Who Are the Black ********s That Won't Discuss Inner City Murders?

[Chollo Vista]

And you're on ignore.

You know nothing about debate, obviously, and you're cheerleading.

I'm on ignore because that's clearly your routine. Every one knows it

No point in debating you because you do steps #1 , 2 and 3 repeatedly

[Chollo Vista]

And you're on ignore.

You know nothing about debate, obviously, and you're cheerleading.

And what's this about you being a pedophile that attempts to pick up little girls in a Ford Mustang?

[travestyny]

I'm on ignore because that's clearly your routine. Every one knows it

No point in debating you because you do steps #1 , 2 and 3 repeatedly

Lmao. You just forced the dude to prove your point! Classic!!!

[travestyny]

Ok, I was mistaken on the year. 5 years instead of 6. Major difference that makes. What did the then president do about it? Anything?

Yes, it was a letter asking for a meeting. The portion you highlighted makes it seem as if police regulation is The purpose of that meeting. Instead of assigning research to me, maybe you should have performed your due diligence and highlighted portions of the text that are actually relevant to the point you're trying to convey.

My main point is that your OP does a very poor job of relating the message you're trying to convey. The fact that you're telling me to follow through, and adding other things that you didn't originally include, proves my point.

You have no point. You simply were too dense to understand the OP. It is a letter asking for a meeting to discuss crime and other things.

I just posted to you what they then discussed at that meeting, and you tried to ignore that this was mentioned in the letter as a point of discussion, and also attempted to downplay the info in the OP by claiming the legislation that was proposed regarding the matter is worthless. When I mentioned that it was endorsed by the FOP, you then made up an excuse about why they would endorse it.

So as you can see, the OP must have been on point enough if you had to go through that to try to discredit it.

But that’s beside the point. What’s funniest is that I’ve provided everything you asked for, and your only defense is that I didnt anticipate your questions in the OP. lol

That’s what you call desperation.

[travestyny]

He can't.

I tried for two days to get some examples.

I got nothing but snark and fallacy.

You'll do no better.

You do realize this is a SafeSpace and is only here to 'win' don't you? Here's not here for adult discourse. You'd be wise to put him on ignore. Once we all start ignoring him, he'll move on and gum up a different forum.

That's a downright lie. You should know that from the information I posted before you put me on ignore, and the information you probably peeked at after you put me on ignore

[GGG Gloveking]

You have no point. You simply were too dense to understand the OP. It is a letter asking for a meeting to discuss crime and other things.

I just posted to you what they then discussed at that meeting, and you tried to ignore that this was mentioned in the letter as a point of discussion, and also attempted to downplay the info in the OP by claiming the legislation that was proposed regarding the matter is worthless. When I mentioned that it was endorsed by the FOP, you then made up an excuse about why they would endorse it.

So as you can see, the OP must have been on point enough if you had to go through that to try to discredit it.

But that’s beside the point. What’s funniest is that I’ve provided everything you asked for, and your only defense is that I didnt anticipate your questions in the OP. lol

That’s what you call desperation.

Next time, try to be a little more concise and to the point. If you're going to talk about inner city crime, talk aboht inner city crime.

Not regulating the police..

[travestyny]

Next time, try to be a little more concise and to the point. If you're going to talk about inner city crime, talk aboht inner city crime.

Not regulating the police..

Next time learn how to read. Did you not get all of the information that you were asking for?

[GGG Gloveking]

Next time learn how to read. Did you not get all of the information that you were asking for?

I did. And what I read had little to nothing to do with what you were trying to discuss.

It's almost like you shouldn't have posted anything at all

[travestyny]

I did. And what I read had little to nothing to do with what you were trying to discuss.

It's almost like you shouldn't have posted anything at all

Don't you mean that you tried to ignore the parts that were on topic.


You know....like it saying specifically that they want to meet to discuss crime...


and you giving an excuse for why the FOP also was for the legislation that was specifically about reducing crime

You're transparent, dude. Fact of the matter is that you came in asking questions that were answered...and yes, even in the OP. You were just too dense to get it.

[GGG Gloveking]

Don't you mean that you tried to ignore the parts that were on topic.


You know....like it saying specifically that they want to meet to discuss crime...


and you giving an excuse for why the FOP also was for the legislation that was specifically about reducing crime

You're transparent, dude. Fact of the matter is that you came in asking questions that were answered...and yes, even in the OP. You were just too dense to get it.

The portion of the letter that you highlighted dealt with police regulation. If there is a portion that is more specific, you should have cited that instead. Your OP is where your argument should cognitively begin. Not after further research or subsequent reading.

If that's all the effort you're going to put into your thread, then you should do like B.utler and just type a title then some random skdkdbfifebdide type sh it