One only has to look at sentencing mandates for crack cocaine (predominately used by blacks) and powder cocaine (mostly by whites) to see how the justice system through the drug war is a form of institutionalized racism.



I would have to disagree...the working poor work a hell of a lot harder than billionaires and get nowhere. You need money to make money...working 2 jobs to support your family and barely squeaking by is the norm for most people who have to "work for it".

Thank you for such an inteligent response
who? And why?

What is the mandated sentence for them?
Edit: I found it. I don't know enough about crack to make an educated response. Is crack more addictive and harmefull than cocaine? If they are very similar then I would agree that sentencing should be similar. If there is a dfference then I could see why there is higher mandatory sentencing. Like driving drunk and speeding, both moving violations but one much more dangerous.

Your, mine, everyones effort should go to helping all children, not just our own. If your hard work helps others, and their's helps you, then everyone benefits. If everyone is given equal opportunity to manifest their full potential, this world would be just a better place for EVERYONE. How do we not know that the hispanic kid in the ghetto won't some day invent free energy, or warp drive or something, if only he had been given the opportunity?

If everyone contributes then the lowest rung is raised far above the highest we enjoy today. I don't just want my kids to be secure, I want the whole world to be secure, then I know I won't have to worry about them because we will truly have a community of individuals, not individuals outside a community.

Every child we let fail due to inequity, we all fail as a society.

The Tea Party has some good ideas, but I agree that they are backed by the same corporations who are only using them as a faux-populist front to further their own agendas. They are Libertarians without liberty.

There is a 100-1 ratio of powder to crack.
http://www.scotusblog.co...-the-sentencing-dilemma/

Here is an example of how the 100-to-1 ratio works: an individual who deals five grams of crack cocaine faces the same sentence as a defendant who deals 500 grams of powder cocaine under the Guidelines.

Vodka is alcohol just as beer is. Should you be sentenced for drunk driving based on what type of alcohol you drink?

Obviously not. I was agreeing with you. I was asking if crack was more destructive and addictive than cocaine. If it does pose a significant different risk I was saying that is probably the variable not race. But honestly I don't know who wrote the law and if race was a factor. Does anyone have any evdence it was or is it all assumptions based on black people take more crack so it must be racist? If it is race related do you feel the president should increase cocaine sentence or decrease crack sentence?

I also believe in equality of opportunity. I believe every citizen should have the same rights and opportunity. I DONT believe "minimizing the advantage people get over one another by virtue of being born to the right family" if I work my entire life and save my money and make good investments I want my kids and grand kids to benefit from that. I worked for that advantage! As long as the government is not trying to regulate who gets what job or what money then the playing field will be even and everyone has the opportunity to do the same.... work hard, save right and invest smart. then THEIR kids and grand kids will have that advantage [/quote]

You're wrong. When the government exercises no power over the economy, then some people will be disadvantaged. You say as a counterargument that you've worked for that advantage. But A-How can that be a justification for the fact that some people are born with a disadvantage? And B-If there is no regulation it is just a fact that some people can work as hard as possible but never get out of the disadvantaged position they're in. (

I find it odd that the people who work hard and hardly make any money are the same ones who most of all oppose government action to improve their own situation and that of their childeren.

I can only speculate why that is. I think it is a sort of stockholm syndrome. I think the lower classes actually gave up hope that their situation will ever improve.
That's the only logical explanation for the fact that the lower classes are politically against government action that would improve their chances in life to be succesfull. Hope is a dangerous thing for those who gave up hope.

It is lack of legislation that will make the situation of the people with a lower education (because of their background) so, that they can work all they want, but hardly make any improvement in a financial sense and it is legislation that can truly make that working hard pays off.

evening glory is right: scandinavian countries have a higher standard of living than the USA has or the UK. Who would not want their country to have a higher standard of living? why would a higher standard of living be impossible in the UK or the USA? In scandinavian countries, people are basically happier than in the UK or the USA, according to for instance the global survey of world happiness.
Who wouldn't want people to be basically happier in the USA and the UK as well?

But it's the media in the UK and the USA that are owned by billionaires that have brainwashed many people over there, to believe that any government interference equals communism and that the current situation over there is fair. It is the media owned by billionaires that have brainwashed people to believe that it is fairer if billionaires get tax cut's while squeezing the normal guy on the street who realy works hard to get by.

The whole teaparty thing is just bullshit.
On healthcare for instance: they clain that the government should stay out of healthcare as far as possible to get the best care for the lowest prices. They forget to mention that the USA veteran healthcare system is by far the best healthcare system in the U.S. and one of the best healthcare systems in the world AND among the cheapest healthcare programs in america, while it is 100% state owned. Pharmaceutical companies (that payed millions on lobyists to oppose obama´s plans)will easily make three times as much money as they make on each pill that goes to a veteran, when they sell it to an ordinary citizen and that´s because the U.S. government has put a fixed price limit on medication that falls within the veteran program that does not apply to the market situation.
Only millionaires can get better healthcare (be it with a lower financial yield).

It is clearly in the interest of big companies and their billionaire CEO´s to paint a picture of every government intervention being communist. If they would all be ´sent home´ like you seem to want, you´d have an oilspill like the one in the gulf of mexico every week, because than safety regulations (costly) would be nonexistant. Ofcourse companies like BP would like everybody to think that government regulations are bad.

The obama administration has been so stupid to let BP clean up the mess they made themselves instead of putting the government in charge. That is why thus far nothing has worked. because BP tried to spent as little money as possible on solving the thing. As a result, more money has to be spent while the damage cannot be described in money or words.

I am not against big companies or billionaires, but i am against their disproportionate political influence. If you go bankrupt, you´l end up on the street. If GM goes bankrupt, the president who normally hails free enterprise (when it´s about YOUR healthcare) will save it and the executives can keep their bonusses. That´s just not right.

I know from personal experience that if you work your ass off you can achieve whatever you want. I came from the inner city schools broke as can be. I learned a skill and capitalized on it. I have ran and sold several successful companies. You sell people short by saying they CANT do it. They CAN do it. What keeps them down is all the people telling them they are not able and giving them handouts. The best way to keep a man on the streets is by feeding him scraps. If you teach him a skill instead of encouraging his currant state then he can get a job, rent an apartment, buy a house own a company.

The cup is still half full you know.

First of all, no, I am not wrong. We are all discussing our opinions so no one is wrong. We all have different perspectives on the matter. if you want to have an adult conversation, I'm game. If you want to live life with blinders on to only one perspective and tell any opposing ideas "YOURS WRONG!" Have at it.

Everyone is at a disadvantage over their neighbor in some respect. Everyone is at advantage at the same time. Life will never be 100% fair with everyone having the same skill sets the same needs, wants and abilities. No justification is needed for one's disadvantage or advantage, it's life. Some monkeys live in a tree with a lot of fruit, some live in a tree with none at all. Some birds live in Hawaii while some live in the bronx. I know 100% that a person here, in the USA, can go from the loaves and fishes line to well off in a lifetime. It does take hard work and determination but the ability is within us all. I have never said we should have zero regulation, have I? No I didn't. The governments job is to fulfill the will of the people not the people fulfilling the will of the government. The roles have turned lately and that is why there is an uprising of the people. They didn't just turn in 2008 the making of a "Perfect Storm" has been in the air for some time now.



It's not Stockholm Syndrome. Believe it or not most Americans still believe in hard work and don't want to be sucking on the nips of Uncle Sam their whole life. The governments role is not to supply health care or pay us money or stop the sale of vitamins. The government has done a great job of creating dependents. They give them just enough to get by but not enough to advance in life. They get stuck in a cycle, if they get a job they loose their government check, so surprise surprise.... they don't get a job. It's always been you get a job and you get medical insurance, now you don't even have to work for that. They'll take it out of your taxes.......on your paycheck from the government, for not working.




What legislation are you referring too?
It's hard work that will improve your situation, not the government.



I don't know enough about Scandinavian politics to make an educated response. I do know i love my standard of living here in the states.



What is the fact that the owner of a company is a billionaire have to do with anything. Most media owners vote democrat and lean that way. I would assume the same as you? I absolutely do agree with you that they are brainwashing propaganda tools though.

As far as taxes:
The top 50% income earners pay 97.11% of the tax revenue.
Bottom 50% pay just 2.89%


[/quote]

I already commented on healthcare. Get a job, get healthcare. Been there, done that.
I don't want all politicians to "go home" without any replacement. That's silly. I want the REPLACED with someone that represents the people and isn't in the back pocket of a special interest.

I love you guys. We may not agree politically or on the future of America. But we are parallel in so many other ways. Embrace our differences, WE are the ones who will change the world. Not our governments.

I am sorry, but yes, you are wrong. A free market without any regulations is deemed to go wrong. Things are not as simple as Adam Smith's theory of the invisible hand of the market. Corporate interests will abuse their powers in order to manipulate the market. Even today, with many governmental regulations, the market is constantly manipulated. This has led to the current situation where 1% of the worlds inhabitants control 99% of the wealth.

I would very much like the free market to work, but it simply doesn't. People are self-centered, whether we like it or not. At our current stage we do need governmental regulations, or even more wealth will come in to the hands of the few already in power. Obama is pressing for more regulations on the banks and financial institutions in order to stop the manipulative actions that, among other things, led to the financial problems recently.

This is of course not taken good by the banksters, so they fund organizations such as the Tea Party. I am sorry dude, but you simply don't see the big picture here. I have no doubt that most Tea Party members want the best, but they are deceived and lied to.

Wow. You have no idea. Ignorance is bliss.
As a moderator aren't you supposed to at least pretend to be diplomatic?

Could you please elaborate on what you mean by me not having any idea on what I am talking about? I could show you countless examples on how a free market system is constantly manipulated by other forces than the invisible hand, but you could very well see it yourself if you just take a look at the society around you.

I am sorry if I have struck a nerve, but rest assured that my intentions is not malevolent of any kind! Even though I am a moderator, I have personal opinions, and when you start a thread asking what we think, well, then I do say what I think.

You talk as if you are the end all of the political debate. I state my opinion as you have and then you say "you are wrong" because I don't agree with your idea. Do you live in the USA? No. Yet you know better than Americans how their own system works. Why? Because you've heard it said, watched it on TV? I live it and have for many many years. I know how the system works. I know our system does work and has for so long. That is why we have always been a so called "Super Power". Why our system crashed was OVER REGULATION and greed. The government forced the banks to lend to those that didn't qualify. These people didn't meet income verification standards and debt to income standards yet the government forced the banks to lend to them. This helped cause an over inflated value on real estate because EVERYONE now qualified. No surprise when these notes weren't being paid then being foreclosed on. People said everyone should own a home! Or their at a disadvantage....

Did you strike a nerve? Of course you did! Read my posts, I have been very diplomatic to views I don't agree with. Why? Because I enjoy listening to others opinions and take on life. But then you and PolyGrip simply say "Your Wrong". If you want to be around only those who you agree with go buy a box. If you want to be a part of a collaboration of ideas, beliefs and view points then you need to learn to be a little more diplomatic.

Fuck the fucking Tea Party. I am not going to go into a long diatribe as i spend too much time on the internet as it is arguing about politics. But yeah, fuck those motherfuckers.

People in this country also forget that Libertarianism isn't monolithic. There are leftist Libertarians, like Noam Chomsky. They aren't all dumbshits like Glenn Beck.

I used to be into the Cato Institute and all that. But its quite clear to me now that the people need a government to oversee these corporate robber barons. When left to their own devices, we all know what happens. Maybe more laws isn't the solution....we need to enforce the ones that were in place. I will never, ever accept laises-faire capitalism as a fair, valid system. Ever. I am glad I finally grew up and realized this.

The biggest myth of all in American Capitalism is that 'anyone and everyone can make it.' Utter nonsense. Or that its possible for EVERYONE to be wealthy. It is not.

Ayn Rand and her randroids' cult of selfishness can go piss up a rope. People read her books and study objectivism and think it 'sounds good' without ever familiarizing themselves with the counterpoints.

My man Christopher Hitchens does a good job of demolishing her.

Your post changed my mind. I now agree...... You may not be capable of making it.......

So in your oppinion who can and who can not "make it"?

Wow. I live in the US, likely am older than you, and Evening Glory has a better idea of what the system is really like. I'm sorry, but I have to agree with him that you are misinformed on this subject. I find it astonishing that with everything that has happened in the last few years you can argue for an unregulated free market...

You misunderstand what really happened with the crash. It was certainly greed, but it was NOT over regulation. The only ones who may have done any forcing of lending were the derivitive traders on Wall Street who were making tons of money off of these loans. The government did not force anyone to lend to anyone else. The government did not change the requirements needed to get a loan, they can't do that.

Please supply any evidence if you can of the government forcing banks to loan to people. As we have seen lately, the governement can't force any corporation to do anything, let alone something that is not in the corporations interest. The banks made a killing, they still are...they came out of it just fine, and basically created a huge scam which transfered all that bad debt onto the American taxpayer.

It was DEREGULATION of the 7 to 1 rule of capital requirement to 40 to 1, which essentially allowed the banks to create more money out of thin air. Banks, through their lobbyists, sold an undrealistic dream for their own profit. It was meant to open the housing market so that a larger segment could experience the "American Dream" of owning their own house, but nowhere were the banks supposed to lend to people who obviously couldn't afford it, and to use predatory lending practices...I mean come on, adjustable rate mortgages that went from 3 to 20%. That was pure unregulated, unadulterated greed, by a few, preying on those who should have known better.

The ones who don't have opportunity. The ones who are forced to drop out of school at 16 so they can work to support thier family. Those who the educational system fails. Education is always the first thing to get cut, and if you can't get a decent education, your opportunities are limited.

It is one of the greatest fallacies of the right that people who don't work are just lazy. This is true in some cases, but not for the majority. National unemployment is at 10%, my state it is 12% and thats just the fake unemployment number, it is closer to 20-25% nationwide. Are they all lazy? No, there AREN'T ANY JOBS! So, how is one supposed to succeed with no money, no education, and no job? And if you find a job, you are less likely to get it because of your lack of education, or your opportunities for advancement are limited, and your only opportunity is to work for minimum wage. It is a cycle where we all lose.

We live in a system where a certain percentage of people are meant to fail, it is the nature of the beast. There are only a certain amount of resources, certain number of jobs available, and like a game of musical chairs, someone is always left out in the cold. That is the fractional reserve banking system, which through debt and interest makes economic slaves of all but a small elite percentage.