USN_Hokie wrote:Lol, that's bull crap and you know it. You're either an idiot with no grasp of the human language, or you're trying to weasel out of your deceptive language. I'm not really sure which is the case, but am leaning towards the former after you said you could read Kanye's mind to know he was talking about murder rates when he never mentioned that at all - and I have no idea what your last comment is supposed to mean.
Or, you could just pick up a dictionary.........
I didn't say I read Kanye's mind. I said that the overwhelming Chicago talking point is about murders, so I'm guessing that he is talking about murders. If you don't want to utilize critical thinking, have at it, just make sure you are consistent in taking things literally, and not adding any additional meaning or judgment to what someone says.
On the last comment, it's about people being upset at Kanye taking Trump's side, and that he's setting a bad example by siding with Trump and not talking about what a bad example Trump is. And many of those people being mad at Kanye say nothing about the rap culture that glorifies a lot of what is happening in Chicago - guns, drugs, banging as many women as possible, etc. If people actually had a real conversation about the issues, which is probably what Kanye is trying to get to, they'd be talking about those things.
No, dumbarse, there is no different context of time between historic and historical, only the notoriety of the event itself. For example, HokieFanDC defending conservative principles would be a historic event, whereas there are infinite examples of you defending liberal policy in the historical record. Maybe you should pick up a dictionary. I'm going to make an exception and award you a rare 6 out 5 possible total retards for this thread.
LOL, dumbarse, no one was talking about time. A comparison of the words "record" and "historical" is about the significance of the event, not when it happened. A record is significant (historic) because it's the highest or lowest of it's kind. Something that is historically low (or high), is lower (or higher) than what has been the norm, not THE lowest or highest.
As for your last part, your FOS. What liberal policies do you think I've supported? I doubt that you could name 3.
Spoiler alert: You can't answer that question.
This is the part of the thread where DC repeats the correct answer I just gave him, pretends it's been his argument all along and hopes everyone forgets what he's been saying, and claims victory.
USN_Hokie wrote:Lol, that's bull crap and you know it. You're either an idiot with no grasp of the human language, or you're trying to weasel out of your deceptive language. I'm not really sure which is the case, but am leaning towards the former after you said you could read Kanye's mind to know he was talking about murder rates when he never mentioned that at all - and I have no idea what your last comment is supposed to mean.
Or, you could just pick up a dictionary.........
I didn't say I read Kanye's mind. I said that the overwhelming Chicago talking point is about murders, so I'm guessing that he is talking about murders. If you don't want to utilize critical thinking, have at it, just make sure you are consistent in taking things literally, and not adding any additional meaning or judgment to what someone says.
On the last comment, it's about people being upset at Kanye taking Trump's side, and that he's setting a bad example by siding with Trump and not talking about what a bad example Trump is. And many of those people being mad at Kanye say nothing about the rap culture that glorifies a lot of what is happening in Chicago - guns, drugs, banging as many women as possible, etc. If people actually had a real conversation about the issues, which is probably what Kanye is trying to get to, they'd be talking about those things.
No, dumbarse, there is no different context of time between historic and historical, only the notoriety of the event itself. For example, HokieFanDC defending conservative principles would be a historic event, whereas there are infinite examples of you defending liberal policy in the historical record. Maybe you should pick up a dictionary. I'm going to make an exception and award you a rare 6 out 5 possible total retards for this thread.
LOL, dumbarse, no one was talking about time. A comparison of the words "record" and "historical" is about the significance of the event, not when it happened. A record is significant (historic) because it's the highest or lowest of it's kind. Something that is historically low (or high), is lower (or higher) than what has been the norm, not THE lowest or highest.
As for your last part, your FOS. What liberal policies do you think I've supported? I doubt that you could name 3.
Spoiler alert: You can't answer that question.
This is the part of the thread where DC repeats the correct answer I just gave him, pretends it's been his argument all along and hopes everyone forgets what he's been saying, and claims victory. [emoji38]
Yep, he should learn not to strut on in and try to beat everyone up with a 30 second Google search. It always ends the same, with a quibble over grammar and he's still wrong about that.
USN_Hokie wrote:Lol, that's bull crap and you know it. You're either an idiot with no grasp of the human language, or you're trying to weasel out of your deceptive language. I'm not really sure which is the case, but am leaning towards the former after you said you could read Kanye's mind to know he was talking about murder rates when he never mentioned that at all - and I have no idea what your last comment is supposed to mean.
Or, you could just pick up a dictionary.........
I didn't say I read Kanye's mind. I said that the overwhelming Chicago talking point is about murders, so I'm guessing that he is talking about murders. If you don't want to utilize critical thinking, have at it, just make sure you are consistent in taking things literally, and not adding any additional meaning or judgment to what someone says.
On the last comment, it's about people being upset at Kanye taking Trump's side, and that he's setting a bad example by siding with Trump and not talking about what a bad example Trump is. And many of those people being mad at Kanye say nothing about the rap culture that glorifies a lot of what is happening in Chicago - guns, drugs, banging as many women as possible, etc. If people actually had a real conversation about the issues, which is probably what Kanye is trying to get to, they'd be talking about those things.
No, dumbarse, there is no different context of time between historic and historical, only the notoriety of the event itself. For example, HokieFanDC defending conservative principles would be a historic event, whereas there are infinite examples of you defending liberal policy in the historical record. Maybe you should pick up a dictionary. I'm going to make an exception and award you a rare 6 out 5 possible total retards for this thread.
LOL, dumbarse, no one was talking about time. A comparison of the words "record" and "historical" is about the significance of the event, not when it happened. A record is significant (historic) because it's the highest or lowest of it's kind. Something that is historically low (or high), is lower (or higher) than what has been the norm, not THE lowest or highest.
As for your last part, your FOS. What liberal policies do you think I've supported? I doubt that you could name 3.
Spoiler alert: You can't answer that question.
This is the part of the thread where DC repeats the correct answer I just gave him, pretends it's been his argument all along and hopes everyone forgets what he's been saying, and claims victory.
Nope. You’re wrong. It’s funny that you claim I’m repeating what you said, when you just did it. I already said the difference between historic and historical was “significance”. This is the 2nd time in this thread where you have repeated exactly what I already said.
And you’re a coward who made a claim about me and can’t back it up.
This is the part where you can’t answer the question and try and ignore it by making up more nonsense, and where your white knight tries to help you out. You two are sooo cute!
USN_Hokie wrote:Lol, that's bull crap and you know it. You're either an idiot with no grasp of the human language, or you're trying to weasel out of your deceptive language. I'm not really sure which is the case, but am leaning towards the former after you said you could read Kanye's mind to know he was talking about murder rates when he never mentioned that at all - and I have no idea what your last comment is supposed to mean.
Or, you could just pick up a dictionary.........
I didn't say I read Kanye's mind. I said that the overwhelming Chicago talking point is about murders, so I'm guessing that he is talking about murders. If you don't want to utilize critical thinking, have at it, just make sure you are consistent in taking things literally, and not adding any additional meaning or judgment to what someone says.
On the last comment, it's about people being upset at Kanye taking Trump's side, and that he's setting a bad example by siding with Trump and not talking about what a bad example Trump is. And many of those people being mad at Kanye say nothing about the rap culture that glorifies a lot of what is happening in Chicago - guns, drugs, banging as many women as possible, etc. If people actually had a real conversation about the issues, which is probably what Kanye is trying to get to, they'd be talking about those things.
No, dumbarse, there is no different context of time between historic and historical, only the notoriety of the event itself. For example, HokieFanDC defending conservative principles would be a historic event, whereas there are infinite examples of you defending liberal policy in the historical record. Maybe you should pick up a dictionary. I'm going to make an exception and award you a rare 6 out 5 possible total retards for this thread.
LOL, dumbarse, no one was talking about time. A comparison of the words "record" and "historical" is about the significance of the event, not when it happened. A record is significant (historic) because it's the highest or lowest of it's kind. Something that is historically low (or high), is lower (or higher) than what has been the norm, not THE lowest or highest.
As for your last part, your FOS. What liberal policies do you think I've supported? I doubt that you could name 3.
Spoiler alert: You can't answer that question.
This is the part of the thread where DC repeats the correct answer I just gave him, pretends it's been his argument all along and hopes everyone forgets what he's been saying, and claims victory. [emoji38]
Nope. You’re wrong. It’s funny that you claim I’m repeating what you said, when you just did it. I already said the difference between historic and historical was “significance”. This is the 2nd time in this thread where you have repeated exactly what I already said.
And you’re a coward who made a claim about me and can’t back it up.
This is the part where you can’t answer the question and try and ignore it by making up more nonsense, and where your white knight tries to help you out. You two are sooo cute!
USN_Hokie wrote:Lol, that's bull crap and you know it. You're either an idiot with no grasp of the human language, or you're trying to weasel out of your deceptive language. I'm not really sure which is the case, but am leaning towards the former after you said you could read Kanye's mind to know he was talking about murder rates when he never mentioned that at all - and I have no idea what your last comment is supposed to mean.
Or, you could just pick up a dictionary.........
I didn't say I read Kanye's mind. I said that the overwhelming Chicago talking point is about murders, so I'm guessing that he is talking about murders. If you don't want to utilize critical thinking, have at it, just make sure you are consistent in taking things literally, and not adding any additional meaning or judgment to what someone says.
On the last comment, it's about people being upset at Kanye taking Trump's side, and that he's setting a bad example by siding with Trump and not talking about what a bad example Trump is. And many of those people being mad at Kanye say nothing about the rap culture that glorifies a lot of what is happening in Chicago - guns, drugs, banging as many women as possible, etc. If people actually had a real conversation about the issues, which is probably what Kanye is trying to get to, they'd be talking about those things.
No, dumbarse, there is no different context of time between historic and historical, only the notoriety of the event itself. For example, HokieFanDC defending conservative principles would be a historic event, whereas there are infinite examples of you defending liberal policy in the historical record. Maybe you should pick up a dictionary. I'm going to make an exception and award you a rare 6 out 5 possible total retards for this thread.
LOL, dumbarse, no one was talking about time. A comparison of the words "record" and "historical" is about the significance of the event, not when it happened. A record is significant (historic) because it's the highest or lowest of it's kind. Something that is historically low (or high), is lower (or higher) than what has been the norm, not THE lowest or highest.
As for your last part, your FOS. What liberal policies do you think I've supported? I doubt that you could name 3.
Spoiler alert: You can't answer that question.
This is the part of the thread where DC repeats the correct answer I just gave him, pretends it's been his argument all along and hopes everyone forgets what he's been saying, and claims victory.
Nope. You’re wrong. It’s funny that you claim I’m repeating what you said, when you just did it. I already said the difference between historic and historical was “significance”. This is the 2nd time in this thread where you have repeated exactly what I already said.
And you’re a coward who made a claim about me and can’t back it up.
This is the part where you can’t answer the question and try and ignore it by making up more nonsense, and where your white knight tries to help you out. You two are sooo cute!
Don't try to obfuscate, little guy. You said homicides were at historical lows. You're either a liar, an idiot, or both. Pick one.
Here's the definition since you have problems using the right words:
HokieFanDC wrote:
Or, you could just pick up a dictionary.........
I didn't say I read Kanye's mind. I said that the overwhelming Chicago talking point is about murders, so I'm guessing that he is talking about murders. If you don't want to utilize critical thinking, have at it, just make sure you are consistent in taking things literally, and not adding any additional meaning or judgment to what someone says.
On the last comment, it's about people being upset at Kanye taking Trump's side, and that he's setting a bad example by siding with Trump and not talking about what a bad example Trump is. And many of those people being mad at Kanye say nothing about the rap culture that glorifies a lot of what is happening in Chicago - guns, drugs, banging as many women as possible, etc. If people actually had a real conversation about the issues, which is probably what Kanye is trying to get to, they'd be talking about those things.
No, dumbarse, there is no different context of time between historic and historical, only the notoriety of the event itself. For example, HokieFanDC defending conservative principles would be a historic event, whereas there are infinite examples of you defending liberal policy in the historical record. Maybe you should pick up a dictionary. I'm going to make an exception and award you a rare 6 out 5 possible total retards for this thread.
LOL, dumbarse, no one was talking about time. A comparison of the words "record" and "historical" is about the significance of the event, not when it happened. A record is significant (historic) because it's the highest or lowest of it's kind. Something that is historically low (or high), is lower (or higher) than what has been the norm, not THE lowest or highest.
As for your last part, your FOS. What liberal policies do you think I've supported? I doubt that you could name 3.
Spoiler alert: You can't answer that question.
This is the part of the thread where DC repeats the correct answer I just gave him, pretends it's been his argument all along and hopes everyone forgets what he's been saying, and claims victory. [emoji38]
Nope. You’re wrong. It’s funny that you claim I’m repeating what you said, when you just did it. I already said the difference between historic and historical was “significance”. This is the 2nd time in this thread where you have repeated exactly what I already said.
And you’re a coward who made a claim about me and can’t back it up.
This is the part where you can’t answer the question and try and ignore it by making up more nonsense, and where your white knight tries to help you out. You two are sooo cute!
Don't try to obfuscate, little guy. You said homicides were at historical lows. You're either a liar, an idiot, or both. Pick one.
Here's the definition since you have problems using the right words:
HokieFanDC wrote:
No, dumbarse, there is no different context of time between historic and historical, only the notoriety of the event itself. For example, HokieFanDC defending conservative principles would be a historic event, whereas there are infinite examples of you defending liberal policy in the historical record. Maybe you should pick up a dictionary. I'm going to make an exception and award you a rare 6 out 5 possible total retards for this thread.
LOL, dumbarse, no one was talking about time. A comparison of the words "record" and "historical" is about the significance of the event, not when it happened. A record is significant (historic) because it's the highest or lowest of it's kind. Something that is historically low (or high), is lower (or higher) than what has been the norm, not THE lowest or highest.
As for your last part, your FOS. What liberal policies do you think I've supported? I doubt that you could name 3.
Spoiler alert: You can't answer that question.
This is the part of the thread where DC repeats the correct answer I just gave him, pretends it's been his argument all along and hopes everyone forgets what he's been saying, and claims victory.
Nope. You’re wrong. It’s funny that you claim I’m repeating what you said, when you just did it. I already said the difference between historic and historical was “significance”. This is the 2nd time in this thread where you have repeated exactly what I already said.
And you’re a coward who made a claim about me and can’t back it up.
This is the part where you can’t answer the question and try and ignore it by making up more nonsense, and where your white knight tries to help you out. You two are sooo cute!
Don't try to obfuscate, little guy. You said homicides were at historical lows. You're either a liar, an idiot, or both. Pick one.
Here's the definition since you have problems using the right words:
Seriously, what’s your point? I said it was historically low, you said I called it a record low. You keep on posting things that show that historical does not have the same meaning as record.
If you want to argue that the Chicago murder rate for the last 10 years is abnormally high for Chicago, go for it.
Still waiting for you to back up your clam about supporting liberal policies. Or was that just another throwaway pile of BS from you?
Seriously, what’s your point? I said it was historically low, you said I called it a record low. You keep on posting things that show that historical does not have the same meaning as record.
If you want to argue that the Chicago murder rate for the last 10 years is abnormally high for Chicago, go for it.
Still waiting for you to back up your clam about supporting liberal policies. Or was that just another throwaway pile of BS from you?[/quote]
No, you said murder rates historical lows. That was false at best. Just farking own it, dude.
cwtcr hokie wrote:
he is wrong also, chicago changed
a whole bunch of black folks decreased the population of other black folks daily.... so some items did change
I’m not familiar with the back story. I make it a point not to care about Kayne West.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
kanye tweeted out some stuff kind of in support of Trump or his idea the other day and the folks with THD went ballistic on him, same as the black woman that got heckled at a conference and put the THD crazies to shame in a few minutes
Kanye has the same factual understanding of Chicago homicides as most people.
Chicago is a craphole when it comes to murders, but from 2004 to about 2015, the homicide rate was low....for Chicago.
It spiked in 2016 and came down some in 2017.
Nothing in Chicago changed.
Murder rates were @ historical lows....what did he want to happen?
Maybe for the homicide rate per 100,000 in Chicago to be closer to the national average of 5.5? Based on your own graphic, Kanye is right, nothing changed.
That's a nice thought, but is it realistic? There are certain parts of Chicago that are just nuts. Kanye is right, nothing has changed. My question why is he upset? He sounds like the ppl that have been screaming "Chicago is falling apart", as if things in Chicago have been getting worse for the last decade. Kudos to anyone that can get Chicago to have less murders, but I don't think anyone has an answer.[/quote]
me me me me, I HAVE THE ANSWER....
Black folks should stop murdering other black people!!!!!
Seriously, what’s your point? I said it was historically low, you said I called it a record low. You keep on posting things that show that historical does not have the same meaning as record.
If you want to argue that the Chicago murder rate for the last 10 years is abnormally high for Chicago, go for it.
Still waiting for you to back up your clam about supporting liberal policies. Or was that just another throwaway pile of BS from you?
No, you said murder rates historical lows. That was false at best. Just farking own it, dude.[/quote]
OK, murder rates aren't at historical lows. I'll revise that to say that Chicago murder rates are low, compared to the last 30 years.
Now, own your silly statement about historical low = record low, and back up your claim about my support of liberal policies.
You can do it!!
Seriously, what’s your point? I said it was historically low, you said I called it a record low. You keep on posting things that show that historical does not have the same meaning as record.
If you want to argue that the Chicago murder rate for the last 10 years is abnormally high for Chicago, go for it.
Still waiting for you to back up your clam about supporting liberal policies. Or was that just another throwaway pile of BS from you?
No, you said murder rates historical lows. That was false at best. Just farking own it, dude.
OK, murder rates aren't at historical lows. I'll revise that to say that Chicago murder rates are low, compared to the last 30 years.
Now, own your silly statement about historical low = record low, and back up your claim about my support of liberal policies.
You can do it!![/quote]
Why would I do that? I'm right. That's why you (finally) corrected yourself.
Seriously, what’s your point? I said it was historically low, you said I called it a record low. You keep on posting things that show that historical does not have the same meaning as record.
If you want to argue that the Chicago murder rate for the last 10 years is abnormally high for Chicago, go for it.
Still waiting for you to back up your clam about supporting liberal policies. Or was that just another throwaway pile of BS from you?
No, you said murder rates historical lows. That was false at best. Just farking own it, dude.
OK, murder rates aren't at historical lows. I'll revise that to say that Chicago murder rates are low, compared to the last 30 years.
Now, own your silly statement about historical low = record low, and back up your claim about my support of liberal policies.
You can do it!!
Why would I do that? I'm right. That's why you (finally) corrected yourself.[/quote]
I didn't expect you to. My correction had nothing to do with your statement about record lows. You say crap all the time that you can't back up. This is just another prime example of you being FOS.
Some neighborhoods give Chicago a very bad name because the crime rate is ridiculously high in this day and age.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
Some neighborhoods give Chicago a very bad name because the crime rate is ridiculously high in this day and age.
I agree.
Any part of Chicago that anybody on this board would reasonably find themselves is safe and pleasant.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
