T1B

Way to get 3120+ Brave Americans killed on a lie Mr. ChickenHawk in Chief.

Were they nothing more than Political Pawns?

Is there anybody stupid enough to still be for this debacle?

Moving Sale wrote:Is there anybody stupid enough to still be for this debacle?

30% of the country thinks Hillary is the Antichrist. They would be the ones still backing this debacle.

Moving Sale wrote:Way to get 3120+ Brave Americans killed on a lie Mr. ChickenHawk in Chief.

Were they nothing more than Political Pawns?

Is there anybody stupid enough to still be for this debacle?

You forgot the 750 or so American mercenaries that have been killed.

mvscal wrote:The real question is whether or not there is anyone stupid enough to believe your played out bullshit.

STFU you racist flip flopping tard.


Mikey,
v38.7+?

That makes about 7000 Americans that have been killed by 'terrists' on Bush's watch. What a scumbag that guy is.

BSmack wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:Is there anybody stupid enough to still be for this debacle?

30% of the country thinks Hillary is the Antichrist. They would be the ones still backing this debacle.

It's more than 30%.

Cicero wrote:

BSmack wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:Is there anybody stupid enough to still be for this debacle?

30% of the country thinks Hillary is the Antichrist. They would be the ones still backing this debacle.

It's more than 30%.

Huh???

Yeah it's 33.3% of the people who think Shrillary is the Anti-Christ.

66.6% support her.

mvscal wrote: I see you're struggling to articulate any sort of coherent argument or present any facts in your defense.

You are a Racist tard.

If that is not articulate or coherent enough for you, it says more about you than it does about me.

Showing Bias is not an ad hominem you stupid silly fuck.

Take an Evidence class and get back to me.

http://www.manchu.org/sounds/warning.ram


http://www.manchu.org/sounds/hanoih.ram

Bias shows you are prone to making decisions based not on fact but on emotion (read-fiction). That tends to show you are full of shit. If you are full of shit about how Blacks act you have a large chance of being full shit as to other subjects like how to deal with the 'brown' people of Iraq.

Now go fuck yourself you stupid Racist tard.

Moving Sale wrote:the 'brown' peole of Iraq.

Nice.


Sincerely
1968

Et tu Tom the tard?

Tehran TVO wrote:Et tu Tom the tard?

Go fuck yourself jerkoff

Melt much?

Sin,
mvsKKKal

Facts? I laughed.

Pedal away? I laughed some more.

Now go fuck yourself you stupid Racist tard.

Just to play devil's advocate here...

MidgetVO -- so, does this make the FBI "racist" for compiling crime statistics based on demographics?


Since you seem to have a big problem with mvscal pointing out these demographics, instead of playing the role of Shittiest Lawyer on Earth, why don't you offer an alternate explaination for the imbalance in these stats, rather than your usual MO, which is...name calling.

Frankly, from the "debate skills" you offer up here, there is no way that you aren't the most horrible litigator on the planet.

6.5% of the population commit 40+% of the violent crime. Either offer up an explaination that doesn't involve name calling to refute mv's "genetic predisposition" theory, or STFU...seriously.

Oh, and btw-if your explaination involves blaming people who are distanced from the "African American Community," and you place blame on people who aren't commiting violent crimes, and would never dream of doing so...

Then you're a bigger "racist fuckstain" than anyone you've ever pointed your finger towards.

Dinsdale wrote:Just to play devil's advocate here...

MidgetVO -- so, does this make the FBI "racist" for compiling crime statistics based on demographics?

No.

Since you seem to have a big problem with mvscal pointing out these demographics, instead of playing the role of Shittiest Lawyer on Earth, why don't you offer an alternate explaination for the imbalance in these stats, rather than your usual MO, which is...name calling.

Because he is a Racist tard who is not worth more of my time than it takes to call him a Racist tard.

Frankly, from the "debate skills" you offer up here, there is no way that you aren't the most horrible litigator on the planet.

Think what you want but the reason I don't 'Debate' him is because he is not worth it.

6.5% of the population commit 40+% of the violent crime. Either offer up an explaination that doesn't involve name calling to refute mv's "genetic predisposition" theory, or STFU...seriously.

For you? No problem. I would say that poverty, families broken during slavery and jim crow and culture are way more important than genes. Plenty of Blacks come from Africa and do just fine.

Oh, and btw-if your explaination involves blaming people who are distanced from the "African American Community," and you place blame on people who aren't commiting violent crimes, and would never dream of doing so...

Not sure what you mean buy that. You mean Whites can't influeance the behavior of Blacks?

mvscal wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:...to refute mv's "genetic predisposition" theory,

That, in and of itself, is a lie as well. Setting up strawmen is another of his rather limited tactics.

If it's a strawman then...Go ahead and tell us what you REALLY think.

mvscal wrote:Again? OK...

I don't know why they behave like subhuman animals. It could be genetic.

Dins,
Now do you see why I barely give him the time of day?

Moving Sale wrote:Now do you see why I barely give him the time of day?

Probably cause you can't tell time, or you don't own a watch.


either way, you can go fuck yourself.

So now that are GP2 Theft crimes too?

Does your stupidity know no bounds?

mvscal wrote:Many behaviors are routinely ascribed to genetic predispostions (sic) and it isn't even remotely controversial
If one can be genetically predisposed to suck cock...

What does Jenna Jameson being GP2SuckCock have to do with Blacks being GP2V?

Non sequitur much?

Off your shit self you stupid trolling Racist fuck.

That article discusses personal genes (genotype) not gene of one race or the other.

"Will it lead to proposals ... that measures should be taken to prevent the birth of other individuals so afflicted?"
You would like Genocide of Black's wouldn't you you stupid trolling racist fuck?

Now go back to cutting eye holes in sheets and hiding your Racist face.

Condi's past her prime anyway.

mvscal wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:You would like Genocide of Black's wouldn't you

You bet. The planet is overpopulated anyway, right? Might as well lose the lowest performing end of the spectrum and muddle along as best as we can without plate-lipped cannibals and hip-hop shit skids.

Care to defend that Dins or ucant or Tom for that matter?

Moving Sale wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:You would like Genocide of Black's wouldn't you

You bet. The planet is overpopulated anyway, right? Might as well lose the lowest performing end of the spectrum and muddle along as best as we can without plate-lipped cannibals and hip-hop shit skids.

Care to defend that Dins or ucant or Tom for that matter?

Defend what ?

Dinsdale wrote:Search engines are your friend.

What I find humorous is that there are many more WHITE offenders in the workplace...

That's because they have jobs.

Will we celebrate then the First Africian American convicted of a white collar crime ?

Tom In VA wrote: Defend what ?

I'll take that as a no.

Dins?
ucant?

Mikey wrote:That's because they have jobs.

it's what I was alluding to. Notice also the difference between black and white VICTIMS in the WORKPLACE, too.

IndyFrisco wrote:Notice also the difference between black and white VICTIMS.

Let me guess, one set of victims is black, the other is white.

Moving Sale wrote:

Tom In VA wrote: Defend what ?

I'll take that as a no.

Dins?
ucant?

So that's a no on Ucan't?

Leave me out of the "no" votes.

TIA

it stands to reason that others can be genetically predisposed to take things that don't belong to them.

It's called "humanity".

Name one cultural group that didn't/doesn't "take things that didn't belong to them".

Did the Vatican City rise out of the ground because her charges "borrowed" stuff?

Did the Crusaders sack Constantinople because they needed to borrow some sugar?

Was Genghis Khan a Cultural Librarian?

Holy shit - you could make the case that Africans and others under the heel just aren't good enough at taking stuff that doesn't belong to them...hence their difficulties throughout history.

Moving Sale wrote:Care to defend that Dins or ucant or Tom for that matter?

Moving Sale wrote: Dins?
ucant?

Why the fuck were you addressing me... twice ...yesterday in a thread I didn't even open until... today?
.
.
.
.
Flail much? Seriously... this is my first post in this thread.

PSUFAN wrote: Holy shit - you could make the case that Africans and others under the heel just aren't good enough at taking stuff that doesn't belong to them...hence their difficulties throughout history.

:allbugeyedlikemrfurleyinthreescompany:

Concur

PSUFAN wrote:Holy shit - you could make the case that Africans and others under the heel just aren't good enough at taking stuff that doesn't belong to them...hence their difficulties throughout history.

They're just doing their remedial work here in the New World to try and get caught up.

mvs, a question or two. You appear to be placing a lot of stock in the article you linked to. However, the part that you haven't acknowledged, is this...

There are several scientific obstacles to correlating genotype (an individual's genetic endowment) and behavior. One problem is in defining a specific endpoint that characterizes a condition, be it schizophrenia or intelligence. Another problem is in identifying and excluding other possible causes of the condition, thereby permitting a determination of the significance of a supposed correlation. Much current research on genes and behavior also engenders very strong feelings because of the potential social and political consequences of accepting these supposed truths. Thus, more than any other aspect of genetics, discoveries in behavioral genetics should not be viewed as irrefutable until there has been substantial scientific corroboration.

So where is the "substantial scientific corroboration"? As the article ends with that caveat, it would seem to at least in part, shred your own argument. Now that is by no means dismissive of the research on genetics, however it does not preclude environment and nuturing, or lack thereof, as Mace has stated. It seems pretty clear that behavior is dictated by both factors, but where the line in the sand divides the two, percentage-wise, has not been established.

So then, where is your definitive proof? And please, no more wikipedia quotes. While wiki is a nice reference source, it is a certifiable joke to use it as a basis for your position.