From Adm Moorer report:
That is interesting, we’ll have to find out if the investigations in my cite ever happened. So did the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence meet in 1979 and find that there was no merit to Seaman Ennes’ claim? Did the National Security Agency in 1981 find that the Liberty was mistaken for an Egyptian vessel? Did the CIA report of 6-13-67 find that the attack was a mistake? It might take some time to track these down.
The sailors that testified to the contrary could be sincere, just mistaken.
Adm. Moorer is a nutcake.
He’s so paranoid he was spying on Nixon!
I’m not making that up.
I seem to recall providing data, courtesy of the FBI. The problem you have with that data, is that it runs contrary to the diversity fantasy.
Tell ya what. I’ll agree to what you are proposing. The media ended the practice of reporting the race of criminals in the mid-sixties. Since that time, the interracial crime statistics have become more disparate. At least that is what you are insinuating by saying that I should use the crime statistics of that era instead of the 2002 stats. That would mean that since the enactment of the Civil Rights Act in the mid-sixties, the minority crime rate has increased.
Taking it to the next logical conclusion, one could then make a case that the Civil Rights Act was a mistake, and that “Jim Crowe” laws did serve a legitimate purpose.
Is this the case you are trying to make?
Overreact much? My point is that most local law enforcement would be more likely to label something conventional like a petroleum product as a fuel source than they would be to recognize enriched uranium on the spot, not that small town law enforcement is composed of hicks and rubes who don’t know shit from shinola (I’m from Abilene, Texas, population 115,930). If y’all have some special knowledge or training in identifying nuclear fuel, fine. Don’t bite my frickin’ head off.
Moderator’s Note: Razorsharp, please read our policy on copyright issues. Don’t post entire articles to the boards.
Buddy, you’ve never taken anything to the first logical conclusion. When folks have shown you the huge flaws in your analysis (namely, that they’re only significant when you assume equal numbers of black and white people, let alone when you don’t adjust for economic differences in crime rates), you’ve responded by clinging to a liar’s educational credentials. Address the arguments before you and maybe we can get somewhere.
However, you seem much keener on plagiarizing tinfoil-hat theories and parroting racist authors than on addressing the arguments before you; that’s why I gave up on you in the first place.
Daniel
And since there are not equal numbers of whites and blacks in the population, the only means available to assume an equal number of each population is to divide the number of crimes committed by each group into that group’s total population, to get each group’s crime rate. This is precisely what I did in comparing the interracial crime rate between whites and blacks. If you can’t understand that, then you are grossly uneducated.
Which is nothing more than an excuse for criminal behavior.
And now you are calling Walter Williams, a black man of impecible credentials and national stature (and you didn’t even know who he was, which speaks volumns of your social awareness.) a liar. So, I ask you, just what lie are you referring to?
Plagarizing?? You made the charge, now you MUST provide the example. Just what is it that I have plagarized? And what racist author are you referring to? Walter Williams?
No, you kept getting you nose rubbed in it. Now you have nothing but to try to discredit me by charging me with plagarism? You, “buddy”, are sorely lacking in character.
Nice debating tactic: ignore the other person’s points for a week or so and then respond to them, once they no longer have the numbers in front of them. If you really care about this, bump your old thread with its vacuous math, and I’ll point in there to my posts that rebutted this idea of yours.
No problem. From dictionary.com, one of the definitions of plagiarizing is “To steal or purloin from the writings of another.” I’ll let you guess which of your posts above fit this definition. Hint: a moderator edited the post. I will grant, however, that the more common definition of plagiarism involves such intellectual theft without attribution, and you did at least tell us whose intellectual property you were stealing.
Bump your old stupid thread, and that might be clearer to you. I’m referring to the racists Walter Williams was lauding, as i told you before (and you ignored before).
Daniel
Great day in the morning, first you flunk math, and now, reading comprehension.
From the column:
Now, as anyone can see, make that, anyone who doesn’t suffer from a reading comprehension malady can see, Dr. Williams is not “lauding” anyone anymore than I “plagarized” another’s work. You have been reduced to bastardizing the language in what basically amounts to a personal attack. Or perhaps this is just another reflection on your “education”.
You dishonest little fellow. Bump your previous thread and I’ll respond to it.
Daniel
[Moderator Hat ON]
LHoD, Razorshap, cool it or take personal issues to the Pit. LHoD, I don’t believe just quoting something makes you a plagarist, you have to represent it as your own.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
My apologies, Gaudere.
Daniel