boyst Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 rip as a child of the 80's and therefore growing up in the just say no days... it was amazing how strong that campaign was.
Buffalo Barbarian Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 rip as a child of the 80's and therefore growing up in the just say no days... it was amazing how strong that campaign was. too bad it didn't work
Deranged Rhino Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 too bad it didn't work It worked really well to codify and legitimize racist sentencing. Which is what they wanted in the first place, so you can't really say it didn't work.
KD in CA Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 It worked really well to codify and legitimize racist sentencing. Which is what they wanted in the first place, so you can't really say it didn't work. Ouch. I don't know enough to say if that was the intent but it was certainly the result. As with most First Ladies, I'd assume Nancy's heart was it the right place. And she was instrumental in her husband's career success. RIP
boyst Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 It worked really well to codify and legitimize racist sentencing. Which is what they wanted in the first place, so you can't really say it didn't work. can't speak to the latter but the former does have some truth. too bad it didn't work it didn't? less than 49% of the populous has smoked weed. it worked on me, for example.
Deranged Rhino Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 Ouch. I don't know enough to say if that was the intent but it was certainly the result. As with most First Ladies, I'd assume Nancy's heart was it the right place. And she was instrumental in her husband's career success. RIP Absolutely, I'm not trying to say it was Nancy's plan. She was just the spokeswoman, she probably had nothing but the most noble intentions.That said, RIP, Mrs. Reagan (I should have led with that). But the War on Drugs was certainly a disaster for this country, especially for poor minorities and non violent drug offenders. And that certainly seems to be the intention from the beginning. There's no other way to explain it when you really dig into the history of the policy. Who was impacted most by the War on Drugs? The poor and minority offenders. Who benefited the most from the War on Drugs? The private industrial prison complex which grew by leaps and bounds, and the US intelligence services who controlled a pipeline to their own private ATM without having to go through congress. Who was bringing the largest portion of drugs into the inner cities to sell? It wasn't the Mexican cartels, it was Bush Sr.'s pals in the US intelligence agencies. Gotta give it to them though. It worked like a charm. They invent a drug epidemic, supply and profit from said epidemic, codify the laws to serve their political agenda (more minorities behind bars means less minorities voting for the other party), then bring down the hammer of the justice system on the poorest and most exposed portions of the population, destroying urban neighborhoods all over the country, driving down land value for future developers in the 90s and early 00s to buy the land for pennies on the dollar. God Bless America. can't speak to the latter but the former does have some truth. The deeper you go down the rabbit hole, the more brazen it becomes.
meazza Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 Absolutely, I'm not trying to say it was Nancy's plan. She was just the spokeswoman, she probably had nothing but the most noble intentions.That said, RIP, Mrs. Reagan (I should have led with that). But the War on Drugs was certainly a disaster for this country, especially for poor minorities and non violent drug offenders. And that certainly seems to be the intention from the beginning. There's no other way to explain it when you really dig into the history of the policy. Who was impacted most by the War on Drugs? The poor and minority offenders. Who benefited the most from the War on Drugs? The private industrial prison complex which grew by leaps and bounds, and the US intelligence services who controlled a pipeline to their own private ATM without having to go through congress. Who was bringing the largest portion of drugs into the inner cities to sell? It wasn't the Mexican cartels, it was Bush Sr.'s pals in the US intelligence agencies. Gotta give it to them though. It worked like a charm. They invent a drug epidemic, supply and profit from said epidemic, codify the laws to serve their political agenda (more minorities behind bars means less minorities voting for the other party), then bring down the hammer of the justice system on the poorest and most exposed portions of the population, destroying urban neighborhoods all over the country, driving down land value for future developers in the 90s and early 00s to buy the land for pennies on the dollar. God Bless America. The deeper you go down the rabbit hole, the more brazen it becomes. You overestimate how smart some people are and I really think you should keep your conspiracy theory bull **** in another thread. Cheers.
Deranged Rhino Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 You overestimate how smart some people are and I really think you should keep your conspiracy theory bull **** in another thread. Cheers. This one isn't much of a conspiracy theory. It's been acknowledged by more than a few folks in the know as being the truth, and the history itself over the past 40 years have only reinforced the veracity of it.
Tiberius Posted March 6, 2016 Author Posted March 6, 2016 This one isn't much of a conspiracy theory. It's been acknowledged by more than a few folks in the know as being the truth, and the history itself over the past 40 years have only reinforced the veracity of it. Pretty sure the first pot laws were passed in the south western states to criminalize Mexican Americans and the Feds ran with it. There is no doubt this war was launched as part of the culture war
Deranged Rhino Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 There is no doubt this war was launched as part of the culture war Culture war or politics as usual, it's the same coin. The idea was to make it harder for minorities to vote because they tend to vote for the other party; you can't vote if you're in prison or a convicted felon. The double bonus was it meant more money in the pockets of the prison industrial complex (big donors), more unaccountable money in the coffers of CIA and other various intelligence services, and further lowered property values in the inner cities around the country -- land which was owned by and large by minorities and the lower middle class (which we still had back then).
Tiberius Posted March 6, 2016 Author Posted March 6, 2016 Culture war or politics as usual, it's the same coin. The idea was to make it harder for minorities to vote because they tend to vote for the other party; you can't vote if you're in prison or a convicted felon. The double bonus was it meant more money in the pockets of the prison industrial complex (big donors), more unaccountable money in the coffers of CIA and other various intelligence services, and further lowered property values in the inner cities around the country -- land which was owned by and large by minorities and the lower middle class (which we still had back then). it sure is a disaster. The biggest human rights nightmare domestically of our time
RI Bills Fan Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 RIP Mrs. Regan, You were a Class Act and an Exemplary First Lady.
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 (edited) It worked really well to codify and legitimize racist sentencing. Which is what they wanted in the first place, so you can't really say it didn't work.No it didn't. Harsher sentences for the types of drugs used by the black community were conceived of, and lobbied for, by black community leaders who were trying desperately to combat an epidemic of violent crime which was being fueled by widespread use of crack cocaine. Your narrative is nothing but a narrative. Edited March 6, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker
B-Man Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 Gracious Nancy Reagan By Mona Charen I was privileged to have worked for Nancy Reagan a speechwriter during the 1984 presidential race. I think it’s fair to say that without her, there would have been no Ronald Reagan presidency. Theirs was a true partnership and deep intimacy. He drew strength from it. Some of the little love notes he sent her over the years are on display at the Reagan Library and Museum in Simi Valley. Anytime that he was not with her was a trial for him. Today’s Washington Post, in a burst of bad taste, led its obituary with mentions of her “lavish” spending and use of an astrologer. Later editions softened this, so that the opening paragraph now calls her ”a former film actress whose crowning role was that of vigilant guardian of her husband’s interests and legacy,” which is fair, but inadequate. In an era when vulgarity has become the norm, it’s worth remembering someone who was smart, gracious, and dignified. Feminists scorned her adoring gaze at her husband — but it was genuine. She adored him and vice versa. During his long illness, she cared for him devotedly. RIP.Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner Progressive Democrats dance on Nancy Reagan’s grave http://bit.ly/1Yjjw7q Bernie Sanders fans TRASH Nancy Reagan....http://twitchy.com/2016/03/06/stop-all-the-lying-about-this-woman-bernie-sanders-fans-trash-nancy-reagan/ Seriously? NBC account uses image of wax figures for Nancy Reagan story http://twitchy.com/2016/03/06/seriously-nbc-account-uses-image-of-wax-figures-for-nancy-reagan-story/ …
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 RIP I have never been a big supporter of the Reagans. Yet, here with the War on Drugs, I can't fault their misplaced effort. People may not know it but Ronald Reagan's early family life was surrounded by alcoholism. I can't blame the Reagans for trying to force an answer on everybody. Most people simply have to be told what to do and can't be left to their own will power. Again, I really can't fault them for their crusade against addiction and drug abuse. As with all do-gooders, they tried to make the country a better place.
/dev/null Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 Most people simply have to be told what to do and can't be left to their own will power. How very Progressive
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 How very Progressive It is the very definition! I am very authoritarian left. What happens when you get a group of dreamers together in a cafe? It's all fun & games until the barrel of the tank comes crashing through the window! Ain't that very progressive... Progessive way to get productivity out of people... ;-P
Recommended Posts