are no facts that show that members of the black race are more violent than others BY NATURE. again...cocky showed you your ass.

[Kathianne]

One did. Obama. What I find powerfully amazing is that Obama states that they are "racially divisive" (read: nice way to say "racist") but the Obama worshippers can't get past protection mode long enough to read it.

But he didn't disassociate himself, right? He didn't say it was unacceptable. He's as wrong as those who are railing against him.

[CockySOB]

Why do you call me racist? I'm making what I see as an informed conclusion to facts. What on earth is racist about that?

That's the problem though Pale - your opinion is based on faulty logic. That means your implication is neither true nor false - it is undetermined. And declaring that something is a fact, like "blacks are by nature predisposed to violence/violent crimes" shows bias towards a group without proper proof. Specifically, your belief that blacks are inherently more violent than whites is a racist statement.

Again I say, if your second proposition is proven true via scientific method, then your implication will hold true, and cease to be racist.

I'm trying hard to clarify without sounding too much like a professor. I hope I'm making some headway at clarifying my views.

[Dilloduck]

there are no facts that show that members of the black race are more violent than others BY NATURE. again...cocky showed you your ass.

DO facts prove blacks are more violent because of slavery ?

[CockySOB]

there are no facts that show that members of the black race are more violent than others BY NATURE. again...cocky showed you your ass.

Hey bucky! Don't forget I've handed you YOUR ass in here as well, so don't get too cocky. There can be only one... Cocky S.O.B.

BOO-yah!

[CockySOB]

DO facts prove blacks are more violent because of slavery ?

Nope.

[Dilloduck]

Nope.

Odd how MFM would try to have us believe that ain't it ?

[retiredman]

Odd how MFM would try to have us believe that ain't it ?

odd that you can never seem to come up with any posts of mine where I did any such thing.

[CockySOB]

Odd how MFM would try to have us believe that ain't it ?

Nope.

As I said, soft-racism. The boy is so intent on "helping" the black man that he fails to see that his arguments and best intentions are doing more damage than just about anything. As I said, Frederick Douglass would probably smack MFM upside his head and say, "leave us the hell alone!" I wonder how well a man like Mr. Douglass would be received in modern America.

[Dilloduck]

odd that you can never seem to come up with any posts of mine where I did any such thing.

Odd you have no explaination of why blacks are more violent than whites.

[retiredman]

Odd you have no explaination of why blacks are more violent than whites.

that's not true.

I suggest that poverty and despair breeds violence.

[Dilloduck]

that's not true.

I suggest that poverty and despair breeds violence.

Why more so in blacks ?

[CockySOB]

Odd you have no explaination of why blacks are more violent than whites.

Clarify: he has no provable theory as to why blacks commit a disproportional number of violent crimes than caucasians (whites). He has his opinions (like Pale) which are unproven and rely on untested propositions. And when people take unproven hypotheses which have a racial or ethnic component, the hypotheses are racist.

When such theories can be proven via scientific method, they cease to be racist and become facts.

[Dilloduck]

Clarify: he has no provable theory as to why blacks commit a disproportional number of violent crimes than caucasians (whites). He has his opinions (like Pale) which are unproven and rely on untested propositions. And when people take unproven hypotheses which have a racial or ethnic component, the hypotheses are racist.

When such theories can be proven via scientific method, they cease to be racist and become facts.

Well said--I'll buy that.

[retiredman]

Why more so in blacks ?

I don't think it is more so in blacks, except that demographically, there are a greater percentage of the overall black population that are living in poverty and despair than whites.

[No1tovote4]

But he didn't disassociate himself, right? He didn't say it was unacceptable. He's as wrong as those who are railing against him.
Correct. That is the rub with the independents, but not with the worshippers who are still attempting to say that the remarks were not actually racially divisive...

Personally, I would sit through the sermon, leave, and never come back as soon as he mentioned US of KKK A. But that is just me. I left a Buddhist Temple that tried to insist that all soldiers are immoral, of course there I questioned the Monk who insisted this was the case. But there they expect it. That was without any racial overtones.

[Dilloduck]

I don't think it is more so in blacks, except that demographically, there are a greater percentage of the overall black population that are living in poverty and despair than whites.

why ?

[CockySOB]

Well said--I'll buy that.

The statement also works for ANY hypothesis which identifies an ethnic group without providing proof that the ethnic component has a valid connection to the composite proposition. i.e. If ethnicity is claimed to have a causal relationship to the hypothesis, there must be proof of such, and not simply statistical correlation.

[CockySOB]

why ?

God bless the Socratic method.....

[retiredman]

why ?

because there are.

[CockySOB]

because there are.

Grade: Z-minus

[Pale Rider]

Clarify: he has no provable theory as to why blacks commit a disproportional number of violent crimes than caucasians (whites). He has his opinions (like Pale) which are unproven and rely on untested propositions. And when people take unproven hypotheses which have a racial or ethnic component, the hypotheses are racist.

When such theories can be proven via scientific method, they cease to be racist and become facts.

I disagree. Simply because one comes to a conclusion that pertains to race, based in fact, does not make it racist. It's a culmination of intelligent assumption in accordance with the facts, and there's nothing racist about it.

However, you do very effectively demonstrate why people are afraid to make such bold statements. People like you calling them racist simply because they address a race issue.

Believing that blacks are inherently racist is no more racist than saying blacks are more violent due to their culture or surroundings. You can't prove that's true any more than I can prove what I believe is true. So either both would have to be racist statements, or neither are.

[CockySOB]

I disagree. Simply because one comes to a conclusion that pertains to race, based in fact, does not make it racist. It's a culmination of intelligent assumption in accordance with the facts, and there's nothing racist about it.

However, you do very effectively demonstrate why people are afraid to make such bold statements. People like you calling them racist simply because they address a race issue.

Believing that blacks are inherently racist is no more racist than saying blacks are more violent due to their culture or surroundings. You can't prove that's true any more than I can prove what I believe is true. So either both would have to be racist statements, or neither are.

There is no genetic evidence that indicate blacks are more likely to be violent than whites. Yet. As we map the human genome and identify the genetic markers by function, we might find such proof, or we might find that no such genetic tendency to violence is related to ethnic markers. Time will tell.

There IS ample evidence that certain behaviors (including violence) are learned by children as they grow up. This is true of ALL ethnicities, not simply of blacks or whites.

Think of it this way, a child who grew up in Wright's church, or perhaps Fred Phelps' church if we want to be fair, would grow up with the mindset and behaviors they learned within those communities. In short, the nurturing the children receive plays a direct role in how the child behaves in society.

[Pale Rider]

There is no genetic evidence that indicate blacks are more likely to be violent than whites. Yet. As we map the human genome and identify the genetic markers by function, we might find such proof, or we might find that no such genetic tendency to violence is related to ethnic markers. Time will tell.

There IS ample evidence that certain behaviors (including violence) are learned by children as they grow up. This is true of ALL ethnicities, not simply of blacks or whites.

Think of it this way, a child who grew up in Wright's church, or perhaps Fred Phelps' church if we want to be fair, would grow up with the mindset and behaviors they learned within those communities. In short, the nurturing the children receive plays a direct role in how the child behaves in society.

I agree completely SOB, but to come to any conclusion is not racist simply because the subject matter is race. I could come to the opposite conclusion, but that would be totally inconsistent with the facts. That's all I'm saying.

If I sat and watched a parking lot for a month, and counted how many of which color of cars were parked in the parking lot during that period, and found that 9 to 1 there were more black cars in the parking lot than any other color, I'd surmise that the people driving those cars were predisposed to buy black cars. Would I be wrong?

[CockySOB]

I agree completely SOB, but to come to any conclusion is not racist simply because the subject matter is race. I could come to the opposite conclusion, but that would be totally inconsistent with the facts. That's all I'm saying.

If I sat and watched a parking lot for a month, and counted how many of which color of cars were parked in the parking lot during that period, and found that 9 to 1 there were more black cars in the parking lot than any other color, I'd surmise that the people driving those cars were predisposed to buy black cars. Would I be wrong?

Yes. But on two points.

1) The 9:1 ratio of black cars to all others is superfluous and serves no purpose. It is additional information which is never used.
2) You have no linkage to show why the people are driving black cars - correlation does not prove causation. You have to be able to specifically show a linkage between the people driving black cars and the same people owning black cars before you can imply that people driving black cars have a preference to buying black cars.

[Pale Rider]

Yes. But on two points.

1) The 9:1 ratio of black cars to all others is superfluous and serves no purpose. It is additional information which is never used.
It is simply a parabell. It demonstrates how conclusions are made from observation.


2) You have no linkage to show why the people are driving black cars - correlation does not prove causation. You have to be able to specifically show a linkage between the people driving black cars and the same people owning black cars before you can imply that people driving black cars have a preference to buying black cars.
Again, my comment above fits here too. I never claimed that I could prove anything. I merely stated my belief in conjunction with the facts illustrating the high level of violent incidents among blacks compared to other races.

[CockySOB]

But Pale, a belief which makes an allegation based on race without any substantive proof IS racist.

Obama made an observation about "typical white people." You have made an observation about "typical black people." I *think* I remember you decrying Obama's statement as racist. If so, how is your statement of belief any different? If not, well... disregard the question I guess.

[CockySOB]

It is simply a parabell. It demonstrates how conclusions are made from observation.
Sorry, but it doesn't.


Again, my comment above fits here too. I never claimed that I could prove anything. I merely stated my belief in conjunction with the facts illustrating the high level of violent incidents among blacks compared to other races.
The problem again, is linkage. You claim the linkage is "by nature," correct? Are you claiming that nature is a genetic characteristic? If so, then you need to provide the linkage between blacks having a specific genetic marker which specifically is linked to violent behavior. All you have is statistics which correlate to a non-linked genetic factor and you are assuming there is a causal relationship. Without proof of causality, all you have is an unproven hypothesis which you are welcome to embrace as opinion. But that opinion is based on a logical fallacy.

I'm certain you're familiar with the saying, "statistics, statistics, and damned lies." This would be an example of such a saying. The correlation may exist, but unless causality can be proven, all you have is an incidental correlation.

BTW, a lot of people fall into the trap of thinking correlation proves causality. Just look at the "global warming" crowd. Statistics, statistics and damned lies indeed!

[Pale Rider]

Sorry, but it doesn't.
Well, yeah, it does.



The problem again, is linkage. You claim the linkage is "by nature," correct? Are you claiming that nature is a genetic characteristic? If so, then you need to provide the linkage between blacks having a specific genetic marker which specifically is linked to violent behavior. All you have is statistics which correlate to a non-linked genetic factor and you are assuming there is a causal relationship. Without proof of causality, all you have is an unproven hypothesis which you are welcome to embrace as opinion. But that opinion is based on a logical fallacy.

I'm certain you're familiar with the saying, "statistics, statistics, and damned lies." This would be an example of such a saying. The correlation may exist, but unless causality can be proven, all you have is an incidental correlation.

BTW, a lot of people fall into the trap of thinking correlation proves causality. Just look at the "global warming" crowd. Statistics, statistics and damned lies indeed!
You're waaaaaaaay beyond what's going on here bud. You're taking a one step process and trying to compare it to a Mars landing. It's far more simple than what you're trying to make it out as. Hear me.... I said... I never claimed I could prove anything.... I'm merely stating my beliefs in accordance with what the facts bear out. Now there's nothing more scientific to it than that. That's it. Over. Done.

Here's another example maybe you'll understand. Say you're daughter starts to act up, starts smoking pot, starts talking back, but she's been hanging out with a whole new crowd of kids. Would you conclude that her hanging out with this new crowd had something to do with her new behavior if you knew these kids smoked pot and got in trouble? You bet you would. You'd believe it sure as shootin', and you'd forbid her to see these kids anymore. My beliefs are derived by the same means.

[CockySOB]

You're waaaaaaaay beyond what's going on here bud. You're taking a one step process and trying to compare it to a Mars landing. It's far more simple than what you're trying to make it out as. Hear me.... I said... I never claimed I could prove anything.... I'm merely stating my beliefs in accordance with what the facts bear out. Now there's nothing more scientific to it than that. That's it. Over. Done.

Over-simplification (or false generalization) is also a logical fallacy. So no, I'm pointing out the logical construction of a compound proposition which can be shown to be true. Your statements for the most part, are ill-formed statements of opinion, nothing more. That's it. Over. Done. Class dismissed.


Here's another example maybe you'll understand. Say you're daughter starts to act up, starts smoking pot, starts talking back, but she's been hanging out with a whole new crowd of kids. Would you conclude that her hanging out with this new crowd had something to do with her new behavior if you knew these kids smoked pot and got in trouble? You bet you would. You'd believe it sure as shootin', and you'd forbid her to see these kids anymore. My beliefs are derived by the same means.

But here you are giving an example which relies in no way, shape or form on race. You never say whether my daughter or the the environment she is in is dominated by any ethnicity at all, nor make any statement about her own ethnicity. So you're making a statement purely about learned social behaviors. And in that, we agree 100%

But when you talk about blacks and statistics regarding blacks and claim that such is in their nature, you are making a claim based on genetics which is correlation without any evidence of causation. Although I think I recall you stating once that when you refer to "nature" you are talking about both genetics AND environment (please correct me if I'm misremembering). If so, then you are grouping both "nature" and "nurture" into a single category of "nature" which is improper. And I think this is where we were at the last time when I asked for you to clarify what you mean when you say "by nature." Perhaps you could correct me if I misremembered our prior argument, and clarify you meaning of "bu nature" when discussing this topic.

[Pale Rider]

Over-simplification (or false generalization) is also a logical fallacy. So no, I'm pointing out the logical construction of a compound proposition which can be shown to be true. Your statements for the most part, are ill-formed statements of opinion, nothing more. That's it. Over. Done. Class dismissed.j
:laugh:... not yet... nooot yet. There is no 'over' or 'under' simplification in this instance. It's a one step process. That's all. Over. Done. NOW class is dismissed.


But here you are giving an example which relies in no way, shape or form on race.
So.... what's that got to do with price of tea in China?


You never say whether my daughter or the the environment she is in is dominated by any ethnicity at all, nor make any statement about her own ethnicity.
Makes absolutely zero difference. Just forget race. Race doesn't matter.


So you're making a statement purely about learned social behaviors. And in that, we agree 100%
Learned, influenced, whatever. The point is the behavior is real, and you intentionally came to a conclusion because of it's origin.


But when you talk about blacks and statistics regarding blacks and claim that such is in their nature, you are making a claim based on genetics which is correlation without any evidence of causation.
That's correct. I've admitted I can't prove it. I'm reacting to input on behavior and forming a belief. Nothing scientific about it. Never claimed there was anything scientific about it.


Although I think I recall you stating once that when you refer to "nature" you are talking about both genetics AND environment (please correct me if I'm misremembering). If so, then you are grouping both "nature" and "nurture" into a single category of "nature" which is improper.
That would be improper, but I never did that. I did say that "I believe," that blacks are inherently more predisposed to violence than other races, meaning by nature I guess, but I nuture is another topic far and away separate. I have stated as much.


And I think this is where we were at the last time when I asked for you to clarify what you mean when you say "by nature." Perhaps you could correct me if I misremembered our prior argument, and clarify you meaning of "bu nature" when discussing this topic.
"My belief is," that blacks are inherently more prone to violence than other races. I make that distinction by the volumes of statistics, facts, and scientific commentary indicating as much. If you disagree with my belief, that is definitely your prerogative.

[Kathianne]

:laugh:... not yet... nooot yet. There is no 'over' or 'under' simplification in this instance. It's a one step process. That's all. Over. Done. NOW class is dismissed.


So.... what's that got to do with price of tea in China?


Makes absolutely zero difference. Just forget race. Race doesn't matter.


Learned, influenced, whatever. The point is the behavior is real, and you intentionally came to a conclusion because of it's origin.


That's correct. I've admitted I can't prove it. I'm reacting to input on behavior and forming a belief. Nothing scientific about it. Never claimed there was anything scientific about it.


That would be improper, but I never did that. I did say that "I believe," that blacks are inherently more predisposed to violence than other races, meaning by nature I guess, but I nuture is another topic far and away separate. I have stated as much.


"My belief is," that blacks are inherently more prone to violence than other races. I make that distinction by the volumes of statistics, facts, and scientific commentary indicating as much. If you disagree with my belief, that is definitely your prerogative.

So it is.

[Pale Rider]

So it is.

Nobody's perfect.

[CockySOB]

Nobody's perfect.

Don't tell the lefties... that'd ruin their self-images.