Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Ray, the dude has no idea of AmericaYou think sentencing is the same. It's by far not. Even when there are laws with "mandatory" sentences, they are often times targeted towards a particular racial group, like those that make crack laws carry harsher sentences than cocaine crimes.
I never said they were even, what I said is that there are circumstances surrounding the sentencing outside of race. Let's take your claim for example.
More people get killed selling and buying crack than any other drug including cocaine. Crack influences gang wars in the street because it's a cheaper drug than cocaine. Wouldn't it make sense to have harsher sentences for selling a drug that creates more crimes than one that's not?
But let's take a similar crime--crack. Two people, one white and one black are convicted of buying crack. The black suspect gets three years more than the white. You think that's all that needs to be known.
What you don't know is what the judge knew who sentenced these two people. The black may have a history of repeated buying. How did each suspect interact with police? That's something a judge considers. How did they conduct themselves in court? Another factor a judge uses.
I've been in court on a few cases. A judge has a meeting with the police officers involved in his chambers. He or she wants to know if the suspect gave them a hard time, fought with them, what they did while being processed. If they were honest and admitted to the crime, or refused to cooperate with the officers. Guess what? If a suspect fought with police and gave them a hard time, that person will likely receive a harsher sentence than one who didn't and fully cooperated with the cops.
But you think it's all about race. Watch the show COPS sometime. Take notice of what race of suspects constantly run or fight with police; trying to hide evidence like dropping the bag of dope on the ground and kicking it under the police car. Or when a police officer traces the foot chase and finds the gun or dope. Blacks refuse to admit it was theirs. Do you think a judge doesn't know what's going on?
A friend of mine works in the court system downtown. Because this subject comes up so often, I asked for his opinion about sentencing and race. He has no data to support his claim, but his opinion is that yes, at times race does play a factor. But the judges that are known to give more time to blacks than whites are black judges themselves. It makes sense too. Some of these judges live in the neighborhoods these crimes take place. Of course they want the black troublemakers off their streets for longer periods of time. On the other hand, if you are a white judge and had a hatred of black people, the worst thing you could do for the black community is give lenient sentences to those who will likely cause trouble again.
Statistics can be helpful and honest, but they can also be misleading.
What he (she) is saying is that there are not exact same sentences for the exact same charge. He's accurate on that. But judges do not rule exclusively on the charge alone. There are many other circumstances surrounding the judges decision.
If judges were to hand out sentences for the charge alone, there would be no need for a judge. A computer would just print out what the penalty was for the crime. But if a judge gives somebody a break, he or she wants to make sure that person won't be back in his courtroom two days after getting out.
I don't know about anywhere else, but from time to time, a judge hands down a lenient sentence, and then the accused goes out and commits another crime; sometimes a worse crime. Then the media digs into the suspects record and finds all kinds of crap; a criminal history going back to his juvenile years. Then they ask WTF made this judge let this guy off in the first place?
On the other hand, no judge wants to make a criminal out of somebody that just made a mistake in life. One mistake and a suspect showing remorse? Sure a judge can give that person a break. It won't come back and haunt him if the suspect does go out and commit a worse crime.
First of all I'm a man. If you were smart enough to click on my avatar that is clearly stated.
Second off, you are making assumptions that are not true in the least bit. Yes, obviously judges look into a person's background when making a decision for their punishment (when that is allowed of course, they can't if it is a crime with a mandatory sentence), but your idea that things are all played out correctly due to that, and that those who get harsher sentences deserved it, is completely asinine.
Just look at the Stanford swimmer rape case. Compare that to the woman that just got pardoned after being jailed for LIFE on a first time offense non-violent drug charge.
First of all, I thought at one time you had a female avatar. I always assume males will use male avatars and females will do the same, that's why I wasn't sure what you were.
Secondly, my point is that you just can't look at sentences, races, and draw a conclusive line. In our city alone, two people might face the same charge, with the same criminal history, with the same conduct while being arrested, and both might get different sentences because judges are just as different as suspects. One judge may be more conservative than another and under the belief that harsher sentences are needed. A more liberal judge may have more compassion and give a lighter sentence.
There are just too many variables to say sentences are given because of race.
Ray, the dude has no idea of AmericaI never said they were even, what I said is that there are circumstances surrounding the sentencing outside of race. Let's take your claim for example.
More people get killed selling and buying crack than any other drug including cocaine. Crack influences gang wars in the street because it's a cheaper drug than cocaine. Wouldn't it make sense to have harsher sentences for selling a drug that creates more crimes than one that's not?
But let's take a similar crime--crack. Two people, one white and one black are convicted of buying crack. The black suspect gets three years more than the white. You think that's all that needs to be known.
What you don't know is what the judge knew who sentenced these two people. The black may have a history of repeated buying. How did each suspect interact with police? That's something a judge considers. How did they conduct themselves in court? Another factor a judge uses.
I've been in court on a few cases. A judge has a meeting with the police officers involved in his chambers. He or she wants to know if the suspect gave them a hard time, fought with them, what they did while being processed. If they were honest and admitted to the crime, or refused to cooperate with the officers. Guess what? If a suspect fought with police and gave them a hard time, that person will likely receive a harsher sentence than one who didn't and fully cooperated with the cops.
But you think it's all about race. Watch the show COPS sometime. Take notice of what race of suspects constantly run or fight with police; trying to hide evidence like dropping the bag of dope on the ground and kicking it under the police car. Or when a police officer traces the foot chase and finds the gun or dope. Blacks refuse to admit it was theirs. Do you think a judge doesn't know what's going on?
A friend of mine works in the court system downtown. Because this subject comes up so often, I asked for his opinion about sentencing and race. He has no data to support his claim, but his opinion is that yes, at times race does play a factor. But the judges that are known to give more time to blacks than whites are black judges themselves. It makes sense too. Some of these judges live in the neighborhoods these crimes take place. Of course they want the black troublemakers off their streets for longer periods of time. On the other hand, if you are a white judge and had a hatred of black people, the worst thing you could do for the black community is give lenient sentences to those who will likely cause trouble again.
Statistics can be helpful and honest, but they can also be misleading.
What he (she) is saying is that there are not exact same sentences for the exact same charge. He's accurate on that. But judges do not rule exclusively on the charge alone. There are many other circumstances surrounding the judges decision.
If judges were to hand out sentences for the charge alone, there would be no need for a judge. A computer would just print out what the penalty was for the crime. But if a judge gives somebody a break, he or she wants to make sure that person won't be back in his courtroom two days after getting out.
I don't know about anywhere else, but from time to time, a judge hands down a lenient sentence, and then the accused goes out and commits another crime; sometimes a worse crime. Then the media digs into the suspects record and finds all kinds of crap; a criminal history going back to his juvenile years. Then they ask WTF made this judge let this guy off in the first place?
On the other hand, no judge wants to make a criminal out of somebody that just made a mistake in life. One mistake and a suspect showing remorse? Sure a judge can give that person a break. It won't come back and haunt him if the suspect does go out and commit a worse crime.
First of all I'm a man. If you were smart enough to click on my avatar that is clearly stated.
Second off, you are making assumptions that are not true in the least bit. Yes, obviously judges look into a person's background when making a decision for their punishment (when that is allowed of course, they can't if it is a crime with a mandatory sentence), but your idea that things are all played out correctly due to that, and that those who get harsher sentences deserved it, is completely asinine.
Just look at the Stanford swimmer rape case. Compare that to the woman that just got pardoned after being jailed for LIFE on a first time offense non-violent drug charge.
First of all, I thought at one time you had a female avatar. I always assume males will use male avatars and females will do the same, that's why I wasn't sure what you were.
Secondly, my point is that you just can't look at sentences, races, and draw a conclusive line. In our city alone, two people might face the same charge, with the same criminal history, with the same conduct while being arrested, and both might get different sentences because judges are just as different as suspects. One judge may be more conservative than another and under the belief that harsher sentences are needed. A more liberal judge may have more compassion and give a lighter sentence.
There are just too many variables to say sentences are given because of race.
It was a female avatar that read, "Doctors says staring at breasts helps prevent cancer."
Your second point is actually against you... because stats show, by a FAR margin, that Blacks are sentenced at a higher rate, and with harsher sentences, than any other group, even when using the same offense with the same situations and backgrounds.
Ray, the dude has no idea of America
Statistics can be helpful and honest, but they can also be misleading.
What he (she) is saying is that there are not exact same sentences for the exact same charge. He's accurate on that. But judges do not rule exclusively on the charge alone. There are many other circumstances surrounding the judges decision.
If judges were to hand out sentences for the charge alone, there would be no need for a judge. A computer would just print out what the penalty was for the crime. But if a judge gives somebody a break, he or she wants to make sure that person won't be back in his courtroom two days after getting out.
I don't know about anywhere else, but from time to time, a judge hands down a lenient sentence, and then the accused goes out and commits another crime; sometimes a worse crime. Then the media digs into the suspects record and finds all kinds of crap; a criminal history going back to his juvenile years. Then they ask WTF made this judge let this guy off in the first place?
On the other hand, no judge wants to make a criminal out of somebody that just made a mistake in life. One mistake and a suspect showing remorse? Sure a judge can give that person a break. It won't come back and haunt him if the suspect does go out and commit a worse crime.
First of all I'm a man. If you were smart enough to click on my avatar that is clearly stated.
Second off, you are making assumptions that are not true in the least bit. Yes, obviously judges look into a person's background when making a decision for their punishment (when that is allowed of course, they can't if it is a crime with a mandatory sentence), but your idea that things are all played out correctly due to that, and that those who get harsher sentences deserved it, is completely asinine.
Just look at the Stanford swimmer rape case. Compare that to the woman that just got pardoned after being jailed for LIFE on a first time offense non-violent drug charge.
First of all, I thought at one time you had a female avatar. I always assume males will use male avatars and females will do the same, that's why I wasn't sure what you were.
Secondly, my point is that you just can't look at sentences, races, and draw a conclusive line. In our city alone, two people might face the same charge, with the same criminal history, with the same conduct while being arrested, and both might get different sentences because judges are just as different as suspects. One judge may be more conservative than another and under the belief that harsher sentences are needed. A more liberal judge may have more compassion and give a lighter sentence.
There are just too many variables to say sentences are given because of race.
It was a female avatar that read, "Doctors says staring at breasts helps prevent cancer."
Your second point is actually against you... because stats show, by a FAR margin, that Blacks are sentenced at a higher rate, and with harsher sentences, than any other group, even when using the same offense with the same situations and backgrounds.
Well that's a report I've never read, and I've read a couple of them. So perhaps you can give me the link to an in depth apples to apples report.
Statistics can be helpful and honest, but they can also be misleading.
What he (she) is saying is that there are not exact same sentences for the exact same charge. He's accurate on that. But judges do not rule exclusively on the charge alone. There are many other circumstances surrounding the judges decision.
If judges were to hand out sentences for the charge alone, there would be no need for a judge. A computer would just print out what the penalty was for the crime. But if a judge gives somebody a break, he or she wants to make sure that person won't be back in his courtroom two days after getting out.
I don't know about anywhere else, but from time to time, a judge hands down a lenient sentence, and then the accused goes out and commits another crime; sometimes a worse crime. Then the media digs into the suspects record and finds all kinds of crap; a criminal history going back to his juvenile years. Then they ask WTF made this judge let this guy off in the first place?
On the other hand, no judge wants to make a criminal out of somebody that just made a mistake in life. One mistake and a suspect showing remorse? Sure a judge can give that person a break. It won't come back and haunt him if the suspect does go out and commit a worse crime.
First of all I'm a man. If you were smart enough to click on my avatar that is clearly stated.
Second off, you are making assumptions that are not true in the least bit. Yes, obviously judges look into a person's background when making a decision for their punishment (when that is allowed of course, they can't if it is a crime with a mandatory sentence), but your idea that things are all played out correctly due to that, and that those who get harsher sentences deserved it, is completely asinine.
Just look at the Stanford swimmer rape case. Compare that to the woman that just got pardoned after being jailed for LIFE on a first time offense non-violent drug charge.
First of all, I thought at one time you had a female avatar. I always assume males will use male avatars and females will do the same, that's why I wasn't sure what you were.
Secondly, my point is that you just can't look at sentences, races, and draw a conclusive line. In our city alone, two people might face the same charge, with the same criminal history, with the same conduct while being arrested, and both might get different sentences because judges are just as different as suspects. One judge may be more conservative than another and under the belief that harsher sentences are needed. A more liberal judge may have more compassion and give a lighter sentence.
There are just too many variables to say sentences are given because of race.
It was a female avatar that read, "Doctors says staring at breasts helps prevent cancer."
Your second point is actually against you... because stats show, by a FAR margin, that Blacks are sentenced at a higher rate, and with harsher sentences, than any other group, even when using the same offense with the same situations and backgrounds.
Well that's a report I've never read, and I've read a couple of them. So perhaps you can give me the link to an in depth apples to apples report.
It's a lot more than just one report. If it were just one report, then it wouldn't be considered credible would it?
First of all I'm a man. If you were smart enough to click on my avatar that is clearly stated.
Second off, you are making assumptions that are not true in the least bit. Yes, obviously judges look into a person's background when making a decision for their punishment (when that is allowed of course, they can't if it is a crime with a mandatory sentence), but your idea that things are all played out correctly due to that, and that those who get harsher sentences deserved it, is completely asinine.
Just look at the Stanford swimmer rape case. Compare that to the woman that just got pardoned after being jailed for LIFE on a first time offense non-violent drug charge.
First of all, I thought at one time you had a female avatar. I always assume males will use male avatars and females will do the same, that's why I wasn't sure what you were.
Secondly, my point is that you just can't look at sentences, races, and draw a conclusive line. In our city alone, two people might face the same charge, with the same criminal history, with the same conduct while being arrested, and both might get different sentences because judges are just as different as suspects. One judge may be more conservative than another and under the belief that harsher sentences are needed. A more liberal judge may have more compassion and give a lighter sentence.
There are just too many variables to say sentences are given because of race.
It was a female avatar that read, "Doctors says staring at breasts helps prevent cancer."
Your second point is actually against you... because stats show, by a FAR margin, that Blacks are sentenced at a higher rate, and with harsher sentences, than any other group, even when using the same offense with the same situations and backgrounds.
Well that's a report I've never read, and I've read a couple of them. So perhaps you can give me the link to an in depth apples to apples report.
It's a lot more than just one report. If it were just one report, then it wouldn't be considered credible would it?
Depends on what it said and who it's from. If you're going to give me some Mother Fn Jones site, of course it's not credible unless it has hyperlinks to a government study or something.
First of all, I thought at one time you had a female avatar. I always assume males will use male avatars and females will do the same, that's why I wasn't sure what you were.
Secondly, my point is that you just can't look at sentences, races, and draw a conclusive line. In our city alone, two people might face the same charge, with the same criminal history, with the same conduct while being arrested, and both might get different sentences because judges are just as different as suspects. One judge may be more conservative than another and under the belief that harsher sentences are needed. A more liberal judge may have more compassion and give a lighter sentence.
There are just too many variables to say sentences are given because of race.
It was a female avatar that read, "Doctors says staring at breasts helps prevent cancer."
Your second point is actually against you... because stats show, by a FAR margin, that Blacks are sentenced at a higher rate, and with harsher sentences, than any other group, even when using the same offense with the same situations and backgrounds.
Well that's a report I've never read, and I've read a couple of them. So perhaps you can give me the link to an in depth apples to apples report.
It's a lot more than just one report. If it were just one report, then it wouldn't be considered credible would it?
Depends on what it said and who it's from. If you're going to give me some Mother Fn Jones site, of course it's not credible unless it has hyperlinks to a government study or something.
No, if you are truly interested in learning about the inequality of justice in the U.S., go read the book The New Jim Crow.
It was a female avatar that read, "Doctors says staring at breasts helps prevent cancer."
Your second point is actually against you... because stats show, by a FAR margin, that Blacks are sentenced at a higher rate, and with harsher sentences, than any other group, even when using the same offense with the same situations and backgrounds.
Well that's a report I've never read, and I've read a couple of them. So perhaps you can give me the link to an in depth apples to apples report.
It's a lot more than just one report. If it were just one report, then it wouldn't be considered credible would it?
Depends on what it said and who it's from. If you're going to give me some Mother Fn Jones site, of course it's not credible unless it has hyperlinks to a government study or something.
No, if you are truly interested in learning about the inequality of justice in the U.S., go read the book The New Jim Crow.
In other words you don't have a site supporting your claims. I'm supposed to go out, buy some book I don't want, and spend countless hours reading it to debate you. No thanks. Some of us have a job.
Well that's a report I've never read, and I've read a couple of them. So perhaps you can give me the link to an in depth apples to apples report.
It's a lot more than just one report. If it were just one report, then it wouldn't be considered credible would it?
Depends on what it said and who it's from. If you're going to give me some Mother Fn Jones site, of course it's not credible unless it has hyperlinks to a government study or something.
No, if you are truly interested in learning about the inequality of justice in the U.S., go read the book The New Jim Crow.
In other words you don't have a site supporting your claims. I'm supposed to go out, buy some book I don't want, and spend countless hours reading it to debate you. No thanks. Some of us have a job.
You asked for a source to the information. I gave it to you. You just admitted you don't really want to learn the truth.. when you said "buy some book I don't want."
You don't want to know the truth. You just want to go on arguing a false narrative instead of putting in the work to learn how wrong you are.
It's a lot more than just one report. If it were just one report, then it wouldn't be considered credible would it?
Depends on what it said and who it's from. If you're going to give me some Mother Fn Jones site, of course it's not credible unless it has hyperlinks to a government study or something.
No, if you are truly interested in learning about the inequality of justice in the U.S., go read the book The New Jim Crow.
In other words you don't have a site supporting your claims. I'm supposed to go out, buy some book I don't want, and spend countless hours reading it to debate you. No thanks. Some of us have a job.
You asked for a source to the information. I gave it to you. You just admitted you don't really want to learn the truth.. when you said "buy some book I don't want."
You don't want to know the truth. You just want to go on arguing a false narrative instead of putting in the work to learn how wrong you are.
If it's in a book, it has to be on the internet somewhere. So let's see what you got.
Depends on what it said and who it's from. If you're going to give me some Mother Fn Jones site, of course it's not credible unless it has hyperlinks to a government study or something.
No, if you are truly interested in learning about the inequality of justice in the U.S., go read the book The New Jim Crow.
In other words you don't have a site supporting your claims. I'm supposed to go out, buy some book I don't want, and spend countless hours reading it to debate you. No thanks. Some of us have a job.
You asked for a source to the information. I gave it to you. You just admitted you don't really want to learn the truth.. when you said "buy some book I don't want."
You don't want to know the truth. You just want to go on arguing a false narrative instead of putting in the work to learn how wrong you are.
If it's in a book, it has to be on the internet somewhere. So let's see what you got.
Since you are to lazy to read a book, here is the audible version you can listen to for free while you drive your truck. What's your excuse now?
Download Audiobooks with Audible.com
No, if you are truly interested in learning about the inequality of justice in the U.S., go read the book The New Jim Crow.
In other words you don't have a site supporting your claims. I'm supposed to go out, buy some book I don't want, and spend countless hours reading it to debate you. No thanks. Some of us have a job.
You asked for a source to the information. I gave it to you. You just admitted you don't really want to learn the truth.. when you said "buy some book I don't want."
You don't want to know the truth. You just want to go on arguing a false narrative instead of putting in the work to learn how wrong you are.
If it's in a book, it has to be on the internet somewhere. So let's see what you got.
Since you are to lazy to read a book, here is the audible version you can listen to for free while you drive your truck. What's your excuse now?
Download Audiobooks with Audible.com
Do you think I have time to listen to a book? What if somebody told you to go out and buy (or listen) to a book for every argument they had? You either have evidence of your claim or you don't. Obviously you don't. Discussion forums are not about recommending books to people, it's about debating policies.
In other words you don't have a site supporting your claims. I'm supposed to go out, buy some book I don't want, and spend countless hours reading it to debate you. No thanks. Some of us have a job.
You asked for a source to the information. I gave it to you. You just admitted you don't really want to learn the truth.. when you said "buy some book I don't want."
You don't want to know the truth. You just want to go on arguing a false narrative instead of putting in the work to learn how wrong you are.
If it's in a book, it has to be on the internet somewhere. So let's see what you got.
Since you are to lazy to read a book, here is the audible version you can listen to for free while you drive your truck. What's your excuse now?
Download Audiobooks with Audible.com
Do you think I have time to listen to a book? What if somebody told you to go out and buy (or listen) to a book for every argument they had? You either have evidence of your claim or you don't. Obviously you don't. Discussion forums are not about recommending books to people, it's about debating policies.
You keep complaining that you don't have time for this and that, yet you sure have plenty of time to be on this forum.
Sounds like you just like making excuses.
Most academic studies that are credible, are behind a paywall, or a person must have library access through their university.
You just stepped on your dick again... how can you debate a subject if you aren't educated on the subject to do so, and lack the initiative to become educated on it?
Ask him to copy and paste from the bookYou asked for a source to the information. I gave it to you. You just admitted you don't really want to learn the truth.. when you said "buy some book I don't want."
You don't want to know the truth. You just want to go on arguing a false narrative instead of putting in the work to learn how wrong you are.
If it's in a book, it has to be on the internet somewhere. So let's see what you got.
Since you are to lazy to read a book, here is the audible version you can listen to for free while you drive your truck. What's your excuse now?
Download Audiobooks with Audible.com
Do you think I have time to listen to a book? What if somebody told you to go out and buy (or listen) to a book for every argument they had? You either have evidence of your claim or you don't. Obviously you don't. Discussion forums are not about recommending books to people, it's about debating policies.
You keep complaining that you don't have time for this and that, yet you sure have plenty of time to be on this forum.
Sounds like you just like making excuses.
Most academic studies that are credible, are behind a paywall, or a person must have library access through their university.
You just stepped on your dick again... how can you debate a subject if you aren't educated on the subject to do so, and lack the initiative to become educated on it?
No, I do not have time to read or listen to a 250 page book for each claim somebody makes. If I had to do that, it would take me a month to discuss five issues with people.
Books don't get to the point or provide supporting evidence. If they did, the book would be about ten pages long, and nobody would ever buy it. Give me a link, and I can skip to the necessary points of a discussion and research it. I understand you can't which is why you don't post any, but telling people to buy a book to discuss an issue with you is ridiculous. That's not how discussion boards work. If I made the claim that minorities are treated better than whites, and told you I found that information in a book, would you buy and read it to debate me?
You asked for a source to the information. I gave it to you. You just admitted you don't really want to learn the truth.. when you said "buy some book I don't want."
You don't want to know the truth. You just want to go on arguing a false narrative instead of putting in the work to learn how wrong you are.
If it's in a book, it has to be on the internet somewhere. So let's see what you got.
Since you are to lazy to read a book, here is the audible version you can listen to for free while you drive your truck. What's your excuse now?
Download Audiobooks with Audible.com
Do you think I have time to listen to a book? What if somebody told you to go out and buy (or listen) to a book for every argument they had? You either have evidence of your claim or you don't. Obviously you don't. Discussion forums are not about recommending books to people, it's about debating policies.
You keep complaining that you don't have time for this and that, yet you sure have plenty of time to be on this forum.
Sounds like you just like making excuses.
Most academic studies that are credible, are behind a paywall, or a person must have library access through their university.
You just stepped on your dick again... how can you debate a subject if you aren't educated on the subject to do so, and lack the initiative to become educated on it?
No, I do not have time to read or listen to a 250 page book for each claim somebody makes. If I had to do that, it would take me a month to discuss five issues with people.
Books don't get to the point or provide supporting evidence. If they did, the book would be about ten pages long, and nobody would ever buy it. Give me a link, and I can skip to the necessary points of a discussion and research it. I understand you can't which is why you don't post any, but telling people to buy a book to discuss an issue with you is ridiculous. That's not how discussion boards work. If I made the claim that minorities are treated better than whites, and told you I found that information in a book, would you buy and read it to debate me?
Ask him to copy and paste from the bookIf it's in a book, it has to be on the internet somewhere. So let's see what you got.
Since you are to lazy to read a book, here is the audible version you can listen to for free while you drive your truck. What's your excuse now?
Download Audiobooks with Audible.com
Do you think I have time to listen to a book? What if somebody told you to go out and buy (or listen) to a book for every argument they had? You either have evidence of your claim or you don't. Obviously you don't. Discussion forums are not about recommending books to people, it's about debating policies.
You keep complaining that you don't have time for this and that, yet you sure have plenty of time to be on this forum.
Sounds like you just like making excuses.
Most academic studies that are credible, are behind a paywall, or a person must have library access through their university.
You just stepped on your dick again... how can you debate a subject if you aren't educated on the subject to do so, and lack the initiative to become educated on it?
No, I do not have time to read or listen to a 250 page book for each claim somebody makes. If I had to do that, it would take me a month to discuss five issues with people.
Books don't get to the point or provide supporting evidence. If they did, the book would be about ten pages long, and nobody would ever buy it. Give me a link, and I can skip to the necessary points of a discussion and research it. I understand you can't which is why you don't post any, but telling people to buy a book to discuss an issue with you is ridiculous. That's not how discussion boards work. If I made the claim that minorities are treated better than whites, and told you I found that information in a book, would you buy and read it to debate me?
If it's in a book, it has to be on the internet somewhere. So let's see what you got.
Since you are to lazy to read a book, here is the audible version you can listen to for free while you drive your truck. What's your excuse now?
Download Audiobooks with Audible.com
Do you think I have time to listen to a book? What if somebody told you to go out and buy (or listen) to a book for every argument they had? You either have evidence of your claim or you don't. Obviously you don't. Discussion forums are not about recommending books to people, it's about debating policies.
You keep complaining that you don't have time for this and that, yet you sure have plenty of time to be on this forum.
Sounds like you just like making excuses.
Most academic studies that are credible, are behind a paywall, or a person must have library access through their university.
You just stepped on your dick again... how can you debate a subject if you aren't educated on the subject to do so, and lack the initiative to become educated on it?
No, I do not have time to read or listen to a 250 page book for each claim somebody makes. If I had to do that, it would take me a month to discuss five issues with people.
Books don't get to the point or provide supporting evidence. If they did, the book would be about ten pages long, and nobody would ever buy it. Give me a link, and I can skip to the necessary points of a discussion and research it. I understand you can't which is why you don't post any, but telling people to buy a book to discuss an issue with you is ridiculous. That's not how discussion boards work. If I made the claim that minorities are treated better than whites, and told you I found that information in a book, would you buy and read it to debate me?
You are too busy to learn about the shit you are trying to debate and no nothing about... excuses excuses.
You have enough time to stalk your neighbors outside your window. You have enough time to go to the courthouse and bitch about your taxes. You have enough time to make 32,000+ posts here, but you don't have time to read a 250 page book so that you can become a more aware citizen and actually know what's going on in the criminal justice system. How long do you think it takes to read a 250 page book?
You asked for a source of the information I told you about. You just keep making excuses not to look at it. You're a fucking truck driver, and won't even get the FREE audible version to listen to while driving.
How about you just be honest, and admit you don't want to learn that your prejudiced piece of shit opinion is wrong?
Seems childish and thin-skinned to disinvite them. What do you think?
Seems childish and thin-skinned to disinvite them. What do you think?
Not at all, the NFL should have done like the NBA- who was upfront this week about not wanting to go to the WH, instead of stringing the WH along and forcing a cancellation at the last minute.
Congrats to Golden State for their stand against conservative fans and America, the President won't bother with an invitation for you.
Since you are to lazy to read a book, here is the audible version you can listen to for free while you drive your truck. What's your excuse now?
Download Audiobooks with Audible.com
Do you think I have time to listen to a book? What if somebody told you to go out and buy (or listen) to a book for every argument they had? You either have evidence of your claim or you don't. Obviously you don't. Discussion forums are not about recommending books to people, it's about debating policies.
You keep complaining that you don't have time for this and that, yet you sure have plenty of time to be on this forum.
Sounds like you just like making excuses.
Most academic studies that are credible, are behind a paywall, or a person must have library access through their university.
You just stepped on your dick again... how can you debate a subject if you aren't educated on the subject to do so, and lack the initiative to become educated on it?
No, I do not have time to read or listen to a 250 page book for each claim somebody makes. If I had to do that, it would take me a month to discuss five issues with people.
Books don't get to the point or provide supporting evidence. If they did, the book would be about ten pages long, and nobody would ever buy it. Give me a link, and I can skip to the necessary points of a discussion and research it. I understand you can't which is why you don't post any, but telling people to buy a book to discuss an issue with you is ridiculous. That's not how discussion boards work. If I made the claim that minorities are treated better than whites, and told you I found that information in a book, would you buy and read it to debate me?
You are too busy to learn about the shit you are trying to debate and no nothing about... excuses excuses.
You have enough time to stalk your neighbors outside your window. You have enough time to go to the courthouse and bitch about your taxes. You have enough time to make 32,000+ posts here, but you don't have time to read a 250 page book so that you can become a more aware citizen and actually know what's going on in the criminal justice system. How long do you think it takes to read a 250 page book?
You asked for a source of the information I told you about. You just keep making excuses not to look at it. You're a fucking truck driver, and won't even get the FREE audible version to listen to while driving.
How about you just be honest, and admit you don't want to learn that your prejudiced piece of shit opinion is wrong?
I am being honest. If I had to read (or listen) to a 250 page book for every political debate I get into, I would only be able to participate in about two discussions a month here and probably make ten posts. No, I don't have time for that. Will I make the time to get my property taxes lowered so I save a couple grand a year? You bet I'll make that time. Do I have three seconds to look out of my window to see what the intrusive noise is all about next door? You bet I do. I want to give police the most accurate information I can give them.
You are a person criticizing me about not wanting to read your books; the same person who only a few pages ago said you wouldn't read past my first paragraph. Then have the gall to call ME a hypocrite.
