Plan B Forum

With the death of Kaddafi what does that make three Honkies that he has bumped off. Do think he has maybe developed a fetish for killing honkies; what if he runs out foreigners? ………..I like Barry I do I do; we buds.

On a serious note now: His demonstration of courage may have won my admiration but it won’t win him a single vote in the election. Too bad he did not show the same lever political courage during and after the gulf oil spill; instead he caved in to environmental radicals. ” It is the economy stupid“.

Buy yourself a dictionary.

yrs,
rubato

Strange?

Shouldn't this thread be in "Laffs"?

liberty wrote: With the death of Kaddafi what does that make three Honkies that he has bumped off. Do you think he has maybe developed a fetish for killing honkies; what if he runs out foreigners? ………..I like Barry I do I do; we buds.

On a serious note now: His demonstration of courage may have won my admiration but it won’t win him a single vote in the election. Too bad he did not show the same lever political courage during and after the gulf oil spill; instead he caved in to environmental radicals. ” It is the economy stupid“.

Error correct because of Rub; he could have been courteous and been more specific.

The Hen wrote:Strange?

Shouldn't this thread be in "Laffs"?

Perhaps my attempt at humor was poor, but the thread was intended to be political. All the military successes he has had would in normal times ensure his reelection, but this time it is the economy that matters. It is not that the economy is the most important thing, it is the only thing that matters.

She doesn't think it should be in Laffs for the joke you attempted to make, but for the joke that you are.

that make three Honkies that he has bumped off.

Oh come on Lib, they weren't honkies....

They were rag heads...camel jockeys...wogs...

olive skinned swarthy types...

Not proper white "honkie" type folks at all...

Lib, I have steadfastly maintained that I don't think you're a racist; but I can understand why some people believe you are....

You seem to have a real fascination for the topic of "whites versus blacks"...

You post about it a lot....

Lord Jim wrote:

that make three Honkies that he has bumped off.

Oh come on Lib, they weren't honkies....

They were rag heads...camel jockeys...wogs...

olive skinned swarthy types...

Not proper white "honkie" type folks at all...

Lib, I have steadfastly maintained that I don't think you're a racist; but I can understand why some people believe you are....

You seem to have a real fascination for the topic of "whites versus blacks"...

You post about it a lot....

No Jim, you are right again I am not a racist if I was I would not admire the president for his courageous decisions and would not allow a white girl who has a black husband to work in our house. Not only do I let her work with us I am quite fond of her, almost like a daughter. I even like her husband even though he is immature and has not done right by his family.

I don’t believe I have said anything about blacks in this thread up until this point. I used the word honky because I like it better than Caucasian. Honky was originally coined by intercity blacks in the1920’s as a racial slur, but it is a better term. It refers to the honker the slang term of the time for long nose. The people we call Caucasian have long noses in relation the width of the nose. Many blacks have long noses but that is because they are in fact biracial which I think many blacks consider an insult based what I read on topix.

I am fascinated with people and their cultures, races and their difference and similarities. One example is it is racist to point out that blacks have an AIDS rate way of proportion to their population. They are not concerned with the fact this situation exist but that it was mentioned. It is a mind set I can’t understand.

HUH?

liberty wrote:One example is it is racist to point out that blacks have an AIDS rate way of proportion to their population. They are not concerned with the fact this situation exist but that it was mentioned. It is a mind set I can’t understand.

You could not possibly have picked a stupider example, because black people are CONSTANTLY drawing attention to the disproportionate effect of the AIDS epidemic on them. Every single document I have ever read that gives even a fleeting nod to epidemiology makes reference to it. Since I suspect you came down with a case of foot-in-mouth disease that made you latch on to this specifically, I am guessing that it went well beyond "pointing out" this highly publicized fact, that you decided to talk out of your ass about why you believe the difference exists, you interpreted the difference as some sort of judgment about values or morality or responsibility or whatever, and whomever you were talking to took your head off.

There are a couple of things that help explain it. One is poverty. There was a study published by the CDC, that looked at infection rates of heterosexuals living in poverty areas (an area where greater than 20% of the residents lived below the poverty line). They found an HIV prevalence of 2.1%, over 20 times greater than the overall heterosexual prevalence and on par with countries like Ethiopia, Angola and Haiti. So for one thing, they found that the U.S. is experiencing a generalized (>1%) epidemic among its poor. What they also found, though, was that while the overall prevalence is highest among blacks, substantially lower among hispanics, and substantially lower still among whites, there was no statistically significant difference in prevalence between the races when looking only at those living in poverty areas. Prevalence was 2.1% among blacks and hispanics, and 1.7% among whites. So if it was necessary to demonstrate the obvious, HIV is a disease that is correlated with poverty; since blacks are poorer than whites, blacks are more likely to be HIV+.

So even though they weren't able to determine that there was a statistically significant difference, taking the numbers at face value still means that prevalence is 24% higher among blacks than whites. That could be explained by the tendency towards having sex with people of one's own race. In a population that already has an elevated prevalence, being a member of a minority race increases the chances of choosing a sexual partner who is infected, and so the epidemic will concentrate itself there.