|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 26 2016 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 05:03 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 05:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2016 04:51 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 04:44 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:39 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 04:35 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:26 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:14 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:08 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]
Okay, maybe you read but you have bad reading comprehension. Let me try once more:
1. Crime was bad. Superpredator was pretty much an accurate description.
2. This affected minorities.
3. The Clintons worked with leaders in the black communities to address the problem
4. The crime bill was legislated and signed
5a. Crime went down
5b. High incarceration for minorities and poor people
No one contests that the results were bad and maybe other factors drove the decrease in crime rate. Without the vast benefit of hindsight, would you rather have had the administration completely ignore the problem instead of at least trying to fix it? I could make an equal list of things for why we should have evicted the seminoles from the florida marshes or invaded Iraq. The problem you have is that you're trying to justify mass incarceration without just coming out and owning that you support it apparently. As I said before, I don't support mass incarceration. It was an unintended consequence. We need to fix it, 100%. Also GH, don't bring up the Iraq war. On my list of dumb shit that Sanders says, it's number 2 after "I wasn't the one who ran against Obama in 2008". So you're now not responsible for the unintended consequences of your decisions? So going into iraq is okay now because the civil war was an unintended consequence? Hillary supported the iraq war and Bernie sanders didn't. Despite a rabid electorate calling for blood sanders stood by his ethics. Thats dumb shit? I hate to point this out, but Clinton was the first lady at the time. She was involved, but so were a lot of people. She also wasn’t in power the majority of the time that policy was in place. She didn’t control the budget or guide the program after it was passed. The Republicans controlled Congress and the White House for a large amount of that period. Heaping everything that happens after that bill was passed at her feet requires some mental gymnastics and not blaming anyone in government who was in power after it was passed. Thats not the point. She could have said that she didn't support the bill or was skeptical about it. But instead she went full monty and said that black people needed to be brought to heel and that these black kids were "super predators". Theres no mental gymnastics to it when you make a speech on cspan supporting something. Sanders voted for that bill too. I fail to see why he doesn't catch heat for it. Because of his long held positions and his sincerity. When he says things like "I've always had a problem with stronger people picking on weaker people" (paraphrasing) we can tell he means it. So even if it wasn't totally unfair to paint it as him supporting the bill like Hillary did, if they are both telling me it was a mistake and they are sorry for what they said/did I only believe one of them and you and Hillary have made it abundantly clear why that's the only sensible choice. I think this may have been lost in the deluge of posts: And Hillary, as I mentioned before we went down this entire discussion, has a long record about standing up for civil rights. You know, the college organizing, lawyering against discrimination in the south and all that other stuff I mentioned. If you say she's been faking it since law school, then I'm gonna go ahead and say sure I'm cool with that. Yeah she was just undermining the shit out of it the whole time offering to scab after passing a protest line (opposite of what Bernie would have done), and building a resume. And no I didn't miss it.
And what are your thoughts?
I dun get what you're saying. Hillary's got a loooong record of trying to make things better for the less fortunate. She has results to show-- bad ones and failures like the crime bill and then SCHIP and such on the other side.
|
On February 26 2016 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 05:08 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 05:00 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:51 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 04:44 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:39 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 04:35 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:26 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:14 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:08 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]
Okay, maybe you read but you have bad reading comprehension. Let me try once more:
1. Crime was bad. Superpredator was pretty much an accurate description.
2. This affected minorities.
3. The Clintons worked with leaders in the black communities to address the problem
4. The crime bill was legislated and signed
5a. Crime went down
5b. High incarceration for minorities and poor people
No one contests that the results were bad and maybe other factors drove the decrease in crime rate. Without the vast benefit of hindsight, would you rather have had the administration completely ignore the problem instead of at least trying to fix it? I could make an equal list of things for why we should have evicted the seminoles from the florida marshes or invaded Iraq. The problem you have is that you're trying to justify mass incarceration without just coming out and owning that you support it apparently. As I said before, I don't support mass incarceration. It was an unintended consequence. We need to fix it, 100%. Also GH, don't bring up the Iraq war. On my list of dumb shit that Sanders says, it's number 2 after "I wasn't the one who ran against Obama in 2008". So you're now not responsible for the unintended consequences of your decisions? So going into iraq is okay now because the civil war was an unintended consequence? Hillary supported the iraq war and Bernie sanders didn't. Despite a rabid electorate calling for blood sanders stood by his ethics. Thats dumb shit? I hate to point this out, but Clinton was the first lady at the time. She was involved, but so were a lot of people. She also wasn’t in power the majority of the time that policy was in place. She didn’t control the budget or guide the program after it was passed. The Republicans controlled Congress and the White House for a large amount of that period. Heaping everything that happens after that bill was passed at her feet requires some mental gymnastics and not blaming anyone in government who was in power after it was passed. Thats not the point. She could have said that she didn't support the bill or was skeptical about it. But instead she went full monty and said that black people needed to be brought to heel and that these black kids were "super predators". Theres no mental gymnastics to it when you make a speech on cspan supporting something. Sanders voted for that bill too. I fail to see why he doesn't catch heat for it. Sanders didn't call black kids super predators that needed to be brought to heel on cspan? The whole reason why we're talking about this is because BLM confronted hillary on that speech. She specifically said violent criminals, I looked up the quote. Violence criminals in gangs. Not black kids who happen to be doing drugs. Or just black kids. She is talking about bringing people who committed acts of violence to heel. You can’t take a quote about one thing and then apply it to the end result of the thing nearly 20 years later and claim she somehow was talking about the end result. You should know as well as anyone that "gangs" meant "not white people". She wasn't talking about Hell's Angels.
Yes, but violence is violence. She wasn’t talking about “gang bangers” or “kids from the hood” without further context. She specifically was discussing members of gangs that are violence and have committed violent crimes. I understand racial coding of words, but it was pretty clear she is not talking about throwing every black kid in jail. You need to make some mental leaps to get there.
|
On February 26 2016 05:15 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 05:09 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 05:07 Paljas wrote:On February 26 2016 04:59 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 04:55 Mercy13 wrote:On February 26 2016 04:53 Paljas wrote:On February 26 2016 04:26 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:14 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:08 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:03 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
I did read. I responded to your post. You're post said that crime was awful back then and that the statement was true. Now there must be something that happened between then and now to change that truth by your opinion. that thing that changed was the drug war and the mass incarceration for people based on broken window offences. Okay, maybe you read but you have bad reading comprehension. Let me try once more: 1. Crime was bad. Superpredator was pretty much an accurate description. 2. This affected minorities. 3. The Clintons worked with leaders in the black communities to address the problem 4. The crime bill was legislated and signed 5a. Crime went down 5b. High incarceration for minorities and poor people No one contests that the results were bad and maybe other factors drove the decrease in crime rate. Without the vast benefit of hindsight, would you rather have had the administration completely ignore the problem instead of at least trying to fix it? I could make an equal list of things for why we should have evicted the seminoles from the florida marshes or invaded Iraq. The problem you have is that you're trying to justify mass incarceration without just coming out and owning that you support it apparently. As I said before, I don't support mass incarceration. It was an unintended consequence. We need to fix it, 100%. Also GH, don't bring up the Iraq war. On my list of dumb shit that Sanders says, it's number 2 after "I wasn't the one who ran against Obama in 2008". Why should'nt one bring up the fact that Clinton supported the murdering of hundred of thousands iraqis? lol this is getting ridiculous. We only accept the most pure into the service of the Undying Emperor. All the rest must be purged through fire as heretics. Yes, one can't reasonable expect a person not to support a war. Truly to high of a standard. I can respond to hyperbole with hyperbole. I don’t really know what you expected beyond people mocking you. Hundred of thousands of iraqis died due to the iraq war. Clinton supported the iraq war. Where is the hyperbole?
My brother served in that war, I consider him a murder. He isn't happy about it, but jail is super not great either. I don't really know what you expect from people on this one. You felt it was murder and she is responsible, some don't. Not much to talk about.
|
On February 26 2016 05:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2016 05:08 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 05:00 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:51 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 04:44 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:39 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 04:35 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:26 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:14 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
I could make an equal list of things for why we should have evicted the seminoles from the florida marshes or invaded Iraq. The problem you have is that you're trying to justify mass incarceration without just coming out and owning that you support it apparently. As I said before, I don't support mass incarceration. It was an unintended consequence. We need to fix it, 100%. Also GH, don't bring up the Iraq war. On my list of dumb shit that Sanders says, it's number 2 after "I wasn't the one who ran against Obama in 2008". So you're now not responsible for the unintended consequences of your decisions? So going into iraq is okay now because the civil war was an unintended consequence? Hillary supported the iraq war and Bernie sanders didn't. Despite a rabid electorate calling for blood sanders stood by his ethics. Thats dumb shit? I hate to point this out, but Clinton was the first lady at the time. She was involved, but so were a lot of people. She also wasn’t in power the majority of the time that policy was in place. She didn’t control the budget or guide the program after it was passed. The Republicans controlled Congress and the White House for a large amount of that period. Heaping everything that happens after that bill was passed at her feet requires some mental gymnastics and not blaming anyone in government who was in power after it was passed. Thats not the point. She could have said that she didn't support the bill or was skeptical about it. But instead she went full monty and said that black people needed to be brought to heel and that these black kids were "super predators". Theres no mental gymnastics to it when you make a speech on cspan supporting something. Sanders voted for that bill too. I fail to see why he doesn't catch heat for it. Sanders didn't call black kids super predators that needed to be brought to heel on cspan? The whole reason why we're talking about this is because BLM confronted hillary on that speech. She specifically said violent criminals, I looked up the quote. Violence criminals in gangs. Not black kids who happen to be doing drugs. Or just black kids. She is talking about bringing people who committed acts of violence to heel. You can’t take a quote about one thing and then apply it to the end result of the thing nearly 20 years later and claim she somehow was talking about the end result. You should know as well as anyone that "gangs" meant "not white people". She wasn't talking about Hell's Angels. Yes, but violence is violence. She wasn’t talking about “gang bangers” or “kids from the hood” without further context. She specifically was discussing members of gangs that are violence and have committed violent crimes. I understand racial coding of words, but it was pretty clear she is not talking about throwing every black kid in jail. You need to make some mental leaps to get there.
No it takes 2 decades (not that long really though) of it playing out for it to be obvious that "Come to heel" basically meant violate the shit out of black people's constitutional rights because there's some "superpredators" among them.
|
On February 26 2016 05:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 05:18 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2016 05:08 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 05:00 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:51 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 04:44 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:39 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 04:35 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:26 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]
As I said before, I don't support mass incarceration. It was an unintended consequence. We need to fix it, 100%.
Also GH, don't bring up the Iraq war. On my list of dumb shit that Sanders says, it's number 2 after "I wasn't the one who ran against Obama in 2008". So you're now not responsible for the unintended consequences of your decisions? So going into iraq is okay now because the civil war was an unintended consequence? Hillary supported the iraq war and Bernie sanders didn't. Despite a rabid electorate calling for blood sanders stood by his ethics. Thats dumb shit? I hate to point this out, but Clinton was the first lady at the time. She was involved, but so were a lot of people. She also wasn’t in power the majority of the time that policy was in place. She didn’t control the budget or guide the program after it was passed. The Republicans controlled Congress and the White House for a large amount of that period. Heaping everything that happens after that bill was passed at her feet requires some mental gymnastics and not blaming anyone in government who was in power after it was passed. Thats not the point. She could have said that she didn't support the bill or was skeptical about it. But instead she went full monty and said that black people needed to be brought to heel and that these black kids were "super predators". Theres no mental gymnastics to it when you make a speech on cspan supporting something. Sanders voted for that bill too. I fail to see why he doesn't catch heat for it. Sanders didn't call black kids super predators that needed to be brought to heel on cspan? The whole reason why we're talking about this is because BLM confronted hillary on that speech. She specifically said violent criminals, I looked up the quote. Violence criminals in gangs. Not black kids who happen to be doing drugs. Or just black kids. She is talking about bringing people who committed acts of violence to heel. You can’t take a quote about one thing and then apply it to the end result of the thing nearly 20 years later and claim she somehow was talking about the end result. You should know as well as anyone that "gangs" meant "not white people". She wasn't talking about Hell's Angels. Yes, but violence is violence. She wasn’t talking about “gang bangers” or “kids from the hood” without further context. She specifically was discussing members of gangs that are violence and have committed violent crimes. I understand racial coding of words, but it was pretty clear she is not talking about throwing every black kid in jail. You need to make some mental leaps to get there. No it takes 2 decades (not that long really though) of it playing out for it to be obvious that "Come to heel" basically meant violate the shit out of black people's constitutional rights because there's some "superpredators" among them.
Are you saying the Clinton has magic powers and can see the future? That when she said that, she was secretly planning to throw all blacks in jail, but trying to pass it off as just violent criminals? And how does this link into chem. trails? Does she support those too?
|
On February 26 2016 05:15 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 05:09 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 05:07 Paljas wrote:On February 26 2016 04:59 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 04:55 Mercy13 wrote:On February 26 2016 04:53 Paljas wrote:On February 26 2016 04:26 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:14 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:08 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:03 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
I did read. I responded to your post. You're post said that crime was awful back then and that the statement was true. Now there must be something that happened between then and now to change that truth by your opinion. that thing that changed was the drug war and the mass incarceration for people based on broken window offences. Okay, maybe you read but you have bad reading comprehension. Let me try once more: 1. Crime was bad. Superpredator was pretty much an accurate description. 2. This affected minorities. 3. The Clintons worked with leaders in the black communities to address the problem 4. The crime bill was legislated and signed 5a. Crime went down 5b. High incarceration for minorities and poor people No one contests that the results were bad and maybe other factors drove the decrease in crime rate. Without the vast benefit of hindsight, would you rather have had the administration completely ignore the problem instead of at least trying to fix it? I could make an equal list of things for why we should have evicted the seminoles from the florida marshes or invaded Iraq. The problem you have is that you're trying to justify mass incarceration without just coming out and owning that you support it apparently. As I said before, I don't support mass incarceration. It was an unintended consequence. We need to fix it, 100%. Also GH, don't bring up the Iraq war. On my list of dumb shit that Sanders says, it's number 2 after "I wasn't the one who ran against Obama in 2008". Why should'nt one bring up the fact that Clinton supported the murdering of hundred of thousands iraqis? lol this is getting ridiculous. We only accept the most pure into the service of the Undying Emperor. All the rest must be purged through fire as heretics. Yes, one can't reasonable expect a person not to support a war. Truly to high of a standard. I can respond to hyperbole with hyperbole. I don’t really know what you expected beyond people mocking you. Hundred of thousands of iraqis died due to the iraq war. Clinton supported the iraq war. Where is the hyperbole?
Such perverted logic. People voted to go to war, not to "kill hundreds of thousands of iraqis," even if that was the consequence. ISIL has filled the void in Iraq since then. I guess she voted for the creation of the Islamic State as well?
|
On February 26 2016 04:00 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 03:37 Souma wrote:On February 26 2016 03:33 Mohdoo wrote:On February 26 2016 03:30 Souma wrote:On February 26 2016 03:28 Mercy13 wrote:On February 26 2016 03:12 Souma wrote:
He doesn't have to vote for Hillary in the general, and it's pretty ridiculous of you and others to pressure people into voting for her if she takes the nomination.
I did not vote for Obama in 2012 and I do not plan on voting for Hillary in 2016. Why in the world should anyone vote for someone or some party that does not represent them? The DNC is what it is today because of voters who will settle for the "less worse" instead of challenging the establishment to represent the people who vote for them.
There's currently no way the Democratic candidate, whether it's Hillary or Bernie, will lose in the general from my observations, however even if my vote was the decider and it was Hillary vs. Trump, I'd still vote Green and the DNC would have no one to blame but themselves for becoming the shithole they are now.
And for the Hillary supporters to support her and and the DNC for their actions just because "it always happens," or "Bernie isn't perfect either," or whatever the hell, leave your disgusting apathy at the door because it's further ruining the democratic process that is already a joke. I'm not going to tell you who to vote for, but you reducing Hillary's supporters to people suffering "disgusting apathy" is very unfair. The policy stakes are yyyuuugggee right now. Solely with supreme court nominations (let only executive agency appointments and executive orders) the next president is going to be able to implement drastic policy and social changes, for better or worse. The GOP now controls 2 of the 3 branches of the federal government, as well as most state and local governments. If the next president is not a liberal we are going to have massive set backs in climate policy, racial justice, tax policy, campaign finance, abortion rights, and virtually everything else progressives care about. On climate policy alone, literally millions of lives could be at stake. I plan to vote for whoever can best prevent that from happening, and I believe that's Hillary. Bernie's left-wing progressive brand is just too far from the mainstream to have a great chance in the general. I could be wrong of course, and if Bernie wins the nomination I'll gladly support him. However, I think the GOP is correct to desperately want to run against him instead of against Hillary. Read again: I'm accusing people who are approving her and the DNC's underhanded tactics those with "disgusting apathy." There's a difference between approving the tactics and saying "Those tactics are the price I pay for not having trump as president? Yes, that's fine." If I thought there was even a shred of chance for Bernie to win a general, it'd be a different story. I do not have the slightest amount of faith that America is ready for him, as Plansix explained. Or you could call out your candidate and the establishment for being dirty and still support her because of what you mentioned above. Or what, would that be a little too hard on your conscience if you guys were to accept the fact that Hillary and the DNC are a bit shadier than you'd like yet still vote for them? Instead of saying, "Hey that's the name of the game," have some integrity ffs. I honestly could not give any shits about the ethics of who is running our country. If the country does well under someone's leadership, I do not care about the personality or ethics of that person. If they are good for our country. Killed 60 people? Improved infrastructure, healthcare, immigration, our tax system and the economy? Sounds good to me. I think it's so sad that people care so much about the character of a candidate as a stand alone quality. Not just how that personality influences decision making and policy, but who is the person. Would I have a beer with them? Pretty important quality in a president! Just so stupid. In a perfect world, we wouldn't even be able to see the candidates. We would just read a 50 page essay by each candidate explaining the problems with our country and what they would fix. With an attached resume. That would be the perfect election.
Using reasoning like this, Pinochet was a fantastic president for Chile. Grabbed power in a coup and murdered 60k ppl or so, so his ethics are dubious, but he did wonders for the economy and infrastructure, so yay! Good president!
Did I do that right?
|
On February 26 2016 05:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 05:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2016 05:18 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2016 05:08 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 05:00 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:51 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 04:44 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:39 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 04:35 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
So you're now not responsible for the unintended consequences of your decisions? So going into iraq is okay now because the civil war was an unintended consequence?
Hillary supported the iraq war and Bernie sanders didn't. Despite a rabid electorate calling for blood sanders stood by his ethics. Thats dumb shit? I hate to point this out, but Clinton was the first lady at the time. She was involved, but so were a lot of people. She also wasn’t in power the majority of the time that policy was in place. She didn’t control the budget or guide the program after it was passed. The Republicans controlled Congress and the White House for a large amount of that period. Heaping everything that happens after that bill was passed at her feet requires some mental gymnastics and not blaming anyone in government who was in power after it was passed. Thats not the point. She could have said that she didn't support the bill or was skeptical about it. But instead she went full monty and said that black people needed to be brought to heel and that these black kids were "super predators". Theres no mental gymnastics to it when you make a speech on cspan supporting something. Sanders voted for that bill too. I fail to see why he doesn't catch heat for it. Sanders didn't call black kids super predators that needed to be brought to heel on cspan? The whole reason why we're talking about this is because BLM confronted hillary on that speech. She specifically said violent criminals, I looked up the quote. Violence criminals in gangs. Not black kids who happen to be doing drugs. Or just black kids. She is talking about bringing people who committed acts of violence to heel. You can’t take a quote about one thing and then apply it to the end result of the thing nearly 20 years later and claim she somehow was talking about the end result. You should know as well as anyone that "gangs" meant "not white people". She wasn't talking about Hell's Angels. Yes, but violence is violence. She wasn’t talking about “gang bangers” or “kids from the hood” without further context. She specifically was discussing members of gangs that are violence and have committed violent crimes. I understand racial coding of words, but it was pretty clear she is not talking about throwing every black kid in jail. You need to make some mental leaps to get there. No it takes 2 decades (not that long really though) of it playing out for it to be obvious that "Come to heel" basically meant violate the shit out of black people's constitutional rights because there's some "superpredators" among them. Are you saying the Clinton has magic powers and can see the future? That when she said that, she was secretly planning to throw all blacks in jail, but trying to pass it off as just violent criminals? And how does this link into chem. trails? Does she support those too?
How would you know that she doesn't?
|
United States44373 Posts
On February 26 2016 03:50 Deathstar wrote:
Oh please Woodrow Wilson has a rich presidency. Taking some quotes from the 1910s with 2010 morality is ridiculous. It was only a decade ago that Obama, Hillary, Bush, Mccain, and Romney were all against gay marriage.
Nope. Wilson was a racist and a throwback to outdated attitudes, even within his own time. He actively fired black civil servants and replaced them with whites. He wasn't an example of a racist society, he was an extremely racist man in a less racist society who rebelled against the advancement of black people within society and sought to reassert a patriarchal white male control.
There are some people who can be excused as being no worse than others in their age. Wilson is not one of them.
|
On February 26 2016 05:34 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 05:15 Paljas wrote:On February 26 2016 05:09 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 05:07 Paljas wrote:On February 26 2016 04:59 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 04:55 Mercy13 wrote:On February 26 2016 04:53 Paljas wrote:On February 26 2016 04:26 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:14 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:08 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]
Okay, maybe you read but you have bad reading comprehension. Let me try once more:
1. Crime was bad. Superpredator was pretty much an accurate description.
2. This affected minorities.
3. The Clintons worked with leaders in the black communities to address the problem
4. The crime bill was legislated and signed
5a. Crime went down
5b. High incarceration for minorities and poor people
No one contests that the results were bad and maybe other factors drove the decrease in crime rate. Without the vast benefit of hindsight, would you rather have had the administration completely ignore the problem instead of at least trying to fix it? I could make an equal list of things for why we should have evicted the seminoles from the florida marshes or invaded Iraq. The problem you have is that you're trying to justify mass incarceration without just coming out and owning that you support it apparently. As I said before, I don't support mass incarceration. It was an unintended consequence. We need to fix it, 100%. Also GH, don't bring up the Iraq war. On my list of dumb shit that Sanders says, it's number 2 after "I wasn't the one who ran against Obama in 2008". Why should'nt one bring up the fact that Clinton supported the murdering of hundred of thousands iraqis? lol this is getting ridiculous. We only accept the most pure into the service of the Undying Emperor. All the rest must be purged through fire as heretics. Yes, one can't reasonable expect a person not to support a war. Truly to high of a standard. I can respond to hyperbole with hyperbole. I don’t really know what you expected beyond people mocking you. Hundred of thousands of iraqis died due to the iraq war. Clinton supported the iraq war. Where is the hyperbole? Such perverted logic. People voted to go to war, not to "kill hundreds of thousands of iraqis," even if that was the consequence. ISIL has filled the void in Iraq since then. I guess she voted for the creation of the Islamic State as well?
She supported actions which lead to the destabilization of iraq, yes.
And of course my logic is perverted, but that is only appropriate given the subject.
|
On February 26 2016 05:46 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 05:34 On_Slaught wrote:On February 26 2016 05:15 Paljas wrote:On February 26 2016 05:09 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 05:07 Paljas wrote:On February 26 2016 04:59 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 04:55 Mercy13 wrote:On February 26 2016 04:53 Paljas wrote:On February 26 2016 04:26 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:14 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
I could make an equal list of things for why we should have evicted the seminoles from the florida marshes or invaded Iraq. The problem you have is that you're trying to justify mass incarceration without just coming out and owning that you support it apparently. As I said before, I don't support mass incarceration. It was an unintended consequence. We need to fix it, 100%. Also GH, don't bring up the Iraq war. On my list of dumb shit that Sanders says, it's number 2 after "I wasn't the one who ran against Obama in 2008". Why should'nt one bring up the fact that Clinton supported the murdering of hundred of thousands iraqis? lol this is getting ridiculous. We only accept the most pure into the service of the Undying Emperor. All the rest must be purged through fire as heretics. Yes, one can't reasonable expect a person not to support a war. Truly to high of a standard. I can respond to hyperbole with hyperbole. I don’t really know what you expected beyond people mocking you. Hundred of thousands of iraqis died due to the iraq war. Clinton supported the iraq war. Where is the hyperbole? Such perverted logic. People voted to go to war, not to "kill hundreds of thousands of iraqis," even if that was the consequence. ISIL has filled the void in Iraq since then. I guess she voted for the creation of the Islamic State as well? She supported actions which lead to the destabilization of iraq, yes. And of course my logic is perverted, but that is only appropriate given the subject.
You might feel that way, but its also something that leaves nothing to discuss. Either we agree or don’t. If we agree, we are voting for someone who voted to murder a lot of people. If we don’t, then we don’t and you claim we are ignoring the murder. There is nothing to discuss.
|
On February 26 2016 05:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 03:50 Deathstar wrote:
Oh please Woodrow Wilson has a rich presidency. Taking some quotes from the 1910s with 2010 morality is ridiculous. It was only a decade ago that Obama, Hillary, Bush, Mccain, and Romney were all against gay marriage. Nope. Wilson was a racist and a throwback to outdated attitudes, even within his own time. He actively fired black civil servants and replaced them with whites. He wasn't an example of a racist society, he was an extremely racist man in a less racist society who rebelled against the advancement of black people within society and sought to reassert a patriarchal white male control. There are some people who can be excused as being no worse than others in their age. Wilson is not one of them.
That is why, amid all these dumb college protests, I didn't think removing WW was such a bad idea. But it helps that I'm not a progressive, either.
|
LA BELLE, Pa. — When the State Correctional Institute at Fayette opened its doors in 2003, it was to replace and consolidate two nearby prisons into one streamlined, modern incarceration campus 45 miles south of Pittsburgh in Fayette County.
The prison is located on an old strip-mining site in Western Pennsylvania’s coal fields adjacent to a dump for fly ash, the powdery residue left over from coal combustion. The property is owned by Matt Canestrale Contracting, but First Energy is one of the largest customers.
Since the prison’s opening adjacent to the long-time dump, cancers and other assorted illnesses that are rare among the general population have become statistically — and significantly — higher among inmates at SCI Fayette.
Watchdog group the Abolitionist Law Center conducted a 12-month investigation into the health impacts of fly ash on inmates at La Belle, a tiny town nestled at the bottom of a hill in a bend in the Monongahela River. Their findings showed that 81 percent of the inmates suffer from some sort of respiratory distress, including sores, cysts and tumors in the nose, mouth and throat.
Sixty-eight percent of responding prisoners experienced gastrointestinal problems, including heart burn, stomach pains, diarrhea, ulcers, ulcerative colitis, bloody stools, and vomiting. Fifty-two percent reported experiencing adverse skin conditions, including painful rashes, hives, cysts, and abscesses.
“Prisoners had no idea what was going on with the hill across the yard from them,” said Dustin McDaniel, the director of the Abolitionist Law Center. They were first notified by a prisoner’s letter alerting them to the deteriorating conditions inside SCI Fayette.
“Since my transfer to this facility on Feb. 14, 2012, I’ve had to endure numerous medical problems: rashes throughout my body that hurt and keep me up all night. Extreme swelling of various parts including my throat making it difficult to breathe. My face would swell, and pictures were taken showing the condition of my eyes. And my vision still has not returned fully to them. I have required emergency medical treatment eight times due to the swelling of my face and throat,” inmate Marcos Santos told the Center.
In many ways, McDaniel said, the inmate illnesses at La Belle are not surprising.
Source
|
This is Hillary's response to the protester btw. It's part of a Hillary-favoring op-ed but I think it provides some context to all the stuff.
In that speech, I was talking about the impact violent crime and vicious drug cartels were having on communities across the country and the particular danger they posed to children and families. Looking back, I shouldn’t have used those words, and I wouldn’t use them today.
My life’s work has been about lifting up children and young people who’ve been let down by the system or by society. Kids who never got the chance they deserved. And unfortunately today, there are way too many of those kids, especially in African-American communities. We haven’t done right by them. We need to. We need to end the school to prison pipeline and replace it with a cradle-to-college pipeline.
As an advocate, as First Lady, as Senator, I was a champion for children. And my campaign for president is about breaking down the barriers that stand in the way of all kids, so every one of them can live up to their God-given potential.
Link
|
Salon is saying Americans are stupid because Trump is likely the GOP nominee? The media class trumpeting how stupid Trump supporters are, Monday through Friday, helped drive his ascent.
And since fine outlets like Salon make it in, let's have a well written sum-up from syndicated columnist Mark Steyn:
I've spent the last fortnight in a country where on illegal immigration everyone electorally viable is a hard-ass. That's to say, there's a bipartisan consensus that anyone attempting to enter the country without authorization should be warehoused in a detention camp – not in Australia but offshore, either on Nauru, a pile of guano that fancies itself a nation-state, or on Manos Island, which belongs to Papua New Guinea. It's the equivalent of Trump imprisoning Mexicans in a camp in the Dominican Republic. After years in detention, the migrants are generally either returned whence they came or resettled in a third country. Whatever squeamishness the Aussie Labor Party might feel about this is subject to the compelling political arithmetic that the voters are overwhelmingly at ease with it.
In America, by contrast, there is a cozy bipartisan consensus between the Democrat Party and the Donor Party that untrammeled mass unskilled immigration now and forever is a good thing. The Dems get voters, the Donors get cheap labor. The Dems have the better deal, but over on the GOP side the Stupid Party is too stupid to realize that suicide in slow motion leads to the same place as one swift sure slice from Isis.
So it was obvious that the moment someone proposed to rupture this corrupt and squalid arrangement that there would be takers for it – particularly among America's downwardly mobile lower middle class who, as a price for supporting the Donor Party, are supposed to put up with stagnant wages and diminished economic opportunity as a permanent feature of life. The only question is precisely how big a constituency there'd be for such a message: In Iowa it took an enormous investment of time and money by Ted Cruz to hold Trump down to 24 per cent. In New Hampshire it took Kasich, Bush and Christie moving in to the state for the best part of a year to hold Trump down to 35 per cent. In response the "experts" anointed Marco Rubio, fresh from his stunning third place in Iowa and fifth place in New Hampshire, the real favorite in the race.
Steyn
|
On February 26 2016 06:38 Danglars wrote:Salon is saying Americans are stupid because Trump is likely the GOP nominee? The media class trumpeting how stupid Trump supporters are, Monday through Friday, helped drive his ascent. And since fine outlets like Salon make it in, let's have a well written sum-up from syndicated columnist Mark Steyn: Show nested quote +I've spent the last fortnight in a country where on illegal immigration everyone electorally viable is a hard-ass. That's to say, there's a bipartisan consensus that anyone attempting to enter the country without authorization should be warehoused in a detention camp – not in Australia but offshore, either on Nauru, a pile of guano that fancies itself a nation-state, or on Manos Island, which belongs to Papua New Guinea. It's the equivalent of Trump imprisoning Mexicans in a camp in the Dominican Republic. After years in detention, the migrants are generally either returned whence they came or resettled in a third country. Whatever squeamishness the Aussie Labor Party might feel about this is subject to the compelling political arithmetic that the voters are overwhelmingly at ease with it.
In America, by contrast, there is a cozy bipartisan consensus between the Democrat Party and the Donor Party that untrammeled mass unskilled immigration now and forever is a good thing. The Dems get voters, the Donors get cheap labor. The Dems have the better deal, but over on the GOP side the Stupid Party is too stupid to realize that suicide in slow motion leads to the same place as one swift sure slice from Isis.
So it was obvious that the moment someone proposed to rupture this corrupt and squalid arrangement that there would be takers for it – particularly among America's downwardly mobile lower middle class who, as a price for supporting the Donor Party, are supposed to put up with stagnant wages and diminished economic opportunity as a permanent feature of life. The only question is precisely how big a constituency there'd be for such a message: In Iowa it took an enormous investment of time and money by Ted Cruz to hold Trump down to 24 per cent. In New Hampshire it took Kasich, Bush and Christie moving in to the state for the best part of a year to hold Trump down to 35 per cent. In response the "experts" anointed Marco Rubio, fresh from his stunning third place in Iowa and fifth place in New Hampshire, the real favorite in the race.
Its good that the average Americans don't take their news from Salon.com.
Most people are sane.
|
I didn’t need Salon to tell me America’s are pretty dumb. Not much dumber than other countries, but we are not batting any higher. Trump being the front runner in the Republicans race is right in line with use electing Bush twice.
|
With the vicious republican Obama bashing, why has nobody called him out on his drone-programme yet?
Is it because republicans love killing brown people more than they hate Obama?
Imagine if Putin killed what are now thousands of people, not as an act of war, not because they've done anything wrong, but because of metadata suggesting that in some point in the future they might be dangerous to the US.
That is so far removed from any definition of due process, I can't even begin to understand how it's not universally condemned by every non-American in the world.
|
Well it is kind of, I've never heard a pro done strike argument from a non-American
|
On February 26 2016 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 05:08 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 05:00 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:51 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 04:44 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:39 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2016 04:35 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:26 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2016 04:14 Sermokala wrote:On February 26 2016 04:08 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]
Okay, maybe you read but you have bad reading comprehension. Let me try once more:
1. Crime was bad. Superpredator was pretty much an accurate description.
2. This affected minorities.
3. The Clintons worked with leaders in the black communities to address the problem
4. The crime bill was legislated and signed
5a. Crime went down
5b. High incarceration for minorities and poor people
No one contests that the results were bad and maybe other factors drove the decrease in crime rate. Without the vast benefit of hindsight, would you rather have had the administration completely ignore the problem instead of at least trying to fix it? I could make an equal list of things for why we should have evicted the seminoles from the florida marshes or invaded Iraq. The problem you have is that you're trying to justify mass incarceration without just coming out and owning that you support it apparently. As I said before, I don't support mass incarceration. It was an unintended consequence. We need to fix it, 100%. Also GH, don't bring up the Iraq war. On my list of dumb shit that Sanders says, it's number 2 after "I wasn't the one who ran against Obama in 2008". So you're now not responsible for the unintended consequences of your decisions? So going into iraq is okay now because the civil war was an unintended consequence? Hillary supported the iraq war and Bernie sanders didn't. Despite a rabid electorate calling for blood sanders stood by his ethics. Thats dumb shit? I hate to point this out, but Clinton was the first lady at the time. She was involved, but so were a lot of people. She also wasn’t in power the majority of the time that policy was in place. She didn’t control the budget or guide the program after it was passed. The Republicans controlled Congress and the White House for a large amount of that period. Heaping everything that happens after that bill was passed at her feet requires some mental gymnastics and not blaming anyone in government who was in power after it was passed. Thats not the point. She could have said that she didn't support the bill or was skeptical about it. But instead she went full monty and said that black people needed to be brought to heel and that these black kids were "super predators". Theres no mental gymnastics to it when you make a speech on cspan supporting something. Sanders voted for that bill too. I fail to see why he doesn't catch heat for it. Sanders didn't call black kids super predators that needed to be brought to heel on cspan? The whole reason why we're talking about this is because BLM confronted hillary on that speech. She specifically said violent criminals, I looked up the quote. Violence criminals in gangs. Not black kids who happen to be doing drugs. Or just black kids. She is talking about bringing people who committed acts of violence to heel. You can’t take a quote about one thing and then apply it to the end result of the thing nearly 20 years later and claim she somehow was talking about the end result. You should know as well as anyone that "gangs" meant "not white people". She wasn't talking about Hell's Angels.
What were the racial distributions of the areas she was referring to?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
