magellan01 - epitome of racist Republican

[lance_strongarm]

@andros

:sigh:

Really? You can’t scroll upwards and see that what he actually said and what you claim he said are not the same thing?

I did scroll up. And I found that I was right - he did say what I claim he said.

Now what?

[lance_strongarm]

@GIGObuster

Actually the numbers came from the senate election of Obama vs. Alan Keyes.

I wasn’t talking about the numbers.

But yeah, those numbers are from ONE election. And they don’t actually ask the voters why they voted the way they did. It’s pretty much worthless scientifically.

It has been seen mostly as a very clever theorem by many, but there are more serious political writers that wonder if that was more than just an observation applicable only to Illinois.

Well, yeah.

[lance_strongarm]

You can’t look at one election in one state in one year and say “that’s how all voters behave all the time.”

And you can’t assume why they vote the way they do either. People vote for all kinds of reasons. In a hopeless race, they often vote just as protest - not for a candidate, but against the other one, for instance. To say they are just crazy is incredibly shallow and unfair and makes you ignorant of the real reasons.

I can’t believe I even have to explain this.

[GIGObuster]

@lance_strongarm

You can’t look at one election in one state in one year and say “that’s how all voters behave all the time.”

The reason why the crazification factor is not dismissed that casually is that that election was a very peculiar one.

That both candidates were black and one was clearly as mad as a hatter are important items to take into account, but one wonders why we have to explain this considering the subject at hand. :dubious:

[lance_strongarm]

@GIGObuster

The reason why the crazification factor is not dismissed that casually is that that election was a very peculiar one.

But that makes it even LESS of a case that can be applied generally, not more.

That both candidates were black and one was clearly as mad as a hatter are important items to take into account, but one wonders why we have to explain this considering the subject at hand. :dubious:

Well, aside from the fact that any social scientist would easily dismiss the preposterous idea that you can take one election, especially a “very peculiar” one, and say the thoughts of the voters (which aren’t even offered as evidence) and their voting behavior can be assumed to apply to all elections, there’s the fact that someone is trying to use the results of an election in which BOTH CANDIDATES WERE BLACK to say something about racism in voting.

[andros]

@lance_strongarm

I did scroll up. And I found that I was right - he did say what I claim he said.

Now what?

:sigh again:

Ok.

He said:

@YogSosoth

Doesn’t matter, those millions vote for the policies put out by the few Republicans on record as saying racist things and promoting a racist agenda.

You responded:

@lance_strongarm

Every Republican votes for racist candidates? You’ve proven that all these candidates are racist?

He did not say that “every Republican votes for racist candidates.” Nor that “all these candidates are racists.” You made that up. I don’t think you did so on purpose.

He said:

@YogSosoth

So we can definitively say that a full 20% of the voting population is racist since they continue to vote for the GOP despite all the racist things coming out of that party for the last few decades.

You responded:

@lance_strongarm

you’ve gone from “the party is racist” to “20% of the party [sic] is racist.”

He did not say that “20% of the [Republican] party is racist.” You made that up. I don’t think you did so on purpose.
Alls I’m saying is that you seem to be presenting yourself as a stickler for accuracy. And honestly, kind of nitpicky. It’s hard to maintain that when you’re being inaccurate yourself.

As for the “crazification factor,” you’re absolutely correct that it does not have much, if any, empirical basis. It’s kind of fun, but yeah, no scientific basis.

[andros]

(Good lord, why am I defending Yog? He’s perfectly capable of doing it himself…)

[GIGObuster]

@lance_strongarm

But that makes it even LESS of a case that can be applied generally, not more.

The main point was craziness, not usual to see one clearly crazy candidate.

@lance_strongarm

Well, aside from the fact that any social scientist would easily dismiss the preposterous idea that you can take one election, especially a “very peculiar” one, and say the thoughts of the voters (which aren’t even offered as evidence) and their voting behavior can be assumed to apply to all elections, there’s the fact that someone is trying to use the results of an election in which BOTH CANDIDATES WERE BLACK to say something about racism in voting.

:rolleyes:

That was not the point of the crazification factor. Race was not one factor for obvious reasons.

But clearly the main point is missed, YS did not pull this out of thin air.

[lance_strongarm]

@GIGObuster

The main point was craziness, not usual to see one clearly crazy candidate.

Yes, but a crazy candidate may change the reasons people vote. For instance, it may be a protest vote against the other. To simply declare that one candidate is crazy, and then extrapolate all kinds of things about how voters think from that is simply unsupportable. It’s a huge stretch.

That was not the point of the crazification factor. Race was not one factor for obvious reasons.

So how does one apply it to an argument about racist voters then?

But clearly the main point is missed, YS did not pull this out of thin air.

No, he pulled it from a BLOG. LOL.

Seriously, this is a load of horseshit with no scientific validity whatsoever. It’s an interesting hypothesis, but absolutely nothing has been proven here. Saying that some people in Illinois voted for someone you think is crazy once means an entire political party is racist is just plain stupid.

[lance_strongarm]

@andros

:Alls I’m saying is that you seem to be presenting yourself as a stickler for accuracy. And honestly, kind of nitpicky. It’s hard to maintain that when you’re being inaccurate yourself.

Fine. Let’s back up and say he’s saying some really wild, ridiculous things that aren’t supportable, without specific numbers.

As for the “crazification factor,” you’re absolutely correct that it does not have much, if any, empirical basis. It’s kind of fun, but yeah, no scientific basis.

I’m glad you see that.

[GIGObuster]

@lance_strongarm

No, he pulled it from a BLOG. LOL.

That is not clear as shown. There are other places that did not dismiss it.

@lance_strongarm

Seriously, this is a load of horseshit with no scientific validity whatsoever. It’s an interesting hypothesis, but absolutely nothing has been proven here. Saying that some people in Illinois voted for someone you think is crazy once means an entire political party is racist is just plain stupid.

Again, not the point, and I even said that it was interesting, not that it was a fact.

Anyhow, not very important for the matter at hand.

[lance_strongarm]

@GIGObuster

That is not clear as shown. There are other places that did not dismiss it.

Not dismissing it is not the same thing as accepting it, let alone accepting that it can be used to extrapolate about other elections of voter behavior.

Again, not the point, and I even said that it was interesting, not that it was a fact.

You didn’t, but Yogosoth made it a foundation of his whole big stupid argument that Republicans are all racists.

[GIGObuster]

@lance_strongarm

Not dismissing it is not the same thing as accepting it, let alone accepting that it can be used to extrapolate about other elections of voter behavior.

Missing the point again, you are only guessing that he got it from a blog.

@lance_strongarm

You didn’t, but Yogosoth made it a foundation of his whole big stupid argument that Republicans are all racists.

You said that YS “reported” 20%, that is not **all **nor what YS said.

Anyhow, going back to the subject, you need to know that early magellan01, like Michelle Malkin got their kicks from racist and nativist groups like FAIR, FAIRUS, VDARE and others.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=339160&page=2

Post #65, virtually the same post there was spammed by him in other threads. Until he noticed how naked that approach was, he has since “mellowed out” to be a side kick for our resident scientific racists.

For more info on Fairus, VDare and other prejudiced orgs:

http://mediamatters.org/research/2005/05/12/oreilly-promotes-petition-by-numbersusa-a-group/133190

Tancredo also enjoys star status among the white-collar anti-immigrationists of Tanton's network who have courted his support, donating $5,000 to his 2002 campaign through FAIR's U.S. Immigration Reform PAC and thousands more in personal donations. Leaders in Tanton's network have long sought a foothold on Capitol Hill and, through Tancredo, it appears their hopes have been realized.

The close working relationship between the Tanton network and Tancredo is most apparent on the Web site for the congressman's Immigration Reform Caucus. When Salon interviewed Tancredo earlier this year, the Web site contained links to FAIR, NumbersUSA, CIS and virtually every other Tanton creation. It also contained a link to VDare, a white nationalist Web site run by British writer Peter Brimelow that is named after Virginia Dare, the first white child born in the New World. When asked about the link, Tancredo was befuddled and indignant.

[lance_strongarm]

@GIGObuster

Missing the point again, you are only guessing that he got it from a blog.

No, I saw that in the link.

As for the rest of your post, his argument is total bullshit. It’s weak crap that would be laughed out of any political science classroom. It’s nonsense.

[GIGObuster]

@lance_strongarm

No, I saw that in the link.

That came from **andros **not YS

@lance_strongarm

As for the rest of your post, I’m not here to defend Magellan.

I was only saying it to stick to the point, yeah, crazy to point at evidence huh?

[Iggy]

@The_Second_Stone

If the racism is very mild, I would agree with you. Kinda how like the Irish enjoy being the butt of booze jokes. But black people in America have endured four centuries of serious abuse from slavery to being uniformly called “thugs” and lazy by “Republicans”. When everyone of your race votes against Republicans (within the margin of error) and you don’t, you need a very special reason to pass muster in my book. Colin Powell, Clarance Thomas, Juan Williams, Thomas Sowell and company have career and prestige as tokens. That’s not a special reason, that is a sell out.

And you espouse a racist view in your opinion. Plain and simple.

[GIGObuster]

I would not had put Colin Powell on that list.

http://www.theroot.com/blogs/blogging_the_beltway/2013/01/colin_powell_on_racism_in_the_gop_what_next.html

As President Obama grapples with criticism that his Republican predecessor’s cabinet better reflected the diversity of our country than the first black president’s, one of President George W. Bush’s most high-profile black cabinet members is harshly criticizing the GOP for racial insensitivity. In an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press, Powell declared himself still a Republican but also made it clear that the party has a long way to go in gaining the trust and votes of African Americans. Citing specific instances of racially offensive comments, Powell said, “There’s also a dark vein of intolerance in some parts of the party. What do I mean by that? What I mean by that is they still sort of look down on minorities.”

He referred to Sarah Palin’s use of the term “shuck and jive” – which Powell called “a racial-era slave term” – in a Facebook post about the president. He also referenced Mitt Romney campaign surrogate John Sununu’s dismissal of the president as “lazy” after his poor performance in the first presidential debate. Powell went so far as to insinuate that historically, racial slurs often followed when a black man was called lazy. “He didn’t say he was slow, he was tired, he didn’t do well; he said he was ‘lazy.’ Now, it may not mean anything to most Americans, but to those of us who are African Americans, the second word is ‘shiftless,’ and then there’s a third word that goes along with it.”

Powell’s critique rippled through the political chattering classes, in part because he is the highest-profile black Republican to speak so candidly on the record about the party’s racial baggage. But his comments also highlight one of the major hurdles the GOP faces in its quest to reclaim the White House and the Senate: how to avoid stepping on the land mine that is race in the age of Obama and how to remain politically relevant when you are a predominantly white party in an increasingly brown country.

After Sununu made very insensitive remarks on Colin Powell’s support of Obama being there just because of race, Lawrence Wilkerson, Former Colin Powell Aide and white BTW, Blasted Sununu and remarked that the GOP was ‘Full Of Racists’.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@lance_strongarm

So we say “amnesty this time, but never never again! We’re serious this time!”

If you want, but why? Declare and amnesty and change the laws. You’re drawing an odd and utterly unsupported conclusion.

@lance_strongarm

The article didn’t say that. It just explained the origin.

It’s past usage that makes it possible to use it without racist intent.

That doesn’t address my specific criticism of the phrasing in the rather badly-written article.

[The_Second_Stone]

@magellan01

:rolleyes:It was “easy” because you took a wall of my text and just magically deemed it racist. That’s the same lame shit you clowns always try to get away with. And it’s why I get under so many people’s skin—I don’t allow these blanket pronouncements. So, smart guy, cite the specific things I said that you think racist and we can talk about them. Otherwise, you just show yourself to be a poster boy example of what liberals are getting called on in this thread.

You may be able to get away with your loose thinking when you an a bunch of your lefty buddies are swooning over another Maya Angelou reading, but this ain’t that circle jerk, as much as you would like it to be…

So, whatcha got with all your “ample evidence”?

That’s all I need. I remember years of this stuff from you. You call my opinion magical, and you are entitled to your opinion. Mine is fact based on your racist posting, the one cited is more than enough to prove it. The fact that you won’t admit it is racist is just another fact. Here’s some more:

Just google "magellan01 racist " and you get hundreds of references to this thread, the two birds thread and others.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-384242.html is a winner, pretending that Macaca is obscure and only bad because it is obscurely racist.

I’m not ignoring anything. He directly addressed Mr. “Macaca” not Webb. What preceeding it serves to establish that Allen believed that he was scoring points on Webb by singling out his staffer. It DOESN’T establish that Allen was not directing his comments in an immediate sense, at that staffer. You’re trying to split the hairs of already split hairs on a toupee that is on someone else’s head.

…

Where have I said anything about your argument that could be remotely interpreted as “tortured”? I’ve said, repeatedly, that it’s a reasonable argument and most likely correct. I’ve merely pointed out, also repeatedly, that your argument does not invalidate Apos’s argument. Allen was clearly speaking directly to Sidharth, and intended his words for Sidharth. That his words were also meant for Webb is a secondary, but still valid, meaning. Even if Sidharth was being used as a stand-in for Webb, that still implies that he and Webb share the qualities Allen assigned to them. Yes, he is saying that Webb is not a real American. But he’s doing so by accusing Webb’s campaign worker of not being a real American. The context you’re arguing from merely widens the scope of Allen’s remarks. It does not redirect them.

And another entertaining the idea that Obama is a Kenyan. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-695832.html

That’s not the point. Yes, Biden would be President. And it should fall to him to reauthorize all legislation and whatever other decisions that can be revisited. If it were Biden, he’d probably do it. If it was 2017 and it was Clinton, she would probably do it. But at least then things would have been authorized by an actual President of the US. And no one, is talking about removing Biden from the office if this were come to pass.

…

That’s a much more reasonable question. Declaring a presidency void prospectively is far less unworkable than doing it back to Inauguration Day.

Marley:…Where does this desire to not only remove the President from office, but actually unmake his Presidency come from?

1. Respect for the Constitution.
2. Logic

and here you are defending George Zimmerman

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-654524.html

some racist bitches.

al27052: And narrow-minded, too. I bet you wouldn’t have excused Zimmerman if Trayvon had been wearing a suit and tie. It’s just so massively brain-damaged to equate “hoodie-wearer” with “deserves violent death”.

Something important seems to have escaped your notice: you’re an idiot.

Understandable as it might be.

Here’s some special gems:

Hey you racist "realists"

The problem you correctly point out is one that is at the heart of most of the discussions concerning race, genetics and performance. There is a really, really strong desire on the part of the OP and others to conflate the racial with racist to fit their purposes.

and here are some gems on intelligence:

What is racism?

But the test scores are being used as an indication of intelligence. Now, that claim can be attacked on its own, but one making that claim is hardly necessarily racist. Yes, iintelligence is a different characteristic. So what? It as a characteristic and if it can be measured there is then a factual claim to be made. One of three: blacks are more intelligent than Race X; blacks are less intelligent than race X; there is no difference between the intelligence of blacks and those from Race X. Assuming that C is off the table, that would mean that either A or B are statements of fact. And as such, how in the world is relaying a fact of nature “racist”?

These are racist positions. All of them. And they are defending racists, all of them. Do you get why so many people think you are a racist? Clearly you do not, but it is not really a defensible position given the single post in question, and the long history of posting this way.

More to come this weekend.

[magellan01]

@The_Second_Stone

That’s all I need. I remember years of this stuff from you. You call my opinion magical, and you are entitled to your opinion. Mine is fact based on your racist posting, the one cited is more than enough to prove it. The fact that you won’t admit it is racist is just another fact. Here’s some more:

Just google "magellan01 racist " and you get hundreds of references to this thread, the two birds thread and others.

And…? Just because lefty dopes like you call me a racist and Google sees that, you think that’s “proof” that I’m a racist. :roll eyes: Tsk, tsk. And I actually thought you were smarter than that. As far as your “cites”, I do so appreciate the effort, but I’ll have to ask you to attribute only my words to me. Much of what you claimed that, via your cites, were my words were actually what others said and appeared inside a quote box within my posts.

Also, you might want to read the threads. For instance, the thread about Obama not possibly being an American and thus, eligible to be President, was simply a hypothetical asking “what if” it became known that Obama never was never even eligible to hold the office, how should it be handled legally. The fact that you see racism in that simply advertises both your stupidity and your knee-jerk reaction to equate any discussion about Obama that is not flattering as RACIST! Really, go read the thread. (And I’d suggest reading a version that has the correct formatting, so you actually know who is saying what.) No where in that thread did I even criticize Obama. Seriously, read it for yourself. Your “entertaining the notion that Obama is a Kenyan” was really about "what would happen if someone elected President was later discovered to not have been eligible. Yes, Obama being born in Kenya was the main hypothetical, for obvious reasons—he’s the current President and some people raised the issue. But another hypothetical discussed was a President being 34 years of age when elected, which falls shy of the 35 years of age requirement.

I don’t think anyone in the thread claimed or even implied that it was the case that Obama was born in Kenya, except mainly as a joke. The thread wasn’t really about Obama, it was about someone who would, as per the Constitution, be ineligible to be President, yet got elected.

So, I’ll have to ask you to be more careful (indicate what portions of the discussion came from me and what came from others, i.e., use board formatting) and to point to actual specific statements. None of this, well, “Ha, look at this thread.” No, that’s you trying to pull the same lame shit you tried to pull here initially.