Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Reward Points: | 54 |
Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 93% |
Arguments: | 47 |
Debates: | 2 |
Possession of a gun (although anything can be deemed a weapon) carries with it very high prison sentence in UK. Recent "Drive-by" shootings offenders have each received, on average, 32 years in prison.
say what you want to happen ? what and how would you "crack down" ?
Do you think a law makes things disappear by magic ? Speeding is against the law - this law has not stopped speeding. Bankers fiddling trillions of pounds is against the law - has the law stopped these criminal scum ??
Based on the few questions / debates i have read over recent weeks it seems to me the majority of responders are against racism and speak out strongly against the bigoted point of view. The racist contributors (Black or White) hold their racist stance on generalisations and rarely provide a settled argument.
Some views are not worth responding to. A healthy sign.
Yes. In UK we have the same old Oxford Cambridge candidates who have been weaned to be politicians from the moment they started in Public School. The fact Blair set up New Labour after the "sudden" death of John Smith convinced me that someone or some group must be controlling the whole lot. Now that we are sunk into corporatism and Multi National ownership and control - it is clear that something is controlling the lot in their own interest. The recent Bankers failure - when they still get high bonus pay says it all for me. The very name "ILLUMINATI"
is challenging you to prove it exists ?? whatever name, there is a small group of very powerful people who are shafting the rest of us.
In the context of my mistaken belief that you had replied to me - my answer is not a tirade nor am I "Mr Sensitive". I am new to this site and am still getting used to the rather wrangled way it progresses argument.
Now that i am better informed I can respond to you with an apology.
However - I would have simply stated "I think your responding to my comments is misplaced as I was not referring to your answer" !!
So it seems - on the face of it - that you can be just as sensitive as me and can deliver a mild tirade.
ARE YOU WHITE BY ANY CHANCE ????
I am simply informing my skin colour to this debate. i am not answerable for the "SINS" of the ACCUSED WHITES. The question is a generalisation based on prejudice. ALL prejudice is based on ignorance. It is difficult to debate on an accusation having no proven basis in fact. However if the debate is intended to form around a deliberate provocation - then so be it. The questioner has not set out a reasoned point therefore his question is rhetorical and needs focus in fact.
I would not generalise on any race / colour of people.
For example > I certainly DO NOT believe that ALL Muslims are terrorists.
Sin - has not been defined ?? Your "GOD" has not been defined ??
I do not speak for white people - only myself. The use of "the white man" implies that I have sinned ??? sorry to disappoint you, tell me how "I" have sinned.
|