RE: Anti-Family-Planners *DO* miss the good old Slave days...

RE: Anti-Family-Planners *DO* miss the good old Slave days... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

farglebargle -> RE: Anti-Family-Planners DO* miss the good old Slave days...* (4/9/2012 6:03:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama I disagree with your conclusion. I believe the higher rate of interracial marriage in the South is due to demographics: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmcensus1.html 38% Percent of Mississippi's total population that was black in 2010. Mississippi led the nation in this category followed by Louisiana (33 percent), Georgia (32 percent), Maryland (31 percent), South Carolina (29 percent) and Alabama (27 percent). Yeah, I gotta call bullshit on this crazy-talk, too.

Edwynn -> RE: Anti-Family-Planners DO* miss the good old Slave days...* (4/9/2012 6:15:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn Try reading this again: quote: This assessment is, of course, fully congruent with the geist of the OP, and should be taken with commensurate consideration. Then again, you apparently agree that asking 400 rural white Republicans what they think about interracial marriage is conducive to arriving at the OP's conclusion, one which you share, being as that you had no objection to it. Actually, the hypothesis itself if founded upon objective analysis of policy goals of Anti-Family-Planners, and since their position is predicated upon the belief that the contents of a woman's body aren't in fact, "Her Property" If in their eyes, it's not HER property, then it must be theirs, or The States, or their gods'... If that ain't chattel slavery, what is? The linked study just confirms the hypothesis. One more data point proving the theory. As incoherent and logically incomprehensible as all that was, there is nothing the least bit scientific about an opinion poll, nor does it in any way constitute a "study." The first chapter in a statistics 101 class uses opinion polls as example of "How to sample badly." I was being intentionally fatuous in my 'conclusion,' nevertheless based on actual data, as remonstrance to your unintentionally being fatuous in using a purpose-targeted opinion poll in yet another laughable attempt to 'prove' your anachronistic notions. I called bull shit, no surprise you don't get it.

kalikshama -> RE: Anti-Family-Planners DO* miss the good old Slave days...* (4/9/2012 6:20:06 AM)
quote: Then again, you apparently agree that asking 400 rural white Republicans what they think about interracial marriage is conducive to arriving a proper conclusion regarding the entire state, one which you share with the OP, being as that you had no objection to it, but rather attempted to fortify it with an even more bizarre effort. Unless I take a stance, please don't assume a stance. I was free-associating, not fortifying. For the record, I don't conflate being against interracial marriage with wishing for a return to slavery. Here's a newer poll of more voters: Poll: Obama's a Muslim to many GOP voters in Alabama, Mississippi March 12, 2012 Reporting from Washington — After years of battling false claims and viral emails alleging that he is a Muslim, President Obama hasn’t gotten far among Republican voters in Alabama and Mississippi – about half still believe he is Muslim and about 1 in 4 believes his parents’ interracial marriage should have been illegal, a new poll shows. The automated survey by Public Policy Polling, conducted over the weekend in advance of Tuesday’s GOP primaries in both states, showed Republicans Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich locked in a three-way battle for votes. But in an indication of where the two states fall on the political spectrum, the polls also found continued skepticism among Republicans about Obama’s religion and that a substantial number of GOP voters continue to believe interracial marriage should be illegal. The poll of Mississippi Republicans found that 52% said they believed Obama is a Muslim, 36% weren’t sure and only 12% said they believed he is a Christian. He fared slightly better in Alabama, where 45% said he is a Muslim, 41% weren’t sure, and 14% said he is a Christian. Recalling his childhood, Obama has said his family did not go to church every week, but said his faith grew as he got older and that his Christian beliefs have guided his career in public service. Various anti-Obama activist groups have repeatedly sought to perpetuate the myth that he is a “secret Muslim,” and with some success. A University of Georgia poll conducted during the 2008 presidential campaign showed that, despite great efforts by Obama and his team to refute the claim, a persistent 20% of Americans continued to believe he was a Muslim. Obama is the son of a white mother and a black father, a marriage that remains objectionable to many Republican voters in two of the last states forced by the Supreme Court to allow interracial marriage. A 1967 court ruling on the case of a Virginia couple struck down laws against interracial marriage still on the books in 16 states, including Mississippi and Alabama. A few states, including Alabama, kept the laws even though they could no longer be enforced. Alabama finally repealed its law in 2000 through a public referendum, though 40% of the electorate voted in favor of keeping interracial marriage illegal. The PPP poll released Monday showed some changes, with 67% of Alabama Republicans saying they believe interracial marriage should be legal, though 21% said it still should be against the law. In Mississippi, 54% said it should be allowed, while 29% said it should remain illegal. The preferred Republican candidate of those opposed to interracial marriage? Newt Gingrich. In Mississippi, Gingrich led Romney among that group 40% to 27%, and held a 38%-27% advantage in Alabama. The PPP poll used automated telephone interviews on March 10-11 to survey 1,256 likely Republican voters in Mississippi and Alabama. Such surveys are not considered as reliable as live interviews because they are automated and cannot make use of mobile telephone numbers. The poll sampling error for Mississippi is 3.8% and for Alabama is 4%.

Edwynn -> RE: Anti-Family-Planners DO* miss the good old Slave days...* (4/9/2012 6:27:22 AM)
Sorry, didn't mean to accuse you of such a stance. I must have been confused that the OP and its flimsy premise being full of holes and clearly skewed was answered with 'free association' while the post containing factual data was challenged immediately. I don't how I could have made such a mistake. Again, asking people what they think in an opinion poll is one thing, looking at what people actually do and what they say in everyday life gives far better indication of reality.

kalikshama -> RE: Anti-Family-Planners DO* miss the good old Slave days...* (4/9/2012 7:00:24 AM)
It was such a flimsy premise it was not worth challenging. Yours had more meat.

kalikshama -> RE: Anti-Family-Planners DO* miss the good old Slave days...* (4/9/2012 7:07:27 AM)
quote: Again, asking people what they think in an opinion poll is one thing, looking at what people actually do and what they say in everyday life gives far better indication of reality. OKCupid agrees. The Big Lies People Tell In Online Dating "I'm bisexual." REALITY: 80% of self-identified bisexuals are only interested in one gender. OkCupid is a gay- and bi-friendly place and it's not our intention here to call into question anyone's sexual identity. But when we looked into messaging trends by sexuality, we were very surprised at what we found. People who describe themselves as bisexual overwhelmingly message either one sex or the other, not both as you might expect. Site-wide, here's how it breaks out: [image]http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/lies/WhoBisexualsMessagePie2.png[/image] This suggests that bisexuality is often either a hedge for gay people or a label adopted by straights to appear more sexually adventurous to their (straight) matches. You can actually see these trends in action in the chart below. Again, this is just the data we've collected. We'd be very interested in our bisexual users' thoughts on this single-sex-messaging phenomenon, so if you'd like to weigh-in please use the comments section. Please note, everybody, that we don’t assume that bis should be “into both genders equally.” We only assume that they should be into both genders at all. The swaths of red and blue that you see in these sexuality charts represent people who message only one gender. The purple areas are people who send any messages, in whatever proportion, to both men and women. [image]http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/lies/BiWomenMessaging.png[/image] 12% of women under 35 on OkCupid (and the internet in general, I'd wager) self-identify as bi. However, as you can see above, only about 1 in 4 of those women is actually into both guys and girls at the same time. I know this will come as a big letdown to the straight male browsing population: three-fourths of your fantasies are, in fact, fantasies of a fantasy. Like bi men, most bi women are, for whatever reason, not observably bi. The primacy of America's most popular threesome, two dudes and an Xbox, is safe. Full article: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-biggest-lies-in-online-dating/

Edwynn -> RE: Anti-Family-Planners DO* miss the good old Slave days...* (4/9/2012 7:44:09 AM)
(Answering your post previous to the above) I live here; your giving me the stats on how many black people live in the South was funny. I almost responded with "hold on a sec, I'll dig out the stats on how much snow there is in the Northeast, BRB." My county is in fact 56% black. Seriously though, of course I know that the greater opportunity for b/w marriage exists in the South far more than elsewhere for that reason. And of course I know that you don't share the OP's intense spite for poor people, especially poor white people, of which along with poor black people there are again far greater number in the South. The numbers you provided regarding black population in the region should be displayed in front of every rant about "your state(s) take more money than you put in to the Treasury, we should cut you off! Blah Blah!" These from the same people who argue for a safety net, but nevertheless would yank it from the region in a heartbeat if they had the chance. All because of whatever idiotic thing some portion of poor white folks say, or in angry and rabid retribution for voting even 50.1% Republican, and tough tacos for the other 49%, they're ALL racists, ignorant, etc. Poor people in any region of whatever race do not say the most erudite things. I think that it's obvious that the ranters have not had much firsthand experience with really poor people of whatever sort. More over, I get the feeling they don't want to. It's just too much fun being a bigoted asshole. And getting back to the matter of what people actually are vs. what they say they are; whatever motivations some might have in their ostentatious display of concern for the plight of (some) poor people, for women's rights, for reproductive rights, etc., it is clear that a genuine sense of compassion would not be among them.

SoftBonds -> RE: Anti-Family-Planners DO* miss the good old Slave days...* (4/9/2012 9:15:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn (Answering your post previous to the above) I live here; your giving me the stats on how many black people live in the South was funny. I almost responded with "hold on a sec, I'll dig out the stats on how much snow there is in the Northeast, BRB." My county is in fact 56% black. Seriously though, of course I know that the greater opportunity for b/w marriage exists in the South far more than elsewhere for that reason. And of course I know that you don't share the OP's intense spite for poor people, especially poor white people, of which along with poor black people there are again far greater number in the South. The numbers you provided regarding black population in the region should be displayed in front of every rant about "your state(s) take more money than you put in to the Treasury, we should cut you off! Blah Blah!" These from the same people who argue for a safety net, but nevertheless would yank it from the region in a heartbeat if they had the chance. All because of whatever idiotic thing some portion of poor white folks say, or in angry and rabid retribution for voting even 50.1% Republican, and tough tacos for the other 49%, they're ALL racists, ignorant, etc. Poor people in any region of whatever race do not say the most erudite things. I think that it's obvious that the ranters have not had much firsthand experience with really poor people of whatever sort. More over, I get the feeling they don't want to. It's just too much fun being a bigoted asshole. If a group of people rants about lowering taxes and big government, shouldn't the people who pay most of the taxes be able to cut that group off? We are not talking about voting 50.1% republican, we are talking about selecting only those Republicans who favor lowering taxes and social services, and attacking rights that the folks who pay for the social services hold dear, and then voting for them and sending them to take our rights away and cut social services to our states. So sorry if I want to tell your states to go fuck themselves their own way, and our states can do the same. That you depend on us to pay for your wars and silliness, and then complain about where OUR tax money goes means we have some right to that opinion. Come back to me when your state pays as much into the Federal Government as it gets back...

Edwynn -> RE: Anti-Family-Planners DO* miss the good old Slave days...* (4/9/2012 11:44:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds If a group of people rants about lowering taxes and big government, shouldn't the people who pay most of the taxes be able to cut that group off? *We are not talking about voting 50.1% republican* (of course you're not), *we are talking about selecting only those Republicans* (we shall see ... ) *who favor lowering taxes and social services,* and attacking rights that the folks who pay for the social services hold dear, and then voting for them and sending them to take our rights away and cut social services to our states. So sorry if I want to tell your states (yes, that fine sense of careful selection you referred to earlier, right?) *to go fuck themselves their own way, (well, we didn't see that* coming, did we class?) and our states can do the same. That you(?) depend on us(?) to pay for your(?) wars and silliness, and then complain about where OUR tax money goes means we have some right to that (mangled gibberish that we call;) opinion. Come back to me when your state pays as much into the Federal Government as it gets back... Thanks for making the point so perfectly. For the record, I do not depend on you for a damn thing. I did not vote Nixon for governor of your state or for president, nor did I vote Reagan governor of your state or for president, so your attempt to pin *your* *state's* contribution to the current state of demise on me is lauged at and summarily rejected. Get back to me when you (just you) have overcome your dull-wittedness sufficiently enough to understand and actually comprehend the relevant prior posts as to be capable of seeing the blatant contradiction in your whole premise generally (as pointed out and well explained in those posts) and the contorted dialectical train wreck above in particular. And no, you can't skate by talking about your whole state and how they voted; you have to find a way to do it all by yourself with out your blue security blanket this time. quote: Come back to me when your state pays as much into the Federal Government as it gets back... There is NO state that pays Federal taxes surplus to what they receive from the Federal government. So yeah, get back to us (other 'us', don't come to me, please) when your state pays as much to the Federal government as it gets back.

Edwynn -> RE: Anti-Family-Planners DO* miss the good old Slave days...* (4/9/2012 1:04:41 PM)
PS Error correction: I meant to say; Nixon as Representative and Senator from CA, not governor. In any event when the time came, I voted for the governor of my state for president, twice, not the governor of your state. But unfortunately, and as it turns out disastrously, the Governor of CA won the second time around and the country, and to significant extent the world, has suffered ever since.

xssve -> RE: Anti-Family-Planners DO* miss the good old Slave days...* (4/9/2012 9:13:39 PM)
Uh, except that I don't think even confirmed bi's double date, i.e., if they already have a GF or a BF on the side, chances are good they're looking for a partner of the other gender. Bi just means you can enjoy doing it with the same sex, not that you want to do it all the time, and if you want to do it with the same sex all the time, you're probably gay.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.296875E-02