Hilarious: Fox news pulls comment section on amnesty bill story

In typical conservative fashion, and to no surprise, the very first statement in your post is one where you claim to be a victim by falsely asserting portions of your post are being ignored. And given your previous posts in this thread (where you insinuate that conservative racists are also real victims), you once again inadvertently prove my point correct that conservatives are obsessed with portraying themselves as victims.

Also, you should learn what constitutes a red herring argument before you erroneously assert such a label. Also, please feel free to insinuate that you are being victimized by my pointing that out.

At this point I think you've brought up Karl Marx more times within this thread than you've portrayed yourself (and racist conservatives) as victims. Anytime a conservative puts their narrative of perpetual victimization behind something/anything else, credit is certainly due. For that I say to you: Great job!

Sure, you're an "independent" in the same sense that Glenn Beck is an "independent". Not sure why you're bringing up party affiliation anyway, seems like a petty (and likely false) attempt to distance yourself from a party that you wholly support policy/platform wise on every single front. Who are you trying to convince here, yourself? Good luck with that.

Funny you speak of fainting and thrills going up legs, because conservatives certainly exhibited a lot of that in 2008! We all remember how many conservatives portrayed Sarah Palin as their Messiah, second only to their Lord and Savior Ronald Reagan! After all, Palin being anti-intellectual, bigoted, arrogant, divisive, hyperbolic, and cartoonishly stupid (in that she got stumped by "gotcha questions" such as "WHAT DO YOU READ?") made her the perfect candidate for conservatives.

...and there it is! The kneejerk automated conservative victimization complex! Great job in applying it to Herman Cain by arguing revisionist history by pretending that his political downfall had nothing to do with the multiple instances of sexual misconduct that he settled monetarily.

I mock the concept of phony-bologna conservative victims. Given that again, they cry from sunrise to sunset about make-believe victimhood at the hands of the liberal media, liberal academia, and activist judges. Falsely crying that their guns, religion, freedom, marriage, are all under attack. You helped prove the conservative victimization complex valid by stumbling into this thread and insinuating that conservative racists are victims, claiming that you are a victim of misquoted posts, and even that Herman Cain is a victim. The irony of course, is the cognitive dissonance being displayed by conservatives in that despite the above, they still cling to the false belief that liberal ideology is based on victimhood.

That ship has long sailed, conservatives utterly monopolize the concept of a false victimhood/persecution complex. Conservatives can't lay that at anyone else's feet, they own it, through and through.

 

<eyeroll> Oh brother...

 

The KKK and Fox News! They were made for each other don't you think?

 

I didn't "falsely assert" anything. I correctly asserted that you ignored most of my last post, and you did. Here, let's look at how much you didn't address:

By ignoring all of the above, it tells me the following:

1) You can not substantiate your baseless accusation that I "disparaged women" in this thread, despite multiple requests from me asking you to prove your allegation.
2) None of the racial statistics I posted are in dispute, which defeats your claim that my opinions and perspectives are based on "non-existent evidence" and "ignorance"
3) You can not elaborate on the "enormous amount of examples" that I asked you to elaborate on concerning Tea Party racism.
4) You dodged my challenge to produce one post of yours that condemns racism practiced by minorities. When you asked me for examples, I gave them, and you still refused to condemn them and simply ignored them from your reply. This proves my point about the one-sidedness of your abhorrence of racism. There is only one kind of racism that you dislike and, oddly enough, it's the only one that doesn't benefit the Democrat Party.
5) You can not substantiate your claim that I "erroneously cited statistics"

The conversation did not involve the issues of gay marriage, gun rights, or school desegregation. These were just obfuscations and redirections that failed to address any of the points I made in my previous post. That's why I labeled them red herrings.

Vacuous babbling.

You brought up party affiliation. You made the false allegation that I would be supporting Obama's wiretapping data-mining scheme if McCain, Romney, or Sarah Palin were President, presumably because they are Republicans. I don't support the Republican Party on every single front. More fabricated nonsense from an increasingly desperate progressive losing the argument. Only a Democrat party hack would project his blind allegiance to a political party onto the person he's debating against. Who are you trying to convince here, yourself? Good luck with that.

Nothing compares to Obamamania. It was the closest thing to a religious experience that atheist progressives are likely to ever have.

Why didn't Bill Clinton experience any kind of downfall, then? A man who was credibly accused of rape, multiple instances of sexual harassment (some that were settled monetarily), numerous affairs, charged with perjury, held in contempt, disbarred from practicing law, and then impeached? Oh, right, because he was a progressive Democrat. The same people who acted outraged by Herman Cain's alleged activities would fall to their knees and kiss Clinton's ring if he walked into a room. Just the kind of hypocrisy we have come to expect from amoral opportunistic hacks.

Repetitive and previously addressed. You're simply repeating yourself, again.

 

And why not? Correct me if im mistaken but dont African Americans call themselves the same N-word word all the time, isnt it wildly used music and song labels? So a word is acceptable depending on the color of the skin of the person saying it? Now that racist, now if you're more highly critical of white skins saying it, its pretty you're an anti white.

 

Exactly they are anti whites and to any other color who isnt left leaning. Lets not forget all the racist comments and discrimination they deem perfectly acceptable towards black conservatives.

 

Not in this lifetime....

 

Incorrect, the opening statement in that post of yours was to falsely claim that portions of your posts were being ignored. In doing so, we saw you immediately resort to the typical conservative victimization complex. Your post is still there to be read, in case you are confused, next time I advise not falsely arguing something that is demonstrably false.

Your position is merely that your misogynistic comments aren't really disparaging to women. The fact that you disparaged women was substantiated by your very words in this thread. Perhaps you wouldn't have the problem of forgetting what you've posted if you would cease the habit of making things up as you went along?

Way earlier in this thread, I provided some linked examples of tea-party leaders/activists getting into trouble for disseminating/created racist emails, and even tossed provided a few images of racist tea-party signs. Are you of that those examples do not constitute tea-party racism? If so, elaborate.

And for what its worth, there are simply too many examples to post here for an exhaustive glance at the issue, a separate thread would have to be posted dedicated solely to that particular topic. If you would like to get started on that, simply create a thread challenging the existence of tea-party racism, and demand that examples be posted.

You haven't provided anything. Another unsubstantiated claim on your part. Also, please feel free to insinuate that you are being victimized by my pointing that out.

The problem was that you attempted to draw an inference from those statistics and then generalize them onto a population parameter that resides solely in your head. Correlation does not equal causation. You should not be bringing up statistics when you clearly do not understand or comprehend the implications and dynamics of descriptive or inferential data analysis.

As I pointed out, the one thing that is always absent when racist conservatives cite FBI statistics, is the inferential research which controls for other variables (so that spurious relationships are not followed) and infers the racist's moronic narrative. This is because such research doesn't exist, but we don't expect our conservative friends to realize and of this, as many of them possess an understanding of statistics that is cartoonishly poor.

I made a correct assessment that you would be supporting Obama's wiretapping data-mining scheme if McCain, Romney, or Sarah Palin were president. The fact that they are republicans has nothing to do with it. There you go again entrenching yourself with this whole conservative victimization complex!

Not sure what Obamamania is, must be nonsense that you're parroting due to you hearing it at some point on Limbaugh or Glenn Beck's radio show.

....and it would seem as though you just inadvertently waded into deep waters: The only thing Clinton and Cain share in common was that they committed adultery, but the mannerisms in which they did that are completely opposite from one another. Except for Lewinski, everything else you accused of Clinton was allegations, all of which were shown to be false.

Follow along carefully: Clinton's relationship with Lewinski was consensual, whereas Cain's relationship with his victims was unwarranted, undesired, and not-consensual.

Are you really incapable of discerning a women's right to consent to sexual contact? Clinton had a mistress, Cain had victims. What on earth would possess you to insinuate that these two instances should have been treated "equally" by the media when they were so obviously and fundamentally different from one another?

Another women slam on your part, seems you can't help yourself.

 

I think they fit together rather nicely. Two peas in a pod!

 

It's not false, at all. I'll trust that the honest members of this forum can clearly see you removed most of my post from your quote and response.

Which words? I asked you to point to the specific post where I "disparaged women", and you continually dodge that request.

I don't think that's necessary, at all. You made the claim in this thread and, so far, your only real example is a single person holding up a racist sign. I'm sure you can find a few other examples, yet that doesn't make the Tea Party a racist organization. The Democrat Party houses minority racist groups, yet I wouldn't expect you to call the Democrat Party a racist organization. You would look at an Islamic extremist and say he does not represent all Muslims or the religion of Islam, yet when it comes to the Tea Party, you find a few racists who support the organization and suddenly the organization is racist. It's inconsistent.

False, I provided two videos of racist minority groups and you did not condemn either one. You ignored them both, and are now denying that I ever submitted them. Your chronic dishonesty in this debate appears to be getting worse.

I've done nothing besides show that blacks are committing a disproportionately high amount of crime relative to their population size. I used valid statistics to make this point, which is not in dispute.

I attribute the problems in the black community to a variety of factors, many of which I have not explored in this thread, so you are attempting to dismiss arguments without even knowing what they are. If "such research doesn't exist", then you have no basis to state that my arguments are not valid, especially when you don't even know what they are. All I have stated, definitively, is that black people are committing a very high amount of crime. You can't dispute that fact without running into a wall of evidence that opposes you in virtually every way.

That is not a correct assessment, at all. More fabricated nonsense from an increasingly desperate progressive losing the argument. Only a Democrat party hack would project his blind allegiance to a political party onto the person he's debating against.

I gave a link that explains it, so you have no excuse for staying ignorant.

They were not shown to be false. The allegation of rape by Juanita Broaddrick was never shown to be false. Clinton paid Paula Jones $850,000 to settle her claim against him. Which of Clinton's many scandals were positively shown to be false? Oh, and Cain was confronted with "allegations" as well. Nothing was even proven, but it didn't matter. The left attacked him anyway, even though they defend much worse behavior from Clinton. You just proved it.

Prove it.

Clinton was accused of rape and sexual harassment. That implies that he had victims, if the allegations are correct. You have no proof that Cain did anything wrong or that he victimized anyone. Those are simply allegations that you choose to believe.

Another dishonest lie. Seems you can't help yourself.

 

Why do you mock the concept of concervative victimhood? Especially the idea that "their guns, religion, freedom, marriage, are all under attack?" Isn't this the nature of life in America, or indeed in the entire world?

Throughout history, there has been change. Civilizations rise and fall, empires are born and collapse, religions arise, transform, and die out. Isn't it axiomatic for the traditions that prevailed yesterday to be attacked and overwhelmed by the trends of tomorrow? Do you really think that conservatives are confused to believe that change is always happening? Because it seems to me that traditions being perpetually under attack is as inescapable as the wind and the rain. Maybe you like it and they don't, and you can have all the fun you want fighting about whether that change is good or bad. But let's at least agree that such change really is occurring!

 

This was already addressed for you, you simply dismissed the fact that your misogynistic disparaging remarks were offensive. You won't be able to adequately address this issue until you shed the circular reasoning.

To be fair what is out there with reference to tea-party racism is far more than simply 'a few other examples'. When the baggers at the events are holding racist signs, when the organizers and leaders are disseminating racist emails depicting Obama with watermelon or fried chicken, when rallies involve members distributing Obama=Monkey stuffed toys, dolls, and T-shirts, and when baggers hurl racial epithets at bypassers, hang burning effigies, and distribute literature like the Turner Diaries and other filth, a clearer picture begins to form as to what the tea-party is really about. Pure racism! Conservative style racism!

Though it's interesting that you turned down my suggestion to create a thread where you challenge posters to post examples of tea-bagger racism. We both know this happened because such a thread would of opene the flood gates and would of been utterly obliterated with an avalanche of examples. We both know the tea-party is all about racism, and the last thing you want to see is a thread solely dedicated to the enormous amount of examples that exist.

Your statement is vague and essentially meaningless, as there are many different types of crime, of course feel free to elaborate as to particularly which ones you are referring to:

Are blacks committing the most counterfeiting offenses?
How about the most automobile thefts?
How about the most frauds (tax cheats, ect)?
How about the most larcenies?
How about the most gambling offenses?
How about the most homicides?
How about the most burglaries?
How about the most motor-vehicle thefts?
How about the most drug offenses?
ect ect ect.

A bigger problem though, is that you appear to be clueless to the scope that different types of crime data have in making descriptive inferences.

For example, the arrest rate for homicide is higher than larceny, but larcenies occur at a much greater frequency than homicides. The majority of larcenies have no arrests, and many aren't even reported. In order to subscribe to your racist-narrative, one would have to ignore facts like this, and assume that the perpetrators for the types of crimes that are missing significant portions of this data (due to low clearance rates), are black.

The icing on the cake is that even the FBI provides a disclaimer on their UCR site warning that misunderstanding the data can lead to simplistic and misleading perceptions by individuals who aren't able to comprehend or quantify the data in proper format. It's almost as if this was meant to be read by people like you, how eerie is that! Otherwise I wouldn't have needed to explain to you the homicide/larceny discrepancies in my above example.

Your remarks prove once again, in spectacular fashion, that you do not understand these statistics.

Your arguing of revisionist history doesn't change reality. Cain victimized women and paid the consequences for it. It's a pity you're incapable of acknowledging that women have the right to not be subjected to sexual harassment.

Conservatives never miss the opportunity to slam women.

 

You addressed no such thing. You have not produced a quote from me in this thread where I "disparaged women". You are simply fabricating and showing your dishonesty.

Ok, then I'm going to assume the Democrat Party is about racism as well, based on the fact that the aforementioned racist groups support the Democrat Party. I will also assume that the Democrat Party is also about rape, murder, robbery, and taking craps on police cars, since these were the activities of Occupy Wall Street, a group that overwhelmingly supports the Democrat Party.

I could do the same thing with the Democrat Party. There are racists in all groups. Only a Democrat Party hack would think they are exclusive to one party or ideology, but that's kind of the image you're going for, isn't it? Let's be honest.

Good catch, I usually say "violent crime" and I left that part out of this individual reiteration. Yes, blacks commit the most homicides, by the way. I know they commit the most robberies, although "burglaries" I'm not sure. Blacks definitely don't commit the most white collar crimes, since they aren't typically working jobs that would allow them to be involved in white collar crimes.

I understand the statistics just fine. They are measured by various crime studies that take place constantly throughout the year from all around the country. That is how the totals are added up, and it shows that blacks are responsible for around 50% of all homicides, despite being only 13% of the population.

As for your "example", it does not address nor refute anything I have argued in this thread. I'll consider that another red herring from your quiver of dishonest debate tactics.

Doubling down on your refuted arguments doesn't help you. You have no proof that Cain victimized anybody. Settling a lawsuit doesn't prove guilt. If it did, you would have to say the same thing about Clinton, which you won't do (party cheerleading).

Another dishonest lie from a defeated leftist. Thank you for showing you are intellectually incapable of debating in good faith.

 

Its not just just about one group supporting a certain political party, its about that political party in turn wholly embracing the platform and ideology of the movement, and even becoming subservient to them.

The democratic party is not beholden to the occupy wall street movement like the GOP is with the tea-bag movement. The GOP has embraced the tea-bag movement and as a result the political power among conservatives has shifted in favor to the tea-baggers. The tea-bag movement shapes the GOP's politics, ideological platform, they even determine who wins conservative elections or who gets primaried. The retardlicans are utterly petrified and completely controlled by the tea-bag movement. None of this is occurring with the democrats and OWS.

You once again argued a false equivalency. Your continued use of these erroneous propositions is causing a pattern to emerge.

This thread is about foxnews being forced to pull the comments section on an pertaining to amnesty because their racist conservative audience bombarded it with racial slurs and epithets. This is a recurring theme that foxnews has struggled with, as I pointed out with many articles over at foxnation (even ones of relatively benign topics) aren't exempt from remarks from racist conservatives.

If you can find a similar phenomena occurring at the hands of liberals over at MSNBC or similarly left-learning platform, feel free to post it.

No need to compliment me, all I did was point out the fallacies contained in the racist narrative that you are arguing, which were visible for anyone to see who has even a rudimentary understanding of statistics or research. At any event, your false statements still contain cartoonishly bad mischaracterizations:

1. "blacks commit the most homicides" - What data are you looking at? Arrest data? Almost one third of homicides go unsolved. There is no descriptive data on them pertaining to the perpetrators. Out the window this assumption of yours goes!

2. "they commit the most robberies" - Again, you are referring to arrest data. Robberies have an even lower clearance rate than homicides. There is no descriptive data pertaining to the perpetrators as only approximately 40% of them are solved. Out the window this argument goes.

3. "although "burglaries" I'm not sure" - Of course you're not sure. Your poor understanding of statistics prohibits you from fully understanding or making sense of statistical data.

4. "Blacks definitely don't commit the most white collar crimes" - See #3.

5. "since they aren't typically working jobs that would allow them to be involved in white collar crimes" - At this point you're making it up as you go along. First, you make an erroneous assumption pertaining to the crime itself: White color crime can consist of identity theft, tax fraud, ect; do you really believe that one must hold a particular job to engage in these activities? This crime can be committed by anyone who simply steals your mail or gleans your personal information online. Second, you appear to be making an erroneous assumption pertaining to the kinds of jobs that black people hold, another rectally derived proposition on your part.

In only two posts you backtracked from "blacks are committing a disproportionately high amount of crime" to "blacks are responsible for around 50% of all homicides". Though the latter is as much nonsense as the former, at least some progress is being made. This is what happens when one dissects the the baseless made-up claims of conservatives, they utterly fall apart. But now that we've established a poor understanding of statistics on your part, lets shift focus to what appears to be your poor understanding of research. These 'various crime studies' you speak of, what in particular are you referring to?

How many studies are you talking about? 5? 10? 50? Are you referring to reported arrest data from local municipalities? Self-reported crimes taken from prison populations? Victimization (family) surveys? Is this 50% number that you claim, weighted against unreported homicides (missing persons), cold cases, or the roughly 1/3rd others in which arrests aren't made?

You're up a creek without a paddle.

No it's not the nature of America, its the nature of brainless conservatives who have grandiose delusions of tyranny coupled with a massive self-persecuted/victimization complex.

Certainly some conservatives are confused, others are ignorant, and yet others more look to capitalize monetarily from the stupid and confused ones. Conservatives clinging to this tradition you speak of have framed their argument in the perverted sense that their right to be able to freely discriminate against minorities/women is being infringed upon--and that the concept of equal protection under the law for women/minorities should never outweigh a conservative's right to treat people as second class citizens.

Change is occurring demographically; age, sexual orientation, race, are all becoming non-factors for many Americans. Old, white, angry, and less-educated conservatives are fighting a losing battle, they're just too simpleminded to realize it.

 

The Democrat Party lives and dies by catering to its various constituency groups. It needs minority voters so it has to placate Latino and black groups by playing race based politics, and they do, with every election cycle. The Democrat Party played up the resentment felt by the young and dumb low information voters by coming out in support of the OWS movement. You have have forgotten, but Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and other Democrat Party leaders all supported the movement. The GOP attempts to reach conservative voters in the same way the Democrat Party panders to its base voters. Only a partisan hack would pretend otherwise or that it's simply a one sided issue, although that's clearly the image that someone is trying to establish for himself.

Oh, so suddenly you feel like getting back on topic? MSNBC has removed controversial posts from their comments section in the past. What difference does it make? Censorship is censorship.

I don't think so. Arrest data is quantifiable and reliable evidence. You are trying to dismiss this by throwing out a hypothethical that involves the majority of those 1/3 of homicides being committed by non-blacks. Let's see some evidence for that claim.

I don't think so. You can't dismiss valid and quantifiable statistics based on an unknown variable. Show me some evidence that suggests that those 60% of unsolved cases are in any different proportion than that of the solved cases. Where are those unsolved/solved numbers coming from, by the way? Like always, you don't feel it necessary to substantiate your arguments with any kind of source. You're likely a translant from DemocraticUnderground or the HuffPo forums where no evidence is required, since everyone already agrees with each other.

Your weak dismissals of the statistical data I've presented are not persuasive to anybody besides left-wingers such as yourself who can't win on this issue.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/table-43/10tbl43a.xls

According to these statistics, the combination of whites+Hispanics commit more burglaries than blacks, however blacks are still committing a disproportionately high amount of burglaries relative to their population size. Blacks committed about 31% of the burglaries in 2009, despite only being 13% of the population.

See my explanation for why they are not committing the most white collar crimes. Much more plausible than your weak dismissal, based on nothing besides intellectual dishonesty and laziness.

White collar crime is committed by people who have access to commit white collar crime. Almost exclusively, these are people who are working. Blacks have twice the unemployment rate than the general population, and the gap is even wider between just the white population. Blacks graduate high school and college less than whites. Why would it be a surprise to learn that whites commit more white collar crime than blacks? They are in the position to commit those crimes, while blacks are not, in general.

I've not backtracked, at all. Both of those claims are true, and I trust any intelligent person who functions under logic instead of emotion can see that. Blacks are committing a disproportionately high amount of crime relative to their population size, and they are committing around 50% of all homicides. These are both verified by the FBI uniform crime reports that I linked to.

We've established no such thing. You're simply looking for a way of dismissing evidence that I'm presenting because you have nothing to counter it with. A typical progressive strategy.

See above.

These are based on FBI Uniform Crime Reports. If you have a problem with their methodology of collecting crime statistics, take it up with them. I'm working with the data that I can see and quantify, whereas you are simply trying to obfuscate and redirect to unknown numbers that you can't quantify, nor can you give any compelling reason why these should discount actual crime statistics. You're growing increasingly desperate.

 

You're shifting goalposts after it was pointed out that the Democratic party is not beholden to OWS like the GOP is to the tea-bag movement. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, are not afraid of OWS; OWS does not dictate how they (and the democratic party) operates. The same cannot be said for members of the GOP and the tea-bag movement. Conservatives are petrified of the political influence that the tea-baggers have, and many GOP candidates are forcing themselves to identify further right than they otherwise would be (McCain to avoid being primaried, Romney in the 2012 election, ect) to appease the tea-baggers. Even at this very moment, there is political gridlock in Washington as a direct result of tea-bag congressmen and mainstream republicans struggling to take control from one another. Your arguing of a false equivalency serves no purpose other than to convince yourself that the jeopardy the GOP is facing as a result of a powerful fringe element must also be occurring within the other party. It is not.

It was also brave of you in the last sentence of yours to refer to yourself as a partisan hack, it's probably the first thing you've gotten correct in this entire thread.

Even if MSNBC has removed posts (no evidence of this), such an action is not the same in terms of complete audience censorship. MSNBC articles still have commentary sections, probably because the majority of their audience contributors aren't fanatical wackjobs, thus there are very few "controversial posts" to worry about.

It's a pity this wasn't the case for Foxnews, who must have been horrifically ashamed and embarrassed of their conservative audience for them to make the decision to completely strip comment sections--in their entirety--from articles.

Another poorly thought-out false equivalency argument on your part, goes down the drain.

I won't go out on a limb and make up a claim inferring something to which we have approximately 66% of the data for. I have no way to know the background of the perpetrators for the roughly 1/3rd unsolved homicides that occur annually, and neither do you, or anyone else for that matter.

My position has simply been that we lack a sufficient amount of information to ascertain who is committing the most amount of these crimes, I haven't made any claims one way or another on the topic. But you on the other hand, have made numerous claims, some of which you have backed away from. But let's examine one you haven't: "blacks commit the most homicides". Do you know this for sure? Are you in possession of the data for the roughly 1/3rd unsolved homicides?

This chart depicts arrest data. Blacks made up about 31% of burglary arrests in 2009. According to that chart, there were 225,775 burglaries that resulted in arrest. But this that isn't the total amount of burglaries committed in 2009. According to FBI UCR data, in 2009 there were 2,199,125 burglaries.

So...we have arrest data for 225,775 burglaries out of the 2,199,125 that were committed in 2009. Almost 1.97 million are unsolved. Your claim that "blacks committed 31% of the burglaries in 2009" goes right out the window. We lack perpetrator data for the remaining 90% of burglaries that were committed in 2009.

You wouldn't have been able to figure any of this out, because you do not know how to read or comprehend the charts/data you are looking at. You stumbled across burglary arrest data, and then made a claim pertaining to all burglaries. These numerous examples of your gross misinterpretations of the data are due to what is apparently a monumental lack of statistical understanding. I keep saying this because it merits repeating, because you reaffirm it's validity every time you attempt to bring up statistics.

Keep the slow pitches coming.

 

It's not a false equivalency, at all. Politicians pander to their base, that's how they stay in power. The Tea Party contains the conservative base that, yes, the Republican Party wants to appeal to. Democrats do the same thing with their constituency groups. You simply missed that fundamental point in your bloviating mess of a response.

I'm not the one with blind allegiance to a political party, you are. It's part of the groupthink lifestyle that progressives believe is a virtue.

Specious reasoning, at best. "Controversial posts" are moderated on MSNBC, the same as in any other web forum.

False. They removed the comments section from one article according to the OP. So "articles" is not correct. I just checked, and the comments section of every current article on Foxnews.com has a comments section. Looks like your lack of understanding is affecting your ability to produce a credible argument, yet again.

I have no reason to assume that the data would somehow be radically different than the actual, verifiable, and quantifiable data that they do have crime data, for. Since you are attemping to bring that actual data into question, I'd like to see some evidence that it somehow follows a different pattern, which apparently is strong enough to change the overall crime data.

That's not true. We have FBI uniform crime data reports. Your attempt to dismiss this evidence is based on fallacious reasoning.

Nope, and I don't need to be. I know, based on the statistical data, that blacks commit the most homicides. Sometimes the number falls to 49%, sometimes 48%, sometimes 51%, etc. But still, there is no other group in the country committing more homicides than blacks, since blacks are only 13% of the population, but still manage to commit half the murders. If you believe you can change this fact by adding in the 1/3 of unsolved murders, let's see the data that suggests it.

Wrong again. The chart does not show that "225,775 burglaries resulted in arrest", it is showing that 225,775 people were arrested for burglary. Once again you show a complete lack of understanding and the conclusion you jumped to is dead on arrival. Many of the people arrested for burglarly could have committed multiple burglaries before being caught.

What a hilarious section of your post, considering how you just demonstrated to the entire board that it was you who misunderstood what the chart was saying. Thanks for embarrassing yourself, once again.

 

Before I forget, a layman mod edit>>>unnecessary comment>>>may say/ask "theoretically, couldn't we just say that the 10% of burglary arrests can be generalized onto the other 90% of burglaries that are unsolved?". Nope. Because although the goal of inferential statistics is to generalize sample findings to a larger population parameter, the validity of the mathematical theorem must control for spurious relationships or other influencing extraneous or intervening variables. These would have be identified and controlled for so that the sampling frame to generalize its findings, would be best representative of the parameter pertaining to who is committing burglaries. In other words, one would have to gather a sample from people who commit burglaries (which means perpetrators who get arrested AND do not get arrested; that variable needs to be controlled), instead of merely from people who get arrested for burglary.

 

The republican party wants to appeal to the tea party members >>>edited>>>flame bait>>>in the same sense that a hostage wants to appeal to the hostage taker. Republicans are being primaried and politically challenged by the tea party members >>>edited>>>flame bait>>> , they are forced to either commit to their ideals--or be booted out of office. When that starts happening with OWS and the democrats you let me know.

The OP is pertaining to one article that happens to lack a comments section, however it's the same theme when one looks across all their articles. Perhaps you checked FoxNation and found the comment sections on those articles, because those do have sections (as I pointed out way earlier in this thread).

Foxnews made the rounds about a year ago for pulling their comments sections on their Foxnews.com articles:

Fox News Comment Sections Disappearing? - Survivalist Forums (right up YOUR alley!)
Foxnews disabled comments? - FreeRepublic
Why doesn't the Fox News website have comment sections anymore? - Yahoo Answers
What happened to FoxNews comments sections? - Ask.com
ect ect ect

Most people with a brain figured out what happened when it did, gullible partisans like yourself deny or falsely claim nothing happened. FoxNews has you hook line and sinker! Have you bought some overpriced over at Goldline yet? Though gold is only around $1300 an ounce, their $2,500 Freedom Patriot Challenge 1/2 ounce Coin might be appealing to you! Supposedly Glenn Beck is coming out a new book saying that Liberals and the Obama Administration are responsible for FoxNews pulling their comments section. You should buy several copies of those and get to the bottom of it.

The chart pertains to the perpetrator demographic breakdown from burglaries that have resulted in arrest. This petty arguing of semantics on your part is a last-ditch attempt to salvage your racist-narrative after your misinterpretation of the data was once again, gloriously illustrated. In only a few posts you went from:

"black people commit the most crime"
to
"black people commit the most homicides"
to
"black people commit the most burglaries"
to
"black people make up a large amount of burglary arrests"

You keep refining and altering your narrative because it is entirely made up. At each interval you cite numbers/charts you don't understand--and only after they are explained to you and how you are misinterpreting them--immediately alter the claim to still fit within your prejudiced conclusions. At this rate you'll run out of places to go, and you'll have to resort to "well I just don't like black people".

We're almost there.

 

You really think if a Democrat voted against gay marriage and amnesty that far left liberals wouldn't vote for some other Democrat to replace him? That's what is happening in the Republican party. The Rinos are getting voted out because they are liberals, while more conservative Republicans are replacing them. That's a good thing, in my opinion. We don't need more progressives, in either party.

The OP is a conservative who pointed out an act of censorship by FOX news. It's not surprising to me that they have done the same thing in the past. They're currently the only bastion of conservativism in the mainstream, but that's not to say they are perfect.

It's not "petty arguing of semantics". You were flat out wrong, and completely misunderstood what the chart was saying in order to make your argument. Now you're trying to backpedal away from that argument to save face. How embarrassing.

 

False premise. We are not generalizing the 10% of burglarly arrests into the 90% of burglaries that are unsolved, because 90% of burglaries are not really unsolved. You carelessly assumed that the FBI crime charts were stating that there were only 225,775 burglaries that resulted in arrest, when it is actually saying that there were 225,775 arrests for burglary. A simpleton should read that part over as many times as it takes to understand the difference, because there is a very big difference between the two. Unless we are to assume that each burglary was matched up with 1 burglar when he/she was arrested (which is preposterous), your argument is completely refuted. I find it highly plausible that many individuals arrested for burglary have committed multiple burglaries before getting caught and arrested. So, in reality, 90% of the burglaries are not unsolved, and we can assume a substantial percentage of those unsolved burglaries was committed by the same people who make up the arrest totals for burglary.

 

The original line of context for this portion of the discussion your insinuating that the OWS was comparable to the tea-bag movement. OWS is not framed around gay marriage or amnesty, it is a one-issue movement. The tea-bag movement is a multi-issue framed around gay marriage, amnesty, promoting racism, segregation, eliminating government, infringing upon women's rights, ect.

You'd have an easier time recalling the nonsense you've previously stated if you at least ceased pulling false equivalencies out of thin air.

Republicans are being voted out of office because the tea-bag movement is motivated and mobilized to boot non-crazies out of office. To the tea-bag movement, a RINO is merely a republican grounded in reality; A republican who "I disagree with Obama's policies, but he is an American citizen". To the tea-bag movement, a real conservative republican is one who says "Obama was born in Kenya and his unmarked helicopters are circling my trailer channeling my thoughts to the NSA via implanted brain microchips".

Though I mock the tea-baggers and their ignorant supporters, I think it's wonderful that the republican party is essentially on a fast-track to political suicide. With a growing younger, more culturally diverse population, and educated population, the tea-baggers and the GOP are on the road to irrelevancy. Glad you think that's a good thing! We are on the same page.

Sure it is an arguing of petty semantics. You were caught once again misinterpreting data and drawing inferences out of thin air. Though it was fascinating to see you shift and squirm your racist narrative into different varieties. You went from:

"black people commit the most crime"
to
"black people commit the most homicides"
to
"black people commit the most burglaries"
to
"black people make up a large amount of burglary arrests"

It's amusing to see prejudiced conservatives struggle to substantiate their garbage. I think you even managed to change your racist narrative more times than when you falsely insinuated that I was "victimizing" you merely by pointing out your fallacies and nonsense. It must be very difficult for you to contain that self-victimization complex that so many conservatives possess.

 

In reality, yes approximately 90% of burglaries go unsolved. At least for the 2009 data that you provided, which you did not understand or were able to make sense of. An expected result from someone who doesn't understand statistics. If you want to draw statistical inferences of people who commit burglaries, then you would need to draw a sample from both people who get arrested and those who do not get arrested. That variable (among others) would need to be controlled for.

Per FBI data in 2011 for instance, there were approximately 1.976 million known burglaries (as reported across all reporting agencies) with a clearance (arrest) rate of only 12.7%

That is reality, a roughly 90% unsolved rate. But reality isn't something that you're familiar with, nor is it where you want to go. Otherwise you may have to admit that you're interpreting arrest data like a simple-minded idiot, and not controlling for extraneous variables or the fact that approximately 90% of burglaries go unsolved.

Give me more slow pitches! I know you're eager to jump through the hoops I hold up, like a trained little animal. Oh oh! Try saying that the FBI has a liberal bias! Or say that the Obama Administration is forcing the FBI to fabricate a roughly 90% unsolved burglary rate! There are so many places for you to go with this, just make it up! You're so good at it!

 

OK, I'm a being a tad facetious with the whole slow pitches thing Brewskier, I think this thread has matured wonderfully and we've all been able to learn much about your personal prejudices and how they cloud your ability to think in a sensible or equitable manner. You showcased a profound lack of statistical understanding coupled with that victimization complex that's oh so common among conservatives.

So I will let you get the last word if if that makes you feel better, have at it! I won't be reading it nor responding to it, so you don't have to worry about substantiating any additional claims your make from hereon. So feel free to go out with a bang!

 

Fabricated nonsense. The Tea Party organization does none of these things.

They're not false equivalencies, at all. How can they be, when you just demonstrated your own intellectual dishonesty by fabricating claims with no substance to back them up?

More bigoted irrational nonsense. Maybe it's time for your to watch some MSNBC and take a nap. I know how badly you are performing in this argument, but it doesn't really give you an excuse to waste time by spamming so much nonsense. A sign of increasing desperation.

Yes, because a ruling class having absolute control of the country has always worked out very well. The problem with your utopian vision is that the country is heading towards collapse and/or balkanization. You white elite wannabes are not reproducing anymore, so the growth of the country is based on the continuing expansion of 3rd world Mexico. That is not a good thing for the country. We are importing the 3rd world, so it will be little wonder when the US resembles the 3rd world, more and more. While I'm sure wannabe white elites will continue living amongst each other, far removed from the diversity they claim to love so much, the tax base will dry up as the uneducated low skilled population increases. Combine that with the disastrous socialist policies that you, as a left-wing socialist, are in favor of, and the future does not look good, regardless of whether or not the Democrats are in power. But that's all you really care about. A small elite class of Democrat politicians that can rule over the 3rd world remnants of a once great country. If you had kids, they would be ashamed of what your generation has done.

I don't mind seeing the Republican party bite the dust if it continues to go along with the left's agenda. Democrats are increasingly filling up with socialists, and they need to be opposed. If the Republicans won't do it, they are of no use at all.

It's not semantics, at all. You falsely claimed there were 225,775 burglaries that resulted in arrests, when that is not what the chart was saying. You were simply careless and/or not intelligent enough to understand what the chart was actually saying. Despite repeated attempts to explain it, you still seem unable to understand the difference. Another public school success story, LOL.