"But the high percentage of the black vote going to Obama is not unusual. Gallup polling estimated that John Kerry received 93% of the black vote in 2004, and Al Gore received 95% in 2000."
"But the high percentage of the black vote going to Obama is not unusual. Gallup polling estimated that John Kerry received 93% of the black vote in 2004, and Al Gore received 95% in 2000."
Welfare should be for people who are unable to work or who try but can't find work, not ones that just don't want to. unfortunately, there are quite a few Americans who have grown quite accustomed to not wanting to work, it's in their genes and carries on through their generations.
Sorry, but I've had it with folks who think that a bunch of people have just been hanging out on unemployment for 4 years under Obama. Get real, people. I work in staffing and trust me, unemployment runs out.
Folks around here need a dose of reality. And I'm not saying we don't have a problem here, but the way people describe it is just asinine.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Slovak:
Welfare should be for people who are unable to work or who try but can't find work, not ones that just don't want to. unfortunately, there are quite a few Americans who have grown quite accustomed to not wanting to work, it's in their genes and carries on through their generations.
Sorry, but I've had it with folks who think that a bunch of people have just been hanging out on unemployment for 4 years under Obama. Get real, people. I work in staffing and trust me, unemployment runs out.
Folks around here need a dose of reality. And I'm not saying we don't have a problem here, but the way people describe it is just asinine.
I also find it HILARIOUS that we now have a spending problem, but the righties didn't see it that way when GW was busting out the check book left and right.
0
I also find it HILARIOUS that we now have a spending problem, but the righties didn't see it that way when GW was busting out the check book left and right.
"But the high percentage of the black vote going to Obama is not unusual. Gallup polling estimated that John Kerry received 93% of the black vote in 2004, and Al Gore received 95% in 2000."
FN morons. A dem is going to get 95 percent of the black vote no matter what their skin color is.
Are people really this stupid?
0
Quote Originally Posted by sportskingpin:
For number 3:
"But the high percentage of the black vote going to Obama is not unusual. Gallup polling estimated that John Kerry received 93% of the black vote in 2004, and Al Gore received 95% in 2000."
one thing about this election (these past two actually), is that it has lead us into a whole new strategy in politics...
i'll skip the details of why... but we will never see another White Male President in this country again... i can pretty much assure you our next President will be Hispanic... cuz a Hispanic candidate would be impossible to beat by anyone other than another Hispanic candidate...
0
one thing about this election (these past two actually), is that it has lead us into a whole new strategy in politics...
i'll skip the details of why... but we will never see another White Male President in this country again... i can pretty much assure you our next President will be Hispanic... cuz a Hispanic candidate would be impossible to beat by anyone other than another Hispanic candidate...
i disagree with the very simplistic bullshit posted by the OP of this thread, first off... that kind of simplistic view is no better than the view he is opposing... it's nonsense!
however... i want to correct one part of his statement that some might find surprising...
"3) BLACK PEOPLE - not being racist, its a proven fact 92% of African Americans vote for Obama"
not only should you not need to defend yourself by saying "not a racist" when you post this statistic... but the reality is...the very fact that 92% (or more by some reports) of all black votes went to Barrack Obama... is the single most racist thing i have ever heard of in my lifetime...
i have spent my life attacking racists relentlessly for their ignorance... and this time, i am attacking the black population of this country, for making it very clear that THEY are the most racist people on this planet, bar none!
because when you vote for the President of the United States SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY based on the color of his skin... you are fucking racist... and when 92-96% of a population is voting for 1 candidate, while the rest of the country is split in more of a 55/45 ratio... that is what is known as a STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT RESULT... for those without a basic understanding of statistics... i will simplify that for you...
this statistic says (in VERY CLEAR TERMS)... that the black population voted for the black President because he is black, and for NO OTHER REASON...
this is not opinion... this is statistical breakdown... it cannot be argued!!!
there may be individual exceptions... but there is no way around the reality that a 92/8 ratio against a 55/45 ratio is a declaration that there must be a correlation... and that correlation is... skin color!
that is fucking racist, and as far as i'm concerned... no black American can EVER play the fucking race card against any other person in this country EVER AGAIN!
So do you think that all the white people who have never voted for a black candidate are similalry racist?
0
Quote Originally Posted by ApocalypseLater:
not enough has been made of this!
i disagree with the very simplistic bullshit posted by the OP of this thread, first off... that kind of simplistic view is no better than the view he is opposing... it's nonsense!
however... i want to correct one part of his statement that some might find surprising...
"3) BLACK PEOPLE - not being racist, its a proven fact 92% of African Americans vote for Obama"
not only should you not need to defend yourself by saying "not a racist" when you post this statistic... but the reality is...the very fact that 92% (or more by some reports) of all black votes went to Barrack Obama... is the single most racist thing i have ever heard of in my lifetime...
i have spent my life attacking racists relentlessly for their ignorance... and this time, i am attacking the black population of this country, for making it very clear that THEY are the most racist people on this planet, bar none!
because when you vote for the President of the United States SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY based on the color of his skin... you are fucking racist... and when 92-96% of a population is voting for 1 candidate, while the rest of the country is split in more of a 55/45 ratio... that is what is known as a STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT RESULT... for those without a basic understanding of statistics... i will simplify that for you...
this statistic says (in VERY CLEAR TERMS)... that the black population voted for the black President because he is black, and for NO OTHER REASON...
this is not opinion... this is statistical breakdown... it cannot be argued!!!
there may be individual exceptions... but there is no way around the reality that a 92/8 ratio against a 55/45 ratio is a declaration that there must be a correlation... and that correlation is... skin color!
that is fucking racist, and as far as i'm concerned... no black American can EVER play the fucking race card against any other person in this country EVER AGAIN!
So do you think that all the white people who have never voted for a black candidate are similalry racist?
one thing about this election (these past two actually), is that it has lead us into a whole new strategy in politics...
i'll skip the details of why... but we will never see another White Male President in this country again... i can pretty much assure you our next President will be Hispanic... cuz a Hispanic candidate would be impossible to beat by anyone other than another Hispanic candidate...
Actually, don't skip the details. I'm guessing I'd like to hear more about this.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ApocalypseLater:
one thing about this election (these past two actually), is that it has lead us into a whole new strategy in politics...
i'll skip the details of why... but we will never see another White Male President in this country again... i can pretty much assure you our next President will be Hispanic... cuz a Hispanic candidate would be impossible to beat by anyone other than another Hispanic candidate...
Actually, don't skip the details. I'm guessing I'd like to hear more about this.
What would be interesting is if there ever was a Black or Hispanic republican vs a white male democrat, than you will be able to see if how much racial bias there is in the election.
But for now all I see is that minorities are more aligned with democrats regardless of race and it will stay that way for a long time.
0
What would be interesting is if there ever was a Black or Hispanic republican vs a white male democrat, than you will be able to see if how much racial bias there is in the election.
But for now all I see is that minorities are more aligned with democrats regardless of race and it will stay that way for a long time.
So do you think that all the white people who have never voted for a black candidate are similalry racist?
congratulations on discovering the meaning of the word non sequitur... always a bit disturbing to realize how few people on this gambling site have even a remedial understanding of statistics... let alone logic...
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
So do you think that all the white people who have never voted for a black candidate are similalry racist?
congratulations on discovering the meaning of the word non sequitur... always a bit disturbing to realize how few people on this gambling site have even a remedial understanding of statistics... let alone logic...
congratulations on discovering the meaning of the word non sequitur... always a bit disturbing to realize how few people on this gambling site have even a remedial understanding of statistics... let alone logic...
Non sequitor eh? Was that truisim on your flashcard of responsive debate techniques?
If you slightly recap, you will see that someone made the following statement:
that is fucking racist, and as far as i'm concerned... no black American can EVER play the fucking race card against any other person in this country EVER AGAIN!
Carrying with it, the obvious presupposition that, not only all blacks should be held accountable for the actions of some that may be voting based on skin color...so let me ask again....if a white american has only voted for white candidates, can you make the same conclusatory connotation?
0
Quote Originally Posted by ApocalypseLater:
congratulations on discovering the meaning of the word non sequitur... always a bit disturbing to realize how few people on this gambling site have even a remedial understanding of statistics... let alone logic...
Non sequitor eh? Was that truisim on your flashcard of responsive debate techniques?
If you slightly recap, you will see that someone made the following statement:
that is fucking racist, and as far as i'm concerned... no black American can EVER play the fucking race card against any other person in this country EVER AGAIN!
Carrying with it, the obvious presupposition that, not only all blacks should be held accountable for the actions of some that may be voting based on skin color...so let me ask again....if a white american has only voted for white candidates, can you make the same conclusatory connotation?
I voted for Obama in 2008 as a first time voter. Here we are 4 years later and im voting for liberty and freedom and less government so i was gonna vote Ron Paul but hes not running anymore so its Gary Johnson and oh yea im black. I wish more blacks would wake they ass up especially my fellow black men. I cant speak for black women because their the main reason why the "black" community is fucked up because of feminism, the whole i dont need no man mentality makes me sick. Its why you see black women with tons of kids by different fathers.
0
I voted for Obama in 2008 as a first time voter. Here we are 4 years later and im voting for liberty and freedom and less government so i was gonna vote Ron Paul but hes not running anymore so its Gary Johnson and oh yea im black. I wish more blacks would wake they ass up especially my fellow black men. I cant speak for black women because their the main reason why the "black" community is fucked up because of feminism, the whole i dont need no man mentality makes me sick. Its why you see black women with tons of kids by different fathers.
Non sequitor eh? Was that truisim on your flashcard of responsive debate techniques?
If you slightly recap, you will see that someone made the following statement:
that is fucking racist, and as far as i'm concerned... no black American can EVER play the fucking race card against any other person in this country EVER AGAIN!
Carrying with it, the obvious presupposition that, not only all blacks should be held accountable for the actions of some that may be voting based on skin color...so let me ask again....if a white american has only voted for white candidates, can you make the same conclusatory connotation?
pick up a Logic / Arguments 101 book and then talk to me... not a word of what you said showed an ounce of intelligence or ability to reasoning...
if you are going to attempt to follow my premises to some fabricated conclusion (i.e.... "SEQUITUR")... then at least read the actual premises of the argument... the premise of my argument is based solely on the statistical breakdown...
and yet you (in your completely idiotic lack of ability to understand logical arguments or fallacies)... have gone and READ MY CONCLUSION... and then said that based on my CONCLUSION, that other CONCLUSIONS must follow...
you're an idiot! conclusions follow from premises... read the fucking premises...
how can we possibly live in a world where it is acceptable for people to not have a remedial understanding of logic? i am being 100% serious... you should not speak another word to another human being in your lifetime, until you pick up a beginning logic handbook... find the dummies version, even... but get SOME kind of basic understanding of the tenets of logic and arguments... before you start willy-nilly trying to breakdown an argument by someone who has an extremely strong grasp of them...
bye! talk to you when you have educated yourself properly...
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
Non sequitor eh? Was that truisim on your flashcard of responsive debate techniques?
If you slightly recap, you will see that someone made the following statement:
that is fucking racist, and as far as i'm concerned... no black American can EVER play the fucking race card against any other person in this country EVER AGAIN!
Carrying with it, the obvious presupposition that, not only all blacks should be held accountable for the actions of some that may be voting based on skin color...so let me ask again....if a white american has only voted for white candidates, can you make the same conclusatory connotation?
pick up a Logic / Arguments 101 book and then talk to me... not a word of what you said showed an ounce of intelligence or ability to reasoning...
if you are going to attempt to follow my premises to some fabricated conclusion (i.e.... "SEQUITUR")... then at least read the actual premises of the argument... the premise of my argument is based solely on the statistical breakdown...
and yet you (in your completely idiotic lack of ability to understand logical arguments or fallacies)... have gone and READ MY CONCLUSION... and then said that based on my CONCLUSION, that other CONCLUSIONS must follow...
you're an idiot! conclusions follow from premises... read the fucking premises...
how can we possibly live in a world where it is acceptable for people to not have a remedial understanding of logic? i am being 100% serious... you should not speak another word to another human being in your lifetime, until you pick up a beginning logic handbook... find the dummies version, even... but get SOME kind of basic understanding of the tenets of logic and arguments... before you start willy-nilly trying to breakdown an argument by someone who has an extremely strong grasp of them...
bye! talk to you when you have educated yourself properly...
pick up a Logic / Arguments 101 book and then talk to me... not a word of what you said showed an ounce of intelligence or ability to reasoning...
if you are going to attempt to follow my premises to some fabricated conclusion (i.e.... "SEQUITUR")... then at least read the actual premises of the argument... the premise of my argument is based solely on the statistical breakdown...
and yet you (in your completely idiotic lack of ability to understand logical arguments or fallacies)... have gone and READ MY CONCLUSION... and then said that based on my CONCLUSION, that other CONCLUSIONS must follow...
you're an idiot! conclusions follow from premises... read the fucking premises...
how can we possibly live in a world where it is acceptable for people to not have a remedial understanding of logic? i am being 100% serious... you should not speak another word to another human being in your lifetime, until you pick up a beginning logic handbook... find the dummies version, even... but get SOME kind of basic understanding of the tenets of logic and arguments... before you start willy-nilly trying to breakdown an argument by someone who has an extremely strong grasp of them...
bye! talk to you when you have educated yourself properly...
Since you are so into stats and logic, why didn't you respond to post #34? It seems to have more correlation than your reasoning.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ApocalypseLater:
pick up a Logic / Arguments 101 book and then talk to me... not a word of what you said showed an ounce of intelligence or ability to reasoning...
if you are going to attempt to follow my premises to some fabricated conclusion (i.e.... "SEQUITUR")... then at least read the actual premises of the argument... the premise of my argument is based solely on the statistical breakdown...
and yet you (in your completely idiotic lack of ability to understand logical arguments or fallacies)... have gone and READ MY CONCLUSION... and then said that based on my CONCLUSION, that other CONCLUSIONS must follow...
you're an idiot! conclusions follow from premises... read the fucking premises...
how can we possibly live in a world where it is acceptable for people to not have a remedial understanding of logic? i am being 100% serious... you should not speak another word to another human being in your lifetime, until you pick up a beginning logic handbook... find the dummies version, even... but get SOME kind of basic understanding of the tenets of logic and arguments... before you start willy-nilly trying to breakdown an argument by someone who has an extremely strong grasp of them...
bye! talk to you when you have educated yourself properly...
Since you are so into stats and logic, why didn't you respond to post #34? It seems to have more correlation than your reasoning.
pick up a Logic / Arguments 101 book and then talk to me... not a word of what you said showed an ounce of intelligence or ability to reasoning...
if you are going to attempt to follow my premises to some fabricated conclusion (i.e.... "SEQUITUR")... then at least read the actual premises of the argument... the premise of my argument is based solely on the statistical breakdown...
and yet you (in your completely idiotic lack of ability to understand logical arguments or fallacies)... have gone and READ MY CONCLUSION... and then said that based on my CONCLUSION, that other CONCLUSIONS must follow...
you're an idiot! conclusions follow from premises... read the fucking premises...
how can we possibly live in a world where it is acceptable for people to not have a remedial understanding of logic? i am being 100% serious... you should not speak another word to another human being in your lifetime, until you pick up a beginning logic handbook... find the dummies version, even... but get SOME kind of basic understanding of the tenets of logic and arguments... before you start willy-nilly trying to breakdown an argument by someone who has an extremely strong grasp of them...
bye! talk to you when you have educated yourself properly...
Did you notice that in your rhetorical dissertation you completely and utterly failed to address the actual issue at hand? In fact, you failed to devote one word to it.
I realize that given the fact that you have stated there will never be another white president, that 9-11 was an inside job and your statement above, you engage in conclustory theory of debate i.e. proving your point by your statement of opinion. Does the word corrollary mean anything to you?
So I will ask one more time..if you fault all blacks for the presupposition that blacks voted for Obama because of skin color, do you similarly fault all whites for those that have only voted for whites?
0
Quote Originally Posted by ApocalypseLater:
pick up a Logic / Arguments 101 book and then talk to me... not a word of what you said showed an ounce of intelligence or ability to reasoning...
if you are going to attempt to follow my premises to some fabricated conclusion (i.e.... "SEQUITUR")... then at least read the actual premises of the argument... the premise of my argument is based solely on the statistical breakdown...
and yet you (in your completely idiotic lack of ability to understand logical arguments or fallacies)... have gone and READ MY CONCLUSION... and then said that based on my CONCLUSION, that other CONCLUSIONS must follow...
you're an idiot! conclusions follow from premises... read the fucking premises...
how can we possibly live in a world where it is acceptable for people to not have a remedial understanding of logic? i am being 100% serious... you should not speak another word to another human being in your lifetime, until you pick up a beginning logic handbook... find the dummies version, even... but get SOME kind of basic understanding of the tenets of logic and arguments... before you start willy-nilly trying to breakdown an argument by someone who has an extremely strong grasp of them...
bye! talk to you when you have educated yourself properly...
Did you notice that in your rhetorical dissertation you completely and utterly failed to address the actual issue at hand? In fact, you failed to devote one word to it.
I realize that given the fact that you have stated there will never be another white president, that 9-11 was an inside job and your statement above, you engage in conclustory theory of debate i.e. proving your point by your statement of opinion. Does the word corrollary mean anything to you?
So I will ask one more time..if you fault all blacks for the presupposition that blacks voted for Obama because of skin color, do you similarly fault all whites for those that have only voted for whites?
DJ... i intentionally did not address your question... BECAUSE IT WAS A NON SEQUITUR...
translation: it does not follow from the premises... therefore, there is not reason to address it... clearly, you do not understand (or did not read) the premise of the argument... your continued use of the word "conclusatory" is not helping your case... not that anything could help your case...
to make it simpler for you (even though it pisses me off to even do that much)...
there is no comparison between your 2 statements... in the first place, there has only been 1 black candidate, so our only frame of reference is the single election in 2008 when there WAS a black candidate... and in THAT year, 95% or so of the black population voted for the black candidate... in THAT year... 95% (or anything close to that number) of the white population did NOT vote for the white candidate...
if you can't understand why your question is completely irrelevant from that... there is no helping you...
Bunny651... i didn't address that post because i didn't see it... i find that almost impossible to believe, and i highly doubt it is true, or close to true... however, if it is, then it would put a damper on my argument... but i don't buy it for one second...
0
DJ... i intentionally did not address your question... BECAUSE IT WAS A NON SEQUITUR...
translation: it does not follow from the premises... therefore, there is not reason to address it... clearly, you do not understand (or did not read) the premise of the argument... your continued use of the word "conclusatory" is not helping your case... not that anything could help your case...
to make it simpler for you (even though it pisses me off to even do that much)...
there is no comparison between your 2 statements... in the first place, there has only been 1 black candidate, so our only frame of reference is the single election in 2008 when there WAS a black candidate... and in THAT year, 95% or so of the black population voted for the black candidate... in THAT year... 95% (or anything close to that number) of the white population did NOT vote for the white candidate...
if you can't understand why your question is completely irrelevant from that... there is no helping you...
Bunny651... i didn't address that post because i didn't see it... i find that almost impossible to believe, and i highly doubt it is true, or close to true... however, if it is, then it would put a damper on my argument... but i don't buy it for one second...
DJ... i intentionally did not address your question... BECAUSE IT WAS A NON SEQUITUR...
translation: it does not follow from the premises... therefore, there is not reason to address it... clearly, you do not understand (or did not read) the premise of the argument... your continued use of the word "conclusatory" is not helping your case... not that anything could help your case...
to make it simpler for you (even though it pisses me off to even do that much)...
there is no comparison between your 2 statements... in the first place, there has only been 1 black candidate, so our only frame of reference is the single election in 2008 when there WAS a black candidate... and in THAT year, 95% or so of the black population voted for the black candidate... in THAT year... 95% (or anything close to that number) of the white population did NOT vote for the white candidate...
if you can't understand why your question is completely irrelevant from that... there is no helping you...
Bunny651... i didn't address that post because i didn't see it... i find that almost impossible to believe, and i highly doubt it is true, or close to true... however, if it is, then it would put a damper on my argument... but i don't buy it for one second...
The end of your post offers a great synopsis of the fallacy in your position. You are discrediting a factual statement because it does not comport with your preconceived notions.
The problem with your statement (among others) is it offers too many presuppositions. For example, you have presupposed that blacks voted for Obama because he is black without taking into account other reasons.
But lets presume for a moment that you are correct. That statement could not possibly be accurate for all blacks. So let's say it is 3% of blacks who voted for Obama because of skin color...are you then suggesting that all blacks should be held accountable?
And conversely, are you stating that it would not be possible for 3% of whites to vote for white candidates because of skin color? Wouldn't emperical evidence actually support the statement? And if that were the case, are you similarly holding all whites responsible too?
0
Quote Originally Posted by ApocalypseLater:
DJ... i intentionally did not address your question... BECAUSE IT WAS A NON SEQUITUR...
translation: it does not follow from the premises... therefore, there is not reason to address it... clearly, you do not understand (or did not read) the premise of the argument... your continued use of the word "conclusatory" is not helping your case... not that anything could help your case...
to make it simpler for you (even though it pisses me off to even do that much)...
there is no comparison between your 2 statements... in the first place, there has only been 1 black candidate, so our only frame of reference is the single election in 2008 when there WAS a black candidate... and in THAT year, 95% or so of the black population voted for the black candidate... in THAT year... 95% (or anything close to that number) of the white population did NOT vote for the white candidate...
if you can't understand why your question is completely irrelevant from that... there is no helping you...
Bunny651... i didn't address that post because i didn't see it... i find that almost impossible to believe, and i highly doubt it is true, or close to true... however, if it is, then it would put a damper on my argument... but i don't buy it for one second...
The end of your post offers a great synopsis of the fallacy in your position. You are discrediting a factual statement because it does not comport with your preconceived notions.
The problem with your statement (among others) is it offers too many presuppositions. For example, you have presupposed that blacks voted for Obama because he is black without taking into account other reasons.
But lets presume for a moment that you are correct. That statement could not possibly be accurate for all blacks. So let's say it is 3% of blacks who voted for Obama because of skin color...are you then suggesting that all blacks should be held accountable?
And conversely, are you stating that it would not be possible for 3% of whites to vote for white candidates because of skin color? Wouldn't emperical evidence actually support the statement? And if that were the case, are you similarly holding all whites responsible too?
the point is that it is a loaded "fact". As stated many times in this thread blacks always vote for dems at about a 95% +/- clip regardless of the skin color. So to say that they only voted for Obama b/c he is black is a stupid / irrelevant point. History tells us that blacks would of voted for any Dem regardless of skin color.
0
Quote Originally Posted by TRAIN69:
How many black canidates have there been?
Also: Facts cant be racist.
the point is that it is a loaded "fact". As stated many times in this thread blacks always vote for dems at about a 95% +/- clip regardless of the skin color. So to say that they only voted for Obama b/c he is black is a stupid / irrelevant point. History tells us that blacks would of voted for any Dem regardless of skin color.
Bunny651... i didn't address that post because i didn't see it... i find that almost impossible to believe, and i highly doubt it is true, or close to true... however, if it is, then it would put a damper on my argument... but i don't buy it for one second...
What is there not to believe? I quoted the source and added the link. Find me another source saying otherwise or you have no option but to believe it.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ApocalypseLater:
Bunny651... i didn't address that post because i didn't see it... i find that almost impossible to believe, and i highly doubt it is true, or close to true... however, if it is, then it would put a damper on my argument... but i don't buy it for one second...
What is there not to believe? I quoted the source and added the link. Find me another source saying otherwise or you have no option but to believe it.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.