Conservative/Faux News Hero Cliven Bundy Wonders If "The ? " were 'Better Off As Slaves'"...

1235»

Comments

  • Jabu_Rule
    Jabu_Rule Members Posts: 5,993 ✭✭✭✭✭
    janklow wrote: »
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    The harsh drug sentencing (rico laws) and drug testing has all been presented by Republicans.
    RICO presented by Republicans? let's take it to Wikipedia for a moment:
    "Under the close supervision of Senator John Little McClellan, the Chairman of the Committee for which he worked, G. Robert Blakey drafted the "RICO Act," Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, signed into law by Richard M. Nixon."

    John Little McClellan was a Democrat from Arkansas. so that's something presented by a Democrat.

    and if you want to talk about drug-testing welfare recipients, i can think of at least Jay Nixon (Democrat) signing off on such a thing. i would blame him a little less since he didn't write the legislation, but we seem to be hammering executives equally for signing off on it, so... there's something else from a Democrat. although it seems like Democrats were split, not universally opposed, regarding that legislation.

    but really, we're going to pretend that Democrats don't burnish their cred by slamming criminals? Clinton's "three strikes" crime bill? Joe ? Biden touting his work promoting Byrne Grants (which absolutely promote draconian and/or racist drug policy?

    my point is that while we can find an example of some ? and say "a Republican pushed for this" --and that's probably the case for the average "drug-testing welfare recipients" thing-- both political parties love to show how much they'll ? us over with the state's policing powers to earn votes.

    I actually meant Rockefeller Drug laws but I'm sure democrats had something to do with that too. You ethered me on other points regardless.
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    I actually meant Rockefeller Drug laws but I'm sure democrats had something to do with that too. You ethered me on other points regardless.
    actually, in retrospect, i had a feeling that's where you were going with it, but i wasn't sure if it was drug-specific or the larger RICO stuff. not really sure who's brainchild the Rockefeller stuff was but i'll bet, sadly, that it was bipartisan legislation on SOME level.

    look, i'm not going to dispute that Republicans push a lot of this stuff. the welfare-recipient-testing thing, i think it's fair to say, is usually a GOP-pushed thing currently. i think i'm more about not giving either side a pass than really saying "X does worse than Y."

  • GSonII
    GSonII Members Posts: 2,689 ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2014
    My point remains that people like this have few avenues to force there opinions on you and through making there opinion law is one of the most apparent. When I said people like this I did not necessarily mean racist or republican. I don't care who they are I have a problem with someone making there opinion enforceable through law. I have a problem with lawmakers coming together and deciding there going to charge everyone with 2 ounces of weed with intent to distribute when there are no facts that says everyone that has two ounces of weed intends to distribute. Why 2 ounces? Why not 10 or 10000, why throw random numbers out there? Simply makes no sense at all. I know that the number is not 2 and I know that they do it because they want to get "tough" on drugs but they should be doing things in a more fact based way.

    Why were they ever allowed to pass laws that allow them to lock people in mental facilities against there will who have never committed a crime when they can not even prove with any valid test that the person is mentally ill? I know they will say that they are protecting the public from these dangerous people and protecting these dangerous people from themselves, but they will say that even if the person has never done anything to himself or another. Meanwhile on the other side of town, they are letting George Zimmerman go home the same night after killing someone and showing how dangerous he truly is. I know why because laws are not fact based its usually simply one of the political groups winning out and making there opinions enforceable by law.

    Society has forgotten that laws supposedly exist to make it easier for us to live together in civilized manners. Forcing your opinion on someone else when your opinion may not be good for that person and is not substantiated by adequate facts is an uncivilized act.
  • Jabu_Rule
    Jabu_Rule Members Posts: 5,993 ✭✭✭✭✭
    janklow wrote: »
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    I actually meant Rockefeller Drug laws but I'm sure democrats had something to do with that too. You ethered me on other points regardless.
    actually, in retrospect, i had a feeling that's where you were going with it, but i wasn't sure if it was drug-specific or the larger RICO stuff. not really sure who's brainchild the Rockefeller stuff was but i'll bet, sadly, that it was bipartisan legislation on SOME level.

    look, i'm not going to dispute that Republicans push a lot of this stuff. the welfare-recipient-testing thing, i think it's fair to say, is usually a GOP-pushed thing currently. i think i'm more about not giving either side a pass than really saying "X does worse than Y."

    This is why i use words like most. When you look at percentages and overall intent of the party, it is overwhelmingly GOP policy that attempts to ? Blacks and the poor on multiple fronts. Drug laws were just an example. Democrats have conservatives like the Blue Dogs so i expect fuckery from them occasionally, but overall they attempt to benefit the everyday man rather then push racist and classist policies. The RICO laws are actually more even handed in it's application being that it was intended to go after big fish and it does (initially targeting the mob). Not saying it's perfect, but it's not overtly biased unless used by biased people. Even 3 strikes isn't so bad if it's only applied to the worse offenders like murderers.
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    edited May 2014
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    Democrats have conservatives like the Blue Dogs so i expect fuckery from them occasionally, but overall they attempt to benefit the everyday man rather then push racist and classist policies.
    you know, i don't think i am willing to grant Democrats credit for trying to benefit the average man and/or not pushing racist/classist policies.

    personally, i've never met a Democratic politician who gave me the impression he gave a ? about the average man, but that might just be because they run things here and don't need to pretend otherwise. actually, strike that; i have met one and that was like 20 years ago. none since.

    fundamentally, i think the problem is that the Democrats get credit for giving a ? without really having to give a ? and thus not have to earn that credit.
  • Jabu_Rule
    Jabu_Rule Members Posts: 5,993 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2014
    janklow wrote: »
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    Democrats have conservatives like the Blue Dogs so i expect fuckery from them occasionally, but overall they attempt to benefit the everyday man rather then push racist and classist policies.
    you know, i don't think i am willing to grant Democrats credit for trying to benefit the average man and/or not pushing racist/classist policies.

    personally, i've never met a Democratic politician who gave me the impression he gave a ? about the average man, but that might just be because they run things here and don't need to pretend otherwise. actually, strike that; i have met one and that was like 20 years ago. none since.

    fundamentally, i think the problem is that the Democrats get credit for giving a ? without really having to give a ? and thus not have to earn that credit.

    Personal anecdotes doesn't change the fact that they aren't hell bent on pushing a bulk of their policy to ? Americans on every level not labeled Rich, Christian and White. Also unlike this Republican controlled congress, they aren't the ones standing in the way of any good policy that would benefit the General Public, but of course the President is responsible for legislating all policy as alluded to by some.
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    Personal anecdotes doesn't change the fact that they aren't hell bent on pushing a bulk of their policy to ? Americans on every level not labeled Rich, Christian and White.
    if i see politicians pushing stupid tax policy and stupid spending policy in a state that's Democrat-dominated, i'm sorry if i feel that, on an anecdotal basis, Democrats are pushing policy designed to ? me over.

    as always, some of this is rhetoric that REALLY says "you think this and i think that and we disagree."
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    Also unlike this Republican controlled congress, they aren't the ones standing in the way of any good policy that would benefit the General Public, but of course the President is responsible for legislating all policy as alluded to by some.
    did i allude to that? because i'm pretty sure my argument is "legislators write laws."

  • Swiffness!
    Swiffness! Members Posts: 10,128 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Two motorists brandished a gun and displayed a threatening sign at a federal wrangler who was driving Tuesday in Juab County.

    The wrangler was driving a load of horses and burros north on Interstate 15 about 11 a.m. near Mills when a dark blue Dodge 1500 extended-cab pickup pulled up alongside the wrangler. The two occupants "told him he was No. 1 with that certain gesture," said Eric Reid, the wrangler’s supervisor at the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s Fillmore Field Office.

    The pickup fell back and the wrangler continued north. A few minutes later, the pickup reappeared, Reid said. The men, wearing hoods, held up a sign, apparently scrawled on a piece of paper, that read, "You need to die." One of the men pointed what appeared to be a Glock handgun at the wrangler.

    Because the wrangler’s travel was slowed by the trailer full of animals, the pickup’s occupants had plenty of time to pull over and cover their license plates with tape — a strategy used by Bundy’s supporters who rallied with him against federal agents in an armed standoff over BLM grazing fees, Reid said.

    http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57917374-78/wrangler-blm-reid-pickup.html.csp

    So hoods are back in fashion hanh.........

    Mississippi_ku_klux.jpg

    We all know you can't aim a rubber band at a Federal Employee w/o catchin dat FBI work. Somebody done ? up.
  • Swiffness!
    Swiffness! Members Posts: 10,128 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Swiffness! wrote: »
    We all know you can't aim a rubber band at a Federal Employee w/o catchin dat FBI work. Somebody done ? up.

    The I-Team has confirmed that FBI agents have launched a formal investigation into alleged death threats, intimidation and possible weapons violations that culminated with a dangerous showdown on April 12, and the first people to be interviewed by FBI agents are Metro Police, starting with Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillispie.

    FBI agents also spoke to an entire squad of Metro officers, who were on the scene to act as a buffer between the crowd and the BLM. Bundy supporters have insisted in emails and calls to 8 News NOW that no one in the crowd pointed weapons at BLM or Metro, but officers told the I-Team that is exactly what they saw, that many with guns set up behind women and children.

    http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25469579/breaking-news-fbi-investigating-bundy-supporters-in-blm-dispute

    "Bundy supporters have been adamant in saying no weapons were aimed at the feds or police"

    RTR3L0EB.jpg

    Bundy_thugs_discussing_they're_ready_to_shoot_fed_agents_TWO.JPG

    White Privilege can only carry you so far, you stupid ? ? .
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    Swiffness! wrote: »
    "Bundy supporters have been adamant in saying no weapons were aimed at the feds or police"
    in fairness, though, you were ALWAYS going to have supporters would could say that and not be lying while unknown to them, someone else was aiming at the feds or the police.

    not sure i have a lot of sympathy for ANYONE involved in the Bundy scenario