Gang violence in Georgia

[Sinfix_15]

Was having a conversation with a friend the other night who isnt so much of an advocate for guns and the conversation revolved around why people needed to carry such lethal handguns and would it be a good idea to limit the types of rounds to something small like a .22. My response was that you cant always assume that your attacker is going to be alone or unarmed. In a situation where you're being attacked by someone with a gun, you dont want them to live long enough to fire back. The shot you fire needs to stop them immediately. In a situation with multiple attackers, you need to know that 1 shot equals 1 down and it needs to happen quickly. I thought about that when i saw this article..... Getting attacked by 4 random strangers is a legitimate possibility in the world we live in.


Cobb County man slaughtered in random hate crime mob attack (http://topconservativenews.com/2013/07/cobb-county-man-slaughtered-in-random-racially-motivated-attack/)

[Matt300ZXT]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here...that dude looked really REALLY white lol

[Sinfix_15]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here...that dude looked really REALLY white lol

"Whites cant be victims of racial injustice because they havnt suffered enough" - Eric Holder

In other news, white man beaten beyond recognition by 4 black men before being left for dead in the middle of traffic.


Martin Luther King once said "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" Quite the contrast.

[Sinfix_15]

side note, how much safer do you feel knowing that the head of the department of justice is a radical racist piece of shit?

http://www.wnd.com/images/cartoons/cracker.jpg

[.blank cd]

Does anyone know why this self proclaimed "conservative" website is touting this as a hate crime with some kind of racial component when there is no evidence for a hate crime with a racial component?

What's the definition of race-baiting again?

I'm beginning to see a pattern here

[Sinfix_15]

Does anyone know why this self proclaimed "conservative" website is touting this as a hate crime with some kind of racial component when there is no evidence for a hate crime with a racial component?

What's the definition of race-baiting again?

I'm beginning to see a pattern here

so you're saying this is not a hate crime?

Care to offer up a motive for 4 black guys to beat a random white guy beyond recognition and leave him for dead?


I want to rally and march every time a black person kills a white person.... but in this Obama economy, i cant afford to be buying new shoes weekly.

[.blank cd]

What evidence, outside of the victim being white and the attackers being black, makes you think this is a hate crime?

Everytime a victims skin color is different from his attackers, does that automatically make it a race crime, to you?

[Sinfix_15]

What evidence, outside of the victim being white and the attackers being black, makes you think this is a hate crime?

Everytime a victims skin color is different from his attackers, does that automatically make it a race crime, to you?

If the races were reversed, would Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Obama, Eric Holder and the NAACP think it was a hate crime?

I suppose you applied the same logic to the Zimmerman trial and disagree with every black leader who proclaims it was a race crime?

[.blank cd]

If the races were reversed, would Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Obama, Eric Holder and the NAACP think it was a hate crime?
Why does it matter to you what they say? Does their opinion somehow change what happened?

Do you believe that when the skin color of an attacker is different from the victim, that its automatically a race crime?

[bu villain]

Sinflix has already made it clear his goal is to be the white Al Sharpton.

[.blank cd]

Sinflix has already made it clear his goal is to be the white Al Sharpton.

That's what he wanted. Lol

How much longer til he gets a group of people together to make the NAAWP?

[David88vert]

How much longer til he gets a group of people together to make the NAAWP?



Beat him to the punch. You should form it and be its first president.

[.blank cd]

Beat him to the punch. You should form it and be its first president.

I don't care that much about white people. Hehehe

[Sinfix_15]

Why does it matter to you what they say? Does their opinion somehow change what happened?

Do you believe that when the skin color of an attacker is different from the victim, that its automatically a race crime?

Provide me with a motive.


and your hypocrisy is very revealing. The type of person you are becomes more clear by the day.

[Sinfix_15]

Sinflix has already made it clear his goal is to be the white Al Sharpton.

One Al Sharpton is too much...

[bu villain]

One Al Sharpton is too much...

Then quit focusing on race like he does.

[Sinfix_15]

Then quit focusing on race like he does.

He plugs his agenda into any case he can get in front of the media. I view things the way they are......

Gang violence has almost doubled since Obama took office. black on white crime is up almost 20%...... That has been pretty obvious here in georgia where there has been a wave of black on white crime with no motive other than malice. The NAACP saying that Trayvon speech was the most important speech of his presidency is a slap in the fucking face.

[bu villain]

He plugs his agenda into any case he can get in front of the media.

Yes he does, and you do the exact same thing on this forum. You even exude the same righteous indignation.

[Sinfix_15]

Yes he does, and you do the exact same thing on this forum. You even exude the same righteous indignation.

Nope. I focus on the truth..... people like you condemn me when the truth hurts their feelings or annoys them. Al Sharpton has no use for the truth. He has a goal to achieve and doesnt let the truth get in the way of it.

[.blank cd]

Provide me with a motive.


and your hypocrisy is very revealing. The type of person you are becomes more clear by the day.

I'm not speculating a motive. Ask the criminals.

Hypocrisy about what?

[Sinfix_15]

I'm not speculating a motive. Ask the criminals.

Hypocrisy about what?

Hypocrisy about when you chose and chose not to come to the defense of something.

It's funny though,..... because when you do chose to, everything you say could be applied to everything you stand for.... i guess that could be said about every radical liberal though. It's not a trait that is unique to you.

[.blank cd]

He plugs his agenda into any case he can get in front of the media. I view things the way they are......

Gang violence has almost doubled since Obama took office. black on white crime is up almost 20%...... That has been pretty obvious here in georgia where there has been a wave of black on white crime with no motive other than malice. The NAACP saying that Trayvon speech was the most important speech of his presidency is a slap in the fucking face.

Ok Mr Bastion of Truth. Do you have factual evidence that directly links Obamas election to an increase in in black on white crime/gang violence? We're looking for direct causation, like you're implying.

[.blank cd]

Hypocrisy about when you chose and chose not to come to the defense of something.

It's funny though,..... because when you do chose to, everything you say could be applied to everything you stand for.... i guess that could be said about every radical liberal though. It's not a trait that is unique to you.

What have I chose to come to the defense of and what have I not chose to come to the defense of? An example of hypocrisy please.

[Sinfix_15]

Ok Mr Bastion of Truth. Do you have factual evidence that directly links Obamas election to an increase in in black on white crime/gang violence? We're looking for direct causation, like you're implying.

I dont have to be able to link Obama's election to an increase in black on white crime or gang violence to acknowledge that black on white crime and gang violence increased.

You've already stated that Obama is not the cause of anything bad that has happened during his presidency, there's no need to continue that debate.

It's not Obama's fault..... but black on white crime is up almost 20% since Obama was elected and gang violence has almost doubled.

[Sinfix_15]

What have I chose to come to the defense of and what have I not chose to come to the defense of? An example of hypocrisy please.

You come to the defense of Trayvon Martin, have never once uttered a word of criticism towards black leaders regardless of how radical they are, you speak against voter ID while ignoring voter intimidation and downplaying voter fraud. You subconsciously follow the liberal playbook. Maybe youre aware of it... or maybe youre so brainwashed that you dont realize it.

[.blank cd]

I dont have to be able to link Obama's election to an increase in black on white crime or gang violence to acknowledge that black on white crime and gang violence increased.

You've already stated that Obama is not the cause of anything bad that has happened during his presidency, there's no need to continue that debate.So you're saying you don't need to factually link him to the increase in crime in order to blame him for it?


It's not Obama's fault..... but black on white crime is up almost 20% since Obama was elected and gang violence has almost doubled.
So what does Obama have to do with it?

100% of humans who drink water, die.

[Sinfix_15]

So you're saying you don't need to factually link him to the increase in crime in order to blame him for it?


So what does Obama have to do with it?

100% of humans who drink water, die.

Obama divides america. He incites racial tension. I blame that on the increase of violence. I understand this isnt quantifiable, but it's certainly a much smaller stretch than you're attempting to make.

The thing about arguing, if you're good enough at it, you never lose. So you dont judge people on winning or losing arguments, you judge them on what they chose to argue for.

[.blank cd]

You come to the defense of Trayvon Martin, have never once uttered a word of criticism towards black leaders regardless of how radical they are.

Because I don't like to confuse topics. My criticism for black civil rights leaders is an entirely separate issue from the facts of the Zimmerman case. Their feelings about the case didn't affect the facts or my opinion of the case in any way.

[.blank cd]

Obama divides america. He incites racial tension. I blame that on the increase of violence. I understand this isnt quantifiable, but it's certainly a much smaller stretch than you're attempting to make.How does Obama incite racial tension in you?

[Sinfix_15]

How does Obama incite racial tension in you?

"in me" he doesnt. He does incite it towards me. When he gives a speech pretty much disagreeing with what is a pretty run of the mill open shut case, he sends a message to the black community that the justice system is against them and that they shouldnt respect the legal system. When he chooses to ignore the numerous...... 5-1 ratio of black on white crime to speak out about what he thinks is white on black crime, he paints a picture that black on white crime is actually an issue in the united states and something people need to fear and protest. The reality is that Zimmerman case had nothing to do with race and was an open shut case. There's a lot more "black zimmermans" in the world, but nobody wants to talk about that. Blacks target whites in crime 5 times more than the other way around. Obama choosing to talk about one and not the other sends a clear message of division. It angers nonblack people who know the truth and it hands black people a lie to be angry about.

[bu villain]

Nope. I focus on the truth..... people like you condemn me when the truth hurts their feelings or annoys them. Al Sharpton has no use for the truth. He has a goal to achieve and doesnt let the truth get in the way of it.

I don't see cherry picking facts that support your position as a good representation of the truth. You don't come to this forum searching for truth, you come here to push your agenda. I can't remember one time where you admitted ignorance on ANY topic. Even when I vehemently disagree with you, I still can relate to where you are coming from but you seem incapable of even fathoming where others are coming from when they disagree with you. There is what Sinflix believes and lies, nothing in between.

[Sinfix_15]

I don't see cherry picking facts that support your position as a good representation of the truth. You don't come to this forum searching for truth, you come here to push your agenda. I can't remember one time where you admitted ignorance on ANY topic. Even when I vehemently disagree with you, I still can relate to where you are coming from but you seem incapable of even fathoming where others are coming from when they disagree with you. There is what Sinflix believes and lies, nothing in between.

How would you define my agenda? Please tell me what it is i am seeking to accomplish with my political views....

The things i argue passionately about..... freedom, gun rights, stopping racism.....

[.blank cd]

"in me" he doesnt. He does incite it towards me. When he gives a speech pretty much disagreeing with what is a pretty run of the mill open shut case, he sends a message to the black community that the justice system is against them and that they shouldnt respect the legal system.Im part of the black community, and I don't get that message.


When he chooses to ignore the numerous...... 5-1 ratio of black on white crime to speak out about what he thinks is white on black crime, he paints a picture that black on white crime is actually an issue in the united states and something people need to fear and protest.Why would he dwell on a racial issue? Why does it matter that blacks kill whites 5:1? Does it matter to you? Why would this fact deserve any recognition other than to divide races? What does this fact have to do with what he believes is a black racial stereotype that cost a 17yo kid his life?

[Sinfix_15]

Im part of the black community, and I don't get that message.

Why would he dwell on a racial issue? Why does it matter that blacks kill whites 5:1? Does it matter to you? Why would this fact deserve any recognition other than to divide races? What does this fact have to do with what he believes is a black racial stereotype that cost a 17yo kid his life?

Why would he dwell on a racial issue? i'm asking the same question......

why does it matter that blacks kill whites 5:1? because i dont believe that stat is an anomaly, it's a cultural trend that is heading in the wrong direction. Yes it matters to me...... this thread is titled GANG VIOLENCE IN GEORGIA........

The truth needs to be told regardless of the outcome. Obama stacks lies against the truth.

[.blank cd]

Why would he dwell on a racial issue? i'm asking the same question......

why does it matter that blacks kill whites 5:1? because i dont believe that stat is an anomaly, it's a cultural trend that is heading in the wrong direction. Yes it matters to me...... this thread is titled GANG VIOLENCE IN GEORGIA........

The truth needs to be told regardless of the outcome. Obama stacks lies against the truth.

It's not an anomaly, but you don't know the causation either. Neither does he. Neither does that fact explain what percentage of that is truly racially motivated. So why say anything about it? If you know the causation, show your work, have it peer reviewed, and you might get a Nobel Prize.

So you believe 100% of that 5:1 is racially motivated?

[Sinfix_15]

There's literally a trial going on right now................... in Atlanta......................... where a black male is pleading not guilty by reason of insanity and his insanity defense is that he was raised to hate white people and didnt know any better. He randomly killed 3 white girls in the middle of the city for no reason.

There's another case in georgia where two black teenagers shot a toddler in the face at point blank range......

Another where 4 black guys beat a random white guy beyond recognition before throwing him into oncoming traffic where he was killed.....

yet Trayvon is the victim of racial injustice and Obama isnt gonna sleep until he gets to the bottom of it.

[Sinfix_15]

It's not an anomaly, but you don't know the causation either. Neither does he. Neither does that fact explain what percentage of that is truly racially motivated. So why say anything about it? If you know the causation, show your work, have it peer reviewed, and you might get a Nobel Prize.

So you believe 100% of that 5:1 is racially motivated?

of the 5:1, id would guess somewhere around 35-40% were racially motivated. Which is still a very alarming number.

[.blank cd]

of the 5:1, id would guess somewhere around 35-40% were racially motivated. Which is still a very alarming number.

So, of the white on black crime, what percentage of that do you believe is racially motivated?

[bu villain]

How would you define my agenda? Please tell me what it is i am seeking to accomplish with my political views....

The things i argue passionately about..... freedom, gun rights, stopping racism.....

I may be wrong but from your posts, it seems to me your agenda is to be getting people to think:
Blacks are violent, ignorant people who think white people are racists
Muslims are violent, ignorant people who want to kill all Americans and impose Sharia law everywhere
Democrats are ignorant people who are destroying our society
Poor people are ignorant people who leech on society and actively choose to be poor
Gun control advocates are ignorant people who will stop at nothing except total removal of all firearms from citizens
Religious people are ignorant people who can't think for themselves
Obama is Satan incarnate and anyone associated with him is at least a minor demon

I feel like I'm missing something but that's most of it.

[Sinfix_15]

So, of the white on black crime, what percentage of that do you believe is racially motivated?

If i had to guess.... 10-15%. But in order to keep up appearances and keep america thinking places like the NAACP still need to exist, race hustlers like Al Sharpton ignore black on white crime and call everything white on black crime.

violent teenager with a history of criminal activity, drug use and thuggery attacks a concerned citizen and slams his head on the sidewalk before being killed in self defense..... white on black crime.

[Sinfix_15]

I may be wrong but from your posts, it seems to me your agenda is to be getting people to think:
Blacks are violent, ignorant people who think white people are racists
Muslims are violent, ignorant people who want to kill all Americans and impose Sharia law everywhere
Democrats are ignorant people who are destroying our society
Poor people are ignorant people who leech on society and actively choose to be poor
Gun control advocates are ignorant people who will stop at nothing except total removal of all firearms from citizens
Religious people are ignorant people who can't think for themselves
Obama is Satan incarnate and anyone associated with him is at least a minor demon

I feel like I'm missing something but that's most of it.

I got a good chuckle out of your list and admire the effort to make it more colorful. With that said.... you're not too far off base, but you carefully selected your emphasis to paint the picture you wanted.

I will attempt to clarify each....

I think racism is mostly an issue driven by black people both with false accusation and their own prejudices. I think allowing this bias to take place is bad for everyone.

Yes, Muslims are the biggest thread to american's way of life. Fuck muslims.... i wont dispute this one.

Yes, democrats are ignorant.

Replace poor people with entitlement society. If you have 15 pairs of shoes, a cell phone and an SUV, but you collect food stamps... yes.. you are destroying society and democrats are happy to help you do it as long as you vote for them.

Not all gun control advocates are evil.... but theyre being led by evil people. Some people are just compassionate and want to rid the world of violence, politicians prey on that compassion and use it to fuel their agenda.

No, i have a great admiration for christian people, though i have no reservations about saying i do not believe in it or disputing the accuracy of the bible. I never view seeking the truth or questioning things as an insult. If the bible is true.... my questioning will never change that.

Obama is the worst political leader we have ever experienced in the united states on any level of government. Never has a president done more to tear down the foundation of what makes america the country that it is. No, i have no respect for you if you support Obama.




Now put these things together and tell me what my agenda is??? freedom? getting rid of racism?? keeping constitutional rights??? what is it im seeking to accomplish?

[.blank cd]

If i had to guess.... 10-15%.Wow. Interesting.


violent teenager with a history of criminal activity, drug use and thuggery attacks a concerned citizen and slams his head on the sidewalk before being killed in self defense..... white on black crime.Interesting you're still latched onto the "Violent Trayvon" narrative, despite its lack of relevancy to reality.

I wonder how fair you are when you're judgmental, or if you just do it to fit your narrative...

[.blank cd]

I got a good chuckle out of your list and admire the effort to make it more colorful. With that said.... you're not too far off base, but you carefully selected your emphasis to paint the picture you wanted.

I will attempt to clarify each....

I think racism is mostly an issue driven by black people both with false accusation and their own prejudices. I think allowing this bias to take place is bad for everyone.

Yes, Muslims are the biggest thread to american's way of life. Fuck muslims.... i wont dispute this one.

Yes, democrats are ignorant.

Replace poor people with entitlement society. If you have 15 pairs of shoes, a cell phone and an SUV, but you collect food stamps... yes.. you are destroying society and democrats are happy to help you do it as long as you vote for them.

Not all gun control advocates are evil.... but theyre being led by evil people. Some people are just compassionate and want to rid the world of violence, politicians prey on that compassion and use it to fuel their agenda.

No, i have a great admiration for christian people, though i have no reservations about saying i do not believe in it or disputing the accuracy of the bible. I never view seeking the truth or questioning things as an insult. If the bible is true.... my questioning will never change that.

Obama is the worst political leader we have ever experienced in the united states on any level of government. Never has a president done more to tear down the foundation of what makes america the country that it is. No, i have no respect for you if you support Obama.You are a confused individual.


Now put these things together and tell me what my agenda is??? freedom? getting rid of racism?? keeping constitutional rights??? what is it im seeking to accomplish?

Spreading misinformation sounds about right

[Sinfix_15]

Wow. Interesting.

Interesting you're still latched onto the "Violent Trayvon" narrative, despite its lack of relevancy to reality.

I wonder how fair you are when you're judgmental, or if you just do it to fit your narrative...

Trayvon was into street fighting, talked to his friends about street fighting, was open enough about it to say a person didnt bleed enough for him in idle conversation, there's youtube videos of him reffing street fights, he was a problem kid at his local school, police caught him with stolen property, school caught him graffiting the school, he had a gang related tattoo, toxicology report said he used so many drugs that he had liver damage....

that's enough for me to call someone a thug. It's not like i said "kids hat is on backwards, hes a thug"..... there's plenty of evidence.

[Sinfix_15]

You are a confused individual.



Spreading misinformation sounds about right

Said those who thought the earth was flat when they were told it was round.

[.blank cd]

toxicology report said he used so many drugs that he had liver damage...

What toxicology report did you read that says that?

The PDF I read doesn't say that at all

[Sinfix_15]

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/05/17/trayvon.martin.autopsy.pdf?hpt=hp_t2

[.blank cd]

Hmm. Same one I read.

But I'm guessing you might be a medical examiner. Since you can asses from that report that he was on so much drugs, he had liver damage. So I have a few questions for you:

-What is THC?
-How much of it has to be present in your system to be medically classified as "so much"
-How much THC do you need in your blood to cause liver damage?
-Is "No Diagnostic Abnormalities" medical slang for "he had liver damage"?

Is the contents of his liver relevant to the case? How so?

[Sinfix_15]

Hmm. Same one I read.

But I'm guessing you might be a medical examiner. Since you can asses from that report that he was on so much drugs, he had liver damage. So I have a few questions for you:

-What is THC?
-How much of it has to be present in your system to be medically classified as "so much"
-How much THC do you need in your blood to cause liver damage?
-Is "No Diagnostic Abnormalities" medical slang for "he had liver damage"?

Is the contents of his liver relevant to the case? How so?


It's not THC that i'm suggesting was the problem.... it's codeine... having had first hand experience with people addicted to codeine, i can tell you that it has a dynamic effect on a persons emotional state. The autopsy says the liver was yellow and discolored. A side effect associated with codeine use. Saying "no abnormalities" does not erase this. Having 6 fingers is an abnormality. Having a scratch on your finger is not.

Codeine addiction is very severe and alters a person's mental state. You can downplay the evidence if you want, but if Trayvon was a codeine user as the evidence suggests, that could have played a role in his mental state leading up to the altercation. The kid talks about using codeine, mentions a recipe for a codeine mixture and had 2/3 of that recipe on his person at the time of his death. He also demonstrated some side effects of codeine abuse.

Where there's smoke there's fire.

[.blank cd]

Liver damage in a 17yr old is an abnormality, no matter how you spin it. The doctor would have said something if he found something. There's no reason for him not to.

[Sinfix_15]

Liver damage in a 17yr old is an abnormality, no matter how you spin it. The doctor would have said something if he found something. There's no reason for him not to.

He did say something...... he noted the characteristics of the liver in his report. Is being fat because you eat too much an abnormality?

[.blank cd]

He did say something...... he noted the characteristics of the liver in his report. Is being fat because you eat too much an abnormality?

He noted in his report "no diagnostic abnormalities". A simple search turns up that minor fatty deposits isn't rare and can be caused by a multitude of things.

Regardless, what does the content of his liver change about the outcome of this case? Does that make Trayvon more guilty? Or are you just judging him?

[Sinfix_15]

He noted in his report "no diagnostic abnormalities". A simple search turns up that minor fatty deposits isn't rare and can be caused by a multitude of things.

Regardless, what does the content of his liver change about the outcome of this case? Does that make Trayvon more guilty? Or are you just judging him?

I'm attempting to rationalize the events that took place based on the evidence that is present. Codeine abuse can alter your mental state and cause aggression. Trayvon regularly talked about fighting, violence and drug use on social media. His friends expressed that using racial slurs was common. Does this not collaborate with evidence that this boy acted in anger to the idea of a "creepy cracker" invading his space? Circumstantial evidence is just that.... circumstance... but you can use it to connect the dots with the facts that you have. Is it just circumstance that Trayvon had 2/3s of the recipe he referenced on social media... maybe... is it just circumstance that he had liver discoloring that would also be associated with opiate abuse? maybe...

All of these circumstances individually are disputable, but when you start to put the body of work together..... it all collaborates with the narrative that was successfully put forth by the defense of Zimmerman.

[.blank cd]

None of that is circumstantial evidence.

[Sinfix_15]

None of that is circumstantial evidence.

Yes it is..... whether or not it was permitted by the court is a different argument.

[.blank cd]

Yes it is..... whether or not it was permitted by the court is a different argument.

If it wasnt permitted by the court, then it probably wasnt evidence, was it?

It is for good reason your anecdotal evidence isn't permitted in the court of law

[bu villain]

Now put these things together and tell me what my agenda is??? freedom? getting rid of racism?? keeping constitutional rights??? what is it im seeking to accomplish?

It's not that I think you aren't an advocate for freedom, getting rid of racism, and protecting rights, it's that pretty much everyone claims to be fighting for those things or other equally important goals. I guarantee you Al Sharpton thinks he is fighting against racism. What are you seeking to accomplish still is blurry to me because you post all these instances of blacks committing crimes against whites and a few minutes later post about how you can't change these racist black people. So what is the point of those posts if not to change the racists?

[Sinfix_15]

It's not that I think you aren't an advocate for freedom, getting rid of racism, and protecting rights, it's that pretty much everyone claims to be fighting for those things or other equally important goals. I guarantee you Al Sharpton thinks he is fighting against racism. What are you seeking to accomplish still is blurry to me because you post all these instances of blacks committing crimes against whites and a few minutes later post about how you can't change these racist black people. So what is the point of those posts if not to change the racists?

Baby steps.... step 1, admit there's a problem.

[nelson9995]

Regardless, what does the content of his liver change about the outcome of this case? Does that make Trayvon more guilty? Or are you just judging him?

Are you slow or do you like to play slow?
Sinfix shuts you down time after time and you come back playing the innocent I can't see past my nose personality you have.

The problem is not the liver, the problem is what he does that made his liver look like that, can greatly affect how violent a person can be. This points towards Treyvon being the aggressor, and so does EVERYTHING else.

[nelson9995]

I'm glad an innocent man was not put to pay a sentence that someone else brought upon him.

[.blank cd]

Are you slow or do you like to play slow?
Sinfix shuts you down time after time and you come back playing the innocent I can't see past my nose personality you have.Who are you? I'm not sure what you mean by "shut you down time after time", because that certainly hasn't happened on this forum, unless you mean he's challenged facts with his uneducated opinion, then sure, he does that all the time.


The problem is not the liver, the problem is what he does that made his liver look like that, can greatly affect how violent a person can be. This points towards Treyvon being the aggressor, and so does EVERYTHING else.No. No, It doesn't. Not according to any medical or psychological science anywhere. Mild fatty liver deposits, so mild a medical examiner said it wasn't abnormal, has absolutely zero link to aggressive behavior, and absolutely zero effect on the outcome of the case. Neither does the contents of the drink can, or the skittles. I'm sorry you feel like you disagree, but unfortunately, its the truth, at least according to the judges, doctors, attorneys, forensic scientists, and investigators. Maybe you have some evidence of your own that you haven't shared with them? Don't come in here rambling incoherently trying to pretend to be intelligent. Show your proofs, especially when you're trying to refute something that's been solid science for quite some time.

[Sinfix_15]

Who are you? I'm not sure what you mean by "shut you down time after time", because that certainly hasn't happened on this forum, unless you mean he's challenged facts with his uneducated opinion, then sure, he does that all the time.

No. No, It doesn't. Not according to any medical or psychological science anywhere. Mild fatty liver deposits, so mild a medical examiner said it wasn't abnormal, has absolutely zero link to aggressive behavior, and absolutely zero effect on the outcome of the case. Neither does the contents of the drink can, or the skittles. I'm sorry you feel like you disagree, but unfortunately, its the truth, at least according to the judges, doctors, attorneys, forensic scientists, and investigators. Maybe you have some evidence of your own that you haven't shared with them? Don't come in here rambling incoherently trying to pretend to be intelligent. Show your proofs, especially when you're trying to refute something that's been solid science for quite some time.

When you are shown proof, you ignore it and discard it, unless it suits your belief.

You get shut down on this forum on a daily basis.....

[.blank cd]

When you are shown proof, you ignore it and discard it, unless it suits your belief

Proof of what? I've never ignored proof, unless its in fact not proof at all and just here-say that confirms your beliefs.

I don't have a belief, and its hard to suit one when you don't have one. Facts aren't supposed to suit your beliefs, its the other way around.

Mild fatty deposits on the liver, as the ME noted on the autopsy report, is not definitive proof of alcoholism, nor is the fatty deposits linked to aggressive behavior. This is what doctor after doctor after scientist after scientist has said time and time again.

[Sinfix_15]

Proof of what? I've never ignored proof, unless its in fact not proof at all and just here-say that confirms your beliefs.

I don't have a belief, and its hard to suit one when you don't have one. Facts aren't supposed to suit your beliefs, its the other way around.

Mild fatty deposits on the liver, as the ME noted on the autopsy report, is not definitive proof of alcoholism, nor is the fatty deposits linked to aggressive behavior. This is what doctor after doctor after scientist after scientist has said time and time again.

It's normal for a 17 year old athletic male to have a yellowing liver. - signed, Dr BlankCD

[.blank cd]

It's normal for a 17 year old athletic male to have a yellowing liver. - signed, Dr BlankCD

According to what the doctor observed and what he wrote on the autopsy, his liver wasnt abnormal. Unless you personally saw Trayvon's liver, you do not know anything other than what the doctor observed and reported. You can believe whatever you want, but everything outside of his report is fiction. The doctor didn't say he had liver problems, the doctor didn't say he was aggressive because of the deposits on his liver, the doctor didn't say he was making "lean". This isn't debatable, unless you saw something on Trayvon's liver that the doctor did not see. Lol. It's annoying that facts need to be spelled out to you by the letter.

I'm unsure why you complain about the media narrative, and then let that same media tell you what to believe. It's pretty puzzling.

[.blank cd]

Maybe, after checking everything out, when he wrote "NO DIAGNOSTIC ABNORMALITIES", he actually misspelled "This kids liver is fucked up, he must be a thug". I dunno that crazy doctor-speak nowadays though.

[bu villain]

Baby steps.... step 1, admit there's a problem.

Admit what is a problem? Racism? Yes, it is a problem. But you keep saying there is nothing you can do about it so what is the point of your posts? You focus only on racism against whites from blacks and then rail against Al Sharpton when he does the same only in reverse. Then you take it a step further and constantly post about blacks making up a relatively large percentages of the criminal population, blacks abusing welfare, black people doing ignorant shit on youtube, etc which has nothing to do with fighting racism and is just showcasing the worst aspects of black society. So while you may think you are somehow doing a public service with such posts, it just comes off like you are a guy who is angry because he caught his wife cheating with a black dude.

[Sinfix_15]

Maybe, after checking everything out, when he wrote "NO DIAGNOSTIC ABNORMALITIES", he actually misspelled "This kids liver is fucked up, he must be a thug". I dunno that crazy doctor-speak nowadays though.

6 fingers is an abnormality, a scratch on your finger is not.

[Sinfix_15]

Admit what is a problem? Racism? Yes, it is a problem. But you keep saying there is nothing you can do about it so what is the point of your posts? You focus only on racism against whites from blacks and then rail against Al Sharpton when he does the same only in reverse. Then you take it a step further and constantly post about blacks making up a relatively large percentages of the criminal population, blacks abusing welfare, black people doing ignorant shit on youtube, etc which has nothing to do with fighting racism and is just showcasing the worst aspects of black society. So while you may think you are somehow doing a public service with such posts, it just comes off like you are a guy who is angry because he caught his wife cheating with a black dude.

Come on BU.... i hold you to a higher standard than Blank..... dont start adhering to stereotypes, that would disappoint me.

Let me rephrase.... there's a lot of acknowledgement about the problems in the black community.....

Admit that there is a self inflicted problem.

[.blank cd]

6 fingers is an abnormality, a scratch on your finger is not.
Ok. That's fine, but the doctor said "NO DIAGNOSTIC ABNORMALITIES". This was written in black and white on the autopsy report. Was he lying? Through your years of medical schooling, do you know something about the human liver that he doesn't? Maybe you could offer us some insight on acute fatty tissue metamorphosis and its connection to aggressive disposition?

[Sinfix_15]

Ok. That's fine, but the doctor said "NO DIAGNOSTIC ABNORMALITIES". This was written in black and white on the autopsy report. Was he lying? Through your years of medical schooling, do you know something about the human liver that he doesn't? Maybe you could offer us some insight on acute fatty tissue metamorphosis and its connection to aggressive disposition?

A kid talks about using drugs, talks about a recipe for drugs, goes to the store and purchases 2/3 of the items in the recipe he mentions and begins returning home without opening them..... in the rain..... his family admit to having a drug intervention with him in the past..... his liver is consistent with that of a drug user.

The doctor gives a description of the liver, without offering any conclusion as to his findings and lists "no abnormality". If you asked him if the liver was consistent with drug use, he would say yes. A yellowing liver would not be an abnormality.

[Sinfix_15]

"Physical Effects of Prolonged Codeine Use
The most dangerous long term side effect of codeine use is respiratory depression. This is the most potentially fatal of all of the long term effects. This is because it can cause difficulty breathing, a slowed heart rate, and low blood pressure. Chronic use of codeine can cause the brain to slow or even stop endorphin production, causing many of the long term side effects of codeine use. These effects can take months to reverse, making for a very unpleasant recovery time.
The physical long term effects of use can be quite serious to your health. These long term effects of codeine use on the body can include things like sexual dysfunction, chronic constipation, seizures, tremors and shakes, convulsions, a constant state of agitation or confusion, hallucinations, inability to drive, stomach bleeding, nausea, blurred vision, skin nodules and itching, as well as kidney and liver damage. "

[bu villain]

Come on BU.... i hold you to a higher standard than Blank..... dont start adhering to stereotypes, that would disappoint me.

Let me rephrase.... there's a lot of acknowledgement about the problems in the black community.....

Admit that there is a self inflicted problem.

What stereotype am I adhering to? Yes some black people perpetuate problems in the black community. I didn't think that was in dispute. It also doesn't mean ALL of their problems are from within their own community either. You still have not answered my question. What is the goal of your posts specifically about black people? Ending racism? If so, how do your posts further that goal and how does that match your statements that those people can't be changed?

[Sinfix_15]

Here's a theory.......

Maybe young Trayvon was a troubled youth with a drug problem. His drug problem was never properly diagnosed or treated due to questionable parenting. Maybe the drug problem had a psychological affect on him that he couldnt handle alone. Maybe his aggression and misbehavior was a combination of the drug use and lack of a support system to diagnose it or help him with it. He was clearly a troubled youth as his growing wrap sheet would indicate. Now we have two parents on a crusade to cast blame rather than take responsibility and a large portion of the black community is following suit. It's a lot easier to blame someone else for your problems than it is to take responsibility for them, but if responsibility is never taken... the root of the problem will never be fixed.

BU is always talking about how education and opportunities are the cause for the problems in troubled communities.... well, if you're going to be on that side of the fence, then here's the opportunity to do it. Trayvon's parents should be open and honest about his drug problems and how it may have contributed to his poor decision making. They should use this as an example of how "normal" a child with a drug problem can appear and how easily a lapse of judgment can result in a dangerous situation. Bad decisions and lapses of judgement like this happen all over the place, it's not always the decision to get into a fight with an armed stranger.... it's usually the decision to get behind the wheel of a car or to not put a condom on.... but this problem is very prevalent in most communities and is currently being ignored because it's easier to be mad at zimmerman and protest. Trayvon's death could have been prevented........... regardless of what Zimmerman decided to do that night and regardless of who thought Trayvon was or wasnt suspicious. If you allow yourself to always be a victim of circumstance, then you will always be a victim.

[bu villain]

Here's a theory.......

Maybe young Trayvon was a troubled youth with a drug problem...

But that's just your theory with no particular reason to believe it was drug use that caused this to end the way it did. Lots of people do drugs and are not violent. Many people see Zimmerman's actions as a much more direct cause of this result rather than pure speculation that drug use sent Trayvon into a violent rage that night. So instead of focusing on "maybe", they focus on what they see as "surely". If Trayvon never did a drug in his life, would he still be alive today? Possibly, but I honestly doubt it. Would Trayvon be alive today if Zimmerman chose not to follow him that night? Absolutely without question.

[bu villain]

Oh and you still havent answered my question.


What is the goal of your posts specifically about black people? Ending racism? If so, how do your posts further that goal and how does that match your statements that those people can't be changed?

[Sinfix_15]

But that's just your theory with no particular reason to believe it was drug use that caused this to end the way it did. Lots of people do drugs and are not violent. Many people see Zimmerman's actions as a much more direct cause of this result rather than pure speculation that drug use sent Trayvon into a violent rage that night. So instead of focusing on "maybe", they focus on what they see as "surely". If Trayvon never did a drug in his life, would he still be alive today? Possibly, but I honestly doubt it. Would Trayvon be alive today if Zimmerman chose not to follow him that night? Absolutely without question.

Unfavorable interactions with other humans is not an excuse for your own behavior. Zimmerman's actions do not justify Trayvon's response to them. It's funny you comment about me speculating, then ask a question like that. If Trayvon never did a drug in his life would be still be alive today? That could have changed the course of events dramatically. So what you're saying is that Trayvon would have lived a long and happy life as long as the planets aligned for him and nothing that required good judgment ever happened to him, as long as everyone moved out of his way and never offended him or stepped on his toes. As long as he was never put in any type of situation that required patience or for him to be level headed. Riiiggghhhtttt....

You sum up the problem perfectly my friend..... a lot of people need "the planets to align" for them to make it through life.... and that is a big fucking problem. Everyone needs to take responsibility for their own actions.

[Sinfix_15]

Oh and you still havent answered my question.

My goal in this setting... have a conversation that maybe breeds a different way of thinking that maybe sticks with anyone who participates here, that maybe gets transferred beyond this forum, that maybe on some level changes anything about our world.

If i was on the other end of that phone with Trayvon, maybe he would still be alive today. If Jeantel was a member of this forum.... maybe she would have said something more useful than

"i tink dat cracker be a rapist yo" or whatever the hell that ignorant buffoon said.

[.blank cd]

My goal in this setting... have a conversation that maybe breeds a different way of thinking that maybe sticks with anyone who participates here, that maybe gets transferred beyond this forum, that maybe on some level changes anything about our world.

If i was on the other end of that phone with Trayvon, maybe he would still be alive today. If Jeantel was a member of this forum.... maybe she would have said something useful than

"i tink dat cracker be a rapist yo" or whatever the hell that ignorant buffoon said.

But you don't offer any novel ideas. You just repeat what you've read on the conservative hate-o-sphere. Tired old speculation and circular reasoning.

[Sinfix_15]

But you don't offer any novel ideas. You just repeat what you've read on the conservative hate-o-sphere. Tired old speculation and circular reasoning.

The irony is more than i can handle.

Someone who puts great effort into saying nothing anytime he says anything is commenting on a lack of ideas from someone else. You pass off what i say as "conservative hate-o-sphere" because that's how your conditioned to think. You're a well trained democrat who dismisses anything that isnt already inside your small box of thinking. I offer up ideas... but because my ideas all call for self reliance and personal responsibility, they are foreign concepts to you. If i were making an excuse for someone or blaming someone's actions on someone else, you'd be cheering me along like i was the star QB of your high school football team.

[.blank cd]

You are not a smart person.

[Sinfix_15]

You are not a smart person.

Is what they should have put right beside the button to vote for Obama.




You're an amateur psychologist who changes diapers for a living. I guess your psychological understanding just isnt that useful to you when you cant put your opposition in timeout.

[.blank cd]

Is what they should have put right beside the button to vote for Obama.




You're an amateur psychologist who changes diapers for a living.

That's exactly what I do for a living :rolleyes:

[Sinfix_15]

Oh what a fool i am..... thinking that people control their own lives or that they should be responsible for their own actions....

We are all at the mercy of our caretakers..... incapable of making decisions for ourselves or finding our own way.... -signed, Dr BlankCD

[bu villain]

Unfavorable interactions with other humans is not an excuse for your own behavior. Zimmerman's actions do not justify Trayvon's response to them. It's funny you comment about me speculating, then ask a question like that. If Trayvon never did a drug in his life would be still be alive today? That could have changed the course of events dramatically. So what you're saying is that Trayvon would have lived a long and happy life as long as the planets aligned for him and nothing that required good judgment ever happened to him, as long as everyone moved out of his way and never offended him or stepped on his toes. As long as he was never put in any type of situation that required patience or for him to be level headed. Riiiggghhhtttt....

I'm not excusing Trayvon at all, I am saying you can't blame it on drugs. Saying that Trayvon would be alive if Zimmerman never followed him is not speculation, unless you want to argue Trayvon would have gone searching for Zimmerman. Saying drugs caused Trayvon to be violent is pure speculation. That's all.


You sum up the problem perfectly my friend..... a lot of people need "the planets to align" for them to make it through life.... and that is a big fucking problem. Everyone needs to take responsibility for their own actions.

You are correct that people's actions do affect the outcome of their lives but it is also true that factors outside of one's control also affect everyone's lives. Both topics should be discussed.


My goal in this setting... have a conversation that maybe breeds a different way of thinking that maybe sticks with anyone who participates here, that maybe gets transferred beyond this forum, that maybe on some level changes anything about our world.

If i was on the other end of that phone with Trayvon, maybe he would still be alive today. If Jeantel was a member of this forum.... maybe she would have said something more useful than

"i tink dat cracker be a rapist yo" or whatever the hell that ignorant buffoon said.

I'm not asking about your goal with this particular thread. I'm asking about all the threads you post such as a post about a black guy raping a white girl. What is the goal with something like that?

[Sinfix_15]

I'm not asking about your goal with this particular thread. I'm asking about all the threads you post such as a post about a black guy raping a white girl. What is the goal with something like that?

Awareness.

[bu villain]

Awareness of what? Who on this forum do you think is not aware rape happens and sometimes it is a black perpetrator and a white victim?

[Sinfix_15]

Awareness of what? Who on this forum do you think is not aware rape happens and sometimes it is a black perpetrator and a white victim?

should i filter the news or balance it out to where it has a more even racial balance? How would that lie benefit anyone?


I posted an article about a girl being thrown off a roof top......................


















i repeat.........











thrown off a mother fucking roof top..............






and what you're taking away from it is the race of the people. Maybe that is the problem

[bu villain]

should i filter the news or balance it out to where it has a more even racial balance? How would that lie benefit anyone?
I posted an article about a girl being thrown off a roof top......................
i repeat.........
thrown off a mother fucking roof top..............
and what you're taking away from it is the race of the people. Maybe that is the problem

If it were the only thing you posted, I wouldn't question the race at all but your track record is pretty much 100% on posting crimes with black perpetrators. It's to the point that if you make a post about a crime, I would bet money I can guess the race of the perpetrator. I've never seen you say anything but bad things about black people. Are you telling me that the race of the people involved in a crime is never a factor in what you post and it is pure chance that they are all about black perpetrators?

[Sinfix_15]

If it were the only thing you posted, I wouldn't question the race at all but your track record is pretty much 100% on posting crimes with black perpetrators. It's to the point that if you make a post about a crime, I would bet money I can guess the race of the perpetrator. I've never seen you say anything but bad things about black people. Are you telling me that the race of the people involved in a crime is never a factor in what you post and it is pure chance that they are all about black perpetrators?

this is simply not accurate. My racial bias as it pertains to criminal activity is pretty much inline with the actual racial bias of the crimes happening. I'm not ignoring white crime, there's simply more black crime to talk about.

Should i filter my results to balance the races?

[bu villain]

this is simply not accurate. My racial bias as it pertains to criminal activity is pretty much inline with the actual racial bias of the crimes happening. I'm not ignoring white crime, there's simply more black crime to talk about.

Should i filter my results to balance the races?

Actually it's factually false that there is more black crime to talk about. From the bureau of justice statistics, for the most recent year available the breakdown of offenders is as follows:

FY 2010 Offenders sentenced
Race of offender %
White 65.42
Black 19.52
Native American 1.34
Asian/Pacific Islander 1.74
Multi-racial 0.05
Other 0.20
Missing/Unknown 11.73
Total 100.00

So blacks commit about 1 in 5 of all crimes committed and yet blacks commit roughly 5 in 5 of the crimes you post, so I fail to see how you are an unbiased observer who would never use race as a filter. Either you are lying to yourself or to me about your bias against blacks.

[.blank cd]

FY 2010 Offenders sentenced
Race of offender %
White 65.42
Black 19.52.


WHY ISNT ANYONE TALKING ABOUT THIS?

[David88vert]

Actually it's factually false that there is more black crime to talk about. From the bureau of justice statistics, for the most recent year available the breakdown of offenders is as follows:

FY 2010 Offenders sentenced
Race of offender %
White 65.42
Black 19.52
Native American 1.34
Asian/Pacific Islander 1.74
Multi-racial 0.05
Other 0.20
Missing/Unknown 11.73
Total 100.00

So blacks commit about 1 in 5 of all crimes committed and yet blacks commit roughly 5 in 5 of the crimes you post, so I fail to see how you are an unbiased observer who would never use race as a filter. Either you are lying to yourself or to me about your bias against blacks.

Actually, Table 43 is available for 2011. Numbers are similar.
FBI — Table 43 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43)



WHY ISNT ANYONE TALKING ABOUT THIS?

I've brought up the FBI crime statistics before. Last time was in the gun rights thread.
Since we are back to statistics and not just conjecture between you and Sinfix, here are the FBI stats.
FBI — Table 43 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43)

Of Total Crimes, whites do get arrested for more crimes than blacks. Note that these are arrests, not convictions.
When you get into murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, blacks get arrested slightly more than whites, but its almost dead even.
In robbery, 55% of blacks vs 43% of whites in arrest ratios, but in larceny, whites are a 68% vs 28% for blacks.

[Sinfix_15]

Actually it's factually false that there is more black crime to talk about. From the bureau of justice statistics, for the most recent year available the breakdown of offenders is as follows:

FY 2010 Offenders sentenced
Race of offender %
White 65.42
Black 19.52
Native American 1.34
Asian/Pacific Islander 1.74
Multi-racial 0.05
Other 0.20
Missing/Unknown 11.73
Total 100.00

So blacks commit about 1 in 5 of all crimes committed and yet blacks commit roughly 5 in 5 of the crimes you post, so I fail to see how you are an unbiased observer who would never use race as a filter. Either you are lying to yourself or to me about your bias against blacks.

The united states is 70% white and about 15% black. Those 15% of black people are located in pretty dense areas. Theyre not evenly divided all around the united states. Every location that is predominantly black in the united states has an elevated crime rate. When you look at the murder statistics and see that black and white people are fairly relative statistically, you have to consider that we're comparing 70% of the population to 15% of the population and that the 15% of the population is located on about 20% of the united states. The fact that 15% of the population has such a dynamic affect on crime rates is very alarming. Considering white people are 70% of the population and theyre scattered from one corner of the country to the next, the crime statistics are a skewed. Something like Chicago is way more attention getting than white crime being spread out evenly across the nation.

You would understand this if you didnt start with a conclusion before asking a question.

[bu villain]

Actually it's an incredibly obvious point so I certainly understand it. Blacks commit crimes in disproportionate amount to their population. I'm not arguing against that because that was never my point. I am arguing that you disproportionately focus on black perpetrators. In case you forgot, you stated:


this is simply not accurate. My racial bias as it pertains to criminal activity is pretty much inline with the actual racial bias of the crimes happening. I'm not ignoring white crime, there's simply more black crime to talk about.

You statement is false by the facts. There is undeniably NOT more black crime to talk about. If our country only had one black person and he committed 40% of the crimes in the country, you would still be wrong. Therefore, when you post only about black crime, you are showing a clear bias which absolutely does not reflect the factual numbers posted here. You are implying that somehow black crime is more discussion worthy than crimes committed by any other race. If you don't post anything about white crime, or asian crime, etc., then by what definition of "ignoring" are you not ignoring it?

[Sinfix_15]

Actually it's an incredibly obvious point so I certainly understand it. Blacks commit crimes in disproportionate amount to their population. I'm not arguing against that because that was never my point. I am arguing that you disproportionately focus on black perpetrators. In case you forgot, you stated:



You statement is false by the facts. There is undeniably NOT more black crime to talk about. If our country only had one black person and he committed 40% of the crimes in the country, you would still be wrong. Therefore, when you post only about black crime, you are showing a clear bias which absolutely does not reflect the factual numbers posted here. You are implying that somehow black crime is more discussion worthy than crimes committed by any other race. If you don't post anything about white crime, or asian crime, etc., then by what definition of "ignoring" are you not ignoring it?

I explained it pretty clearly in the post above.

[bu villain]

I explained it pretty clearly in the post above.

Yep, I read it again. You do a good job of explaining that you see crime committed by blacks in cities as more alarming than other crime. At least you are admitting it now instead of pretending your concern has nothing to do with race. And you are still factually wrong that there is more black crime to talk about. I think what you mean to say is "there is more black crime that YOU want to talk about."

[Sinfix_15]

Yep, I read it again. You do a good job of explaining that you see crime committed by blacks in cities as more alarming than other crime. At least you are admitting it now instead of pretending your concern has nothing to do with race. And you are still factually wrong that there is more black crime to talk about. I think what you mean to say is "there is more black crime that YOU want to talk about."

I explained it pretty clearly. If you dont get it, im sorry.

[bu villain]

I explained it pretty clearly. If you dont get it, im sorry.

No, you were quite clear. I definitely get it now.

[Sinfix_15]

No, you were quite clear. I definitely get it now.

Good deal.

[Sinfix_15]

An analysis of ‘single offender victimization figures’ from the FBI for 2007 finds blacks committed 433,934 crimes against whites, eight times the 55,685 whites committed against blacks. Interracial rape is almost exclusively black on white — with 14,000 assaults on white women by African Americans in 2007. Not one case of a white sexual assault on a black female was found in the FBI study.

Though blacks are outnumbered 5-to-1 in the population by whites, they commit eight times as many crimes against whites as the reverse. By those 2007 numbers, a black male was 40 times as likely to assault a white person as the reverse.

If interracial crime is the ugliest manifestation of racism, what does this tell us about where racism really resides — in America?

And if the FBI stats for 2007 represent an average year since the Tawana Brawley rape-hoax of 1987, over one-third of a million white women have been sexually assaulted by black males since 1987 — with no visible protest from the civil rights leadership.

[.blank cd]

An analysis of ‘single offender victimization figures’ from the FBI for 2007 finds blacks committed 433,934 crimes against whites, eight times the 55,685 whites committed against blacks. Interracial rape is almost exclusively black on white — with 14,000 assaults on white women by African Americans in 2007. Not one case of a white sexual assault on a black female was found in the FBI study.

Though blacks are outnumbered 5-to-1 in the population by whites, they commit eight times as many crimes against whites as the reverse. By those 2007 numbers, a black male was 40 times as likely to assault a white person as the reverse.

If interracial crime is the ugliest manifestation of racism, what does this tell us about where racism really resides — in America?

And if the FBI stats for 2007 represent an average year since the Tawana Brawley rape-hoax of 1987, over one-third of a million white women have been sexually assaulted by black males since 1987 — with no visible protest from the civil rights leadership.

So what are you suggesting?

[Sinfix_15]

So what are you suggesting?

That civil rights leaders need to stop looking outward for the cause of the hardships that plague minorities in america.

[bu villain]

If interracial crime is the ugliest manifestation of racism...

But surely you don't think all interracial crime is a manifestation of racism do you?

[bu villain]

That civil rights leaders need to stop looking outward for the cause of the hardships that plague minorities in america.

Because their problems can't come from both, it has to be one or the other?

[Sinfix_15]

But surely you don't think all interracial crime is a manifestation of racism do you?

Civil rights leaders do. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Eric Holder, Obama, the NAACP, the black panthers do.....



Because their problems can't come from both, it has to be one or the other?

Why focus all your energy complaining about a broken tail light when your car has a blown engine?

[bu villain]

Civil rights leaders do. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Eric Holder, Obama, the NAACP, the black panthers do.....

I'm asking about you, not them. It was you who wrote "If interracial crime is the ugliest manifestation of racism, what does this tell us about where racism really resides in America?" was it not?


Why focus all your energy complaining about a broken tail light when your car has a blown engine?

You can't legally drive your car with a broken tail light so you put energy into both. I have in the past posted many examples of black leaders addressing the "inward" problems of the black community so they are not focusing all their energy on the outward ones.

[Sinfix_15]

I'm asking about you, not them. It was you who wrote "If interracial crime is the ugliest manifestation of racism, what does this tell us about where racism really resides in America?" was it not?



You can't legally drive your car with a broken tail light so you put energy into both. I have in the past posted many examples of black leaders addressing the "inward" problems of the black community so they are not focusing all their energy on the outward ones.

I've said before that i believe collectively as a group that black people are the most racist group in america. Even though i'm not shy about making that highly critical statement, it's more of a reprimand of black leadership than it is a desire to blanket label the entire black community. Black leadership manipulates black people and manifests a lot of their problems.

You can sugarcoat it if you want..... but the modern day civil rights leader's primary function is to blame something or someone else or to inject racism into highly visible topics.

[bu villain]

Yes there are many black leaders who inject race unnecessarily into things. I would like you to also recognize that there are other respected black leaders and even some of the ones you mentioned who do address black problems from within. Unfortunately it is the loud outrageous leaders that get more attention from TV and papers because controversy sells. I don't see how acknowledging the nuances and different sides of the situation is "sugarcoating" it. Focusing on a single aspect and then being aggressive and confrontational about it is being no more truthful than sugarcoating the issue.

Again, it was you who brought up those crime statistics and implied it was a result of blacks being racist. Quit using other's faults to justify your own.

[Sinfix_15]

Yes there are many black leaders who inject race unnecessarily into things. I would like you to also recognize that there are other respected black leaders and even some of the ones you mentioned who do address black problems from within. Unfortunately it is the loud outrageous leaders that get more attention from TV and papers because controversy sells. I don't see how acknowledging the nuances and different sides of the situation is "sugarcoating" it. Focusing on a single aspect and then being aggressive and confrontational about it is being no more truthful than sugarcoating the issue.

Again, it was you who brought up those crime statistics and implied it was a result of blacks being racist. Quit using other's faults to justify your own.

There's no fault in telling the truth. I'm condemning civil rights leaders for not accurately describing the situation, you're condemning me because the actual truth is unpleasant.

[bu villain]

There's no fault in telling the truth.

Actually there is if you only tell a small sliver of truth and ignore all the other important and relevant components. Saying George Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed black teenager is the truth, but if that's all you know, the situation will be misunderstood.


I'm condemning civil rights leaders for not accurately describing the situation, you're condemning me because the actual truth is unpleasant.

No that's not why I am condemning you. I even said I agreed that many leaders are uneccesarily injecting race into things.

[Sinfix_15]

Actually there is if you only tell a small sliver of truth and ignore all the other important and relevant components. Saying George Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed black teenager is the truth, but if that's all you know, the situation will be misunderstood.


That's not the "whole truth", but i understand the point. I thought my analogy was spot on..... "complaining about the tail light when the engine is blown"....

white supremacy... racism... things of this nature.... theyre a broken tail light in modern society and the NAACP is that cop who smashes the tail light before giving you a ticket for it being broke.

The "blown engine" is government dependency, culture of victimhood, lack of self responsibility, absence of family and education.

[bu villain]

That's not the "whole truth", but i understand the point.

That is entirely my point. You say many things that are true but you don't tell the "whole truth". It leads to over generalization and over simplification of issues that aren't as black and white as they may seem to you. Then when I try to point out the nuances and shades of grey, you accuse me of sugar coating or defending the indefensible. All I am trying to do is make sure the whole truth is told.

[Sinfix_15]

Democratic leadership is the driving force behind pointing the finger at racism. The backbone of the democratic party is and always has been to manipulate minorities. Ever since black people first step foot in this country, they have been controlled by democrats, whether it be by force or with propaganda. When they had the ability to chain them, they did.... when they were forced to remove the chains, they started controlling them mentally.

The real racism in america is from democratic politicians. The ones who have manipulated and brainwashed black america into thinking that they cant survive without help and assistance. Inherently, black people have the most justification for being angry, but their anger is misguided. White people did not invent slavery and white people did not enslave black people...... the government did, democrats did..... now those same democrats seek to manipulate black america, keep them angry and "throw them off the trail" so to speak. The source of all of the problems is the same party theyve been manipulated into supporting. Democrats think black people cant make it america without welfare, food stamps and government aid....... and they call everyone else the racists.

[Sinfix_15]

That is entirely my point. You say many things that are true but you don't tell the "whole truth". It leads to over generalization and over simplification of issues that aren't as black and white as they may seem to you. Then when I try to point out the nuances and shades of grey, you accuse me of sugar coating or defending the indefensible. All I am trying to do is make sure the whole truth is told.

I say things to contrast what the civil rights leaders say. If they throw an apple, i throw an apple. If they throw a rock, i throw a rock. The same statistics they use to incriminate "white america" are the same statistics you can find x10 to incriminate "black america".

[bu villain]

I say things to contrast what the civil rights leaders say. If they throw an apple, i throw an apple. If they throw a rock, i throw a rock. The same statistics they use to incriminate "white america" are the same statistics you can find x10 to incriminate "black america".

That is exactly the problem I have. By using the tactics you rail against, you are trying to turn two wrongs into right. If you think they use manipulative misleading tactics, don't consistently use those same tactics. Being ironic is not a justification for participation in those wrongs.

[bu villain]

Ever since black people first step foot in this country, they have been controlled by democrats

Blacks didn't start voting for democrats until the 60s.

[Echonova]

By using the tactics you rail against, you are trying to turn two wrongs into right.I learned a long time ago two wrongs don't make a right...


But it usually makes you feel better.

[Sinfix_15]

Blacks didn't start voting for democrats until the 60s.

Black people entered this country to be greeted by slavery. Slavery being a democratic policy of the time. Democrats also wanted to insure that black people could not vote.
When these policies were removed, democrats starting courting black people with bribes. Given their situation in america, it's easy to understand how they were manipulated into taking these bribes. I believe democratic president LBJ once commented on this arrangement. Said he would have black people voting democrat for the next 200 years.... though he did choose more colorful language.

Political history always shows Democrats at the root of racism.... while simultaneously accusing republicans of doing everything that they were.

[bu villain]

Black people entered this country to be greeted by slavery. Slavery being a democratic policy of the time. Democrats also wanted to insure that black people could not vote.
When these policies were removed, democrats starting courting black people with bribes. Given their situation in america, it's easy to understand how they were manipulated into taking these bribes. I believe democratic president LBJ once commented on this arrangement. Said he would have black people voting democrat for the next 200 years.... though he did choose more colorful language.

Political history always shows Democrats at the root of racism.... while simultaneously accusing republicans of doing everything that they were.

Again these are half truths. Yes the majority of slave owners were democrats. The whole truth would include that the democrats from 200 years ago (predominately southerners) would be firmly on the republican side today. At that time, the democrats stood for states rights and strict constitutional adherence. It was the democrat's New Deal policies and the Southern Strategy of the republican party that marked the major shift into the democrat and republic parties we know today. To say the democrats of today are anything like the democrats of per-emancipation is totally misleading.

[Sinfix_15]

Again these are half truths. Yes the majority of slave owners were democrats. The whole truth would include that the democrats from 200 years ago (predominately southerners) would be firmly on the republican side today. At that time, the democrats stood for states rights and strict constitutional adherence. It was the democrat's New Deal policies and the Southern Strategy of the republican party that marked the major shift into the democrat and republic parties we know today. To say the democrats of today are anything like the democrats of per-emancipation is totally misleading.

The foundation of the democratic support by black people is a combination of the democratic party convincing black people that they cant make it without government assistance and black people feeling like they cant make it without government assistance. This is why black people are loyal to the democratic party.... it has nothing to do with any principle belief....... theyve been manipulated into thinking the deck is stacked against them and that they cant make it without father government. There was a time when black people collectively were strong, hard working, family oriented, and religious...... that's a far cry from the abortion supporting, anti religious, freedom hating, race baiting democratic party of today.

[bu villain]

You are completely side stepping my call out of your absolutely incorrect categorization of the modern democratic party's policies towards blacks being rooted in the policies of slave owning democrats from 200 years ago.

[.blank cd]

Again these are half truths. Yes the majority of slave owners were democrats. The whole truth would include that the democrats from 200 years ago (predominately southerners) would be firmly on the republican side today. At that time, the democrats stood for states rights and strict constitutional adherence. It was the democrat's New Deal policies and the Southern Strategy of the republican party that marked the major shift into the democrat and republic parties we know today. To say the democrats of today are anything like the democrats of pre-emancipation is totally misleading.

I've tried to explain party shifting to this forum numbers of times. You're spinning your wheels.

All Democrats = Evil racists

All republicans = bastions of true American patriotism and freedom

That's what people have been force fed and that's all they'll believe even in the face of hard facts.

[Sinfix_15]

I've tried to explain party shifting to this forum numbers of times. You're spinning your wheels.

All Democrats = Evil racists

All republicans = bastions of true American patriotism and freedom

That's what people have been force fed and that's all they'll believe even in the face of hard facts.

Nope. Politics do not work in the left right paradigm that you seem to think it does.

Criticizing a democrat =/= complimenting a republican

[bu villain]

It's so bizarre though because it's not as if there is any debate among historians about this.

[Sinfix_15]

You are completely side stepping my call out of your absolutely incorrect categorization of the modern democratic party's policies towards blacks being rooted in the policies of slave owning democrats from 200 years ago.

I agree with you.... and i said that in my original post.

The democrats of today are not the same as the slave owners.....

Those democrats physically owned slaves, these democrats mentally own slaves. I agree.... theyre completely different.

[bu villain]

Overall policy wise, do you think modern democrats are the political descendants of the original democrats?

[Sinfix_15]

Overall policy wise, do you think modern democrats are the political descendants of the original democrats?

Yes.

[bu villain]

That's exactly what I am disagreeing about, not about whether modern democrats own slaves. As I stated before, the democrats at that time were southern, strong state's rights advocates, and strict constitutionalists. Those policies are associated with the Republican/Libertarian parties today, certainly not the Democratic party. Which part of that do you disagree with or are you saying those were not the defining features of Democrats 200 years ago?

[Sinfix_15]

That's exactly what I am disagreeing about, not about whether modern democrats own slaves. As I stated before, the democrats at that time were southern, strong state's rights advocates, and strict constitutionalists. Those policies are associated with the Republican/Libertarian parties today, certainly not the Democratic party. Which part of that do you disagree with or are you saying those were not the defining features of Democrats 200 years ago?

What you just said is a contradiction. Democrats thought the government had the right to enslave people.... there's nothing libertarian about that. The democratic party is what it always has been.

[bu villain]

What you just said is a contradiction. Democrats thought the government had the right to enslave people.... there's nothing libertarian about that.

You are aware that states rights were the reason they thought they could enslave people right? How can you continuously just pick the parts that fit your narrative and ignore the rest. Yes, the democrats at that time believed slavery should be legal. They also believe each state should be able to decide that for themselves. You can't say modern democrats are the same because they believe in slavery (more than a little debateable) and then ignore the states rights issue. You have to look at all the issues and compare them to the modern parties, you can't just pick one and decide based on that.


The democratic party is what it always has been.

Good luck convincing historians of that.

[Sinfix_15]

You are aware that states rights were the reason they thought they could enslave people right? How can you continuously just pick the parts that fit your narrative and ignore the rest. Yes, the democrats at that time believed slavery should be legal. They also believe each state should be able to decide that for themselves. You can't say modern democrats are the same because they believe in slavery (more than a little debateable) and then ignore the states rights issue. You have to look at all the issues and compare them to the modern parties, you can't just pick one and decide based on that.



Good luck convincing historians of that.


The founding principles of the democratic party were the same then as they are today. You're attempting to dilute that fact. Saying that they believed in slavery because it was a state right is absolutely ridiculous.... no, they believed in slavery and then they argued it however they could.

Give me a round about year where this "democrat - republican jersey switch" took place.

[bu villain]

The founding principles of the democratic party were the same then as they are today. You're attempting to dilute that fact. Saying that they believed in slavery because it was a state right is absolutely ridiculous.... no, they believed in slavery and then they argued it however they could.

No they are not. I stated the founding principles of states' rights and strict constitutionalism. What do you think were the founding principles? Slavery?


Give me a round about year where this "democrat - republican jersey switch" took place.

It didn't happen in one year. The parties evolved a lot over time as they continue to today. However you must of missed the post on the last page where I stated:


It was the democrat's New Deal policies and the Southern Strategy of the republican party that marked the major shift into the democrat and republic parties we know today.

[.blank cd]

The founding principles of the democratic party were the same then as they are today. You're attempting to dilute that fact. Saying that they believed in slavery because it was a state right is absolutely ridiculous.... no, they believed in slavery and then they argued it however they could.

*[citation needed]

[.blank cd]

Don't tell him when. He's not gonna learn unless he figures it out for himself

[bu villain]

He won't learn anyways because learning requires acceptance that there is something about which you don't already know. He's never admitted to ignorance about anything.

[.blank cd]

He won't learn anyways because learning requires acceptance that there is something about which you don't already know. He's never admitted to ignorance about anything.

He's not interested in learning. Accepting the fact that democrats haven't always been socially progressive would shake the foundation of everything he thinks he knows.

There's another shift, or schism rather, coming within our lifetimes, probably very shortly.

[Sinfix_15]

Don't tell him when. He's not gonna learn unless he figures it out for himself

point me in the right direction. Before or after the 70s?

[Sinfix_15]

He won't learn anyways because learning requires acceptance that there is something about which you don't already know. He's never admitted to ignorance about anything.

Now we're throwing stones.... that's a great way to get your point across.

[.blank cd]

point me in the right direction. Before or after the 70s?

Before the 70s.

[Sinfix_15]

Before the 70s.

Was lyndon b johnson a democrat or a republican?

[.blank cd]

Was lyndon b johnson a democrat or a republican?

A democrat

[Sinfix_15]

A democrat

a real democrat.... not one of the converts that you're suggesting?

[.blank cd]

a real democrat.... not one of the converts that you're suggesting?

Not suggesting anyone was a "convert"

[Sinfix_15]

Not suggesting anyone was a "convert"

oh... i thought that was the conversation we were having..... democrats were once republicans before they were democrats or something another.

So LBJ is a democrat?

[.blank cd]

oh... i thought that was the conversation we were having..... democrats were once republicans before they were democrats or something another.

So LBJ is a democrat?

Everyone who calls their self a democrat is a democrat. The term means something different now than it did before the mid 1900s. Ideologies shifted.

[Sinfix_15]

Everyone who calls their self a democrat is a democrat. The term means something different now than it did before the mid 1900s. Ideologies shifted.

So you said this ideological shift took place before the 70s.... so was LBJ a real democratic according to the current democratic ideology, or a "closet republican" as you're suggesting the original democrats were?

[bu villain]

Now we're throwing stones.... that's a great way to get your point across.

It wasn't meant as an insult. I really don't think you have ever admitted ignorance about any topic we have discussed on here. You have a strong opinion on everything and have never in my recollection have you changed your mind on any thing. I don't debate with you to change your mind, that would seem to be a futile endeavor. I debate with you because I am still ignorant about many things and hope your different perspective may help me to look at things in different ways.


oh... i thought that was the conversation we were having..... democrats were once republicans before they were democrats or something another.

Not quite. We are discussing how the policies and principles of the parties have changed over time such that they have quite literal adopted each others stances albeit at different points in time. Of course this doesn't apply to every policy either but it does apply to some very core principles.

[bu villain]

So you said this ideological shift took place before the 70s.... so was LBJ a real democratic according to the current democratic ideology, or a "closet republican" as you're suggesting the original democrats were?

The main point is that the names democrat and republican are constantly evolving so a democrat from now is not the same as a democrat from 100 years ago. Same goes for republicans. The idea of someone being a "closet republican" implies some unchanging definition of republican. So the answer to that question depends on which time period of republican values do you want to compare LBJ's values to?

[Sinfix_15]

It wasn't meant as an insult. I really don't think you have ever admitted ignorance about any topic we have discussed on here. You have a strong opinion on everything and have never in my recollection have you changed your mind on any thing. I don't debate with you to change your mind, that would seem to be a futile endeavor. I debate with you because I am still ignorant about many things and hope your different perspective may help me to look at things in different ways.

I'll take that as a compliment.




Not quite. We are discussing how the policies and principles of the parties have changed over time such that they have quite literal adopted each others stances albeit at different points in time. Of course this doesn't apply to every policy either but it does apply to some very core principles.

I feel youre stating the obvious to ignore the obvious. Yes, policies and principles have changed, evolved, flopped over time.... nobody arguing that. I dont believe the political world spun on it's axis as you seem to be suggesting. I see the same faults in the democratic party then as i do now. The republic as it was founded is a beautiful idea. Liberty and freedom are what made this country what it is today. If anything.... republican principles have been diluted by democracy. The evolution of the republican party is from decades of being broken down by the democratic party. Democrats are steady chipping away at liberty. The democratic party wants the government to be the answer to all of your problems. They nudge you into accepting this system by creating the same problems they proclaim they can help you with. Yes.... politics have evolved greatly over the years..... the republic was once a pristine Chevelle, after sitting in democrat salt water for decades, it now is what it is.

[.blank cd]

I feel youre stating the obvious to ignore the obvious. Yes, policies and principles have changed, evolved, flopped over time.... nobody arguing that. I dont believe the political world spun on it's axis as you seem to be suggesting. I see the same faults in the democratic party then as i do now. The republic as it was founded is a beautiful idea. Liberty and freedom are what made this country what it is today. If anything.... republican principles have been diluted by democracy. The evolution of the republican party is from decades of being broken down by the democratic party. Democrats are steady chipping away at liberty. The democratic party wants the government to be the answer to all of your problems. They nudge you into accepting this system by creating the same problems they proclaim they can help you with. Yes.... politics have evolved greatly over the years..... the republic was once a pristine Chevelle, after sitting in democrat salt water for decades, it now is what it is.

So what evidence do you have to support your belief that only democrats are responsible for this "chipping away at liberty" as you call it?

What evidence do you have that the country is in shambles as you say, and democrats are directly responsible? Maybe your evidence will convince me.

[Sinfix_15]

So what evidence do you have to support your belief that only democrats are responsible for this "chipping away at liberty" as you call it?

What evidence do you have that the country is in shambles as you say, and democrats are directly responsible? Maybe your evidence will convince me.

It's not democrats alone. The entire government is rotten. Democrats just bare most of the blame.

[.blank cd]

It's not democrats alone. The entire government is rotten. Democrats just bare most of the blame.

Ok. The evidence you have that democrats bear most of the blame.

[Sinfix_15]

Ok. The evidence you have that democrats bear most of the blame.

Start paying attention. You've been constantly beat over the head with information in this forum. It's too much of a burden to continue spelling everything out for you when i get the impression you're sitting there like this...
http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1xmferwjd1r6hffko1_500.gif

[.blank cd]

Start paying attention. You've been constantly beat over the head with information in this forum. It's too much of a burden to continue spelling everything out for you when i get the impression you're sitting there like this...

So, that means you have no evidence? Or that you want me to believe your personal hatred for Obama and irrational fear of government is all the evidence I should need?

[Echonova]

What evidence do you have that the country is in shambles as you say, and democrats are directly responsible? Maybe your evidence will convince me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o64Fz-KW1Dk




GAME


SET


MATCH


lol J/K

[Sinfix_15]

So, that means you have no evidence? Or that you want me to believe your personal hatred for Obama and irrational fear of government is all the evidence I should need?

so when LBJ said

“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”
“I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

What did he mean? i have an idea of what he was trying to say.... but i also acknowledge that my southern redneck conservative gun loving right wing nut job ideology might make me take it out of context.

So can you explain to me what he was talking about?


Also, apologies to anyone offended by this language, these words are an exact quote from a democratic president.

[Sinfix_15]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o64Fz-KW1Dk




GAME


SET


MATCH


lol J/K

Damn.... Echo is so brilliant that he answered my question before i even asked it.

[Echonova]

Damn.... Echo is so brilliant that he answered my question before i even asked it.Indeed.


Only because I feel like I have to state the obvious... Of course we need a safety net to help the injured, disabled or ill (physical and mental). But for the able-bodied it should not be a way of life. Sure people fall on hard times, need help for a short period of time and it should be there for them. But having 8 babies is not falling on hard times, it's because you fell on a penis too many times. But when you no longer feel any repercussions of any decision you make, in fact you are given more... Well there's no social engineering going on here obviously. But what do the Democrats say every election cycle? "Those nasty Republicans want to cut these programs that you deserve." and voting becomes the entitlement class's "job".

This happened in Clayton Co. Georgia when a glitch in the system cut some peoples off their "entitlements"... For a day. The office was swamped.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ufk7IXdxc-c

The only person that should be in that office is the lady with cancer.

[Elbow]

I ignore this site for a while and the war between Obama and the white supremacist is STILL going. hahaha

[bu villain]

I feel youre stating the obvious to ignore the obvious. Yes, policies and principles have changed, evolved, flopped over time.... nobody arguing that. I dont believe the political world spun on it's axis as you seem to be suggesting. I see the same faults in the democratic party then as i do now.

Was the democratic party founded on state's rights and strict constitutional adherence? Are those principles still the core of the Democratic party? If the answer to the first is yes, but the second no, then yes their core principles did "spin on their axis". If the answers are not yes and no, respectively, then what are they?

[Sinfix_15]

I ignore this site for a while and the war between Obama and the white supremacist is STILL going. hahaha

Only a mentally challenged moron would see it that way.

[Sinfix_15]

Was the democratic party founded on state's rights and strict constitutional adherence? Are those principles still the core of the Democratic party? If the answer to the first is yes, but the second no, then yes their core principles did "spin on their axis". If the answers are not yes and no, respectively, then what are they?

The democratic party was founded on state's rights.... more specifically, government's rights. No, they were not founded on strict constitutional adherence. They were founded on selective constitutional adherence. The democratic party doesnt believe that all men are equal. I feel that's an obvious statement since they did not view african americans as men, but it goes even further than that.... they do not view common men as equals to government.

oh wow.... sounds like the same democratic party of today doesnt it????

[.blank cd]

The democratic party was founded on state's rights.... more specifically, government's rights. No, they were not founded on strict constitutional adherence. They were founded on selective constitutional adherence.

oh wow.... sounds like the same democratic party of today doesnt it????

Source?

[Sinfix_15]

Source?

The source is common sense.

Do you feel african americans had constitutional rights during slavery? Was the democratic party defending the constitutional rights of the people or relentlessly fighting for the state's right to continue oppressing a portion of it's people?

[.blank cd]

The source is common sense.

That's all we needed to know

Good thing policy is handled by people with actual knowledge of policy and history, and not your own personal version of "common sense"

[Sinfix_15]

That's all we needed to know

Good thing policy is handled by people with actual knowledge of policy and history, and not your own personal version of "common sense"

I am talking about history........

how you perceive history is the "common sense" part.

Hard to argue that a party is for constitutional rights when they do not view a portion of the population are actual men. Did i miss the part of the bill of rights where it designated that rights were white only ?

[.blank cd]

I am talking about history........

how you perceive history is the "common sense" part.

Hard to argue that a party is for constitutional rights when they do not view a portion of the population are actual men. Did i miss the part of the bill of rights where it designated that rights were white only ?

You don't "perceive" history. History is very well documented down to that point. It's not what you think happened, its what actually happened.

Your perception is only your opinion. I'm talking about real documented facts.

[Sinfix_15]

You don't "perceive" history. History is very well documented down to that point. It's not what you think happened, its what actually happened.

Your perception is only your opinion. I'm talking about real documented facts.

Real documented facts = Democrats voted to enslave people. Democrats voted to not give people rights. Democrats founded the KKK. Democrats founded the black panther party.


An example of perception and opinion would be that you believe the parties had a ideological shift and are different today than they were then.


So i agree.... lets stick to facts.

[.blank cd]

An example of perception and opinion would be that you believe the parties had a ideological shift and are different today than they were then..

This isn't perception or opinion. This is what actually happened.

[Echonova]

Was the democratic party founded on state's rights and strict constitutional adherence? Are those principles still the core of the Democratic party? If the answer to the first is yes, but the second no, then yes their core principles did "spin on their axis". If the answers are not yes and no, respectively, then what are they?How does Obamacare fit in with state's rights and the constitution? "Universal Healthcare" has been a hallmark of the Democrat party for decades.


Serious question. I don't see it, maybe I'm looking at it wrong.

1.) State's have no choice. They cannot opt-out.

2.) Supreme Court upheld it being constitutional... As a tax. Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution states "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.". All tax legislation has to come from the House, but Obamacare started in the Senate. Therefore (in my mind at least) When the SP handed down that ruling it should have gone back to square one and passed the way the Constitution mandates. Being strict constitutionalists why didn't they do that?

[.blank cd]

How does Obamacare fit in with state's rights and the constitution? "Universal Healthcare" has been a hallmark of the Democrat party for decades.


Serious question. I don't see it, maybe I'm looking at it wrong.

1.) State's have no choice. They cannot opt-out.States can and have opted out of Medicare expansion.


2.) Supreme Court upheld it being constitutional... As a tax. Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution states "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.". All tax legislation has to come from the House, but Obamacare started in the Senate. Therefore (in my mind at least) When the SP handed down that ruling it should have gone back to square one and passed the way the Constitution mandates. Being strict constitutionalists why didn't they do that?

ACA started in the house as HR3560.

But that's off of the scope of the question. Do you believe party ideology has swapped since the mid 1900s?

[Sinfix_15]

This isn't perception or opinion. This is what actually happened.

So based on your perception of an ideological switch, you're able to disregard the entire voting history of the democratic party.


DAYUM............................................. .....

The democrats have truly mastered the art of brainwashing. What they've managed to accomplish would only be bested by KFC brainwashing chickens to just walk into their kitchen and jump in the fryer.

[.blank cd]

So based on your perception of an ideological switch, you're able to disregard the entire voting history of the democratic party.

Once again, its not anyone's perception. It's something that actually happened.

This is what we meant about your unwillingness to learn. The facts go against everything you think you know. Time after time.

[Sinfix_15]

Once again, its not anyone's perception. It's something that actually happened.

This is what we meant about your unwillingness to learn. The facts go against everything you think you know. Time after time.

So ideology is something quantifiable that can be measured?

and then based on this measurement of ideology, we should disregard the actual voting record of the democratic party?

i think i've heard this argument before...........


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=2g5Hz17C4is

[bu villain]

How does Obamacare fit in with state's rights and the constitution? "Universal Healthcare" has been a hallmark of the Democrat party for decades.


Serious question. I don't see it, maybe I'm looking at it wrong.

1.) State's have no choice. They cannot opt-out.

2.) Supreme Court upheld it being constitutional... As a tax. Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution states "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.". All tax legislation has to come from the House, but Obamacare started in the Senate. Therefore (in my mind at least) When the SP handed down that ruling it should have gone back to square one and passed the way the Constitution mandates. Being strict constitutionalists why didn't they do that?

That's exactly my point. Democrats were originally all about state's rights. Modern democrats don't hold to that ideology the way they did 100+ years ago. Therefore, modern democrats are very different than their fore bearers. Sinflix is arguing that it's the same party as it has always been.


So based on your perception of an ideological switch, you're able to disregard the entire voting history of the democratic party.

Disregard, no, just differentiate between the member of a group during the past and modern times. Just because a group bears the same name as they did decades or even hundreds of years before doesn't mean their principles and goals are exactly the same. Are modern Romans the same as first century Romans? I mean c'mon they both call themselves Romans and speak Italian right?

[Sinfix_15]

That's exactly my point. Democrats were originally all about state's rights. Modern democrats don't hold to that ideology the way they did 100+ years ago. Therefore, modern democrats are very different than their fore bearers. Sinflix is arguing that it's the same party as it has always been.



They are the same....... they just expanded their belief. They initially wanted the state's to have the right to control african americans, now they want the federal government to have the right to control everyone.

[.blank cd]

They are the same....... they just expanded their belief. They initially wanted the state's to have the right to control african americans, now they want the federal government to have the right to control everyone.

Why do you believe that even when documented evidence shows the opposite? Is it just a belief you have trouble letting go of?

[bu villain]

They are the same....... they just expanded their belief. They initially wanted the state's to have the right to control african americans, now they want the federal government to have the right to control everyone.

Oh, so federal rights are just expanded state's rights. I'm sure if you explain that to a Libertarian they will totally agree.

[bu villain]

I also forgot to ask. Since Republicans were also not against slavery up until the mid 1800's, should I also judge modern Republicans by that as well?

[Sinfix_15]

Why do you believe that even when documented evidence shows the opposite? Is it just a belief you have trouble letting go of?

Show me this documented evidence that republicans and democrats changed jerseys at some point in the 1900s.

[Sinfix_15]

I also forgot to ask. Since Republicans were also not against slavery up until the mid 1800's, should I also judge modern Republicans by that as well?

Yes, absolutely. You're sadly mistaken if you believe my criticism of democrats is an endorsement of republicans.

[Sinfix_15]

Oh, so federal rights are just expanded state's rights. I'm sure if you explain that to a Libertarian they will totally agree.

You cant see the forest for the trees.

[bu villain]

Yes, absolutely. You're sadly mistaken if you believe my criticism of democrats is an endorsement of republicans.

I never said it was an endorsement, if I already knew the answer, I wouldn't have asked the question.


You cant see the forest for the trees.

That's not a response to my point. Either expanding state's rights to federal rights is a major shift in policy or it's not. You seem to think it's not. I and probably every Libertarian think it is.

[.blank cd]

Show me this documented evidence that republicans and democrats changed jerseys at some point in the 1900s.

Start here and work your way out.

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

[.blank cd]

That's not a response to my point. Either expanding state's rights to federal rights is a major shift in policy or it's not. You seem to think it's not. I and probably every Libertarian think it is.

You and everyone else who didn't have their head up their ass during history classes. Lol.

[Sinfix_15]

I never said it was an endorsement, if I already knew the answer, I wouldn't have asked the question.



That's not a response to my point. Either expanding state's rights to federal rights is a major shift in policy or it's not. You seem to think it's not. I and probably every Libertarian think it is.

My response was fitting. You cant see the forest for the trees. You're saying the democratic party used to be for state's rights and now they're not. This is your example given to show how the democratic party has changed. Look at the connection between the stances the democratic party has taken throughout history. They were for state's rights when the federal government wanted to abolish slavery and state's didnt. Now in present day, theyre against state's rights and in support of the federal government because it's now the federal government attacking liberty. The common denominator is that the democratic party has always sided with control over the people in one form or another. Their methods are also consistent, racial and class division has always been the engine of the democratic party.

[Sinfix_15]

You and everyone else who didn't have their head up their ass during history classes. Lol.

Why dont you believe in the bible? it's "history" ?

[bu villain]

My response was fitting. You cant see the forest for the trees. You're saying the democratic party used to be for state's rights and now they're not. This is your example given to show how the democratic party has changed. Look at the connection between the stances the democratic party has taken throughout history. They were for state's rights when the federal government wanted to abolish slavery and state's didnt. Now in present day, theyre against state's rights and in support of the federal government because it's now the federal government attacking liberty. The common denominator is that the democratic party has always sided with control over the people in one form or another. Their methods are also consistent, racial and class division has always been the engine of the democratic party.

Don't you have the same tunnel vision when you are only looking at Democratic policies through the single issue of slavery/blacks. 100+ years ago, how was the democratic party for attacking liberty besides slavery? If you don't think the political parties' policies changed drastically, then when did Northerners and Southerners "switch jerseys"? Certainly you aren't denying the major switch of geographic location of each party's supporters.

[Sinfix_15]

Don't you have the same tunnel vision when you are only looking at Democratic policies through the single issue of slavery/blacks. 100+ years ago, how was the democratic party for attacking liberty besides slavery? If you don't think the political parties' policies changed drastically, then when did Northerners and Southerners "switch jerseys"? Certainly you aren't denying the major switch of geographic location of each party's supporters.

I was unaware that party supporters had a designated geographic location. So because republican support is (wrongfully) characterized as a southern thing, we now blame every crime that ever happened in the south on republicans? that makes sense.... aside from not making any sense.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/1932_electoral_map.svg/792px-1932_electoral_map.svg.png

[.blank cd]

Why dont you believe in the bible? it's "history" ?

The bible is part of history. What's your point?

[Sinfix_15]

The bible is part of history. What's your point?

so why do you not believe it? it's history.... why dont you go educate yourself. Here's a good place to start....

http://www.biblefinance.org/files/Henrick511/Bible.jpg

[.blank cd]

so why do you not believe it? it's history.... why dont you go educate yourself. Here's a good place to start..

I've read it before. Im very familiar with it. Just because I don't believe the allegories are literal doesnt mean I dismiss the whole thing. It's very much a part of history as the constitution or the Magna Carta

[Sinfix_15]

I've read it before. Im very familiar with it. Just because I don't believe the allegories are literal doesnt mean I dismiss the whole thing. It's very much a part of history as the constitution or the Magna Carta

Why is it ok for you to question the validity of history? So history that supports your belief system is 100% accurate, yet history that does not support your belief system is open to be questioned?

[bu villain]

I was unaware that party supporters had a designated geographic location. So because republican support is (wrongfully) characterized as a southern thing, we now blame every crime that ever happened in the south on republicans? that makes sense.... aside from not making any sense.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/1932_electoral_map.svg/792px-1932_electoral_map.svg.png

Are you seriously arguing that historically, that geographically speaking the areas of the country who support each party has not switched?

[.blank cd]

Why is it ok for you to question the validity of history? So history that supports your belief system is 100% accurate, yet history that does not support your belief system is open to be questioned?

I don't understand what your getting at. I'm not questioning the validity of history at all.

[Sinfix_15]

Are you seriously arguing that historically, that geographically speaking the areas of the country who support each party has not switched?

What does this have to do with Washington DC or the principles of a party? You're stating the obvious to ignore the obvious.... both parties have evolved, every state in the united states has evolved.... the parties still are what they are and always were.

[Sinfix_15]

I don't understand what your getting at. I'm not questioning the validity of history at all.

You're questioning my understanding of history because i perceive events in a different way than you. So i'm throwing that same argument back at you to show it's faults, using the bible as an example. The bible is history..... it's not a science fiction book.... maybe you do not understand that history and need to further educate yourself.

[bu villain]

What does this have to do with Washington DC or the principles of a party? You're stating the obvious to ignore the obvious.... both parties have evolved, every state in the united states has evolved.... the parties still are what they are and always were.

If the parties are what they are and always were, why did the geographical location of their voting base change so drastically over time? Is there some cultural shift in those areas that explain it? Of course the historian would answer that it switched because the parties principles significantly changed, not the core beliefs of people in those locations, but I want to hear your answer.

[Sinfix_15]

If the parties are what they are and always were, why did the geographical location of their voting base change so drastically over time? Is there some cultural shift in those areas that explain it? Of course the historian would answer that it switched because the parties principles significantly changed, not the core beliefs of people in those locations, but I want to hear your answer.

Party principles evolved somewhat naturally. I've already answered this question. The evolution of the republican party is a result of negotiating terms of surrender with the democratic party. It's an uphill battle trying to fight against a party who is willing to buy votes. Forefathers already addressed this.... "as soon as people realize they can vote themselves money, that will be the end of the republic". The core principle of the democratic party that matters most to me is that they believe a majority can control a minority. They do not believe in individual freedom. That belief stands true today the same as it always has.

[.blank cd]

You're questioning my understanding of history because i perceive events in a different way than you. So i'm throwing that same argument back at you to show it's faults, using the bible as an example. The bible is history..... it's not a science fiction book.... maybe you do not understand that history and need to further educate yourself.

You're throwing a straw man back at me. You're perceiving something that's incorrect based on your own biases. There's no dispute anywhere that the ideologies of the Democratic Party has flipped. The bible is part of history, its not literal history.

[Sinfix_15]

You're throwing a straw man back at me. You're perceiving something that's incorrect based on your own biases. There's no dispute anywhere that the ideologies of the Democratic Party has flipped. The bible is part of history, its not literal history.

Says you....... the bible is literal history. It's not a collection of fabricated stories, it's a recollection of actual events. Everyone who didnt have their head up their ass during bible study knows this. Your belief that the bible is not literal history is incorrect and based on your own bias.

[.blank cd]

WTF are you talking about? You're making the argument of a 10 year old kid.

[Sinfix_15]

WTF are you talking about? You're making the argument of a 10 year old kid.

I'm duplicating your argument. You are exactly right.

[bu villain]

The core principle of the democratic party that matters most to me is that they believe a majority can control a minority. They do not believe in individual freedom. That belief stands true today the same as it always has.

So if that is their core principle and it is unchanged, I still don't understand why the support for the party changed so drastically geographically? It doesn't seem like other evolutions would change that since their core principle did not evolve according to you. Are you saying people didn't care about their core principle?

[Sinfix_15]

So if that is their core principle and it is unchanged, I still don't understand why the support for the party changed so drastically geographically? It doesn't seem like other evolutions would change that since their core principle did not evolve according to you. Are you saying people didn't care about their core principle?

That's exactly what i am saying. I dont put huge significance on the geographical location of a voting base. There's too many variables to consider. The political parties core principles remain somewhat relative in my eyes. They have evolved naturally, but the parties never spun on their axis. I feel the cultural shift and the empowerment of the democrat party is based on a misunderstanding that is vastly manipulated by the democratic party. The republican party is blamed for the actions of a free market, while democrats play the hero for their regulating of the free market. That ideology falls in line with the original founding principles of the democratic party. Democrats have always leaned on the side of government control, in one way or another.

Democrats are constantly using what some people do with their freedom as an excuse to attack freedom itself.

[.blank cd]

I'm duplicating your argument. You are exactly right.

I'm not arguing anything. I'm stating facts.

[.blank cd]

That's exactly what i am saying. I dont put huge significance on the geographical location of a voting base. There's too many variables to consider. The political parties core principles remain somewhat relative in my eyes. They have evolved naturally, but the parties never spun on their axis. I feel the cultural shift and the empowerment of the democrat party is based on a misunderstanding that is vastly manipulated by the democratic party. The republican party is blamed for the actions of a free market, while democrats play the hero for their regulating of the free market. That ideology falls in line with the original founding principles of the democratic party. Democrats have always leaned on the side of government control, in one way or another.

Democrats are constantly using what some people do with their freedom as an excuse to attack freedom itself.

So how would you explain the civil rights act of 64, through your eyes?

[Sinfix_15]

So how would you explain the civil rights act of 64, through your eyes?

Signed into law by democratic president Lyndon B Johnson.....

In his own words.... that i've already quoted.....

“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

Irony.... in defense of democrats, you mention a law that more democrats voted against.

[.blank cd]

What about the civil rights act of 57?

[Echonova]

Holy crap I missed a lot today whist working to fund the entitlement machine...



But I enjoyed reading it.

[Sinfix_15]

What about the civil rights act of 57?

Filibustered by democrats.....

[Sinfix_15]

Careful blank..... you might need to slow down, this journey throughout history may pull the rug out from under you.

[.blank cd]

Careful blank..... you might need to slow down, this journey throughout history may pull the rug out from under you.

Don't worry about me. I already know what happened. I'm trying to teach you something you don't understand.

[Sinfix_15]

Don't worry about me. I already know what happened. I'm trying to teach you something you don't understand.

That all of the crimes and racial injustice that the democratic party committed throughout history was really because they were republicans..... and this in some way exonerates them from their crimes and racial injustice of today also.


got it.


Where i seem to be lost though is this...... at what point during this 100+ year fiasco of government crimes against humanity should i have developed trust in government?

[Echonova]

Random video.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs

[Echonova]

Random link.


Hundreds Of Unused Government Cars Are Just Sitting Around D.C. (http://jalopnik.com/hundreds-of-unused-government-cars-are-just-sitting-aro-1179240576?utm_campaign=socialflow_jalopnik_facebo ok&utm_source=jalopnik_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow)

[Echonova]

Random image.



http://i1084.photobucket.com/albums/j402/Echonova2/575199_564640310260123_139487664_n_zps88af1058.jpg

[Echonova]

Random fact.





















None of the above was random.

[.blank cd]

Rush Limbaugh would be proud.

[.blank cd]

Random image.



http://i1084.photobucket.com/albums/j402/Echonova2/575199_564640310260123_139487664_n_zps88af1058.jpg

Historical.

[Sinfix_15]

Rush Limbaugh would be proud.

Lot of substance in this post.



#10

[Sinfix_15]

Random image.



http://i1084.photobucket.com/albums/j402/Echonova2/575199_564640310260123_139487664_n_zps88af1058.jpg

Mistake.

[Echonova]

Historical.Indeed. No denying that.


Mistake.Once is a mistake, twice is intentional.


My one word would be... Loves to take vacations.




































Oh wait. I'll get back to you on that.

[Echonova]

Thin-skinned, man-child President that's an absolute failure when it comes to foreign policy????
































Shit. Still not one word.

[Sinfix_15]

Random image.



http://i1084.photobucket.com/albums/j402/Echonova2/575199_564640310260123_139487664_n_zps88af1058.jpg

http://woody.typepad.com/files/obama_2012_grievance_report.gif

[Elbow]

Sinfix negative repped me.

LMFAO

[Sinfix_15]

Sinfix negative repped me.

LMFAO

Because you're an ignorant faggot.

[Elbow]

Because you're an ignorant faggot.

Oh? lol Explain, was it because of my joke? I hurt your feelings?

[Elbow]

Historical.

lol....

[.blank cd]

I hurt your feelings?

That happens a lot. If you look in his signature, he's got a hurt feelings counter.

[Sinfix_15]

That happens a lot. If you look in his signature, he's got a hurt feelings counter.

Signature is to keep a record of the village idiot.

[Sinfix_15]

Oh? lol Explain, was it because of my joke? I hurt your feelings?

Explain? how should i know why you are the way you are.... maybe your dad abused you when you were little, who knows...