Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: American State of the Union: A Festival of Lies [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)114. In a word
Welfare reform screwd the black community, the extreme sentencing for crack vs, cocaine was aimed at enslaving black males in our prisoner industrial complex.
Does anybody at the Black Agenda Report give a fuck that president Obama is trying to change these things and make the country work better for all of us? Of course not!
Does anybody at the Black Agenda Report give a fuck that president Obama is trying to change these things and make the country work better for all of us? Of course not!
...no. It's envy.
In fact, everything the President has done along those lines are completely ignored by them as they spin their distortions, and get little attention here.
Making the banking system marijuana friendly
In some parts of the United States, it is now legal to sell marijuana to adult consumers. But an unforeseen problem recently popped up that hadnt received much attention before: businesses that sell pot cant open a bank account.
Because federal law still classifies cannabis as a Schedule I illegal narcotic, federally regulated banks dont want to do business with pot retailers or dispensaries, even when theyre legal. Indeed, they cant banks would be subject to criminal penalties under money-laundering laws.
For policymakers, there are a couple of options. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), for example, wants to reform the Controlled Substances Act so that marijuana is no longer a Schedule I illegal narcotic and banks wont have anything to worry about. Since that would require congressional approval, its unlikely well see this change anytime soon. (See the correction below.)
<...>
* Update: I heard from Blumenauers office this afternoon, which said congressional action on reforming the Controlled Substances Act may not be necessary the Attorney Generals office can act unilaterally without lawmakers approval. With this in mind, it would appear Holder can declassify marijuana as a Schedule I illegal narcotic at his discretion and without congressional input.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/making-the-banking-system-marijuana-friendly
In some parts of the United States, it is now legal to sell marijuana to adult consumers. But an unforeseen problem recently popped up that hadnt received much attention before: businesses that sell pot cant open a bank account.
Because federal law still classifies cannabis as a Schedule I illegal narcotic, federally regulated banks dont want to do business with pot retailers or dispensaries, even when theyre legal. Indeed, they cant banks would be subject to criminal penalties under money-laundering laws.
For policymakers, there are a couple of options. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), for example, wants to reform the Controlled Substances Act so that marijuana is no longer a Schedule I illegal narcotic and banks wont have anything to worry about. Since that would require congressional approval, its unlikely well see this change anytime soon. (See the correction below.)
<...>
* Update: I heard from Blumenauers office this afternoon, which said congressional action on reforming the Controlled Substances Act may not be necessary the Attorney Generals office can act unilaterally without lawmakers approval. With this in mind, it would appear Holder can declassify marijuana as a Schedule I illegal narcotic at his discretion and without congressional input.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/making-the-banking-system-marijuana-friendly
National Cannabis Industry Association Applauds Attorney General...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024381790
How to Process Eric Holders Major Criminal Law Reform Speech
By Laura W. Murphy
Attorney General Eric Holder just called mass incarceration a moral and economic failure. He just outlined several major proposals that he says will help to ease major overcrowding in federal prisons. And he just suggested that federal prosecutors should avoid harsh mandatory minimums for certain low-level, non-violent drug offenses.
What should we make of the nations top prosecutor calling out the US for throwing too many people behind bars and challenging the failed war on drugs?
First off, we should acknowledge that this is a big deal! This is the first speech by any Attorney General calling for such massive criminal justice reforms. This is the first major address from the Obama Administration calling for action to end the mass incarceration crisis and reduce the racial disparities that plague our criminal justice system. In the same speech, the Attorney General committed to take on the school-to-prison pipeline and called on Congress to end the forced budget cuts that have decimated public defenders nationwide. This is great news.
The ACLU can proudly say that it has been deeply engaged in policy discussions with this administration, and Democrats and Republicans in Congress. Many of the reforms that we have long championed made it into the Attorney Generals speech, including:
- more -
http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform-racial-justice/how-process-eric-holders-major-criminal-law-reform-speech
By Laura W. Murphy
Attorney General Eric Holder just called mass incarceration a moral and economic failure. He just outlined several major proposals that he says will help to ease major overcrowding in federal prisons. And he just suggested that federal prosecutors should avoid harsh mandatory minimums for certain low-level, non-violent drug offenses.
What should we make of the nations top prosecutor calling out the US for throwing too many people behind bars and challenging the failed war on drugs?
First off, we should acknowledge that this is a big deal! This is the first speech by any Attorney General calling for such massive criminal justice reforms. This is the first major address from the Obama Administration calling for action to end the mass incarceration crisis and reduce the racial disparities that plague our criminal justice system. In the same speech, the Attorney General committed to take on the school-to-prison pipeline and called on Congress to end the forced budget cuts that have decimated public defenders nationwide. This is great news.
The ACLU can proudly say that it has been deeply engaged in policy discussions with this administration, and Democrats and Republicans in Congress. Many of the reforms that we have long championed made it into the Attorney Generals speech, including:
- Developing guidelines to file fewer cases
- Directing a group of U.S. Attorneys to examine sentencing disparities and develop recommendations to address them
- Directing every U.S. Attorney to designate a Prevention and Reentry Coordinator
- Directing every DOJ component to consider whether regulations have collateral consequences that impair reentry
- Reducing mandatory minimum charging for low-level drug offenses
- Expanding eligibility for compassionate release; and
- Identifying and sharing best practices for diversion programs
- Calling into question zero tolerance policies and other policies that lead to the school to prison pipeline
- Challenging the legal community to make the promise of Gideon (right to counsel) more of a reality
- more -
http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform-racial-justice/how-process-eric-holders-major-criminal-law-reform-speech
U.S. Orders More Steps to Curb Stiff Drug Sentences
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
WASHINGTON The Obama administration on Thursday expanded its effort to curtail severe penalties for low-level federal drug offenses, ordering prosecutors to refile charges against defendants in pending cases and strip out any references to specific quantities of illicit substances that would trigger mandatory minimum sentencing laws.
The move, announced by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. at a speech before the annual conference of the Congressional Black Caucus, builds on a major policy change he unveiled last month to avoid mandatory minimum sentencing laws in future low-level cases.
By reserving the most severe prison terms for serious, high-level, or violent drug traffickers or kingpins, we can better enhance public safety, Mr. Holder said. We can increase our focus on proven strategies for deterrence and rehabilitation. And we can do so while making our expenditures smarter and more productive.
The policy applies to defendants who meet four criteria: their offense did not involve violence, the use of a weapon, or selling drugs to minors; they are not leaders of a criminal organization; they have no significant ties to large-scale gangs or drug trafficking organizations; and they have no significant criminal histories.
- more -
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/us/politics/administration-orders-new-step-to-curtail-stiff-drug-sentences.html
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
WASHINGTON The Obama administration on Thursday expanded its effort to curtail severe penalties for low-level federal drug offenses, ordering prosecutors to refile charges against defendants in pending cases and strip out any references to specific quantities of illicit substances that would trigger mandatory minimum sentencing laws.
The move, announced by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. at a speech before the annual conference of the Congressional Black Caucus, builds on a major policy change he unveiled last month to avoid mandatory minimum sentencing laws in future low-level cases.
By reserving the most severe prison terms for serious, high-level, or violent drug traffickers or kingpins, we can better enhance public safety, Mr. Holder said. We can increase our focus on proven strategies for deterrence and rehabilitation. And we can do so while making our expenditures smarter and more productive.
The policy applies to defendants who meet four criteria: their offense did not involve violence, the use of a weapon, or selling drugs to minors; they are not leaders of a criminal organization; they have no significant ties to large-scale gangs or drug trafficking organizations; and they have no significant criminal histories.
- more -
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/us/politics/administration-orders-new-step-to-curtail-stiff-drug-sentences.html
Background on progress.
Justice Is Served
By Laura W. Murphy
June 2011 marks the 40th anniversary of President Richard Nixon's declaration of a "war on drugs" a war that has cost roughly a trillion dollars, has produced little to no effect on the supply of or demand for drugs in the United States, and has contributed to making America the world's largest incarcerator. Throughout the month, check back daily for posts about the drug war, its victims and what needs to be done to restore fairness and create effective policy.
Today is an exciting day for the ACLU and criminal justice advocates around the country. Following much thought and careful deliberation, the United States Sentencing Commission took another step toward creating fairness in federal sentencing by retroactively applying the new Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) guidelines to individuals sentenced before the law was enacted. This decision will help ensure that over 12,000 people 85 percent of whom are African-Americans will have the opportunity to have their sentences for crack cocaine offenses reviewed by a federal judge and possibly reduced.
This decision is particularly important to me because, as director of the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office, I have advocated for Congress and the sentencing commission to reform federal crack cocaine laws for almost 20 years. In 1993, the ACLU lead the coalition that convened the first national symposium highlighting the crack cocaine disparity entitled "The 100 to 1 Ratio: Racial Bias in Cocaine Laws." Now, 25 years after the first crack cocaine law was enacted in the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, the sentencing commission has taken another step toward ending the racial and sentencing disparities that continue to exist in our criminal justice system.
By voting in favor of retroactivity, I am pleased that the commission chose justice over demagoguery and concluded that retroactivity was necessary to ensuring that the goals of the FSA were fully realized. It is important to remember that even with today's commission vote not every crack cocaine offender will have his or her sentence reduced. Judges are still required to determine whether a person qualifies for a retroactive reduction so, contrary to what some have said, this is not a "get out of jail free card."
- more -
http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/justice-served
By Laura W. Murphy
June 2011 marks the 40th anniversary of President Richard Nixon's declaration of a "war on drugs" a war that has cost roughly a trillion dollars, has produced little to no effect on the supply of or demand for drugs in the United States, and has contributed to making America the world's largest incarcerator. Throughout the month, check back daily for posts about the drug war, its victims and what needs to be done to restore fairness and create effective policy.
Today is an exciting day for the ACLU and criminal justice advocates around the country. Following much thought and careful deliberation, the United States Sentencing Commission took another step toward creating fairness in federal sentencing by retroactively applying the new Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) guidelines to individuals sentenced before the law was enacted. This decision will help ensure that over 12,000 people 85 percent of whom are African-Americans will have the opportunity to have their sentences for crack cocaine offenses reviewed by a federal judge and possibly reduced.
This decision is particularly important to me because, as director of the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office, I have advocated for Congress and the sentencing commission to reform federal crack cocaine laws for almost 20 years. In 1993, the ACLU lead the coalition that convened the first national symposium highlighting the crack cocaine disparity entitled "The 100 to 1 Ratio: Racial Bias in Cocaine Laws." Now, 25 years after the first crack cocaine law was enacted in the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, the sentencing commission has taken another step toward ending the racial and sentencing disparities that continue to exist in our criminal justice system.
By voting in favor of retroactivity, I am pleased that the commission chose justice over demagoguery and concluded that retroactivity was necessary to ensuring that the goals of the FSA were fully realized. It is important to remember that even with today's commission vote not every crack cocaine offender will have his or her sentence reduced. Judges are still required to determine whether a person qualifies for a retroactive reduction so, contrary to what some have said, this is not a "get out of jail free card."
- more -
http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/justice-served
Chance at Freedom: Retroactive Crack Sentence Reductions For Up to 12,000 May Begin Today
http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/chance-freedom-retroactive-crack-sentence-reductions-12000-may-begin-today
Sentencing Reform Starts to Pay Off
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
In 2010, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the vast disparity in the way the federal courts punish crack versus powder cocaine offenses. Instead of treating 100 grams of cocaine the same as 1 gram of crack for sentencing purposes, the law cut the ratio to 18 to 1. Initially, the law applied only to future offenders, but, a year later, the United States Sentencing Commission voted to apply it retroactively. Republicans raged, charging that crime would go up and that prisoners would overwhelm the courts with frivolous demands for sentence reductions. Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa said the commission was pursuing a liberal agenda at all costs.
This week, we began to learn that there are no costs, only benefits. According to a preliminary report released by the commission, more than 7,300 federal prisoners have had their sentences shortened under the law. The average reduction is 29 months, meaning that over all, offenders are serving roughly 16,000 years fewer than they otherwise would have. And since the federal government spends about $30,000 per year to house an inmate, this reduction alone is worth nearly half-a-billion dollars big money for a Bureau of Prisons with a $7 billion budget. In addition, the commission found no significant difference in recidivism rates between those prisoners who were released early and those who served their full sentences.
Federal judges nationwide have long expressed vigorous disagreement with both the sentencing disparity and the mandatory minimum sentences they are forced to impose, both of which have been drivers of our bloated federal prison system. But two bipartisan bills in Congress now propose a cheaper and more humane approach. It would include reducing mandatory minimums, giving judges more flexibility to sentence below those minimums, and making more inmates eligible for reductions to their sentences under the new ratio.
But 18 to 1 is still out of whack. The ratio was always based on faulty science and misguided assumptions, and it still disproportionately punishes blacks, who make up more than 80 percent of those prosecuted for federal crack offenses. The commission and the Obama administration have called for a 1-to-1 ratio. The question is not whether we can afford to do it, but whether we can afford not to.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/opinion/sentencing-reform-starts-to-pay-off.html
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
In 2010, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the vast disparity in the way the federal courts punish crack versus powder cocaine offenses. Instead of treating 100 grams of cocaine the same as 1 gram of crack for sentencing purposes, the law cut the ratio to 18 to 1. Initially, the law applied only to future offenders, but, a year later, the United States Sentencing Commission voted to apply it retroactively. Republicans raged, charging that crime would go up and that prisoners would overwhelm the courts with frivolous demands for sentence reductions. Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa said the commission was pursuing a liberal agenda at all costs.
This week, we began to learn that there are no costs, only benefits. According to a preliminary report released by the commission, more than 7,300 federal prisoners have had their sentences shortened under the law. The average reduction is 29 months, meaning that over all, offenders are serving roughly 16,000 years fewer than they otherwise would have. And since the federal government spends about $30,000 per year to house an inmate, this reduction alone is worth nearly half-a-billion dollars big money for a Bureau of Prisons with a $7 billion budget. In addition, the commission found no significant difference in recidivism rates between those prisoners who were released early and those who served their full sentences.
Federal judges nationwide have long expressed vigorous disagreement with both the sentencing disparity and the mandatory minimum sentences they are forced to impose, both of which have been drivers of our bloated federal prison system. But two bipartisan bills in Congress now propose a cheaper and more humane approach. It would include reducing mandatory minimums, giving judges more flexibility to sentence below those minimums, and making more inmates eligible for reductions to their sentences under the new ratio.
But 18 to 1 is still out of whack. The ratio was always based on faulty science and misguided assumptions, and it still disproportionately punishes blacks, who make up more than 80 percent of those prosecuted for federal crack offenses. The commission and the Obama administration have called for a 1-to-1 ratio. The question is not whether we can afford to do it, but whether we can afford not to.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/opinion/sentencing-reform-starts-to-pay-off.html
Washington Gives Us Something to Get Excited About (No, Really!)
http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/washington-gives-us-something-get-excited-about-no-really
ACLU Comment on DOJ Plans to Reduce Non-Violent Drug Sentences
WASHINGTON Laura W. Murphy, director of American Civil Liberties Union's Washington Legislative Office, responded to Attorney General Eric Holder's proposed policy to reverse the growth of the federal prison population in advance of a speech today at the American Bar Association's Annual Meeting:
"Today, the attorney general is taking crucial steps to tackle our bloated federal mass incarceration crisis, and we are thrilled by these long-awaited developments.
"By mandating that U.S. attorneys change charging practices for low-level, non-violent offenders, these policies will make it more likely that wasteful and harmful federal prison overcrowding will end. Over the last year, in one of the few areas of bipartisanship, members of Congress have come together to call for smart criminal justice reform. While today's announcement is an important step toward a fairer justice system, Congress must change the laws that lock up hundreds of thousands of Americans unfairly and unnecessarily."
Throughout Eric Holder's tenure, going back to the successful passage of the Fair Sentencing Act in 2010, the ACLU has worked closely with the attorney general, his staff, and DOJ leadership to develop several of the policy changes announced today.
http://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/aclu-comment-doj-plans-reduce-non-violent-drug-sentences
WASHINGTON Laura W. Murphy, director of American Civil Liberties Union's Washington Legislative Office, responded to Attorney General Eric Holder's proposed policy to reverse the growth of the federal prison population in advance of a speech today at the American Bar Association's Annual Meeting:
"Today, the attorney general is taking crucial steps to tackle our bloated federal mass incarceration crisis, and we are thrilled by these long-awaited developments.
"By mandating that U.S. attorneys change charging practices for low-level, non-violent offenders, these policies will make it more likely that wasteful and harmful federal prison overcrowding will end. Over the last year, in one of the few areas of bipartisanship, members of Congress have come together to call for smart criminal justice reform. While today's announcement is an important step toward a fairer justice system, Congress must change the laws that lock up hundreds of thousands of Americans unfairly and unnecessarily."
Throughout Eric Holder's tenure, going back to the successful passage of the Fair Sentencing Act in 2010, the ACLU has worked closely with the attorney general, his staff, and DOJ leadership to develop several of the policy changes announced today.
http://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/aclu-comment-doj-plans-reduce-non-violent-drug-sentences
Smarter Sentencing
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
You know a transformational moment has arrived when the attorney general of the United States makes a highly anticipated speech on a politically combustible topic and there is virtually no opposition to be heard.
That describes the general reaction to Eric Holder Jr.s announcement on Monday that he was ordering a fundamentally new approach in the federal prosecution of many lower-level drug offenders. What once would have elicited cries of soft on crime now drew mostly nods of agreement. As Mr. Holder said, its well past time to take concrete steps to end the nations four-decade incarceration binge the result of harsh sentencing laws enacted in response to increased violent crime in the late 1960s and 1970s.
The statistics have been repeated so often as to be numbing: 1.57 million Americans in state and federal prisons, an increase of more than 500 percent since the late 1970s, at a cost of $80 billion annually. In 2010, more than 7 in 100 black men ages 30 to 34 years old were behind bars. The federal system alone holds 219,000 inmates, 40 percent above its capacity, thanks to strict sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum sentences. Of these inmates, nearly half are in prison for drug-related crimes.
In Mr. Holders words, too many Americans go to too many prisons for far too long, and for no truly good law enforcement reason. Many criminal-justice experts have long felt the same way. What made Mr. Holders speech timely and important was that it reflected a fundamental shift in thinking about crime and punishment at the highest levels of government.
- more -
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/opinion/smarter-sentencing.html
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
You know a transformational moment has arrived when the attorney general of the United States makes a highly anticipated speech on a politically combustible topic and there is virtually no opposition to be heard.
That describes the general reaction to Eric Holder Jr.s announcement on Monday that he was ordering a fundamentally new approach in the federal prosecution of many lower-level drug offenders. What once would have elicited cries of soft on crime now drew mostly nods of agreement. As Mr. Holder said, its well past time to take concrete steps to end the nations four-decade incarceration binge the result of harsh sentencing laws enacted in response to increased violent crime in the late 1960s and 1970s.
The statistics have been repeated so often as to be numbing: 1.57 million Americans in state and federal prisons, an increase of more than 500 percent since the late 1970s, at a cost of $80 billion annually. In 2010, more than 7 in 100 black men ages 30 to 34 years old were behind bars. The federal system alone holds 219,000 inmates, 40 percent above its capacity, thanks to strict sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum sentences. Of these inmates, nearly half are in prison for drug-related crimes.
In Mr. Holders words, too many Americans go to too many prisons for far too long, and for no truly good law enforcement reason. Many criminal-justice experts have long felt the same way. What made Mr. Holders speech timely and important was that it reflected a fundamental shift in thinking about crime and punishment at the highest levels of government.
- more -
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/opinion/smarter-sentencing.html
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
495 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

Yes, the predictability of those who try to deflect from inconvenient questions
sabrina 1
Jan 2014
#210
Well at least you agree he's just a lying corporate tool while you're being rude and condescending.
cui bono
Jan 2014
#154
The President "danced like Mr. Bojangles to get around the issues at hand," is insightful?
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#449
Keep trying but I dont think you will get any of them to commit. They support whatever
rhett o rick
Jan 2014
#218
For some reason I'm imagining having dropped a fish on the pier and frantically
ChisolmTrailDem
Jan 2014
#229
So you're against the anti-democratic attempt at pushing through TPP without public debate?
cui bono
Jan 2014
#161
Arent you falling for the distraction? I have a hunch that he supports whatever Pres
rhett o rick
Jan 2014
#190
They put loyalty above principles. I have asked over and over for someone
rhett o rick
Jan 2014
#217
Lucky them, at least their government is apparently aware of what is in it. Our Congress
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#321
Even the best estimates show TPP to be essentially a zero-sum game for Japan
Art_from_Ark
Feb 2014
#323
I'm not familiar with him but that doesn't sound like a RW talking point to me.
cui bono
Jan 2014
#168
What I do know is not good. Do you know anything good? Do you like NAFTA? WTO? CAFTA?
rhett o rick
Jan 2014
#258
I think that's just fine if you want to wait. But while you are waiting it isnt cool to disparage
rhett o rick
Jan 2014
#268
Only those with their fingers in their ears and their eyes closed dont know.
rhett o rick
Jan 2014
#283
How do you know if they are facts or not? You told us you didnt know anything about it.
rhett o rick
Feb 2014
#329
Said zappaman, the DUer who supports Allen Dulles, J Edgar Hoover and Gerald Ford.
Octafish
Feb 2014
#361
This same guy is on satellite radio all the time bashing Obama on the Mark Thompson Show
brush
Jan 2014
#243
Easy, Bush crashed the economy with winger econ policies and handed the rich no strings money...
uponit7771
Jan 2014
#45
Another winger meme - it wasn't totally bushes fault. It was, he's the ONLY president in US history
uponit7771
Jan 2014
#55
My attack was directed at the author who has a long record of anti-Dem, anti-Obama writings. nt
tridim
Jan 2014
#153
It does suck. A lot. Especially when he had all that political capital and he just squandered it.
cui bono
Jan 2014
#186
Wish it weren't so, but it's Year Six and there's no New New Deal on the horizon.
Octafish
Jan 2014
#8
During the 2012 Presidential Debates, Mit Romney mentioned the Obama's Pacific/China Portfolio.
DhhD
Jan 2014
#83
These are desperate times, and I'm a firm believer in trying every tool in the box
LuvNewcastle
Feb 2014
#367
I said I hate when white people post things from there and act like it represents the majority
bravenak
Jan 2014
#220
Wow. There's a few things I'd say right now but you would accuse me of being racist...
cui bono
Jan 2014
#234
I hate the black agenda report. It's a hateful publication that to me is similar to stormfront.
bravenak
Jan 2014
#236
You'll be in good company. Msanthrope, one of the SMARTEST fucking people here, does the same
Number23
Jan 2014
#270
Thank you! I realize that I am late to this thread...but I have an excuse...
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#450
I'm surprised that people act like they don't know how black people feel about the BAR.
bravenak
Feb 2014
#353
Do you think this "black publication" represents more than a tiny minority of black opinion?...
SidDithers
Jan 2014
#104
If you don't know the publication, maybe you should refrain from defending them...nt
SidDithers
Jan 2014
#133
Cornell west has spent the last few years pissing off the black community and me in particular.
bravenak
Jan 2014
#313
So, rather than address what the Administration is doing, you slam Cornel West.
Octafish
Feb 2014
#376
Why try to make ignorance contagious, zappaman? Learn how Wall Street Killed Financial Reform.
Octafish
Feb 2014
#417
The richest people in the world have been using Washington to make wars for profit...
Octafish
Feb 2014
#421
Not familiar with it are you? It was very popular with Democrats throughout the Bush years like
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#415
Now that I read it, indeed it was. Very hard-hitting, but then, the truth tends to be like that
quinnox
Jan 2014
#102
You may assume what you want, Dr. Gibson is a professor of sociology at University of Pittsburgh.
Octafish
Jan 2014
#38
I was not aware of Donald Gibson...thanks for bringing his work to my attention!
deutsey
Jan 2014
#90
You are most welcome, deutsey! If you can, add Gerald D. McKnight to your reading list...
Octafish
Jan 2014
#128
+1, winger meme and wording all thrown into one asinine phrase "presided over" as if Bush didnt
uponit7771
Jan 2014
#50
BULL FUCKIN SHIT!!! Clinton did NOT implement the NDPA... the economy crashing was Bush's DIRECT han
uponit7771
Jan 2014
#60
Clinton pushed for financial deregulation, NAFTA and many other things that ledf to the mess
Armstead
Jan 2014
#68
When he had the chance to end the Bush tax cuts by doing nothing. He extended them.
grahamhgreen
Jan 2014
#126
Washington -- Geithner -- sacrificed homeowners to “foam the runway” for the banks.
Octafish
Jan 2014
#71
Thank you, hay rick! Geithner bailed out Wall Street THIEVES with the US TAXPAYER's money.
Octafish
Feb 2014
#366
He is the CIC of the US military. It it a title that applies to him whether you are military or not.
bravenak
Jan 2014
#150
He's not, those who say such are usually wingers in the first place and lay out anecdotal evidence
uponit7771
Jan 2014
#52
+1, we do... we've experience the non objectivity that can make people seem crazy. Obama's getti
uponit7771
Jan 2014
#65
I'm mixed and I still support him. He's not going to be able to overturn 300 years of evil in 8 but
kelliekat44
Jan 2014
#34
I didn't expect the Democratic Party to abandon him in 2010 and then whine when he couldn't
bravenak
Jan 2014
#84
So I'm racist for pointing out that the one black president has been treated worse by his
bravenak
Jan 2014
#146
So we are expected to overlook everything we donlt like simply because of his race?
Armstead
Jan 2014
#147
You are expected to give him just as much credit as you'd give any other president
bravenak
Jan 2014
#148
I think you're entitlted to think I'm a racist and I'm entitled to think that it's disgusting that
cali
Feb 2014
#358
Another winger meme on the intertubes... NO he's not... still highest approval rates and some winger
uponit7771
Jan 2014
#51
Meanwhile, the Big Players were off the Corporate McPravda radar, like Jackson Stephens...
Octafish
Feb 2014
#370
like everyone else in this thread who hates the op, you have no ability to respond
cali
Jan 2014
#39
+1, "presided over" as if Bush's NDPA had nothing to do with the overheated housing market that
uponit7771
Jan 2014
#62
I was just pointing out that you did the same exact thing you were getting on him for.
bravenak
Jan 2014
#227
Winger meme - "who has presided over the sharpest increases in economic inequality" is to act as if
uponit7771
Jan 2014
#42
Agree: The line of economic criminality goes back to 1971 and Reverse Robin Hood.
Octafish
Jan 2014
#93
So what? Global Research adds to what we know. You, on the other hand, don't.
Octafish
Jan 2014
#131
Are you implying that the black agenda reports is supposed to mean something to black people?
bravenak
Jan 2014
#204
Thousands of good jobs repairing and rebuilding Americas infrastructure are still waiting
randr
Jan 2014
#81
Yeah. But that would mean BFEE - those who profit from mineral extraction - would have to sacrifice.
Octafish
Feb 2014
#478
"That's absolute bullshit. It will have an immediate impact on a half a million workers."
rhett o rick
Jan 2014
#199
I am happy to go thru it again. Your statement that, "It will have an immediate impact on a half a
rhett o rick
Jan 2014
#224
Yes, that's my claim. What does that have to do with the Ford's bullshit claim?
ProSense
Jan 2014
#226
President Obama has always used Bill Clinton's third way as a guide in his Admin.
Vinnie From Indy
Jan 2014
#100
Being able to take conservative policies and make a few minor adjustments was Bill Clinton's
Vinnie From Indy
Feb 2014
#395
Where Democrats from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party may still find refuge...
Octafish
Feb 2014
#471
Income inequality is a symptom, the disease is a corrupt political system and campaign finance
mother earth
Jan 2014
#175
Is This Barack Obama's 2nd Term? Is it Bill Clinton's 3rd? Or Is It Ronald Reagan's 9th?
Octafish
Jan 2014
#249
Fred Hampton saw the big picture too, here's a K&R in his memory (I met him in 1967, no lie!)
bobthedrummer
Jan 2014
#196
WHY do you even bother responding to that person? He types the same damn thing in every thread!
Number23
Jan 2014
#269
I am guessing that when our corporate masters put H. Clinton-Sachs in the WH that
rhett o rick
Jan 2014
#271
If you call being against the growing wealth inequality "self-righteous nonsense"
rhett o rick
Jan 2014
#279
You posted a link to wiki instead of reponding to a question about your vote...
ProSense
Jan 2014
#298
we need a NEW democratic party, and not one built from the ashes of the current one....
mike_c
Jan 2014
#257
if you think dismissing glen ford's article as bullshit is a hideable offense, then alert.
dionysus
Jan 2014
#308
Glen Ford: Wall Street and the wealthiest Americans have bought Washington...
Octafish
Feb 2014
#444
"Danced like Mr. Bojangles" is how your source described the President. And you post that racist
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#448
Disingenuous. Ford did not write that in the article I posted. It came from your article.
Octafish
Feb 2014
#451
So. You're demanding I explain to you why you dragged in the article you dragged in.
Octafish
Feb 2014
#456
''Wall Street–the 1 percent–believes the world is theirs for the taking, and they want all of it.''
Octafish
Feb 2014
#460
No..I'm demanding you explain why Glen Ford..a man that has used racist language to
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#459
I think it's vile to pick a racist source..but to pick a source because you think that having
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#469
You are mistaken if you think the message of a racist is worth discussing. nt
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#468
Here's the bottom line: Welfare for the Wealthy and Austerity for the Many...
Octafish
Feb 2014
#490