Quote :

"Listen, if this were 2007 and I was 24 with nothing to do at work I'd quote bomb the shit out of you right now but I'll sum it up like this..."

I'm really, really scared of just how much half-baked bullshit you'd spew out if you had more free time.

Quote :

"The other article does not control for factors such as first impressions based on looks. The article states that the candidates were at career fairs or at a restaurant applying for a role. In fact, in some cases, the plants were in line right after the other. Another point I you must have missed in your careful research."

Yes. It did. I even quoted the section for you. They were selected to all be roughly comparable in height, education, qualifications, well-spokenness, verbal skills, interactional styles, physical attractiveness. They all attended training to assure uniform presentation style (Style of dress, hygeine, mannerisms). Then they were handed roughly equal resumes.

By your theory, that blacks of decent presentability enjoy an advantage, they should have been out-hired compared to their white counterparts by a longshot, right? Instead, the opposite occurred nonetheless. Not only that, the opposite occurred despite the white applicants all having criminal records, and the blacks having none.

Seriously, what's missing here? What factor was not controlled for led to the white applicants get double the positive response rate?

Quote :

"The article you posted said that blacks weigh heavily in government jobs and industry that has been hit hard. If you missed that in your desperate grab for articles careful research, I am sorry."

You're repeating yourself. As I said, it doesn't say which proportion. Why don't you produce a shred of evidence for what and show some proof that "heavily" is heavy enough to account fully for the disparity? I also would point you to any black unemployment figures going back over 30 years, all of which show at least double unemployment for blacks regardless of fluctuations in public sector employment.

Quote :

"For the one where you suggested I read the source, it still doesn't describe the type of discrimination or the method behind evaluating the legitimacy. The average-basis method described only accounts for if there is legitimacy to hear the claim, not if the claim itself was legit. Going to court does not equate guilt."

It wasn't just those falling slightly below the average, by the papers methodology, they restricted the counting only to those so extremely disparate, and over such long periods of time, they estimated a 1 in 99 chance of being accidental or coincidental.

Quote :

"Lastly, the source of names is not unrelated. It is very clear that people can be bias based on names. Race isn't the only example, another is that all girls whose names end with an i or ie where a Y should be are loose and dumb."

I've never heard that in my life. I'm pretty sure it's universally accepted that the answer to "What's in a name" is "Absolutely nothing".

Quote :

" The thing is if you are aware of this bias, which most are, you have the option to not name your children that or adjust your name as you see fit. I, personally, don't see this as an issue because the names themselves are arbitrary. However, if it was a way to hang on to heritage that was undeniably robbed then I could understand the apprehension to detach so easily."

This solves absolutely nothing. What you're missing is these black people could put white-sounding names on their resumes anyway and just get denied at the interview. Do you think somebody who discards black-sounding-named resumes is going to drop that prejudice when they SEE black skin?

So, can you produce anything to back up your theory, that blacks who are equally presentable as whites enjoy an advantage? Anything resembling numbers, statistics, studies, or anything remotely empirical?

[Edited on March 15, 2012 at 4:44 PM. Reason : .]

3/15/2012 4:42:58 PM

oh shit. he's back for more...

3/15/2012 5:04:04 PM

^^clearly you make up shit as you go along.

3/15/2012 5:39:11 PM

I seriously can't fathom being that ignorant.






Back to racist ron paul. Look at all these people there to heckle him! They really hate his biggoted policies and his crazy idealism


[Edited on March 15, 2012 at 5:52 PM. Reason : .]

3/15/2012 5:49:57 PM

Good to see some Paul supporters at the anti-amendment rally/march today. At the bell tower:



Good to have the NC Libertarian Party, the Wake Libertarians, and the Mecklenburg Libertarians against the amendment too. The head of the NC Libertarians just put out this anti-amendment video recently too:

3/15/2012 8:09:09 PM

I think part of the reason you can see huge Paul turnouts, and then Romney win, is because voting doesn't measure intensity of support.

Filling up a stadium measures how passionate supporters are. But all it takes is a large swatch of the population, that would never show up at a political event, but that will take a few minutes on election day to go vote for who they've heard the most about on Fox News.

But there are also plenty of legitimate concerns about how poorly state after state in the GOP primaries have handled counting, turning in, and announcing election results.

3/15/2012 9:54:48 PM

Quote :

"I think part of the reason you can see huge Paul turnouts, and then Romney win, is because voting doesn't measure intensity of support. "

Don't cop out and stop at "I think". Test your hypothesis!

3/15/2012 11:16:49 PM

How?

3/15/2012 11:47:03 PM

Uh oh. This isn't good news.

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/news/articles/2012/03/15/deeper-voices-win-over-voters-study-finds

3/15/2012 11:55:36 PM

evolution 101?

3/16/2012 11:19:35 AM

Quote :

"Don't cop out and stop at "I think". Test your hypothesis!"

He didn't claim it was a hypothesis or even factual. It was just conjecture and he wasn't billing it as anything better.

Now, given it's a much more plausible claim than a grandiose conspiracy against Ron Paul, I'd say trotting out the scientific method to discount it is missing the forest for the trees.

[Edited on March 16, 2012 at 11:22 AM. Reason : n]

3/16/2012 11:21:51 AM

Quote :

"Don't cop out and stop at "I think". Test your hypothesis!"

LOL, this fucking guy...

3/16/2012 11:25:28 AM

Well the evidence for conspiracy is obvious.

Exhibit A *points to rally photo*

3/16/2012 11:26:53 AM

I've posted a lot more than just rally photos, ignoramus.
I've posted poll numbers that are not consistent.
I've posted screenshots of voter fraud.
I've posted video of voter fraud.



I've even posted absurdity of the winning candidates that make it unbelievable for a majority of any population in the United States would vote for him

Quote :

" Rick Santorum wants to ban hard-core pornography 19 hrs ago Rick Santorum wants to put an end to the distribution of pornography in the United States. "America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography," Santorum's official website reads. "Pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9oalmms8PA&feature=watch_response "

You defense of romney, santorum, and gingrich is stunning and it's completely unamerican since Ron Paul is practically the poster child of the constitution and these other candidates commit to ideas that slaughter freedom and liberty. Choose wisely.


[Edited on March 16, 2012 at 1:44 PM. Reason : .]

3/16/2012 1:41:47 PM

Oh dear I've been called UnAmerican it's the Bush years all over again

3/16/2012 2:29:57 PM

double post.

[Edited on March 16, 2012 at 2:53 PM. Reason : .]

3/16/2012 2:47:47 PM

I knew you'd do that because you don't know what an American is.

Hint: Read the constitution.


If you disagree with the constitution, you are unamerican.


literally.

3/16/2012 2:52:49 PM

*figuratively*

3/16/2012 3:01:24 PM

literal: in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical.

3/16/2012 3:04:43 PM

Awesome, you're capable of looking up definitions.


Now go look up the definition of "American" and tell me what "an American is"




And when you're done with that, go home and get your fucking shine box.

3/16/2012 3:18:15 PM

According to the 14th Amendment I am literally American.

3/16/2012 3:35:36 PM

I swear to God! Now he'd make your shoes look like fuckin' mirrors. 'Scuse my language. He was terrific, he was the best. He made a lot of money, too, Ah salute, genuisboy

3/16/2012 3:37:26 PM

I can't handle this. An American is someone who believes in American values. Americanism.
Learn what context is.

Do you guys think "The right to bear arms" is talking about these?




Morons.

3/16/2012 4:39:04 PM

I can't handle the retardation.

[Edited on March 16, 2012 at 4:43 PM. Reason : .]

3/16/2012 4:43:01 PM

Oh hey a Constitutional Originalist who thinks he has exclusive purview over the definition of "American values", it's like the Bush years all over again

Quote :

"bear arms"

You're still not getting what "literally" means, keep trying. It has nothing to do with words that have multiple definitions. Both "To Carry" and a "A wild forest beast" are literal definitions of "bear".

[Edited on March 16, 2012 at 5:03 PM. Reason : .]

3/16/2012 5:02:17 PM

geniusboy is quickly surpassing packbryan as my favorite soap box poster.

3/16/2012 6:03:57 PM

You guys knows what I mean. You're just being hardheaded.

3/16/2012 8:20:51 PM

Theoretical method for beating the corruption at the primary/caucus level.

Quote :

" A How-To guide on this election process. Let's go and get Ron Paul to be President! http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FGae1P4N7GM#!"

3/16/2012 11:13:06 PM

Quote :

"I am RePosting this from the original by GCN3030. This is so important, that not knowing it cost Ron Paul the Virgin Island delegate count. Even though he won the straw poll. AND IT COULD COST US ALL at our state conventions. Not knowing the following information could KILL US. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Here is the original post which was a reply by GCN3030 to an an earlier post (on front page) titled "Delegate prep meeting for WA leg. district 2 for the County Convention is PACKED!" Here is the all important post submitted by GCN3030 on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 19:12: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You don't want to run more Ron Paul supporters as delegate candidates than their are spots available. We did that in Virgin Islands and lost the delegate battle even though we won the straw poll because we spread our votes too thin. Make sure you coordinate with the campaign and your local precinct delegates you must know who to vote for it is imperative that we organize together to succeed. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So basically, if you have x amount of delegate spots available, and you have x + MORE Ron Paul supporters running as delegates, then you spread yourself too thin and take the chance that NO ONE RON PAUL DELEGATE NOMINEE gets enough votes to get a delegate spot. TOO MANY PEOPLE I have spoken with (who want to be delegates in my district) DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS. I am a delegate and would love to go all the way to my state level, but I am willing to DROP OUT if we have enough other Ron Paul delegates running. For example, in my district in Washington State, we have 15 delegate spots available to go to the state convention in Tacoma. Therefore, WE IDEALLY WANT ONLY 15 DELEGATES RUNNING - NO MORE. Then when it's time for alternates, the SAME THING applies. Even though this seems anti-intuitive and hard to understand, believe me IT IS TRUE. We must get this out before the district caucuses begin in all the states. Some have already started. Again - I can't stress the importance of this concept. In our excitement to all want to be delegates, this can be overlooked and HURT OUR CAUSE. This principle actually applies AT ALL LEVELS of the caucus process - Even at the precinct level."

Makes sense.

3/17/2012 12:21:25 AM

More people registered to vote than people living in the respective counties.


http://missouri.watchdog.org/5822/fifteen-missouri-counties-have-more-voters-than-census-population/

3/17/2012 12:30:19 PM

I'm guessing you steamrolled past "inefficient government not pruning their records in a timely fashion" to "vast conspiracy against ron paul" amirite? What's the opposite of a razor? Occam's Tape of Complexity?

3/17/2012 2:31:55 PM

Did you read the article?
No, you didn't.
How do I know?
The article answers your question.

3/17/2012 6:35:05 PM

Here is a video clip of the St. Charles Missouri Caucus chairman telling caucus goers that recording devices are not allowed as per the rules and that violators would be subject to arrest. This caused an uproar with the crowd that eventually lead to the caucus being canceled with no delegates being awarded.



http://youtu.be/odsgXbS5jio

3/17/2012 8:51:01 PM

longer video with the crowd chanting

"Remove the chair[man]"

and

"We [the people] make the rules"


http://youtu.be/cogkHLVqM8Q

3/17/2012 9:35:29 PM

3/17/2012 10:51:42 PM

I'm not even going to ask for a source or proof of authenticity, just where you got that one. Show me what circus of a forum you get this crap from.

3/18/2012 11:14:51 AM

In a universe where the thin line between reality and fantasy is getting thinner and it's becoming increasingly more difficult to distinguish the two apart, it only matters that you know the idea exists. Ideas are transformed into reality when people can build them with their hands.

I'm sure you've seen an internet video on youtube or on the news that you thought was real and it was not. Have you ever seen any videos that appeared to be fake but were actually real? How does it affect your credibility?

I pose this question because all I'm doing is citing evident that is out there. Whether it's real or not is irrelevant because there are people that will treat it as real. Whether it's real or not, it's out there. You're looking at it.

I pass it around, not because I believe its real or not, but in hopes that someone else can prove it wrong. I don't have access to internal government records, but someone on the Internet might.

What if it was real? What are you going to do? There is nothing out there to prove it's not real and much as you want me to prove it IS real. Will ignoring it help? Will you believe the letters when it's too late?

You decide.

3/18/2012 1:46:56 PM

More election fraud from a different country in missouri


http://youtu.be/Ip8RSoctY6s




[Edited on March 18, 2012 at 2:39 PM. Reason : .]

3/18/2012 2:32:59 PM

Delegate fraud in Oklahoma City (video)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HZ3_U69xOnk

3/18/2012 6:14:11 PM

So, it's you. You're one of those people that keeps all those legions of utter misinformation fwd:fwd:fwd chain emails alive. I always wondered who was doing it, now I know...

Quote :

"I pass it around, not because I believe its real or not, but in hopes that someone else can prove it wrong. I don't have access to internal government records, but someone on the Internet might. "

Well surely the place you originally got this had at least enough proof to convince you it was worth passing on at all, right? So post where you found this.

[Edited on March 18, 2012 at 7:04 PM. Reason : .]

3/18/2012 7:01:33 PM

I did some homework for you

The letter, if real, is likely referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Inmate_Labor_Program either as a commentary on it, or providing information on the current state of prison labor camps in the US towards drafting it. I'm basing this "likely" scenario on the year of the letter and the program's inception coinciding, and Hefner having been on the appropriations committee at the time.

The camps it refers are ones where Federal and State convicts would do penal labor for the military. The transfer would be conducted under http://law.onecle.com/uscode/18/4125.html pursuant to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution , which specifically permits the imposition of forced labor as a penalty for a crime. Originally, those programs were been mostly State-orchestrated, then increasingly contracted out to the private market as part of the rise of the prison-industrial complex. I'm not sure (but doubt) that this would be the first time the Federal government used prisoner labor in wartime, but it might be, maybe you can figure that out. This is all public material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labour#United_States



Now you know. So stop passing it around unless you include some context.

[Edited on March 18, 2012 at 7:27 PM. Reason : .]

3/18/2012 7:23:00 PM

That solves "civilian inmate labor program" but I did not see where you solved "civilian prison camps" which is the more important of the two.

[Edited on March 18, 2012 at 8:21 PM. Reason : .]

3/18/2012 8:20:07 PM

IM A LIBERTARIAN AND I LOVE RON PAUL

YET IM SUPPOSED TO BE ANTI GOVERNMENT AND NOT PUT A HUGE EMPHASIS IN HOW THE GOVERNMENT RUNS MY LIFE

BUT RON PAUL IS DIFFERENT. I WANT HIM RUNNING MY GOVERNMENT

I LOVE TO GO ONLINE AND VOTE FOR RON PAUL POLLS AND PRETEND LIKE THE 2% THAT LIKE RON PAUL ARE REALLY LIKE 95% OF THE UNITED STATES


lol jk

3/18/2012 8:20:39 PM

NYPD's Iron Fist: OWS Re-Occupation Arrests

Quote :

"@dstory69 Funny thing is the media shows this? happening everywhere but in USA."

http://youtu.be/_1AiNMAv2KI

3/18/2012 9:02:33 PM

Why is arresting people trespassing on privately owned land wrong?

3/18/2012 9:35:13 PM

Because all land is privately owned. This particular privately owned land is open to the public.

3/18/2012 9:36:50 PM

Just watch the video. Do you think Ron Paul can save us from this shit? The banks won't allow it. The police serve the banks and corporate interests first and foremost.

All you need to know is that this won't end well, and it won't end peacefully. It will end with a boot on the throat of anyone that that speaks out against what's going on in this country.

3/18/2012 9:42:05 PM

I bet if those protestors had guns, the police would not act as they did.


The whole purpose of the 2nd amendment was placed in succession to the 1st amendment to ensure the government couldn't take away the 1st amendment.





[Edited on March 18, 2012 at 9:47 PM. Reason : .]

3/18/2012 9:45:43 PM

Yeah, if the protestors had guns the police would have just started bombing them and going all tiananmen square on them.

3/18/2012 10:38:41 PM

3/19/2012 9:14:52 AM