Message auto-removed

[Name removed]

[TM99]

1. Fuck Sharpton,

he is god damned liar.

Sanders was on record clearly speaking out against the parts of the bill that hurt AA's the most. He voted for it because it was an omnibus crime bill that also included an assault weapon ban and the VAWA.

He is so full of shit. Calling minority kids superpredators that need to be brought to heel is not the same as voting for the omnibus bill due to the good parts and speaking out strongly and predictively against the bad.

[yallerdawg]

6. No, calling kids names...

is not at all the same as voting for the legislation.

Sharpton's just another lousy Democrat, right?

[RandySF]

33. And under the bus he goes.

[northernsouthern]

52. Well...

The HRC crew would have to pull him out from under their bus first.

https://myself.net/2016/02/10/bernie-sanders-partnering-with-al-sharpton/

There is also this...



I never was a fan of Al, he was always seemed like he only cared for himself and not his community.

[giftedgirl77]

7. Lol, your outrage is duly noted.

[Eko]

43. Yeah, the world is not as cut and dried as some would like.

Sharpton is correct that Sanders did vote for it but that takes his position out of context. People like to do that sometimes, make someones actions into something else by actually misconstruing their actual positions from their votes. To see another example of this you should go here https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2002-10-10/html/CREC-2002-10-10-pt1-PgS10233-7.htm hit control f and type in this (Page S10288) to search and read from there.

[TM99]

44. Oh, damn, you are so fucking good.

You got me. Yes, I am mortally wounded.

His speaking out against the bad omnibus crime bill that also had good things in it is EXACTLY like Clinton speaking out for the single Iraq War vote with nothing but worst things it it.

[Eko]

46. Tell that to the Kurds.

[Eko]

47. also, no reason to be so dramatic.

I have no idea on your position about Clinton's vote on the Iraq war. It was in no way a attack on you I was just illustrating the point.

[TM99]

48. I am sorry

but I am laughing at your false equivalency.

There is no valid point in that post. They simply are not the same. Clinton was not presented with an omnibus bill that had 'let fucking invade Iraq' at the same time it had 'lets solve the hunger problem in Africa'. She did not have to vote for it. Many smart Democrats and Independents including Sanders, Lee, etc. did not. She also did not have to stand up and parrot word for fucking word the Bush Co justifications and lies, but she did willingly.

Can you not see the glaring difference?

[Eko]

49. Huh, she had reservations about it and spoke about it. This is record.

Clinton.
"Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I
would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest
priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I
take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a United
Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible."

[JDPriestly]

61. Sanders explained that he was voting for the Crime Bill because it had two specific

provisions in it that he wanted to see enacted. (See the comments above which explain what those two provisions were.)

The Crime Bill had some bad provisions that Bernie stated in Congress he did not like. It had two good provisions that he did like. Bernie weighed the pros and cons and voted for the bill because the pros outweighed the cons. Still Bernie was very specific about that the cons were.

Hillary never identified the specific pros and cons of the Iraq War Resolution. In fact, it had no pros that outweighed the cons. Her problem with the bill was simply that it did not adequately bind the president to try to negotiate.

But there were other cons to the Iraq War Resolution. It did not require the president to wait for the outcome of the international inspectors' report or absolutely get a supportive vote in the United Nations before invading Iraq. It was very clearly a bad resolution. Hillary Clinton voted for it, and her vote showed poor judgment.

The April 2004 edition of Vanity Fair has an excellent article about the failure of Bush to do due diligence before getting into the Iraq War.

Hillary lived in the White House. She counts her life in the White House as experience qualifying her for the presidency. She should have known better than to vote for the Iraq War Resolution.

Bernie's vote for the Crime Bill was well considered. Hillary's vote for the Iraq War Resolution was simply not very intelligent or discerning. Somewhere there is an old video of the Code Pink women warning Hillary not to vote for the IWR. I saw that video and became completely turned off to Hillary. You need the version in which the Code Pink women talk, not just the one in which Hillary talk.

And you should read that April 2004 Vanity Fair article.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2004/05/path-to-war200405

[Eko]

63. Thats not a con????

"Her problem with the bill was simply that it did not adequately bind the president to try to negotiate." Really, her problem with it but its not a con?

[Eko]

50. They are the same

as far as taking someones vote out of context of their actual position. I think Sanders vote (crime bill) is easier to defend in the long run than Clintons probably. But that doesnt change the fact that people are taking her vote way out of context also.

[TM99]

51. I don't know why you just don't respond

with one post.

Bluntly no they are not. The passage you quoted is pure hypocrisy as you took a few lines out of the total context of the speech which is right here and I am going to quote it in its entirety because of all of the sugar coating that is going on with regards to it.

Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.

I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.

Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.

As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.

In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.

But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.

In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.

So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?

While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.

I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

Thank you, Mr. President.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/01/12/435624/-A-golden-oldie-Hillary-s-floor-speech-to-invade-Iraq

Read it all. Read it carefully. This is not someone who is concerned about their vote. She gives it 'with conviction'. She trusts everything the Bush Administration is telling her. She ties 9/11 to Iraq and believes New Yorkers do as well.

So no, you are flat out fucking wrong. This is the context of her vote. This was a singular bill with nothing of value in it like the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill. She is not speaking out against one aspect and then praising the other as we have Sanders on record doing. This is flat out support of the Iraq War, the Bush Administration, and the invasion of Iraq that everyone knew was coming.

Trying to re-write history not even 20 years old shows how sorry this campaign and the Clinton machine truly is.

No, no, and hell no, these are not the same. Period.

[Eko]

53. I dont know, I think its pretty clear.

"My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world."

"Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections. "

"for the rule of international law"
"for the rule of international law"
"for the rule of international law"
"I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections."
"I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections. "
"I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections. "

Was she wrong in trusting Bush, absolutely. But she did not vote to go to war, she actually voted to give the president that power as a means to gain unlimited inspections by the UN as promised (supposedly) by Bush. She made it clear that unlimited inspections was her goal. Crystal clear.

[TM99]

54. You are parsing again out of the context

of the historical events, the previous UN resolutions, what we knew about weapon inspectors in Iraq, and the pushing of the war that Bush Co did in the media and at the UN. She used their exact phrases. There is literally a video on Youtube that demonstrates this word for fucking word.

That you are on this site, in part founded as opposition to Bush and the Iraq War, and are justifying this vote tells me so much about you, and bluntly it is not good. I lost friends in that war. I lost fellow soldiers in that war. I have treated countless vets wounded physically and mentally by that war. Those that trusted, parroted, and supported Bush Co in that illegal invasion will never be forgiven or given a pass by me.

We are done here because if you continue I will say shit that you do not want to hear that will definitely lead to me getting juried.

[Eko]

56. Wow, 1st of all I never justified this vote

the fact that you continue to put words in my mouth tells me a lot about you. I think the vote was wrong but I dont think she was voting to invade Iraq I think like she said that she wanted the UN to pass unlimited inspections and the threat of war would pressure them into it. Bush unfortunately called the inspectors out before that could finish and started the war. You say I am parsing out of context, please show me. I live in a military town, I grew up here, over half of my friends that I grew up with joined, lots of friends I have are/were in the military, some because they didn't make it back. So I don't need you to lecture me about that at all please. On the last thing, I most definitely want to you continue so I can hear the "shit" you have to say. I am not some little kid, so go ahead buddy.

[TM99]

59. You think the vote was wrong but still give her a pass.

You trust her even though she is a proven liar and manipulator of her persona.

It is one thing to live on the periphery of the military and war, it is a god damned different thing altogether to actually be in one.

I won't take a hide educating the likes of you on that reality. If you actually grokked it then you would understand why she does not get a pass. None of them do. I hold every last D & R who voted for that invasion equally responsible. But one of the people who did not vote for that war is running for President. There is still hope.

[Eko]

62. Yeah, so

me saying that her vote was wrong but also saying that her intention wasn't to go to war is giving her a pass and not historical record. This isn't about trust at all. Periphery? You keep attacking me instead of the actual discussion. Also, I never said she got a pass did I? So maybe you can stop with your infantile preconceptions of me and have an actual adult discussion, maybe? I am not holding out much hope, but we will see if you are up to the task.

[TM99]

67. You apparently can not recognize that you parsing of her language

and justifying her speech and vote, yes, are indeed giving her a pass. You said it was wrong but that it is ok now which again is giving her a pass.

I do not tolerate those who justify that war whether they are politicians or anonymous kids on the internet. I don't give a shit if you think that is attacking you. And my perceptions are exactly the ones you have given me with your posts. Maybe when you grow up, you will understand why.

But now, I am definitely done because otherwise I would go off on your punk ass.

[Eko]

57. So, to wrap that up.

I think her vote was wrong because it gave power to Bush to start the Iraq war. She shouldn't have trusted him at this at all. But, clearly she advocated for pressuring the UN into giving unlimited inspections using the threat of invasion with backing by the UN for that to achieve the inspections. Was her vote wrong, yes, did she vote to go to war, no.

[itsrobert]

2. Well, Al has lost a lot of weight

So the Bernie Bus wont have any trouble running him over.

[RATM435]

3. Al sharpton is a fucking scumbag.

[TexasBushwhacker]

4. Which is Al's way of saying he's still supporting her

Whatever

[Zira]

60. No, if you watch Democracy Now they interview BLM and you get this sometimes.

I usually have a lot of respect for Sharpton. I doubt he is supporting Hillary. I think he didn't look enough into Bernie or Bernies words in context for this comment he made. I think sometimes he ventures into the catagory of all whites a bad when he's pointing out actual issues. He appears to be going for the catagory that neither side supports blacks enough. I would say he is being fair but not completely informed on Bernies context for voting for the bill. Voting for that may have stopped assault weapons, but it did way more damage to the people who had their lives destroyed over it, than people who would have been killed by assault weapons. I suspect it killed way more by incarcerating people.

The law keep blacks poor and behind, and creates a viscious cycle of violence from being poor and having no honest means to come out of that because of criminal record - increasing death among blacks. It continues to do that today. It is an evil law. Sharpton is ultimately right.


(deleted most of my babbling)

[merrily]

5. AGAIN with this same shit? He voted for it only because it was linked to a woman's health bill.

That was not Clinton's position. Therefore, Sharpton is mistaken.

Will we have to refute this again the next time another person says this?

[TM99]

15. No it is not but

when you got a neoliberal triangulator in chief pushing tough on crime bills mixed with the Violence Against Women Act, then yeah, how do you vote for one and not the other? You can't. So you speak out on the odious aspects forcefully and vote for VAWA.

But nice of you to show up here and try to spin it else-wise.

[merrily]

20. Whenever a post consists of "So,"followed by crap you never posted, you know all you need to know.

[TM99]

21. Isn't that the damned truth!

[Salviati]

38. Here, let me google that for you

Bernie Sanders: Incarcerating a Country (4/13/1994)

[sketchy]

42. Damn, this is good

[merrily]

19. And if he voted against the bill, women would have died and this thread would be about that.

What part of "no reasonable alternative" is beyond your ability to comprehend?

But, you didn't answer my question. How many time are we going to see this same nonsense?

[Plucketeer]

11. Al and the rest of the "Liberals" at MSNBC

get their talking points HANDED to them.

[SunSeeker]

65. No. Sanders voted for it before VAWA got in the bill.

Sanders did not vote for the bill because of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) nor the assault weapons ban — that's the popular Sanders supporter rationale and falsehood, but it's a falsehood nonetheless.

Sanders voted for the bill in the House before the VAWA or the assault weapons ban were added into it. The provision which his supporters use to try and excuse Sanders was added in the Senate when Sanders was, at that time in House. Sanders voted for the earlier House Conference version. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1994/roll416.xml

In October 1993, Jack Brooks of Texas introduced the original Violent Crime and Control Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a bill which was originally written by Senator Joe Biden. This version didn’t include an assault weapons ban nor protections for women. Both of which Sanders and his apologists have tried to play off as why he voted for the Crime bill.

As others have noted, the bulk of the African American and other minority communities (including Congress members) pushed for and wanted this bill. Those who supported and voted for it were trying to address a wildfire of crime and violence that was disproportionally impacting African American communities and killing African Americans. The bill had longer-term, unintended consequences which the Clintons (even though Hillary didn't actually vote on the bill), most of the supporters of the legislation, as well as Sanders recognize and want to make changes to the law and policies to help mitigate those unintended consequences.

President Bill Clinton made attempts to soften the bill:

Clinton also tried to contain the Senate’s more conservative impulses, successfully narrowing the scope of its “three strikes” mandatory life sentence provision in the final version. “We shouldn't litter it up with every offense in the world,” Clinton admonished, saying it should focus on the “relatively small number of people that are wreaking heartbreak and devastation and death.”

Clinton’s efforts to soften the Senate version and include prevention programs won support for the bill from several members of the Congressional Black Caucus. The caucus chairman said at the end of the process, “We have put our stamp on this bill.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/02/22/dont_punish_clinton_sanders_for_1994_crime_bill_129729.html


Further, as noted in Mother Jones, statistics show the 1994 crime bill "didn't create the carceral state or even give it much of a boost. That had happened many years before." http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/02/get-your-memes-right-1994-crime-bill-didnt-create-mass-incarceration

[appalachiablue]

8. Bernie said young teen black and latino kids were Super-Predators that need to be brought

to heel? Al, show us the Tape, please!

[appalachiablue]

16. Are you serious? "Kids that are called Super-Predators, no conscience, no empathy...

first we have to bring them to heel."

[TM99]

29. I am sick of explaining this

but will one more time for the newb.

The myth of the superpredators was a racist pseudo-psychological theory pushed by criminologists created by one at Princeton, who later admitted to its racist origins after he found Christ.

So when Clinton gave her speech on superpredator kids that need to be brought to heel, she and everyone else who was paying attention knew exactly who she meant and how she meant it.

Do some research. You are embarrassing yourself.

[appalachiablue]

32. Do the basic research which is all over this board. At the time latino and black kids

were the most disadvantaged, at risk and involved in adverse juvenile behavior. Common knowledge.

[w4rma]

64. Bill Clinton "also defended Mrs Clinton's use of the word “super predators” to describe black youth"

Mr Clinton also said that then-Senator Joe Biden advised him to add provisions that would give harsher prison sentences to offenders in order to gain Republican support. He also defended Mrs Clinton's use of the word “super predators” to describe black youth.

“This is what's the matter,” Mr Clinton said. “I don't know how you would characterize the gang leaders who got 13-year-old kids hopped up on crack and sent them out into the street to murder other African-American children. Maybe you thought they were good citizens, she didn't. She didn't. You are defending the people who kill the lives you say matter.”

Mr Clinton added: “I’ll tell you another story about a place where black lives matter: Africa.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/bill-clinton-says-black-lives-matter-activists-are-defending-murderers-and-drug-dealers-a6973946.html

[6000eliot]

39. Sanders just voted for the bill that tossed those kids into prison and threw away the key.

Out of political expedience. Totally different thing. This is how we know we are in the land of political spin.

[TM99]

17. Yes, she did.

Go watch the videos. You are young obviously so I am sure you are familiar with this cool site called YouTube.

[TM99]

31. Already answered.

[onecaliberal]

9. Fuck him, he's selling out just like the rest of them. How do they sleep?

[xloadiex]

13. Maybe Sharpton

should concentrate on paying the 3.7 million in back taxes he still owes instead of blowing off his big mouth.

Why this guy is even asked his opinion baffles me.

[TM99]

18. Why?

Sanders will release his. And there are currently no legalities involved. Unlike the Clinton's from 1994 with Whitewater and Al's.

[TM99]

25. Oh, I imagine right after he wins NY.

That good enough for you.

When is Clinton releasing her transcripts?

[TM99]

30. They haven't been in a lot of states

Sanders has won.

[TM99]

40. Hardly.

You neglected to list a few that she soundly lost in despite the polling numbers.

But I would expect no less from the likes of you.

[TM99]

45. Go back to school kid.

Few was in reference to your reply. But hey nice try!

Sometimes I really wish I could tell y'all what y'all really deserve to hear in reply.

[winstars]

55. Whitewater, Are you fucking kidding? Hillary sucks and Bernie is great I think we got it now, thanks

[TM99]

58. What, you think that Whitewater was not an actual

real thing? That it was just some made up right wing scandal?

God damn, so many Democrats are willfully ignorant about the Clintons. They are constantly doing these types of borderline illegal and completely unethical things which then allows the GOP to run with it.

Had Benghazi still occurred but Clinton was simply using a .gov email address like she should have been, it would have ended with a simple FOIA request. Period. But no, she set up a private server in the basement of her home. She lied to the IT people. She erased documents after turning the server over to a private company. She played footsie with Blumenthal who Obama specifically said she could not as his SoS. She played loose with classified documents on said server. She gave them so much ammunition it is just silly.

The Clintons always do this shit. I have known them politically since the 1980's when I was station in Arkansas. This is just how they roll.

[appalachiablue]

34. That would set Al right, got to do it.

[Chicago1980]

22. Hissy fit from the Burnsters.

[RandySF]

35. And the bodies pile up after getting caught under the Bernie Bus

[6000eliot]

36. "Wah! He called out my candidate! He's a Meanie!"

"Let's attack him now!"

[In_The_Wind]

68. Locking because this OP belongs in GD:P. Please post it again there.

Statement of Purpose

Post the latest news from reputable mainstream news websites and blogs. Important news of national interest only. No analysis or opinion pieces. No duplicates. News stories must have been published within the last 12 hours. Use the published title of the story as the title of the discussion thread.


[img][/img]