Jared Allen rips Detroit

[DaveinElma]

No, you're talking about "white flight," you racist prick. They're talking about suburbanization.

 

They're using it as a euphemism for white flight.

[Juror#8]

That's like saying, if you ignore the 49 points Patriots scored in the last three quarters, Bills won 21-0.

 

No it's not. I said that I "wasn't sure" how sound the science was. I cursorily read the findings - but probably more throroughly than most. It appears sound and verifiable. Your analogy presumes that I'm ignoring demonstrable evidence that is evident even prima facie.

 

So, bad analogy.

 

Basically I look at everything through a unique lens. I don't know, nor have I taken the time to determine if:

 

-the study has been tested

-the technique that they used has been subjected to peer review

-rate of error

-scientific acceptance within the community

-level of scrutiny

 

Not knowing those things, I "don't know how sound the science is." That is just being fair. The "seat of the pants" review seems solid and verifiable and reasonable and believeable. But I'm not going to formally acknowledge something that I haven't scrutinized almost categorically and certainly more than in a "seat of the pants" way.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Juror#8

[GG]

They're using it as a euphemism for white flight.

 

Euphemism, my arse. There was no such thing as white flight in the '50s & '60s you dolt. Middle class migration to the suburbs would have happened without the black riots & the race war that you're so nostalgic for.

[GG]

No it's not. I said that I "wasn't sure" how sound the science was. I cursorily read the findings - but probably more throroughly than most. It appears sound and verifiable. Your analogy presumes that I'm ignoring demonstrable evidence that is evident even prima facie.

 

So, bad analogy.

 

 

 

What in the world are you talking about? I'm referring to your point that if you take out donations to religious causes, liberals give more. What kind of statement is that?

[Magox]

No it's not. I said that I "wasn't sure" how sound the science was. I cursorily read the findings - but probably more throroughly than most. It appears sound and verifiable. Your analogy presumes that I'm ignoring demonstrable evidence that is evident even prima facie.

 

So, bad analogy.

 

It´s not a bad analogy, as a matter of fact, its a stupendous analogy. You can´t do that, not rationally anyway. You can´t make the argument that contributing through religious means doesn´t count as charity, thats EXACTLY what it is, charity. Jeez

[Juror#8]

What in the world are you talking about? I'm referring to your point that if you take out donations to religious causes, liberals give more. What kind of statement is that?

 

I'm going off the abbreviated portion of my post that you quoted - which any reasonable person would understand to mean that you were criticizing my comment about the soundness of the science.

 

Also, I explained what I felt the difference was. If you don't agree, that's fine; it's my opinion. Your non-linear analogy isn't a dissuasion.

 

It´s not a bad analogy, as a matter of fact, its a stupendous analogy. You can´t do that, not rationally anyway. You can´t make the argument that contributing through religious means doesn´t count as charity, thats EXACTLY what it is, charity. Jeez

 

I've been treading lightly trying not to get you wound up. And that is out of character for me.

[GG]

I'm going off the abbreviated portion of my post that you quoted - which any reasonable person would understand to mean that you were criticizing my comment about the soundness of the science.

 

Also, I explained what I felt the difference was. If you don't agree, that's fine; it's my opinion. Your non-linear analogy isn't a dissuasion.

 

 

 

I've been treading lightly trying not to get you wound up. And that is out of character for me.

 

Are you OC's brother from another mother?

 

No one is arguing the science or data collection of Brooks' or other studies. We're pointing to your inane comment that charitable contributions to religious organizations don't count.

 

Stay on topic for once.

[Juror#8]

Are you OC's brother from another mother?

 

No one is arguing the science or data collection of Brooks' or other studies. We're pointing to your inane comment that charitable contributions to religious organizations don't count.

 

Stay on topic for once.

 

Speaking of OC, some of his reading comprehension issues are rubbing off on you.

 

I mentioned why I referenced the science; it was, at minimum, reasonable given how you quoted my post.

 

I thrice discussed the charitable contributions point. Fu9king THRICE. If it makes you feel like more of a woman to ignore the somewhat detailed way in which I expressed the opinion - fine. Just do me a favor and stop wasting my time trying to present the situation as if there is some level of disconnect. There isn't. The schit is simple. But it may not be for you. And I don't want to be selfish. So I don't mind handicapping it for you (presently) if it helps:

 

1. I made a comment about charitable contributions.

2. You asked for clarification.

3. I clairifed.

4. Then you quoted a portion of my post ABOUT THE SOUNDNESS OF THE SCIENCE and made an analogy (look at post #55).

5. I then refuted the analogy vis-a-vis the post that you quoted.

6. Inexplicably, you were befuddled as to why I addressed the analogy the way I did. (post#64)

7. I explained why (as if any fu((ing explanation were needed - see point 4 above).

8. You then mentioned AGAIN that "no one is arguing the science or the data collection..." as if point(s) 4, 5, 6, and 7 never happened.

 

Let me help you guy: I understand that now. The fact that you like to quote scchit, and then act as if the quote that you referenced has no significance to what you're hoping to solicit, is a personal problem.

 

But I can boogie with that. I'll just know that if you quote this post or any other subsequent post, you could conceivably be referencing any of my posts ever, from any topic, or even someone else's post from another forum.

 

It'll just be a game that you and I can play to satisfy your Asperger issue. "Find the !@#$ing post that GG is referencing," because relying on his quote is a !@#$ing crapshoot.

 

And as we were playing "hide and seek GG's !@#$ing post," and after I realized that that's what we were playing, I still explained to you, THRICE, why I felt the way I felt about charitable contributions.

 

And you act as if I haven't explicated that.

 

The only person who is lost, off topic, slow, challenged, et cetera, is you.

 

THRICE.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Juror#8

[DC Tom]

They're using it as a euphemism for white flight.

 

No, you're interpreting it as a euphemism, because you're a racist prick.

Edited January 13, 2012 by DC Tom

[DaveinElma]

No, you're interpreting it as a euphemism, because you're a racist prick.

 

So how do you explain all the white people fleeing Prince George's County in Maryland? "Suburbanization"?

[Juror#8]

So how do you explain all the white people fleeing Prince George's County in Maryland? "Suburbanization"?

 

Now we're talking my stomping grounds.

 

White people are NOT wholesale fleeing PG County. They've left Capitol Heights, Ft. Washington, Hyattsville, Laurel, Beltsville (and basically everywhere on the Green Line) over the last 10 years because of ghetto ass blacks being pushed out of DC (especially SE) and settling in PG due to the tax hikes owing to DC "urban renewal" projects.

 

Basically, affluent folks have been taking over SE/SW DC after they put Nationals Stadium in and began building high priced condos. The property taxes have forced many lower income black folks across the line into MD. MoCo is too expensive. Howard County is too far off the beltway. They're damn sure not going into Fairfax, Arlington, Alexandria, Tyson's, McClean, Reston, Herndon, Springfield, etc. (in Virginia).

 

So ghetto ass black folks are settling in Temple Hills, Suitland, Ft. Washington and Mt. Ranier and Capitol Heights.

 

But white folks haven't left PG. They've just moved to Mitcheville and Bowie and Upper Marlboro. Those areas have more aggregate wealth than some midwest states...but mostly due to VERY rich black folks.

 

Also, PG has long been an area for wealthy blacks...going back into the 70s and 80s. When Marion Barry was giving blacks 6 figure jobs in the DC government (some with questionable experience), and saying "!@#$ the budget" as he was doing it, all those folks aggregated in PG.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Juror#8

[DaveinElma]

Now we're talking my hood.

 

White people are NOT wholesale fleeing PG County.

 

60,000 have left the county since 2000.

 

 

And by the way-Is anyone else buying that Juror 8 is not just DC Tom.

[DC Tom]

Now we're talking my hood.

 

White people are NOT wholesale fleeing PG County. They've left Capitol Heights, Ft. Washington, Hyattsville, Laurel, Beltsville (and basically everywhere on the Green Line) over the last 10 years because of blacks being pushed out of DC (especially SE) due to the tax hikes owing to "urban renewal" projects.

 

Basically, affluent folks have been taking over SE/SW DC after they put Nationals Stadium in and began building high priced condos. The property taxes have forced many black lower income folks across the line into MD. MoCo is too expensive. Howard County is too far off the beltway. They're damn sure not going into Fairfax, Arlington, Alexandria, Tyson's, McClean (in Virginia).

 

So ghetto ass black folks are settling in Ft. Washington and Mt. Ranier and Capitol Heights.

 

But white folks haven't left PG. They've just moved to Mitcheville and Bowie and Upper Marlboro. Those areas have more aggregate wealth than some midwest states...but mostly due to VERY rich black folks.

 

Also, PG has long been an area for wealthy blacks...going back into the 70s and 80s. When Marion Barry was giving blacks 6 figure jobs in the DC government (some with questionable experience), and saying "!@#$ the budget" as he was doing it, all those folks aggregated in PG.

 

Mt. Rainer at least is starting to see some of the same gentrification that's happening in the lower-income DC neighborhoods. So is Capitol Heights, I think (I may be confusing it with somewhere else).

 

DIE is, of course, just being his usual idiotic self, equating socio-economic forces and policy directly with skin color.

[3rdnlng]

60,000 have left the county since 2000.

 

 

And by the way-Is anyone else buying that Juror 8 is not just DC Tom.

 

 

Not a chance. Total different style of writing (and insulting).

[GG]

 

And as we were playing "hide and seek GG's !@#$ing post," and after I realized that that's what we were playing, I still explained to you, THRICE, why I felt the way I felt about charitable contributions.

 

And you act as if I haven't explicated that.

 

The only person who is lost, off topic, slow, challenged, et cetera, is you.

 

THRICE.

 

Were you hit on the head as a kid? Post #55 refers to your "clever" edit of my post in #52.

 

I think you've been given a lesson on the terrain of PPP, stay on topic or get put into the idiot sandbox.

 

Who said this:

 

You mean if you throw out charitable religious wackos individuals giving to their churches (amongst whom Juror#8 is one), liberals give more? Is that your statistical inference?

 

.....

 

Not sure how sound the science is, but I've read it enough, and from enough divergent sources, to believe that there is merit to it.

 

I really do feel that there is a fundamental difference between giving to an organization that you have fellowship with and consider yourself amongst the community, and giving to organizations with whom you have absolutely no affiliation and expect absolutely no social contact with subsequently.

 

No one is arguing the science behind surveys on charitable giving. We take issue with your inane point that charitable giving to religious institutions don't count.

 

Surely a smartypants like you can recognize that little difference.

 

Awaiting a tome's worthy non sequitur response.

[Juror#8]

Mt. Rainer at least is starting to see some of the same gentrification that's happening in the lower-income DC neighborhoods. So is Capitol Heights, I think (I may be confusing it with somewhere else).

 

DIE is, of course, just being his usual idiotic self, equating socio-economic forces and policy directly with skin color.

 

I've heard that Mt. Ranier is seeing some gentrification happenings.

 

Didn't know about Capitol Heights though. You very well could be right. I haven't had ocassion to visit Capitol Heights since my dad left the hood 4 years ago and moved with his wife to Rockville.

 

And now that they put a Bojangles in Union Station, I don't need to go into PG at all.

 

*So stereotypically black*

[Rob's House]

yes, let's suggest that the under-privileged are victims, because that's the way people want to see it, because how else can we go on with our lives other than thinking "we" can't make a difference, it's out of our hands, oh pooh-pooh. what a buncha elitist baloney.

 

"they're no longer trying," you say.

 

why not just stop attempting to be politically correct and come out with it and say "you're better than `them'" and feel good about getting that off your chest other than this piddle-paddling dalliance around it.

 

for gawd's sake, if you're going to be a "classist" about it, go out and say it. i'm sure you won't hurt "their" feelings, because after all what's it matter. they are the "entitled" ones, and it's you that we must have sympathy for for your dear feelings of empathy. poor them.

 

and it's those danged liberal policies that are backwards. perhaps we should re-introduce debtors jail, and get "them" off the streets so we won't have to put up with "them" anymore, and be forced to confront such blight, because it really is unsightly.

 

sonofa ... just listen to yourself for a second, will ya.

 

jw

It would be hard for you to be any more off base. I've been around a while and I've heard my fair share of ignorant, self-righteous, starry-eyed, head-in-the-clouds blow hards in my time, but you take the cake.

 

First, and most importantly, you rubber stamp everyone into general stereotypes in a fashion I'm sure you'd find unconscionable if done to reach different conclusions, but I'm sure you give yourself a pass, because after all, you're right and the truth is an absolute defense. Not only are the people you describe in your childish rants mere strawmen, they are ridiculous charicatures who primarily exist in your imagination.

 

You have your blanket explanation for the causes of people fleeing the cities to the counties, and then label their motives as nefarious, or at best claim they are derelict in their duties to ensure prosperity for all. Of course you, the morally superior guy that you are, live in the city so you can walk around with your nose up in the air rubbing your genitals and bragging about what a !@#$ing saint you are. I'm sure your neighbors are just tickled pink that they have some self-rightous Canadian living amongst them.

 

Next, you lump all lower class people into this victim group and assign everyone else with the responsibility of lifting them out of their situation while placing absolutely no responsibility on them. I know, I know, you probably live among the poor like Mother Theresa and know all, but I've been around these elements quite a bit myself and happen to know that while there are some people who will seize opportunity and do what they can to take advantage of it, most do not.

 

I've given many people the opportunity to lift their lot in life and most take what they can get, squander the opportunity, and go back to their normal ways. My wife came from nothing and decided she wanted better and made it happen. She had no greater opportunity than her degenerate siblings who aren't worth a damn, but according the the John Wawwrow phiolosphy they're the victims and we're derelict for not bringing them up. I got her brother a job with a friend where he could have learned a trade put pissed the opportunity away. A couple of years later when he got out of jail we put him up, got him a job, and tried to help. Big surprise, the little **** couldn't hold a job, went back to his thug life, and is now on the run. But we failed him, after all, he's the victim, so says our esteemed writer. I know of dozens of such examples.

 

Of course maybe you're right. Maybe instead of moving to the suburbs so my daughter can go to a good school with other kids of similar values and upbringing so she can have a happy childhood and prepare for a successful life I should sacrifice her well being to the John Fuking Wawrow ideal of moving her into a city school with kids that don't give a !@#$, who have parents that don't give a !@#$, and walk around like a snooty lib telling all my douche bag liberal friends what a great liberal douche I am for putting my idealistic bull **** ahead of my daughter's well being. Maybe If I live in the city like John !@#$ing Wawrow I can convince all those people to give a !@#$, and I'll give a speech like on some after school special and all the degenerate welfare parents will say "hey, that's right" and the touching music will play as they realize the error of their ways and we'll all dance around in a !@#$ing circle. The only the problem is that this **** only happens in the fantasy world of liberals like yourself.

 

As far as urban flight goes, there are a lot of factors and many of them grow out of liberal policies. The fact that you're a liberal doesn't change that fact. Unions aren't the sole cause, but outpricing the market will destroy the industry in a region. It's an undeniable fact of life, and liberal demagoguery doesn't change that, nor does blaming "greed". I can't speak to integration in Detroit or Buffalo specifically, but in Richmond the liberal idea of bussing was disasterous to the city. White people who couldn't afford private school for their kids didn't want to have their kids bussed to an all black school where they'd be outcasts and get beat up, so they moved to the suburbs. Blacks with money felt and did the same. That left only poor blacks, very poor whites, and people rich enough to send their kids to private school in the city.

 

I'm sure you have an orgasm thinking of how beautiful the integration was and the racial harmony that grew out of it, but that would also exist only in your simple mind. The schools are still segregated, there is great racial strife in many of these areas, and generations of black families have perpetuated in poverty as a result. You should check out the per capita murder rates. Surprisingly [if you subscribe to Wawrowian thought) the suburbs have very little racial tension and are well integrated. But I'm sure in your infinite brilliance you can just pass off the destruction of the city on the moral liability of people who have the gall to earn a living and do what's best for their children.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Rob's House

[Juror#8]

Were you hit on the head as a kid? Post #55 refers to your "clever" edit of my post in #52.

 

I think you've been given a lesson on the terrain of PPP, stay on topic or get put into the idiot sandbox.

 

Who said this:

 

 

 

No one is arguing the science behind surveys on charitable giving. We take issue with your inane point that charitable giving to religious institutions don't count.

 

Surely a smartypants like you can recognize that little difference.

 

Awaiting a tome's worthy non sequitur response.

 

No you !@#$ed up when quoting. But cute explanation.

 

Please see my previous email to you. It addresses every point that you just made. Again.

[....lybob]

Were you hit on the head as a kid? Post #55 refers to your "clever" edit of my post in #52.

 

I think you've been given a lesson on the terrain of PPP, stay on topic or get put into the idiot sandbox.

 

Who said this:

 

 

 

No one is arguing the science behind surveys on charitable giving. We take issue with your inane point that charitable giving to religious institutions don't count.

 

Surely a smartypants like you can recognize that little difference.

 

Awaiting a tome's worthy non sequitur response.

I think the point is that if you are giving to your church the bulk of that giving is going to the maintenance of the church, paying church staff, bringing in guest speakers or music, different social events (picnics, softball, golf, brunches, etc etc) and proselytizing - a much smaller amount is going to what most think of charity (providing food, clothing, shelter, medical treatment to the needy)- If I'm spending money and much of the money is benefiting myself well how much is charity- if I went to a strip club could I count that as a charity because some of my money is helping young wayward women? A church for many is Entertainment, education, socialization, recreation, coffee and snacks, a place to network and so on.

[Magox]

I think the point is that if you are giving to your church the bulk of that giving is going to the maintenance of the church, paying church staff, bringing in guest speakers or music, different social events (picnics, softball, golf, brunches, etc etc) and proselytizing - a much smaller amount is going to what most think of charity (providing food, clothing, shelter, medical treatment to the needy)- If I'm spending money and much of the money is benefiting myself well how much is charity- if I went to a strip club could I count that as a charity because some of my money is helping young wayward women? A church for many is Entertainment, education, socialization, recreation, coffee and snacks, a place to network and so on.

You just like to make **** up don´t you? I mean you literally pulled that out of your ass... Right now your ass must be gaping wide.

 

http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/23/surprise-conservatives-are-more-generous-than-liberals/2/