Are You *ANGRY*, Yet?!?
John A. Quayle
blueoval57 at VERIZON.NET
Wed Oct 24 23:43:34 MDT 2007
At 05:57 PM 10/24/2007, Stephen A. Frye wrote:
>I do not claim they equate, but there is more crime in the ghetto
>than in the rich neighborhoods.
Then, explain to me Stephen, why there is more crime in the
inner cities than in the deep south? Have you ever seen some of the
horrendous ram-shackle huts that whites AND blacks call home in
places like Guntown (MS) or Sumrall (MS)?
> Cite your own stats of searching the prisons. Most prisoners are
> from what we would classify as impoverished.
That's mainly (but certainly not solely) because the
impoverished cannot hire the OJ "Dream Team" to help them mount a
legal defense. The more affluent get away with more because they have
access to legal defenders.
>In fact, your claim about Peruvians, Jamaicans, etc cites that.
Here's the prior post: "I'm not trying to paint Mexicans
with the same broad brush, but I WILL say that one won't find as many
Peruvians, Guatemalans, Jamaicans (and so forth) in American prisons
now as will they find Mexicans. Make of that whatever you will."
>Nonetheless, the exact same argument you write here about Mexicans
>was used in this exact same group about blacks before Mexicans rose
>to the top of the hit list.
Tell me, then, Stephen............why are there no white
gangs on the same order as Crips/Bloods and MS-13? The 1950s was the
era of white gangs. There aren't any white gangs. There aren't any
American Indian gangs, either. American Indians have had it REALLY
rough for the last 100 years.
>And of course we wont find as many Peruvians, Guatamalans etc in
>American prisons as we do Mexicans. there are fewer of them here!
Do you have definite figures for this claim?
>> Coincidence. There are gangs in China - some of the most
>> notorious gangs on the planet. Under Communism, EVERYBODY lives in
>> poverty, basically - except the Communist party bosses and their
>> kin. Why isn't EVERYBODY a gang member in China? Secondly, why
>> don't the gangs overthrow the repressive Communist government?
>> Here, in the United States, gang exploits have gone digital.
>> Crips, Bloods, MS-13, 18th Street and others have staked claims on
>> various corners of cyberspace. "Web bangers" are posting
>> potentially incriminating photos of members holding guns, messages
>> taunting other gangs and boasts of illegal exploits on personal
>> Web sites and social networking sites. Here's the rest of that AP
>> story <
>> >. The point here is if a gang thug can boast of his hideous
>> escapades on-line, that means he's got a computer and therefore,
>> isn't really impoverished as much as one might think.
>Coincidence? I don't think so.
Then, why aren't there street gangs in Mississippi, Arkansas
or Louisiana? Are the impoverished and "desperate" all trapped in the
inner cities in places Chicago, New York, Baltimore, San Francisco
and Los Angeles?
>But I do agree that if we indeed accept that premise, (no relation
>between poverty and gangs), then we have provided ourselves an out
>for not trying to correct the problem before it happens rather than
>punishing it afterwards. It lets us off the hook.
How so? Does throwing money at the inner city actually
CORRECT the street gang problem through some sort of prevention?
>>>Desperate people do desperate things. No, it is not limited to
>>>poverty. Nor is it limited to Mexicans.
>> IDIOTS kill each other and brag about it. Often, drugs and
>> alcohol play a major part. Poor academic performance and truancy
>> also play a big part. So does peer pressure, childhood aggressive
>> (read: "violent") behavior, single parent homes, being abandoned
>> by Mom & Dad to be raised by Grandma & Grandpa, social
>> depravation/isolation - yet, all of these things combined still do
>> NOT guarantee a kid will be a gang member.
>There are no guarantees - ever (save death and taxes.) I never made
>a claim to the contrary.
I'm just pointing out that even the best-known causes of
gang membership don't always mean that gangs are an inevitable consequence.
>>>And don't go off the deep end being so sure you have seen the
>>>worst there is to see.
>> I didn't before, although I don't know how much worse
>> conditions can be than those I witnessed in Jamaica. I was making
>> a point - one that you simply refuse to accept.
>Come on, John. You're above this.
Above WHAT? Calling another out on a mistaken notion?
>>>You know nothing about me and what I have seen and what I have
>>>not. Don't set yourself up as being so special. We ALL have
>>>history and experiences.
>> Go back and re-read what's written, instead of what you
>> think you saw there. I did not say what you have or haven't seen.
>> I DID say that nobody in America - regardless of social/economic
>> strata - can compare to what's in the DR, Jamaica, Curacao and
>> other Caribbean islands
>And so I repeat - BFD. Makes no difference.
So, WHERE are the gangs in the Caribbean, if poverty is a
huge factor?!? You can't play both sides of the fence, here......which is it?
>So the poor here have it better than the poor you saw. So what? That
It proves that poverty does NOT lead to street gangs and
>It correlates nothing.
I'm glad YOU think so............this is America and you're
entitled to be wrong, if you so choose.
>Everything I wrote derived form the article YOU cited about schools
>in the U.S. Neither the article nor my comments encompassed what you
>saw in other countries.
The article was about government handouts and wasted tax
>>>Oh, and I just want to certain here - are you claiming in the
>>>countries you listed that there is no crime or no gangs?
>> Let me be clear - there are no GANGS (IF there are gangs,
>> they have little or no impact on daily life) and crime rates are
>> lower than in most major US cities.
>if you are claiming there are NO gangs, then you're blind to it.
In the Caribbean?!? Don't make me laugh! I went all through
the Caribbean and there was no trace of street gangs and related
>>Crime, itself, is EVERYWHERE. Crime is driven by wickedness, not poverty.
>Crime is driven by many things.
Crime is sin, Stephen. Sin is the product of a wicked heart.
>Your claim here is great for allowing us to not try to correct it,
>but rather to turn a blind eye.
By throwing money at it?!? Is this corrective??? I sincerely
beg to differ and I'm sure there are stats to show that federal
spending in the inner cities has EXACERBATED the problem, not
corrected it! In 1965, Lyndon Johnson boldly predicted that "poverty
could be completely wiped out by $10-million in federal spending."
Here we are, 42 years and well-beyond $100-million later
and........well, whaddya know?!? Poverty is STILL there! How'd that
>It's so much more convenient to sit back in our easy chairs and tell
>the world that "let's just punish them harder", rather than maybe
>trying to truly better the situation.
You apparently don't believe that America has tried hard
enough........is that right?
>Trying to better the situation takes that good old "Love one
>another" statement left us by our Savior, and, I am sad to say, we
>aren't too darned good at it; it just ain't convenient.
Well, love equals money........sonuvagun!! Who knew?!? How's
this grab you.......according to the Brookings Institute (a liberal
thinktank), America spent $137-BILLION for public assistance in 1988
ALONE! Brookings whines unhappily that less that a third of that was
paid out in cash, however. The rest was distributed through in-kind
transfer programs like food stamps, housing vouchers, and Medicaid,
which can be used only for buying food, housing, and medical care,
Good heavens, we're a mean nation of unloving fatheads, aren't we?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.10/1091 - Release Date: 10/24/2007 2:31 PM
More information about the Rushtalk