The other white-on-white crime thread has gone so far afield and become so irrational it should be closed and the discussion begun anew. We can hope it will stay on topic and remain rational. Is anyone holding their breath?
I don't see how the Democrats can call it white-on-white crime when it was a fight between various criminal gangs.
They don't call it white-on-white crime when a New York crime boss murders another New York crime boss, do they?
Well CMG if you ain't [sic] white you can't be a member of the gangs that were in Texas last weekend. You ever hear of a black Hell's Angel; a white Pagan; a white Bandido?
No you haven't.
Well, just like Hillary you can talk dialect, huh?
Why do you have the "sic" since you wrote it yourself--that is to be inserted when someone else writes something?
Seriously, are you saying that one gang member can commit a crime against another gang member and it is white-on-white crime?
That is to funny--it is mob violence by organized crime.
When you left the movie theatre after seeing The Godfather, did you tell your friends that the movie was about white-on-white crime?
The whole point of that article (that is, the way it is framed) is to spoof what people are saying about "black on black" crime. It's satirical.
Here's another one, framed in terms of the other common phrase: "destroying their own community": http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/18/biker-gangs-shootout-waco_n_7305706.html
Just want to point out that if you look through the mug shots that have been made public so far, you'll see a few men of African descent (probably African-American) and quite a few Hispanic folks. There are persons of several ethnicities involved, although I have not seen any persons of obvious Asian/Pacific Rim descent. It would not surprise me to see that though.
Here is what the leftist encyclopedia Wikipedia says about sic:
The Latin adverb sic ("thus"; in full: sic erat scriptum, "thus was it written")[1] inserted immediately after a quoted word or passage, indicates that the quoted matter has been transcribed exactly as found in the source text, complete with any erroneous or archaic spelling, surprising assertion, faulty reasoning, or other matter that might otherwise be taken as an error of transcription.
The notation's usual purpose is to inform the reader that any errors or apparent errors in quoted material do not arise from errors in the course of the transcription, but are intentionally reproduced, exactly as they appear in the source text. It is generally placed inside square brackets, to signal that it is not part of the quoted matter; and is traditionally printed in italics, as is customary with foreign words.
Sic may also be used derisively, to call attention to the original writer's spelling mistakes or erroneous logic.[2]
Oh, you would like Godfather--it is about the mafia. It is called gang violence not white on white crime. But to go onto another example, no one ever called the Valentine's Day Massacre white on white etc--it was called gang violence.
Liberals just have to play around with the race question all the time because that is all they have.
As Hillary runs, we will be hearing a lot about sexism, because in her case that is all the Democrats have--her gender and her fabulous wealth.
Nope. He's Black. Ask his wife. He understands that America isn't as post-racial as folks like to believe and that if he calls himself white, there is a segment of the population that would deny it till Jesus came back.
The fact of the matter is there are white people out there who would kill or attempt to kill him because of the color of his skin. I doubt there are any black folks who would do that.