82 shot, 14 fatalities, over the 4th of July weekend

[GMDino]

So, to recap:

You asked:

(02-02-2016, 10:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/02/01/chicago-records-51-homicides-january-highest-toll-since-2000/79632136/


BLM. Where is the protest?

And I provided a bunch of easy to find article on the black community and its leaders protesting black on black crime.

Not good enough for you.

(02-02-2016, 11:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes. Where is the BLM march condemning this violence in Chicago?

I understand that you are a Democrat and the motive is to keep blacks dependent and beholding in exchange for votes. 

But just as most say the answer to radical Islam is to have Islamic leaders publicly condemn it the answer to black on black crime is to have Black leaders publicly condemn it and not forcing the Dinos of the world to quote 4 year  old articles to try and prove that they are.

If a white man killed 6 blacks in Chicago this  past weekend and 51 this past month, do you think the usual suspects would be making this front page news in a attempt to divide and incite.  

Then you move the target because two people explained the BLM movement  to you.

(02-03-2016, 12:06 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell, I can think of one off the top of my head. He may have even had a son that looked like one of the murdered this past weekend. 

So I again provided several, easy to find, article showing where the President did just that.

Wich you didn't like so....

(02-03-2016, 12:18 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It wasn't ignored; it was dismissed, there is a difference.

The BLM "explaining itself" article was nothing more that hyperbole supported by examples of obscure movements by folks not tied to BLM to try to show they stand for something that they have proved time and again that they care nothing about. 

So after being shown the error of your ways (twice in a about an hour) did you admit you were just spitting at the ceiling?  

Of course not!  You move the target...again.

(02-03-2016, 12:33 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I know how important it is to you to think you've done this; so roll with that. 


I read everyone of those articles and nowhere did I see a theme of blacks killing black at an alarming rate is a problem.

I did see a theme of minority youths not getting enough opportunities to excel. 

So I suggest BLM cares more abut whites and cops rarely killing blacks that they do blacks killing black at an incredible number and your proof that "I'm wrong" is pointing to obscure articles that truly do not address the issue.

Quick, tell yourself that I am wrong again; because if you don't even you may start to doubt it. 

Congrats.  On ONE page you managed to change what you say you wanted/meant TWICE!  

(I wonder if that link to all the ways to argue contains something to cover your posts?)

Thanks again for your solid contribution to this topic.  It has been a pleasure exchanging ideas with you!

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-03-2016, 12:29 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: I'm all for legalizing certain drugs, like marijuana, but how would legalizing these certain drugs bring down the violent crime rate among inner city youths?

By completely eliminating the economic incentive to engage in such crime.  Most gang crime is the result of attempts at controlling areas to distribute illegal drugs.  Without illegal drugs to sell the economic incentive disappears.

Quote:I would think that the crime rate would rise and more innocent people would die if you take a poor kids money away from them. They would then turn their attention towards the neighborhood rather than each other and their "Clients".

Utter drek.  You can only get people to risk their lives if they have something to gain by doing so.  Eliminate the monetary incentive and that no longer exists.  Your argument presupposes a need to engage in criminal activity among the poor that does not exist.  Put simply, most poor people who engage in crime do so because they make money doing so.  Eliminate that money and you eliminate the crime.

Quote:It's not like these poor kids are going to go out and find a job if their means of income is taken away especially when there are many good paying jobs out there to get.

Quite the opposite, that's exactly what they'll do.  Hard to understand, but in a capitalist society accumulating wealth becomes the primary goal.  For those denied traditional ways, or at least perceiving themselves as such, they will pursue unconventional ways to do so.  Eliminate that way and they will be forced to find another path, pure logic dictates this.  As it stands engaging in the distribution of illegal drugs is an excellent way to currently achieve this goal, albeit temporarily.  No other criminal activity, available to street level criminals, is even remotely as lucrative.

[*bfine32*]

(02-03-2016, 12:48 AM)GMDino Wrote: So, to recap:

You asked:


And I provided a bunch of easy to find article on the black community and its leaders protesting black on black crime.

Not good enough for you.


Then you move the target because two people explained the BLM movement  to you.


So I again provided several, easy to find, article showing where the President did just that.

Wich you didn't like so....


So after being shown the error of your ways (twice in a about an hour) did you admit you were just spitting at the ceiling?  

Of course not!  You move the target...again.


Congrats.  On ONE page you managed to change what you say you wanted/meant TWICE!  

(I wonder if that link to all the ways to argue contains something to cover your posts?)

Thanks again for your solid contribution to this topic.  It has been a pleasure exchanging ideas with you!

Nothing you have posted refutes my post that BLM would quickly protest the killing of 1 black youth by a LEO, but 51 are killed in one month and nothing. The target has remained stationary and the meaning has not changed.

But focus on trying to find ways that I am wrong instead of worrying about the issue. Blacks are killing blacks at an alarming rate and nobody gives a damn; least of all BLM. 

I could easily link articles to "support" this stance, but most are bright enough to know this is true without them. 

[*bfine32*]

(02-03-2016, 12:48 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: By completely eliminating the economic incentive to engage in such crime.  Most gang crime is the result of attempts at controlling areas to distribute illegal drugs.  Without illegal drugs to sell the economic incentive disappears.



Utter drek.  You can only get people to risk their lives if they have something to gain by doing so.  Eliminate the monetary incentive and that no longer exists.  Your argument presupposes a need to engage in criminal activity among the poor that does not exist.  Put simply, most poor people who engage in crime do so because they make money doing so.  Eliminate that money and you eliminate the crime.


Quite the opposite, that's exactly what they'll do.  Hard to understand, but in a capitalist society accumulating wealth becomes the primary goal.  For those denied traditional ways, or at least perceiving themselves as such, they will pursue unconventional ways to do so.  Eliminate that way and they will be forced to find another path, pure logic dictates this.  As it stands engaging in the distribution of illegal drugs is an excellent way to currently achieve this goal, albeit temporarily.  No other criminal activity, available to street level criminals, is even remotely as lucrative.

Given your points have some validity, but the assertion that the simplest way to stop illegal activity is to legalize it is absurd. 

[fredtoast]

(02-03-2016, 12:57 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Nothing you have posted refutes my post that BLM would quickly protest the killing of 1 black youth by a LEO, but 51 are killed in one month and nothing. The target has remained stationary and the meaning has not changed.

Target hit and destroyed

http://newsone.com/3267397/alpha-phi-alpha-fraternity-protests-against-violence-in-chicago/

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/04/why-dont-black-people-protest-black-on-black-violence/255329/

And maybe this will explain why you are so ignorant of black community activity against violence.  It usually happens in black neighborhoods where the message is needed.  Here is just one smal example of what is goping on in black neighborhoods all across the country.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-tyshawn-lee-the-march-turner-20151104-column.html

Just last Friday, about 25 pastors from around the city held a midnight vigil in the Back of the Yards neighborhood where several recent shooting deaths have occurred. On Saturday, the ministers went house to house asking residents to decry violence and handing out red door-hangers with a verse from Exodus that reads: "And when I see the blood, I will pass over you."


On Sunday they took their Preservation of Life Campaign to their pulpits.


On Wednesday morning, the executive director and president of a North Lawndale group called Mothers Opposed to Violence Everywhere and a handful of others marched across their neighborhood. Their goal was to try to reason with a group of gang members in the hopes that they won't retaliate for a murder the day before.


People are working hard in these communities. They are marching.


But just because those marches don't have the resonance of the ones that followed Freddie Gray's death in Baltimore, don't think that people are sitting still. Don't think they aren't angry and hurt and devastated. Don't think that they aren't fighting for change in strategic ways.



They want their children to be as safe and secure as yours.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-03-2016, 01:03 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Given your points have some validity, but the assertion that the simplest way to stop illegal activity is to legalize it is absurd. 

Well, at it's most basic level it makes complete sense, but I get your point.  The real point being made is that a large percentage of criminal activity ancillary to the illegal drug trade completely dries up once there is no illegal drug trade.  People will still rob and burglarize because they don't have money, that will, sadly, never change.  What will change is the constant killing for control of drug dealing areas as they will no longer exist, at all.  

[fredtoast]

So, Bfine. What haev you done to address the outrageous amount of white-on-white gun deaths in America?

Since you sit in such high-and-mighty judgement of everyone else you must be doing great works yourself, right?

[fredtoast]

(02-03-2016, 01:41 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well, at it's most basic level it makes complete sense, but I get your point.  The real point being made is that a large percentage of criminal activity ancillary to the illegal drug trade completely dries up once there is no illegal drug trade.  People will still rob and burglarize because they don't have money, that will, sadly, never change.  What will change is the constant killing for control of drug dealing areas as they will no longer exist, at all.  

See:  End of Alcohol Prohibition.

[*bfine32*]

(02-03-2016, 01:39 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Target hit and destroyed

http://newsone.com/3267397/alpha-phi-alpha-fraternity-protests-against-violence-in-chicago/

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/04/why-dont-black-people-protest-black-on-black-violence/255329/

And maybe this will explain why you are so ignorant of black community activity against violence.  It usually happens in black neighborhoods where the message is needed.  Here is just one smal example of what is goping on in black neighborhoods all across the country.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-tyshawn-lee-the-march-turner-20151104-column.html

Just last Friday, about 25 pastors from around the city held a midnight vigil in the Back of the Yards neighborhood where several recent shooting deaths have occurred. On Saturday, the ministers went house to house asking residents to decry violence and handing out red door-hangers with a verse from Exodus that reads: "And when I see the blood, I will pass over you."


On Sunday they took their Preservation of Life Campaign to their pulpits.


On Wednesday morning, the executive director and president of a North Lawndale group called Mothers Opposed to Violence Everywhere and a handful of others marched across their neighborhood. Their goal was to try to reason with a group of gang members in the hopes that they won't retaliate for a murder the day before.


People are working hard in these communities. They are marching.


But just because those marches don't have the resonance of the ones that followed Freddie Gray's death in Baltimore, don't think that people are sitting still. Don't think they aren't angry and hurt and devastated. Don't think that they aren't fighting for change in strategic ways.



They want their children to be as safe and secure as yours.

I see you went to the Dino school of link quoting. 

Just imagine if groups such as BLM and mouth pieces such as Al Sharpton made such things as public as they do those murders that cross race-lines.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-03-2016, 01:43 AM)fredtoast Wrote: See:  End of Alcohol Prohibition.

And that was REALLY bad because it was WHITE people killing each other in gang wars.

Please, don't make it a racial issue, because it's not as your own post proves.  It's about controlling people and their appetites.  I say it's bad therefore it's banned.  Because it's banned and you still want it a black market exists to satisfy it.  Injecting race into it is disingenuous on the extreme, the same story has been played out for centuries over many cultures.

[*bfine32*]

(02-03-2016, 01:41 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So, Bfine.  What haev you done to address the outrageous amount of white-on-white gun deaths in America?

Since you sit in such high-and-mighty judgement of everyone else you must be doing great works yourself, right?

I've considered following the All lives matter movement, but I have been told that it is racist. 

[fredtoast]

(02-03-2016, 01:50 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I've considered following the All lives matter movement, but I have been told that it is racist. 

So what gives you the right to judge others when you are doing nothing yourself?






More white privilege.  You can get away with criticizing black people for not doing something you should be doing yourself.

[fredtoast]

(02-03-2016, 01:49 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Just imagine if groups such as BLM and mouth pieces such as Al Sharpton made such things as public as they do those murders that cross race-lines.

You still don't get it.  They are protesting to the people that need to get the message.

Why should black people with a message for black people worry about white people getting the message?  The reason you hear the message from Black Lives Matter is because it is not aimed at just black community members.

[fredtoast]

(02-03-2016, 01:49 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I see you went to the Dino school of link quoting. 

Well In know some people think they can win an argument just by saying "Because I say so."  But I prefer to post some actual proof.

Target destroyed.

[*bfine32*]

(02-03-2016, 01:41 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well, at it's most basic level it makes complete sense, but I get your point.  The real point being made is that a large percentage of criminal activity ancillary to the illegal drug trade completely dries up once there is no illegal drug trade.  People will still rob and burglarize because they don't have money, that will, sadly, never change.  What will change is the constant killing for control of drug dealing areas as they will no longer exist, at all.  

It is just the same mentality that Pro-choice folks will employ when they suggest: We can't outlaw abortions because then folks will just break the law.

I would look for other ways to combat the illegal drug trade besides legalizing it. Perhaps increasing the sentences for offenses. 

Everything comes with a consequence. I read where we cracked down on the border to stop the trafficking of illegal drugs across the border. So what did criminals do? Started growing the drugs here. 

[fredtoast]

(02-03-2016, 01:49 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Please, don't make it a racial issue, because it's not as your own post proves.  It's about controlling people and their appetites.  I say it's bad therefore it's banned.  Because it's banned and you still want it a black market exists to satisfy it.  Injecting race into it is disingenuous on the extreme, the same story has been played out for centuries over many cultures.

Edited to remove racial comment.

[fredtoast]

(02-03-2016, 01:58 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It is just the same mentality that Pro-choice folks will employ when they suggest: We can't outlaw abortions because then folks will just break the law.

Actually it is nothing like that at all.

His point is very simple.  There is a profit motive in drug dealing that leads to lots of collateral damage.  Thousands of people are killed each year in disputes between dealers over territory.

This is nothing at all like abortions.  There is no huge amount of violent crime that is caused by competition between abortion providers.

He isn't just talking about reducing non-violent drug possession or trafficking crimes.  He is talking about the violent assaults, robberies, and murders associated with drug trafficking. 

[*bfine32*]

(02-03-2016, 01:55 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You still don't get it.  They are protesting to the people that need to get the message.

Why should black people with a message for black people worry about white people getting the message?  The reason you hear the message from Black Lives Matter is because it is not aimed at just black community members.

Because I have been told repeatedly that White People have all the power. Why would they not want white folks assistance in this struggle?


But, yeah I better stop before you sink my Battleship. 

[fredtoast]

(02-03-2016, 01:58 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I would look for other ways to combat the illegal drug trade besides legalizing it. Perhaps increasing the sentences for offenses. 
 

That is a huge failure.  Put one in jail and another takes his place on the street.  It does nothing to reduce the amount of drugs on the streets or violent crime related to drug trafficking, but it does raise all of our taxes to build and staff more prisons.

[*bfine32*]

(02-03-2016, 02:04 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually it is nothing like that at all.

His point is very simple.  There is a profit motive in drug dealing that leads to lots of collateral damage.  Thousands of people are killed each year in disputes between dealers over territory.

This is nothing at all like abortions.  There is no huge amount of violent crime that is caused by competition between abortion providers.

He isn't just talking about reducing non-violent drug possession or trafficking crimes.  He is talking about the violent assaults, robberies, and murders associated with drug trafficking. 

Solid points but the basic mentality (which I pointed to, instead of effect which you talked about) is the same: Make it legal, because it being illegal causes problems.