The EU debate - Part III

So you are saying black people have a racial committment to crime?
That there is something inherent in the black gene that makes them more pre-disposed to violence and criminality?
Is that what you are saying?

How else do you explain the line "Poverty rates are coming down yet crime rates are going up?"
So crime rates are going up, but is the percentage of overall crime committed by black people going up in line with this increase or is it staying at the same percentage?

 

Are the situations the same? No

One is of a person you want to act as judge & jury on so that you can condemn them. The other you want to defend because a poster you don't like, want's to condemn them.

The link is your hypocrisy.

#sitbackandenjoythespin

 

Yes, they're adjusted using the data from those sources. This isn't rocket science.

 

You haven't actually addressed my comment at all. Well done.

 

You're going to have to scrape the barrel for something else.

 

SOURCE? SOURCE? SOURCE? SOURCE? SOURCE? SOURCE?

 

If you would answer the question, I wouldn't have to.....

I am asking you....as you said that black people are responsible for more crime, which statistically they are, that's a fact, I was just asking whether you believed it to be down to socio economics, or whether you believed black people were predisposed to crime, or something else.
I wasn't trying to trick you.

Technically though I should add, that black people are not responsible for more crime, at least thats not provable, we are both wrong.
What you probably meant was that Black people are convicted at a higher rate than white people and so make up a bigger percentage of prisoners.

If you counted white collar crime, the percentage would skew WAAAAAAAAY in the other direction.

 

Because you spun yourself so much we landed in Africa so you could deflect it into comparing May & Mugabe?

I pointed out that your target has not been found guilty. An undeniable fact in the real world, but obviously not in yours.

That you think you have some god given right to turn accusations into fact underpins what I have always thought of you. A view many more will share after witnessing your smoke & mirrors show here.

 

And you've failed to address it, again. Do you not understand it? Is that it?

 

I haven't formed an opinion on the matter.

 

Well you're the one posting the stats, got any stats on how many white cops killed black unarmed suspects?, or if not how many white men/women have killed white killed cops?

Only asking feller seing as that kind of **** is your forte.

 

Why is that?
You seem very vocal on a lot of other political issues. You mention this stat but haven't thought about the reason for it?

 

To be fair i'm with god cock on this one. We can all think that he is guilty (I haven't read the case) and that would be your opinion. Just like me and Bod think Clinton is guilty (not necessarily of her emails but all other corruption and conspiracy theories about her) but there is nothing actually there that has incriminated her that she wouldd be prosecuted and that was argued by either yourself or NSIS (can't remember who).

You should be treating both the same else even if you dislike one and not the other.

 

I understand that someone accused Clinton of something. You shouted them down because there is no proof, ergo no guilt.

I understand that you are now accusing someone of being guilty of crimes for which they have not been found guilty.

I understand that your hypocrisy is 100% evident for all (except you) to see.

I understand that your refusal to accept the truth leaves you with no other choice but to try and spin and deflect the subject onto all sorts of strange tangents.

I hope you're wearing a seat belt.

 

You think that there's enough evidence to suggest that both are guilty. I don't.
One has been cleared. One has been charged and appears to have intimidated a witness repeatedly to avoid being found guilty.
You're asking me to treat them both the same, based upon completely different circumstances.

 

Enough for you to declare them guilty?

 

I think I might actually, let me check.

Too much conflicting information.

 

I didn't shout anyone down about anything.

People claimed that Clinton was guilty. There was no evidence to back this up, so she was cleared by the FBI.

Bannon was charged and one of those charges was dissuading a witness.
That witness then left the state to avoid testifying in his case and his lawyer informed her of when it was safe to return.
The lawyer then claimed that he hadn't intimidated her into leaving the state, but that he couldn't rule out his client having done it.
The police statements also indicate fault on his part.

These two situations are not the same, are they?
Feel free to ignore my post and repeat the same spiel, though.

 

For someone who claims to have the protection of nations proud cultures as the excuse for his blatant racism, I find it odd that you're so reticent to share your own cultural background. I'd have thought you'd be proud of it, and thus be eager to share.

 

Not necessarily talking about the emails more about her intimadation of women, the people who seem to be dying around her, wikileaks publishing she uses her charity as her own personal piggy bank (like paying for chelseas wedding). Theres nothing cast iron in any of the above which she will be prosecuted for but in my eyes i have down as guilty.

That's not to say you can't believe (whoever you were arguing about) he is guilty, if the circumstantial evidence shows he is guilty. Just that you were discrediting the above with bodanki because there wasn't 100% irrefutable proof of the above yet you are doing the same thing with this bloke