Displaying 961 To 990 Of 1,008 Comments Once again, Black people can’t be racist. We lack the prerequisite power. By your definition of a racist, maybe black people can’t be racist. However, by my definition of a racist, anyone can be a racist. First, although there could be alien races on planet Earth, as far as we know there is only one race of people on Earth, the human race. My definition of a racist is a person who believes their ethnicity is superior to other ethnicities. Granted, there are probably few black people who believe their ethnicity is superior to others, but they COULD believe that and that would make them a racist, by my definition. I also doubt that any member of the CBC would agree with you that it was ignorant of them then or now to have supported the 1994 crime bill. Further, even with the benefit of hindsight, you have not responded to the question I posed to you as to what would have been your alternative to the law to curb violence in black communities in the 1990s, since you are the self appointed expert on all things black. » Posted By TOCB On June 30, 2019 @ 12:45 pm Clinton received 89% of the Black vote, which means we were not discouraged and the Russians didn’t affect the Black community. You are a bit superficial in your analysis. Although Clinton received 89% or so of the black vote, a large segment of blacks did not vote at all, not due to voter suppression but rather apathy or protest against perceived racism on the part of Hillary Clinton. It appears to me that intentional or not, you often attempt to stir up “fake” discourse. Btw, “fake” is a useful word, even if it sometimes misused by Trump. The bill was and is racist. I stand by my statement and provided source material on this site that Bill Clinton knew and Biden helped author it. Hillary was also aware. The Congressional Black Caucus was also aware of this perceived racism, as was I and perhaps your parents as well. Are you accusing the CBC, TOCB and your own parents of racism against black people? » Posted By TOCB On June 30, 2019 @ 10:19 am Neely Fuller, Jr. stated and I’m paraphrasing that all white people should be suspected of White Supremacy (Racism) until they prove you wrong. I think that premise is racist and counter-productive. It is ignorant to EVER suggest that “all” of any group of people is this, that or the other. There have ALWAYS been white people in the USA who made sacrifices, including their lives, to advance equality for black people. Almost every gain, if not every gain, black people have made in the USA has been done with help from some white people. Further, power, hatred and indeed ignorance are not mutually exclusive attributes to racism or any “ism” for that matter. I suggest that the cure for these things are love, knowledge and patience, and the greatest of these is love. Shout out to Marianne Williamson. » Posted By TOCB On June 30, 2019 @ 10:08 am Life and its experiences tend to make us wiser. There is no honest argument against the fact that the justice system as well as every other American system have been racist from the beginning of the country. We deal with things as best we can at the time they occur. Realizing that we have always had a racist unjust justice system, rampant crime in black communities had to be dealt with in the 1990s. For anyone to suggest or imply that black leaders and white people who supported black communities designed a law that was intended to result in mass incarceration of non-violent crimes seems to me to be an intentional attempt to distort the facts for political gain, as the Russians did in the 2016 campaign to discourage black people from supporting Hillary Clinton. The FACT is that black communities sought help from Washington D.C. to curb violence in their neighborhoods and Washington responded. The FACT that mostly republican run state governments abused that law to mass incarcerate black and brown people is no excuse or reason to suggest that blacks and whites who tried to respond to violence, were racist. That is a complete fake charge and only causes discard among people who have the same goals at heart. » Posted By TOCB On June 30, 2019 @ 9:53 am I make no distinction between black crime and white crime. Crime is crime. A black person who is killed by a black person is just as dead as one who was killed by a white person. There is no argument that the justice system is biased against people of color. However, to suggest that black people who commit crimes should not be prosecuted for those crimes is ignorant and racist. » Posted By TOCB On June 28, 2019 @ 12:41 pm I disagree. The law was not the failure. The execution of the law, primarily by republicans after the Clinton administration, was the failure. It is ludicrous to suggest that a law that was passed in 1994 has the impact of the mass incarceration through 2019. Racial profiling was done before and after 1994. Black people were treated differently than white people by the justice system before and after 1994. That bill was to address the epidemic of violence that occurred at the time it was passed. How it was used is not a reflection on those who put it in place for the stated purpose. » Posted By TOCB On June 28, 2019 @ 12:35 pm There were no plantation owners in South Central in LA or in South Park in Houston in the 1990s. The people who were being incarcerated at that time were people who killing little children who were playing in their yards and old people who sitting in their homes. I didn’t read about this and no one told me about it. I experienced it, and that is why I and everyone in my neighborhood supported the crime bill. » Posted By TOCB On June 28, 2019 @ 12:26 pm The fact is that black people were being murdered in their own neighborhoods, not by white people but by black people. You are conflating the misuse of the crime bill rather than addressing the original intent of the bill. Black people were asking for help to curb crime in their neighborhoods. You can try as you might to make more of the original intent than that, but you will have to blame people like me and probably your own parents, as we were the ones who were asking for help. » Posted By TOCB On June 28, 2019 @ 12:20 pm Maybe there was no crime in your neighborhood, but there was in my neighborhood. What is typical for any people when crime is rampant is to do something about it. If you had a better solution in 1994 you should have brought it forth. The law was not directed at black, brown, white or green. It was directed at criminals. There is nothing hypocritical about telling the truth. » Posted By TOCB On June 28, 2019 @ 9:02 am The bill was designed to incarcerate criminals, not black and brown people. Mass incarceration of black and brown people is the result of abusing the law. Those who are easily persuaded to blame people for things based on what others say rather than learning what really happened do a disservice to themselves and their communities. Get the total story. read:https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/analysis-black-leaders-supported-clinton-s-crime-bill-n552961 Curiously, Rangel was among the 11 Congressional Black Caucus members who voted against Clinton’s Crime Bill, which did not lack of black support. In addition to the dozens of pastors who signed a letter in support of the bill, it also had the support of black mayors. Kurt Schmoke, the first elected black mayor of Baltimore, was a vigorous supporter. Even then U.S. Representative Kweisi Mfume, then chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) who understood the bill was a means to “find better ways to incarcerate people” eventually buckled, not only supporting the bill, but was ultimately responsible for its passage by rallying a majority of CBC members to vote for it after the bill was nearly derailed on a procedural issue. Baltimore’s Mayor Kurt Schmoke (C) testifying in front of the House Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse & Control regarding the legalization of drugs.Terry Ashe / The LIFE Images Collection/Getty They didn’t have the benefit of knowing what we do now: that the death penalty would be disproportionately administered to black defendants; that many imprisoned didn’t pose a serious threat; that many of the “criminals” had actually been victims of childhood lead poisoning which studies show link to “impulsivity, behavioral problems, hyperactivity, and impaired cognition, all of which are associated with crime.” I don’t know if you were around in 1994, but I was and I supported the crime bill as a way to stem violent gang crimes in my neighborhood and other black neighborhoods. Sue me. » Posted By TOCB On June 28, 2019 @ 7:38 am So let’s discuss the 1994 crime bill. Hillary Clinton was called a racist because she, as first lady and not a lawmaker, said that people who killed innocent men, women and children in drive-by shootings were super predators. Let me say that she was more lenient to them than I was. Not only did most Democrats support the 1994 crime bill in 1994, but the CBC overwhelmingly supported it, as did the overwhelming number of black communities. The point is things have to be examined in the context of the conditions that existed at the time, as well as how laws were applied and misapplied after they were passed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, H.R. 3355, Pub.L. 103–322 is an Act of Congress dealing with crime and law enforcement; it became law in 1994. It is the largest crime bill in the history of the United States and consisted of 356 pages that provided for 100,000 new police officers, $9.7 billion in funding for prisons and $6.1 billion in funding for prevention programs, which were designed with significant input from experienced police officers.[1] Sponsored by Representative Jack Brooks of Texas, the bill was originally written by Senator Joe Biden of Delaware and then was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Rather than criticizing people who supported the 1994 crime bill, it might be more useful to examine how the law was used to discriminate against black and brown communities by so-called law and order republicans at the state and federal levels. I don’t suggest that the bill did not have flaws and did not have provisions that protected it against abuse. However, I am suggesting it should be reviewed in the context on what was going on in the 1990s related to rampant crimes and criminals and how to deal with them. Today there is almost universal agreement that the law needs to be changed to address how it was abused, but that does not, IMHO, negate the fact that a very strict crime law was needed in 1994 to address the situation that existed at that time. » Posted By TOCB On June 28, 2019 @ 5:14 am A single payer system probably would not be exactly like Medicare. That is only a starting point. Bernie also explains that premiums would be replaced by a health care tax, with everyone paying based on their ability to pay. NOTHING IS FREE. That would no doubt reduce the $460 you pay for part B, because the cost would be spread over the entire U.S. population. Currently Medicare is underfunded because the health care system is more focused on profits than on health care. » Posted By TOCB On June 28, 2019 @ 4:33 am You pay for it the same way employers pay for it. Do you know how employers pay for health care cost? They reduce the salaries they would otherwise pay to their employees, and they spread the cost of health cover over all employees regardless of health conditions. That is why some in Congress want to include health insurance paid by employers as income to the employees. Each employee pays the same amount depending on the plan they choose, whether they use the plan more or not. Group coverage is like a smaller version of a single payer system. The employer is the single payer. In fact, most large employers self insure, and only use private insurance companies to administer their plans. Single payer is the most cost effective method of insurance because the pool of contributors is the largest. That is a no-brainer that every other industrialized country has figured out. Why??? Because they care more about the health of their people than they do about making profits for private companies. THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE. » Posted By TOCB On June 28, 2019 @ 4:23 am There is no evidence that the same amount of money won’t cover the people who are not covered. On the contrary, if premiums paid to private companies were turned into taxes to cover health care for all Americans, everyone could be covered. And if that is not enough, the federal government could incur a deficit or raise taxes or create more money to cover the deficit. Can the private insurance industry do any of that? Of course administrative tasks will be required, and yes the government can handle that or farm it out to private companies, as is done now with Medicare Advantage. The greatest advantage of a public health care system would be that the focus could shift to preventing diseases and promoting healthier life styles as opposed to merely treating symptoms of diseases with more drugs to create additional revenue streams. We have had a combination of public and private funding of our economy since at least 1932. Our constant task is to figure out the most effective mix of public and private funding. Some things are more effectively done by public funding, while others are more effectively done by private funding. To dismiss either method based on ignorance and/or fear is not prudent. » Posted By TOCB On June 28, 2019 @ 4:11 am I believe all Democrats favor a single payer system. Some who are in red states think it is a more effective political strategy to pander to those who have been brained washed to think it is “socialism”, which they don’t understand anyway. Democrats just have to educate voters about what a single payer system is and how it would work. American employers would support a single payer system because it would take the burden of health care cost off of them. » Posted By TOCB On June 27, 2019 @ 2:22 pm Please explain why if the same amount of money is paid into a public pool as is paid to the private insurance industry, the same or better health care coverage will not result. Private insurance companies will only cover procedures that will allow them to make a profit, while a publicly funded system would pay for what doctors say is necessary to treat patients. Further, no private insurance company can cover pre-existing conditions without incurring losses because there is no way for their pool to be big enough unless they completely consolidate and if that happens the result is a private single payer system rather than a public single payer system. » Posted By TOCB On June 27, 2019 @ 2:13 pm Congressmen Delaney and Ryan criticized universal single payer health “insurance” in last night’s debate in an effort to appeal to republicans who have been brainwashed to believe that the private insurance industry have their best interest at heart. They say taking away private for-profit insurance reduces the choices people have to health care. What they fail to understand is the difference between “funding” heath care and “providing” heath care. Whether health care is funded by the private insurance industry or collectively by the people, access to health care is a by-product of funding, and not the product itself. There is absolutely no reason why access to health care should be the same or better with a publicly funded insurance system. The primary difference is that a publicly funded system gets rid of a profit motive and can therefore focus more or health care delivery than on making profits for the private insurance industry. Yes, a publicly funded health insurance program will require an increase in taxes. However, it would eliminate the cost of health insurance premiums and co-pays, while providing access to the same product, health care. » Posted By TOCB On June 27, 2019 @ 6:55 am Trump says Article 2 allows him to do whatever he wants. Of course Trump cannot even spell Article 2, so Barr or Giuliani or someone told him this. He certainly did get it from “reading” that Nixon said, “If the president does it, that makes it legal”, because Trump doesn’t read. Earth to Speaker Pelosi! A person who thinks or says out loud that Article 2 allows them to do whatever they want, is not qualified to be POTUS, EVEN IF they majority of the electorate is dumb enough to elect him. At some point Pelosi needs to LEAD! https://www.newsweek.com/trump-insists-constitution-allows-do-whatever-want-1444235 » Posted By TOCB On June 17, 2019 @ 5:53 am The Pelosi argument that people are not talking about impeachment is CLEARLY burying one’s head in the sand. In fact, impeachment is ALL most people are talking about. As the Assistant Speaker of The House, Ben Lujan, said if Congress does not impeach for the things Trump has done, we may as well erase impeachment from the Constitution. » Posted By TOCB On June 17, 2019 @ 5:26 am I could not agree more. House Democrats who refuse to impeach ANY president who has done what Trump has done appear to be no different than Trump supporters who go along with whatever he says and does. Pelosi is flat out wrong, but the majority of Democrats are sticking with her because of her perceived power. » Posted By TOCB On June 15, 2019 @ 6:23 am Fusion GPS was started by a group of former Wall Street Journal reporters, notably investigative reporter Glenn R. Simpson. He co-wrote an article about how lobbyists and other Washington insiders were earning big fees representing former Soviet officials-turned-businessmen. The firm says it “provides premium research, strategic intelligence, and due diligence services to corporations, law firms, and investors worldwide.” In other words, the ex-reporters have leveraged their reporting skills into a profit-making enterprise. The DNC and the Clinton campaign used the same company the Republican Free Beacon used to do opposition research on Trump. Is it odd the Republicans never mention The Free Beacon when they talk about Fusion GPS? No, it is not odd because if they mentioned The Free Beacon, it would look like Democrats and the FBI used the same source Republicans STARTED. We can only conclude that Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows and company don’t know about The Free Beacon using Fusion GPS, because they surely would not attempt to mislead the public, would they? » Posted By TOCB On June 14, 2019 @ 4:30 am Not only that, but Trump’s recorded statement on June 12, 2019, that he would accept foreign interference in a USA election, confirms that he knowingly and willfully did so in 2016. But not only Trump, but the ENTIRE Republican Party! I am not sure what smoking gun Pelosi is waiting for to give the House the go-ahead to impeach Trump, but Trump’s admission to George Stephanopoulos is a SMOKING CANNON! Democrats have been handed a sure path to take the Senate and the White House, and keep the House in 2020 IF they run against an IMPEACHED Trump, ESPECIALLY if the Senate does not convict him and remove him from office. However, if the House does not impeach Trump, many voters MIGHT think Trump obviously have not committed impeachable offenses, because if he had, he would have been impeached. Then, the Republican controlled Senate will have to explain WHY they did not convict Trump. If the House does not impeach, McConnell and company won’t have to explain anything. Democrats will just appear to be too weak to govern. Americans prefer strong and wrong, over weak and right. » Posted By TOCB On June 14, 2019 @ 4:00 am This is a sad commentary on Congress, that permanent funding for 9/11 first responders have not been approved before now. As in most cases of this nature though, it is because republicans would not allow it. From protecting Americans from gun violence to assisting Americans, regardless of what their zip code is, in disaster relief, republicans are ALWAYS the ones who are holding back. » Posted By TOCB On June 13, 2019 @ 5:24 am I wonder if one of the reasons Mueller doesn’t want to testify in public before Congress is that he is ashamed of his conclusion that the reason Trump and his minions did not commit criminal conspiracy is because they were too dumb to know they were breaking the law. The Trump campaign had over 100 contacts with Russians during the 2016 election. That is over 100 more contacts than any previous presidential candidate has had. Further, Trump is a control freak, as Michael Cohen said when he testified before Congress. Trump would not have allowed his minions to have all of these contacts with Russians UNLESS they did it at Trump’s direction. Neither the New York Times or the Washington Post have reported that Trump knew of or directed Russian contacts with his minions. However, we know he dictated the response Jr initially gave regarding the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting and said it was to discuss adoption. If Trump and his minions did not know they were breaking the law, why did they attempt to hide and lie about ALL of their contacts with Russians and other foreign nationals? And why did Kushner attempt to establish a back channel with Russia that was controlled in St. Petersburg? Of coursssssssssssssssssssssssse Trump and his minions committed criminal conspiracy. I would LOVE to hear Mueller explain to the American people HOW he reached his conclusion that they didn’t know they were breaking the law. » Posted By TOCB On June 13, 2019 @ 5:18 am After making a recorded statement like this, if Pelosi doesn’t give Democrats the go-ahead for impeachment, they will never impeach Trump, and I fear that will harm Democrats in the 2020 election because it will reduce the enthusiasm of the base. Democrats who don’t support impeachment should be defeated in the primaries. » Posted By TOCB On June 13, 2019 @ 1:40 am Trump says he would accept dirt on his opponents from a foreign government.
» Posted By TOCB On June 12, 2019 @ 4:54 pm It is amazing how Trump says, “everyone says so”, when he is the only one who says so, and he says “most people don’t know this”, when he is the only one who doesn’t know it, or it is not even true. I wonder if real geniuses like Neil DeGrasse Tyson can sue Trump for misrepresenting the genius community? Or a real human can sue him for misrepresenting the human race? » Posted By TOCB On June 12, 2019 @ 5:40 am And he has a “secret deal” with Mexico that he will wait and let them come out with, although he has already come out with it, and they deny that it even exist. I wonder who will play the part of Trump when the comedy about his “presidency” is made into a movie? » Posted By TOCB On June 12, 2019 @ 5:33 am I was anxiously waiting to view the cable news coverage of the House Judiciary Committee hearing on the Mueller Report, when that coverage was pre-empted by a helicopter crash into a building on Fifth Avenue in NYC. OH! My bad! I mean Seventh Avenue in NYC. I hope for the least casualties as possible in that crash, although I understand that the pilot was killed. As my cynical mind would have it though, I wonder if someone who is “loyal” to Trump staged that accident in order to distract from the coverage of the House hearing on the Mueller Report. So I switched over to CSPAN to watch the hearing, but CSPAN moved to cover the regular House proceedings rather than the Mueller hearing. So I moved over to CSPAN-3 to watch the hearing. I recommend that those who are interested in hearing Democrats in the House ask relevant questions about the Mueller Report and have the witnesses respond to them, while Republicans attempt to impugn the character of John Dean and protect the character of Donald Trump, would greatly benefit from watching the hearing on CSPAN-3. I think exposing the line of questioning from each political party will serve the public well, as it demonstrates the complicity of the republican party in the crimes the Trump administration has committed. I suspect if voters saw the performance of congressional republicans in these hearings, most of them would be convinced that republicans have absolutely ZERO interest in preserving the rule of law and defending and protecting the Constitution. » Posted By TOCB On June 10, 2019 @ 1:14 pm Yes, Trump solves, or at least says he has solved, another problem he created. » Posted By TOCB On June 8, 2019 @ 3:06 amComments Posted By TOCB
The Clintons quite likely were motivated by political expediency — appealing to white voters with “tough on crime” measures; however it is clear black leaders were simply desperate to rid communities of the gang violence terrorizing their communities. The crime wave was real with rapes, assaults, and murders at never before seen levels, especially in inner-cities.
Following the 101 California Street shooting, the 1993 Waco Siege, and other high-profile instances of violent crime, the Act expanded federal law in several ways. One of the most noted sections was the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Other parts of the Act provided for a greatly expanded federal death penalty, new classes of individuals banned from possessing firearms, and a variety of new crimes defined in statutes relating to immigration law, hate crimes, sex crimes, and gang-related crime. The bill also required states to establish registries for sexual offenders by September 1997.
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats