Kids should work...

"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 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

On 24 Nov 2003 08:49:34 -0800, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

I do believe I caught the Kensian fever in that I believe that
movement of money is the key, not accumulation.

I do believe you are referring to Keynesian economic theory,
and that's not it either.

Given that I was proposing that money flow was more important to a
healthy economy than money accumulation and Keynsian economics is
based on the concept of pumping money into the economy by whatever
means, but primarily government works and projects as per FDR, then I
have to ask...

Where'd you take your economics Commander McBrag?

....did you take your economics the same place you took your legal
"motion" writing courses?

Kane

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:38:06 GMT, "bobb" wrote:


"Ignoramus3100" wrote in message
...
They say that we owe reparations for black slavery, obviously owed
to
the generation of people who never experienced slavery.

But the alternative to their slavery was to remain in Africa, where
slavery was also rampant, and many diseases and civil wars continue
to
this day. Not an enviable existence.

The very generation who wants reparations, would be living in
appalling conditions, starvation, illiteracy, civil war etc.
Instead
they have air conditioning, tap water, police protection, relative
peace, enough food etc, stuff that all of us have in the great USA.

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

Why do they deserve any form of reparation then?

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.

i


Uh oh, you're gonna get in big trouble talking like that. That's for
too
intelllectual for most to understand.

You maybe....and it's quasi intellectual given that it is all too
limited in scope, misses the point of European and Arab incursions
onto the African continent, and the repartitioning of african nations
into little tribal feifdoms.

He got nowhere near the subject of exploitation of both natural
resources in Africa....a huge extraction of a continent's wealth..or
should I say a people's wealth, as well as centuries of colonization
that also extracted the production of people who were slaves,
sometimes actually and often economically, in their own lands.

The ONLY reason for the miserable state of some parts of Africa today
is the outcome of European incursions.


bobb


But that of course is more than enough excuse for you to get the
shivery chills when you see a black person in "your" country.

And those Mexicans, my oh my, they are surely invaders.

Kane

Kane wrote:

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.

Or, may have benefited. There is no way to prove it either way, and I believe
that proof is very important here.

The Irish potato famine was by all measure a "bad thing" and my ancestors
suffered as a result. Certainly the English share some responsibility for
their suffering, but they don't owe me anything.

I am most likely better off that my forbearers suffered, as my life, and as
the lives of every descendant of slave or immigrant, is for the better.

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.

Certainly. Punish the guilty, not the people who happen to remind you
of the guilty.

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

snip

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.

Incorrect. Africans bought and sold Africans for centuries prior to any
European setting foot on the continent, just as slavery still exists in
Africa. Blaming it entirely on whites and Arabs is revisionism.

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.

It was not advanced in medicine nor academics. You had people who
built Cathedrals and used calculus meet peoples who have no written
language, have no concept of numbers and have yet developed the wheel

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.

In the time frame being discussed, this is totally incorrect.

What was developed when the Europeans landed in West Africa was a
successful slave traded, which the Europeans benefited from. In fact,
when the British began to outlaw slavery not only in Britain but in their
colonies, it was the Africans who protested the strongest as it was bad
for their business.

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.

Canada, The USA, Australia, Hong Kong etc. all were invaded by
Europeans. How do their economies survive?

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.

Slave empires in Africa predated major contact with Western Europeans.
It is interesting that you use terms like "invasion" when describing the
actions of the Europeans but use "rivalries" to describe brutal wars
between African tribes.

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.

Virginia is a "pit?" Canada? The slave trade was big business before
the Europeans had any part. African leaders were over-joyed to have
a new market for their product.

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?

So did mine. I'm not demanding any money from the British.

What about blacks in the US who owned slaves? What about families who
lost sons and fathers in the Civil War? Do they own money as well? What
about people that have came to this country 50 years ago? Two years ago?

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

I have no idea, and neither do you. To steal money from person A, not because
they are guilty, they most certainly are not, only because they LOOK LIKE
people who did bad things a century ago and give that stolen property to people
who LOOK LIKE people who suffered a century ago is racism pure and simple.

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.

Your sexism is obvious.

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.

You are the bigot. You believe that people can be given the fruits of one's
labor and have it taken away based on their skin color.

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

The greatest crime that the Europeans have ever committed, was the
export of Marxist collectivism. This failed orthodoxy has destroyed more
Africans than all the colonizing powers combined. In 1960 Africa was
a net food exporter and had an economy greater than Asia. Once
countries gained their independence they adopted the left socialism
that has ruined dozens of countries and continues to rob the people
of their ability to support themselves.

Have a nice day.

Kane

"Ignoramus3100" wrote in message
...
In article , Doan
wrote:

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!

If you substitute word "beating" to "spanking" in appropriate places
of my original followup, the meaning of that followup will not change.

i

Well put, and it would be fruitless to try and improve on your response.

bobb