Civility
Don Quixote on Aug 05 2011 at 4:56 am | Filed under: Uncategorized
Old Buckeye posted the following comment: “Aren’t ridicule and belittling supposed to be in the playbook of the ‘rules for radicals?’ I think I’m going to adopt a similar stance when speaking to people I know who voted for him the first time. Say things such as ‘I can’t believe that anyone who doesn’t have their head up their b*tt would vote for the clown.’ In my estimation, conservatives tend to be too civil when it counts. The GOP, for instance, has never learned when civility should be abandoned for fighting fire with fire or rhetoric with rhetoric.”
I understand the feeling. Despite their often mean-spiritedness, liberals are viewed as “nice” people” who are for the little guy. Understandably, conservatives want to be viewed as “nice,” too. We want to be viewed as for the little guy, too. All too often that leads us to compromise our principles. We become like John McCain, trying to go along to get along, never quite understanding that we are the only ones compromising, the other side is not. We apologize for being conservative.
We must be much more firm in our convictions. We must not negotiate against ourselves or give in just to be seen as cooperative or nice guys. It is more important that people accept that we are right than that people like us.
But we should do so in a civil manner. Indeed, we must do so in a civil manner. In opposition to the uncivil, name-calling, intellectually-immature, ranting children on the left we must present the picture of reasonable, thoughtful, principled adults on the right. We are at war for the soul of America. We can only win the war by appealing to the best that is in every American. And we don’t do that by getting down in the gutter and slinging mud with folks who think a sound intellectual argument is to call someone a big fat idiot. We do it by providing a contrast, an alternative. We win by inspiring people, by asking, and getting, more from them than the leftists do. More hard work, more sacrifice, more maturity, more decency. A key part of inspiring others is serving as role models. We must work harder, sacrifice more, act more mature and be more decent than the leftists if we are to inspire the average American to do so. Americans don’t want more abusive rhetoric. Americans want leaders. We need to provide them.
Related posts:
Email This Post To A Friend
140 Responses to “Civility”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I think the conservatives that do this best are the happy warriors like Sarah Palin & Andrew Breitbart. They can mock Liberals with a smile, which is much more effective than the overheated rhetoric and ugliness we see from the Left. Palin’s response to the “Tea Partiers are terroristss!” was perfect.
I probably proved myself a real troglodyte with my remark, but I think DQ got to the point of my rant when he said, We must be much more firm in our convictions. We must not negotiate against ourselves or give in just to be seen as cooperative or nice guys. It is more important that people accept that we are right than that people like us. How many times do we hear “our side” backpedal to apologize for saying something that is the truth? It makes us look like mealy-mouthed fence-sitters with no convictions. You don’t have to be a great orator to speak the truth and to claim the rhetoric.
Don Quixote: In my estimation, conservatives tend to be too civil when it counts.
Heh, heh.
The GOP Special Victims Unit
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-blasts-fox-news-for-playing-the-victim-card-through-nonstop-liberal-bashing/
(starts about 4:40 into the video)
Z- group, do you think just this once, you could stick to elected officials, who speak for their party and not television personalities, who do not dictate policy.
Conservatives also need to recognize the Leftists (like Zach the pinhead) aren’t just clueless or misguided; they are acting and speaking way they do, fully cognizant of their agenda and very purposefully!
So, fellow Conservatives, get over the “hail-fellow-well-met” nicey-nice and in full humor, sternly rebuke these marxist clowns when they do pull their Alinsky tactics and call them out on it! We need to expose and make “ALINSKY” a reviled word! The stakes are far too high to allow the Left seize the moral high ground!
Don’t know Saul Alinsky? Can you spell G-o-o-g-l-e and learn? He is the original community organizer and a favorite of BHO, as well as the likes of Hillary P-I-P, who wrote her senior thesis at Wellesley on Alinsky and his tactics.
It is useless and self defeating to even attempt to be civil to a “gang of grisly guttersnipes who seek to work their wicked will” (credit to Churchill).
Earl T: sternly rebuke these marxist clowns when they do pull their Alinsky tactics and call them out on it!
“Marxist!” (You’re not an elected official, are you?)
Caped Crusader: It is useless and self defeating to even attempt to be civil to a “gang of grisly guttersnipes who seek to work their wicked will” (credit to Churchill).
“Hitler!” (You’re not an elected official, are you?)
SADIE: Z- group, do you think just this once, you could stick to elected officials, who speak for their party and not television personalities, who do not dictate policy.
So, you don’t consider Glenn Beck to be an influential political figure with the Tea Party movement?
In any case, twisting an initiative to provide funding for end-of-life counseling (an important issue for the elderly) into death panels, going on for months about whether or not Obama was really an American, shouting out “You lie!” when Obama is speaking, or saying that the President doesn’t believe in the Constitution, or he’s a socialist or has mixed loyalties, are less than, shall we say, civil.
The problem is that the Alinsky methods are – for the most part – counter to the acceptable behavior standards of most right-wingers.
One of the most used is the “make them live by their own rules” one – which of course, does not bind them. (because they have no rules – other than whatever works to put them in complete power)
I have a link to info on “Rules for Radicals”, but I’ll have to dig it out. Later…
Thank God, as an elderly person, Zach has my back! Until he came along, I didn’t realize that having a government official talk to me about how I am going to die was so important! (“In any case, twisting an initiative to provide funding for end-of-life counseling (an important issue for the elderly) into death panels.”)
Just one little question from this elderly man: Why would I need somebody paid by the government to assist my plans for dying? Isn’t dying a personal thing, like where I put my genitals? The only thing an official can tell me is whether he thinks my plan for dying makes sense—or costs too much. See, it’s patently obvious that the official’s duty is to make sure I don’t waste a socialized resource, medicine. he has no other stake in the affair.
Now where Zach comes from, folks are probably forbidden to use the word “rationing.” But those panels of earnest, concerned, compassionate bureaucrats will, indeed, be rationers. And when you’re talking about rationing life-saving medicines or therapies, you are, also indeed, talking about death panels.
Let’s take these in turn, Zach: “In any case, twisting an initiative to provide funding for end-of-life counseling (an important issue for the elderly) into death panels, going on for months about whether or not Obama was really an American, shouting out “You lie!” when Obama is speaking, or saying that the President doesn’t believe in the Constitution, or he’s a socialist or has mixed loyalties, are less than, shall we say, civil.”
If the panels recommend death, as the speakers obviously believe that they will (and I tend to agree) then “death panel” is a perfectly appropriate term for them. It is certainly more civil than oh, say, calling all businessmen and those who support them greedy and against the average American.
There was a legitimate question as to whether Obama was born in America because of the constitutional issue of whether he was qualified to serve as president and the issue of whether he had been truthful with the American public (It’s always the cover-up that gets you. Just ask Nixon and Clinton.). It was not uncivil to ask the question and demand proof of where he was born.
Shouting when a person is speaking is rude, but it is a speciality of the left and used far more against conservative speakers than liberal ones. Still, you are right. It should not be used at all by either side.
Statements that the President doesn’t believe in the Constitution, that he is a socialist and that he has mixed loyalties can all be made civilly and all have been made civilly. Anyone who chooses Rev. Wright as his Pastor for 20+ years and has Bill Ayers ghostwrite his book invites such questions. Anyone whose wife says during the campaign that she is proud of her country for the first time in her life has to make one at least wonder about mixed loyalties. Certainly, there is far more evidence for all those charges than, say, for the charges that Tea Party members are racists.
Would we do better to focus on issues rather than labels? Absolutely, and that would be the more civil way to approach matters.
Yes, conservatives do fall into the trap of using labels as shorthand criticisms. But they do not do so nearly as often as liberals do and they do not do so nearly as often with the malevolent intent that liberals do. When I state that Obama, Reid and Pelosi are extreme leftists I believe that to be true and there is certainly plenty of evidence of that. When the leftist say the Tea Party members are racists, they know darn well that is not true; they are using the false label in an attempt to defame and intimidate. That’s a pretty significant difference.
Civility breeds nothing. How many times do we need that proved?
Well, jj, except maybe to win votes. Worked pretty well for Reagan.
Charles Martel: Until he came along, I didn’t realize that having a government official talk to me about how I am going to die was so important!
Not a government official, but your own doctor. End of life counseling, a.k.a. advance care planning, is important to many people, especially those with chronic illnesses, who want to have some control over what treatments will be provided. Not sure why you would want to minimize the importance of this issue.
http://www.compassionandsupport.org/index.php/for_patients_families/advance_care_planning
Don Quixote: There was a legitimate question as to whether Obama was born in America
No there wasn’t.
It isn’t a question of whether he was born in America – he isn’t a “natural born citizen” by definition.
His father was a British citizen, and Obama was thereby, a dual citizen which is by definition _not_ a natural born citizen eligible for the Presidency. For citizenship, yes. For the office of President, no.
But don’t let a little thing like the Constitution get in the way…
“Not a government official, but your own doctor.”
Goodness, how did I miss that? Here I was thinking that under Obamacare, my doctor would be a virtual government employee. Thanks for clearing that up, Zach.
I am in vacation therapy right now, after a particularly grueling exercise in income generation, so short answers:
DQ – perfectly said, with one exception: I have found that the percentage of Liberals /Lefties that are truly “nice” is a tiny subset of the group. Now, if you meant those Liberals that think of themselves as being “nice”, ….yes, that would be the very large majority.
Re. Lefty associations of Glenn Beck’s discourses as “hate speech” (Alinsky: “use mockery”, “marginalize”), I’ve noticed that the Lefty definition of hate speech is anything that disagrees with their ideology.
Re. Zach’s “Hitler” response to the Churchill quote, um, actually,…it was Marxists, socialists of which Churchill was speaking: here’s more, “I yield to no one in my detestation of Bolshevism, and of the revolutionary violence which precedes it. … But my hatred of Bolshevism and Bolsheviks is not founded on their silly system of economics, or their absurd doctrine of an impossible equality.” But, then, as we have pointed out repeatedly on this blog…even if one poster doesn’t get it…Marxists, Bolsheviks, Socialists, Nazis, Progs….same thugs, different gang colors.
Uttering “you lie!” in response to Obama’s utterances is not incivility, it is calling it what it is. “Civility” hardly means papering over bad behavior. Obama’s a pathological liar…much more overt that Bill Clinton ever was. But then, there’s something strangely weird about Democrats/Lefties (but I repeat myself) and their affinities to pathological liars and demagogues…Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Gore, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Wasserman-Schultz, Sharpton, Jackson….
If Obama isn’t a socialist, what is he?
I’ve never understood the left-leaning phobia surrounding that word. Why not own it proudly? Doesn’t the left want central economic planning, redistribution of wealth, and collective ownership of transportation, electric utilities, etc.?
Don’t kid yourself – Reagan sailed serenely above the fray, but he had some pretty good nut-cutters working for him. (Most especially the one whose name I’ve momentarily forgotten, who was killed by cancer very young. Damn! Name is on the tip of my tongue – can’t come to it! Anyway, he was the pit-bull, set the strategy, and took very few prisoners.)
The candidate is generally above it all, and – publicly – ignorant of the knife-work going on around him. He – or she – will generally hew to some form of manners, but that isn’t usually what provides the winning edge. Politics has always been a blood sport, if you doubt that check out the campaign rhetoric from 1860.
jj, Lee Atwater?
Charles Martel: Here I was thinking that under Obamacare, my doctor would be a virtual government employee. Thanks for clearing that up
That’s right. Unlike in Britain, where the government provides health care, or Canada, which is single payer but doctors are private, the U.S. retains private doctors and private insurance. It’s only an incremental change from the previous system, and leaves the U.S. behind other developed countries in terms of controlling health care costs.
suek: It isn’t a question of whether he was born in America – he isn’t a “natural born citizen” by definition.
Apparently, 50 states and the District of Columbia, who put him on their ballots for President, disagreed. Obama was born under the jurisdiction of the United States, so is a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment. The authoritative case is United States vs. Wong Kim Ark.
“The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
Funny that Zach would refer to Great Britain to buttress their health care ideology:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/7908742/Axe-falls-on-NHS-services.html
The U.K. just announced a long list of to-be-rationed operations and other services.
But, never let the real-life facts-on-the-ground get in the way of a good ideological argument, Zach!
suek: It isn’t a question of whether he was born in America – he isn’t a “natural born citizen” by definition.
Zach: Apparently, 50 states and the District of Columbia, who put him on their ballots for President, disagreed.
50 states and the D.C. didn’t really care to check. But then, it would have been so much easier just to release the birth certificate….and the school transcripts, for that matter.
suek,
Think of it this way. If, at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment, citizens were defined as those born only of citizens, then former slaves would not have been citizens, nor their children, nor their children’s children — much less be natural born citizens.
Danny Lemieux: The U.K. just announced a long list of to-be-rationed operations and other services.
All countries ration healthcare, including the United States. Healthcare is comparable in the U.K., but costs half as much as the U.S.
Danny Lemieux: 50 states and the D.C. didn’t really care to check. But then, it would have been so much easier just to release the birth certificate….and the school transcripts, for that matter.
Obama provided the Certificate of Live Birth as issued by the State of Hawaii. That’s the official document.
Charles – yes. Thank you. I don’t know where I filed him, but it’s somewhere to which I’ve evidently misplaced the key.
As has been pointed out here before, the law in 1961 said to be a natural born citizen your parents had to be. In the case where one wasn’t, you weren’t. If one parent was a natural-born citizen and the other wasn’t, you were only a citizen at all (and not a natural-born one, eligible for the presidency) when you went through naturalization. The law reads (it’s on findlaw.com, among other places – go look) that in the case of a non-citizen and a citizen, the citizen had to be have been a citizen for at least five years past the age of 16. I don’t care where he was born – in fact I’ll stipulate that he was born in the Lincoln bedroom at the white house witnessed by the entire Kennedy clan and the Johnsons: his father was not a citizen and his mother was 18. 18 is not five years past 16. The only way he’s a citizen at all is if he was naturalized – which we know he wasn’t. (Which means that legally, he isn’t a US citizen to this day.) Given the facts of his birth, a non-citizen parent and an 18 year old other parent, there is no set of circumstances under which he could be a natural-born citizen, and eligible for the position he now occupies.
But the democrats have been very clever to have shifted and framed the entire debate about the birthplace, and not the law. The birthplace doesn’t matter at all. A masterful sample of deflection, aided and abetted by a media with no interest in the facts. (And the facts are easily discernible, go look at citizenship requirements for kids born in 1961.) Nobody cares – the hell with the law. A perfect encapsulation of the democrat attitude.
Danny Lemieux: Zach’s “Hitler” response to the Churchill quote, um, actually,…it was Marxists, socialists of which Churchill was speaking:
Looks more like a paraphrase of this speech by Winston Churchill in 1941 (with emphasis added).
“We ask no favours of the enemy. We seek from them no compunction. On the contrary, if tonight the people of London were asked to cast their votes as to whether a convention should be entered into to stop the bombing of all cities, an overwhelming majority would cry, ‘No, we will mete out to the Germans the measure, and more than the measure, they have meted out to us.’ The people of London with one voice would say to Hitler: ‘You have committed every crime under the sun. Where you have been the least resisted there you have been the most brutal. It was you who began the indiscriminate bombing. We remember Warsaw! In the first few days of the war. We remember Rotterdam. We have been newly reminded of your habits by the hideous massacre in Belgrade. We know too well the bestial assaults you’re making upon the Russian people, to whom our hearts go out in their valiant struggle! We will have no truce or parley with you, or the grisly gang who work your wicked will! You do your worst! – and we will do our best! Perhaps it may be our turn soon. Perhaps it may be our turn now.’ ”
Danny Lemieux: Uttering “you lie!” in response to Obama’s utterances is not incivility, it is calling it what it is.
Perhaps it could be justified, but that doesn’t make it civil.
FunkyPhD: If Obama isn’t a socialist, what is he?
Largely left-leaning centrist. He’s certainly no socialist, that is, advocating the public ownership of the means of production.
FunkyPhD: I’ve never understood the left-leaning phobia surrounding that word.
As most on the Left side of the political divide are not socialists, they probably don’t want to be grouped with positions they do not hold, especially considering the history of political persecution and misrepresentation in U.S. history.
FunkyPhD: Doesn’t the left want central economic planning, redistribution of wealth, and collective ownership of transportation, electric utilities, etc.?
The “Left” is a category that includes a wide spectrum of positions.
jj: As has been pointed out here before, the law in 1961 said to be a natural born citizen your parents had to be.
A law cannot overrule the Fourteenth Amendment. United States vs. Wong Kim Ark.
jj: Nobody cares – the hell with the law. A perfect encapsulation of the democrat attitude.
Oddly enough, Texas put Obama on the ballot for President, too.
“It’s only an incremental change from the previous system.”
ROFLMAO!!!
Zach, I have a bridge I’d love to sell you. (Wiki says it’s OK for me to do so.)
The 14th amendment – passed and ratified by republicans over democrat opposition – was ratified in 1868. Oddly enough, the law regarding the conditions remained as I laid out until 1974 – when it was modified, not done away with. Even odder, we still have laws regarding who does and who does not qualify for citizenship, and the 14th amendment is now 143 years old. Evidently it didn’t simply settle the matter for all time, as you apparently think it does, and despite its existence lawmakers continue to believe otherwise and write laws to address the issue. Strangely, there continue to be border patrol agents, ICE guys, and offices to issue visas and green cards. The 14th amendment is a cute, but not relevant, argument. Rather like “where he was born,” it’s massively off the point.
Zachriel:
What does a left-leaning centrist believe in? What’s the essential difference between a left-leaning centrist and a right-leaning centrist? Doesn’t that difference lie in the degree to which each would regulate the means of production? You say that to be a socialist, one has to advocate the “public ownership of the means of production.” Doesn’t the left, by definition, advocate for a greater degree of governmental regulation of the means of the production than does the right? And while ownership of the means of production is different from the regulation thereof, at a certain point regulation becomes the functional equivalent of ownership–that is, the greater the regulation, the more it approaches the prerogatives of ownership. Therefore the left is, by definition, more socialist than the right.
Leaning socialist, I guess, doesn’t make one a socialist. But Obama has socialistic tendencies, and I think he’d be better served by just admitting it. Continuing to deny this only increases the mistrust with which he’s viewed by people across the “wide” political spectrum, who rightfully do not respect this kind of philosophical slipperiness.
If you are deep in a well, any point above you looks “up”, even though it may still be way underground.
If you are far, far to the Left as some commentators tend to be, any point to the right looks “right”, even though it may still be far to the Left.
These definitions are all relative to one’s perspective.
Others discussing civility!
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/08/05/hypocrisy-irony-and-the-new-civility/
There’s even a “project” dedicated to it!
He’s certainly no socialist, that is, advocating the public ownership of the means of production.
Did you say that with a straight face? The Treasury Department owns 70% of GM. Who funds the Treasury Dept. -THE PUBLIC!
>>including all children here born of resident aliens>>
1) his father was not a “resident alien”, he was a visitor on a visa.(which the State department declined to renew, although he petitioned for its extension)
2) like many, you confuse the status of “citizen” and “natural born citizen”. The specificity of “natural born citizen” is particular only to the office of the president.
By the way…
Should Jindal ever run for president, he may run into the same problem. As I understand it, his parents were (one or both, I don’t remember) had applied for citizenship and were still in the process of achieving same when he was born. I think they did in fact become citizens when he was about 3 yrs old.
Also, should he ever be nominated, I don’t expect the issue to be raised until primaries are done and the campaigns are well under way. When it’s pretty much impossible to set another candidate on the campaign, the Dems will attempt to have him disqualified. JMO.
He blew the one nationally televised speech he made, so that people were “hot” for considering him for national office kind of dumped him, but as I recall, Clinton’s first national convention speech bombed as well…and we all know what happened after that!
Zach,
My bitc, umm British sister-in-law has trouble understanding the US Constitution, too. The 14th Amendment says, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Discussion at the time made it clear that children of diplomats, for example, were not citizens, at least not the intent of the law. There is also a phrase in there about previous condition of servitude not making one a non-citizen.
Nowadays, the 14th is used to bring cheap unskilled labor from Third World countries, to the benefit of exploitative businesses. I get a good laugh from the tail-chasing logic of people who want to stand with the working class, and to do that, support bringing in workers who help to depress wages for all workers. It’s all part of the general reductio ad absurdam that Marxism is gradually bringing on itself. (Although not fast enough, sad to say.) Hammer, check my noun case, would’ja?)
No, Zach,
Health care is most definitely NOT comparable in the UK. I am a nurse and have seen both sides of the water, and they are very different. Poor people in America, on Medicaid, get private or semi-private rooms. In England, they get wards. Poor people get everything that is available. In Britain, they are told that there is nothing more to be done. The aforementioned sister-in-law’s poor mum had breast cancer and got ONE (count it, ONE)round of chemo. In America, she’d have had the triad (Rads, Chemo, surgery) and every chemo drug available. Cancer patients live thirty percent longer here than in the “humanitarian” socialist world. Worst of all, people are told they are ungrateful if they don’t like the health care largess doled out by their owners, or government, or whatever they are calling themselves this year. Now, you go look up some bogus statistics concocted by the same master class, and leave reality to people who deal with reality. Congratulations, your b.s. has finally made me mad. NHS is nasty, the ultimate deception, murder disguised as benevolence, and that’s before we even get to the various levels of euthanasia.
Sue – Jindal is not, under the law, natural born – which I imagine he knows. But now that the precedent has been established that nobody cares about the law, he’s every bit as eligible as Obama. At least until the law-free zone that is the democrat party decides that they don’t like it, and advances the argument that what’s sauce for them is not sauce for anybody else.
Michael Adams
Congratulations, your b.s. has finally made me mad.
Shucks, he ticks most off. They’ve been tossed out of more bars than I’ve walked into
>>At least until the law-free zone that is the democrat party decides that they don’t like it, and advances the argument that what’s sauce for them is not sauce for anybody else.>>
Exactamundo!!
If I read it aright, his parents were resident aliens, so he, born here, would be a natural-born citizen. If they’d been illegal aliens, present law would have called him a citizen, a matter for further discussion, of course, but probably not applicable to Bubba Bobby, whom I like for many reasons, and who did not put me off with a poor reading of a speech written by someone else. Clinton, many others, have done poorly in similar circumstances. I do not know former President Bush personally, but, in Austin, I surely know many who do know him, and they say his Presidential speeches sounded awkward because his speech writers could not or would not write in his cadence.
Michael, I checked your noun case and have to say it is one of the finest examples of the use of Oregon myrtlewood that I have ever seen.
Oy, what else could I expect from someone who doesn’t even speak Latin so badly that even Jerome called it Vulgar, and he was a saint, forGod’s sake.(Quite literally, as it turned out.)Nah, you speak Galiciana, even more vulgar then the Vulgate.
I’ll have you know that that is cedar, or mountain juniper, not myrtlewood. I won a prize, at the annual anti-cedar festival in Austin, for creative uses of the nasty weed tree.
Old Buckeye on comment #31, I loved your link. At least when I talk about civility, I try to walk the walk as well. That person is pure hypocrite.
For him to be natural-born they need to be citizens. Or one did, for the afore-mentioned five years post-age 16. Now, that law did change in the 1970s, he’s young, so perhaps he makes it under the reformulation. If he did, fine. I don’t know when he was born, so can’t say. Obama, born in 1961, definitely does not escape the law, except insofar as no democrat seems to care about the law, but Jindal’s an honorable guy and probably does. A natural-born citizen is not the same as any other kind, and being one is the sole requirement for the office of the presidency. (??there was once an age requirement too, I don’t know if that still holds.)
Michael, actually I speak an early form of what my grandson Charlemagne will later dub “rusticam romanum”—already well on its way to French.
My son Pepin will be pissed off enough at the degeneration of classical Latin into some new vulgate that he will order a written-lanuage reform/restoration among his officials. Here is what he had to contend with (excerpt from a 769 AD private deed of sale):
English: “It is stated that we are selling to a certain woman named Nautlinde (to you) a piece of farmland of my own property.”
Classical Latin: “Constat nos alicui feminae nomine Nautlinde vendere (tibi) pecia de maso proprii juris mei.”
Vulgar Pre-French Babble: “Constat nus at alliqua fimena nomine Nautlindo vindemus tibi pecia de maso probrio jures meo.”
You can see the mess that I will leave behind, Michael. It’s bad enough having to deal with Muslim savages without also having to suffer the long, pitiful slide of my beloved rustic Latin into a language fit only for cowards, gourmands and second-rate Lotharios.
“rusticam romanum”
Don’t believe him.
It’s clearly the story of two seniors caught in the act by an older model video camera.
SADIE, when the asteroid that will destroy the earth is almost here, and my wife and I are frantically loading the 5,000 hand-picked people we plan to rescue on “Hammer of the Solar Seas,” my space ark, you will go to the head of the line.
Charles M, you have an uncanny ability to leave my jaw locked in the “down” position and my eyebrows fused into my hairline.
Perfect!
Charles Martel
Delighted. I love travel.
Should I order my meals in advance?
BTW… can I sit next to the funny lookin’ fella with the fused eyebrows into his hairline with a jaw locked in the “down” position.
The pre-french babble really does sound like Catalan/Occitan. I know people who insist that those are two separate languages, as there are people who are quite certain that Hindi and Urdu are different, even though most native speakers of one can understand the other, once their attitude has been overcome. Especially if you read it aloud and nasalize it, it sounds quite familiar, although not pretty like Galician, modern French, Portuguese, and some varieties of modern Spanish.
We used to have a band in Austin called Cocxygru, or some variant on that spelling, who sang in French, Breton, and Occitan. Breton does not sound nice to me, spoken. It is very pretty sung, like Cumry, which does not even pretend to be a different language from Breton. Anyway, you are a right barbarian, not to know the differences in my woods, nor the superior value of Moorish culture, whose people always beheaded their captives with swords of exceptionally fine steel, such as we would not be making for several more centuries. Keep up the good work!
jj: Oddly enough, the law regarding the conditions remained as I laid out until 1974 – when it was modified, not done away with.
Sorry, under the U.S. system, no law can overturn the Constitution.
jj: Even odder, we still have laws regarding who does and who does not qualify for citizenship, and the 14th amendment is now 143 years old.
Of course there are laws about citizenship, primarily concerning naturalization. From the U.S. Department of State:
“To become a citizen at birth, you must: Have been born in the United States or certain territories or outlying possessions of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; OR had a parent or parents who were citizens at the time of your birth (if you were born abroad) and meet other requirements.”
http://tinyurl.com/yguvamv
Please note the word “OR”. The language of the Fourteen Amendment is plain. Anyone born under the jurisdiction of the United States is a citizen of the United States. The question of natural-born citizen was decided in United States vs. Wong Kim Ark.
FunkyPhD: What does a left-leaning centrist believe in?
Comments are getting chopped off for some reason.
FunkyPhD: What does a left-leaning centrist believe in?
Left-wing refers to support for social change to create a more egalitarian society. There is a wide spectrum of beliefs, but moderates typically that the government has a role in ensuring equal opportunity and a share in common resources.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html
FunkyPhD: Doesn’t that difference lie in the degree to which each would regulate the means of production?
Not necessarily, though it might mean regulating the “means of production” in some areas. For instance, guaranteeing universal education, a common goal on the Left, may mean having government schools, though not necessarily. Nor does having public schools mean that the market in other areas of the economy cease to exist.
FunkyPhD: You say that to be a socialist, one has to advocate the “public ownership of the means of production.”
Well, that’s the definition, and refers to public ownership of the entire economic system. We can also refer to socialism as a continuum of government control of the economy, but advocating public education or control of pollution doesn’t make one a socialist.
FunkyPhD: Doesn’t the left, by definition, advocate for a greater degree of governmental regulation of the means of the production than does the right?
Not necessarily, but typically. The Left means to advocate for a more egalitarian society. In today’s society, most people on the Left, especially since the New Deal and the Civil Rights Movement, see government as an important component of that advocacy. Advocating social reform through government is called Progressivism.
FunkyPhD: And while ownership of the means of production is different from the regulation thereof, at a certain point regulation becomes the functional equivalent of ownership–that is, the greater the regulation, the more it approaches the prerogatives of ownership.
Agreed.
FunkyPhD: Therefore the left is, by definition, more socialist than the right.
Not necessarily, but certainly in modern terms. But don’t confuse limited government actions to, say regulate pollution, with socialism itself. Assuming your goal is to understand rather than smear by association, then the distinction is important.
FunkyPhD: Leaning socialist, I guess, doesn’t make one a socialist. But Obama has socialistic tendencies, and I think he’d be better served by just admitting it.
This is the conflation. You are trying to group any advocacy of egalitarianism (Leftism) or any advocacy of reform through government with socialism. That would mean laws against child labor, regulating the environment, ending segregation, are “socialism”, and even though that was certainly the term thrown about at the time, it didn’t lead to a socialist state. The U.S. has very robust private markets, less regulated than in most other developed economies.
Danny Lemieux: If you are far, far to the Left as some commentators tend to be, any point to the right looks “right”, even though it may still be far to the Left.
That’s a fair point, though the U.S. is decidedly to the Right of most advanced countries. Also, as we have noted before, the center has been moving left since the Renaissance.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html
To relate this back to “Civility”, trying to box people into a political position they do not hold is uncivil. Saying someone is a socialist is saying the person doesn’t believe in markets, and that includes virtually no one of political significance in the U.S.
SADIE: The Treasury Department owns 70% of GM.
Now only 27%. It’s a type of receivership, and the U.S. government will sell its remaining shares as soon as practical.
suek: 1) his father was not a “resident alien”, he was a visitor on a visa.(which the State department declined to renew, although he petitioned for its extension)
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html
suek: Should Jindal ever run for president, he may run into the same problem.
If Jindal was born in the United States, he is a natural born citizen. Wong Kim Ark.
Michael Adams: The 14th Amendment says, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Discussion at the time made it clear that children of diplomats, for example, were not citizens, at least not the intent of the law.
That’s exactly right. Diplomats are under the jurisdiction of their own countries. That’s why they can park illegally and not have to pay the fines. Or other, graver crimes, and not be subject to prosecution. The most the host country can do, under international law, is expel the person.
Michael Adams: Nowadays, the 14th is used to bring cheap unskilled labor from Third World countries, to the benefit of exploitative businesses.
Heh. They were exploiting cheap unskilled labor since the Founding. The difference is that since the Fourteen Amendment and Wong Kim Ark, their children are now citizens.
Michael Adams: I am a nurse and have seen both sides of the water, and they are very different.
Sure they’re different, but the health results are comparable overall. For instance, life expectancy in the U.K. is 79.4 and in the U.S. 78.3.
Michael Adams: NHS is nasty, the ultimate deception, murder disguised as benevolence, and that’s before we even get to the various levels of euthanasia.
NHS enjoys wide support in the U.K., including among conservatives, though most recognize the need for modernization. Do you want a citation for that?
Michael Adams: If they’d been illegal aliens, present law would have called him a citizen,
That would be the Fourteenth Amendment.
jj: (??there was once an age requirement too, I don’t know if that still holds.)
U.S. Constitution, Article Two, Section 1: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
And no, this can’t be changed by statute.
Michael Adams: My bitc, umm British sister-in-law has trouble understanding the US Constitution, too. The 14th Amendment says, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Discussion at the time made it clear that children of diplomats, for example, were not citizens, at least not the intent of the law. There is also a phrase in there about previous condition of servitude not making one a non-citizen.
Yes, many people have that problem. It’s best to start with the actual text. “Servitude” is not mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment. It does say, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This can be thought of as a second American Founding, “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”
Daniel Hannan used civility in the proper manner in 2009 when he, civilly, addressed Gordon Brown:
They can see what the markets have already seen: that you are the devalued Prime Minister of a devalued government.
That is civil. We are cowards when we refuse to state what we believe to be the truth, and remain silent or “properly deferential” instead. Join the battle, Republican wimps, or go home.
A natural born citizen, as required to be president, may not have dual citizenship.
Obama did, and does.
Sorry, Zachriel, you are absolutely, comprehensively wrong, and I can’t believe it possible that even you haven’t noticed that laws override the Constitution all day every day. What the hell planet do you infest?
jj, laws do not override the Constitution, or at least not legally. Activist judges do so all day every day, illegally, immorally and improperly (in the name of interpreting a living constitution, whatever the heck that means). But, technically, Zach is absolutely right that the Constitution cannot be changed by statute.
Technically, shmetically – it’s done by activist judges. Bottom line – the law is changed circuitiously.
Mike Devx: That is civil.
That’s right, because it attacks his Ministry, not his person.
suek: A natural born citizen, as required to be president, may not have dual citizenship. Obama did, and does.
If one argument doesn’t work, try another. You do understand that the Supreme Court has had an opportunity to rule on this, both in Wong Kim Ark and more recently. It seems that anything to suggest that Obama is not the legitimate President of the United States. But he was and he is. (Do you realize how insulting most African Americans consider this line of attack? And people wonder why Republicans get so few black votes.)
jj: Sorry, Zachriel, you are absolutely, comprehensively wrong, and I can’t believe it possible that even you haven’t noticed that laws override the Constitution all day every day.
Any particular law you think overrides the Constitution?
“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649, 705, 18 S.Ct. 456, 478 (U.S.1898)
The case also discusses the meaning of “natural born citizen” and concludes that “ Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects” and that American law was intended to be consistent with that rule.
I especially like this quote from a still earlier case making the point: “In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: ‘All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.’ ‘We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.’ 1 Abb. (U. S.) 28, 40, 41, Fed. Cas. No. 16,151.”
This rule would seem to hold whether or not the fact that the parents were aliens meant that the natural born citizen was also a citizen of another nation. I’m not saying suek is wrong, because I have not found definitive authority either way, but I’ve found no support for the notion that a natual born citizen cannot have dual citizenship and Wong Kim Ark appears to argue against this view.
I do think it would be wrong, if not illegal, for a sitting president to have dual citizenship, but that’s another question.
Zach, why on earth would this be a racial issue?
Zach: Any particular law you think overrides the Constitution?
Uh, let’s see…for starters, the laws addressed in the Kelo vs. City of New London and Roe vs. Wade decisions?
Just because the Supreme Court ruled as they did does not make the decisions constitutional. The Supreme Court, too, is fallible.
Uh, Danny, those are judge-made “laws” not statutes. Insofar as they were based on statutes, the Court’s ruling was that the statutes were consistent with the Constitution, not that they overrode it. To be fair, Zach specifically said statutes. And, under our system, statutes cannot override the Constitution.
Anyway, even granting that the Supreme Court is fallible (and agreeing with you, as I do, that Kelo and Roe were not decided consistent with the Constitution as I understand it), if it doesn’t decide what is constitutional, who does? That’s kind of the way our system works, like it or not.
(Do you realize how insulting most African Americans consider this line of attack? And people wonder why Republicans get so few black votes.)
I know that Zach is an authority on Everything, but how did he get to be an expert on what insults blacks? Cites, please!
>>(Do you realize how insulting most African Americans consider this line of attack? And people wonder why Republicans get so few black votes.>>
So blacks don’t agree that laws should be applied equally? that they don’t apply to them?
Blacks these days seem to consider _any_ criticism of any black for any reason to be a form of attack.
They are _not_ “African” Americans…unless they were born in Africa. They are _Americans_. They are “Blacks” by their choice. Once upon a time, Negro was the polite and preferred term. It was rejected as “offensive”. Ok…so then they became “Blacks” by choice. Now they seem to be rejecting that and prefer the African inclusion…another means to separate themselves from American. Maybe they should just return to Africa – except those that do recognize it as a hellhole from which they have been rescued, although their ancestors paid a terrible price.
All in all, what they are saying is that they are _not_ American, but…they want all the goodies the white man has built. A simple case of pure envy. The question is whether they will succeed in tearing it down or will they join us as the equals they could be – if they so choose.
In other words, Z, I consider _your_ comment offensive to any Black who says he wants _equality_.
There are plenty of people here who seem to think they know what insults are, Martel. They don’t need to ask anyone else. They just know. They decided. They are the decider. Nobody else gets a say in this.
Why not own it proudly? Doesn’t the left want central economic planning, redistribution of wealth, and collective ownership of transportation, electric utilities, etc.?
Yes, which is why they must use stealth. They have been told that open socialism doesn’t work, because Americans would reject. So they have to keep it under the hood. Which they did in 2008, and guess what, Obama got voted in as a outsider and a “moderate”.
If it works, they won’t stop doing it.
Adams, when you deal with minions of evil, always keep in mind that they do not matter. You could destroy them in the millions in a purge of the Left, and the Left would simply replace them with more zombies. It’s the Leftist leaders that must be crushed.
By the way…here’s another aspect of the Obama citizenship issue, and one that is especially interesting in light of the prosecution of the individuals who accessed his passport info, and the subsequent appointment of the head of the company for whom those individuals worked…
http://obamacrimes.com/?p=1505
Danny Lemieux: Kelo vs. City of New London
You do understand the eminent domain is in the Constitution? If a city determines that a commercial development is important to the city’s future, then eminent domain allows them to pay “just compensation.” Here’s an example of the problem in another country.
http://prowsej.blogspot.com/2008/10/when-you-dont-have-power-of-eminent.html
In any case, just because the Constitution gives government the power of eminent domain, it doesn’t mean it has to be exercised by the government. That CAN be determined by statute.
Danny Lemieux: Roe vs. Wade
A lot of people think that government has limited domain over their uterus, and that it is a fundamental right to privacy. However, your point is taken that people can differ on the meaning or intent of the Constitution. However, as Don Quixote points out, the Supreme Court has the final say in the U.S.
Don Quixote: why on earth would this be a racial issue?
Because there is no legitimate argument about Obama’s Constitutional qualification.
Hehman, Gaertner & Dovidio, Evaluations of presidential performance: Race, prejudice, and perceptions of Americanism, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2011: “Overall, the results support our hypothesis that negative evaluations of Obama by White participants may be racially motivated”
suek: So blacks don’t agree that laws should be applied equally? that they don’t apply to them?
No, because they see it as an unsupportable attempt to undermine the validity of the first African American president.
For suek ONLY…
I am still waiting to find out on which passport did he travel to Pakistan.
The other issue is about Indonesia…
Apparently they issue visitor visas for 60 days max, yet Obama stayed there for several months while he was writing one of his books – don’t remember the specifics.
????
Hehman, Gaertner & Dovidio, Evaluations of presidential performance: Race, prejudice, and perceptions of Americanism, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2011: “Overall, the results support our hypothesis that negative evaluations of Obama by White participants may be racially motivated”
suek: So blacks don’t agree that laws should be applied equally? that they don’t apply to them?
No, because they see it as an unsupportable attempt to undermine the validity of the first African American president.
Wow, what a mess of pottage. Where do you get this stuff, Zach? Is there a dispenser in your dorm?
1. Sociology is not a science.
2. “May be racially motivated” is pure conjecture.
3. Obama is not “African American.” He is a mulatto. He is half white and half black. Perhaps you would like to defend the southern racial purity laws that say that only one drop of “black” blood makes a man black?
>>If a city determines that a commercial development is important to the city’s future, then eminent domain allows them to pay “just compensation.”>>
Eminent domain allows the taking of property for common _use_. In the Kelo case, city took the property from one private owner and transferred it to another private owner. While in theory this was to benefit the common good by building more expensive dwellings which would increase the city’s tax revenues, the property today stands vacant. I don’t know who owns the vacant properties today.
As for “just compensation”, that’s always a debatable issue. A city can, by it’s actions or inactions increase or decrease the value of a property. It can do this by design or simply by incompetence.
>>Obama is not “African American.”>>
Not only that, but those blacks who are so strongly pro Obama seem not to realize that the slaves from whom they are descended were probably sold into slavery by Obama’s ancestors in Africa…
>>No, because they see it as an unsupportable attempt to undermine the validity of the first African American president. >>
And the questions about McCain’s eligibility … ?
Again…I don’t remember the specifics, but when Congress was considering McCain’s status, there were amendments raised that if passed would have included Obama(though not specifically by name). The amendments didn’t pass, and the declaration the stated that McCain was eligible applied only to him.
I expect Obama to run again. Some states are passing laws that will require specific proof of natural born citizenship. It could be interesting.
Charles Martel: 1. Sociology is not a science.
Yes, sociology is a science, but individual studies have to be judged on their merits.
Charles Martel: 2. “May be racially motivated” is pure conjecture.
No. That’s the question was studying.
Charles Martel: 3. Obama is not “African American.”
The study shows that racial prejudice predicted Whites’ negative evaluations of Obama’s performance, but not Biden’s. Blacks do not show this prejudice for or against Obama or Biden.
suek: While in theory this was to benefit the common good …
That’s right, though no one likes to have to sell against their will, whether for a government project or a commercial one. And eminent domain is exercised by the actions of elected officials, and are subject to court overview.
suek: I don’t know who owns the vacant properties today.
Heh. Your government at work.
suek: As for “just compensation”, that’s always a debatable issue.
Of course. Some people make out very well. Others just don’t want to move, no matter reasonable the offer. Much of the time, powerful people hold sway over the organs of government.
Yes, it’s the worst of all systems — except for all the rest.
No, Zach, not a science. A branch of the humanities that attempts to quantify human nature is hardly a science. It’s a pseudo-science. Your citation of a sociology “study” is in the same category as an Islamic apologist quoting the Qu’ran. Interesting, but hardly proof of anything other than the apologist’s prejudices.
Your definition of African American is racist. It assumes that whites can define what fits the category (and you unquestioningly accept the racist premise that one drop of black blood = black).
Speaking as a sociology major in college, I can assure everyone that sociology is not a science. The study seriously suggested that blacks did not favor Obama because he is black? Really? And you take the study seriously?
Speaking of serious, “there is no legitimate argument about Obama’s Constitutional qualification”? Of course there is. See suek’s link for one thing. Personally, I think it’s all a tempest in a teapot, but that might be because I think it’s a really stupid Constitutional limitation. Still, there is a legitimate argument here. And it’s not like anyone, even those arguing most vigorously that Obama is not Constitutionally qualified, has argued for uneven application of the rule.
This is so much of the problem with political discourse today. Even if one has an honest belief that there is a legitimate question where Obama is qualified to serve, one dare not even bring up the question, because even a leftist such as Zach, who’s been pretty careful to avoid such name-calling, will immediately brand one a racist.
My problem with Obama is not his black skin, it’s his red heart.
My problem with Obama is not his black skin, it’s his red heart.
suek …Perfectomondo!
I liked it so much when you used it, I thought it worth repeating and your comment worth repeating in bold.
Charles Martel: 1. Sociology is not a science.
Zach: Yes, sociology is a science, but individual studies have to be judged on their merits.
Danny Lemieux: Sociology is about as much a science as politics and the environment are “sciences”. Meaning….not much.
If sociology is a science, so was phrenology.
Z-Team Yes, sociology is a science, but individual studies have to be judged on their merits.
When the Soviet Union was still a going concern, “scientists” there would regularly issue profound statements about “scientific socialism” for the edification of the poor, deluded capitalist world that was deprived of the benefits of “scientific socialism.” We all know how “scientific socialism” ended up: on the garbage heap of history. “Scientific socialism” had the same relation to science that Lysenkoism had to genetics.
Sociology as science? I am reminded of a town that was blessed with the presence of a sociologist who later wrote a book based on observations of the town. After the publication of the book, the town gave an appropriate response during one of its Fourth of July parades. The parade featured a manure spreader filled with real live organic manure over which stood an effigy of the author.
That characterizes sociology rather well: bullshit.
Is economics a science? Is economics an applied science?
I won’t even go to a complex one, we’ll stick to the simple and obvious. The Constitution says you can own a gun – the supreme court even agrees it’s an individual right, i.e., you don’t have to be a member of the national guard, or any other militia.
Try it, in, oh… let’s see – Chicago? New York? Washington DC? Philadelphia? Boston? Honolulu? Name a few dozen more for yourself. Apparently the Constitution is overridden by laws all the time. Don may suppose this is the result of lousy judges – and it may be – but the result is the same.
Charles Martel: No, Zach{riel}, not a science. A branch of the humanities that attempts to quantify human nature is hardly a science.
Both the dictionary and the encyclopedia call it a science. However, individual studies may have more or less scientific validity. Closing your eyes and refusing to look at the results is not an argument.
Don Quixote: The study seriously suggested that blacks did not favor Obama because he is black?
Not their voting pattern, but judgment of his performance and his ‘Americanism.’ Even if you ignore it, the correlation still exists between markers of racial prejudice in whites and questions of Obama’s ‘Americanism.’
Hehman: “Our research investigated whether people who held racial prejudices might be more likely to see Obama as ‘un-American,’ presumably because of his race. Indeed, this is what we found. Whites who were prejudiced against Blacks were more likely to see Obama as un-American, and in turn, evaluated Obama as performing more poorly as president. Whites who were not prejudiced, and Blacks in general, did not do so. Additionally and importantly, this relationship was only found with Obama, as prejudiced Whites did not see Vice-President Joe Biden as un-American, despite the fact that Obama and Biden share political party affiliation and agenda.”
Of course, a correlation doesn’t imply that every birther is a racist, but it’s clear that latent prejudice has added fuel to the controvery.
Mike Devx: If sociology is a science, so was phrenology.
It’s very simple to show with blind studies that phrenology is not a science.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/09/forearmed-with-knowledge.html
suek: My problem with Obama is not his black skin, it’s his red heart.
Of course, being ‘red’ has long been a code for foreign or subversive influence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTQnkDR5wLI
>>Of course, being ‘red’ has long been a code for foreign or subversive influence.>>
In your language, perhaps. In my language, it has long been a code for Communist.
Wow, Zach, the falsity of that logic is just stunning. First, you equate “un-American” to “Constitutionally unqualified to serve as America’s President,” which makes no sense at all. Basically, your argument is that since racists are more likely to see Obama as un-American, racists are more likely to be birthers (for which there is no proof at all), and since racists are more likely to be birthers, then birthers are more likely to be racists (which would, I suppose be true if the first premise were true), therefore the whole birther question is being raised only for racist reasons (which isn’t true at all, logically or factually).
It’s like saying that since most communists are Democrats the Democrat party is communist. Surely, you are better at logic than that, Zach.
“Of course, being ‘red’ has long been a code for foreign or subversive influence.” Exactly! And many people see Obama (with his ties to avowed anti-Americans like Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, etc.) as a subversive influence.
P.S. You quoted my question about the results for black participants in the study, but never answered it.
Don Quixote: First, you equate “un-American” to “Constitutionally unqualified to serve as America’s President,” which makes no sense at all.
1. There is no reasonable doubt that Obama is a U.S. citizen and eligible to be President.
2. The study shows that people predisposed to racial prejudice are more likely to view Obama as ‘un-American.’
Don Quixote: Basically, your argument is that since racists are more likely to see Obama as un-American,
That’s what the study shows.
Don Quixote: racists are more likely to be birthers (for which there is no proof at all),
You’re stretching it pretty thin. Birtherism was the reason they proposed the hypothesis, but you are correct that it didn’t study birtherism directly.
Don Quixote: and since racistss are more likely to be birthers, then birthers are more likely to be racists (which would, I suppose be true if the first premise were true), therefore the whole birther question is being raised only for racist reasons (which isn’t true at all, logically or factually).
No. A correlation doesn’t imply that every birther is a racist, but it’s clear that latent prejudice has added fuel to the controversy. Many people just don’t see Obama as like themselves. It goes on and on, with the jibes about being a Muslim, or an African, or an Indonesian, or French, or whatever.
It is no wonder so many African Americans, even conservatives, won’t vote for Republicans. It never ends, having to justify oneself.
Look, Zach, I’m not a birther and I tend to agree that Obama is eligible to be president. However, you have now twice said “There is no reasonable doubt that Obama is a U.S. citizen and eligible to be President.” and this simply is not true. You have no authority and there is none. There are real, legitimate doubts. I refer you again to suek’s link. In addition, Obama has added to the suspicion by strongly resisting producing his birth certificate and finally producing one that has obviously been photoshopped. Yes, it never ends having to justify oneself if one takes the approach of refusing to justify oneself to begin with. The more one looks like he is hiding something, the more people come to believe he has something to hide. This isn’t racism. It’s a perfectly natural reaction to a man who has not been forthcoming on the issue.
As for the others, Obama was raised as a Muslim as a child. He self-identifes as African-American. He was adopted by an Indonesian father. It’s not like folks made these things up. To your knowledge has Obama ever said, “I am an American. I renounce any possible citizenship in any other nation. I am a Christian. I renounce any possible membership in any other religion (and, while I’m at it, I renounce Rev. Wright for his distortion of the true Christian religion)”? Anything like it?
If Obama hadn’t given people such abundant reason to suspect him, he would have made them look very foolish. Instead, he has fed their doubts, indeed, given them reason to doubt. I suspect, without, of course, knowing, that this is intentional on his part. He’d rather have people arguing about his birth certificate than about his policies. But that’s just my suspicious nature talking.
>>1. There is no reasonable doubt that Obama is a U.S. citizen and eligible to be President.>>
a) there may not be _much_ reasonable doubt that Obama is a US citizen, but there _is_ some legitimate doubt, small though it may be.
b) you still don’t understand the difference between the conditions of “citizen” and “natural born citizen”, which one must be in order to be eligible to be president. Regardless of whether he qualifies or not, there _is_ a difference. There was a question about McCain which was clarified by Congress…and he’s Caucasian, in case you hadn’t noticed. His parents were both US citizens, and his father was active duty military when he was born – but there was still a question about whether he was eligible to be president, because he was not born in the US. The question was whether he could be born in a foreign country and still be a “natural born” citizen. There was no question about his being a citizen, but whether he was a _natural born_ citizen – a specific category of citizenship.
By the way – I have three sons in the same situation…born in a US hospital in a foreign country. They have both German and American birth certificates. Had we stayed in Germany, they would have been required to serve in the German army when they reached a certain age (That was then – I don’t know about now). We also have their State Department issued certificate of birth which establishes US citizenship. We were told when they were born that “Darn…guess he can’t grow up to be President:1. There is no reasonable doubt that Obama is a U.S. citizen and eligible to be President”…it was a standing humorous comment. I guess that isn’t true today, but it was then. Some things change retroactively, and some things don’t.
By the way…Arnold Schwarzenegger is also a US citizen, but he is not eligible to become president. There _is_ a difference in the type of citizenship.
“2. The study shows that people predisposed to racial prejudice are more likely to view Obama as ‘un-American.’”
The “study” was done by pseudo-scientists. It has no relevance to a serious discussion that requires legitimate proof. Endlessly asserting that the study is useful to the discussion is sheer stubborness.
Weird. I didn’t put that [:1.There is no...]down to “…it was …”
It just appeared. Please mentally delete…
How do you define or determine “more predisposed to racial prejudice”?
Given that there is a preconceived idea (one could almost say a prejudice) that if one opposed to Obama’s ideology, one is ipso facto a racist, how does one determine “predisposition” to racial prejudice without a predisposition to political bias?
Hey, Hey. Z’s idea of reason is the Left. Please take the context into consideration before using the same words that have different meanings.
Suek, I think these days, they believe their racial identity is the same as their politics. So someone disagreeing politically, is just the same as a race traitor. Thus they say you are a racist if you disagree politically with, say…. black Democrats.
The Z-Team knows nothing about math and science. Example: the Z-Team used “quintile” and “percentile” interchangeably, which shows an absolute ignorance of statistics. Percentile, quintile, schmintile: it’s all the same to the Z-Team. Statistics, schmatistics, it’s all the same.
Anyone who uses quintile and percentile interchangeably has no credibility whatsoever in evaluating – and thus in citing- a statistical study.
From the perspective of the Z-Team, “social science” is just as valid as physical science or biology, even though the Z-Team lacks even knowledge of statistics to evaluate “social science.” Just don’t ask the Z-Team to pass an exam in a real science; e.g., the physical sciences or biology. Not to mention statistics.
According to the Z-Team, “Scientific socialism” must be science. After all, that’s what the dictionaries and encyclopedias say. At least the Soviet Encyclopedia.
Here is a pretty good quote about the difference between the difference between the “social sciences” and the natural sciences, from an academic psychologist.
One of the differences between the natural and the social sciences is that in the natural sciences, each succeeding generation stands on the shoulders of those that have gone before, while in the social sciences, each generation steps in the faces of its predecessors.
When the foundation of knowledge is torn down with each generation, as shown in the above quote from a “social scientist,” the knowledge base of the “social sciences” is a very shaky foundation to begin with. The knowledge of the “social sciences” has the sturdiness of a house of cards, blown away with the wind of a succeeding generation.
Knowledge in the natural sciences has a sturdy foundation, a foundation that is not destroyed with succeeding generations, but is added to incrementally.What Newton wrote over 300 years ago is still a valid description of the physical world. Once having been tested and proved to be an accurate description of the physical world, it is not debunked. Not so in the “social sciences,” as the above quote admits.
Which is why “social science” is rightfully viewed with extreme skepticism.
Source: Skinner’s Theory of Teaching Machines (1959)
Gringo, the team’s misuse of terms is nothing new. Zach got blown out of the water over on an intelligent design site when his comments on nested hierarchy were shown to be way off mark. I suppose the need to appear knowledgeable always supercedes the need to be accurate or correct.
I thought you all would enjoy Al’s civil discourse Hanging chad yesteryear and today he is ‘hanging by a thread’.
The model of media manipulation used then, Gore said, “was transported whole cloth into the climate debate. And some of the exact same people — I can go down a list of their names — are involved in this. And so what do they do? They pay pseudo-scientists to pretend to be scientists to put out the message: ‘This climate thing, it’s nonsense. Man-made CO2 doesn’t trap heat. It may be volcanoes.’ Bullshit! ‘It may be sun spots.’ Bullshit! ‘It’s not getting warmer.’ Bullshit!” Gore exclaimed.
“When you go and talk to any audience about climate, you hear them washing back at you the same crap over and over and over again,” he continued. “There’s no longer a shared reality on an issue like climate even though the very existence of our civilization is threatened. People have no idea! … It’s no longer acceptable in mixed company, meaning bipartisan company, to use the goddamn word climate. It is not acceptable. They have polluted it to the point where we cannot possibly come to an agreement on it.”
http://coloradoindependent.com/95450/al-gore-calls-b-s-on-corporate-polluters
Don Quixote: However, you have now twice said “There is no reasonable doubt that Obama is a U.S. citizen and eligible to be President.” and this simply is not true. You have no authority and there is none.
The final authority is the Supreme Court which twice turned aside birther suits.
Don Quixote: I refer you again to suek’s link.
There is nothing in suek’s link that calls into question Obama’s natural born citizenship, guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment, which ironically, was passed to ensure African Americans would be treated as citizens. Question: would a freed slave have been eligible to be President under the Fourteenth Amendment, not being born of citizens?
Don Quixote: In addition, Obama has added to the suspicion by strongly resisting producing his birth certificate and finally producing one that has obviously been photoshopped.
Conspiracy mumbo jumbo. The ‘layering’ is how Photoshop compresses and stores data. Anyone can verify the fact.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding
It never ends.
suek: you still don’t understand the difference between the conditions of “citizen” and “natural born citizen”, which one must be in order to be eligible to be president. Regardless of whether he qualifies or not, there _is_ a difference.
Quite aware of the distinction, and that was laid to rest with United States vs. Wong Kim Ark.
suek: There was a question about McCain which was clarified by Congress…
There was no reasonable doubt as to McCain’s qualifications. He was born under the jurisdiction of the United States, the Coco Solo Naval Air Station.
suek: Arnold Schwarzenegger is also a US citizen, but he is not eligible to become president.
That’s right. Schwarzenegger is not a natural born citizen, but a naturalized citizen.
Charles Martel: Endlessly asserting that the study is useful to the discussion is sheer stubborness.
Ignoring the study rather than showing why it is in error is sheer stubbornness.
suek: How do you define or determine “more predisposed to racial prejudice”?
Good question. By asking standard questions used to determine latent prejudice, such as whether they would mind having other-race persons living in their neighborhood. Whites who would mind were more likely to think Obama was un-American.
Gringo, please educate me as to how Zach uses quintile incorrectly. I’ve only ever seen him use it in the phrase “bottom quintile,” meaning the bottom 20%, which is a correct usage, I think.
“Ignoring the study rather than showing why it is in error is sheer stubbornness.”
Because it is a product of pseudo-science. You are in the same position as if you were to demand that I sit down and discredit a horoscope to your satisfaction. Why would I waste my time?
Don Quixote: Gringo, please educate me as to how Zach{riel} uses quintile incorrectly.
We had a typo, where percentile was substituted for quintile, then copied and pasted once again. We corrected it at the time, but Gringo never responded substantively, even though he knew what was meant. It also means he thinks he never has to respond substantively, though it’s doubtful most readers would agree.
Gringo: From the perspective of the Z-Team, “social science” is just as valid as physical science or biology, even though the Z-Team lacks even knowledge of statistics to evaluate “social science.”
As we said, individual studies have to be judged on their own scientific merit. Not all studies have the same scientific merit.
Gringo: What Newton wrote over 300 years ago is still a valid description of the physical world.
Well, only a limited part of the natural world, and then only in approximation. As for sociology, apparently you and Charles Martel believe that nothing whatsoever, nothing at all, can ever be determined scientifically about human society. Is that your claim?
“As for sociology, apparently you and Charles Martel believe that nothing whatsoever, nothing at all, can ever be determined scientifically about human society. Is that your claim?”
Straw man, as well as fallacy of the false choice. Didn’t say that. What both of us have said is that sociology is not a science. You have not proven–and cannot prove—that it is. Yet you assert in the sentence above that it is and hope we don’t notice it. When you can find a more scientific method than sociology to back up your assertions, we’ll be all ears, because there are many things that real science can tell us about humans.
Unfortunately for your agenda, sociologists cannot tell us whether people who are inclined to politically oppose Barack Obama are more inclined to be racist. By that fallacious reasoning, people who support Obama, being less racist, would not support such patently racist institutions as the public schools and Planned Parenthood. All that your citation can tell us is that the pseudo-scientists who conducted the study started with the supposition that opposition to Obama has a large racist basis and then worked backward to establish their already arrived-at conclusion.
>>suek: There was a question about McCain which was clarified by Congress…
There was no reasonable doubt as to McCain’s qualifications. He was born under the jurisdiction of the United States, the Coco Solo Naval Air Station. >>
Yet it took a Senate resolution to confirm that he was eligible. Apparently, some significant people disagree with you, and considered that there _was_ in fact reasonable doubt. Had there been no reasonable doubt, the issue would not have been considered.
Charles Martel: Straw man, as well as fallacy of the false choice. Didn’t say that. What both of us have said is that sociology is not a science.
If you can make any scientific determinations about human society, then that is sociology, by definition.
Charles Martel: When you can find a more scientific method than sociology to back up your assertions, we’ll be all ears, because there are many things that real science can tell us about humans.
You are confused. Sociology is not a scientific method, but a field of science where the scientific method is used to study human society.
Charles Martel: All that your citation can tell us is that the pseudo-scientists who conducted the study started with the supposition that opposition to Obama has a large racist basis and then worked backward to establish their already arrived-at conclusion.
Whites who don’t like blacks living in their neighborhoods are more likely to judge Obama as un-American. The correlation disappears for Biden.
suek: Yet it took a Senate resolution to confirm that he was eligible.
A Senate resolution can’t make someone a natural born citizen.
Sociology is as much as “scientific” study of human society as astrology is a scientific study of the heavens. Calling sociology a science because the dictionary and encyclopedia says it’s OK to call it one doesn’t make it so. There are far too many flaws and contradictions in sociological studies to make the field anything more than a branch of the humanities—where it belongs, in the realm of speculation about the nature of men and society. You will also note that no real scientist worth his beans—a physicist, a chemist, an astronomer—would trust the conclusions of a sociologist about anything other than maybe grandma’s recipe for peach cobbler.
What’s interesting is that Don Quixote, about as skeptical and fair-minded a man there is on this site, has stated from direct personal experience that sociology is not a science. Yet you dismiss his considered thinking to cite the dictionary and the encyclopedia, which are not sources of direct experience. How scientific is that?
All of us here have noted your reluctance to ever offer your own thoughts on things, only other people’s arguments and definitions. That’s why Danny Lemieux has always mocked your “Temple of Orthodoxy.” This discussion is a perfect example: You cite a “study” by “scientists” but could never in your own words tell us how its assumptions and methodology assure you that it is “scientific.” Parroting is not thinking—a distinction you remind us of almost daily.
Don Quixote @ # 106
Gringo, please educate me as to how Zach uses quintile incorrectly. I’ve only ever seen him use it in the phrase “bottom quintile,” meaning the bottom 20%, which is a correct usage, I think.
Actually, he used “percentile” incorrectly, where he should have used “quintile.”
Z-Team @ #42: The poor pay taxes. In 2007, the federal tax burden by percentile was 4.0%, 10.6%, 14.3%, 17.4%, 25.1%.
Gringo (#44) in reply to #42: This statement is meaningless.
Z-Team #46 replies to Gringo’s #44: You might argument the methodology, but simply waving your hands won’t make the data go away. [Argument the methodology?]
Gringo (#44) in reply to #42: It is an example of the innumerate and the economically illiterate spewing out gobbledegook. (in response to “percentile” in #42)
Z-Team #46 replies to above #44: The Brookings Institute is hardly innumerate or illiterate.
(I would agree with the above statement about the Brookings Institution. I very much doubt that the Brookings Institution used “percentile” in that context. However, anyone in who makes the above statement in #42 has made an innumerate and economically illiterate statement. Someone who makes an innumerate and economically illiterate statement shows good evidence of being innumerate and economically illiterate.)
Here the Z-Team has been called on making a meaningless statement on “percentile,” i.e., a statement that makes no sense whatsoever, yet the Z-Team does not admit its error.
Which backs up my previous statement that the Z-Team is innumerate. If the Z-Team realized that its use of “percentile” in that sentence made no sense whatsoever, it would have admitted its error. It did not, which is pretty good evidence it had no idea whatsoever what “percentile” means nor how “percentile” is used.
Innumerate? Q.E.D. Economically illiterate? Someone who is innumerate will have trouble understanding economics. Which is why economics majors in most instances are requited to take at least a year of Calculus.
http://www.bookwormroom.com/2011/07/08/why-poor-people-should-pay-taxes-not-lots-of-taxes-but-some/
Don Quixote: #106: Gringo, please educate me as to how Zach{riel} uses quintile incorrectly.
Z-Team #108:
We had a typo, where percentile was substituted for quintile, then copied and pasted once again. We corrected it at the time, but Gringo never responded substantively, even though he knew what was meant. It also means he thinks he never has to respond substantively, though it’s doubtful most readers would agree.
The Z-Team made the “percentile” comment @ #42 (from link below).
In its reply @ #46 (link below) to my comments on the inappropriate use of “percentile,” the Z-Team didn’t make any comment about intending to use “quintile.” It made no admission whatsoever of “typos,” nor of having copied and pasted inadvertently. Instead the Z-Team makes this comment: “You might argument the methodology,but simply waving your hands won’t make the data go away.”
In my #48, I point out that what might be meant was “quintile.” (link below)
What percentiles are you talking about? First percentile? 32nd percentile? 89th percentile? “Percentile” is meaningless unless it is tied to a specific number. It would appear to me that the term you might be wanting to use is “quintile.” Even “quintile” needs to be tied to a number. “Second quintile,” for example. “Sixth quintile” would be meaningless.
In #51 (link below) the Z-Team stated that “quintile” was what was intended- AFTER I made the above statement in #48.
If the Z-team really knew what “percentile” and “quintile” meant, and knew how to use them in a coherent sentence , it would have used them in a statement after #42 before I made the above statement in #48.
Innumerate? You betcha.
http://www.bookwormroom.com/2011/07/08/why-poor-people-should-pay-taxes-not-lots-of-taxes-but-some/
Gringo: In #51 (link below) the Z-Team stated that “quintile” was what was intended- AFTER I made the above statement in #48.
That’s correct. The data was copied from a linked table, and the header was correct in the table. Once we understood the mistake you were pointing to, we corrected it. Isn’t that what we’re supposed to do?
Zachriel: Notably, you understood the correct word from context. We used “quintile” in related comments. If that is your confusion, then perhaps now you can addressed the point raised.
You never did reply to the substance of the discussion. Here is a similar comment from 2010.
Zachriel: According to the CBO, in 2005, the effective federal tax rate averaged 20%. It ranged from 31% for the top 1%, 25% for the top quintile, then 17%, 14%, 10% and 4% for the other quintiles. Notice that nearly everybody, except the poorest, do share significantly in the federal tax burden. Meanwhile, on the local level, the poor have a higher burden of sales tax, while the rich have a higher burden of property taxes.
http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble/comments/page/5/
Charles Martel: Sociology is as much as “scientific” study of human society as astrology is a scientific study of the heavens.
As we said, if we can make scientific determinations about human society, then that is the science of sociology. We noted that the dictionary and encyclopedia recognize the scientific nature of modern sociology.
The National Science Foundation recognizes sociology as a field in science, as do most universities, including Cornell, Michigan State, NYU, University of Wisconsin, UC Berkeley, to name a few. http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5369
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/soc/undergraduate-program.php
Z-Team:
That’s correct. The data was copied from a linked table, and the header was correct in the table. Once we understood the mistake you were pointing to, we corrected it. Isn’t that what we’re supposed to do? Once we understood the mistake you were pointing to, we corrected it. Isn’t that what we’re supposed to do?
You are supposed to understand what you are writing about, instead of mindlessly copying and pasting. THAT is what you are supposed to do. That you had no clue that “percentile” in your statement was meaningless shows you don’t know your radius from your coccyx when it comes to numbers. That was the point I was making.
You never did reply to the substance of the discussion.
When you are unable to write meaningful coherent statements: THAT becomes the substance of the discussion. That is what I addressed.
I repeat my statement from #115:
If the Z-team really knew what “percentile” and “quintile” meant, and knew how to use them in a coherent sentence , it would have used them in a statement after #42 before I made the above statement in #48. (comment numbers in cited link)
I also repeat #102 from this thread:
Anyone who uses quintile and percentile interchangeably has no credibility whatsoever in evaluating – and thus in citing- a statistical study.
Which also explains why I didn’t “reply to the substance of the discussion.”
Q.E.D.
Ciao.
That old logic trap, Gringo. He never can dig himself out of that hole.
Gringo: That you had no clue that “percentile” in your statement was meaningless shows you don’t know your radius from your coccyx when it comes to numbers. That was the point I was making.
Then your point is false, as we are aware of the difference between percentile and quintile. Not sure why you persist when the mistake was corrected weeks ago. Argument ad typo.
Z-team:
Then your point is false, as we are aware of the difference between percentile and quintile.
If you know it, you show it. As I have copiously explained in comments #114 and #115, your comment #46 ( link- see # 114 #, #115) didn’t show knowledge of what percentile and quintile meant.
If you knew what percentile and quintile meant, you wouldn’t have made the dumbass comment #46 in reply to my #44.
Gringo, Z thinks that everyone here should be able to read the Z waves and thus understand Z’s “comprehension” of stuff simply without the need for the gross inefficiencies of the English language, grammar, proper context, and so on. Like the Absolute Monarch, they won’t listen to true news.
Zach, to repeat: All of us here have noted your reluctance to ever offer your own thoughts on things, only other people’s arguments and definitions. That’s why Danny Lemieux has always mocked your “Temple of Orthodoxy.” This discussion is a perfect example: You cite a “study” by “scientists” but could never in your own words tell us how its assumptions and methodology assure you that it is “scientific.” Parroting is not thinking—a distinction you remind us of almost daily.
Want a cracker?
Gringo: If you knew what percentile and quintile meant, you wouldn’t have made the dumbass comment #46 in reply to my #44.
We copied and pasted the previous dialogue, and we missed the typo. We explained this already, and the data doesn’t go away, regardless.
Charles Martel: You cite a “study” by “scientists” but could never in your own words tell us how its assumptions and methodology assure you that it is “scientific.”
In fact, we pointed to a study which purports to show a demonstrable correlation between racism and those who think Obama is ‘un-American’. To refute that point would mean showing how the study is flawed. Do you think if you replicated the methodology, you would get a different result?
Charles Martel
You cite a “study” by “scientists” but could never in your own words tell us how its assumptions and methodology assure you that it is “scientific.”
In fact, we pointed to a study which purports to show a demonstrable correlation between racism and those who think Obama is ‘un-American’.
ROTFLMAO – Welcome to Parrot-dise.! Salted or un-salted (can’t stop laughing).
SADIE, I know. It’s like the world’s most perfect echo chamber. Logic need not apply when the sound of one’s own voice is so sweetly compelling.
Martel, they still don’t get that American politics isn’t their British Labour politics.
Charles Martel: You cite a “study” by “scientists” but could never in your own words tell us how its assumptions and methodology assure you that it is “scientific.”
We’ll try again. The study is scientific because it tested the entailed empirical implications of a specific claim (hypothesis), and produced a replicable result. We’ve described the paper in brief, and provided a citation. Whites who don’t like blacks moving into their neighborhood are more likely to believe that Obama is ‘un-American.’ If you have questions about the specific methodology, then you should probably start by reading the paper. Please note that after many replies, you have yet to point to any problem with the paper.
Speaking only for myself, obviously, I don’t have any problem with the study. You don’t need a study to tell you that bigots are more likely to think that a black president is “un-American.” My problem is with the logical leaps you took, that “un-American” meant “Constitutionally disqualified from serving as president” and that since, with that equation in mind, bigots are more likely to be birthers, the entire birther movement must be racist. That, of course, is so much nonsense.
Zach, we’ve exhausted this topic. The problem with the paper is that it is the product of pseudo-science. You have not made the case for sociology being a legitimate science, no matter how many times you insist it is or how many sources you cut and paste from. Nobody here believes you or is going to, so what is the point of belaboring it? Who are you trying to impress?
Anyway, DQ has very astutely pointed out your real aim, which was to use the study as a cudgel against a list of people you want to lump together. He has quite capably demolished your arguments before, so I’m happy to watch him have fun with you for awhile.
Charles Martel: Anyway, DQ has very astutely pointed out your real aim, which was to use the study as a cudgel against a list of people you want to lump together.
We can’t even begin to discuss the implications of the paper when you refuse to accept that such a correlation exists, or that any such study can reveal human attitudes.
Don Quixote: You don’t need a study to tell you that bigots are more likely to think that a black president is “un-American.”
Well, at least you understand there could be scientific evidence of a correlation. As to your point, perception of someone’s Americanism is not necessarily linked to racial prejudice. The study seems to show it is a proxy for latent racism, at least in a statistically significant number of people.
Heck, Zach, I’d stipulate that a bigot is more likely to to think a black is un-American. A bigot is more likely to think just about anything negative about a black. As I said, you don’t need a study for that.
It’s the use you tried to make of the study that I have a problem with. Saying bigots are more likely to be birthers so the birther movement is racist is like saying that since leftists are more likely to have voted for Obama, Obama must be a leftist. He is a leftist, of course, but that certainly doesn’t prove it. Or like saying since racist blacks are more likely to have voted for Obama than non-racist blacks means the Obama administration is racist against whites. The premise simply doesn’t prove the conclusion.
By the way, one’s increased perception of a person’s un-Americanism is not a proxy for latent racism but a direct result of overt (as measured by the study) racism.
Correlations do not imply cause and effect.
Z-team: Then your point is false, as we are aware of the difference between percentile and quintile.
The Z-Team claims that it knows the difference between percentile and quintile. Please explain to me how the following passages show how the Z-Team knows the difference between percentile and quintile
Z-Team @ #42: The poor pay taxes. In 2007, the federal tax burden by percentile was 4.0%, 10.6%, 14.3%, 17.4%, 25.1%.
Gringo (#44) in reply to #42: This statement is meaningless.
Z-Team #46 replies to Gringo’s #44: You might argument the methodology, but simply waving your hands won’t make the data go away. [Argument the methodology?]
Gringo (#44) in reply to #42: It is an example of the innumerate and the economically illiterate spewing out gobbledegook. (in response to “percentile” in #42)
Z-Team #46 replies to above #44: The Brookings Institute is hardly innumerate or illiterate.
Specifically, how the “argument the methodology” response shows that the Z-Team knows the difference between percentile and quintile.
Gringo, hey, just think of it like this. When Mad Max comes around, those will be the people begging at our doors for security and food.
Gringo: The Z-Team claims that it knows the difference between percentile and quintile.
Gee whiz, Gringo. Centum, quinque. One divides by a hundred, one divides by five. You can’t really consider that relevant to a discussion distribution of the federal tax burden by income. If you were confused before, now you’re not.
Wow, that was late. But guess better late than never.
This shows that the original Z, came back after the other Zzzness left.
Ymar, the Zs just resigned from the site. I think the Queen Z came back to fix a loose end before heading off to that basement in the sky.
Allah ist Grosse, Gott in Himmel.