Let’s ask OP:
GloryDays, do you agree your friends and other Breitbart-linkers should respect boundaries and not enter certain sections of lower and midtown Manhhattan?
- Nothing “minorities” said in these articles is that bad
- How the fuck to you “lose a lot of respect for minorities” just by hearing what “some minorities” are saying? (unless you’re a bigot) (But you say your friends are not bigots)
Americans have the freedom to travel wherever we go. I visit Queens regularly. I love Queens. It’s beautiful. I know that New York will be a safe Democratic state in 2016, but the Republicans may do better than Romney’s 20% and McCain’s 24%. The GOP candidate should get 20%-30% percent.
Do your friends attribute the statements of individuals to entire races for all groups, or just black people? Would they have to be “given an answer whether they are loyal to this country” for white soldiers and sailors too, or just black soldiers and sailors?
Do you have any idea how incredibly bigoted your friends’ statements are, as you describe them?
Hint to GloryDays – attributing statements and actions of individuals to their entire racial/ethnic/religious/etc. group (like your friends do if they lose respect for minorities because of the assertions of individuals) is one of the most basic forms of bigotry.
I don’t know why the opinions of your “friends” is of any relevance here whatsoever, but tell your “friends” that there is no honor in marginalizing and persecuting innocent people, whether it’s over race, religion, or sexual orientation.
I will try to the next time I see them. They feel that there is discrimination against white males.
So I take it you agree with their summary:
In short, Black Lives Matter is a terrorist group, using terrorist tactics and we have to vote for someone (like a religious bigot named Huckabee) who will fight against them like terrorists. Because asking for civil rights in 2015 is a form of terrorism.
Best advice, you and the ‘friends’ stay off the Internet.
Isn’t it about time you found a new shtick? This one’s getting old.
Yep, this link illustrates the “I never knew it was there” parts of Queens in way mere words cannot … A charmless mix of streets that are like strip malls without the luxury of actual parking lots and cemeteries… Lots and lots of cemeteries.
Translation: It’s no longer socially acceptable to be a racist.
>2015
>Caring about DADT
It’s worth checking out George Carlin’s take on Glory Days’ friends.
I voted yes, since “can” is pretty open ended and Huckabee is plausible if ten different things break his way. He’s a very talented politician, a great communicator, and has a good life story. But he has never been able to raise money and his social views are probably too retrograde for even most conservatives to be comfortable with him anymore. 2008 was his best shot. Now he’s got Ben Carson and Ted Cruz occupying his “spot”. If it was just Ben Carson, or just Ted Cruz, Huck could overcome that. He’s more knowledgeable than Carson and more relatable than Cruz. So in order for Huck to perform the way he did in 2008 in Iowa, he’d need for Cruz to disqualify himself the way Carson seems to have done.
Then he’d have to actually raise money this time and win in South Carolina. But if he was to somehow come back and win Iowa, everything after that is a lot easier by comparison.
If we were in the Pit I could describe the intelligence of people who think white males are discriminated against in the U.S.
Many Black people feel that, if their skin color etc. could be changed to appear Caucasian and all else remained the same, their outcomes (hiring, police interaction, etc.) would generally improve. Do “your friends” think their lives would be better after they had surgery to appear Negroid?
ETA: It is fitting that this racist discussion occurs in a thread about the racist moron Huckabee.
Or have them post their own ideas here. So you can stop pretending that they are not *your *ideas…
I didn’t know where else to post this…
What’s going on a PredictWise?
Suddenly Mike Huckabee has a 31% chance to win Iowa. I don’t believe it and I’m pretty sure they don’t believe it. Their algorithm must be a little too sensitive to some small change somewhere.
Iowa top 5 right now. Posting it here because it may change once the folks at PW figure out what went wrong.
Mike Huckabee 31 %
Ted Cruz 22 %
Donald Trump 21 %
Marco Rubio 9 %
Ben Carson 5 %
At Betfair, Huckabee is shown with “500” under Lay, but empty under Back. Predictwise treats the empty as Zero (or such) and computes a 50.1% implied probability!
I’m confused about the meanings of “Back” and “Lay.” How would you read that out in English? When there is $5 shown as a 100 Lay, is the gambler risking $500?
I emailed the guy who runs PredictWise (David Rothschild). He said, “Huckabee is so far gone, the price broke down for him.” It should be corrected shortly.
I have reverse engineered the derived price price column for all but a few candidates.
For candidates with numbers in both the back and lay columns. The derived price is the arithmetic mean of the the reciprocals of the numbers in back and lay. So for Cruz (1/2.5+1/3.1)/2 ~= 0.361. However, this doesn’t work for Bush and Fiorina. Both of these candidates have weird lines where the implied probabilities of back and lay are very far apart.
For candidates with a number in only back use half the reciprocal of that number. So for Christie (1/40)/2 ~= 0.013. This is equivalent to assuming a lay bet costs an infinite amount and using the above.
I have no idea what is going on with Huckabee.
A back bet listed at X on Betfair means you must risk 1 to win (X-1). A lay bet listed at X means you must risk $(X-1) to win $1.