I continue to argue that flawed government reaction and subsequent polices have extended the economic downturn longer than it should've lasted. By the way... the same thing happened in the 1930s .
|
I continue to argue that flawed government reaction and subsequent polices have extended the economic downturn longer than it should've lasted. By the way... the same thing happened in the 1930s .
And I will argue that filibustering any plans that had a chance of working by the republicans in an effort to undermine the government efforts is where the jobs went. Despite government spending being flat, taxes low, and corporate profits being through the roof, the middle class, has been eroded and the myth of the normal business cycle has been exposed.
I mean how much money do you capitalist need to circulate the money through jobs? Don't answer we already know, ALL the money ever created by mankind! And that's no guarantee for employment.
Its not the government, well NOT entirely, it's the business model itself that has sucked all the cash from the system, created nothing but a rich mans casino. This has effectively destroyed the economic circulation of the entire country. Best described as the buck has stopped here, in the pockets of a bunch of greedy, ungrateful B@STARDS.
The rights profits over people works well for the few, and enslaves, and impoverishes the many. You are right though, we have seen this before. And we see it again because all the precautions we installed have been REPEALED, by bought off government servants.
I'm late to this party so I'm starting from the beginning of the OP.
Is it my fault that after desegregation blacks self-segregate? Virtually every group in America is represented by some (or multiple) organization making sure their issues are front and center and their identity is preserved and celebrated - except for Caucasian males - I can't imagine why segregation might be a failure. As soon as some black kid is whacked by a "white" guy or some belligerent black college professor has a police encounter you libs cry "racism" in lockstep, knee-jerk fashion. Even words like "blacklist" are being banned because of 'fears' of racial overtones. The other day I wondered how long I could order my favorite beer without being called a racist by some liberal somewhere, or how long before they change the name.
I'm just trying to get along brother, it isn't me or my side intentionally keeping racism alive.
Now watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical, Liberal, fanatical, criminal. -Supertramp, The Logical Song 1979
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
If you're the guy in charge of making POLICY, then it IS your fault.. See, you think they self segregate because of race.. I think they self segregate because of racist POLICY. The drug war is a prime example.
excon
Ok then, let's get rid of all the racist laws. Make me a list and highlight the racist part.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Didn't we do this once before?? Ok, let's take the drug war.
There is a 5-year minimum prison penalty for a first-time trafficking offense involving 5 grams or more of crack cocaine, which is used primarily by BLACK people or 500 grams or more of powder cocaine, which is used primarily by WHITE people.. There's more.. A 10-year mandatory minimum penalty for a first-time trafficking offense involving 50 grams or more of crack cocaine, which is used primarily by BLACK people, or 5,000 grams or more of powder cocaine, which is used primarily by WHITE people.
There ain't no getting around it, but I'm sure you'll try.
excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Ill take a stab at it. In part the laws are in place and seemingly out of balance because of the addiction level. Crack is far more addicting then straight pharmaceutical cocaine. From what I understand there are many that can be addicted after the first few uses. It is far more dangerous a drug then cocaine.
That's a myth to justify the sentencing laws and practices of law enforcement. To get the guys in the hood, when most of the usage is done in the burbs.Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
Cocaine is cocaine, and none of it is pharmaceutical. Hospitals use cocaine legally in surgery. You need a federal license for it.
Nice job Ex. I will add to your list with the number of felonies a minority marijuana user gets as opposed to a suburban user, with a real attorney. Probation, and community service, as opposed to three years for possession. Not to mention loss of voting rights and that brings us to voter suppression. Another racist tactic.
Ex why did you drag that ole hobby horse out of the back of the shed. We wore that one out a while ago.
You seem to think that any law that restricts your ability to smoke dope is racist, unamerican and unconstitutional, but your constitution allows the government to preserve order and the common good and dope in any form leads to lawlessness and is not a good.
If the members of a particular racist group happens to be dope users this does not make the law racist or specifically directed at them. If perchance the members of another racist group preys on that first group by selling them dope this does not make the law racist
Come on Clete, Ex was specific, its not about the law, its about unequal application of the law. That's what makes it racist. If all the doppers were treated the same way, we wouldn't be having this conversation. That's the whole point.
Tal if your law and order departments target certain persons because they are easy targets, they may be racist or racially motivated but more than likely they just have to fill their quota for the month. If your courts levy penelties in accordence with the law are they racist? If your legislators formulate laws that are racist then your Supreme Court can examine them and strike them down. What part of due process does Ex not understand?
Now I would agree that there are far too many people incarcarated in your country for what are essentially minor offences and offences against their own person and that law and order is a more serious problem there than here but this is because of drugs and all the undesirable aspects of the traffic of narcotics. Some narcotics are a bigger problem than others and if your enforcement programmes focused more on economic penelties and detoxification than incarceration you may have greater success. This is about the manner in which the law is applied and it is about wider issues than drugs
Where I come from only black people sniff petrol, is the restriction of the supply of petrol to an inferior product so these people can't get their kicks racist. Should all vehicles be converted to diesel or LPG in a racist attempt to kurb the activities of these black people? Should white people be convicted of an offense for supplying petrol to black people? What Ex is saying is that possession of a rediculously small quantity of a substance which at that quanity is unlikely to addict should be treated exactly the same as a similar quantity of a highly addictive substance simply because a different class of people use different substances is ridiculous and your legislators had the good sense to see it before they filled your prisons with even more offenders as a result of class warfare
No they didn't, come see for yourself, racism by legislators and politicians is alive and well in America, and too sophisticated it seems for you to recognize its insidious forms. I agree with you on many things, not this.Quote:
What Ex is saying is that possession of a rediculously small quantity of a substance which at that quanity is unlikely to addict should be treated exactly the same as a similar quantity of a highly addictive substance simply because a different class of people use different substances is ridiculous and your legislators had the good sense to see it before they filled your prisons with even more offenders as a result of class warfare
Hello again,
Just because the racist legislators SAID that crack is more addictive that powder, doesn't mean it's true. They WANTED it to be true.. So do you.. It ISN'T true... It's RACIST. That's what's true.
Exocn
Very true. Racists can always justify themselves with good sounding LIES. They don't have to hang you for whistling at their women, They put you in jail for jaywalking, hang you in jail, and call it suicide.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Or get you for jaywalking three times and that gets you life.
And you call this freedom, liberty, democracy, an example the rest of the world should emulate
As always more exagerations from a skewed view. Its no wonder when the truth comes out you have to refuse to see it. Why not concentrate on the problem rather then exacerbating it? Sure you want to call racism every time but you don't seem to want to stand up and do something about it. So every black person is being racially treated no matter what they have done is quite a stretch. When do you step back and examine the root behavior and say something needs to be done about it independent of skin color. After all blaming it on color is racist.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Your right dad, my broad brushed and general analogy was not trying to say ALL, but was pointing at where the real problems started, with the local law makers. They have made an industry from incarcerating specifically targeted youth, or groups of people.
Any law that takes advantage of those with socially created problems, and punishes victims of it with jail, is patently racist. Arrests are NOT the answer. Nor laws that make those arrest easy.
Its called profiling, and the way its done is patently racist. I mean come on, they could have put all that prison money into schools and policies that worked, and not disadvantaged, and got better results. That's what I think at least, and lumping people into one spot and parking a paddy wagon down the street is NOT a solution, it just perpetuates the prison system.
More prisons for targeted drivers looking for dope is not the answer, but looks great on paper. But the white guys with dope get away scot free. Just like little johnny in the burbs whose dad gets him a lawyer, instead of a plea bargaining public defender, with 15 other clients caught with a joint.
You really don't have to be a racist to push racist policies you know, but the results are the same. Aren't they?
You mean that 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act that was sponsored by the good Texas Democrat Jim Wright and had 301 cosponsors including Harold E. Ford Sr and Charlie Rangel? What in the world were they doing sponsoring racist laws?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
How about a link so we understand your FACTS!
No problem.
H.R.5484 Cosponsors
You might find some more interesting cosponsors, like ex's buddy Henry Waxman.
Good find Steve. John Dingell ,Harry Reid ,Bill Richardson... racists all of them . The truth is that about half the Black members of Congress voted for the law.
http://www.enotes.com/anti-drug-abus...abuse-act-1986Quote:
Although many media reports and images at the time of the act emphasized the spread of crack cocaine among inner-city minority communities, it is not clear that Congress foresaw the disparate racial impact these sentencing changes would have. Fully half of the African-American representatives in Congress voted for the act, many of them emphasizing the harm that crack use was causing to black communities.
Thanks Speech, I was having trouble finding this particular bill. It seems to have covered a wide range of issues that were prevalent in 1986. As we can see it was a cooperative effort by both houses, working to reach consensus to resolve issues.
So are you saying that we have the same thing at work today, by congress, and local and regional governments?
Or have things happened that changed all of that?
We do have more FACTS of cause and effect of those policies these modern days, why are we not flexible enough to tweak them? Do we have to be stuck in 1986, or can we make some adjustments to correct the lack of knowledge, or changed conditions?
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
They didn't know it was racist. The white congressmen didn't know it was racist. They didn't investigate. They went along with the crowd. I'm sure somebody scared 'em into that belief.. That's how pot became illegal. Somebody scared congress and after a few minutes of debate, they passed a law. Do I think this is any different?? No..
Whether BLACK people supported this racist piece of legislation makes it NO LESS racist. You DID see those numbers. The congress was informed of their inaccuracies. Did the change it? A little bit. Now it's only partially racist...
excon
PS> I guess you could say that slavery wasn't racist either, because there were some black overlords... Same thing.. It doesn't work..
And it looks like this is the very reason why I call them Washington elites. The reason for being stuck in the past like that is because many of the members are from that era that never left.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I don't believe that the original intention of elected officials was to be a lifetime appointment. The idea being that they (the representatives) would have to live under the laws they created.
Would monies spent on the drug war have been better spent elsewhere ? Of course they would. There shouldn't be a drug war. But since we are talking of war lets not forget collateral damage. It happens in every war. In the drug war that would be the peoples that had their houses broken into because someone needed to feed an adiction. And who pays for that? Joe working Schmoe and the rest of us in higher premiums. The cycle continues. Muggings, murder etc. All in the name of drugs. If they weren't illegal in the first place we would be having a much different debate. We could afford to secure our boarders and feed people. We could spend on those social programs that are asked for that benefit all of us al a whole. Heck we could even get into space again. (I miss NASA programs).
My point being that things are broken. And the only true way to fix them is to look at them from an uninhibited angle. Even recently in the news we have heard stories of Obama smoking pot etc. And he went on to be president. SO maybe its time to take a much harder and closer look at this bad thing they call drugs without regard to race and call it as it really is.
What I'm saying is ex gave me an example of one of those "racist" laws and I'm showing the law is not racist. No one intended for that law to disproportionately affect blacks, and no one is trying to come up with new laws to punish any particular group (except Democrats who want to punish the wealth, especially ex-patriots), so can we cut the racist angle out?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Brother, I'm becoming more and more an ally on this front so let's strike a balance. Just cut the racist crap, I hate that more than ex hates drug laws.Quote:
We do have more FACTS of cause and effect of those policies these modern days, why are we not flexible enough to tweak them? Do we have to be stuck in 1986, or can we make some adjustments to correct the lack of knowledge, or changed conditions?
Sorry, but I have to call bullsh*t when I see it, and that qualifies. The law is not racist, period, so cut the crap. You wanted honesty, that was honest and so is this - what I told tal, "Brother, I'm becoming more and more an ally on this front so let's strike a balance. Just cut the racist crap, I hate that more than ex hates drug laws."Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Let's be honest shall we?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:37 AM. |