"rich get richer...yadda-yadda-yadda

Originally posted by dadudemon
I didn't read a single word from all EIGHT of your posts. Not a single word (I lied: I read "Dear lord..."😉. You are not worth the time.

Rather than waste my time with your whining, trolling, and ignorance, I'll address the root of your problem:

The same sites you've tried to use as evidence (39% white versus 38% black participation circa 1991-93) are also documented in a trend over time up to 2001. I provided a site for that to show you the trending. What was the trend? Less and less white participation and more and more African American participation. Up to the point of AA's overtaking white people in participation (something that should not occur considering they only represent a bit over 12% of the population.)

You are using spreadsheets from TANF that show as much as 60+% participation from white just a mere 3 years later.

I asked you to explain why there was such a difference. I hinted that those numbers are not comparable numbers. You don't understand them.

Unless, of course, you want to say that white people started participating in these programs by more than double since 2001 to 2004. Yes, from 30% to over 60% in 3 years time.

So, please explain to me why there's such a difference. 🙂

I know you can't do it and you never will.

You were wrong, used wrong numbers to support your position, and now you're playing the "racism" card. Pathetic.

What's worse, in areas that can be compared, you've more than admitted the disproportionate representation of African Americans in government assistance programs. So what's the problem? Are you upset that African American's have a subculture of government entitlement? You do realize that they haven't even been allowed on Welfare programs until the last 40 years, right? I personally have no problem with them getting what they are eligible for considering the past. You just need to pull your head out and stop being such an apologetic while pretending white people are the devil.

I used a census form. It was there. You used wiki and all kinds of other sites. Please, lol. Oh and you said I was biased against whites at first? Anybody who knows me knows it isn't true, I treat all morons the same regardless of color. 😛

White people are the devil? Not at all. Your buddy made a blatantly racist comment and I corrected them. Besides, you know what I say about chicks: no matter what color they are on the outside. They're pink on the inside.

🙂

Take care buddy. I knew you were just testing me. That 753 owning had your mouth watering and you just wanted to see me type.

I imagine it's tough when the credit on the ebt card is too low for the month. Have a hug from me. 🙁

...Now to something more intelligent, constructive, and on topic. From people who don't pretend to "not have read my posts" when they can't come up with anything, say I'm not worth the time, and then continue to respond. 🙄

Originally posted by alltoomany
WHERE IN THE U.S? Not in New york..

For instance Mississippi has very cheap housing even when the economy was good. A $100,000 house would net you a great house. Even in a good economy.

California and New York are going to be more expensive. While places that were hit hard by the bad economy are going to have really cheap houses. Namely Michigan because of the automotive industry. You can find houses in the million dollar range at a $100,000 or so.

Actually the million dollar range are where the best deals are if you can afford the property taxes and maintenance costs. In Atlanta you have million dollar homes going for 200 to 300 k. 1 house I saw behind me in one of my houses was a 10+ bedroom house, it went for $140,000, the best deal I've seen in the south so far. Needed a lot of work though.

Problem is that place is recovering the fastest, the upper class homes at least. You have time though to look at them for good investments.

Now the 30,000 dollar 5 bedroom homes can be found and many of them have first time homeowner deals that have great financing opportunities if you are just starting out and have respectable credit. Look those up and give it a try.

In New York the housing is a bit higher, but I'm sure you can find something for around $100,000 or slightly less, even there.

Look up, not down.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
You ran out of steam, I would the piss would stop. 😉

Troll harder, please.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I used a census form. It was there. You used wiki and all kinds of other sites. Please, lol. Oh and you said I was biased against whites at first? Anybody who knows me knows it isn't true, I treat all morons the same regardless of color. 😛

You're dodging.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
White people are the devil? Not at all. Your buddy made a blatantly racist comment and I corrected them. Besides, you know what I say about chicks: no matter what color they are on the outside. They're pink on the inside.

K.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Take care buddy. I knew you were just testing me. That 753 owning had your mouth watering and you just wanted to see me type.

I imagine it's tough when the credit on the ebt card is too low for the month. Have a hug from me. 🙁

I wasn't testing.

I'm still looking for why even you used the 39 to 38 %...but then swapped to the 25% 60+%.

Like I said, you don't know the difference.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Troll harder, please.

You're dodging.

K.

I wasn't testing.

I'm still looking for why even you used the 39 to 38 %...but then swapped to the 25% 60+%.

Like I said, you don't know the difference.

Selective reading and all. I never swapped anything.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
You're the troll not me friend. 🙂

Riiiight. Cause posting 8 posts in a row, ignoring points made, pretending that a page full of yahoo/wiki/ask and forums are "evidence", and then screaming that white people troll welfare....is not trolling, right?

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Selective reading and all. I never swapped anything.

Again, dodging.

You have dodged the central point. You can inject a trillion other points and argue about those (have at it: I couldn't care less about you missing more points and posting in circles). Address it the main point:

"The same sites you've tried to use as evidence (39% white versus 38% black participation circa 1991-93) are also documented in a trend over time up to 2001. I provided a site for that to show you the trending. What was the trend? Less and less white participation and more and more African American participation. Up to the point of AA's overtaking white people in participation (something that should not occur considering they only represent a bit over 12% of the population.)

You are using spreadsheets from TANF that show as much as 60+% participation from white just a mere 3 years later.

I asked you to explain why there was such a difference. I hinted that those numbers are not comparable numbers. You don't understand them.

Unless, of course, you want to say that white people started participating in these programs by more than double since 2001 to 2004. Yes, from 30% to over 60% in 3 years time.

So, please explain to me why there's such a difference.

I know you can't do it and you never will."

Then you should stick to arguments against it that aren't so stupid.

So does Billy Bob.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Riiiight. Cause posting 8 posts in a row, ignoring points made, pretending that a page full of yahoo/wiki/ask and forums are "evidence", and then screaming that white people troll welfare....is not trolling, right?

Again, dodging.

You have dodged the central point. You can inject a trillion other points and argue about those (have at it: I couldn't care less about you missing more points and posting in circles). Address it the main point:

"The same sites you've tried to use as evidence (39% white versus 38% black participation circa 1991-93) are also documented in a trend over time up to 2001. I provided a site for that to show you the trending. What was the trend? Less and less white participation and more and more African American participation. Up to the point of AA's overtaking white people in participation (something that should not occur considering they only represent a bit over 12% of the population.)

You are using spreadsheets from TANF that show as much as 60+% participation from white just a mere 3 years later.

I asked you to explain why there was such a difference. I hinted that those numbers are not comparable numbers. You don't understand them.

Unless, of course, you want to say that white people started participating in these programs by more than double since 2001 to 2004. Yes, from 30% to over 60% in 3 years time.

So, please explain to me why there's such a difference.

I know you can't do it and you never will."

yawn

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Hmm, I thought you didn't read those posts? It's obvious you did, and you just didn't have an answer, so you'll just continue to post again and again to feel better and boost yourself but you really had no point in the first place.

You done trolling?

Cause, no, I didn't.

Reread my post knowing full well that you're transparent and cyclical. Hint: 8 posts and all other items listed, while not mutually exclusive, refer to different posts.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Not to mention you used wiki of all things which said white people get the most welfare.

I did?

😐

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
You should try harder. You'll keep on posting and telling me I'm a waste of time and keep posting and telling me I'm a waste of time, etc. I'm right and the census said so. Case closed.

yawn

And again, you dodged.

Good one.

Coming from the person who ignored that large post? Why should someone be obligated to take *anything* you say seriously? You know you're wrong anyways and are just arguing for the sake of it.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Coming from the person who ignored that large post? Why should someone be obligated to take *anything* you say seriously? You know you're wrong anyways and are just arguing for the sake of it.

Because you ignored everything prior and kept talking in circles. No need to feed your habit.

I brought it back down to the original discussion after playing your lame game.

Again, reconcile this:

"The same sites you've tried to use as evidence (39% white versus 38% black participation circa 1991-93) are also documented in a trend over time up to 2001. I provided a site for that to show you the trending. What was the trend? Less and less white participation and more and more African American participation. Up to the point of AA's overtaking white people in participation (something that should not occur considering they only represent a bit over 12% of the population.)

You are using spreadsheets from TANF that show as much as 60+% participation from white just a mere 3 years later.

I asked you to explain why there was such a difference. I hinted that those numbers are not comparable numbers. You don't understand them.

Unless, of course, you want to say that white people started participating in these programs by more than double since 2001 to 2004. Yes, from 30% to over 60% in 3 years time.

So, please explain to me why there's such a difference.

I know you can't do it and you never will."

So you're "feeding my habit" by posting? It's not my fault your wiki link actually agreed with me, you're doing the work for me my friend.

You're just saving face and I understand. When people are blatantly wrong they have to. You can keep saying I'm wrong and I'm too dumb to know anything and that you're right. But if that were true you wouldn't waste your time with an "ignorant black guy" like myself. yawn

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
So you're "feeding my habit" by posting? It's not my fault your wiki link actually agreed with me, you're doing the work for me my friend.

You're just saving face and I understand. When people are blatantly wrong they have to. You can keep saying I'm wrong and I'm too dumb to know anything and that you're right. But if that were true you wouldn't waste your time with an "ignorant black guy" like myself. yawn

I see dodging but no legit reply.

I also asked you about the wiki link, but still nothing from you.

Can you reconcile the 38% to 60+%? Please tell me how it almost double in only 3 years. 🙂

I must have learned how to dodge from the best. You dodge so much you could be the next Spider-Man. You have a superhuman dodging ability.

Stop posting wiki articles that agree with me, you're only helping me out.

I already answered your question because you asked it before. Stop trolling to get your rocks off? Are you black and just secretly trolling? "Dadudemon"?

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I must have learned how to dodge from the best. You dodge so much you could be the next Spider-Man. You have a superhuman dodging ability.

Done trolling?

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Stop posting wiki articles that agree with me, you're only helping me out.

"I also asked you about the wiki link, but still nothing from you."

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I already answered your question because you asked it before. Stop trolling to get your rocks off? Are you black and just secretly trolling? "Dadudemon"?

No you didn't:

Again:

"The same sites you've tried to use as evidence (39% white versus 38% black participation circa 1991-93) are also documented in a trend over time up to 2001. I provided a site for that to show you the trending. What was the trend? Less and less white participation and more and more African American participation. Up to the point of AA's overtaking white people in participation (something that should not occur considering they only represent a bit over 12% of the population.)

You are using spreadsheets from TANF that show as much as 60+% participation from white just a mere 3 years later.

I asked you to explain why there was such a difference. I hinted that those numbers are not comparable numbers. You don't understand them.

Unless, of course, you want to say that white people started participating in these programs by more than double since 2001 to 2004. Yes, from 30% to over 60% in 3 years time.

So, please explain to me why there's such a difference.

I know you can't do it and you never will."

Typical ABC trolling, just copying and pasting the same response while ignoring everything and saying it over and over. I'm sure the thread starter loves you though. Keeps the thread going. Why you would post wiki in the first place as a hardcore primary source and not check and see if it doesn't contradict you is beyond me. Ah well. I guess trolls can get sloppy too.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Typical ABC trolling, just copying and pasting the same response while ignoring everything and saying it over and over. I'm sure the thread starter loves you though. Keeps the thread going. Why you would post wiki in the first place as a hardcore primary source and not check and see if it doesn't contradict you is beyond me. Ah well. I guess trolls can get sloppy too.

"Done trolling?"

"I also asked you about the wiki link, but still nothing from you."

"Can you reconcile the 38% to 60+%? Please tell me how it almost double in only 3 years."

It just continues. Ignoring posts and then pretending I didn't respond. The trolling is legendary. The Judge would be proud.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
It just continues. Ignoring posts and then pretending I didn't respond. The trolling is legendary. The Judge would be proud.

"Done trolling?" Also, you can't call someone a troll after they called you a troll for trolling. That's not how it works. That's essentially a "I know you are but what am I?"

"Can you reconcile the 38% to 60+%? Please tell me how it almost double in only 3 years."

You claim to have reconciled that when it was a point I brought up only after your 8 posts in a row.

You have yet to do so.

That's the main point of discussion, at this point. Reconcile that or concede you got in over your head and used improper data in a comparison.

Sure I can. Seeing as you feel apt to ignore posts and respond to what you want. How about you stop using information you don't understand and you were wrong all along instead of this routine to save face. I answered all of your questions in that post and I won't do it again.

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, but their society didn't revolve around technological investment into arms and armament. A lot of this has to do with available minerals and geography, but still, European nations were fielding standing armies long before the rest of the world had developed anything remotely similar (China might be the exception... I'm not sure when they first militarized)

lol, those claims are fake

the readings almost certainly represent modern day nuclear tests by the Indian government....

The Indian government is rootless...