1: How many people get a chance to vote for that ex-KKK guy?  There's a long chain of votes, and with each step, it gets more difficult to attribute that figure's place to any voters, because they lose more and more control.
2: If you're willing to indict the party because one guy is an ex-KKK member, does that mean the Dems have free reign to accuse the GOP of racism by finding even one member who had questionable organizational ties?  Quite a slippery slope.
3: Nope, way too far away from Wisconsin. 

> Einstein wrote:
> Well let's see...
> Your party leaders support racist measures.
> You vote for your party leaders.
> How is this not supporting racism? <

Because it's not 1939?

A very poor start, the lack of thought shows.

> Einstein wrote:
> Ummm, racism sucks is all I need to argue.
>
>Are you saying you wish to debate that racism is a good thing?
>
>*is confused*<

What are you trying to discuss, what is this thread about?
The dark past of the American Democrats?
The modern American Democrats?
Wether or not racism is bad?
*is confused*

So if I said about Obama...

He's half black, and can turn off and on his negro speaking to fit the crowd...

You would say what?

I wouild call that trolling.

My post is relevrnt, yours adresses nothing and makes a personal attack.

Alinsky is dissapointed in you, you were caught using his methods. You bring great shame to him.

> Einstein wrote:

> I would call that trolling.
> My post is relevant, yours addresses nothing and makes a personal attack.
>
> Alinsky is disappointed in you, you were caught using his methods. You bring great shame to him. <

Me asking you to explain how your post is relevant to the thread is trolling? The post I posted to address your post addresses nothing?

Personal attack? Lack of respect. You'll notice no-one else on this forum has ever, does ever, put up with this from me, with one exception: Avogadro, and we both know why no-one likes him, don't we Michael?

Who? The only trap that got walked into was mine, and it wasn't even that clever...

[TROLL WARNING!]

What are you trying to discuss, what is this thread about?
The dark past of the American Democrats?
The modern American Democrats?
Wether or not racism is bad?
*is confused*

[]

That's easy.

Do you think by random statistical chance there can be an employer with all blacks? All latinos? All asians? All native Americans? All caucasions?

Do you also think random chance says there can be employers with no whites? No latinos? No asians? No native Americans? No blacks? No space men from Alpha Centari?

What about a business having no men? No women? No gay men? No gay women? No trans-sexuals? No athiests? No Christians? No buddhists? No taoists? No Jews? No muslims? No Mormons? No left handed people? No artists? No criminally insane?

If you think random chance can create an employer somewhere in the United States without one of the above naturally and through no ill intent then how can you selectively say when a business should hire x group more?

Also how does this adress the other of hundreds of racist policies? How does this adress Democrats claiming racism where none exist so they can score points politically?

- what kind of lame google answer is that?  I want precedent flint, i know you are better than that

Google? I am a statistics scientist thanks to recognition of my compression system by peers.

This is an area of expertise.

I can walk into hundreds of businesses and see different levels of employees.

For instance, some Walmart Distribution Centers (referred henceforth as a Walmart DC) can show a 50%+ ratio of Hispanics, Blacks, or Caucasians.

This is due to regional disparities and sometimes complicated by association disparities.

This is not racially motivated by the corporation, it is simple statistical fact that randomness, including complete absence of some, happens.

If I have five files, one with all 0's, one with 20% 1's, one with 40%, 60% 80% and then 100% 1's... then I try to calculate a random disposition of bits per file, it is possible to get 4 file samples to show all 1's, or all 0's. Not probable, but possible, mattering of course on the sample size.

There is all sorts of conditions where natural statistics is causation for unusual imbalances.

That I can walk into a basketball teams locker and find mostly blacks and all males is not due to racial and sex segregation, nor should we force them to hire to 'equalize' the 'imbalance'

I do not espouse forced hiring. I do not mind testing a company with false candidates of various skill levels to see if racism is happening, but forcing hiring for 'statistical balance' ignores local, regional, and national variances.

> V.Kemp wrote:
>
> Wow. Talk about trolling.
>
>If you can't figure out the topic of the thread, don't ask; just go away.
>
>You can argue against the fact that democrats support legislated racism all you want... we probably won't respond >much, because there's nothing to debate. That much is not opinion. If you want to be dishonest, do it with somebody >else. We don't encourage that here with our attention. <

OW! You just made me laugh through my headache!

[]

cause you can't possibly prove someone has been hired for being of a certain race, or because they deemed him more capable. Companies are free to hire whoever they want.

Because we want fairness we have to be fair...

Since they will clearly kill you, you should kill them...

To be equal we must be unequal...

To have love for all we must hate that group...

Anyway I try to put it, it just does not come out right...