Nazis and KKK get laughed at...

[Barracuda]

Reiteration is NOT Evidence

Originally Posted by Barracuda
...given the anonymity of the Internet...

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.

What you stated previously was totally INCORRECT. You were speaking about the sample not being representative and you still apparently are. However, the methodology that I shared with you shows your error:

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.

DamnYankee, I can not read or comprehend it FOR you, nor can I MAKE you read or comprehend such a clear statement that completely demolishes your "argument." But everyone else here can see that you are trying to BS your way thru this conversation.

It is hilarious to me that you responded to six words lifted out of this:

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.

without addressing the essence of the statement. One thing I know: that number will be bouncing around in your head during the next Repub meetings you attend - assuming for the moment that you aren't just an Internet "Republican activist."

These respondents were scientifically selected. Your unexplained but obvious premise rests on the flawed idea that a bunch of folks unknown to each other and living in different parts of the country were conspiring to affect the outcome of a survey, among many they are completing, in order to slam Repubs.

Got paranoia?

You are employing this far-fetched explanation because you cannot accept the findings. Pure and simple. No other reason. That's why you are stretching sooooooooo far for some way to discredit the results.

Then, of course, you repeat your shibboleth about people on-line having "a deep hatred of Republicans" without presenting an ounce of evidence for that assertion. But then....that unsubstantiated assertion has nothing to do - in any case - with our conversation about this survey.

My reference to anonymity was related to sociologists' findings that people seem more willing to be honest about sensitive matters when not in the physical presence of a pollster. In a similar way, sociologists have found that respondents respond differently (presumably more honestly), for example, on questions about "race relations" when the pollster is of the same race as they are.

Your use of anonymity is apparently in the context of self-selected respondents to an on-line poll on something like MSNBC.com, FoxNews.com, RedState.com, Huffpost.com or NationalReview.com, etc. where there is no attempt to scientifically select the sample and where the readership is expected to be non-representative.

N.B. You still have not offered a substantive comment on any of the subjects that I mentioned, particularly the evidence concerning the racial component of the Repubs Southern Strategy or even the Claremont Institute article YOU posted.

 

[DamnYankee]

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

Lots of yap maybe.

 

[DamnYankee]

This is hilarious. From your link:

Explicit racial attitudes were gauged using questions designed to measure “Symbolic Racism” (Henry & Sears, 2002). The questions, averaged into a single index, were:
“Irish, Italians, Jewish1, and other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Blacks should do the same without special favors.” (Coding: Strongly disagree = 0, Somewhat disagree = .25, Neither agree nor disagree = .50, Somewhat agree = .75, Strongly agree = 1).

So anyone who agrees with that is a racist.

 

[Barracuda]

This is hilarious. From your link: So anyone who agrees with that is a racist.

Well, finally, at least you have read something even if it iS AFTER you criticized it!!!

And, NO, the answer to your question is no.

 

[DamnYankee]

No to what question?

 

[Barracuda]

I thought this from you was a question"
So anyone who agrees with that is a racist.

 

[DamnYankee]

That was a statement based on reading the report. Since that is the premise, and it's obviously false, your argument is hereby declared as fail.

 

[Barracuda]

Yeah, right.

But apparently, that's the best you can do.

 

[Haiku]

Hey Barracuda good to see you again!

 

[NOVA]

David Ernest Duke is a former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan an American activist and writer, and former Republican Louisiana State Representative.

Robert Carlyle Byrd was "Exalted Cyclops" of the Ku Klux Klan and revered Democratic U.S. Representative from 1953 until 1959 and as a Democratic U.S. Senator from 1959 to 2010
secretary of the Senate Democratic Caucus from 1967 to 1971, Senate Democratic Majority Whip from 1971 to 1977, Senate Democratic Majority Leader from 1977 to 1981 and 1987 to 1989, Senate Democratic Minority Leader from 1981 to 1987 and President pro tempore of the United States Senate 1989 to 2010.

Elected and re-elected by Democrats from 1952 until 2010

Famous for his quote,
"I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."—Robert C. Byrd

Now what was your point ?

 

[NOVA]

It's obvious to all, Damn Yankee, that you cannot offer any facts or logic to contradict the information I've posted re: history. You've been challenged and you have failed to rise to it. Noted, but no problem; that's your choice. Like I said, I've seen this movie before with different actors and it almost always ends the same way; deflection, empty reiteration or stumped silence.

But, DamnYankee, I do admit being surprised that you won't even engage on the Claremont Institute article that YOU posted. You know....the one from 2004 that was published before Atwater's comments had been attributed to him. The one that failed to mention Kevin Philips in its efforts to deny the appeal to racial animus and racists. And before Mehlman apologized for racial pandering. In other words, THAT article is severely OUTDATED.

Oh,...I get it.......perhaps you don't want to give it any attention because, like the Black Republican I quoted, "ALL" the author of the CI article did was read a book(s). Now it makes sense!

Since you choose not to engage on the 20th century history, DamnYankee, let's see how you do with Current Events.

I see that the recently released Associated Press Survey was discussed at JPP previous to me first finding JPP while searching for something else. But there's one VERY significant aspect of the results which is relevant IMO to this discussion about the Repub Southern Strategy. Scanning that previous discussion, I didn't see this particular aspect (Party affiliations) addressed, nor did you comment (just a fact; not a judgment; you may not have even seen it).

AP On-Line Survey: 79% of Repubs and 32% of Dems Express Explicit Anti-Black Sentiments
Also, some Anti-Latino Sentiments expressed as well.
About equal on Implicit measures.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-10-27-04-13-34

On the explicit measure that means that two and half times (246%) as many Repubs as Dems express anti-Black sentiments. To me this is UNsurprising given the decades long Repub Southern Strategy, which was in part an appeal to racial resentments. The Repubs have reaped what they have sowed. When Kevin Philips told Repubs they could win with just a small fraction of the Black vote, he apparently did not own a color TV and could not see the growing Brown demographic nor did he realize that many, many whites would be alienated by such racist pandering.

Assuming, DY, that you attend Repub gatherings, it means (in a statistical sense) on average that just about 8 out of 10 of Repubs you are interacting with, would express anti-Black sentiments in a similar setting (on-line). I bet that gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling.

No number of opinion pieces, fallacious logic or attempts by hyper-partisan apologists can deny the existence of the Repub Southern Strategy, or its ugly race-baiting, in the face of the first person accounts of those who helped design and implement the RSS. Nor will apparently those pitiful attempts to deny reality be defended by you. At least THAT is good.

I'll bet it would be interesting to see the questions that were asked to arrive at those stats.....
Like a previous black poster once said in all seriousness..."If its the truth, it ain't racism".......Do you believe that to be true....?
How about,
"There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved. . . .Jesse Jackson

Just imagine if a white had uttered these very same words..... he would be labeled a racist in a heartbeat....

Consider some the noteworthy Afr. Amer. that hold Conservative political views, are they really racists ?....They are sure vilified by their black Brothers and Sisters, over
politics....

 

[Barracuda]

Bravo,
Once again someone brings up Byrd in contrast to Duke.
From earlier in this thread since you may have missed it........

Damocles said (re: David Duke):

Who lost miserably when it was revealed and garnered even less support when he tried to put his name in the hat for President... The republicans appear to be unwilling to accept, "Whoops I didn't really mean it back then" as a good excuse.

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 [do] 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.


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

In a 2006 editorial, Gideon Rachman (The Economist, the Financial Times) recalled interviewing Duke's campaign manager (from his 1990 campaign)who said, "The Jews just aren't a big issue in Louisiana. We keep telling David, stick to attacking the blacks. There's no point in going after the Jews, you just piss them off and nobody here cares about them anyway."

 

[Barracuda]

Some of the questions are there at one of the links I provided, but not all.
You mean noteworthy African Americans like Colin Powell, who was attacked by members of his own Republican Party for endorsing Obama ONLY because he is Black.

Certainly there are attacks from both sides which are childish and that IMO includes some of the things said about Black Conservatives. But, hey, I've been debating - if you can call it that - with several Black Conservatives (often they are just Republican partisans when you get down to it) and I've found a consistent unwillingness to actually engage on the issues by them.

I came across this site by accident looking for something and have once again been disappointed that the one apparent Black Conservative seems to be cut from the same cloth.

Bravo, you DO have a point about Jackson's words coming out of a white person's mouth being labeled or strongly suspected as being racist. Jackson will receive the benefit of the doubt because of his work on behalf of Black people. A white person who is a strong advocate against racism and/or a crusader for civil rights, who said the same thing would be given a benefit of the doubt if they said the same thing. Where you see hypocrisy, I and others might see the "pain" in Jackson's statement as the most relevant aspect of the statement. Do you see the significance of that phrasing in Jackson's comment?

What I often observe is that some folks use such comments or perceived hypocrisy to minimize or deny the existence of racism. Just as some question (it seems because they cannot accept the findings as accurate) the motives or the methodology of the study I shared for the same purpose. None of us can walk in the other's shoes, so it is difficult to transcend our own experiences to get a real feel for the experience of others. Consequently, it is understandable that whites - who live their lives pretty much oblivious to covert racism around them - question the validity of the Blacks' experiences. It takes a real effort to break down such long-standing barriers to understanding each other because their is mutual distrust and sometimes anxiety. Few people are willing or able to put forth that effort.

 

[Haiku]

Very well said, Thank You!

 

[DamnYankee]

I'll bet it would be interesting to see the questions that were asked to arrive at those stats.....
Like a previous black poster once said in all seriousness..."If its the truth, it ain't racism".......Do you believe that to be true....?
.

From my ealier post:

Explicit racial attitudes were gauged using questions designed to measure “Symbolic Racism” (Henry & Sears, 2002). The questions, averaged into a single index, were:
“Irish, Italians, Jewish1, and other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Blacks should do the same without special favors.” (Coding: Strongly disagree = 0, Somewhat disagree = .25, Neither agree nor disagree = .50, Somewhat agree = .75, Strongly agree = 1).

In other words, if you believe blacks should be treated no differently than any other ethnic group, then you are racist.

 

[Barracuda]

DamnYankee,

First you said that an on-line poll was unreliable.
Of course, this was not an on-line poll in that sense, but you didn't take care or time to check before criticizing.

Then you refused to acknowledge you were incorrect about that and alleged without a scintilla of evidence that respondents to surveys have “a deep hatred of Republicans.”
You continued to argue this point – without any evidence and while trying to shift the burden to me to prove that such folks do NOT have such a hatred!! THAT was a hoot!!! – despite it being totally irrelevant to the study in question.

You then took “anonymity” out of context in order to make another fallacious argument.

As I said: "You are employing this far-fetched explanation because you cannot accept the findings. Pure and simple. No other reason. That's why you are stretching sooooooooo far for some way to discredit the results."

Finally,...........you get around to actually reading a little bit of what you had been criticizing, but you cherry pick a question.

And YOU have the nerve to question the science behind the survey. Hilarious!!

What a guy!! Dude, you should do Stand Up!!

And, STILL:

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.

 

[DamnYankee]

On-line polls are unreliable for the reason stated, there are plenty of folk with too much time on their hands and a deep seated hatred of Republicans. You are a case in point, along with many others here on this forum.

I didn't cherry pick the question, I quoted the very first question in the survey. Republicans tend to think that people should be treated the same regardless of their ethnicity, and their answers reflect that. Yet that answer is seen as racist in your poll. It's complete bullshit and you can't admit that, since it destroys your argument.

Quote the second question and I'll destroy your argument further.

 

[Barracuda]

On-line polls are unreliable for the reason stated, there are plenty of folk with too much time on their hands and a deep seated hatred of Republicans. You are a case in point, along with many others here on this forum.

I didn't cherry pick the question, I quoted the very first question in the survey. Republicans tend to think that people should be treated the same regardless of their ethnicity, and their answers reflect that. Yet that answer is seen as racist in your poll. It's complete bullshit and you can't admit that, since it destroys your argument.

Quote the second question and I'll destroy your argument further.

Since your continued criticism of on-line polls has NOTHING to do with this poll, we must assume either you are too dense to understand that or simply want to pretend otherwise.

Next, you have nothing but your own paranoia re: "deep-seated hatred" of Repubs. Also, I "LOVED" the Radical Republicans of the pre-Civil War period (particularly in contrast to the racist and cowardly Dems of that error and later) and those Moderate Republicans of the 1950's and 1960's and 1970's. Too bad in more recent years, others like them have been primaried out of office and nowadays people like Jeb Bush talk out loud about how even Reagan would have a hard time being considered Conservative enough by your current GOP bunch.

Finally, after I have put many items on the table for discussion with you and you have refused to engage in substantive discussion of them, please break down for me why I should respond to something you now put on the table. There will be no line jumping.

The only thing you have destroyed in this thread is your own credibility. But at least you are entertaining while you do it.........

 

[DamnYankee]

Republicans (then and now- nothing has changed) tend to think that people should be treated the same regardless of their ethnicity, and their answers in your touted poll reflect that. Yet those answers are seen as racist in your poll. It's complete bullshit and you can't admit that, since it destroys your argument.

 

[Barracuda]

Republicans (then and now- nothing has changed) tend to think that people should be treated the same regardless of their ethnicity, and their answers in your touted poll reflect that. Yet those answers are seen as racist in your poll. It's complete bullshit and you can't admit that, since it destroys your argument.

Nothing has changed? On what planet do you spend most of YOUR time?