No, the people who started that war did win it. The objective was to slap black people and liberals with felonies to make them ineligible to vote, and it succeeded brilliantly.
“You want to know what this [war on drugs] was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying?
We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news.
Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
~ John Ehrlichman, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President Richard Nixon
Ehrlichman had spent a short stint in federal prison, and since found work doing minority recruitment for an engineering firm in Atlanta. Reported on by CNN, with reactions from his family.
Right on. And the same tactic had been going on even earlier. Starting back in the late 1800s with the opium laws in San Francisco. Too many Asians moving in, hence the beginning of the gross “yellow peril” propaganda. The laws were specifically created to target Asians. Then in the 1930s, Reefer Madness-type propaganda was heavily targeted against Mexicans. Blacks and heroin, then crack. Jazz musicians, beatniks, hippies, on and on… always another group to “Other” because of their race or their eschewing of social mores, so pave a legal framework to come down on them from. Much of drug law history was born out of a desire to eliminate an undesireable group.
To be clear, a prescription is still technically needed, but most states have laws in place that allows the pharmacist to write that prescription. Vaccines are done similarly.
They really screwed up approving the futures etf, even revoking that is hard and it undercuts their stance. If the futures etf was a disaster somehow it would help, but it’s been too quiet.
Essentially, a Bitcoin spot ETF is a type of investment fund that aims to track the price of Bitcoin directly. Unlike futures-based ETFs, which derive value from contracts speculating on future Bitcoin prices, spot ETFs seek to hold actual Bitcoin. This would allow investors to buy and sell shares of the ETF on an exchange, exposing them to Bitcoin's price movements without actually needing to purchase and store Bitcoins themselves.
In case, like me, you had no idea what a spot ETF was.
It's funny because if a riot was happening and a cop rammed his car into the crowd - as has happened many times - this same person would be saying what you said.
Yeah, it reads both ways. You probably have to throw something about hypocrisy in the original comment to clarify it. The people you’re intending to read it as hypocrisy are automatically going to jump to equation because they’re they’re ready for the attacks.
That’s horrible. It would be bad for public health to leave corpses rotting in the street. Bodies need to be properly disposed of to avoid breeding dangerous bacteria.
I believe one thing about UK policing is correct. Unless there’s reason for officers to be armed, they’re not even carrying guns. I realize that’s untenable in the US because of the proliferation of handguns but here in Canada, I think it should be policy.
I do not understand why it is so common for police in this country to stand in front of a car and then shoot the driver when the car moves. It’s a manufactured danger and really does not seem like a smart idea to use your weapon to put a corpse in control of a heavy machine.
What’s not to understand? Their goal is the expression of power, the suspect’s escape is completely non optional to them. They are not trained in de-escalation.
So, by placing their body on the line (in the path of the giant metal machine), they are essentially saying “obey me, or you are willing to kill me if you try to escape”. So if you try to escape, you are willing to kill them. So if you are willing to kill them, they are free to defend themselves.
It is crazy, but consistent logic.
Remember they aren’t there to help, or protect, but to enforce.
You do understand why. What you said is exactly why. They are manufacturing a danger so that they are legally allowed to use lethal force against anyone for any small crime. All the police do in the USA is escalate, escalate, escalate
We need some real brave mothsfuckers for that… But it is something I want to see too… some real push back against the bullies… I can’t understand how it hasn’t started yet
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.