Originally Posted by playwithfire05

right... so saying black people should have the trait of voting democrat is racists.

...makes as much sense as anything youve said

wow, AWESOME of you to quote the definition, and leave out the accompanying clause denoted by the word "AND"

 

Originally Posted by Marsall1121

Guess I'll bite here and get the ball rolling with "the deck being stacked against them".

Let's start with the obviously disproportionate incarceration rate. Blacks make up ~13% of the total population yet make up 40% of the prison population. Why so disproportionate? Either the deck is stacked against them in some way or they are bringing it on themselves.

How many of them are locked up for drug and gang related activity? Legalize drugs and those numbers go way down I'm guessing.

It just seems so many people want to look at statistics like that and add another wrinkle of government to try to solve the problem instead of removing the root of the problem.

op is a race traitor

 

Originally Posted by Marsall1121

I absolutely agree it should all be legalized and all drug offenders set free. But that's just not the case. Drugs are illegal and thousands of people are being locked up everyday for non-violent offenses. Its bullshit, but that's the way it is.

Now look at the discrepancies between powder cocaine vs. crack cocaine sentences. They are essentially the same drug, while one is a typically "white" drug and the other a typically "black" drug. But they have this strange little 100:1 rule. It takes 100X as much powder cocaine to trigger the same mandatory penalties as for a given amount of crack. Someone convicted of selling 500g of powder is subject to the same 5-year minimum sentence as someone convicted of selling 5g of crack.

Crack cocaine also carries with it a mandatory minimum sentence for first offense possession. It is the only controlled substance to carry a federal mandatory minimum. Being caught with 5g of crack is minimum 5 years in the pen. First time possession offenders of every other drug is a misdemeanor offense with a maximum punishment of one year in prison. This has led to a growing gap in the average sentence for white vs. black offenders.

And with all these young black men being locked up (1/3 of black males will be locked up at some point in their lives), you can start to see the implications this has on family life and how it bleeds over into all other aspects. Because of the implications. Kids are growing up without a father figure in the house, no role model, and are prone to fall back into drugs and crime and perpetuate the cycle. And of course there is no income coming in either so the single mother will do what she can to make ends meet. And when that doesn't cut it, welfare is too often tragically the only outlet to put food on the table.

So while we both agree on the legalization of drugs, that is just not reality. The reality is with these laws in effect (and they have been in effect since the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988), in combination with many other intertwined socioeconomic and political factors, there is no such thing as this "level playing field". Just simply being born black in America puts you at a distinct disadvantage.

Blah and I didn't think I was going to get pulled into this thread.

well said bro (even tho you didn't wanna have to say it cuz you know most people here don't get it)

 

Originally Posted by Marsall1121

I absolutely agree it should all be legalized and all drug offenders set free. But that's just not the case. Drugs are illegal and thousands of people are being locked up everyday for non-violent offenses. Its bullshit, but that's the way it is.

Now look at the discrepancies between powder cocaine vs. crack cocaine sentences. They are essentially the same drug, while one is a typically "white" drug and the other a typically "black" drug. But they have this strange little 100:1 rule. It takes 100X as much powder cocaine to trigger the same mandatory penalties as for a given amount of crack. Someone convicted of selling 500g of powder is subject to the same 5-year minimum sentence as someone convicted of selling 5g of crack.

Crack cocaine also carries with it a mandatory minimum sentence for first offense possession. It is the only controlled substance to carry a federal mandatory minimum. Being caught with 5g of crack is minimum 5 years in the pen. First time possession offenders of every other drug is a misdemeanor offense with a maximum punishment of one year in prison. This has led to a growing gap in the average sentence for white vs. black offenders.

And with all these young black men being locked up (1/3 of black males will be locked up at some point in their lives), you can start to see the implications this has on family life and how it bleeds over into all other aspects. Because of the implications. Kids are growing up without a father figure in the house, no role model, and are prone to fall back into drugs and crime and perpetuate the cycle. And of course there is no income coming in either so the single mother will do what she can to make ends meet. And when that doesn't cut it, welfare is too often tragically the only outlet to put food on the table.

So while we both agree on the legalization of drugs, that is just not reality. The reality is with these laws in effect (and they have been in effect since the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988), in combination with many other intertwined socioeconomic and political factors, there is no such thing as this "level playing field". Just simply being born black in America puts you at a distinct disadvantage.

Blah and I didn't think I was going to get pulled into this thread.

Edit: And before I get called out on saying crack and powder are essentially the same thing, for all intensive purposes of this argument they are. They aren't so drastically different/more dangerous to warrant this 100:1 rule.

jetsjets1028: that's total b.s. man...i know a guy who was born poor, and he worked hard and overcame it!

OP, stick to SNGs/lurking and less posting!

 

Originally Posted by Camz2895

OP, stick to SNGs/lurking and less posting!

ok...now...where's dputtz? here's a generalization...I might have anticipated that someone named Brock...from Lafayette, Louisiana...whose listed hobbies are... Hobbies

Guitar, drag racing. classic cars, concerts.

might not be open to the notion that blacks don't get a fair shot at the american dream

So why not try eradicating the systemic flaws instead of enacting policies that just muddy the debate even more?

 

Originally Posted by inissint

ok...now...where's dputtz? here's a generalization...I might have anticipated that someone named Brock...from Lafayette, Louisiana...whose listed hobbies are... Hobbies

Guitar, drag racing. classic cars, concerts.

might not be open to the notion that blacks don't get a fair shot at the american dream

Def true not too long ago but that isn't the case now... Actually, there is just as much reverse discrimination today as old discrimination. A black female nowadays is a favorite over me getting the same job in most cases.

That would be great.

 

Originally Posted by inissint

oh cmon Russ...there is literally NO SHOT you believe that (the bolded part)

IDK man, sometimes it seems that way but you're right, irl I can't see this being the case & black ppl def have it harder then we ever will (unless ur white living in Harlem)
I did apply to the FBI after 9-11 and they str8 up told me that they were not accepting any white men into the bureau unless u spoke arabic, armenian, or farsi (sp) which kinda blew my mind but yah that's totally different (& I was in big time shape then before the wisecracks :)

 

Originally Posted by inissint

compassion/reparation were both in that sentence because both are crucial...as I already said...not sure how you dont get this...nor am i sure how any literate human could ever even think anyone would say compassion and reparation are synonymous...no clue what you are talking about

my point was you were being intentionally misleading with your phrasing.

 

Originally Posted by inissint

as far as resil, i like resil...and again, your statements on that are ludicrous...i inferred that he would not vote for a black candidate (if he has, great, if he hasn't, it doesnt make him a bad person)...and me inferring/generalizing that he hasn't/wouldn't sure as hell doesnt make me one either lol...

you said he wouldn't vote for a black candidate because that candidate was black. you called him a racist. you didn't infer he wouldn't vote for a black candidate. that's what you said.

and yes, it would make him a bad person. and you saying that just because he's white, male, and conservative that he would not vote for a candidate on the basis of race is an unjustified personal attack. that makes you a bad person. the passive-aggressive PMs don't help you, either.

 

Originally Posted by inissint

btw, generalizing is actually not that bad...humans do it all the time on a daily basis...what jaybone said was RACIST...saying that 95% of blacks are democrats essentially because they cannot think for themselves is RACIST...he is saying 95% of the black race is too stupid to make informed decisions

maybe what he said is racist. i don't really care. i think it's equivalent to your accusation. you're saying white male conservatives are too stupid to look past color.

 

Originally Posted by inissint

affirmative action IS INTENDED to be essentailly reparation in the sense that it is INTENDED to LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD, which previously was FAR FROM THE CASE...your semantics are stupid, but since you are going to law school, i guess they are cute

you say it's "intended to be reparation" in the sense that it's intended to "level the playing field." those are two completely different things.

reparations would be giving something as compensation. that's not what the purpose of affirmative action is. the purpose of affirmative action (one of them, anyway) is to overcome subtle biases that people still hold. you can support that point; people with black names are less likely to get an interview when submitting an application with the exact same credentials as someone with a whiter name.

as an example: say that we could show that there no longer were any residual biases towards african-americans. would you still need affirmative action? if you argument is based on reparations, the answer is yes; after all, you're compensating black people for the slavery/civil rights violations/generally awful things the country did to them in the past. if your argument is based on overcoming those biases, though, you wouldn't have any more affirmative action.

i'd bet that most people who support affirmative action don't have reparation as a goal. they're more concerned with equality, not making it purposely unfair.

you can keep calling it semantics, but you're dealing with two completely different things.

 

Originally Posted by dpottz

this argument would be so much more effective three months ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Sentencing_Act

WOW the systemic racism is finally over! oh wait... In Georgia, all 46 state district attorneys-who alone are charged with deciding whether to seek the death penalty-are white, while 40 percent of those sentenced to death since 1976 have been black. No white person has been executed for the murder of a black in Georgia, nor has the death penalty ever been sought in such a case. Of the 12 blacks executed in Georgia since 1983, six were sentenced in cases where prosecutors had succeeded in removing all potential black jurors.

 

Originally Posted by dpottz

this argument would be so much more effective three months ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Sentencing_Act

Cool. I was unaware- thanks for info. WTG Obama. Regardless, the argument behind it stands even if the law has been recently amended.

Also interesting, perhaps expected, that it took a black man in office to change a law that was so blatantly discriminatory against blacks.

Edit: haha just noticed they dropped the 100:1... down to 18:1. I can just imagine the two sides of the aisle bickering back and forth like used cars salesmen before compromising on 18.