100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Another 20 people shot in Chicago | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
https://vault.fbi.gov/gangster-disciples/gangster-disciples-part-1-of-1/view
_______________________________________________________________________ The F.B.I. report on the Gangster Disciples. 50,000 -70,000 strong Page 26 is interesting New Member Initiation: New members to the gang must drive down the street with their headlights off. The first car that signals them that their lights are off ( good Samaritan) must be followed and the occupants...shot and killed Regardless if it is woman or children And every new member is issued a weapon ___________________________________________________________________ And they don't know this is wrong to do? or they don't care.......... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Murders in Chicago so far this year per ethnic group
white 27 Hispanic 33 Black 295 https://graphics.suntimes.com/homicides/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://vault.fbi.gov/gangster-disciples/gangster-disciples-part-1-of-1/view _______________________________________________________________________ The F.B.I. report on the Gangster Disciples. 50,000 -70,000 strong Page 26 is interesting New Member Initiation: New members to the gang must drive down the street with their headlights off. The first car that signals them that their lights are off ( good Samaritan) must be followed and the occupants...shot and killed Regardless if it is woman or children And every new member is issued a weapon ___________________________________________________________________ And they don't know this is wrong to do? or they don't care.......... of course that is wrong, and if it had happened would be horrific. unfortunately, this was information a suspect 'agreed' to provide after being arrested, and not verified in any manner as actually having happened .... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 08/25/18 01:48 PM
|
|
I googled because those unwed birth rates didn't seem right. Institute for families Sept 2017 says 70% of black mothers are unwed and 46% of white mothers. When a black woman gets pregnant out of wedlock it's no big deal to the black community. It's the norm. When a white does it, they are shamed by other whites. From what I see, If a black tries to live a decent life, they are shunned by the black community. It's crazy but it's true. Most blacks don't want to do better and when 1 does, it's takes their excuse away. no. you are confusing numbers. The 70 percent comes from the ratio of black single mothers to black married mothers. The rate of births per 1000 comes from the trend in the rate per total population of births. they are different statistics, both accurate, which can be cherry picked in a discussion on 'morals' white women have been increasing the rate at which they have single parent births, while black women have been decreasing. It so happens that married black women have decreased even more than the single mothers, making the RATIO become higher. You see alot of nonsense. Im not sure why. maybe its what your brain is wired to see. I see both blacks and whites having kids without shame for marital status. I see both blacks and whites given praise for trying to do better. No matter how often people try to paint the picture that its racially different morals, its not. I googled again and got the same numbers. Unwed birth rates. Not divorce, cohabitation etc. But I do believe that the generous welfare system we have is also causing whites to begin to abuse the system just like blacks have been doing. My daughter can't get any help because she would have to report her husband's income. In an unmarried family medical, foodstamps, sec 8 etc is taken care of by mom's welfare. The father's check is spending money. Welfare is destroying families. still not understanding the numbers huh? okay. So lets say there are 2000 women, 1000 married and 1000 unmarried if they ALL have 4 kids, thats a RATIO of 50 percent of kids born out of wedlock Now, if the thousand unwed begin having only 3 kids, but the thousand married cut back to only 1 kid the ratio now becomes 75 born out of wedlock, even though BOTH groups are having less children now, take the same scenario 1000 but with unwed WOMEN and 1000 wed WOMEN if the unwed WOMEN are being 'moral' according to this thread, we are going to look at the rate at which they are popping out kids, not just the rate at which those who HAVE kids are popping them out. and if the unwed women go from 19 births per thousand to 66, they are somewhere become less'moral' and if they go from 95 to 67 per 1000, they have become less' moral'. so the difference is in if one chooses to take the number of all MOTHERs, or the numbers regarding all unmarried women, to discern 'morals'. So it's a liberal spin you are trying to put on it. It's doesn't change the numbers. I already know welfare mom have lots of kids for a bigger income vs a white woman might have 1 kid out of wedlock and realize it takes a lot to raise that child and not make that mistake again. You aren't helping your argument. lol... NO. MATH is not liberal nor conservative. If out of 1000 unmarried women there are 19 children, and later there are 54, they are having MORE kids as time goes on, so the propensity for 'morals' is declining. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
greeneyes148
on
Sat 08/25/18 02:24 PM
|
|
https://vault.fbi.gov/gangster-disciples/gangster-disciples-part-1-of-1/view _______________________________________________________________________ The F.B.I. report on the Gangster Disciples. 50,000 -70,000 strong Page 26 is interesting New Member Initiation: New members to the gang must drive down the street with their headlights off. The first car that signals them that their lights are off ( good Samaritan) must be followed and the occupants...shot and killed Regardless if it is woman or children And every new member is issued a weapon ___________________________________________________________________ And they don't know this is wrong to do? or they don't care.......... of course that is wrong, and if it had happened would be horrific. unfortunately, this was information a suspect 'agreed' to provide after being arrested, and not verified in any manner as actually having happened .... Ooh, I didn't know you had access to F.B.I. Intel information. What page in the official F.B..I. report on the Black Gangster Disciples does it say that they don't have proof or they do not find the information to be credible. How do you know what the F.B.I has verified and what other means they used to gather the intel. Or are you stating that you know more then the F.B.I on this particular thug gang Why do you defend the Black Gangster Disciples or question the validity of a official F.B.I report on them? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 08/25/18 02:43 PM
|
|
https://vault.fbi.gov/gangster-disciples/gangster-disciples-part-1-of-1/view _______________________________________________________________________ The F.B.I. report on the Gangster Disciples. 50,000 -70,000 strong Page 26 is interesting New Member Initiation: New members to the gang must drive down the street with their headlights off. The first car that signals them that their lights are off ( good Samaritan) must be followed and the occupants...shot and killed Regardless if it is woman or children And every new member is issued a weapon ___________________________________________________________________ And they don't know this is wrong to do? or they don't care.......... of course that is wrong, and if it had happened would be horrific. unfortunately, this was information a suspect 'agreed' to provide after being arrested, and not verified in any manner as actually having happened .... Ooh, I didn't know you had access to F.B.I. Intel information. What page in the official F.B..I. report on the Black Gangster Disciples does it say that they don't have proof or they do not find the information to be credible. How do you know what the F.B.I has verified and what other means they used to gather the intel. Or are you stating that you know more then the F.B.I on this particular thug gang Why do you defend the Black Gangster Disciples or question the validity of a official F.B.I report on them? well first, I researched the source you claimed it was from since no source was provided, and found it here https://vault.fbi.gov/gangster-disciples then I scrolled to the page you mentioned (26) to find the information then I READ the preceding pages to get the CONTEXT of the information and found A. a suspect was arrested and interviewed (page 25) B. his claim stated that BEGINNING(meaning it had not begun yet) August 1993, there would be a new initiation. then I researched follow up about this suspects information and found this On Sept. 1, the FBI's Chicago office sent a "safety alert" to the Chicago Police Department. The teletype, according to police Detective Ivory Hampton, warned that the Black Gangster Disciple Nation, the state's most powerful street gang, may have instituted a new and murderous initiation ritual. "To date this initiation has not been substantiated," the teletype said, "but with the current environment in which the Black Gangster Disciple Nation operates, this information should be seriously considered and brought to the attention of all employees." http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-09-15/news/9309150210_1_new-gang-initiation-fax-gang-members which leads me to the conclusion that (according to the FBI) this initiation was a claim made by a suspect that was never substantiated by any reputable source. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://vault.fbi.gov/gangster-disciples/gangster-disciples-part-1-of-1/view _______________________________________________________________________ The F.B.I. report on the Gangster Disciples. 50,000 -70,000 strong Page 26 is interesting New Member Initiation: New members to the gang must drive down the street with their headlights off. The first car that signals them that their lights are off ( good Samaritan) must be followed and the occupants...shot and killed Regardless if it is woman or children And every new member is issued a weapon ___________________________________________________________________ And they don't know this is wrong to do? or they don't care.......... of course that is wrong, and if it had happened would be horrific. unfortunately, this was information a suspect 'agreed' to provide after being arrested, and not verified in any manner as actually having happened .... Ooh, I didn't know you had access to F.B.I. Intel information. What page in the official F.B..I. report on the Black Gangster Disciples does it say that they don't have proof or they do not find the information to be credible. How do you know what the F.B.I has verified and what other means they used to gather the intel. Or are you stating that you know more then the F.B.I on this particular thug gang Why do you defend the Black Gangster Disciples or question the validity of a official F.B.I report on them? well first, I researched the source you claimed it was from since no source was provided, and found it here https://vault.fbi.gov/gangster-disciples then I scrolled to the page you mentioned (26) to find the information then I READ the preceding pages to get the CONTEXT of the information and found A. a suspect was arrested and interviewed (page 25) B. his claim stated that BEGINNING(meaning it had not begun yet) August 1993, there would be a new initiation. then I researched follow up about this suspects information and found this On Sept. 1, the FBI's Chicago office sent a "safety alert" to the Chicago Police Department. The teletype, according to police Detective Ivory Hampton, warned that the Black Gangster Disciple Nation, the state's most powerful street gang, may have instituted a new and murderous initiation ritual. "To date this initiation has not been substantiated," the teletype said, "but with the current environment in which the Black Gangster Disciple Nation operates, this information should be seriously considered and brought to the attention of all employees." http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-09-15/news/9309150210_1_new-gang-initiation-fax-gang-members which leads me to the conclusion that (according to the FBI) this initiation was a claim made by a suspect that was never substantiated by any reputable source. And the key word being being.. conclude... I would think the F.B.I. would have many verification methods in place BEFORE they put any information into a official F.B.I. Report on any gang...a report destine not only to the public but to other law enforcement agencies battling these thugs. wouldn't you? So you assume they don't.. but you have nothing to back that " conclusion" up with.. other then a " feeling".. you... think that's what they did.. you don't know that's what they did... do you? You are saying that they just took the word one guy and put it into a official report, with no other legwork involved. No due diligence, no other intel involved.. just stuck it in there. If you read the report it is extremely detailed.. extremely.. 98 pages or so. Do you think it is filled with " hearsay" Do you think the F.B.I. works like that...false claims, statements with no merit... really? so, let see.. MS conclusion... F.B.I. official report ... Hmmmm... which carries more validity. Any comments on the other 97 pages of " daily deeds" the Black Gangster Disciples do?.. Any good news in there for the public to cheer a bit about? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://vault.fbi.gov/gangster-disciples/gangster-disciples-part-1-of-1/view _______________________________________________________________________ The F.B.I. report on the Gangster Disciples. 50,000 -70,000 strong Page 26 is interesting New Member Initiation: New members to the gang must drive down the street with their headlights off. The first car that signals them that their lights are off ( good Samaritan) must be followed and the occupants...shot and killed Regardless if it is woman or children And every new member is issued a weapon ___________________________________________________________________ And they don't know this is wrong to do? or they don't care.......... of course that is wrong, and if it had happened would be horrific. unfortunately, this was information a suspect 'agreed' to provide after being arrested, and not verified in any manner as actually having happened .... Ooh, I didn't know you had access to F.B.I. Intel information. What page in the official F.B..I. report on the Black Gangster Disciples does it say that they don't have proof or they do not find the information to be credible. How do you know what the F.B.I has verified and what other means they used to gather the intel. Or are you stating that you know more then the F.B.I on this particular thug gang Why do you defend the Black Gangster Disciples or question the validity of a official F.B.I report on them? well first, I researched the source you claimed it was from since no source was provided, and found it here https://vault.fbi.gov/gangster-disciples then I scrolled to the page you mentioned (26) to find the information then I READ the preceding pages to get the CONTEXT of the information and found A. a suspect was arrested and interviewed (page 25) B. his claim stated that BEGINNING(meaning it had not begun yet) August 1993, there would be a new initiation. then I researched follow up about this suspects information and found this On Sept. 1, the FBI's Chicago office sent a "safety alert" to the Chicago Police Department. The teletype, according to police Detective Ivory Hampton, warned that the Black Gangster Disciple Nation, the state's most powerful street gang, may have instituted a new and murderous initiation ritual. "To date this initiation has not been substantiated," the teletype said, "but with the current environment in which the Black Gangster Disciple Nation operates, this information should be seriously considered and brought to the attention of all employees." http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-09-15/news/9309150210_1_new-gang-initiation-fax-gang-members which leads me to the conclusion that (according to the FBI) this initiation was a claim made by a suspect that was never substantiated by any reputable source. And the key word being being.. conclude... I would think the F.B.I. would have many verification methods in place BEFORE they put any information into a official F.B.I. Report on any gang...a report destine not only to the public but to other law enforcement agencies battling these thugs. wouldn't you? So you assume they don't.. but you have nothing to back that " conclusion" up with.. other then a " feeling".. you... think that's what they did.. you don't know that's what they did... do you? You are saying that they just took the word one guy and put it into a official report, with no other legwork involved. No due diligence, no other intel involved.. just stuck it in there. If you read the report it is extremely detailed.. extremely.. 98 pages or so. Do you think it is filled with " hearsay" Do you think the F.B.I. works like that...false claims, statements with no merit... really? so, let see.. MS conclusion... F.B.I. official report ... Hmmmm... which carries more validity. Any comments on the other 97 pages of " daily deeds" the Black Gangster Disciples do?.. Any good news in there for the public to cheer a bit about? no. I do not. I provided the sources FROM the FBI. One has only to read that the information was not FROM the FBI, but just a warning FROM what a suspect claimed. A report destined for the public to read stating it came from the statement of a suspect making a CLAIM of what might happen. Im saying if you read, page 26 is the continuation from page 25, which was the statement of a suspect. I think the FBI documents the statements of suspects, is what I think. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 08/25/18 04:42 PM
|
|
http://vault.fbi.gov/gangster-disciples/gangster-disciples-part-1-of-1/view _______________________________________________________________________ The F.B.I. report on the Gangster Disciples. 50,000 -70,000 strong Page 26 is interesting New Member Initiation: New members to the gang must drive down the street with their headlights off. The first car that signals them that their lights are off ( good Samaritan) must be followed and the occupants...shot and killed Regardless if it is woman or children And every new member is issued a weapon ___________________________________________________________________ And they don't know this is wrong to do? or they don't care.......... of course that is wrong, and if it had happened would be horrific. unfortunately, this was information a suspect 'agreed' to provide after being arrested, and not verified in any manner as actually having happened .... Ooh, I didn't know you had access to F.B.I. Intel information. What page in the official F.B..I. report on the Black Gangster Disciples does it say that they don't have proof or they do not find the information to be credible. How do you know what the F.B.I has verified and what other means they used to gather the intel. Or are you stating that you know more then the F.B.I on this particular thug gang Why do you defend the Black Gangster Disciples or question the validity of a official F.B.I report on them? well first, I researched the source you claimed it was from since no source was provided, and found it here http://vault.fbi.gov/gangster-disciples then I scrolled to the page you mentioned (26) to find the information then I READ the preceding pages to get the CONTEXT of the information and found A. a suspect was arrested and interviewed (page 25) B. his claim stated that BEGINNING(meaning it had not begun yet) August 1993, there would be a new initiation. then I researched follow up about this suspects information and found this On Sept. 1, the FBI's Chicago office sent a "safety alert" to the Chicago Police Department. The teletype, according to police Detective Ivory Hampton, warned that the Black Gangster Disciple Nation, the state's most powerful street gang, may have instituted a new and murderous initiation ritual. "To date this initiation has not been substantiated," the teletype said, "but with the current environment in which the Black Gangster Disciple Nation operates, this information should be seriously considered and brought to the attention of all employees." http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-09-15/news/9309150210_1_new-gang-initiation-fax-gang-members which leads me to the conclusion that (according to the FBI) this initiation was a claim made by a suspect that was never substantiated by any reputable source. from page 25 of above report: Black male was interviewed by special agent, consented to being interviewed regarding drugs and criminal gang activity. He provided the following information: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I googled because those unwed birth rates didn't seem right. Institute for families Sept 2017 says 70% of black mothers are unwed and 46% of white mothers. When a black woman gets pregnant out of wedlock it's no big deal to the black community. It's the norm. When a white does it, they are shamed by other whites. From what I see, If a black tries to live a decent life, they are shunned by the black community. It's crazy but it's true. Most blacks don't want to do better and when 1 does, it's takes their excuse away. no. you are confusing numbers. The 70 percent comes from the ratio of black single mothers to black married mothers. The rate of births per 1000 comes from the trend in the rate per total population of births. they are different statistics, both accurate, which can be cherry picked in a discussion on 'morals' white women have been increasing the rate at which they have single parent births, while black women have been decreasing. It so happens that married black women have decreased even more than the single mothers, making the RATIO become higher. You see alot of nonsense. Im not sure why. maybe its what your brain is wired to see. I see both blacks and whites having kids without shame for marital status. I see both blacks and whites given praise for trying to do better. No matter how often people try to paint the picture that its racially different morals, its not. I googled again and got the same numbers. Unwed birth rates. Not divorce, cohabitation etc. But I do believe that the generous welfare system we have is also causing whites to begin to abuse the system just like blacks have been doing. My daughter can't get any help because she would have to report her husband's income. In an unmarried family medical, foodstamps, sec 8 etc is taken care of by mom's welfare. The father's check is spending money. Welfare is destroying families. still not understanding the numbers huh? okay. So lets say there are 2000 women, 1000 married and 1000 unmarried if they ALL have 4 kids, thats a RATIO of 50 percent of kids born out of wedlock Now, if the thousand unwed begin having only 3 kids, but the thousand married cut back to only 1 kid the ratio now becomes 75 born out of wedlock, even though BOTH groups are having less children now, take the same scenario 1000 but with unwed WOMEN and 1000 wed WOMEN if the unwed WOMEN are being 'moral' according to this thread, we are going to look at the rate at which they are popping out kids, not just the rate at which those who HAVE kids are popping them out. and if the unwed women go from 19 births per thousand to 66, they are somewhere become less'moral' and if they go from 95 to 67 per 1000, they have become less' moral'. so the difference is in if one chooses to take the number of all MOTHERs, or the numbers regarding all unmarried women, to discern 'morals'. So it's a liberal spin you are trying to put on it. It's doesn't change the numbers. I already know welfare mom have lots of kids for a bigger income vs a white woman might have 1 kid out of wedlock and realize it takes a lot to raise that child and not make that mistake again. You aren't helping your argument. lol... NO. MATH is not liberal nor conservative. If out of 1000 unmarried women there are 19 children, and later there are 54, they are having MORE kids as time goes on, so the propensity for 'morals' is declining. I didn't calculate the numbers. I just googled. It's you trying to spin it. It's definitely a liberal spin. Everybody except you gets a 70% black unwed birth rate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://vault.fbi.gov/gangster-disciples/gangster-disciples-part-1-of-1/view _______________________________________________________________________ The F.B.I. report on the Gangster Disciples. 50,000 -70,000 strong Page 26 is interesting New Member Initiation: New members to the gang must drive down the street with their headlights off. The first car that signals them that their lights are off ( good Samaritan) must be followed and the occupants...shot and killed Regardless if it is woman or children And every new member is issued a weapon ___________________________________________________________________ And they don't know this is wrong to do? or they don't care.......... BS DETECTED!!!! https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lights-out/ 20 year old FALSE story.... The REAL "Fake news" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I googled because those unwed birth rates didn't seem right. Institute for families Sept 2017 says 70% of black mothers are unwed and 46% of white mothers. When a black woman gets pregnant out of wedlock it's no big deal to the black community. It's the norm. When a white does it, they are shamed by other whites. From what I see, If a black tries to live a decent life, they are shunned by the black community. It's crazy but it's true. Most blacks don't want to do better and when 1 does, it's takes their excuse away. no. you are confusing numbers. The 70 percent comes from the ratio of black single mothers to black married mothers. The rate of births per 1000 comes from the trend in the rate per total population of births. they are different statistics, both accurate, which can be cherry picked in a discussion on 'morals' white women have been increasing the rate at which they have single parent births, while black women have been decreasing. It so happens that married black women have decreased even more than the single mothers, making the RATIO become higher. You see alot of nonsense. Im not sure why. maybe its what your brain is wired to see. I see both blacks and whites having kids without shame for marital status. I see both blacks and whites given praise for trying to do better. No matter how often people try to paint the picture that its racially different morals, its not. I googled again and got the same numbers. Unwed birth rates. Not divorce, cohabitation etc. But I do believe that the generous welfare system we have is also causing whites to begin to abuse the system just like blacks have been doing. My daughter can't get any help because she would have to report her husband's income. In an unmarried family medical, foodstamps, sec 8 etc is taken care of by mom's welfare. The father's check is spending money. Welfare is destroying families. still not understanding the numbers huh? okay. So lets say there are 2000 women, 1000 married and 1000 unmarried if they ALL have 4 kids, thats a RATIO of 50 percent of kids born out of wedlock Now, if the thousand unwed begin having only 3 kids, but the thousand married cut back to only 1 kid the ratio now becomes 75 born out of wedlock, even though BOTH groups are having less children now, take the same scenario 1000 but with unwed WOMEN and 1000 wed WOMEN if the unwed WOMEN are being 'moral' according to this thread, we are going to look at the rate at which they are popping out kids, not just the rate at which those who HAVE kids are popping them out. and if the unwed women go from 19 births per thousand to 66, they are somewhere become less'moral' and if they go from 95 to 67 per 1000, they have become less' moral'. so the difference is in if one chooses to take the number of all MOTHERs, or the numbers regarding all unmarried women, to discern 'morals'. So it's a liberal spin you are trying to put on it. It's doesn't change the numbers. I already know welfare mom have lots of kids for a bigger income vs a white woman might have 1 kid out of wedlock and realize it takes a lot to raise that child and not make that mistake again. You aren't helping your argument. lol... NO. MATH is not liberal nor conservative. If out of 1000 unmarried women there are 19 children, and later there are 54, they are having MORE kids as time goes on, so the propensity for 'morals' is declining. I didn't calculate the numbers. I just googled. It's you trying to spin it. It's definitely a liberal spin. Everybody except you gets a 70% black unwed birth rate. no. I get the numbers. They say out of 100 children born 70 are born to unwed mothers and 30 are not. That is a testament of MOTHERS, and their wedding choice. the other number that I provided states that in the 70s, out of 1000 unwed WOMEN, white women were only having 19 children chldren, and now are having 66 per 1000 unwed women. Where as in the 70s, out of 1000 unwed Women, black women were having 95 children, and now are having 67. Which means when it comes to the 'morality' of having a child when one is not married, White women are becoming LESS moral (being single and having kids) and black women are becoming MORE moral. There is no spin. There is math. I get the difference between comparing a woman's wedding choice and comparing a woman's childbearing choice, those looking to spin will refuse to see it though. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://vault.fbi.gov/gangster-disciples/gangster-disciples-part-1-of-1/view _______________________________________________________________________ The F.B.I. report on the Gangster Disciples. 50,000 -70,000 strong Page 26 is interesting New Member Initiation: New members to the gang must drive down the street with their headlights off. The first car that signals them that their lights are off ( good Samaritan) must be followed and the occupants...shot and killed Regardless if it is woman or children And every new member is issued a weapon ___________________________________________________________________ And they don't know this is wrong to do? or they don't care.......... BS DETECTED!!!! https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lights-out/ 20 year old FALSE story.... The REAL "Fake news" it is a story circulating since before 93, when a suspect in a fbi investigation repeating a version of it claiming it was GONNA be a 'new initiation' process. BUt nonetheless, still appears to be JUST an unsubstantiated story .... I think because some interrogation turned up a person claiming it again, some are assuming it is true. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I googled because those unwed birth rates didn't seem right. Institute for families Sept 2017 says 70% of black mothers are unwed and 46% of white mothers. When a black woman gets pregnant out of wedlock it's no big deal to the black community. It's the norm. When a white does it, they are shamed by other whites. From what I see, If a black tries to live a decent life, they are shunned by the black community. It's crazy but it's true. Most blacks don't want to do better and when 1 does, it's takes their excuse away. no. you are confusing numbers. The 70 percent comes from the ratio of black single mothers to black married mothers. The rate of births per 1000 comes from the trend in the rate per total population of births. they are different statistics, both accurate, which can be cherry picked in a discussion on 'morals' white women have been increasing the rate at which they have single parent births, while black women have been decreasing. It so happens that married black women have decreased even more than the single mothers, making the RATIO become higher. You see alot of nonsense. Im not sure why. maybe its what your brain is wired to see. I see both blacks and whites having kids without shame for marital status. I see both blacks and whites given praise for trying to do better. No matter how often people try to paint the picture that its racially different morals, its not. I googled again and got the same numbers. Unwed birth rates. Not divorce, cohabitation etc. But I do believe that the generous welfare system we have is also causing whites to begin to abuse the system just like blacks have been doing. My daughter can't get any help because she would have to report her husband's income. In an unmarried family medical, foodstamps, sec 8 etc is taken care of by mom's welfare. The father's check is spending money. Welfare is destroying families. still not understanding the numbers huh? okay. So lets say there are 2000 women, 1000 married and 1000 unmarried if they ALL have 4 kids, thats a RATIO of 50 percent of kids born out of wedlock Now, if the thousand unwed begin having only 3 kids, but the thousand married cut back to only 1 kid the ratio now becomes 75 born out of wedlock, even though BOTH groups are having less children now, take the same scenario 1000 but with unwed WOMEN and 1000 wed WOMEN if the unwed WOMEN are being 'moral' according to this thread, we are going to look at the rate at which they are popping out kids, not just the rate at which those who HAVE kids are popping them out. and if the unwed women go from 19 births per thousand to 66, they are somewhere become less'moral' and if they go from 95 to 67 per 1000, they have become less' moral'. so the difference is in if one chooses to take the number of all MOTHERs, or the numbers regarding all unmarried women, to discern 'morals'. So it's a liberal spin you are trying to put on it. It's doesn't change the numbers. I already know welfare mom have lots of kids for a bigger income vs a white woman might have 1 kid out of wedlock and realize it takes a lot to raise that child and not make that mistake again. You aren't helping your argument. lol... NO. MATH is not liberal nor conservative. If out of 1000 unmarried women there are 19 children, and later there are 54, they are having MORE kids as time goes on, so the propensity for 'morals' is declining. I didn't calculate the numbers. I just googled. It's you trying to spin it. It's definitely a liberal spin. Everybody except you gets a 70% black unwed birth rate. no. I get the numbers. They say out of 100 children born 70 are born to unwed mothers and 30 are not. That is a testament of MOTHERS, and their wedding choice. the other number that I provided states that in the 70s, out of 1000 unwed WOMEN, white women were only having 19 children chldren, and now are having 66 per 1000 unwed women. Where as in the 70s, out of 1000 unwed Women, black women were having 95 children, and now are having 67. Which means when it comes to the 'morality' of having a child when one is not married, White women are becoming LESS moral (being single and having kids) and black women are becoming MORE moral. There is no spin. There is math. I get the difference between comparing a woman's wedding choice and comparing a woman's childbearing choice, those looking to spin will refuse to see it though. One more time. I didn't do the math. 70% of black birth are to unmarried women. 43% of white births are to unmarried white women. It's not the same numbers as what you originally posted. I fact checked because I knew your numbers were b.s. I've already agreed that whites are catching on to the live off welfare and eat steak and go on cruises. Like I've said in other threads, everyone is seeing welfare abuse. Why would they not want to jump on that wagon? That's why it must be changed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 08/26/18 12:25 AM
|
|
I googled because those unwed birth rates didn't seem right. Institute for families Sept 2017 says 70% of black mothers are unwed and 46% of white mothers. When a black woman gets pregnant out of wedlock it's no big deal to the black community. It's the norm. When a white does it, they are shamed by other whites. From what I see, If a black tries to live a decent life, they are shunned by the black community. It's crazy but it's true. Most blacks don't want to do better and when 1 does, it's takes their excuse away. no. you are confusing numbers. The 70 percent comes from the ratio of black single mothers to black married mothers. The rate of births per 1000 comes from the trend in the rate per total population of births. they are different statistics, both accurate, which can be cherry picked in a discussion on 'morals' white women have been increasing the rate at which they have single parent births, while black women have been decreasing. It so happens that married black women have decreased even more than the single mothers, making the RATIO become higher. You see alot of nonsense. Im not sure why. maybe its what your brain is wired to see. I see both blacks and whites having kids without shame for marital status. I see both blacks and whites given praise for trying to do better. No matter how often people try to paint the picture that its racially different morals, its not. I googled again and got the same numbers. Unwed birth rates. Not divorce, cohabitation etc. But I do believe that the generous welfare system we have is also causing whites to begin to abuse the system just like blacks have been doing. My daughter can't get any help because she would have to report her husband's income. In an unmarried family medical, foodstamps, sec 8 etc is taken care of by mom's welfare. The father's check is spending money. Welfare is destroying families. still not understanding the numbers huh? okay. So lets say there are 2000 women, 1000 married and 1000 unmarried if they ALL have 4 kids, thats a RATIO of 50 percent of kids born out of wedlock Now, if the thousand unwed begin having only 3 kids, but the thousand married cut back to only 1 kid the ratio now becomes 75 born out of wedlock, even though BOTH groups are having less children now, take the same scenario 1000 but with unwed WOMEN and 1000 wed WOMEN if the unwed WOMEN are being 'moral' according to this thread, we are going to look at the rate at which they are popping out kids, not just the rate at which those who HAVE kids are popping them out. and if the unwed women go from 19 births per thousand to 66, they are somewhere become less'moral' and if they go from 95 to 67 per 1000, they have become less' moral'. so the difference is in if one chooses to take the number of all MOTHERs, or the numbers regarding all unmarried women, to discern 'morals'. So it's a liberal spin you are trying to put on it. It's doesn't change the numbers. I already know welfare mom have lots of kids for a bigger income vs a white woman might have 1 kid out of wedlock and realize it takes a lot to raise that child and not make that mistake again. You aren't helping your argument. lol... NO. MATH is not liberal nor conservative. If out of 1000 unmarried women there are 19 children, and later there are 54, they are having MORE kids as time goes on, so the propensity for 'morals' is declining. I didn't calculate the numbers. I just googled. It's you trying to spin it. It's definitely a liberal spin. Everybody except you gets a 70% black unwed birth rate. no. I get the numbers. They say out of 100 children born 70 are born to unwed mothers and 30 are not. That is a testament of MOTHERS, and their wedding choice. the other number that I provided states that in the 70s, out of 1000 unwed WOMEN, white women were only having 19 children chldren, and now are having 66 per 1000 unwed women. Where as in the 70s, out of 1000 unwed Women, black women were having 95 children, and now are having 67. Which means when it comes to the 'morality' of having a child when one is not married, White women are becoming LESS moral (being single and having kids) and black women are becoming MORE moral. There is no spin. There is math. I get the difference between comparing a woman's wedding choice and comparing a woman's childbearing choice, those looking to spin will refuse to see it though. One more time. I didn't do the math. 70% of black birth are to unmarried women. 43% of white births are to unmarried white women. It's not the same numbers as what you originally posted. I fact checked because I knew your numbers were b.s. I've already agreed that whites are catching on to the live off welfare and eat steak and go on cruises. Like I've said in other threads, everyone is seeing welfare abuse. Why would they not want to jump on that wagon? That's why it must be changed. no bs. You are stuck on the unwed mother to wed mother ratio i posted the unwed black women having babies and unwed white women having babies numbers. let me see if I can simplify it in the 1970s, if you got together 1000 white SINGLE women, there would be 13.9 children , and if you got together 1000 black SINGLE women, there would be 95 kids today, if you got together 1000 white single Women, there would be 44 kids and if you got together 1000 black Single women, there would be 65 kids so single white woman have almost TRIPLED the kids their having, while single black women have cut it in half now, if you take 1000 white KIDS, in the 70s, 55 would be to unmarried mothers, compared to 359 now and if you take 1000 black kids, in the 70s, 375 would be to unmarried mothers, compared to 720 now that means that white kids now find themself with almost 7 times the rate of single mother hood while black kids find themself with twice the rate and all the stats are accurate and able to be used to imply whatever one wishes, on both sides of the aisle https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2011/007.pdf the first set of numbers is comparing the rate at which SINGLE women have kis (amorally) the second set of numbers is comparing the ratio at which children are born to single verse wedded mothers TWO DIFFERENT SCENARIOS, one focuses on the actions of single women the other on the actions of parents regarding the choice to be single or not |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I googled because those unwed birth rates didn't seem right. Institute for families Sept 2017 says 70% of black mothers are unwed and 46% of white mothers. When a black woman gets pregnant out of wedlock it's no big deal to the black community. It's the norm. When a white does it, they are shamed by other whites. From what I see, If a black tries to live a decent life, they are shunned by the black community. It's crazy but it's true. Most blacks don't want to do better and when 1 does, it's takes their excuse away. no. you are confusing numbers. The 70 percent comes from the ratio of black single mothers to black married mothers. The rate of births per 1000 comes from the trend in the rate per total population of births. they are different statistics, both accurate, which can be cherry picked in a discussion on 'morals' white women have been increasing the rate at which they have single parent births, while black women have been decreasing. It so happens that married black women have decreased even more than the single mothers, making the RATIO become higher. You see alot of nonsense. Im not sure why. maybe its what your brain is wired to see. I see both blacks and whites having kids without shame for marital status. I see both blacks and whites given praise for trying to do better. No matter how often people try to paint the picture that its racially different morals, its not. I googled again and got the same numbers. Unwed birth rates. Not divorce, cohabitation etc. But I do believe that the generous welfare system we have is also causing whites to begin to abuse the system just like blacks have been doing. My daughter can't get any help because she would have to report her husband's income. In an unmarried family medical, foodstamps, sec 8 etc is taken care of by mom's welfare. The father's check is spending money. Welfare is destroying families. still not understanding the numbers huh? okay. So lets say there are 2000 women, 1000 married and 1000 unmarried if they ALL have 4 kids, thats a RATIO of 50 percent of kids born out of wedlock Now, if the thousand unwed begin having only 3 kids, but the thousand married cut back to only 1 kid the ratio now becomes 75 born out of wedlock, even though BOTH groups are having less children now, take the same scenario 1000 but with unwed WOMEN and 1000 wed WOMEN if the unwed WOMEN are being 'moral' according to this thread, we are going to look at the rate at which they are popping out kids, not just the rate at which those who HAVE kids are popping them out. and if the unwed women go from 19 births per thousand to 66, they are somewhere become less'moral' and if they go from 95 to 67 per 1000, they have become less' moral'. so the difference is in if one chooses to take the number of all MOTHERs, or the numbers regarding all unmarried women, to discern 'morals'. So it's a liberal spin you are trying to put on it. It's doesn't change the numbers. I already know welfare mom have lots of kids for a bigger income vs a white woman might have 1 kid out of wedlock and realize it takes a lot to raise that child and not make that mistake again. You aren't helping your argument. lol... NO. MATH is not liberal nor conservative. If out of 1000 unmarried women there are 19 children, and later there are 54, they are having MORE kids as time goes on, so the propensity for 'morals' is declining. I didn't calculate the numbers. I just googled. It's you trying to spin it. It's definitely a liberal spin. Everybody except you gets a 70% black unwed birth rate. no. I get the numbers. They say out of 100 children born 70 are born to unwed mothers and 30 are not. That is a testament of MOTHERS, and their wedding choice. the other number that I provided states that in the 70s, out of 1000 unwed WOMEN, white women were only having 19 children chldren, and now are having 66 per 1000 unwed women. Where as in the 70s, out of 1000 unwed Women, black women were having 95 children, and now are having 67. Which means when it comes to the 'morality' of having a child when one is not married, White women are becoming LESS moral (being single and having kids) and black women are becoming MORE moral. There is no spin. There is math. I get the difference between comparing a woman's wedding choice and comparing a woman's childbearing choice, those looking to spin will refuse to see it though. One more time. I didn't do the math. 70% of black birth are to unmarried women. 43% of white births are to unmarried white women. It's not the same numbers as what you originally posted. I fact checked because I knew your numbers were b.s. I've already agreed that whites are catching on to the live off welfare and eat steak and go on cruises. Like I've said in other threads, everyone is seeing welfare abuse. Why would they not want to jump on that wagon? That's why it must be changed. no bs. You are stuck on the unwed mother to wed mother ratio i posted the unwed black women having babies and unwed white women having babies numbers. let me see if I can simplify it in the 1970s, if you got together 1000 white SINGLE women, there would be 19 of them with children , and if you got together 1000 black SINGLE women, 95 would have kids today, if you got together 1000 white single Women, 66 would have kids and if you got together 1000 black Single women, 67 would have kids that would mean that since the 70s, the rate at which unmarried black women have kids (amorally) has LOWEREd, while the rate at which unmarried white women has increased.. now, if you take 1000 white KIDS, 430 would be to unmarried mothers and if you take 1000 black kids 760 would be to unmarried mothers the first set of numbers is comparing the rate at which SINGLE women have kis (amorally) the second set of numbers is comparing the ratio at which children are born to single verse wedded mothers TWO DIFFERENT SCENARIOS, one focuses on the actions of single women the other on the actions of parents regarding the choice to be single or not |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How much of the coolaid have you drank? It doesn't matter if single women claim having illegitimate kids is by choice. They are still illegitimate kids....got it. No liberal spin will change the facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When you have section 8 paying over $1000 a month for housing that's comparable to a minimum wage job. Add in foodstamps. Somebody once posted he knew somebody getting over $800. That close to twice minimum wage. Add in medical. No premiums, copays or deductibles, plus the usual 20%, dental etc. Your at 3 times minimum wage, add in wic, help with utilities, and a check. That's close to 4 times minimum wage. Welfare is causing the breakdown of the family unit. White people are getting on the welfare gravy too. That means less are working. Less paying into that system. I can't say that I blame them. In the long run it will get welfare changes. Hopefully the family unit will be restored.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How much of the coolaid have you drank? It doesn't matter if single women claim having illegitimate kids is by choice. They are still illegitimate kids....got it. No liberal spin will change the facts. no cool aid. Math, Data....lol it does matter if the argument is that having a child out of wedlock is amoral. because if a single demographic is increasing how often they have kids, they are becoming LESS Moral, while if they are decreasing it, the are becoming MORE moral whereas a racial demographic can be becoming MORE moral while still having a larger wed to unwed ratio. because the RATIO depends upon the rate at which one group is changing compared to the other, so if both groups are actually DECREASING but one group DECREASES more than the other, the ratio increases. but Im done trying to explain math. I provided the data, maybe the CDC having the same information regarding two different standards will get the point across https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2011/007.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How much of the coolaid have you drank? It doesn't matter if single women claim having illegitimate kids is by choice. They are still illegitimate kids....got it. No liberal spin will change the facts. no cool aid. Math, Data....lol it does matter if the argument is that having a child out of wedlock is amoral. because if a single demographic is increasing how often they have kids, they are becoming LESS Moral, while if they are decreasing it, the are becoming MORE moral whereas a racial demographic can be becoming MORE moral while still having a larger wed to unwed ratio. because the RATIO depends upon the rate at which one group is changing compared to the other, so if both groups are actually DECREASING but one group DECREASES more than the other, the ratio increases. but Im done trying to explain math. I provided the data, maybe the CDC having the same information regarding two different standards will get the point across https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2011/007.pdf 2011? I gave you data from Sept 2017. Then I checked again. Liberal spins don't change facts. |
|
|
|
|
