St. Paul Man Fights For His Life After Brutal Beating By Gang Members

[Jerry]

yep blame the victim and not the thugs.

Apparently he was one of the thugs himself. He just lost.

if you dig...

I'm not digging for this.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

If you are using your statistics to "back up" the assertion that black people are thugs, yes it is. You all want to talk about "color blind" yet, what is the most important thing to the OP? Black criminals. Can't we just say they're criminals? It's not very color blind to me.

The "clarification" you seek is for me to fit into your idea of what a Libbo is because otherwise you can't argue. If you want to build a strawman, knock yourself out, but leave me out of it.

Color blind does not mean we actually have to be blind to color. We should be unafraid, we should just say the truth, no matter what that truth happens to be. Nobody has a problem calling a white criminal a criminal if he/she is a criminal. I don't, most don't. We do not, however, want to be the only ones so labeled, and justice says that if we can be called criminals if we are criminal...should be the same with all, whatever the color.

Why do we need to make this about race? Because one race is crying racism, cannot even abide by the statistics gathered by a Justice Department headed by an African American whose ultimate boss is another African American. If we cannot now, in the present, use those stats and just tell the truth about what/who/when/why/etc... what does that say about us? What are you afraid of?

Where is your strawman... in the Wizard of Oz the strawman, the scarecrow, that was a white guy...what are you trying to say? [ just joking, who cares?]

 

[opendebate]

Am I reading this right...he was trying to walk through a group of 30 to 50 juvenile and young adults fighting!!!??!!


Are we sure his brain was damaged after the attack??


Because I don' t know about any of you , but when I see mob of people fighting, I would turn around and walk the other way, or at least if I must I would walk around and as far as possible, but never through them.

Diving Mullah

Honestly, it sounds like there is a lot of information missing here. Not that there isn't any truth to it; something obviously happened. They say that he was just walking by and everyone stopped fighting each other to jump on him because ...why??....because he was white.

 

[trfjr]

If you are using your statistics to "back up" the assertion that black people are thugs, yes it is. You all want to talk about "color blind" yet, what is the most important thing to the OP? Black criminals. Can't we just say they're criminals? It's not very color blind to me.

The "clarification" you seek is for me to fit into your idea of what a Libbo is because otherwise you can't argue. If you want to build a strawman, knock yourself out, but leave me out of it.

we have the very rare case that a perceived white man kills a black male, it is in the press for a year and people like you and other race baiter use it to keep alive the false narrative that blacks are being targeted and hunted down and killed by whites. when reality and statistics prove it is the opposite

when a black kills a white you then say it has nothing to do with race and race shouldn't be part of the discussion, but when we have the rare occasion of white on black violence it is all about race. just another example of the white racism, and we need to have a national discussion on how whites are such evil racist race and need to feel guilty for being white

 

[trfjr]

Honestly, it sounds like there is a lot of information missing here. Not that there isn't any truth to it; something obviously happened. They say that he was just walking by and everyone stopped fighting each other to jump on him because ...why??....because he was white.

why not? the same reason was used by you on the left that Martin was followed by Zimmerman because Martin was black, but racism and profiling can only be done by whites. right?

 

[Velvet Elvis]

You mind posting a source proving the above?

Seriously? Sure...here it is. Right here, bucco.

 

[opendebate]

why not? the same reason was used by you on the left that Martin was followed by Zimmerman because Martin was black, but racism and profiling can only be done by whites. right?

That argument was never made by me in the Zimmerman case. It just seems odd that they would be brawling with one another then stop and jump some random guy because he is white. Not saying it isn't the case and it certainly could be, there is just a lot of missing information right now.

 

[trfjr]

That argument was never made by me in the Zimmerman case. It just seems odd that they would be brawling with one another then stop and jump some random guy because he is white. Not saying it isn't the case and it certainly could be, there is just a lot of missing information right now.

if a group of whites were fighting and a black man walked by and the whites stop fighting each other and jumped the black man you wouldn't have a problem understanding would you?

 

[Risky Thicket]

And it is not racist to focus on Zimmermans race and when it was shown he wasn't the race you wanted him to be you still had to give him the title of the race you was hoping he was. white

because WND was the only ones with the balls to report the race of the thugs.

Oh ****ing hell. Is this going to be another Zimmerman thread?

 

[opendebate]

if a group of whites were fighting and a black man walked by and the whites stop fighting each other and jumped the black man you wouldn't have a problem understanding would you?

Jesus, would you let it rest already.

 

[Deuce]

Read more: Brutal Mob Beating Leaves Man Clinging to Life - Fox Nation




Do i even need to tell you the race of four young males



but we don't have a black on white violence problem we have a white on black violence problem according to all the race baiters media and liberals

How much more blood needs to spill from whites before it relieves you liberals of your white guilt and the problem is exposed and addressed

Both white-on-black violence and black-on-white violence are problems. Another problem is one of those two things being treated differently than the other.

 

[trfjr]

Both white-on-black violence and black-on-white violence are problems. Another problem is one of those two things being treated differently than the other.

one gets the attention of the media for a year and the others get swept under the rug

 

[babilfish]

*snip*

On your first source, you're really going to have to do better than a thinly veiled white nationalist website.

On your second source, you already posted your statistics in another thread, but didn't link to any relevant study or organization from where the statistics came. I'll ask you to do so (again) now.

 

[YoungConserv]

This is why you need high capacity magizines.

 

[trfjr]

On your first source, you're really going to have to do better than a thinly veiled white nationalist website.

On your second source, you already posted your statistics in another thread, but didn't link to any relevant study or organization from where the statistics came. I'll ask you to do so (again) now.

who in the hell do you think you are demanding anything from me i have provided the link and they provided the resources to their statistics



Interracial crime - Rochester Crime History | Examiner.com
*Sources

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States

Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Vitimization

Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice

Federal of Investigation, Hate Crime Statistics

If you have a problem with the statistics then you go and prove the data wrong there are your provided sources to do so

 

[babilfish]

who in the hell do you think you are demanding anything from me i have provided the link and they provided the resources to their statistics



Interracial crime - Rochester Crime History | Examiner.com
*Sources

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States

Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Vitimization

Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice

Federal of Investigation, Hate Crime Statistics

If you have a problem with the statistics then you go and prove the data wrong there are your provided sources to do so

First of all, where source where the word 'demand' appears in my post.

Second, you do not seem to understand how a debate works (not completely unexpected). You made the claim, you stand behind the statistics, just link to where (on each of these sites) these statistics are on display. Otherwise, I'm just going to have to assume you haven't really done your homework and are just taking whatever some website tells you at face value.

 

[babilfish]

Seriously? Sure...here it is. Right here, bucco.

Um...first of all, bucko is spelled with a k. The only reference I could get for bucco is, apparently, a genus of puffbird.

Second, your point still fails. You can't really make a stupid comment and shy away when people call you on it by saying "I was just being sarcastic, guys!". It's still an incredibly stupid, unsubstantiated comment, and you should feel bad.

 

[trfjr]

First of all, where source where the word 'demand' appears in my post.

Second, you do not seem to understand how a debate works (not completely unexpected). You made the claim, you stand behind the statistics, just link to where (on each of these sites) these statistics are on display. Otherwise, I'm just going to have to assume you haven't really done your homework and are just taking whatever some website tells you at face value.

the word "NOW" does and that is a demand

i provided the link and i provided the sources the link used If you are in dispute of the statistics then it is up to you to counter it not me. the burden of proof is the responsibility of the accuser not the accused

 

[babilfish]

the word "NOW" does

...The word 'now' does what? Is english not your first language?

and that is a demand

...No, its actually not.

i provided the link and i provided the sources the link used If you are in dispute of the statistics then it is up to you to counter it not me.

No, you provided a link that provided statistics with no link to the sources themselves, merely the names of the sources.

the burden of proof is the responsibility of the accuser not the accused

Accuser? Accused? Are we on trial here?

Do you understand what those two words mean? I mean, do you understand how I, having made no accusations, cannot be an accuser and your cannot be the accused?

Let's start again, since you seem incredibly confused.

I asked you to source that there is a "black-on-white violence problem".

You gave me what were in essence to links: One sourced to a thinly veiled white nationalist website that provided no references to source any of it's claims, and another link that provided only the names of the sites it claimed to have derived it's statistics from.

I asked you to cite, specifically, where the statistics on these sites were held. This would be easy had you actually examined these sites to be sure the statistics you were presenting weren't garbage. To point though, I haven't actually said your statistics were wrong (or right).

The onus is on you to prove there is a "Black-on-White violence problem". You made the claim, you started an entire thread based upon this notion. It is also on you, to prove at the very least that the statistics you cite actually exist and actually say what you claim they say.

It is a poor sign in a debate, to simply throw up the first link (after I pointed out you presented it in another thread with the same problems) you can find and claim this proves something without at least verifying the information in the link is accurate.

So, I'll ask you again. Provide the relevant links to the relevant tables and statistics.

 

[trfjr]

I asked you to cite, specifically, where the statistics on these sites were held. This would be easy had you actually examined these sites to be sure the statistics you were presenting weren't garbage. To point though, I haven't actually said your statistics were wrong (or right).

easy for who? you? here is the crutch of your problem you want to make it easy for you and that is not my job. if you doubt the numbers its your job to confirm your doubt its not mine. I really don't care if you believe them or not. I'm not going to convince the unconvincible. you have been proven to be an ideologue and no matter what proof of anything is given if it isn't inline with your set beliefs no matter what facts are provided it will be just a waste of time, and i have better things to do then try to convince the unconvincible. im better off beating my head against a tree. i have provided all im going to provide and what i have provided is sufficient enough for the reasonable

 

[babilfish]

*snip*

So, you admit you don't have anything? You're not even willing to make sure the numbers you presented are true, you'll just throw up any site you come upon that sounds right to you?

This is what passes for debate here, I guess.

Ah well, at least you admit the only reason you don't actually go and check to make sure your correct (you know, prove your assertion) is that your lazy.

Getting into a shallow exchange with a typical know-nothing white nationalist who just asserts blacks are violent thugs and isn't willing to back up his point. What was I thinking?

 

[trfjr]

So, you admit you don't have anything? You're not even willing to make sure the numbers you presented are true, you'll just throw up any site you come upon that sounds right to you?

This is what passes for debate here, I guess.

Ah well, at least you admit the only reason you don't actually go and check to make sure your correct (you know, prove your assertion) is that your lazy.

Getting into a shallow exchange with a typical know-nothing white nationalist who just asserts blacks are violent thugs and isn't willing to back up his point. What was I thinking?

Ciao.

no i put up the sites that gave any information on Interracial crimes no other site gave any evidence to discredit them. If the information that site provided is misleading and or wrong why hasn't any one discredited that information

Do your self a favor it will require a little work from you to do and i know that is a bad word in the lefts vocabulary, but do a search "Interracial crime statistics" and see if you can find any disputing evidence against what that site provided. If there is any im sure a left wing site would have posted it

 

[babilfish]

i have provided all im going to provide

No doubt, you've made that very clear. The most your going to provide is a link to a website where some guy says "these are the relevant statistics involving black on white crime.", but that doesn't even link to the actual tables where he got the information from.

Hell, he didn't even cite what year he got the statistics from. Just "these are the relevant facts...deal with it."

and what i have provided is sufficient enough for the reasonable

Oh no, see, this is where you're wrong. Dead wrong. I mean, you couldn't be any wronger on any point you've made in this entire thread then you are about this point right here.

How you've conducted yourself isn't "reasonable". Hell, in comparison to how most people conduct themselves on this forum (which itself is pretty poorly) you've still conducted yourself pretty horribly.

I mean, honestly, having the gall to act outraged when some ask you to to cite your source, to cite the specific table where the relevant information regarding your statistics is held?

This is your argument, not mine. You have to back it up. You made the assertion, you should at least do the basic work required to assure your point can stand on it's own merits. That you have not only failed to do so, but whined about my insistence that you do so, I can only conclude that you accept your link does not meet the standards you yourself set out.

Which isn't terribly surprising. I asked you to provide the relevant links in the last thread where you brought out that site, and you failed to do so then as well.

 

[babilfish]

no i put up the sites that gave any information on Interracial crimes no other site gave any evidence to discredit them. If the information that site provided is misleading and or wrong...

How would you know? I mean, you should know first and foremost before anyone whether the information you're posting is right or wrong. It would have been easy for someone who wasn't taking someone else's word at face value to cite the relevant tables and statistics on the fbi website.

By the way, have you noticed I used the world tables several times. I wonder why that is?

Do your self a favor it will require a little work from you to do...

I should do myself a favor and acquaint myself with a set of tables displaying statistics you yourself have admitted you haven't read or confirmed?

In other words, I should do your work for you?

 

[babilfish]

For ****'s Sake, your source misspelled victimization!