user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Thanks for changing the ballot default, LCD! 'Preciate it :-)
by mojo on Mon Oct 03, 05 2:31pm
[+]
it's hard to judge a person by one thing he said. However, I created the quote section at lo.com to archive all these little quote, I think it may reveal something about a person by a pattern of what they say....
by LCD on Mon Oct 03, 05 2:31pm
[+]
the origin of the 'abort all black babies' comment was first in a book called freak a nomics or some such, but the fact that he chose to use it shows at the very least that he is either 1)a total racist 2)totally oblivious to public opinion or 3)insensitive in the extreme.
anyone with a functioning brain would know that saying something like this even if only repeating it is just horrible.
its true, but only because the population would go down as a result. if you aborted all babies from any particular group of people the crime rate would go down, unless they committed no crime at all, then it would stay constant. The guy was probably being racist though
Umm, it would probably go down because black people In America and England statistically commit Vastly disproportionate amounts of crime. That makes sense.
Does it mean I think all black babies should be aborted? No.
Does it mean Im racist? no.
Does it mean im making a logical assumption based on mathematical FACTS?
Yes.
Can most of you handle logic, without getting all self righteous and indignant?
I doubt it.
I dont think most of you know what the word "statistic" means to be honest, you certainly cant distinguish between stating a statistical fact, and placing a judgement value on that fact.
All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --
CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.
BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.
Seems a little different when you present the whole quote doesn't it?
Like if you were to say 'the notion that blacks are inferior to whites is horrid' but I chose to quote you as saying '. . . blacks are inferior to whites . . .'.
The TRULY disgusting thing about this guy (and its not that statement he made) is that he will not apologize! I mean jesus the guy can at least say "I do apologize if this was taken offensively, I was merely using an analogy," but no, he bitches about how everyone misinterpreted him. How sad is it that this fully grown man slaps the 'misunderstood' label on himself? He's not a freaking angsty preteen. He should own up to what he did and face the fact that he DID offend many people whether he meant to or not; and he DOES owe a public apology.
Cherri: why should he apologize for something he didn't do? Look at my previous analogy, should the person in that example apologize?
He spoke the truth but he should've thought of a better analogy.
He is a hypocrite and a racist. The guy puts together a book on moral stories while he is out gambling.
Herzog, I presented the context. OK?
by mojo on Mon Oct 03, 05 5:49pm
[+]
well actually, he used a very good analogy didnt he? After all if you read the full quote he WAS making the point that such analogies were "morally reprehensible".
You guys obviously seemed to find it morally reprehensible didnt you? Judging by all your whinging and self righteous indignation that is.
Fiddle
" He is a hypocrite and a racist. The guy puts together a book on moral stories while he is out gambling. "
Fancied a little character assasination? easier than debating the substance of his words isnt it?
Kingal,
You honestly think he meant to say the analogy was morally reprehensible? He wasn't saying that its morally reprehensible to SAY that aborting every black baby would lower the crime rate, come on now. Of what use would the statement be after that? He clearly meant the abortion of every black child would be morally reprehensible.
But hey, the crime rate would go down, huh?
And herzog, you can't tell me you didn't hear the voice clip played over 60 times on the news that night. He said it. What I am saying is he should apologize regardless of whether he meant it as an example or not. Obviously people were offended! He's being a prick by acting so proud and stubborn and claiming he wasn't read correctly.
Oh, my goodness. To paraphrase Teddy Pendergrass, "Teach the foolish old men..."
weebles, I eard that wonderful tome of which you speak. I also posted an article when I first heard about the book. Then, as now, my assertion is this- you can get a set of numbers to say anything you want them to.
I fail to see the moral distinction between him saying that SAYING that aborting every black child would lower crime is morally reprehensible, and him saying that the act itself is morally reprehensible?
Surely both of them are correct, and he was giving the most morally reprehensible example he could of using abortion to affect crime rates negatively?
We are getting tangled up in semantics here it seems.
My point was that using a valid statistical FACT, such as the fact that Afro American males commit proportionally more crime than any other race by far, to speculate on a logical theory (if completely inhumane and Naziesque) that aborting black children would reduce crime, is not in itself racist in any way. He didnt say that he thought such a scheme was a good one, in fact he said quite the opposite, so what has he actually done wrong?
I would suggest that the people who were offended by what he said should stop being so uptight and judgemental, and pretty much stick their request for an apology up their arses.
Anyone surprised that herzog immediately leapt to Bennett's defence?
Everyone has been quick to jump on this guy, ignoring the context of the quote, simply because they don't like what he said. But is it possible he's right?
Yes of course it would be wrong and we shouldn't do it, but statistically blacks commit more crimes than ones per person. This is a fact, you can come up with any reasons or excuses you want, but these is undeniably true. So does it stand to reason that with fewer blacks there'd be less crime? Obviously. People need to get a thicker skin and not immediately feed this modern day witch hunt that racism has become.
I'm glad he's refusing to apologize. More people need to stand up to the politically correct facists who are trying to take over this country.
Notice these groups are demanding he be censored, fined, or otherwise punished not because he advocated violence (he clearly didn't) nor because what he said was factually inaccurate, it's not. They're are out to silence this guy because what he said didn't fall into line with their ideology. I guess freedom of speech only applies to liberals?
How about a rousing chorus of the "Horst Werssel Lied" as well, herzog?
Seriously, man - you're a fucking disgrace.
No DingleDung, in this case YOU are being a disgrace to be honest. Me and Herzog are botyh saying exactly the same logical argument, and you have not addressed one point we have made yet. You are simply making unfounded accusations and biased irrelevant comments.
I have no prob with you, in fact i normally like you. But you are letting your personal vendetta against Herzog cloud your judgement on this matter, in fact, you arent addressing the question at all!
He meant to be racist but he said it in a way where he can defend himself. It's a really weak defense on his take. He doesn't need to apologize because apologies do nothing except make him sould like a hypocrite. He's definately a racist though.
Haha, thats rich coming from YOU Herr Lib Dem. How do you have the cheek to make comments like that?
I suppose they DO say it takes one to know one though...
It is more true that you could abort every white baby in America and the crime rate would go down. Do the math: Whites are the 2/3 majority -- lots more of us -- so, kill all the white babies and enjoy the lowered prison population.
The fact is, William Bennett is a pompous, pseudo-intellectual racist windbag who thinks he is being cute and smart when he wraps his bigotry in the robes of reason.
Sick man.
True Griff. More crimes are commited by whites than by any other group in the US.
KingAlf, the bloke made a cock-up.
Whatever his personal view on minorities, in the modern political climate you can't get away with equating racial characteristics to crime figures - *especially* when you're talking about unborn babies.
He should have retracted the comment & apologised for the offence he no doubt caused.
Herzog's Pavlovian defence of this fella's slight against blacks came as absolutely zero surprise to me. There isn't an original thought in the twat's head, he takes every opportunity to point accusatory fingers at anyone that isn't his version of "normal" (i.e. white capitalist Western, ideally American).
I wouldn't mind so much about that if he occasionally had a go at the deviants within "his" own society, such as those Texans that were convicted of disseminating child pornography on the Internet. But they weren't foreign or coloured, so herzog turns a blind eye...
You just don't get it dung.
So I'll walk you through step by step. Will you admit that statistically blacks commit more crimes per person than whites?
i don't know what he meant by it -- i have no idea if he really believes what he said, or, if he was trying to make a point. but, ultimately, given his position, both past and present, he should have first made a disclaimer and then after the comment, he should have been very clear as to what his point was and what he felt about it.
people are offended, plain and simple, so he has an obligation to further explain himself and to apologize if what or how he said it caused offense. i mean why can't he just say "sorry...this is what i meant, so if i was not clear........."
and also, just hearing the words "abort every black baby" makes me uncomfortable and it bothers me a great deal, so i can relate as to why people are upset. just read that line or say it out loud and anyone can see why it is just so horrendous and disgusting.
Grif: the fact that you can say that and recieve no criticism proves my point.
Dung, et al, by saying nothing about grifs comment you have proven yourselves to be hypocrites on this issue. Congrats.
actually the way I heard the clip it wasn't even the guy whose taking the heat that suggested that , it was the caller & they were talking about someting said in an article (I forget the name)but he really didn't just say it like he was creating the idea. & he's technically right if you kill a large # of any group the crime rate goes down (unless you see the killings themselves as a crime which in my mind abortion is a moral crime) but he did say he disagreed with the idea of aborting any babies. I think it's just Knee-jerk reactions to call him a name. It's funny I remember when the "right" were accused of being the knee-jerks now it seems like everybody but the right is that way.
I'm glad he's refusing to apologize. More people need to stand up to the politically correct facists who are trying to take over this country. by Herzog
I couldn't agree more! I think it's really about time someone take a public stand & tell these pc idiots who jump in front of the camera every chance they get to back off. You know there's no such thing as the "Right to not be offended". Not liking every thing people say is just part of being alive.
^ how convenient. so basically you want a free pass to say what ever you want, no matter how inappropriate or racist or just plain wrong? yeah, great thought process you have there.
women are inferior to men.
women are emotionally unstable and they cause many of the problems in the world. in fact, women should be told when to have children, how many to have and how to raise them and men should set those guidelines -- this will lead to babies being raised correctly, and thus, better members of society, which will lead to a reduction in crime.
^ but what we don't have is freedom of hate speech. once someone takes to the public airwaves, they fall into a whole other category than two people talking one-on-one in a bar or people talking to each other on the bus. hate speech is not to be confused with free speech.
but again, while i of course do not believe what i wrote, i did so to prove a point.
'so basically you want a free pass to say what ever you want, no matter how inappropriate or racist or just plain wrong?'
YES!!!!!! The first amendment doesn't come with an 'as long as it doesn't offend anyone clause'. Freedom of political speech is absolute and should never be limited in any way. If you limit it to only include what is universally accepted as ok there'd be no need for the amendment, as no one is trying to outlaw popular speech. It is unpopular speech that needs protecting. And as everygirl pointed out, there is no such thing as a right to not be offended. Part of living in a free society is the fact that some people will think differently from you. Maybe in trivial ways, maybe in fundamental issues to the point where you can't even talk to the person without getting into a yelling match, but the fact is that everyone has the right to their own opinions and to express them without fear from government intrusion.
Yes, Herz, a larger fraction of the Black population commits known felonies than the Whites.
I don't think this proves much.
On a percentage of race basis, there are more Blacks living below the poverty line than Whites.
Poverty limits choices, as does discrimination, and more poor people, whatever their race, are going to choose crime as a possible way out of their poverty than are rich people.
Our courts and prisons are overwhelmingly filled with POOR people. POVERTY is the key variable in criminal behavior in America. Rich people represent less than one-tenth of one percent of American prisoners.
None of the foregoing is to say that we aren't responsible for our choices. Crime is still a choice, and bad choices have consequences.
On the other hand, let's not imagine that one race or another commits crimes because of some genetic predisposition. POVERTY is the key variable in all this, and when economic conditions improve, there are fewer crimes.
Let's stop imagining that race is what predisposes one to criminal behavior.
^ herzog, you and i have a very different view of what is free speech and what is hate speech. no one is talking about controlling what people say and as i pointed out, 2 people talking on the street, in a bar or on the bus is a different issue.
what we are talking about is allowing people to spread hate or racist stereotypes that does not benefit anyone -- in other words, disguising "hate" speech as "free" speech.
the other issue here is that people of this mind-set (i guess your mind-set) always freak out and label anyone who disagrees with hateful or racist words as being "pc." do you see the hypocircy with this? so you want to say what ever you want and it should be okay, but if anyone says "hey, that's racist," then that person speaking up is just being "too pc" or they're acting like thought police? isn't someone speaking up against it just as entitled to do so as the person making the racist comment, at least in your opinion? (e.g. bennett)
but the fact is that everyone has the right to their own opinions and to express them without fear from government intrusion.
by herzog on Oct 04, 2005 1:13pm
okay, so following this train of thought, it is okay for people to say what they want. fine. if a large group of people goes around spreading hate toward black people and it grows and gets out of control and more and more people are now joining it (for what ever reason) and suddenly you have a mob and that mob decides to burn a cross on a black person's lawn (or worse), does that constitute a scenario in which the government should get involved, whether it be local police, the national guard, etc??
and, the next question is, don't you think that the greater good of the country is at stake here? should we just not speak up if racist comments are just allowed and ignored and if those comments just serve to make race relations even worse?
"Will you admit that statistically blacks commit more crimes per person than whites?"
NO. I won't ADMIT any such thing.
A higher proportion of blacks may be *prosecuted* for crimes, but that MIGHT have more to do with the socio-political climate than any inherent tendency of blacks to commit crime.
Herzog, I'm well aware that your preferred solution to the problems of ethnic & cultural integration is to systematically eradicate what you consider to be "Untermenschen", but even you should realise by now that this simply isn't an option.
I don't have enough information - and, for that matter, neither do you - to make sweeping generalisations about race. For instance, it would be useful to have a comparison between crime figures for blacks & whites based on family income, place of residence, educational opportunities, etc. and THEN compare blacks vs. whites of similar social profile, not forgetting to take into account the centuries of disadvantage to which blacks have been subjected in the West. And whilst people like you & this Bennett creature are ready to condemn them out of hand as criminals whilst they're still in the womb, for fuck's sake, how can this ever change?
I'm still trying to decide whether you're very stupid or something much, much worse.
Kev: what exactly is hate speech in your definition? Because if we were to outlaw anything that offends a majority of people in this country it'd be against the law to say jesus isn't the son of god, and that homosexuals should be allowed to marry.
So what exactly is hate speech?
Grif: like I said, make any excuse you want, but you acknowledge the fact that blacks commit more crimes. So this guys premise is correct.
Dung: I think you've clearly shown that you have no idea what you're talking about as you refuse to address the issue and try to ignore commonly accepted facts. I think you'd try to claim the world was flat if I said it was round.
From the Web:
"Hate speech--in this country, principally racist and anti-Semitic speech--has always been recognized as First Amendment-protected. There is no First Amendment exception for hate speech, so unless it fits into one of the other pigeonholes--libel, obscenity, or fighting words--it receives the same guarantees as any other speech.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has held in RAV v. City of St. Paul that an ordinance aimed at cross-burning was an unconstitutional content-based regulation because it only banned cross-burning which constituted hate speech (an ordinance which banned burning any wooden object on lawns might have been constitutional). Also, a federal court recognized the right of the American Nazi Party to march through a Jewish suburb of Skokie, Illinois.
In a 1950's case, Beauharnais v. Illinois, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a state "group libel" law, which gave racial, ethnic and other groups the same right to sue for libel as individuals. Although Beauharnais has never been over-ruled, it is almost certainly a dead letter in light of RAV and numerous other cases.
Canada, Great Britain, Germany and numerous other Western democracies ban hate speech and there is an ongoing debate whether doing so undermines the fundamental tenet of a liberal democracy."
Herzog's question got me to thinking. I don't fully understand what the above means, but personally, I don't see how hate speech benefits anyone. Why is it protected? I suppose one way to look at it is that what one person defines as "hate speech," another may see as truth. I don't know. All I know is that I was raised to view and treat every other person on this planet as just as worthy as me...not better, not worse...but equal.
Actually Herz, what I admitted was that, as a percentage of population, Blacks commit more crimes than Whites. However, I think that if you compared impoverished White people, as a separate population from wealthier White groups, that the percentage of crimes committed might not be much different.
It's just a thought. I'm not invested in it.
I've noticed that herzog likes to stick to the letter of the law, completely ignoring the *spirit* of the law that is the reason for the law's existence in the first place.
Very dangerous ground, that.
After all, laws get amended because their wording is open to (often deliberate) misinterpretation and abuse.
By people like herzog.
Alright, I liked this topic so I made a ballot about hate speech if you want to check it out. I'll keep debating the issure there.
Dung: so rather than just following the law we should reinterpret it as the situation demands? That's not the way to run a free society.
Yes you have the right to plead the 5th, but I think in this case it'd be best if you weren't allowed to, so you lose that right. Yes you have every right to freedom of speech, but I don't like what you said so I'll take that away. Yes you have the right to vote, but you might vote for the wrong person so we'll postpone that right for the moment.
Sound like a society you'd want to live in? Well perhaps if you were the one 'interpreting' the law, ie making it up, but not if you were any one else in that society.
^ And that has precisely what to do with maintaining the *spirit* of the law?
Sounds more like misinterpretation to me...
Ah so now *you* get to determine what is in the spirit of the law eh? Sounds like the makings of a wonderful dictatorship.
Actually, Dingle, the response was more "knee jerk" than Pavlovian.
Nope, griffon... he's following a formula. He systematically defends implicit racism, and habitually posts ballots that seek to demonise ethnic minorities.
Have a look back through his ballots & comments. It makes very interesting reading.
Herzog, if I can get you back on track for a moment: how come you recently posted a ballot attacking a Muslim's use of the word "jihad" when talking about an action to remove advertising material that might have offended his religion, but you're now wholeheartedly sanctioning this Bennett person's comments about aborting black foetuses?
Explain yourself.
First off, I never said that guy should be censored, as you have claimed. I simply pointed out that maybe this was a little overreaction.
Second, he actually did call for acts of violence against someone for a stupid reason. Bennett made it very clear this wasn't his idea, he didn't support it, and in no way advocated aborting anyone, the point of the conversation which has been clipped out by people here and in the media, was to show how statistics can be misused.
And how can you consider abortions an act of violence anyway? Abortions are great, every woman should have at least one, it's no like fetuses are people.
You haven't answered my question.
Why speak out in favour of the man that thought it was OK to talk about black foetuses being aborted as a crime-reduction method, but condemn the Muslim for using the word "jihad" in the same way that a Westerner would use the word "crusade"?
Try again.
So much talk of racism is stigmatizing and name-calling. My view is that it's societal insanity, and as with most insanity, no one admits having it themselves. Bill Bennett only stated what most of us (including liberal politicians and media) secretly believe at times. Robert Kennedy placed wiretaps on MLK, Jr. Some of the most racist propaganda in America came out of the mouths of "liberals" during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. Face it. Racism is a fact. The Arabic Golden Age gave us logic as we use it today; so, here's an if/then question for you. If the police get their "man" (perpetrator) equitably, and they are sentenced equitably with other perps; then, doesn't it follow that blacks commit the most crimes? (I'm not saying they do; but, why is it that no one can talk about the elephant in the living room floor?) Because the USA is infected with racism. There is nothing inherently afro-genetic about the propensity to crime; so, why is it that our penal system is overcrowded by Americans of African descent? No easy answers, please. Wouldn't most of those incarcerated individuals not be there had they not committed the crime? The individuals themselves have been unable to shake the racist societal stigma of what it is to be "black" in America. I'm new to this site, perhaps there is a better venue in it to monologue. Much to complex an issue to give stupid soundbites. Forget the external "terror" threat; too many of us are afraid of each other. The insanity will not stop until the denial stops. Quit looking for it (racism) in others, and ferret it out of ourselves. Word of the Day = RIGOROUS HONESTY
Had you bothered to read my response you'd have seen that I did answer your question. The two are situations are not at all similar and so cannot be compared. That'd be like asking how somone can support social medicine if they oppose the war in iraq, there is no connection between the two.
I'll repeat my question:
How come you recently posted a ballot attacking a Muslim's use of the word "jihad" when talking about an action to remove advertising material that might have offended his religion, but you're now wholeheartedly sanctioning this Bennett person's comments about aborting black foetuses?
And I'll repeat my response, the two have nothing in common. There is a difference between advocating violence, and not advocating violence wouldn't you agree? There is a difference between attacking some group out of hate, and simply using on group as an example on the misuse of stats.
So every time anyone mentions being on a "crusade" in everyday usage they're advocating violence?
And someone saying in an off-hand manner that aborting black babies would reduce the crime rate is acceptable, in comparison?
You're fucking pathetic, herzog.
Dung: how many christians have actually killed people recently after declaring a crusade? None?
Now how many muslims have killed people after declaring a jihad? A lot?
You are trying to equate two things that aren't at all similiar.
For instance, if one of your buddies says jokingly "I'm going to kill you" would that have the same meaning to you as if a psychopath who had just killed 20 people were to say the same thing to you?
And how can you, a good liberal, think of abortions as being similiar to murder?
I guess fetuses are people when that suits your argument.
^ Pathetic attempt at deflecting the conversation, herzog.
But that's you all over... pathetic. The action taken by that Muslim to have the coffee cup lids changed had nothing to do with causing deaths, as you well know.
That fucking imbecile Bush's talk of a "crusade against terr'r", on the other hand, has already caused tens of thousands of deaths.
As for your comment about foetuses being people, whether they are or not is only a question of time... left alone, they would be born as people.
But again, you're trying to weasel away from the point. WHY are you defending the comments of someone that suggested the systematic extermination of a minority racial group as a crime-reduction measure?
Is it because you're racist, herzog?
Go on... tell the truth, just this once.
Actually dung, he never did suggest that. And thank you for proving that you didn't bother to research this at all.
Scroll up and read my post that lists the exact statement he made, in context, then come back.
"You could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down."
Seems fairly conclusive to me.
Now, herzog, I believe you were about to admit that you're a racist?
Oh, I forgot.
You're a coward as well, so you'll never admit to your racial bias.
'All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --
CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.
BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.'
There you go dung, since your scroll bar appears to be broken.
By your standards I could quote you as saying 'you could abort every black baby . . . ' and call you a racist.
Would that be fair?
So dung, why are you in favor of aborting all black children?
Why do you think he happened to use precisely that analogy, herzog?
Hmm?
For it's emotional impact (you can hardly deny that).
Now dung, from your statements you've advocated killing all black babies, why is this?
Tut tut.
I wasn't defending him.
You were.
I was defending him, good dung. And why? Because he is being unfairly attacked for a lack of political correctness. Read what he said (I posted it twice for you so you've no excuse for your ignorance) and tell me if you honestly believe he was advocating that.
Then why use precisely that analogy?
As mojo said, it reveals a lot about Bennett's character.
And yours, since you have twisted every which way in your attempts to defend the man.
PS an emotional impact would have just been "babies".
Not "black babies".
Hear hear! Dung is absolutely right.
Why bring race into the equation?
Freedom of speech is wonderful but we surely can all agree that if you make a comment that people find insulting you should apologize? Why can't he say "Sorry if I upset you. What I meant to say was...."
PrinceAlbert is on overdrive I see. Heartwarming stuff.
'Abort every baby to reduce crime', that just sounds stupid.
The point he was making was that statistics can be misused by people. And statistically blacks are more likely to grow up and commit a crime than any other group, this is a fact.
it's probably true, but only because so many black people are poor, and poverty breeds crime. y could abort every poor baby in the U.S. and your crime rate would go down far more.
but i have a better idea. why don't we all stop reproducing for a while.
I agree it was taken out of context. I’m glad someone made a ballot about this.
by seon on Mon Nov 14, 05 8:51pm
[+]
Also you could abort every white baby and the crime rate would go down. I’m not saying we should though I’m just saying it will. The colour of your skin doesn’t make a difference if you’re a criminal or not its weather you live in poverty and your upbringing.
by seon on Tue Nov 15, 05 7:05pm
[+]
|
|
