~50% of Black Chicago Murders and other Crimes are actually being committed by Whites

The two sentences needed a period between them, although a comma would have sufficed.

What exactly am I manipulating? That most black homicide homicide victims are killed by blacks, not white people wearing silicone masks and gloves?

Hey I'll step out on a limb and manipulate some more statistics. My point was that Democratic politicians were in large part responsible for the comparatively high homicide rate among blacks in Chicago. Here's a list of the cities in the USA with the highest homicide rates and the party affiliation of their mayors.

1. East St. Louis, Illinois, 101 murders/100,000 people - Democrat

2. Chester, Pennsylvania - 67/100,000 - Democrat

3. Gary, Indiana - 60/100,000 - Democrat

4. St. Louis, Missouri - 60/100,000 - Democrat

5. Baltimore, Maryland - 51/100,000 - Democrat

6. Flint, Michigan - 46/100,000 - Democrat

7. Detroit, Michigan - 45/100,000 - Democrat

8. New Orleans, Louisiana - 44/100,000 - Democrat

9. Salisbury, North Carolina - 41/100,000 - Democrat

10. Danville, Virginia - 38/100,000 - Democrat

United States of America as a whole - 4.5 murders/100,000 people

In a couple of instances I didn't verify the city has primaries, but did determine the current mayor identifies as a Democrat. Originally Posted by Tiny

That is my whole point. LOL! I will deem you king of the manipulators LOL!

I would like to see your source for those numbers. I can not find anywhere that confirms them.

YOUR statement was quoted in context exactly as you wrote it. You lose. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You are the one trying to take it out of the context of what I meant. There is no period between "computer" and "at NASA" Any normal person would know what I was referring to. Even you most likely understood it. You just like to play word games instead of having a conversation that progresses.

I see your chuffer fluffer chimed in as well. I will have Luke take care of him for me LOL!

You are the one trying to take it out of the context of what I meant. There is no period between "computer" and "at NASA" Any normal person would know what I was referring to. Even you most likely understood it. You just like to play word games instead of having a conversation that progresses.

I see your chuffer fluffer chimed in as well. I will have Luke take care of him for me LOL! Originally Posted by MT Pockets

You were quoted correctly and in context. Computer was a term in use predating NASA.

You taking what I said out of context does not work. You have played the grammar card every time you lose. Originally Posted by MT Pockets

Are you ESL?

You were quoted correctly and in context. Computer was a term in use predating NASA. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

So what ! It predates NASA, But now that you are so sure I was wrong lets take a look at the first time the term was used.

Etymology

A female computer, with microscope and calculator, 1952
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first known use of the word "computer" was in 1613 in a book called The Yong Mans Gleanings by English writer Richard Braithwait: "I haue [sic] read the truest computer of Times, and the best Arithmetician that euer [sic] breathed, and he reduceth thy dayes into a short number." This usage of the term referred to a human computer, a person who carried out calculations or computations. The word continued with the same meaning until the middle of the 20th century. From the end of the 19th century the word began to take on its more familiar meaning, a machine that carries out computations.[1]

The Online Etymology Dictionary gives the first attested use of "computer" in the "1640s, [meaning] "one who calculates,"; this is an "... agent noun from compute (v.)". The Online Etymology Dictionary states that the use of the term to mean "calculating machine" (of any type) is from 1897." The Online Etymology Dictionary indicates that the "modern use" of the term, to mean "programmable digital electronic computer" dates from "... 1945 under this name; [in a] theoretical [sense] from 1937, as Turing machine".[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer
LOL! I did not even have to give you the salt this time! I guess you mixed up the terms tally wacker and tally stick. LOL!

So what ! It predates NASA, But now that you are so sure I was wrong lets take a look at the first time the term was used.
LOL! I did not even have to give you the salt this time! I guess you mixed up the terms tally wacker and tally stick. LOL! Originally Posted by MT Pockets

There was no mix up. You "guessed" wrong, but you did find an article that factually proves that you were wrong about NASA coining the term "computer".

Are you ESL? Originally Posted by friendly fred

No. are you DNS?
While I may have a peculiar syntax, make no mistake on my level of intellect. As you can see from my last post to IB I have once again tricked him into leading me to the water.
He never seems to learn that you can not win by trying to redefine what someone meant. Or by correcting their grammar.
Tiny left out a possible comma ( purposely) then accused me of doing it not even understanding I did not say his grammar was wrong , just his assertion LOL!
I suggest anyone that wants to challenge me do it with facts.
This English teacher crap is getting boring and it makes them look desperate.

There was no mix up. You "guessed" wrong, but you did find an article that factually proves that you were wrong about NASA coining the term "computer". Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Wow! I rubbed it in your face and you still have the nerve to deny it LOL! NASA used the term in the same context as my source confirmed and you still will not let go. Lets hear your thoughts on the terms origins then. Pathetic!

Wow! I rubbed it in your face and you still have the nerve to deny it LOL! NASA used the term in the same context as my source confirmed and you still will not let go. Lets hear your thoughts on the terms origins then. Pathetic! Originally Posted by MT Pockets

The article you cited clearly makes it evident that your statement to the effect NASA coined the term "computer" was patently false. Hence, it is evident that the only person who should feel embarrassed by your posts is you.

I would like to see your source for those numbers. I can not find anywhere that confirms them. Originally Posted by MT Pockets

Ask and you shall receive.

https://bismarcktribune.com/news/nat...065352.html#26

Rates have been converted from murders per 10,000 people to murders per 100,000 people, since that's the convention.

The top city, East St. Louis, has a higher homicide rate than any country in the world, while only El Salvador is higher than St. Louis, Missouri; Gary, Indiana; and Chester Pennsylvania.

The Democrats in those cities have done a fine job of creating exciting environments for visiting and living. Maybe they'll appear in a future edition of the exotic travel guide, The World's Most Dangerous Places.

Please note my use of the semicolon. Your grammar and spelling are excellent, but your punctuation needs some work.

The article you cited clearly makes it evident that your statement to the effect NASA coined the term "computer" was patently false. Hence, it is evident that the only person who should feel embarrassed by your posts is you. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Did I say they coined the phrase? You love to twist everything. If you are so smart and so right, why do you feel the need to fabricate so many untruths? You look foolish when you are caught dead to rights and continue to try and "fabricate" your way out.

Ask and you shall receive.

https://bismarcktribune.com/news/nat...065352.html#26

Rates have been converted from murders per 10,000 people to murders per 100,000 people, since that's the convention.

The top city, East St. Louis, has a higher homicide rate than any country in the world, while only El Salvador is higher than St. Louis, Missouri; Gary, Indiana; and Chester Pennsylvania.

The Democrats in those cities have done a fine job of creating exciting environments for visiting and living. Maybe they'll appear in a future edition of the exotic travel guide, The World's Most Dangerous Places.

Please note my use of the semicolon. Your grammar and spelling are excellent, but your punctuation needs some work. Originally Posted by Tiny

So you had to find smaller cities to get your numbers . Then you manipulated them with no source so you could make them look better by multiplying the population.
While your percentages are fairly accurate you did the old Faux news trick to pump them up.

Example of what you omitted and the effect of changing the populations

1. East St. Louis, Illinois, 101 murders/100,000 people - Democrat/ Hillary

2. Chester, Pennsylvania - 67/100,000 - Democrat/Trump

3. Gary, Indiana - 60/100,000 - Democrat/Trump

4. St. Louis, Missouri - 60/100,000 - Democrat/ Trump

5. Baltimore, Maryland - 51/100,000 - Democrat/ Hillary

6. Flint, Michigan - 46/100,000 - Democrat/ Trump

7. Detroit, Michigan - 45/100,000 - Democrat/ Trump

8. New Orleans, Louisiana - 44/100,000 - Democrat/ Trump

9. Salisbury, North Carolina - 41/100,000 - Democrat/ Trump

10. Danville, Virginia - 38/100,000 - Democrat/ Hillary

One can see they are mostly from states that Trump won and many in areas the Country has been struggling economically.


The next chart will show the real numbers without the inflated population.

1. East St. Louis, Illinois - 27 murders/26,769 people -

2. Chester, Pennsylvania - 23/34,109

3. Gary, Indiana - 46/76,556

4. St. Louis, Missouri - 188/314,507

5. Baltimore, Maryland - 318/1618,385

6. Flint, Michigan - 45/97,548

7. Detroit, Michigan - 303/669,673

8. New Orleans, Louisiana - 174/397,208

9. Salisbury, North Carolina - 14/34,121

10. Danville, Virginia - 16/41.686

Did I say they coined the phrase? You love to twist everything. If you are so smart and so right, why do you feel the need to fabricate so many untruths? You look foolish when you are caught dead to rights and continue to try and "fabricate" your way out. Originally Posted by MT Pockets

That was the gist of what you posted in the post that was cited above ... verbatim ... and in context.

You're on to something here. Keep up the good fight and expose these people.

So you had to find smaller cities to get your numbers . Then you manipulated them with no source so you could make them look better by multiplying the population. Originally Posted by MT Pockets

All I did was google "homicide rate by cities usa". That was the first list that came up. They link to the database they were using and say they excluded cities with populations less than 25,000 so they wouldn't be looking at small places. St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit and New Orleans are not smaller cities.

While your percentages are fairly accurate you did the old Faux news trick to pump them up.

Example of what you omitted and the effect of changing the populations


One can see they are mostly from states that Trump won and many in areas the Country has been struggling economically.


The next chart will show the real numbers without the inflated population. Originally Posted by MT Pockets

I played no tricks whatsoever. That's how you compare murder rates, as a fraction or percentage of the population. There's no other way. "Inflated population" makes no sense - it's not inflated, it's normalized to 100,000. Whether a state voted for Trump is irrelevant. Trump is president of the United States. He doesn't control local government or local law enforcement.

You make a good point when you say these are "areas the Country has been struggling economically." Poverty and lack of opportunity, not just the homicide rate, are related to long term Democratic control of local politics. And yes, poverty and lack of opportunity breed crime and violence.