3rdnlng Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 Well ain't PPP a geographical oddity, I thought PPP was 2 weeks from everywhere. That is what I thought the thread in OTW was for... Why another thread was started/moved here to PPP. Nancy was very controversial, without her detractors, including her step daughter (@ one time). When TheHill and BigO First Lady's kick the bucket, will you show the same restraint. Again... This is PPP... This the place not gentle feelings... You want that, take it into the main establishments. A joke I heard when I was a teen back in the '80s: "President Reagan wakes up to a beautiful winter morning. The sun is shining, the air is crisp, and there is a light blanket of snow on the ground. He stretches and goes to look out the window at the snow-covered White House lawn and sees the words "President Reagan sucks" written in pee in the snow. Reagan gets all upset and calls White House Security. He tells them he doesn't care what it takes but he wants to know who did this. The Chief of Security returns in a couple of days to the President and tells him that he has good news, bad news, and real bad news. "OK," says Reagan, "Give me the good news first, then the bad news, and then the real bad news." The Chief says: "The good news is after taking analysis of the pee, we know who the culprit is." Reagan nods and the Chief continues: "The bad news is the culprit is Vice President Bush." This really upsets the President, but he controls his anger and asks the Chief to tell him the real bad news. The Chief of Security swallows and says, "It's in Nancy's hand writing". Again... PPP gentle readers... Hey, do you have any good Benghazi jokes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 7, 2016 Author Share Posted March 7, 2016 Hey, do you have any good Benghazi jokes? The Republican reaction to it was a joke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 The Republican reaction to it was a joke I'm not surprised you're ok being lied to and treated like a chump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 Hey, do you have any good Benghazi jokes? No. But I bet they are out there? The Republican reaction to it was a joke Hey... There you go 3rd! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 7, 2016 Author Share Posted March 7, 2016 I'm not surprised you're ok being lied to and treated like a chump. the stand down order? ya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 I'm not surprised you're ok being lied to and treated like a chump. When the shoes on the other foot, you don't like it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 When the shoes on the other foot, you don't like it? No I never like it. But you don't know that do you? You just like to babble on. the stand down order? ya No but nice try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 No I never like it. But you don't know that do you? You just like to babble on. No babble here. Of course you don't like it. You know what they say about thou who protest too much? Life is unfair, people used wrongly, etc... Such is life. Stop crying and whining... Bad **** happens, people are used as pawns, hung out to dry... Move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 No babble here. Of course you don't like it. You know what they say about thou who protest too much? Life is unfair, people used wrongly, etc... Such is life. Stop crying and whining... Bad **** happens, people are used as pawns, hung out to dry... Move on. And when you lie directly into the faces of the victims' grieving families while standing at their flag-draped coffins, blow if off. Bad **** happens, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 Jesus, dude. I'm familiar with Webb's work on the matter but to pass off this idea as well documented fact is a major stretch. Last I checked, Webb's sources weren't the reliable sort. Then to make the leap that cocaine was sold to gangs in the inner city with the intent that this coke would then be stepped on and cooked into crack for the express purposes of a drug epidemic to facilitate the arrest and incarceration of as many minorities as possible in order to have their voting rights rescinded as part of a Republican/GOP conspiracy orchestrated by the CIA for some reason is another f@#$ing level. Stick to UFOs. And yet it happened. The evidence is there, it's uncomfortable to look at but it's there. Though I never said the CIA orchestrated it. They're just the foot soldiers carrying out someone else's policy. There's really no arguing against it, not when you look at the history. There's undeniable proof that the drugs were coming into this country under the eye of, if not the direct involvement of, various elements of the US intelligence services. There's undeniable proof that CIA had been involved in the drug trade across the globe for 3 decades prior to the crack epidemic, making connections and financing their covert operations against the communists through the narcotics trade. Those are facts, not conspiracy theories nor revisionist history. We can speculate as to why they were doing this, but when you consider what actually happened in the aftermath of the War on Drugs it doesn't take much speculation to see that the goal was not to fight drugs but to disenfranchise a large portion of the democratic base. How else can you explain it? If the government's goal was to fight a war on drugs, why would their intelligence services be helping to bring more drugs into the country? If the government's goal was to protect the poorest and most vulnerable sections of the population from the dangers of drugs, why then was the government working hand in hand with the cartels while creating a two tiered, racially biased sentencing system? The answer is because the government never intended on fighting a war on drugs. They wanted to fight a war on the poor and the minorities in the inner cities. Why? I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the vast majority of those demographics vote democrat. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the two tier sentencing system was enacted during the 12 years of Reagan and Bush Sr -- who came on the heels of Carter and during a time when there was a radical right wing movement (led by the young republicans, guys who'd become entrenched in the Washington elite over the next two decades). I'm sure the policy makers of the day didn't have any ulterior motives when it came to shaping this policy, because when have people in the government ever taken advantage of the poor before? Oh wait, they do it all the time... I know it'd be easier to pretend these things didn't happen, but with all the evidence out there you have to be willfully ignorant not to see that the war on drugs was really a war on minorities and the poorest sections of our population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 No babble here. Of course you don't like it. You know what they say about thou who protest too much? Life is unfair, people used wrongly, etc... Such is life. Stop crying and whining... Bad **** happens, people are used as pawns, hung out to dry... Move on. Life is unfair? It's better to be a whiner when being lied to by people in power that to sit back and go "oh well.....**** happens." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 7, 2016 Author Share Posted March 7, 2016 And when you lie directly into the faces of the victims' grieving families while standing at their flag-draped coffins, blow if off. Bad **** happens, right? What did she lie about again at the event you mentioned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 What did she lie about again at the event you mentioned? The aftermath. Do you think she lied about the cause of the "event"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 What did she lie about again at the event you mentioned? That the cause of the attack was due to anger over an internet video, Mr selective amnesia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 7, 2016 Author Share Posted March 7, 2016 The aftermath. Do you think she lied about the cause of the "event"? She mentioned the video, is that what you are all hot and bothered about? That the cause of the attack was due to anger over an internet video, Mr selective amnesia. She said that? Let's see it link some non-wacko source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 RIP Nancy Reagan. You were a tremendous person and the best First Lady in my lifetime. PS - please keep any comments focused on side issues and personal agendas out of this thread. It's intent is to show respect for the former First Lady. Thank you. Yes, I didn't like the way the thread was going either. Gatorette starts a decent thread for once and Greggy hijacks it. Greggy, the new gator. First off, I do apologize for derailing the thread. That wasn't my intention, though nothing about what I wrote was meant to disparage Nancy. I do think it's important to have an honest conversation about her signature policy and the impact it actually had on this country and have been trying to do so with as much respect as possible (and I'm in no way implying Nancy was involved directly in what we've been discussing). But hell, this is PPP. We're supposed to talk about the tough issues here, are we not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 And yet it happened. The evidence is there, it's uncomfortable to look at but it's there. Though I never said the CIA orchestrated it. They're just the foot soldiers carrying out someone else's policy. There's really no arguing against it, not when you look at the history. There's undeniable proof that the drugs were coming into this country under the eye of, if not the direct involvement of, various elements of the US intelligence services. There's undeniable proof that CIA had been involved in the drug trade across the globe for 3 decades prior to the crack epidemic, making connections and financing their covert operations against the communists through the narcotics trade. Those are facts, not conspiracy theories nor revisionist history. We can speculate as to why they were doing this, but when you consider what actually happened in the aftermath of the War on Drugs it doesn't take much speculation to see that the goal was not to fight drugs but to disenfranchise a large portion of the democratic base. How else can you explain it? If the government's goal was to fight a war on drugs, why would their intelligence services be helping to bring more drugs into the country? If the government's goal was to protect the poorest and most vulnerable sections of the population from the dangers of drugs, why then was the government working hand in hand with the cartels while creating a two tiered, racially biased sentencing system? The answer is because the government never intended on fighting a war on drugs. They wanted to fight a war on the poor and the minorities in the inner cities. Why? I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the vast majority of those demographics vote democrat. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the two tier sentencing system was enacted during the 12 years of Reagan and Bush Sr -- who came on the heels of Carter and during a time when there was a radical right wing movement (led by the young republicans, guys who'd become entrenched in the Washington elite over the next two decades). I'm sure the policy makers of the day didn't have any ulterior motives when it came to shaping this policy, because when have people in the government ever taken advantage of the poor before? Oh wait, they do it all the time... I know it'd be easier to pretend these things didn't happen, but with all the evidence out there you have to be willfully ignorant not to see that the war on drugs was really a war on minorities and the poorest sections of our population. This is absurd. The truth is that America's intelligence agencies operate with far too much autonomy, and use this lack of true oversight and accountability to conduct business towards their own ends. Examine Charlie Wilson, for example. As I mentioned earlier, and you ignored, the CIA's agenda was concerned only with funding the Contras. They did so by utilizing an asset which they held, and was continually resupplied through seizure. They took advantage of an existing market, and their share of the market was so diminishingly small that it was almost non-existent given the scope up crack cocaine use in the 1980's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 7, 2016 Author Share Posted March 7, 2016 Deranged Rhino, on 07 Mar 2016 - 2:49 PM, said: But hell, this is PPP. We're supposed to talk about the tough issues here, are we not? yuppers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 She mentioned the video, is that what you are all hot and bothered about? She said that? Let's see it link some non-wacko source She mentions it!?!? Here you go. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BQGMzmzcd0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 She mentioned the video, is that what you are all hot and bothered about? She said that? Let's see it link some non-wacko source You know **** well that's exactly what she did. If you want to see it, go look it up for yourself. I have no problem pointing out how dim-witted you are, and I have no need to prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts