Topic: Only 39 Percent Would Vote to Re-Elect Obama in 2012 | |
---|---|
afterthought:
I realy dont want to get into the tiresome tit for tat of posting material from websites as there are enough of them for us to be here forever I am just pointing out that the statement 'blacks commit more crimes' is inaccurate on many levels a more accurate statement would be 'blacks are convicted and arrested for more VIOLENT crimes' |
|
|
|
And if I may interject I did supply the quote, spoken in Obama's own words from his own lips.
Smoke cannot obscure words! |
|
|
|
And if I may interject I did supply the quote, spoken in Obama's own words from his own lips. Smoke cannot obscure words! I did as well, can you re post what you quoted as I dont wish to search seven pages,,lol I did not see anything in what I found to be racist, perhaps you found something different... |
|
|
|
thats a little better more numbers and less assessment here is an assessment from another source As sociologist Robert O’Brian has noted (using Census data), the odds of a given white person (or white criminal for that matter) encountering a black person are only about three percent. On the other hand, the odds of a given black person (or black criminal) encountering a white person are nineteen times greater, or fifty-seven percent (6), meaning the actual interracial victimization gap between black-on-white and white-on-black crime is smaller than one would expect. In 2002, blacks committed a little more than 1.2 million violent crimes, while whites committed a little more than three million violent crimes (7). If each black criminal had a 57 percent chance of encountering (and thus potentially victimizing) a white person, this means that over the course of 2002, blacks should have been expected to victimize roughly 690,000 whites. But in truth, blacks victimized whites only 614,176 times that year (8). Conversely, if each white criminal had only a three percent chance of encountering and thus victimizing a black person, this means that over the course of 2002, whites would have been expected to victimize roughly 93,000 blacks. But in truth, whites victimized blacks 135,931 times: almost 50 percent more often than would be expected by random chance (9). Please post a link |
|
|
|
Edited by
Rachel78745
on
Wed 10/06/10 11:11 AM
|
|
thats a little better more numbers and less assessment here is an assessment from another source As sociologist Robert O’Brian has noted (using Census data), the odds of a given white person (or white criminal for that matter) encountering a black person are only about three percent. On the other hand, the odds of a given black person (or black criminal) encountering a white person are nineteen times greater, or fifty-seven percent (6), meaning the actual interracial victimization gap between black-on-white and white-on-black crime is smaller than one would expect. In 2002, blacks committed a little more than 1.2 million violent crimes, while whites committed a little more than three million violent crimes (7). If each black criminal had a 57 percent chance of encountering (and thus potentially victimizing) a white person, this means that over the course of 2002, blacks should have been expected to victimize roughly 690,000 whites. But in truth, blacks victimized whites only 614,176 times that year (8). Conversely, if each white criminal had only a three percent chance of encountering and thus victimizing a black person, this means that over the course of 2002, whites would have been expected to victimize roughly 93,000 blacks. But in truth, whites victimized blacks 135,931 times: almost 50 percent more often than would be expected by random chance (9). Ok your post is theory. The study I posted is of actual events that took place! Not some speculative data on how often whites and blacks interact. What if they took a drive? what about if they lost they're dog and were looking for it? What if they got lost on the wrong side of town? I mean are you serious???? That's ridiculous!!! How can you calculate how often blacks and whites mingle?? WTF??? |
|
|
|
Is this the reference you are speaking of
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFNQBTOVF4o if so, this is the danger of people accepting youtube snippets without knowing the context,, here is the full pasage 'The title of Reverend Wright's sermon that morning was "The Audacity of Hope." He began with a passage from the Book of Samuel -- the story of Hannah, who, barren and taunted by her rivals, had wept and shaken in prayer before her God. The story reminded him, he said, of a sermon a fellow pastor had preached at a conference some years before, in which the pastor described going to a museum and being confronted by a painting titled Hope. "The painting depicts a harpist," Reverend Wright explained, "a woman who at first glance appears to be sitting atop a great mountain. Until you take a closer look and see that the woman is bruised and bloodied, dressed in tattered rags, the harp reduced to a single frayed string. Your eye is then drawn down to the scene below, down to the valley below, where everywhere are the ravages of famine, the drumbeat of war, a world groaning under strife and deprivation. "It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks' greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere ...That's the world! On which hope sits!" the audio book and the written book, contained QUOTES from rev wright sermon at a time when APARTHEID was a very real issue,,, from http://worldnews.about.com/od/ad/g/apartheid.htm Definition: Derived from the Afrikaans word for "apartness," apartheid is a term that came into usage in the 1930s and signified the political policy under which the races in South Africa were subject to "separate development." For the purpose of implementing these policies, apartheid recognized four races: Bantu, or black African; Coloured, or mixed race; white, and Asian. Apartheid met with both international condemnation and spurred a resistance movement among black South Africans. Apartheid was defined as a crime in 2002 by the International Criminal Court; the United Nations had declared it a crime against humanity in 1973, though many nations still not have signed on to the convention guess which 'race' is usually at the top of the development chain in these types of governments? |
|
|
|
thats a little better more numbers and less assessment here is an assessment from another source As sociologist Robert O’Brian has noted (using Census data), the odds of a given white person (or white criminal for that matter) encountering a black person are only about three percent. On the other hand, the odds of a given black person (or black criminal) encountering a white person are nineteen times greater, or fifty-seven percent (6), meaning the actual interracial victimization gap between black-on-white and white-on-black crime is smaller than one would expect. In 2002, blacks committed a little more than 1.2 million violent crimes, while whites committed a little more than three million violent crimes (7). If each black criminal had a 57 percent chance of encountering (and thus potentially victimizing) a white person, this means that over the course of 2002, blacks should have been expected to victimize roughly 690,000 whites. But in truth, blacks victimized whites only 614,176 times that year (8). Conversely, if each white criminal had only a three percent chance of encountering and thus victimizing a black person, this means that over the course of 2002, whites would have been expected to victimize roughly 93,000 blacks. But in truth, whites victimized blacks 135,931 times: almost 50 percent more often than would be expected by random chance (9). Please post a link as soon as you do,,, |
|
|
|
thats a little better more numbers and less assessment here is an assessment from another source As sociologist Robert O’Brian has noted (using Census data), the odds of a given white person (or white criminal for that matter) encountering a black person are only about three percent. On the other hand, the odds of a given black person (or black criminal) encountering a white person are nineteen times greater, or fifty-seven percent (6), meaning the actual interracial victimization gap between black-on-white and white-on-black crime is smaller than one would expect. In 2002, blacks committed a little more than 1.2 million violent crimes, while whites committed a little more than three million violent crimes (7). If each black criminal had a 57 percent chance of encountering (and thus potentially victimizing) a white person, this means that over the course of 2002, blacks should have been expected to victimize roughly 690,000 whites. But in truth, blacks victimized whites only 614,176 times that year (8). Conversely, if each white criminal had only a three percent chance of encountering and thus victimizing a black person, this means that over the course of 2002, whites would have been expected to victimize roughly 93,000 blacks. But in truth, whites victimized blacks 135,931 times: almost 50 percent more often than would be expected by random chance (9). Please post a link as soon as you do,,, I already did !! That's from the study I posted earlier !! LMAO!!!! I warned you about debating with me without reading the post . LOL Proof you didn't read the study. It's ok you can remain ignorant. Keep being a victim and thinking your races failures are our fault. See how far that gets you, seems to be working just fine right? LOL |
|
|
|
thats a little better more numbers and less assessment here is an assessment from another source As sociologist Robert O’Brian has noted (using Census data), the odds of a given white person (or white criminal for that matter) encountering a black person are only about three percent. On the other hand, the odds of a given black person (or black criminal) encountering a white person are nineteen times greater, or fifty-seven percent (6), meaning the actual interracial victimization gap between black-on-white and white-on-black crime is smaller than one would expect. In 2002, blacks committed a little more than 1.2 million violent crimes, while whites committed a little more than three million violent crimes (7). If each black criminal had a 57 percent chance of encountering (and thus potentially victimizing) a white person, this means that over the course of 2002, blacks should have been expected to victimize roughly 690,000 whites. But in truth, blacks victimized whites only 614,176 times that year (8). Conversely, if each white criminal had only a three percent chance of encountering and thus victimizing a black person, this means that over the course of 2002, whites would have been expected to victimize roughly 93,000 blacks. But in truth, whites victimized blacks 135,931 times: almost 50 percent more often than would be expected by random chance (9). Please post a link as soon as you do,,, I already did !! That's from the study I posted earlier !! LMAO!!!! I warned you about debating with me without reading the post . LOL Proof you didn't read the study. It's ok you can remain ignorant. Keep being a victim and thinking your races failures are our fault. See how far that gets you, seems to be working just fine right? LOL its ok to remain arrogant too, if it works for ya actually your 'are police biased' post did NOT provide a link please dont feel the need to 'warn' me about anything, I can pretty much hold my own in an anonymous cyber world where everyone has an opinion,,,, |
|
|
|
msharmony you wrote...
"guess which 'race' is usually at the top of the development chain in these types of governments?" Truth is that these types of governmental setups occur in many 'nations' on the African Continent. And the 'race' which is usually at the 'top' of the food chain is the one with the most guns 'n gold... It has nothing to do with color of skin. (most of the countries that practice such 'seperated' governance do so by 'tribe' not race). |
|
|
|
msharmony you wrote... "guess which 'race' is usually at the top of the development chain in these types of governments?" Truth is that these types of governmental setups occur in many 'nations' on the African Continent. And the 'race' which is usually at the 'top' of the food chain is the one with the most guns 'n gold... It has nothing to do with color of skin. (most of the countries that practice such 'seperated' governance do so by 'tribe' not race). I understand |
|
|
|
Edited by
KerryO
on
Wed 10/06/10 05:00 PM
|
|
And if an indictment for murder was even remotely similar to being elected President of the United States by a landslide, that statement might mean something. -Kerry O. In the context it was used in it did go perfectly. Sorry it went over your head. 'Fraid not, mon cherie. It was an obvious attempt to 'poison the well', a common debating tactic amongst the loud and less adept at making a case based on merits. But that's Birthers for you-- anyone who doesn't see things their way is an idiot. Which is why Birther-in-Chief Orly Taitz was cited for contempt of court. You know, if you really feel this strongly about it and aren't just blowing smoke, why don't you exercise your Constitutional right to seek redress in the courts? Take him to court. Or write your Republican Congressperson and DEMAND they impeach Obama when they win a majority in the House this fall. I mean really, you already have half the posters in the Current Events forum on Mingle^2 convinced, right? :) What could go wrong? -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
And if an indictment for murder was even remotely similar to being elected President of the United States by a landslide, that statement might mean something. -Kerry O. In the context it was used in it did go perfectly. Sorry it went over your head. 'Fraid not, mon cherie. It was an obvious attempt to 'poison the well', a common debating tactic amongst the loud and less adept at making a case based on merits. But that's Birthers for you-- anyone who doesn't see things their way is an idiot. Which is why Birther-in-Chief Orly Taitz was cited for contempt of court. You know, if you really feel this strongly about it and aren't just blowing smoke, why don't you exercise your Constitutional right to seek redress in the courts? Take him to court. Or write your Republican Congressperson and DEMAND they impeach Obama when they win a majority in the House this fall. I mean really, you already have half the posters in the Current Events forum on Mingle^2 convinced, right? :) What could go wrong? -Kerry O. LOL Nice try, but you still missed the point. I have grown weary of arguing people who are incapable of offering a legitimate argument. Personal attacks and opinions are useless on me. I am above that type of petty arguing. |
|
|
|
And if an indictment for murder was even remotely similar to being elected President of the United States by a landslide, that statement might mean something. -Kerry O. In the context it was used in it did go perfectly. Sorry it went over your head. 'Fraid not, mon cherie. It was an obvious attempt to 'poison the well', a common debating tactic amongst the loud and less adept at making a case based on merits. But that's Birthers for you-- anyone who doesn't see things their way is an idiot. Which is why Birther-in-Chief Orly Taitz was cited for contempt of court. You know, if you really feel this strongly about it and aren't just blowing smoke, why don't you exercise your Constitutional right to seek redress in the courts? Take him to court. Or write your Republican Congressperson and DEMAND they impeach Obama when they win a majority in the House this fall. I mean really, you already have half the posters in the Current Events forum on Mingle^2 convinced, right? :) What could go wrong? -Kerry O. LOL Nice try, but you still missed the point. I have grown weary of arguing people who are incapable of offering a legitimate argument. Personal attacks and opinions are useless on me. I am above that type of petty arguing. says the one who has feelings about peoples handicaps or intelligence or demands they not post to her unless its in the manner she chooses,,, |
|
|
|
And if an indictment for murder was even remotely similar to being elected President of the United States by a landslide, that statement might mean something. -Kerry O. In the context it was used in it did go perfectly. Sorry it went over your head. 'Fraid not, mon cherie. It was an obvious attempt to 'poison the well', a common debating tactic amongst the loud and less adept at making a case based on merits. But that's Birthers for you-- anyone who doesn't see things their way is an idiot. Which is why Birther-in-Chief Orly Taitz was cited for contempt of court. You know, if you really feel this strongly about it and aren't just blowing smoke, why don't you exercise your Constitutional right to seek redress in the courts? Take him to court. Or write your Republican Congressperson and DEMAND they impeach Obama when they win a majority in the House this fall. I mean really, you already have half the posters in the Current Events forum on Mingle^2 convinced, right? :) What could go wrong? -Kerry O. LOL Nice try, but you still missed the point. I have grown weary of arguing people who are incapable of offering a legitimate argument. Personal attacks and opinions are useless on me. I am above that type of petty arguing. says the one who has feelings about peoples handicaps or intelligence or demands they not post to her unless its in the manner she chooses,,, |
|
|
|
Anybody that votes for Obama needs their heads examined!
|
|
|
|
Anybody that votes for Obama needs their heads examined! |
|
|
|
I mean Is there any Question at all?
|
|
|
|
Uh huh...put the blame on someone else!! Sorry, but Oblowme is digging his own hole. +1 agree! |
|
|
|
I just hope that It will not be a Civil Election like last time.
|
|
|