[Bubba]

word.

[Fingers of a Martyr]

have just read through todays posts. seems like fingers is saying in a roundabout way that a lot of black people shoot a lot of black people, but not many white shoot whites, thus there must be something bad with the blacks. I don't know if i've summarised your point as well as possible in my own words, but inknow what you are saying, and its a grossly ignorant and simplistic viewpoint.

LOL i haven't even come close to sayin that and u know it.

the main arguement was over gun culture in britain not which race black or white is 'good' or 'bad'.

if u actually read my posts a bit more carefully dave u'd see that.

i actually stated that someones race makes no difference to what sort of a person they are.

i can't be arsed arguin bout this anymore.

u obviously think i'm some kkk ignorant bigot now anyway.

[Bubba]

Well, you have sort of given that impression even if you meant differently, but I don't think anybody thinks you're a nazi, you wouldn't still be on the forum if you were.  - we're just shootin' the shit, like it says in the title  

[dave]

have just read through todays posts. seems like fingers is saying in a roundabout way that a lot of black people shoot a lot of black people, but not many white shoot whites, thus there must be something bad with the blacks. I don't know if i've summarised your point as well as possible in my own words, but inknow what you are saying, and its a grossly ignorant and simplistic viewpoint.

LOL i haven't even come close to sayin that and u know it.

no you've come very close to saying that, and certianly implied it:

and who do think is responsible for cultivating this culture  75%  
i'm sorry but thats a large majority and there are just as many white people livin in tough/shit/hard (watever u wanna call them, places i'd and probably u'd rather not live) areas but they don't go around shootin each other do they?

answer this

why kill each other!?
why not unite and make a positive difference instead of a negative one?
why make it worse?
why encourage the genralisation and cliches by acting up to the macho gun culture?

now from what i've read there  is that you say that blacks shoot each other but theres an equal amount of whites in the same situation not shooting each other. right? i mean that just a re-write of what you've written there. so thus you are implying that blacks are somehow doing something wrong. for a start i think you'll find that underprivelidged whites in the same situation as the underprivelidged blacks are are also shooting each other. you make it out like A theres are just as many poor whites as poor blacks (or at least as poor) but infact as evidenced by other people on here thats not true. and B you say that those poor whites don't shoot each other, which is clearly rubbish.

so what are you saying? blacks are taking to gun culture more readily than whites? you have to understand that even if your 75 percent figure was true (which remains to be seen), then that a symptom of a wider problem, not the cause of any problem.

if you ask me you are seeking a simplified answer to a complicated question, and as such its such an innacurate answer.

[Fingers of a Martyr]

you make it out like A theres are just as many poor whites as poor blacks (or at least as poor) but infact as evidenced by other people on here thats not true.

dave it was actually proved (by going on the statistics tom posted up) that there were  more whites living in poverty in britain.

for a start i think you'll find that underprivelidged whites in the same situation as the underprivelidged blacks are are also shooting each other

evidently not true or not as much going on as the statistics provided by the police and the statistics tom posted up. more white people living in poverty but far less gun crime between white's to white's in britain.


but hey guys, look if i've offended anyone then sorry. i was never tryin to say black people r 'bad' however anyone who reads the whole thread can pretty obviously see that.
i can see what u mean by the cause and effect thing. the gangs and that etc are an effect of a larger problem not the cause of it. i have got it wrong in that way. sorry.

[Nigel]

I don't know about anyone else, but I tend to think "what the fuck was i saying?" roughly 7 minutes after I've written anything! That's dyslexia for you, can't write it, can't read it...

...Cause and affect.

Well you said it! Cause and Effect.  

[Tom de Gay]

You refer to those figures about housing as if they supported your point, but they don't. The percentage of non-whites living in unfit housing is higher than the percentage of whites; if non-whites were not discriminated against at all levels (jobs, police, school, etc), the percentage of whites and non-whites living in unfit housing would be the same.

The gun crime statistics haven't materialised, but even if you could verify your claim, gun crime is a very small percentage of total crime, so it doesn't give your argument much weight. However the gangs and guns stereotype looms large in the media, perhaps that's why you think it's more of a problem than it actually is.

Perhaps the final word should go to Public Enemy : don't believe the hype.

[a dense loner]

the 8-mile radius is entirely plausible.

[Bubba]

It is if we're talking things that could get blown about, which it now looks like is the case. Some reports were quoted as finding human remains 8 miles away. That's not plausible imho.

[a dense loner]

did none of your grandma's tell you never to discuss religion n politics?

[Bubba]

Watched Fahrenheit 9/11 last night. Quite upsetting in parts but it makes a pretty damning case against Bush and his real motives for going into Iraq....but then let's face it, did anyone ever really think it was about WMD?

I know Michael Moore can lay on the emotional stuff a bit heavy sometimes and can be a little selective with his evidence, but you've got to admire him for sticking the finger up to the Bush administration like that.

[SA Chris]

So what ended apartheid then? Did the Conservative Government suddenly say "Oh go on, you can go then?"

or

Did America withdraw financial support from South Africa? South Africa had always been the one who fought the Communist threat in Southern Africa, basically playing the role in Africa that US always have around the world. Upon the collapse of communism in Europe, the US no longer saw Communism as a threat and withdrew financial support. South Africa, facing continous trade embargos from the rest of the world suddenly finds itself in serious financial difficulties and has no choice but to end the regime, step one being releasing Nelson.

Sound plausible?

[Bonjoy]

Sound's pretty typical of US foreign policy to me.

 On the subject of Michael Moore and his documentary style. You've got to remember who it is he's trying to convince with his material ie thick as shit yanks who are stupid enough to vote for Dubya. A well reason arguement covering all points of view and avoiding sentimentality may appeal to a liberal educated audience, but will fall on deaf ear were it really counts.

[tommytwotone]

reminds me of a t-shirt i saw from the anti-republican demos last week..."yahoo is not a foreign policy"...

at the risk of starting a yank / Bush-hate sub-topic (though, frankly, why not?) - from yesterday's Graun:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1298615,00.html

[dave]

Now i know nothing about politics, but theres one thing i do know - bush is a halfwit. I'm sure he means well, but a well meaning halfwit is still half a wit short of a full wit. :silly:

[Bubba]

He's certainly a halfwit, but he certainly doesn't mean well either.

[Bonjoy]

What on earth makes you sure he means well?  :shock:  :shock:

[Fingers of a Martyr]

and the stupidest comment ever award goes to dave...

on the subject of george bush -

I'm sure he means well

here's your trophy dave :wink:



only fuckin witchya, don't go mental

[dave]

well fuck you guys!  :321:
 :thissucks:    :up:

[Bonjoy]

:bdays:

[a dense loner]

n the fucker banned hueco

[Fingers of a Martyr]

da dastard

we defo need a :sniper: on the job

i mean waging a war that kills 1000's and 1000's of 'innocent' people is one thing but banning hueco...

has he no shame :wink:

[dave]

was quite funny the other day, saw a clip on the telly of bush talking about "nucular weapons". For christ sake, theres no such word as "nucular"  :roll:  :freak:

[tommytwotone]

not to mention his quest to quash "innnernashhnal tourism" by targeting known "tourists"...

problem is:

if gets the most votes in the forthcoming election - he wins and he's still president.

he doesn't get the most votes in the forthcoming election...well, look at last time...

didn't someone request that the UN election scrutiny people were brought in to ensure a fair, democratic process?

Not sure if that's a joke, satire or just scary.

[Bubba]

Bush - harmless?

Have a look through some of these:

http://ppoopp.host.sk/war/index.htm

[very big page - not dialup friendly]