Democratic

The Bush League: Thread #127384

It's getting easier and easier the closer we get to http://blackexile.com  <<

To which Martin the holocaust denying jew encyclopedia denying reality denier whined:

You can dream, Terry, but you're not even close.  In fact, Jews and blacks are you worst nightmare.  And we know where you live.  <s>

=========================================

Well, come on up while there's still time to party, Martin.   A kind of bon voyage.

You claim that jews aren't a race, but jew encyclopedias claim that jews are a race.  You claim that 6 million jews died in WWII, but the JEWISH council of sinagogggs claims that there were 600,000 MORE jews in 1948 than in 1941.   You claim that mamzer means an "illegitimate offspring", but most jew sources claim that the definition of mamzer is "a matter of dispute":

Expert Rabbi Weinbach http://fathersmanifesto.net/weinbach.htm

"But what exactly is a mamzer?   [Strong's] defines a mamzer as a child born from parents whose union is forbidden by law. How serious the violation must be to produce a mamzer is a matter of dispute."

You claim that jews believe sodomy is ok under God's Law--but even the Talmud claims that it's a violation of the Talmud.

Is there ANY jewish writing which agrees with you, Martin?  Or are you a completely extremist minority of the radical extremist minority known as jews?

Was the American Jewish Committee, Bureau of the Synagogue Council, WRONG when they stated in their 1939 publication that there were 15,600,000 jews in 1939?  Or were they wrong in 1949 when they said there were 15,713,638 jews?

Is it possible that NO jew knows how many jews there are?  No matter how unpopular it is these days to be a jew, It's utterly impossible for the worldwide population of jews to have decreased 5 million in only 12 years, from 18.1 million in 1988 to only 13.2 million in 2000.  Yet this is what JEWISH publications claim.  How credible do you think that is, Martin?   Since you believe you're a more authoritative source than the Bureau of the Synagogue Council, would you please explain to us exactly what happened to 38% of the world's supply of jews?


#105 of 107

     Posted Dec-4 4:26 PM   

Martin Alter
From  Martin Alter  Posts 3300  Last 5:41 PM
To  terrytwright      [Msg # 127384.105 Message 127384.105 replying to 127384.104 127384.104 ]

>>  So you can call a black a spade, and censor my posts when I do?   <<

Are you pathologically incapable of telling the truth, Terry?  Is lying all you have to offer?

>>  You make the presumption that this was a reference only to jews, but it was a reference only to wiberals, who might be all jews, but are probably a teeny minority even of all jews.  Do even a tenth of the jews you know agree with you?   <<

Given that more than two third of Jewish Americans vote Democratic, the answer is yes, obviously.  Try to do the math, Terry, if that's not too much for your little, bigoted head.

>>  I'm aware of what the FACTS are, and I'm aware of what our "news" says, which are rarely the same, particularly about this one issue.  <<

Actually, you're just a low rent, garden variety Holocaust denier.  Creeps like you are a dime a dozen.  Fortunately, decent people don't pay much attention to the likes of you, which is probably why you spend so much time in Germany (searching for other like minded antisemites).

>>  Could it have been Hitler and 85% of his top Nazis who qualified for the "right of return" to "Israel"?  <<

Answer the question, Terry.  Where did all those Christians go?  And who killed 'em?  Other Christians?  Guys like yourself, perhaps?  Supporters of Hitler and his apologists?

>> 

It's getting easier and easier the closer we get to http://blackexile.com  <<

You can dream, Terry, but you're not even close.  In fact, Jews and blacks are you worst nightmare.  And we know where you live.  <s>

 

Washington: Murder Capitol of World


1 Nov-21   From: terrytwright   To: ALL
 

 

Washington: 80 homicides per 100k

 

<<<At the peak of the violent crime wave in the early 1990s, Washington, D.C., was known as the "murder capital" of the United States. The number of homicides peaked in 1991, with 482 murders. As the population of the city was just over 600,000 at that time, this meant that the District's homicide rate was 80.6 per 100,000 inhabitants. By contrast, when New York City, with 7.3 million people at the time, hit its highest homicide count and rate with 2,245 murders in 1990, this meant a murder rate of "only" 30.66 per 100,000.>>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.

If a city (no, country) like Washington DC, will ADMIT to a homicide rate of 80.6, then the actual homicide rate is at least 50% higher and perhaps twice as high, putting it in the range of 121 to 162. These are the folks who control the numbers, so it's extremely easy for them to cook any of their own statistics which put them in a bad light, up to and including the complete removal of the column "homicide" from the table "Death Rates, by Leading Causes--States" in the 1993 and 1994 editions of the Statistical Abstract of the United States which would have contained the above figure, or one even worse.

They did manage to restore this column by the time the 1996 edition was published, at which time the homicide rate in DC was down to "only" 72.4--a rate still 42 TIMES higher than Maine at 1.7, and 362 TIMES higher than Singapore at 0.2.

The politicos quietly implemented a plan to reduce the homicide rate from 80.6 to 35.8.

But still, the murder rate in Washington, DC, is higher than in Columbia, Madagascar, or Mozambique.

Why?

Terry

2 Nov-21   From: terrytwright   To: ALL
We should add that a murder rate of 80.6 in a city like Washington with a population of 600,000 means that, annually, more Washingtonians are murdered than soldiers are killed in Iraq.

iow, compared to Washington, according to Washington's very own statistics, Baghdad is a peace zone );

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/ovrace.txt

Terry

3 Nov-21   From: davecorstout   To: terrytwright
Terry,

You made the same mistake as that dunderhead Britt Hume.

>>We should add that a murder rate of 80.6 in a city like Washington with a population of 600,000 means that, annually, more Washingtonians are murdered than soldiers are killed in Iraq.

iow, compared to Washington, according to Washington's very own statistics, Baghdad is a peace zone );<<

Hume compared the number of US soldiers who had been killed in Iraq to the number of homicide victims in California. (California has roughly the same area and population as Iraq.) He implied that I'd be safer as a soldier in Iraq than I am now here in California. Problem is he's ignoring that the deaths in Iraq were among a population of about 150,000 while those in California were among a population of about 30,000,000. He didn't take the proportions into account. By way of example, 60 deaths among a population of 150,000 may be fewer deaths than 100 deaths in a population of 30,000,000, but they represent a death rate of 40 per 100,000 while the 100 deaths represent a rate of less than a third per 100,000.

When you compare casualty rates in urban America to those in Iraq, be sure that you're either counting US soldiers as a portion of the population of US soldiers in Baghdad, or else add in the deaths of Iraqis in Baghdad and count all the deaths as a portion of all the people in people, US soldiers and Iraqis.

The place is not a peace zone compared to Washington.

Dave

4 Nov-21   From: terrytwright   To: davecorstout
Dave,

When a soldier in Iraq dies of a heartache, or AIDS, or cancer, or an accident, or even if he's shot by an Iraqi 12 year old girl, he's counted as a battle field death, for many good reasons. With an average of 150,000 troops there over 2 1/2 years and only 2,000 deaths, this is a death rate of 533 per 100,000 soldiers.

Conversely, the overall death rate in Washington, DC, is 1,242 per 100,000 population, about 2.3 times higher, and murder is a significant reason for Washington's high death rate (one twice as high as Utah).

Just murder in DC over the four period when DC was the Murder Capitol of the World took 2,000 lives. In that same period of time, because of DC's extraordinarily high AIDS death rate, another 2,400 died of AIDS. DC even has a high diabetes death rate, taking another 840 Washingtonians' lives. It's cancer rate is 3 times higher than states like Alaska, taking another 6,072 lives. Contrary to popular belief, most of these 11,312 deaths are not associated with those who die of old age--most died at an age equivalent to the age of our soldiers in Iraq.

The highest risk group or all in the US are males between the ages of 14 and 24, particularly black males. By the most conservative estimates, the rate at which black male youths in DC die JUST from homicide is higher than the death rate for ALL causes for our soldiers in Iraq.

Before we were in Baghdad, the homicide rate in Iraq was listed by the UN at 1 per 100,000--an EIGHTIETH of the rate in Washington. Who knows what it is now, but rather than focusing on the war going on right outside their windows, our congressmen decided to spread the joy far and wide.

Terry

 

 

 

5 Nov-21   From: Michael Hoffman   To: terrytwright
What in the world would you expect in a city that prohibits decent residents from owning handguns, and requires that any other firearms in the District be either disassembled or locked away so that they may not be used to defend against murdering criminals? It is only those who obey laws who are disarmed by these laws. Criminals, by definition, do not obey them.
6 Nov-21   From: terrytwright   To: Michael Hoffman
Thanks for reminding me. Innately it makes sense that disarming law abiding citizens would have contributed to this huge increase in murder and other crime rates, but it's something I really didn't think about adding to the equation. Even after reading Professor John Lott's excellent paper which makes the connection you just made above, it slipped my mind.

For what other reason besides gun control would you think residents of New Orleans and DC are 400 TIMES more likely to be murdered than residents of Mesa, Arizona, Singapore, or North Dakota? Do you think the difference in gun control laws is the only factor?

Terry

ps--JUST today I found that the murder rate in New Orleans a decade ago had already exceeded Washington's record shattering rate of 80.6 by 5 points, reaching 85.8. Gun control?

7   From: ALL   To: ALL
8 Nov-22   From: davecorstout   To: terrytwright
Terry,

Thank you for making things clearer.

Dave

9 Nov-22   From: zip   To: terrytwright
When a soldier in Iraq dies of a heartache, or AIDS, or cancer, or an accident, or even if he's shot by an Iraqi 12 year old girl, he's counted as a battle field death, for many good reasons. With an average of 150,000 troops there over 2 1/2 years and only 2,000 deaths, this is a death rate of 533 per 100,000 soldiers.<<

Just how many AIDS and cancer patients does the Army send to Iraq? None. How many would remain in Iraq diagnosed with AIDS or cancer? None. With nearly 2100 American troops dead in Iraq, at your claim of 150,000 over 2.5 years, how would 2100 average to 533 deaths per 100,000 troops? That fact, alone, makes the rest of your argument absurd.

10 Nov-22   From: zip   To: terrytwright
For what other reason besides gun control would you think residents of New Orleans and DC are 400 TIMES more likely to be murdered than residents of Mesa, Arizona, Singapore, or North Dakota? Do you think the difference in gun control laws is the only factor?

Terry

ps--JUST today I found that the murder rate in New Orleans a decade ago had already exceeded Washington's record shattering rate of 80.6 by 5 points, reaching 85.8. Gun control?<<

It's pretty clear what you're driving at, but apparent you haven't the balls to do more than allude to the "other reason. "

11 Nov-22   From: PathO'Logic   To: terrytwright
>> We should add that a murder rate of 80.6 in a city like Washington with a population of 600,000 means that, annually, more Washingtonians are murdered than soldiers are killed in Iraq.

With an average of 150,000 troops there over 2 1/2 years and only 2,000 deaths, this is a death rate of 533 per 100,000 soldiers.

 

FYI: 533 is a lot more than 80.6 and the current 35.8.

 

12 Nov-22   From: terrytwright   To: zip
<<<Just how many AIDS and cancer patients does the Army send to Iraq? None. How many would remain in Iraq diagnosed with AIDS or cancer? None. With nearly 2100 American troops dead in Iraq, at your claim of 150,000 over 2.5 years, how would 2100 average to 533 deaths per 100,000 troops? That fact, alone, makes the rest of your argument absurd.>>>

No matter how good a job the US Army does of screening the health of soldiers, and they do a good job, soldiers die of all sorts of things besides AIDS and being shot. Heart disease and cancer, which are far bigger killers than AIDS, and diabetes which is right up there, can be missed, or can develop in the field. Your focus on AIDS is confusing. More soldiers die of many other things besides being shot or from AIDS, so it's not clear what you mean by "That fact, alone, makes the rest of your argument absurd".

Here's the math: (2,000 deaths / 150,000 soldiers)/ 2 1/2 years x 100,000 = 533 deaths per 100,000 soldiers

The graph at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/ageracesex.htm shows that black males 18-24 years old died just from homicide at a rate of 180 per 100,000 population, nationwide, in 1994. But the homicide rate amongst blacks in Washington was three times higher the national average for blacks, so black youths in Washington died JUST from murder at the rate of 540 per 100,000.

Nationally, black youths in this age group also die of heart disease at the rate of 42.6, accidents at 60.5, neoplasms at 38.5, and "residual causes" at 71.3. It's likely that, because of other indicators in DC, that the rate at which black youths in DC die of these causes is even higher. Even so, using just the above figures, here's the tally so far:

540 = murder

42.6 = heart disease

60.5 = accidents

38.5 = neoplasms

71.3 = residual

752.9 = total less AIDS (which is another 93.8)

So you see, even excluding AIDS, and even excluding the higher death rates at all ages, for all factors in DC, the publicized death rate of soldiers in Iraq is suspiciously low.

Terry

13 Nov-22   From: terrytwright   To: ALL
I forgot to add the url for the "National Vital Statistics Report" which contains the above figures so you can confirm them for yourself:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr47/nvs47_09.pdf

Terry

14 Nov-22   From: zip   To: terrytwright
>>No matter how good a job the US Army does of screening the health of soldiers, and they do a good job, soldiers die of all sorts of things besides AIDS and being shot. Heart disease and cancer, which are far bigger killers than AIDS, and diabetes which is right up there, can be missed, or can develop in the field.<<

While there certainly are other reasons strong, healthy young troops die in any sort of battle, they are exceptions to the rule, and for the purpose of staistical argument, not worthy of mention. The reported deaths are primarily the direct result of violence pepetrated against them, as a rsult of Bush's war. You can not minimize the numbers by explaining them away as acts of nature, natural causes, etc..

 Your focus on AIDS is confusing. <<

Hold your panties, it's not my focus, but yours. . . here is what you posted:

>>When a soldier in Iraq dies of a heartache, or AIDS, or cancer, or an accident, or even if he's shot by an Iraqi 12 year old girl, he's counted as a battle field death<<

>>Here's the math: (2,000 deaths / 150,000 soldiers)/ 2 1/2 years x 100,000 = 533 deaths per 100,000 soldiers<<

I'm no mathemetician, and neither are you, because your numbers simply don't add up. Perhaps someone else can help out with the correct ratio.

15 Nov-22   From: zip   To: terrytwright
I forgot to add the url for the "National Vital Statistics Report" which contains the above figures so you can confirm them for yourself:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr47/nvs47_09.pdf<<

The CDC doesn't do morbidity rates for war casualties.

16 Nov-22   From: WmRourke   To: terrytwright
Not sure what your point is here, Terry.

Are you saying the deathcount in Iraq is okay because it's lower than D.C.'s?

Are you saying it's okay that it's mostly minorities and the poor who fight our
wars for us, because they die in greater numbers at home anyhow -- so why not send
them off to be cannon fodder while affluent whites continue to attend college where
not many of them get murdered?

Are you saying that once the percentage of deaths in Iraq equals or surpasses the
percentage of deaths in D.C., we can stop the war?

>>>the publicized death rate of soldiers in Iraq is suspiciously low.<<<

Suspiciously? Are you saying there's some plot to keep the death rate low?
Or are you saying that it's probably higher than is being publicized and you suspect
the government is lying about the number of deaths?

17 Nov-23   From: terrytwright   To: WmRourke
"Suspiciously? Are you saying there's some plot to keep the death rate low?
Or are you saying that it's probably higher than is being publicized and you suspect
the government is lying about the number of deaths?"

======================================================

The government always lies about such figures. But let's view this from a different angle, as I've just discovered something TODAY which might make us... pause. The following is a summary of FBI statistics at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/ovrace.txt

"There were 806,316 homicides in the US between 1965 and 2004, and 588,611 of them were committed by blacks, of which 179,808 were blacks who murdered Whites. Of those Whites murdered by blacks, 43,541 were cleared and 136,267 were not cleared. In just four decades, American blacks killed almost as many Whites as were killed in WWII, four times as many Whites as were killed in Vietnam, and 60 times as many Whites as were killed in 911 or Iraq".

Think about that for a minute. Whew. It still hasn't sunk in completely.

Terry

 

 

18 Nov-23   From: WmRourke   To: terrytwright
Once again -- what is your point?
19 Nov-23   From: terrytwright   To: WmRourke
"Once again -- what is your point?"

The original point was GOING to be that soldiers dying in Iraq at a rate of 533 per 100,000 soldiers is suspiciously low. But several inputs suggest that:

A) The number is even lower, and

B) After looking at this data more closely, there's another bigger and even more important point.

Regarding point A, if there have been 200,000 soldiers in Iraq for 3 years as some have suggested, then the rate would be:

((2,000 deaths / 200,000 soldiers) / 3 years) x 100,000 population = 333 deaths per 100k

In looking at the graphs at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/ageracesex.htm I mistook the "offending" graph for the "victimization" graph. The 380 homicides per 100k was the rate at which black youths committed homicide, not at which they were murdered. The correct rate at which they were murdered is "only" 180 per 100k.

So the original point that they were murdered at a rate almost as high as the rate at which soldiers in Iraq were killed is not correct. And if the 333 per 100,000 soldiers in Iraq is correct, then black youths are murdered at a lower rate--but they commit murder at a higher rate.

But who're they murdering? If they're not murdering each other, are they murdering blacks of other age groups? It doesn't seem like it. Black male youths 14-17 years old commit murder 6 times more frequently than they ARE murdered, from age 18-24 they commit murder twice as frequently as they ARE murdered, and greater than age 25 they're equally as likely to murder as they ARE murdered.

The murder rate for blacks in DC is two to three times higher than the national murder rate for blacks, though, so the above rates need to be multiplied by two or three:

333 = rate at which soldiers die in Iraq

260 to 540 = rate at which black youths are murdered in DC

760 to 1,140 = rate at which blacks in DC COMMIT murder

They aren't murdering black women, because they're murdered at only 12-22 homicides per 100k.

Who?

And WHY? Why is a black male youth in DC more likely to be murdered than a soldier is to die in Iraq of ALL CAUSES?

Terry

 

20 Nov-23   From: terrytwright   To: zip
It's pretty clear what you're driving at, but apparent you haven't the balls to do more than allude to the "other reason. "

If there was a God, there would be no despots, no Religious Right, and definitely no Republicans.

===================================================================

If it's so clear to you, why don't you clarify it for the rest of us?

Terry

21 Nov-23   From: terrytwright   To: PathO'Logic
FYI: 533 is a lot more than 80.6 and the current 35.8

==============================================

True. There are a few problems with thinking all is ok, though:

  1. The reason the rate dropped from 80.6 to 35.8 is the decrease in the percentage of males in the age group 14-24. This is cyclical and when it increases again the rate will skyrocket beyond 80.6.
  2. In DC, even though the rate is now an average of 35.8, black males at the age of soldiers in Iraq, are murdered at the rate of 180 per 100k.
  3. This is just homicide.
  4. The death rate for soldiers in Iraq of all causes may be 333 rather than 533

Terry

22 Nov-23   From: PathO'Logic   To: terrytwright
1. The reason the rate was so high in 1991 was the city was going through a horrendous crack war. It was not indicative of the average person's risk of being murdered.

2. That's a pretty good indication it isn't a valid to get worked up about.

3. Probably nothing near that high for black, white collar workers of that age.

4. The U.S. death toll for October was 96, a rate of 1,152 per year. Figuring 150,000 troops, that's a rate of 768 per 100,000 troops.

 

What's your point in all this? That Iraq should be a tourist haven?

23 Nov-23   From: zip   To: PathO'Logic
4. The U.S. death toll for October was 96, a rate of 1,152 per year. Figuring 150,000 troops, that's a rate of 768 per 100,000 troops.<<

Thank you, thank you. I knew that figure wasn't right, but couldn't get the math straight in my head. Math was never my best subject.

24 Nov-23   From: zip   To: WmRourke
Suspiciously? Are you saying there's some plot to keep the death rate low?
Or are you saying that it's probably higher than is being publicized and you suspect
the government is lying about the number of deaths?<<

if that was his point he didn't need the emphasis on the crime rate in predominantly black communities to make it. No, he was suggesting blacks cause more deaths than war.

25 Nov-23   From: terrytwright   To: PathO'Logic
<<<The reason the rate was so high in 1991 was the city was going through a horrendous crack war. It was not indicative of the average person's risk of being murdered.>>>

==========================================

Ah, it was just the normal cost of doing business? Called collateral damage? No big problem? Just because the murder rate in our nation's capitol was equvalent to the death rate for ALL causes for soldiers in a war zone is no reason for alarm, since it was just a "crack war"?

What are you saying?!

Why would you dare to try to justify such carnage?

What about New Orleans, where the MURDER rate was even higher, at 85.8? Another crack war? So no cause for alarm? How many Whites need to be murdered by blacks to raise your ire? 10,000? A million?

http://jacobisrael.us/homicidecities1994.gif

What about Gary, Indiana where the rate was so much higher that it TOO became the Murder Capitol of the World, so bad that the state, city, and country couldn't even handle it and they had to call in the feds?:

Gary, Indiana: "Violent crime in Gary, Indiana, is increasing at an alarming rate. Last year, Gary had the highest per capita murder rate in the United States. BJA provided the city's Violent Crime Task Force with $112,000 to target, investigate, and prosecute individuals committing violent crimes with firearms in and around the city. Since the inception of the grant in 1994, 130 firearms have been seized, 98 investigations have been initiated, and 44 arrests have been made."

http://jacobisrael.us/gary.htm

Another crack war? No big deal? What about Detroit? Just a crack war, so don't worry my silly little head?

"Detroit became the nation’s most violent big city last year, even as crime rates in the city and its largest suburbs generally dropped, according to a report released Monday by the FBI."

http://www.detnews.com/2004/metro/0405/25/d01-162833.htm

http://jacobisrael.us/detroit.htm

Are you SURE that you'd be safer in Detroit than in Iraq? Absolutely positive? Would you bet your life on it?

My bet is that you know exactly why ALL of the Murder Capitols of the World are --- IN THE US, NOT IRAQ.

Terry

26 Nov-24   From: PathO'Logic   To: terrytwright
>> What are you saying?! <<

I'm saying if you aren't part of the crack business, your chances of being killed in 1991 in DC were less.

 

>> My bet is that you know exactly why ALL of the Murder Capitols of the World are --- IN THE US, NOT IRAQ. <<

Get real man.

 

27 Nov-24   From: Martin Alter   To: terrytwright
>> http://jacobisrael.us/detroit.htm <<

"The Mongrelization of Detroit"? That's the headline on the website you cited. Do you really believe that's a citation that should be taken as anything other than a perfect example of pure racism?

28 Nov-26   From: terrytwright   To: Martin Alter
<<<"The Mongrelization of Detroit"? That's the headline on the website you cited. Do you really believe that's a citation that should be taken as anything other than a perfect example of pure racism?>>>

Depends on how someone defines racism. Is it racism for the FBI to note on their web site that in the last four decades, almost 180,000 Whites have been killed by blacks? The high homicide rates in the four cities with the highest percentage of blacks should give you a clue that this is just the tip of the iceberg. Do you want to shut down the FBI web site for racism?

Do the numbers. It's simple math (addition and subtraction, with a little division).

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/ovrace.txt

Should we complain to Ruth Bader Ginsberg that the FBI web site is full of racism? Is that how you define racism?

Terry

29 Nov-26   From: terrytwright   To: zip
<<<if that was his point he didn't need the emphasis on the crime rate in predominantly black communities to make it. No, he was suggesting blacks cause more deaths than war.>>>

To be specific, the FBI web site shows that in the entire country in just the last 40 years, blacks murdered 806,316, which is 403 TIMES as many soldiers as died in Iraq.

179,808 were interracial homicides.

This is according to the FBI.

iow, there were 90 TIMES as many interracial murders than there were soldiers killed in Iraq.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/ovrace.txt

Terry

30 Nov-26   From: zip   To: terrytwright
To be specific, the FBI web site shows that in the entire country in just the last 40 years, blacks murdered 806,316, which is 403 TIMES as many soldiers as died in Iraq.

179,808 were interracial homicides.<<

What is odd is that you haven't shown the incidents of homicide by whites, or whites against blacks. What you have done is shown us the inner workings of the psychopathic mind. You seem to be justifying the deaths of our troops in Iraq, needlessly, because of some racist observation that blacks are killing whites and each other.

You're a sick sob who should not be given a voice on our forum.

31 Nov-26   From: Martin Alter   To: terrytwright
>> Depends on how someone defines racism. <<

I think it's pretty clear that referring to "the Mongrelization of Detroit" qualifies as racist.

And I think that most people would recognize it such. Decent people, certainly, would recognize it as such.

 

32 Nov-26   From: terrytwright   To: zip
What is odd is that you haven't shown the incidents of homicide by whites, or whites against blacks. What you have done is shown us the inner workings of the psychopathic mind. You seem to be justifying the deaths of our troops in Iraq, needlessly, because of some racist observation that blacks are killing whites and each other.

=========================================

You were given a link to precisely the data you claim I "haven't shown the incidents of", and here is another even more obvious graph from the FBI. Look it up yourself and quit claiming that I didn't spoon feed it to you, because I did:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/ageracesex.htm

 

You also didn't answer the question about whether or not you think the FBI site should be shut down for "racism"? Do you?

I'm not denigrating the soldier in Iraq at all. I've been there, done that, and greaty sympathize with the plight of all American soldiers, all around the world. But you seem to keep missing the point, which is that 90 TIMES as many Whites were killed by blacks in the last 4 decades than soldiers died in Iraq in the last 3 years.

http://fathersmanifesto.net/genocide.htm

For what reason would you NOT want to seriously consider why an EXTRA 180,000 Americans were murdered--because they were Whites? Doesn't that make YOU the racist?

Terry

 

33 Nov-26   From: terrytwright   To: Martin Alter
<<<I think it's pretty clear that referring to "the Mongrelization of Detroit" qualifies as racist.

And I think that most people would recognize it such. Decent people, certainly, would recognize it as such.>>>

Let's keep our racial slurs straight. Wouldn't you agree that the 270 putative Christians in this putative Christian nation who read the Holy Bible, most of whom know that the phrase, concept, and word "racist" is never mentioned even once in 6,000 years of Israelite history, are mostly "Decent people"?

You need to define your slurs, because my trusty, voluminous, exhaustive copy of the 1949 New Century Dictionary doesn't have a definition either. Since you're the one using this slur, you're the one who needs to define it.

Fair enough?

http://fathersmanifesto.net/racism.htm

Terry

34 Nov-26   From: zip   To: terrytwright
You were given a link to precisely the data you claim I "haven't shown the incidents of", and here is another even more obvious graph from the FBI. Look it up yourself and quit claiming that I didn't spoon feed it to you, because I did:<<

But you seem to be concentrating on the statistical number of blacks who commit acts of violence, and glaringly admitting the data on whites. I have no interest in such data, particularly over a forty year span. The economic demographics have changed in forty years, several times, in several directions.

>>You also didn't answer the question about whether or not you think the FBI site should be shut down for "racism"? Do you?<<

Insofar as such data gathering has a reasonable purpose, I'd have no problem with it. It shows the break down of moral fabric in the absence of quality education, well paying jobs, and well planned racial integration. If, however, the FBI demonstrated that such data was gathered for the sole purpose of profiling, or some other means of contravening the US Constitution, I'd oppose it.

<<I'm not denigrating the soldier in Iraq at all. I've been there, done that, and greaty sympathize with the plight of all American soldiers, all around the world. But you seem to keep missing the point, which is that 90 TIMES as many Whites were killed by blacks in the last 4 decades than soldiers died in Iraq in the last 3 years.<<

Rather than simply alluding to the point of your messages, why don't you tell us your point?

>>For what reason would you NOT want to seriously consider why an EXTRA 180,000 Americans were murdered--because they were Whites? <<

I don't believe the data is accurate, nor do I think it is germane to violence elsewhere, by different social or racial perpetrators.

>>Doesn't that make YOU the racist?<<

No, it does not.

35 Nov-26   From: Martin Alter   To: terrytwright
>> Let's keep our racial slurs straight. <<

I have.

>> Wouldn't you agree that the 270 putative Christians in this putative Christian nation who read the Holy Bible, most of whom know that the phrase, concept, and word "racist" is never mentioned even once in 6,000 years of Israelite history, are mostly "Decent people"? <<

Interesting phrase, "Isrealite history." Your website, which you cite frequently, denies that Jews were killed by the Romans. In fact, it cites a number of disparaging remarks that it claims were made by Jesus about Jews, despite the fact that Jesus never made such remarks.

So why are you citing pure, antisemitic fictions?

>> my trusty, voluminous, exhaustive copy of the 1949 New Century Dictionary <<

You might try getting your hands on a newer dictionary.

And then explain how "The Mongrelization of Detroit" isn't a really nasty headline. And then explain the "poll" on "exiling black" to Liberia which exists on the website that you continue to cite. Is that your ultimate agenda? To exile black Americans to Africa?

Here's the url. Is it an accident that it's part of the website you continually cite? http://israelite.netfirms.com/pollliberia.htm

It's difficult to see any other motive since this is a highly publicized section of the website.

Let's go a little further. Here's a lovely section from that site.

 

bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet

Would you enlighten as to how Jews destroy children? Or how the Talmud subverts famlies? Explain why you are so involved with a website that supports revoking the right of women to vote. It seems that your connection to this website requires a bit of explanation on your part.

36 Nov-27   From: terrytwright   To: zip
>>For what reason would you NOT want to seriously consider why an EXTRA 180,000 Americans were murdered--because they were Whites? <<

I don't believe the data is accurate, nor do I think it is germane to violence elsewhere, by different social or racial perpetrators.

>>Doesn't that make YOU the racist?<<

No, it does not.

=============================================

What proof do you have that the FBI data is wrong? Why would you think they would post false information on their web site? If you think they did that, call them up and demand they put up or shut up. If they falsified the data, call them on it.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/ageracesex.htm

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/ovrace.txt

Since you didn't take the time to define "racist", please allow me to. It's "racist" for you to proclaim on no basis whatsoever that credible FBI data which shows a consistent pattern over more than 40 years of blacks killing Whites, totalling almost 180,000 murders to date, is not "germane to violence elsewhere, by different social or racial perpetrators".

That's racism personnified. To proclaim that we should ignore 180,000 murders, particularly INTERRACIAL murders, makes you an accesory to the crime of genocide.

You really can't get much more racist than that, can you?

Terry

37 Nov-27   From: WmRourke   To: terrytwright
The laundry called. Your sheet is ready.
38 Nov-27   From: WmRourke   To: terrytwright
For what reason would you NOT want to seriously consider why an EXTRA 180,000 Americans were murdered--because they were Whites? Doesn't that make YOU the racist?<<<

"an EXTRA 180,000 Americans?" Is there an official quota of Americans who can be murdered, and the number was surpassed? Who sets the quota? If an "extra" number
of Americans are being killed, will the quota number rise the next year?

>>>>because they were Whites? <<<

How do you know they were killed because they were white? Maybe some were murdered because they were mean bastards. Maybe some were killed because they were caught
with somebody's wife, or stealing something, or for any other number of reasons. Why do you say they were killed because they were white?

39 Nov-27   From: zip   To: terrytwright
What proof do you have that the FBI data is wrong? Why would you think they would post false information on their web site? If you think they did that, call them up and demand they put up or shut up. If they falsified the data, call them on it.<<

I didn't say it was wrong, I said it was not germane. The conclusions you draw from the FBI statistics are your own, and those of KKK, Neo-Nazi and other hate groups, certainly not those of the FBI, or any reasonable persons.

You keep attempting to link me to to your subversive hate sites, so I'm quite aware of your purpose here. You get no quarter from me.

40 Nov-27   From: zip   To: terrytwright
Since you didn't take the time to define "racist", please allow me to. It's "racist" for you to proclaim on no basis whatsoever that credible FBI data which shows a consistent pattern over more than 40 years of blacks killing Whites, totalling almost 180,000 murders to date, is not "germane to violence elsewhere, by different social or racial perpetrators".

That's racism personnified. To proclaim that we should ignore 180,000 murders, particularly INTERRACIAL murders, makes you an accesory to the crime of genocide.

You really can't get much more racist than that, can you?<<

I'm waiting for you to post the numbers of blacks killed by whites, over that same period. 

41 Nov-27   From: Gunny   To: terrytwright
***Why?***

Because Washington, DC has the most strict firearm laws in the US. No citizen is allowed to own a handgun in Washington, DC, while the criminals are allowed to own firearms. That wasn't a hard question.

42 Nov-27   From: Gunny   To: WmRourke
***Once again -- what is your point?***

You surely must be black to ask that question!

43 Nov-27   From: WmRourke   To: Gunny
***Once again -- what is your point?***

You surely must be black to ask that question! <<<<<

Why?

44 Nov-27   From: Gunny   To: WmRourke
***Why?***

Why not? I am sure most white knew what the point was.

45 Nov-27   From: WmRourke   To: Gunny
Why not? I am sure most white knew what the point was.

As I am white, I DO know what the point is. Racism, brought to us by the same people who brought us the terrorist Timothy McVeigh.
Do you agree with the white supremacists, Gunny?

46 Nov-27   From: terrytwright   To: WmRourke
Rourke,

YOu seem to be having a difficult time following this discussion, so let's back and correct a few of your misperceptions. I hope you can understand the following and not put any more words in my mouth. You took my statement completely out of context when you wrote the following:

---------------------------------------------------------

>>>>because they were Whites? <<<

How do you know they were killed because they were white? Maybe some were murdered because they were mean bastards. Maybe some were killed because they were caught
with somebody's wife, or stealing something, or for any other number of reasons. Why do you say they were killed because they were white?

Let's go back and look at what I wrote originally:

<<<For what reason would you NOT want to seriously consider why an EXTRA 180,000 Americans were murdered--because they were Whites? Doesn't that make YOU the racist?>>>

"because they were Whites" was a question, and you even ignored the question mark. The question was why someone would ignore 180,000 murders, and if the reason they ignored them was because the victims were Whites. Do you see how you misread what I wrote and thus misrepresented what I meant? Is that clear to you now? Can we proceed from here without confusing you? Or do you want more clarification?

Let's proceed.

The question has been asked how many of these interracial murders were Whites who killed blacks. The data is of course right there on the FBI web site that I quoted. But now that I see that I'm dealing with some folks who might not be the brightest candles in the box, let me quote ONE of the figures:

In 1978, there were 269 blacks who were killed by Whites:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/ovrace.txt

If you've been following this discussion at all, can you tell us how that stacks up against 179,808 Whites who were killed by blacks? Can you give us an estimate for the overall ratio? Just a wild guess? Or use your calculator.

Or, even better, find a source that disputes these figures which you claim to be wrong!~ If they're wrong, where's your evidence? If you have no evidence, what makes you think they're wrong? Are you an expert in the field? Do you do autopsies? Do you base this in TV "news", or the movies, or comic books?

Terry

47 Nov-27   From: terrytwright   To: WmRourke
As I am white, I DO know what the point is. Racism, brought to us by the same people who brought us the terrorist Timothy McVeigh.
Do you agree with the white supremacists, Gunny?

===========================================

Are the 200 lives that Timothy McVeigh is responsible for more valuable than the 180,000 WHITES who were murdered by blacks? If we had 100 Timothy McVeigh's, they'd be a tenth as dangerous as American blacks, wouldn't they?

http://fathersmanifesto.net/genocide.htm

Terry

48 Nov-27   From: terrytwright   To: Gunny
***Once again -- what is your point?***

You surely must be black to ask that question!

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you must be right, Gunny.

Let's see if Rourke can answer the following riddle.

Washington, DC became the Murder Capitol of the World in 1991 with a record high murder rate of 80.6, and a population of 83% blacks.

Only 9 years later, in 1999, the murder rate had dropped 55% to only 35.8, parallelling a decrease in the percentage of blacks to only 61.4%.

What, Rourke, do you believe accounts for this radical decrease in the murder rate? Poverty? Age? Nationality? Any other excuses you can think of?

http://fathersmanifesto.net/washingtondc.htm

Terry

49 Nov-27   From: WmRourke   To: terrytwright
There we go... you've finally shown your hand and the cards you're holding show you for the human garbage you are.
50 Nov-27   From: WmRourke   To: terrytwright
You know, Terry... your candyass, pissing-in-your-pants, scared little boy paranoia is way off base. If there
was some kind of black plot to wipe out whites, all the dogshit racists on your hate website would be dead by now.
And we'd all be better off.

Why don't you go peddle your b.s. somewhere else, like your white trash shacks and trailers in the woods. Keep
trying to convince yourself you're really NOT ignorant pieces of crap while stroking those guns you use as substitutes
for dicks.

51 Nov-27   From: Martin Alter   To: terrytwright
Why do you persist in citing a blatantly antisemitic and racist website? And why do you refuse to answer questions about that website?

Do you agree, as the site proposes, to revoke women's right to vote?

Do you agree, as the cite proposes, to transport all black Americans to Africa?

Do you agree, as the cite states, that no Jews were killed by the Romans when they sacked Jerusalem in 76 CE?

Do you agree, as the cite proposes, to do away with rape laws?

These are very direct questions. Will you answer them?

52 Nov-27   From: WmRourke   To: Martin Alter
He won't answer anything. These guys are just losers looking for someone to blame. They can't
articulate an original thought -- they can only quote something they've stumbled across in an
effort to make themselves feel more like men.
53 Nov-27   From: Martin Alter   To: WmRourke
>> He won't answer anything. These guys are just losers looking for someone to blame. <<

I suspect that's quite correct. It would be interesting, however, to see if and how he actually addresses direct questions with direct answers.

54 Nov-27   From: WmRourke   To: Martin Alter
His needle is stuck in the DOJ thing -- playing it over and over and over. He didn't figure it out himself, he found it on
his hate-filled website. He hasn't yet been able to answer any questions put to him here -- it's just the DOJ thing over and
over.

Somehow I think you're going to be waiting a long long time for an answer.

55
Messages 127384.55 through 127384.56 were moved to 127503.1
57 Nov-27   From: Democrat4bush   To: Martin Alter
Do you agree, as the cite proposes, to transport all black Americans to Africa?

Have you ever been to Africa? I doubt it. It is a beautiful country. The people the most human I have met, outside the cities. You should go and see what your talking about.

58 Nov-27   From: terrytwright   To: zip
<<<<But you seem to be concentrating on the statistical number of blacks who commit acts of violence, and glaringly admitting the data on whites. I have no interest in such data, particularly over a forty year span. The economic demographics have changed in forty years, several times, in several directions.>>>

I think you win the contest, zip. This qualifies as the most RACIST, rabid statement of all time.

When confronted by the news that ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY THOUSAND (180,000.00) WHITES WERE KILLED BY BLACKS, you did the usenet equivalent of dancing on their graves.

Greeeeeeeat big yawn, a distracting inference to the trivial number blacks killed by Whites, and a bunch of handwaving about "economic demographics" which have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

You are a racist personnified, zip. I can't even imagine a single White in this country reacting to the news of 180,000 dead BLACKS in the same blase manner you reacted to the news of 180,000 dead Whites. The worst you might expect from a White is a fleeting thought of how we might avoid getting involved in helping them, or providing financial aid, or risking the lives of fellow Whites to help them. Not a single White I know would be that blase about the death of ONE black, much less 180,000.

WHAT demographics have changed, and why does that putative change satiate the DEATHS of 180,000 White Americans? Can't you at least PRETEND to be concerned about so many deaths?

http://fathersmanifesto.net/genocide.htm

Terry

59 Nov-27   From: terrytwright   To: zip
Terry wrote:

That's racism personnified. To proclaim that we should ignore 180,000 murders, particularly INTERRACIAL murders, makes you an accesory to the crime of genocide.

You really can't get much more racist than that, can you?<<

zip replied:

I'm waiting for you to post the numbers of blacks killed by whites

====================================================

Why didn't you just look it up yourself?

Do you want me to spoon feed it to you just so you can claim that it's "racist", or "wrong", or "anti-Semitic"? Is that why you refuse to post it yourself? So you won't have to admit that you know?

Well, let's compromise. I'm going to post a figure here for the number of blacks killed by Whites over the last 40 years, and if you don't think it's right, then you tell us what figure YOU "think" is right, what your source for the CORRECT figure is, and why you think the FBI is LYING, ok?

14,100 = blacks killed by Whites

179,808 = Whites killed by blacks

Which figure do you think is larger, zip? By how much?

Terry

 

 

60 Nov-27   From: Martin Alter   To: Democrat4bush
>> Do you agree, as the cite proposes, to transport all black Americans to Africa?

Have you ever been to Africa? I doubt it. It is a beautiful country. The people the most human I have met, outside the cities. You should go and see what your talking about.
 Do you agree, as the cite proposes, to transport all black Americans to Africa?

Have you ever been to Africa? I doubt it. It is a beautiful country. The people the most human I have met, outside the cities. You should go and see what your talking about. <<

I asked a question about a specific website, Neil. That's what I was talking about. I'm very sorry that such a simple thing went over your head.

Most things do, of course.

61 Nov-27   From: zip   To: Gunny
You surely must be black to ask that question! <<

Another racist piece of white trash chimes in.

62 Nov-27   From: zip   To: