MovieChat Forums > The Reagans (2020) Discussion > The Reagans: brilliant documentary on th...

The Reagans: brilliant documentary on the Reagan years ...

posted 4 years ago by brux (14840)
116 replies | jump to latest

even more memorable because of all the nascent techniques of "plausible deniability" with dog-whistling, winks and nods to special elites.

With commentary from and video footage from Reagan himself, Nancy, son Ron, George Schultz, Grover Norquist and many many others from both sides of the political spectrum.

Packed full of history and contextualized to its time, this is a video document that tells the story that led right up to today. Very brilliant ... I'd rate it a solid 10/10. "The Reagans" is something every single American would get something out of watching and every single American should watch.

Something that illuminates history in this time of pandemic and staying at home in a way that every American child going to school could learn something from.

[–] redban (6776) 2 years ago

Brilliant? This was left-wing criticism

[–] brux (14840) 2 years ago

That's just how the right-wing dismissing criticisms of their fascism.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

"FASCISM"? lol!!!!

We are happy to deal with serious criticism. But if you talk "Fascism" you are just a shit talker spewing lefty propaganda.

Reagan was a great President. And anyone that is surprised that Nancy, despite filling teh public role of First Lady, held serious power behind the scenes, is ignorant of how men and women live(d) together before the idiocy of modern feminism.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

Hate to break it to you but Regan was not perfect by any metric. Remember these classy comments he made in history? https://www.npr.org/2019/07/31/747041525/historian-discusses-recording-of-reagans-racists-comments-made-to-nixon

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

So, we move from "fascism" to one comment about some people he was upset with? lol.

Reagan's eight years as President, his policies and results show no sign of "fasicsm" or racism.

As I said before and weill say again, we cons are happy to accept and discuss serious criticism.

Any piece that claims he "announced his candidacy" AFTER he was already nominated by the Party to be the candidate or that he choose that town as some sort of secret code to the supposedly terribly wacist white voters of the country,

is not that. It is bullshit lefty propaganda.

And also, nice moving of the goalpost from "Great" to "perfect". Nice icing on the cake there, buddy.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

So in one breath you say you are willing to discuss serious criticism, once I bring up something he said you get all defensive. Those were comments he made. The beautiful thing is you can't argue with facts.

I did not comment on his policies I was pointing out how he is not some great person tons of right wingers try to paint him as.

That is a serious criticism. Notice how defensive you got? So Sorry I have a hard time believing you are willing to discuss it.

That was not what I claimed. His comments were rather um not nice. You can dress that up any way you please.

No goal post moved. So I will even humor you. I do not even think he was a great president. You happy?

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

You are tryhing to define him by one out of context comment from a lifetime of achievement and poilicy.

That is not a serious criticism. That is a silly gotcha.

It is what your linked article claimed. DId you not read your own article before you linked to it?

[–] brux (14840) 2 years ago

So what you are denying the President that moved us closer to plutocratic fascist than any other and started all this debt problem by running constant deficits. You are merely a mindless supporter of Conservatives that would not look at the facts if you could.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

In the old days, before Clown World, it was on the one making the ACCUSATION to support their claim, not the responsibility of the accused to prove their innocence.

Reagan was reelected winning every state except Mondale's home state of Minnesoda and he only lost that one by .18%.

That is not a "plutocrat". That is an insanely popular President with an excellent record cruising to an easy victory.

[–] brux (14840) 2 years ago

Nixon won with the largest majority - it means nothing other than he was able to fool an even more stupid public than we have today, or that our elections have nothing to do with reality and are a big reality show that is fake.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

The reality was that the economy was doing great and that our national security was better than ever.

The voters of the time, the ones that lived under him, loved him and relected him massively.

Any lefty that says that he was a "plutocrat" is living in a fantasy land.

[–] liscarkat (19416) 2 years ago

All lefties live in fantasy land.

[–] sut6432 (2928) 2 years ago

You are merely a mindless supporter of Conservatives that would not look at the facts if you could.

You need to read your exact words you wrote here in a mirror, except switch out “conservatives” and change it to “liberals”.

The hypocrisy of modern politics is astounding.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

No I am calling out some wrongdoings he did. Which it seems you are incapable of admitting flaws in anyone who happens to be republican.

Not a gotcha it is a fact which you can't argue with.

I did read it and it displays his comments in all it's glory. Remember though there is plenty wrong with Regan not just that issue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWmhMjN0G8I

https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/03/30/reagans-treason-two-bushes-and-the-23-million-payoff/

Even if I look past his comments there are plenty of areas Reagan messed up. Folks like you simply are willing to look past it unfortunately.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

He talked harshly about some poeple he was mad at. That is it. That you want to focus on that and ignore his administration's massive economic growth or ending the Cold War?

Hilarious.

I am not blind faith. You are blind skepticism.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

Harshly? That is putting it mildly. Something tells me you wouldn't be all that liberal had it that door swung the other way. His trickle down effect was terrible. This is not about me not liking right wing presidents it is me seeing through the lie that he is some great president.

Quite the accusation there. Notice how I did not do that to you. Lets keep things civil.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

You mean with shit like when Obama's preacher said, GOD DAMN AMERICA?

i mean, the difference with that example is that Obama's preacher stated that his church was a black liberation theology church. It was a "comment" that you could look at and see how it fit with a lifetime of anti-American beliefs.

Reagan? His comment CLASHED with his lifetime of policy and actions.

And when you accused me of not being able to "admit flaws", taht was you accusing me of being "blind" so, I my comment was called for.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

See and immediately you jump to something else. A pathetic attempt to deflect from words your glorious president said. Regan's comments do not get erased suddenly because of other comments made by someone else. Those comments were more than harsh. If those were made towards you you I sincerely doubt would be so liberal about the comments.

Nope also untrue. You going to ignore his failed tickle down philosophy he had? How about how he viewed drugs or his policy on drug use?

I said I had a feeling you would not admit to flaws. I never claimed to know what you were thinking or that you outright would not. That is not an accusation. You said I was blind skepticism. So no that was not warranted. Lets play nice now sound good? I suspected you were biased, and you are confirming my suspicions with each post you make.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

Err, you brought up the idea of comparing my reaction if the shoe was on the other foot...

So, I brought up a good example to discuss your point...

His economic pollicies led to a massive economic upturn, that lasted though mosts of his administration and most of Bush's.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

Because you took a very liberal soft approach to Regan's words. I do not think you would take that approach if Obama was to say something that scathing about your group.

You need to do some research. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWmhMjN0G8I

https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/03/30/reagans-treason-two-bushes-and-the-23-million-payoff/

His trickle down philosophy was nothing short of disastrous. Not to mention that he was involved in stuff people now would think of as treasonous.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

Obama did talk shit on "my group", when he talked of poeple in the rust belt, clinging to their guns and bibles.

The difference is that that fits with his lifetime of racist anti-white behaviour, like being a member of Wright's church,

while Reagan, was a member of a normal mainstream political party that has supported equal rights for blacks since before I was born.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

I never said he did not. Notice how you were not so willing to look past it as you are with Reagan? With Regan you said he said some harsh things. Yeah as I said earlier that is putting it mildly. That gives an insight as to how he feels about black people now doesn't it?

Oh do not get me started on Regan's behavior. His policies did not help out minorities especially with his approach to the drug war.

Supporting equal rights does not mean it results in equal rights. If he was seriously about that his trickle down policies would have worked and he wouldn't have approached the drug war in the manner in which he did. Not to mention did you see that I provided he was involved in treasonous acts? Or we just going to bypass that also?

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

1. And I explained the difference. Obama's comment fit in nicely with the rest of his life, and Reagan's did not. It clearly did NOT give an insight into how he feels about blacks, it gave an insight into how frustrated he was, with the behavior of some certain individuals at that time.

2. His policies were massively helpful to minorities. Tthe black middle class EXPLODED under Reagan. The Drug War? Black leadership ASKED for help dealing with the crack epidemic.

3. So, you admit he supported equal rights for blacks? Because that seroiusly clashes with the "comment".

4. Don't keep adding issues to the debate. That is a way to avoid dealing with any points in depth. A tactic of peopel that fear the truth.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

No actually quite the contrary. Regan's policies he supported hurt a lot of minorities. Such as his view on stopping drug abuse. The drug war mainly targets minorities since they are charged with it more often than others are. So no I disagree wholeheartedly.

No the were not. As I stated before the drug war mainly targets minorities unfortunately. It does not matter who asked for help, that is not the way to handle the drug war. There is a more effective way to stop drug abuse.

I said supporting something does not mean it results in something. You miss that? Also support can be a simple façade

No I am addressing your points. You seem to act as if Regan never did wrong.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

1. "His view"? Like Reagan really got into the nuts and bolts of the implementation of law enforcement, so that he could target minorities?
Mmm, yeah, NO. You might be unhappy with the way it was done or the results, but claiming that it was a racist move by Reagan is absurb.

2. Yes, they were. The black middle class grew a lot. Small businesses. Ect.

3. You keep jumping back and forth from intent to results. I am willing to discuss either, but you are in effect constantly moving the goal post every time I address a point you make.

I repeat my question. Do you admit that Reagan supported equal rights for blacks?

4. When faced with unreasonable attacks, nuanced discussion is lost. If you want nuanced discussion, be more reasonable. This nation has had a bi-partisan concensus in favor of equality for blacks since the mid 60s. It is unreasonable to even hint that Reagan did not support that.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

If he truly was about helping them he wouldn't have supported policies which hindered them so much.

And they also got tons of drug charges which ruined a lot of lives. We are not going to only count the makes and ignore the misses.

I answered that question already.

Support does not equal result. Why did he support the drug war?

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

So, you really think that Ronald Reagan was HOTSTILE to black Americans?

Incredible.

This country has had a bi-partisan consensus on equality for blacks since the mid 60s, and it is worth pointing out that the party that had to drop it's opposition to that, to form that consensus is NOT the one that Reagan was part of, ie he was on board ever earlier.

The idea that ANY mainstream leader is agaisnt that, is utterly absurd.

That you disagreed with his polices on how to get there, is a how other discussion.

He supported teh drug war to because drugs, especially crack, was seen, and still is seen as a horrible scourge upon it's victims.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

Hostile is a very strong word. I do not think he did everything he could to help them. There were much better ways to help out minorities than what he ended up doing.

That does not mean that they are treated equally or that it is full proof. Minorities are arrested with drug charges more often. This is due to poverty being much higher among minorities. Someone's life should not be destroyed over marijuana charges and it has happened. It is ridiculous.

No it actually is quite relevant to my point. You are a person who looks at an agreement as proof that it is honored. It is a convenient way of dismissing an issue.

Drugs such as crack and others are awful. There are better ways to target the problem and the drug war is not it. It has been a catastrophic failure.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

See this is the problem I have with libs.

You throw out incredibly inflammatory claims like that an angry comment about a specific small group of individuals, defines Reagan's views on Black Americans,

but when called on that absurd claim, you sort of walk it back to

"well those polices didn't work and why are you being so defensive and you can't admit anything negative about the guy".

BUT, if I get into a nuanced discussion of policy, you will pepper it with snide implications that Reagan didn't get the results YOU think he should, becuase he didn't WANT good results for blacks.

That last bit, where you accuse me of "looking at an agreement as proof it was honored"?

That's bs. YOU brought up intent, and my response was about his INTENT. You making a counter point about YOUR opinion on the results, is actually YOU moving the goalposts.

This country has had a BI-PARTISAN consensus on equality for blacks since before either of us was born.

EVERY President since then has supported equal rights for blacks.

Any discussion of this issue, should be a calm nuanced historical discussion with the understanding that American as a whole, and nearly every individual American wants good outcomes for blacks.

It should be a calm, civil discussion about the best way to get there.

Reagan supported the Drug War becuase drugs were hurting a lot of people and America wanted to help them.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

No it is because you use a view as if it produces results. Someone can be religious or not, it does not determine if they themselves are a good person. Regan saying he supports equality is good but his actions may be misguided and I believe they were. We got an insight to his views towards blacks by those comments he made. It is like saying that person did not commit murder he is a Christian... Christians don't believe in doing that...

Intent vs result is expanding on the discussion at hand. Some of the worst things came from good intentions.

Support once again does not mean that is what the results were. We also judge leaders off of their results and actions.

Explain how charging people with marijuana helps them?

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

1. And you do it again. YOu argue it was wrong of me to talk about INTENT, and then you IMMEDIATELY got RIGHT BACK TO INTENT, with that comment.

The comment was about some specifical african assholes. It showed NOTHING about his views of American blacks or how they should be treated. That view is shown by Reagan, by him aligning himself with the party of equal rights for blacks and decades fo policy.

2. So, why are you unable to give up that nonsense about the comment? Becuase you want to keep casting doubt on his committment to equality for blacks, even though you know you cannot defend it. So you employ a dishonest and evasive circular debating style.

3. See above. If you want to discuss results, than drop the bull shit about intent (with the comment) You cannot have it both ways.

4. Oh, so now you don't want to just talk about the overall drug war, NOW you want to discuss specifics? Sorry, no deal. That is you moving the goal posts AGAIN.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

Intent also has to do with actions and results. You want to stop the conversation at what he claimed to support. See my original example. Oh well the guy is Christian. You look at the murder weapon, it has all his dna all over it. Sorry sir he is Christian he did not do it, Christians do not believe in that. That is what you are doing. I question his intent because of those comments and actions. I do not just look at what he supports and ignore everything else like you do.

Um no it gave and insight as to how he felt about black people. Do not be apologetic about comments he made that were rather distasteful now.

I did not just mention the comment. I also pointed to results and actions he took. Okay let me drop the comments. That still leaves us with him supporting the drug war which mainly hinders minorities.

Lol you said he believed in it because he wanted to help black people. I then ask you to elaborate on how it helped. Then you run from the question. This tells me you know I have a point by your refusal to answer. Never moved the goal post I am asking you to prove how this was helping black people. Notice how I answer your questions but you do not answer mine? Your evasion shows you are deceitful. Answer the question. Do not duck and dodge. This is my issue with conservatives. Have the courage of your convictions.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

1. I do not want to stop the conversation. I want to exclude the any bullshit race baiting implying that he was not fully in support of equality for blacks. This country as a whole and all it's Presidents has been fully in on equality for blacks since the mid 60s. Any conversation about race that does not accept that, is... fucked in the head.

2. NO, it didn't. His political positions, and his decades of policy give a clear picture as to what "felt about black people". YOu want to ignore the forest to focus on one lone tree, that's really more of a shrub.

3. You pointed to YOUR OPINION on actions he took and then circled around to imply that since YOUR OPINON of those actions were negative that HIS INTENT must have been negative too. Which makes ZERO SENSE. You are ignoring the FACT that conservatives like Reagan and myself DISAGREE with you on policy. Your argument is based on your irrational belief that we AGREE with you, when you know thath we do NOT.

4. Nope. You moved the goal posts from teh all drugs to just pot. And me calling you on that is not me running from the question, but poitning out that YOU feel a need to play dishonest debating tactics to defend your position.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

I am not talking about policy race baiting. You can drop your sword about that. Yet again though just because something is a policy does not mean it is followed. Results and actions show what someone's intent is. Regardless of what they say.

Yes it did. It casts doubt as to whether he is doing that simply for a public virtue rather than it being genuinely the right thing to do. So no we are not going to ignore bad comments simply because of a policy he supports.

Someone can disagree with me on a policy. When those policies produce objectively bad results I have a right to call into question what their intent was behind those actions. So no I realize you disagree I just question people's actions I disagree with.

Lol really? I was generalizing and talking about drugs. I did not realize you were going to get hung up on semantics. Okay so let me frame the question again to suit your liking. How does charging people with drug use help them? Even if I specifically say all drugs that also includes pot. So how does charging people with this stuff help them? You now have to account for all the charges including pot. Lets hear your explanation. I think you are running from the question. However here is your chance to prove me wrong. You now can answer the question about all drug charges in general.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

1. The intent is clear. Any questioning of it is not reasonable.

2. Yes, ignore one shot comments that were aimed at specific individuals in the heat of hte moment in favor of looking at entire lifetimes of actions. That this seems weird to you, if because you want to IGNORE the obvious truth and say bad shit about your enemies.

3. You are not "questioning" his intentions. You are ASSUMING negative intentions and judging him by that. That is you being unreasonable. There are plenty of other possibilities rather than negative intent. And your negative intent, to keep it real, is absurd. This nation has had a bi-partisan consensus on equality for blacks since before either of us were born.

4. Who said that charging people with drugs was meant to help those specific individuals? We were discussing black people as a group, and now you have moved the goal post to just black people arrested with drugs.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

No not how it works. I am free to question anyone I please. I question his intent because of the result of his policies.

Again even if I ignore that I can't look past some of the policies which negatively affected minorities.

I am leaning more towards negative because of what I have seen of the results of his policies.

This is your quote verbatim.

Reagan supported the Drug War becuase drugs were hurting a lot of people and America wanted to help them.

How does this help anyone? I pointed out how minorities are most affected by this policy. I moved no goal post. You are again running away from the question. Answer it. How does charging people with drugs help them?

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

This country has had a bi-partisan consensus on equality for blacks since before either of us were born.

YOU are taking YOUR disagreements with national policy, and assuming that YOUR way of looking at it is the only way and then assigning negative intent to those that support that policy when there are MANY other , far more likely answers.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

You repeating that does not magically make it so that Regan's policies were all positive. Nor does it make it to where his intentions were positive.

Yet again you dodged the question. Let me ask the question again. How does charging people with drugs help them?

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

Reagan's intentions towards black Americans were all positive.

As have been ALL US PRESIDENTS, and US national policy as a whole since at least the mid 60s.

And, to a great extent BEFORE THAT.

Why are you tryihng to divide the American people and turn US against each other?

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

I disagree. You are hiding behind a policy. As I said earlier it is a convenient way to stop the conversation at that and not move forward. Nice tactic but I see through it.

Lol before that even? No Nixon was who started the war on drugs. The results behind that were disastrous. The intent I also question. It led to systemic abuse of human rights. Want some insight? here you go. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJUXLqNHCaI

Nope you are not running from the question by ignoring it and asking me one. Answer my question and then I will gladly answer yours.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

1. I am "hiding" behind generations of policy and consensus with those policies. THe disagreements were always just about HOW to achieve the goals. Your claims otherwise are nonsense.

2. Well, I was clearly referring to how early REAGAN joined the pro-civil rights REPUBLICANS, but if you want to move the goal posts to NIXON, his signiture policy was DESEGREGATING SOUTHERN SCHOOLS.

3. Dude. YOU are making the claim of a US president opposing a policy consensus of generations. THe burder of proof is ON YOU.

That I need to explain that to you, is very revealing about your/the lefty mindset.

[–] brux (14840) 2 years ago

These are fake accounts trying to make it seem like support for the Right-wing is a thing when most people with a brain know Reagan was an incompetent idiotic corrupt plutocrat enabler.

Keep enough stupid nonsense comments in front of people and they believe most other people are idiots, and they better keep quiet.

Reagan's massive economic growth was only the false numbers fixing of the hostile takeoevers of all American industry, and the tax cuts that made it seem - and still do - that America is prospering when everyone else is paying the elites through the deficit/debt.

Then there was the trickle-down BS. Corbell is a BS reguritator.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

The economic growth was real. Your denial is akin to that of a flat earther.

[–] Stratego (31075) 2 years ago

F off, trolling shill.

[–] brux (14840) 2 years ago

Know where Reagan began his Presidential campaign?

If Reagan was not a fascist why were fascist dictatorships in South and Central America the only things he supported?

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

1. Who cares?

2. LOL. He supporteed a lot of things, such as Civil Rights, NATO, the US economy, the first treaty eleminating a class of nuclear weapons, ect. ect. ect.

3. Reagan was beloved by the people that knew him, ie the voters of his time. That you think he was a fascist, is you being lied to by liars.

[–] brux (14840) 2 years ago

You claim Reagan was good because he had a bunch of fools fooled - just like Trump.
That's just the dysfunctional way Republicans think - just stick to the lie.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

Funny. You attacked him for supporting "Fascists" and when i pointed out other stuff he supported, like Civil Rights, you just sort of dropped that whole line of shit talk.

[–] brux (14840) 2 years ago

I never shit talk. That seems more up your alley.
If you have access to NPR listen to the current edition of "On The Media" interview with Naomi Orestes who just happened to be talk about Reagan.
Anyway, doesn't matter because you stated you don't care about the facts, you are here to troll of the Right - so FU.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

lol. NPR? Couldn't get the Party broadcasts from teh Kremlin anymore? LOL.

Reagan, more than any other single person, won the Cold War, ending the primary commie threat.

[–] brux (14840) 2 years ago

If Reagan won the Cold War, why are we still fighting it dips hit?

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

OMG. That has to be the dumbest question of ...well, not all time. But quite a bit of time.

[–] brux (14840) 2 years ago

"You're dumb" ... great argument, one of the only Conservative arguments there is.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

Your question was dumb. LIke do you were a helmut to protect yourself in case you decide to spend the next two days banging your head off a wall, dumb.

The Cold War ended, when the soviet union broke apart. That you didn't notice that, is you being really stupid.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

See my original point. You have no interest in discussing the results of policies. You want to stop the conversation there and not move forward. It is a non starter and you know it. Consensus? Lots of people consider some of those policies a failure. So no I am allowed to disagree with you.

I did not move the goal post. You referred to all presidents in the mid 60's and some even before that. Nixon falls into this category. Another one of his signature policies was the drug war. Tell me how that policy worked out?

I provided proof and you ignored it. The drug war was a failure. There is no debating that. Also nice yet again you dodged my question. Funny why won't you answer the question? You know I have you dead to rights which is why you are running from the question. I did not dodge any of your questions yet you dodged mine. You know I have a point and are intentionally ducking and dodging. This is common among blind conservatives though.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

You are trying to have TWO entirely seperate discussions at once, a discussion about INTENT, specifically if Reagan (and other republicans" are evul wacist, and also a discussion as to the effectiveness of some of their policies, kind of sort of, but really just to snidely cite your opinon of them every now and again, to sor tof support your race baiting.

I would be happy to discuss either. But discussing both at the same time is just a way for you to be able to pivot quickly from "one foot" to another, when the weakness of your arguments is revealed.

The DRUG WAR, you think is your gotcha issue, to support your claim of racism. But you keep RUNNING AWAY from teh fact that even if we were to accept that "Failure" as a premise,

your leap from that "Failure" to an assumption that that means that the policy MUST HAVE BEEN just a wacist way to target blacks to keep them down... because the pure happy EVULNESS OF WHITE REPUBLICANS, MAHA MAHA, MAHA HA HA HA,

is completely unsupported nonsense.

Indeed, more than completely unsupported, it flies in teh face of GENERATIONS OF DOCUMENTED HISTORY AND NATIONAL POLICY AND POLITICAL CONSENSUS.

In this context, you declare of "winning" is the most delusional thing I have read, since I put moviefan on ignore.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

When you can see racism that is not race baiting it is calling out what it is. Certain policies target minorities worse than others. You want to hide behind a policy as if it is followed. You assume that when a policy fails there is no ill intent behind it. I tend to view it differently. Lets say I grant you that. So does that mean there is no ill intent or ulterior motive behind any failed policy? So then all policies regardless of failure have no ill intent?

No it is you dodging the question because you know you have no point.

The drug war is a big time gotcha and it is easy to see why. The drug war was a failure history has shown that. Why if it was such a failure and continued to harm minorities was it followed for so long? We had history with alcohol to teach us that prohibition creates a black market. Yet it is still followed. You actually might have had a point if it were the first time the policy was implemented. Turns out we have a playbook and blueprint as to how that policy turns out and affects people. Yet it still got followed even after the first time the policy was implemented. Do these leaders not know history? Is it just an honest mistake when we have tons and tons of results and data to show it is a failure? It is like someone claiming to not know the harms of cigarette smoke in this day and age. The first people who smoked had an excuse. Now we have years of science to determine that it is not good for you.

So then one has to speculate. If we have the playbook to show it is a failure why is it still being followed? That raises more questions then well it is a simple whoops. History does not get ignored by our leaders that much if there is no ill intent behind it. You can use that excuse when it first started. That excuse's expiration date has ran out. There is no more innocent ignorance anymore. If someone smokes cigarettes' now they know the risk and blatantly do not care. They know the policies harm people and affect minorities greatly, they obviously do not care.

I did not declare to win. I called you out for dodging the question. Which you are continuing to do. I am giving you the chance to prove me wrong. You won't do it. Anyone who ducks and dodges a simple question usually knows they have no legitimate answer. Notice I never dodged yours. That is because I have confidence in my point. You do not.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

I'm assuming nothing. I'm telling you that YOU don't get to assume ill intent AND a specific ill intent at that.

Your reason for being here is clearly to smear republicans as wacist, with Reagan as teh starting point.

Now so far, you have offered TWO pieces of evidence,

1. A comment about a group of specific assholes from Africa, that you assume shows he feels that way about America blacks too.

2. Your assumption that his intent for supporting the Drug War was to target blacks, for the evul joy of hurting blacks, MAWHA HA HA HA.

On the other side, we have GENERATIONS of national consensus and policy and history and support of said policy. And Reagans whole life of NOT being about that, at all.

So, now, start making your case seriously, or admit that you cannot.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

I can assume whatever I want as can you. You do not get to tell me what to assume.

No it is to call out wrongdoings by leaders and bad policies.

I have the drug war to back up my claim. You only have a policy which means you assume it is followed. Why does he support the drug war if it has shown to be a failure even before he got in? I get to question a policy when it has been proven to fail and yet leaders continue to implement it.

I did make my case lol. That is why you are ducking and dodging. I have been nothing but civil. No insults or anything. Now answer the question or concede that you can not answer it. If you dodge again I am going to assume you are not debating in good faith.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

Dude. YOu've done NOTHING to support your conclusion.

You choose to focus on teh one comment and ASSUME it means more than everything else in the world, without any real explaination from you as to why anyone else should share this... fantasy of yours.

AND you still just ASSUME that the ONLY POSSIBLE REASON TO SUPPORT A POLICY YOU DISAGREE WITH, IS RACISM.

Answer your question? DUDE, it is on YOU to support your "conclusion" though really the way you are doing it, you are just harping on a PREMISE, ie REPUBLICAN WACIST AND EVUL.

Why support a policy that you don't like?

Because we disagree with you on that. YOu don't get to just assign motives based on your disagreemnt.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

Yes I have actually. I mentioned how the drug war affects and harms people's lives. You are conveniently looking past that. Minorities are charged with more crimes for drug related offenses than anyone. It harms everyone but it harms minorities and people of low income the most.

Nope I even looked past the comment. I told you even if we omit that we still have the results of the drug war. You are ignoring that and acting as if I only mentioned his comment as a reason to believe I do not think he was a good president. This is deceit from you and you know it.

I do not think something is inherently racist simply because I disagree with it. However I have facts to support the drug war harms minorities the most. That is not an opinion it is an objective fact. You gladly go meh the intentions are good and stop the conversation there. You do not care to question why you just accept it. I question it because it has failed for years yet you and others are fine with trying to implement it why?

I did support my conclusion. Fact the drug war has been a failure. Fact more minorities are incarcerated for drug charges than anyone else. Fact it ruins tons of people's lives especially those with low income. https://drugpolicy.org/drug-war-stats/

You disagree with the facts I posted? No you know I am spitting facts which is why you are ducking and dodging. So lets go back to my original question. How does charging people with drugs help them? I do not believe it does but you are the one who said well they are trying to help them. So lets hear your explanation on how it helps them. I do get to question motives when people of your mindset continue to support something that has proven to fail. If someone is willingly ignoring history it must be for a reason. If this was the first time it was implemented sure you would have a case. We have history to show it is not a good thing for society. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8yYJ_oV6xk Watch that video from a former police officer. I provided proof now watch I bet you will continue to duck and dodge.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

A difference in arrest rates does not prove that the cause is racism.

Could be differences in rates of criminality, could be differences in behavior, could just be differences in demographic distribution.

But you just point to a differnce and ASSUME racism as the motive and expect me to go along with it.

That's a fail.

Meanwhile we have GENERATIONS of national bi-partisan consensus in America on equality for blacks, that you want to just ignore because "policy is not always implemented".

Dude. Who is the last US President that did not support equality for blacks?

Just reviewing it... Even freaking TRUMAN tried some civil rights shit, but got blocked by teh dems... FDR don't see anything from him, ok

You've got to go all teh way bacck to FDR to find a US President who did not run on or govern on a platform/policy of equality for blacks.

Your pretense that any mainstream figure is out to get blacks, to arrest them just for the sheer fun evulness of it all, is absurd.

Stop living in the past.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

It for sure absolutely raises lots of questions.

It also could be presidents not liking minorities as well. It could be a strategy in order to keep them from voting. Someone gets charged with a felony they can longer vote. Interesting that minorities are the main ones that get charged with drug crimes.

And you automatically assume because someone supports something that it means they are not racist. Why support the drug war? In which way does that benefit society in any way shape or form? You refuse to answer this. You know I am right.

Lol I am not ignoring anything. I am questioning why they support the drug war when it has proven to be a failure. You conveniently ignore it being a failure despite us having history to showcase how that harms society. I think you do not care about the lives the drug war ruined. Which is quite unfortunate honestly.

Okay then tell me in what way does charging people for drugs help them? You made this claim. Now back it up or concede that you have nothing. Stop dodging the question.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

1. It raises ONE question. Why did it happen? The answer could be almost anything. YOu don't get to just snidely imply racism, like you made a point.

2. Highly unlikely. After all, this country has bi-partisan consensus on equality for blacks since the mid 60s, and really that was the majority view well before that.

3. I refuse to answer because it is not up to me to prove that Reagan was not racist, it is on YOU to prove your highly unlikely claim that he WAS. Reagan was a great President and it is sad that people like you, talk such shit on him, and are taken seriously.

4. I care more about teh lives ruined by drugs. I want to see the drug war fought seriously. SEAL THE FUCKING BORDER. DEPORT ALL THE ILLEGALS. DEPORT ANY IMMIGRANT CAUGHT COMMITTING A SERIOUS CRIME.

5. Dude. That you have to lie about what I said, that is your brain dealing with the fact that it knows your position is bs.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

And you do not get to rule it out. I can and will imply it because okay what are they doing it for then? It has shown to be a failure, yet they keep pursuing it. History has shown it affects minorities worse than anybody.

Again hiding behind a policy. That was the view well before that? So then we are going to ignore what happened with Emmett Till then?

It is not asking you to prove Regan was a racist. It is your chance to disprove my assumption. You will not give an answer because you do not have one and you know it. You asked me for proof that the drug war was bad I provided proof and numbers as to why it is a failure. This was me rising to the challenge to take on your challenge and debunk it. You duck and dodge. I do not believe he was a great president. I did not like how he defunded funds for mental hospitals either. I have tons of issues with Regan. Can I admit he did good yes but I unlike you do not think he is some perfect leader.

Drug charges ruin more lives than the drugs themselves do. Second immigrants are not the only people in this country that do drugs. The drug war would exist even if you eliminated immigration. Not surprising you would blame it all on immigrants though. That is a huge talking point among the right.

You said that the reason they charge them with those crimes is they are trying to help them. That is your quote verbatim. I asked you to explain why. You then dodge. Can you answer a question straight up or is ducking and dodging your thing?

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

1. I addressed that point. You are making the claim, it is on you to support it. Disproportionate impact is not proof, not by a long shot.

2. My point was clear. It is highly unlikely that such a figure would be racist, when this country has been so committed to equality for blacks for so long.

3. I don't have to disprove your assumption. YOU have to support it, or admit you cannot.

4. I did NOT ask for evidence that the drug war was bad. That is irrelevant. I asked for evidence that the motive for supporting it CAN ONLY BE RACISM. You have utterly failed to do that. Because it is an impossible task.

5. I do not believe that the drug war ruins more lives than drugs

6. I did not claim that immigrants are teh only people that do drugs. You seem to NEED to argue against points I don't make.

7. I did NOT say that arresting people is trying to help them. You should read more carefully. And really, this whole line of argument is doomed. YOU NEED TO PROVE THAT THE MOTIVE FOR SUPPORT IS RACISM. Which would be nearly impossible to do, even if it were true.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

I did support my claim. It is an objective fact that the drug war harms minorities the most. That is evidence to in favor of my claim. That and the fact that it continues to get followed.

Lol so you just ignored my point about Till then? You said equality was happening long before that even. That Till point completely destroys that narrative. Which is why you dodged it like you usually do.

I did support it by proving that it mainly affects minorities. Do leaders take this and learn from it? No they continue to support this system even though it is bad for society. I do not believe that is sheer coincidence. I think an agenda is afoot.

I did not say the support of it is only racist. I believe that is a part of it though. Even setting racism aside it harms society. There is nothing good about charging people for drugs and ruining their lives. I also believe it is a way to target poor people as it affects them harsher as well. You are simply hung up on the fact that I think it also happens to be a racism issue. Seems to me you would be one of those people that would deny racism even if it were blatant.

I disagree I believe the drug war harms more lives than the drugs themselves. The cartel get their power from the drug war itself. If you want to eliminate the cartel take away their power. You take away their power by eliminating the black market for drugs. The black market drives up the value of a product.

Then why when I said you do not care about lives ruined by the drug war did you deflect to them?

This is your quote verbatim.

Reagan supported the Drug War becuase drugs were hurting a lot of people and America wanted to help them.

How is the drug war helping people? Nearly impossible even if it were true? Nice so you are openly admitting you have a good shield to deny it. The drug war affects minorities the most. This is proven. That alone raises questions as to why if it is harmful to them does it continue to get implemented? It is sheer coincidence that it continues to get followed even though we can see how badly it fails and affects them? Sorry I am not going to buy that.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

1. You just did NOTHING to support your assumption about ill motive ie racism.

2. Till was in 1955, had nothign to do with Reagan, or the vast majority of Americans or the drug war. It WOULD disprove my "narrative" IF my point was that America was utterly pure from any racism, since the mid 50s. But my point was not that. You are just spamming negs against America.

3. Soooooo many other possible explanations, (even if you are right on the drug war) and you've done NOTHING to show that YOUR explanation is the right one.

4. The only relevance to this thread, is the racism, and you've done NOTHING to demonstrate that it is "part of it" .

5. Off topic. Libs generally like to derail threads, becuase they are incapable fo defending their ideas.

6. omg, stop pretending to be stupid. People are a general term. The people arrested might not be the people being helped. Do you need me to spell it out in CRAYON?!

7. Your entire line of argument is weak as fuck. Your argument rests on proving what a dead man was thinking decades ago. In an attempt to out balance generations of American consensus and policy. It's absurd, and the only thing you are actualy doing it spaming negs about America.

ANd oddly, that seems to be enough for you... How strange.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

No I did you are simply ignoring it. The drug war mainly affects minorities. That is an objective fact. You can't dispute that.

You claimed it was equal even before the 60's. Your quote

Highly unlikely. After all, this country has bi-partisan consensus on equality for blacks since the mid 60s, and really that was the majority view well before that.

So um no you misspoke. That was not the view before the 60's.

And my explanation is a possibility as well. You just do not want to believe it. I do have an explanation by showing the numbers to back my assumption.

Nope I said the drug war was bad period. I just added it is worse for minorities. So no false.

Not off topic. So I will simply leave it at I believe the drug war harms more people than the drugs themselves. Since you do not want an explanation I will leave it at that.

Lol you did this same thing to me about the drug war. When I pointed to marijuana charges I was referring to drugs. You took that as a means to say I was only referring to pot. That was you pretending to be dumb. How does creating more people who can't get jobs help society? Once they are charged with all these crimes it is more likely when they get out they will not be productive and suck off of society. How does this help society?

Um no if it were you would not be ducking and dodging at every turn. You duck and dodge because you have no rebuttal. I can disagree with America's policies and not be anti-American. Do not even go there.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

OMG.

1. Saying "mainly minorities" doesn't mean shit. You need to prove ill intent for it to mean shit for your position.

2. "majority view" doesn't mean it was successfully implemented yet, nor does it mean that one certain place one group of people might disagree. The "points" you are making are getting increasingly silly.

Till is irrelevant to Reagan.

3. "possible"? Your position is based on it being PROVEN TRUTH. "Possibly" doesn't even ccome close to cutting it.

4. Your beleif is irrelevant. FOr this line of supporting argument to work, you have to prove intent. You didn't.

5. Irrelevant to the racism. I understand, you can't defend your position, so you are happy to just throw negs at America. Why does that satisfy you?

6. Yeah, I was happy discussing teh issue, but you aren't doing much of that. You seem mostly to just be spamming negs about America. To make your argument you need to show that racism was the motive behind Reagan's support of the Drug War. That would be hard to do, and you haven't done shit other than to say, "minorities"

Are you one of those lefties that think mentioning race is all you have to do?

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

I did by showcasing how the drug war affects minorities the most. Even with that being obvious the policy continues to try and get implemented by leaders. I do not believe that to be a coincidence where you as you do.

Lol I do not believe that was the majority view until the civil rights were implemented. Till's mom showcased her son's body to demonstrate how badly blacks could get treated. Then those people who did that got away with it. It was this display of horror which changed people's minds as to how the judicial system should work. Similar to Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat.

Nope I have numbers to showcase how it affects minorities the most. Your entire argument is you think it is unlikely. I have numbers to back my claim. If a policy mainly affected whites you would be the first to be shouting about how unfair it was towards whites.

Intent is shown by leaders continuing to support a failing system. Then once you see that charging people with felonies removes their right to vote. This makes it to where minorities get to vote less often since they are the ones affected by the drug war the most. Coincidence? Yeah not in my book.

Totally relevant to my point false. If it was not you would not be ducking and dodging this whole time. I defend it by posting how the drug war failed this country and it mainly failed minorities.

Wrong I am posting the flaws about America in general. So you admit it would be hard to do. I have his support of the drug war and comments he made which were rather rude. Not to mention his removal of funds for mental hospitals.

Nope. Are you one of those right wingers who would deny blatant racism?

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

1. "Affected most" at most, raises the question. It does not answer it. You are being blind as hell.

2. Do you even know what "majority" means? Cause you piont about Till doesn't touch it at all.

3. Your numbers show disproportionate impact. That does not prove ill intent.

4. Intent is NOT shown by leaders supporting a policy you disagree wtih.

5. Irrelevant.

6. Which are irrelevant. So why are you doing it?

7. LOL.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

And I believe it is done for a reason. I do not like you believe it is a coincidence.

I am well aware of what majority means. Do you know what it means? My point about Till stands.

It does when the failing gets ignored.

It is not about disagreeing. The drug war is a failure. That is not an opinion that is a fact.

More ducking and dodging.

Nope not when his comments towards black also raised questions.

More ducking and dodging pathetic.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

1. You BELIEVE it ? That is clear. And to a lib, that is all they need to declare WACISM, and start dividing and smearing people without any concern for hte harm they do.

2. You clearly don't. You think one town doing something somehow underminds my point about the majority of the country supporting equality for blacks.

3. Got it. You BELIEVE it to be becuase wacism. And to you, being a lib, saying WACISM, is all you got. You can't even imagine having to do more.

4. This country has had a bi-partisan consensus on equality for blacks since the mid 60s. Anyone saying otherwise is a shit talker. ALL you really have is the standard lefty circular reasoning. You assume wacism, so you see something that to you "raises questions" and due to confirmation bias, ALL you can imagine as a reason is wacism.

And you keep spamming that, until any reasonable person just walks away from you in disgust. And then you declare victory. Bcause dividing Americans is a victory for you.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

I did not just say I believe it is racist and stop there. I provided my reasons as to why I believe it is racist. Minorities are charged more often with drug charges than any other people even though they are in the minority. That is not worth examining at all to you? You think that all you need to disprove racism is not believing in it and hiding behind a policy. This is you being a hypocrite. So if a Christian murders someone are you going to stand and say well Christians do not believe in murder so he could not have done it?

It was not just one town. There were multiple cases of blacks being treated poorly by many towns before the civil rights happened.

I believe that is part of the motive behind it not all of it. Multiple things can be true at once. I know this is hard for you to grasp. I also believe it is a way to target lower class folks as well.

I did not say otherwise. I said that you want to stop the conversation at that. That does not mean racism can not occur just because of that bi-partisan consensus. I am free to question anything I choose to as are you. You are being deceptive and you know it. So since that consensus no racism has ever occurred after that? Even you know that is a bunch of bologna.

I have no interest in dividing America. I think anyone with a brain can see that the drug war is a failure whether you believe it to be because of racism or not. You yourself support the drug war. When I ask you how it helps people you duck and dodge. You get fixated on the fact that I believe there is some racism involved. Even if we look past that there is no denying the drug war is a failure. I have supported this statement by providing facts and numbers of the drug war. What have you done for proving the drug war being effective? Not one thing. You dodge.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

1. And your reason was that you just assume that racism is the answer.

Dude. YOU are making the claim. YOU have to prove racism. I don't have to DISPROVE it. That you think I do, is just you being a partisan lefty hack.

2. Multiple towns? And you present that to argue against my point about the majority of America?

That is utterly retarded. The majority of America could easily be in favor of equality for blacks whiel several towns are not. Is this the real you or are you just talking shit to avoid dealing with my valid points about how increadibly long America has been in favor of equality for blacks?

3. LOL. I know you believe it. My point is that you are unable to do more than assume it and spam it like a troll bot.

4. Dude. Stop talking shit. I never even hinted that I would stop the discussion at that point. To be clear, are you admitting that America has had a bi-partisan consensus on equality for blacks since hte mid 60s?

5. When you call a President like Ronald Reagan a racist, you are dividing America. EVERYONE that voted for him, you are strongly implying that they are racist, which pisses them off, and every minority y ou are telling them, that those Americans are your enemy.

It is not credible that you did not know that. Your denial was just shit talk.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

Nope I gave reasons as to what lead me to that assumption. I did not just assume for no reason. I have stats and comments by a president which can be seen as evidence for my claim.

I was saying that in general term. Many places in America treated blacks poorly it is why the civil rights movement was such a big event in history.

Me presenting evidence as to what led me to that assumption is not just an assumption. If I said that is racist and I just left it at that you would have a point. I provided numbers as to how bad the drug war is. It does not just harm minorities it harms lower class people as well. The drug war which you believe in is objectively terrible.
'
I already answered that question. I am not going to answer that question again. Especially when all you have done is duck and dodge questions I have asked you. Do not ask me that again. Look through our post history for your answer. I gave you the courtesy of actually answering your questions which is more than you have given me. Going forward if you ask that again I am ignoring it. You lost your right to ask that question to me since it was already answered.

Lol so that would be the same thing with Obama then. You calling him racist is dividing the country by that logic then. No I can have an opinion you disagree with on a president you like. I hate to burst your bubble. By that logic everyone has to agree and say nothing negative about any president.

No denial here. I am not the one who ducks and dodges questions. That is typical of people of your mindset though. It shows you have weak points.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

Do you care at all about the people hurt by the Drug War?

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

I am not answering your questions since you duck and doge mine. Start answering mine and I will return the favor.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

I will take that as a no.

Clearly you don't. Becasue the way you link that issue with your anti-Reaganism and anti-Americanism, is deeply offensive to anyone that supports either.

You want to talk about how to deal with the issue better? I can have that discussion.

You want to argue that Reagan and his supporters are wacist?

You have made me MORE hostile to drug heads and their concerns.

It is clear that smearing Reagan and America is more important to you than the people you are USING to smear them/us with.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

Lol so when I do not answer a question you get to insert your own answer while gladly ignoring my questions. Since that is the game we are playing I am free to do that with the questions you dodged correct? You taking it that way does not mean it is that way. That is you being delusional because you have nothing to combat my points. Funny I did not do that to you when you ducked and dodged my questions. Shows the more mature one now doesn't it?

I am anti American because I dislike Regan? Okay then you are anti American for disliking Obama.

No you will not have that discussion. I asked you questions which you gladly dodged. So no you are not fooling anyone.

Never said Regan
supporters were racist. I only commented on Regan himself. Nice projection though.

Wow little old me has made you feel more hostile towards drug heads? Seems your stance was rather weak in the first place if I made you hate them worse. You know I am right which is why you inserted your own answer when I refused to answer your question.

Nope I just want America improved where it is clear you do not care to improve it. That much is obvious since you support the drug war.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

Mmm, reading your post, I see nothing on you explaining why you don't care that your choice of approach is likely to DECREASE any chance of change of policy in the drug war.

Did I miss it, or did you not address it cause you don't care about them at all?

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

Why are you able to duck and dodge my questions but expect me to answer yours? Is this only a one way street for you?

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

Because your questions were retarded and/or not serious.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

Um no my questions were completely reasonable. I asked you how charging people with drugs helped them. You had no answer. That was quite telling. How that a nonsensical or dishonest question? Republicans hate this questions because they have no answer for it and they know it.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

It's a fucktard not seriou question.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

No you just can not answer it. Clearly you are not intelligent enough to answer it.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

You have to lack intelligence to ask it. Only a retarded person would assume that the only poeple in question are those BEING ARRESTED.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

Nope the question is totally reasonable. I am asking how charging someone for drug abuse helps them. You have no answer. Not surprising though conservatives behave this way constantly.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

And only a retard would assume that the only people in question are those being arrested.

As I said before. You keep asking the same qeustion(s), ignoring the answers and talking more and more shit.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

I am not talking trash. You are the one who dodged questions and then wanted yours answered. You are being a hypocrite.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

Sure you are. And you know it.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

So you lost interest and have nothing else to say. I guess my feeling was correct you are not debating in good faith, You have an agenda and do not have an open mind.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

Dude. Only a fooll would think that the only people in question, are the ones arrested.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

I never said that. I asked you how charging someone with drug abuse helps them? You have no answer. This speaks volumes. You know I am right, which is why you are ducking and dodging.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

Thus framing the question as though the ONLY people to be considered, are the specific individuals being arrested.

That you can deny you did it, and then immediately do it again, reveals that you are either very dishonest, or very stupid.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

Nope it is simply asking the question. One which you can not answer. You known I am right and are burying your head in the sand.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

I can easily answer it. But more important is the way that you are dishonestly trying to frame the qeustion OUT of context.

On some level, you know you have to be deceptive to defend your position.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

If you could easily answer it you would have done it by now. You are ducking and dodging for a reason. You know I am right.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

I'm coming right at you dumbass. We were discussinig helping people, and you pivoted to helping specific individuals that were arrested.

It was retarded when you did it first, and the way you are playing dumb now, makes you extra retarded.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

Answer the question. If you were being as direct as you claim you would answer the question. Lets hear your answer. Quit ducking and dodging.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

Arresting Drug dealers, HELPS lots of people, mostly the community that the dealers are spreading drugs in, BUT also, in many cases, teh dealers themselvse, who are taken OUT of a life of violence and drug abuse, and given a chance to turn their lives around, once they serve their time.

That you had to spend DAYS whining like a fag, becuase I challenged how retarded your question was, is you being a sophist asshole. Common is leftards.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

You do not get to cherry pick part of the equation. Not all drug dealers or users are violent individuals. Some only use drugs without harming an individual. How does them getting charged with a felony help them? There is a reason why many return back to that life afterwards. So are you denying that people who have not committed violent crimes lives have been ruined for drug charges?

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

1. I said nothing of them being personally violent.

2. I explained how being arrested can help them.

3. I am did not deny that.

4. My point stands. The community as a whole is helped by getting drug dealers off the streets. THe more off the street, the better.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

You did you said it removes them from violence.

It does not help them though, if it did then why do they more often than not return back to that same lifestyle after getting out of jail? The stats contradict what you are saying.

Then if they are not violent ruining their life with felonies is not helping them.

Um even with the drug war ongoing drug use has gone up. That point stands. The cartel gets more power by creating a black market. You are the reason the cartel continues to grow.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

1, Yep. It removes them from their violent lives, given them a chance to change. A chance denied to them forever, if they DIE.

2. More often than not? That would be a strong argument, if i claimed it always solved the drug dealers problems all the time. As I said nothing like that, that was you just talking shit.

3. If they are NOT violent, removing them from a job where their life is in danger, can be a HUGE help to them. Possibly life or death.

4. We were talkinga bout removing drug dealers. You shifted the disccussion to another topic. I wonder why you would do that? Mmm,. This is where an honest lib would admit they are wrong. OMG, did you see what I did there? LOL. i KILL MYSELF. I AM SO FUNNY.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

Which goes back to my original point. Not every drug abuser or user is involved in violence. That is a generalization from you.

You said it helped them. I just proved how it does not. Once they get out they return right back to what they were doing. Often times now with more experience on how not to get caught. So not it does not help them like you claimed.

We covered that already. What about if they are non violent. You do not get to cherry pick. Answer the question about non violent users.

Cartels are drug dealers smart guy.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

1. It is a potential danger that the individuals arrested are removed from. An Omniscient Observer would be able to look at all those arrested and see how many of them had their lives saved, by the act of being arrested.

2. Some of them return. Others not. Thus some are helped.

3. Even if THEY are not violent, their competitors or clients very well may be. Do you have a serious brain injury that makes you unable to learn new information or retain it for more than a few moments?

4. And removing drug dealers from a community helps the people of that community.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

Only for that short time. It makes it harder to turn their life around and be productive members of society. Which then creates more toxic stuff in society. So no wrong.

More people's lives are changed for the worse by the drug war. It does harm than good. The stats show this my point stands.

Very well may be which means you are operating off of generalizations not facts. I am operating off facts. I can show numbers of how bad the results of the drug war can you provide facts of where it helps like I can.

Lol and you just helped my point. How many cartels are locked up? The ones that are locked up also get out rather quickly and are back up and running. Provide numbers of cartels that are locked up. Also by this war it gives them more power for violence.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

1. it is easier to turn your life around, with a record, then if you are dead. Thus, some people helped.

2. To know that, you would need firm numbers on what our nation would be like, without the drug war. That is impossible to know. So, you are guessing.

3. I am not interested in a silly discussion on the meaning of generalizations or what it means to discuss groups of people. If you cannot grasp the concepts invovled, cease responding. My point stands. The drug dealer life is a violent one. Being removed is a help.

4. Cartels are organizations. You do not lock up organizations, you lock up individuals. Your attempt to create confusion on this point by using words stupidly is noted and dismissed. Removing drug dealers from communities is helping the people of that community.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

And not all people are dead. Which means some people are harmed by charging them.

I have a good guess by judging the numbers of the drug war.

Not all drug dealing is violent. That is wrong and you know it. Your generalization is dismissed. Some drug abusers have not caused any form of violence. Ruining their life with a felony is a violation of human rights.

And individuals are in the cartel. My point stands by creating a black market you making a black market creates more power for these individuals.

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

1. Some dealers helped, some hurt. What a shocker. Did you really not already know that?

2. A guess that just happens to support your political position? What LUCK!!! lol!!!!

3, There is no human right to traffic drugs. Your claim that there is, is retarded nonsense.

4. You know what else "creates power" for them? Allowing them to operate across an open border. Or not using all the forces and powers of the government to crush them. Or not deporting all the members of their organization and/or the illegal community that they hide among. DEPORT THEM ALL.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

Yet you only focused on the ones you said were helped. You did this because you knew that your point would be weakened.

No numbers and facts are just that. It has nothing to do with political stance.

There is a right to being treated like a human. An addiction is more of a medical issue than a legal one.

So you just side stepped lol. The drug war helps them get more power my point stands.

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 2 years ago

Me asking a question is not trash talking. You deflecting and dodging is trash talking.

[–] johnmiller (4011) 2 years ago

Threw our veterans suffering from PTSD and mental illness out onto the street.

[–] brux (14840) 2 years ago

The media present the American citizens as idiots always willing to follow the establishment BS,
no matter how many times we are lied to and cheated. I don't think people are really so stupid,
not matter how many idiots they line out in front of a cameraman who shows us that more
Americans know there are three stooges than that they are three branches of the US government.
It's all a mind game that emperors, kings, caesars, presidents and dictators have used from
time immemorial to manipulate and control people.