PDA

View Full Version : Are there more racists or sexists in the democratic party?


patteeu
03-05-2008, 09:35 AM
One way or the other, the democrats are going to nominate a first this year. They'll either nominate the first woman or the first black man for president. My question is which one do you think would cause more democrats to either sit out the election or vote for an alternative candidate (McCain, 3rd party, or write-in) for racist or sexist reasons?

Amnorix
03-05-2008, 09:38 AM
Is there a point to this thread?

NewChief
03-05-2008, 09:41 AM
Is there a point to this thread?


I think it's all part of patt's new schtick: irritating and annoying gadfly.

Mr. Kotter
03-05-2008, 09:43 AM
I'd say sexists. The Femi-Nazi wing asserted themselves last night....and the during the past week.

Did you see Steinem's comments about McCain over the weekend? :spock:

There is also a larger than I expected Maude-Roseanne-Rosie sort of female crowd, that will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee....to spite him.

Un-friggin' believable. :shake:

patteeu
03-05-2008, 09:44 AM
Is there a point to this thread?

I've been going back and forth about which candidate I think will be easier for McCain to beat. I think that if Hillary is the nominee, there is a certain group of democrats who will refuse to vote for her simply because she's a woman. I think that if Obama is the nominee, there is a certain group of democrats who will refuse to vote for him simply because he's black (or at least he self-identifies as black). I'm curious about which group is larger. I have my own guess, but I'd like to see what the rest of the people around here think.

tiptap
03-05-2008, 09:46 AM
I've been going back and forth about which candidate I think will be easier for McCain to beat. I think that if Hillary is the nominee, there is a certain group of democrats who will refuse to vote for her simply because she's a woman. I think that if Obama is the nominee, there is a certain group of democrats who will refuse to vote for him simply because he's black (or at least he self-identifies as black). I'm curious about which group is larger. I have my own guess, but I'd like to see what the rest of the people around here think.

Then you might have made your thread starter more conducive to finding an opinion to this question. No this is the normal game of getting your darts in the thread starter statements. No thanks.

MurphDog
03-05-2008, 09:52 AM
I wish there was an all of the above option

patteeu
03-05-2008, 09:54 AM
Then you might have made your thread starter more conducive to finding an opinion to this question. No this is the normal game of getting your darts in the thread starter statements. No thanks.

My OP is straightforward. I think maybe there are more people in the democrat party who are prone to thinking racist and sexist thoughts than I first imagined.

Carlota69
03-05-2008, 10:12 AM
My OP is straightforward. I think maybe there are more people in the democrat party who are prone to thinking racist and sexist thoughts than I first imagined.

I think sexist outwardly and racist behind closed doors.

In our society, IMO, its more ok to be sexist than it is to be racist, even though we may be more racist overall. So, outwardly some DEMS might say they arent going to vote for her becasue she's a bitch, but behind closed curtains, they may choose her over the "black man".

Just my thoughts...

Cave Johnson
03-05-2008, 10:19 AM
My OP is straightforward. I think maybe there are more people in the democrat party who are prone to thinking racist and sexist thoughts than I first imagined.

You've got to be ****ing kidding me. Your question is an update of "when did you stop beating your wife".

I don't know if this a suprise to you or not, pat, but Nixon's Southern strategy didn't carve out <u>all</u> of the racists.

Pitt Gorilla
03-05-2008, 11:01 AM
Given the number of sexist-racists and racist-sexists in the Republican party, you may not have to worry about it either way; McCain will carry the Grand Ol' (white, male) Party. :D

Cochise
03-05-2008, 11:03 AM
I think there are more racists than sexists in the world in general.

jAZ
03-05-2008, 11:26 AM
...there is a certain group of democrats who will refuse to vote for her simply because she's a woman.
The group that refuses to vote for her includes a lot of types. Surely some are sexist men... but among are also the Feminists for Obama who just think that she on her own merits is the wrong female candidate. That's just one example of those that won't support her.

And depending on how the rest of this primary plays out, there is a way that I would not vote for her. It's rather unlikely, but it's possible. That would be if it becomes clear that Obama is the ultimate nominee, but she pulls an atomic-Huckabee where she trys to blow up Obama's campaign so badly that she hopes the enough superdelegates will vote for her to give her the nomination no matter how far behind she slides between now and the convention. Examples of that include her "I take him at his word that he's not a muslim" and "McCain and I are experienced, Obama is nothing but a speech" comments as well as staying in the race if Obama were to win the next 5 or so states (including PA).

Plus, I don't think there is a chance in the world that Clinton will get the youth vote that the party needs badly. They aren't voting against her, they are just watching VH1 and throwing back Jager instead.

Carlota69
03-05-2008, 11:45 AM
The group that refuses to vote for her includes a lot of types. Surely some are sexist men... but among are also the Feminists for Obama who just think that she on her own merits is the wrong female candidate. That's just one example of those that won't support her.

And depending on how the rest of this primary plays out, there is a way that I would not vote for her. It's rather unlikely, but it's possible. That would be if it becomes clear that Obama is the ultimate nominee, but she pulls an atomic-Huckabee where she trys to blow up Obama's campaign so badly that she hopes the enough superdelegates will vote for her to give her the nomination no matter how far behind she slides between now and the convention. Examples of that include her "I take him at his word that he's not a muslim" and "McCain and I are experienced, Obama is nothing but a speech" comments as well as staying in the race if Obama were to win the next 5 or so states (including PA).

Plus, I don't think there is a chance in the world that Clinton will get the youth vote that the party needs badly. They aren't voting against her, they are just watching VH1 and throwing back Jager instead.


A saw a percentage on CNN this morning that showed the young vote makes up 7% of voting and the older vote is 14%. She outright wins the older vote, as he does the younger. In past elections, young voter turnout has been minimal (For whatever reason), and the older voter can always be counted on. It seems to me that he needs the older alot more than she needs the younger. This fact could be a behind the scenes political speak for her case to the DNC, besides the whole Ohio--and won-all-the-true blue states-arguement.

htismaqe
03-05-2008, 12:04 PM
There's more sexists, but they won't be voting for Barack.


Because he's a MAN.

:D

StcChief
03-05-2008, 12:07 PM
Plus, I don't think there is a chance in the world that Clinton will get the youth vote that the party needs badly. They aren't voting against her, they are just watching VH1 and throwing back Jager instead.
equivalent to the late 60-70s crowd that got high, listened to music and bitched about the country. So what's really changed in 40 years? new media/different drug. Same dumb a$$ kids

Cochise
03-05-2008, 12:07 PM
I think there are more racists than sexists in the world in general.

In addition I think Obama will probably benefit from racism more than he will be hurt by that. there are plenty of people out there who will vote for him automatically because he's black, I think a lot more than would not consider him just because of that.

Logical
03-05-2008, 12:08 PM
I think it's all part of patt's new schtick: irritating and annoying gadfly.Ding, ding, ding

Logical
03-05-2008, 12:11 PM
I said to ask Gaz, he is available now at the other website.:thumb:

htismaqe
03-05-2008, 12:11 PM
In addition I think Obama will probably benefit from racism more than he will be hurt by that. there are plenty of people out there who will vote for him automatically because he's black, I think a lot more than would not consider him just because of that.

I actually agree with that.

Carlota69
03-05-2008, 12:15 PM
There's more sexists, but they won't be voting for Barack.


Because he's a MAN.

:D

Ah, he's doing pretty good with the female (mine included) vote and she is getting her ass kicked with the black vote, something like 81% to 17%. Besides, women have been voting for men ever since, well, ever since they let us....

Taco John
03-05-2008, 12:27 PM
This thread is one of the finest bits of trolling I have ever seen. A masterpiece in trollworks!

patteeu
03-05-2008, 12:28 PM
You've got to be ****ing kidding me. Your question is an update of "when did you stop beating your wife".

I don't know if this a suprise to you or not, pat, but Nixon's Southern strategy didn't carve out <u>all</u> of the racists.

I shouldn't have to explain this to you, but the whole concept of the "when did you stop beating your wife" question is that it can't be answered with a yes or a no without implicating yourself. If you think there are zero racists or sexists in the democrat party, I guess I could understand you saying that, but that's ridiculous. Admitting that there are probably some of each in the party doesn't implicate you at all.

htismaqe
03-05-2008, 12:30 PM
Ah, he's doing pretty good with the female (mine included) vote and she is getting her ass kicked with the black vote, something like 81% to 17%. Besides, women have been voting for men ever since, well, ever since they let us....

It was a lesbian joke...

patteeu
03-05-2008, 12:30 PM
Given the number of sexist-racists and racist-sexists in the Republican party, you may not have to worry about it either way; McCain will carry the Grand Ol' (white, male) Party. :D

Duh. The only issue regarding sexists or racists in the GOP that is interesting in this context is how many will cross the aisle to vote for Hillary or Obama because of their sex/race.

patteeu
03-05-2008, 12:41 PM
My opinion is that there are more democrat racists who would abandon an Obama candidacy than there are sexists who would abandon Hillary's. Which is weird because I kind of think there is a bigger barrier to a woman winning the presidency than a black man. Maybe I'm distinguishing between hardcore sexism (women belong in the kitchen) and a more softcore sexism that might manifest itself as a person open to the concept of a woman president but turned off by "bitchiness" or a "cackle" or the appearance of weakness that tears might represent.

I agree with those who pointed out that other factors could overwhelm this effect whichever way it cuts. Obviously, there are people like oldandslow and banyon who won't vote for Hillary for reasons other than sexism and there are probably some who wouldn't vote for Obama for reasons other than race (although I can't think of anyone off the top of my head other than possibly memyselfi).

Adept Havelock
03-05-2008, 02:28 PM
equivalent to the late 60-70s crowd that got high, listened to music and bitched about the country. So what's really changed in 40 years? new media/different drug. Same dumb a$$ kids

Same cranky old bastards ranting about them too. ;)

Chief Faithful
03-05-2008, 02:43 PM
That black man needs to know his place and get behind that white woman on the bus...err...ticket. :evil:

a1na2
03-05-2008, 04:32 PM
This thread is one of the finest bits of trolling I have ever seen. A masterpiece in trollworks!

THIS MESSAGE BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE CHIEFSPLANET OFFICIAL TROLL, TACO JOHN.ROFL

jAZ
03-05-2008, 05:49 PM
While this thead is pretty trollish... There is a real discussion that exists in these areas. Patteeu just isn't sincere in anything other than his desire to paint Dems as nothing better than Republican racists.

I read the following email sent to Josh Marshal at Talking Points Memo on a closely related topic and thought it might raise the level of the discussion in this thread beyond patteeu's objectives.

I think there are some very astute observations in here that apply equally to Missouri (and likely West Virginia, Virginia and a number of other border states).

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/181704.php

I was canvassing for Obama in OH from Saturday through Election Day, but I still expected Clinton to win. My reasons were in part anecdotal: Despite working with a solid Obama ground organization, I encountered much starker resistance from older, middle- and working class whites than I had in other places I'd canvassed, namely Maryland and Iowa. But this anecdotal evidence only added to the much more extensive sense of the Ohio electorate I got as the field director on a House race there in 2006.
The impression I came away with then, and had reinforced last week, was that in today's America race is actually more of a factor in the Democratic politics of "border states" like Ohio, Tennessee and Indiana than it is in the "Deep South." In the latter region, racism has been thoroughly integrated into Republican politics while the kind of counter-forces that would keep racially conservative whites aligned with Democrats -- primarily unions and economic populism -- are virtually nonexistent.

In the "border states," though, you have a collision between old patterns of racist sentiments bleeding up from the South and traditions of populism and white working class unionism bleeding down from the Rustbelt North. Ultimately, I think this means that while you may find more out-and-out racists in Alabama or Texas, you're more likely to encounter latent racist sentiment among a broad segment of Democrats somewhere like Ohio or Tennessee.

If I'm right, this could be at least a partial explanation for why Obama performed better in southern, red Texas than in midwestern, purple Ohio. It could also explain the odd pattern we've repeatedly seen of Obama performing very well in both the states with the highest African American populations and the lowest, but not as well in those in the middle where ethnicities are more mixed.

I think this is one facet of the race/gender issues in this campaign that the media actually hasn't beaten to death -- in fact, they've barely addressed it. We've heard a lot about Hillary's appeal to women giving her an advantage with them, a lot about how well Obama does among blacks, and even some mutterings about whether Obama's youthful and yuppie white support has to do with those groups wanting a "token black friend"; but almost no one has stopped to ask whether Clinton's consistent lead amongst white working class Democrats might have something to do with race. I'm almost certain it played a role in her margins of victory in states like Ohio, Tennessee, and Oklahoma.

I'm also not sure what this means if true, either for the rest of the primary or the general. I guess the question for the primary is whether latent racism exists amongst Pennsylvania's white Democrats to the same degree that it does in Ohio. And for the general, if Obama wins, I'd say the question is whether racial suspicions in swing states like Ohio are so strong that a significant portion of white working class Democrat-leaners would ignore their economic concerns to vote against him, or whether it's a more subtle thing that just nudged them into a preference for Clinton in the primary, but will be trounced by devotion to economic progress in November.

ClevelandBronco
03-05-2008, 06:06 PM
I'd say there are more racists. If Sen. Clinton figures out a way to pull this off she will suffer because democrat racists of every ethnic group will stay at home because she will have spoiled their chance of electing the first "black" candidate.

If Sen. Obama prevails I don't think the backlash from Clinton supporters would be of similar impact. Her voters are more often grownups.

patteeu
03-05-2008, 06:12 PM
While this thead is pretty trollish... There is a real discussion that exists in these areas. Patteeu just isn't sincere in anything other than his desire to paint Dems as nothing better than Republican racists.

I think there's a lot of self-doubting defensiveness coming from the democrat side of aisle these days (particularly from those in the Obama camp). This thread is about a real discussion, but it's apparently one that many democrats don't want to think about and may not even want to admit.

jAZ
03-05-2008, 06:35 PM
I think there's a lot of self-doubting defensiveness coming from the democrat side of aisle these days (particularly from those in the Obama camp). This thread is about a real discussion, but it's apparently one that many democrats don't want to think about and may not even want to admit.
You have been such a fraud for so long that you don't deserve any benefit of the doubt on just about anything, but in particular on this thread.

That your initial response is to ignore the substantive contribution I made in that post and attack Obama supporters demonstrates exactly your trollish purpose here.

MurphDog
03-05-2008, 06:39 PM
Dude can you get your Obama billboard out of the friggin way - I am trying to read the thread... Besides you are ignoring perception and perception is reality

patteeu
03-05-2008, 06:56 PM
You have been such a fraud for so long that you don't deserve any benefit of the doubt on just about anything, but in particular on this thread.

That your initial response is to ignore the substantive contribution I made in that post and attack Obama supporters demonstrates exactly your trollish purpose here.

Uh, I believe it was a group of Obama supporters, including yourself, who attacked me, not the other way around.

I was addressing substance in this thread when you were still sputtering mad about the idea that anyone would say there were racists or sexists in the democrat party. That is... until you saw someone at TPM raising exactly the same issue. It's an interesting issue if it's raised on Josh Marshall's site, it's insincere trolling if patteeu raises it. :rolleyes:

BTW, how'd you vote?

jAZ
03-05-2008, 07:23 PM
I was addressing substance in this thread when you were still sputtering mad about the idea that anyone would say there were racists or sexists in the democrat party. That is... until you saw someone at TPM raising exactly the same issue. It's an interesting issue if it's raised on Josh Marshall's site, it's insincere trolling if patteeu raises it. :rolleyes:
It's interesting when discussed sincerely and in very personal terms like I did 15 days ago...

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4593769&postcount=8

I will definately concede that there is a segment of the Dem base that won't turn out for Obama because he's black. That segment is largely defined as racist-union voters.

The problem with the idea that segment is hurting Obama is that they don't really have anywhere else to turn.

They won't go Repubilcan enmass because of NAFTA. They won't go to McCain in particular because of immigration.

I have 2 family members in MO who are racist, brick-laying union members who won't vote Obama but can't vote McCain either.

My bet is that they sit out this election.

But if they break one way or another... there could be a reverse Bradly-effect here... where they vote Obama, but never speak of it again.

You aren't raising the question out of sincerity, but out of trollishness. You know it, everyone knows it. You've been on a troll-roll for a little while now.

HonestChieffan
03-05-2008, 07:32 PM
Does the question here imply that one is racist if one is not on Obamas side? or Sexist if not for Hillary?

ClevelandBronco
03-05-2008, 07:48 PM
Does the question here imply that one is racist if one is not on Obamas side? or Sexist if not for Hillary?

Not necessarily. I think the real racists won't forgive or vote for Sen. Clinton, but maybe patteeu could clarify what he meant for you.

patteeu
03-05-2008, 07:52 PM
It's interesting when discussed sincerely and in very personal terms like I did 15 days ago...

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4593769&postcount=8

I will definately concede that there is a segment of the Dem base that won't turn out for Obama because he's black. That segment is largely defined as racist-union voters.

The problem with the idea that segment is hurting Obama is that they don't really have anywhere else to turn.

They won't go Repubilcan enmass because of NAFTA. They won't go to McCain in particular because of immigration.

I have 2 family members in MO who are racist, brick-laying union members who won't vote Obama but can't vote McCain either.

My bet is that they sit out this election.

But if they break one way or another... there could be a reverse Bradly-effect here... where they vote Obama, but never speak of it again.

You aren't raising the question out of sincerity, but out of trollishness. You know it, everyone knows it. You've been on a troll-roll for a little while now.

I think it's more interesting to find out whether people think more racists will defect over an Obama nomination or more sexists will defect over a Hillary nomination. If you're not interested in that aspect of the topic, maybe this isn't the thread for you.

It appears to me that there is an attempt around here to lower the bar that determines what ought to be considered trollishness now that Obama's getting roughed up a little. Boo hoo. Ironically, this thread wasn't even specifically about Obama. Nonetheless, several of you Obamaphiles are getting puckered up about it. I don't see Frankie, or memyselfi, or any of the dem sympathizers who favor Clinton over Obama whining about how trollish this thread is. I think it's pretty clear what's going on here.

So anyway, getting back to the thread topic, how'd you vote and why?

patteeu
03-05-2008, 08:00 PM
Does the question here imply that one is racist if one is not on Obamas side? or Sexist if not for Hillary?

No, not at all. There are tons of reasons someone might defect from the democrat party over either of these nominees. I'm just focusing on the groups who will defect primarily for racist or sexist reasons. There is probably some cross-over there too. I'd imagine that there are already some democrats examining their options because they are both racist and sexist and can't bring themselves to vote for either of the potential nominees.

For example, jAZ points out that there is a streak of racism in the labor segment of the democrat party, indeed in his own family, that could lead to lost votes for Obama.

chagrin
03-05-2008, 08:22 PM
Is there a point to this thread?

Actually, other than the way it's worded it has validity - you really don't believe that racists and sexists exist in both parties and that their personal feelings won't cause them to vote a certain way?

Just this morning, on my carpool ride i to work with a Leftist coworker, we had that discussion. He actually believes that Hilary would get the nod over BO because of his race.

Cochise
03-05-2008, 08:38 PM
Actually, other than the way it's worded it has validity

What is bad about how it's worded? It doesn't say there are tons of either. It just says, which are there more of? There are racists, and there are sexists as well, so which is greater? Seems innocuous to me, unless those terms make you convulse to even think about.

jAZ
03-05-2008, 08:56 PM
So anyway, getting back to the thread topic, how'd you vote and why?
I didn't vote because your purpose is to stir shit.

a1na2
03-05-2008, 09:44 PM
I didn't vote because your purpose is to stir shit.

So which are you? Or do you fall into the same subset as banyon? You do also have the choice of being a pedophile or cross dresser.

banyon
03-05-2008, 10:45 PM
So which are you? Or do you fall into the same subset as banyon? You do also have the choice of being a pedophile or cross dresser.

Sorry you don't get...jokes. You are the 2nd most pathetic person I have seen on the internet, behind goChiefs. That's not good.

a1na2
03-05-2008, 10:47 PM
Sorry you don't get...jokes. You are the 2nd most pathetic person I have seen on the internet, behind goChiefs. That's not good.

Oh shit. What will I ever do. Banyon doesn't like me.

If there was ever a person on this board that didn't get jokes I think it would be you. You take yourself far too seriously.

banyon
03-05-2008, 10:53 PM
Oh shit. What will I ever do. Banyon doesn't like me.

If there was ever a person on this board that didn't get jokes I think it would be you. You take yourself far too seriously.

I guess you'll just continue to be the ridiculously sad loser that has been alienating people on this board for several years.

a1na2
03-05-2008, 10:58 PM
I guess you'll just continue to be the ridiculously sad loser that has been alienating people on this board for several years.

You call me a loser yet you have spent the last hour arguing with me?

You are the real loser here.

BTW, while arguing with you I was able to invoice two customers for $440.

Programmers don't make more than lawyers, but at least we can make money while we keep assholes like you spinning!!! LMAO

banyon
03-05-2008, 11:01 PM
You call me a loser yet you have spent the last hour arguing with me?

You are the real loser here.

BTW, while arguing with you I was able to invoice two customers for $440.

Programmers don't make more than lawyers, but at least we can make money while we keep assholes like you spinning!!! LMAO

Congrats. i'll make more than that while i am urinating tommorrow. Go ahead and shoot yourself.

a1na2
03-05-2008, 11:09 PM
Congrats. i'll make more than that while i am urinating tommorrow. Go ahead and shoot yourself.

So you are going to piss away the whole day and still charge your employer?

I worked on two plants online for 30 minutes. I'm sure you will make that much during the day tomorrow.

I think you need to think less of yourself and get back to chasing the ambulances.

banyon
03-05-2008, 11:11 PM
So you are going to piss away the whole day and still charge your employer?

I worked on two plants online for 30 minutes. I'm sure you will make that much during the day tomorrow.

I think you need to think less of yourself and get back to chasing the ambulances.



No, I mean't that i'll make more than your example on my bathroom break. i don't chase ambulances, as it's not part of being a prosecutor, dumbass.

a1na2
03-05-2008, 11:13 PM
No, I mean't that i'll make more than your example on my bathroom break. i don't chase ambulances, as it's not part of being a prosecutor, dumbass.

So you are into prostitution now too!

I don't really care what you do, all lawyers are ambulance chasers. That and they are overpaid if they make more than $10.00 an hour.

Just a little more. The lawyers I know get $125 an hour from their clients. If you are going to make more than $440 during your bathroom breaks you need to stop with the extra curricular activity while you are using the facilities. I doubt that you work 8 hours a day and if you use the $125 per hour you are in the can nearly 3 1/2 hours! Which law firm do you work for? I may need to call the senior partner.

banyon
03-05-2008, 11:16 PM
So you are into prostitution now too!

I don't really care what you do, all lawyers are ambulance chasers. That and they are overpaid if they make more than $10.00 an hour.

There's nothing that relates to prostitution in my post. Just another desparate stab on your part, like normal.

a1na2
03-05-2008, 11:26 PM
There's nothing that relates to prostitution in my post. Just another desperate stab on your part, like normal.

And you said I don't get jokes?

Fixed your spelling again.

You are going to have to watch your blood pressure. You are going to hurt yourself if you don't stop. Go back to the bathroom and make another $400 bucks.

banyon
03-05-2008, 11:29 PM
And you said I don't get jokes?

Fixed your spelling again.

You are going to have to watch your blood pressure. You are going to hurt yourself if you don't stop. Go back to the bathroom and make another $400 bucks.

I get $150 an hour so go f*** yourself.

Answer the question for the 11the time if you have any sense of self-respect whatsoever.

a1na2
03-05-2008, 11:35 PM
I get $150 an hour so go f*** yourself.

Answer the question for the 11the time if you have any sense of self-respect whatsoever.

I gave you all the answers you need, you just don't seem to have the capacity to understand the answer. I thought lawyers were supposed to be smart! ROFL

So I missed your rate by $25. That means that you only spend 3 hours in the bathroom in an 8 hour day, still a little exorbitant don't you think?

I'd like to hear what you employer says to your time in the can.

banyon
03-05-2008, 11:37 PM
I gave you all the answers you need, you just don't seem to have the capacity to understand the answer. I thought lawyers were supposed to be smart! ROFL

So I missed your rate by $25. That means that you only spend 3 hours in the bathroom in an 8 hour day, still a little exorbitant don't you think?

I'd like to hear what you employer says to your time in the can.

Chance #12: you can't explain why message boards aren't a subset of chat rooms. You are a moron. I'm so sorry that your parents' meagre IQ's weren't able to combine in such a way as to give you a working ability to communicate with normal humans.

a1na2
03-05-2008, 11:50 PM
Chance #12: you can't explain why message boards aren't a subset of chat rooms. You are a moron. I'm so sorry that your parents' meagre IQ's weren't able to combine in such a way as to give you a working ability to communicate with normal humans.

I'm thinking that you lose most of your cases in court. You don't read the answers that were given. You spend more time with insults than you do trying to understand answers given. I even used the source that you feel is the answer to all definitions.

Your link said they were a one was a subset of the other, the link I put up did not mention any relationship. It's a moot point.

As for my IQ, I've been tested a few times and have always ranked in the top 30% in the nation. I don't expect you to grasp that, but I'm not worried. I'm self assured and compensated very well for my profession. You still haven't explained why you spend 3 hours in the can every day. When are you going to answer that one?

banyon
03-05-2008, 11:55 PM
I'm thinking that you lose most of your cases in court. You don't read the answers that were given. You spend more time with insults than you do trying to understand answers given. I even used the source that you feel is the answer to all definitions.

Your link said they were a one was a subset of the other, the link I put up did not mention any relationship. It's a moot point.

As for my IQ, I've been tested a few times and have always ranked in the top 30% in the nation. I don't expect you to grasp that, but I'm not worried. I'm self assured and compensated very well for my profession. You still haven't explained why you spend 3 hours in the can every day. When are you going to answer that one?

Actually I've never lost a case in court, but apparently you would be a terrible witness since you continually evade even the simplest questions.

Top 30%? LMAO . Sorry you're proud of that.

a1na2
03-06-2008, 12:01 AM
Actually I've never lost a case in court, but apparently you would be a terrible witness since you continually evade even the simplest questions.

Top 30%? LMAO . Sorry you're proud of that.

OK smart guy. Where do you rank? (this should be interesting)

I didn't evade the questions, I answered them in a way that you , a lawyer, couldn't understand.

I've only been involved in one lawsuit and represented myself. Did very well. If I were ever to go to law school I feel that I would do well.

So, as a junior prosecutor you haven't lost a case? How many have you tried? You've only been there a short time, have you even had your own case?

banyon
03-06-2008, 12:06 AM
OK smart guy. Where do you rank? (this should be interesting)

I'm 152, figure it out (I doubt you can).

I didn't evade the questions, I answered them in a way that you , a lawyer, couldn't understand.

I've only been involved in one lawsuit and represented myself. Did very well. If I were ever to go to law school I feel that I would do well.

So, as a junior prosecutor you haven't lost a case? How many have you tried? You've only been there a short time, have you even had your own case?


former question: plenty of people have pointed out how cowardly you've dodged the question.

latter: I've had a couple of jury trials, more will come.

a1na2
03-06-2008, 12:09 AM
I'm 152, figure it out (I doubt you can).




former question: plenty of people have pointed out how cowardly you've dodged the question.

latter: I've had a couple of jury trials, more will come.

You have no good answer so you revert to insults again.

Answering questions in a manner that you can't understand is not a reflection of me, but of your inability to understand the answer or your refusal to read the answer.

BTW, 152 puts you a couple of percentage points above me. I'm not worried, your logic and reasoning doesn't seem to match mine.

RedDread
03-06-2008, 12:12 AM
You have no good answer so you revert to insults again.

Answering questions in a manner that you can't understand is not a reflection of me, but of your inability to understand the answer or your refusal to read the answer.

BTW, 152 puts you a couple of percentage points above me. I'm not worried, your logic and reasoning doesn't seem to match mine.

His social skills seem to be light years beyond yours.

banyon
03-06-2008, 12:13 AM
You have no good answer so you revert to insults again.

Answering questions in a manner that you can't understand is not a reflection of me, but of your inability to understand the answer or your refusal to read the answer.

BTW, 152 puts you a couple of percentage points above me. I'm not worried, your logic and reasoning doesn't seem to match mine.

You said 30%, adding 20 percentage points isn't a "couple of points".

Also, For the 12th time, you refuse to answer the simple question i posed. Of course, that's not related to your intelligence. It's related to your cowardice. If Bravery had an IQ,you'd be under 60 (retarded).

Ari Chi3fs
03-06-2008, 12:19 AM
I love hot black women. I hope this helps.

a1na2
03-06-2008, 12:22 AM
You said 30%, adding 20 percentage points isn't a "couple of points".

Also, For the 12th time, you refuse to answer the simple question i posed. Of course, that's not related to your intelligence. It's related to your cowardice. If Bravery had an IQ,you'd be under 60 (retarded).

Once again you seem to be full of yourself. I wouldn't post my IQ on a bulletin board in the first place, trust me your IQ is not much higher than mine.

For the 12th time... you know what? You aren't worth the effort.

You win, you are one smart litigator. Your IQ must really be 200.

I have capitulated, you can go away now.

a1na2
03-06-2008, 12:22 AM
I love hot black women. I hope this helps.

You like banyon?

Oh wait, you meant hot, not pissed off didn't you?

patteeu
03-06-2008, 12:35 AM
I didn't vote because your purpose is to stir shit.

I have to wonder why you'd spend so much time in this thread then if you don't want to discuss the topic and you aren't just here to stir the shit yourself.

jAZ
03-06-2008, 01:29 AM
I have to wonder why you'd spend so much time in this thread then if you don't want to discuss the topic and you aren't just here to stir the shit yourself.
The topic is worthy, your effort was flawed. I fixed it.

a1na2
03-06-2008, 06:02 AM
I have to wonder why you'd spend so much time in this thread then if you don't want to discuss the topic and you aren't just here to stir the shit yourself.

One of the things you can see about jaz is that he is the proverbial stick and all ways in the stirring mode.

MurphDog
03-06-2008, 07:32 AM
I didn't vote because your purpose is to stir shit.

You seem to stir up enough yourself

MurphDog
03-06-2008, 07:33 AM
The topic is worthy, your effort was flawed. I fixed it.


ROFLROFLROFLROFL You are a joke, no wonder you pimp Bama

patteeu
03-06-2008, 08:01 AM
The topic is worthy, your effort was flawed. I fixed it.

Great. I appreciate the help. Now that it's fixed, I don't see any reason why you can't vote and discuss. Which do you think? More sexists or more racists?

jAZ
03-06-2008, 08:48 AM
Great. I appreciate the help. Now that it's fixed, I don't see any reason why you can't vote and discuss. Which do you think? More sexists or more racists?

I tried to fix the discussion. Your motivations for the poll can't be fixed as it's static.

MurphDog
03-06-2008, 08:51 AM
And you continue to ignore the reality of the situation

patteeu
05-09-2008, 12:26 PM
Anyone have any new observations on this important political science question?

jAZ, I think there's still time for you to register a vote if you haven't already!

ClevelandBronco
05-09-2008, 01:23 PM
Still more younger racist democrats than older sexist democrats at this point, but let's see how the Super Delegates turn out.

bowener
05-09-2008, 04:50 PM
while reading this and stumbling upon the pissing match of IQ scores, I came across this site:

http://www.angelfire.com/ut/JesusChrist1/iq.html

I really hope that guy is not serious.

jettio
05-09-2008, 04:56 PM
I think that there are more people in the Democratic party that don't appreciate a cynical vote authorizing a lying sack of incompetent Raiduhs to start a war.

If Hillary voted her conscience instead of her ambition on that one, Obama would not have entered the 2008 contest and she would be the odds-on favorite v. McCain, or the other somebody who might have gotten the GOP nomination if Obama's strength did not compel a moderate GOP nominee.