Contributors

Wednesday, May 09, 2012

Images Explain So Much

48 comments:

juris imprudent said...

Care to break down the vote by race there big guy?

juris imprudent said...

Two to one there M - I guess that must mean all them blacks is uneducated.

Mark Ward said...

It's common knowledge, juris, that the GOP uses the gay marriage issue in black churches in an exploitative fashion. No doubt there is a lot of frustration on the part of all of my black friends at such hypocrisy on civil rights within those same churches.

Sheik Yarbouti said...

Riight, Mark, because the GOP is such a powerful influence in black churches. WTF?

Mark Ward said...

Well, yeah.

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2012/05/gops-allen-west-obama-will-lose-the-black-vote-over-gay-marriage/

And

http://www.letcaliforniaring.org/site/c.ltJTJ6MQIuE/b.4863891/k.35FC/Driving_Factors_of_Prop_8_Vote.htm

Haplo9 said...

>It's common knowledge, juris, that the GOP uses the gay marriage issue in black churches in an exploitative fashion.

Evidence please? A little hard to believe that the party of white racists who continually talk down to black folks (thats how it works in your bubble, at least) inexplicably has "exploitative" influence in black churches.

Haplo9 said...

Cross post, just saw your response. Mark, reread your words, and see if you can stay on topic:

"the GOP uses the gay marriage issue in black churches in an exploitative fashion."

That was your answer to the question as to why the black vote went overwhelmingly for the amendment. You imply that the GOP has done something in the past that caused black voters to vote the way they did. Neither of your links explain what it is the GOP was supposed to have done. A statement by Allen West after the vote was over isn't too likely to have caused the vote, don't you think?

juris "bully weasel" imprudent said...

It's common knowledge

Stop digging around your ass and calling it knowledge.

Many, if not the majority of your fellow Christians do not share your view about gay marriage. Why don't you go preach to them?

Mark Ward said...

Evidence please?

A statement by Allen West after the vote was over isn't too likely to have caused the vote, don't you think?



What sort of evidence are you looking for? I'm not going to bother wasting my time if you are going to continue to reject obvious facts.

Larry said...

They may be "obvious facts" to you, the paranoids at Democratic Underground, and maybe the panhandler mumbling to himself on the sidewalk, but it's awfully hard to reject "facts" that are simply unknown. There's nothing to reject.

Haplo9 said...

>What sort of evidence are you looking for?

Evidence that supports this claim:

>the GOP uses the gay marriage issue in black churches in an exploitative fashion.

You haven't provided it yet. Unless of course you do the old "I've already addressed that!" strategy, in which case furble, gluk, blobble, flibble!

Mark Ward said...

You are going to have to be more specific in the evidence that you are requesting. Again, I'm not going to waste my time presenting evidence only to have you play games. Offer the criteria you require for evidence and then I will take the time to present it.

Haplo9 said...

It's that hard? You made a pretty specific claim:

>the GOP uses the gay marriage issue in black churches in an exploitative fashion.

How about something, anything, to support that claim? It's just a little difficult to believe that the GOP, whom most black people vote against, has much of any influence in black churches, "exploitative" or otherwise. The far more likely reason - being religious makes you far more likely to be against gay marriage, which cuts well across party lines. But apparently the GOP is an all purpose bogeyman.

Mark Ward said...

So, anything then? I'm wondering if left wing biased blogs will be sufficient. If not, then what? Videos? Testimonials? What would be sufficient?

GuardDuck said...

Oh poop on a popsicle stick Mark!

You said, and I quote, "It's common knowledge, juris, that the GOP uses the gay marriage issue in black churches in an exploitative fashion

How about you use some sort of evidence that supports that claim? Why don't you start with that part of it that claims to be common knowledge

juris imprudent said...

You are going to have to be more specific in the evidence that you are requesting.

That request was quite specific. That you can't back it up is your problem - not his. And next we will get a lovely trip down de' nile.

Larry said...

Shit, Mark, if you paid any attention at all, you'd know that I have no use whatsoever for the religious wing and most of their social bugaboos, nor the anti-evolution nutters. I don't like "pro-business" policies, as opposed to free market policies (not that you've ever demonstrated much ability to discern between the two). I think the War on (Some) Drugs is futile and wicked. Is that enough for you? Or will you just smear cockney others as racist neo-Nazi suckers of corporate cock, again?

Larry said...

Shit, Mark, if you paid any attention at all, you'd know that I have no use whatsoever for the religious wing and most of their social bugaboos, nor the anti-evolution nutters. I don't like "pro-business" policies, as opposed to free market policies (not that you've ever demonstrated much ability to discern between the two). I think the War on (Some) Drugs is futile and wicked. Is that enough for you? Or will you just smear cockney others as racist neo-Nazi suckers of corporate cock, again?

GuardDuck said...

De'nile would be nice juris.

Instead all we get is brave sir marxy who has already rode off into the sunset.

Mark Ward said...

GD and juris, Well, let's see. Hap hasn't answered my question yet. I've been pretty busy, given the time of year, and don't really want to waste my time (which is both valuable and limited) when I could be using it on daily posts or comment threads that will actually come to fruition. I doubt very much that any evidence I offer will be accepted. More likely, it will be derided (with genetic fallacies and ad hominem abundant) followed by the usual (and insanely hypocritical) accusation that I'm actually that way.

In short, there are no facts I could present to you that will change either of your minds. And likely Hap's as well but I still haven't heard either way.

Larry, good to hear and you make several solid points. Wicked, indeed, regarding the war on drugs. Prohibition never works. That would be another example of where I part ways with Democrats. The government can't solve the drug problem. All of it should simply be legal and available through prescription. The level of violence here and in Mexico would drop to the cellar.

I do get the difference between pro business policies and free market policies. I'm not sure that the latter is possible, though, given how the world economy is now set up. Now THAT is a discussion on which I would like to spend some time.

GuardDuck said...

Blah blah blah blah.....


Fucking christ Mark - You made a statement. An allegation. An accusation, an assertation, a claim.

You have been asked to provide proof, data, facts, validation - verification.

You can't, won't.


DO IT.

NOW.


OR FOREVER MORE BE CONSIDERED A LIAR.

FRAUD.

FALSIFIER.

PERJURER.

DECEIVER.

PHONY.

Up to you.

Mark Ward said...

Nope. Not until I get the specifications for what you consider to be evidence and your word that you look at said evidence critically. That goes for each of you. That way, you see, when you behave like a child (as you are above), I can point to your word and illustrate that it means nothing.

GuardDuck said...

Mark, you are an idiot.

You critics here have always looked at evidence critically.

The problem is that you are repeatedly incapable of determining what is fact from conjecture, incapable of analyzing a series of logical steps and cannot present a case to back up your conclusions.

You couldn't explain what made you believe Zimmerman profiled Martin. You couldn't, even though you said you had. You presented no evidence and no argument to back your case. Nothing. Yet you think you did. You don't know how to back up your case. You don't know what evidence is.

I'm not going to help you figure out what actual evidence consists of.

I'm not going to help you figure out how to back up your statements.

You made a statement - you back it up. You present your evidence and build your own case. Do your own work.


Until then you are nothing but a sham. Liar.

Serial Thrilla said...

Mark, you are either with us or with the terrorists. What are you, chicken??!!!?

Mark Ward said...

You critics here have always looked at evidence critically.

I think you may have misunderstood me, GD. Looking at evidence critically does not mean examining it with a right wing ideological bias that is never EVER wrong. Somehow you have created a world where the libertarian ideology is logical and mathematically valid. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, this statement represents a profound disconnect from reality and complete inability for individual reflection. If you are capable of examining evidence in a critical fashion, it should be no problem for you to list the fundamental flaws with your ideology. I've repeatedly asked for this over the years (here and on Kevin's blog), as I have offered it plenty of times myself regarding left wing ideology, and (as of today) have only gotten responses from Kevin and juris. No one else.

But this can easily be illustrated by a simple question (the yes or no kind that you guys love).

Are there any facts that I could present you that would make you change your mind in seeing that the GOP uses the gay marriage issue in black churches in an exploitative fashion?

GuardDuck said...

Are there any facts that I could present you that would make you change your mind in seeing that the GOP uses the gay marriage issue in black churches in an exploitative fashion?

Yes.

But you don't know where my mind is on that issue now - so you are being awfully arrogant to assume you can change it.

Question answered - so again:

You made a statement, the veracity of which has been called into question. Back it up or retract it.


Liar.

Anonymous said...

You guys are all missing the point.

The graphic proves that university students and graduates in Virginia are all gay.

Mark Ward said...

So, GD, there are facts that would change your mind but if they come from arrogant ol' me than they can fuck right off!!! Just as I suspected...

I'll tell you what. Let's review where we are at so far. First, we have this quote from Allen West, saying that Obama’s announcement is “going to cause an incredible discussion in the black community, because, as you know, on Sundays in the black community the most conservative people in America are in those black churches.”

Now, I'm not sure as to the depth of your political skills but if I were a GOP guy or a supporting interest group, I'd smell opportunity.

The article goes on...

The congressman noted that even as a considerable number of African Americans voters overwhelmingly supported the president in his first run for the office in 2008, that same year a ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage was passed in his home state of Florida and Proposition 8 passed in California — both measures receiving wide-spread support from black churches and the black communities.

But, hey, that's still not enough for you so I'll tell you what. I'm going to present you with a piece of evidence and your reaction will depend on whether or not I will invest more time in this discussion.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/in-secret-documents-anti-gay-marriage-group-plott

"Find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage, develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots," advises the document, which is a road map to the successful campaign against same-sex marriage in California.

So, what will it be, GD? A critical and thoughtful analysis? Or will you shit all over it and do the usual bullshit? Or something else, perhaps?

GuardDuck said...

I'll get back to the rest later - gotta run - but this:

So, GD, there are facts that would change your mind but if they come from arrogant ol' me than they can fuck right off!!! Just as I suspected...

Fuck off for that Mark. You are mental, really. Nowhere should a normal person have taken that from what I said - but you just ain't normal are ya?

As I said, you don't know where my mind is on this topic, and then you double down on stupid by 'reading' my mind again. You'd be pathetic if you weren't so pathetic.

GuardDuck said...

Link for the Allen West quote?

Mark Ward said...

I had it above but here it is again.

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2012/05/gops-allen-west-obama-will-lose-the-black-vote-over-gay-marriage/

GuardDuck said...

Is that is Mark? That's the whole of your argument?

Let me remind you again of what you wrote: "It's common knowledge, juris, that the GOP uses the gay marriage issue in black churches in an exploitative fashion."

I'll give you a break here, temporarily, and we'll leave out the 'common knowledge' and 'exploitative fashion' parts. So it should be a much easier feat to show 'the GOP uses the gay marriage issue in black churches' portion, shouldn't it?

Let's look at that remaining statement, break it down a bit.

The GOP

Uses gay marriage issue

in black churches.

We got a who, a what and a where.


So, the first portion of your 'proof' is the story about Allen West. Let me summarize what he said:

Churchgoing blacks are socially conservative. Because Obama came out for gay marriage he may lose the support of these churchgoing blacks.


That's it. A statement of fact followed by conjecture. An observation and an opinion.

Does:

Allen West---->States fact and opinion----->about black church

equal

GOP---->uses gay marriage issue---->in black churches



Nope, not there. The very inclusion of this article as a supposed 'proof' of you position is puzzling as it is not even more than tangential to your argument.


Your next 'proof' is the strategy plan of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM).

In it is discussed a strategy to use the gay marriage issue in black churches.

Hey, that sounds very similar to your argument. Let's see if it 'proves' your statement.

Does:

NOM---->uses gay marriage issue---->in black churches

equal

GOP---->uses gay marriage issue---->in black churches


Well, 2/3'rds of the way there.

Now, if you can somehow prove that NOM is a wholly owned subsidiary of the GOP you've got it.


I'll grant you that the majority of NOM members are conservative, even possibly registered Republicans. But that doesn't make it a GOP organization – unless you wish to start considering every left wing fringe group to be part of the DNC as well.


So, again:

GOP---->uses gay marriage issue---->in black churches

You got anything to back this up or not?

Mark Ward said...

Is that is Mark? That's the whole of your argument?

No.

You got anything to back this up or not?

Of course I do. But the colon/rectal you just did is a great example of why I don't really want to waste my time discussing this.

I simply CAN'T be right now, can I?

GuardDuck said...

You can be right, but you have to show it.

And if you can, then quit screwing around and do so.

GuardDuck said...

But the colon/rectal you just did is a great example of why I don't really want to waste my time discussing this.

Colono-rectal?

Dude, narcissism much?

You posted a statement.

You were asked to back it up.

You posted a bunch of crap that doesn't back it up.

It's not my fault your crap was crap.

You don't want a rectal - keep your crap up your rectum and back up your statements.

You know if you posted some facts with a logical, well thought out argument it couldn't be rectally examined. Just a thought.

Mark Ward said...

You know if you posted some facts with a logical, well thought out argument it couldn't be rectally examined. Just a thought.

But you see, dear Guard Duck, I never will do that, right? And that's why it's pointless to waste my time. Even if I showed you a video of Reince Pribus and Mitt Romney locking arms and shouting, "We went into black churches and are going to exploit them using the gay marriage issue" you would claim that I was (insert one of your usual routines here) and summarily dismiss it.

No thanks. Thus far in this thread you have demonstrated how you handle information that comes from me.

GuardDuck said...

So you are a liar.

Serial Thrilla said...

What are you, Mark, chicken?

Hey Guard Duck, why do you focus on Mark so much? I'd like to see you present your own case with evidence.

GuardDuck said...

I'd like to see you present your own case with evidence.

You do realize that I'm not debating whether Mark's statement is true or false don't you? There's no case to present because I don't know anything about it - for or against.

Again - I don't know. And that's why I keep asking him to prove his case. I want him to show to me that it's true. I want to know.

But for some stupid reason he won't or can't do that.

But he made the statement. It's incumbent upon him to support it.

If he does - fine. But he can't claim that he has supported it if the argument he makes doesn't actually support his claim. That's not, as he put it, a rectal exam. Any more than showing him his error if he had said 2+2=5 would be.

If he won't support his claim then there are only two options to believe. Either he knows he is wrong and is therefore lying when he says he can but refuses to support it. Or he was outright lying when he made the claim.

Either way - he shows his evidence, right or wrong - or he doesn't and is a liar.

juris imprudent said...

Looking at evidence critically does not mean examining it with a right wing ideological bias that is never EVER wrong. Somehow you have created a world where the libertarian ideology is logical and mathematically valid.

Speaking of not understanding critical thinking - you have conflated two different things as one in those two sentences. Of course I'm just a bully weasel picking on poor, semi-literate M.

Serial Thrilla said...

Either he knows he is wrong and is therefore lying when he says he can but refuses to support it. Or he was outright lying when he made the claim.

Or he doesn't want to engage in conversations with childish bullies who are less interested in accepting facts and more interested in personal attacks. Answer me this, Guard Duck: has Mark ever been right about anything?

GuardDuck said...

has Mark ever been right about anything?

Yes. Do you have a point?

less interested in accepting facts and more interested in personal attacks

I accepted his sources as valid. I accepted his facts as true. What more do you want? The problem is the links he provided to 'prove' his case did no such thing. I can't help that he can't or won't back up his statement.

Or he doesn't want to engage in conversations

Then he shouldn't have a blog where he makes stupid and unsupported accusations and open comments. But his own actions tell anyone with a couple cells attached to their brain stem the truth - I'm not bullying him - I am observing the truth that all can see - an unsupported accusation makes him a liar.

Basic truth - if Mark cannot or will not support his claim then he....HE has the option of retracting it or knowingly making an unsupported accusation. That's what makes him a liar. His own actions, not anything I'm saying.

Serial Thrilla said...

Yes. Do you have a point?

Great. What has he been right about? You can leave out sentences that begin with

Mark is right about his criticism of liberals when he says...

or

Mark is right about the things I agree with like...

I'm looking for a couple of times when Mark was right about something that was in direct contradiction right wing theology.

Eric said...

This whole discussion is very easily solved. Any political group (left, right or middle of the road) will exploit a group of voters if those voters will help them with their platform. The GOP have, as an item on their platform, marriage amendments that define marriage as one man and one woman. They know that the black churches in the states where this is on the ballot (like California) will make the difference in achieving one of the items on their platform. So, they will go after those votes. It's only logical and there doesn't have to be some sort of smoking gun to irrevocably prove it. Unless your name is Markadelphia and you have a half dozen people that are obsessed with proving you wrong.

GuardDuck said...

That's a rather non-specific non-answer Eric. Mark made a specific allegation.

And to REPEAT - I AM NOT TRYING TO PROVE MARK WRONG - I WANT HIM TO SHOW HIS FUCKING CASE - HE MADE A SPECIFIC ALLEGATION THAT HE REFUSES TO BACK UP.

WTF is wrong with you people that you can't understand that?

I don't know if the GOP uses the gay marriage issue in black churches. It may be true, it may be false. I don't care either way.

But I'm not the asshole who said "It's common knowledge, juris, that the GOP uses the gay marriage issue in black churches in an exploitative fashion." and then refuses to show any.....ANY.....evidence, facts or even present an argument in support of that statement.

Jesus, Eric - your answer, as generic and bland as it was, is at least an answer. That's more than Mark even attempted to provide.

GuardDuck said...

m looking for a couple of times when Mark was right about something that was in direct contradiction right wing theology.


Theology? You want an answer, a discussion or are you purposely trying to provoke a fight?


Fine.

Mark said thus:

"As long as the government ties certain rights to marriage, two consenting adults should allowed to be married"

He is absolutely right.

Eric said...

That's not true, Guard Duck. I essentially provided the same answer Mark did. It's obvious that's what they have done and are going to do to achieve one of their platform items.

juris imprudent said...

No Eric, not even close. Neither you nor M has provided an iota of support to the assertion. The claim was it is "common knowledge, etc." - which should be an easy thing to demonstrate, rather than all of the furious hand-waving.

It is of course an absurd supposition given the overwhelming Black vote for Obama in '08 and what is probable for '12. I disagree with Cong. West that Obama will shed any significant amount of support amongst Black voters over this, because even though Black voters appear to oppose gay marriage - they won't turn away from Obama. They will do a whole lot of rationalization about it.