Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Boogie boogie....


61 percent of welfare recipients are White, while 33 percent are Black, according to xxxx xxxxx xxxx statistics


*scratches nose*


Come on boyo, what's in the Xs, and who is the source?


Could it be?

Yes it could

Something's happening, something good...

Something toni....

Come on teddy bear, I'm just trying to find out if you care?


What's your position?


You make a lot of claims about black people milking the welfare state, so I assume you believe them.


So I'm wondering whether if I can prove that it's a bunch of old charlie you're going to change your mind?


I don't think so, I just think you listen to emotionally charged hate stuff. You don't care about truth, you care about skin colour.


I'm playing a little game with you regarding several sources, whether it's US Census, the Department of Agriculture or whoever. Most of whom developed their figures under a republican government. No census since Bush ;-)


I don't think you care, I think you've established a teeny weeny position where you've started to judge people by the colour of their skin.


Whilst I think that makes you a sad small little person, I don't want other people to listen to your nonsense and think it's true.


That's why I'm crapping on.

Doesn't it even out though? Given that hispanics, africans etc and other non-caucasian descendants make up around 12% of the US population it would be correct to assume that blacks and whites are no more likely to be receiving welfare than each other. If anything, socio-economic background, and location/ circustance is likely to have a far greater bearing on unemployment. It just so happens that many migrants find themsleves at the bottom of the ladder, and it makes sense to me for any government to give opportunity to those willing to take it, to work.
I don't really understand why anyone would be interested in racial distribution of welfare payments. But statements like "recipients are 37.2 percent Black and 46.2 percent White" are quite meaningless when not accompanied by the ethnic breakdown of the population.

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Therefore 38.4% of statistics are made up on the

> spot by moronic trolls who are unable to pronounce

> the word 'statistic'.



...And of 6.82% of all statistics, whilst made up on the spot, are not made up by moronic trolls - meaning approx. 12% of made-up-on-the-spot statistics are moron-free and therefore can be taken at face value.


This is assuming the initial statistic wasn't made up.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • But a larger number, in a more hotly contested election, didn't. It is an anomaly that Starmer won a landslide in seats with a turnout for Labour which would have shamed Labour leaders in all the 21st and much of the post war 20th century.
    • I was not suggesting anything else!   I'm not sure how you interpret what I said  as "irrelevant"? I was responding to a post saying that Corbyn was "unelectable". My point was that a  large number  of the electorate  voted for him!
    • that's exactly what happened - Brickhouse were forced to close due to rent hike and then Gail's didn't move in until covid restrictions lifted and normality resumed. Gail's would have opened much sooner as they were lined up and able to offer the landlord much higher rents. Brickhouse was a local favourite
    • The Brickhouse closed just before Covid December 2019. Nothing to do with Gails muscling in as they didn't move into till December 2022. Stop trying to fit a false narrative into a story
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...