DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... The Most Arrogant Man in the World...mr. obama.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The pay sucks, and your entire life will be ripped open and put on public display. (especially if you run as a Republican)

---

Because as we all know, Democratic presidents have their lives ripped open and put on public display to a far lesser extent than Republicans.

Seriously, where do you come up with this stuff?

---

Quote:

---

Mary is twice as old as her mother was 35 years ago.
Mary was born when her mother was 25 years old.

Is Mary part of the problem or part of the solution?

---

Quote:

---

Mary is twice as old as her mother was 35 years ago.
Mary was born when her mother was 25 years old.

Is Mary part of the problem or part of the solution?

---

Quote:

---

Seriously, where do you come up with this stuff?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Seriously, where do you come up with this stuff?

---

[sarcasm]Because the evil liberals have a bias on the media. Rush, Beck, and Fox are the only bastions of truth.[/sarcasm]

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The pay sucks, and your entire life will be ripped open and put on public display. (especially if you run as a Republican)

---

Because as we all know, Democratic presidents have their lives ripped open and put on public display to a far lesser extent than Republicans.

Seriously, where do you come up with this stuff?

---

Quote:

---

Bush, or even Clinton, never had a network dedicated to coverage which pronounced him as a communist, Muslim, or questioned his birth certificate.

---

Quote:

---

That's not network news coverage.

---

The most watched network news coverage in the country isn't network news coverage?

I tried to type out a response three different times, but thought better of it because ... let's just say I think this is the dumbest argument you've ever tried to make.

Quote:

---

One person, who has a talk show that is as much about entertainment as anything else, is not the same as the daily influence of major network newscasts.

---

Quote:

---

Compare the way Bush was castigated over the firing of some Attorneys General, and the way the major "news" broadcasts ignored the Fast and Furious investigation until they had no choice but to cover it. The Attorney General of the United States lied before Congress, then, months later, tried to amend his testimony, and Congress asked, basically, for the documents that led to the amended testimony. That's where this whole mess started .... and this guy is supposed to be the chief law enforcement official in the US. The networks ignored his behavior completely until the contempt vote. I know ..... I watched for coverage and found damn near zero until he was going to be tried in the House.

---

Quote:

---

I seriously believe that the Obama administration could have someone killed on the street outside the White House ... someone just walking by, minding their own business, and the major news networks would claim that it was the guy who was shot's fault.

---

Quote:

---

As far as the rest of your post ..... people called Bush everything imaginable. They compared him to an ape ..... they called him the devil ..... there was so much bile and vitriol on the part of so many on the left that it was amazing. (and disgusting)

---

Quote:

---

There are a couple of people who have questioned the birth certificate deal. So what? There have been very few who actually believed that line of attack.

---

Quote:

---

People called Bush "Hitler", and other vile things. Did you somehow sleep through all of that?

---

Quote:

---

I wasn't too terribly politically aware at the time. I do remember things that were said. It never seemed they meant it much like how certain people mean things today.

---

Quote:

---

The vile and horrible things that were said about Bush go light years beyond anything said about Obama.

---

Are you on drugs?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The vile and horrible things that were said about Bush go light years beyond anything said about Obama.

---

Are you on drugs?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The vile and horrible things that were said about Bush go light years beyond anything said about Obama.

---

Are you on drugs?

---

Actually yeah .... pain pills. So what?

Regardless, it used to be that you could put "George Bush Hitler" into Google and get, literally, thousands of pages of results. Same with Satan. Monkey comparisons abounded. The vile and disgusting stuff written was beyond imagining.

The left berated and castigated Bush every chance they got. They reveled in vile and disgusting commentary. They used some of the most disgusting language and imagery imaginable.

Nothing Obama has had to endure comes even close.

---

Quote:

---

Regardless, it used to be that you could put "George Bush Hitler" into Google and get, literally, thousands of pages of results.

---

Quote:

---

Same with Satan.

---

Quote:

---

Monkey comparisons abounded

---

Quote:

---

The left berated and castigated Bush every chance they got. They reveled in vile and disgusting commentary. They used some of the most disgusting language and imagery imaginable.

---

Quote:

---

Nothing Obama has had to endure comes even close.

---

Quote:

---

Racism is definitely worse, but there has been surprisingly little racism against Obama.

Look at how Black Conservatives like Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain were treated by the left by comparison.

---

Quote:

---

What the devil did you do to stretch the thread?

Any use of the N word is wrong in my opinion. I'm not going to even bother looking, but I wonder how many of those used with Obama were "My N" ...... as some Black people call one another?

---

Quote:

---

Look up "George W Bush is Hitler", and you get some 11 million returns. Look up George W Bush is a fascist and you get some 3 million returns.

Kinda makes the other pale by comparison.

---

Huh?

Quote:

---

Barack Obama won 52.9 percent of the popular vote in 2008 and 365 electoral votes, 95 more than he needed. Many naturally concluded that prejudice was not a major factor against a black presidential candidate in modern America. My research, a comparison of Americans’ Google searches and their voting patterns, found otherwise. If my results are correct, racial animus cost Mr. Obama many more votes than we may have realized.

Quantifying the effects of racial prejudice on voting is notoriously problematic. Few people admit bias in surveys. So I used a new tool, Google Insights, which tells researchers how often words are searched in different parts of the United States.

Can we really quantify racial prejudice in different parts of the country based solely on how often certain words are used on Google? Not perfectly, but remarkably well. Google, aggregating information from billions of searches, has an uncanny ability to reveal meaningful social patterns. “God” is Googled more often in the Bible Belt, “Lakers” in Los Angeles.

The conditions under which people use Google — online, most likely alone, not participating in an official survey — are ideal for capturing what they are really thinking and feeling. You may have typed things into Google that you would hesitate to admit in polite company. I certainly have. The majority of Americans have as well: we Google the word “porn” more often than the word “weather.”

And many Americans use Google to find racially charged material. I performed the somewhat unpleasant task of ranking states and media markets in the United States based on the proportion of their Google searches that included the word “****er(s).” This word was included in roughly the same number of Google searches as terms like “Lakers,” “Daily Show,” “migraine” and “economist.”

A huge proportion of the searches I looked at were for jokes about African-Americans. (I did not include searches that included the word “****a” because these searches were mostly for rap lyrics.) I used data from 2004 to 2007 because I wanted a measure not directly influenced by feelings toward Mr. Obama. From 2008 onward, “Obama” is a prevalent term in racially charged searches.

The state with the highest racially charged search rate in the country was West Virginia. Other areas with high percentages included western Pennsylvania, eastern Ohio, upstate New York and southern Mississippi.

Once I figured out which parts of the country had the highest racially charged search rates, I could test whether Mr. Obama underperformed in these areas. I predicted how many votes Mr. Obama should have received based on how many votes John Kerry received in 2004 plus the average gain achieved by other 2008 Democratic Congressional candidates. The results were striking: The higher the racially charged search rate in an area, the worse Mr. Obama did.

Consider two media markets, Denver and Wheeling (which is a market evenly split between Ohio and West Virginia). Mr. Kerry received roughly 50 percent of the votes in both markets. Based on the large gains for Democrats in 2008, Mr. Obama should have received about 57 percent of votes in both Denver and Wheeling. Denver and Wheeling, though, exhibit different racial attitudes. Denver had the fourth lowest racially charged search rate in the country. Mr. Obama won 57 percent of the vote there, just as predicted. Wheeling had the seventh highest racially charged search rate in the country. Mr. Obama won less than 48 percent of the Wheeling vote.

Add up the totals throughout the country, and racial animus cost Mr. Obama three to five percentage points of the popular vote. In other words, racial prejudice gave John McCain the equivalent of a home-state advantage nationally.

Yes, Mr. Obama also gained some votes because of his race. But in the general election this effect was comparatively minor. The vast majority of voters for whom Mr. Obama’s race was a positive were liberal, habitual voters who would have voted for any Democratic presidential candidate. Increased support and turnout from African-Americans added only about one percentage point to Mr. Obama’s totals.

If my findings are correct, race could very well prove decisive against Mr. Obama in 2012. Most modern presidential elections are close. Losing even two percentage points lowers the probability of a candidate’s winning the popular vote by a third. And prejudice could cost Mr. Obama crucial states like Ohio, Florida and even Pennsylvania.

There is the possibility, of course, that racial prejudice will play a smaller role in 2012 than it did in 2008, now that the country is familiar with a black president. Some recent events, though, suggest otherwise. I mentioned earlier that the rate of racially charged searches in West Virginia was No. 1 in the country and that the state showed a strong aversion to Mr. Obama in 2008. It recently held its Democratic presidential primary, in which Mr. Obama was challenged by a convicted felon. The felon, who is white, won 41 percent of the vote.

In 2008, Mr. Obama rode an unusually strong tail wind. The economy was collapsing. The Iraq war was unpopular. Republicans took most of the blame. He was able to overcome the major obstacle of continuing racial prejudice in the United States. In 2012, the tail wind is gone; the obstacle likely remains.

Seth Stephens-Davidowitz is a doctoral candidate in economics at Harvard. The most up-to-date version of the research paper on which this article draws is available here.

---

Quote:

---

In terms of noticing how people use the word in a closeted, online fashion (or just when they know they're in 'like-minded' company), I think the people who do that hide their bigotry in person (and sometimes online) because they know such overt racism will harm their credibility in whatever arguments they're set to make. So in a sense, bigotry hasn't gone away at all, it's just learned to acquire a slight sense of eloquence.

---

4yikes:

That's a world which is, and has always been, closed to me. Always has been. As such, I'll leave that sort of judgement to you. Even though I'm many shades "lighter" than many of my family and friends, I still could never hide where I came from, given my personal appearance. Many's the time I've walked into a room, and all conversation halted. Now... that could be attributed to several factors, none the least of which could be:

1. They were talking about a friend of mine
2. They were talking about a sensitive subject that NOBODY else should hear
3. They were talking about me (in areas other than ethnicity)
4. [name another... ANY other reasonable explanation here]

...so they always got the benefit of the doubt from me. Always- because NONE of us is a mind reader.

That said- I grew up in Lima, OH... not a town that's known for tact or diplomacy. The town is populated with a majority of citizens who thought nothing of asking outright: "what the hell ARE you?"... so you'll perhaps understand if I assume at least a percentage of those folks who stopped talking did so right after dropping an "F-Bomb."

Your assertion that bigotry has just moved underground (and acquired a slightly elevated sense of eloquence) speaks to my point, which I'll now make outright.... instead of being polite, and 'beating around the bush' with rhetorical questions:

1. They do so, because they know that the rest of the world sees life differently than they.
2. They do so, not because it's "Politically Incorrect," but because it's just "Plain Incorrect."
3. They do so, because they know that stating it out loud brands them for life with folks whose opinions matter to them
4. They do so, because in their soul of souls, they know it's a personal flaw and a character weakness that should be kept hidden from the eyes of collective judgement, (Yes.... even the most virulent of bigots have something of a conscience...)

Cowards, they are... and their very behavior bears it out. They'd much rather hide beneath 5 layers of 'socialspeak camouflage' than be outed for the people they really are.

SOMETHING must be behind that. I can only guess what that is.

2+ years ago, I had some epic showdowns with a poster known as USNavyDawg (Ret.) . We NEVER saw eye-to-eye on the subject of racial issues in America, because we came into America from 2 totally different family histories and political mindsets. Nevertheless, Navy spoke his views on ethnicity with candor and honesty. As such, I always engaged him with respect, even though I found many of his views to be abhorrent, myopic, and lacking in empathy, nuance or understanding. Even so, we managed to debate the issues for months, without either vowing to take the other out.

This is why I say that I'd rather debate a staunch bigot face-up-front, than have to deal with a closet bigot who plays 'word games,' and skirts issues and obfuscates when the spotlight of candor is trained upon him. Iknow where Navy stands... and I know that we'll probably never agree on issues of race. BUT....

One thing Navy had in his favor: he was always willing to engage in candid, no-holds-barred conversation. That's a person I might someday be able to make an impression on... and who might be able to make an impression on me.

The cowards? Not so much. They'd rather play the role of "Dick Dodge," and remain true to an unchallenged train of thought. Those people wren't worthy of my respect or response... and I already know who they are, from their past posts.

The stench is all over them.... it can't be hidden.

Quote:

---

J/C


Why is it so hard for us, as American citizens, to talk about issues regarding race?

---

Quote:

---

Why is it so hard for us, as American citizens, to talk about issues regarding race?

---