Nazis and KKK get laughed at...

Really? Really?

DamnYankee said:
Hardly science. Where are your facts?
Click to expand...

You refuse to be taken seriously!

A survey of people's attitudes and opinions is scientific when done according to social science procedures as this survey was.

Had you taken the time to review the procedures you would have known that.

The facts, although you may be impervious to them, are contained in the responses of those taking the survey.

Given the pattern of your comments so far in my time on JPP, of one thing in this regard I am very sure:
IF the results had shown the reverse (246% more Dems expressing anti-Black sentiments than Repubs) you would not be questioning the methodology.
:cool:
 
Barracuda said:
You refuse to be taken seriously!

A survey of people's attitudes and opinions is scientific when done according to social science procedures as this survey was.

Had you taken the time to review the procedures you would have known that.

The facts, although you may be impervious to them, are contained in the responses of those taking the survey.

Given the pattern of your comments so far in my time on JPP, of one thing in this regard I am very sure:
IF the results had shown the reverse (246% more Dems expressing anti-Black sentiments than Repubs) you would not be questioning the methodology.
:cool:
Click to expand...

An online survey is the least scientific because of folks like legion with multiple ips, a deep hatred of Republicans, no qualms about representing themselves as a different person and plenty of time on their hands. :nono:
 
DamnYankee said:
An online survey is the least scientific because of folks like legion with multiple ips, a deep hatred of Republicans, no qualms about representing themselves as a different person and plenty of time on their hands. :nono:
Click to expand...

Man, you are speaking out of pure ignorance (lack of knowledge). Once again, DamnYankee, you make it obvious that you did NOT read the methodology. If you had, you would understand that the company that handled this for AP does consumer research for a living and took the steps necessary to ensure that the participants were representative of the population. For example, while the survey was completed on-line, the participants were not people who just happened to come across the survey while surfing. I suppose now I will hear about how anti-Republican those companies are!!!

I've already learned not to expect a substantive, fact-based response from you, but I'll ask anyway: How do you KNOW that participants in an unscientific online survey have "a deep hatred of Republicans"?

:cool:
 
Damocles, There you are!

Oh, Damocles, THERE you are!!

I thought you might have left the building.

Did you have any comment on my earlier response (below) to you when you mentioned David Duke?

Barracuda said:
Damocles said:


Are you suggesting that voters in Louisiana did NOT know he was a Klansman or Nazi when he ran for Congress?

Also,....
Something else that shows how the Parties have shifted:

Robert Byrd is just one guy, but you'd think he was the Dem Party Chairman, Presidential Candidate and the Boss Hogg of the Dem Party the way that Repubs like to use him as a counterweight against charges of racism in the Repub Party.

There are two big differences, at least, between the two men. Byrd was an active member of the Klan about 65 years ago and Duke is still on the scene. Secondly, Byrd has apologized for his racist past and Duke........?

Duke endorses the Tea Party movement, too. Hmmmm....

Byrd has apologized and apologized and apologized for what he did 65 or so years ago. I will wait right here for someone to post a real apology (not BS like, "my choice of words" or "sorry if others took offense") by David Duke for his racist "past"*.......Meanwhile, if you Google "David Duke KKK", his own website tag line touts him as former leader of the Klan. His own website!!

And VERY importantly PLEASE NOTE that when Duke ran for Congress as a Democrat he did NOT that well, BUT WHEN HE RAN AS A REPUBLICAN, HE WON THE PRIMARY IN LOUISIANA for State Representative and then WON the election AS A REPUBLICAN.
wikipedia - David Duke

However, the real point is that the Conservative and partially anti-Black (certainly, not all) electorate that once supported Dems in the South AND elsewhere has, over time, migrated to the Repub party. That's pretty obvious to me.
:cool:

*Such an "apology" would need to take account of such reports as this:
Click to expand...
:cool:

P.S. Can someone give me (a newbie) a hand? Is there a way to avoid quoted comments being dropped out when you "reply with quote"?
 
Barracuda said:
Man, you are speaking out of pure ignorance (lack of knowledge). Once again, DamnYankee, you make it obvious that you did NOT read the methodology. If you had, you would understand that the company that handled this for AP does consumer research for a living and took the steps necessary to ensure that the participants were representative of the population. For example, while the survey was completed on-line, the participants were not people who just happened to come across the survey while surfing. I suppose now I will hear about how anti-Republican those companies are!!!

I've already learned not to expect a substantive, fact-based response from you, but I'll ask anyway: How do you KNOW that participants in an unscientific online survey have "a deep hatred of Republicans"?

:cool:
Click to expand...

How do you know that they don't?
 
Barracuda said:
Oh, Damocles, THERE you are!!

I thought you might have left the building.

Did you have any comment on my earlier response (below) to you when you mentioned David Duke?


:cool:

P.S. Can someone give me (a newbie) a hand? Is there a way to avoid quoted comments being dropped out when you "reply with quote"?
Click to expand...

Not Damo obviously...what is the problem again? Part of the quote is "dropping out" or something else?
 
You confirmed my expectation.....Sad, Truly Sad

Originally Posted by Barracuda
Man, you are speaking out of pure ignorance (lack of knowledge). Once again, DamnYankee, you make it obvious that you did NOT read the methodology. If you had, you would understand that the company that handled this for AP does consumer research for a living and took the steps necessary to ensure that the participants were representative of the population. For example, while the survey was completed on-line, the participants were not people who just happened to come across the survey while surfing. I suppose now I will hear about how anti-Republican those companies are!!!

I've already learned not to expect a substantive, fact-based response from you, but I'll ask anyway: How do you KNOW that participants in an unscientific online survey have "a deep hatred of Republicans"?
Click to expand...

From DamnYankee
How do you know that they don't?
Click to expand...

"Because" I don't use fallacious arguments, first of all. And I don't make unsubstantiated assertions.
nutri_facts.jpg

As is obvious to ALL, you made the unsubstantiated assertion and now try to use a 3rd grader's playground tactic in an effort to shift:
burden_of_proof.jpg
.
You exhibit this behavior apparently because you failed to check out the methodology of the survey before making ridiculous claims about it. When your error was brought to your attention, rather than reconsider your assessment, you resort to silliness.

Do you have ANYthing substantive to say?
:cool:
 
Haiku said:
Not Damo obviously...what is the problem again? Part of the quote is "dropping out" or something else?
Click to expand...

Haiku,
Thanks. I figured out a "work around," (see my recent reply to DY) but here's the issue...

Take this post as an example.
I clicked "Reply with Quote" and my quote contained in your post does not appear in this reply.

I hit the "Multi-Quote," but apparently that's for another purpose.
:cool:
 
Barracuda said:
Haiku,
Thanks. I figured out a "work around," (see my recent reply to DY) but here's the issue...

Take this post as an example.
I clicked "Reply with Quote" and my quote contained in your post does not appear in this reply.

I hit the "Multi-Quote," but apparently that's for another purpose.
:cool:
Click to expand...

Yes, that is how it works. It quotes the reply and doesn't bring the whole thing with it. As you said you found a work around...I would copy what I wanted and put it in quotes in my reply if I wanted everything.
 
Barracuda said:
Haiku,
Thanks. I figured out a "work around," (see my recent reply to DY) but here's the issue...

Take this post as an example.
I clicked "Reply with Quote" and my quote contained in your post does not appear in this reply.

I hit the "Multi-Quote," but apparently that's for another purpose.
:cool:
Click to expand...

The quote function only quotes the post itself and doesn't add previously quoted replies. It does this so we don't wind up with a seven mile long post full of quote after quote, which would basically a repeat of the thread. If you want to use multi-quote you must click on each post that you want to quote, you can quote quite a few, it will pick up each post you click on using multi-quote and you would then hit "reply to thread" rather than the quick reply options, it will drop in the quotes in the order you selected them using multi-quote.
 
Still nothing substantive to say, huh?

DamnYankee said:
Actually, the burden of proof is on you to prove your internet poll is scientific, not mine to prove it ain't.
Click to expand...

Not quite. You are the one who said - without checking out the methodology - that it was unscientific....despite it being conducted in conjunction with Stanford University, Univ of Michigan and GfK, a professional survey company.

Up to now, you have made it clear that that you have no intention, and perhaps - remains to be seen - no capacity, for a substantive response, BUT for the benefit of others who might be observing this conversation, I will post a link which includes on page 5 a brief description of the the methodology.

All data were collected by GfK from representative probability samples of American adults who were recruited via mail and telephone to complete questionnaires regularly via the Internet....

...All three surveys’ data were weighted to match Current Population Survey statistics on all American adults at the time of each data collection.
Click to expand...

http://comm.stanford.edu/faculty/krosnick/docs/2012/2012 Voting and Racism.pdf

This caught my eye in another section:
Using a multinomial logistic regression with the same set of predictors...
Click to expand...
Sounds pretty scientific, huh?

Now,....don't go moving the goal posts, OK?

So, the survey was conducted in accordance with scientific sampling procedures.
Now you say what about the findings re: nearly 8 out of 10 Republicans expressing explicit anti-Black sentiments?

BTW:
We note that you have not substantiated your claim that on-line surveys are anti-Republican.

Nor, we note, have you addressed the substance of Lee Atwater's comments about Republican strategy. Your dismissive comment that he, a major strategist and former RNC Chair, was simply "observing" what happened does not even pass the laugh test.

Nor have you responded to the fact that your article from the Claremont Institute was published prior to Atwater's and Mehlman's comments - both RNC Chairs. That article also, if I recall correctly, ignored Kevin Philips first hand testimony.

You didn't even believe enough in that article to engage in a discussion of it after I told you that it had serious flaws.

The list goes on, but that's enough for now.
:cool:
 
Thanks very much, Damocles.

That's a good rationale. I've hated other boards where what you describe happens. The format of JPP is absolutely one of the best I've seen.
:cool:
 
DamnYankee said:
To the uneducated maybe. To me it sounds like typical language used in a statistical analysis, "tweaking" the data to fit the expected...
Click to expand...

Do you realize how silly you sound? Guess not.

Once again you dodge and dance because your point has been completely refuted by the info I posted regarding the sampling.
Instead of addressing the real point, you try to make a cute comment about a throw away line. Typical of those whose logic is warped by partisanship and who are allergic to facts.

So, you are confronted with facts that you cannot refute leading to conclusions you cannot deny with either facts or logic. O0

Hope you enjoy hanging out with your fellow partisans who, as reflected by the survey at 79%, are predominantly composed of those who, given the anonymity of the Internet, express anti-Black sentiments. It is their party which you seek to advance.

And it is noted that you STILL have not addressed the other topics I mentioned.

Have a nice day.
:cool:
 
Barracuda said:
...given the anonymity of the Internet...
Click to expand...
Therein lies the problem with that survey, as I stated previously: because of folks like legion with a deep hatred of Republicans, no qualms about representing themselves as a different person and plenty of time on their hands. :nono:
 
Barracuda said:
Do you realize how silly you sound? Guess not.

Once again you dodge and dance because your point has been completely refuted by the info I posted regarding the sampling.
Instead of addressing the real point, you try to make a cute comment about a throw away line. Typical of those whose logic is warped by partisanship and who are allergic to facts.

So, you are confronted with facts that you cannot refute leading to conclusions you cannot deny with either facts or logic. O0

Hope you enjoy hanging out with your fellow partisans who, as reflected by the survey at 79%, are predominantly composed of those who, given the anonymity of the Internet, express anti-Black sentiments. It is their party which you seek to advance.

And it is noted that you STILL have not addressed the other topics I mentioned.

Have a nice day.
:cool:
Click to expand...


Hey Damn Yankee, watch out this Barracuda has a lot of teeth.

Hey Barracuda, welcome to the pond, eat as much as you like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top