House of Eratosthenes

Indeed, the pollsters even confess that they “expected” to find more racism among Republican voters. “We expected that in this comfortable setting or in their private written notes, some would make a racial reference or racist slur when talking about the African American President,” they confess. “None did.”

But this response by the voters they surveyed is viewed by Democracy Corps pollsters more as a clever evolutionary response to a history of predation. The Republican voter, the pollsters declare, harbors racial consciousness that is only masked by an effective camouflage:

They know that is deeply non-PC and are conscious about how they are perceived. But focusing on that misses how central is race to the worldview of Republican voters. They have an acute sense that they are white in a country that is becoming increasingly “minority,” and their party is getting whooped by a Democratic Party that uses big government programs that benefit mostly minorities, create dependency and a new electoral majority. Barack Obama and Obamacare is a racial flashpoint for many Evangelical and Tea Party voters.

The capable naturalists at Democracy Corps are trained to recognize even the latent, recessive racism lingering deep within the Republican genome. Like the human coccyx, the vestigial prejudice in the GOP voter is betrayed when the subject is scrutinized by those with trained eyes.

Every now and then I’m tempted put two questions to a lefty. But I don’t do it, because I’d be accused of starting an actual fight, and there would be some truth to it because it’s really not likely the conversation would remain friendly after these. The two questions are:

1. When’s the last time new evidence changed your mind about something?
2. Have you ever gone against the crowd on something?

Out on the Internet, some of them possess an abundance of talent at doing what they think is called “arguing” or “debate”; some possess little to none of this. They evaluate this in themselves, and in their colleagues, more or less accurately. But I notice the ones who are very strong, are strong only in monologuing. They “debate” things the way someone would debate on a television show written and produced by Aaron Sorkin, with lots of memorized and questionable facts & figures. They don’t deal well with questions, or for that matter anything that might change the direction of a thought.

As Prof. Thomas Sowell said: “(1) Compared to what? (2) At what cost? and (3) What are the hard facts?” It seems they do their thinking the way a beam of light travels through space (absent any mirrors or other reflective surfaces). It’s all about following-through. If the theory comes up against contradictory reality, it is the reality that must yield.

Exit question for these idiots: Doesn’t this kind of thing actually encourage the expression of racist attitudes?

Let’s say I harbor horrible racist beliefs {X,Y,Z}. At this point, what possible reason do I have to keep silent about it? If I’m gonna be called a raaaaacist anyway….

What’s maybe worse: Some people who don’t have horrible raaaaacist beliefs might be tempted to voice some, just to stick it in these “researchers'” faces. I mean, hey, you’re gonna say I’m one no matter what, so let me give you an earful about the _____. And then those get published, and everyone who’s sick of being called a fucking raaaacist all the time by smarmy hipster douchebags goes “yeah, you tell ’em! I mean, I don’t really believe ___ about the ____, but I bet the shock on those dorks’ faces was priceless.”
- Severian | 12/11/2013 @ 07:46
Can’t Find Racism in Republicans, So Let’s Invent Some

Do you endorse this statement? If so, then do you base on your reliance on the article, or did you look at the actual data in the study?
- Zachriel | 12/11/2013 @ 09:11
There’s actual data in the study? I saw lots of “key findings” and conclusions and so forth, not much by way of hard data.

Maybe this question would be a good one for the authors of the study, with regard to statements like “They have an acute sense that they are white in a country that is becoming increasingly ‘minority,’ and their party is getting whooped…” Is there actual data to say this is as much a race issue as the study says it is?
- mkfreeberg | 12/12/2013 @ 05:15
mkfreeberg: There’s actual data in the study?

Yes, the report summarizes the results of interviews with focus groups.
- Zachriel | 12/12/2013 @ 11:53
…from which, no data have been provided to support the claim.
- mkfreeberg | 12/12/2013 @ 17:16
Given the “free” nature of the Internet, we should not have been shown “summarizes”, we should have been shown the actual interviews, you know, the actual data, not stuff filtered by people burning with a need for RACISM!!!! to fight against……
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 12/12/2013 @ 19:31
Don’t worry if there’s no actual data. Our Betters, the liberals, will simply extrapolate some. You know, “normalizing” or some such. I hear wind velocity readings are good for that. Because science.
- Severian | 12/13/2013 @ 06:11
mkfreeberg: …from which, no data have been provided to support the claim.

Huh? They provided many quotes from the focus groups.
- Zachriel | 12/13/2013 @ 07:12
Maybe you can list the five quotes from the focus groups, that provide the best support for the claim being made.

They have an acute sense that they are white in a country that is becoming increasingly ‘minority,’ and their party is getting whooped…
- mkfreeberg | 12/13/2013 @ 07:29
mkfreeberg: Maybe you can list the five quotes from the focus groups, that provide the best support for the claim being made.

You can start at the end of page 11 of the report.

Or you could replicate the findings yourself. Doesn’t “Kenyan” and “birth certificate” ring any bells?
- Zachriel | 12/13/2013 @ 07:54
Hmmm, yes… obviously concern about a presidential candidate’s legal eligibility for office is raaaaacist (remember, there are five a’s in raaaaacism.

Which is why the New York Times is raaaaacist.

See what I did there? Science.
- Severian | 12/13/2013 @ 08:02
So the claim is not supported then.
- mkfreeberg | 12/13/2013 @ 09:08
Ah, “Kenyan” and “birth certificate”. Yes, does ring a bell. “Willy Horton” would be the bell in question. Both are Leftist smears started by Democrats, that Republicans get blamed for. Both far less silly, and taken far less seriously then “The October Surprise”, which was the subject of several Congressional investigations………
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 12/13/2013 @ 13:37
mkfreeberg: So the claim is not supported then.

Huh? We can’t make you read it.

Robert Mitchell Jr: Ah, “Kenyan” and “birth certificate”. Yes, does ring a bell.

The rumours were prevalent in the right wing of the Republican Party. Naw, has nothing to do with race, nothing at all.
- Zachriel | 12/13/2013 @ 15:23
I’m glad to see the Cuttlefish calling the New York Times out for their racism. Yes, asking a candidate for public office to prove he meets the statutory requirements is raaaacist (five a’s in that, remember). Way to take a bold stand, kids.
- Severian | 12/13/2013 @ 15:57
mkfreeberg: So the claim is not supported then.

Huh? We can’t make you read it.

I suppose not, but y’all can always accentuate. I asked for five examples, I got back two…alright, two is a good number, 2 > 0. But let us overlook the quantity and inspect the quality.

Claim: They have an acute sense that they are white in a country that is becoming increasingly ‘minority’…

The claim has to do with racism, straight-up. There is “an acute sense” that we have these “minorities” that are minorities in the sense of, they can be contrasted with “white” — which must mean, non-white minorities. Minority is in scare-quotes, presumably, because if their numbers are increasing then the country must becoming more saturated with this non-white population, which causes consternation to these racist whites who are becoming the new minority or something. Is that an unfair embellishment of the claim? It’s certainly provable that the claim has to do with hostilities, or at least suspicions, felt by whites against non-whites. In other words, real racism.

Example 1:

Well, on the news, everything is — every minority group wants to say they have the right to something, and they don’t. It’s life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It doesn’t say happiness. You get to be alive and you get to be free. The rest of it’s just a pursuit. You don’t even — you’re not guaranteed happiness. You have to work for it.
(Tea Party man, Raleigh)

Example 2:

Doesn’t “Kenyan” and “birth certificate” ring any bells?

Both of these things are completely color-neutral. What color is “pursuit of happiness,” or appreciation of the distinction between happiness & pursuit-of? I personally know a lot of whites who think the world owes them a living. I know people of all sorts of different colors who think that. I know people of all sorts of colors who appreciate the pursuit-of part, and would be in a position to teach the proper lesson, if only they were asked. This is a color-neutral situation and does not support the claim. Although, the “Tea Party man’s” words do make a lot of sense.

The example of the Kenyan and the birth certificate may be a reference to a recent controversy that was stirred up by the Governor of Hawaii, who upon assuming his office said he sought to quell an unrest, which I distinctly recall wasn’t making too much of a murmur before he brought it up: The idea that President Obama was born in Kenya. This, too, is color neutral since the President is half-white and half-black. Also, lots of people are born in Kenya, some white, some not. So this example, too, fails to support the claim.

Oh-for-two. The claim remains unsupported. Got any other examples?
- mkfreeberg | 12/13/2013 @ 18:08
Alas, Zachriel, far more reason to call the Democrats racist then, for they voted for a man completely lacking in Executive experience or skills based on his skill color…….
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 12/13/2013 @ 18:10
mkfreeberg: Both of these things are completely color-neutral.

“every minority group wants to say they have the right to something, and they don’t ”

Huh? It clearly refers to minority groups.

mkfreeberg: What color is “pursuit of happiness,” or appreciation of the distinction between happiness & pursuit-of?

So the statement implies that “minorities” don’t share in that basic American value.

mkfreeberg: I personally know a lot of whites who think the world owes them a living.

According to you, then, such attitudes doesn’t apply just to minorities, yet the respondent framed their statement concerning minorities.

mkfreeberg: The example of the Kenyan and the birth certificate may be a reference to a recent controversy that was stirred up by the Governor of Hawaii …

You know very well it was a significant issue raised by many on the political right long to the point of ridiculousness.
- Zachriel | 12/14/2013 @ 06:58
By the way, what happened to the preview and email updates?
- Zachriel | 12/14/2013 @ 07:30
It clearly refers to minority groups.

Minority can mean a lot of things besides color. If we are to judge the intended meaning according to context, it is obvious the speaker is referring to advocacy groups with a grievance. That could mean just about anything.

Some people even refer to feminist groups, purporting to represent women, as “minority groups” even though women are not a minority. So it isn’t even safe to assume the speaker was referring to a definable, statistical minority. But we don’t need to speculate on the problem he was calling out, he opined at great length about it, and it’s clearly a color-neutral issue. I’ve already explained why that is.

So the statement implies that “minorities” don’t share in that basic American value.

It spells out word-for-word that the minorities the speaker has in mind, don’t share it…going well beyond implying. It’s the skin color thing that isn’t there. That was inserted by the researchers. The original statement doesn’t say anything about whites & non-whites, nothing at all.

According to you, then, such attitudes doesn’t apply just to minorities, yet the respondent framed their statement concerning minorities.

As noted above, there is very little meaning intrinsic to the word “minority”; the hard definition of a statistical-minority, which is a literal application of the word, cannot even be safely assumed. Many people think of womens’ groups as minority groups even though women are not a minority.

In context of his statement, it cannot be casually assumed he was talking about skin color. That is an invention of the researchers.

You know very well it was a significant issue raised by many on the political right long to the point of ridiculousness.

What I know very well is that I hadn’t heard anyone making an issue out of it, since the 2008 election season, before the end of 2010 when Abercrombie took it upon himself to start making an issue out of it. Turned out, he didn’t even understand the legal system within the state he’d just been elected to govern. So why am I to think he understands the motives of the opposition?

Also, it is a verifiable and indisputable fact that President Obama is half-white and half-black. It’s true that there is something highly suspicious about a sworn and seated President of the United States fighting so long and so hard to keep so many records secret. But making that into a race issue is not only a dubious proposition; it is an inaccuracy.

There is nothing that can be argued about this. Obama is half-white and half-black, that’s a fact. Unless y’all are challenging the parentage listed on this document? So what — y’all are “birthers” yourselves, or something?

When it becomes necessary to inject race into these issues to make them into race issues, that means they weren’t race issues in the first place. The claim was “They have an acute sense that they are white in a country that is becoming increasingly ‘minority’.” No evidence has been found to substantiate this.

Hey let’s look at it like this: Where’s the miles-long list of people who don’t like Obama’s policies and think He’s a bad president — who also have the opinion, whether they’re willing to admit it or not, “but that Joe Biden guy, I’d be pleased as punch if he took over after an impeachment, after all he’s white so that makes him okay.”
- mkfreeberg | 12/14/2013 @ 07:31
mkfreeberg: Minority can mean a lot of things besides color.

Sure it can. It usually includes Latinos, for instance. It’s a catch-all for the social and demographic changes occurring in American society.

mkfreeberg: The original statement doesn’t say anything about whites & non-whites, nothing at all.

No one would ever equate “minority” with black or Latino or Asian. No one.

So everybody — it’s like Lake Wobegon. Everbody is above average. Everybody is happy. Everybody is white. Everybody is middle class, whether or not they really are. Everybody looks that way.

mkfreeberg: Also, it is a verifiable and indisputable fact that President Obama is half-white and half-black.

Yeah, it’s right on his birth certificate.

mkfreeberg: But making that into a race issue is not only a dubious proposition; it is an inaccuracy.

Obama’s very existence threatens the views of many people who want their world to stay like Lake Wobegon, even though its a fictional place. It’s xenophobia, plain-and-simple.
- Zachriel | 12/14/2013 @ 07:44
mkfreeberg: Obama is half-white and half-black, that’s a fact.

That part is especially funny. You do realize that mixed race people are exactly the sort of changes that make many people uncomfortable. Gee whiz. Interracial marriage was illegal in many states until the late 1960s.

People are even uncomfortable with brown Santa Claus’s.
http://www.eonline.com/news/490669/jon-stewart-takedown-of-megyn-kelly-s-santa-is-white-rant-is-perfect-and-hilarious
- Zachriel | 12/14/2013 @ 07:48
It’s a catch-all for the social and demographic changes occurring in American society.

It’s a new one on me, that the word has anything at all to do with change. In fact, there is a heavy subtext to it that implies stasis, or at least a reliance on stasis.

So everybody — it’s like Lake Wobegon. Everbody is above average. Everybody is happy. Everybody is white. Everybody is middle class, whether or not they really are. Everybody looks that way.

I see, so we can imagine a vision for everyone to be white if we…imagine it.

If the statement has something to do with race, only after you’ve inserted race into it, then that means it didn’t have anything to do with race. You had to change it into something different before you could find fault with it.

Obama’s very existence threatens the views of many people who want their world to stay like Lake Wobegon, even though its a fictional place. It’s xenophobia, plain-and-simple.

Right. You have to imagine it that way to make it that way. When the problem is all in the interpretation, that’s another way of saying the evidence doesn’t support the claim.

You do realize that mixed race people are exactly the sort of changes that make many people uncomfortable.

Is this a revision of the claim, now? First it was whites-vs.-minorities, now it’s whites-vs.-mixed-race, meanwhile the evidence brought is about minorities who believe in a right to happiness as opposed to pursuit-of-happiness. What has that to do with mixed-race?

The study doesn’t even make it clear that this is a white person speaking.

When the data support that this is a skin color issue, but only after you inject skin color into it, that means the data do not support it.

Any other examples to offer?
- mkfreeberg | 12/14/2013 @ 08:02
Megyn, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds…

Yes, Megyn, there is a Black Santa Claus.

http://www.moderatebutpassionate.com/2013/12/yes-megyn-kelly-there-is-black-santa.html
- Zachriel | 12/14/2013 @ 08:03
Jon Stewart is setting himself up for a smackdown, being the guy who failed to understand the humor.

The irony is delicious. How often has he used that cudgel to smack down others, over the years?

But meanwhile, the original claim is unsupported. Got any other examples to offer?
- mkfreeberg | 12/14/2013 @ 08:08
mkfreeberg: If the statement has something to do with race, only after you’ve inserted race into it, then that means it didn’t have anything to do with race.

Saying “Everybody is happy. Everybody is white.” is already about race. No one inserted race into it.

mkfreeberg: Jon Stewart is setting himself up for a smackdown, being the guy who failed to understand the humor.

It wasn’t humor. Kelly was “protecting” kids from black Santa.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/12/12/santa_claus_white_fox_news_megyn_kelly_thinks_so_but_santa_s_not_real.html
- Zachriel | 12/14/2013 @ 11:06
Yes, I understand everything looks the same to us as it does to y’all, if & only if we would resolve to see those things the way y’all want to see them. And let’s face it, judging people is fun!

But Lake Wobegon is a creative work, not a report of fact, and certainly not a report of fact on the subject matter in question. The “Black Santa” thing has a follow-on to it that does a great job of putting the whole thing in the proper context, and Ms. Kelly emerges from it looking just as fine as she always does.

But judging people is fun!!

Meanwhile, the original claim is entirely unsupported. Got any more examples?
- mkfreeberg | 12/14/2013 @ 11:22
mkfreeberg: But Lake Wobegon …

You said race wasn’t a factor in the report. That wasn’t correct.

mkfreeberg: The “Black Santa” thing has a follow-on to it that does a great job of putting the whole thing in the proper context, and Ms. Kelly emerges from it looking just as fine as she always does.

She looks like a typical Fox News type, who pretends race doesn’t matter, but makes a point of saying Santa is white, and Jesus for that matter.
- Zachriel | 12/14/2013 @ 11:40
You said race wasn’t a factor in the report. That wasn’t correct.

Y’all seem to have someone among you who is confusing Garrison Keillor’s creative works with the study. Just like Reagan said: The problem isn’t being ignorant, it’s with knowing things that aren’t so.

She looks like a typical Fox News type, who pretends race doesn’t matter, but makes a point of saying Santa is white, and Jesus for that matter.

And this is looking more and more like an exercise in racists-calling-non-racists-racists. “She looks like a typical Fox News type”? We know how they all are, can’t tell ’em apart, they’re all alike?

Again, the problem isn’t with being ignorant, it’s with knowing things that aren’t so. Seldom correct, but never in doubt.
- mkfreeberg | 12/14/2013 @ 11:44
mkfreeberg: Y’all seem to have someone among you who is confusing Garrison Keillor’s creative works with the study.

Huh? Lake Wobegon was a description provided by someone in the Evangelical focus group.

mkfreeberg: And this is looking more and more like an exercise in racists-calling-non-racists-racists.

Kelly said Santa is white. She defended this by saying “Just because it makes you feel uncomfortable doesn’t mean it has to change… my point is, how do you just revise it in the middle of the legacy of the story, and change Santa from white to black.”
- Zachriel | 12/14/2013 @ 11:51
Y’all are offering a third example, then?
- mkfreeberg | 12/14/2013 @ 13:09
mkfreeberg: Y’all are offering a third example, then?

There were many examples provided in the report, including “Everybody is happy. Everybody is white.”
- Zachriel | 12/14/2013 @ 14:05
Once again, I see the persuasive power of this latest example completely crumbles when one merely goes back to review it in context. it’s becoming a pattern.

Evangelicals are a third of the Republican base; they are the biggest and most intense group: four-in-five are “strong” Republicans and straight ticket voters. Over three quarters are married and well over 90 percent are white. Their demographics — white, married, religious, and older — sets up a feeling that they are losing. They talk about how the dominant politics and cultures have encroached on their small towns, schools, and churches. What troubles them when they talk with friends, family, and fellow believers is Obama[C]are, guns, government encroachment, gay marriage, and “culture rot.”

They sense they are “pretty white” and “didn’t go to Harvard” — and “we’re just not [Obama]” — which means they are becoming a pretty “politically incorrect minority.” The so-called “tolerant” liberals just aren’t very tolerant when it comes to them.

It used to be different, as illustrated by several men in Roanoke when describing their own towns.

It’s a little bubble. So everybody — it’s like a Lake Wobegon. Everybody is above average. Everybody is happy. Everybody is white. Everybody is middle class, whether or not they really are. Everybody looks that way. Everybody goes to the same pool. Everybody goes — there’s one library, one post office. Very homogen[e]ous. (Evangelical man, Roanoke)

It is from that perspective that they view President Obama.

I think that his picture of the people in this room would be that we’re all a bunch of racist, gun-clinging, flyover state, cowboy-hat wearing yokels. Because we didn’t go to Harvard, and we’re not from New York, and we’re pretty white, we’re pretty middle class. We like to go to church, we like our Bibles. And so we’re just not him. We’re not on his agenda. (Evangelical man, Roanoke)

- mkfreeberg | 12/14/2013 @ 16:15
I love it! The Cuttlefish : racism :: movie posters : movie reviews. Behold the power of the ellipsis:

“Battlefield Earth is one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen. I mean, I’ve seen some stinkers in my time, but great googly moogly, this one is horrible film.”

And then the movie poster version:

“Battlefield Earth is…great”

I think the test Morgan proposed is spot on: Let’s go do a survey where we ask all these same people if they think everything would be hunky dory if it were Joe Biden making the calls in the Oval Office. By Cuttlefish logic, all those folks complaining about Marxism and NSA spying and politically-motivated audits and whatnot would be totally cool, so long as it’s ol’ Slow Joe doing it.

Or, you know, we can just keep making stuff up, because judging people is fun.
- Severian | 12/14/2013 @ 19:19
mkfreeberg: … In context …

The context supports the claim. People see the demographics of their world changing, and they don’t like it. And as you yourself pointed out above, they don’t think “they” share their American values, singling out “minorities” as the source of their discomfort and discontent.
- Zachriel | 12/15/2013 @ 06:33
The context supports the claim.

Lot of presumption going on there. The statement “Everybody is middle class, whether or not they really are,” all by itself, makes it entirely clear that we’re not seeing an evaluation of things as they really are. The context reveals the statement to be, not a ‘fess-up from “Evangelical man, Roanoke” about himself, but rather a bit of armchair-psychiatry about his cohorts which may or may not be as good as its billing.

A conclusion formed on the comments of this one person, therefore, would not be an opinion based on fact, but rather an opinion based on an opinion. Gossip, in other words. Ever-expanding, ever-spreading…unsubstantiated…gossip.

So where does the claim ever find hard support? Every time y’all point to something specific in this report that’s supposed to be littered with it from stem to stern, and I go look at the passage y’all are calling out, I find there isn’t any actual support. Where do we find out there’s some actual truth to this?
- mkfreeberg | 12/15/2013 @ 08:17
mkfreeberg: Lot of presumption going on there.

You said there was no support in the report for the claim that some people “an acute sense that they are white in a country that is becoming increasingly ‘minority’.” You were wrong. There are many quotes from the focus groups demonstrating that unease, including “Everybody is happy. Everybody is white.”

mkfreeberg: A conclusion formed on the comments of this one person, therefore, would not be an opinion based on fact, but rather an opinion based on an opinion.

The report is based on focus groups. While the groups were selected through a a statistical process, they don’t represent the entire political spectrum. Nevertheless, from the report, it’s clear there is an unease with the demographic changes occurring in the U.S. among Republicans.
- Zachriel | 12/15/2013 @ 08:56
If y’all are offering this example as one of support for the statement — and this is among the best evidence y’all can offer — then this is an implicit acknowledgement that the statement is nothing more than an echo. Everyone must be pointing to something someone else is saying about someone else. So, we agree, I guess…this is just a “game of telephone,” nothing more, exactly what I thought.

There is no evidence to support it. Just “focus groups,” filled with people like Evangelical man, forming questionable theories about others in their group. The whole thing is just armchair-psychiatry.

Glad we agree. Judging people is fun!!
- mkfreeberg | 12/15/2013 @ 09:01
mkfreeberg: Just “focus groups,” filled with people like Evangelical man, forming questionable theories about others in their group.

Heh. That funny. Did you have any other argument than “Just ‘focus groups,’ filled with people”?
- Zachriel | 12/15/2013 @ 09:27
Y’all were given an opportunity to provide evidence to support the statement, and all you offered were more (unnamed) people making the statement.

We’ve been here before. The bar for “evidence” seems to be placed very low. If the statement happens to be a friendly one, it seems merely walking through it one more time, restating it, pointing at other people echoing it, is plenty good enough to qualify as “evidence.”

So there’s a distinction y’all aren’t quite understanding here, and I’m not sure I can explain it if y’all aren’t ready. Let’s try this. I say there is gravity. If I hold a baseball out chest-high and drop it, and it falls to the ground, that would be evidence. If I point to a bunch of focus groups filled with people who say “yup, mkfreeberg is right, there is gravity” then that is not evidence. Do you see the difference?
- mkfreeberg | 12/15/2013 @ 09:44
mkfreeberg: Y’all were given an opportunity to provide evidence to support the statement, and all you offered were more (unnamed) people making the statement.

Heh. Yes, a report about groups of people is based on studying groups of people. Remarkable!
- Zachriel | 12/15/2013 @ 09:55
So I take that as a no, then, y’all can’t see the difference.

What’s interesting about that is, if the statement is unfriendly rather than friendly, we can take it as a given that it won’t be good enough to simply vector off to one or several other people echoing the statement; that would not be “evidence.” Like, lots of people think ObamaCare is a boondoggle, lots of people think Sarah Palin is smarter than Katie Couric, lots of people think global warming is a scam. Y’all probably would disagree if I were to say, merely by claiming “lots of people think” these things, I’m offering “evidence.” Even if I can prove those lots-of-people really do think these things.
- mkfreeberg | 12/15/2013 @ 10:14
mkfreeberg: So I take that as a no, then, y’all can’t see the difference.

Sure we can, and we responded. Studying the expressed views of groups of people is not evidence of gravity. However, studying the expressed views of people provides evidence of the views of people.

mkfreeberg: Y’all probably would disagree if I were to say, merely by claiming “lots of people think” these things, I’m offering “evidence.”

The expressed views of people on gravity are not evidence about gravity. But the expressed views of people on gravity are evidence of people’s views on gravity.

If we ask people question about their political views, and they say that minorities don’t share their American values of hard work, then that is evidence concerning their views on minorities, whether or not it accurately reflects what values minorities actually do hold.
- Zachriel | 12/15/2013 @ 10:23
Studying the expressed views of groups of people is not evidence of gravity. However, studying the expressed views of people provides evidence of the views of people.

Nice dodge, but it won’t fly because we already examined the remarks in context, and that is a good example of why that’s necessary. The “expressed views of people” were about views of other people, albeit within the same identified group, nevertheless they amount to nothing more than armchair psychiatry. And so, in that sense, the “expressed views of people” y’all have presented correlate much more strongly with the example of the expressed views of people about gravity.

Now if these expressive people had some anecdotes to offer about the views of those other people, that would be an improvement. It would be evidence. Anecdotal, and second-hand, and extremely weak since it would rely on a trust relationship with an unnamed person. But it would still be evidence, as opposed to windbaggery. When your “evidence” is nothing more than a person opining about something, it isn’t evidence. Do y’all see the difference?
- mkfreeberg | 12/15/2013 @ 11:33
mkfreeberg: The “expressed views of people” were about views of other people

If someone says “minorities don’t have American values” that is not evidence about minorities, but it is evidence of the views of that person about minorities.

mkfreeberg: When your “evidence” is nothing more than a person opining about something, it isn’t evidence.

It’s not “a person”, but a group of people statistically sampled from a larger group.
- Zachriel | 12/15/2013 @ 13:44
If someone says “minorities don’t have American values” that is not evidence about minorities, but it is evidence of the views of that person about minorities.

Do y’all have some examples to present that are of this form?

It’s not “a person”, but a group of people statistically sampled from a larger group.

Thus far, the examples presented have been persons quoted. Unnamed persons. Singular, one-at-a-time.

Last I checked, we weren’t supposed to characterize Muslims based on the terrorist acts committed by a disaffected or radicalized few. I think members of the Tea Party are deserving of the same respect…or, would be, if y’all had presented some examples of their motives & thoughts that were capable of surviving a little bit of inspection, better than what we’ve seen above. Assuming that undemanding standard can ever be met, we still have the question ahead of us about how durably a trend can hold out, before it’s deemed safe to generalize across an entire party, movement or ideology based on what was “learned.”
- mkfreeberg | 12/15/2013 @ 13:53
mkfreeberg: Thus far, the examples presented have been persons quoted. Unnamed persons. Singular, one-at-a-time.

Yes, the methodology was explained, and examples provided.

mkfreeberg: we weren’t supposed to characterize Muslims based on the terrorist acts committed by a disaffected or radicalized few.

That’s because if we take a statistical sampling of Muslims, the percentage that are terrorists will be very small.

mkfreeberg: I think members of the Tea Party are deserving of the same respect

Given the sample, a large portion of people represented in the focus groups are concerned about how minorities are changing American society.

mkfreeberg: we still have the question ahead of us about how durably a trend can hold out, before it’s deemed safe to generalize across an entire party, movement or ideology based on what was “learned.”

Do you understand sampling?
- Zachriel | 12/15/2013 @ 14:02
That’s because if we take a statistical sampling of Muslims, the percentage that are terrorists will be very small.

Do you understand sampling?

Yes. And if we take a statistical sampling of Tea Party members, it could turn out that your examples would be revealed to be anomalies and therefore meaningless. That presupposes the idea that your examples prove, or at least substantiate, what y’all have been offering that they prove or substantiate, which I’ve consistently shown is not the case simply by going back and looking at the context.

But this is all apart from the main point. The researchers themselves admitted, “We expected that in this comfortable setting or in their private written notes, some would make a racial reference or racist slur when talking about the African American President…none did.” They found their theories conflicted irreconcilably with reality, and resolved the problem by rejecting reality. Or to be more precise about it, accepting only those bits & pieces of reality that didn’t create this problem for the theory.
- mkfreeberg | 12/15/2013 @ 14:17
mkfreeberg: They found their theories conflicted irreconcilably with reality, and resolved the problem by rejecting reality.

Quite the contrary. They reported what they observed, that no one used a racist slur when talking about the President.

mkfreeberg: And if we take a statistical sampling of Tea Party members, it could turn out that your examples would be revealed to be anomalies and therefore meaningless.

Sure they could, but you’ve given no evidence that they are non-representative. Meanwhile, you said there was no data in the report, and while the evidence provided may not be definitive, it is data.
- Zachriel | 12/15/2013 @ 14:54
Black Santas
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/12/los-angeles-santas-all-types-and-colors
- Zachriel | 12/15/2013 @ 14:56
Megyn Kelly had the last laugh on that one.

Y’all are doing a dandy job of demonstrating false consensus effect, but not much else I’m afraid.
- mkfreeberg | 12/15/2013 @ 15:30
mkfreeberg: Megyn Kelly had the last laugh on that one.

It wasn’t a joke. She was trying to “protect” children. Santa is real, wink, wink. But it exposed her discomfort with the very idea that a Santa could be black.

Megyn, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds…

Yes, Megyn, there is a Black Santa Claus.
http://www.moderatebutpassionate.com/2013/12/yes-megyn-kelly-there-is-black-santa.html

Santa is only limited by little minds.
- Zachriel | 12/15/2013 @ 15:42
Sayin’ so don’t make it so.

The whole “black Santa” thing is just a distraction cooked up by democrats who want to win elections next year, who know they have to do something to change the political landscape drastically, to even have a prayer after the ObamaCare disaster. And they’re living in the 1960’s.

It’s funny about “liberals.” They’re supposed to be for liberty, but all their causes seem to have something to do with controlling what others think.
- mkfreeberg | 12/15/2013 @ 15:53
mkfreeberg: The whole “black Santa” thing is just a distraction cooked up by democrats who want to win elections next year …

The War on Christmas, including Kelly’s comments, are a fixture on Fox News.

mkfreeberg: They’re supposed to be for liberty, but all their causes seem to have something to do with controlling what others think.

Kelly can do or think what she wants, while others can point out her obvious discomfort with the idea of black Santas.
- Zachriel | 12/15/2013 @ 18:30
And, I’m free to notice the real cause of the consternation: Her next comment was “Just because it makes you uncomfortable doesn’t mean it has to change.” So I don’t think we should pretend this is about Megyn Kelly’s discomfort. The discomfort is felt by those who are criticizing her, since this is the very definition of freedom: I do, or say, or think, or buy or sell X, and just because it makes someone else uncomfortable doesn’t mean I have to stop.

That’s the very definition. If we can’t take that stand, we don’t have freedom. If we can, we do.

Liberals are not opposed to this. It’s what all sorts of liberal issues are all about, mostly having to do with atheism and sex: “Just because it makes you uncomfortable doesn’t mean it has to change.” They don’t wish to get rid of this kind of freedom. They wish to monopolize it.

Had they been the least bit willing to share this sense of freedom with people who didn’t agree with them culturally and ideologically, Megyn Kelly would not have driven them so crazy with one innocuous remark. And if they were really all about liberty, they wouldn’t have to make an issue out of the mental image formed in the minds of complete strangers, in response to names like Jesus Christ and Santa Claus.
- mkfreeberg | 12/15/2013 @ 22:32
mkfreeberg: Her next comment was “Just because it makes you uncomfortable doesn’t mean it has to change.”

And just because it makes you uncomfortable doesn’t mean it shouldn’t change. That’s what the civil rights movements have been all about. Some things have to change, even if it makes some people uncomfortable. The study shows that many people are uncomfortable with the demographic changes occurring in America.

mkfreeberg: I do, or say, or think, or buy or sell X, and just because it makes someone else uncomfortable doesn’t mean I have to stop.

Kelly can do or think what she wants, while others can point out her obvious discomfort with the idea of black Santas. Freedom.
- Zachriel | 12/16/2013 @ 05:57
mkfreeberg: And if they were really all about liberty, they wouldn’t have to make an issue out of the mental image formed in the minds of complete strangers, in response to names like Jesus Christ and Santa Claus.

Megyn Kelly isn’t a “stranger”, but a public personality, who purports to be a straight news reporter, and declared as fact that Santa was white.
- Zachriel | 12/16/2013 @ 05:59
Is Santa black, now?

This is very educational. First we come to find out that the people attacking Megyn Kelly right now, seek to deny her the very privileges upon which they insist for themselves — “just because it makes you uncomfortable doesn’t mean it has to change.” They do not seek equality. They want, as I have been noticing for awhile, inequality. They want a complete and unquestioned monopoly on this privilege of “I don’t have to change it even if you’re unhappy with it.”

Now, we find they — if y’all are aptly representing them, which I think is the case — seek to revise reality simply by being offended. We’ve known this for awhile, but the examples have never been this stark, in my recollection. So because of some persons out there who are announcing their grievances and grief, some named and some not, Santa must be black? Since when? This week? The old illustrations by Thomas Nast and Clement Moore have suddenly switched races? Saint Nikolaos of Myra belongs, today, to a different race than that by which he was identified just a week ago?

Must be the case, if anyone who says differently is supposed to get in trouble.

Well, okay. Y’all have a right to your opinions just like anybody else does — just like Megyn Kelly does. But y’all go down that road without me. Some of us prefer not to view reality, including history, through the lens of “how does it make me feel.” But I don’t think we should pretend this is all about Megyn Kelly’s comfort levels. Looks to me like she’s comfortable either way, and it’s those who are taking offense who have the comfort problem. I’m right about that, aren’t I?
- mkfreeberg | 12/16/2013 @ 18:01
mkfreeberg: They want, as I have been noticing for awhile, inequality.

Santa can be any color! He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist.

“You can’t be Santa — you’re black!”
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/16/us/new-mexico-teacher-black-santa/

mkfreeberg: Saint Nikolaos of Myra

Nikolaos was from Turkey, and was most likely dark skinned.
- Zachriel | 12/16/2013 @ 18:40
Santa can be any color!

Oh yeah, that’s right, all truth is relative. Nobody’s ideas are any better or worse or more-or-less accurate than anybody else’s…nice…thank y’all for demonstrating for us why the healthcare.gov site is such a disaster.

Nikolaos was from Turkey, and was most likely dark skinned.

RIGHT…nice grasping, there. That’s not black. This is not a matter of debate. It is a matter of fact. And I’m sure even y’all would agree, to whatever extent y’all feel justified trying to lower some sort of beatdown on Ms. Kelly, it’s not because some Turkish guy was “dark skinned.”
- mkfreeberg | 12/16/2013 @ 19:48
mkfreeberg: That’s not black.

Heh. When Megyn said Santa was white, she didn’t mean some brown guy from Turkey who very well might have troubles flying through U.S. airspace.

By the by, the notion of ‘blackness’ has changed over time.

“My name, that was as fresh
As Dian’s visage, is now begrimed and black
As mine own face.”

mkfreeberg: Oh yeah, that’s right, all truth is relative.

That’s hilarious. It’s just a fact that Nikolaos lives at the North Pole and delivers presents in a sleigh drawn by flying reindeer. You’re hilarious.

“They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds.”
- Zachriel | 12/17/2013 @ 04:40
South Korean Santas hand out Christmas gifts to premies.
http://www.travelwireasia.com/2010/12/photo-of-the-day-from-across-asia/
- Zachriel | 12/17/2013 @ 04:47
So that’s a yes, then. Liberals got offended, and overnight, Santa Claus changed races.

We’re getting some valuable insight into how their “thinking” works. A bit of theatrical group-offense, and reality changes. No wonder the healthcare.gov site doesn’t work, and no wonder those climate models never panned out. So those who live on the other side, who actually measure things and use the measurements, who take the time to look at the Nast cartoons, “think nothing which is not comprehensible by their little minds.” That would be preferable to being unable to distinguish between the imaginable, and the real.

Meanwhile — have y’all not noticed the real problem here? Seems we’ve got a bunch of kids in the country who can’t have a Merry Christmas if their Santa Claus is thought, by someone else, to be white. As a thought exercise, imagine the races flipped around: The white guy dangling over the cliff, who doesn’t want the driver of the jeep to pull him back with a winch, because that other guy isn’t white. It’s the same thing. A new generation that is incapable of imagining anything nice done for them, ever, by a white guy. So Ms. Kelly’s sensitivities and sensibilities are not the issue here; they are not the problem.
- mkfreeberg | 12/17/2013 @ 07:08
mkfreeberg: overnight, Santa Claus changed races

Santa can be anything you want him to be! Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond.
- Zachriel | 12/17/2013 @ 12:31
Yes, I think most Americans are up-to-speed on this concept of feeling-over-thought and relative truth. If we just wish it to be so, ObamaCare has been a miracle piece of legislation that has extended coverage to millions and denied coverage to no one, while saving the Treasury billions of dollars on top of it. Katie Couric is much smarter than Sarah Palin, even though Palin can do Couric’s job better than Couric can, global warming is still threatening to destroy us all. Sure it’s snowing in Egypt, but there’s this huge difference between local weather and global climate…but only this time of year, come July we’ll go back to imagining them to be one & the same again, sounding the alarm with every localized heat wave or heat record. Anywhere. Again.

And, under Barack Obama the budget is balanced, and racial animosity is a thing of the past. If we like our doctor we can keep our doctor. Benghazi never happened. Guantanamo was closed down just like President Obama promised, and His administration is the most transparent ever. All this stuff becomes true if you just repeat it often enough and emphatically enough.

But in truth, there are degrees of wrong-ness. And I notice the progressive viewpoint, which is very often measurably wrong, is most jarringly wrong when it is formed as a byproduct of this “Chinese firing squad” exercise. The one where all the loud voices surround the target of derision and synchronize with each other. With Ms. Kelly, the metaphor breaks down because a true circle-shaped firing squad is bad not only for the soldiers around the perimeter, but also for the target at the center. Whereas Megyn Kelly seems to have nicely ducked here and escaped any damage…it’s the “riflemen” who have absorbed it all.
- mkfreeberg | 12/17/2013 @ 18:57
mkfreeberg: Yes, I think most Americans are up-to-speed on this concept of feeling-over-thought and relative truth.

The focus group report shows that many in the Republican Party are uncomfortable with the demographic changes occurring in the U.S. You ignored this, saying the group is not representative, but provide no evidence to support your claim.

You also seem to think that Nikolaos got pale when he moved from Turkey to the North Pole, and that Megyn Kelly was stating fact when she said Santa was “just white”.
- Zachriel | 12/18/2013 @ 06:21
You ignored this, saying the group is not representative, but provide no evidence to support your claim.

Actually, my claim is that the researchers set out to find racism and when they couldn’t find it, they simply made it up. The evidence to support this is: They said so.

Now. I understand y’all have a lot of techniques for avoiding what’s obvious, and this talent is doubted by myself and others only to the extent it might be good for something, which is not much. So I don’t see the need for y’all to go proving it over and over again.

You also seem to think that Nikolaos got pale when he moved from Turkey to the North Pole, and that Megyn Kelly was stating fact when she said Santa was “just white.”

Not sure where I said someone changed color by moving to a different location, y’all are welcome to point that out if y’all can find it. My goodness, the reading comprehension thing does seem to be a problem after all.

As far as Santa being white, I suppose we’re seeing the how and why of Reagan’s famous observation, trouble with liberals is not that they’re ignorant, it’s that they know so much that is not so. Y’all seem to be confusing the permission to think whatever y’all want about Santa’s skin color — nobody’s stopping you, it isn’t anybody’s place to do so, it just doesn’t matter — with confirmation that the idea must be a good or accurate one. If we’re going to discuss reality, the first step is going to have to be to distinguish between the real Santa vs. the Santa that lives in liberals’ heads. This is a universal thing. We have to do that before we can discuss Sarah Palin, or Megyn Kelly, or healthcare.gov, or climate change; both sides need to first properly distinguish between that thing as it really exists, and the fictitious version of it that lives in liberals’ heads, rent-free.

This is particularly important when we’re discussing whether racism is endemic to an entire ideology of real people, most of whom, or all of whom, may be innocent of the charge.

Now if we’re ready to look into the real Santa Claus, we may need to distinguish between the historical figure versus the various literary icons popularized in the western world. Either way, the evidence says Megyn Kelly got it right, which is why so many people find this tempest-in-a-teapot amusing and a bit baffling, including Ms. Kelly herself. Reality matters, it turns out.

By the way, skin color ≠ race.
- mkfreeberg | 12/18/2013 @ 06:52
mkfreeberg: By the way, skin color ≠ race.

That’s right. Most people from Turkey or Mexico are usually considered non-white, for instance, but race is largely a social construct.

mkfreeberg: Actually, my claim is that the researchers set out to find racism and when they couldn’t find it, they simply made it up.

Yes, that’s your claim, but you can only hold that position by ignoring the evidence provided by your own citation.

mkfreeberg: If we’re going to discuss reality, the first step is going to have to be to distinguish between the real Santa vs. the Santa that lives in liberals’ heads.

Ha! That’s quite a trick! Real Santa™

mkfreeberg: Either way, the evidence says Megyn Kelly got it right “The segment is pretty light hearted, but her main point is that just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it has to change for everyone.”

No. That’s not what Megyn Kelly said. She said Santa was “just white”. Compare to what Arizona’s conservative governor said, “I’ve never given him any thought. I would imagine that he’s probably white, yellow, black – every color. Santa Claus is Santa Claus to everyone, red, white, yellow, black. We’re all children.”

It’s because of the silly “War on Christmas” that Fox News promotes every holiday season. It puts otherwise sane people in untenable positions. Now, Kelly is boxed in, and has to defend her silly misstatement. She should have apologized and said “Everybody can be Santa, because Santa is found in the heart, not the head.”

This is the spirit of Christmas:
http://thegrio.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/black-santa-16×9.jpg
- Zachriel | 12/18/2013 @ 07:11
Megyn Kelly: “Just because it makes you feel uncomfortable doesn’t mean it has to change.”

That’s a direct quote. And, it seems more & more as the matter is discussed further and further, that statement cuts to the heart of the real issue. Our friends on the left have enjoyed a more-or-less complete monopoly on telling everyone else “Just because it makes you uncomfortable doesn’t mean it has to change (now, open your wallets & purses and pay for it).” And they’re whining now because someone took exactly the same stand defending something they don’t like.

She just beat Jon Stewart at his own game. He went way overboard attacking her statement, and how she gets to accuse him of taking the whole thing way too seriously, just as he’s been doing to others non-stop since 1996. Except she’s accurate in saying that about him.
- mkfreeberg | 12/18/2013 @ 07:43
Yes, that’s your claim, but you can only hold that position by ignoring the evidence provided by your own citation.

The original post has an excerpt that makes this clear.

The reading-comprehension thing, again. The pollsters expected to find racist comments about President Obama, did not find any, then started spouting off about “effective camouflage” and “a clever evolutionary response to a history of predation.” None of that is my writing, it comes from the report itself, so the evidence does support the claim. Not sure what else I can do to help you.
- mkfreeberg | 12/18/2013 @ 07:58
I see y’all are back to debating the magic power of words.

As near as I can reconstruct the liberal “thought” process, the speech act somehow creates reality, if one is of sufficiently pure heart. Choices and their observable, measurable outcomes don’t matter; if you say it loud enough and long enough, it will become true. Healthcare.gov is expanding coverage and global warming is happening, because consensus. Repeating it makes it real.

Meanwhile, it doesn’t matter what the impure of heart say — or do — because we all know what they really mean. Calling Obama a Marxist (which seemed to be the thrust of at least half the comments in that silly study) is somehow raaaaacist. Hell, calling Obama “Obama” is raaaaacist according to Chris Matthews. Just as snow in Cairo and expanding Arctic ice is somehow evidence for global warming, not saying racist things is exactly the same as saying racist things. Lather, rinse, repeat, and it will be true soon enough, because words are magic.

Meanwhile, out in the real world, the bastions of progressivism are all really, really really white. Which some might take as evidence of… what was it? Ah, yes: being “uncomfortable with the demographic changes occurring in the U.S.” But that can’t be so, because liberals can’t be racist. Just ask ’em. Words are magic.
- Severian | 12/18/2013 @ 10:07
mkfreeberg: Our friends on the left have enjoyed a more-or-less complete monopoly on telling everyone else “Just because it makes you uncomfortable doesn’t mean it has to change

You’re not making any sense. The political left implies change. Examples include ending childhood labor, women’s suffrage, civil rights, equal pay for equal work, etc.
- Zachriel | 12/18/2013 @ 17:35
mkfreeberg: The pollsters expected to find racist comments about President Obama, did not find any, then started spouting off about “effective camouflage” and “a clever evolutionary response to a history of predation.”

Um, those phrases are not in the report. They did not “start spouting off about” whatever you think they did. You’re apparently mixing up the propaganda with the actual report.

mkfreeberg: Calling Obama a Marxist (which seemed to be the thrust of at least half the comments in that silly study) is somehow raaaaacist.

As Obama is clearly not a Marxist of any sort, calling him one indicates there is something else motivating the accusation.

mkfreeberg: Meanwhile, out in the real world, the bastions of progressivism are all really, really really white.

That’s really, really, really funny. “If you take away the dominant Tier One cities like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles …” Heh.
- Zachriel | 12/18/2013 @ 17:41
Um, those phrases are not in the report

Really? Y’all sure? You did, after all, manage to misattribute a quote YET AGAIN, from just two posts up.

Obviously reading comprehension is not y’all’s strong suit.

As Obama is clearly not a Marxist of any sort, calling him one indicates there is something else motivating the accusation.

Let’s see. Evidence pro: his words and deeds. Evidence con: y’all’s naked assertion. Science!

That’s really, really, really funny. “If you take away the dominant Tier One cities like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles …” Heh.

Yup. Because when someone says “name a progressive city,” New York and Chicago immediately spring to mind. Not Portland or Austin or Madison, say. “Progressive” is not the same as “controlled by the Democratic Party machine.” Words mean what they mean.

I can see why y’all are still in school. Reading comprehension is important.
- Severian | 12/18/2013 @ 19:37
Severian: You did, after all, manage to misattribute a quote YET AGAIN

We did! Thank you for pointing out our error.

Zachriel: Um, those phrases are not in the report

Severian: Really?

Mkfreeberg claimed that the pollsters “started spouting off about ‘effective camouflage’ and ‘a clever evolutionary response to a history of predation.'” You might now take the opportunity to address the point raised.

Severian: Let’s see.

Please define Marxism.

Severian: Because when someone says “name a progressive city,” New York and Chicago immediately spring to mind.

If no one would include them, then the writer wouldn’t have had to explicitly exclude them.

Severian: Meanwhile, out in the real world, the bastions of progressivism are all really, really really white.

Minneapolis, 70% white, non-Hispanic
Denver, 69% white, non-Hispanic
Seattle, 70% white, non-Hispanic
Portland, 76% white, non-Hispanic
Austin, 68% white, non-Hispanic
- Zachriel | 12/19/2013 @ 06:31
[…] Quotient Kiosks Cults Young People Leaving Obama Thirteen Things They Avoid Can’t Find Racism in Republicans, So Let’s Invent Some What Liberals Call “Science” Prosecutorial Discretion The Darker Side of Mandela You […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 12/19/2013 @ 06:56
You might now take the opportunity to address the point raised

You might now take the opportunity to address

a) why it is y’all can’t even get a quote attribution right from a post just two above yours. This is a constant with y’all.

b) why, if Morgan cherry-picked the wrong quotes and based his whole argument on those, y’all didn’t just point that out at the beginning. Why the 70-odd posts of rigamarole?

Next time, before the first one of y’all rolls over to the keyboard, have a little team meeting first. Actually read the post in its entirety, try your best to comprehend it — you might try taking notes — and then line up your strategy accordingly. At the very least, put a little sign over y’all’s dorm computer lounge that reads “argue from a position, instead of trying to come up with gotchas.”
- Severian | 12/19/2013 @ 07:38
Severian,

Sorry, but nothing came through from your last comment that was relevant to the topic. Let us know if you decide to join the discussion.
- Zachriel | 12/19/2013 @ 07:40
Huh. So “making sure you’re actually addressing the right person” isn’t relevant in a discussion. Nor is a direct question about your “argument.” Both of which directly speak to y’all’s already-documented (and self-admitted) difficulties in keeping your stories straight.

Fascinating, Captain Kirk. Do go on.
- Severian | 12/19/2013 @ 08:49
[…] of fabricating racism among Republicans, maybe our intrepid social “science” “researchers” could pose the following […]
- A Question I’d Like to See Asked: Daddy Issues | Rotten Chestnuts | 12/19/2013 @ 09:01
[…] isn’t just ObamaCare. These so-called “researchers” probably have very high […]
- ZION'S TRUMPET » The F.Q. | 12/20/2013 @ 06:48

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Can’t Find Racism in Republicans, So Let’s Invent SomeWednesday, December 11th, 2013

Can’t Find Racism in Republicans, So Let’s Invent Some
Wednesday, December 11th, 2013