LA Votes in Favor of Arizona Boycott

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This coming from the little girl who thinks simply saying someone is wrong, surely means that they are wrong. Don't worry about every having to prove your stance. That fact is that they are wrong, period.

Dude look in the mirror. What you accuse me of doing is actually what you do. Any thread you come into you will use "Deflection, deviation, obfuscation. Rinse repeat"

Furthermore, you couldn't answer a direct question if your life depended on it.

I have explained it to you BY.

You have claimed that the problems in black communities are squarely the result of black people being deficient and incompetent - and you have made reference to corrupt nations in Africa as a way of saying that they have always been this way.

Now I could go back and quote the posts (though it would take me more time to dig them out of the archive than I'm prepared to put into it), but here is me saying "this is why I think you are racist, and here is one example of what I am talking about".

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There is plenty you can learn about GANG MEMBERS from such statistics, what you can not deduce is the likelihood of a random latino being a gang member, try as you might to make that connection. The reason being, the very small % of the population that are gang members period. I do not expect a break through on this for you, because you are wedded to that graphic because it confirms all your little prejudices but, for those that get statistics, it is plain for all to see, your little graph is a crock.

I have one for you:

100% of white supremacists/KKK members are white caucasian.

73% of the US population are white caucasian.

What can we draw from this - that if a cop pulls over a white guy that more likely than not he is a White Supremacist. Boo-Yah! Hat-trick!

(Not)

[Empress of Groovy 373]

Smoke's point is still valid, as is mine. Had a study been commissioned by the KKK, you guys would cry murder and discredit if off the bat. The only reason you see no issue with this is because it's a minority organization promoting their race. As I have come to know, that is more than acceptable in the US. Exact same groups being Caucasians = KKK racism period.

Easy cowboy, I haven't expressed an opinion. I was noting that your comment about the location of the third party that administered the survey is irrelevant--and in fact indicates a lack of understanding about how surveys are conducted. But please carry on...

[Marilyn. 340]

There were at least 30,000 gangs and 800,000 gang members active across the USA in 2007,[7][8] up from 731,500 in 2002 and 750,000 in 2004.[9] By 1999, Hispanics accounted for 47% of all gang members, Blacks 34%, Whites 13%, and Asians 7%.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangs_in_the_United_States

so that means roughly 400,000 gang members are Hispanic...

as of 2005 there were about 42,687,224 Hispanic or Latinos living in the US..

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762156.html

so if my calculations are correct that means about .93% of Hispanics are in a gang...

[EmVee 4]

Without getting you kids too riled up again, this article (taken from a conservative San Diego newspaper) nicely sums up my opinion of the new law;

Trying to fix a broken law

Amendments to Arizona immigration law fall short

Tuesday, May 11, 2010 at 12:02 a.m.

As a rule of thumb in politics, it’s not a good sign when a law has to be fixed before the ink is even dry on the governor’s signature on the original bill. That’s what happened recently in Arizona, where backers of the controversial law that deputizes local police to enforce federal immigration law by cracking down on people they reasonably suspect are in the country illegally (read: Latinos) claim that the original law signed by Gov. Jan Brewer has now been stamped “new and improved.”

Just one week after Brewer signed SB 1070, apparently without reading the bill or understanding it – another bad sign – she took a mulligan and approved changes intended to address concerns about the potential for racial and ethnic profiling.

One change among the revisions is that police officers can prowl for illegal immigrants only in the course of enforcing some other law or ordinance. In the original law, all that was required was “lawful contact.” Another change is that now the state attorney general or a county attorney cannot investigate complaints about possible illegal immigrants based on a person’s race, color or national origin. The original law allowed for race, color and national origin to be considered among several factors and only prohibited law enforcement from focusing “solely” on those characteristics.

In theory, those sound like reasonable changes that would make the law better and help prevent abuse. But in practice, they look more like political window dressing. For instance, how in the world are prosecutors supposed to prove that a police officer began an inquiry into someone’s legal status based on race? There is too much wiggle room there. In the real world of policing, it’s impossible for law enforcement officers – particularly those who lack the specialized training given to Border Patrol agents – to decipher one’s legal status without taking race and ethnicity into account. Anyone who claims otherwise lives in a fantasyland.

Besides, there is one additional change that arguably makes the law even more dangerous than it was before – and more prone to abuse. That change says that the requirement at the heart of SB 1070 – that police officers determine the immigration status of an individual who they have a “reasonable suspicion” is in the country illegally – extends to those instances where police respond to something as minor as city ordinance violations. That could include loud parties, barking dogs, cars on blocks or overcrowded apartments. Imagine overzealous neighbors turning in the person next door for having a party and the music is too loud. Is that the kind of hard-core criminal activity the law was intended to prevent?

This kind of overly broad language is a recipe for trouble. And Arizona has already borrowed more than its share of that. Think this law has been patched up? Think again. It’s just sprung another leak. And it’s going to keep springing them because, when a piece of legislation is this broken, there is no quick fix.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

All good and well but not one person has proven me wrong on any crime related issue I have raised.

:whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle:

[Heracles 417]

I have one for you:

100% of white supremacists/KKK members are white caucasian.

73% of the US population are white caucasian.

What can we draw from this - that if a cop pulls over a white guy that more likely than not he is a White Supremacist. Boo-Yah! Hat-trick!

This is the best thing you have posted in four years, as it demonstrates that uou don't understand squat. Furthermore, have no deductive reasoning or knowledge regarding statistics

whatsoever.

Actually my example would have been more along the lines of (and this is a guess):

Consider:

• 90% of serial killers being Caucasian - while 73% of the population being Caucasian
  
• While, 5% of the serial killers are Hispanic - while they constitute 12% of the population.
  

Therefore, what can a fifth grader deduce from this data?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

70% of Arizonans support the law. Who cares what race or ethnic group they are, they're right to support it. Who cares what LA thinks? Their leaders have ruined a once glorious state and haven't shown much intelligence in decades.

Yay, Arizona! Screw political correctness and LA! Do what's best for your citizens. If only Barry would, we'd all be better off for it.

The only thing this proves is 70% of Arizonans are stupid or racist. Take your pick.

This issue, and this law, have NOTHING to do with murder, drug dealers, violence crossing the border or 4th amendment rights. Any such arguments are diversions by racists who want to keep brown people subservient, keep them dependent on the government, avoid the labor laws our congress passes to protect workers, etc. OR they are put forth by stupid people that have no clue what they are talking about.

Anyone who "defends" the rights of illegals to be free from searches, but has no problem with them working on roofs without safety harnesses is a racist. Anyone who wants to exploit them for cheap labor is a racist. Anyone who believes we should have a minimum wage...but not for illegals is a racist. Anyone who thinks we should have workman's comp but not for illegals is a racist.

Anyone that thinks this is anything but an economical problem is stupid. Anyone that thinks any "solution" other than an economical one will do anything is either stupid or a racist covering his motives of human exploitation.

This issue generates the most stupid comments by otherwise sane people that any issue generates.

Criminal activity is regulated by criminal laws. Not by immigration laws. We have all the laws necessary to arrest and detain people engaged in criminal activity whether they are illegally present or US citizens. One's immigration stauts has absolutely zero to do with whether one is engaged in otrher criminal activity and absolutely zero to do with whether they can be detained, asked for ID or arrested.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This is the best thing you have posted in four years, as it demonstrates that uou don't understand squat. Furthermore, have no deductive reasoning or knowledge regarding statistics whatsoever.

BY, the "example" I posted was to show how utterly ridiculous your argument is.

You talk about deductive reasoning as if it amounts to little more than innuendo bolstered up by a flawed interpretation of statistics.

But have it your way - please tell me what I should "deduce" from your example. I promise I won't laugh (too hard).

Edited May 13, 2010 by Its a MADHOUSE

[EmVee 4]

Criminal activity is regulated by criminal laws. Not by immigration laws. We have all the laws necessary to arrest and detain people engaged in criminal activity whether they are illegally present or US citizens. One's immigration stauts has absolutely zero to do with whether one is engaged in otrher criminal activity and absolutely zero to do with whether they can be detained, asked for ID or arrested.

This is the most intelligent thing I have seen posted in this thread thus far.

It's absolutely mystifying to me that 70% of Arizona seem to be unaware there are actually ALREADY criminal laws in place that deal with criminals. Even brown ones.

[Marilyn. 340]

There were at least 30,000 gangs and 800,000 gang members active across the USA in 2007,[7][8] up from 731,500 in 2002 and 750,000 in 2004.[9] By 1999, Hispanics accounted for 47% of all gang members, Blacks 34%, Whites 13%, and Asians 7%.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangs_in_the_United_States

so that means roughly 400,000 gang members are Hispanic...

as of 2005 there were about 42,687,224 Hispanic or Latinos living in the US..

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762156.html

so if my calculations are correct that means about .93% of Hispanics are in a gang...

just bumping this up in case it was missed...

Edited May 13, 2010 by Marilyn.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

just bumping this up in case it was missed...

You were incorrect. It is 0.94% (rounded up)

[Marilyn. 340]

You were incorrect. It is 0.94% (rounded up)

actaully it might be a little higher .. I was reading a more recent report and they say there are about 1000000 gang members as of 2009.. but that still only means that about 1.2% of Hispanics are gang members

[Heracles 417]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangs_in_the_United_States

so that means roughly 400,000 gang members are Hispanic...

as of 2005 there were about 42,687,224 Hispanic or Latinos living in the US..

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762156.html

so if my calculations are correct that means about .93% of Hispanics are in a gang...

Okay lets use your stats, as I cannot be bothered finding the .gov website used for the other stats- which shows the level to now be 50% vs 11%

42,687,224/400,000 = 106

237,854,954/(800,000*.13) = 2,287

Every 1 in 106 Hispanics is in a gang.

In comparison, 1 in 2,287 Caucasians is in a gang

2287/106 = 21.57

Hispanics are ~22 times more likely to be in a gang than Caucasians.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Booyah!

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Several posts containing offensive language and insults unacceptable even by OT standards have been removed, along with posts quoting same. Acceptable parts of the removed posts are returned to the thread below. Please refrain from insulting each other and making personal attacks - they really add nothing to the thread and are unconvincing arguments:

Its a MADHOUSE: Personal anecdotes are not unvarnished fact. You don't seem to understand the distinction.

We've been here many many times before - you'll write off entire populations of people based on something that you heard from your father's best friend's room-mate.

Rob and Mel: (edited) BY, just stop trying to pass off the opinion of one person as some lengthy study. It's not, get over it. That's not to say that it's meaningless, but it doesn't carry the same weight as say, research that has a methodology beyond chatting up some cop who is writtng you a parking citation.

Booyah: (edited) Dude look in the mirror. What you accuse me of doing is actually what you do. Any thread you come into you will use "Deflection, deviation, obfuscation. "

Edited May 13, 2010 by Kathryn41