Police identify man suspected of killing CEO, his wife and their son in DC mansion - after finding h

[reconmark]

Not the racial aspect, most of the mainstream articles didn't cover that until it was forced to light.

Uh-huh. And how many of those 'home invasions with rape, torture and murder' are there a year? You said its becoming more common.....that we're becoming like South Africa...

....before tucking your tail between you rlegs and abandoning the claim when I asked you what 'common' was and how many you were talking about.

I'll give you one more chance to back your claims with actual evidence. But we both know you've got jackshit.

I already told you the 90% black on white interracial crime rate. The difference is, you think over a 1.25 million black on white crimes a year is common place, and well we take it for granted to get the "benefits of diversity".

There is no statistic for "home invasions with rape, robbery and murder", you know this, so stop playing dumb. What I am clearly saying is more of these will come and come at a higher rate as we become more non-white of a society. I can't give you statistics for my future forecast. But I can definitively say at this point, we are more like South Africa today in terms of violent crime than we were before the so called Civil Rights era as my data showed.

Skylar did an excellent job of exposing you as an ignorant liar, however you seem to want to double down on stupid...

He asked you to present evidence of your fanciful claims numerous times and you have yet to present any evidence on point...why aren't I surprised...

Now you want to roll out a 1.25 million a year crime fairy tale...as usual that number has yet to be factual proven.

Your ass should really hurt from pulling this many lies out of it for one thread.

It is from the DOJ Criminal Victim Survey. Easily Verifiable.

Yet absent from your reply....convienent.

 

[Steinlight]

You have

What is he wrong about, specifically?

I reject your source as having any relevant experience to offer us 'correlative relationships' of race and crime. As he has no training in it. He's dropped out of school for theoretical physics.

Its not my obligation to disprove your WordPress blog. Its your obligation to prove him right. And you can't even establish relevant qualifications. What's next....a chemist? Perhaps a baker?

Sorry that isn't going to cut it. Your argument is just a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority.

And what 'authority' am I appealing to? Your authority is your wordpress blog. I reject it, as your source has no relevant training.

Just because he doesn't have your desired credential, which you haven't even specified, doesn't make him wrong.

Its not my obligation to prove him wrong. Its your obligation to prove him right. Feel free to do so. But lacking any relevant training, your source isn't an authority on the topic he's discussing. So you'll have a pretty high bar proving your Wordpress blog correct.

You may begin your attempt to do so. I suspect we'll get nothing but excuses from you on why you can't.

I am citing US Census and FBI data, not making an appeal to authority based on the credentials of ron unz.

I'm not contesting the FBI and US census numbers. As you already know. I'm rejecting Ron Unz's 'correlative relationships'. As he has no relevant training in anything he's discussing.

I'm not obligated to prove him wrong. You're obligated to prove your WordPress blog right.

And you can't.

See how that works?

No I am not, you made the claim he is wrong, you need to prove it, that is how it works.

But then again, your argument against his study isn't even a valid one, it is a logical fallacy. The burden of proof is on you to prove his methodology wrong since you assert it wrong.

 

[Skylar]

Not murder, not aggravated assault, not theft, violent crime, not property damage, not forcible rape, not any of the crimes you cited in your 'South Africa' fantasy.

United States Crime Rates1960 - 2013

All increased from the 80s to the 90s. Despite rising incarceration rates. I don't think 'causation' means what you think it means.

Try again. This time without abandoning your own standards.

Your link confirms my point. Thank you. Crime was at its height in 1980, declined until the mid 80s, came back up until 1990 than started going downwards through today.

Nope. You're just lying again.

United States Crime Rates1960 - 2013

In 1980, violent crime hit 1,344,520. This is what you call its 'height'. And you're a liar. As in 1986 it was 1,489,169. Higher than your 'height'. And the upward trend continued. By 1989 it was 1,646,040. By 1992 it was 1,932,270 .

Yet you continue to claim that it peaked at 1980. You're simply lying. And anyone can follow my link and see that you're a liar.

Total crime in 1980: 13,408,300
Total crime in 1990: 14,872,900

Total crime continued to rise. You lied.

Murder in 1980: 23,040
Murder in 1995: 24,530

Murder continued to rise. You lied.

Rape in 1980: 82,990
Rape in 1992: 109,060

Rape continued to rise. You lied.

Aggrivated assault in 1980: 672,650
Aggravated assault in 1994: 1,135,610

Aggravated assault continued to rise. You lied.

Robbery was higher. Property damage was higher. Contrary to my previous claim, even stolen cars was higher.

All while incarceration rates climbed for 25 years. And Crime climbed right along with it.

 

[reconmark]

And in comes your home invasion fantasy>

So are the 'rich whites' in black areas? Its a simple question that demonstrates the absurdity of your fear mongering.

Do try and answer it.

The rich whites here were killed by Blacks, don't know if this is your best example to prove whites are safer around blacks than whites.

And rich whites are killed by rich whites. You've already admitted that in a white community that greatest threat to white people is white people.

And yet your 'south africa' fearmongering fantasy, its blacks you need protection from in a white community. Despite the fact that you've already admitted its white people that kill white people in a white community.

You're contradicting yourself.

Sigh...again.

No I am not.

Of course you are. You've already conceded the argument, admitting that whites are the greatest threat to whites in white communities.

Making your fear mongering that BLACKS are who you need protection from in a white community an illogical, self contradictory mess.

As a white person is almost 5 times more likely to be murdered by a white person than he is black.

You lose again.

Murder rates are lower in White communities than Black communities. Whites are safer in white communities than in black communities or mixed race communities. Whites in White communities are also safer than blacks in black communities, and blacks are also safer in white or mixed race communities than they are in black ones. This is because blacks are more likely to murder overall.

And its within a white community you where your 'rich white' fantasy about South Africa is set. Where you've already admitted that Whites are the greatest threat to whites.

Yet in another ridiculous self contradiction, you insist in that white community its blacks you'll need security guards to protect you from.

Your fear mongering is an illogical mess.

There is nothing illogical. You are more likely to be murdered by those you are around than not around. Lets put it simply though. A white in a white community is less likely to be murdered than a White in a black or mixed race community. This is a fact. A White is safer in Burlington, VT than Baltimore. The less white a community is, the blacker it is, the less safe a white person is, and a black person is for that matter.

Really...your "arguments" are looking like this...

 

[Skylar]

You have

I reject your source as having any relevant experience to offer us 'correlative relationships' of race and crime. As he has no training in it. He's dropped out of school for theoretical physics.

Its not my obligation to disprove your WordPress blog. Its your obligation to prove him right. And you can't even establish relevant qualifications. What's next....a chemist? Perhaps a baker?

Sorry that isn't going to cut it. Your argument is just a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority.

And what 'authority' am I appealing to? Your authority is your wordpress blog. I reject it, as your source has no relevant training.

Just because he doesn't have your desired credential, which you haven't even specified, doesn't make him wrong.

Its not my obligation to prove him wrong. Its your obligation to prove him right. Feel free to do so. But lacking any relevant training, your source isn't an authority on the topic he's discussing. So you'll have a pretty high bar proving your Wordpress blog correct.

You may begin your attempt to do so. I suspect we'll get nothing but excuses from you on why you can't.

I am citing US Census and FBI data, not making an appeal to authority based on the credentials of ron unz.

I'm not contesting the FBI and US census numbers. As you already know. I'm rejecting Ron Unz's 'correlative relationships'. As he has no relevant training in anything he's discussing.

I'm not obligated to prove him wrong. You're obligated to prove your WordPress blog right.

And you can't.

See how that works?

No I am not, you made the claim he is wrong, you need to prove it, that is how it works.

I reject your source as an authority on the topic, as he lacks any relevant training. Its your obligation to prove your WordPress blog right. Not my obligation to prove it wrong.

You can't. You're done.

 

[reconmark]

Waiting on your 1.25 million black on white crimes per year link...anywhere in the near future???

 

[reconmark]

You have
Sorry that isn't going to cut it. Your argument is just a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority.

And what 'authority' am I appealing to? Your authority is your wordpress blog. I reject it, as your source has no relevant training.

Just because he doesn't have your desired credential, which you haven't even specified, doesn't make him wrong.

Its not my obligation to prove him wrong. Its your obligation to prove him right. Feel free to do so. But lacking any relevant training, your source isn't an authority on the topic he's discussing. So you'll have a pretty high bar proving your Wordpress blog correct.

You may begin your attempt to do so. I suspect we'll get nothing but excuses from you on why you can't.

I am citing US Census and FBI data, not making an appeal to authority based on the credentials of ron unz.

I'm not contesting the FBI and US census numbers. As you already know. I'm rejecting Ron Unz's 'correlative relationships'. As he has no relevant training in anything he's discussing.

I'm not obligated to prove him wrong. You're obligated to prove your WordPress blog right.

And you can't.

See how that works?

No I am not, you made the claim he is wrong, you need to prove it, that is how it works.

I reject your source as an authority on the topic, as he lacks any relevant training. Its your obligation to prove your WordPress blog right. Not my obligation to prove it wrong.

You can't. You're done.

Wait, wait...did you say a blog????...lol.

 

[Skylar]

And what 'authority' am I appealing to? Your authority is your wordpress blog. I reject it, as your source has no relevant training.

Its not my obligation to prove him wrong. Its your obligation to prove him right. Feel free to do so. But lacking any relevant training, your source isn't an authority on the topic he's discussing. So you'll have a pretty high bar proving your Wordpress blog correct.

You may begin your attempt to do so. I suspect we'll get nothing but excuses from you on why you can't.

I am citing US Census and FBI data, not making an appeal to authority based on the credentials of ron unz.

I'm not contesting the FBI and US census numbers. As you already know. I'm rejecting Ron Unz's 'correlative relationships'. As he has no relevant training in anything he's discussing.

I'm not obligated to prove him wrong. You're obligated to prove your WordPress blog right.

And you can't.

See how that works?

No I am not, you made the claim he is wrong, you need to prove it, that is how it works.

I reject your source as an authority on the topic, as he lacks any relevant training. Its your obligation to prove your WordPress blog right. Not my obligation to prove it wrong.

You can't. You're done.

Wait, wait...did you say a blog????...lol.

Yup. A WordPress blog. Where a guy who dropped out of theotical physics college had a blog about race and crime. A former republican gubinatorial candidate, no less.

And Stein insists we 'prove him wrong'. Given that his source has no relevant training of any kind, its Stein's obligation to prove his source right.

And he can't. Which is why he lost.

 

[Skylar]

The rich whites here were killed by Blacks, don't know if this is your best example to prove whites are safer around blacks than whites.

And rich whites are killed by rich whites. You've already admitted that in a white community that greatest threat to white people is white people.

And yet your 'south africa' fearmongering fantasy, its blacks you need protection from in a white community. Despite the fact that you've already admitted its white people that kill white people in a white community.

You're contradicting yourself.

Sigh...again.

No I am not.

Of course you are. You've already conceded the argument, admitting that whites are the greatest threat to whites in white communities.

Making your fear mongering that BLACKS are who you need protection from in a white community an illogical, self contradictory mess.

As a white person is almost 5 times more likely to be murdered by a white person than he is black.

You lose again.

Murder rates are lower in White communities than Black communities. Whites are safer in white communities than in black communities or mixed race communities. Whites in White communities are also safer than blacks in black communities, and blacks are also safer in white or mixed race communities than they are in black ones. This is because blacks are more likely to murder overall.

And its within a white community you where your 'rich white' fantasy about South Africa is set. Where you've already admitted that Whites are the greatest threat to whites.

Yet in another ridiculous self contradiction, you insist in that white community its blacks you'll need security guards to protect you from.

Your fear mongering is an illogical mess.

There is nothing illogical. You are more likely to be murdered by those you are around than not around. Lets put it simply though. A white in a white community is less likely to be murdered than a White in a black or mixed race community. This is a fact. A White is safer in Burlington, VT than Baltimore. The less white a community is, the blacker it is, the less safe a white person is, and a black person is for that matter.

Obviously there is. As you've already conceded that the greatest threat to white people in a white community is white people. Yet laughably insist in your little fantasy that its BLACK people that you need to be protected from in a white community. This despite the fact that a white person is almost 5 times more likely to be killed by a white person than a black one.

That's an illogical, self contradictory mess. Causation was clearly beyond you. And now logic appears just as remote.

 

[reconmark]

I am citing US Census and FBI data, not making an appeal to authority based on the credentials of ron unz.

I'm not contesting the FBI and US census numbers. As you already know. I'm rejecting Ron Unz's 'correlative relationships'. As he has no relevant training in anything he's discussing.

I'm not obligated to prove him wrong. You're obligated to prove your WordPress blog right.

And you can't.

See how that works?

No I am not, you made the claim he is wrong, you need to prove it, that is how it works.

I reject your source as an authority on the topic, as he lacks any relevant training. Its your obligation to prove your WordPress blog right. Not my obligation to prove it wrong.

You can't. You're done.

Wait, wait...did you say a blog????...lol.

Yup. A WordPress blog. Where a guy who dropped out of theotical physics college had a blog about race and crime. A former republican gubinatorial candidate, no less.

And Stein insists we 'prove him wrong'. Given that his source has no relevant training of any kind, its Stein's obligation to prove his source right.

And he can't. Which is why he lost.

Stein can't admit he is wrong, he doesn't possess that trait known as intellectual honesty...
He pulled that 1.25 million number from the swamps of murky logic and putrid racism and now is scampering for legitimate sources he can attempt to skew to back up his obvious lies...

 

[reconmark]

I have to admit, you have more patience at dealing with ignorance than I do...

 

[Steinlight]

Deny it all you like. All I have to do is quote you and you lose.


Then explain why incarceration rates increased for 25 years, increasing 4 fold.......and yet crime kept increasing for the same 25 years. Exactly opposite of what you insist should happen.

And I'm still waiting for you to back your bullshit that integration caused a rise in crime. You won't even address that steaming rhetorical pile now, let alone back it up. Can I assume its been tossed on the midden heap alongside 'incarceration is the only reason crime dropped over the last 30 years'?

If you're going to treat your claims like the garbage they are....surely you can understand when I treat them the same way.

And what 'potential factors are those'? You can't describe them. You can't name them. You can't factually back them.

That's just your imagination. And your imagination v. 25 years of history contradiction of your claims has the same winner every time:


.

You are the only one denying at this point, you claim the incarceration did not reduce crime 25% from the 90s on, but provided no proof. All you said was low rates in the increase of the incarceration rate didn't result in lower crime overall in the 70s and through the 80s on and off, therefore it is not possible for incarceration rates to reduce crime from the 90s on. But you didn't disprove it might have very well put downward pressure on crime in both scenarios.

Which 25 years? What 4 fold? Where are these numbers coming from you have yet to explain. The prison population doubled from 300,000 to roughly 600,000(100%) from 1960-1980. But has almost quadrupled(400% increase) since 1980 coinciding with the decline in crime.

Potential factors off the top of my head, abortion rate, gun ownership rate, overcrowidng, deindustrialization, drug addiction, drug use, poverty rate, education, perhaps states with lower incarceration had higher crime, soft criminal penalties locally, there could be a plethora of reasons. And the reality is, you can't prove that incarceration didn't keep downward pressure on crime. On one hand, you say a plethora of factors other than incarceration keep downward pressure on crime, yet you cannot admit factors could have the opposite effect. But the fact remains, the experts agree that incarceration put significant downward pressure on crime from the 90s onward. The reality is, you have no proof of what incarceration rates did either way in the 1970s and 80s. Whereas the experts admit higher incarceration in the 80s had the effect of lowering crime form the 90s onward.

 

[reconmark]

Deny it all you like. All I have to do is quote you and you lose.


Then explain why incarceration rates increased for 25 years, increasing 4 fold.......and yet crime kept increasing for the same 25 years. Exactly opposite of what you insist should happen.

And I'm still waiting for you to back your bullshit that integration caused a rise in crime. You won't even address that steaming rhetorical pile now, let alone back it up. Can I assume its been tossed on the midden heap alongside 'incarceration is the only reason crime dropped over the last 30 years'?

If you're going to treat your claims like the garbage they are....surely you can understand when I treat them the same way.

And what 'potential factors are those'? You can't describe them. You can't name them. You can't factually back them.

That's just your imagination. And your imagination v. 25 years of history contradiction of your claims has the same winner every time:


.

You are the only one denying at this point, you claim the incarceration did not reduce crime 25% from the 90s on, but provided no proof. All you said was low rates in the increase of the incarceration rate didn't result in lower crime overall in the 70s and through the 80s on and off, therefore it is not possible for incarceration rates to reduce crime from the 90s on. But you didn't disprove it might have very well put downward pressure on crime in both scenarios.

Which 25 years? What 4 fold? Where are these numbers coming from you have yet to explain. The prison population doubled from 300,000 to roughly 600,000(100%) from 1960-1980. But has almost quadrupled(400% increase) since 1980 coinciding with the decline in crime.

Potential factors off the top of my head, abortion rate, gun ownership rate, overcrowidng, deindustrialization, drug addiction, drug use, poverty rate, education, perhaps states with lower incarceration had higher crime, soft criminal penalties locally, there could be a plethora of reasons. And the reality is, you can't prove that incarceration didn't keep downward pressure on crime. On one hand, you say a plethora of factors other than incarceration keep downward pressure on crime, yet you cannot admit factors could have the opposite effect. But the fact remains, the experts agree that incarceration put significant downward pressure on crime from the 90s onward. The reality is, you have no proof of what incarceration rates did either way in the 1970s and 80s. Whereas the experts admit higher incarceration in the 80s had the effect of lowering crime form the 90s onward.

You just don't know when to quit do you????...where's the link for the 1.25 million Black on Whites crimes????

 

[Steinlight]

Not murder, not aggravated assault, not theft, violent crime, not property damage, not forcible rape, not any of the crimes you cited in your 'South Africa' fantasy.

United States Crime Rates1960 - 2013

All increased from the 80s to the 90s. Despite rising incarceration rates. I don't think 'causation' means what you think it means.

Try again. This time without abandoning your own standards.

Your link confirms my point. Thank you. Crime was at its height in 1980, declined until the mid 80s, came back up until 1990 than started going downwards through today.

Nope. You're just lying again.

United States Crime Rates1960 - 2013

In 1980, violent crime hit 1,344,520. This is what you call its 'height'. And you're a liar. As in 1986 it was 1,489,169. Higher than your 'height'. And the upward trend continued. By 1989 it was 1,646,040. By 1992 it was 1,932,270 .

Yet you continue to claim that it peaked at 1980. You're simply lying. And anyone can follow my link and see that you're a liar.

Total crime in 1980: 13,408,300
Total crime in 1990: 14,872,900

Total crime continued to rise. You lied.

Murder in 1980: 23,040
Murder in 1995: 24,530

Murder continued to rise. You lied.

Rape in 1980: 82,990
Rape in 1992: 109,060

Rape continued to rise. You lied.

Aggrivated assault in 1980: 672,650
Aggravated assault in 1994: 1,135,610

Aggravated assault continued to rise. You lied.

Robbery was higher. Property damage was higher. Contrary to my previous claim, even stolen cars was higher.

All while incarceration rates climbed for 25 years. And Crime climbed right along with it.

As a percentage as per the population it was lower. Total Crime was lower in 1980 than 1990 percentage wise. And in nominal terms, total crimes committed didn't reach 1980 levels until 1987, however the percentage as per the population was still lower due to population increase over the decade.

No lies all truth.

 

[Steinlight]

You have
Sorry that isn't going to cut it. Your argument is just a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority.

And what 'authority' am I appealing to? Your authority is your wordpress blog. I reject it, as your source has no relevant training.

Just because he doesn't have your desired credential, which you haven't even specified, doesn't make him wrong.

Its not my obligation to prove him wrong. Its your obligation to prove him right. Feel free to do so. But lacking any relevant training, your source isn't an authority on the topic he's discussing. So you'll have a pretty high bar proving your Wordpress blog correct.

You may begin your attempt to do so. I suspect we'll get nothing but excuses from you on why you can't.

I am citing US Census and FBI data, not making an appeal to authority based on the credentials of ron unz.

I'm not contesting the FBI and US census numbers. As you already know. I'm rejecting Ron Unz's 'correlative relationships'. As he has no relevant training in anything he's discussing.

I'm not obligated to prove him wrong. You're obligated to prove your WordPress blog right.

And you can't.

See how that works?

No I am not, you made the claim he is wrong, you need to prove it, that is how it works.

I reject your source as an authority on the topic, as he lacks any relevant training. Its your obligation to prove your WordPress blog right. Not my obligation to prove it wrong.

You can't. You're done.

Once you reject it, the onus is on you to prove its invalidity.

Since you can't even verbalize an objection to it beyond your fallacious credentialism argument, the object holds no weight.

Just be honest and admit you have actual argument against the methodology he used. Though I doubt you even read the article.

 

[Steinlight]

The rich whites here were killed by Blacks, don't know if this is your best example to prove whites are safer around blacks than whites.

And rich whites are killed by rich whites. You've already admitted that in a white community that greatest threat to white people is white people.

And yet your 'south africa' fearmongering fantasy, its blacks you need protection from in a white community. Despite the fact that you've already admitted its white people that kill white people in a white community.

You're contradicting yourself.

Sigh...again.

No I am not.

Of course you are. You've already conceded the argument, admitting that whites are the greatest threat to whites in white communities.

Making your fear mongering that BLACKS are who you need protection from in a white community an illogical, self contradictory mess.

As a white person is almost 5 times more likely to be murdered by a white person than he is black.

You lose again.

Murder rates are lower in White communities than Black communities. Whites are safer in white communities than in black communities or mixed race communities. Whites in White communities are also safer than blacks in black communities, and blacks are also safer in white or mixed race communities than they are in black ones. This is because blacks are more likely to murder overall.

And its within a white community you where your 'rich white' fantasy about South Africa is set. Where you've already admitted that Whites are the greatest threat to whites.

Yet in another ridiculous self contradiction, you insist in that white community its blacks you'll need security guards to protect you from.

Your fear mongering is an illogical mess.

There is nothing illogical. You are more likely to be murdered by those you are around than not around. Lets put it simply though. A white in a white community is less likely to be murdered than a White in a black or mixed race community. This is a fact. A White is safer in Burlington, VT than Baltimore. The less white a community is, the blacker it is, the less safe a white person is, and a black person is for that matter.

Obviously there is. As you've already conceded that the greatest threat to white people in a white community is white people. Yet laughably insist in your little fantasy that its BLACK people that you need to be protected from in a white community. This despite the fact that a white person is almost 5 times more likely to be killed by a white person than a black one.

That's an illogical, self contradictory mess. Causation was clearly beyond you. And now logic appears just as remote.

Are whites safer in white communities or black ones?

Just answer the question and stop avoiding it.

 

[bodecea]

Look at some of the posters here...so desperate to have a war, any war....

 

[Brain357]

And rich whites are killed by rich whites. You've already admitted that in a white community that greatest threat to white people is white people.

And yet your 'south africa' fearmongering fantasy, its blacks you need protection from in a white community. Despite the fact that you've already admitted its white people that kill white people in a white community.

You're contradicting yourself.

Sigh...again.

No I am not.

Of course you are. You've already conceded the argument, admitting that whites are the greatest threat to whites in white communities.

Making your fear mongering that BLACKS are who you need protection from in a white community an illogical, self contradictory mess.

As a white person is almost 5 times more likely to be murdered by a white person than he is black.

You lose again.

Murder rates are lower in White communities than Black communities. Whites are safer in white communities than in black communities or mixed race communities. Whites in White communities are also safer than blacks in black communities, and blacks are also safer in white or mixed race communities than they are in black ones. This is because blacks are more likely to murder overall.

And its within a white community you where your 'rich white' fantasy about South Africa is set. Where you've already admitted that Whites are the greatest threat to whites.

Yet in another ridiculous self contradiction, you insist in that white community its blacks you'll need security guards to protect you from.

Your fear mongering is an illogical mess.

There is nothing illogical. You are more likely to be murdered by those you are around than not around. Lets put it simply though. A white in a white community is less likely to be murdered than a White in a black or mixed race community. This is a fact. A White is safer in Burlington, VT than Baltimore. The less white a community is, the blacker it is, the less safe a white person is, and a black person is for that matter.

Obviously there is. As you've already conceded that the greatest threat to white people in a white community is white people. Yet laughably insist in your little fantasy that its BLACK people that you need to be protected from in a white community. This despite the fact that a white person is almost 5 times more likely to be killed by a white person than a black one.

That's an illogical, self contradictory mess. Causation was clearly beyond you. And now logic appears just as remote.

Are whites safer in white communities or black ones?

Just answer the question and stop avoiding it.

It's more about income. Are you safer in a neighborhood with high incomes? Probably.