[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So the only valid position one could hold would be Black on white crime in the context of a hate crimes is “unknown”
[/quote]
That would be truth.
As we can see, that is not what we are getting.[/quote]
Please at least read the articles you post…otherwise you are on the same team as RockNinja who admits to posting made up shit if it fits her argument.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, apparently the FBI does investigate crimes against whites if it is actually seen as a hate crime for race alone.
[/quote]
IF you had read the article instead of just using your GOOGLE-FU you would have read that the FBI declined to file hate crime charges because…
“whites are not covered by the hate crime statute because we’re talking about crimes that have a historic basis”
Did you even read this???
BOOM PROFESSOR GIT IT GIT IT!!!
/Ct. RockNinja’d
[/quote]
Yes, I read it…which is why I mentioned Lousiana’s statute and posted it.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t know this for fact, not everything can be backed up with facts.
It is 100% personal opinion/anecdotal evidence. I don’t believe the current social climate in this country allows for this to happen. At least not in my neck of the woods where PG, Montgomery, Baltimore, and Howard County (one of the wealthiest in the country) are predominantly black.
I think this stuff stopped happening a while ago, women get screwed way more in the work place, imo.
-The weathest (monatarily) person in my family is: Black
-The richest woman in the world (Opera) is: Black
-The President is: Black
-A large percentage of pro athletes are: Black
-Congress, judges, high level gov workers: Black
-CEOs, CFOs, etc…:Black[/quote]
I am asking again one simple question…why you think your perspective is more right than someone else’s even if you could not possibly experience the same issues?[/quote]
My perspective isn’t more or less right, it’s just that, my perspective. I don’t have to experience it to understand it. if 1/100 black guys are not promoted because they are black than 99% of the time race isn’t an issue. Every person I’ve talked to in real life agrees with this.
I most certain could experience the same issue. You think this can’t happen in reverse?
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So the only valid position one could hold would be Black on white crime in the context of a hate crimes is “unknown”
[/quote]
That would be truth.
As we can see, that is not what we are getting.[/quote]
Please at least read the articles you post…otherwise you are on the same team as RockNinja who admits to posting made up shit if it fits her argument.
[/quote]
I have asked you several times how anyone can say that whites are at greater risk of racial attack.
None of you have been able to answer this.
That would mean the answer is UNKNOWN.
What are you arguing against?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, apparently the FBI does investigate crimes against whites if it is actually seen as a hate crime for race alone.
[/quote]
IF you had read the article instead of just using your GOOGLE-FU you would have read that the FBI declined to file hate crime charges because…
“whites are not covered by the hate crime statute because we’re talking about crimes that have a historic basis”
Did you even read this???
BOOM PROFESSOR GIT IT GIT IT!!!
/Ct. RockNinja’d
[/quote]
Yes, I read it…which is why I mentioned Lousiana’s statute and posted it.[/quote]
Clearly you did not, because AG Holder’s opinion that the FBI quoted as it declined hate crime charges…completely depth charges your argument.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
if 1/100 black guys are not promoted because they are black than 99% of the time race isn’t an issue. Every person I’ve talked to in real life agrees with this.
[/quote]
Uh, what if 100/100 black guys are not promoted?
Has this ever happened?
[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t believe in 2013 a black person is being denied a promotion because they are black (99.99% of the time). If that does happen they can move to another company where that won’t happen.
[/quote]
Wow. You say it so nonchalantly.
How do you know that ain’t happening?[/quote]
Has it happened to you or anyone you know?
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, apparently the FBI does investigate crimes against whites if it is actually seen as a hate crime for race alone.
[/quote]
IF you had read the article instead of just using your GOOGLE-FU you would have read that the FBI declined to file hate crime charges because…
“whites are not covered by the hate crime statute because we’re talking about crimes that have a historic basis”
Did you even read this???
BOOM PROFESSOR GIT IT GIT IT!!!
/Ct. RockNinja’d
[/quote]
Yes, I read it…which is why I mentioned Lousiana’s statute and posted it.[/quote]
Clearly you did not, because AG Holder’s opinion that the FBI quoted as it declined hate crime charges…completely depth charges your argument.[/quote]
NO, it doesn’t. It isn’t about whether they agreed it was a hate crime. It is the fact that even with Louisiana’s Statute, they still did not find it to be a race issue…which questions if it ever was in the first place.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So the only valid position one could hold would be Black on white crime in the context of a hate crimes is “unknown”
[/quote]
That would be truth.
As we can see, that is not what we are getting.[/quote]
Please at least read the articles you post…otherwise you are on the same team as RockNinja who admits to posting made up shit if it fits her argument.
[/quote]
I have asked you several times how anyone can say that whites are at greater risk of racial attack.
None of you have been able to answer this.
That would mean the answer is UNKNOWN.
What are you arguing against?
[/quote]
Because no STATISTICS are kept on racial attacks against whites.
So…you are arguing that without hard data(that nobody tracks) something does not exist.
You would make a crappy weightlifter.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
if 1/100 black guys are not promoted because they are black than 99% of the time race isn’t an issue. Every person I’ve talked to in real life agrees with this.
[/quote]
Uh, what if 100/100 black guys are not promoted?
Has this ever happened?[/quote]
I didn’t say it never happened I said it doesn’t happen (present tense).
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, apparently the FBI does investigate crimes against whites if it is actually seen as a hate crime for race alone.
[/quote]
IF you had read the article instead of just using your GOOGLE-FU you would have read that the FBI declined to file hate crime charges because…
“whites are not covered by the hate crime statute because we’re talking about crimes that have a historic basis”
Did you even read this???
BOOM PROFESSOR GIT IT GIT IT!!!
/Ct. RockNinja’d
[/quote]
Yes, I read it…which is why I mentioned Lousiana’s statute and posted it.[/quote]
Clearly you did not, because AG Holder’s opinion that the FBI quoted as it declined hate crime charges…completely depth charges your argument.[/quote]
NO, it doesn’t. It isn’t about whether they agreed it was a hate crime. It is the fact that even with Louisiana’s Statute, they still did not find it to be a race issue…which questions if it ever was in the first place.[/quote]
NO they said that crime against whites CANNOT be considered a hate crime…
Crayons?
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So the only valid position one could hold would be Black on white crime in the context of a hate crimes is “unknown”
[/quote]
That would be truth.
As we can see, that is not what we are getting.[/quote]
Please at least read the articles you post…otherwise you are on the same team as RockNinja who admits to posting made up shit if it fits her argument.
[/quote]
I have asked you several times how anyone can say that whites are at greater risk of racial attack.
None of you have been able to answer this.
That would mean the answer is UNKNOWN.
What are you arguing against?
[/quote]
Because no STATISTICS are kept on racial attacks against whites.
So…you are arguing that without hard data(that nobody tracks) something does not exist.
You would make a crappy weightlifter.[/quote]
I write this before
[quote]That would mean the answer is UNKNOWN.
What are you arguing against?[/quote]
You apparently missed it?
The answer is it is an unknown.
More from Bill on the subject from last night.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
if 1/100 black guys are not promoted because they are black than 99% of the time race isn’t an issue. Every person I’ve talked to in real life agrees with this.
[/quote]
Uh, what if 100/100 black guys are not promoted?
Has this ever happened?[/quote]
Where in the United States of America are 100% of black people being passed over for promotion because they are black?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So the only valid position one could hold would be Black on white crime in the context of a hate crimes is “unknown”
[/quote]
That would be truth.
As we can see, that is not what we are getting.[/quote]
Please at least read the articles you post…otherwise you are on the same team as RockNinja who admits to posting made up shit if it fits her argument.
[/quote]
I have asked you several times how anyone can say that whites are at greater risk of racial attack.
None of you have been able to answer this.
That would mean the answer is UNKNOWN.
What are you arguing against?
[/quote]
Because no STATISTICS are kept on racial attacks against whites.
So…you are arguing that without hard data(that nobody tracks) something does not exist.
You would make a crappy weightlifter.[/quote]
I write this before
[quote]That would mean the answer is UNKNOWN.
What are you arguing against?[/quote]
You apparently missed it?
The answer is it is an unknown.[/quote]
Ultimate cop out…so if it cannot be proven, even though it exists, it should not be considered because the numbers are unknown…even though the Attorney General says that it can never be a hate crime because the person is white.
Perfect…gotcha.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
IF you had read the article instead of just using your GOOGLE-FU you would have read that the FBI declined to file hate crime charges because…
“whites are not covered by the hate crime statute because we’re talking about crimes that have a historic basis”
Did you even read this???
BOOM PROFESSOR GIT IT GIT IT!!!
/Ct. RockNinja’d
[/quote]
Lol.
What a plunker.
You conveniently left the other link out.
Hahaha!
Boom, bitch!
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
if 1/100 black guys are not promoted because they are black than 99% of the time race isn’t an issue. Every person I’ve talked to in real life agrees with this.
[/quote]
Uh, what if 100/100 black guys are not promoted?
Has this ever happened?[/quote]
Where in the United States of America are 100% of black people being passed over for promotion because they are black? [/quote]
You mean before 1990 and how that could have lasting effects in a community today?
“It is illegal for an employer to make decisions about job assignments and promotions based on an employee’s race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.”
Pretty sure tat 100% has a case.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Ultimate cop out…so if it cannot be proven, even though it exists, it should not be considered because the numbers are unknown…even though the Attorney General says that it can never be a hate crime because the person is white.
Perfect…gotcha.[/quote]
I said it is an unknown that MORE WHITES are at risk like was stated before.
I have written that about 100 times now.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t believe in 2013 a black person is being denied a promotion because they are black (99.99% of the time). If that does happen they can move to another company where that won’t happen.
[/quote]
Wow. You say it so nonchalantly.
How do you know that ain’t happening?[/quote]
Has it happened to you or anyone you know?[/quote]
Not me but people I know (relatives, friends), yes.