How do you refute: poverty is to blame for black crime? How do you
refute claims such as "lack of opportunity" and "institutional racism"
and "feelings of hoplessness" which liberals love to use to excuse every
type of miniorty anti-social behavior?

The fact is none of these liberal pheomenon can be proven one way or the
other because none of those things can be measured. They are conceptual
only--and exclusively in the minds of liberals.

There is no causal effect. Because if there were, every impoverished
person would be a criminal.

We know they are not. Lack of monetary
resources is not responsible for rape and murder.

Never has been. Never
will be. We do not see the same anti-social behavior on the same scale
that we see in the black community in any poor Asian, white, or hispanic
community.

No, LeChavalier is *not* an intelligent man. He cannot think for
himself. And he certainly cannot analyze evidence to draw conclusions.

He's an idiot. How about this "LeChavalier" wisdom:

"The South still has a lot of rural
blacks, and it is the South that has the really high STD rates (and
the really lousy medical coverage)."

Fact: blacks exist all over the country and share the same high STD
rates--even in inner-cities up North.

Bob went on to blame poverty for
this. How come the same high STD rates are not evident in poor whites,
hispanics, or Asians (they're not)?

How about this from Bobby:
"Differences in STD rates largely reflect a lack of treatment
options for poor kids, who are usually minorities."

Fact: *Every* major city and most rural counties have public health
facilities that specialize in the testing and treatment of STDs for no
cost. That's right: no cost. They request a "donation", but do not
charge for their services if you cannot pay. Hell, you can even get
condoms for *free*.

Here he has just drawn a causal relationship between lack of monetary
resources and high STD rates. The fact is that there are resources
available to those that aren't too stupid to take advantage of them.

Nowhere does dumbass Bob LeChevalier mention that high STD rates are
caused by promiscuous and irresponsible sexual activity--of which stupid
people are *more likely* to engage in.

I wonder how dumbass Bob rationalizes the high rate of AIDS in Africa.

Yes indeed: poverty is to blame for all social ills. I've got news for
you, back in the days before welfare programs provided cradle-to-grave
benefits for those too lazy to get a job, poverty was *much more harsh*
than it is today. Poverty was abject. You had to work, or the county
would take away your kids and put them in foster care. Poverty is
nowhere near as severe as it used to be.

Now I ask you this: is crime higher now, or then? Is the murder rate
higher now, or then?

Poverty is nothing like it used to be.

The official poverty rate reached a historic low in 1973, then stopped
falling. Between that year and 2000, the poverty rate rose from 11.1
percent to 11.3 percent.
Would you not expect there to be lower crime and murder now?

The fact is that crime, STDs, murder, and most other social ills are
*not* caused by lack of money (as LeChavalier likes to believe), but by
lack of personal responsibility, lack of respect, lack of ambition, etc.

Do you really think that giving people who refuse to work more money is
going to solve social ills?

Do you realize that the black illegitimate
birth rate went from 25% in the early 1960s to 70% of all births today?

And again, idiot Bob cannot distinguish between cause and effect. He
blames poverty for social ills. Is it not possible that those who are in
poverty are in poverty because of certain characteristics particular to
them? That is, those in poverty are there because they are lazy, or
stupid (intelligence cannot be taught), or both, and lack the ambition
and drive it takes to improve their lives???