Proof of a Neo-Racist Republican Party?

[Rolyo85]

I find it disgraceful that all the Obama caricatures are based on ultra racist "negro" = "monkey" visual stereotypes.

[T-Rexx]

This man was photographed at a Romney campaign rally in Lancaster, Ohio on October 12, 2012.




http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczyn...hirt-put-the-w

[chance1]

This man was photographed at a Romney campaign rally in Lancaster, Ohio on October 12, 2012.




http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczyn...hirt-put-the-w

is he on the ticket?

does Mitt go to his church?

ever hear of Jeremiah Wright?

seems to me that this fella above has NOTHING to do with Mitt Rommey

whereas Jeremiah Wright was (is) a key figure in Obama's life

hmmmm

[MassRuss]

Stifle yourself Edith with the Wright stuff. That's so 2008.

Did you go out & buy Ann's book?

As for Mitt's Church it wasn't til 78 that Blacks were openly accepted in the Mormon Religion. Mitt was already an adult. Someone should ask him how it felt to belong to a racist religion.

[T-Rexx]

is he on the ticket?

does Mitt go to his church?

ever hear of Jeremiah Wright?

seems to me that this fella above has NOTHING to do with Mitt Rommey

whereas Jeremiah Wright was (is) a key figure in Obama's life

hmmmm

There is a reason these people show up at your political rallies and not ours.

[chance1]

Stifle yourself Edith with the Wright stuff. That's so 2008.

Did you go out & buy Ann's book?

As for Mitt's Church it wasn't til 78 that Blacks were openly accepted in the Mormon Religion. Mitt was already an adult. Someone should ask him how it felt to belong to a racist religion.

that's mean (about Ann) - I'm fucking her

thought she was good with Bill Maher btw ........ but he wouldn't let her sit with the panel - pretty funny

my POINT is that the above visual is ........ yech

I could care less about Jeremiah Wright ....... but please don't bring up some racist goon and make it something it isn't

i know YOU didn't

[Jack Springer]

This man was photographed at a Romney campaign rally in Lancaster, Ohio on October 12, 2012.




http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczyn...hirt-put-the-w

I'd say that was photoshopped -- look how clear the white text on the shirt is compared to the fussiness of the person to the right and the person to the left.

If the text is that clear and bright -- the Romney sticker should also be clear and sharp .... it isn't.

CLEARLY A FAKE PHOTO

[andysayshi]

That's called Depth Of Field - objects outside the focus plain are blurred.

There's no evidence it's a fake. Looks perfectly real to me, and I do this kind of stuff for a living.

[JayHawk]

Jack you are such a desperate man.....

John McCain tried to say because it is cold in Ohio and the guy is in a T shirt then it must be a fake.... lol ... maybe for an old man with a chill in his bones. It is seventy right now in Lancaster Ohio.... lol

Have you never operated a thingy called a camera Jack?

[Benvolio]

A photo doesn't prove much. It would not be the first time the Dems sent a plant into a Republican gathering. What proof it was at a Republican rally? Photoshpped? Perhaps. In any event it is only one guy.

[Centexfarmer]

A photo doesn't prove much. It would not be the first time the Dems sent a plant into a Republican gathering. What proof it was at a Republican rally? Photoshpped? Perhaps. In any event it is only one guy.

See how quick you were to respond to that post?

I'm not saying...

I'm just saying

[MassRuss]

Yeah, sure, the Dems sent a plant to a Romney Rally. Plant's name?....Benny

[Kulindahr]

If the text is that clear and bright -- the Romney sticker should also be clear and sharp .... it isn't.

CLEARLY A FAKE PHOTO

Light colors on dark automatically look sharper to the human eye, according to my Physics of Light and Color class at OSU, and dark on light not so sharp. Large letters also look more clear to the human eyes than small.

Further, if you compare the wider parts on the sticker to the narrow bands in the lower letters on the shirt, they're comparable.

No evidence from that one for being fake.

[rareboy]

Poor Jack.

Poor Ben.

You just don't want to admit that one of the main drivers for many Obama haters is that he just isn't...you know....

[Jack Springer]

The bald headed guy's image is too clear ... except for the Romney sticker. When you photoshop a photo -- all the elements you add must blend well with the rest of the images in the photo -- this one doesn't -- the sticker is not sharp -- however the text on the t-shirt is extremely crisp .... too crisp.

.. plus the guy didn't have Obama's "big-three" for his definition of a racist --- a gun, ammo, and a Bible.

Things have a tendency to get dirty during the last several weeks of an election -- perfect example.

[jackoroe]

This man was photographed at a Romney campaign rally in Lancaster, Ohio on October 12, 2012.




http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczyn...hirt-put-the-w

And you forgot to include the reaction from the Romney campaign.

Speaking to Buzzfeed, a Romney spokesperson said the garment is “reprehensible and has no place in this election.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/what...reprehensible/

[T-Rexx]

The bald headed guy's image is too clear ... except for the Romney sticker. When you photoshop a photo -- all the elements you add must blend well with the rest of the images in the photo -- this one doesn't -- the sticker is not sharp -- however the text on the t-shirt is extremely crisp .... too crisp.

It's not a Photoshop.

The photographer, Jamie Sabau of Getty Images, has testified that he saw the man inside the Romney campaign event in Lancaster, Ohio on 12 October 2012. Jodi Einhorn of Getty has confirmed that the image has not been altered in any way.

I appreciate that your Republican inclination is to deal with reality by denying that it is real. There is no global climate change, evolution is a centuries-old conspiracy of all the world's biologists, gay marriage would destroy straight marriage. But, the rest of us depend on facts.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczyn...hirt-put-the-w

.. plus the guy didn't have Obama's "big-three" for his definition of a racist --- a gun, ammo, and a Bible.

In other words, you agree that the image does not appear to have been photoshopped.

And you forgot to include the reaction from the Romney campaign.

Ummmm... ...what did you expect the Romney campaign to say? "We regret that the racism we try so hard to keep unstated attracts so many whose racism is overt?"

[Kulindahr]

Jackoroe has a good point; after all, the communists endorsed Obama.

But people denying it's a real photo need to learn some physics and optics as regards the human eye.

[Jack Springer]

10 minutes in photoshop ... and I'm not an expert.

Some people lie .... even photographers.

Either way -- if the guy is a racist -- I want nothing to do with him.

[T-Rexx]

^There is actually a book about why you guys cannot accept reality.

The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science and Reality.

It is about the psychology of Republicanism and why you guys find it necessary to create fantasy worlds. It analyzes the results of a lot of studies on Republicans and Democrats. It says you Republicans believe more wrong things than Democrats, you do not change your opinions when facts contradict them, and you have difficulty accepting new ideas.

But, it's a science book. So, I presume you're not interested.

[JayHawk]

And you forgot to include the reaction from the Romney campaign.





http://www.theblaze.com/stories/what...reprehensible/

It was included in T-rexx's link. You do actually have to read the material provided before assuming the position...err your position.

Interestingly, although not done quite so controversially as I have posed the question, PBS is doing a election special based on race and politics. Which is drawing fire from the right wing radio personality fired for using the N word during a discussion on his program. Go figure he has complaints right?

The special, "Race 2012 ," is being advertised by PBS on its website as a "conversation about race and politics," and features interviews with former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, author and legal scholar Randall Kennedy and conservative talk show host John Ziegler, among others. Topics discussed include the role of race in the election of President Barack Obama, the idea of a "post-racial society" and the notion of "white power" in America.

[Kulindahr]

10 minutes in photoshop ... and I'm not an expert.

Some people lie .... even photographers.

Either way -- if the guy is a racist -- I want nothing to do with him.

Obviously you're not an expert: the letters are clearly not associated with the cloth under them; they don't follow the visible wrinkles at all.

[bankside]

Obviously you're not an expert: the letters are clearly not associated with the cloth under them; they don't follow the visible wrinkles at all.

It's like seeing the fake fossils at the creationism museum to help in understanding that real fossils are really real. It's useful to have an example of a fake to see what a fake actually looks like.

[Benvolio]

Still no proof it took place at Republican rally, or that he was not a plant. Who took the photo? Are we supposed to believe that a Republican took the photo and made it public? Or was he a Democrat, seeking to embarrass the Republicans, who just happened to find the guy with the shirt? Nah. An obvious hoax.

[T-Rexx]

It's not a Photoshop.

The photographer, Jamie Sabau of Getty Images, has testified that he saw the man inside the Romney campaign event in Lancaster, Ohio on 12 October 2012. Jodi Einhorn of Getty has confirmed that the image has not been altered in any way.

I appreciate that your Republican inclination is to deal with reality by denying that it is real. There is no global climate change, evolution is a centuries-old conspiracy of the world's biologists, gay marriage would destroy straight marriage, etc.. But, the rest of us depend on facts.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczyn...hirt-put-the-w

Still no proof it took place at Republican rally, or that he was not a plant. Who took the photo? Are we supposed to believe that a Republican took the photo and made it public? Or was he a Democrat, seeking to embarrass the Republicans, who just happened to find the guy with the shirt? Nah. An obvious hoax.

If you will read the threads before you post, Benvolio, you may find that your questions have already been answered.

[jackoroe]

^There is actually a book about why you guys cannot accept reality.

The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science and Reality.

It is about the psychology of Republicanism and why you guys find it necessary to create fantasy worlds. It analyzes the results of a lot of studies on Republicans and Democrats. It says you Republicans believe more wrong things than Democrats, you do not change your opinions when facts contradict them, and you have difficulty accepting new ideas.

But, it's a science book. So, I presume you're not interested.

You mean like how psychologists continue to claim psychology is actually a science when it isn't? The irony is just so delicious!

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul...ience-20120713

[Jack Springer]

Obviously you're not an expert: the letters are clearly not associated with the cloth under them; they don't follow the visible wrinkles at all.

Did I say I was an expert? no

even if you look at the t-shirt at 72dpi -- there are no wrinkles in the shirt --it's solid black.

both are fake -- just like the outrage about a blanket statement about republicans being racist

racists do exist -- they exist with both republicans and democrats, also with independents

some white people are racists, some black people are racists --- some of all races are racists

[andysayshi]

Jack, it's not fake. The photographer, Gettys Images (the largest photo sales company on Earth) who sold it, and a Photoshop expert at Gettys, have all verified it. I am a video professional and I use Photoshop every day, and I see no evidence of it being fake.

It's not fake.

[T-Rexx]

You mean like how psychologists continue to claim psychology is actually a science when it isn't? The irony is just so delicious!

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul...ience-20120713

This is exactly what we're talking about. You take a single opinion piece from a newspaper (which actually complains that psychology isn't scientific enough!) and you use that one opinion to try and deny an entire field of science!

Thank you for helping to prove the point. The irony is just so delicious!

Psychology is an academic and applied discipline that involves the scientific study of mental functions and behaviors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology

Psychology

Psychology Psy*chol"o*gy, n. pl. Psychologies. [Psycho- +
-logy: cf. F. psychologie. See Psychical.]
The science of the human soul; specifically, the systematic
or scientific knowledge of the powers and functions of the
human soul, so far as they are known by consciousness; a
treatise on the human soul.
[1913 Webster]

Psychology, the science conversant about the phenomena
of the mind, or conscious subject, or self. --Sir W.
Hamilton.
[1913 Webster]

I might suggest that you read the book, Jackoroe, but it's full of facts. It wouldn't appeal to you.

[T-Rexx]

even if you look at the t-shirt at 72dpi -- there are no wrinkles in the shirt --it's solid black.

both are fake -- just like the outrage about a blanket statement about republicans being racist

A photographer from a major news agency takes a photograph and verifies its authenticity. His company vouches for him. Therefore, the photo must be a fake!


There is no such thing as global warming. Evolution is a centuries-old conspiracy of the world's biologists. The HPV vaccine causes mental retardation. Legitimate rape cannot result in pregnancy. Gay marriage will destroy straight marriage. Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment against New Orleans for homosexuality.


I find it hard to carry on a conversation with Republicans. They don't live in this world.

[jackoroe]

This is exactly what we're talking about. You take a single opinion piece from a newspaper (which actually complains that psychology isn't scientific enough!) and you use that one opinion to try and deny an entire field of science!

Thank you for helping to prove the point. The irony is just so delicious!






I might suggest that you read the book, Jackoroe, but it's full of facts. It wouldn't appeal to you.

The "opinion" had you bother to read it, was proffered by an actual scientist, and an editor of a scientific publication.

Alex B. Berezow is the editor of RealClearScience.com, where this piece originally appeared. He has a doctorate in microbiology.

Now let's see who wrote the tome you put so much stock in.

Bestselling author Chris Mooney uses cutting-edge research to explain the psychology

So, he doesn't even claim to be a scientist. Rather someone who can explain the pseudo-science of psychology. Just what are Mr. Money's credentials?

Mooney was born in Mesa, Arizona, and grew up in New Orleans, Louisiana. He received his B.A. in English from Yale University in 1999, and has been a member of the board of the American Geophysical Union since November 2010.

Mr. Mooney has a BA in English and lists his occupation as journalist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Mooney_(journalist)

So to review. We should discard the authoritative opinion given by an expert in the field of science and accept the writings of a journalist who possesses no academic credential on the very subject he's chosen to write about as Gospel truth.

Has everybody on the left taken leave of their senses?

[rareboy]

And how did this thread get to be a purse fight over psychology versus Racism in the Republican Party?

[T-Rexx]

The "opinion" had you bother to read it, was proffered by an actual scientist, and an editor of a scientific publication.

The piece you have linked is part of the Los Angeles Times' "Blowback" series of opinion articles. "Blowback" is a place for readers of the L.A. Times to make their opinions heard. The L.A. Times describes it as "a cross between an Op-Ed and a letter to the editor."

The opinion of the psychologist in question (that psychology is not scientific enough, which happens to be true) does not negate the opinions of the hundreds of thousands of psychologists and other scientists out there who know that psychology is, in fact, a science. It is rather incredible to me that you believe you can wipe out a hundred years of research and an entire field of science on the basis of a single letter to the editor of the L.A. Times!

This is exactly what we're talking about. You Republicans can deny whole fields of study on the basis of a single letter to the editor of a newspaper. You create your own universes in which global climate change is a conspiracy of all the world's climate scientists. In which evolution is not biology. And in which psychology is not science. You accept nonsense as fact when the nonsense conforms better to your party's ideology. You do not live in a world of facts, you live in a world of party dogma. When that dogma is contradicted by truth, then it is necessary to deny the truth.

Now let's see who wrote the tome you put so much stock in.

So, he doesn't even claim to be a scientist. Rather someone who can explain the pseudo-science of psychology. Just what are Mr. Money's credentials?

Mr. Mooney has a BA in English and lists his occupation as journalist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Mooney_(journalist)

It is perfectly acceptable for a non-scientist to summarize the findings of scientists. The editor of Scientific American, Mariette DiChristina, is a journalist by training. The editor-in-chief of Popular Science, Jacob Ward, describes himself as a "television journalist." The managing editor of The Discovery Channel, Ted Koppel, is also a "television journalist." None of these people have any training in science whatsoever. But that does not mean that they cannot describe for us the findings of science.

Scientists are trained in science, not English. That's why most scientific reporting is done by English majors, not scientists. Indeed, that's why most writing/reporting of every type (politics, entertainment, science, business, travel, etc.) is done by English majors. Not politicians, entertainers, scientists, businessmen, travelers, etc.

So to review. We should discard the authoritative opinion given by an expert in the field of science and accept the writings of a journalist who possesses no academic credential on the very subject he's chosen to write about as Gospel truth.

No. To review, we should accept the opinions of the overwhelming majority of experts in the field, not the opinion of one person as the "gospel truth."

This is the problem with the right. You do not accept evidence, reason, or scholarship. You cling to single opinions of single individuals as dogmatic and unarguable - even when that opinion is extreme and not shared by anyone else in the field. The criteria for acceptance is not how well an idea is regarded by the scientific community. It is how well that idea molds itself to Republican Party ideology. That's religion, not science.

Has everybody on the left taken leave of their senses?

I would ask if everybody on the right had taken leave of their senses, but I already know the answer to that. Sense has not been valuable to you people since ~1980.

[T-Rexx]

And how did this thread get to be a purse fight over psychology versus Racism in the Republican Party?

It's because psychology is helping to explain the racism (and general illogic) within the Republican Party.

Therefore, psychology has to be discredited. Illogically, as it happens.

[JayHawk]

And how did this thread get to be a purse fight over psychology versus Racism in the Republican Party?

Obfuscation of the original point. It is all republicans can do to cover their disgusting bias against so many groups, latinos, gays, blacks, women.... the hates just keep coming!

[JayHawk]

It's because psychology is helping to explain the racism (and general illogic) within the Republican Party.

Therefore, psychology has to be discredited. Illogically, as it happens.

I was going to take on the concept that psychology has been empirically proven and several methods employ the scientific method but hey it isn't a science cause Jack says so.... lol. Next he will be saying global warming isn't real or perhaps we just popped into existence at the behest of a angry jealous god.

Jack to keep it interesting could you please tell your fairly tales in the fashion of Grimm?

[Jack Springer]

And how did this thread get to be a purse fight over psychology versus Racism in the Republican Party?

You have to follow the logic of reading all the posts.

I'm sure there's a scientist out there somewhere that would write a book where he promotes the theory that democrats don't follow logic.

The racist thing has really gotten old -- time to move on.

I almost miss the nazi name calling.

[JayHawk]

How is the racist thingy getting old? You better embrace it if you embrace that party because as America gets diverse the republican party gets whiter and whiter so the only place for racist to go is republican.

Of course for a party that hates gays, hates women, hates Hispanics and says that helping black people is racism what would you expect?

[maxpowr9]

How is the racist thingy getting old? You better embrace it if you embrace that party because as America gets diverse the republican party gets whiter and whiter so the only place for racist to go is republican.

Of course for a party that hates gays, hates women, hates Hispanics and says that helping black people is racism what would you expect?

Racism is a two-way street honey. To say that racism only belongs to "whites" is narrow-minded at best. Whites tend to be the most vocal and overt about their racism though.

[jackoroe]

This man was photographed at a Romney campaign rally in Lancaster, Ohio on October 12, 2012.




http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczyn...hirt-put-the-w

Let's go back to this picture for a moment. You've posted this. Let's agree that this is an unretouched photo, OK? Let's also agree that this man was at a political event and it doesn't really matter where, for Romney. Fair enough?

Now answer me a very simple question. If you don't know, that's fine, just say so. Ready?

What's the name of the man wearing the shirt in the photo?

[rareboy]

[Benvolio]

Racism is a two-way street honey. To say that racism only belongs to "whites" is narrow-minded at best. Whites tend to be the most vocal and overt about their racism though.

Nonsense. Listen to Farakhan, Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, and your own leaders spiritual leader, Rev Wright, and you part itself. The Wall Street Reform Act enacted by the Democrat Crongress And signed by Obama requires banks and their suppliers to hire minorities and women " to the maximum extent possible". It is esentially illegal for them to hire white men. Yours is the racist party.
A

[andysayshi]

What's the name of the man wearing the shirt in the photo?

Joe The Plumber?

[JayHawk]

Nah can't be most plumbers are part of the 47% and belong to unions

[Kulindahr]

It's like seeing the fake fossils at the creationism museum to help in understanding that real fossils are really real. It's useful to have an example of a fake to see what a fake actually looks like.

LOL

Good perspective.

[Kulindahr]

This is exactly what we're talking about. You take a single opinion piece from a newspaper (which actually complains that psychology isn't scientific enough!) and you use that one opinion to try and deny an entire field of science!

Thank you for helping to prove the point. The irony is just so delicious!


I might suggest that you read the book, Jackoroe, but it's full of facts. It wouldn't appeal to you.

Psychology now is like astronomy before Galileo: they know they're looking at things, but are still developing the instruments to measure and analyze. So yes, it's a science; saying it isn't is foolish. It merely lacks the tools yet to quantify and measure and absorb data into patterns of predictability. But even so, it is incredibly useful and potent.

[Kulindahr]

The "opinion" had you bother to read it, was proffered by an actual scientist, and an editor of a scientific publication.

. . . .

So to review. We should discard the authoritative opinion given by an expert in the field of science and accept the writings of a journalist who possesses no academic credential on the very subject he's chosen to write about as Gospel truth.

Has everybody on the left taken leave of their senses?

Microbiologists have a tendency to degrade anything that has anything to do with humans that wasn't done by other microbiologists, so a microbiologist's opinion is hardly one I'd turn to for an evaluation of psychology. In reality, the psychologist is struggling with a realm of complexity on a level that makes what a microbiologist does look like LEGOs.

The prejudice is in fact very similar to that of racism....

[opinterph]

Microbiologists have a tendency to degrade anything that has anything to do with humans that wasn't done by other microbiologists

Having worked rather extensively in microbiology, I object to your generalization of the members of that profession. Micro has everything to do with the scientific method – particularly as it relates to research. OTOH, I know nothing of this particular microbiologist’s credentials that may qualify him to render an opinion about psychology. And FWIW, I personally regard psychology as a science.

[rareboy]

[Kulindahr]

Having worked rather extensively in microbiology, I object to your generalization of the members of that profession. Micro has everything to do with the scientific method – particularly as it relates to research. OTOH, I know nothing of this particular microbiologist’s credentials that may qualify him to render an opinion about psychology. And FWIW, I personally regard psychology as a science.

That's not in dispute -- it's the attitude toward non-micros, psychology in particular.