Christine O’Donnell Says False Education Claims Were Posted By Someone Else

Wingnuts • Views: 9,714

Now Christine O’Donnell is claiming that the misleading information about her education was posted at LinkedIn by someone else. She doesn’t know who. Just somebody who happened to know her education record well enough to embellish it. Wonder who it could have been?

O’Donnell’s statement, sent from the DC-area Shirley & Banister Public Affairs firm:

“There have been reports that I have released false information on a LinkedIn profile under my name. This is categorically untrue. I never established a LinkedIn profile, or authorized anyone to do so on my behalf. I have always been clear about my educational background. I completed undergraduate work at Fairleigh Dickenson University. After my undergraduate work, I completed a summer program run by the Phoenix Institute, at the Institute’s Oxford University location. The Institute runs programs around the world at various universities, and participants study issues of human dignity. I also completed a Lincoln Fellowship at the Claremont Institute in Claremont, CA. We would encourage LinkedIn to remove this profile.”

Jump to bottom

194 comments
1 Kragar  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:01:09am

The buck stops wherever it can be deflected to.

2 iossarian  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:03:05am

Lame.

I wonder who the email address under registration at LinkedIn goes to?

3 Kragar  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:09:26am

Maybe it was a disgruntled ex-staffer.

Of course, maybe if she paid them rather than embezzling campaign funds, they’re wouldn’t be so many disgruntled ex-staffers.

4 Gus  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:10:16am

What a crock. You have to sign up for LinkedIn. Your profile won’t magically appear and they won’t edit it for you.

When you join, you create a profile that summarizes your professional expertise and accomplishments. You can then form enduring connections by inviting trusted contacts to join LinkedIn and connect to you. Your network consists of your connections, your connections’ connections, and the people they know, linking you to a vast number of qualified professionals and experts…

5 celticdragon  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:10:45am

Uh…she only just completed her undergrad work a few months ago.

She is still lieing.

6 celticdragon  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:11:18am

re: #3 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Maybe it was a disgruntled ex-staffer.

Of course, maybe if she paid them rather than embezzling campaign funds, they’re wouldn’t be so many disgruntled ex-staffers.

He shoots…he scores!

7 wrenchwench  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:12:03am

re: #5 celticdragon

Uh…she only just completed her undergrad work a few months ago.

She is still lieing.

She said “after”. Still true if it’s waaaaaay after.

8 BishopX  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:12:32am

I’m beginning to wonder how much of this is some sort of twisted media strategy.

O’Donell is running as an anti-incumbent candidate, and since she doesn’t seem to have a platform (or a campaign), I think she may be hoping that all the press attention she is generating will simply increase her name recognition.

9 Gus  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:14:41am

From 2008:

Christine O’Donnell is 39-years-old, single and Catholic. Her hometown is Wilmington, Delaware. She graduated from Moorestown High School in Moorestown, New Jersey in 1987. In 1991, she graduated with a from Fairleigh Dickinson University in Madison, New Jersey with a degree in English and Communications. She resides in the Little Italy area of Wilmington, Delaware. In 2002, she was awarded an Abraham Lincoln Graduate Fellowship in Constitutional Government from the Claremont Institute in Claremont, California.

10 Gus  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:16:10am

re: #9 Gus 802

From 2008:

Although that is mentioned here.

11 Political Atheist  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:17:05am

I just got yet another Kos mass email about a canceled Tea Party event. Kos is Really pimping big for the Dems this season.

12 Kragar  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:17:06am

Apparently her 2006 campaign web site also listed her college education the same way.

13 Political Atheist  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:18:02am

re: #12 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

The Be-Clowned Campaign.

14 Gus  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:19:43am

Hey. Anyone see this yet?

Christine serves as a marketing and media consultant to various clients such as Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ, Natalia Tsarkova, the Vatican’s first female portrait painter and non-profit organizations such as the World Education and Development Fund, a charity that provides scholarships to children in poor communities throughout Latin America.

[Link: web.archive.org…]

15 wrenchwench  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:21:06am

re: #12 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Apparently her 2006 campaign web site also listed her college education the same way.

But she had nothing to do with that. Somebody else posted it.

16 Buck  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:21:39am

It is entirely possible to create a LinkedIn profile for someone. Just like Wikipedia, it is not difficult to hurt someone, and make it seem like they are lying about themselves.

IF she really wanted those lies to be spread, she would have used them elsewhere. (other than LinkedIn).

Looks like we (and many of the other media) have been punked by someone

17 Kragar  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:22:11am

Christine O’Donnell said gays suffer from `identity disorder,’ reporter says

Victor Greto, who’s now a professor at Wesley College in Delaware, emails over her full quote from his notes on the interview. Here’s what she said:

“People are created in God’s image. Homosexuality is an identity adopted through societal factors. It’s an identity disorder.”

O’Donnell’s suggestion that gays suffer from a psychological disorder is far worse than other comments about gays that have already gotten media attention, such as her claim that the government spent too much on AIDS and her insistence that “gays get away with so much.”

18 HoosierHoops  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:22:15am

Good Afternoon Lizards!
You find a lot of people lying about their College education these days..In fact for the last 10 years it seems par for the course…Our Company verifies your transcripts before being hired.

19 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:22:32am

re: #16 Buck

It is entirely possible to create a LinkedIn profile for someone. Just like Wikipedia, it is not difficult to hurt someone, and make it seem like they are lying about themselves.

IF she really wanted those lies to be spread, she would have used them elsewhere. (other than LinkedIn).

Looks like we (and many of the other media) have been punked by someone

(This is going to be easy)

Gus… take stage.

20 Buck  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:22:50am

re: #12 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Apparently her 2006 campaign web site also listed her college education the same way.

Can you actually prove that, or does the word “Apparently” mean that you are just saying it like it is true.

21 rwmofo  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:24:40am

Anyone else notice that the media/democrat party has run so far away from the mainstream now, they have no accomplishments to run on and all they have left is attacks on the minority party.

2010 Motto: Yeah we’re out of touch, but at least we’re not conservative!

22 Gus  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:24:58am

re: #19 Walter L. Newton

(This is going to be easy)

Gus… take stage.

Now is the winter of our discontent…

Got me. I think if someone wanted to hurt someone they wouldn’t post two goofy references for graduate studies. I’d go all out.

23 Kragar  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:26:06am

re: #20 Buck

Can you actually prove that, or does the word “Apparently” mean that you are just saying it like it is true.

Christine O’Donnell Lies About Attending Oxford University

Politico caught that O’Donnell’s 2006 campaign site described her as a graduate of the university.

They don’t have a direct link and I was looking for it, but here you go.

24 wrenchwench  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:26:15am

re: #21 rwmofo

Uh, no.

25 iossarian  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:27:12am

re: #23 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Well, I think the 2006 site claimed that she was a graduate of Farleigh Dickinson (which she wasn’t) rather than Oxford. So I guess you have to put that in the “different lie” bucket.

26 Killgore Trout  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:27:21am

…but she wouldn’t lie to Hitler to save Jews.

27 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:27:24am

re: #22 Gus 802

Now is the winter of our discontent…

Got me. I think if someone wanted to hurt someone they wouldn’t post two goofy references for graduate studies. I’d go all out.

Unless I’m missing something, there has been other places, sourced to O’Donnell, recently and in the past, that contained these same references to he “education.”

28 thatthatisis  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:28:35am

Celticdragon is right. Her exact words from this press release are “I completed undergraduate work at Fairleigh Dickenson University. After my undergraduate work, I completed a summer program run by the Phoenix Institute … “

Since she is saying she completed her undergraduate work before she did the summer program. But she did the summer program in 2002, and actually completed undergraduate requirements in 2010.

She has also said that she didn’t get a degree from Fairleigh Dickinson because she hadn’t paid the tuition. But that’s not true either, because she had to take a required course in 2010 in order to fulfill her requirements from FDU.

The real issue is, can Republicans look into someone’s qualifications and character BEFORE they vote for him/her, instead of just flinging them selves at anyone who says they against Obama? It would be nice.

29 jamesfirecat  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:28:45am

re: #21 rwmofo

Anyone else notice that the media/democrat party has run so far away from the mainstream now, they have no accomplishments to run on and all they have left is attacks on the minority party.

2010 Motto: Yeah we’re out of touch, but at least we’re not conservative!

Really?

So Health care?

Keeping credit card companies from screwing you over?

Stimulating an economy that was down because of the other party’s bad policies?

Ending Combat Operations in Iraq…

These are all “no accomplishments” to you?

30 Gus  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:29:52am

re: #27 Walter L. Newton

Unless I’m missing something, there has been other places, sourced to O’Donnell, recently and in the past, that contained these same references to he “education.”

I haven’t kept up with those references. I know everything is all over the place including the Politically Incorrect tapes so I’ve been losing track. All I know is that she’s one strange bird.

31 Buck  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:30:31am

re: #23 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Christine O’Donnell Lies About Attending Oxford University

They don’t have a direct link and I was looking for it, but here you go.

I guess you are not paying attention. That article only points and really describes the LinkedIn site, which is entirely possible to be a trick, and not posted by her.

No link (way back machine, google cache), or picture of the 2006 site.

Apparently, that evidence is missing, and really should not be said until verified.

32 Kragar  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:30:56am

re: #25 iossarian

Well, I think the 2006 site claimed that she was a graduate of Farleigh Dickinson (which she wasn’t) rather than Oxford. So I guess you have to put that in the “different lie” bucket.

Upon rereading it, you are correct, she lied in 2006 about graduating from a different college. I wonder who posted it that time?

33 Locker  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:32:32am

re: #21 rwmofo

Anyone else notice that the media/democrat party has run so far away from the mainstream now, they have no accomplishments to run on and all they have left is attacks on the minority party.

2010 Motto: Yeah we’re out of touch, but at least we’re not conservative!

Anyone else notice how your dumb ass tried to treat the media and the Democratic party as one and the same?

Perhaps you are touchy about Fox news’ roll as the propaganda wing of the Republican party and feel that the entire bulk of the remaining media are simply the Democrat’s counter-part.

This isn’t that hard to test.. you just ask one question…

Does this media source consistently criticize only one party while consistently praising and helping the other party?

Seems to me that Fox News is the only one of the big media outlets (ABC, CBS, CNN, Rueters, etc etc) for whom the answer is “yes”.

34 Gus  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:32:44am

And there is no Abraham Lincoln Graduate Fellowship. There is an Abraham Lincoln Fellowship. She couldn’t be a graduate student anyway in 2002 since she only recently graduated from FD.

35 celticdragon  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:33:18am

re: #21 rwmofo

Anyone else notice that the media/democrat party has run so far away from the mainstream now, they have no accomplishments to run on and all they have left is attacks on the minority party.

2010 Motto: Yeah we’re out of touch, but at least we’re not conservative!

What the hell is the democrat party? Is that anything like the republic party?

36 Gus  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:34:20am

re: #34 Gus 802

And there is no Abraham Lincoln Graduate Fellowship. There is an Abraham Lincoln Fellowship. She couldn’t be a graduate student anyway in 2002 since she only recently graduated from FD.

Fixed.

37 Gus  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:36:12am

Here’s a link to someone’s experience in Claremont’s Lincoln Fellowship.

Lasted a week. Sounds like a seminar to me.

38 Kragar  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:36:39am

re: #31 Buck

17 years later, O’Donnell earns degree

Her 2006 Senate campaign website described her as a “graduate of Fairleigh Dickinson University.” In March of this year, she told the Delaware News Journal that FDU was withholding her diploma because she had not yet paid off her student loans. “I finished the coursework,” O’Donnell told the newspaper.

After attending the cap and gown ceremony in 1993, Moran said it took 12 years for O’Donnell to pay off the outstanding debt. He said she met with FDU President Michael Adams after her 2008 Senate campaign to make sure “she went through all the proper measures to achieve [the degree].”

But when pressed about why the university didn’t award the degree until this week, Moran said, “They don’t issue these in a heartbeat. They award them three times a year.”

39 mikefromArlington  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:38:05am

Maybe it was “The Googles?” Check with McCain, he’s fairly knowledgeable of the inter-workings of that internetz softwars.

40 webevintage  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:38:21am

re: #21 rwmofo

Anyone else notice that the media/democrat Democratic party has run so far away from the mainstream now, they have no accomplishments to run on and all they have left is attacks on the minority party.

2010 Motto: Yeah we’re out of touch, but at least we’re not conservative! But at least we don’t suck as much as the Republicans!

Fixed.

41 Buck  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:38:23am

re: #34 Gus 802

And there is no Abraham Lincoln Graduate Fellowship. There is an Abraham Lincoln Fellowship. She couldn’t be a graduate student anyway in 2002 since she only recently graduated from FD.

and yet you found the Clairmont Institute “2002 Lincoln Fellowship” link that lists her:

Christine O’Donnell is President and founder of a national youth organization, The Savior’s Alliance for Lifting the Truth. Ms. O’Donnell is a graduate of Fairleigh Dickinson University, where she majored in English and communications. She has made numerous television appearances, been interviewed and profiled in national newspapers and magazines, and works as a media and public relations consultant.

42 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:38:24am

re: #38 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

17 years later, O’Donnell earns degree

Depends on what the meaning of “earned” is?

43 Gus  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:39:50am

re: #37 Gus 802

Here’s a link to someone’s experience in Claremont’s Lincoln Fellowship.

Lasted a week. Sounds like a seminar to me.

Yep. Here you go. Lasts a week:

The 2006 program will run August 5-13 at the Lodge at Rancho Mirage hotel in Southern California. Application materials are due by May 5. More information and applications to download are available here. Bios of 2005 Fellows are available here.

44 sagehen  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:41:56am

re: #11 Rightwingconspirator

I just got yet another Kos mass email about a canceled Tea Party event. Kos is Really pimping big for the Dems this season.

This season?

The site’s declared purpose for existence, from day one, has been “to elect more and better Democrats.” They (and affiliated and spin-off sites) were hoping to create a web presence that would do for the Dems what talk radio does for the Reps.

45 Gus  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:42:24am

The O’Donnell campaign sez: I also completed a Lincoln Fellowship at the Claremont Institute in Claremont, CA.

Right. Fellowship. A week long seminar in Rancho Cucamonga.

46 darthstar  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:43:45am

I’ll bet it was God. God puts fake shit in my resumé all the time. And he’s refusing to let her quit the Senate Race.

O’Donnell: God wouldn’t let me quit Senate race

“God continued to strengthen and empower us,” O’Donnell said in an interview on the Christian Broadcasting Network. “Because you see that if it weren’t for faith, when all logic said it’s time to quit, we pursued, we marched on, because we knew God was not releasing us to quit.”

48 darthstar  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:44:38am

re: #45 Gus 802

The O’Donnell campaign sez: I also completed a Lincoln Fellowship at the Claremont Institute in Claremont, CA.

Right. Fellowship. A week long seminar in Rancho Cucamonga.

You see, there was this fellow there, and he had a ship, well it wasn’t a “ship” exactly…more like a bloody altar…

49 darthstar  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:46:00am

re: #47 Killgore Trout

CNN’s Boudreau: Alleged O’Keefe plot involved planting false story at CNN and giving Fox a “heads up”

She is quite pretty…but if it turns out Fox is somehow involved, this could turn in to a legal love-fest.

50 Decatur Deb  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:46:11am

re: #45 Gus 802

The O’Donnell campaign sez: I also completed a Lincoln Fellowship at the Claremont Institute in Claremont, CA.

Right. Fellowship. A week long seminar in Rancho Cucamonga.

Damn, I spent twice as long as that at Texas A&M. Go Aggies.

51 Political Atheist  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:46:52am

re: #44 sagehen

This season?

The site’s declared purpose for existence, from day one, has been “to elect more and better Democrats.” They (and affiliated and spin-off sites) were hoping to create a web presence that would do for the Dems what talk radio does for the Reps.

I get that mission, the mass emails are a more recent thing.

52 Gus  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:47:26am

re: #50 Decatur Deb

Damn, I spent twice as long as that at Texas A&M. Go Aggies.

Hey. On of this years “Lincoln Fellows” is Andrew Breitbart.

53 Killgore Trout  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:48:06am

re: #49 darthstar

She is quite pretty…but if it turns out Fox is somehow involved, this could turn in to a legal love-fest.

I don’t think there will be a legal battle. Fox runs fake stories everyday and their audience doesn’t mind. Even if Fox is involved a doubt anyone would even be fired over this.

54 shutdown  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:48:29am

I think, given her outstanding record on being straightforward and honest, that O’Donnell should be given the benefit of the doubt.

If she says she had sex with Satan has no idea who would make false, albeit beneficial, claims about her educational and prifessional background, I am willing to believe it.

Seriously, though, the false background is far too carefully crafted to cleave closely to the truth to be the work of a prankster or disgruntled staffer.

55 darthstar  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:48:34am

re: #42 Walter L. Newton

Depends on what the meaning of “earned” is?

In this case, it means “paid for”…

56 darthstar  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:49:12am

re: #53 Killgore Trout

I don’t think there will be a legal battle. Fox runs fake stories everyday and their audience doesn’t mind. Even if Fox is involved a doubt anyone would even be fired over this.

Yes, but if Fox is involved in sabotaging CNN, then that gets into a whole new area.

57 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:49:24am

re: #55 darthstar

In this case, it means “paid for”…

That’s what I was thinking.

58 Decatur Deb  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:49:51am

re: #52 Gus 802

Hey. On of this years “Lincoln Fellows” is Andrew Breitbart.

Bettern’ better.

59 CarleeCork  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:51:55am

re: #49 darthstar

She is quite pretty…but if it turns out Fox is somehow involved, this could turn in to a legal love-fest.


We can hope.

60 Buck  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:52:59am

re: #57 Walter L. Newton

That’s what I was thinking.

OK, but I wonder once paid for, does the college show her as graduated in the year she ‘attended the cap and gown ceremony’ or the year she paid in full?

61 CarleeCork  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:53:18am

re: #53 Killgore Trout

I don’t think there will be a legal battle. Fox runs fake stories everyday and their audience doesn’t mind. Even if Fox is involved a doubt anyone would even be fired over this.


I thought I was the ONLY one that knew about the fake stories.

62 Decatur Deb  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:53:36am

re: #47 Killgore Trout

CNN’s Boudreau: Alleged O’Keefe plot involved planting false story at CNN and giving Fox a “heads up”

That report references an upcoming CNN documentary on the incident. Big win, dipshits.

63 Mr. Hammer  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:55:08am

[Link: www.linkedin.com…]

64 Political Atheist  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:56:04am

The kid is toast. End of his media fame.

65 shutdown  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:56:09am

Does anybody else see a theme in O’Keefe’s “reporting”? It appears he objectifies women, and his ACORN reporting was predicated on others feeling the same way (unfortunately, he wasn’t always wrong). But this guy has a serious problem with sexism.

66 Escaped Hillbilly  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:56:45am

re: #56 darthstar

Yes, but if Fox is involved in sabotaging CNN, then that gets into a whole new area.

Wait, I couldn’t play that video. From what was said, it sounds like they were supposed to be given a heads up. But they weren’t actually involved. Did the video say otherwise? I am confused much.

67 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:56:52am

re: #65 imp_62

he comes from the Breitbart/Limbaugh school of politicking is it any surprise?

68 ClaudeMonet  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:56:54am

re: #6 celticdragon

He shoots…he scores!

But not with O’Donnell.

re: #21 rwmofo

Anyone else notice that the media/democrat party has run so far away from the mainstream now, they have no accomplishments to run on and all they have left is attacks on the minority party.

2010 Motto: Yeah we’re out of touch, but at least we’re not conservative!

Oh bog, it’s back.

69 shutdown  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:57:31am

re: #67 Dreggas

he comes from the Breitbart/Limbaugh school of politicking is it any surprise?

Surprising, no. Sad? Yup.

70 jamesfirecat  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:59:24am

re: #65 imp_62

Does anybody else see a theme in O’Keefe’s “reporting”? It appears he objectifies women, and his ACORN reporting was predicated on others feeling the same way (unfortunately, he wasn’t always wrong). But this guy has a serious problem with sexism.

Umm what do you mean by “he wasn’t always worng” do you think that O’Keefe actually found anything wrong at ACORN?

71 Gus  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 10:59:59am

Back later. Going to go earn my graduate degree from University of Denver. Should take only about 4 hours.

//

72 Feline Fearless Leader  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:00:20am

re: #69 imp_62

Surprising, no. Sad? Yup.

A full blown media war between networks including no-holds-barred dirty tricks would not be good for the country.

(Of course you realize SCTV predicted this years ago… “Duck Greek! It’s a hit!”)

73 ClaudeMonet  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:01:04am

re: #49 darthstar

She is quite pretty…but if it turns out Fox is somehow involved, this could turn in to a legal love-fest.

I hate to defend Fox, but this reads like his plan was to make the video, THEN tell Fox. I agree that if Fox was in on it in some way from earlier in the “plan”, they could be in some way liable or guilty of conspiracy.

Not that Fox would give two shits about that.

74 shutdown  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:02:11am

Paladino (gubernatorial candidate in NY) seems to be scaring off some mainstream republicans. But I am worried that he is attracting the newly activated fringe and that he has a legitimate chance to bring his sexist, racist, anti-Semitic bile to Albany. The good part is, that in Albany, he will be doomed to ineffective ranting while the state legislature continues to run th estate into the ground. No state has a similarly powerless governor.

75 shutdown  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:03:50am

re: #72 oaktree

A full blown media war between networks including no-holds-barred dirty tricks would not be good for the country.

(Of course you realize SCTV predicted this years ago… “Duck Greek! It’s a hit!”)

Meh. Nobody watches the networks anymore except those who have already made up their minds. The next war will be fought between lizards and sock puppets.

76 thatthatisis  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:04:27am

re: #70 jamesfirecat

Umm what do you mean by “he wasn’t always worng” do you think that O’Keefe actually found anything wrong at ACORN?

I can’t speak for imp, but I read imp’s post as saying that O’Keefe wasn’t always wrong in assuming that others objectified women.

77 darthstar  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:04:39am

re: #73 ClaudeMonet

I hate to defend Fox, but this reads like his plan was to make the video, THEN tell Fox. I agree that if Fox was in on it in some way from earlier in the “plan”, they could be in some way liable or guilty of conspiracy.

Not that Fox would give two shits about that.

Yes, upon further review, it looks like Fox’s hands are clean (in this case)…but it would not surprise me if O’Keefe had a direct contact at Fox and a verbal go ahead to do whatever he wants and that they’d look at it and see if it was worth using.

78 Feline Fearless Leader  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:05:10am

re: #75 imp_62

Meh. Nobody watches the networks anymore except those who have already made up their minds. The next war will be fought between lizards and sock puppets.

Can the lizards use giant puppets?

79 jamesfirecat  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:05:29am

re: #76 thatthatisis

I can’t speak for imp, but I read imp’s post as saying that O’Keefe wasn’t always wrong in assuming that others objectified women.

Oh my bad, I read “he wasn’t always wrong’ as meaning he’s not always wrong with his investigations.

If you meant to say he wasn’t always wrong to assume others objectify women Imp then I’d like to appologize for misreading you.

80 shutdown  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:05:38am

re: #76 thatthatisis

I can’t speak for imp, but I read imp’s post as saying that O’Keefe wasn’t always wrong in assuming that others objectified women.

Ayuh. That is precisely what I meant. I have no idea if anything was wrong at ACORN. Or right.

81 shutdown  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:06:04am

re: #78 oaktree

Can the lizards use giant puppets?

It’ll be like a South Park episode, only WAY cooler!

82 rwmofo  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:08:08am

The NY Times is reporting that 47 House democrats part ways with Nancy Pelosi and side with conservative republicans.

“By keeping dividends and capital gains tax rates linked and low for everyone, we can help the private sector create jobs and allow seniors and middle class households to save and invest more,” the Democrats added in the letter.

In the letter to Ms. Pelosi, the 47 Democrats, warned that an increase in the tax rate on dividends would be felt most acutely by retirees living on fixed incomes.

“Raising taxes on capital gains and dividends could discourage individuals and businesses from saving and investing,” they wrote. “We urge you to maintain the current tax rate for both dividend and long-term capital gains taxes.”

It’s not fair to say pigs are flying since democrat politicians have taken an unexpected break from their continual attack on the private sector, because it’s obvious their motivation is to try to forestall defeat November 2nd.

At least they picked a good, popular issue (with the voters - not the media/left) to draw a line in the sand.

83 darthstar  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:08:21am

re: #80 imp_62

Ayuh. That is precisely what I meant. I have no idea if anything was wrong at ACORN. Or right.

ACORN provided free legal advice and voter registration to disadvantaged minorities—who, for the most part, did not vote Republican. That was their only ‘crime.’ There was an administrator who embezzled money from ACORN, but that was a corrupt individual. There were also people who submitted fake voter registration forms because they were getting paid by count.

84 shutdown  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:09:00am

re: #79 jamesfirecat

Oh my bad, I read “he wasn’t always wrong’ as meaning he’s not always wrong with his investigations.

If you meant to say he wasn’t always wrong to assume others objectify women Imp then I’d like to appologize for misreading you.

There’s no crying in baseball, and no need to apologize on the intertewbz.

85 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:10:53am

re: #82 rwmofo

At least they picked a good, popular issue (with the voters - not the media/left) to draw a line in the sand.

Why do you think tax breaks for the rich are a good, popular issue?

You don’t actually believe that capital gains tax cuts benefit the middle class, do you?

Image: 3-10-05tax-f1.jpg

86 darthstar  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:11:10am

re: #82 rwmofo

capital gains tax rates linked and low for everyone

How many hourly workers benefit from capital gains tax cuts again? Are the greeters at WalMart, construction workers, teachers, nurses, etc. also buying and selling stocks on a regular basis?

87 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:11:16am

re: #21 rwmofo

Anyone else notice that the media/democrat party has run so far away from the mainstream now, they have no accomplishments to run on and all they have left is attacks on the minority party.

2010 Motto: Yeah we’re out of touch, but at least we’re not conservative!

Anyone else notice that the fear/Republican party has failed so dramatically in the mainstream that they have nothing left but conspiracy theories about the president and weird dysfunctional candidates?

88 shutdown  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:11:37am

re: #83 darthstar

ACORN provided free legal advice and voter registration to disadvantaged minorities—who, for the most part, did not vote Republican. That was their only ‘crime.’ There was an administrator who embezzled money from ACORN, but that was a corrupt individual. There were also people who submitted fake voter registration forms because they were getting paid by count.

I am sure they did all that. The skeptical paranoid in me also knows that they fronted for political activities that never would pass the smell test. But that has nothing to do with party affiliation.

89 shutdown  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:12:01am

re: #87 SanFranciscoZionist

Anyone else notice that the fear/Republican party has failed so dramatically in the mainstream that they have nothing left but conspiracy theories about the president and weird dysfunctional candidates?

This is going to be the bestest election ever.

90 jamesfirecat  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:13:42am

re: #82 rwmofo

The NY Times is reporting that 47 House democrats part ways with Nancy Pelosi and side with conservative republicans.

“By keeping dividends and capital gains tax rates linked and low for everyone, we can help the private sector create jobs and allow seniors and middle class households to save and invest more,” the Democrats added in the letter.

In the letter to Ms. Pelosi, the 47 Democrats, warned that an increase in the tax rate on dividends would be felt most acutely by retirees living on fixed incomes.

“Raising taxes on capital gains and dividends could discourage individuals and businesses from saving and investing,” they wrote. “We urge you to maintain the current tax rate for both dividend and long-term capital gains taxes.”

It’s not fair to say pigs are flying since democrat politicians have taken an unexpected break from their continual attack on the private sector, because it’s obvious their motivation is to try to forestall defeat November 2nd.

At least they picked a good, popular issue (with the voters - not the media/left) to draw a line in the sand.

47… isn’t that close to the same number who were against healthcare reform?

91 ClaudeMonet  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:18:46am

re: #85 Obdicut

Why do you think tax breaks for the rich are a good, popular issue?

You don’t actually believe that capital gains tax cuts benefit the middle class, do you?

Image: 3-10-05tax-f1.jpg

If you have investments of any kind, a preferred tax rate on long-term capital gains and/or dividends is a benefit. And believe it or not, many middle class people do have investments.

I’ll admit I’m selfish. I have investments; I have dividends and possible long-term capital gains. I’d like to see those taxed at a lower rate, even if the overall rates go up.

Just for the record—Preferential treatment for these types of income started WAY before the Bush-era tax cuts. Various forms of de facto lower rates on them go back at least as far as I do in tax accounting, which is around 35 years.

92 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:20:53am

re: #91 ClaudeMonet

If you have investments of any kind, a preferred tax rate on long-term capital gains and/or dividends is a benefit. And believe it or not, many middle class people do have investments.

I believe it. But they are really not the main beneficiaries, by any means. The amount of income middle-class people recieve from sale of stock or from other dividends is extremely small.

I’ll admit I’m selfish. I have investments; I have dividends and possible long-term capital gains. I’d like to see those taxed at a lower rate, even if the overall rates go up.

Why the hell do you think that you deserve a tax break on unearned income, while I have to pay higher taxes for working my ass off?

I’ve never, never, never understood this.

93 Lidane  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:24:42am

re: #16 Buck

So it’s all about finding the conspiracy and finding someone else to blame for her problems, then?

And here I thought conservatives were all about personal responsibility and bootstrapping your way through life. Guess not.

94 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:25:34am

re: #91 ClaudeMonet

Here is a good site with information about the regressiveness of capital gains tax:

[Link: www.middleclassimpact.com…]

95 lostlakehiker  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:29:45am

re: #74 imp_62

Paladino (gubernatorial candidate in NY) seems to be scaring off some mainstream republicans. But I am worried that he is attracting the newly activated fringe and that he has a legitimate chance to bring his sexist, racist, anti-Semitic bile to Albany. The good part is, that in Albany, he will be doomed to ineffective ranting while the state legislature continues to run th estate into the ground. No state has a similarly powerless governor.

You are worried without reason. Paladino will be lucky to get within 15 points of his Democratic opponent. He’s going to be so far in a hole, he could shout and nobody hear.

96 ClaudeMonet  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:33:06am

re: #92 Obdicut

I believe it. But they are really not the main beneficiaries, by any means. The amount of income middle-class people recieve from sale of stock or from other dividends is extremely small.

Why the hell do you think that you deserve a tax break on unearned income, while I have to pay higher taxes for working my ass off?

I’ve never, never, never understood this.

1. You don’t get taxed on the amount of the sale of stock. You get taxed on the gain.
2. Retirees often get a large chunk of their income from dividends.
3. I never said I DESERVE a tax break on unearned income. I’d LIKE to have one, but deserve? No way. I’m the first to admit it. If dividends are taxed at the same rate as ordinary income, I’ll shut up, pay my taxes, and be content with what’s left after taxes.
4. Like you, I work my ass off (well, some of the time). The investments are for when I need them, which may be never. They’re my safety net.

97 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:38:07am

re: #96 ClaudeMonet

1. You don’t get taxed on the amount of the sale of stock. You get taxed on the gain.

Yes. So what?


2. Retirees often get a large chunk of their income from dividends.

A) I’m happy to make an exception for retirees.

B) Please support this claim.


3. I never said I DESERVE a tax break on unearned income. I’d LIKE to have one, but deserve? No way. I’m the first to admit it. If dividends are taxed at the same rate as ordinary income, I’ll shut up, pay my taxes, and be content with what’s left after taxes.

Good. Because I really, really, really, really don’t see why I should pay the share of taxes others owe because I have the tendency to work for my money, and they don’t.

98 lostlakehiker  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:40:11am

re: #92 Obdicut

I believe it. But they are really not the main beneficiaries, by any means. The amount of income middle-class people recieve from sale of stock or from other dividends is extremely small.

Why the hell do you think that you deserve a tax break on unearned income, while I have to pay higher taxes for working my ass off?

I’ve never, never, never understood this.

If so, it would be because you didn’t experience the high-inflation Carter years.

Take an example: I buy a $10000 CD that pays 12% annual interest. Inflation is running 16%. My interest for the year is $1200. At the beginning of the year, I had $10000 and that was enough to buy, oh, say, 2000 movie tickets. Or supermarket chickens. Whatever.

At the end of the year, I had $11200. Prices, meanwhile, went up; I’d need $11600 to buy those same chickens. But I don’t actually have 11200, because at a 28% marginal rate, say, I’m paying $336 taxes. So I pay $336 in tax because instead of losing $1380 of my original sum, I lost only $345.

The different treatment of capital gains is a recognition that to a considerable extent, capital gains are merely nominal. In terms of purchasing power, investors showing capital gains often lost principle.

If I were writing the law, capital gains, dividend, and interest income would all be taxed just like earned income, EXCEPT that before calling it income, you’d index for inflation. Thus, that investor with the CD who lost $345 would have a tax deduction of 345 and would be able to reduce their taxes by about $100, instead of paying an extra $336.

Rapid and substantial capital gains, if you’re a good enough investor or lucky enough to reap them, would be taxable at your 28%, or 35%, rate, because they’d consist mostly of real gains.

Modest capital gains, accumulated over a long stretch of time, would go untaxed because in terms of purchasing power, they wouldn’t be gains at all.

99 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:42:06am

re: #98 lostlakehiker

If I were writing the law, capital gains, dividend, and interest income would all be taxed just like earned income, EXCEPT that before calling it income, you’d index for inflation. Thus, that investor with the CD who lost $345 would have a tax deduction of 345 and would be able to reduce their taxes by about $100, instead of paying an extra $336.

That’s fine. But I really, really don’t think that this is the actual justification for capital gains, and it would only apply in a minority subset of capital gains taxes.

100 lostlakehiker  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:44:10am

re: #83 darthstar

ACORN provided free legal advice and voter registration to disadvantaged minorities—who, for the most part, did not vote Republican. That was their only ‘crime.’ There was an administrator who embezzled money from ACORN, but that was a corrupt individual. There were also people who submitted fake voter registration forms because they were getting paid by count.

ACORN provided multiple voter registration to fictitious voters and voters not eligible to vote. But this was no crime, because mere technical violations of the rule, such as voting for the dead, voting twice, or three times, voting while not a citizen, all that, are done in the service of a greater good.

All’s fair in politics.

/Democrat

101 Buck  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:44:13am

re: #93 Lidane

So it’s all about finding the conspiracy and finding someone else to blame for her problems, then?

And here I thought conservatives were all about personal responsibility and bootstrapping your way through life. Guess not.

Look, we know that there are people who are using the internet to plant lies. If we can’t start at that point,m then I don’t know how to talk about this.

No one is expected to take responsibility for someone planting lies about them. It is entirely possible she didn’t even know what LinkedIn was. Certainly very possible she didn’t search and check to see if she is there.

I could in half an hour create a gmail account that looked like someone, and then create a LinkedIn account of some public figure. Inviting others to link to me.

What ever happened to trying to talk to the subject of your story BEFORE you print it, and fuck up their lives? Did POLITICO contact O’Donnell BEFORE they spread this all over the net? Give her a chance to explain?

NOT DEFENDING O’Donnell BTW, just hate when these digital lynchings happen.

102 ClaudeMonet  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:44:38am

re: #97 Obdicut

Yes. So what?

A) I’m happy to make an exception for retirees.

B) Please support this claim.

Good. Because I really, really, really, really don’t see why I should pay the share of taxes others owe because I have the tendency to work for my money, and they don’t.

1. I was only clarifying what you said, which was “recieve from sale of stock”.
2. I do taxes for a living. A big percentage of my clients are retirees, many of them widows, who derive a large part of their income from dividends on stocks bought years if not decades before. Frankly, many of them would be just fine if they paid the same rate on their dividends as they do on interest, but I’d be happier because they’d be complaining a little less!
3. I work for my living money. The dividends and interest are on the side (in fact, I reinvest my dividends wherever possible). I live a modest lifestyle, which is good since I also have a modest income from my job.

103 b_sharp  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:46:14am

re: #71 Gus 802

Back later. Going to go earn my graduate degree from University of Denver. Should take only about 4 hours.

//

And here I spent 6 years at Uni, without getting drunk anywhere near enough times, just to get some silly paper.

104 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:47:24am

re: #102 ClaudeMonet

1. I was only clarifying what you said, which was “recieve from sale of stock”.

Fair enough.

2. I do taxes for a living. A big percentage of my clients are retirees, many of them widows, who derive a large part of their income from dividends on stocks bought years if not decades before. Frankly, many of them would be just fine if they paid the same rate on their dividends as they do on interest, but I’d be happier because they’d be complaining a little less!

I’m sorry, but I don’t accept anecdotes as proof, especially because those who are paying for the services of a tax provider are a self-selected group.

3. I work for my living money. The dividends and interest are on the side (in fact, I reinvest my dividends wherever possible). I live a modest lifestyle, which is good since I also have a modest income from my job.

That’s great. I still don’t understand the point of saying that you’d like to pay lower taxes on dividends. Why not just say you’d like to pay zero taxes and get a magic muffin-man that cooks excellent crème brulée, too?

105 b_sharp  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:48:40am

re: #78 oaktree

Can the lizards use giant puppets?

Like this? (possibly NSFW)

106 scienceisreal  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:48:58am

re: #101 Buck

Can I go into my default statistician mode for a minute:
A=The event that a person lies about their education on their internet profile.
We know this is very common regardless of the prior characteristics of the person, so P(A) is high.
B=The event that someone creates a false profile to cast a person in a bad light by stating that person attended several prestigious schools.
I have never heard of someone attempting this (please let me know if you have an example), and it seems completely ridiculous, so P(B) is low.
C=The event that the person has lied about their education in the past.
Since Christine has lied about Princeton and her “graduate” fellowship, P(C)=1.
Already we would expect P(A)>P(B), when accounting for C P(A) increases drastically, while P(B) is unaffected. Therefore P(A|C) is likely to be much greater than P(B|C).

107 ClaudeMonet  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:49:31am

re: #98 lostlakehiker

Good luck trying to establish the cost of an investment when it’s been decades since the original purchase. Reinvested dividends, stock splits, mergers, spinoffs, etc.—I spend a lot of time on this stuff, and sometimes it’s like trying to complete a jigsaw puzzle when you know there are pieces missing. Then, to adjust it for inflation (or deflation)? Facepalm time!

108 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:50:12am

re: #107 ClaudeMonet

This is making me remember I need to cash out my stock options from my former job.

109 ClaudeMonet  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:53:44am

re: #104 Obdicut


That’s great. I still don’t understand the point of saying that you’d like to pay lower taxes on dividends. Why not just say you’d like to pay zero taxes and get a magic muffin-man that cooks excellent crème brulée, too?

That would work for me, too. We’d all like to pay lower taxes. I now have income from dividends, interest, and hopefully LT capital gains; I’d like to see some of that income taxed at a lower rate. Anyone would. I’m also saying that if that doesn’t continue, I won’t be out there with the Tea Party folks; rather, I’ll file my return, pay as necessary, and move on.

110 ClaudeMonet  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:56:12am

re: #108 Obdicut

This is making me remember I need to cash out my stock options from my former job.

That depends on whether they expire soon, and where you see tax rates going for next year. If I were you and the numbers involved are in any way significant, I’d talk to a tax pro first. It could be in your best interest to wait until January. Just my two cents’ worth.

And I hope you net a lot of money from the options!

111 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:57:02am

re: #110 ClaudeMonet

I won’t net almost any money, and I need to cash them out because of the type they are; they expire in November.

An officer of the company just sold a chunk of stock, so I figure now is a good time to do so.

112 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:57:09am

re: #89 imp_62

This is going to be the bestest election ever.

I thought that was the last one!

113 Buck  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:57:18am

re: #83 darthstar

ACORN provided free legal advice and voter registration to disadvantaged minorities—who, for the most part, did not vote Republican. That was their only ‘crime.’ There was an administrator who embezzled money from ACORN, but that was a corrupt individual. There were also people who submitted fake voter registration forms because they were getting paid by count.

Actually the Board covered for that administrator, and he ended up getting to keep the money. Through a board approved shuffle of who owed what to whom, in the end, no one had to pay taxes on that almost one million dollars.

Of course failing to mention that the administrator was actually the brother of the president of ACORN, the money he stole was donations (ie monies that were given tax free status), and it was almost a million dollars (although that is only the number they admit to, and an independent investigation has never taken place) is an omission that, in my opinion, can change the way the story sounds.

114 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:57:40am

re: #109 ClaudeMonet

That would work for me, too. We’d all like to pay lower taxes.

I’m just pointing out that this is a truism that is not worthwhile to express.

It’s like saying you’d like more money.

115 Buck  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:58:02am

re: #106 scienceisreal

Can I go into my default statistician mode for a minute:
A=The event that a person lies about their education on their internet profile.
We know this is very common regardless of the prior characteristics of the person, so P(A) is high.
B=The event that someone creates a false profile to cast a person in a bad light by stating that person attended several prestigious schools.
I have never heard of someone attempting this (please let me know if you have an example), and it seems completely ridiculous, so P(B) is low.
C=The event that the person has lied about their education in the past.
Since Christine has lied about Princeton and her “graduate” fellowship, P(C)=1.
Already we would expect P(A)>P(B), when accounting for C P(A) increases drastically, while P(B) is unaffected. Therefore P(A|C) is likely to be much greater than P(B|C).

Get a rope!

116 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 11:59:12am

re: #115 Buck

Get a rope!

But you’re not defending her. Make sure to point that out.

117 jamesfirecat  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 12:02:19pm

re: #101 Buck

NOT DEFENDING O’Donnell BTW, just hate when these digital lynchings happen.

Weren’t you among the first to call/ one of the last to give up on the idea that Shirley Sherrod was a racist?

///But you hate digital lynchings!

118 Buck  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 12:04:35pm

re: #116 Obdicut

But you’re not defending her. Make sure to point that out.

I am not. I just don’t like the whole “it just feels like she is guilty”. A lynching is a lynching.

Look, stick to the facts, and I don’t have a problem.

It is funny how many people were quick to defend others… “it was edited”, and “not CONVICTED of anything”, and my favorite “an internal investigation found no wrong doing”.

In O’Donnells case you have more than enough in fact that you don’t really have to make shit up. But hey it fun right?

119 Buck  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 12:05:16pm

re: #117 jamesfirecat

Weren’t you among the first to call/ one of the last to give up on the idea that Shirley Sherrod was a racist?

///But you hate digital lynchings!

No, but you misrepresent what I said, in the same way that i am opposed to when you do it with others.

120 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 12:05:31pm

re: #100 lostlakehiker

ACORN provided multiple voter registration to fictitious voters and voters not eligible to vote. But this was no crime, because mere technical violations of the rule, such as voting for the dead, voting twice, or three times, voting while not a citizen, all that, are done in the service of a greater good.

All’s fair in politics.

/Democrat

You might want to check what actually happened there.

/Fact-checker

121 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 12:09:27pm

re: #118 Buck

I am not. I just don’t like the whole “it just feels like she is guilty”. A lynching is a lynching.

A lynching is when someone is killed by a mob.

This is not a lynching.


Look, stick to the facts, and I don’t have a problem.

It is funny how many people were quick to defend others… “it was edited”, and “not CONVICTED of anything”, and my favorite “an internal investigation found no wrong doing”.

You mean ACORN, I guess— it wasn’t an internal investigation, it was actual criminal investigations in a number of states. And yes, the tapes were edited. It’s cute you still try to hang onto ACORN as the boogeyman, though.

In O’Donnells case you have more than enough in fact that you don’t really have to make shit up. But hey it fun right?

What shit am I making up, Buck?

122 palomino  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 12:09:33pm

re: #21 rwmofo

Anyone else notice that the media/democrat party has run so far away from the mainstream now, they have no accomplishments to run on and all they have left is attacks on the minority party.

2010 Motto: Yeah we’re out of touch, but at least we’re not conservative!

Why don’t you tell us exactly what the mainstream is? You may think it’s the tea party or Fox News viewers; if so, you’re wrong.

On health care, much of the disapproval is from people who want the govt to do more, not to repeal the whole thing. Thus a majority either approves of HCR or wants the govt to move even more aggressively in that direction.

On taxes, a large majority approves of tax hikes for the highest 2% of earners.

On gay marriage and DADT, the GOP is clearly way behind public opinion which has been moving toward increased gay rights for years.

On regulation of banks, oil companies, etc, the Dems are hardly defying mainstream opinions.

123 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 12:09:52pm

re: #100 lostlakehiker

ACORN provided multiple voter registration to fictitious voters and voters not eligible to vote. But this was no crime, because mere technical violations of the rule, such as voting for the dead, voting twice, or three times, voting while not a citizen, all that, are done in the service of a greater good.

All’s fair in politics.

/Democrat

Liar.

124 palomino  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 12:13:58pm

re: #100 lostlakehiker

ACORN provided multiple voter registration to fictitious voters and voters not eligible to vote. But this was no crime, because mere technical violations of the rule, such as voting for the dead, voting twice, or three times, voting while not a citizen, all that, are done in the service of a greater good.

All’s fair in politics.

/Democrat

You’re intentionally misrepresenting what happened. Ironic that you sign as Dem (with a sarc tag) as you’re clearly a gop partisan tool.

Only reason the right hated ACORN was that they helped mostly poor and minorities, the kind of people who don’t vote gop.

125 Buck  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 12:15:09pm

re: #121 Obdicut

What shit am I making up, Buck?

No reason to personalize this. I am talking about the mob that you don’t think is forming.

Ya, this LinkenIn thing MIGHT be her, but unless we know that 100%, then IMO we shouldn’t hang it on her.

The minimum that should have been done is check with her before reporting it.

126 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 12:19:23pm

re: #125 Buck

Why was her first explanation of the “Oxford” information on her LinkedIn bio page that it was a reference to the Phoenix Institute course?

Do you accept that she lied about having a BA for about seven years?

127 jamesfirecat  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 12:24:46pm

re: #119 Buck

No, but you misrepresent what I said, in the same way that i am opposed to when you do it with others.

I also remember how you didn’t like it when we “digitally lynched” the tea party without any recorded proof of how they called a civil rights veteran one of the worst racial slurs imaginable just because he wanted to help the people of this great nation get more affordable healthcare.

128 Buck  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 12:29:21pm

re: #126 Obdicut

Do you accept that she lied about having a BA for about seven years?

If she attended all the classes, got the grades, attended the cap and gown ceremony… and just didn’t get the certificate until she was all paid up for her tuition, then I certainly can understand her ‘confusion’.

I ask again, do you think the certificate will have the date she paid up, or the date she attended the cap and gown ceremony?

129 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 12:30:24pm

re: #128 Buck

If she attended all the classes, got the grades, attended the cap and gown ceremony… and just didn’t get the certificate until she was all paid up for her tuition, then I certainly can understand her ‘confusion’.

Do you have 100% proof of that, too?


I ask again, do you think the certificate will have the date she paid up, or the date she attended the cap and gown ceremony?

Why do you automatically believe her version of things?

130 scienceisreal  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 12:33:25pm

re: #128 Buck

re: #128 Buck

If she attended all the classes, got the grades, attended the cap and gown ceremony… and just didn’t get the certificate until she was all paid up for her tuition, then I certainly can understand her ‘confusion’.

I ask again, do you think the certificate will have the date she paid up, or the date she attended the cap and gown ceremony?

She didn’t finish the classes until this year. Also, TPM did check with her campaign before reporting. They tried to defend the listing.

131 Buck  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 12:33:42pm

re: #127 jamesfirecat

I also remember how you didn’t like it when we “digitally lynched” the tea party without any recorded proof of how they called a civil rights veteran one of the worst racial slurs imaginable just because he wanted to help the people of this great nation get more affordable healthcare.

They did? All of the tea party did? Every tea party member did it?

You and go down this path every few weeks. You want to paint the tea party as KKK rallies. And I point out that the anti war rallies were filled with anti semitism, racism and truthers BUT we don’t paint the left with the same wide brush.

132 Buck  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 12:34:50pm

re: #129 Obdicut

Why do you automatically believe her version of things?

You are confused, I just don’t accept the mobs version, UNTIL AFTER they back it up. Not the same thing.

133 jamesfirecat  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 12:35:06pm

re: #131 Buck

They did? All of the tea party did? Every tea party member did it?

You and go down this path every few weeks. You want to paint the tea party as KKK rallies. And I point out that the anti war rallies were filled with anti semitism, racism and truthers BUT we don’t paint the left with the same wide brush.

Wow way to miss my point.

The argument always was that a tea party member committed the action in question.

I argue that they did.

I also believe that this one event is not enough to make blanket statements about the tea party, though when pieced together with several other pieces of data it might just be….

134 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 12:36:27pm

re: #132 Buck

You are confused, I just don’t accept the mobs version, UNTIL AFTER they back it up. Not the same thing.

No, you actually are repeating, uncritically, her (current) version of events. Why is that?

135 scienceisreal  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 12:36:41pm

re: #131 Buck

They did? All of the tea party did? Every tea party member did it?

You and go down this path every few weeks. You want to paint the tea party as KKK rallies. And I point out that the anti war rallies were filled with anti semitism, racism and truthers BUT we don’t paint the left with the same wide brush.

Let’s be specific then. According to a study by the Wiser Institute at the University of Washington, 73% of Tea Party supporters agree with the statement blacks aren’t as well off as whites because they’re lazy.

136 Buck  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 12:37:23pm

Anyone else remember when a whole bunch of people reported what ISIS and “One People’s Project” said about James O’Keefe being photographed giving out racist literature at a “white supremacist forum” in 2006.

In fact David Weigel of the Washington Independent, made a statement that he could “confirm all the details”. Well, in the end, he couldn’t.

So a whole bunch of people took a persons word, a person who didn’t even tell us her real name (Isis?) that she had this picture (in the end she didn’t).

I was against that too.

137 Buck  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 12:38:47pm

re: #135 scienceisreal

Let’s be specific then. According to a study by the Wiser Institute at the University of Washington, 73% of Tea Party supporters agree with the statement blacks aren’t as well off as whites because they’re lazy.

hmm and what percent of whites “agree with the statement blacks aren’t as well off as whites because they’re lazy”?

Important? Well, MAYBE….

138 jamesfirecat  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 12:39:02pm

re: #136 Buck

Anyone else remember when a whole bunch of people reported what ISIS and “One People’s Project” said about James O’Keefe being photographed giving out racist literature at a “white supremacist forum” in 2006.

In fact David Weigel of the Washington Independent, made a statement that he could “confirm all the details”. Well, in the end, he couldn’t.

So a whole bunch of people took a persons word, a person who didn’t even tell us her real name (Isis?) that she had this picture (in the end she didn’t).

I was against that too.

Yes whenever, wherever a republican is attacked you’ll be against it!

Seriously you might want to find an example of when you were against people ganging up on an innocent democrat if you want to make your case….

139 jamesfirecat  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 12:39:37pm

re: #137 Buck

hmm and what percent of whites “agree with the statement blacks aren’t as well off as whites because they’re lazy”?

Important? Well, MAYBE…

So you’re saying that its not the tea party that’s racist, it’s just all white people are racists?

Now whose painting with the broad brush?

140 scienceisreal  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 12:39:41pm

re: #137 Buck

hmm and what percent of whites “agree with the statement blacks aren’t as well off as whites because they’re lazy”?

Important? Well, MAYBE…

In the general population, 33%.

141 Buck  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 12:40:17pm

re: #134 Obdicut

No, you actually are repeating, uncritically, her (current) version of events. Why is that?

Just the opposite, I am saying that UNLESS we have the real proof, we shouldn’t use tainted evidence. In this case evidence that we don’t know the real author of.

142 Buck  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 12:41:02pm

re: #140 scienceisreal

In the general population, 33%.

You got a link for both of these stats?

143 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 12:41:12pm

re: #141 Buck

Just the opposite, I am saying that UNLESS we have the real proof, we shouldn’t use tainted evidence. In this case evidence that we don’t know the real author of.

Let’s stick with the stuff about her BA. You are currently repeating what her (current) explanation of why she was claiming she had a BA before she was awarded one. Why are you doing so?

144 scienceisreal  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 12:41:38pm

re: #142 Buck

You got a link for both of these stats?

[Link: depts.washington.edu…]

145 Buck  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 12:50:36pm

re: #144 scienceisreal

[Link: depts.washington.edu…]

For a guy who says science is real, you fudge your numbers. the 33% is not all whites, but whites who strongly oppose the tea party, and think that Blacks would be as well off as whites, if they tried harder. Frankly I think I heard about a few black people saying the same thing…. I forget his name right now, but the jello/ fat albert guy….He said something very similar a few years ago.

Nothing about lazy….though.

146 jamesfirecat  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 12:51:47pm

re: #145 Buck

For a guy who says science is real, you fudge your numbers. the 33% is not all whites, but whites who strongly oppose the tea party, and think that Blacks would be as well off as whites, if they tried harder. Frankly I think I heard about a few black people saying the same thing… I forget his name right now, but the jello/ fat albert guy…He said something very similar a few years ago.

Nothing about lazy…though.

So once again it’s not that the tea party is racist, but it’s that all whites are racist.

Am I reading you right?

147 Buck  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 12:53:03pm

re: #139 jamesfirecat

So you’re saying that its not the tea party that’s racist, it’s just all white people are racists?

Now whose painting with the broad brush?

No am not saying that AT ALL. I am saying that information is left out, and the numbers can be made to say anything IF you don’t know the base line.

148 jamesfirecat  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 12:53:59pm

re: #147 Buck

No am not saying that AT ALL. I am saying that information is left out, and the numbers can be made to say anything IF you don’t know the base line.

75% of the tea party members say that Blacks would be better off if they weren’t so lazy.

Is this suddenly made an “acceptable” point of view if 60 to 70 or even 50% of all whites hold it?

149 scienceisreal  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 12:54:54pm

re: #145 Buck

For a guy who says science is real, you fudge your numbers. the 33% is not all whites, but whites who strongly oppose the tea party, and think that Blacks would be as well off as whites, if they tried harder. Frankly I think I heard about a few black people saying the same thing… I forget his name right now, but the jello/ fat albert guy…He said something very similar a few years ago.

Nothing about lazy…though.

The question is to determine if tea party members are more likely to attribute socioeconomic conditions directly to race, which they are. They sanitized the question to avoid making people think they were out to expose them, but it means lazy. Yes, I had the 33% wrong, sorry. But that does not change the results of the survey. Tea party members are more likely to hold a regressive view of race than the general population.

150 Buck  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 1:00:54pm

re: #148 jamesfirecat

75% of the tea party members say that Blacks would be better off if they weren’t so lazy.

Is this suddenly made an “acceptable” point of view if 60 to 70 or even 50% of all whites hold it?

First of all, the study didn’t use the word lazy. Second, IF the study said that 73% of tea party supporters said something, and another study said 70% of americans say the same thing, then what you have is that tea party supporters are no different than the rest of the population. Without the base line you don’t have anything.

151 Buck  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 1:02:14pm

re: #149 scienceisreal

The question is to determine if tea party members are more likely to attribute socioeconomic conditions directly to race, which they are. They sanitized the question to avoid making people think they were out to expose them, but it means lazy. Yes, I had the 33% wrong, sorry. But that does not change the results of the survey. Tea party members are more likely to hold a regressive view of race than the general population.

If you don’t have the ” the general population” numbers, then you can’t compare tea party supporters to ” the general population”, as you don’t know what the answer is FROM ” the general population” do you?

152 scienceisreal  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 1:02:18pm

re: #150 Buck

First of all, the study didn’t use the word lazy. Second, IF the study said that 73% of tea party supporters said something, and another study said 70% of americans say the same thing, then what you have is that tea party supporters are no different than the rest of the population. Without the base line you don’t have anything.

But that’s not what it said. Go back and read it again, there are results for all white respondents regardless of affiliation.

153 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 1:02:43pm

re: #150 Buck

Without the base line you don’t have anything.

Actually, without the baseline, you still have the comparison between the Tea Party supporters and the Tea Party opponents.

You seem really stuck on the word ‘lazy’. Do you think that saying someone doesn’t work hard enough is a cognate of saying that they’re lazy?

And you haven’t bothered to explain why you’re uncritically repeating O’Donnell’s current claims about her BA— can you explain why you’re doing that, yet?

154 jamesfirecat  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 1:02:47pm

re: #150 Buck

First of all, the study didn’t use the word lazy. Second, IF the study said that 73% of tea party supporters said something, and another study said 70% of americans say the same thing, then what you have is that tea party supporters are no different than the rest of the population. Without the base line you don’t have anything.

Sorry but how does your argument not break down to “it’s okay that the tea party says this horrible thing, because the rest of white America is saying it/thinking it also!”

How about at least saying that you find this a horrible fact and want to try and help the tea party leave behind its racist beliefes?

155 scienceisreal  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 1:02:51pm

re: #151 Buck

If you don’t have the ” the general population” numbers, then you can’t compare tea party supporters to ” the general population”, as you don’t know what the answer is FROM ” the general population” do you?

[Link: depts.washington.edu…]

156 scienceisreal  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 1:05:24pm

re: #151 Buck

If you don’t have the ” the general population” numbers, then you can’t compare tea party supporters to ” the general population”, as you don’t know what the answer is FROM ” the general population” do you?

Or try this one. Tea partiers compared to all whites, more likely to say blacks don’t work hard enough, aren’t as intelligent, and aren’t trustworthy.

[Link: depts.washington.edu…]

157 Buck  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 1:05:49pm

re: #152 scienceisreal

But that’s not what it said. Go back and read it again, there are results for all white respondents regardless of affiliation.

And then you should have no problem telling me that result.

Also see this [Link: www.realclearpolitics.com…]

158 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 1:08:00pm

re: #157 Buck

You realize that link still shows the Tea Party as being racist, right?

And that their defense is, as James has been repeatedly saying, that whites in general are racist, right?

159 scienceisreal  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 1:13:10pm

re: #157 Buck

And then you should have no problem telling me that result.

Also see this [Link: www.realclearpolitics.com…]

I posted the links to both surveys, you can get the numbers there quite easily. The realclearpolitics article just throws out the percentages with no real analysis. This gives us no information about how they’re disputing the statistical significance in the UW study.

160 Amory Blaine  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 1:15:37pm

The yellow journalists and MSM will protect her through the election along with all their Tea Bagging friends in the John Birch Society. Question is, how will the Tea Baggers reconcile themselves that these wars have to be paid for while they howl and whine for tax cuts?

More tax and borrow hypocrites.

161 Buck  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 1:18:34pm

I am very opposed to racial stereotyping IN EVERY FORM.

However, I am also opposed to people making shit up just to tar and feather a group, or person.

I am also a believer in the redemptive properties of time. Your society HAS a VERY racist past, and still struggles with race issues. However, for many years one of the most powerful figures in the US administration was not only a woman, but also african american.

I do not think that opposing the presidents policies is NECESSARILY automatically racist. Any more than opposing the war was always anti semetic.

Both acts of racism are horrible, and I hope ALL americans, LEFT and RIGHT leave behind their racist beliefs.

162 jamesfirecat  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 1:20:13pm

re: #161 Buck

I do not think that opposing the presidents policies is NECESSARILY automatically racist. Any more than opposing the war was always anti semetic.

Nice straw man, getting ready for a druidic fertility ritual?

163 Buck  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 1:24:00pm

To further explain, I believe the political spectrum is not really a line with a center, a right and a left.

I see it as a circle. with the political center at the bottom of the circle, and the left being left of that point, and the right being right of that point. However the circle also meets at the top, where the far left and far right meet in crazyville. Each almost indistinguishable from the other. “Just nuts” as our host once put it.

These nuts attend BOTH types of rallies, and embarrass the people putting on an honest protest.

164 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 1:24:16pm

re: #161 Buck

That post has nothing to do with anything under discussion here.

165 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 1:24:59pm

re: #163 Buck

So you really are just going to run away from any explanation of why you accept, uncritically, O’Donnell’s explanation of why she claimed to have a BA degree for years before she received it?

166 scienceisreal  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 1:26:32pm

re: #161 Buck

Of course opposing policy is not automatically racism. And the Tea Party is not automatically racist. Two things have happened with the Tea Party. First, members of conservative movements will always be more likely to hold racially regressive views as compared to the general population. Second, any movement opposing a black president, even if for legitimate reasons, will attract people who oppose that president simply because he is black. The fact is, most people in the Tea Party movement oppose Obama simply because he’s a Democrat (they didn’t oppose all the spending while the Republicans were in power). But the Tea Party movement has become somewhat of a safe haven for people with extreme views on race.

167 Buck  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 1:26:59pm

re: #162 jamesfirecat

Nice straw man, getting ready for a druidic fertility ritual?

You and go down this path every few weeks. You want to paint the tea party as KKK rallies. And I point out that the anti war rallies were filled with anti semitism, racism and truthers BUT we don’t paint the left with the same wide brush.

I don’t see the straw man here.

168 jamesfirecat  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 1:29:16pm

re: #167 Buck

You and go down this path every few weeks. You want to paint the tea party as KKK rallies. And I point out that the anti war rallies were filled with anti semitism, racism and truthers BUT we don’t paint the left with the same wide brush.

I don’t see the straw man here.

The straw man is you setting up the idea that anyone truly believes that you can’t oppose Obama without being racists.

I don’t see the Tea Party as a KKK rally by the way. That would require them to actively try to cater to racists.

They’re a party that just doesn’t care by and large if they have racist members….

169 Buck  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 1:34:53pm

re: #166 scienceisreal

First, members of conservative movements will always be more likely to hold racially regressive views as compared to the general population.

I don’t accept that.

You see, I remember when almost every left leaning website called the people who posted on this site conservatives that held racially regressive views. Not a week went by that Charles was not compared to hitler. They actually created a website that did nothing but compare posts here to quotes of hitler.

At one point some filtering software filtered out this site from work computers and declared it a hate site.

You see, there were crazies who were here, and said the most horrible things. Most of the people here were opposed to these horrible statements, and said so. However at the time being opposed to racist terrorists meant you held racially regressive views.

You might be to new here to know that people would come here and leave horrible comments that were only meant to ‘catch us’ as racists.

We even gave the practice a name… we called it Moby, after the pop singer who suggested that people do it.

And now we know that there are people being caught doing exactly that to the Tea Party.

170 Buck  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 1:37:31pm

re: #168 jamesfirecat


They’re a party that just doesn’t care by and large if they have racist members…

Nice, but you can’t back that up. The leadership opposes racism, and rebukes any and all racism found in their ranks. It is taking time for the leadership to get control over a group that opposes control. However not caring? That is demonstrably false.

171 jamesfirecat  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 1:37:41pm

re: #169 Buck

I don’t accept that.

You see, I remember when almost every left leaning website called the people who posted on this site conservatives that held racially regressive views. Not a week went by that Charles was not compared to hitler. They actually created a website that did nothing but compare posts here to quotes of hitler.

At one point some filtering software filtered out this site from work computers and declared it a hate site.

You see, there were crazies who were here, and said the most horrible things. Most of the people here were opposed to these horrible statements, and said so. However at the time being opposed to racist terrorists meant you held racially regressive views.

You might be to new here to know that people would come here and leave horrible comments that were only meant to ‘catch us’ as racists.

We even gave the practice a name… we called it Moby, after the pop singer who suggested that people do it.

And now we know that there are people being caught doing exactly that to the Tea Party.


So 73% of the tea party is democrats pretending to be racist republicans?


And we’ve convinced the GOP/conservatives that we’re the wave of the future?

Good one guys!

[Link: tvtropes.org…]

172 scienceisreal  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 1:39:23pm

re: #169 Buck

I just ran simple regression on GSS data comparing political ideology to the likelihood of agreeing that whites should be allowed to maintain segregated neighborhoods. Highly significant results, with conservatives much more likely to say they should be allowed. This was just the first race variable I saw, feel free to mess around with others.

[Link: www.norc.uchicago.edu…]

173 scienceisreal  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 1:40:42pm

re: #170 Buck

Nice, but you can’t back that up. The leadership opposes racism, and rebukes any and all racism found in their ranks. It is taking time for the leadership to get control over a group that opposes control. However not caring? That is demonstrably false.

They suddenly care when it’s exposed in the national media, example: Mark Williams.

174 Buck  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 1:41:00pm

re: #171 jamesfirecat

So 73% of the tea party is democrats pretending to be racist republicans?


I didn’t say that, and I hope you know that. If not than you really are stupid.

Once again trying to misrepresent what I said.

175 jamesfirecat  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 1:42:05pm

re: #174 Buck

I didn’t say that, and I hope you know that. If not than you really are stupid.

Once again trying to misrepresent what I said.

Are you trying to say that all of the “racist republicans” are democrats trying to make them look bad?

Are you trying to say that most of them are?

You can excuse one or two bad apples that way, but not when it’s 3/4ths of a group dude!

176 Buck  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 1:45:43pm

Tea Party supporter, or american?

Blacks have to do a better job. They have to start holding each other to a higher standard.

They’re standing on the corner and they can’t speak English. I can’t even talk the way these people talk….

“Why you ain’t,
Where you is,
What he drive,
Where he stay,
Where he work,
Who you be…”.

You can’t be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth. In fact you will never get any kind of job making a decent living.

Racist?

177 jamesfirecat  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 1:47:44pm

re: #176 Buck

Tea Party supporter, or american?

Racist?

Congrats your argument is now “but black people are allowed to call each other the “n” word why aren’t we whites?”

178 Buck  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 1:47:45pm

re: #175 jamesfirecat

Are you trying to say that all of the “racist republicans” are democrats trying to make them look bad?

I really hate repeating myself for you.

#163 is what I am saying.

179 jamesfirecat  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 1:48:43pm

re: #178 Buck

I really hate repeating myself for you.

#163 is what I am saying.

How does #163 relate to the crazyiness with the Tea Party and your refusal to admit it is BADLY in need of a house cleaning?

180 Buck  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 1:49:02pm

re: #177 jamesfirecat

Congrats your argument is now “but black people are allowed to call each other the “n” word why aren’t we whites?”

NOT AT ALL. You keep doing that…. misrepresenting what I am saying.

That is the last post from me to you. You are on ignore for me.

181 scienceisreal  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 1:49:34pm

re: #176 Buck

Quoting Bill Cosby doesn’t change the fact that conservatives are more likely to say blacks have inborn characteristics that make them worse off in society (again in the GSS). You don’t seem to understand concepts of a trends and variance. Quoting someone does nothing to support your case that conservatives are not significantly different from other groups on views about race. For that you need data.

182 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 1:50:39pm

re: #167 Buck

You and go down this path every few weeks. You want to paint the tea party as KKK rallies.


…


re: #180 Buck

. You keep doing that… misrepresenting what I am saying.

Such a fucking hypocrite.

183 Lidane  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 1:50:41pm

re: #129 Obdicut

Why do you automatically believe her version of things?

IOKIYAR

184 jamesfirecat  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 1:51:27pm

re: #180 Buck

NOT AT ALL. You keep doing that… misrepresenting what I am saying.

That is the last post from me to you. You are on ignore for me.

Okay then go ahead.

But still somehow I bet when Bill Cosby was trying to tell the other members of his race that they needed to be doing better than they currently were it was more of a pep talk, as opposed to Tea partiers who I imagine might hold the view in a contemptuous manner.


Context is important.

Now of course I’m just guessing, but I’m still waiting for the youtube video where the “good teapartiers” verbally unload on the guy with the sign depicting Barack Obama as a witch doctor….

185 Buck  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 2:02:32pm

re: #181 scienceisreal

Quoting Bill Cosby doesn’t change the fact that conservatives are more likely to say blacks have inborn characteristics that make them worse off in society (again in the GSS). You don’t seem to understand concepts of a trends and variance. Quoting someone does nothing to support your case that conservatives are not significantly different from other groups on views about race. For that you need data.

I am having more than one discussion going on at the same time.

I understand more than you think I do. It is always nice when someone tells me I don’t understand. FIRST you have to support your case. I was saying that without a base (How many americans would support the statement that “anyone can do well in america if they just work hard”?), or even How many americans in general would support the statement that “Blacks could do as well as whites in america, if they just tried harder”. AND then compare it to the results you get from tea party supporters.

That is the only case I am trying to support, that there is data missing from the case YOU are trying to support. Maybe people who are neither strongly support the tea party or strongly oppose the tea party answered even higher support for what you characterize as racist.

If I said that “Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household.” It would be important to know what the level of giving was for all americans, regardless of political leaning.

186 scienceisreal  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 2:04:33pm

re: #185 Buck

I did all of that. Do you understand what a logit regression model is?

187 Charles Johnson  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 2:06:15pm

re: #172 scienceisreal

I just ran simple regression on GSS data comparing political ideology to the likelihood of agreeing that whites should be allowed to maintain segregated neighborhoods. Highly significant results, with conservatives much more likely to say they should be allowed. This was just the first race variable I saw, feel free to mess around with others.

[Link: www.norc.uchicago.edu…]

That’s a very interesting site - you should post it as an LGF Page.

188 Buck  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 2:13:06pm

re: #186 scienceisreal

I did all of that. Do you understand what a logit regression model is?

I certainly do. For about 30 or so years.

189 scienceisreal  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 2:16:28pm

re: #187 Charles

Just posted it.

190 scienceisreal  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 2:17:11pm

re: #188 Buck

Then I imagine you should be able to understand how a significant difference is determined.

191 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 2:52:57pm

Is Buck shilling again? Good times!

192 Obdicut  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 3:20:56pm

re: #185 Buck

The data you say is missing was provided to you, actually.

193 theheat  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 3:26:16pm

re: #12 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Good catch. A history of lying. Color me surprised.

194 theheat  Wed, Sep 29, 2010 3:43:42pm

re: #17 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Did I have her pegged, or what? This woman is Cruella De Vil. She’s a shrewd, seething, calculating, hateful woman that views others with nothing but contempt. And a fundie. Don’t forget the fundie part. Her fundiness gives her that rosy glow of “because the bible tells me so.”

My inner voice’s batting record should be on the wall at the Baseball Hall of Fame. They should be giving out trophies for this kinda stuff. (And Ludwig thinks I needed algebra. Ha!)
//


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
3 weeks ago
Views: 441 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1