WWTBAM Bored

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:And every person killed by an illegal alien is their fault.

And lots of other people who are killed by known criminals and other bad characters are the fault of the police as well. No one is perfect, although we tend to look to assess blame in any sensational crime. The question isn't whether the police could have caught a particular criminal if they had done things differently; the question is whether they are making the best use of limited resources, funds, and manpower. And as long as illegal immigrants represent less of a danger than others, we should be allocating the resources on the greater dangers rather than the lesser.

But this isn't about the wall and you know it Flock. It's about Donald Trump's ego, pure and simple. And he's got enough yahoos like you in his corner egging him on here with visions of dark skinned rapists, terrorists, gang bangers, and murderers coming over in droves to wreak havoc on the rest of us.

Please provide factual evidence that it's all about trump's ego. I don't know that. Please prove it to me. A valid counter argument can be that it's all about your hatred for trump and all the things that you think he represents, many of which I know are completely wrong. I know that because you have given many examples of what you think I represent which have been 180% wrong.

Also, please explain why you are so concerned about the color of someone's skin.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: I don't know that. Please prove it to me.

Proving anything to you is impossible unless Trump decides to confess some day, which I highly doubt will happen. You label everything fake news or bias or anti-Trump syndrome.

But the fact remains that a funding measure had passed that Trump agreed to and then the right-wing media flaks like Ingraham and Limbaugh got on his case and he changed his mind overnight. And that's how we got in this current mess.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Spock wrote: Interesting that neither SSS or Bob#'s have touched on the fact that our violent inner cities skew the results of any comparison between native-born and immigrants from Latin America.

Ooops, another preconception goes down:

https://thecrimereport.org/2018/05/14/r ... s-average/

One big reason that the crime rate in urban areas is high is that, by definition, you have more people in close proximity to each other, making for more opportunities for violent altercations. I have several hundred people who live within a couple of blocks of me. How many people do you live close to, Spock?

You just love making assumptions based on preconceptions.

Re-Population density. I don't know WTF you are talking about. Even within Chicago; your premise is full of crap. Presumably, most Chicago neighborhoods have roughly the same population density, but a few neighborhoods in the south and west sides are exponentially more violent than the other neighborhoods.

Hong Kong and Singapore are 2 of the densest populated areas on earth, but crime in Singapore is so low that some storekeepers don't even bother to lock their doors.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/16/singapo ... ck-up.html

Try again.

Fun Fact: Baltimore and North Dakota have roughly the same population. In 2017; Baltimore had 342 murders and North Dakota had 12. But by all means; lets keep prattling on about how North Dakotans are more violent than illegal immigrants from Latin America.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryl ... story.html

https://www.kxnet.com/news/bismarck-new ... 1263383835

Just come over to the dark side and admit the fact that our violent inner cities violently (pun intended) skew the results of any crime comparison between native-born citizens and illegal immigrants from Latin America.

Spock wrote: Just come over to the dark side and admit the fact that our violent inner cities violently (pun intended) skew the results of any crime comparison between native-born citizens and illegal immigrants from Latin America.

I'm not sure what your point is. You're mixing apples and oranges here. The crime rate in inner cities has nothing to with the crime rate of illegal immigrants vs. native borns, so there's nothing to "skew." In fact, most illegal immigrants do wind up in large urban areas, so they would be part of those high crime demographics.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... mmigrants/

SSS>>>"In fact, most illegal immigrants do wind up in large urban areas, so they would be part of those high crime demographics."<<<

Interesting concession that illegal immigrants are part of a high crime demographic.

Spock wrote:SSS>>>"In fact, most illegal immigrants do wind up in large urban areas, so they would be part of those high crime demographics."<<<

Interesting concession that illegal immigrants are part of a high crime demographic.

So are gun owners. And probably at a higher rate than the general population, which isn't something you can say about immigrants, whether authorized or not. What's your point? --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Spock wrote:SSS>>>"In fact, most illegal immigrants do wind up in large urban areas, so they would be part of those high crime demographics."<<<

Interesting concession that illegal immigrants are part of a high crime demographic.

So are gun owners. And probably at a higher rate than the general population, which isn't something you can say about immigrants, whether authorized or not. What's your point? --Bob

The rate of gun ownership in North Dakota is far above the national average. It is still not a high-crime demographic-try again.

Now, people with guns in the south and west sides of Chicago are a high crime demographic.

Also, illegal aliens are not just a crime problem in the big cities-as VDH has documented they are also a high crime demographic in the Central Valley.

Hey, you are the math guy and the one that has been trumpeting studies about how native -born citizens are more violent than illegal aliens from Latin America.

When a Baltimore is more violent that 25 North Dakotas, your studies looking at the country as a whole aren't worth toilet paper.

Spock wrote: When a Baltimore is more violent that 25 North Dakotas, your studies looking at the country as a whole aren't worth toilet paper.

Spock if you would just attempt to make one point instead of jumping around to 40 or 50 different points, then your arguments might be easier to follow.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Spock wrote: When a Baltimore is more violent that 25 North Dakotas, your studies looking at the country as a whole aren't worth toilet paper.

Spock if you would just attempt to make one point instead of jumping around to 40 or 50 different points, then your arguments might be easier to follow.

You must not be a mind map sort, too linear.

Bob78164 wrote:

Spock wrote:SSS>>>"In fact, most illegal immigrants do wind up in large urban areas, so they would be part of those high crime demographics."<<<

Interesting concession that illegal immigrants are part of a high crime demographic.

So are gun owners. And probably at a higher rate than the general population, which isn't something you can say about immigrants, whether authorized or not. What's your point? --Bob

So are gun owners....what? Part of a higher crime demographic? Where are you getting your "fact"?

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Spock wrote:SSS>>>"In fact, most illegal immigrants do wind up in large urban areas, so they would be part of those high crime demographics."<<<

Interesting concession that illegal immigrants are part of a high crime demographic.

So are gun owners. And probably at a higher rate than the general population, which isn't something you can say about immigrants, whether authorized or not. What's your point? --Bob

So are gun owners....what? Part of a higher crime demographic? Where are you getting your "fact"?

They certainly commit gun crimes at a higher rate than do non-gun owners. But in contrast to outrage about letting immigrants (who are statistically safer to their neighbors than are citizens) into the country, the conservatives in this thread don't seem to want to do anything to reduce gun use. --Bob

I really can't tell what your point is here, Spock. If you're saying we should use a wall to keep out the "bad" immigrants while allowing the "good" ones in, you need to explain why a wall would help us perform the task of separating "bad" immigrants from "good" immigrants better than we're already doing. Actually, you need to explain why it would help us improve our sorting so much that it's worth $5 billion, and why that $5 billion couldn't be better used elsewhere to improve the quality of Americans' lives.

If you're saying we should use a wall to keep out all immigrants so we can be sure the "bad" ones don't get in, you need to explain why we're better off without immigrants than we are with them. I don't think there is any such explanation.

My point is that there's a relatively easy way to cut drastically down on gun crimes, one that's proven to work elsewhere in the world, but in contrast to the immigration debate (where you seem to be advocating solutions that won't work to problems that don't actually exist), you find the obvious solution to gun violence anathema. That suggests to me that problem-solving isn't what's motivating you and that what is motivating you is simply an unexplained desire to reduce immigration. --Bob

To spell it out simply for 2 attorneys.

My main focus as the thread developed has been to establish that any comparison of crime rates between native-born citizens and illegal immigrants from Latin America is not worth toilet paper if you are using the whole country.

Baltimore and North Dakota averaged 180 murders each in 2017; and thus North Dakotans are more violent than illegal aliens from Latin America is not a valid result of any comparison.

Remember the actual numbers are 342 (or so) and 12.

Spock wrote:To spell it out simply for 2 attorneys.

My main focus as the thread developed has been to establish that any comparison of crime rates between native-born citizens and illegal immigrants from Latin America is not worth toilet paper if you are using the whole country.

Baltimore and North Dakota averaged 180 murders in 2017; and thus North Dakotans are more violent than illegal aliens from Latin America is not a valid result of any comparison.

It seems like you're wrong as a matter of mathematics. If (as the numbers demonstrate) unauthorized immigrants commit fewer violent crimes than do citizens, and if (as I think you're suggesting and as I would expect to be the case) unauthorized immigrants preferentially move to urban areas that suffer more violent crimes per capita than the national average, it follows that nationwide statistics understate the comparative advantage of unauthorized aliens in this statistic. Which doesn't seem to me to be the point you're trying to make, but numbers don't lie. --Bob

In other news, now Donny is trying to justify the wall by claiming that unauthorized immigrants are pedophiles. Can the blood libel be far behind? --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:In other news, now Donny is trying to justify the wall by claiming that unauthorized immigrants are pedophiles. Can the blood libel be far behind? --Bob

Maybe we should check if that guy in Wisconsin is an illegal immigrant.

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote: So are gun owners....what? Part of a higher crime demographic? Where are you getting your "fact"?

They certainly commit gun crimes at a higher rate than do non-gun owners.

That's not a very good retraction, in fact it is terrible (and moronic), but it is a retraction. You get partial credit.

Bob78164 wrote:In other news, now Donny is trying to justify the wall by claiming that unauthorized immigrants are pedophiles. Can the blood libel be far behind? --Bob

Some are. He is correct.

Bob78164 wrote:In other news, now Donny is trying to justify the wall by claiming that unauthorized immigrants are pedophiles. Can the blood libel be far behind? --Bob

You are a nasty man.

Bob78164 wrote:

Spock wrote:To spell it out simply for 2 attorneys.

My main focus as the thread developed has been to establish that any comparison of crime rates between native-born citizens and illegal immigrants from Latin America is not worth toilet paper if you are using the whole country.

Baltimore and North Dakota averaged 180 murders in 2017; and thus North Dakotans are more violent than illegal aliens from Latin America is not a valid result of any comparison.

It seems like you're wrong as a matter of mathematics. If (as the numbers demonstrate) unauthorized immigrants commit fewer violent crimes than do citizens, and if (as I think you're suggesting and as I would expect to be the case) unauthorized immigrants preferentially move to urban areas that suffer more violent crimes per capita than the national average, it follows that nationwide statistics understate the comparative advantage of unauthorized aliens in this statistic. Which doesn't seem to me to be the point you're trying to make, but numbers don't lie. --Bob

See, I am a splitter, you are a lumper.

You say "citizens commit more violent crimes than illegal aliens from Latin America.".

I ask "Which citizens? Where?" etc.

You say "Citizens."

I ask "Do natural born citizens in middle class black neighborhoods in the Atlanta suburbs commit more violent crimes than illegal aliens from Latin America?" I would think not-but it would be interesting to know the answer.

You say "Citizens."

I (go to knock my head against the wall for awhile.)

Spock wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Spock wrote:To spell it out simply for 2 attorneys.

My main focus as the thread developed has been to establish that any comparison of crime rates between native-born citizens and illegal immigrants from Latin America is not worth toilet paper if you are using the whole country.

Baltimore and North Dakota averaged 180 murders in 2017; and thus North Dakotans are more violent than illegal aliens from Latin America is not a valid result of any comparison.

It seems like you're wrong as a matter of mathematics. If (as the numbers demonstrate) unauthorized immigrants commit fewer violent crimes than do citizens, and if (as I think you're suggesting and as I would expect to be the case) unauthorized immigrants preferentially move to urban areas that suffer more violent crimes per capita than the national average, it follows that nationwide statistics understate the comparative advantage of unauthorized aliens in this statistic. Which doesn't seem to me to be the point you're trying to make, but numbers don't lie. --Bob

See, I am a splitter, you are a lumper.

You say "citizens commit more violent crimes than illegal aliens from Latin America.".

I ask "Which citizens? Where?" etc.

You say "Citizens."

I ask "Do natural born citizens in middle class black neighborhoods in the Atlanta suburbs commit more violent crimes than illegal aliens from Latin America?" I would think not-but it would be interesting to know the answer.

You say "All Citizens."

I (go to knock my head against the wall for awhile.)

You're not following the math. Assuming that unauthorized immigrants preferentially locate in urban areas which are higher in violent crime (per capita) than the rest of America, then as a matter of mathematics it must follow from the fact that unauthorized immigrants as a whole are more law-abiding than are citizens (a fact that multiple studies have confirmed) that unauthorized immigrants in urban areas are even more law-abiding than are citizens in urban areas.

And when you say "I would think not," that right there is why I think you have unjustified preconceptions about Latinos. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Spock wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:It seems like you're wrong as a matter of mathematics. If (as the numbers demonstrate) unauthorized immigrants commit fewer violent crimes than do citizens, and if (as I think you're suggesting and as I would expect to be the case) unauthorized immigrants preferentially move to urban areas that suffer more violent crimes per capita than the national average, it follows that nationwide statistics understate the comparative advantage of unauthorized aliens in this statistic. Which doesn't seem to me to be the point you're trying to make, but numbers don't lie. --Bob

See, I am a splitter, you are a lumper.

You say "citizens commit more violent crimes than illegal aliens from Latin America.".

I ask "Which citizens? Where?" etc.

You say "Citizens."

I ask "Do natural born citizens in middle class black neighborhoods in the Atlanta suburbs commit more violent crimes than illegal aliens from Latin America?" I would think not-but it would be interesting to know the answer.

You say "All Citizens."

I (go to knock my head against the wall for awhile.)

You're not following the math. Assuming that unauthorized immigrants preferentially locate in urban areas which are higher in violent crime (per capita) than the rest of America, then as a matter of mathematics it must follow from the fact that unauthorized immigrants as a whole are more law-abiding than are citizens (a fact that multiple studies have confirmed) that unauthorized immigrants in urban areas are even more law-abiding than are citizens in urban areas.

And when you say "I would think not," that right there is why I think you have unjustified preconceptions about Latinos. --Bob

Given that you just said a few posts a go said "Probably at a higher rate" you probably need to cut me some slack on "I would think not."

I apologize for presuming that citizens in middle-class black neighborhoods are more law-abiding than ILLEGAL immigrants from Latin America.

You do know that not all black neighborhoods have Baltimore-style crime rates?

Spock wrote:
I apologize for presuming that citizens in middle-class black neighborhoods are more law-abiding than ILLEGAL immigrants from Latin America.

You do know that not all black neighborhoods have Baltimore-style crime rates?

You are combining two variable here to try to make some kind of point. It's as if I said whites statistically make more than blacks and you said well what about black NBA players and white day laborers?

Since you are so big on setting up what ifs, do you have any statistics that indicate that illegal immigrants in any particular part of the country have higher crime rates than native borns in the same part of the country. No comparing North Dakota to Baltimore and then inventing some statistics that might support your analysis.

What was the crime rate for illegal immigrants vs. native born in North Dakota (or in Baltimore for that matter). You are presuming because you've come to your conclusions about the crime rates among illegals.

I live in a middle class neighborhood that I'm pretty sure has a lot of illegal immigrants. I don't view them as a high crime threat. But since you're the one making these presumptions, it would behoove you to have some statistics to back that up.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: So aSSShole, you're now branching out to calling Spock a racist. You are despicable. You have absolutely nothing to base your opinions on other than your own hatefulness.

And his own words. And for the record, I didn't say racist. You did. You like to throw that term around so you can claim it doesn't apply to you and act aggrieved.

Here's a person who reminded me of you.



It's just so easy to use these manufactured politically correct concepts to try and shut down a rational debate. You do it all the time, and you don't realize how OFFENSIVE it is. You know NOTHING about me, you know nothing about Spock, and you know nothing about the other people you have accused of one 'ism' or another. What I wonder is how are YOU exempt? Is it because you are in the dem party? Because you say you are a liberal? Or is it just because you know you are better than everyone else?

flockofseagulls104 wrote:It's just so easy to use these manufactured politically correct concepts to try and shut down a rational debate. You do it all the time, and you don't realize how OFFENSIVE it is.

I find this profoundly amusing coming from someone whose first response whenever someone criticizes Trump is to start shouting "fake news" and "liberal media" and bringing up whatever right wing talking point of the day is.