Black people advocate for segregation

[JakeStarkey]

I know. Another favorite tactic to cause a distraction and derail a thread is to ask for the definition of every word or ask for the names of anyone involved or the date they ever said anything or it isn't true.

This is an exaggeration for effect, but essentially by his logic, if I can't give the name and date of birth of everyone that died on the Titanic, it didn't happen..

I'm done with him. Couldn't care less.

You are describing Yurt and Jarlaxle and NLT, not stat.

 

[hipeter924]

There are at least two segregationists in this thread, that think they can start up a independent, xenophobic black nation in the current borders of the USA, and not break the US constitution. So nothing surprises me anymore in this thread really. Haven't asked my boyfriend yet, but pretty sure he would think running away from the problem and dividing the hell out of America like Malcolm X or the Nation of Islam suggested, is not the way to go.

 

[Rikurzhen]

There are at least two segregationists in this thread, that think they can start up a independent, xenophobic black nation in the current borders of the USA, and not break the US constitution. So nothing surprises me anymore in this thread really. Haven't asked my boyfriend yet, but pretty sure he would think running away from the problem and dividing the hell out of America like Malcolm X or the Nation of Islam suggested, is not the way to go.

What did the Catalans just try to do? What are the Flemish trying to do? What are the Scots trying to do? What did the Czechs and the Slovaks do?

 

[hipeter924]

There are at least two segregationists in this thread, that think they can start up a independent, xenophobic black nation in the current borders of the USA, and not break the US constitution. So nothing surprises me anymore in this thread really. Haven't asked my boyfriend yet, but pretty sure he would think running away from the problem and dividing the hell out of America like Malcolm X or the Nation of Islam suggested, is not the way to go.

What did the Catalans just try to do? What are the Flemish trying to do? What are the Scots trying to do? What did the Czechs and the Slovaks do?

Those are groups that have already existed as a independent nation, or been independent at some stage or another.

There is no historical precedent that allows a state or group to break off from the United States and form their own independent nation without conducting insurrection (or otherwise a treasonous act) against the United States and the government.

Of course Ron Paul can claim states can break away without basically committing treason and an act of rebellion against the United States, but sure if Texas or any other state tried it the tanks would be in the streets in no time. Just as the United States government went to war to stop the southern states going their own way, when they tried to break away.

But this is worse than that, because you are talking about a state that doesn't even exist, and has never existed within US borders at any stage, prior or during the establishment of the United States. So actual right to do this, by dividing an area of the US and founding a new nation is basically non-existent, even more so than the 'right of a state to secede' is non-existent.

 

[Rikurzhen]

There are at least two segregationists in this thread, that think they can start up a independent, xenophobic black nation in the current borders of the USA, and not break the US constitution. So nothing surprises me anymore in this thread really. Haven't asked my boyfriend yet, but pretty sure he would think running away from the problem and dividing the hell out of America like Malcolm X or the Nation of Islam suggested, is not the way to go.

What did the Catalans just try to do? What are the Flemish trying to do? What are the Scots trying to do? What did the Czechs and the Slovaks do?

Those are groups that have already existed as a independent nation, or been independent at some stage or another.

There is no historical precedent that allows a state or group to break off from the United States and form their own independent nation without conducting insurrection (or otherwise a treasonous act) against the United States and the government.

Of course Ron Paul can claim states can break away without basically committing treason and an act of rebellion against the United States, but sure if Texas or any other state tried it the tanks would be in the streets in no time. Just as the United States government went to war to stop the southern states going their own way, when they tired to break away.

But this is worse than that, because you are talking about a state that doesn't even exist, and has never existed within US borders at any stage, prior or during the establishment of the United States. So actual right to do this, by dividing an area of the US and founding a new nation is basically non-existent, even more so than the 'right of a state to secede' is non-existent.

There was no precedent for Roe v. Wade. There was no precedent for Affirmative Action. There was no precedent for violations of the right to free association. There was no precedent in the Constitution for welfare redistribution. Should we roll back everything that exists in America which arose when there was no precedent for its creation?

 

[hipeter924]

There are at least two segregationists in this thread, that think they can start up a independent, xenophobic black nation in the current borders of the USA, and not break the US constitution. So nothing surprises me anymore in this thread really. Haven't asked my boyfriend yet, but pretty sure he would think running away from the problem and dividing the hell out of America like Malcolm X or the Nation of Islam suggested, is not the way to go.

What did the Catalans just try to do? What are the Flemish trying to do? What are the Scots trying to do? What did the Czechs and the Slovaks do?

Those are groups that have already existed as a independent nation, or been independent at some stage or another.

There is no historical precedent that allows a state or group to break off from the United States and form their own independent nation without conducting insurrection (or otherwise a treasonous act) against the United States and the government.

Of course Ron Paul can claim states can break away without basically committing treason and an act of rebellion against the United States, but sure if Texas or any other state tried it the tanks would be in the streets in no time. Just as the United States government went to war to stop the southern states going their own way, when they tired to break away.

But this is worse than that, because you are talking about a state that doesn't even exist, and has never existed within US borders at any stage, prior or during the establishment of the United States. So actual right to do this, by dividing an area of the US and founding a new nation is basically non-existent, even more so than the 'right of a state to secede' is non-existent.

There was no precedent for Roe v. Wade. There was no precedent for Affirmative Action. There was no precedent for violations of the right to free association. There was no precedent in the Constitution for welfare redistribution. Should we roll back everything that exists in America which arose when there was no precedent for its creation?

Actually there was, in the sense that was legal to have Roe vs Wade, Affirmative Action, use the Supreme Court and so on. It is not legal to break off from the United States and found your own nation from its borders, and also isn't constitutional to have segregation. What you are suggesting is a roll back, because you would have to change the constitution by putting an amendment in that makes segregation legal.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Actually there was, in the sense that was legal to have Roe vs Wade, Affirmative Action, use the Supreme Court and so on. It is not legal to break off from the United States and found your own nation from its borders, and also isn't constitutional to have segregation. What you are suggesting is a roll back, because you would have to change the constitution by putting an amendment in that makes segregation legal.

Your argument boils down to this: Abortion was illegal until the Supreme Court declared it to be legal. Secession is illegal. Well, other countries have dealt with secession in modern times. They find it legal. Canada was prepared to break up and put the question to their Supreme Court and a specific pathway was established.

The era of the Civil War has passed. The ties that bind us together as people have been frayed to mere strands by liberals. You argue that the moment a Somalian steps foot into the US, via legal immigration, that he and I have a bond to each other. We are countrymen. That's a fiction. That bond used to exist in the US but it's been severely weakened by the idiocy that liberals so love - multiculturalism - multiple cultures coinhabiting the same geographic space and governed by one set of laws. Following one set of laws doesn't form bonds of community. All ships on the sea follow Admiralty Laws but no one thinks that the crew on an American flagged vessel shares the same values as the crew on a Liberian flagged vessel.

This ultimately comes down to one question - what are YOU willing to do to stop ME? Are you going to take up arms, put your own life at risk, arrive at a battlefield and shoot it out with me? Multiply by X million. Will you bomb my cities, burn them down like Atlanta in order to keep the Union intact? Or are those days past us now?

 

[hipeter924]

Actually there was, in the sense that was legal to have Roe vs Wade, Affirmative Action, use the Supreme Court and so on. It is not legal to break off from the United States and found your own nation from its borders, and also isn't constitutional to have segregation. What you are suggesting is a roll back, because you would have to change the constitution by putting an amendment in that makes segregation legal.

Your argument boils down to this: Abortion was illegal until the Supreme Court declared it to be legal. Secession is illegal. Well, other countries have dealt with secession in modern times. They find it legal. Canada was prepared to break up and put the question to their Supreme Court and a specific pathway was established.

The era of the Civil War has passed. The ties that bind us together as people have been frayed to mere strands by liberals. You argue that the moment a Somalian steps foot into the US, via legal immigration, that he and I have a bond to each other. We are countrymen. That's a fiction. That bond used to exist in the US but it's been severely weakened by the idiocy that liberals so love - multiculturalism - multiple cultures coinhabiting the same geographic space and governed by one set of laws. Following one set of laws doesn't form bonds of community. All ships on the sea follow Admiralty Laws but no one thinks that the crew on an American flagged vessel shares the same values as the crew on a Liberian flagged vessel.

This ultimately comes down to one question - what are YOU willing to do to stop ME? Are you going to take up arms, put your own life at risk, arrive at a battlefield and shoot it out with me? Multiply by X million. Will you bomb my cities, burn them down like Atlanta in order to keep the Union intact? Or are those days past us now?

Your argument boils down to this: Abortion was illegal until the Supreme Court declared it to be legal. Secession is illegal. Well, other countries have dealt with secession in modern times. They find it legal. Canada was prepared to break up and put the question to their Supreme Court and a specific pathway was established.

No it doesn't, it boils down to Supreme Court rulings determining that segregation is unconstitutional, and currently based on on the constitution and past behavior and conduct of the US government, it has been proven illegal to secede. You can't ignore the civil war as it happened, and precedents were set when the US government went to war with the Confederacy. It would have been different if the US government had accepted the Confederacy as an independent nation, but it didn't.

I don't argue multiculturalism is perfect, but just because a system has flaws doesn't mean its polar opposite is better. Some Somalians might really find it difficult, and not like America or fit in, but most would build a life here and become a part of the community. The problem with a multi-cultural system stems from uncontrolled immigration, lack of financial support and aid programs for the poorest members of society, and overall economic woes - and of course the fact that extremists come hand and hand with freedom of speech and expression.

But without multi-culturalism, you have a divided community, with one dominant ethnic group that has all the rights in a nation while others have second-class rights.The best case of a society that claims to be multi-cultural but actively discriminates against its citizens based on race, is Malaysia by treating non-malay ethnicities and Christians as second class citizens due to the Islamic beliefs of the Malay population and so on. That is ultimately what would happen if the world gave up on 'multi-culturalism', as there is literally no way to have a nation without a certain ethnic group without conducting ethnic cleansing or genocide - if you don't at least allow the people that aren't of that ethnic group to remain.

To answer your final question, yes I would (would need to learn to use a gun first though) - if any group decided it would just unilaterally secede without the approval of the Supreme Court and the US government. Just like I would if any state seceded without getting the approval of the Supreme Court, which would have to declare secession as constitutional, and then be supported in that judgement by the rest of the US government.

Basically you would have to fight the US military, and yes cities might be bombed by them, it is always a possibility, part of me wonders if militarization of the police isn't part of wider fears of rebellion or insurgency by groups in the United States, but that is for another thread.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Actually there was, in the sense that was legal to have Roe vs Wade, Affirmative Action, use the Supreme Court and so on. It is not legal to break off from the United States and found your own nation from its borders, and also isn't constitutional to have segregation. What you are suggesting is a roll back, because you would have to change the constitution by putting an amendment in that makes segregation legal.

Your argument boils down to this: Abortion was illegal until the Supreme Court declared it to be legal. Secession is illegal. Well, other countries have dealt with secession in modern times. They find it legal. Canada was prepared to break up and put the question to their Supreme Court and a specific pathway was established.

The era of the Civil War has passed. The ties that bind us together as people have been frayed to mere strands by liberals. You argue that the moment a Somalian steps foot into the US, via legal immigration, that he and I have a bond to each other. We are countrymen. That's a fiction. That bond used to exist in the US but it's been severely weakened by the idiocy that liberals so love - multiculturalism - multiple cultures coinhabiting the same geographic space and governed by one set of laws. Following one set of laws doesn't form bonds of community. All ships on the sea follow Admiralty Laws but no one thinks that the crew on an American flagged vessel shares the same values as the crew on a Liberian flagged vessel.

This ultimately comes down to one question - what are YOU willing to do to stop ME? Are you going to take up arms, put your own life at risk, arrive at a battlefield and shoot it out with me? Multiply by X million. Will you bomb my cities, burn them down like Atlanta in order to keep the Union intact? Or are those days past us now?

Your argument boils down to this: Abortion was illegal until the Supreme Court declared it to be legal. Secession is illegal. Well, other countries have dealt with secession in modern times. They find it legal. Canada was prepared to break up and put the question to their Supreme Court and a specific pathway was established.

No it doesn't, it boils down to Supreme Court rulings determining that segregation is unconstitutional, and currently based on on the constitution and past behavior and conduct of the US government, it has been proven illegal to secede. You can't ignore the civil war as it happened, and precedents were set when the US government went to war with the Confederacy. It would have been different if the US government had accepted the Confederacy as an independent nation, but it didn't.

I don't argue multiculturalism is perfect, but just because a system has flaws doesn't mean its polar opposite is better. Some Somalians might really find it difficult, and not like America or fit in, but most would build a life here and become a part of the community. The problem with a multi-cultural system stems from uncontrolled immigration, lack of financial support and aid programs for the poorest members of society, and overall economic woes - and of course the fact that extremists come hand and hand with freedom of speech and expression.

But without multi-culturalism, you have a divided community, with one dominant ethnic group that has all the rights in a nation while others have second-class rights.The best case of a society that claims to be multi-cultural but actively discriminates against its citizens based on race, is Malaysia by treating non-malay ethnicities and Christians as second class citizens due to the Islamic beliefs of the Malay population and so on. That is ultimately what would happen if the world gave up on 'multi-culturalism', as there is literally no way to have a nation without a certain ethnic group without conducting ethnic cleansing or genocide - if you don't at least allow the people that aren't of that ethnic group to remain.

To answer your final question, yes I would (would need to learn to use a gun first though) - if any group decided it would just unilaterally secede without the approval of the Supreme Court and the US government. Just like I would if any state seceded without getting the approval of the Supreme Court, which would have to declare secession as constitutional, and then be supported in that judgement by the rest of the US government.

Basically you would have to fight the US military, and yes cities might be bombed by them, it is always a possibility, part of me wonders if militarization of the police isn't part of wider fears of rebellion or insurgency by groups in the United States, but that is for another thread.

Since the time of the Civil War other nations could have followed the path of fighting a people who wanted to go their own way but they've all chosen to find a peaceful way to go about it. Canada too said that Quebec separation was illegal so they sent the issue to their Supreme Court and they got rules back.

If people want to go there's little sense in imprisoning them in a country that they don't want to be a part of. You keep focusing on historical legal precedents but laws only apply to those who are willing to follow them and can't resist state violence. There's nothing magical about SC precedents if people want to violate them and are willing to risk it all to do so. Look at women who wanted abortions before they were legal, did the law stop them from getting abortions?

With respect to multiculturalism - yes, the opposite is better for that's how deeper ties to the community are formed. Liberals have a habit of pointing to the Nordic countries as good examples of how societies should be structured. Those Nordic countries used to be very homogeneous and those tight and deep bonds created what liberals like in society - high sharing.

 

[hipeter924]

Actually there was, in the sense that was legal to have Roe vs Wade, Affirmative Action, use the Supreme Court and so on. It is not legal to break off from the United States and found your own nation from its borders, and also isn't constitutional to have segregation. What you are suggesting is a roll back, because you would have to change the constitution by putting an amendment in that makes segregation legal.

Your argument boils down to this: Abortion was illegal until the Supreme Court declared it to be legal. Secession is illegal. Well, other countries have dealt with secession in modern times. They find it legal. Canada was prepared to break up and put the question to their Supreme Court and a specific pathway was established.

The era of the Civil War has passed. The ties that bind us together as people have been frayed to mere strands by liberals. You argue that the moment a Somalian steps foot into the US, via legal immigration, that he and I have a bond to each other. We are countrymen. That's a fiction. That bond used to exist in the US but it's been severely weakened by the idiocy that liberals so love - multiculturalism - multiple cultures coinhabiting the same geographic space and governed by one set of laws. Following one set of laws doesn't form bonds of community. All ships on the sea follow Admiralty Laws but no one thinks that the crew on an American flagged vessel shares the same values as the crew on a Liberian flagged vessel.

This ultimately comes down to one question - what are YOU willing to do to stop ME? Are you going to take up arms, put your own life at risk, arrive at a battlefield and shoot it out with me? Multiply by X million. Will you bomb my cities, burn them down like Atlanta in order to keep the Union intact? Or are those days past us now?

Your argument boils down to this: Abortion was illegal until the Supreme Court declared it to be legal. Secession is illegal. Well, other countries have dealt with secession in modern times. They find it legal. Canada was prepared to break up and put the question to their Supreme Court and a specific pathway was established.

No it doesn't, it boils down to Supreme Court rulings determining that segregation is unconstitutional, and currently based on on the constitution and past behavior and conduct of the US government, it has been proven illegal to secede. You can't ignore the civil war as it happened, and precedents were set when the US government went to war with the Confederacy. It would have been different if the US government had accepted the Confederacy as an independent nation, but it didn't.

I don't argue multiculturalism is perfect, but just because a system has flaws doesn't mean its polar opposite is better. Some Somalians might really find it difficult, and not like America or fit in, but most would build a life here and become a part of the community. The problem with a multi-cultural system stems from uncontrolled immigration, lack of financial support and aid programs for the poorest members of society, and overall economic woes - and of course the fact that extremists come hand and hand with freedom of speech and expression.

But without multi-culturalism, you have a divided community, with one dominant ethnic group that has all the rights in a nation while others have second-class rights.The best case of a society that claims to be multi-cultural but actively discriminates against its citizens based on race, is Malaysia by treating non-malay ethnicities and Christians as second class citizens due to the Islamic beliefs of the Malay population and so on. That is ultimately what would happen if the world gave up on 'multi-culturalism', as there is literally no way to have a nation without a certain ethnic group without conducting ethnic cleansing or genocide - if you don't at least allow the people that aren't of that ethnic group to remain.

To answer your final question, yes I would (would need to learn to use a gun first though) - if any group decided it would just unilaterally secede without the approval of the Supreme Court and the US government. Just like I would if any state seceded without getting the approval of the Supreme Court, which would have to declare secession as constitutional, and then be supported in that judgement by the rest of the US government.

Basically you would have to fight the US military, and yes cities might be bombed by them, it is always a possibility, part of me wonders if militarization of the police isn't part of wider fears of rebellion or insurgency by groups in the United States, but that is for another thread.

Since the time of the Civil War other nations could have followed the path of fighting a people who wanted to go their own way but they've all chosen to find a peaceful way to go about it. Canada too said that Quebec separation was illegal so they sent the issue to their Supreme Court and they got rules back.

If people want to go there's little sense in imprisoning them in a country that they don't want to be a part of. You keep focusing on historical legal precedents but laws only apply to those who are willing to follow them and can't resist state violence. There's nothing magical about SC precedents if people want to violate them and are willing to risk it all to do so. Look at women who wanted abortions before they were legal, did the law stop them from getting abortions?

With respect to multiculturalism - yes, the opposite is better for that's how deeper ties to the community are formed. Liberals have a habit of pointing to the Nordic countries as good examples of how societies should be structured. Those Nordic countries used to be very homogeneous and those tight and deep bonds created what liberals like in society - high sharing.

If they want to risk it they can, but I wouldn't advise it. If a secessionist group got a decision that said it was constitutional for them to break away, and got the approval from the US government. Then I wouldn't stop that happening, in fact I would be apathetic about the whole thing. But till they do, it isn't legal.

The Nordic countries are multi-cultural and have a policy of controlled immigration, and they didn't make a lot of the mistakes other countries in Europe have made. It is a lot harder for somewhere like the United States, where it is very difficult to control the border. If the US was separated from unstable and economically poor countries the way the Nordic countries are by thousands of miles of ocean basically, then multi-culturalism would be an overwhelming success in America.

Unfortunately America has very little in the way of border security. It has millions of people within its borders without citizenship or papers, and no way to limit those coming in from Mexico and so on - so there is a big problem with multi-culturalism as you have a large number of people in society under the radar without the education and government aid that full citizenship or papers would bring. Then there is the issue of refugees, who arrive with very little in the way of education or from war zones, and because of the economic crisis and unemployment problems don't find work and ghettoize, turn to crime, or turn to extremist groups (though this a bigger problem in France than the US for sure).

Not trying to say your arguments aren't good ones in many respects, but I have put forward why I can't agree with them.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Unfortunately America has very little in the way of border security. It has millions of people within its borders without citizenship or papers, and no way to limit those coming in from Mexico and so on - so there is a big problem with multi-culturalism as you have a large number of people in society under the radar without the education and government aid that full citizenship or papers would bring. Then there is the issue of refugees, who arrive with very little in the way of education or from war zones, and because of the economic crisis and unemployment problems don't find work and ghettoize, turn to crime, or turn to extremist groups (though this a bigger problem in France than the US for sure).

Not trying to say your arguments aren't good ones in many respects, but I have put forward why I can't agree with them.

Look, the situation that you point to in the US is not some force of nature. "Man, why does Lake Michigan have to be right here, blocking the growth of Chicago, of well, too bad we can't just move it, so I suppose we'll have to learn to live with it."

America used to do a pretty good job of deporting people, even with stone-age technology of the '50s.

Operation *******:

Operation ******* was a system of tactical control and cooperation within the U.S. Border Patrol and alongside the Mexican government.[30] Planning between the INS led by Gen. Joseph Swing and the Mexican government began in early 1954 while the program was formally announced in May 1954.[31] On May 17th, 1954 command teams of 12 Border Patrol agents, buses, planes, and temporary processing stations began locating, processing, and deporting Mexicans that had illegally entered the United States. 750 immigration and border patrol officers and investigators, 300 jeeps, cars and buses, and 7 airplanes were allocated for the operation.[32] Teams were focused on quick processing and deportation, as planes were able to coordinate ground efforts more quickly and increase mobility. [33] Those deported were handed off to Mexican officials, who in turn deported them into central Mexico where there were many labor opportunities.[34] While the operation would include the cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Chicago, its main targets were border areas in Texas and California. [35] Overall, there were 1,078,168 apprehensions made in the first year of Operation *******, with 170,000 being captured from May to July 1954
​

With today's technology, there's no hiding anymore, anywhere. We can deport 20 million people with ease. Then we can stop legal immigration. These are not forces of nature, they are policy CHOICES.

All we need is for people willing to be big meanies and deport illegal infiltrators. We got into this mess because of CHOICES, for forces of nature, and we can fix some of the damage by making different CHOICES.

 

[beagle9]

Racists, white and black and brown and yellow, listen up: change for the better, or the good Americans will make you cry.

Agitator !!!

 

[Rotagilla]

There are at least two segregationists in this thread, that think they can start up a independent, xenophobic black nation in the current borders of the USA, and not break the US constitution. So nothing surprises me anymore in this thread really. Haven't asked my boyfriend yet, but pretty sure he would think running away from the problem and dividing the hell out of America like Malcolm X or the Nation of Islam suggested, is not the way to go.

bias noted...Disregard the reasons given and make up your own...and then toss in some snark and a couple of obligatory insults...I suppose you think you're really clever.
I hope you get a heavy dose of black "diversity" and "multiculturalism" up close and personal real soon.

What is the black/white demographic where you live? Just curious.

 

[Unkotare]

What is the black/white demographic where you live? Just curious.

Another diversion...

 

[hipeter924]

I don't think I am more intelligent than anyone else, as segregation was a terrible idea and doesn't require much to discredit.

What is the black/white demographic where you live? Just curious.

The racial makeup of the community was 45.7% Caucasian, 27.8% Black American, 0.6% Indian American, 7.9%Asian, 0.1% Pacific Islander, 13.2% from other races, and 4.8% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino people of any race consist of 26.3% of the population.

Basically a good mix of demographics, and many people where I live are African American. About once there was a crazy preacher in the area, but otherwise a fairly quiet community with a fun atmosphere in town.

 

[Rotagilla]

I don't think I am more intelligent than anyone else, as segregation was a terrible idea and doesn't require much to discredit.

What is the black/white demographic where you live? Just curious.

The racial makeup of the community was 45.7% Caucasian, 27.8% Black American, 0.6% Indian American, 7.9%Asian, 0.1% Pacific Islander, 13.2% from other races, and 4.8% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino people of any race consist of 26.3% of the population.

Basically a good mix of demographics, and many people where I live are African American. About once there was a crazy preacher in the area, but otherwise a fairly quiet community with a fun atmosphere in town.

I'm not sure what your comment about intelligence is supposed to mean.

Those are interesting numbers. What is the breakdown of crime stats there? That 27.8 % black is approaching the tipping point where dysfunction begins overwhelming the community

Which demographic commits the most crime?

 

[Unkotare]

Distraction, distraction...

 

[hipeter924]

I don't think I am more intelligent than anyone else, as segregation was a terrible idea and doesn't require much to discredit.

What is the black/white demographic where you live? Just curious.

The racial makeup of the community was 45.7% Caucasian, 27.8% Black American, 0.6% Indian American, 7.9%Asian, 0.1% Pacific Islander, 13.2% from other races, and 4.8% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino people of any race consist of 26.3% of the population.

Basically a good mix of demographics, and many people where I live are African American. About once there was a crazy preacher in the area, but otherwise a fairly quiet community with a fun atmosphere in town.

I'm not sure what your comment about intelligence is supposed to mean.

Those are interesting numbers. What is the breakdown of crime stats there? That 27.8 % black is approaching the tipping point where dysfunction begins overwhelming the community

Which demographic commits the most crime?

That anyone who went to elementary school could work out, that simply dividing racists and those that discriminate from those who don't, won't make it go away. Take white people and put them in a white nation, and put black people in a black nation. The problem will still exist, and some of those in each nation would still be racist and still discriminate, so you are back at square one.

 

[Rotagilla]

I don't think I am more intelligent than anyone else, as segregation was a terrible idea and doesn't require much to discredit.

What is the black/white demographic where you live? Just curious.

The racial makeup of the community was 45.7% Caucasian, 27.8% Black American, 0.6% Indian American, 7.9%Asian, 0.1% Pacific Islander, 13.2% from other races, and 4.8% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino people of any race consist of 26.3% of the population.

Basically a good mix of demographics, and many people where I live are African American. About once there was a crazy preacher in the area, but otherwise a fairly quiet community with a fun atmosphere in town.

I'm not sure what your comment about intelligence is supposed to mean.

Those are interesting numbers. What is the breakdown of crime stats there? That 27.8 % black is approaching the tipping point where dysfunction begins overwhelming the community

Which demographic commits the most crime?

That anyone who went to elementary school could work out, that simply dividing racists and those that discriminate from those who don't, won't make it go away. Take white people and put them in a white nation, and put black people in a black nation. The problem will still exist, and some of those in each nation would still be racist and still discriminate, so you are back at square one.

Yes..that's nice...in other words I'm right about blacks committing the most crimes in your area but...naturally..it's all white people's fault...
Impeccable logic there..

 

[hipeter924]

I don't think I am more intelligent than anyone else, as segregation was a terrible idea and doesn't require much to discredit.

What is the black/white demographic where you live? Just curious.

The racial makeup of the community was 45.7% Caucasian, 27.8% Black American, 0.6% Indian American, 7.9%Asian, 0.1% Pacific Islander, 13.2% from other races, and 4.8% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino people of any race consist of 26.3% of the population.

Basically a good mix of demographics, and many people where I live are African American. About once there was a crazy preacher in the area, but otherwise a fairly quiet community with a fun atmosphere in town.

I'm not sure what your comment about intelligence is supposed to mean.

Those are interesting numbers. What is the breakdown of crime stats there? That 27.8 % black is approaching the tipping point where dysfunction begins overwhelming the community

Which demographic commits the most crime?

That anyone who went to elementary school could work out, that simply dividing racists and those that discriminate from those who don't, won't make it go away. Take white people and put them in a white nation, and put black people in a black nation. The problem will still exist, and some of those in each nation would still be racist and still discriminate, so you are back at square one.

Yes..that's nice...in other words I'm right about blacks committing the most crimes in your area but...naturally..it's all white people's fault...
Impeccable logic there..

I haven't looked at the crime stats in the area, wouldn't be any worse than the rest of the DC - Maryland area.