Org Mobile Site
Thread: Obama the White Man
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Race is a pretty flimsy construct no matter how you look at it, Strike. If some people are voting for Obama because they think he's black, I'm sure they will be counter-balanced by people who vote against him 'cause they think he's black.
And both groups should be criticized for doing so. Either way, it stinks of racism.Race is a pretty flimsy construct no matter how you look at it, Strike. If some people are voting for Obama because they think he's black, I'm sure they will be counter-balanced by people who vote against him 'cause they think he's black.
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
Bush:conservative
Obama:liberal
sfts says: same thing!
If you think he will come in and do anything diffrent for this country you are wrong. He will pull our boys out of a widly unpopular conflict. Which with the pickle were in may or may not be the best thing. All he will do is spend spend spend without looking at any real tangible soultions. He will simply promise healthcare and peace when in reality those things may be worse for us. There all the same and to say Obama is about hope is asinine thats what this is about it is about a man claiming to be diffrent when in reality he is more of the same. Thats why he panders to the black vote and claims moral high ground when he isnt any diffrent at all. I guess some people will always be swayed by white teeth and sensationalist remarks.Bush:conservative
Obama:liberal
sfts says: same thing!
Sad, that being of a particular race somehow implies being less or more of part of a nation.
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
\
He's black in the sense that racists don't care if one of your parents was white.
Wait. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Racists define ethnicity now? \
He's black in the sense that racists don't care if one of your parents was white.
Who else would? What worth does it have, to claim the someone is 50% black, 25% hispanic and 25% white? What can that possibly mean?
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S:
Who else would? What worth does it have, to claim the someone is 50% black, 25% hispanic and 25% white? What can that possibly mean?
Exactly. Races are only different if you let people define what a race is. If you remove skin colour what is the difference?Who else would? What worth does it have, to claim the someone is 50% black, 25% hispanic and 25% white? What can that possibly mean?
Originally Posted by CountArach:
Exactly. Races are only different if you let people define what a race is. If you remove skin colour what is the difference?
Excluding differences in IQ, not much.Exactly. Races are only different if you let people define what a race is. If you remove skin colour what is the difference?
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
Excluding differences in IQ, not much.
I'm struggling to find how that isn't racist.Excluding differences in IQ, not much.
Originally Posted by :
Wait. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Racists define ethnicity now?
Yes they do , have a look at some of those nice errrr....reliable links Mars provided in the other topic , there are only five races and anyone that has any mixture of them just doesn't belong Wait. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Racists define ethnicity now?
Originally Posted by CountArach:
I'm struggling to find how that isn't racist.
Facts are suddenly racist? I'm struggling to find how that isn't racist.
Im sorry. We're all exactly the same. Stupid science...
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
Facts are suddenly racist?
Im sorry. We're all exactly the same. Stupid science...
Would you mind presenting some facts, then? Some verefiable evidence to support your claim?Facts are suddenly racist?
Im sorry. We're all exactly the same. Stupid science...
Originally Posted by makaikhaan:
Would you mind presenting some facts, then? Some verefiable evidence to support your claim?
Is this not common knowledge? The reason for the differences has been debated for years...A simple wiki will get you started. Would you mind presenting some facts, then? Some verefiable evidence to support your claim?
Originally Posted by :
Cumulative IQ gaps by race or ethnicity based on 1981 U.S. distributions. According to these findings, WAIS IQs for Whites (mean = 101.4, SD = 14.7) were higher than those for Blacks (mean = 86.9, SD = 13.0); distributions for Hispanics (mean = 91), East Asians (mean = 106), and Ashkenazi Jews (mean = 112-115) are less precise because of overlap and small sample size. The modern debate focuses on what causes these disparities in average IQ. Based on Reynolds et al. 1987, p. 330.
Cumulative IQ gaps by race or ethnicity based on 1981 U.S. distributions. According to these findings, WAIS IQs for Whites (mean = 101.4, SD = 14.7) were higher than those for Blacks (mean = 86.9, SD = 13.0); distributions for Hispanics (mean = 91), East Asians (mean = 106), and Ashkenazi Jews (mean = 112-115) are less precise because of overlap and small sample size. The modern debate focuses on what causes these disparities in average IQ. Based on Reynolds et al. 1987, p. 330.
Originally Posted by :
Socioeconomic status (SES) varies both between and within populations, but Black-White differences in IQ persist among the children of parents matched for SES, and the gap is largest among the children of wealthiest and best educated parents.[97]
Socioeconomic status (SES) varies both between and within populations, but Black-White differences in IQ persist among the children of parents matched for SES, and the gap is largest among the children of wealthiest and best educated parents.[97]
Originally Posted by :
Is this not common knowledge? The reason for the differences has been debated for years..
And is still being debated and has not been settled so it isn't a fact is it , its a disputed theoryIs this not common knowledge? The reason for the differences has been debated for years..
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
And is still being debated and has not been settled so it isn't a fact is it , its a disputed theory
No sir. I am afraid you're wrong. The differences in IQ measurements are well documented scientific facts, the reasons for those differences are theoretical. And is still being debated and has not been settled so it isn't a fact is it , its a disputed theory
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
No sir. I am afraid you're wrong. The differences in IQ measurements are well documented scientific facts, the reasons for those differences are theoretical.
No, you're wrong. It hasn't been shown that IQ is different, measured IQ is different. The measurement system has been said to be faulty.No sir. I am afraid you're wrong. The differences in IQ measurements are well documented scientific facts, the reasons for those differences are theoretical.
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
No, you're wrong. It hasn't been shown that IQ is different, measured IQ is different. The measurement system has been said to be faulty.
Sorry, but that is not the general concensus.No, you're wrong. It hasn't been shown that IQ is different, measured IQ is different. The measurement system has been said to be faulty.
Originally Posted by :
While the existence of average IQ test score differences has been a matter of accepted fact for decades, a great deal of controversy exists among scholars over the question of whether these score differences reflected real differences in cognitive ability. Some claim that there is no evidence for test bias since IQ tests are equally good predictors of IQ-related factors (such as school performance) for U.S. Blacks and Whites.[165] The performance differences persist in tests and testing situations in which care has been taken to eliminate bias.[165] It has also been suggested that IQ tests are formulated in such a way as to disadvantage minorities.[165] Controlled studies have shown that test construction does not substantially contribute to the IQ gap.[165] However, some psychometricians are not satisfied that the question of test bias is fully answered by these results.[166][167][168] Also, all commenters reject the common misconception that IQ is meant to measure "innate" differences in intelligence, and they agree that average IQ scores on their own say nothing about the cause of the differences.
The preponderance of evidence indicates that IQ tests measuring general intelligence are crossculturally valid. There is little or no evidence of population-specific cultural effects apart from the obvious example of language bias.[169] For example, Robert Sternberg et al. found that the IQ of 12- to 15-year-old Kenyans predicted school grades at about the same level as they do in the West.[170] IQ also predicted university performance equally well in African and non-African engineering students in South Africa in a 2004 study.[171] Salgado et al. (2003) demonstrated the international generalizability of general mental ability across 10 member countries of the European Community and differences in a nation’s culture, religion, language, socioeconomic level or employment legislation did not affect the predictive validity of IQ tests.[172]
While the existence of average IQ test score differences has been a matter of accepted fact for decades, a great deal of controversy exists among scholars over the question of whether these score differences reflected real differences in cognitive ability. Some claim that there is no evidence for test bias since IQ tests are equally good predictors of IQ-related factors (such as school performance) for U.S. Blacks and Whites.[165] The performance differences persist in tests and testing situations in which care has been taken to eliminate bias.[165] It has also been suggested that IQ tests are formulated in such a way as to disadvantage minorities.[165] Controlled studies have shown that test construction does not substantially contribute to the IQ gap.[165] However, some psychometricians are not satisfied that the question of test bias is fully answered by these results.[166][167][168] Also, all commenters reject the common misconception that IQ is meant to measure "innate" differences in intelligence, and they agree that average IQ scores on their own say nothing about the cause of the differences.
The preponderance of evidence indicates that IQ tests measuring general intelligence are crossculturally valid. There is little or no evidence of population-specific cultural effects apart from the obvious example of language bias.[169] For example, Robert Sternberg et al. found that the IQ of 12- to 15-year-old Kenyans predicted school grades at about the same level as they do in the West.[170] IQ also predicted university performance equally well in African and non-African engineering students in South Africa in a 2004 study.[171] Salgado et al. (2003) demonstrated the international generalizability of general mental ability across 10 member countries of the European Community and differences in a nation’s culture, religion, language, socioeconomic level or employment legislation did not affect the predictive validity of IQ tests.[172]
It doesn't take into account economic difficulties felt by blacks and Hispanics, which means that a lower level of education is achievable. Hence their IQ suffers.
Originally Posted by CountArach:
It doesn't take into account economic difficulties felt by blacks and Hispanics, which means that a lower level of education is achievable. Hence their IQ suffers.
Well... yes and no, mostly no. It doesn't take into account economic difficulties felt by blacks and Hispanics, which means that a lower level of education is achievable. Hence their IQ suffers.
Originally Posted by :
Socioeconomic status (SES) varies both between and within populations, but Black-White differences in IQ persist among the children of parents matched for SES, and the gap is largest among the children of wealthiest and best educated parents.[97]
Socioeconomic status (SES) varies both between and within populations, but Black-White differences in IQ persist among the children of parents matched for SES, and the gap is largest among the children of wealthiest and best educated parents.[97]
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
If you think he will come in and do anything diffrent for this country you are wrong. He will pull our boys out of a widly unpopular conflict. Which with the pickle were in may or may not be the best thing. All he will do is spend spend spend without looking at any real tangible soultions. He will simply promise healthcare and peace when in reality those things may be worse for us. There all the same and to say Obama is about hope is asinine thats what this is about it is about a man claiming to be diffrent when in reality he is more of the same. Thats why he panders to the black vote and claims moral high ground when he isnt any diffrent at all. I guess some people will always be swayed by white teeth and sensationalist remarks.
So pull out of a war that is costing us billions of dollars will not help?If you think he will come in and do anything diffrent for this country you are wrong. He will pull our boys out of a widly unpopular conflict. Which with the pickle were in may or may not be the best thing. All he will do is spend spend spend without looking at any real tangible soultions. He will simply promise healthcare and peace when in reality those things may be worse for us. There all the same and to say Obama is about hope is asinine thats what this is about it is about a man claiming to be diffrent when in reality he is more of the same. Thats why he panders to the black vote and claims moral high ground when he isnt any diffrent at all. I guess some people will always be swayed by white teeth and sensationalist remarks.
No tangible solutions? An energy policy that would start weening us off foreign oil is not tangible?
Health care and peace are bad things?
So the fact that all most all of his campaign money comes from small donations instead of large corporations or the rich is not different?
All this plus the fact that saying all politician are the same ignores the fact that under 8 year with a democratic president we had a huge economic boom and increased the quality of life in this county. Then under 7 1/2 years under a republic president, gas is over now $4 a gallon, we are approaching or are in a recession, and the dollar is so weak it not funny.
Yup, all politician are the same.
Originally Posted by m52nickerson:
So pull out of a war that is costing us billions of dollars will not help?
No tangible solutions? An energy policy that would start weening us off foreign oil is not tangible?
Health care and peace are bad things?
So the fact that all most all of his campaign money comes from small donations instead of large corporations or the rich is not different?
All this plus the fact that saying all politician are the same ignores the fact that under 8 year with a democratic president we had a huge economic boom and increased the quality of life in this county. Then under 7 1/2 years under a republic president, gas is over now $4 a gallon, we are approaching or are in a recession, and the dollar is so weak it not funny.
Yup, all politician are the same.
/this is exactly what Im talking about. Obama has taken millions from lobbyists and PACs look it up yourself. Do you understand why gas is going up? its simple supply and demand China and Indias need for oil has grown exponentially over the past couple of years. The more people that want your product the higher the price tag. Your soultion to health care is to throw money at it? how do you know that system would be better its not. Completly pulling out of Iraq now may disastouras consequences. Obama sees the fedral goverment as the soultion to everything so did FDR and his effects on the econmy are still being felt for the worse today.So pull out of a war that is costing us billions of dollars will not help?
No tangible solutions? An energy policy that would start weening us off foreign oil is not tangible?
Health care and peace are bad things?
So the fact that all most all of his campaign money comes from small donations instead of large corporations or the rich is not different?
All this plus the fact that saying all politician are the same ignores the fact that under 8 year with a democratic president we had a huge economic boom and increased the quality of life in this county. Then under 7 1/2 years under a republic president, gas is over now $4 a gallon, we are approaching or are in a recession, and the dollar is so weak it not funny.
Yup, all politician are the same.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
/this is exactly what Im talking about. Obama has taken millions from lobbyists and PACs look it up yourself.
ORELY - http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/su...p?id=N00009638/this is exactly what Im talking about. Obama has taken millions from lobbyists and PACs look it up yourself.
Originally Posted by :
Do you understand why gas is going up? its simple supply and demand China and Indias need for oil has grown exponentially over the past couple of years. The more people that want your product the higher the price tag.
That is part of it, but you don't think that an unjust war in Iraq has some affect? What about the weak US dollar? What about the fact that the current administration has not done anything to reduce our need for foreign oil? Anyone who looked at world economics knew that the demand for oil was going to rise sharply. Do you understand why gas is going up? its simple supply and demand China and Indias need for oil has grown exponentially over the past couple of years. The more people that want your product the higher the price tag.
Originally Posted by :
Your soultion to health care is to throw money at it? how do you know that system would be better its not.
Obama's plan is more than simply throwing money at it. From the horses mouth - http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/Your soultion to health care is to throw money at it? how do you know that system would be better its not.
Originally Posted by :
Completly pulling out of Iraq now may disastouras consequences.
You mean like saving US lives, and money, and forcing the Iraq government to do something.Completly pulling out of Iraq now may disastouras consequences.
Originally Posted by :
Obama sees the fedral goverment as the soultion to everything so did FDR and his effects on the econmy are still being felt for the worse today.
You mean Franklin Delano Roosevelt who pulled us out of the Great Depression, was so popular he was voted in for three terms, and got us through the biggest war in history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._RooseveltObama sees the fedral goverment as the soultion to everything so did FDR and his effects on the econmy are still being felt for the worse today.
Perhaps instead of shooting from the hip, you should do some research first.
Originally Posted by m52nickerson:
ORELY - http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/su...p?id=N00009638
That is part of it, but you don't think that an unjust war in Iraq has some affect? What about the weak US dollar? What about the fact that the current administration has not done anything to reduce our need for foreign oil? Anyone who looked at world economics knew that the demand for oil was going to rise sharply.
Obama's plan is more than simply throwing money at it. From the horses mouth - http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
You mean like saving US lives, and money, and forcing the Iraq government to do something.
You mean Franklin Delano Roosevelt who pulled us out of the Great Depression, was so popular he was voted in for three terms, and got us through the biggest war in history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt
Perhaps instead of shooting from the hip, you should do some research first.
I will cede the his campagin contributions however do you realize how hard it is to get viable energy and mass produce like we have done with crude oil? The sheer cost of begining such a project makes me shudder. We need to get off it we just cant start throwing cash at it. A national health care system will do more harm than good and cost the average joe more money. Leaving Iraq will kill many more people the fact of the matter is the Iraqi goverment is in no position to "do something" right now and we need to face that. FDR started defict spending and created and artifical market with his new deal his economic policies are the reason our economy has a crippiling defict. To often people look at the short term and neglect the long term. Health care the economy energy they are all pressing issues however we need long term not short term soultions. ORELY - http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/su...p?id=N00009638
That is part of it, but you don't think that an unjust war in Iraq has some affect? What about the weak US dollar? What about the fact that the current administration has not done anything to reduce our need for foreign oil? Anyone who looked at world economics knew that the demand for oil was going to rise sharply.
Obama's plan is more than simply throwing money at it. From the horses mouth - http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
You mean like saving US lives, and money, and forcing the Iraq government to do something.
You mean Franklin Delano Roosevelt who pulled us out of the Great Depression, was so popular he was voted in for three terms, and got us through the biggest war in history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt
Perhaps instead of shooting from the hip, you should do some research first.
Originally Posted by :
Perhaps instead of shooting from the hip, you should do some research first
I don't think that far ahead.Perhaps instead of shooting from the hip, you should do some research first
Originally Posted by :
Sorry, but that is not the general concensus.
Hey panzer,that source you are using for your cut and pastes , it wouldn't happen to have little big warning headings concerning accuracy neutrality and unverified claims covering the whole article would itSorry, but that is not the general concensus.
Not a very good start if you want to claim facts and consensus is it
Now you could ofcourse follow the links to the scientists statements where they give their views on the subject , but for every one of those that agree there is one that disagrees and a whole pile who sit between the two , not exactly a general consensus like is it
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
Bush:conservative
Obama:liberal
sfts says: same thing!
didnt say the presidentBush:conservative
Obama:liberal
sfts says: same thing!
if you haven't noticed, a lot of Obama likes are sitting in congress
This is pretty much SOC101 material man. We don't have to use Wiki, though. I just thought the footnotes offered a good starting point. What would you consider an accurate source?
The debate is over why black people consistently score worse than whites and asians. I'm sure if you're at all familiar with the discussion, you know of the genetic versus environmental camps.
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
Now you could ofcourse follow the links to the scientists statements where they give their views on the subject , but for every one of those that agree there is one that disagrees and a whole pile who sit between the two , not exactly a general consensus like is it
That simply is not accurate. There is a vocal minority that has asserted that the tests are biased, but no basis for these claims has been made. On the other hand, great efforts have been made to assure the tests are not biased, and the results have been the same. Note the socioeconomic comparisons. Now you could ofcourse follow the links to the scientists statements where they give their views on the subject , but for every one of those that agree there is one that disagrees and a whole pile who sit between the two , not exactly a general consensus like is it
The debate is over why black people consistently score worse than whites and asians. I'm sure if you're at all familiar with the discussion, you know of the genetic versus environmental camps.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
I will cede the his campagin contributions however do you realize how hard it is to get viable energy and mass produce like we have done with crude oil? The sheer cost of begining such a project makes me shudder. We need to get off it we just cant start throwing cash at it.
A mandate that new home be "greener" then normal to help reduce energy use which is 90% petroleum based, would only adds only 5 to 8% to the homes cost. http://www.eco-smart.org/presentatio...-overviews.pdfI will cede the his campagin contributions however do you realize how hard it is to get viable energy and mass produce like we have done with crude oil? The sheer cost of begining such a project makes me shudder. We need to get off it we just cant start throwing cash at it.
How about forcing new cars purchased in the US to be more fuel efferent. The 2008 Honda Civic Hybrid cost $22,600 and gets 47city/ 48 hwy.
Not a scary start.
Originally Posted by :
A national health care system will do more harm than good and cost the average joe more money.
Did you read Obama's plan? He has five ways in which his plan would lower costs.A national health care system will do more harm than good and cost the average joe more money.
Originally Posted by :
Leaving Iraq will kill many more people the fact of the matter is the Iraqi goverment is in no position to "do something" right now and we need to face that.
You do know that Obama would not pull all of the troops out at one time. A slow withdraw would force the Iraq government to move forward. With us setting there with no plans on leaving they have no reason to do anything. Leaving Iraq will kill many more people the fact of the matter is the Iraqi goverment is in no position to "do something" right now and we need to face that.
If we stay in Iraq for a long period of time, how long do you think our volunteer army will last? A draft in this country would not be a good thing.
Originally Posted by :
FDR started defict spending and created and artifical market with his new deal his economic policies are the reason our economy has a crippiling defict.
Which got us out of a Depression, and feed people, and gave them jobs. Plus the Republicans who believe in "less government" have always added more to the deficithttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...idential_termsFDR started defict spending and created and artifical market with his new deal his economic policies are the reason our economy has a crippiling defict.
Originally Posted by :
To often people look at the short term and neglect the long term. Health care the economy energy they are all pressing issues however we need long term not short term soultions.
Getting off oil will not have a long term benefit? Creating a system that will get more people health care will not help in the long term? To often people look at the short term and neglect the long term. Health care the economy energy they are all pressing issues however we need long term not short term soultions.
Originally Posted by :
I don't think that far ahead.
That is why you seem uninformed and are losing this debate.I don't think that far ahead.
Originally Posted by CountArach:
Exactly. Races are only different if you let people define what a race is. If you remove skin colour what is the difference?
Exactly. Races are only different if you let people define what a race is. If you remove skin colour what is the difference?
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
Excluding differences in IQ, not much.
Excluding differences in IQ, not much.
Originally Posted by CountArach:
I'm struggling to find how that isn't racist.
I'm struggling to find how that isn't racist.
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
Facts are suddenly racist?
Im sorry. We're all exactly the same. Stupid science...
Well since I submitted your original quote to Racists Say the Darndest Things! - http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/Default.aspx?archive=2 we will see if it gets approved and added to the quotes.Facts are suddenly racist?
Im sorry. We're all exactly the same. Stupid science...
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
That simply is not accurate. There is a vocal minority that has asserted that the tests are biased, but no basis for these claims has been made. On the other hand, great efforts have been made to assure the tests are not biased, and the results have been the same. Note the socioeconomic comparisons.
The debate is over why black people consistently score worse than whites and asians. I'm sure if you're at all familiar with the discussion, you know of the genetic versus environmental camps.
If we would presume this is true, the further question would be how much it matter? Considering that the in-group variation is much larger than the between group variation, I would say quite little.That simply is not accurate. There is a vocal minority that has asserted that the tests are biased, but no basis for these claims has been made. On the other hand, great efforts have been made to assure the tests are not biased, and the results have been the same. Note the socioeconomic comparisons.
The debate is over why black people consistently score worse than whites and asians. I'm sure if you're at all familiar with the discussion, you know of the genetic versus environmental camps.
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
I'm sure if you're at all familiar with the discussion, you know of the genetic versus environmental camps.
Well yes PJ you have a fair point here, it does come down to the genetic vs environmental camps. I happen to be in the environmental camp myself, but thats the silly idealist in me I have tried to kill for years. You know, lets take people of different ethnicity from equal socio economic backrounds and see how they compare. I'm sure if you're at all familiar with the discussion, you know of the genetic versus environmental camps.
Intresting discussion thus far, until you made this distinction I was decidely unintrested in the back and forths, but you've managed to list the one factor that might support your assertions.
Thats assuming you fall into the environmental camp
Hey, PJ lookee here. More really top-grade science that proves those who believe in God are stupider than atheists. IQ tests prove it, you see.
As an on-topic example with which you will surely agree, we can use the Reverend Wright; who is both Christian and black, and therefore so dumb the thesis must be true for all cases.
As an on-topic example with which you will surely agree, we can use the Reverend Wright; who is both Christian and black, and therefore so dumb the thesis must be true for all cases.
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost:
Hey, PJ lookee here. More really top-grade science that proves those who believe in God are stupider than atheists. IQ tests prove it, you see.
As an on-topic example with which you will surely agree, we can use the Reverend Wright; who is both Christian and black, and therefore so dumb the thesis must be true for all cases.
Is that a strawman or a red herring? I'm not sure which. Regardless, I think you could probably do better.Hey, PJ lookee here. More really top-grade science that proves those who believe in God are stupider than atheists. IQ tests prove it, you see.
As an on-topic example with which you will surely agree, we can use the Reverend Wright; who is both Christian and black, and therefore so dumb the thesis must be true for all cases.
Originally Posted by Ironside:
If we would presume this is true, the further question would be how much it matter? Considering that the in-group variation is much larger than the between group variation, I would say quite little.
I agree. I think any differences are largely irrelevant as anything more than an academic curiosity. In terms of real world applicability, I don't see any. If we would presume this is true, the further question would be how much it matter? Considering that the in-group variation is much larger than the between group variation, I would say quite little.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO