She-Guevara racist white nationalist
Comments
-
Oh now stop it! Next thing you're going to say is that some dogs are more vicious than others!SFGbob said:Blacks have more run ins with the cops because blacks as a whole commit a hell of a lot more crime and live in higher crime areas where more police are usually deployed.
Factor in the fact that cops are more likely to view young black males as criminals, especially if they are sporting a certain look, and on account of this higher rate of criminal activity by blacks and you have the factors that explain the higher rate of blacks having run ins with the cops.
Racism plays some role in this but even black, Hispanic and Asian cops, especially in urban areas, quickly realize that it ain’t whitey that’s committing most of the crime, especially the violent crime. -
Are you just replacing che with she because she's a chick? That's fucking lame.
-
I didn't say you said I apologized for anything; that's my word, used in response to your allegation of white washing. Call it interference if you wish. I see it as no different than Bannon's advice, taken to heart and implemented by Trump, of invoking the religious loons on the right. They both have inconvenient friends. That was the point. Obama has about as much in actual common with Farrakahn and Sharpton as Trump does with Jerry Falwell. In any event, I'm not carrying the torch for the dysfunction in American politics. You can argue that with someone else.SFGbob said:
Yeah you just ran interference for the fact that Obama hired the piece of shit to lead his get out the vote effort by you didn't "apologize" for Sharpton and since you appear to be one of those precise language Kunt's quote where I said you apologized Coug?creepycoug said:Nowhere in my post is any kind of apology for Sharpton being anything less than a charlatan. I'd have him over for dinner b4 David Duke any day though. I would never equate those two as analogs.
As to comparing you to the 'racism is over crowd', how so? That wasn't the point at all. The point was even that crowd, who don't believe racism is really an issue anymore, acknowledge that the past has loaded meaning, so, you know, an effigy of a black guy swinging from a tree is a little different than a effigy of Trump that pokes fun of his weight and his comb over.
There were no eye witnesses to the start of the struggle. A few people saw the thing in mid-fight, conflicting testimony was offered as to who they heard screaming, and some people saw Martin on top of Zimmerman. Testimony was inconsistent about whether he was bashing his head into the sidewalk. None of that means he attacked him. Sure, all you had to do was look at Zimmerman to know he got his ass kicked. But if someone approaches you threateningly, or even grabs hold of you, or starts a fight with you, and you wind up kicking his ass, and he shoots you, you score that as self-defense because you attacked him? Really? The taped 911 call is at least a strong hint that he (1) thought Martin was up to no good (he was not, at least that night, which is all that matters), and (2) he was frustrated that the kid might get away. "Fucking punks ... these assholes always get away." All that transpired, transpired, and the story becomes that Martin, who Zimmerman was following, lurked out of the darkness and 'sucker punched him.' Nobody saw that. What everyone does know is that Zimmerman started following a kid he thought was doing something wrong, who wasn't doing anything wrong.
Like I said, Martin was no saint, but I grew up with a lot of people whose profiles weren't much better than his, and some worse. They're normal people now. If, sincerely, none of that even gives you pause, coupled with the fact that a 17-year old kid who had a lot of time to get his life going in a better direction got whacked on a night he was walking and minding his own business, then we are different kinds of people and likely will not reach any kind of consensus on pretty much anything. I don't believe that you actually see it that simply, and that instead we are doing the HCH crazy dance. -
Yes, they do, and we all know that's the larger issue and that there's a complicated history associated with it and there's no cheap fix.SFGbob said:Blacks have more run ins with the cops because blacks as a whole commit a hell of a lot more crime and live in higher crime areas where more police are usually deployed.
Factor in the fact that cops are more likely to view young black males as criminals, especially if they are sporting a certain look, and on account of this higher rate of criminal activity by blacks and you have the factors that explain the higher rate of blacks having run ins with the cops.
Racism plays some role in this but even black, Hispanic and Asian cops, especially in urban areas, quickly realize that it ain’t whitey that’s committing most of the crime, especially the violent crime.
"Racism plays some role in this." That's really all that I believe and am saying. I suppose if I were black I'd probably take it all a lot more personally and less academically, but it is what it is. And, yes, there is no question that whatever issue exists with cops vis a vis black people is not peculiar to white cops. I saw it in Miami all the time. In fact, my father's brother-in-law, who was Miami Metro for years (and Cuban himself) would tell you it was better to send in cops who were "Americanos", which was our general slang for white Americans, to Liberty City and Overtown than it was to send in a Cuban cop, especially a young Cuban cop. There was a lot of racial tension in Miami when I was a kid. It is appreciably better now, though I wouldn't say black people are appreciably better off. Majority black neighborhoods there are still very, very, very rough places to live. -
Here is why you are left wing. These are the facts:creepycoug said:
Though I don't view what I wrote or think about Obama as superficial, but instead pointing or appealing to the real and substantive ongoing issues and challenges in the black community, I don't disagree with much of what you wrote. I think my angle is based more on the idea that the racial issues were still there, and (1) the mere occurrence of the first black pres, and (2) coupled with his slide back left with some of the things you point out (albeit in the context of some unfortunate civil unrest), led to what I perceive among many US citizens as a "you see? i told you a black president would lead this way!" reaction, as if it were a mistake to elect a black guy. Where we get sidetracked on HCH is much like the country today: it's so polarized that if you don't come out of the gates swinging and screaming like OBK then you're an unmitigated left-wing, communist apologist. I mean, in this thread alone, we have a guy denying that groups publicly hung Obama and his wife in effigy lynch style, who missed that I have never once in my life voted for a non-judicial Democrat for any office anywhere ever. I am also pretty fiscally conservative dood and a somewhat establishment-loving prick. So nobody's getting my angle on this from some left-wing banana Rainbow Coalition point of view.TurdBuffer said:
There's plenty of FS in this post, Creepy. Obama fucked up right out of the gate by diving into the William Gates vs the Boston PD scandal, immediately taking the side of the professor, who it turned out was acting like such an asshole, he got himself arrested for not showing ID to prove the home he appeared to be breaking into was his own. No racial divisiveness, huh? Right. And appointing Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch as AGs sure as fanned flames, because neither of them were qualified for the job, nor competent in it, and they acted and conducted themselves like classic FS "diversity hires." In addition to that, his infamous (if not treasonous) Cairo speech where he dove right into the classic liberal theme of "blame America first, and for everything" wrong in the Middle East and the rest of the world, was total and complete FS from Obama himself, especially because the speech was vetted by - and probably written by - the Muslim Brotherhood, representatives of overwhelmingly brown folk versus the white folks of European descent. And that's not racially divisive, Creepy? And let's not forget his knee-jerk "but Christians have done lots of bad things, too" moral equivalency bullshit, either. As if Christians are the ones blowing up buses, churches, mosques and police stations in 2018, no different from the bad shit Christian regimes did during the Dark Ages. But 500 years is like, yesterday, right? Pure horseshit.creepycoug said:
This is true, but the push toward communism and racial division is pure rhetoric. It's their fault because they propped up a shit for a candidate who cannot hide her disdain for ordinary people with ordinary intellects, and who got sucked in to the social issues side of her party's constituency. Her husband in his prime would have been very hard to beat following the Bush term, because he's actually a centrist and, on some issues, is downright conservative. Remember, for all of his education and polish, Bill is an Arkansas boy, born and raised in the souf.Sledog said:
I don't apologize for Trump because his election is entirely the lefts fault. Their constant push toward communism, racial division and the destruction of America is what caused the phenomenon called Trump. You thought you could steal an election. Now you think you can pull off a coup. You commie shits did this to yourselves. Now it's time for you to reap what you have sewn!TierbsHsotBoobs said:
No Sledog?CirrhosisDawg said:I’d recommend a “morning show” linked thread: Race &Friends.
Race, GayBob. WestLinn and HoustonHuskyFS can apologize for trump every morning!
Imagine the internet traffic. It would be like shooting white trash in a barrel. If only Roger Ailes were still alive. He’d have thought if it first.
I'm out
FAYCS!
Of all the shit people can hang on Obama, in my view one of the most disingenuous is the racial division shit. What he did to fan the flames of racial tension in this country is to get elected in the first place. Country wasn't ready for a black guy in office unless he had walked, talked and danced like a hard-core right winger, and even then, it would have been a problem. Kreist there were effigies of him being lynched all over social media during his term. His Princeton-educated wife couldn't do anything right in the eyes of many, and is compared negatively to a woman who doesn't speak and who used to pose for pictures with her clothes off. Family values right? I know we're all a little gun shy about the R word around here, but to deny that it was still a big problem here at the time of his election is fs. Sure people use and abuse it like few other things; but racism in American, or the worsening of it, is not Obama's fault. That is straight up fs and anybody who believes it is fs. I personally know a lot of people who have issues with black people, and I'm a fucking lawyer in Seattle.
More than any other prez in my lifetime (by a long shot), Obama has engendered among people I encounter (including a lot of family) a combination of (1) emotionally-driven hatred and (2) for reasons they can't really articulate, other than made-up or flatly wrong shit. Don't twist; I'm not a big Obama guy or defender. I hate tax and spend politicians, and he is one. But anyone who can't admit that his mere election and his name were enuff to re-open old wounds and bring to the surface old biases is just fs. I am related to people who manage to get up every day and be an adult who believe the most crazy shit about that guy, but never had much to say about the guy who got us into Iraq on shit information and really stirred up the bottom in the middle east .... smfh.
Trump was elected in large measure because he is the pure visual and substantive opposite of Obama and because the democrats now just fucking suck, particularly at elections. The one area where the dems are particularly vulnerable is the gay community, who they can't really ignore or betray (the numbers are too material), but that community tends to suck them into social issues that most people don't care about or aren't ready to deal with. Like Trans Fucking Gender. The republican crazy aunt is the zany religious right, but they're easier to manage because religious people are not as threatening on the surface and thus don't readily offend much of the rest of the base.
That weak-kneed, self-loathing, Ivy League chickenshit positioning made me - a two time Obama supporter - despise him for his lack of balls, regardless of party or skin color. In the end, Obama was the appeasement-loving schmoozer his critics painted him as, to the point I can't defend him anymore. But if you choose to be superficial about it, go ahead and argue that anyone who criticizes Obama is really just racist, utterly oblivious to how patently racist that position is, in and of itself.
And I completely agree that pointing to the Crusades as evidence that Christians can be just as violent as radical Islam is fs, if not unhelpful.
Like I said, I agree with most of what you wrote.
* You vote for judicial democrats. You just admitted that. Democrats are rats that use the courts to bypass the democratic process by going over the heads of the voters to implement their SJW agenda.
* You are flamboyantly open borders. Soros level ghey for it. And you don't give a single fuck about the repercussions of that position, ignoring the evidence that has been streaming out of Europe for the last couple of years.
* You tend to view things through the prism of race and identity politics. Do you attend white privilege workshops or teach them on college campuses?
* You support swampy establishment criminals and try to prop them up. But that is to be expected from a swampy lawyer living in one of the kookiest cities in the US.
* You treat Islam more like a race than a 'religion.' I don't think it's a religion at all, it's a political system masquerading as a religion. But like most SJW's, an attack on Islam is an attack on brown people to you. -
^ u sure them' the facts?
-
Unless Bannon has a body count that I'm unaware of, or you have some evidence that Bannon participated in a racist smear job that he knew wasn't true, comparing Bannon to Sharpton is like comparing apples to dog-shit.creepycoug said:
I didn't say you said I apologized for anything; that's my word, used in response to your allegation of white washing. Call it interference if you wish. I see it as no different than Bannon's advice, taken to heart and implemented by Trump, of invoking the religious loons on the right. They both have inconvenient friends. That was the point. Obama has about as much in actual common with Farrakahn and Sharpton as Trump does with Jerry Falwell. In any event, I'm not carrying the torch for the dysfunction in American politics. You can argue that with someone else.SFGbob said:
Yeah you just ran interference for the fact that Obama hired the piece of shit to lead his get out the vote effort by you didn't "apologize" for Sharpton and since you appear to be one of those precise language Kunt's quote where I said you apologized Coug?creepycoug said:Nowhere in my post is any kind of apology for Sharpton being anything less than a charlatan. I'd have him over for dinner b4 David Duke any day though. I would never equate those two as analogs.
As to comparing you to the 'racism is over crowd', how so? That wasn't the point at all. The point was even that crowd, who don't believe racism is really an issue anymore, acknowledge that the past has loaded meaning, so, you know, an effigy of a black guy swinging from a tree is a little different than a effigy of Trump that pokes fun of his weight and his comb over.
There were no eye witnesses to the start of the struggle. A few people saw the thing in mid-fight, conflicting testimony was offered as to who they heard screaming, and some people saw Martin on top of Zimmerman. Testimony was inconsistent about whether he was bashing his head into the sidewalk. None of that means he attacked him. Sure, all you had to do was look at Zimmerman to know he got his ass kicked. But if someone approaches you threateningly, or even grabs hold of you, or starts a fight with you, and you wind up kicking his ass, and he shoots you, you score that as self-defense because you attacked him? Really? The taped 911 call is at least a strong hint that he (1) thought Martin was up to no good (he was not, at least that night, which is all that matters), and (2) he was frustrated that the kid might get away. "Fucking punks ... these assholes always get away." All that transpired, transpired, and the story becomes that Martin, who Zimmerman was following, lurked out of the darkness and 'sucker punched him.' Nobody saw that. What everyone does know is that Zimmerman started following a kid he thought was doing something wrong, who wasn't doing anything wrong.
Like I said, Martin was no saint, but I grew up with a lot of people whose profiles weren't much better than his, and some worse. They're normal people now. If, sincerely, none of that even gives you pause, coupled with the fact that a 17-year old kid who had a lot of time to get his life going in a better direction got whacked on a night he was walking and minding his own business, then we are different kinds of people and likely will not reach any kind of consensus on pretty much anything. I don't believe that you actually see it that simply, and that instead we are doing the HCH crazy dance.
Your claims about Zimmerman grabbing and holding Trademark are pulled straight out of your ass. And the cuts to the back of Zimmerman's head as well as the dampness of his jacket coupled with the only credible eyewitness testimony provides pretty clear evidence that Trademark was smashing Zimmerman's head against something. Other than the bullet through his chest there was zero evidence that Zimmerman ever hit or struck Trademark. Zimmerman had no marks on his hands. Trademark had cut knuckles. You may not like what Zimmerman did but he was perfectly in his right to do so and had violated no laws with his actions. Also you have no idea if Trademark was up do no good. The fact that he doubled back and attacked someone when he was just feet away from the unit where he was staying tells me he wasn't up to any good.
Trademark beating on Zimmerman violated all kinds of fucking laws and Zimmerman was perfectly within his rights to plug him. -
Crime is the symptom. Poverty is the problem.SFGbob said:Blacks have more run ins with the cops because blacks as a whole commit a hell of a lot more crime and live in higher crime areas where more police are usually deployed.
Factor in the fact that cops are more likely to view young black males as criminals, especially if they are sporting a certain look, and on account of this higher rate of criminal activity by blacks and you have the factors that explain the higher rate of blacks having run ins with the cops.
Racism plays some role in this but even black, Hispanic and Asian cops, especially in urban areas, quickly realize that it ain’t whitey that’s committing most of the crime, especially the violent crime.
If you fix poverty, you wont have crime. -
If poverty were the cause of crime why didn't you have more crime when the poverty rate was much higher? Why did you have an explosion of the crime rate during periods when the poverty rate was falling?pawz said:
Crime is the symptom. Poverty is the problem.SFGbob said:Blacks have more run ins with the cops because blacks as a whole commit a hell of a lot more crime and live in higher crime areas where more police are usually deployed.
Factor in the fact that cops are more likely to view young black males as criminals, especially if they are sporting a certain look, and on account of this higher rate of criminal activity by blacks and you have the factors that explain the higher rate of blacks having run ins with the cops.
Racism plays some role in this but even black, Hispanic and Asian cops, especially in urban areas, quickly realize that it ain’t whitey that’s committing most of the crime, especially the violent crime.
If you fix poverty, you wont have crime. -
Explosion of crime rates? Please to be explaining.SFGbob said:
If poverty were the cause of crime why didn't you have more crime when the poverty rate was much higher? Why did you have an explosion of the crime rate during periods when the poverty rate was falling?pawz said:
Crime is the symptom. Poverty is the problem.SFGbob said:Blacks have more run ins with the cops because blacks as a whole commit a hell of a lot more crime and live in higher crime areas where more police are usually deployed.
Factor in the fact that cops are more likely to view young black males as criminals, especially if they are sporting a certain look, and on account of this higher rate of criminal activity by blacks and you have the factors that explain the higher rate of blacks having run ins with the cops.
Racism plays some role in this but even black, Hispanic and Asian cops, especially in urban areas, quickly realize that it ain’t whitey that’s committing most of the crime, especially the violent crime.
If you fix poverty, you wont have crime. -
"Trademark beating on Zimmerman violated all kinds of fucking laws and Zimmerman was perfectly within his rights to plug him."
Look dude, that's the story the jury bought and Trayvon couldn't speak for himself, so we're stuck with it, and there's no need to keep rubbing it in. What I find terrible in that case is the absolute profiling and prejudice exercised by Zimmerman, and the complete inability of that dumb-fuck wannabe cop to de-escalate the situation with words. Thus, he had no business at all playing rent-a-cop that night, and Trayvon wouldn't be dead if he wasn't. At a minimum, it's a tragedy, and you sound like a yahoo gun nut to keep grinding away at "Trademark" and all that shit.
I run into weird, suspicious characters in my neighborhood a lot, because I live within walking distance of the local business district where shitheads rifle cars and roll drunk people for their wallets fairly frequently, and I've had a few showdowns with people I knew were casing or burglarizing the area, but I never stalked a person like Zimmerman stalked Trayvon, because that escalates vs. de-escalates the situation. Zimmerman is a douche, as we all know by now and a douche with a gun is a threat to everyone.
Would you be posting like this if Zimmerman was a known pedophile? I doubt it. And he probably is. -
@Pawz: That myth has been disproven so many times I can't believe you're making that argument here in 2018. Poverty does not cause crime. Correlation is not Causation. Stop.pawz said:
Crime is the symptom. Poverty is the problem.SFGbob said:Blacks have more run ins with the cops because blacks as a whole commit a hell of a lot more crime and live in higher crime areas where more police are usually deployed.
Factor in the fact that cops are more likely to view young black males as criminals, especially if they are sporting a certain look, and on account of this higher rate of criminal activity by blacks and you have the factors that explain the higher rate of blacks having run ins with the cops.
Racism plays some role in this but even black, Hispanic and Asian cops, especially in urban areas, quickly realize that it ain’t whitey that’s committing most of the crime, especially the violent crime.
If you fix poverty, you wont have crime. -
Disagree. Poverty is an evil that begets more evil. The 20th century alone is littered with examples of this on a massive scale: communism, Nazi Germany. As well as every day crimes that probably would not occur if poverty were eliminated, which is impossible, until we develop Star Trek like technology. Replicators, laser beams and shit.TurdBuffer said:
@Pawz: That myth has been disproven so many times I can't believe you're making that argument here in 2018. Poverty does not cause crime. Correlation is not Causation. Stop.pawz said:
Crime is the symptom. Poverty is the problem.SFGbob said:Blacks have more run ins with the cops because blacks as a whole commit a hell of a lot more crime and live in higher crime areas where more police are usually deployed.
Factor in the fact that cops are more likely to view young black males as criminals, especially if they are sporting a certain look, and on account of this higher rate of criminal activity by blacks and you have the factors that explain the higher rate of blacks having run ins with the cops.
Racism plays some role in this but even black, Hispanic and Asian cops, especially in urban areas, quickly realize that it ain’t whitey that’s committing most of the crime, especially the violent crime.
If you fix poverty, you wont have crime. -
Wow, if only the prosecution would have called you. You seem to know all about the facts of the case that the state wasn't able to uncover. You have no idea if Zimmerman "profiled" anyone other than the fact that Trademark did fit the profile of the people who had been robbing the homes in that area for the previous two years. In fact, Trademark profiled Zimmerman when he told his girl friend that Zimmerman looked like a "Creepy ass Cracker."TurdBuffer said:"Trademark beating on Zimmerman violated all kinds of fucking laws and Zimmerman was perfectly within his rights to plug him."
Look dude, that's the story the jury bought and Trayvon couldn't speak for himself, so we're stuck with it, and there's no need to keep rubbing it in. What I find terrible in that case is the absolute profiling and prejudice exercised by Zimmerman, and the complete inability of that dumb-fuck wannabe cop to de-escalate the situation with words. Thus, he had no business at all playing rent-a-cop that night, and Trayvon wouldn't be dead if he wasn't. At a minimum, it's a tragedy, and you sound like a yahoo gun nut to keep grinding away at "Trademark" and all that shit.
I run into weird, suspicious characters in my neighborhood a lot, because I live within walking distance of the local business district where shitheads rifle cars and roll drunk people for their wallets fairly frequently, and I've had a few showdowns with people I knew were casing or burglarizing the area, but I never stalked a person like Zimmerman stalked Trayvon, because that escalates vs. de-escalates the situation. Zimmerman is a douche, as we all know by now and a douche with a gun is a threat to everyone.
Would you be posting like this if Zimmerman was a known pedophile? I doubt it. And he probably is.
Just how much of a beating was Zimmerman supposed to take before he could respond? And following someone in public doesn't equal "stalking." Trademark was well on his way to becoming a thug. Guns, drugs and fighting were already things he had plenty of experience with. Let it be a lesson, if you're going to attack and start beating people you might want to make sure they aren't packing. -
Killing someone cause you got your ass beat is not equal retribution.SFGbob said:
Wow, if only the prosecution would have called you. You seem to know all about the facts of the case that the state wasn't able to uncover. You have no idea if Zimmerman "profiled" anyone other than the fact that Trademark did fit the profile of the people who had been robbing the homes in that area for the previous two years. In fact, Trademark profiled Zimmerman when he told his girl friend that Zimmerman looked like a "Creepy ass Cracker."TurdBuffer said:"Trademark beating on Zimmerman violated all kinds of fucking laws and Zimmerman was perfectly within his rights to plug him."
Look dude, that's the story the jury bought and Trayvon couldn't speak for himself, so we're stuck with it, and there's no need to keep rubbing it in. What I find terrible in that case is the absolute profiling and prejudice exercised by Zimmerman, and the complete inability of that dumb-fuck wannabe cop to de-escalate the situation with words. Thus, he had no business at all playing rent-a-cop that night, and Trayvon wouldn't be dead if he wasn't. At a minimum, it's a tragedy, and you sound like a yahoo gun nut to keep grinding away at "Trademark" and all that shit.
I run into weird, suspicious characters in my neighborhood a lot, because I live within walking distance of the local business district where shitheads rifle cars and roll drunk people for their wallets fairly frequently, and I've had a few showdowns with people I knew were casing or burglarizing the area, but I never stalked a person like Zimmerman stalked Trayvon, because that escalates vs. de-escalates the situation. Zimmerman is a douche, as we all know by now and a douche with a gun is a threat to everyone.
Would you be posting like this if Zimmerman was a known pedophile? I doubt it. And he probably is.
Just how much of a beating was Zimmerman supposed to take before he could respond? And following someone in public doesn't equal "stalking." Trademark was well on his way to becoming a thug. Guns, drugs and fighting were already things he had plenty of experience with. Let it be a lesson, if you're going to attack and start beating people you might want to make sure they aren't packing.
And respond about this explosion of crime rate deal you are talking about. -
Poverty isn’t necessarily “the” cause of crime. Middle America was poor in the 1930. Very little crime. There was also very little illegitimacy. American is extremely wealthy in 2018. There is lots of crime compared to 1938. There is also lots of illegitimacy. Having illegitimate kids is a good way to get poor. Illegitimate kids having illegitimate kids is a really, really good way to get and stay poor. Get through high school, get a job, get married before you have kids is a great recipe to not be poor. That is also a good indicator that you won’t be a criminal. Call it good moral judgment. Of course, that is no seen as “white privilege” by ignorant leftards. Recipe works for Americans of all colors.
-
Poverty rate fell all through out the 1960s and early 1970s. Crime rate exploded during that time period. What did increase during that time was the rate of out of wedlock births.2001400ex said:
Explosion of crime rates? Please to be explaining.SFGbob said:
If poverty were the cause of crime why didn't you have more crime when the poverty rate was much higher? Why did you have an explosion of the crime rate during periods when the poverty rate was falling?pawz said:
Crime is the symptom. Poverty is the problem.SFGbob said:Blacks have more run ins with the cops because blacks as a whole commit a hell of a lot more crime and live in higher crime areas where more police are usually deployed.
Factor in the fact that cops are more likely to view young black males as criminals, especially if they are sporting a certain look, and on account of this higher rate of criminal activity by blacks and you have the factors that explain the higher rate of blacks having run ins with the cops.
Racism plays some role in this but even black, Hispanic and Asian cops, especially in urban areas, quickly realize that it ain’t whitey that’s committing most of the crime, especially the violent crime.
If you fix poverty, you wont have crime. -
Like such fag Bob, you seem to think there's been an explosion in crime rates.. Where are the stats to back this up?WestlinnDuck said:
Poverty isn’t necessarily “the” cause of crime. Middle America was poor in the 1930. Very little crime. There was also very little illegitimacy. American is extremely wealthy in 2018. There is lots of crime compared to 1938. There is also lots of illegitimacy. Having illegitimate kids is a good way to get poor. Illegitimate kids having illegitimate kids is a really, really good way to get and stay poor. Get through high school, get a job, get married before you have kids is a great recipe to not be poor. That is also a good indicator that you won’t be a criminal. Call it good moral judgment. Of course, that is no seen as “white privilege” by ignorant leftards. Recipe works for Americans of all colors. -
Hondo, lets get a real gauge on just how fucking stupid and ignorant you are. Comparing the rate of crime in 1958 America, with the rate of crime in 1978 America is it fair to say the crime rate exploded? What would the increase have to be before you could describe it as an "explosion?"2001400ex said:
Like such fag Bob, you seem to think there's been an explosion in crime rates.. Where are the stats to back this up?WestlinnDuck said:
Poverty isn’t necessarily “the” cause of crime. Middle America was poor in the 1930. Very little crime. There was also very little illegitimacy. American is extremely wealthy in 2018. There is lots of crime compared to 1938. There is also lots of illegitimacy. Having illegitimate kids is a good way to get poor. Illegitimate kids having illegitimate kids is a really, really good way to get and stay poor. Get through high school, get a job, get married before you have kids is a great recipe to not be poor. That is also a good indicator that you won’t be a criminal. Call it good moral judgment. Of course, that is no seen as “white privilege” by ignorant leftards. Recipe works for Americans of all colors.
Would a doubling of the murder rate qualify as an "explosion?"
-
I asked for the stats to back it up.SFGbob said:
Hondo, lets get a real gauge on just how fucking stupid and ignorant you are. Comparing the rate of crime in 1958 America, with the rate of crime in 1978 America is it fair to say the crime rate exploded? What would the increase have to be before you could describe it as an "explosion?"2001400ex said:
Like such fag Bob, you seem to think there's been an explosion in crime rates.. Where are the stats to back this up?WestlinnDuck said:
Poverty isn’t necessarily “the” cause of crime. Middle America was poor in the 1930. Very little crime. There was also very little illegitimacy. American is extremely wealthy in 2018. There is lots of crime compared to 1938. There is also lots of illegitimacy. Having illegitimate kids is a good way to get poor. Illegitimate kids having illegitimate kids is a really, really good way to get and stay poor. Get through high school, get a job, get married before you have kids is a great recipe to not be poor. That is also a good indicator that you won’t be a criminal. Call it good moral judgment. Of course, that is no seen as “white privilege” by ignorant leftards. Recipe works for Americans of all colors.
Would a doubling of the murder rate qualify as an "explosion?" -
And I asked you what would qualify as an explosion. I've seen your Kunt act enough times already Hondo. Would a doubling of the murder rate qualify as an explosion? Yes or no?2001400ex said:
I asked for the stats to back it up.SFGbob said:
Hondo, lets get a real gauge on just how fucking stupid and ignorant you are. Comparing the rate of crime in 1958 America, with the rate of crime in 1978 America is it fair to say the crime rate exploded? What would the increase have to be before you could describe it as an "explosion?"2001400ex said:
Like such fag Bob, you seem to think there's been an explosion in crime rates.. Where are the stats to back this up?WestlinnDuck said:
Poverty isn’t necessarily “the” cause of crime. Middle America was poor in the 1930. Very little crime. There was also very little illegitimacy. American is extremely wealthy in 2018. There is lots of crime compared to 1938. There is also lots of illegitimacy. Having illegitimate kids is a good way to get poor. Illegitimate kids having illegitimate kids is a really, really good way to get and stay poor. Get through high school, get a job, get married before you have kids is a great recipe to not be poor. That is also a good indicator that you won’t be a criminal. Call it good moral judgment. Of course, that is no seen as “white privilege” by ignorant leftards. Recipe works for Americans of all colors.
Would a doubling of the murder rate qualify as an "explosion?" -
Present your stats. Support your argument.SFGbob said:
And I asked you what would qualify as an explosion. I've seen your Kunt act enough times already Hondo. Would a doubling of the murder rate qualify as an explosion? Yes or no?2001400ex said:
I asked for the stats to back it up.SFGbob said:
Hondo, lets get a real gauge on just how fucking stupid and ignorant you are. Comparing the rate of crime in 1958 America, with the rate of crime in 1978 America is it fair to say the crime rate exploded? What would the increase have to be before you could describe it as an "explosion?"2001400ex said:
Like such fag Bob, you seem to think there's been an explosion in crime rates.. Where are the stats to back this up?WestlinnDuck said:
Poverty isn’t necessarily “the” cause of crime. Middle America was poor in the 1930. Very little crime. There was also very little illegitimacy. American is extremely wealthy in 2018. There is lots of crime compared to 1938. There is also lots of illegitimacy. Having illegitimate kids is a good way to get poor. Illegitimate kids having illegitimate kids is a really, really good way to get and stay poor. Get through high school, get a job, get married before you have kids is a great recipe to not be poor. That is also a good indicator that you won’t be a criminal. Call it good moral judgment. Of course, that is no seen as “white privilege” by ignorant leftards. Recipe works for Americans of all colors.
Would a doubling of the murder rate qualify as an "explosion?"
And there's a lot more to crime stats when you are talking in relation to poverty than just the murder rate. -
Hondo I've seen your Kunt act enough around here. I post stats that show a doubling in murder, robbery, rape, and you then engage in a semantics based Kunt act over the word "explosion."2001400ex said:
Present your stats. Support your argument.SFGbob said:
And I asked you what would qualify as an explosion. I've seen your Kunt act enough times already Hondo. Would a doubling of the murder rate qualify as an explosion? Yes or no?2001400ex said:
I asked for the stats to back it up.SFGbob said:
Hondo, lets get a real gauge on just how fucking stupid and ignorant you are. Comparing the rate of crime in 1958 America, with the rate of crime in 1978 America is it fair to say the crime rate exploded? What would the increase have to be before you could describe it as an "explosion?"2001400ex said:
Like such fag Bob, you seem to think there's been an explosion in crime rates.. Where are the stats to back this up?WestlinnDuck said:
Poverty isn’t necessarily “the” cause of crime. Middle America was poor in the 1930. Very little crime. There was also very little illegitimacy. American is extremely wealthy in 2018. There is lots of crime compared to 1938. There is also lots of illegitimacy. Having illegitimate kids is a good way to get poor. Illegitimate kids having illegitimate kids is a really, really good way to get and stay poor. Get through high school, get a job, get married before you have kids is a great recipe to not be poor. That is also a good indicator that you won’t be a criminal. Call it good moral judgment. Of course, that is no seen as “white privilege” by ignorant leftards. Recipe works for Americans of all colors.
Would a doubling of the murder rate qualify as an "explosion?"
And there's a lot more to crime stats when you are talking in relation to poverty than just the murder rate.
Give me the number in the increase that would make it okay to call it an "explosion?"
Btw, the level of your ignorance is really something. Anyone with just a cursory knowledge of American post war society and what happened to the crime rates in this country through-out the 60s, 70s and 80s would have no problem describing it as an "explosion" in crime. Amazing how poorly informed you are. -
SFGbob said:
Unless Bannon has a body count that I'm unaware of, or you have some evidence that Bannon participated in a racist smear job that he knew wasn't true, comparing Bannon to Sharpton is like comparing apples to dog-shit. You missed the point.creepycoug said:
I didn't say you said I apologized for anything; that's my word, used in response to your allegation of white washing. Call it interference if you wish. I see it as no different than Bannon's advice, taken to heart and implemented by Trump, of invoking the religious loons on the right. They both have inconvenient friends. That was the point. Obama has about as much in actual common with Farrakahn and Sharpton as Trump does with Jerry Falwell. In any event, I'm not carrying the torch for the dysfunction in American politics. You can argue that with someone else.SFGbob said:
Yeah you just ran interference for the fact that Obama hired the piece of shit to lead his get out the vote effort by you didn't "apologize" for Sharpton and since you appear to be one of those precise language Kunt's quote where I said you apologized Coug?creepycoug said:Nowhere in my post is any kind of apology for Sharpton being anything less than a charlatan. I'd have him over for dinner b4 David Duke any day though. I would never equate those two as analogs.
As to comparing you to the 'racism is over crowd', how so? That wasn't the point at all. The point was even that crowd, who don't believe racism is really an issue anymore, acknowledge that the past has loaded meaning, so, you know, an effigy of a black guy swinging from a tree is a little different than a effigy of Trump that pokes fun of his weight and his comb over.
There were no eye witnesses to the start of the struggle. A few people saw the thing in mid-fight, conflicting testimony was offered as to who they heard screaming, and some people saw Martin on top of Zimmerman. Testimony was inconsistent about whether he was bashing his head into the sidewalk. None of that means he attacked him. Sure, all you had to do was look at Zimmerman to know he got his ass kicked. But if someone approaches you threateningly, or even grabs hold of you, or starts a fight with you, and you wind up kicking his ass, and he shoots you, you score that as self-defense because you attacked him? Really? The taped 911 call is at least a strong hint that he (1) thought Martin was up to no good (he was not, at least that night, which is all that matters), and (2) he was frustrated that the kid might get away. "Fucking punks ... these assholes always get away." All that transpired, transpired, and the story becomes that Martin, who Zimmerman was following, lurked out of the darkness and 'sucker punched him.' Nobody saw that. What everyone does know is that Zimmerman started following a kid he thought was doing something wrong, who wasn't doing anything wrong.
Like I said, Martin was no saint, but I grew up with a lot of people whose profiles weren't much better than his, and some worse. They're normal people now. If, sincerely, none of that even gives you pause, coupled with the fact that a 17-year old kid who had a lot of time to get his life going in a better direction got whacked on a night he was walking and minding his own business, then we are different kinds of people and likely will not reach any kind of consensus on pretty much anything. I don't believe that you actually see it that simply, and that instead we are doing the HCH crazy dance.
Your claims about Zimmerman grabbing and holding Trademark are pulled straight out of your ass. I 'claimed' no such thing. You, not me, are the one doing all the claiming over a salient point neither you, nor I, nor anyone else other than Zimmerman knows, and thus are the only one reaching in ass.
And the cuts to the back of Zimmerman's head as well as the dampness of his jacket coupled with the only credible eyewitness testimony provides pretty clear evidence that Trademark was smashing Zimmerman's head against something. That has been discussed. That Zimmerman, in one way or the other, wound up with his ass kicked is not in dispute. Embarrassingly for him, the 168 lb. kid who'd been minding his own business up to that point was too much for the cop-wannabe.
Other than the bullet through his chest there was zero evidence that Zimmerman ever hit or struck Trademark. Right, because he was a pussy. What we don't know is why they wound up in that situation in the first place, but what we do know is that Zimmerman, who is not a professionally trained anything, profiled and stalked him, and was, at best, agitated with his presence.
Zimmerman had no marks on his hands. Trademark had cut knuckles. Again, that's because Zimmerman got his ass kicked by a kid he was stalking.
You may not like what Zimmerman did but he was perfectly in his right to do so and had violated no laws with his actions. That depends on the circumstances. It all depends on Zimmerman's entire role in the altercation, not just the obvious conclusion that he can't fight. Also you have no idea if Trademark was up do no good. No, nor do I have any idea if you're a serial killer or not. And?
The fact that he doubled back and attacked someone when he was just feet away from the unit where he was staying tells me he wasn't up to any good. You don't know if he doubled back. You keep talking about this as if you were there. You were not.
All we know is (1) Zimmerman was stalking a 17-year old skinny kid walking on the sidewalk at night, (2) Zimmerman was, at best, agitated by his presence, (3) Zimmerman was armed and the kid was unarmed, and (4) Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked before shooting the kid.
Trademark beating on Zimmerman violated all kinds of fucking laws and Zimmerman was perfectly within his rights to plug him. No, not necessarily on either of those points. That's not the law.
Is it your view that lethal force is always and unequivocally justified and blameless in any situation in which a person is being handed their ass in a fist fight?
Are you so disapproving of teenagers who do weed, steal shit, vandalize property and get into fights at school such that you think they deserve whatever results from any situation in which they find themselves winning a fist fight? Because you can suppose away and do all the tuff shit talk you want, but you don't know shit about how that fight started other than the armed guy who got his ass kicked was stalking the unarmed guy who kicked his ass for no good reason. And walking around at night with your hood over your head and candy in your pocket is not a good reason.
-
I'm just asking you to support your srory man. I also know what's happened to crime stats the last 30 years and what's happened to poverty for those 30 years. So post up the facts.SFGbob said:
Hondo I've seen your Kunt act enough around here. I post stats that show a doubling in murder, robbery, rape, and you then engage in a semantics based Kunt act over the word "explosion."2001400ex said:
Present your stats. Support your argument.SFGbob said:
And I asked you what would qualify as an explosion. I've seen your Kunt act enough times already Hondo. Would a doubling of the murder rate qualify as an explosion? Yes or no?2001400ex said:
I asked for the stats to back it up.SFGbob said:
Hondo, lets get a real gauge on just how fucking stupid and ignorant you are. Comparing the rate of crime in 1958 America, with the rate of crime in 1978 America is it fair to say the crime rate exploded? What would the increase have to be before you could describe it as an "explosion?"2001400ex said:
Like such fag Bob, you seem to think there's been an explosion in crime rates.. Where are the stats to back this up?WestlinnDuck said:
Poverty isn’t necessarily “the” cause of crime. Middle America was poor in the 1930. Very little crime. There was also very little illegitimacy. American is extremely wealthy in 2018. There is lots of crime compared to 1938. There is also lots of illegitimacy. Having illegitimate kids is a good way to get poor. Illegitimate kids having illegitimate kids is a really, really good way to get and stay poor. Get through high school, get a job, get married before you have kids is a great recipe to not be poor. That is also a good indicator that you won’t be a criminal. Call it good moral judgment. Of course, that is no seen as “white privilege” by ignorant leftards. Recipe works for Americans of all colors.
Would a doubling of the murder rate qualify as an "explosion?"
And there's a lot more to crime stats when you are talking in relation to poverty than just the murder rate.
Give me the number in the increase that would make it okay to call it an "explosion?"
Btw, the level of your ignorance is really something. Anyone with just a cursory knowledge of American post war society and what happened to the crime rates in this country through-out the 60s, 70s and 80s would have no problem describing it as an "explosion" in crime. Amazing how poorly informed you are. -
Says the guy who takes Zimmerman's word on its face that Trayvon "doubled back to kick his ass", even though nobody saw any such "doubling back", and even though Zimmerman absolutely needs that point to stick to make his self-defense claim even appear. Says the guy who ignores one of the few facts that was not in dispute: that Zimmerman was following this kid and had already tried and convicted him of doing 'something' and was concerned that he would 'get away' from, you know, walking down the sidewalk.SFGbob said:
Wow, if only the prosecution would have called you. You seem to know all about the facts of the case that the state wasn't able to uncover. You have no idea if Zimmerman "profiled" anyone other than the fact that Trademark did fit the profile of the people who had been robbing the homes in that area for the previous two years. In fact, Trademark profiled Zimmerman when he told his girl friend that Zimmerman looked like a "Creepy ass Cracker."TurdBuffer said:"Trademark beating on Zimmerman violated all kinds of fucking laws and Zimmerman was perfectly within his rights to plug him."
Look dude, that's the story the jury bought and Trayvon couldn't speak for himself, so we're stuck with it, and there's no need to keep rubbing it in. What I find terrible in that case is the absolute profiling and prejudice exercised by Zimmerman, and the complete inability of that dumb-fuck wannabe cop to de-escalate the situation with words. Thus, he had no business at all playing rent-a-cop that night, and Trayvon wouldn't be dead if he wasn't. At a minimum, it's a tragedy, and you sound like a yahoo gun nut to keep grinding away at "Trademark" and all that shit.
I run into weird, suspicious characters in my neighborhood a lot, because I live within walking distance of the local business district where shitheads rifle cars and roll drunk people for their wallets fairly frequently, and I've had a few showdowns with people I knew were casing or burglarizing the area, but I never stalked a person like Zimmerman stalked Trayvon, because that escalates vs. de-escalates the situation. Zimmerman is a douche, as we all know by now and a douche with a gun is a threat to everyone.
Would you be posting like this if Zimmerman was a known pedophile? I doubt it. And he probably is.
Just how much of a beating was Zimmerman supposed to take before he could respond? And following someone in public doesn't equal "stalking." Trademark was well on his way to becoming a thug. Guns, drugs and fighting were already things he had plenty of experience with. Let it be a lesson, if you're going to attack and start beating people you might want to make sure they aren't packing.
Interesting that you bring up Trayvon's comments about Zimmerman. It would seem to suggest that Trayvon was at least arguably in apprehension of harm with this adult following him around for no apparent reason. You couple that with the 911 tape and it looks like maybe Fat George was the one up to no good that night.
Nobody really knows. If I had to guess, George got himself into something through some combination of his mouth and his actions and severely underestimated this kid, and then as he found himself getting his ass kicked, panicked, and shot him.
And while we're on the 'on his way to becoming a thug' shtick, let's not forget that Zimmie himself was far from a model citizen. There is enuff shit out there about him and his wife, both before and after the incident, to call into question whether he was out there 'up to no good'. Then you add the tape of the 911 call. -
STFU it's all the liberal media's fault. Without them it never would have been news and Zimmerman wouldn't even have had to go to to trial.creepycoug said:
Says the guy who takes Zimmerman's word on its face that Trayvon "doubled back to kick his ass", even though nobody saw any such "doubling back", and even though Zimmerman absolutely needs that point to stick to make his self-defense claim even appear. Says the guy who ignores one of the few facts that was not in dispute: that Zimmerman was following this kid and had already tried and convicted him of doing 'something' and was concerned that he would 'get away' from, you know, walking down the sidewalk.SFGbob said:
Wow, if only the prosecution would have called you. You seem to know all about the facts of the case that the state wasn't able to uncover. You have no idea if Zimmerman "profiled" anyone other than the fact that Trademark did fit the profile of the people who had been robbing the homes in that area for the previous two years. In fact, Trademark profiled Zimmerman when he told his girl friend that Zimmerman looked like a "Creepy ass Cracker."TurdBuffer said:"Trademark beating on Zimmerman violated all kinds of fucking laws and Zimmerman was perfectly within his rights to plug him."
Look dude, that's the story the jury bought and Trayvon couldn't speak for himself, so we're stuck with it, and there's no need to keep rubbing it in. What I find terrible in that case is the absolute profiling and prejudice exercised by Zimmerman, and the complete inability of that dumb-fuck wannabe cop to de-escalate the situation with words. Thus, he had no business at all playing rent-a-cop that night, and Trayvon wouldn't be dead if he wasn't. At a minimum, it's a tragedy, and you sound like a yahoo gun nut to keep grinding away at "Trademark" and all that shit.
I run into weird, suspicious characters in my neighborhood a lot, because I live within walking distance of the local business district where shitheads rifle cars and roll drunk people for their wallets fairly frequently, and I've had a few showdowns with people I knew were casing or burglarizing the area, but I never stalked a person like Zimmerman stalked Trayvon, because that escalates vs. de-escalates the situation. Zimmerman is a douche, as we all know by now and a douche with a gun is a threat to everyone.
Would you be posting like this if Zimmerman was a known pedophile? I doubt it. And he probably is.
Just how much of a beating was Zimmerman supposed to take before he could respond? And following someone in public doesn't equal "stalking." Trademark was well on his way to becoming a thug. Guns, drugs and fighting were already things he had plenty of experience with. Let it be a lesson, if you're going to attack and start beating people you might want to make sure they aren't packing.
Interesting that you bring up Trayvon's comments about Zimmerman. It would seem to suggest that Trayvon was at least arguably in apprehension of harm with this adult following him around for no apparent reason. You couple that with the 911 tape and it looks like maybe Fat George was the one up to no good that night.
Nobody really knows. If I had to guess, George got himself into something through some combination of his mouth and his actions and severely underestimated this kid, and then as he found himself getting his ass kicked, panicked, and shot him.
And while we're on the 'on his way to becoming a thug' shtick, let's not forget that Zimmie himself was far from a model citizen. There is enuff shit out there about him and his wife, both before and after the incident, to call into question whether he was out there 'up to no good'. Then you add the tape of the 911 call.
Or so I've heard. -
I think this is actually semi-correct.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Disagree. Poverty is an evil that begets more evil. The 20th century alone is littered with examples of this on a massive scale: communism, Nazi Germany. As well as every day crimes that probably would not occur if poverty were eliminated, which is impossible, until we develop Star Trek like technology. Replicators, laser beams and shit.TurdBuffer said:
@Pawz: That myth has been disproven so many times I can't believe you're making that argument here in 2018. Poverty does not cause crime. Correlation is not Causation. Stop.pawz said:
Crime is the symptom. Poverty is the problem.SFGbob said:Blacks have more run ins with the cops because blacks as a whole commit a hell of a lot more crime and live in higher crime areas where more police are usually deployed.
Factor in the fact that cops are more likely to view young black males as criminals, especially if they are sporting a certain look, and on account of this higher rate of criminal activity by blacks and you have the factors that explain the higher rate of blacks having run ins with the cops.
Racism plays some role in this but even black, Hispanic and Asian cops, especially in urban areas, quickly realize that it ain’t whitey that’s committing most of the crime, especially the violent crime.
If you fix poverty, you wont have crime. -
I haven't taken Zimmerman's word on anything. I looked at the physical evidence and I watched the trial. There was a reason why the police weren't going to charge him with a crime. I brought up Trayvon's comment about Zimmerman because it actually shows that Trademark profiled him. While the claims about Zimmerman profiling Trademark are pulled squarely out of your ass.creepycoug said:
Says the guy who takes Zimmerman's word on its face that Trayvon "doubled back to kick his ass", even though nobody saw any such "doubling back", and even though Zimmerman absolutely needs that point to stick to make his self-defense claim even appear. Says the guy who ignores one of the few facts that was not in dispute: that Zimmerman was following this kid and had already tried and convicted him of doing 'something' and was concerned that he would 'get away' from, you know, walking down the sidewalk.SFGbob said:
Wow, if only the prosecution would have called you. You seem to know all about the facts of the case that the state wasn't able to uncover. You have no idea if Zimmerman "profiled" anyone other than the fact that Trademark did fit the profile of the people who had been robbing the homes in that area for the previous two years. In fact, Trademark profiled Zimmerman when he told his girl friend that Zimmerman looked like a "Creepy ass Cracker."TurdBuffer said:"Trademark beating on Zimmerman violated all kinds of fucking laws and Zimmerman was perfectly within his rights to plug him."
Look dude, that's the story the jury bought and Trayvon couldn't speak for himself, so we're stuck with it, and there's no need to keep rubbing it in. What I find terrible in that case is the absolute profiling and prejudice exercised by Zimmerman, and the complete inability of that dumb-fuck wannabe cop to de-escalate the situation with words. Thus, he had no business at all playing rent-a-cop that night, and Trayvon wouldn't be dead if he wasn't. At a minimum, it's a tragedy, and you sound like a yahoo gun nut to keep grinding away at "Trademark" and all that shit.
I run into weird, suspicious characters in my neighborhood a lot, because I live within walking distance of the local business district where shitheads rifle cars and roll drunk people for their wallets fairly frequently, and I've had a few showdowns with people I knew were casing or burglarizing the area, but I never stalked a person like Zimmerman stalked Trayvon, because that escalates vs. de-escalates the situation. Zimmerman is a douche, as we all know by now and a douche with a gun is a threat to everyone.
Would you be posting like this if Zimmerman was a known pedophile? I doubt it. And he probably is.
Just how much of a beating was Zimmerman supposed to take before he could respond? And following someone in public doesn't equal "stalking." Trademark was well on his way to becoming a thug. Guns, drugs and fighting were already things he had plenty of experience with. Let it be a lesson, if you're going to attack and start beating people you might want to make sure they aren't packing.
Interesting that you bring up Trayvon's comments about Zimmerman. It would seem to suggest that Trayvon was at least arguably in apprehension of harm with this adult following him around for no apparent reason. You couple that with the 911 tape and it looks like maybe Fat George was the one up to no good that night.
Nobody really knows. If I had to guess, George got himself into something through some combination of his mouth and his actions and severely underestimated this kid, and then as he found himself getting his ass kicked, panicked, and shot him.
And while we're on the 'on his way to becoming a thug' shtick, let's not forget that Zimmie himself was far from a model citizen. There is enuff shit out there about him and his wife, both before and after the incident, to call into question whether he was out there 'up to no good'. Then you add the tape of the 911 call.
There was no "911 tape" it was the recorded call to the non-emergency police dispatch. And there's nothing on that tape that implicates Zimmerman in anything.
Moral of the story, don't go swinging on people when you don't know if they might be packing heat. Trademark got exactly what he deserved. -
What happen to the violent crime rate between 1960 and 1990 Hondo? How much did it increase? And how much would it have to increase before it could be called an "explosion?"2001400ex said:
I'm just asking you to support your srory man. I also know what's happened to crime stats the last 30 years and what's happened to poverty for those 30 years. So post up the facts.SFGbob said:
Hondo I've seen your Kunt act enough around here. I post stats that show a doubling in murder, robbery, rape, and you then engage in a semantics based Kunt act over the word "explosion."2001400ex said:
Present your stats. Support your argument.SFGbob said:
And I asked you what would qualify as an explosion. I've seen your Kunt act enough times already Hondo. Would a doubling of the murder rate qualify as an explosion? Yes or no?2001400ex said:
I asked for the stats to back it up.SFGbob said:
Hondo, lets get a real gauge on just how fucking stupid and ignorant you are. Comparing the rate of crime in 1958 America, with the rate of crime in 1978 America is it fair to say the crime rate exploded? What would the increase have to be before you could describe it as an "explosion?"2001400ex said:
Like such fag Bob, you seem to think there's been an explosion in crime rates.. Where are the stats to back this up?WestlinnDuck said:
Poverty isn’t necessarily “the” cause of crime. Middle America was poor in the 1930. Very little crime. There was also very little illegitimacy. American is extremely wealthy in 2018. There is lots of crime compared to 1938. There is also lots of illegitimacy. Having illegitimate kids is a good way to get poor. Illegitimate kids having illegitimate kids is a really, really good way to get and stay poor. Get through high school, get a job, get married before you have kids is a great recipe to not be poor. That is also a good indicator that you won’t be a criminal. Call it good moral judgment. Of course, that is no seen as “white privilege” by ignorant leftards. Recipe works for Americans of all colors.
Would a doubling of the murder rate qualify as an "explosion?"
And there's a lot more to crime stats when you are talking in relation to poverty than just the murder rate.
Give me the number in the increase that would make it okay to call it an "explosion?"
Btw, the level of your ignorance is really something. Anyone with just a cursory knowledge of American post war society and what happened to the crime rates in this country through-out the 60s, 70s and 80s would have no problem describing it as an "explosion" in crime. Amazing how poorly informed you are.
