On average, across the world. The higher the poverty, the higher the crime rate. There is a correlation, not necessarily a causation. In America, yes as poverty went down, crime went up. But only for part of the time.
1960 -1980 - poverty is down and crime is up. Supports your story.
1980 -1990 - poverty is up, crime is up. Does not support your story.
1990 - current - poverty is up and down but over time relatively flat. While crime is down pretty much the entire time. Does not support your story.
HTH
People commit crimes because they are pieces of shit. The ratio of poor people who are pieces of shit are higher than average. But in general, it’s being a piece of shit that matters most.
Exactly, these people aren't out stealing food to eat. They are beating, raping and robbing people because they are pieces of shit not because they are poor.
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.
Like such fag Bob, you seem to think there's been an explosion in crime rates.. Where are the stats to back this up?
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?"
Would a doubling of the murder rate qualify as an "explosion?"
I asked for the stats to back it up.
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?
Present your stats. Support your argument.
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."
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.
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.
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?"
Started dropping in 1990 about 17 years after the legal genocide of trashy people’s kids before they were born. And by genoicide I mean a larger percentage of blacks.
Not the question I asked Kunt.
What’s with the name calling man? I was just pointing out a fact. Calm the fuck down.
I wasn't talking to you. And if Hondo doesn't like being called a Kunt he should stop acting like one.
Sounds like you need a tutorial in replying.
And yes, Hondo is one dumb mother fucker.
The best part about such fag Bob. He thought I wrote that so he instantly got pissed and was convulsing at his keyboard. When he realized it was you and "on his side" he walked back with his tail between his legs like a good pussy would.
Naaah, the best part was how I knew you'd run and hide like a Kunt after pounding the table demanding I provide numbers. My response to Mike was a mistake on my part. You Kunt act where you refuse to answer any questions after demanding that people respond to your isn't a mistake. That's just you being the Kunt you are Hondo.
Did you skip a post? I responded directly to your assertion.
You never once answered if a 500% increase was an "explosion" Hondo.
On average, across the world. The higher the poverty, the higher the crime rate. There is a correlation, not necessarily a causation. In America, yes as poverty went down, crime went up. But only for part of the time.
1960 -1980 - poverty is down and crime is up. Supports your story.
1980 -1990 - poverty is up, crime is up. Does not support your story.
1990 - current - poverty is up and down but over time relatively flat. While crime is down pretty much the entire time. Does not support your story.
HTH
People commit crimes because they are pieces of shit. The ratio of poor people who are pieces of shit are higher than average. But in general, it’s being a piece of shit that matters most.
Exactly, these people aren't out stealing food to eat. They are beating, raping and robbing people because they are pieces of shit not because they are poor.
Yes the wealthy have a high rate of people who beat, rape, and rob people.
On average, across the world. The higher the poverty, the higher the crime rate. There is a correlation, not necessarily a causation. In America, yes as poverty went down, crime went up. But only for part of the time.
1960 -1980 - poverty is down and crime is up. Supports your story.
1980 -1990 - poverty is up, crime is up. Does not support your story.
1990 - current - poverty is up and down but over time relatively flat. While crime is down pretty much the entire time. Does not support your story.
HTH
People commit crimes because they are pieces of shit. The ratio of poor people who are pieces of shit are higher than average. But in general, it’s being a piece of shit that matters most.
Exactly, these people aren't out stealing food to eat. They are beating, raping and robbing people because they are pieces of shit not because they are poor.
Yes the wealthy have a high rate of people who beat, rape, and rob people.
You say the stupidest shit sometimes.
If you want to argue that more people who are poor are also the kind of pieces of shit that would commit violent crime I'm all in Hondo.
"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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> There was no 'evidence' for you to observe supporting what you take on faith from George as being true. That is not in dispute.
> 911 tape vs. recorded call is a distinction without a difference. Weak af. What that recording represents is the only evidence we have of either person's pre-altercation state of mind.
> The only physical evidence there was for you to look up was the evidence that Zimmerman can't fight, and thus couldn't finish what he may well have started. There was no evidence, physical or otherwise, of any kind proffered to substantiate that which you hope/assume: the double back claim. Well, other than George, whose chicken is cooked w/o that version of the story.
> The claim that Zimmerman profiled is squarely obvious and almost impossible to dispute; the only thing coming out of anyone's ass is the irrational obstinance with which you deny it. You, yourself, in another post, said that Trayvon fit the profile of people who had committed crimes in the neighborhood. If Z were not profiling, then that point would be, well, rather pointless. Would it not? SO why bring it up? And, in fact, we have the tape of the 911 call to establish, w/o question, that he was indeed profiling the kid. Otherwise, you don't have "these assholes always get away" and "these fucking punks", and the entire thing would not have happened: not the call, not the following, not the altercation and not the shooting. I think what's really up your ass is your head.
> Trayvon's comments, albeit using colloquially racist language, also indicated that Zimmerman's behavior wasn't normal and that he was tracking him. And Zimmerman's reason for doing that, lest we forget, was because the kid was guilty af of walking on the sidewalk minding his own business.
> You continuously bring up the vices of a 17-year old kid, and all the while not once do you acknowledge any of Fat George's shortcomings. All your focus is on the kid's minor league trouble and your assessment that he was "on his way to becoming a thug." Nevermind that Zimmerman seemed to be quite a piece of shit himself, involved in multiple domestic violence calls, arrests and restraining orders, married to a women who attempted to illegally hide assets and perjure herself, and himself arrested for assaulting a police officer. The whole exaggerated (by him) punching incident for (according to multiple witnesses) bragging about killing Martin. Auctioned the gun with which he killed Martin. The list goes on. Somehow, you mysteriously considered none of those things in your thoughtful deliberations. What a guy.
> Is it really that hard to just say that black teenage boys walking alone at night make you nervous too? You seem to be quite aligned with George Zimmerman, who comes off like a world class shit pile, in that you cut him every benefit of the doubt, and the dead kid zero such benefit.
> The real moral of the story here is that you think it would be justified for a kid to shoot your kid to keep from your kid from beating his ass, no questions asked. Sounds good to me.
I never paid much attention to this Zimmerman shit, but this much is true: the left doesn't give one single crap about the kid who got shot ded. They're just interested in racializing the issue because they're race baiting, racist cunts. If it was a white kid shot by a black cop or a latino cop, we wouldn't have heard a single peep out of them.
I never paid much attention to this Zimmerman shit, but this much is true: the left doesn't give one single crap about the kid who got shot ded. They're just interested in racializing the issue because they're race baiting, racist cunts. If it was a white kid shot by a black cop or a latino cop, we wouldn't have heard a single peep out of them.
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.
Like such fag Bob, you seem to think there's been an explosion in crime rates.. Where are the stats to back this up?
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?"
Would a doubling of the murder rate qualify as an "explosion?"
I asked for the stats to back it up.
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?
Present your stats. Support your argument.
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."
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.
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.
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?"
Started dropping in 1990 about 17 years after the legal genocide of trashy people’s kids before they were born. And by genoicide I mean a larger percentage of blacks.
Not the question I asked Kunt.
What’s with the name calling man? I was just pointing out a fact. Calm the fuck down.
And what's the use of the "K"? It is, after all, the "C" word.
I never paid much attention to this Zimmerman shit, but this much is true: the left doesn't give one single crap about the kid who got shot ded. They're just interested in racializing the issue because they're race baiting, racist cunts. If it was a white kid shot by a black cop or a latino cop, we wouldn't have heard a single peep out of them.
Somehow I don't think so. But I admire your spunk commenting on a case that you admittedly didn't pay attention to. And, just guessing, that while people with political agendas use other people all the time in the 'water is whet' sense, there are 'liberals' and maybe just human beings who care a little that this Zimmerman fellow fucked around with a kid for doing nothing and, in response to his fucking embarrassing inability to handle his shit against a 170 lb. teenager, popped him with a gun.
I am frankly shocked as shit that the entire scenario doesn't fire you up given your oft-professed concern with victim's rights. Again, legal citizen, 17-year old kid walking alone, unarmed, followed by armed dude freaking out (taped recording) over the fact that the kid is out walking alone because he fits a profile, follows the kid all hopped up that he's going to 'get away' (from what we don't know), picks a fight he can't finish and shoots the kid. I know if it were Bob's kid he'd do nothing because Bob would think his kid had it coming. You have bigger balls than Bob. What say you in this situation?
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.
Like such fag Bob, you seem to think there's been an explosion in crime rates.. Where are the stats to back this up?
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?"
Would a doubling of the murder rate qualify as an "explosion?"
I asked for the stats to back it up.
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?
Present your stats. Support your argument.
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."
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.
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.
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?"
Started dropping in 1990 about 17 years after the legal genocide of trashy people’s kids before they were born. And by genoicide I mean a larger percentage of blacks.
Not the question I asked Kunt.
What’s with the name calling man? I was just pointing out a fact. Calm the fuck down.
And what's the use of the "K"? It is, after all, the "C" word.
I never paid much attention to this Zimmerman shit, but this much is true: the left doesn't give one single crap about the kid who got shot ded. They're just interested in racializing the issue because they're race baiting, racist cunts. If it was a white kid shot by a black cop or a latino cop, we wouldn't have heard a single peep out of them.
Somehow I don't think so. But I admire your spunk commenting on a case that you admittedly didn't pay attention to. And, just guessing, that while people with political agendas use other people all the time in the 'water is whet' sense, there are 'liberals' and maybe just human beings who care a little that this Zimmerman fellow fucked around with a kid for doing nothing and, in response to his fucking embarrassing inability to handle his shit against a 170 lb. teenager, popped him with a gun.
I am frankly shocked as shit that the entire scenario doesn't fire you up given your oft-professed concern with victim's rights. Again, legal citizen, 17-year old kid walking alone, unarmed, followed by armed dude freaking out (taped recording) over the fact that the kid is out walking alone because he fits a profile, follows the kid all hopped up that he's going to 'get away' (from what we don't know), picks a fight he can't finish and shoots the kid. I know if it were Bob's kid he'd do nothing because Bob would think his kid had it coming. You have bigger balls than Bob. What say you in this situation?
"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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> There was no 'evidence' for you to observe supporting what you take on faith from George as being true. That is not in dispute.
> 911 tape vs. recorded call is a distinction without a difference. Weak af. What that recording represents is the only evidence we have of either person's pre-altercation state of mind.
> The only physical evidence there was for you to look up was the evidence that Zimmerman can't fight, and thus couldn't finish what he may well have started. There was no evidence, physical or otherwise, of any kind proffered to substantiate that which you hope/assume: the double back claim. Well, other than George, whose chicken is cooked w/o that version of the story.
> The claim that Zimmerman profiled is squarely obvious and almost impossible to dispute; the only thing coming out of anyone's ass is the irrational obstinance with which you deny it. You, yourself, in another post, said that Trayvon fit the profile of people who had committed crimes in the neighborhood. If Z were not profiling, then that point would be, well, rather pointless. Would it not? SO why bring it up? And, in fact, we have the tape of the 911 call to establish, w/o question, that he was indeed profiling the kid. Otherwise, you don't have "these assholes always get away" and "these fucking punks", and the entire thing would not have happened: not the call, not the following, not the altercation and not the shooting. I think what's really up your ass is your head.
> Trayvon's comments, albeit using colloquially racist language, also indicated that Zimmerman's behavior wasn't normal and that he was tracking him. And Zimmerman's reason for doing that, lest we forget, was because the kid was guilty af of walking on the sidewalk minding his own business.
> You continuously bring up the vices of a 17-year old kid, and all the while not once do you acknowledge any of Fat George's shortcomings. All your focus is on the kid's minor league trouble and your assessment that he was "on his way to becoming a thug." Nevermind that Zimmerman seemed to be quite a piece of shit himself, involved in multiple domestic violence calls, arrests and restraining orders, married to a women who attempted to illegally hide assets and perjure herself, and himself arrested for assaulting a police officer. The whole exaggerated (by him) punching incident for (according to multiple witnesses) bragging about killing Martin. Auctioned the gun with which he killed Martin. The list goes on. Somehow, you mysteriously considered none of those things in your thoughtful deliberations. What a guy.
> Is it really that hard to just say that black teenage boys walking alone at night make you nervous too? You seem to be quite aligned with George Zimmerman, who comes off like a world class shit pile, in that you cut him every benefit of the doubt, and the dead kid zero such benefit.
> The real moral of the story here is that you think it would be justified for a kid to shoot your kid to keep from your kid from beating his ass, no questions asked. Sounds good to me.
Fat George didn't attack or assault anyone. Fat George lived in that neighborhood and briefly followed someone who didn't live in that neighborhood. From the time Trademark took off running to the time Zimmerman hung up with the police operator Trademark could have been back at the place he was staying and torching up the weed he had just bought a blunt for. But that's not what happened. Trademark decided to get into a fight, to show the "creepy ass cracker" that he wasn't a punk.
Where was Trademark all of that time when George was talking on his phone? For all Zimmerman knew the police were going to be there any second. Zimmerman didn't start a fight that for all he knew was going to be witnessed by the police.
You admit that Trademark was beating George's ass. So just how much of a beating was he supposed to take? How many times would you let me smash your head into the concrete after I'd already broken your nose?
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.
Like such fag Bob, you seem to think there's been an explosion in crime rates.. Where are the stats to back this up?
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?"
Would a doubling of the murder rate qualify as an "explosion?"
I asked for the stats to back it up.
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?
Present your stats. Support your argument.
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."
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.
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.
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?"
Started dropping in 1990 about 17 years after the legal genocide of trashy people’s kids before they were born. And by genoicide I mean a larger percentage of blacks.
Not the question I asked Kunt.
What’s with the name calling man? I was just pointing out a fact. Calm the fuck down.
And what's the use of the "K"? It is, after all, the "C" word.
I never paid much attention to this Zimmerman shit, but this much is true: the left doesn't give one single crap about the kid who got shot ded. They're just interested in racializing the issue because they're race baiting, racist cunts. If it was a white kid shot by a black cop or a latino cop, we wouldn't have heard a single peep out of them.
Somehow I don't think so. But I admire your spunk commenting on a case that you admittedly didn't pay attention to. And, just guessing, that while people with political agendas use other people all the time in the 'water is whet' sense, there are 'liberals' and maybe just human beings who care a little that this Zimmerman fellow fucked around with a kid for doing nothing and, in response to his fucking embarrassing inability to handle his shit against a 170 lb. teenager, popped him with a gun.
I am frankly shocked as shit that the entire scenario doesn't fire you up given your oft-professed concern with victim's rights. Again, legal citizen, 17-year old kid walking alone, unarmed, followed by armed dude freaking out (taped recording) over the fact that the kid is out walking alone because he fits a profile, follows the kid all hopped up that he's going to 'get away' (from what we don't know), picks a fight he can't finish and shoots the kid. I know if it were Bob's kid he'd do nothing because Bob would think his kid had it coming. You have bigger balls than Bob. What say you in this situation?
I don't know enough of the details to know what really happened. The Zimmerman guy sounds like a stupid cock if what you say is true, and should have never been a cop. If the guy who got shot was acting suspicious though, or giving him a hard time or attacking him, it justifies the cop following him and using force to stop him if he was being attacked. I don't know the details of why he was shot. Did he pull something out that looked like a gun or attack the cop? Regardless, it was an incident that the left has used as just another excuse to sow more racial division and law enforcement hating in America.
I never paid much attention to this Zimmerman shit, but this much is true: the left doesn't give one single crap about the kid who got shot ded. They're just interested in racializing the issue because they're race baiting, racist cunts. If it was a white kid shot by a black cop or a latino cop, we wouldn't have heard a single peep out of them.
The only reason it became a big story is because initially the left thought Zimmerman was a white guy. When it turned out he was Hispanic they still turned him into a "White Hispanic."
I never paid much attention to this Zimmerman shit, but this much is true: the left doesn't give one single crap about the kid who got shot ded. They're just interested in racializing the issue because they're race baiting, racist cunts. If it was a white kid shot by a black cop or a latino cop, we wouldn't have heard a single peep out of them.
The only reason it became a big story is because initially the left thought Zimmerman was a white guy. When it turned out he was Hispanic they still turned him into a "White Hispanic."
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.
Like such fag Bob, you seem to think there's been an explosion in crime rates.. Where are the stats to back this up?
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?"
Would a doubling of the murder rate qualify as an "explosion?"
I asked for the stats to back it up.
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?
Present your stats. Support your argument.
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."
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.
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.
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?"
Started dropping in 1990 about 17 years after the legal genocide of trashy people’s kids before they were born. And by genoicide I mean a larger percentage of blacks.
Not the question I asked Kunt.
What’s with the name calling man? I was just pointing out a fact. Calm the fuck down.
And what's the use of the "K"? It is, after all, the "C" word.
I never paid much attention to this Zimmerman shit, but this much is true: the left doesn't give one single crap about the kid who got shot ded. They're just interested in racializing the issue because they're race baiting, racist cunts. If it was a white kid shot by a black cop or a latino cop, we wouldn't have heard a single peep out of them.
Somehow I don't think so. But I admire your spunk commenting on a case that you admittedly didn't pay attention to. And, just guessing, that while people with political agendas use other people all the time in the 'water is whet' sense, there are 'liberals' and maybe just human beings who care a little that this Zimmerman fellow fucked around with a kid for doing nothing and, in response to his fucking embarrassing inability to handle his shit against a 170 lb. teenager, popped him with a gun.
I am frankly shocked as shit that the entire scenario doesn't fire you up given your oft-professed concern with victim's rights. Again, legal citizen, 17-year old kid walking alone, unarmed, followed by armed dude freaking out (taped recording) over the fact that the kid is out walking alone because he fits a profile, follows the kid all hopped up that he's going to 'get away' (from what we don't know), picks a fight he can't finish and shoots the kid. I know if it were Bob's kid he'd do nothing because Bob would think his kid had it coming. You have bigger balls than Bob. What say you in this situation?
I don't know enough of the details to know what really happened. The Zimmerman guy sounds like a stupid cock if what you say is true, and should have never been a cop. If the guy who got shot was acting suspicious though, or giving him a hard time or attacking him, it justifies the cop following him and using force to stop him if he was being attacked. I don't know the details of why he was shot. Did he pull something out that looked like a gun or attack the cop? Regardless, it was an incident that the left has used as just another excuse to sow more racial division and law enforcement hating in America.
He wasn't a cop. He was just a guy who lived in the neighborhood, a neighborhood I might add that had a number of break-ins and robberies including a home invasion robbery and in each case it was young black males who were responsible. Zimmerman had every reason to be suspicious of some high as a kite kid who was walking around in the rain looking like he didn't belong there.
I never paid much attention to this Zimmerman shit, but this much is true: the left doesn't give one single crap about the kid who got shot ded. They're just interested in racializing the issue because they're race baiting, racist cunts. If it was a white kid shot by a black cop or a latino cop, we wouldn't have heard a single peep out of them.
The only reason it became a big story is because initially the left thought Zimmerman was a white guy. When it turned out he was Hispanic they still turned him into a "White Hispanic."
Comments
You say the stupidest shit sometimes.
No shit. Why should anyone support the bullshit they say?
> 911 tape vs. recorded call is a distinction without a difference. Weak af. What that recording represents is the only evidence we have of either person's pre-altercation state of mind.
> The only physical evidence there was for you to look up was the evidence that Zimmerman can't fight, and thus couldn't finish what he may well have started. There was no evidence, physical or otherwise, of any kind proffered to substantiate that which you hope/assume: the double back claim. Well, other than George, whose chicken is cooked w/o that version of the story.
> The claim that Zimmerman profiled is squarely obvious and almost impossible to dispute; the only thing coming out of anyone's ass is the irrational obstinance with which you deny it. You, yourself, in another post, said that Trayvon fit the profile of people who had committed crimes in the neighborhood. If Z were not profiling, then that point would be, well, rather pointless. Would it not? SO why bring it up? And, in fact, we have the tape of the 911 call to establish, w/o question, that he was indeed profiling the kid. Otherwise, you don't have "these assholes always get away" and "these fucking punks", and the entire thing would not have happened: not the call, not the following, not the altercation and not the shooting. I think what's really up your ass is your head.
> Trayvon's comments, albeit using colloquially racist language, also indicated that Zimmerman's behavior wasn't normal and that he was tracking him. And Zimmerman's reason for doing that, lest we forget, was because the kid was guilty af of walking on the sidewalk minding his own business.
> You continuously bring up the vices of a 17-year old kid, and all the while not once do you acknowledge any of Fat George's shortcomings. All your focus is on the kid's minor league trouble and your assessment that he was "on his way to becoming a thug." Nevermind that Zimmerman seemed to be quite a piece of shit himself, involved in multiple domestic violence calls, arrests and restraining orders, married to a women who attempted to illegally hide assets and perjure herself, and himself arrested for assaulting a police officer. The whole exaggerated (by him) punching incident for (according to multiple witnesses) bragging about killing Martin. Auctioned the gun with which he killed Martin. The list goes on. Somehow, you mysteriously considered none of those things in your thoughtful deliberations. What a guy.
> Is it really that hard to just say that black teenage boys walking alone at night make you nervous too? You seem to be quite aligned with George Zimmerman, who comes off like a world class shit pile, in that you cut him every benefit of the doubt, and the dead kid zero such benefit.
> The real moral of the story here is that you think it would be justified for a kid to shoot your kid to keep from your kid from beating his ass, no questions asked. Sounds good to me.
It is some mighty fine tuff shit talk though. Somehow I don't think so. But I admire your spunk commenting on a case that you admittedly didn't pay attention to. And, just guessing, that while people with political agendas use other people all the time in the 'water is whet' sense, there are 'liberals' and maybe just human beings who care a little that this Zimmerman fellow fucked around with a kid for doing nothing and, in response to his fucking embarrassing inability to handle his shit against a 170 lb. teenager, popped him with a gun.
I am frankly shocked as shit that the entire scenario doesn't fire you up given your oft-professed concern with victim's rights. Again, legal citizen, 17-year old kid walking alone, unarmed, followed by armed dude freaking out (taped recording) over the fact that the kid is out walking alone because he fits a profile, follows the kid all hopped up that he's going to 'get away' (from what we don't know), picks a fight he can't finish and shoots the kid. I know if it were Bob's kid he'd do nothing because Bob would think his kid had it coming. You have bigger balls than Bob. What say you in this situation?
Where was Trademark all of that time when George was talking on his phone? For all Zimmerman knew the police were going to be there any second. Zimmerman didn't start a fight that for all he knew was going to be witnessed by the police.
You admit that Trademark was beating George's ass. So just how much of a beating was he supposed to take? How many times would you let me smash your head into the concrete after I'd already broken your nose?