4 Charged in Mob Attack Near Wrigley Field Witnesses said a group of men jumped from

yeah. expect that to happen. This is more money down the drain. Money that we DO NOT HAVE for this idiocy that DOES NOT address any problem in any meaningful way. Overburden the system in order to bring it down.

 

I've posted OP's about Chicago's horrible black on black homicide rates. Democrats are in denial about that too. But, these flash mobs are attacking whites, and are a different problem.

_

 

I guess you missed the limo part. LOL!!!


_

 

Prolly from the last group of white people they jumped... They probably robbed those ones.

 

The last vid you just posted was teenagers looting stores, no black on white violence. I think you are confusing issues/crimes

 

OP means the original post. This means that I had to have started the thread.

_

 

Sometimes I feel like there is no way you can be serious in your posts. Like they are so absurd, that you are playing some sort of role playing position.

I'm sure it was the "cheaper" limo to rent.

 

It's the new way of reporting care of this Corrupt DOJ and even more corrupt
Obama Adm. who has the AP in it's back pocket as well the entire Mainstream
media.Things are unlikely to get any better until Obama is defeated at the ballot
box.Maybe not even then.
The SOP is usually to not report the Perp's identity.

 

Diversity is our strength.......

 

Is it just me, or does the guy in the blue shirt look out of place? The rest look like typical dumb black thugs. This one looks slightly more advanced on a genetic level. Maybe I'm just seeing things.

 

That's still no reason for a jury to convict a guy for defending himself with a gun from a mob attack. After a thousand "not guilty" verdicts the dummies in the legislature will change the law.

 

http://www.hvpress.net/news/156/ARTICLE/3522/2008-02-20.html

There you go. Plenty of other articles out there, but this should prove to be sufficient.

I was talking about criminals in general. But, on the issue of violent crimes, a lot of these men prosecuted for non-violent are fathers, and there would be a lot less fatherless blacks if it weren't for the drug war, which is primarily championed by white people. Not to mention, any non violent drug user could certainly become a violent criminal once released after being in that sort of environment.

I asked you if you were trying to prove if blacks were more likely to be criminals. I did not single out violent crimes, I was talking in a general sense. I have already said blacks are statistically more likely to commit violent crimes, therefore, you're beating a dead horse on this issue.

If you really cared about the black on black crime epidemic, you and the others would create a lot more threads about it. But you don't, it's all black on white. Your agenda is clear.

Just because I made a note that I have seen white on black violence threads as well as black on white, doesn't mean that I need to summon it at your beck and call. But I'll do it just this once to silence you.
http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...ng-white-racists-kill-innocent-black-man.html

Oh, and one more thing. You should strongly consider dropping the condescending intellectual gimmick. You actually need, you know, facts and intellect to pull it off. Just a suggestion to avoid embarrassing yourself in the future.

 

Already done.

There are all sorts of criminal issues, yet this seems to be your only obsession.

 

I'd like to see some evidence that the blacks arrested for drug crimes have the same amount of priors on their record as the white people who are not convicted. One of the points my earlier source made was the following:

I'd also like to know which drugs are landing blacks in jail more often. The harsher penalties for crack, for example, were supported by black congressman in 1986 when the disparity between cocaine/crack was passed into law, and was never considered "racist" at the time.

Or, being in that environment could keep someone from going back to prison, if we are talking hypothetically.

By the way, I partially agree about the War on Drugs. I don't believe all drugs should be legal, but I don't think a drug like marijuana should be criminalized.

No, you didn't ask me that. You told me that my claim was "not necessarily true", and then blamed the "racist" criminal justice system. That's not the same thing as you agreeing with me and making my argument akin to "beating a dead horse on this issue". The conversation up until that point focused on violent crime, and the statistics I threw out focused on violent crime, so trying to redirect to white collar crimes seems to be a red herring in this thread about 4 blacks violently attacking people in mob violence.

How many need to be created, in your opinion? Like I said, there have been many, and are easily found using the search feature, so I'm not sure how many threads is your "target" number in order for someone to be racist or not. It's really not my fault, or anyone else's fault, that you haven't paid close enough attention, is it? Besides, libs are the ones who really claim to care about black victims, why aren't they creating any threads about black on black crime? And even if you are right and there are more "black on white" crime threads, so what? Why does that topic make you uncomfortable?

So, you pick a tongue-in-cheek thread creating by a leftist who has the same objection to "black on white" crime threads that you do? That's your evidence that there are white-on-black crime threads?

I'll choose to respect people and opinions that I decide are worth it. Thank you for your suggestion.

 

he looks like he just got a 'fresh fade' or haircut from the barber shop as opposed to the others who probably did not have the same luxury of being hygenic due to being even more oppressed by the white man.

 

Living in the city has been stressful...

 

So which one of the goons stole his mom's credit card to rent the limo?

 

I never would have guessed the forum racists would be in here circle jerking again.

 

I proved to you that blacks are convicted at a much higher rate than whites for drug offenses. The burden of proof is one you to refute that, not that it matters anyway, it's irrelevant. Nobody should go away for non violent drug related crimes, no matters how many times they've been prosecuted for it. As of 2005, blacks represented 12 % of the drug users, yet they were arrested at a 34% clip for drug offenses, and 45% of drug users in state prison are black, sourced here.http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/dp_raceanddrugs.pdf The sad thing, as shown in the source, is that it used to be higher, which is crazy seeing as how it's still really horrible.

Blacks are barely a tenth of the population, and make up for a fraction of drug use, yet nearly half of those in state prison for drug offense are black. The drug war is absolutley racist.

What drugs they are doing and who supports them are irrelevant. As long as the crime is a non-violent one, there should not be prosecutions.

Really? That makes no sense. If you're an 18-25 year old young man and never been in trouble, and wind up getting convicted for drug use, you'll be more likely to become a criminal for many factors. Being around criminals for an extended period of time for one. Not to mention, it'd be awfully difficult to get hired from a job after something like that. That could definitely breed a criminal.

I clearly asked if all blacks were criminals. I was not singling out violent crime. I did say the criminal justice system is racist, and have backed up my assertions with facts.

In terms of volume, the black on white type threads are started numerous times just about everyday. Black on black crime is seldom reported here at all. The agenda is pretty apparent. It doesn't make me uncomfortable at all, but I am just pointing out the apparent disdain the usual Neocon suspects have for black people.

As far as liberals caring about blacks, and the lack of threads they make on black on black crime, well, that is irrelevant to me, because I am a libertarian. I cannot speak for liberals.

Backpeddle much, eh? Haha. I gave you what you requested, the title is clear, and the last post was in late June. That was likely what I had seen recently on the white on black side, seeing as how it's a few weeks ago. There are others though, although you may not want to press me on it, in fear of being silenced again.

Just looking out for you. I wasn't sure if you were aware of the qualifications needed to pull off your gimmick, and I thought I'd let you know, because you clearly do not have them.

 

You have to be a troll.

 

You haven't provided proof that they are convicted more simply because they are black. I asked for some kind of evidence showing they do not have prior criminal offenses or other dark spots in their history that would cause a judge and jury to throw down a harsher penalty. I have provided evidence of a 1994 Justice Department survey which shows that in 75 major cities across the US, the felony prosecution rate was actually lower for blacks than it was for whites.

No, they are not irrelevant. Certain drugs carry harsher penalties. There is a longer prison sentence for possession of crack versus possession of marijuana. Since crack is a very common drug in the black community, it's not surprising that crack users/dealers spend more time in prison. Maybe this disparity is unfair, but when the harsher penalties on crack were put in place, it received support from black congressmen and black leaders, who were concerned with rising crack use amongst blacks, and was not deemed "racist" at that time. There are only 13 states that have a differing sentencing structure for crack versus powder.

Not every person who gets arrested for drugs becomes a criminal. I am merely pointing out an alternate outcome. Someone may emerge from prison and make a decision to never go back.

Facts that I have either refuted or provided counter evidence to create doubt.

Do you really believe that there wouldn't be just as many, if not more, threads about white on black crime if there were gangs of whites randomly attacking blacks in the inner city? If whites were randomly killing blacks across the country, on at least a weekly basis, you don't think we'd have left-wingers on this site talking about it? You need to get real. There are more black on white stories being reported because there are more black on white crimes being committed. In fact, 90% of interracial crime that involves blacks and whites involves a black perpetrator and a white victim.

http://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2000/10/26/the_color_of_racism

^Written by a black libertarian, so don't be so quick to criticize.

So, their apathy on the topic is irrelevant, yet you take issue when conservatives are not dedicating enough of their time to reporting black on black crimes? Your position makes no sense. Like I've always said, there are libertarians who side with the left and libertarians that side with the right. You seem to be in the former's camp.

The point is, you picked a joke thread to prove your point. Careful examination would go a long way to prevent these mistakes in the future.

I disagree with your opinion.

 

The numbers are proof enough. Despite being a fraction of the population and a fraction of drug users, they have half the conviction rate. That's either racism, or it shows that poorer people are in trouble with there incompetent court appointed lawyers. Either way it is a serious problem. Their history should have nothing to do with the current crime, especially if it is a nonviolent one, so that point is moot. And the prosecution rate is irrelevant as well, look at the conviction rates.

Hah.......so the common drugs white users use, alcohol and prescription pill abuse is totally legal, and the next preferred white drug, pot, has a lighter sentence, yet the drug used by blacks has a harsher sentence? You're making my racism case for me. I thank you.

And I couldn't care less what black congressmen and leaders thought of it. If they supported it, they were clearly wrong. Just because you are black, doesn't mean you know how to help, and/or care about the black community. See: Sottero, Barry.

Sure, some may make that decision, but I doubt it is the most prevalent outcome. Take a young man who has never committed a real crime, arrest and convict him, put him in a cell with gangbangers, screw up his job prospects due to that arrest and conviction on his record, take his justified hatred towards the system, put it together, and see what you get. It absolutely breeds criminals, unnecessarily to boot.

The fact that blacks make up for less than 1/8th of the population and drug users, and half the conviction rates says otherwise. Something is wrong here, whether it is racism or severe incompetence.

There are certainly white on black violent crimes, but yes, black on white crimes are more prevalent, at least as far as violence goes. However, blacks are far more susceptible to institutional racism, like police harassment, absurd conviction rates via a racist and/or incompetent justice system. They are also more likely to be screwed by predatory lenders and such. All perpetrated by mostly white people. There are plenty of crimes from both sides, all of which are unacceptable, and should be frowned upon, but neither side can call the other the only problem, that is absurd.

I don't really care if it was written by Martin Luther King, Strom Thurmond, Gandi, Hitler, or Donald Duck. If it's correct, I will agree. If it isn't, I'll tear it to shreds, I'm not some partisan hack. And like I've said before, yes, blacks are more likely to commit violent crimes against whites than vice-versa. The numbers don't lie, and I've never disputed it.

I take issue when you Neocons only report on black on white crimes multiple times a day, and then pretend there is no racially motivated agenda, and that you care about black people, and the black on black crime epidemic......which is obviously nonsense, otherwise, you guys would post threads on that subject ad nauseum. The left does it as well, but they don't do at at the volume you neocons do it, so that's why I interjected in the Neocon hate thread.

I am on neither the left or the rights side. I agree with the rights rhetoric on lower taxes, personal freedom etc, and the lefts rhetoric on anti war, Gay rights, etc. Problem is, neither follows through on anything. That's the great thing about libertarianism, it is the best of both worlds.

And if anything, the two sides that are the same are liberals and neocons. The rhetoric may be different, but you guys usually wind up at the same conclusion. Both parties wind up implementing an imperialistic foreign policy, a welfare/corporate welfare hybrid, and a police state. And you guys are sadly succeeding on all of your goals.

I picked the most recent one. There are others, but I doubt you'll be making boastful and aggressive assertions now, knowing you'll be shut down again. I'll be waiting, though.

The delusional, arrogant ugly girl always thinks she's hot stuff while looking in the mirror.