posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 07:01 AM
a reply to: lakenheath24
Wow, your historical perspective needs some depth extension. Sure, he was about as helpful as an Ebola handshake, but thats not the point. Democrats
are not the ones mentioned in the OP, have nothing to do with this specific instance.
In this instance, there is an example of GOP figures, trying to use arguments that THEY THEMSELVES REFUSE TO ACCEPT WHEN APPLIED TO OTHERS, to
suggest that they are being victimised.
I tell you what, why don't you try and deny the following things:
GOP lawmakers have routinely failed to change, or have actively created law and stipulations to the law, which promote the private prison industry,
and the over incarceration of persons of colour.
GOP figures have repeatedly argued that if persons of colour want better treatment, they should behave themselves better (despite the facts
supporting the view that there is an imbalance in the system, not necessarily in statistical probability of a person of colour actually engaging in
GOP figures have benefited massively from keeping persons of colour in jail, both financially and politically.
And for what its worth, we all know what really started the argument against mary jane, and it was nothing at all to do with liberal politics, and
everything to do with a rich man being determined to destroy an industry which threatened his own, namely the hemp industry, WAAAAY back in the early
1900s. Starting there is what you do when thinking about the inappropriateness of weed policy in the US. Naming Bill Clinton straight off is like
suggesting that the War on Terror was Obamas fault.