Half of All U.S. Adults Have Immediate Family Member Currently or Previously Incarcerated

Jews have their own terrorists, who are called "Zionists." If you read the Talmud, you will understand where the ideas of fascism and the superiority of some races over others grow from. But because blacks have more criminal customs, I show them photos.

 

1. Perhaps if you use a microscope, you can see that I wrote -50 years old is nothing from the point of view of history (humanity).
You are considering 50 years in terms of the life of a particular person. Since human life is conditionally 100 years old, 50 years is half of his life. But for the entire history of mankind, 50 years is nothing.

2. You say that Stalin was a de facto dictator. Who defined this "de facto"? Or do you consider yourself an unquestioned authority?
This can only be your opinion. But not "de facto." This is for example the same as if someone says - "you de facto look like a cockroach." But it will be only the opinion of a specific person, but not in any way correspond to the “De facto”. Is not it?

 

It's too bad they don't apply your standards to our political criminals, those in office who break the laws.

 

It's exceptionally obvious that picture was not from any link published in the OP. Hence the poster deliberately added it by his own initiative. And the poster went out of his way to put up a pic of minorities on a discussion about family members being in prison.

So yeah... it's obviously racist. Deal with it.

 

If you would put up pictures of all the likely people who all end in jail: fine.
But the poster of the OP only puts up a picture of a minority... linking those people with being criminals.
And that's just being utterly racist. Let me remind you the poster when out of his way to find that picture.
Nowhere in the links he put up is that picture to be found. So it's clear the poster links criminals with minorities.

 

This sounds like your random far right KKK supporter having a problem with Jews and black people.
My remark that it's racist stands.

 

Oh, but I do! Example: Barack Obama broke United States laws no less than three times during his reign, although he was never punished for any of it. He should have been impeached-and-removed for breaking the law... but he wasn't. Ironically, one of the laws Obama broke was a law he, himself, had actually signed into law less than a year before he broke it!

With similar consideration, if (IF) it is proven that Donald Trump has broken United States laws, then he, too, should be impeached-and-removed from office. There would be a much greater likelihood of that happening to Trump, because Democrats are regaining power, and they are typically VERY selective in their application of 'standards of justice'....

As for "my standards"...? Well, as a Conservative, my "standards" are the same for all citizens of the United States, high and low -- LAW AND ORDER.

 

(*Exasperation*) . So now you want to dissect the meaning of the phrase "de facto"...?

I suggest that you compare it with "de jure" and perhaps then you'll 'get it'. Hey, I only made a "C" in Latin, but surely the meaning of a phrase like "de facto" shouldn't be that hard to grasp....

 

No, no.... I never said that all non-violent crimes should go UNPUNISHED! Absolutely not! And those criminals like Madoff, or those others of the kind you identified should probably just be put up against a wall and shot in the guts with a small caliber weapon -- so that it takes them a LONG time to die....

So, no... I'm not 'soft' on non-violent crime. But I am saying that, if anything, we should be much tougher than we have been on VIOLENT criminals....

 

Oh, you seemed to be a bit obsessed with violent crime when of course white collar crime actually seems per case to hurt a lot more people.

 

I don't know how you can say that. It is a lot easier to recover from a loss of money than a bullet in the head. In addition, white collar crime numbers are a fraction of the number of violent crimes.

 

There is no fundamental difference between the two. A person is being forcefully deprived of their liberty by the state. Any such incident, regardless of its duration, should be counted when assessing the nature of "incarceration" in America.

 

So, any pic but whites is "wayciss" YOU deal with that.

You utterly failed to justify your BS allegation of "waycism".

 

KKK in comparison with the Zionists - children.

 

I know what the term "de facto" means. But you are trying to translate the diologist in demogogiyu. I asked you - who established, that Stalin was the de facto dictator? Did you decide that? But this is only your opinion, but not a fact. I gave you an example - if someone says - you are a cockroach. It will not be a fact. This will only be the opinion of the person. Therefore, your categorical statement that Stalin was the de facto dictator - is nonsense.

 

Thank you for agreeing that white collar crime is less prosecuted.

 

I would refer you to, oh, nearly every single book, essay, analysis, or discussion concerning Josef Stalin that has ever been written. You may (MAY) discover that pretty much everyone who has lived during this man's reign, or afterward, considered him to have ruled the Soviet Union as a dictator. I'm weary of trying to discuss the obvious with you about this. But, I'm glad to learn that you think you know what the phrase, "de facto" means....

Think: Was Hitler a dictator? Was Mao a dictator? Evidence is readily available to indicate that each of them (and many others like them) were "elected" to power... but what were they from the perspective of 'de facto'...?

 

So what? I have read hundreds of books stating that Stalin was a Democrat and an extremely kind person. There is a lot of evidence where Stalin is a kind and sympathetic person. Many great people in their memoirs noted this fact. I'm weary of trying to discuss the obvious with you about this.

Think: Was Hitler a dictator? Was Roosevelt, Truman, ... Bush a dictator? Evidence is readily available to indicate that each of them (and many others like them) were "elected" to power.

 

Roosevelt (the FDR creep) was definitely a wanna-be dictator! We can agree on that! The way he tried to pack the Supreme Court with his obedient stooges made that very clear, plus setting up and pushing through all the various, numerable "make-work" programs.

But, Stalin as a kind, nice guy? There's a few dozen million people in what is today Eastern Europe who just might disagree. Hey, even Hitler was a 'nice guy' -- to dogs!

. The "Führer" with his favorite dog, "Blondi"....

 

Though you are quick to hold Obama accountable for his crimes, as am I, you fail to mention the crimes of either of the Bush men, suggesting you are more interested in party loyalty than in the rule of law.

 

We are again talking about the subjective perceptions of the historical person. You say that millions in Europe consider Stalin a dictator. But I can tell you that not millions, but a billion Chinese, hundreds of millions of Vietnamese, North Koreans, Lao, and others. consider Stalin a great humanist. I hope you do not consider these people second grade or untermenschen.

By the way, Hitler can be considered the ideological inspirer of modern Greenpeace. Because Hitler in 1933 November 24 issued a decree on the protection of animals. This decree most closely follows the rules of Greenpeace. However, Greenpeace are the same extremists as Rem’s attack aircraft.

 

I blame H.W. Bush for raising taxes when he promised he would not do that... and I despise "W" Bush for turning the entire economy of the United States over to the Federal Reserve System in August 2007. Through the years, I came to dislike both of them greatly, and, I disliked "Daddy" Bush so much that I swelled-up and voted for Ross Perot... twice, rather than vote for another Bush-controlled Republican nominee (a RINO).

That said, I don't remember either Bush committing crimes....

H. W. Bush flat-out LIED to the American people about jacking up taxes, and, he allowed the "rescue" of the S&L industry. Is that a crime? His moron son, "W" Bush allowed the same thing while being led around by the nose by the Federal Reserve. And, Obama did the same thing for the Fed when he was being told what to do by Tim Geithner.

But Obama broke the War Powers Act when he overthrew the legitimate government of Libya (with which we had been at peace for years). Obama broke the law with his unconstitutional "recess appointments". Even his stooge-"Justices", Sotomayor and Kagan had to go against Obama on that stunt! And Obama broke the very law he had signed into law forbidding the exchanging of prisoners at Gitmo. Obama signed that bill into law, and then less than a year later, BROKE THAT SAME LAW by trading five Taliban field commanders for Sergeant/Private/Whatever Bowe Bergdahl.

Anybody else remember this nauseating spectacle...?

.

 

The poster of the OP goes out of it's way to deliberately link the black minority with crime.
While the article itself isn't about the black minority one bit.
There is nothing you can deny about this.
So I'm calling that racist to out of nowhere associate black people with a negative story.

 

Since blacks commit violent crimes at a much higher rate than whites, it is a logical pic to use.

 

White people deal and do drugs on an equal or higher % than black people. Yet the predominantly white nation throws mainly black people in jail for this. You got a poster who goes out of his way to link black people with a negative story. So yeah... it fits the utterly racist culture of the United States that hardly shed it's feathers since they outlawed apartheid ... 20 years after the end of WWII.