Originally Posted by Guest

How about at African-American colleges???

The Black-White Test Score Gap: Why It Persists and What Can Be Done

"African Americans score lower than European Americans on vocabulary, reading, and math tests, as well as on tests that claim to measure scholastic aptitude and intelligence. The gap appears before children enter kindergarten and it persists into adulthood. It has narrowed since 1970, but the typical American black still scores below 75 percent of American whites on almost every standardized test. This statistic does not imply, of course, that all blacks score below all whites. There is a lot of overlap between the two groups. Nonetheless, the test score gap is large enough to have significant social and economic consequences."

BECAUSE blacs are NOT as capable as the white kids.

"Closing the black-white test score gap would probably do more to promote racial equality in the United States than any other strategy now under serious discussion. Judging by the currently available statistical evidence, eliminating the test score gap would sharply increase black college graduation rates, making them nearly equal to white rates. Such a change would also allow selective colleges to phase out racial preferences in admission, which have long been a flashpoint for racial conflict. Eliminating the test score gap would also reduce racial disparities in men’s earnings and would probably eliminate the racial disparities in women’s earnings.

Narrowing the test score gap would require continuous effort by both blacks and whites, and it would probably take more than one generation. But we think it can be done. This conviction rests on three facts. First, black-white differences in academic achievement have narrowed since 1970. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data on 17-year-olds show that the reading gap narrowed more than two-fifths between 1971 and 1994. The math gap has also narrowed, though not as much. Five major national surveys of high school seniors conducted since 1965 show the same trend. So do surveys of younger students. The gap narrowed because black children’s scores rose, not because white children’s scores fell."

REDUCING THE STANDARDS is HOW the black kids scores increased. Reducing the standards is the ONLY way that blacks can "qualify". Standards have NEVER been lower.

Originally Posted by Guest

More trouble in the Blue Parrot Tree.

A mixed breed.

There goes Civilization...............

Carl in Tampa

.

No...there goes BLUE and RED birds as they ALL become "bi-colored". That's what happens when you mix like that.

Originally Posted by Guest

MDLNB

I do not wish to get into an argument about race, but I will point out one fact that I personally know of. A while back when Affirmative Action was initiated, many professional exams had to be dumbed down in order to get some minority qualifications to choose from. I know really good people that were not chosen, even though their testing was exemplary and many minorities that were able to retake tests until they could meet the minimum qualifying score. This is fact. This is why I am against Affirmative Action. Not because of the ethnicity, but because some folks were not required to compete fairly for positions. If you tell a firefighter that they have to be able to carry a 250lb man out of a building and then tell women that are competing that they only have to carry, say a 100lbs, then you are doing a disservice to the community. If you are hiring, you should choose the best qualified to get the job done. Charity belongs in the churches.

This is one of the best, most cogent posts I have yet seen on the issue of Affirmative Action. And, as stated, it is about much more than just race.

It opens some interesting possible paths of discussion. One, of course, is Affirmative Action for the purpose of bringing more representatives of a particular race into a particular field of employment. Another is Affirmative Action for the purpose of bringing more representatives of a particular sex into a particular field.

To be very frank, Affirmative Action efforts with regard to race are usually directed toward intellectual testing, while Affirmative Action efforts with regard to sex are usually directed towards changing physical ability testing. Is either fair, and is either necessary? Perhaps we can have some civil exchanges on this subject.

LET ME COMMENCE. When I was a young deputy sheriff in Tampa there were no female police officers in the department. None. If we had some kind of work that could only be accomplished by a female, including the thorough body search of a female prisoner, we impressed the Jail Nurse into service.

Then there were times when our Vice Detectives needed a female to work in a capacity regarding vice offenses. Again, the Jail Nurse was called upon. Finally it was realized that there was a need for female deputies.

Initially, came the two-tier physical requirements which MDLNB objects to. Men had to be be 5'10" or taller, and able to do 50 push ups, etc., while women could be 5'2" or taller and need do only 10 push ups, for example.

Later, there was only one standard for both sexes, resulting in what can only be characterized as a significant lowering of the standards. Was this fair to the public which our deputies were sworn to protect? It can be debated.

But, the fact is that the community needed female deputy sheriffs for a variety of duties and several decades of experience has shown that they have been quite successful in handling the situations in which they have been thrust. In fact, if you did a survey you would find that there are some female deputies who are preferred as back up support over many male deputies. They do well.

Have we lost more than we gained by lowering the physical standards? Were the old physical standards unnecessarily high? It can be debated.

Carl in Tampa

.

Originally Posted by Guest

I do not wish to get into an argument about race, but I will point out one fact that I personally know of. A while back when Affirmative Action was initiated, many professional exams had to be dumbed down in order to get some minority qualifications to choose from. I know really good people that were not chosen, even though their testing was exemplary and many minorities that were able to retake tests until they could meet the minimum qualifying score. This is fact. This is why I am against Affirmative Action. Not because of the ethnicity, but because some folks were not required to compete fairly for positions. If you tell a firefighter that they have to be able to carry a 250lb man out of a building and then tell women that are competing that they only have to carry, say a 100lbs, then you are doing a disservice to the community. If you are hiring, you should choose the best qualified to get the job done. Charity belongs in the churches.

Originally Posted by Guest

This is one of the best, most cogent posts I have yet seen on the issue of Affirmative Action. And, as stated, it is about much more than just race.

It opens some interesting possible paths of discussion. One, of course, is Affirmative Action for the purpose of bringing more representatives of a particular race into a particular field of employment. Another is Affirmative Action for the purpose of bringing more representatives of a particular sex into a particular field.

To be very frank, Affirmative Action efforts with regard to race are usually directed toward intellectual testing, while Affirmative Action efforts with regard to sex are usually directed towards changing physical ability testing. Is either fair, and is either necessary? Perhaps we can have some civil exchanges on this subject.

LET ME COMMENCE. When I was a young deputy sheriff in Tampa there were no female police officers in the department. None. If we had some kind of work that could only be accomplished by a female, including the thorough body search of a female prisoner, we impressed the Jail Nurse into service.

Then there were times when our Vice Detectives needed a female to work in a capacity regarding vice offenses. Again, the Jail Nurse was called upon. Finally it was realized that there was a need for female deputies.

Initially, came the two-tier physical requirements which MDLNB objects to. Men had to be be 5'10" or taller, and able to do 50 push ups, etc., while women could be 5'2" or taller and need do only 10 push ups, for example.

Later, there was only one standard for both sexes, resulting in what can only be characterized as a significant lowering of the standards. Was this fair to the public which our deputies were sworn to protect? It can be debated.

But, the fact is that the community needed female deputy sheriffs for a variety of duties and several decades of experience has shown that they have been quite successful in handling the situations in which they have been thrust. In fact, if you did a survey you would find that there are some female deputies who are preferred as back up support over many male deputies. They do well.

Have we lost more than we gained by lowering the physical standards? Were the old physical standards unnecessarily high? It can be debated.

Carl in Tampa

.

Every quota is discrimination against a white man.

Yes...lowered standards are ALWAYS bad.

It PROVES inequality...IF they were equal...they could pass.

I've said all this over and over...you just don't like the messenger.

Let a man frisk them...throw them in with the men. If we're all equal...then WHY do they demand everything be separate?

Women want their cake...equality...and eat it too...keeping all their "benefits" of being a woman.

Sadly, Don shows himself incapable of understanding or participating in a nuanced conversation.

In his ideal world all of our police officers would be White males.

If this were the case, you must ask yourself, how would we ever get undercover officers into Black or Hispanic street gangs dealing drugs? How would we ever infiltrate Arab Muslim terrorist organizations? How about Asian Gangs? How much money would be spent on settlement of complaints of women who claimed they were sexually molested by male police officers who were conducting body cavity drug searches on them?

Is "changing" the entry requirements necessarily "lowering" them, particularly if they are not related to the job?

The current State of Florida physical assessment test (PAT) for police officers is designed to test abilities that can be shown to be related to duties that are actually carried out by most officers serving on the job. It is not nearly as stringent as some might imagine. Is the test too easy in view of the fact that there are so many female police officers on the streets of Florida?

And, nationwide, virtually no police agency has a very high pistol marksmanship requirement for police officers. That is one reason that you will encounter so many officers who just give a knowing grin when some civilian says that they should shoot an armed suspect "in the arm or in the leg." Most officers are lucky to put multiple hits in the center of a stationary target. This is not particularly a male/female thing, although some malfunctions of autoloading pistols can be traced to "limp wrists" which is more often a female than a male problem.

If we changed pistol marksmanship standards to insist on all officers being capable of shooting a moving target in the leg, we would have few officers.

Arguably, some of our best police officers are those who can talk to an agitated, stressed, violent person, and convince him to submit to police custody with no use of physical force. Such people often find themselves drawn to being Hostage Negotiators. A job that I did for a few years, at a time when I probably could not have passed the physical test to be on the SWAT Team. But, the SWAT Team was never called out without Negotiators; nor were Negotiators ever called out without the SWAT Team.

Carl in Tampa

.

Originally Posted by Guest

I do not wish to get into an argument about race, but I will point out one fact that I personally know of. A while back when Affirmative Action was initiated, many professional exams had to be dumbed down in order to get some minority qualifications to choose from. I know really good people that were not chosen, even though their testing was exemplary and many minorities that were able to retake tests until they could meet the minimum qualifying score. This is fact. This is why I am against Affirmative Action. Not because of the ethnicity, but because some folks were not required to compete fairly for positions. If you tell a firefighter that they have to be able to carry a 250lb man out of a building and then tell women that are competing that they only have to carry, say a 100lbs, then you are doing a disservice to the community. If you are hiring, you should choose the best qualified to get the job done. Charity belongs in the churches.

My corporation did some government work and hence they were obligated to actively engage in Affirmative Action. It was purely a numbers game ( quantitative v qualitative). there were some job positions I found that demanded 100% female supervisors. How is that for balance.

In one situation a person needing automotive collision repair background was needed. we found a woman who grew up in the auto body business working in her father's shop. she never had a chance for that job because the demands were, it had to be filled by a black male. the one chosen eventually became a disaster.

in another situation another company hired a large number of black females to do appraising ( estimating auto damage). the body shop managers were focal laughing out loud and eagerly awaiting these females to visit their body shops

another ill conceived government rule was and still is disparate impact. It basically says the end result of an activity that results in a low % of blacks being represented is discrimination per se.

So if an apartment building is built and the pre-determined % of black representation is not allowed to rent then its discrimination ( ie there is only one black renting why aren't there 100?)

In just about every aspect of american living if a % of black representation doesn't meet the pre-determined % then its clear evidence of discrimination. This rule applies to colleges. It applies in reverse to prison where the claim is that racism exits because well there are more blacks in a prison than other races.

I served as a representative ( liaison) of my company to New York Human Rights Division attending their meeting and state conferences in Albany and two things were made clear to me 1) anything and everything was due/caused because of discrimination be it racism, misogyny or homophobia 2) I was not a welcome addition, was actually shunned, because I was white and a heterosexual male.

so what is happening in this nation today's has been a long time coming and all it needed as an impetus to push it over the edge was 8 years of liberal/socialist/multicultural Obama policies. These social cultural warriors believed for 8 years that they were the kings of the mountain until a blonde blue eyed white heterosexual male brought them back to reality

Now the faux claims of white supremacy, racism ,sexism and homophobia

Personal Best Regards:

Originally Posted by Guest

Sadly, Don shows himself incapable of understanding or participating in a nuanced conversation.

In his ideal world all of our police officers would be White males.

If this were the case, you must ask yourself, how would we ever get undercover officers into Black or Hispanic street gangs dealing drugs? How would we ever infiltrate Arab Muslim terrorist organizations? How about Asian Gangs? How much money would be spent on settlement of complaints of women who claimed they were sexually molested by male police officers who were conducting body cavity drug searches on them?

Is "changing" the entry requirements necessarily "lowering" them, particularly if they are not related to the job?

The current State of Florida physical assessment test (PAT) for police officers is designed to test abilities that can be shown to be related to duties that are actually carried out by most officers serving on the job. It is not nearly as stringent as some might imagine. Is the test too easy in view of the fact that there are so many female police officers on the streets of Florida?

And, nationwide, virtually no police agency has a very high pistol marksmanship requirement for police officers. That is one reason that you will encounter so many officers who just give a knowing grin when some civilian says that they should shoot an armed suspect "in the arm or in the leg." Most officers are lucky to put multiple hits in the center of a stationary target. This is not particularly a male/female thing, although some malfunctions of autoloading pistols can be traced to "limp wrists" which is more often a female than a male problem.

If we changed pistol marksmanship standards to insist on all officers being capable of shooting a moving target in the leg, we would have few officers.

Arguably, some of our best police officers are those who can talk to an agitated, stressed, violent person, and convince him to submit to police custody with no use of physical force. Such people often find themselves drawn to being Hostage Negotiators. A job that I did for a few years, at a time when I probably could not have passed the physical test to be on the SWAT Team. But, the SWAT Team was never called out without Negotiators; nor were Negotiators ever called out without the SWAT Team.

Carl in Tampa

.

This sand nidger ??



Minneapolis shooting raises many questions
Close
The Minnesota police officer who fatally shot Justine Damond was put on an accelerated police cadet program that required only seven months of training, a nontraditional route that aims to help those who have a college degree enter law enforcement.

Mohamed Noor, 31, shot Damond, 40, after she called 911 to report a sexual assault behind her home. When she approached the driver’s side of the squad car, Noor fired from the passenger side, across his partner, killing Damond.

Originally Posted by Guest

Sadly, Don shows himself incapable of understanding or participating in a nuanced conversation.

In his ideal world all of our police officers would be White males.

If this were the case, you must ask yourself, how would we ever get undercover officers into Black or Hispanic street gangs dealing drugs? How would we ever infiltrate Arab Muslim terrorist organizations? How about Asian Gangs? How much money would be spent on settlement of complaints of women who claimed they were sexually molested by male police officers who were conducting body cavity drug searches on them?

Is "changing" the entry requirements necessarily "lowering" them, particularly if they are not related to the job?

The current State of Florida physical assessment test (PAT) for police officers is designed to test abilities that can be shown to be related to duties that are actually carried out by most officers serving on the job. It is not nearly as stringent as some might imagine. Is the test too easy in view of the fact that there are so many female police officers on the streets of Florida?

And, nationwide, virtually no police agency has a very high pistol marksmanship requirement for police officers. That is one reason that you will encounter so many officers who just give a knowing grin when some civilian says that they should shoot an armed suspect "in the arm or in the leg." Most officers are lucky to put multiple hits in the center of a stationary target. This is not particularly a male/female thing, although some malfunctions of autoloading pistols can be traced to "limp wrists" which is more often a female than a male problem.

If we changed pistol marksmanship standards to insist on all officers being capable of shooting a moving target in the leg, we would have few officers.

Arguably, some of our best police officers are those who can talk to an agitated, stressed, violent person, and convince him to submit to police custody with no use of physical force. Such people often find themselves drawn to being Hostage Negotiators. A job that I did for a few years, at a time when I probably could not have passed the physical test to be on the SWAT Team. But, the SWAT Team was never called out without Negotiators; nor were Negotiators ever called out without the SWAT Team.

Carl in Tampa

.

In MY perfect world, we don't need police. What ARE the percentages when it comes to crime? 90% minorities and 10% whites? And of those whites...how many are "white n!@@ers", white people who hang around blacks? White people like those who live in the villages require very little "policing".

An ALL white country...doesn't HAVE any of those problems. NO black gangs...NO Hispanic or Asian gangs. So...the reasons you claim we NEED diversified police is moot.

There you go Carl...you're learning and you don't even know it. Yes...they lower the standards because the women/minorities usually end up NOT doing the job. They get some admin job to keep them from screwing up or because they REALLY CAN'T do the job they "qualified" for. I've known a lot of female "soldiers", "firemen", "construction", etc...who did little to nothing of the job they held the title to. They'd work in the office shuffling papers, not out in the "sh!t" with the men. It'll ruin your nails! In most cases...women and "work" is a joke...most women don't know what WORK is. Vacuuming? The dishes? Laundry? Shuffling papers in an office? You call THAT work? That's rest time for most men who have to perform REAL work. Pipe fitters, red steel workers, ANY construction...you don't find women out there climbing, manhandling. They're peeing on your leg and telling you it's raining.

There are MORE back in the office than "out on the streets".

Originally Posted by Guest

In MY perfect world, we don't need police. What ARE the percentages when it comes to crime? 90% minorities and 10% whites? And of those whites...how many are "white n!@@ers", white people who hang around blacks? White people like those who live in the villages require very little "policing".

An ALL white country...doesn't HAVE any of those problems. NO black gangs...NO Hispanic or Asian gangs. So...the reasons you claim we NEED diversified police is moot.

There you go Carl...you're learning and you don't even know it. Yes...they lower the standards because the women/minorities usually end up NOT doing the job. They get some admin job to keep them from screwing up or because they REALLY CAN'T do the job they "qualified" for. I've known a lot of female "soldiers", "firemen", "construction", etc...who did little to nothing of the job they held the title to. They'd work in the office shuffling papers, not out in the "sh!t" with the men. It'll ruin your nails! In most cases...women and "work" is a joke...most women don't know what WORK is. Vacuuming? The dishes? Laundry? Shuffling papers in an office? You call THAT work? That's rest time for most men who have to perform REAL work. Pipe fitters, red steel workers, ANY construction...you don't find women out there climbing, manhandling. They're peeing on your leg and telling you it's raining.

There are MORE back in the office than "out on the streets".

Isn't Femo-Fascism great?

Originally Posted by Guest

This sand nidger ??



Minneapolis shooting raises many questions
Close
The Minnesota police officer who fatally shot Justine Damond was put on an accelerated police cadet program that required only seven months of training, a nontraditional route that aims to help those who have a college degree enter law enforcement.

Mohamed Noor, 31, shot Damond, 40, after she called 911 to report a sexual assault behind her home. When she approached the driver’s side of the squad car, Noor fired from the passenger side, across his partner, killing Damond.

Mark Steyn writes about this hellish situation.

Originally Posted by Guest

rubicon

My corporation did some government work and hence they were obligated to actively engage in Affirmative Action. It was purely a numbers game ( quantitative v qualitative). there were some job positions I found that demanded 100% female supervisors. How is that for balance.

In one situation a person needing automotive collision repair background was needed. we found a woman who grew up in the auto body business working in her father's shop. she never had a chance for that job because the demands were, it had to be filled by a black male. the one chosen eventually became a disaster.

in another situation another company hired a large number of black females to do appraising ( estimating auto damage). the body shop managers were focal laughing out loud and eagerly awaiting these females to visit their body shops

another ill conceived government rule was and still is disparate impact. It basically says the end result of an activity that results in a low % of blacks being represented is discrimination per se.

So if an apartment building is built and the pre-determined % of black representation is not allowed to rent then its discrimination ( ie there is only one black renting why aren't there 100?)

In just about every aspect of american living if a % of black representation doesn't meet the pre-determined % then its clear evidence of discrimination. This rule applies to colleges. It applies in reverse to prison where the claim is that racism exits because well there are more blacks in a prison than other races.

I served as a representative ( liaison) of my company to New York Human Rights Division attending their meeting and state conferences in Albany and two things were made clear to me 1) anything and everything was due/caused because of discrimination be it racism, misogyny or homophobia 2) I was not a welcome addition, was actually shunned, because I was white and a heterosexual male.

so what is happening in this nation today's has been a long time coming and all it needed as an impetus to push it over the edge was 8 years of liberal/socialist/multicultural Obama policies. These social cultural warriors believed for 8 years that they were the kings of the mountain until a blonde blue eyed white heterosexual male brought them back to reality

Now the faux claims of white supremacy, racism ,sexism and homophobia

Personal Best Regards:

There was a period when I had to review every application for employment as a Secret Service Agent which was received in the Metropolitan District of Columbia, which included parts of nearby Maryland and Virginia.

I had to sort the applications into groups for consideration. Top consideration went to Black and Hispanic Females regardless of background. Next was Black and Hispanic Males regardless of background. Next was White Females; next was White Males who were fluent in a foreign language. Languishing at the bottom of the pile were White Males who had experience as police officers.

This was particularly ironic, because years earlier when I was hired, my law enforcement background was an important factor.

In an earlier assignment in a Field Office, I was required to submit a report annually on my efforts to recruit minority applicants to Special Agent positions--- by name. Fortunately for me, they never compared the current year report with prior year reports. I always listed the same couple of minority friends who were in professions where they made more that agents made, and who would never consider making a change.

-----------------

Regarding "disparate impact," for decades the Tampa Police Department was under a federal court order to operate their promotion program to bring the number of minorities, and particularly Black females up to a percentage that reflected their percentage of minorities in the general population of Tampa.

Many White males were discriminated against by this federal mandate.

Carl in Tampa

.

Originally Posted by Guest

There was a period when I had to review every application for employment as a Secret Service Agent which was received in the Metropolitan District of Columbia, which included parts of nearby Maryland and Virginia.

I had to sort the applications into groups for consideration. Top consideration went to Black and Hispanic Females regardless of background. Next was Black and Hispanic Males regardless of background. Next was White Females; next was White Males who were fluent in a foreign language. Languishing at the bottom of the pile were White Males who had experience as police officers.

This was particularly ironic, because years earlier when I was hired, my law enforcement background was an important factor.

In an earlier assignment in a Field Office, I was required to submit a report annually on my efforts to recruit minority applicants to Special Agent positions--- by name. Fortunately for me, they never compared the current year report with prior year reports. I always listed the same couple of minority friends who were in professions where they made more that agents made, and who would never consider making a change.

-----------------

Regarding "disparate impact," for decades the Tampa Police Department was under a federal court order to operate their promotion program to bring the number of minorities, and particularly Black females up to a percentage that reflected their percentage of minorities in the general population of Tampa.

Many White males were discriminated against by this federal mandate.

Carl in Tampa

.

And NOW you know why America is #25 and NOT #1 any more.

Now you know WHAT I want to change.

Originally Posted by Guest

Don Baldwin

In MY perfect world, we don't need police. What ARE the percentages when it comes to crime? 90% minorities and 10% whites? And of those whites...how many are "white n!@@ers", white people who hang around blacks? White people like those who live in the villages require very little "policing".

An ALL white country...doesn't HAVE any of those problems. NO black gangs...NO Hispanic or Asian gangs. So...the reasons you claim we NEED diversified police is moot.

There you go Carl...you're learning and you don't even know it. Yes...they lower the standards because the women/minorities usually end up NOT doing the job. They get some admin job to keep them from screwing up or because they REALLY CAN'T do the job they "qualified" for. I've known a lot of female "soldiers", "firemen", "construction", etc...who did little to nothing of the job they held the title to. They'd work in the office shuffling papers, not out in the "sh!t" with the men. It'll ruin your nails! In most cases...women and "work" is a joke...most women don't know what WORK is. Vacuuming? The dishes? Laundry? Shuffling papers in an office? You call THAT work? That's rest time for most men who have to perform REAL work. Pipe fitters, red steel workers, ANY construction...you don't find women out there climbing, manhandling. They're peeing on your leg and telling you it's raining.

There are MORE back in the office than "out on the streets".

Your rants have grown repetitive and tiresome, Don.

You stupidly talk about "all White countries." There are none. You can't have your perfect world. So my reasons for diversified police forces are entirely valid.

You imagine in your warped mind that female officers don't work the streets. I've worked with these folks for decades and I know better. I know female officers who could pound you into the ground back when you were at your best.

Of course you may be an active 35 year old right now. We don't know because you aren't required to meet the age requirements for living in The Villages, because contrary to your claim, you are not a resident of The Villages. Just continue to tell yourself that parking among the Blue Parrots makes you a part of The Villages.

Don, the problem is not that a lot of the points you make are not true; it is that you express them with such vitriol and overt hatred that your views are not welcome in a civil discussion of issues. You use bitter, petty, vicious and inappropriate language.

You are quite simply unworthy of exchanging opinions with, nor are you worthy of respect.

This is goodbye to you. Rant and rave. I'm sure there are others who will continue to talk to you, although I really don't know why.

Carl in Tampa

.

Originally Posted by Guest

Your rants have grown repetitive and tiresome, Don.

You stupidly talk about "all White countries." There are none. You can't have your perfect world. So my reasons for diversified police forces are entirely valid.

You imagine in your warped mind that female officers don't work the streets. I've worked with these folks for decades and I know better. I know female officers who could pound you into the ground back when you were at your best.

Of course you may be an active 35 year old right now. We don't know because you aren't required to meet the age requirements for living in The Villages, because contrary to your claim, you are not a resident of The Villages. Just continue to tell yourself that parking among the Blue Parrots makes you a part of The Villages.

Don, the problem is not that a lot of the points you make are not true; it is that you express them with such vitriol and overt hatred that your views are not welcome in a civil discussion of issues. You use bitter, petty, vicious and inappropriate language.

You are quite simply unworthy of exchanging opinions with, nor are you worthy of respect.

This is goodbye to you. Rant and rave. I'm sure there are others who will continue to talk to you, although I really don't know why.

Carl in Tampa

.

You underlined and bolded it yourself...

"Don, the problem is not that a lot of the points you make are not true"

They are ENTIRELY true...and you know it. You just don't like HOW I say it. Blacks ARE a different species...they'll NEVER be "US" because they're NOT "us"...HOW do you say it nicely?

How do you say "nicely" that they live like dirty animals sh!tting where they live?

How do you say nicely that they're ALWAYS at the very bottom of ANY society they're living within...within because they never contribute...they're ALWAYS the outsiders...relying on others for their very existence.

How do you say nicely that they bring down EVERYWHERE they congregate? When the blacks start showing up...things deteriorate...ALWAYS.

HOW do you say these things nicely?

The blacks are NEVER the top performers...you know it and I know it.

Stating nothing but facts isn't "civil"? What is "civil"? Lies? If you can show "equality" as a people...the 99% who live in the inner cities and the black part of town...lets hear it. Why is there NO 99% black "villages" IF they are truly equal.