Rev Jackson shows his class again

[DaShi]

Poor Kuci, you've backed yourself into a losing argument. I'd suggest trying to switch to another one. . .if you can.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DaShi
I'm not. What you said in no way proves that blacks are more racist than whites.

Are we talking "formal mathematical proof" or "proof that works under the normal host of reasonable assumptions that govern our lives"? Because under the latter, yeah, I have.

[SlowwHand]

Math can be manipulated. Statistics. I spit on statistics.
Where's my spit smiley?

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Are we talking "formal mathematical proof" or "proof that works under the normal host of reasonable assumptions that govern our lives"? Because under the latter, yeah, I have.

You have no reasonable assumptions though. You have the assumptions of a bigot.

[Lancer]

97.3% of people demand one!

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Easy. Obama consistently got more than 90% of the black vote during the primaries, despite the candidates being basically indistinguishable on issues.

Since you need it spelled out. First, this alone doesn't make black people more racist than whites. Second, Hillary and Barak do differ in message and issues. You're just making bull**** up to support your racist cause.

The MM started crying white racism as soon as Clinton hit 60 or 70 among whites - and she only did that rarely.

If there is a problem here is it with the MM, not with your claims of black's being more racist. This has nothing to do with you prior claim. Perhaps in some bigoted logic it makes sense to you.

[DaShi]

You're beneath me Kuci.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Lancer
97.3% of people demand one!

You're still here!

[Kuciwalker]

I'm not sure why I'm bothering, here, but whatever...

1) Reasonable assumption: were race not an issue at all, Obama wouldn't have more than about a 20 point lead over Clinton, tops, in most primaries.

2) That establishes Obama as getting a maximum of 60% normally, and Clinton a minimum of 40%.

3) Empirically, Clinton never got higher than 70% among whites (and that only happened in one state, IIRC), whereas Obama regularly got 90%+ among blacks. Normally, I think she led Obama by <10 points among whites, or not at all.

4) Therefore, in the most extreme state, an equal percentage of blacks and whites voted differently because of race. In the usual case, far more blacks than whites voted differently because of race.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I'm not sure why I'm bothering, here, but whatever...

Because you're an idiot.

1) Reasonable assumption: were race not an issue at all, Obama wouldn't have more than about a 20 point lead over Clinton, tops, in most primaries.

No that's not a reasonable assumption. There is no evidence that that would be the case. You certainly haven't provided any to make your blatantly racist statement.

2) That establishes Obama as getting a maximum of 60% normally, and Clinton a minimum of 40%.

No, your assumption is false so this is nonsense.

3) Empirically, Clinton never got higher than 70% among whites (and that only happened in one state, IIRC), whereas Obama regularly got 90%+ among blacks. Normally, I think she led Obama by <10 points among whites, or not at all.

But that's a false assumption again. You are assuming from the beginning that anyone who votes for someone of the same race is racist. That's where your argument fails and where you show your true colors.

4) Therefore, in the most extreme state, an equal percentage of blacks and whites voted differently because of race. In the usual case, far more blacks than whites voted differently because of race.

Nope, all your assumptions are based on your own racist feelings. Amazing that such a bigotry is tolerated on this forum. Mods can't say they didn't see this as the thread was started by one. Let's see what their stance is on such racist remarks that you have made here Kuci.

[Kuciwalker]

No that's not a reasonable assumption. There is no evidence that that would be the case. You certainly haven't provided any to make your blatantly racist statement.

Eh, I obviously have no way of proving it. But the assumption itself is not racist.

But that's a false assumption again. You are assuming from the beginning that anyone who votes for someone of the same race is racist. That's where your argument fails and where you show your true colors.

No. I assume that everyone who votes differently because of race is racist.

Nope, all your assumptions are based on your own racist feelings. Amazing that such a bigotry is tolerated on this forum. Mods can't say they didn't see this as the thread was started by one. Let's see what their stance is on such racist remarks that you have made here Kuci.

Either you inherited the spirit of UR or you're really pulling my leg at this point.

[Winston]

I have to wonder what exactly has happened to you, DaShi, to affect your overall attitude in such a disastrous way. Something has changed over the past month or so, I don't recall your being anywhere near this hostile in the past.

Really, these are people you're talking to. Or should I say hurling abuse on.

[Darius871]

My guess is it's another one of DaShi's attempted parodies that nobody gets but himself until he spills the beans. It's happened before.

[Kuciwalker]

Oh, right, I'd forgotten about those.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Eh, I obviously have no way of proving it.

Exactly, since you can't prove it, it's just an assumption based on your own personal bias. . .

But the assumption itself is not racist.

. . .therefore the assumption is racist.

No. I assume that everyone who votes differently because of race is racist.

No, when you say that one group is more racist than another is racist. Especially when you base it on assumptions on how you believe each race behaves.

Either you inherited the spirit of UR or you're really pulling my leg at this point.

I don't expect a bigot like you to see through your own bias.