My Whiteness......

[travestyny]

I never once stated that Africans created slavery.

And you must admit that slavery was first in Africa way before it was in America.

Are you talking about the hole in which I throw all of your bull****? ............Rockin'

I must admit what? I don't have to admit anything unless you have some information from some credible sources about slavery amongst Native Americans. But what is the point of this?

I see the point. The point is you know you stepped into shlt and now you are deflecting.

Once again, you said Africans should pay reparations, if anyone, to Black Americans.

Americans supplied their own slaves before and to a large degree after 1808, when the importation of African slaves from Africa was made illegal in America.

Then logically, you agree that Americans should also pay reparations, if any are to be paid.


You haven't been able to claw your way out of the shlt yet. Keep trying, but your desperation rightfully stinks

[ΣNΣMY]

More whites benefit from welfare than blacks. Get your facts straight


There are a plethora of articles to back this up. Google is your friend.

Here is what the google machine came up with.



https://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

[travestyny]

Here is what the google machine came up with.



https://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

Here's another one.

TRUMP THINKS ONLY BLACK PEOPLE ARE ON WELFARE, BUT, REALLY, WHITE AMERICANS RECEIVE MOST BENEFITS


http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump...k-white-780252

Not only do the numbers your site provides seem off, but look at what it says:

"DOES NOT INCLUDE the 70.5 million people enrolled in Medicaid"

[ΣNΣMY]

Here's another one.

More whites on SNAP getting supplemental income. More blacks on Welfare where it's their only income and you're not even any where close to the population size of whites. Theres your reparations.

[jack_the_rippuh]

Devilshit up in here.

[Chollo Vista]

Here is what the google machine came up with.



https://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

Statistic brain

Everyone with 2 brain cells knows they're a fraudulent website... Can't believe you tried to use them as a source

http://joyfulpublicspeaking.blogspot.com/2014/12/statistic-brain-is-just-statistical.html?m=1

Back in the March 2014 issue of Information Today there was a database review article by library director Mick O’Leary titled Statistics Sites Good and Bad. (You can find the full text in an EBSCO database like MasterFILE Premier at your friendly local public library.) One of his section headings is Statistic Brain: Do Not Use, and he grumbled:

“Statistic Brain is thin, erratic, out-of-date, and full of errors. If you come across it, immediately shift over to Statistica, or indeed to any other statistics purveyor.

....Statistic Brain is full of errors. Some are minor: Statistic Brain states that there is a large oil company named Exon and a city in eastern Pennsylvania named Redding. Others are serious: According to Statistic Brain the U.S. has the world’s second largest GDP.

Each individual statistics record has a data table, with a source and release date...most of the time, that is, since this essential fact is sometimes omitted. The source information does not link to the original.”

Statistic Brain sometimes has out of date statistics, vaguely identified sources that can’t be verified, and even internal inconsistencies (and nonsense). Here are three examples from specific pages there.

Out-Of-Date Statistics


























The Rabies Virus Statistics page at Statistic Brain says their source was the Center for Disease Control, which actually is called the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the research date was July 12, 2014. The second part of their table is headed Rabies in Wild Animals. You might assume that they used the latest CDC data, since they checked just this summer. But the data they listed actually came from an article titled Rabies surveillance in the United States during 2001. That basic title is used for a whole series of annual articles. The CDC publications page on rabies has links to the full text for an entire decade of those articles covering 2002 through 2012. The table shown above compares the 2012 CDC statistics with the 2001 statistics listed at Statistic Brain. Bats flew up from 17.2% to 27.3%, and from third place to second place.



Vaguely Identified Sources

The Attention Span Statistics page at Statistic Brain says their sources were the National Center for Biotechnology Information, the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), and The Associated Press, and their research date was January 1, 2014.

Those three Nebulously Authoritative Places (NAP) may be meant just to put your critical instincts to sleep. National Center for Biotechnology Information is the folks at NLM responsible for databases like PubMed. PubMed contains over 24 million citations or abstracts of magazine articles and other sources. That’s a huge haystack, so it can be very hard to determine if something really came from there. (Earlier versions of that Statistic Brain page only had listed The Associated Press as their source).

[travestyny]

More whites on SNAP getting supplemental income. More blacks on Welfare where it's their only income and you're not even any where close to the population size of whites. Theres your reparations.

Who said that? Keep pulling faulty statistics out of your ass. Did you see what your website said?

"DOES NOT INCLUDE the 70.5 million people enrolled in Medicaid"


I think white folks need to pay that money back since yall are the ones mostly on welfare, hmmmm? What yall receiving reparations for?

[travestyny]

More whites on SNAP getting supplemental income. More blacks on Welfare where it's their only income and you're not even any where close to the population size of whites. Theres your reparations.

Speaking of medicaid:





No wonder you cherrypicked that website

[travestyny]

Statistic brain

Everyone with 2 brain cells knows they're a fraudulent website... Can't believe you tried to use them as a source

http://joyfulpublicspeaking.blogspot...tical.html?m=1

Back in the March 2014 issue of Information Today there was a database review article by library director Mick O’Leary titled Statistics Sites Good and Bad. (You can find the full text in an EBSCO database like MasterFILE Premier at your friendly local public library.) One of his section headings is Statistic Brain: Do Not Use, and he grumbled:

“Statistic Brain is thin, erratic, out-of-date, and full of errors. If you come across it, immediately shift over to Statistica, or indeed to any other statistics purveyor.

....Statistic Brain is full of errors. Some are minor: Statistic Brain states that there is a large oil company named Exon and a city in eastern Pennsylvania named Redding. Others are serious: According to Statistic Brain the U.S. has the world’s second largest GDP.

Each individual statistics record has a data table, with a source and release date...most of the time, that is, since this essential fact is sometimes omitted. The source information does not link to the original.”

Statistic Brain sometimes has out of date statistics, vaguely identified sources that can’t be verified, and even internal inconsistencies (and nonsense). Here are three examples from specific pages there.

Out-Of-Date Statistics


























The Rabies Virus Statistics page at Statistic Brain says their source was the Center for Disease Control, which actually is called the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the research date was July 12, 2014. The second part of their table is headed Rabies in Wild Animals. You might assume that they used the latest CDC data, since they checked just this summer. But the data they listed actually came from an article titled Rabies surveillance in the United States during 2001. That basic title is used for a whole series of annual articles. The CDC publications page on rabies has links to the full text for an entire decade of those articles covering 2002 through 2012. The table shown above compares the 2012 CDC statistics with the 2001 statistics listed at Statistic Brain. Bats flew up from 17.2% to 27.3%, and from third place to second place.



Vaguely Identified Sources

The Attention Span Statistics page at Statistic Brain says their sources were the National Center for Biotechnology Information, the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), and The Associated Press, and their research date was January 1, 2014.

Those three Nebulously Authoritative Places (NAP) may be meant just to put your critical instincts to sleep. National Center for Biotechnology Information is the folks at NLM responsible for databases like PubMed. PubMed contains over 24 million citations or abstracts of magazine articles and other sources. That’s a huge haystack, so it can be very hard to determine if something really came from there. (Earlier versions of that Statistic Brain page only had listed The Associated Press as their source).

LMAOOO. Good shlt!!!!

[ΣNΣMY]

Speaking of medicaid:





No wonder you cherrypicked that website

Didn't cherry pick anything you said welfare and it's proven. You have to keep cherry picking government benefits.