He didn't do this twice already? And I'm sure a third speech is coming.
Hey Obama stans : Where's Obama?
- Thread starter Broke Wave
- Start date
He didn't do this twice already? And I'm sure a third speech is coming.
Box Cutta
Bumbling Sidekick
Hopefully it's more comprehensive than his first.
GTFOH Clinton didn't do anything but increase incarceration of black males to record heights.
If I remember correctly he put a 100,000 more pigs on the streets..you obviously know the rest of the story.
BelowTheMasonDixon
Veteran
Good luck with the President sticking his neck out to defend a robbery suspect. it was smart he waited as long as he did. He would have looked very stupid if he came out in support earlier than he did. Especially as fast as you idiots wanted him to.
Last edited:
not if an progressive president is elected after him (Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, for instance)
All the obstructionist idiots in the GOP will hopefully get tired of doing what they've been doing hopefully, and we might see some real progress.
That might be true but black on black violence decreased dramatically and black employment/income went up during his presidency
and this militarization of the police force and pentagon weaponry donation program that everyone just suddenly learned about and are now mad about it, started in 1996 under who? i guess barack obama.
Box Cutta
Bumbling Sidekick
Speaking at 4 so he obviously feels like he needs to address.
Whether he "sticks his neck out" for anyone remains to be seen.
I don't really know what to expect.
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
Receipts? This is common knowledge. Why don't you don't your own research about how black male incarceration TRIPLED under Clinton, and he expanded the prison-industrial complex to unseen levels instead of asking me to do it for you using internet cliches and calling him a "nikka" and saying he was good for black people because he played the sax and got head from ugly white bytches?
Bill Clinton passed the 1994 Omnibus crime bill. http://votesmart.org/bill/2666/8428/omnibus-crime-bill#.U_JdKxbI9Q8 Some of the provisions...
The 3 strikes laws are voted on by states obviously, but the concept was originated and pushed by the federal government...in 1993, during the Clinton administration.
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/feb/19/news/mn-27373
The federal and state prison populations rose more under former President Bill Clinton than under any other president, according to a report from a criminal justice institute to be released today.
In fact, the analysis of U.S. Justice Department statistics by the left-leaning Justice Policy Institute, a project of a San Francisco-based justice center, found that more federal inmates were added to prisons under Clinton than under presidents George Bush and Ronald Reagan combined.
"I remember thinking when Bill Clinton got elected that we would have a chance to turn things around," said Vincent Schiraldi, president of the institute, a project of the Center for Juvenile and Criminal Justice. "But I think we read the tea leaves wrong."
From opposing a federal commission's push for equalization of drug sentences for powder cocaine and crack cocaine to embracing a 1994 crime bill that accelerated the rate of prison construction, the Democratic president often stole the show from "tough-on-crime" Republicans, the study said.
In doing so, it said, he left a record that did not square with his rhetoric on such topics as easing mandatory sentences.
While calling as recently as last fall for a review of the nation's prison policies, Clinton presided over an administration that, in its first term, saw an additional 277,000 prisoners incarcerated in federal and state facilities, according to the study. That number compared with 243,000 prisoners during Bush's four years in office and 129,000 during Reagan's first four years in office.
During Clinton's eight-year tenure, the total population of federal and state prisons combined rose by 673,000 inmates--235,000 more than during Reagan's two terms.
In California, the state prison population rose from 105,467 in 1992 to 161,401 as of last June, according to California Department of Correction figures.
Although most of the national increase in incarceration occurred in state-run prisons, the study found that the number of prisoners under federal jurisdiction doubled during the Clinton years and grew more than during the previous 12 years of Republican control of the White House.
Nearly 60% of those sentenced to federal prison during the Clinton administration are serving time for drug offenses, the study said. The total number of people in federal prison on drug charges--63,448--is 62% more than the number in 1990.
The dramatic increase in prison populations was attributable to several factors, Schiraldi said, including the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which earmarked $30.2 billion over six years for, among other things, new state prisons. One condition for receiving the federal funds, he noted, was that states scale back early paroles and adopt sentencing policies requiring that inmates serve more time in prison.
Also contributing to the increase, Schiraldi said, were tougher three-strikes sentencing laws adopted in more than 20 states, including California, during 1994 and 1995.
And Clinton chose to continue the absurd crack/powder cocaine disparity.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/19...1_crack-cocaine-powder-cocaine-cocaine-crimes
WASHINGTON -- President Clinton signed into law yesterday a bill to continue punishing crack-cocaine crimes far more severely than powder-cocaine crimes -- a difference that civil rights activists say is racist.
"I am not going to let anyone who peddles drugs get the idea that the cost of doing business is going down," Mr. Clinton said in nullifying a plan by the U.S. Sentencing Commission to make punishments the same for crack cocaine and powdered cocaine.
As a result, those convicted of crack crimes -- mainly blacks -- will receive the same punishments as those who deal in much greater amounts of powder cocaine. The president, defending hTC the difference, said inner-city communities are hit much harder by crack-related violence.
The president acted within hours after the Supreme Court, at the Justice Department's request, agreed to consider giving federal prosecutors wide discretion to pursue crack cases, even if that means convicting a disproportionate number of blacks.
Yesterday's developments appeared certain to intensify the debate over allegations of racism in the prosecution of dealers and users of crack cocaine, a cheap alternative to powder cocaine.
Blacks account for more than 80 percent of those convicted of crack crimes; whites account for less than 5 percent. By contrast, whites are involved in 32 percent of powder-cocaine convictions; blacks, 27 percent, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission.
But blacks tend to receive longer sentences for crack cocaine crimes than whites do for powder-cocaine crimes; federal law for years has provided much heavier sentences for crimes that involve crack cocaine, and Mr. Clinton's signature yesterday maintained that difference.
The punishment difference of 100 to 1 works this way: Crimes involving 1 gram of crack get mandatory sentences equal to crimes involving 100 grams of powder.
Civil rights leaders have protested that this approach results in a serious racial disparity in cocaine prosecutions. That disparity was one of the grievances cited by inmates in a recent series of federal prison uprisings.
Last spring, after a study of the sentencing differences and their effect on blacks, the federal Sentencing Commission decided to make sentencing equal for crack and powder cocaine crimes. Congress passed a bill to block the commission's plan from going into effect tomorrow, and Mr. Clinton's signature made the bill a law.
"Trafficking in crack, and the violence it fosters," the president said, "has a devastating impact on communities across America, especially inner-city communities. Tough penalties for crack trafficking are required because of the effect on individuals and families, related gang activity, turf battles and other violence."
Mr. Clinton took note of the "substantial disparity" in sentencing for crack crimes and said "some adjustment is warranted." He said the Sentencing Commission would study the issue further.
Civil rights organizations had led a telephone campaign to pressure the president to veto the bill. At a rally last week in Chicago, the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson said that Mr. Clinton had the chance, "with one stroke of your veto pen, to correct the most grievous racial injustice built into our legal system."
Crack cocaine is made from powder in a process that requires baking soda, water and a stove or a microwave oven. The Sentencing Commission has argued that powder and crack cocaine are merely different forms of the same drug. The Justice Department, however, argues that crack should be punished more severely because crack crimes contribute more heavily to violence in the poor communities targeted by narcotics dealers.
Several constitutional challenges to the cocaine-sentencing differences are in the federal courts. The Supreme Court two years ago turned down the first such challenge to reach it, thus leaving the dispute to unfold in lower courts.
Yesterday, however, the justices agreed to take on a related facet of the racism claim. The case involves five black Los Angeles men who were indicted on charges of crack distribution. They were prosecuted in a case growing out of a federal-state task force.
Claiming that their prosecution was based on race, and citing statistics showing the high rate of crack cases against blacks, the five men contended that the charges had to be thrown out as biased.
Federal prosecutors denied the claim of racism, but they balked at demands by the judge for information about how they decided to prosecute cocaine cases.
As a result, the judge threw out the charges. The federal appeals court in San Francisco upheld that decision in March, saying that judges must be "vigilant in ensuring that impermissible prosecutorial biases do not remain hidden in files kept from public view."
A Supreme Court ruling is expected by next summer.
Regarding "our" income increasing, first of all, the economic growth of the mid/late 90's had very little to do with Clinton's policy. He rode the wave of artificially-low interest rates by the Fed and the dotcom boom during a recovery period after a recession. That's another story for another thread...lord knows I've posted about it enough in HL. And second, all studies show that the gains in income during that period were made by every group EXCEPT black males. Would you like "receipts" for that as well?
Again, fukk Bill Clinton.
So when a black youth is murdered, the only groups that should be concerned and active are black oriented ones? Why can't his case be treated just like any human being?
The POTUS can handle more than one issue at the same time. What's happening in Ferguson CANNOT BE IGNORED.
@ American citizens being abused by police officers in mass not important enough because there's job creation and other bills to be passed.Great response.
Ya'll can't read between lines.
Short of Obama saying "fukk 12" none of you will be happy.
Ya'll can't read between lines.
Short of Obama saying "fukk 12" none of you will be happy.
Groanman
Superstar
I think we gotta sneak into Mexico.........then join the herd coming into the U.S.
We might get some help then.
We might get some help then.
Broke Wave
The GOAT
Obama is a war criminal despite what his stans say
Double tap strikes are a war crime. Signature strikes are a war crime. The entire drone program is one giant war crime. Killing an American citizen without a trial is a legal crime. Your boy can be taken to the Hague if shyt gets real
Double tap strikes are a war crime. Signature strikes are a war crime. The entire drone program is one giant war crime. Killing an American citizen without a trial is a legal crime. Your boy can be taken to the Hague if shyt gets real