Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

AustonT wrote:The question that's been nagging at me is: Does that mean 25% of blacks don't drive?

Just as much as it means everyone who drives has car insurance.

Ahtman wrote:

AustonT wrote:The question that's been nagging at me is: Does that mean 25% of blacks don't drive?

Just as much as it means everyone who drives has car insurance.

Given I've read that the Census indicated that only 61% of Americans drive I suppose it's possible. I just wonder if that's a real number or if there's a way to confirm it. Since I haven't seen any indication that the number from the B something institute is based on actual data it'd be nice to at least have hard data to put it in the ball park. A good start would be the %-age of black Americans that drive.

AustonT wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

AustonT wrote:The question that's been nagging at me is: Does that mean 25% of blacks don't drive?

Just as much as it means everyone who drives has car insurance.

Given I've read that the Census indicated that only 61% of Americans drive I suppose it's possible. I just wonder if that's a real number or if there's a way to confirm it. Since I haven't seen any indication that the number from the B something institute is based on actual data it'd be nice to at least have hard data to put it in the ball park. A good start would be the %-age of black Americans that drive.

I never found the data (25% w/o ID) that was attributed to the Center. It may be in there buried, or it may have been used becuase that center does a lot dealing with the issue and hoped no one would go looking to hard. I know several people of the African-American variety that do not have a drivers license and of age and then some, but they all have State ID's. The only people I have run into that don't have a state ID at least are the homeless or illegal immigrants, and they often have Social Security cards, albeit questionable ones occasionally*.




*often

Exactly.

LoneLictor wrote:Can someone get a source besides Faux News? That article is pretty dang biased.

Yea i stopped reading after the first 2 lines where they basically made it opinion based infotainment.

"The United Nations Human Rights Council is investigating the issue of American election laws at its gathering on minority rights in Geneva, Switzerland.. This, despite the fact that some members of the council have only in the past several years allowed women to vote, and one member, Saudi Arabia, still bars women from the voting booth completely. "

The bold part is where they try to discredit the entire UN which we are also a member of base don the actions of "some of the members"

Thats like saying the Eagles offensive lineup shouldn't be allowed to have pets because "some of the members" hold dog fights on the weekends...

It's quite an accurate assessment. The UN human rights council has members that have far worse violations of human rights. These need to be considered first (deal with the biggest problems first; worry about the log in your eye before trying to take the stick out of someone else's), but because the US is an easy target ,they aren't.

Melissia wrote:It's quite an accurate assessment. The UN human rights council has members that have far worse violations of human rights. These need to be considered first (deal with the biggest problems first; worry about the log in your eye before trying to take the stick out of someone else's), but because the US is an easy target ,they aren't.

Well, they need to deal with the problems they want to deal with.

As I usually say, its the UN, and the UN isn't an extension of the West, which is why its susceptible to a wide variety of political influences.

Melissia wrote:It's quite an accurate assessment. The UN human rights council has members that have far worse violations of human rights. These need to be considered first (deal with the biggest problems first; worry about the log in your eye before trying to take the stick out of someone else's), but because the US is an easy target ,they aren't.

It is true, but does that discredit them? If so then they there fore acurately discredit the US based on our voting laws.

frgsinwntr wrote:

Melissia wrote:It's quite an accurate assessment. The UN human rights council has members that have far worse violations of human rights. These need to be considered first (deal with the biggest problems first; worry about the log in your eye before trying to take the stick out of someone else's), but because the US is an easy target ,they aren't.

It is true, but does that discredit them? If so then they there fore acurately discredit the US based on our voting laws.

er....what?

I never said it discredited them, only that their priorities are fethed to hell by the political gaming of backwards assed countries who wouldn't know human rights unless it was a bloody, sexually violated corpse laying on their lawn.

Even then they'd probably not care.

frgsinwntr wrote:

LoneLictor wrote:Can someone get a source besides Faux News? That article is pretty dang biased.

Yea i stopped reading after the first 2 lines where they basically made it opinion based infotainment.

"The United Nations Human Rights Council is investigating the issue of American election laws at its gathering on minority rights in Geneva, Switzerland.. This, despite the fact that some members of the council have only in the past several years allowed women to vote, and one member, Saudi Arabia, still bars women from the voting booth completely. "

The bold part is where they try to discredit the entire UN which we are also a member of base don the actions of "some of the members"

Thats like saying the Eagles offensive lineup shouldn't be allowed to have pets because "some of the members" hold dog fights on the weekends...

Erm no. If they wanted to discredit the ENTIRE UN they would have not have specified that "some members of the council." but don't worry when I say "you people" make generalizations I mean all of wargaming nerds on Dakka Dakka, not just you and Lone Lictor.

Melissia wrote:I never said it discredited them, only that their priorities are fethed to hell by the political gaming of backwards assed countries who wouldn't know human rights unless it was a bloody, sexually violated corpse laying on their lawn.

Even then they'd probably not care.

Ah my bad I misunderstood your post.