cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's right here: they're less likely to be imprisoned for the same conduct.

---

What conduct? Being on food stamps?

---

Criminal conduct, or lack thereof.

---

lack thereof??? So they are going to jail for not doing crime????

Dude seriously what is your point? You have not gotten close to even attempting to make one. You are all over the board. First it was some sort of connection to food stamps, then it was behavior, then conduct, then crimes.....

So what is your point? Because you are failing miserably at making one or getting close to anything to do with the so called white privilege.

---

Cowboy,

Sam doesn't have the data to back up his fictions. He's tried it in the past, but all his citations were apples to beachballs comparisons and most were from insanely biased sources. He's going to allude to something he won't post until you give up. Just keep hamming him on it. He'll keep being vague to try and frustrate you.

Doc Holliday said:

---

This is the kind of rhetoric that believing in white privilege creates:



I didn't get any help. But it's assumed that I did and I'm hated for it.

---

Are people really this stupid. My elderly grandparents were as broke as you get. Family had to pay for each of their funerals, the only grandparent I knew, both grandpas were dead before I was born and I was too young to know one grandma well, was on welfare and made 300 to 400 a month and had rent of 200 a month. So we had to pay a lot of her bills even though we had no real money either. As a teen when I could drive, I went shopping for grandma mutliple times using her food stamp coupons, before the ebt card made it less obvious. As a self conscience teen who didn't appreciate the glare of old adults who should know better, it was embarrasing. As a family who was already relatively poor for a HH of 5, helping grandma meant even a bit less for us.

Forgot to add, grandma was also blind because of diabetes and never had a drivers license anyway, just like her daughter, my mom, never had a drivers license, so we also had to take her everywhere, if she needed to go to the doctor etc.

GolemIII said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's right here: they're less likely to be imprisoned for the same conduct.

---

What conduct? Being on food stamps?

---

Criminal conduct, or lack thereof.

---

lack thereof??? So they are going to jail for not doing crime????

Dude seriously what is your point? You have not gotten close to even attempting to make one. You are all over the board. First it was some sort of connection to food stamps, then it was behavior, then conduct, then crimes.....

So what is your point? Because you are failing miserably at making one or getting close to anything to do with the so called white privilege.

---

Cowboy,

Sam doesn't have the data to back up his fictions. He's tried it in the past, but all his citations were apples to beachballs comparisons and most were from insanely biased sources. He's going to allude to something he won't post until you give up. Just keep hamming him on it. He'll keep being vague to try and frustrate you.

---

I know he doesn't which is why he can't explain in a clear way what food stamps and prison have to do with each other or what that has to do with my original question of "Where is the white privilege for all the poor white people on welfare?"

It is also why he tried to throw in the "reading disability" thing so that he can deflect and do personal attacks instead of answering the question.

cowboycwr said:

---

quash said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

quash said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not quite the same. It's a combination of systemic injustice and cultural decay.

---

Welfare system injustice has caused the cultural decay imo fwiw

It hurts me the older I get to see it and remain quiet

It's what I call being on the democrat plantation too

---

Wouldn't have needed the welfare system if we'd allowed blacks to participate in homeownership and Soc Sec.

---

I find that post interesting.

I am unaware of any national case law or litigation in reference to Social Security Act and how it was/has been applied to African Americans specifically.

Please reference a case if you know of one so I can read up on it.

Please disregard if "Soc Sec." had a alternate meaning.

---

The original law. It excluded ag and domestic workers because those fields were dominated by PoC and the Southern Democrats wanted none of that.

---

Interesting interpretation of the law. Since you didn't provide any historical legal challenges on the law, can you link to any historical articles in reference to the crafting of the law?

Were those two classifications of workers you identified the only two or was there others? And if so where they "dominated" by "Poc"?

In total population numbers in 1935 what race of people working as agricultural labor (in the US) would be the most is impacted?

What generally accepted economic event was going on in the 1930's (including 1935) that may/may influenced policy makers in determine which classification of workers should be exempt?

---

Lot of questions I have no interest in researching.

---

Not a problem. Good luck on supporting future points.

---

This stuff is pretty well known. Tbe basics I gave you anyway. I don't have the numbers you're looking for. If it matters a lot to you then feel free to research them and post up.

Edit: FTR the SSA has an article on their website denying racial bias. I just find the bias explanation better supported.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n4/v70n4p49.html

---

Not sure where you are going with this response. I said your response was fine with me and gave you a general good luck in future posts. So, I am unsure why you responded with this.

I don't know the numbers either exactly but figured if you were going to make a claim (like you did) you would have some back up data supporting postings. You did not.

Not much more I can say other then I tried to get you to support your post with some kind of factual basis for other readers of our posting to take into account.

Edit:
I appreciate that you have posted a link (most do not) of a opinion that you disagree with and contains a population estimate that can be closely associated with my question number 2 "In total population numbers in 1935 what race of people working as agricultural labor (in the US) would be the most is impacted?" (1935 vs Census Bureau (1933, Table 12, p. 24).) I will read the entire article and take it into account.


The Decision to Exclude Agricultural and Domestic Workers from the 1935 Social Security Act

"This article examines both the logic of this thesis and the available empirical evidence on the origins of the coverage exclusions. The author concludes that the racial-bias thesis is both conceptually flawed and unsupported by the existing empirical evidence. The exclusion of agricultural and domestic workers from the early program was due to considerations of administrative feasibility involving tax-collection procedures. The author finds no evidence of any other policy motive involving racial bias."

---

As I pointed out earlier the exclusion of agricultural workers does not explain how it affected blacks living and working in cities, which was a very large number by the 1930s. So to claim this exemption kept ALL blacks from SS is just stupid on his part. It also would have applied to numerous whites and Hispanics. So it clearly was not any sort of racial exemption.

---

I didn't say all.

PoC includes Hispanics.

Urban areas are where domestic workers are employed.

---

Oh so now blacks only worked in agriculture or as domestic workers.....

Keep moving those goal posts.

The original SSA did not discriminate based on race.

---

Dude, you so into ascribing absolutes.

But you win as always. Now go away.

---

Translation-- you are to lazy to explain yourself or don't have the evidence to back up the claim YOU made so you will say something about absolutes and run away.

YOU CLAIMED it was racist because blacks worked on farms. I showed proof they all did not and therefore the law did not effect all blacks and you went and ADDED things to your claim and still did not address how it kept blacks from SS who did not work in the 2 fields you listed.

Using your logic I could claim that since teachers are not allowed to both Texas teacher retirement and SS that it is sexist because more women than males work in education, even though it has zero impact on the rest of females who are not teachers.

I am not going anywhere until you either admit you lied and blacks have never been prevented from taking part in SS or admit that I have proven you wrong.

---

You are a pedant. It is impossible to hold a rational discussion with you.

cowboycwr said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not quite the same. It's a combination of systemic injustice and cultural decay.

---

Welfare system injustice has caused the cultural decay imo fwiw

It hurts me the older I get to see it and remain quiet

It's what I call being on the democrat plantation too

---

Wouldn't have needed the welfare system if we'd allowed blacks to participate in homeownership and Soc Sec.

---

I find that post interesting.

I am unaware of any national case law or litigation in reference to Social Security Act and how it was/has been applied to African Americans specifically.

Please reference a case if you know of one so I can read up on it.

Please disregard if "Soc Sec." had a alternate meaning.

---

The original law. It excluded ag and domestic workers because those fields were dominated by PoC and the Southern Democrats wanted none of that.

---

Interesting interpretation of the law. Since you didn't provide any historical legal challenges on the law, can you link to any historical articles in reference to the crafting of the law?

Were those two classifications of workers you identified the only two or was there others? And if so where they "dominated" by "Poc"?

In total population numbers in 1935 what race of people working as agricultural labor (in the US) would be the most is impacted?

What generally accepted economic event was going on in the 1930's (including 1935) that may/may influenced policy makers in determine which classification of workers should be exempt?

---

Lot of questions I have no interest in researching.

---

Not a problem. Good luck on supporting future points.

---

He's right about the history. There is some debate about whether racism was behind the decision to exclude agricultural and domestic workers. Some scholarship suggests other factors were at play. Here's a link to the review of a book on the subject.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/03/a-second-look-at-social-securitys-racist-origins/?utm_term=.83748ddc4f58

Quash is also right that he's under no special obligation to teach you the history or else forfeit the argument.

---

There is debate...

Meaning it is not proven and not 100% fact.

Meaning it is not true.

---

There is some debate about the REASON they were excluded. There is no debate about the fact of their exclusion, nor about the negative effects of that exclusion.

quash said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

quash said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

quash said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not quite the same. It's a combination of systemic injustice and cultural decay.

---

Welfare system injustice has caused the cultural decay imo fwiw

It hurts me the older I get to see it and remain quiet

It's what I call being on the democrat plantation too

---

Wouldn't have needed the welfare system if we'd allowed blacks to participate in homeownership and Soc Sec.

---

I find that post interesting.

I am unaware of any national case law or litigation in reference to Social Security Act and how it was/has been applied to African Americans specifically.

Please reference a case if you know of one so I can read up on it.

Please disregard if "Soc Sec." had a alternate meaning.

---

The original law. It excluded ag and domestic workers because those fields were dominated by PoC and the Southern Democrats wanted none of that.

---

Interesting interpretation of the law. Since you didn't provide any historical legal challenges on the law, can you link to any historical articles in reference to the crafting of the law?

Were those two classifications of workers you identified the only two or was there others? And if so where they "dominated" by "Poc"?

In total population numbers in 1935 what race of people working as agricultural labor (in the US) would be the most is impacted?

What generally accepted economic event was going on in the 1930's (including 1935) that may/may influenced policy makers in determine which classification of workers should be exempt?

---

Lot of questions I have no interest in researching.

---

Not a problem. Good luck on supporting future points.

---

This stuff is pretty well known. Tbe basics I gave you anyway. I don't have the numbers you're looking for. If it matters a lot to you then feel free to research them and post up.

Edit: FTR the SSA has an article on their website denying racial bias. I just find the bias explanation better supported.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n4/v70n4p49.html

---

Not sure where you are going with this response. I said your response was fine with me and gave you a general good luck in future posts. So, I am unsure why you responded with this.

I don't know the numbers either exactly but figured if you were going to make a claim (like you did) you would have some back up data supporting postings. You did not.

Not much more I can say other then I tried to get you to support your post with some kind of factual basis for other readers of our posting to take into account.

Edit:
I appreciate that you have posted a link (most do not) of a opinion that you disagree with and contains a population estimate that can be closely associated with my question number 2 "In total population numbers in 1935 what race of people working as agricultural labor (in the US) would be the most is impacted?" (1935 vs Census Bureau (1933, Table 12, p. 24).) I will read the entire article and take it into account.


The Decision to Exclude Agricultural and Domestic Workers from the 1935 Social Security Act

"This article examines both the logic of this thesis and the available empirical evidence on the origins of the coverage exclusions. The author concludes that the racial-bias thesis is both conceptually flawed and unsupported by the existing empirical evidence. The exclusion of agricultural and domestic workers from the early program was due to considerations of administrative feasibility involving tax-collection procedures. The author finds no evidence of any other policy motive involving racial bias."

---

As I pointed out earlier the exclusion of agricultural workers does not explain how it affected blacks living and working in cities, which was a very large number by the 1930s. So to claim this exemption kept ALL blacks from SS is just stupid on his part. It also would have applied to numerous whites and Hispanics. So it clearly was not any sort of racial exemption.

---

I didn't say all.

PoC includes Hispanics.

Urban areas are where domestic workers are employed.

---

Oh so now blacks only worked in agriculture or as domestic workers.....

Keep moving those goal posts.

The original SSA did not discriminate based on race.

---

Dude, you so into ascribing absolutes.

But you win as always. Now go away.

---

Translation-- you are to lazy to explain yourself or don't have the evidence to back up the claim YOU made so you will say something about absolutes and run away.

YOU CLAIMED it was racist because blacks worked on farms. I showed proof they all did not and therefore the law did not effect all blacks and you went and ADDED things to your claim and still did not address how it kept blacks from SS who did not work in the 2 fields you listed.

Using your logic I could claim that since teachers are not allowed to both Texas teacher retirement and SS that it is sexist because more women than males work in education, even though it has zero impact on the rest of females who are not teachers.

I am not going anywhere until you either admit you lied and blacks have never been prevented from taking part in SS or admit that I have proven you wrong.

---

You are a pedant. It is impossible to hold a rational discussion with you.

---

Oh yes. The resorting to name calling because you have nothing left to argue.

You made a claim and I provided facts to prove you wrong. You have nothing.

For us to have a rational discussion you would have to exist in reality and have actual facts. Not myths and lies.

cowboycwr said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's right here: they're less likely to be imprisoned for the same conduct.

---

What conduct? Being on food stamps?

---

Criminal conduct, or lack thereof.

---

lack thereof??? So they are going to jail for not doing crime????

Dude seriously what is your point? You have not gotten close to even attempting to make one. You are all over the board. First it was some sort of connection to food stamps, then it was behavior, then conduct, then crimes.....

So what is your point? Because you are failing miserably at making one or getting close to anything to do with the so called white privilege.

---

Cowboy,

Sam doesn't have the data to back up his fictions. He's tried it in the past, but all his citations were apples to beachballs comparisons and most were from insanely biased sources. He's going to allude to something he won't post until you give up. Just keep hamming him on it. He'll keep being vague to try and frustrate you.

---

I know he doesn't which is why he can't explain in a clear way what food stamps and prison have to do with each other or what that has to do with my original question of "Where is the white privilege for all the poor white people on welfare?"

It is also why he tried to throw in the "reading disability" thing so that he can deflect and do personal attacks instead of answering the question.

---

I don't know how many ways I can say it. You asked where the privilege is. I said they're less likely to go to prison.

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's right here: they're less likely to be imprisoned for the same conduct.

---

What conduct? Being on food stamps?

---

Criminal conduct, or lack thereof.

---

lack thereof??? So they are going to jail for not doing crime????

Dude seriously what is your point? You have not gotten close to even attempting to make one. You are all over the board. First it was some sort of connection to food stamps, then it was behavior, then conduct, then crimes.....

So what is your point? Because you are failing miserably at making one or getting close to anything to do with the so called white privilege.

---

Cowboy,

Sam doesn't have the data to back up his fictions. He's tried it in the past, but all his citations were apples to beachballs comparisons and most were from insanely biased sources. He's going to allude to something he won't post until you give up. Just keep hamming him on it. He'll keep being vague to try and frustrate you.

---

I know he doesn't which is why he can't explain in a clear way what food stamps and prison have to do with each other or what that has to do with my original question of "Where is the white privilege for all the poor white people on welfare?"

It is also why he tried to throw in the "reading disability" thing so that he can deflect and do personal attacks instead of answering the question.

---

I don't know how many ways I can say it. You asked where the privilege is. I said they're less likely to go to prison.

---

And have provided no data to that but only made some weird food stamps = prison connection while ignoring that people in prison have made a choice to commit a crime (which you admitted to earlier) but then also kept going on about behavior, and conduct.

So I will ask again. Where is the white privilege for a person on welfare. And it cannot be "they make better personal choices"

That is not privilege. It is making better choices.

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's right here: they're less likely to be imprisoned for the same conduct.

---

What conduct? Being on food stamps?

---

Criminal conduct, or lack thereof.

---

lack thereof??? So they are going to jail for not doing crime????

Dude seriously what is your point? You have not gotten close to even attempting to make one. You are all over the board. First it was some sort of connection to food stamps, then it was behavior, then conduct, then crimes.....

So what is your point? Because you are failing miserably at making one or getting close to anything to do with the so called white privilege.

---

Cowboy,

Sam doesn't have the data to back up his fictions. He's tried it in the past, but all his citations were apples to beachballs comparisons and most were from insanely biased sources. He's going to allude to something he won't post until you give up. Just keep hamming him on it. He'll keep being vague to try and frustrate you.

---

I know he doesn't which is why he can't explain in a clear way what food stamps and prison have to do with each other or what that has to do with my original question of "Where is the white privilege for all the poor white people on welfare?"

It is also why he tried to throw in the "reading disability" thing so that he can deflect and do personal attacks instead of answering the question.

---

I don't know how many ways I can say it. You asked where the privilege is. I said they're less likely to go to prison.

---

And have provided no data to that but only made some weird food stamps = prison connection while ignoring that people in prison have made a choice to commit a crime (which you admitted to earlier) but then also kept going on about behavior, and conduct.

So I will ask again. Where is the white privilege for a person on welfare. And it cannot be "they make better personal choices"

That is not privilege. It is making better choices.

---

And I'll tell you again. The white person on welfare is less likely to go to prison than a black person who makes the same personal choices, commits the same crimes, exhibits the same behavior, engages in the same conduct, smokes the same weed, drives the same speed, wears the same baggy pants, or does whatever the **** else a person can do, by whatever name you happen to want to call it.

Sorry I didn't make that clear.

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Why is everyone avoiding this question:

What is an example of rectifying white privilege?

---

I'm still waiting for that answer as well. Additionally, no one has answered what privilege I have received or am receiving for being half-white.

For all of the rhetoric discussed on this board about this, you'd think we'd get some answers...

---

Do y'all have me on ignore?

---

Haha you won't answer the question.

You have not given an example.

---

I did. In response to one of your posts. And this is the second time I've told you as much.

---

I looked through and don't see it.

I need an example, not an explanation. What is an example of a white person doing something to fight white privilege?

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Why is everyone avoiding this question:

What is an example of rectifying white privilege?

---

I'm still waiting for that answer as well. Additionally, no one has answered what privilege I have received or am receiving for being half-white.

For all of the rhetoric discussed on this board about this, you'd think we'd get some answers...

---

Do y'all have me on ignore?

---

Haha you won't answer the question.

You have not given an example.

---

I did. In response to one of your posts. And this is the second time I've told you as much.

---

Actually, I just went through all of your posts and did not see you answer his questions as to what he should do...nor do you answer my question or even address what white privilege is, other than you sitting at a lake.

---

Look up.

---

How does this apply to Doc? Is he a lawyer or policeman?

This is what YOU said that YOU do. You did not say what HE can do nor did you list how I have benefited.

We'll continue waiting...

bubbadog said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not quite the same. It's a combination of systemic injustice and cultural decay.

---

Welfare system injustice has caused the cultural decay imo fwiw

It hurts me the older I get to see it and remain quiet

It's what I call being on the democrat plantation too

---

Wouldn't have needed the welfare system if we'd allowed blacks to participate in homeownership and Soc Sec.

---

I find that post interesting.

I am unaware of any national case law or litigation in reference to Social Security Act and how it was/has been applied to African Americans specifically.

Please reference a case if you know of one so I can read up on it.

Please disregard if "Soc Sec." had a alternate meaning.

---

The original law. It excluded ag and domestic workers because those fields were dominated by PoC and the Southern Democrats wanted none of that.

---

Interesting interpretation of the law. Since you didn't provide any historical legal challenges on the law, can you link to any historical articles in reference to the crafting of the law?

Were those two classifications of workers you identified the only two or was there others? And if so where they "dominated" by "Poc"?

In total population numbers in 1935 what race of people working as agricultural labor (in the US) would be the most is impacted?

What generally accepted economic event was going on in the 1930's (including 1935) that may/may influenced policy makers in determine which classification of workers should be exempt?

---

Lot of questions I have no interest in researching.

---

Not a problem. Good luck on supporting future points.

---

He's right about the history. There is some debate about whether racism was behind the decision to exclude agricultural and domestic workers. Some scholarship suggests other factors were at play. Here's a link to the review of a book on the subject.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/03/a-second-look-at-social-securitys-racist-origins/?utm_term=.83748ddc4f58

Quash is also right that he's under no special obligation to teach you the history or else forfeit the argument.

---

There is debate...

Meaning it is not proven and not 100% fact.

Meaning it is not true.

---

There is some debate about the REASON they were excluded. There is no debate about the fact of their exclusion, nor about the negative effects of that exclusion.

---

His original premise was "Wouldn't have needed the welfare system if we'd allowed blacks to participate in homeownership and Soc Sec."

The fact is there was a original law (The Social Security Act of 1935) and it did excluded agriculture labor and domestic service in a private home workers (among others)..

The fact (within general reasoning) was that all races were part of that that labor force and thus agricultural labor and domestic service workers were not 100% composed of only "Poc". Therefore the underlying premise that "blacks" were not allowed to participate in Social Security with the evidence presented is debatable (reasonably assumed to not be a fact).

I have also not seen a discussion or study/link comparing the "negative effect on that exclusion" (refereeing to Social Security benefits being excluded to all agricultural labor and domestic service workers) and how one could quantify the effects of not allowing participation of something against different races.

If you have please post.

bubbadog said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not quite the same. It's a combination of systemic injustice and cultural decay.

---

Welfare system injustice has caused the cultural decay imo fwiw

It hurts me the older I get to see it and remain quiet

It's what I call being on the democrat plantation too

---

Wouldn't have needed the welfare system if we'd allowed blacks to participate in homeownership and Soc Sec.

---

I find that post interesting.

I am unaware of any national case law or litigation in reference to Social Security Act and how it was/has been applied to African Americans specifically.

Please reference a case if you know of one so I can read up on it.

Please disregard if "Soc Sec." had a alternate meaning.

---

The original law. It excluded ag and domestic workers because those fields were dominated by PoC and the Southern Democrats wanted none of that.

---

Interesting interpretation of the law. Since you didn't provide any historical legal challenges on the law, can you link to any historical articles in reference to the crafting of the law?

Were those two classifications of workers you identified the only two or was there others? And if so where they "dominated" by "Poc"?

In total population numbers in 1935 what race of people working as agricultural labor (in the US) would be the most is impacted?

What generally accepted economic event was going on in the 1930's (including 1935) that may/may influenced policy makers in determine which classification of workers should be exempt?

---

Lot of questions I have no interest in researching.

---

Not a problem. Good luck on supporting future points.

---

He's right about the history. There is some debate about whether racism was behind the decision to exclude agricultural and domestic workers. Some scholarship suggests other factors were at play. Here's a link to the review of a book on the subject.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/03/a-second-look-at-social-securitys-racist-origins/?utm_term=.83748ddc4f58

Quash is also right that he's under no special obligation to teach you the history or else forfeit the argument.

OK, I don't remember anyone proposing he was obligated to anything but that viewpoint is problematic in my opinion.

How is any form of debate to go on when a one of the posters can use that position?

Poster #1) I believe in so and so.

Poster #2) Really? Do you have any facts other than so and so?

Poster #1) I have no special obligation to teach you history or else forfeit the argument.

To be clear he did post this link to an article trying to address some of my questions (so did you)
He stated that he considered the "bias explanation better supported."

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n4/v70n4p49.html"

I thanked him for this supporting evidence and read the article.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's right here: they're less likely to be imprisoned for the same conduct.

---

What conduct? Being on food stamps?

---

Criminal conduct, or lack thereof.

---

lack thereof??? So they are going to jail for not doing crime????

Dude seriously what is your point? You have not gotten close to even attempting to make one. You are all over the board. First it was some sort of connection to food stamps, then it was behavior, then conduct, then crimes.....

So what is your point? Because you are failing miserably at making one or getting close to anything to do with the so called white privilege.

---

Cowboy,

Sam doesn't have the data to back up his fictions. He's tried it in the past, but all his citations were apples to beachballs comparisons and most were from insanely biased sources. He's going to allude to something he won't post until you give up. Just keep hamming him on it. He'll keep being vague to try and frustrate you.

---

I know he doesn't which is why he can't explain in a clear way what food stamps and prison have to do with each other or what that has to do with my original question of "Where is the white privilege for all the poor white people on welfare?"

It is also why he tried to throw in the "reading disability" thing so that he can deflect and do personal attacks instead of answering the question.

---

I don't know how many ways I can say it. You asked where the privilege is. I said they're less likely to go to prison.

---

And have provided no data to that but only made some weird food stamps = prison connection while ignoring that people in prison have made a choice to commit a crime (which you admitted to earlier) but then also kept going on about behavior, and conduct.

So I will ask again. Where is the white privilege for a person on welfare. And it cannot be "they make better personal choices"

That is not privilege. It is making better choices.

---

And I'll tell you again. The white person on welfare is less likely to go to prison than a black person who makes the same personal choices, commits the same crimes, exhibits the same behavior, engages in the same conduct, smokes the same weed, drives the same speed, wears the same baggy pants, or does whatever the **** else a person can do, by whatever name you happen to want to call it.

Sorry I didn't make that clear.

---

And your proof for this is?

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's right here: they're less likely to be imprisoned for the same conduct.

---

What conduct? Being on food stamps?

---

Criminal conduct, or lack thereof.

---

lack thereof??? So they are going to jail for not doing crime????

Dude seriously what is your point? You have not gotten close to even attempting to make one. You are all over the board. First it was some sort of connection to food stamps, then it was behavior, then conduct, then crimes.....

So what is your point? Because you are failing miserably at making one or getting close to anything to do with the so called white privilege.

---

Cowboy,

Sam doesn't have the data to back up his fictions. He's tried it in the past, but all his citations were apples to beachballs comparisons and most were from insanely biased sources. He's going to allude to something he won't post until you give up. Just keep hamming him on it. He'll keep being vague to try and frustrate you.

---

I know he doesn't which is why he can't explain in a clear way what food stamps and prison have to do with each other or what that has to do with my original question of "Where is the white privilege for all the poor white people on welfare?"

It is also why he tried to throw in the "reading disability" thing so that he can deflect and do personal attacks instead of answering the question.

---

I don't know how many ways I can say it. You asked where the privilege is. I said they're less likely to go to prison.

---

And have provided no data to that but only made some weird food stamps = prison connection while ignoring that people in prison have made a choice to commit a crime (which you admitted to earlier) but then also kept going on about behavior, and conduct.

So I will ask again. Where is the white privilege for a person on welfare. And it cannot be "they make better personal choices"

That is not privilege. It is making better choices.

---

And I'll tell you again. The white person on welfare is less likely to go to prison than a black person who makes the same personal choices, commits the same crimes, exhibits the same behavior, engages in the same conduct, smokes the same weed, drives the same speed, wears the same baggy pants, or does whatever the **** else a person can do, by whatever name you happen to want to call it.

Sorry I didn't make that clear.

---

Let's say you're right for argument sake

What does it matter sitting here discussing it? I'd rather be encouraging both of them to just plain get going and make something more out of themselves

We whine too much and that's gotta change or today's youth will sink our country as they age

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's right here: they're less likely to be imprisoned for the same conduct.

---

What conduct? Being on food stamps?

---

Criminal conduct, or lack thereof.

---

lack thereof??? So they are going to jail for not doing crime????

Dude seriously what is your point? You have not gotten close to even attempting to make one. You are all over the board. First it was some sort of connection to food stamps, then it was behavior, then conduct, then crimes.....

So what is your point? Because you are failing miserably at making one or getting close to anything to do with the so called white privilege.

---

Cowboy,

Sam doesn't have the data to back up his fictions. He's tried it in the past, but all his citations were apples to beachballs comparisons and most were from insanely biased sources. He's going to allude to something he won't post until you give up. Just keep hamming him on it. He'll keep being vague to try and frustrate you.

---

I know he doesn't which is why he can't explain in a clear way what food stamps and prison have to do with each other or what that has to do with my original question of "Where is the white privilege for all the poor white people on welfare?"

It is also why he tried to throw in the "reading disability" thing so that he can deflect and do personal attacks instead of answering the question.

---

I don't know how many ways I can say it. You asked where the privilege is. I said they're less likely to go to prison.

---

And have provided no data to that but only made some weird food stamps = prison connection while ignoring that people in prison have made a choice to commit a crime (which you admitted to earlier) but then also kept going on about behavior, and conduct.

So I will ask again. Where is the white privilege for a person on welfare. And it cannot be "they make better personal choices"

That is not privilege. It is making better choices.

---

And I'll tell you again. The white person on welfare is less likely to go to prison than a black person who makes the same personal choices, commits the same crimes, exhibits the same behavior, engages in the same conduct, smokes the same weed, drives the same speed, wears the same baggy pants, or does whatever the **** else a person can do, by whatever name you happen to want to call it.

Sorry I didn't make that clear.

---

And your proof for this is?

---

Here's an example:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/08/racial_disparities_in_the_criminal_justice_system_eight_charts_illustrating.html

Florda_mike said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's right here: they're less likely to be imprisoned for the same conduct.

---

What conduct? Being on food stamps?

---

Criminal conduct, or lack thereof.

---

lack thereof??? So they are going to jail for not doing crime????

Dude seriously what is your point? You have not gotten close to even attempting to make one. You are all over the board. First it was some sort of connection to food stamps, then it was behavior, then conduct, then crimes.....

So what is your point? Because you are failing miserably at making one or getting close to anything to do with the so called white privilege.

---

Cowboy,

Sam doesn't have the data to back up his fictions. He's tried it in the past, but all his citations were apples to beachballs comparisons and most were from insanely biased sources. He's going to allude to something he won't post until you give up. Just keep hamming him on it. He'll keep being vague to try and frustrate you.

---

I know he doesn't which is why he can't explain in a clear way what food stamps and prison have to do with each other or what that has to do with my original question of "Where is the white privilege for all the poor white people on welfare?"

It is also why he tried to throw in the "reading disability" thing so that he can deflect and do personal attacks instead of answering the question.

---

I don't know how many ways I can say it. You asked where the privilege is. I said they're less likely to go to prison.

---

And have provided no data to that but only made some weird food stamps = prison connection while ignoring that people in prison have made a choice to commit a crime (which you admitted to earlier) but then also kept going on about behavior, and conduct.

So I will ask again. Where is the white privilege for a person on welfare. And it cannot be "they make better personal choices"

That is not privilege. It is making better choices.

---

And I'll tell you again. The white person on welfare is less likely to go to prison than a black person who makes the same personal choices, commits the same crimes, exhibits the same behavior, engages in the same conduct, smokes the same weed, drives the same speed, wears the same baggy pants, or does whatever the **** else a person can do, by whatever name you happen to want to call it.

Sorry I didn't make that clear.

---

Let's say you're right for argument sake

What does it matter sitting here discussing it? I'd rather be encouraging both of them to just plain get going and make something more out of themselves

We whine too much and that's gotta change or today's youth will sink our country as they age

---

It's two different conversations. If I were talking to those individual people, I'd agree with you. I wouldn't tell them to focus on systemic injustice. I'd encourage them to focus on themselves and do their best with what they have.

But I'm not talking to them right now. I'm talking to my fellow voters about policies that we dictate. Those policies have consequences, and the unfortunate fact is that not everyone we kick down is going to get back up.

Self-reliance is great. Just don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's right here: they're less likely to be imprisoned for the same conduct.

---

What conduct? Being on food stamps?

---

Criminal conduct, or lack thereof.

---

lack thereof??? So they are going to jail for not doing crime????

Dude seriously what is your point? You have not gotten close to even attempting to make one. You are all over the board. First it was some sort of connection to food stamps, then it was behavior, then conduct, then crimes.....

So what is your point? Because you are failing miserably at making one or getting close to anything to do with the so called white privilege.

---

Cowboy,

Sam doesn't have the data to back up his fictions. He's tried it in the past, but all his citations were apples to beachballs comparisons and most were from insanely biased sources. He's going to allude to something he won't post until you give up. Just keep hamming him on it. He'll keep being vague to try and frustrate you.

---

I know he doesn't which is why he can't explain in a clear way what food stamps and prison have to do with each other or what that has to do with my original question of "Where is the white privilege for all the poor white people on welfare?"

It is also why he tried to throw in the "reading disability" thing so that he can deflect and do personal attacks instead of answering the question.

---

I don't know how many ways I can say it. You asked where the privilege is. I said they're less likely to go to prison.

---

And have provided no data to that but only made some weird food stamps = prison connection while ignoring that people in prison have made a choice to commit a crime (which you admitted to earlier) but then also kept going on about behavior, and conduct.

So I will ask again. Where is the white privilege for a person on welfare. And it cannot be "they make better personal choices"

That is not privilege. It is making better choices.

---

And I'll tell you again. The white person on welfare is less likely to go to prison than a black person who makes the same personal choices, commits the same crimes, exhibits the same behavior, engages in the same conduct, smokes the same weed, drives the same speed, wears the same baggy pants, or does whatever the **** else a person can do, by whatever name you happen to want to call it.

Sorry I didn't make that clear.

---

And your proof for this is?

---

Here's an example:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/08/racial_disparities_in_the_criminal_justice_system_eight_charts_illustrating.html

---

As I said, let's stop whining and making excuses for this and that

Just put on your shoes, strap em up and head out the door to work and make something of yourself.

I just hired a kid fresh out of jail for 364 days this week and have been impressed with how he wants to change his future from his past. Everyone of these young guys would want that and just need direction and encouragement!

As long as you're whining about blacks being mistreated and they take that to heart it'll form an attitude that will lead them nowhere good

Just saying ......

Florda_mike said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's right here: they're less likely to be imprisoned for the same conduct.

---

What conduct? Being on food stamps?

---

Criminal conduct, or lack thereof.

---

lack thereof??? So they are going to jail for not doing crime????

Dude seriously what is your point? You have not gotten close to even attempting to make one. You are all over the board. First it was some sort of connection to food stamps, then it was behavior, then conduct, then crimes.....

So what is your point? Because you are failing miserably at making one or getting close to anything to do with the so called white privilege.

---

Cowboy,

Sam doesn't have the data to back up his fictions. He's tried it in the past, but all his citations were apples to beachballs comparisons and most were from insanely biased sources. He's going to allude to something he won't post until you give up. Just keep hamming him on it. He'll keep being vague to try and frustrate you.

---

I know he doesn't which is why he can't explain in a clear way what food stamps and prison have to do with each other or what that has to do with my original question of "Where is the white privilege for all the poor white people on welfare?"

It is also why he tried to throw in the "reading disability" thing so that he can deflect and do personal attacks instead of answering the question.

---

I don't know how many ways I can say it. You asked where the privilege is. I said they're less likely to go to prison.

---

And have provided no data to that but only made some weird food stamps = prison connection while ignoring that people in prison have made a choice to commit a crime (which you admitted to earlier) but then also kept going on about behavior, and conduct.

So I will ask again. Where is the white privilege for a person on welfare. And it cannot be "they make better personal choices"

That is not privilege. It is making better choices.

---

And I'll tell you again. The white person on welfare is less likely to go to prison than a black person who makes the same personal choices, commits the same crimes, exhibits the same behavior, engages in the same conduct, smokes the same weed, drives the same speed, wears the same baggy pants, or does whatever the **** else a person can do, by whatever name you happen to want to call it.

Sorry I didn't make that clear.

---

And your proof for this is?

---

Here's an example:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/08/racial_disparities_in_the_criminal_justice_system_eight_charts_illustrating.html

---

As I said, let's stop whining and making excuses for this and that

Just put on your shoes, strap em up and head out the door to work and make something of yourself.

I just hired a kid fresh out of jail for 364 days this week and have been impressed with how he wants to change his future from his past. Everyone of these young guys would want that and just need direction and encouragement!

As long as you're whining about blacks being mistreated and they take that to heart it'll form an attitude that will lead them nowhere good

Just saying ......

---

I'm not talking to them now. I'm talking to us.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's right here: they're less likely to be imprisoned for the same conduct.

---

What conduct? Being on food stamps?

---

Criminal conduct, or lack thereof.

---

lack thereof??? So they are going to jail for not doing crime????

Dude seriously what is your point? You have not gotten close to even attempting to make one. You are all over the board. First it was some sort of connection to food stamps, then it was behavior, then conduct, then crimes.....

So what is your point? Because you are failing miserably at making one or getting close to anything to do with the so called white privilege.

---

Cowboy,

Sam doesn't have the data to back up his fictions. He's tried it in the past, but all his citations were apples to beachballs comparisons and most were from insanely biased sources. He's going to allude to something he won't post until you give up. Just keep hamming him on it. He'll keep being vague to try and frustrate you.

---

I know he doesn't which is why he can't explain in a clear way what food stamps and prison have to do with each other or what that has to do with my original question of "Where is the white privilege for all the poor white people on welfare?"

It is also why he tried to throw in the "reading disability" thing so that he can deflect and do personal attacks instead of answering the question.

---

I don't know how many ways I can say it. You asked where the privilege is. I said they're less likely to go to prison.

---

And have provided no data to that but only made some weird food stamps = prison connection while ignoring that people in prison have made a choice to commit a crime (which you admitted to earlier) but then also kept going on about behavior, and conduct.

So I will ask again. Where is the white privilege for a person on welfare. And it cannot be "they make better personal choices"

That is not privilege. It is making better choices.

---

And I'll tell you again. The white person on welfare is less likely to go to prison than a black person who makes the same personal choices, commits the same crimes, exhibits the same behavior, engages in the same conduct, smokes the same weed, drives the same speed, wears the same baggy pants, or does whatever the **** else a person can do, by whatever name you happen to want to call it.

Sorry I didn't make that clear.

---

And your proof for this is?

---

Here's an example:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/08/racial_disparities_in_the_criminal_justice_system_eight_charts_illustrating.html

---

As I said, let's stop whining and making excuses for this and that

Just put on your shoes, strap em up and head out the door to work and make something of yourself.

I just hired a kid fresh out of jail for 364 days this week and have been impressed with how he wants to change his future from his past. Everyone of these young guys would want that and just need direction and encouragement!

As long as you're whining about blacks being mistreated and they take that to heart it'll form an attitude that will lead them nowhere good

Just saying ......

---

I'm not talking to them now. I'm talking to us.

---

But your words echo loudly and are strongly felt in a negative way

Florda_mike said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's right here: they're less likely to be imprisoned for the same conduct.

---

What conduct? Being on food stamps?

---

Criminal conduct, or lack thereof.

---

lack thereof??? So they are going to jail for not doing crime????

Dude seriously what is your point? You have not gotten close to even attempting to make one. You are all over the board. First it was some sort of connection to food stamps, then it was behavior, then conduct, then crimes.....

So what is your point? Because you are failing miserably at making one or getting close to anything to do with the so called white privilege.

---

Cowboy,

Sam doesn't have the data to back up his fictions. He's tried it in the past, but all his citations were apples to beachballs comparisons and most were from insanely biased sources. He's going to allude to something he won't post until you give up. Just keep hamming him on it. He'll keep being vague to try and frustrate you.

---

I know he doesn't which is why he can't explain in a clear way what food stamps and prison have to do with each other or what that has to do with my original question of "Where is the white privilege for all the poor white people on welfare?"

It is also why he tried to throw in the "reading disability" thing so that he can deflect and do personal attacks instead of answering the question.

---

I don't know how many ways I can say it. You asked where the privilege is. I said they're less likely to go to prison.

---

And have provided no data to that but only made some weird food stamps = prison connection while ignoring that people in prison have made a choice to commit a crime (which you admitted to earlier) but then also kept going on about behavior, and conduct.

So I will ask again. Where is the white privilege for a person on welfare. And it cannot be "they make better personal choices"

That is not privilege. It is making better choices.

---

And I'll tell you again. The white person on welfare is less likely to go to prison than a black person who makes the same personal choices, commits the same crimes, exhibits the same behavior, engages in the same conduct, smokes the same weed, drives the same speed, wears the same baggy pants, or does whatever the **** else a person can do, by whatever name you happen to want to call it.

Sorry I didn't make that clear.

---

And your proof for this is?

---

Here's an example:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/08/racial_disparities_in_the_criminal_justice_system_eight_charts_illustrating.html

---

As I said, let's stop whining and making excuses for this and that

Just put on your shoes, strap em up and head out the door to work and make something of yourself.

I just hired a kid fresh out of jail for 364 days this week and have been impressed with how he wants to change his future from his past. Everyone of these young guys would want that and just need direction and encouragement!

As long as you're whining about blacks being mistreated and they take that to heart it'll form an attitude that will lead them nowhere good

Just saying ......

---

I'm not talking to them now. I'm talking to us.

---

But your words echo loudly and are strongly felt in a negative way

---

Nothing good comes from denial. If you want to accomplish something positive, you have to start with the facts as they are. Besides, I'm not delivering any new revelations here.

Doubt Irish Americans consider themselves the historical receiptients of 'white privilege'.

Canada2017 said:

---

Doubt Irish Americans consider themselves the historical receiptients of 'white privilege'.

---

Sure we are.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doubt Irish Americans consider themselves the historical receiptients of 'white privilege'.

---

Sure we are.

---

Who knew ?

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's right here: they're less likely to be imprisoned for the same conduct.

---

What conduct? Being on food stamps?

---

Criminal conduct, or lack thereof.

---

lack thereof??? So they are going to jail for not doing crime????

Dude seriously what is your point? You have not gotten close to even attempting to make one. You are all over the board. First it was some sort of connection to food stamps, then it was behavior, then conduct, then crimes.....

So what is your point? Because you are failing miserably at making one or getting close to anything to do with the so called white privilege.

---

Cowboy,

Sam doesn't have the data to back up his fictions. He's tried it in the past, but all his citations were apples to beachballs comparisons and most were from insanely biased sources. He's going to allude to something he won't post until you give up. Just keep hamming him on it. He'll keep being vague to try and frustrate you.

---

I know he doesn't which is why he can't explain in a clear way what food stamps and prison have to do with each other or what that has to do with my original question of "Where is the white privilege for all the poor white people on welfare?"

It is also why he tried to throw in the "reading disability" thing so that he can deflect and do personal attacks instead of answering the question.

---

I don't know how many ways I can say it. You asked where the privilege is. I said they're less likely to go to prison.

---

And have provided no data to that but only made some weird food stamps = prison connection while ignoring that people in prison have made a choice to commit a crime (which you admitted to earlier) but then also kept going on about behavior, and conduct.

So I will ask again. Where is the white privilege for a person on welfare. And it cannot be "they make better personal choices"

That is not privilege. It is making better choices.

---

And I'll tell you again. The white person on welfare is less likely to go to prison than a black person who makes the same personal choices, commits the same crimes, exhibits the same behavior, engages in the same conduct, smokes the same weed, drives the same speed, wears the same baggy pants, or does whatever the **** else a person can do, by whatever name you happen to want to call it.

Sorry I didn't make that clear.

---

And your proof for this is?

---

Here's an example:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/08/racial_disparities_in_the_criminal_justice_system_eight_charts_illustrating.html

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's right here: they're less likely to be imprisoned for the same conduct.

---

What conduct? Being on food stamps?

---

Criminal conduct, or lack thereof.

---

lack thereof??? So they are going to jail for not doing crime????

Dude seriously what is your point? You have not gotten close to even attempting to make one. You are all over the board. First it was some sort of connection to food stamps, then it was behavior, then conduct, then crimes.....

So what is your point? Because you are failing miserably at making one or getting close to anything to do with the so called white privilege.

---

Cowboy,

Sam doesn't have the data to back up his fictions. He's tried it in the past, but all his citations were apples to beachballs comparisons and most were from insanely biased sources. He's going to allude to something he won't post until you give up. Just keep hamming him on it. He'll keep being vague to try and frustrate you.

---

I know he doesn't which is why he can't explain in a clear way what food stamps and prison have to do with each other or what that has to do with my original question of "Where is the white privilege for all the poor white people on welfare?"

It is also why he tried to throw in the "reading disability" thing so that he can deflect and do personal attacks instead of answering the question.

---

I don't know how many ways I can say it. You asked where the privilege is. I said they're less likely to go to prison.

---

And have provided no data to that but only made some weird food stamps = prison connection while ignoring that people in prison have made a choice to commit a crime (which you admitted to earlier) but then also kept going on about behavior, and conduct.

So I will ask again. Where is the white privilege for a person on welfare. And it cannot be "they make better personal choices"

That is not privilege. It is making better choices.

---

And I'll tell you again. The white person on welfare is less likely to go to prison than a black person who makes the same personal choices, commits the same crimes, exhibits the same behavior, engages in the same conduct, smokes the same weed, drives the same speed, wears the same baggy pants, or does whatever the **** else a person can do, by whatever name you happen to want to call it.

Sorry I didn't make that clear.

---

And your proof for this is?

---

Here's an example:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/08/racial_disparities_in_the_criminal_justice_system_eight_charts_illustrating.html

---

Not a single shred of evidence in that. Nothing that said- these people were sent to prison because they were black and these people were not because they were white- which is your whole argument.

10 pages and still no one has shown a single piece of evidence or explained how a white person on welfare is "privileged"

cowboycwr said:

---

Not a single shred of evidence in that. Nothing that said- these people were sent to prison because they were black and these people were not because they were white- which is your whole argument.

---

That's not my whole argument. That's not even a tiny part of my argument. I didn't say anything about them being sent to prison because they were black.

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Not a single shred of evidence in that. Nothing that said- these people were sent to prison because they were black and these people were not because they were white- which is your whole argument.

---

That's not my whole argument. That's not even a tiny part of my argument. I didn't say anything about them being sent to prison because they were black.

---

So now that we have established race has nothing to do with why a person is sent to prison will you admit white privilege is false?

Or are you still going to make some claim that race has a role in going to prison? and not the actions a person does?

I read this article twice trying to find this victim's white privilege and couldn't find it.....


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/08/09/wake-forest-assistant-basketball-coach-charged-with-assault-in-deadly-nyc-attack.html

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Not a single shred of evidence in that. Nothing that said- these people were sent to prison because they were black and these people were not because they were white- which is your whole argument.

---

That's not my whole argument. That's not even a tiny part of my argument. I didn't say anything about them being sent to prison because they were black.

---

So now that we have established race has nothing to do with why a person is sent to prison will you admit white privilege is false?

Or are you still going to make some claim that race has a role in going to prison? and not the actions a person does?

---

Of course race has a role in it. Re-read the thread.

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Not a single shred of evidence in that. Nothing that said- these people were sent to prison because they were black and these people were not because they were white- which is your whole argument.

---

That's not my whole argument. That's not even a tiny part of my argument. I didn't say anything about them being sent to prison because they were black.

---

So now that we have established race has nothing to do with why a person is sent to prison will you admit white privilege is false?

Or are you still going to make some claim that race has a role in going to prison? and not the actions a person does?

---

Of course race has a role in it. Re-read the thread.

---

Race has a role in everything. No way to prevent it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Not a single shred of evidence in that. Nothing that said- these people were sent to prison because they were black and these people were not because they were white- which is your whole argument.

---

That's not my whole argument. That's not even a tiny part of my argument. I didn't say anything about them being sent to prison because they were black.

---

So now that we have established race has nothing to do with why a person is sent to prison will you admit white privilege is false?

Or are you still going to make some claim that race has a role in going to prison? and not the actions a person does?

---

Of course race has a role in it. Re-read the thread.

---

Race has no role in it. A person does a crime or they don't. The fact that they are black, white, or purple has no impact on whether they made a choice to be a criminal or not.

Their skin color is not used against them to sentence them.

Their skin color is not a bonus for any sort of privilege.

If it was someone would have been able to explain and show where the privilege was for a white person on welfare without having to go to secondary issues that are unrelated to welfare.

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Not a single shred of evidence in that. Nothing that said- these people were sent to prison because they were black and these people were not because they were white- which is your whole argument.

---

That's not my whole argument. That's not even a tiny part of my argument. I didn't say anything about them being sent to prison because they were black.

---

So now that we have established race has nothing to do with why a person is sent to prison will you admit white privilege is false?

Or are you still going to make some claim that race has a role in going to prison? and not the actions a person does?

---

Of course race has a role in it. Re-read the thread.

---

Race has no role in it. A person does a crime or they don't. The fact that they are black, white, or purple has no impact on whether they made a choice to be a criminal or not.

Their skin color is not used against them to sentence them.

Their skin color is not a bonus for any sort of privilege.

If it was someone would have been able to explain and show where the privilege was for a white person on welfare without having to go to secondary issues that are unrelated to welfare.

---

I must disagree. It is to black people now via affirmative action. They get into colleges with less ability than others.

fadskier said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Not a single shred of evidence in that. Nothing that said- these people were sent to prison because they were black and these people were not because they were white- which is your whole argument.

---

That's not my whole argument. That's not even a tiny part of my argument. I didn't say anything about them being sent to prison because they were black.

---

So now that we have established race has nothing to do with why a person is sent to prison will you admit white privilege is false?

Or are you still going to make some claim that race has a role in going to prison? and not the actions a person does?

---

Of course race has a role in it. Re-read the thread.

---

Race has no role in it. A person does a crime or they don't. The fact that they are black, white, or purple has no impact on whether they made a choice to be a criminal or not.

Their skin color is not used against them to sentence them.

Their skin color is not a bonus for any sort of privilege.

If it was someone would have been able to explain and show where the privilege was for a white person on welfare without having to go to secondary issues that are unrelated to welfare.

---

I must disagree. It is to black people now via affirmative action. They get into colleges with less ability than others.

---

True. For college admissions and a few select companies race is a factor and is nothing more than reverse racism.