Originally posted by Tha C-Master
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.
K.
So you'll continue to dodge while trolling, right?
If you honestly answered, it would take you less than 10 seconds to requote yourself, which I've already done for you. 🙂
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I learn from the best old friend. You might just be black and trying to pull our legs. Quite brilliant if you ask me. You had everyone fooled but I saw through your ruse. Now is the time to fess up.
Originally posted by dadudemon
K.So you'll continue to dodge while trolling, right?
If you honestly answered, it would take you less than 10 seconds to requote yourself, which I've already done for you. 🙂
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
No they haven't.
False.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
White people have been using the most government assistance for the longest.
True. Black people didn't have access to Welfare until about 40 years ago.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Anyways the upsurge in the "TANF" type welfare comes from children being born from single mothers. That's the fact.
I disagree. Unless you're trying to tell me that
1. White mothers started having children at more than double the rate in only a 3 year period.
2. Having those children, alone, made them qualifty for TANF.
3. The "double the rate" mothers also doubly took advantage of TANF.
Meaning, despite the fact that white mothers would need to have more than doubled their birth rate in a 3 year period, they would also have to have doubled their rate of eligibility while doubling their rate of participation in TANF.
So, try again. What is the REAL reason there is such a stark difference from 2001 (or even 1991 which had significantly more white people using the "TANF" than any other race demographic) to 2004? I've already given you a hint by telling you those are apples to oranges comparisons...but I'm willing to "sit back" and allow you to try again.
Originally posted by dadudemonUh.... single mothers are the largest recipients of that type of welfare of all races. Wic, afdc, and tanf. Who do you think is taking it? Single men? Married couples without children? lol.
False.True. Black people didn't have access to Welfare until about 40 years ago.
I disagree. Unless you're trying to tell me that
1. White mothers started having children at more than double the rate in only a 3 year period.
2. Having those children, alone, made them qualifty for TANF.
3. The "double the rate" mothers also doubly took advantage of TANF.Meaning, despite the fact that white mothers would need to have more than doubled their birth rate in a 3 year period, they would also have to have doubled their rate of eligibility while doubling their rate of participation in TANF.
So, try again. What is the REAL reason there is such a stark difference from 2001 (or even 1991 which had significantly more white people using the "TANF" than any other race demographic) to 2004? I've already given you a hint by telling you those are apples to oranges comparisons...but I'm willing to "sit back" and allow you to try again.
How about you learn your facts and stop trolling.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Uh.... single mothers are the largest recipients of that type of welfare of all races. Wic, afdc, and tanf. Who do you think is taking it? Single men? Married couples without children? lol.How about you learn your facts and stop trolling.
You actually dodged the point entirely.
Reread my post. It is very direct and straight forward. I wasn't making a point about which gender demographics comprise welfare recipients. It was a direct referene to a change in "who receives" what based off of your post.
And, again, just because you're trolling doesn't mean everyone else is.
Originally posted by dadudemonMy post was about single mothers receiving that kind of welfare the most. Which is a fact.
You actually dodged the point entirely.Reread my post. It is very direct and straight forward. I wasn't making a point about which gender demographics comprise welfare recipients. It was a direct referene to a change in "who receives" what based off of your post.
And, again, just because you're trolling doesn't mean everyone else is.
Trollbilly.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
My post was about single mothers receiving that kind of welfare the most. Which is a fact.Trollbilly.
And I just replied to. Basically, your justification for more than a double jump from 2001 to 2003 is wrong and I called you on it.
I offered you another chance to provide a reason why it jumped from 30% (2001) to over 60% (2004) because that is what you're trying to pass off.
And if you name call again, I will start reporting you.
What was I trying to justify? They do take up the most.
I answered all of your questions in the previous post. You chose to ignore it and call me a troll. So I'm calling you one. You can cry and try to push the report button because you got owned all you wish after all the comments you have made. It will do you no good. You've simply decided to drag this discussion and it's going nowhere seeing as you just skip whatever you wish to ignore. You're going to keep saying the same thing regardless so why should I waste my time entertaining you? Go ahead and report and get the thread closed. It's pretty much dead now anyways. Must be nice embarrassing yourself with wiki posts that don't agree with you. 🙂 Keep ignoring the census too. It really does suit you.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
What was I trying to justify? They do take up the most.
"I offered you another chance to provide a reason why it jumped from 30% (2001) to over 60% (2004) because that is what you're trying to pass off."
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I answered all of your questions in the previous post. You chose to ignore it and call me a troll. So I'm calling you one. You can cry and try to push the report button because you got owned all you wish after all the comments you have made. It will do you no good. You've simply decided to drag this discussion and it's going nowhere seeing as you just skip whatever you wish to ignore. You're going to keep saying the same thing regardless so why should I waste my time entertaining you? Go ahead and report and get the thread closed. It's pretty much dead now anyways. Must be nice embarrassing yourself with wiki posts that don't agree with you. 🙂 Keep ignoring the census too. It really does suit you.
"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."
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I answered it if you choose to ignore that it's on you.
You did answer it...it was just a bad and factually incorrect answer.
You missed the part where your "answer" was such complete rubbish that it bordered on being a joke.
Again:
"Reread my post. It is very direct and straight forward. I wasn't making a point about which gender demographics comprise welfare recipients. It was a direct reference to a change in "who receives" what based off of your post."
And here it is:
"Unless you're trying to tell me that
1. White mothers started having children at more than double the rate in only a 3 year period.
2. Having those children, alone, made them qualifty for TANF.
3. The "double the rate" mothers also doubly took advantage of TANF.
Meaning, despite the fact that white mothers would need to have more than doubled their birth rate in a 3 year period, they would also have to have doubled their rate of eligibility while doubling their rate of participation in TANF.
So, try again. What is the REAL reason there is such a stark difference from 2001 (or even 1991 which had significantly more white people using the "TANF" than any other race demographic) to 2004? I've already given you a hint by telling you those are apples to oranges comparisons...but I'm willing to "sit back" and allow you to try again."
But we already know the outcome:
"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."
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Otherwise why even bother with all of this effort if you are adamant that: I'm wrong, I'm ignoring you, and I'm not answering it. You're just posting to post. Why not just ignore me?
Cause I don't have to plug my ears like a 3 year old. You do know that you can "ignore" me if you don't know the answer, right? Or you could just say, "I don't know the answer and I admit my answer was quite sh*tty."
Originally posted by dadudemonNah, posting here is just a little bit of fun during the day. You don't want me to prove anything to you. You want to prove it to yourself. I posted the census and made my point quite clearly. Nothing said will change your mind. I've had many debates and I know where this is going. This isn't about being and finding out the right information. It's about the boost of seeing who can piss the farthest.
You did answer it...it was just a bad and factually incorrect answer.You missed the part where your "answer" was such complete rubbish that it bordered on being a joke.
Again:
"Reread my post. It is very direct and straight forward. I wasn't making a point about which gender demographics comprise welfare recipients. It was a direct reference to a change in "who receives" what based off of your post."
And here it is:
"Unless you're trying to tell me that
1. White mothers started having children at more than double the rate in only a 3 year period.
2. Having those children, alone, made them qualifty for TANF.
3. The "double the rate" mothers also doubly took advantage of TANF.Meaning, despite the fact that white mothers would need to have more than doubled their birth rate in a 3 year period, they would also have to have doubled their rate of eligibility while doubling their rate of participation in TANF.
So, try again. What is the REAL reason there is such a stark difference from 2001 (or even 1991 which had significantly more white people using the "TANF" than any other race demographic) to 2004? I've already given you a hint by telling you those are apples to oranges comparisons...but I'm willing to "sit back" and allow you to try again."
But we already know the outcome:
"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."
Cause I don't have to plug my ears like a 3 year old. You do know that you can "ignore" me if you don't know the answer, right? Or you could just say, "I don't know the answer and I admit my answer was quite sh*tty."
It's all good though, I'm just taking it easy and chilling out. Nothing better or worse with white people taking government assistance over any other race, it just needs to reduce all around for all types of people.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Nah, posting here is just a little bit of fun during the day. You don't want me to prove anything to you. You want to prove it to yourself. I posted the census and made my point quite clearly. Nothing said will change your mind. I've had many debates and I know where this is going. This isn't about being and finding out the right information. It's about the boost of seeing who can piss the farthest.
That's great and all, but this:
"So, try again. What is the REAL reason there is such a stark difference from 2001 (or even 1991 which had significantly more white people using the "TANF" than any other race demographic) to 2004? I've already given you a hint by telling you those are apples to oranges comparisons...but I'm willing to "sit back" and allow you to try again."
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
It's all good though, I'm just taking it easy and chilling out. Nothing better or worse with white people taking government assistance over any other race, it just needs to reduce all around for all types of people.
I'm black. 😐
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's great and all, but this:"So, try again. What is the REAL reason there is such a stark difference from 2001 (or even 1991 which had significantly more white people using the "TANF" than any other race demographic) to 2004? I've already given you a hint by telling you those are apples to oranges comparisons...but I'm willing to "sit back" and allow you to try again."
I'm black. 😐
i'm just a casual observer, nothing more, so don't take my word for anything.
Such a change could be introduced through a number of factors, including: population blowouts; a large number of deaths; unemployment blwoouts or reductions... Or any combination of the above. Note that these are only some factors, there may be many others, including more outlandish ones.