RE: Close call in Singapore

RE: Close call in Singapore (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/8/2016 10:38:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler Ok, let's assume the easily accessible information on confederate slave soldiers is propaganda, do you have any citations for your claims? And are you admitting the Louisiana home gaurd saw no major combat? A The blacks in the Confederate army were not slaves. The Confederate government was very clear that slaves would NOT be pressed into service. You insist that the things I know to be a fact are only propaganda as the truth undermines your world view. B The LA home guard never left LA, how does that negate their existance. The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Native LA did well, fought well, and, in disproportionately large numbers, died well. Along with the 54th and 55th Massachusetts, 1st and 2nd Kansas Colored, 20th USCT...some few others...who all were by and large free born. BamaD's Harvard article states the LA did not fight as confederates and switched sides as soon as they were offered. Additionally, it has a quotation of a slave that was forced to fight by the north Yes, the Confederate Army rejected them. So they did not "switch sides" as they were never on the Confederate side officially. General Butler's orders were to enlist ONLY freedmen. However, meh, it was war. http://www.historynet.com/americas-civil-war-louisiana-native-guards.htm I am not exactly sure what you are trying to prove? That black freedmen were bad soldiers? That blacks were not "real" soldiers? (Yes, they did end up doing a lot of fatigue work.) Racial tensions? Heh. Let me state this plainly: As near as I can tell, racial tolerance in the armed forces has improved since Vietnam despite, not because of, the race relations and EO programs inflicted on us. He is also trying to claim that there is far more racial tension in the south than in the north. My personal experience refutes this Idea completely. I have lived in MO, IL, TX, CA, and MD and can assure you that there is less racial tension here than in most parts of the country. A brief history of racial tension in the US: Every civilization on earth employed slavery, with no none feeling the need to justify it. The Christians of the Enlightenment, were the first, and _only_ civilization to see that it was wrong, and seek to abolish it. To justify segregation, the inferiority of blacks was argued. But much of the argument was religious, God allegedly not wanting different groups to intermarry. And much was merely human: they are different, therefore they are inferior, a claim common to all people in all eras. After civil rights, the incidence of blacks using drugs, being members of gangs, and living on welfare increased sharply. Those increases correlate well with the efforts of liberals to help black people. The claim that black lives aren't valued as white lives are "systematically and institutionally" is weaselly evasion. There being no recognized standards of "systematically" or "institutionally" valuing anything, any situation can be claimed as showing black lives are more, less, or equally valued. E.g., black poverty shows we value blacks less, because they are in poverty. Or that we value them more, because we spend more in welfare and anti-poverty measures per black than we do per white. #BlackLivesMatter got started because of police killings of blacks. Blacks are disproportionately killed by the police, about 1.5X their share of the population. Blacks are also disproportionately killers of police, about 2.4x their share of the population. Blacks are also a minority of those the police kill, about one fourth to one third of all police killiings. And blacks are murdered by other blacks at around 13x to 14x the rate police kill them. It's not clear why any of this occurs. It's not clear why the police in the U.S. kill so many citizens. It's not clear why blacks are killed at higher than their numbers in the general population. It's not clear that efforts to lower the number of blacks killed by police will result in a net saving of black lives: there's some evidence that less brutal policing will result in a higher murder rate, increasing the number of blacks who die by violence. But one thing is clear. Accusing hundreds of millions of white Americans of being bad people because they don't know how to improve a complicated situation won't help anyone except those who profit by setting Americans at each other's throats. Where do you get your statistics? According to the FBI, 44% of those killed by police over the last 30 years were white, though according to the 2010 census, those claiming only white descent make up 72.4% of the population. This means that white people were just over 3.3 times less likely to be shot Though this is only a story I heard (which around here seems to be hard evidence), a person had a store and we're paying protection money to the bloods or crips, I forget which one. The place was robbed when they were closed. Police took a report and accomplished nothing. The gang that was being payed off found the goods and money and said that person would never bother them again. If racist corrupt cops are the norm, organized crime can sometimes provide justice. It worked for the Italian mob, it's worked for Pablo Escabar, why can't it work in black neighborhoods An easy way to relieve some racial tension would be convicting obviously guilty police officers. In 2014, only .1% percent of federal cases were not indicted, 10% of those cases not indicted were police killing civilians. Adding hood cameras to patrol cars lowered hit and runs on officers. Badge cameras have been shown to lower police abuse charges by more than half, and also allow an easy conviction against those police witness committing a crime 52% of violent crime is committed by black people for what ever reason. No I am not saying it is about their skin color, there are many factors. However this indicates that blacks are underepresented in shooting, not the other way around, you are comparing the shootings to the wrong stat.

BamaD -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/8/2016 10:44:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler I was checking the bias of the New York Observer As for the article from Harvard, why did you bring it up? It counters almost every claim you made one after the other When it stated clearly that there were indeed black Confederates? That was my point. Anything you don't like is biased. The Harvard article you brought up stated that there were 3,000-10,000 black confederates soldiers. The Union had between 150,000 and 200,000 That same article refuted your claim in post 28 and 30 that there were not slave soldiers in the confederacy Idk why you would ever bring up that Harvard article. I had a little laugh because I had read that article before And you never brought proof for your other claims A I never said that there were as many blacks in the Confereate army as in the Union army, so that crushing point doesn't change anything except that you have confirmed that there were black Confederates. B I stated, and if you knew everything about America as you seem to think you do, you would already know that it was the clearly stated policy of the south not to use slave as troops, after all who would arm slaves. On the other hand there has never been a military policy that has not been ignorned at some point so again you are fighting shadows. Had you made a study of the period more than to prove to your satisfaction how terrible we are you would know that the slavery issue was part of a greater conflict over economics and the role of government. A: I said the American Civil War was a racial issue, you argued that was not true B: In post 28 you said "And before you say it the South did not use slave troops" I proved you wrong about a half dozen times. You chose not to provide proof another half dozen times. I understand the economics of the south; it requires continued near slave labor necessary for certain crops. That's why the Great Recession and the decrease in illegal immigrants increased food prices. It's also why those working on farms arent required to be paid a minimum wage when certain necessities are provided. Would you like to talk tariff influence on the causes of the civil war? "And before you say it" I will laugh at you if you call a tariff an income tax The policy of the south was not to use slave troops, if you find a slave who was forced into service that does not change the policy. You also fail to understand, or ignore that the northern economy was also at issue in 1860. It never occured to me that tarriffs were an income tax. The were a tool to force Southerners to buy from northern manufactuerers at whatever price the Northerners wanted, making the south the economic slaves of the north.

DominantWrestler -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/8/2016 11:05:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler Ok, let's assume the easily accessible information on confederate slave soldiers is propaganda, do you have any citations for your claims? And are you admitting the Louisiana home gaurd saw no major combat? A The blacks in the Confederate army were not slaves. The Confederate government was very clear that slaves would NOT be pressed into service. You insist that the things I know to be a fact are only propaganda as the truth undermines your world view. B The LA home guard never left LA, how does that negate their existance. The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Native LA did well, fought well, and, in disproportionately large numbers, died well. Along with the 54th and 55th Massachusetts, 1st and 2nd Kansas Colored, 20th USCT...some few others...who all were by and large free born. BamaD's Harvard article states the LA did not fight as confederates and switched sides as soon as they were offered. Additionally, it has a quotation of a slave that was forced to fight by the north Yes, the Confederate Army rejected them. So they did not "switch sides" as they were never on the Confederate side officially. General Butler's orders were to enlist ONLY freedmen. However, meh, it was war. http://www.historynet.com/americas-civil-war-louisiana-native-guards.htm I am not exactly sure what you are trying to prove? That black freedmen were bad soldiers? That blacks were not "real" soldiers? (Yes, they did end up doing a lot of fatigue work.) Racial tensions? Heh. Let me state this plainly: As near as I can tell, racial tolerance in the armed forces has improved since Vietnam despite, not because of, the race relations and EO programs inflicted on us. He is also trying to claim that there is far more racial tension in the south than in the north. My personal experience refutes this Idea completely. I have lived in MO, IL, TX, CA, and MD and can assure you that there is less racial tension here than in most parts of the country. A brief history of racial tension in the US: Every civilization on earth employed slavery, with no none feeling the need to justify it. The Christians of the Enlightenment, were the first, and _only_ civilization to see that it was wrong, and seek to abolish it. To justify segregation, the inferiority of blacks was argued. But much of the argument was religious, God allegedly not wanting different groups to intermarry. And much was merely human: they are different, therefore they are inferior, a claim common to all people in all eras. After civil rights, the incidence of blacks using drugs, being members of gangs, and living on welfare increased sharply. Those increases correlate well with the efforts of liberals to help black people. The claim that black lives aren't valued as white lives are "systematically and institutionally" is weaselly evasion. There being no recognized standards of "systematically" or "institutionally" valuing anything, any situation can be claimed as showing black lives are more, less, or equally valued. E.g., black poverty shows we value blacks less, because they are in poverty. Or that we value them more, because we spend more in welfare and anti-poverty measures per black than we do per white. #BlackLivesMatter got started because of police killings of blacks. Blacks are disproportionately killed by the police, about 1.5X their share of the population. Blacks are also disproportionately killers of police, about 2.4x their share of the population. Blacks are also a minority of those the police kill, about one fourth to one third of all police killiings. And blacks are murdered by other blacks at around 13x to 14x the rate police kill them. It's not clear why any of this occurs. It's not clear why the police in the U.S. kill so many citizens. It's not clear why blacks are killed at higher than their numbers in the general population. It's not clear that efforts to lower the number of blacks killed by police will result in a net saving of black lives: there's some evidence that less brutal policing will result in a higher murder rate, increasing the number of blacks who die by violence. But one thing is clear. Accusing hundreds of millions of white Americans of being bad people because they don't know how to improve a complicated situation won't help anyone except those who profit by setting Americans at each other's throats. Where do you get your statistics? According to the FBI, 44% of those killed by police over the last 30 years were white, though according to the 2010 census, those claiming only white descent make up 72.4% of the population. This means that white people were just over 3.3 times less likely to be shot Though this is only a story I heard (which around here seems to be hard evidence), a person had a store and we're paying protection money to the bloods or crips, I forget which one. The place was robbed when they were closed. Police took a report and accomplished nothing. The gang that was being payed off found the goods and money and said that person would never bother them again. If racist corrupt cops are the norm, organized crime can sometimes provide justice. It worked for the Italian mob, it's worked for Pablo Escabar, why can't it work in black neighborhoods An easy way to relieve some racial tension would be convicting obviously guilty police officers. In 2014, only .1% percent of federal cases were not indicted, 10% of those cases not indicted were police killing civilians. Adding hood cameras to patrol cars lowered hit and runs on officers. Badge cameras have been shown to lower police abuse charges by more than half, and also allow an easy conviction against those police witness committing a crime 52% of violent crime is committed by black people for what ever reason. No I am not saying it is about their skin color, there are many factors. However this indicates that blacks are underepresented in shooting, not the other way around, you are comparing the shootings to the wrong stat. What the f are you talking about? You are obviously confused. 44% of Americans shot by cops are white. Greater than 70% of Americans are white. That means that white people are less than a third as likely to get shot by cops. Do you get it?

BamaD -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/8/2016 11:13:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler Ok, let's assume the easily accessible information on confederate slave soldiers is propaganda, do you have any citations for your claims? And are you admitting the Louisiana home gaurd saw no major combat? A The blacks in the Confederate army were not slaves. The Confederate government was very clear that slaves would NOT be pressed into service. You insist that the things I know to be a fact are only propaganda as the truth undermines your world view. B The LA home guard never left LA, how does that negate their existance. The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Native LA did well, fought well, and, in disproportionately large numbers, died well. Along with the 54th and 55th Massachusetts, 1st and 2nd Kansas Colored, 20th USCT...some few others...who all were by and large free born. BamaD's Harvard article states the LA did not fight as confederates and switched sides as soon as they were offered. Additionally, it has a quotation of a slave that was forced to fight by the north Yes, the Confederate Army rejected them. So they did not "switch sides" as they were never on the Confederate side officially. General Butler's orders were to enlist ONLY freedmen. However, meh, it was war. http://www.historynet.com/americas-civil-war-louisiana-native-guards.htm I am not exactly sure what you are trying to prove? That black freedmen were bad soldiers? That blacks were not "real" soldiers? (Yes, they did end up doing a lot of fatigue work.) Racial tensions? Heh. Let me state this plainly: As near as I can tell, racial tolerance in the armed forces has improved since Vietnam despite, not because of, the race relations and EO programs inflicted on us. He is also trying to claim that there is far more racial tension in the south than in the north. My personal experience refutes this Idea completely. I have lived in MO, IL, TX, CA, and MD and can assure you that there is less racial tension here than in most parts of the country. A brief history of racial tension in the US: Every civilization on earth employed slavery, with no none feeling the need to justify it. The Christians of the Enlightenment, were the first, and _only_ civilization to see that it was wrong, and seek to abolish it. To justify segregation, the inferiority of blacks was argued. But much of the argument was religious, God allegedly not wanting different groups to intermarry. And much was merely human: they are different, therefore they are inferior, a claim common to all people in all eras. After civil rights, the incidence of blacks using drugs, being members of gangs, and living on welfare increased sharply. Those increases correlate well with the efforts of liberals to help black people. The claim that black lives aren't valued as white lives are "systematically and institutionally" is weaselly evasion. There being no recognized standards of "systematically" or "institutionally" valuing anything, any situation can be claimed as showing black lives are more, less, or equally valued. E.g., black poverty shows we value blacks less, because they are in poverty. Or that we value them more, because we spend more in welfare and anti-poverty measures per black than we do per white. #BlackLivesMatter got started because of police killings of blacks. Blacks are disproportionately killed by the police, about 1.5X their share of the population. Blacks are also disproportionately killers of police, about 2.4x their share of the population. Blacks are also a minority of those the police kill, about one fourth to one third of all police killiings. And blacks are murdered by other blacks at around 13x to 14x the rate police kill them. It's not clear why any of this occurs. It's not clear why the police in the U.S. kill so many citizens. It's not clear why blacks are killed at higher than their numbers in the general population. It's not clear that efforts to lower the number of blacks killed by police will result in a net saving of black lives: there's some evidence that less brutal policing will result in a higher murder rate, increasing the number of blacks who die by violence. But one thing is clear. Accusing hundreds of millions of white Americans of being bad people because they don't know how to improve a complicated situation won't help anyone except those who profit by setting Americans at each other's throats. Where do you get your statistics? According to the FBI, 44% of those killed by police over the last 30 years were white, though according to the 2010 census, those claiming only white descent make up 72.4% of the population. This means that white people were just over 3.3 times less likely to be shot Though this is only a story I heard (which around here seems to be hard evidence), a person had a store and we're paying protection money to the bloods or crips, I forget which one. The place was robbed when they were closed. Police took a report and accomplished nothing. The gang that was being payed off found the goods and money and said that person would never bother them again. If racist corrupt cops are the norm, organized crime can sometimes provide justice. It worked for the Italian mob, it's worked for Pablo Escabar, why can't it work in black neighborhoods An easy way to relieve some racial tension would be convicting obviously guilty police officers. In 2014, only .1% percent of federal cases were not indicted, 10% of those cases not indicted were police killing civilians. Adding hood cameras to patrol cars lowered hit and runs on officers. Badge cameras have been shown to lower police abuse charges by more than half, and also allow an easy conviction against those police witness committing a crime 52% of violent crime is committed by black people for what ever reason. No I am not saying it is about their skin color, there are many factors. However this indicates that blacks are underepresented in shooting, not the other way around, you are comparing the shootings to the wrong stat. What the f are you talking about? You are obviously confused. 44% of Americans shot by cops are white. Greater than 70% of Americans are white. That means that white people are less than a third as likely to get shot by cops. Do you get it? 52% of violent crime. thus 52% of the chances to get shot belong to blacks. About 30% of the people shot by the police are black. That means the 70% of the people shot come from 48% of the criminals. I am amazed that you can't follow this. Or are you saying that for every 15 black people who are shot the police need togo out and shoot 72 white people whether they have commited a crime or not?

Termyn8or -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/9/2016 1:06:39 AM)
FR A quick Google brigs this : "Similar to 2012, non-Hispanic blacks (37%) comprised the largest portion of male inmates under state or federal jurisdiction in 2013, compared to non-Hispanic whites (32%) and Hispanics (22%). White females comprised 49% of the prison population compared to 22% black females.Sep 30, 2014" When you take that with the fact that Blacks are barely 20 % of the population, that means they have a hell of alot of more interactions with the police. Why ? There are no cops walking a beat, they drive around in cars to generate revenue for the city via traffic tickets. And from what I've seen, in alot of cases, Black people actually drive better than White people. They can't tell the color of your skin from behind you, or at least they couldn't until recently when they got the bumpercams that automatically scan your license plate. Then they get a picture if they want it, but they get whether you got warrats, have a valid license or not, and a few other things like if you have a CCW. (here, if you have a CCW they are not allowed to ask if you are carrying anymore, I don't know who legislated or ruled that but that is what I heard from a guy with a CCW) Watch Chris Rock - How Not To Get Your Ass Kicked By The Police. Don't waste time pulling over but try to get somewhere off the road if possible. Get your wallet out, have it in one hand and put both hand on the wheel and have the window rolled down. Don't use the word "sir" more than twice, save it for last if they do not arrest you. If you be right with them they will not search your car, they will not arrest you and they will not shoot you. But the fact is there is a higher percentage of Blacks who are belligerent, or come off that way. I do not agree with alot of things in this world but you have to have a little bit of common fucking sense. This guy has a gun. He is also allowed to kill you and make up any story he wants. So talk nice. He just wants to write a ticket if you were speeding or whatever and be on his way. Use your fucking brain. Oh. Some people just don't seem to have one. What you want me to do about it ? There have been cases where if I was there I would have shot cops. Those Rodney King type incidents. There was a guy they beat so fucking bad for no good reason he almost died. And he was not belligerent with them at all, he just didn't stop because he looked at his speedometer and thought "They can't be after me". He was o psychotropic drugs, but still did not give them any trouble. I think he won a decent lawsuit over it. But youse people (not you personally) who use the slur "ammophobe", use it on the cops. They are scared. They know people are desperate and might do anything. If they are in a one Man car and you blow their head off through the driver's window and go away, park the car somewhere and get a ride home and report it stolen, you might just get away with it and they know it. It is not like a DUI, you need REAL EVIDENCE to convict someone of murder. Of course leave the keys in it, especially these days. Wipe everything down. They got no leads, you will be scrutinized. Find somewhere to wash your hands real good to get the powder residue off. You think they don't know this could happen ? Hell yeah they do. Thus the fear. And they themselves are fed up with the system, so they are thinking that by about now, what are people's attitude that do not have my special privileges ? Like a license to kill. Thing is, when their paychecks stop they will be as desperate as everyone else. Then it starts. They do not shoot any better than we do. They are not physically stronger nor are they better at martial arts. What's more once the currency goes to the dogs the rich will be in the same situation as the poor. The whole thing is really going to fix itself but it is going to take time. Singaporeans WANT laws against spitting on the sidewalk. They don't want to track that shit in the house where their kids crawl around on the floor. Russians do not want homosexuality taught to their kids, and they know whether to use the girlsroom or boysroom. Iranians do not want our predatory banking system, so what if their religion happens to support that. One time in a US bank with a three buck overdraft, that the bank should not have honored becomes $300 in charges. Fuck all that. Those countries actually do represent their people to much more an extent than the US does. What was the last thing the US government did of which you approve ? Enough rantage. Shoot me, I'll fucking pay you. T^T

DominantWrestler -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/9/2016 4:40:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler Ok, let's assume the easily accessible information on confederate slave soldiers is propaganda, do you have any citations for your claims? And are you admitting the Louisiana home gaurd saw no major combat? A The blacks in the Confederate army were not slaves. The Confederate government was very clear that slaves would NOT be pressed into service. You insist that the things I know to be a fact are only propaganda as the truth undermines your world view. B The LA home guard never left LA, how does that negate their existance. The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Native LA did well, fought well, and, in disproportionately large numbers, died well. Along with the 54th and 55th Massachusetts, 1st and 2nd Kansas Colored, 20th USCT...some few others...who all were by and large free born. BamaD's Harvard article states the LA did not fight as confederates and switched sides as soon as they were offered. Additionally, it has a quotation of a slave that was forced to fight by the north Yes, the Confederate Army rejected them. So they did not "switch sides" as they were never on the Confederate side officially. General Butler's orders were to enlist ONLY freedmen. However, meh, it was war. http://www.historynet.com/americas-civil-war-louisiana-native-guards.htm I am not exactly sure what you are trying to prove? That black freedmen were bad soldiers? That blacks were not "real" soldiers? (Yes, they did end up doing a lot of fatigue work.) Racial tensions? Heh. Let me state this plainly: As near as I can tell, racial tolerance in the armed forces has improved since Vietnam despite, not because of, the race relations and EO programs inflicted on us. He is also trying to claim that there is far more racial tension in the south than in the north. My personal experience refutes this Idea completely. I have lived in MO, IL, TX, CA, and MD and can assure you that there is less racial tension here than in most parts of the country. A brief history of racial tension in the US: Every civilization on earth employed slavery, with no none feeling the need to justify it. The Christians of the Enlightenment, were the first, and _only_ civilization to see that it was wrong, and seek to abolish it. To justify segregation, the inferiority of blacks was argued. But much of the argument was religious, God allegedly not wanting different groups to intermarry. And much was merely human: they are different, therefore they are inferior, a claim common to all people in all eras. After civil rights, the incidence of blacks using drugs, being members of gangs, and living on welfare increased sharply. Those increases correlate well with the efforts of liberals to help black people. The claim that black lives aren't valued as white lives are "systematically and institutionally" is weaselly evasion. There being no recognized standards of "systematically" or "institutionally" valuing anything, any situation can be claimed as showing black lives are more, less, or equally valued. E.g., black poverty shows we value blacks less, because they are in poverty. Or that we value them more, because we spend more in welfare and anti-poverty measures per black than we do per white. #BlackLivesMatter got started because of police killings of blacks. Blacks are disproportionately killed by the police, about 1.5X their share of the population. Blacks are also disproportionately killers of police, about 2.4x their share of the population. Blacks are also a minority of those the police kill, about one fourth to one third of all police killiings. And blacks are murdered by other blacks at around 13x to 14x the rate police kill them. It's not clear why any of this occurs. It's not clear why the police in the U.S. kill so many citizens. It's not clear why blacks are killed at higher than their numbers in the general population. It's not clear that efforts to lower the number of blacks killed by police will result in a net saving of black lives: there's some evidence that less brutal policing will result in a higher murder rate, increasing the number of blacks who die by violence. But one thing is clear. Accusing hundreds of millions of white Americans of being bad people because they don't know how to improve a complicated situation won't help anyone except those who profit by setting Americans at each other's throats. Where do you get your statistics? According to the FBI, 44% of those killed by police over the last 30 years were white, though according to the 2010 census, those claiming only white descent make up 72.4% of the population. This means that white people were just over 3.3 times less likely to be shot Though this is only a story I heard (which around here seems to be hard evidence), a person had a store and we're paying protection money to the bloods or crips, I forget which one. The place was robbed when they were closed. Police took a report and accomplished nothing. The gang that was being payed off found the goods and money and said that person would never bother them again. If racist corrupt cops are the norm, organized crime can sometimes provide justice. It worked for the Italian mob, it's worked for Pablo Escabar, why can't it work in black neighborhoods An easy way to relieve some racial tension would be convicting obviously guilty police officers. In 2014, only .1% percent of federal cases were not indicted, 10% of those cases not indicted were police killing civilians. Adding hood cameras to patrol cars lowered hit and runs on officers. Badge cameras have been shown to lower police abuse charges by more than half, and also allow an easy conviction against those police witness committing a crime 52% of violent crime is committed by black people for what ever reason. No I am not saying it is about their skin color, there are many factors. However this indicates that blacks are underepresented in shooting, not the other way around, you are comparing the shootings to the wrong stat. What the f are you talking about? You are obviously confused. 44% of Americans shot by cops are white. Greater than 70% of Americans are white. That means that white people are less than a third as likely to get shot by cops. Do you get it? 52% of violent crime. thus 52% of the chances to get shot belong to blacks. About 30% of the people shot by the police are black. That means the 70% of the people shot come from 48% of the criminals. I am amazed that you can't follow this. Or are you saying that for every 15 black people who are shot the police need togo out and shoot 72 white people whether they have commited a crime or not? Do you have evidence of anything you have posted? Are you aware that if a person is caught, not only are they less likely to do any time at all, but if they do they are likely to get less time? Drug convictions are the worst for this sort of discrepancy and contribute to most of the federal inmate population

Termyn8or -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/9/2016 7:37:58 AM)
"Drug convictions are the worst for this sort of discrepancy and contribute to most of the federal inmate population " I don't know where you get your information but give it up. I know people, for example one gets busted selling, turns out he has a grow room. (which I helped set up) He beats them on appeal pro se. Another gets busted with 200 pounds ad it took a million dollars bail to get him out, he did about a year. All state shit. The feds get involved when it crosses state lines. Another guy, sent in a rental car with the trunk key mailed ahead, just drive the car. By some stroke of bad luck, the key they gave him which was not supposed to work, worked. They got him a kickass lawyer and asked if he liked to golf. He said "What, you gonna buy me some golf clubs" and they said "No, we'll buy you a golf course". Federal is way worse. You can get into one of those country club prisons and all you can't get is beer and certain drugs. But you do every minute of your sentence. No shock parole or any of that. Your statement is most likely true, most federal inmates are in there for drugs. They cross state lies, oh well. And there is no law that says the feds cannot assume jurisdiction on something that went on within a state's borders. We'll see about these states legalising pot, but if the feds go after them they will lose popular support. Not like that is new to them... T^T

thompsonx -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/9/2016 7:44:53 AM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD On the other hand there has never been a military policy that has not been ignorned at some point Liar.

thompsonx -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/9/2016 10:16:03 AM)
ORIGINAL: Greta75 Since it's the only reason he brought up, it's the only reason. That would be your opinion. Worth the price of used shit paper.

thompsonx -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/9/2016 10:18:11 AM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD MLK, I assume you have heard of him, stated that race relations were better in the South than in the North. Without a cite that would be nothing more than your opinion.

thompsonx -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/9/2016 10:26:41 AM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD It never occured to me that tarriffs were an income tax. The were a tool to force Southerners to buy from northern manufactuerers at whatever price the Northerners wanted, making the south the economic slaves of the north. Why don't you believe in a protective tarriff to protect amerikan business from foriegn competition/dumping?

thompsonx -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/9/2016 10:31:58 AM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD 52% of violent crime. Why the limit to violent crime. Can't black people be shot by cops in a non violent crime like selling cigarettes? thus 52% of the chances to get shot belong to blacks. You failed math and logic didn't you? About 30% of the people shot by the police are black. While only 13% of the population is black[8\|] That means the 70% of the people shot come from 48% of the criminals. Only to liars like you. I am amazed that you can't follow this. It is pretty difficult to wade through all of your half truths and whole lies. Or are you saying that for every 15 black people who are shot the police need togo out and shoot 72 white people whether they have commited a crime or not? No we would like to see the cops stop shooting people.

thompsonx -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/9/2016 10:35:01 AM)
ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler Drug convictions are the worst for this sort of discrepancy and contribute to most of the federal inmate population Seventy percent of all people incarcerated in amerika(state and federal) are incarcerated for drug related crimes.

thompsonx -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/9/2016 10:42:42 AM)
ORIGINAL: Greta75 I am ready for death anytime. I have lived a full life, fulfilled majority of my bucket list. Bring it on :) You forgot tim you are old she is what 35? Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

Aylee -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/9/2016 11:09:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee A brief history of racial tension in the US: Every civilization on earth employed slavery, with no none feeling the need to justify it. The Christians of the Enlightenment, were the first, and _only_ civilization to see that it was wrong, and seek to abolish it. To justify segregation, the inferiority of blacks was argued. But much of the argument was religious, God allegedly not wanting different groups to intermarry. And much was merely human: they are different, therefore they are inferior, a claim common to all people in all eras. After civil rights, the incidence of blacks using drugs, being members of gangs, and living on welfare increased sharply. Those increases correlate well with the efforts of liberals to help black people. The claim that black lives aren't valued as white lives are "systematically and institutionally" is weaselly evasion. There being no recognized standards of "systematically" or "institutionally" valuing anything, any situation can be claimed as showing black lives are more, less, or equally valued. E.g., black poverty shows we value blacks less, because they are in poverty. Or that we value them more, because we spend more in welfare and anti-poverty measures per black than we do per white. #BlackLivesMatter got started because of police killings of blacks. Blacks are disproportionately killed by the police, about 1.5X their share of the population. Blacks are also disproportionately killers of police, about 2.4x their share of the population. Blacks are also a minority of those the police kill, about one fourth to one third of all police killiings. And blacks are murdered by other blacks at around 13x to 14x the rate police kill them. It's not clear why any of this occurs. It's not clear why the police in the U.S. kill so many citizens. It's not clear why blacks are killed at higher than their numbers in the general population. It's not clear that efforts to lower the number of blacks killed by police will result in a net saving of black lives: there's some evidence that less brutal policing will result in a higher murder rate, increasing the number of blacks who die by violence. But one thing is clear. Accusing hundreds of millions of white Americans of being bad people because they don't know how to improve a complicated situation won't help anyone except those who profit by setting Americans at each other's throats. Where do you get your statistics? According to the FBI, 44% of those killed by police over the last 30 years were white, though according to the 2010 census, those claiming only white descent make up 72.4% of the population. This means that white people were just over 3.3 times less likely to be shot Though this is only a story I heard (which around here seems to be hard evidence), a person had a store and we're paying protection money to the bloods or crips, I forget which one. The place was robbed when they were closed. Police took a report and accomplished nothing. The gang that was being payed off found the goods and money and said that person would never bother them again. If racist corrupt cops are the norm, organized crime can sometimes provide justice. It worked for the Italian mob, it's worked for Pablo Escabar, why can't it work in black neighborhoods An easy way to relieve some racial tension would be convicting obviously guilty police officers. In 2014, only .1% percent of federal cases were not indicted, 10% of those cases not indicted were police killing civilians. Adding hood cameras to patrol cars lowered hit and runs on officers. Badge cameras have been shown to lower police abuse charges by more than half, and also allow an easy conviction against those police witness committing a crime 52% of violent crime is committed by black people for what ever reason. No I am not saying it is about their skin color, there are many factors. However this indicates that blacks are underepresented in shooting, not the other way around, you are comparing the shootings to the wrong stat. What the f are you talking about? You are obviously confused. 44% of Americans shot by cops are white. Greater than 70% of Americans are white. That means that white people are less than a third as likely to get shot by cops. Do you get it? 52% of violent crime. thus 52% of the chances to get shot belong to blacks. About 30% of the people shot by the police are black. That means the 70% of the people shot come from 48% of the criminals. I am amazed that you can't follow this. Or are you saying that for every 15 black people who are shot the police need togo out and shoot 72 white people whether they have commited a crime or not? He is not just illiterate, but innumerate as well.

Aylee -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/9/2016 11:24:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I have never been there, let alone lived there so I have no reasonto doubt you. It has been 40 years since I was in CO but when I was there I didn't see much bias against blacks, Indians on the other hand. Of course I wasn't there long enough to make a blanket proclimation about people there. I should have been more clear. The more populated of an area of Colorado (or town) the more racial tensions there were. My high school - very few blacks - no issues. Another high school in town - larger number of blacks - more issues. On the Eastern Slope - the same thing. More diversity = more problems. I did not notice too many issues with Native Americans, but I do recall "hearing" things about Mexicans. Of course that was after I entered the workforce.

thompsonx -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/9/2016 11:26:35 AM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD I didn't say that. I said it wasn't racial tension. Not the same thing at all. Relly??How do they differ? Slavery was a major component. However if it was racial tension the war would have been between whites and blacks. Blacks had no guns whites did.[8\|] Jesus you are phoquing stupid It wasn't, it was between people (mostly white on both sides) who had radiclly different views on a wide spectrum of issues. Perhps you could list those that were not related to slavery? Tellme something, if it was about race why is it that the only black unit in the war with black officers fought for the south. You are a liar. Their only purpose was to protect their owners shit. Never to fight for the south. It was formed by a black man who owned 1000 slaves, also puting the notion that it was about race in question. How many white slaves did this black fellow own?

thompsonx -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/9/2016 11:29:30 AM)
ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler As for black men who served the confederacy, the neo-nazis have a term (though I detest everything they represent), race traitor What we find is that the blacks who served were the recognized family members of the regimental and batallion commanders.

Aylee -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/9/2016 11:30:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler Ok, let's assume the easily accessible information on confederate slave soldiers is propaganda, do you have any citations for your claims? And are you admitting the Louisiana home gaurd saw no major combat? A The blacks in the Confederate army were not slaves. The Confederate government was very clear that slaves would NOT be pressed into service. You insist that the things I know to be a fact are only propaganda as the truth undermines your world view. B The LA home guard never left LA, how does that negate their existance. The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Native LA did well, fought well, and, in disproportionately large numbers, died well. Along with the 54th and 55th Massachusetts, 1st and 2nd Kansas Colored, 20th USCT...some few others...who all were by and large free born. BamaD's Harvard article states the LA did not fight as confederates and switched sides as soon as they were offered. Additionally, it has a quotation of a slave that was forced to fight by the north Yes, the Confederate Army rejected them. So they did not "switch sides" as they were never on the Confederate side officially. General Butler's orders were to enlist ONLY freedmen. However, meh, it was war. http://www.historynet.com/americas-civil-war-louisiana-native-guards.htm I am not exactly sure what you are trying to prove? That black freedmen were bad soldiers? That blacks were not "real" soldiers? (Yes, they did end up doing a lot of fatigue work.) Racial tensions? Heh. Let me state this plainly: As near as I can tell, racial tolerance in the armed forces has improved since Vietnam despite, not because of, the race relations and EO programs inflicted on us. They were enlisted confederate soldiers for the south and were volunteers for the north, by the link you brought up No, you illiterate twit. Their service was to the Governor of LA. If you do not understand the difference, you need to stop typing. Any proof? Or should I pull propaganda articles of the time period about how proud the confederacy was of their black soldiers? Proof? Seriously? Other than it is discussed in the article I helpfully provided you, the regimental names. Then of course there is how regiments were historically founded in the US. How the Confederacy was set up. You really should stop typing about military history now.

thompsonx -> RE: Close call in Singapore (8/9/2016 11:43:54 AM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD I suppose you also do not know that it was policy, IN THE UNION ARMY, to kill blacks caught fighting for the south. Liar. I notice that you ignore MLK's statement that race relations in the south were much better than they were in the north. You are a liar...He did not say that now did he?

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625