Kids should work...

Kane wrote
`scuse the prior N referrence. I like to speak
so Honky can be sure to hear over his braying.

I wonder how SPD will like your tokenization
and patronizing behaviors?

Going for those liberal brownie points again eh?

"Ignoramus22857" wrote in message
...
In article k.net, bobb
wrote:


"Ignoramus22857" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doan
wrote:
If this is true as you claimed why is the crime rate so in the 50's?
Why is it so low in Singapore?

Do not forget people, US crime rate is to a very large extent a "race
issue". 53% of the offenders were black and only 45% white in 1996,
according to the FBI statictics. That's even though blacks are a small
fraction of the population.

In 1950s, blacks were not liberated as much, did not have easy access
to weapons, etc. Liberation of them, while it had a lot of desirable
effects, unfortunately had a great effect on black crime rate.

A lot of crimes, such as forcible rape, was not as well reported in
1950s, either.

I strongly suspect that if you break crime down well, the difference
between 1950s and now would not be as huge for, say, white middle
class people.

I would also be very surprised if trash criminals were grown in
nonviolent homes. I am too lazy to look for it, but my sense is that
these criminals grow up amongst drunk, drug abusing, wife beating,
child beating retards, and not paragons of respectful, attentive
methods of child rearing.



You're not being very politically correct. Remove the black statistics
for
CPS, crime, public aid, and welfare.
Go a step further... elimiate the cost illegal immigrants our costing
this
country.

Um, with all due respect, what does the cost of illegal immigration
have to do with what I was discussing?

Let's say that illegal immigration is very expensive. Does it change
anything in regards to what I said? Or let's say that it was
cheap. Would it change anything in regards to what I said?

i

You're right.. it doesn't have anything to do with what you were saying. I
was sleepy or something and was just trying to demonstrate the needless
amount of money spent to support the undeserving. My error.


bobb

"Kane" wrote in message
m...
"bobb" wrote in message
thlink.net...
"Ignoramus22857" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doan
wrote:
If this is true as you claimed why is the crime rate so in the 50's?
Why is it so low in Singapore?

Do not forget people, US crime rate is to a very large extent a "race
issue". 53% of the offenders were black and only 45% white in 1996,
according to the FBI statictics. That's even though blacks are a small
fraction of the population.

In 1950s, blacks were not liberated as much, did not have easy access
to weapons, etc. Liberation of them, while it had a lot of desirable
effects, unfortunately had a great effect on black crime rate.

A lot of crimes, such as forcible rape, was not as well reported in
1950s, either.

I strongly suspect that if you break crime down well, the difference
between 1950s and now would not be as huge for, say, white middle
class people.

I would also be very surprised if trash criminals were grown in
nonviolent homes. I am too lazy to look for it, but my sense is that
these criminals grow up amongst drunk, drug abusing, wife beating,
child beating retards, and not paragons of respectful, attentive
methods of child rearing.



You're not being very politically correct. Remove the black statistics
for
CPS, crime, public aid, and welfare.
Go a step further... elimiate the cost illegal immigrants our costing
this
country.

So what ARE the costs that illegal immigrants levy on this country?

We get far more them than they take from this country dummy. Or you
can go pick your own tomatos, learn to become a yard man or sew in a
sweatshop for your own clothes.

Tomatos. if I were to buy them today, are around $2.50 lb. Not much of a
savings.

Even so, if the wages are so very low as everyone says, they can hardly be
'giving back' much to the society that supports them. Crunch the numbers
and see for yourself.

If you are talking about mexican illegals then you should also be aware that
there is a huge movement to 'legally' take over the U.S. California and
other border states are well aware of what's happening. Legislators have yet
to worry they they are looking for votes.. illegals votes.. to keep
themselves in office.

bobb



The only costs going on right now to the american public is that there
is still someone to do all the scut work we white's have forgotten,
and are too soft, to do any more. That and the rapid offshore movement
of our formerly higher paying jobs to lower wage countries. The latter
is the big reason for our economic problems.

And in fact the behavior of the holders of this country's capitol
goods, the wealthy, have always done this. In fact they came from
Europe just to do that in new fertile ground.

You are a victim of greed bobb, and those who empty our pockets have
successfully propagandized YOU, the dummy, using your deepseated
racial bigotry and xenophobia to make you think it's the little
darkskinned folks that are the problem.

You are soooooo dumb.

bobb

Kane

"Ignoramus3100" wrote in message
...
In article , Kane wrote:
On 23 Nov 2003 20:02:29 GMT, Ignoramus22857
wrote:

In article k.net,
bobb wrote:


"Ignoramus22857" wrote in
message
...
In article ,
Doan
wrote:
If this is true as you claimed why is the crime rate so in the
50's?
Why is it so low in Singapore?

Do not forget people, US crime rate is to a very large extent a
"race
issue". 53% of the offenders were black and only 45% white in
1996,
according to the FBI statictics. That's even though blacks are a
small
fraction of the population.

That's why it's expressed as a percentage.

I think I feel a bigot baggin' comin' on.

Do you know anything at all about the black experience in this country
beyond Rochester, Step and Fetchit'and Shaft movies?

No I do not.


In 1950s, blacks were not liberated as much, did not have easy
access
to weapons, etc. Liberation of them, while it had a lot of
desirable
effects, unfortunately had a great effect on black crime rate.

Like whites began to notice the prevalent black and black crime that
had always been around.

An excellent point.

Like I said earlier, if all crime stats were properly broken down and
analyzed, you would, first, see a much lower increase in actual crime,
and second, you would not see any causal link that suggests that child
beating leads to lower crime.

Funny, how when you press people into a Ghetto
with each other the crime rate for ghetto dweller upon ghetto dweller
goes up.

Surely, you are quite right.

I don't suppose proximity has much to do with it though. "Those folks"
can just mount up and go out to the burbs to do their crime where the
police presence and response is not as high...oh wait...

Think about the LA riots and why the rioters trashed their own
neighborhoods.

You apparently haven't known any blacks well enough for them to
familiarize you with DWN or DWB...Driving While ****** or Driving
While Black is the common experience of black people, men especially
(the women are though to be just servants coming and going to work)
have of being rousted when they leave the Ghetto.

And surely you are right here, as well.

A lot of crimes, such as forcible rape, was not as well reported
in
1950s, either.

I strongly suspect that if you break crime down well, the
difference
between 1950s and now would not be as huge for, say, white middle
class people.

I would also be very surprised if trash criminals were grown in
nonviolent homes.

Now you are on to something.

Thanks.

I am too lazy to look for it, but my sense is that
these criminals grow up amongst drunk, drug abusing, wife beating,
child beating retards, and not paragons of respectful, attentive
methods of child rearing.

More or less. What has the race of someone got to do with it, given
your prior examples?

I was pointing out that the OP's statement linking nonviolent methods
of childrearing to increased crime was absurd, and that other reason
explain apparent rise in crime rates readily. One of those reasons had
to have something to do with tha changes in how the black community is
treated, and another one, as I pointed out, was that crime statistics
today is done differently.

Does it change
anything in regards to what I said? Or let's say that it was
cheap. Would it change anything in regards to what I said?

I think so, if you can get your head around bobb's rabid racism. He
thinks that if the hispanics and blacks would get out there would be a
world of jobs for whites. Yeah, I can see all those white tomato
pickers now, and the landscape yard men, the ditch diggers and
cleaners, the chemical farm spray workers...sure.

I think that I am being dragged into a debate in which I have little
interest. I came here when I saw a statement that said that less child
beating means more crime. And now somehow I am being dragged into a
discussion as to whether illegal immigration is a good thing.

It is a huge social problem. Many of the CPS laws apply to blacks or were
incorporated because of the black population. Absent fathers, etc. The
illegal immigrant population is leading down another path that will be just
as badly mishandled by the government.

But more to your point... there are those who see any kind of spanking or
slap on the butt as a terrible beating, or at least like to protray it as
such and use it to justify bad behaviors in later life. That's like saying
anyone who chewed gum will turn out to be a criminal. Few kids get through
childhood without a slap on the butt.. or chew gum.

bobb

bobb

On 24 Nov 2003 08:55:24 -0800, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

Kane wrote
`scuse the prior N referrence. I like to speak
so Honky can be sure to hear over his braying.

I wonder how SPD will like your tokenization
and patronizing behaviors?

Explaining my use of the word "******" when both he and I know what
that loaded term means and is used for in different contexts?

I guess we'll have to let him decide for himself.

Kinda get's yah, eh? That's you are so ignorant I mean.

Going for those liberal brownie points again eh?

Kinda speakin' the truth doesn't get me brownie points.

I leave that kind of sucky behavior up to little ****s that slather
the backsides of the other child abusers hereabouts.

You have little idea of what we were talking about. Which speaks
volumes to your ignorance.

So tell me, suckass. Where do you stand on White Reparations to
Blacks?

I won't be the least surprized if you dodge and weasel, true to form.

And if you think there's some merit in it I'll be sure NOT to label
you as a liberal brownie point suckup.

Kane

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:48:17 GMT, "bobb" wrote:


"Kane" wrote in message
om...
"bobb" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
"Ignoramus22857" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doan
wrote:
If this is true as you claimed why is the crime rate so in
the 50's?
Why is it so low in Singapore?

Do not forget people, US crime rate is to a very large extent a
"race
issue". 53% of the offenders were black and only 45% white in
1996,
according to the FBI statictics. That's even though blacks are
a small
fraction of the population.

In 1950s, blacks were not liberated as much, did not have easy
access
to weapons, etc. Liberation of them, while it had a lot of
desirable
effects, unfortunately had a great effect on black crime rate.

A lot of crimes, such as forcible rape, was not as well
reported in
1950s, either.

I strongly suspect that if you break crime down well, the
difference
between 1950s and now would not be as huge for, say, white
middle
class people.

I would also be very surprised if trash criminals were grown in
nonviolent homes. I am too lazy to look for it, but my sense is
that
these criminals grow up amongst drunk, drug abusing, wife
beating,
child beating retards, and not paragons of respectful,
attentive
methods of child rearing.



You're not being very politically correct. Remove the black
statistics
for
CPS, crime, public aid, and welfare.
Go a step further... elimiate the cost illegal immigrants our
costing
this
country.

So what ARE the costs that illegal immigrants levy on this country?

We get far more them than they take from this country dummy. Or you
can go pick your own tomatos, learn to become a yard man or sew in
a
sweatshop for your own clothes.

Tomatos. if I were to buy them today, are around $2.50 lb. Not much of a
savings.

If YOU had to pick them how much would you like to be paid to do so?
And that's NOT what the farmer gets for them.

Even so, if the wages are so very low as everyone says, they can
hardly be
'giving back' much to the society that supports them. Crunch the
numbers
and see for yourself.

It isn't how much one is paid, but how much one spends that determines
that...and stoop labor workers "give back" what YOU do not have to,
pain and hard work, and high health risk, and shorter lives. Grow up.

They have to eat, buy shoes and clothing, feed their children, put gas
in the car they bought here with their friends and relatives, and with
all that try to pay back their relatives and friends that staked them
to come north.

Oh, and least you forget, they are required to pay taxes on their
income just as you are. You should visit a community center that
serves that population. Take an interpreter.

If you are talking about mexican illegals then you should also be
aware that
there is a huge movement to 'legally' take over the U.S.

And so tell us, just how would they do that without annexing Mexico to
the US, which it practically is now..(shhh...don't tell any of my
Mexican aquaintances I said that). Mexico is a labor pool for the US.

The pressure isn't Mexican, it's US manufacturers, growers, industry,
that uses that cheap labor pool.

California and
other border states are well aware of what's happening.

What they are well aware of is how to keep using Mexico as an economic
resource for US business interests. It's ain't the Mexican's stupid,
it's that fat dude with the imported cigar, brooksbrothers suit, and a
Mercedes limo waiting outside the restaurant you are eating in that is
back staffed by little brown people mopin' and cookin' away.

He owns the restaurant, blocks and blocks of lowcost ****ty assed
housing, partnered in huge businesses, and pickin' your pocket whilst
pointing your nose at the help and tellin' you "It's those dirty
Spicks from south of the border."

You sure are a dumb ass.

If you and other's like you were respectful enough Mexicans wouldn't
be in reaction. They only way left open to minorities is the one you
leave them...fight back. What dumb asses you bigots are.

Legislators have yet
to worry they they are looking for votes.. illegals votes.. to keep
themselves in office.

Do you wish those that work and pay taxes to NOT have the vote? Do you
wish, like the snot assed Loyalists in the colonies, that the
population NOT have the vote and representation?

No, you are in for it, bobb. Unless we get smart quick (and I don't
expect that from you) and disarm the militancy I see in minorities,
but us white folks, growing up and being respectful and end our
bigotry and projection of our OWN failings onto other peoples, we are
in for it..you and I. So I don't like your sorry dumb ass.

Besides, I've found nothing personally, when I've interacted closely
with black people, and brown people, and yellow people, and red
people, except people. Some even as dumb as you.

The only real differences are your bigotries forcing them to behave in
reaction. Then you and yours blaming them for that.

Google on "Blue Eyes Brown Eyes" and learn.

Kane

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, toto wrote:

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 22:36:50 GMT, "Stephanie and Tim"
wrote:


"Ignoramus22857" wrote in message
...
In article , D=
oan
wrote:
If this is true as you claimed why is the crime rate so in the 50's?
Why is it so low in Singapore?

Do not forget people, US crime rate is to a very large extent a "race
issue". 53% of the offenders were black and only 45% white in 1996,
according to the FBI statictics. That's even though blacks are a small
fraction of the population.

In 1950s, blacks were not liberated as much, did not have easy access
to weapons, etc. Liberation of them, while it had a lot of desirable
effects, unfortunately had a great effect on black crime rate.

A lot of crimes, such as forcible rape, was not as well reported in
1950s, either.


I wonder what percentage of blacks are living at or below the crime rate
compared to whites? I wonder what the conviction rate of blacks is compa=
red
to whites.

I assume you meant poverty line, not crime line above.

And as to the conviction rate, note that the research into the death
penalty in Illinois showed that 13 innocent men were on death row.
Most of them were black.

Also note that the 5 teens in the much publicized Central Park jogger
"wild thing" case turned out to be falsely convicted!

I strongly suspect that if you break crime down well, the difference
between 1950s and now would not be as huge for, say, white middle
class people.

I would also be very surprised if trash criminals were grown in
nonviolent homes. I am too lazy to look for it, but my sense is that
these criminals grow up amongst drunk, drug abusing, wife beating,
child beating retards, and not paragons of respectful, attentive
methods of child rearing.

i

Interestingly, if the crime rate is an indicator, it would seem to
indicate the ineffectiveness of punishments particularly spanking,
but other punishments as well. This may also explain why more
men commit crimes than women do also.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2075217/#ContinueArticle

Nope! If crime rate is an indicator, it showed that punishments is
very effective. Remember the rising crime rate in the 90's until
the government, with the approval of the people, started to get "tough
on crime". As Chris Dugan pointed out: "lowest level in 33 years"! :-)
Then there is always Singapore with a very low crime-rate!

racial differences are more pronounced for spanking than
for allowance denial: In both cases blacks punish the most,
then whites, then Hispanics, but the gaps between racial
groups are much bigger for corporal than for financial
punishment.

There were also similar claim about the IQ differences among
races.

My note: Historically, this is a leftover from slavery when
black parents felt they had to be very harsh with their
children so the children would not be harmed by the
slavemasters. It was a way of teaching the children
how to get along in a society controlled by white people
who considered them to be less than human.

Nice theory but it doesn't explain why whites spank their kids
also -especially in the South!

Boys are punished more than girls, with substantially more
spankings and a bit more in the way of allowance withdrawals.
Single mothers spank a little less, and withdraw allowances
quite a bit less, than other parents. Older and better-educated
parents are a bit less likely to spank and a bit more likely to
withdraw allowances. Bigger families spank less and
withdraw allowances more. But Weinberg's study finds
that the poor spank more even after you've accounted for
all of these effects. The question is why.

Dorothy citing social studies??? Yikes! ;-)
I am interested in this Weinberg's study. Can you provide some
details, Dorothy? How large is the sample? How was the sample
obtained? What confounding factors were accounted for?....

Here's one good alternative to the economic explanation:
University of New Hampshire sociologist Murray Straus
has published multiple studies concluding that children
who are spanked are less successful as adults.

Then how does he explained the Maurer study in which 98% of
college freshmen were spanked and 95% of professionals were
spanked? Were Ted Turner spanked?

If the link
is causal=97that is, if being spanked actually lowers your
earnings potential =97and if spanking runs in families, then
we have an alternative explanation for Weinberg's numbers:
Low-income parents are more likely to spank their children
because low-income parents are more likely to have been
spanked themselves. Or maybe it's as simple as this:
Poverty breeds frustration, and frustrated parents lash
out at their kids. Does any reader have a better story?

Could it be that poor parents just can't afford to give their
kids the advantages in life - like a private education....
There are just too many confound factors here, Dorothy.
Why are you citing studies now?

My note: the child then learns that lashing out at someone
smaller and weaker is the way to deal with his frustration
and anger.

Then you are assuming the the child is stupid! ;-)

Doan

On 24 Nov 2003, Ignoramus3100 wrote:

I think that I am being dragged into a debate in which I have little
interest. I came here when I saw a statement that said that less child
beating means more crime. And now somehow I am being dragged into a
discussion as to whether illegal immigration is a good thing.

Then you are mistaken! Nowhere did I ever say that less "beating" means
more crime. The issue here is whether spanking (not beating) leads to
crime - as the anti-spankings claimed. All I said is there is no
evidence of it and if you look at the studies they cited, the
'correlations" is even stronger for non-cp alternatives!

Doan

On 24 Nov 2003 14:46:50 GMT, Ignoramus3100
wrote:

They say that we owe reparations for black slavery, obviously owed to
the generation of people who never experienced slavery.

But have suffered the result.

If you had a large valuable inheretance due you earned by the labors
of say your grandfather, and you were diddled out of it because you
had little or no political and economic power..well...you get the
drift here.

But the alternative to their slavery was to remain in Africa,

That's odd. I distinctly remember not only stories of blacks
immigrating on their own out of Africa, but them being depicted in
European art as landowners, nobles, traders....etc. Even Shakespeare
used an African Black as a character, Othello.

Please. Let not another idiot start mouthing those absurdities.

That was distinctly NOT their alternative. And if it were, what would
have been wrong with that?

where
slavery was also rampant,

Driven by Arabs, into a major industry instead of a local issue, who
in turn sold them to Europeans. And we whites had slavery at least as
far back as Africans did.

and many diseases and civil wars continue to
this day. Not an enviable existence.

The intervention into the body politic of Africa by Europeans had
something of a disruptive influence on an already advanced medical and
academic based civilization.

While, just as in other parts of the world, there certainly were such
conditions, there were centers of learning and power and commerce that
were once the equal and even surpassing the outside world. Africa
wasn't much different than anywhere else in the world, and in many
ways superior.

The very generation who wants reparations, would be living in
appalling conditions, starvation, illiteracy, civil war etc.

From the result of incursions and disruptions by European invaders.

Do you, for instance, understand the history of the Middle East and
why we REALLY are there at war today?

Africa had a stable political climate with set borders based on tribal
allegences and treaties...we Europeans disrupted that according to
economic exploitation we saw fit to do. We used rivalries between
tribes to set one group over another and THAT is the cause of the
current bad conditions.

Instead
they have air conditioning, tap water, police protection, relative
peace, enough food etc, stuff that all of us have in the great USA.

They do? You haven't seen South Sacramento, or parts of Phoenix AZ
have you? Other big cities boast similar centers of urban affluence
and comfort. You need to get out and about.

So... they are better off due to slavery than they would be without
slavery and their ancestors being brought here.

Well, if they had stayed in the pit that Europeans created in some
parts of Africa (by the way, not all African nations are as you
describe) yes, you are correct. But had their not been and
international slave trade the incursions probably wouldn't have taken
place either.

Why do they deserve any form of reparation then?

Because they ancestors labored for free for tens of generations. I'll
give you a hint. Do you know what capitol goods are? Do you know what
fixed resources are?

What do you think the rate of ownership might be between white america
and black america and this true indicators of wealth and power?

Obviously I think that bringing all those slaves was a very bad
idea. With bad consequences. A typical story about immoral acts
exacting revenge in ways completely unforeseen. Civil war, etc etc,
was a consequence of slavery.

It was more a consequence of economic pressures by the north on the
south. Slavery was, sadly, a side issue. Do some studying.

I am constantly amazed and frequently amused at the ignorance that we
Americans allow those with economic power to foist on us.

This country is still a colony being exploited as surely as King
George did. It's just our own folks doing it too us and the brits
never did really get out.

Remember when we were, about 15 years ago, all atwitter when it was
disclosed in the major media that the Japanese were major investors in
US fixed resources, real estate mostly, but with mineral deposits,
timber, grazing lands, etc.

That was a caluculated bit of propaganda the GOBs (good ol boys) like
to put out from time to time. The brits own far more of the US than
the Japanese could have ever hoped to.

Do you know who the major holder of gold mining interests is in the
US. Her name starts with an E and you better courtsey.

Bigots, and you ARE one, whether you like to admit it or not, are the
tools of these manipulators.

In fact the natural instinct that underlies bigotry has been a major
tool for elitists to gain and maintain power since the middle ages.

Have a nice day.

Kane

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 16:12:17 -0000, "The Rifleman"
wrote:

slavery is still rampant in north africa, as is other such
wondefulcultural
things like forced female circumcision, endenturement, tribal
massacres, the
dregrading of women etc.

It isn't "rampant." That's just an emotion based rant word. It is a
problem.

Africa is a continent that exhibits the results of imperialistic
colonization and it's long term results. The Arabs began it and the
Europeans hopped on board with better technology and more avarice.

So, tell us, "gun up the butt," what's your solution?

Kane