Whites kill: Big Deal - Blacks Kill; No Deal ?

Last edited by a moderator:
Because then the left would be openly admitting that blacks are far more violent than whites, and that would cost them votes. They can't have that.

Pointing out the flaws of black people has been a pretty good strategy for the con party over the last few decades :eusa_think:
Never heard of the "con" party.

But I have heard blacks are more violent than whites. We even had a black here on the board telling us that when they hear something that pisses them off, they just simply can't control themselves, they have to get violent because they have no choice. Must be true.

Do you think that that one "Black" represents all of "the Blacks"?
 
Why is it that when a white deranged person kills it is national news, but when there are blacks massacring each other it doesn't get the coverage?

Violent holiday weekend claims at least 10 lives in Chicago - U.S. News

With the deranged white guy it's typically one person killing many. When it is gang crime it's several different killers adding up to a large number. Pretty easy to see why the one white guy gets more press.
Right, because one white guy with a gun is far more dangerous than a car load full of blacks all armed and having a little fun on a drive by shooting... :eusa_hand:
 
Pointing out the flaws of black people has been a pretty good strategy for the con party over the last few decades :eusa_think:
Never heard of the "con" party.

But I have heard blacks are more violent than whites. We even had a black here on the board telling us that when they hear something that pisses them off, they just simply can't control themselves, they have to get violent because they have no choice. Must be true.

Do you think that that one "Black" represents all of "the Blacks"?
Does he?

Do blacks have uncontrollable violence issues?

You tell me.
 
Blacks would have to work overtime for a thousand years to even hope to come close to the number of people killed by whites over the centuries.
 
Why is it that when a white deranged person kills it is national news, but when there are blacks massacring each other it doesn't get the coverage?

Violent holiday weekend claims at least 10 lives in Chicago - U.S. News

With the deranged white guy it's typically one person killing many. When it is gang crime it's several different killers adding up to a large number. Pretty easy to see why the one white guy gets more press.
So if a black kills multiple blacks then the coverage would be equivalent?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
Why is it that when a white deranged person kills it is national news, but when there are blacks massacring each other it doesn't get the coverage?

Violent holiday weekend claims at least 10 lives in Chicago - U.S. News

With the deranged white guy it's typically one person killing many. When it is gang crime it's several different killers adding up to a large number. Pretty easy to see why the one white guy gets more press.
So if a black kills multiple blacks then the coverage would be equivalent?

That would be my guess.
 
Never heard of the "con" party.

But I have heard blacks are more violent than whites. We even had a black here on the board telling us that when they hear something that pisses them off, they just simply can't control themselves, they have to get violent because they have no choice. Must be true.

Do you think that that one "Black" represents all of "the Blacks"?
Does he?

Do blacks have uncontrollable violence issues?

You tell me.

I don't think that he or any other rational and intelligent person thinks that one Black person represents all Black people.

Some people of many different ethnic or racial groups have "uncontrollable violence issues".

I certainly don't think that the actions or beliefs of one Black person, White person, Hispanic person, Asian person, etc............... represent the beliefs of "the (fill in the blank)".
 
With the deranged white guy it's typically one person killing many. When it is gang crime it's several different killers adding up to a large number. Pretty easy to see why the one white guy gets more press.
So if a black kills multiple blacks then the coverage would be equivalent?

That would be my guess.

However, its not simply mass shooting that get all the media attention. There are MANY cases with a single vic that get insane amounts of coverage. Why is this not reciprocal.

This question is actually a rather interesting one even of you disagree with the purpose of the OP. it represents a schism in our culture when a black man kills another black man and gets virtually no coverage but a 'white man' (as originally reported) killed TM and the media goes bananas. This happens all the time in inner city ghettos. Why is it not newsworthy then?

Why the difference? I think that answering that question would bring some major incite into racial issues within the nation and Americans. It is a rather difficult one to answer though.

Is it because we expect such from blacks and not from whites? Possibly. Does that not reveal a key prejudice thought the nation? Sure does but that might not be true at all. I just don't know why there seems to be a difference. then again, it might simply be a perception that is not real. I doubt that answer though as the murder occurrences is almost flat between whites and blacks but I certainly do not recall as much attention given to black perpetrators as white ones.

Perhaps it is socio economic.
 
So if a black kills multiple blacks then the coverage would be equivalent?

That would be my guess.

However, its not simply mass shooting that get all the media attention. There are MANY cases with a single vic that get insane amounts of coverage. Why is this not reciprocal.

This question is actually a rather interesting one even of you disagree with the purpose of the OP. it represents a schism in our culture when a black man kills another black man and gets virtually no coverage but a 'white man' (as originally reported) killed TM and the media goes bananas. This happens all the time in inner city ghettos. Why is it not newsworthy then?

Why the difference? I think that answering that question would bring some major incite into racial issues within the nation and Americans. It is a rather difficult one to answer though.

Is it because we expect such from blacks and not from whites? Possibly. Does that not reveal a key prejudice thought the nation? Sure does but that might not be true at all. I just don't know why there seems to be a difference. then again, it might simply be a perception that is not real. I doubt that answer though as the murder occurrences is almost flat between whites and blacks but I certainly do not recall as much attention given to black perpetrators as white ones.

Perhaps it is socio economic.

Do you have an example of a single victim white guy shooting that got lots of press? I can't think of one. Only one that comes to mind is the Oscar Pistorius shooting, but that is more because he's slightly famous. This guy getting a lot of press too:
'Shield' Actor Michael Jace Charged With Murder In The Shooting Of His Wife

I think the situation of the killing is important. If it's a bad guy killing a bad guy it doesn't seem so bad. When it is a bad guy killing some innocent person it's more news. You get the news when something happens and many people think that could have been them. If people are getting shot because of gang violence most people don't relate to it.
 
Because black people own all of the major media networks and other media sources and use their vast riches and influence to brainwash America.

:cuckoo:

Or maybe the people who own the corporate media have an interest in disarming the people and so hype stories that they think useful in eventually convincing people to voluntarily give up their gun rights.

But leave it to you to pull some of the stupidest shit out of your nasty ass.
 
So if a black kills multiple blacks then the coverage would be equivalent?

That would be my guess.

However, its not simply mass shooting that get all the media attention. There are MANY cases with a single vic that get insane amounts of coverage. Why is this not reciprocal.

This question is actually a rather interesting one even of you disagree with the purpose of the OP. it represents a schism in our culture when a black man kills another black man and gets virtually no coverage but a 'white man' (as originally reported) killed TM and the media goes bananas. This happens all the time in inner city ghettos. Why is it not newsworthy then?

Why the difference? I think that answering that question would bring some major incite into racial issues within the nation and Americans. It is a rather difficult one to answer though.

Is it because we expect such from blacks and not from whites? Possibly. Does that not reveal a key prejudice thought the nation? Sure does but that might not be true at all. I just don't know why there seems to be a difference. then again, it might simply be a perception that is not real. I doubt that answer though as the murder occurrences is almost flat between whites and blacks but I certainly do not recall as much attention given to black perpetrators as white ones.

Perhaps it is socio economic.
The purpose of this op is precisely to answer this - why the disparity? The answer is politics; quest for power to force their agenda! It is politically unfavorable to mention blacks in bad light - no matter how truthful, and the reverse for whites. It is all about making the blacks think that liberals are on their side when in fact the only thing liberals care about regarding blacks are their votes!
 
Don't like black people? Vote GOP. I figure that strategy will work for you guys for maybe 10 more years before the old generation dies out.


Don't like blacks? Vote democrat. Look at every failing mostly black jurisdiction in the country and you'll find they're run by democrats. Democrats keeping the brutha segregated and down.
 

Forum List

Back
Top