to judge anyone based on the self imposed standards one holds can be a two edged sword for the one who judges
i hold a higher education than you do dl but i do not place myself in position to believe that i am the better of anyone
i ended the use of standards set by people that did not live up to the standards that were set because after so many years of hypocrisy i have learned that the only individual i must care to impress is myself
you on the other hand need to use big words and seemingly intelligent statistics to make yourself appear more than what you truly are
you hide behind a false front and attempt to gun down those that challenge your false thoughts
you believe that as long as you can debase another for your twisted self indulgence it is not a beratement of their abilities it is simple observation but in truth it is judgement that only serves to fuel your conceit

 

So the simple fact of working hard to better yourself, and find a way out of where you live does NOT enter the equation?
Micael Vick is quoted as saying that he went fishing, to get himself away from the crime.


====================================================
In a 2001 interview, Vick told the Newport News Daily Press that when he was 10 or 11, "I would go fishing even if the fish weren't biting, just to get away from the violence and stress of daily life in the projects."[SUP][11]

==========================================================================[/SUP]

 

NO,, it is not personal responsibility, it's not the fact that everyone has to power to create their own future,,HELL NO,,it's all in the genes,,DL is a fool ,DL will always be an educated fool, and the U.S. is full of those highly educated fools, and you can find most of them are running the U.S..

What has worked 50 years ago,,wont work today, in their minds. Wanting more out of life has nothing at all to do with 'GENES', it is in fact everything that you have been debating with this educated idiot.

AND,,, good luck talking with the fool DL.

 

mmmmmmm has DL ever thought that a lot of children from a young age are forced into joining gangs, if they do not do as the gang wishes then someone in their family will get hurt. this is not genetic as gang leaders can be black or white, they recruit from a young age when the children are impessionable, Sylvia here

 

NO,,DL does not know that,,DL is not a fan of reality, he reads and reads, and reads more ideological bullshit from the highly educated idiots, and uses that montage as his own rule of life, then tends to spread that propaganda and claim it all ''FACTS''.

DL could not survive in a reality based lifestyle, it all unicorns and lollipops in DL's world, and you or anyone else can get DL out of his little world.

I suppose that, that could be what is best for DL, DL should stay in his little world of illusion, it's safer for him.

 

Ace, you have just described the typical left wing liberal. In my experience most left wing nut jobs are like D.L. His rants about black folks are some what puzzling though. He has jumped on this theory, like Adolph Hitler did and nothing you can prove otherwise will make him back down. In his heart he does not really believe the tripe he espouses about black folks. For D.L. is of black ancestry himself. What I find amazing here, is that good folks still pay attention to anything he babbles on about. D.L. isn't a bad guy, just another disillusioned disciple of Franklin Roosevelt. He holds Eleanor in even higher regard. D.L. is perplexed about how this information was obtained.

 

You seem confused. I am not "another disillusioned discipline of Franklin Roosevelt." How am I disillusioned? I think he is the greatest president the United States ever had.

I am disillusioned with the civil rights movement. In the decades since the civil rights legislation was passed blacks have substantiated arguments presented against the legislation before it was passed.

I do not remember saying anything about Eleanor Roosevelt. She tried to get Franklin interested in promoting equal rights for blacks. Franklin had too much sense to take her advice. The "solid south" was solidly Democratic at the time. The Roosevelt administration and the New Deal was popular with the same kind of people who later supported George Wallace. President Roosevelt knew it would be unwise to alienate those people.

 

Some races are more inclined to engage in violent crime than others. Young Oriental males in the United States are actually more inclined to join gangs in the United States than are young white males, but those gangs are mainly social gangs, and gangs for mutual self defense. They do not harm those who do not harm them.

 

How am I indifferent to reality? I make more of an effort than anyone on XNXX to document the factual premises I used to derive at my conclusions.

The sources of my factual data are not ideological, but credible sources like The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, FBI Uniform Crime Reports, and so on.

 

Hard work is nice, but talent is necessary to do what Michael Vic achieved.

 

Anyone on an internet forum can claim an impressive set of achievements. If their comments reveal them to be inarticulate and poorly informed, those achievements are dubious.

 

But yet again you do not understand that it is your conclusions that are the problem, mainly because there is NO definative and conclusive agreement beween the different fields of scientists that are involved.

Geneticists do not agree on this matter and neither do pyscologists, so if these people who have more knowledge in the areas that you are debating cannot agree, what makes you think that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

Researching for information on this subject has shown me that for every piece of information that agrees with your conclusions, there is a corrosponding piece of information that disagrees.

Even your credble sources print information from both sides of the divide but this is something that you ignore. Also it is not so much who printed the information, BUT who gave it as I could easily post information from top geneticists who disagree with your conclusions, BUT you will blatently dismiss this because in your view the source is not credible.

You do this yet you accuse others of NOT being able to debate wih you. You should learn how to debate before passing judgement on other peoples skills.

 

Which is why everthing you say is treated with a large amount of scepticism

 

Get the person's name right, it has been posted often enough. Micheal VICK.
You keep saying that I am the inarticulate person so it is expected of me to get the spellng wrong. But you after all your spouting off have NO excuse.

You do not need talent to walk away from violence.

 

It is treated by skepticism by those who do not want to believe it.

I think it is important to base arguments on factual premises. I am careful about the credibility of the sources of the factual assertions I make.

 

Yes, you could say Vick is a prime example.
He may have moved from the crime infested area and had plenty of money.
He brought the crime infestation along with him.
That all goes back to what I said about what happens when blacks move into an area populated by whites.
They bring their problems along with them.

If Vick would not have been good at playing a kids game he would just be another thug in jail. Money does not change that. Moving to a better area does not change that. He brought all of his baggage with him.

 

I like numbers on paper. Those are the kind of statistics and facts I quote.

 

That happens because some people do not have the heart and guts to go against them.
The kids joining the gangs have what is called parents. They may be many things but they are not parents.
Parents protect and teach their kids. These people do neither.

 

The numbers on paper can be from any source, what matters is that the person giving those numbers has experience and is well respected in the appropiate field. BUT you will instantly discredit anything that does NOT agree with your conclusions even if it comes from a more credible source than yours.

 

I do not remember discounting anything that comes from a credible source.

It is easy for me to quote a few credible sources that demonstrate that blacks tend to be less intelligent than whites, and more inclined to crime. I have done so on many occasions. I can post the evidence on a single computer page.

Where is the evidence that this is not true, or that it is not true for genetic reasons?