Donald Trump
- Thread starter Herd Fever
- Start date
white supremacy at an all-time high and the country elects a black president...twice???? Claims a higher standard of living since he took over.....but wont take credit for more welfare or food stamp recipients EVER. Interesting. By the way, how many whites (vs. blacks) were killed by cops over the last year?
Only morons who have little financial understanding blindly believe a politician that says higher minimum wages raise the living standards of the masses. More absurdity. One only needs to look at the cities/states with already higher minimum wages to see that the gap between the wealthy and lower class citizen in those localities is much wider than anywhere else. Simply paying a minimum wage worker more to flip a burger or collect shopping carts at Wal-Mart does nothing but help to drive overall costs of living higher for everyone in those places.
If you want to earn more than $9 hr then take personal responsibility, use the advantage of free public education during your early years, make a decision to stay out of trouble, learn a skill or trade (they still exist in large numbers in the US-electricians, plumbers, welders, mechanics, HVAC, surveying, etc) if you don't want college, and get the job. There actually is a shortage of people going into these trades which will earn someone close to 6 figures if you are willing to put in the time and master that skill.
As to the question I asked above.....
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...e-whites-than-blacks-but-minority-d/?page=all
Guess this means I should be rioting and looting my neighborhood shoe store for the latest (insert your favorite brand here). No, not really. What this is saying is Blacks seem to gladly be blind sheep. Wake up. Your leadership is using you and making you guys look like idiots.
Only morons who have little financial understanding blindly believe a politician that says higher minimum wages raise the living standards of the masses. More absurdity. One only needs to look at the cities/states with already higher minimum wages to see that the gap between the wealthy and lower class citizen in those localities is much wider than anywhere else. Simply paying a minimum wage worker more to flip a burger or collect shopping carts at Wal-Mart does nothing but help to drive overall costs of living higher for everyone in those places.
If you want to earn more than $9 hr then take personal responsibility, use the advantage of free public education during your early years, make a decision to stay out of trouble, learn a skill or trade (they still exist in large numbers in the US-electricians, plumbers, welders, mechanics, HVAC, surveying, etc) if you don't want college, and get the job. There actually is a shortage of people going into these trades which will earn someone close to 6 figures if you are willing to put in the time and master that skill.
As to the question I asked above.....
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...e-whites-than-blacks-but-minority-d/?page=all
Guess this means I should be rioting and looting my neighborhood shoe store for the latest (insert your favorite brand here). No, not really. What this is saying is Blacks seem to gladly be blind sheep. Wake up. Your leadership is using you and making you guys look like idiots.
Wrong, as usual.
Statistics show that Negros commit mass murder at a rate proportionate to their population percentage within the United States.
Did you forget about the 'bro' that shot up the naval yard in DC last year? I'm saying that, assuming he wasn't another whitey trying to pass himself off as a negro.
The only reason why Obama got 2 terms is more black people came out to Vote for him then ever before. Watch as those numbers decline drastically in 2016(which I hope doesnt happen)
So you brought up 1 mass shooting, congrats but how many in the last 10 years was done by white people?? In the last 20 years??
So you brought up 1 mass shooting, congrats but how many in the last 10 years was done by white people?? In the last 20 years??
It seemed to be OK with the lefty, democrat, beloved, LA Times a few years back......enjoy
http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19-story.html
The LATimes is one of the more closet racist papers in the country. Its right up there with the NYPost
Whites lead the pack, but feel free to google the statistics yourself, as I already did to prove you to be a moron. There's more than one bro that's committed mass murder, but I only needed to point out the most recent one at the naval yard last year, which soundly defeated your argument that only whites commit mass murder.
Without the white man, Obama would not have been elected...twice. So, don't forget that.
WHo commits most gun violence? Blacks against...blacks.
Reality is blacks commit most crimes. They have the highest unemployment of any demographic and probably the most fatherless homes. Most of the other ethnic groups pass blacks in terms of jobs, wealth, etc. while being in this country for a shorter amount of time.
I agree most mass shooting are done by whites...don't know why and that number is far lower than the number of blacks that shoot peple. But, that would be like me pointing out that most blacks do the things above. So, I don't think as a black man, I would bring up crime if I were you. The reality might just smack you in the face.
The lack of logic in arguments from both sides in this thread is baffling. At one point, years ago, this board actually had some sort of general intelligence portrayed.
I like how michigan makes a point to mention "rate proportionate," but fails to use that same argument (as fever should have) with raleigh's link which I assume shows more whites are killed than blacks by police.
Why would someone need to use a "rate proportionate" argument with my link, when the link I provided was simply used to contradict Herd fever's assertion that "blacks were the only one's being targeted and killed everyday by (white racists) cops" in this country?
Mich discussion with fever was a completely different context within the racial debate (# of blacks being mass murderers). Using the same argument (rate proportionate) would have made little logical sense when reading what Fever was actually claiming he knew to be true within the two completely different discussions.
I am not seeing where he actually apologized, I am sure I could find similar quotes from Bush and make the same claim that site is making.
Do I really need to explain this to you, moron, or are you just looking for a way to change the topic, in order to defend the black man? Fever clearly stated that ONLY white people commit mass murder. I not only provided a recent sample to prove without a shadow of a doubt that he was factually wrong, but also stated what you posted above. Allow me to explain: If, for example, Haitians made up 5% of this nation's population, and they committed 1 out of every 20 mass murders that takes place in this country, then they would be committing mass murder at a rate proportionate with their population. Moron.
Racial tensions are higher than normal?
Mass shootings: Bush 16 Obama 14
Stagnant wages: started in early 70s
Weakened national defense: Prove it
ISIS taking over middle east: they don't even control a single nation
Shrinking middle class: that's something that started under Obama?
No one said we're doing fine, I said we're doing better than what Obama inherited. Much better.
You just attributed a quote to fever. Where did he make that quote? He made no comment even close to that. He never said blacks were the only being killed. He never said police (or white racist cops as you claim) were the only ones being targeted by police.
Are you just making shit up at this point? You not only quoted those comments in a way to mislead the reader into thinking fever made them, but you didn't even summarize properly, as fever's comment has no such relationship to what you posted.
Here is what fever said: "And I guess its our fault that unarmed black people are continuing to be killed by the police on a daily basis."
Your response showing (which I assume since I didn't look at your thread) that more whites were killed than blacks in response to his actual comment (as opposed to the fabricated ones you attributed to him) was illogical, and frankly, stupid, on multiple levels. First, and again I'm assuming since I didn't read your link, fever clearly made a key point of his comment being "unarmed." Unless your link shows the difference between whites and blacks being killed by police who were all unarmed, it is pretty meaningless in an attempt to refute fever's comment (his real ones, not your pretend ones). Just as illogical, your link only mentions the total number of each race killed by the police (again, assuming based on your related comments to the link), instead of the logical comparison using per capita (or rate of participation that michigan seems to prefer). Which leads to that moron . . .
You really need to work on your reading comprehension. I had no problem with your argument. I had a problem with you using a per capita argument, which was a valid and logical attempt, while your cohort entirely evaded doing that in a similar argument while trying to use a simple frequency argument.
Your side was selecting to choose per capita when it helped your argument and ran from it when it hurt your argument. I also fault fever for not calling Raleigh out on that shitty argument, which isn't nearly as bad as him fabricating comments by fever.
Lets actually look at the full context of Fever's statement beyond the one line you point out:
"Racial Tensions LOL!!! I love it when white people says that. Its you guys who continue the racial divide. I guess you dont like it that us black people dont just shuck and jive and dont walk off the sidewalk when 5 year old Jimmy is walking down the street. I guess its black people fault that the kid walked into a church and killed 9 people last night. And I guess its our fault that unarmed black people are continuing to be killed by the police on a daily basis."
IMO, You give Fever too much credit. The reason he didn't counter my statement is because my reply actually countered what he was trying to imply. The "daily basis" comment alone was enough for anyone to call bullshit. Nevertheless, "Unarmed" or not, he was clearly trying to make the point that Blacks are being illegally targeted to be killed in greater numbers vs whites being killed by cops. Why else would he be participating in the thread? Furthermore, unless Fever can link us to the studies that show his claim to be completely accurate then he is the one that simply initiated "making shit up" as he goes along. So... I will gladly offer my services in helping to clear up Fever's claim and your apparent consternation......
http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawi...ng-claims-about-race-after-ferguson-shooting/
(from the article linked)
Unarmed black killed ‘every 28 hours’ (most likely where Fever comes up with such nonsense)
On CNN, conservative African-American radio host Larry Elder and liberal African-American professor and author Marc Lamont Hill debated the state of race relations in the country.
"How often does it happen that an unarmed black is shot by a cop?" Elder asked in the Aug. 20, 2014, interview.
"Every 28 hours," Hill said. "Every 28 hours, Larry. Larry, every 28 hours. According to the MXGM study, a black person is killed by law enforcement, vigilantes or security …"
Elder cut in, but Hill revisited his point later in the interview, saying, "But if this study bears out, and it does, that every 28 hours an unarmed black person is killed, then that also is a problem."
Hill has his figures wrong. That claim rates False.
Hill is referencing a 2013 report by the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement called "Every 28 Hours," which examined killings of African-Americans in 2012 by law enforcement, security guards and "vigilantes" who claimed self-defense.
The report is not an academic, unbiased representation of these deaths. It was put together by one volunteer researcher and details 313 deaths based on news clips and police reports. It arrives at one death "every 28 hours" by dividing the number of hours in a year, 8,760, by the number of deaths, 313.
But the report doesn’t say what Hill offered on CNN, that an "unarmed black person is killed" every 28 hours.
In fact, less than half of the people who were killed were unarmed, according to MXGM. PunditFact found 136 were labeled as unarmed after reviewing the compiled profiles.
The 28-hour calculation factored in all 313 deaths, which included people who were armed, "allegedly" armed and unarmed.
Also, not all of the "unarmed" people are analogous to Brown’s case or were killed by police.
Included in the unarmed tally, for instance, is Trayvon Martin, the Miami Gardens teen who was killed by a neighborhood watchman named George Zimmerman. In other cases, whether someone was really "unarmed" may depend on your definition. In nine cases, police said they shot at suspects because they were charging at them from behind the wheel of a vehicle.
Another case to make the list is Rudy Eugene, the Miami man who attacked a homeless man and gnawed his face before police shot him to death.
We also found several "unarmed" deaths that were due to accidents, many car crashes as officers sped to a scene. In another example, one woman was killed at her birthday party, hosted by an off-duty police officer, when she hugged the officer from behind and somehow set off his gun......"
Its really interesting to point out that "unarmed-race" deaths by police simply are impossible to track with complete accuracy due to the current reporting requirements of FBI databases. Just briefly looking through multiple articles posted at the time of Brown's shooting in Ferguson (most of the stories/articles posted about this topic), most accusations (by authors or pundits of such race bating hyperbole) of "unarmed-race" statistics, are admittedly guessed or "estimated" because the complete accurate data simply does not exist. The others seem to intentionally ignore the facts of how an "unarmed" killing may actually be categorized when making broad unsubstantiated claims.
The only reason I voted for McCain and Romney is because they were the white guys.
That means I would have been not giving him enough credit, as it suggests he didn't make my counter argument because he realized your response was a good rebuttal for what you think he was arguing.
Now, you've started to argue against his inclusion of "unarmed" and "daily" which is fine. However, that is not what you tried arguing earlier (you based your argument on simple frequency which is a poor argument instead of per capita), and then worse, fabricated quotes from fever to change the meaning of what he actually said.
Having to change his argument, especially by putting quotes around a long statement he didn't actually make, makes it appear that you were simply lying on purpose to help your argument and didn't think it would get checked.
I didn't respond because I don't have time for bigots. And I like how everyone dodge my response on why there is even racial tension.
I haven't started to argue against anything differently than what I originally asserted. It just so happens (and I am not surprised) that both claims (the original one, IMO, Fever was attempting to make) and the other (the one you seemed to demand be shown after entering into the conversation) support what I was actually claiming originally.
"Frequency" is not a poor argument when "frequency" is the basis for which most claim as simple proof of occurrence. If those making wide wild ranging (statistically unsubstantiated) claims of police murdering (unarmed or not) black men simply "outnumber", police murdering (unarmed or not) white men, then frequency can indeed be used as a basis for counter point.
Weird post.
After reading your words, you appear to be the biggest racist/bigot on the board, and that's saying something.
Tell the Panthers at the next rally, that their pal, Michigan Herd, sends his fondest regards.
Bullshit. The "bigot" excuse always seems to be the cowardly response when someone cant articulate a legitimate response to a discussion on race. How is one suppose to respond to a black man talking about "shucking and jiving" while walking down the street, exactly? And wtf does that have to do with "racial tension" caused by a white kid name johnny?
you totally misread my point. I said white people now want to claim there is a racial tension because us black people aren't going to sit back and allow things to happen anymore. And more times then not its always someone white claiming some mythological racial tension in America. Is it because black people exposing racial injustice and not just sitting back and allowing it to happen anymore?
Huh? What is your point overall? Is there real racial tension or not?
I personally don't believe there is wide spread racial tension. If there was, Obummer would have never been elected. I also have no doubts that the "race industry" desires the increased creation of such tension to solidify their own power.
I have no problem with finding or exposing actual REAL injustice either. However, you are going to have to explain to me how acting like a bunch of untamed barnyard animals while burning, destroying and stealing property, one doesn't own, equates to "exposing" anything other than mass ignorance on the part of those doing it.
Simply pointing out this type behavior doesn't make one a bigot either. I was more than willing to point out the "white" dipshits "protesting" Wall St a couple years ago who found it necessary to loiter, piss, and shit like animals all over the public spaces in downtown Manhattan a couple years ago.
I use this line a lot, but it's true. I didn't claim you started arguing against anything differently. I didn't claim you changed your stance. I claimed that you changed what you were arguing: first, you wanted to argue about his comment that unarmed blacks were being killed . . .
In doing so, you used a frequency argument, which as I already pointed out is a shortsighted argument which can be shot down quickly, as your only argument to his statement. I then went on to show how Michigan used a better argument by using per capita (or his self-created "rate of proportion" term), which I had no problem with, other than neglecting to call you out for not using the same line of argument.
After calling you out on this, you resorted to fabricating comments/meaning by fever. Done with that.
Then, you went on to disputing fever's statement based on his inclusion of "daily" and "unarmed." One could argue that his use of "daily" was a bit of hyperbole, and your own link stated that the "unarmed" part can't be disproven.
In other words, after all of this, you switched what part of fever's comment you were arguing against from what you did originally (which was a failed attempt because you used frequency which is easy to argue against instead of per capita).
But, that's not what he argued, now is it? He didn't say black men being killed by police outnumber white men being killed by police.
If I voted for McCain and Romney because they were white like me, does that make me a bigot?
