View Full Version : Prejudice??
longrange1947
10-27-2012, 11:22
Hmmm, is this a bid to get "guilty whites" to vote Obama again to prove they are not? :munchin
http://centurylink.net/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CDA25OTHO0%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=1018
AP article I found on the news feed from Century link, though. States Poll found over 50% were prejudiced.
Had not seen this posted here sorry if a double post.
Fortunately I have nothing to feel guilty about. But I guess I'm a racist since I didn't (early) vote for him.
Fortunately I have nothing to feel guilty about. But I guess I'm a racist since I didn't (early) vote for him.
I guess I am Guilty also......... WTF is with these people........
As you I have nothing to feel sorry/guilty about eithor.:D
MrBox2113
10-27-2012, 11:54
I am going to paraphrase a quote from Walid Shoebat. If me being against someone because I completely disagree with what they stand for, their views, and moral standings, offends people to the point of calling me a racist, that is their right. I will die for their right to be offended and state that. But, millions of men and women died for my right, not to care.
Yeah, I'm a racist ..... I hate everyone equally.
I'm still voting for Romney/Ryan.
:munchin
You have to wonder what the demographics of this poll were, polls are pretty much worthless. This is all about Obama and how terrible those of us who do not support him are, he could be blue and I could care less. It's the content of his character that bother me.
longrange1947
10-27-2012, 13:21
You have to wonder what the demographics of this poll were, polls are pretty much worthless. This is all about Obama and how terrible those of us who do not support him are, he could be blue and I could care less. It's the content of his character that bother me.
What character???? :munchin
Doc Diego
10-27-2012, 13:36
It is an attempt to reinforce the DNC/MSM narrative. Obama's poll numbers are low, not because of his record, but because we are a racist nation. Even more pathetic than the GOP "war on women" narrative.
You have to wonder what the demographics of this poll were, polls are pretty much worthless. This is all about Obama and how terrible those of us who do not support him are, he could be blue and I could care less. It's the content of his character that bother me.
I would be more interested in the questions and how they were asked.
This is a link to AP surveys and the questions:
http://surveys.ap.org/
Ambush Master
10-27-2012, 14:17
All I can say, with regard to the incumbent, is it is WAY past the time for a Hymn!!!
HIM........HIM.......F82K HIM!!!!
Hmmm, is this a bid to get "guilty whites" to vote Obama again...?
So...now they're going after the prison vote? :rolleyes:
Richard :munchin
Took a long time to get to the meat of the subject.
Down to around page 23.
Lot of perception questions. Since most folks don't interact a great deal with other races outside of work - the work interaction, what is presented to them through social media and just "who" they run into at the mall lot will greatly color that perception.
So answering those questions the "wrong" way make a person racist?
Brilliant. Like Colin Powells ret. Col Chief of Staff calling the Rep party racist.
Let's see.....Rep are Racist for not voting for the candidate of the other party?
This Col is a moron, and a chump to boot.
What the idiot should have said is "Democrats that vote against BO for no other reason that race are racist".....
There is no way in hell one can 'count' the opposition in those ranks because one would have to totally discount party ideology.
As to the poll quoted...how the hell did he get elected in the first place? Did everyone become racist these last 4 years?
Sounds more like democratic excuse making....then OB won't even have to be resp. for his own failure.
Peregrino
10-27-2012, 16:27
I can't be a racist - I despise his white half too. I didn't vote race either time; honestly, there are far more important reasons to vote against him. It's time the Manchurian Candidate went back to wherever his missing college transcripts say he's from.
Hmmm, is this a bid to get "guilty whites" to vote Obama again to prove they are not? :munchin
http://centurylink.net/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CDA25OTHO0%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=1018
The way it's presented......Yes.
Looking inside (thanks to BKKMAN), there's a different "big picture".
The groups "less liked" in 2012, are the Black, White, and Hispanic groups . That's with an increase of both Black and Hispanic numbers in the polled group.
And, the opinion on other matters not related to race is also increasingly negative. My own humble conclusion would be an overall pissed-off populace, except for the glaring change in the composition of the sample over two years.
In the 2010 sample 2% of the participants were separated, while 24% were single (and probably "starry-eyed"). In the 2012 sample that 2% separated increased to 24% separated. (Enough to invalidate all findings)
When she's asking for half of the pool table, a man has a right to hate anybody he chooses. :)
Note the growing number of persons who decline to give an answer when it comes to matters involving race. Are we becoming that PC or even worse, actually afraid to speak?
ZonieDiver
10-27-2012, 17:19
...or even worse, actually afraid to speak?
I think that may be true. I know a number of people 'residing' at various points of the political spectrum of which that is the case. They just DO NOT talk about it in public, or semi-public. (By 'it' I mean their political beliefs.)
Paranoia strikes deep.
Into your life it will creep.
It starts when you're always afraid.
Step out of line,
the man comes and takes you away.
Paranoia strikes deep.
Into your life it will creep.
It starts when you're always afraid.
Step out of line,
the man comes and takes you away.
One of the songs that defines our generation, ZD - Buffalo Springfield's "For What It's Worth" - but you would've had to have been there to appreciate it - glad nobody had to deal with any prejudicial issues, riots, voter fraud, bureaucratic incompetency, economic stagnation and high unemployment, lengthy wars, corporate greed, etc in our time.
What's wrong with these kids today!!?!??! :rolleyes:
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
[COLOR="Pink"]What's wrong with these kids today!!?!??! :rolleyes:
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
What's wrong with them is, they were raised by sissified, libdemon parents and taught to lose their ambition and to celebrate diversity by sissified, libdemon teachers who were the former students of communist professors-for the most part.
Lot of perception questions. Since most folks don't interact a great deal with other races outside of work - the work interaction, what is presented to them through social media and just "who" they run into at the mall lot will greatly color that perception.
So answering those questions the "wrong" way make a person racist?Your point about workplace interaction suggests (at least to me) that these kinds of polls would benefit from additional questions about (a) the type of work respondents do, (b) how they get to the work place, and (c) how they occupy their minds during their commute.Note the growing number of persons who decline to give an answer when it comes to matters involving race. Are we becoming that PC or even worse, actually afraid to speak?Note that in many cases, the response is "Refused/Not Answered", not "Declined." Without knowing why people did not do something, is it wise to speculate why they didn't? For example, a person could conceivably not answer a poll question she doesn't understand, or she would have opted for a "I don't know" option. (FWIW, page 34 provides some details on the way the poll was administered.)
Note that in many cases, the response is "Refused/Not Answered", not "Declined." Without knowing why people did not do something, is it wise to speculate why they didn't? For example, a person could conceivably not answer a poll question she doesn't understand, or she would have opted for a "I don't know" option. (FWIW, page 34 provides some details on the way the poll was administered.)
Page 34 establishes a name for their processing and a copyrite for that name. It really provides nothing else.
The process uses volunteers who are paid to complete the survey. The responses of the compensated volunteers are weighted if, in GfK's view they do not represent an accurate cross-section of the US. There are a number of discrepencies that point to how screwed up the DfK effort was, but I'll try to stick to the subject.
Past surveys, similar in 2008, and identical in 2010, had a 1% "Refused" that grew to a 3% "Refused" and then in 2012 to a 9% "Refused" in categories of race. A 900% difference in American reading comprehension over 4 years? I don't think so.
As for the difference between "Decline" and "Refuse", I decline to try to find the differences if any. Or possibly, I refuse. Maybe both. ;)
Page 34 establishes a name for their processing and a copyrite for that name. It really provides nothing else.FWIW, the copy of the poll I downloaded read the following on page 34.METHODOLOGY
The survey was conducted using the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®, a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. Initially, participants are chosen scientifically by a random selection of telephone numbers and residential addresses. Persons in selected households are then invited by telephone or by mail to participate in the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®. For those who agree to participate, but do not already have Internet access, GfK provides at no cost a laptop and ISP connection. People who already have computers and Internet service are permitted to participate using their own equipment. Panelists then receive unique log-in information for accessing surveys online, and then are sent emails throughout each month inviting them to participate in research.
The GfK Group
The GfK Group offers the fundamental knowledge that industry, retailers, services companies and the media need to make market decisions. It delivers a comprehensive range of information and consultancy services in the three business sectors Custom Research, Retail and Technology and Media. GfK, one of the leading market research organizations worldwide, operates in more than 100 countries and employs over 11,000 staff. In 2010, the GfK Group’s sales amounted to EUR 1.29 billion. For further information, visit our website: www.gfk.com. Follow us on Twitter: www.twitter.com/gfk_group.
From reading the above, I am of the view that the poll had been taken using a methodology different than the one you described as follows:
The process uses volunteers who are paid to complete the survey. The responses of the compensated volunteers are weighted if, in GfK's view they do not represent an accurate cross-section of the US. There are a number of discrepancies that point to how screwed up the DfK effort was, but I'll try to stick to the subject.
Past surveys, similar in 2008, and identical in 2010, had a 1% "Refused" that grew to a 3% "Refused" and then in 2012 to a 9% "Refused" in categories of race. A 900% difference in American reading comprehension over 4 years? I don't think so.
As for the difference between "Decline" and "Refuse", I decline to try to find the differences if any. Or possibly, I refuse. Maybe both. ;)By my reading of the METHODOLOGY, "Refused/Not Answered" might include the non responses of those who did not fill out the survey at all or who did not respond to specific questions. Notice that the answers to each questions only indicate the percentage of responses for each answer, but do not provide the number responding to each question (n). This method of reporting invites readers to conclude that the total number of respondents (N) replied to every question.
FWIW, the copy of the poll I downloaded read the following on page 34.
From reading the above, I am of the view that the poll had been taken using a methodology different than the one you described as follows:
By my reading of the METHODOLOGY, "Refused/Not Answered" might include the non responses of those who did not fill out the survey at all or who did not respond to specific questions. Notice that the answers to each questions only indicate the percentage of responses for each answer, but do not provide the number responding to each question (n). This method of reporting invites readers to conclude that the total number of respondents (N) replied to every question.
METHODOLOGY
The survey was conducted using the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®, a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. Initially, participants are chosen scientifically by a random selection of telephone numbers and residential addresses. Persons in selected households are then invited by telephone or by mail to participate in the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®. For those who agree to participate, but do not already have Internet access, GfK provides at no cost a laptop and ISP connection. People who already have computers and Internet service are permitted to participate using their own equipment. Panelists then receive unique log-in information for accessing surveys online, and then are sent emails throughout each month inviting them to participate in research.
I peeled it back a bit further. There are questions in the survey that had zero "Refused/Not Answered". I take that to mean that there were no persons who simply did not respond.
There is also a particular effort to dig into minority neighborhoods and homes where there is no "land-line" phone. The sample is no longer random or scientific. It is designed, based on the judgement of the researcher.
I have no hard data to back it up, but I am strongly inclined to believe that an impoverished family of four would be more inclined to trade their time for a few dollars each, some laptops, and internet access than would the family of an established physician. Again, no hard data, but I think the logic is there.
And, look at the most glaring flaws. In 2010, 2 percent of the population was separated from a spouse, but in 2012 the separated population grew to 24 percent. Statistically, the likelihood of that is near zero. Seventy-five percent of the single population got married during those two years. Also, 80% of those who were widowed had former spouses rise from the dead. (5% vs 1%). Yes, that's a logical leap for the sake of humor :D
Still, in choosing "substitutes" for weighting the group to reach an "appropriate mix", someone did a horrible job.
I headed an organization used to review all Rand studies that related to military ground equipment. You'd be surprised at how many of the respected analysis organizations deserve a sound "WTF?"" We corrected more than 80% for significant errors in judgement/procedure.