KY Gov. Matt Bevin says bloodshed may be needed to protectconservatism

1. 78

   Credence2posted 7 years ago

   Wow, I always knew it. I was right, with the rightwinger's contempt for democracy and popular sovereignty that such a outrage would,in fact, be merely a matter of time. Why am I not surprised? Such rubbish coming from what should be a responsible leader?
   
   And don't tell me this is some sort of misprint, we know the way of the rightwinger and his or her loathesome ambition. I have seen this account across the web. So, when smells like it, tastes like it, looks like it, you call it what it is, Fascism.
   
   So what is the basis of these conservatives " taking back" the country, from where does that arrogance derive?
   
   So, let's hear your comments, please
   
   Here is the yahoo story link, you won't find it in "infowars".
   
   https://www.yahoo.com/news/kentucky-gov … 58821.html
   
   Have issues with Yahoo? Try this article from the Atlantic Monthly..
   
   http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc … od/499754/

   replyreport
   1. 89

      IslandBitesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Directly from the basket...

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

         This 'governor' has the nerve, just who does he think that he is?

         replyreport
   2. 59

      Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Copied and pasted from your first link. It is a response for comment by the governor's office.
      
      Bevin’s office has not responded to a request for comment from Yahoo News, but he did post a statement on Twitter encouraging people to listen to his comments in their entirety. He suggested that the mention of bloodshed in his remarks was a reference to military sacrifice and that “any intelligent person will easily understand the message” if they listen to the speech.
      
      As always, the left insists the worst is intended. Just as the right does.
      
      As always there appears to be no cause for alarm.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         IslandBitesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Sure. The message was about liberals, abortion, gay people, Hillary...
         
         So, yeah... Military sacrifice? Maybe in a coup, right.
         
         I don't think he's calling everybody to arms -now-, but he does believe (like many in Hubpages) that somehow the country belongs only to them and that it's ok to resort to violence if things don't work their way (2nd amendment is only for them).

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Many on Hub Pages? Seriously? When did a couple become many?
            
            Oh, that's right. Just one can be many when it is used to justify a whine.

            replyreport
      2. 78

         Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

         I listened to the speech on YouTube, he is double backing on his word, that statement was not in reference to the military, when he intiatially made it. I can understand such words from DAVID Duke and his ilk, but from a elected state Governor, making such suggestions against popular sovereigty, that goes beyond the pale. There has been a tendency of the right to threaten to subvert the democratic process in such a way. This isn't the first that these ideas have been implies as part of the political discourse. You can't win fair and square, so you answer with your guns? The left never has to resort to these tactics, why not? We should'nt be surprised by such revelations from these group of authoritarians. People who finds such things acceptable stick in my craw, everytime.

         replyreport
   3. 95

      Dean Traylorposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      This guy is a prime example why people should take non-presidential elections seriously. He won because of low turnout. He is a grade A buffoon who had no business running for governor in the first place. Now his incompetence and flare for bluster reels it's ugly slicked haired head.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

         That certainly earns you a A+ in this class, Dean, thanks for weighing in...
         
         Is it just me, Dean, or did you get the distinct impression that the Governor's comment pointed to some form of petty insurrection as retaliation  on the part of conservatives ifClinton wins the election?

         replyreport
         1. 95

            Dean Traylorposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I think that's part of it, but the other part is that in the past he thought bully tactics would trump diplomacy. However, instead of changing he wanted to look tough for the people that voted for him. I think this was a very stupid way to save face. I know he's been getting a lot of flack around the country, too.

            replyreport
   4. 90

      GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Well, "There you go again..." "... these conservatives..." First it was "right-wingers" and now it is "conservatives." Hmm... Doesn't look good buddy.
      
      "Such rubbish coming from what should be a responsible leader?"
      
      I would think that the folks that voted for him, and the audience he was directly addressing, would think he was being a responsible leader, and might not think his comments were rubbish. Not you of course, but maybe some of those other folks.
      
      It is political pandering by a politician. Nothing else. If you wanted to tar a group, it should have been politicians - not conservatives.
      
      But... your blast of it as representing "conservatives" is far from innocent. You would defend your progressive views as legitimate, and not represented by the nutcases of your ideology, but you don't offer conservatives the same consideration. 
      
      Tsk, Tsk! Just couldn't resist the red meat could you?
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

         I don't know, GA, you moderate types are not to vocal about the differences between the passenger pigeon and the buzzard. The line between rightwinger and standard conservative blurs with each passing day. You are not outraged by such statements, but they seem merely incidental to you?
         
         It's Blue meat, not Red.
         
         There is the implication by a mainstream politician that insurrection is the solution for propping up a losing ideology in opposition to the popular will. Is that 'responsible'?
         
         And who puts those 'politicians' in power, is it not the Conservatives?
         
         None of my nutcases are responsible members of the political system who promote insurrection over continuing to debate policy issues with the right within the confines and rules of the system.
         
         When people on my side of the ideological divide starts speaking of things like this, I will subject them to the same criticism, rest assured.

         replyreport
         1. 90

            GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            No Credence2, it was dripping fresh red meat, and your response was like one of those new drug commercials; Bold and loud it explains how it might cure your problem, but then fast and in a monotone voice it also explains that it could cause anything from ingrown toenails to oozing sores to death.
            
            I do think his statements were stupid and potentially dangerous, but my first thought was that he was a slug, not that he was the personification of Conservatives.
            
            What was your first thought when you read Wilderness' Ed Koch "ban guns" statement? Did he represent the majority of Liberals to you?
            
            Now about that passenger pigeon and buzzard thing... I take the pigeon reference as your thought that moderate Conservatives are extinct, and the "buzzard" reference to maybe be about something to do with carrion or picking at carcasses... Was that close?  Anyway, I had to go look them up to figure out that much. What I found was that primarily a buzzard is a bird of prey, not a carrion scavenger. Unless of course you were really thinking of the Turkey Vulture, (aka Turkey Buzzard here in the U.S.)? Now you really have me wondering, "What is your rapidly fading line between an extinct species and a bird of prey?"
            
            "... losing ideology vs. popular will..."
            
            Put some clothes on Cred. You are condemning Conservatism as a losing ideology while advocating the apparent popular will for increased government control? Popular will caused the Japanese internment you so recently criticized. Regarding serious decisions, popular will is no more authoritative than a unified mob chant.
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 78

               Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

               "I do think his statements were stupid and potentially dangerous, but my first thought was that he was a slug, not that he was the personification of Conservatives."
               ------------
               I am not done with you yet, GA. I am relieved that you find the Governor's statements troubling. But, as I said, it is not the left that allow such people into power in the first place, yes?
               
               "What was your first thought when you read Wilderness' Ed Koch "ban guns" statement? Did he represent the majority of Liberals to you?"
               -------------------
               I put that in the same category as statements from prominent conservative politicians wanting to 'ban abortion'. But banning abortion or banning guns is not a political reality and we both know that. For a matter of fact, the danger to abortion rights for women has been the real home of extremists as many states have struggled to circumvent, many successfully, the spirit of Roe vs Wade. I don't know of any state that has seriously attempted to take guns from any citizen. It's all talk and a big red herring.
               
               Let me clarify, the buzzard represents the rightwinger and its fowl predatory instincts. Whatis the true conservative, I see no reflection of such a creature in the political forum? Who within the fray of current politicians represents your version of conservatism? The passenger pigeon represents an extinct bird much like the brand of conservatism you say exists but has not shown itself anywhere, politically.
               
               Talk about the 'emperors new clothes', GA. Who is telling you that you are arrayed in finery?
               Conservatism as presently understood and practiced by that conservative major political party is a losing ideology in a changing society. We ain't going back to the world of the Waltons.
               The Constitution, Bill of Rights and rule of law trumps 'popular sovereignty'. That was violated in 1942. 
               
               The Conservative are speaking of extralegal solutions to their failure to successfully persuade others in our current political system. Talk of "Second Amendment Solutions", insurrections and secession is, in my opinion, over the top. That is only coming from the right wing.
               
               There isa vast difference between government as a nanny, telling folks how large their soft drink containers need to be verses allowing the corporate class, and banksters to operate without regulation, oversight and accountability. In my opinion, in these crucial area, I want more goverment regulation rather than less, while conservatives are happy when these people are allowed to run off with the store.
               
               Consequently, I support Liz Warren's creation of the CFPB (Consumer Finance Protection Board) krytonite for the rightwingers and their ultimate goals and ambition. I think that rule of law will prevent 'excesses' from either side.  So, it is obvious that your idea of increased government control and mine remain different and that is why I tend to shade more blue and you, red.

               replyreport
   5. 68

      wrenchBiscuitposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      
      Of course, this miscreant governor is planting a seed. This is all about white supremacy, and the white racist fear of  losing control. I watched the video, and he is encouraging violence to maintain the status quo. The fact that he would quote Thomas Jefferson, a slaveowner and known pedophile, was precious, and par for the course. I can only wonder if Hell is deep enough and wide enough to contain all that America has to offer.  And he didn't say a word about Flint Michigan. If a Muslim terrorist had poisoned an entire U.S. city, that is all these bottom feeders would be talking about.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         And does  THAT situation in Flint have anything to do with the history  of   local  crime syndicate of the democratic party leadership ?
         
         No,  ? ..................Right
         
         Everything is a  distant republicans fault .
         
         Hey I know ..........let's blame GW Bush

         replyreport
      2. 78

         Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

         WB, it is not even to maintain the status quo, but to take us backwards by force if necessary. These authoritarian types are cut of the same cloth as your everyday tyrant

         replyreport
2. 60

   tirelesstravelerposted 7 years ago

   When a  policeman a week is killed in our country and the country has been run by liberals for the last 70 years -you look at one article and judge conseratives ?  Interesting perspective.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, I come to conclusions based upon what the more prominent among you clearly state to be true. You all have no problems tearing Clinton and her campaign to shreds with sensational rhetoric and lies. So, you are going to be evaluated by instances like this and it does not matter the insignificant things pea brains blame liberal for.
      
      These are very serious statements, and I hold the conservative movement and their responsible representatives accountable. Is that clear enough for you?
      
      Those that seem to overlook the implications of such statements as that made from the Governor, either agree with him or are too daft to appreciate its implications. So, yes, conservatives are being judged based upon what they do and say. If that troubles either you or them, then that's just too bad.

      replyreport
      1. 94

         wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         You sound like those that look at the actions of a tiny minority of Muslims and put the actions onto the entire religion.
         
         But the statements from Bevin aren't surprising - it is political posturing at it's best in the effort to appeal to the far radical right.  And that group has never been particularly adverse to bloodshed of those that deny their god.
         
         But if you want to group everyone into one massive group regardless of beliefs  why don't we talk about the group labeled "liberal" (meaning ALL liberals) that continually screech about a woman's right to control her body (AFTER she has decided to share that body with someone else) instead of the person sharing that body and the bleeding they will do during a 9 month abortion.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            IslandBitesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Thank you.

            replyreport
         2. 78

            Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I would be afraid of someone so mainstream in our current system making comments like this, Wilderness

            replyreport
            1. 94

               wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               "“I don’t believe that in our society that we should have guns,” said Ed Koch, a Democrat, speaking on New York WABC Radio’s “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.”
               
               Former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros and Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke signed the Communitarian Network's The Case for Domestic Disarmament, which among other thing said:              There is little sense in gun registration.  What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament . . . .  Domestic disarmament entails the removal of arms from private hands . . . .  Given the proper political support by the people who oppose the pro-gun lobby, legislation to remove the guns from private hands, acts like the legislation drafted by Senator John Chafee [to ban handguns], can be passed in short order.
               
               Maryland Attorney General J. Joseph Curran is proposing a wide-ranging package of laws that would make the state's gun control regulations among the strictest in the nation and says his ultimate goal is a ban on handguns.
                             Daniel LeDuc, Tough Laws For Guns Proposed In Maryland; Attorney General Says Goal Is Ban, Wash. Post, Oct. 20, 1999, at A01.
               
               In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security.  Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . .  Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.              Charles Krauthammer (nationally syndicated columnist), Disarm the Citizenry. But Not Yet, Washington Post, Apr. 5, 1996 (boldface added).
               
                 "I would like to dispute that.  Truthfully. I know it's an amendment.  I know it's in the Constitution.  But you know what?  Enough! I would like to say, I think there should be a law -- and I know this is extreme -- that no one can have a gun in the U.S.  If you have a gun, you go to jail.  Only the police should have guns."              Shannon Hawkins, Rosie Takes on the NRA, Ottawa Sun, April 29, 1999, at 55 (quoting talk show hostess Rosie O'Donnell)
               
               Are those names "mainstream" enough to label all liberals as wanting a total gun ban? There are lots more, too - certainly more than the "mainstream" voices calling for armed rebellion of conservatives.

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, and we hear the same thing from the right in regards to abortion. Both sides are radical about policy positions, but the ideas of succession and insurrection, subverting the democratic process just because they cannot win the majority goes beyond all that. That is the property of conservatives and the right.... To utter words of treason from so lofty a perch.....

                  replyreport
                  1. 94

                     wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     "I know it's an amendment.  I know it's in the Constitution.  But you know what?  Enough! I would like to say, I think there should be a law -- and I know this is extreme -- that no one can have a gun in the U.S. "
                     
                     " <The>real justification <for a limited gun ban> is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."
                     
                     "What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament"
                     
                     That is the property of liberals and the left.... To utter words of treason from so lofty a perch..... 
                     
                     But subverting the constitution of the United States isn't nearly as bad as protecting it, by force if necessary - after all, it's the entire "progressive" party doing it and that makes it OK.   
                     
                     (It's fascinating to watch as you defend putting ridiculous attitudes of a few radicals onto the entire conservative movement, by saying it's worse than violating the Constitution by the left's own ridiculous radicals.  Or is it because the long range goal of liberals really IS to "progress" towards total disarmament?)

                     replyreport
                     1. 78

                        Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        So, the governor of Kentucky is a radical?  Forcing women to carry fetus to term is a violation of Roe Vs Wade and the 4th amendment. The left never speaks of insurrection as a response.

                        replyreport
                        1. 94

                           wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           No, they don't.  Just violating our constitutional rights in return for nothing at all but a few votes.  Fine, upstanding Americans, they are - aren't you ashamed to be one of them?

                           replyreport
                           1. 78

                              Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              For heavens sake, Wilderness, nobody is going to take your blunderbuss from you. This thing the right always talks about seems to be an obsession or is it just an excuse? I hear such absurd complaints from either side but the left agrees to work within the system rather than destroy it an impose its own will.

                              replyreport
                              1. 94

                                 wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 Right!  That's why we see so many prominent liberals calling to do just that, isn't it?
                                 
                                 It will be many years (beyond my lifetime), but I do fully expect the disarmament of the citizenry.  It has already been accomplished in most of the developed nations - why would we expect the US to remain alone in the effort?  Plus, of course, it is quite useful to government to have an unarmed population.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 78

                                    Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                    There are a lot of prominent conservatives determined to eliminate pro-choice abortion rights for women, with total disregard for Roe vs Wade.
                                    
                                    How is the gun controversy any different? I don't have as dismal a view regarding the future of the Second Amendment. Most politicians are either side know that carnival barking to attract a constituency is not the same as changing something so deeply entrenched in AMERICAN law.

                                    replyreport
                  2. 59

                     Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     You say subvert the democratic process? I say, at times, the democratic process involves taking uninformed people, confusing them with disinformation and falsified studies in order to get them to support agendas which deviate from the principles of individual freedom.
                     
                     The litmus test for any legislation should be whether or not the government is over reaching and infringing on individual rights beyond the point necessary.
                     
                     Is there an inner city problem with guns? You betcha. Is there a problem throughout the majority of America? Absolutely not. Why should I be punished because cities are a hotbed of drugs and crime?
                     
                     The problem with the democratic party is it is over run with lawyers. Lawyers think laws are grand. Mostly because each new law ensures more clients for lawyers.

                     replyreport
                     1. 78

                        Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        I hear you, L to L. But I say, who are you to say someone is uninformed? Are they uniformed because they do not agree with your assessment of things? We all have access to TV, radio, newsprint and the Internet, and I give them as much credit in figuring things out as I have for myself or you. I don't take an authoritarian attitude that the masses are ignorant and only the rightwing savior can make it right for everyone. Those principles of individual freedom are enshrined in the Constitution and it is just the political right that want to scrap it in favor of their agenda in opposition to popular sovereignty. I can't think of anything that deviates from the principles of individual freedom more than that.
                        
                        
                        The litmus test you proposeis whatis being used, your idea of government infringement differs from others, so why are you right and everybody else wrong? We all still have abide by the Constitution and rule of law.
                        
                        "Is there an inner city problem with guns? You betcha. Is there a problem throughout the majority of America? Absolutely not. Why should I be punished because cities are a hotbed of drugs and crime?"
                        
                        So, who is punishing you. If this is about guns, again, who has taken yours?
                        
                        
                        "The problem with the democratic party is it is over run with lawyers. Lawyers think laws are grand. Mostly because each new law ensures more clients for lawyers"
                        
                        Both parties have plenty of lawyers. I love the law, it is what protect me from extremists and makes sure that there is a level playing field. It is only the political right that is troubled by that concept.

                        replyreport
3. 0

   ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

   Unlike many , I can actual IMAGINE some sort  of  insurrection in America's future ,   where  the airheaded attitude of democratic followers drift in the direction of present day pseudo-socialism ;   There are only two parties in America  yet  what we are seeing is the  metamorphosis towards  all out  entitlement  that's evident in the democratic party , yea ! It's possible.   Is it probable ?
   
   No , I see a very politically correct democratic party as  being too weak to stand up and defend themselves or institute any kind of revolution unless you start cutting benefits like --free anything !

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      So, you are in bed with governor's comments, if you cannot win the election based upon the better ideas and more persuasive arguments to the voter, then you fall back on Second Amendment solutions? No, holds barred when comes to defending anything rightwingers threaten, eh Horse?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         No , just saying  it can happen one day and perhaps needs to , when and if  it does  , then it does .
         No one will stop it or control it .  You know ?  Kind of like the brainwashing of young minds by democrats , it just is !

         replyreport
   2. 68

      wrenchBiscuitposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      
      
      It's remarkable how much you talk about "free stuff". If it wasn't for all the "free stuff" the "Founding Fockers" stole from the Indigenous (Land, Resources, and Life) you wouldn't be sitting on such a high horse. And if it wasn't for all the free labor the lazy miscreant slaveowners stole from the African , you wouldn't be able to afford the saddle. Let's keep it real: Americans have been all about "free" since 1492. The decent people who didn't mind working for a living stayed in Europa.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Wrench , Every issue with YOU always comes to slavery and manifest destiny , Guess what ?
         
         They are relatively both as distant into all our  history as is   the  invention of the wheel , the creation of  currency ,  the cure for polio  ,  the  invention of the submarine .........you really need to move on to modern  issues -   modern forms of communicating  skills  faults , modern  communication of real blame and solution to TODAY"S  problems.
         
         There is a HUGE problem when the supposed  advances of modern intelligence  are plagued by the lack of reality .      George Washington didn't cause the modern record  economic deficit , Ben Franklin didn't cause the  current amounts of drug and alcohol abuse  or the systematic record of broken families on your reservations ,  King George didn't  cause the amount of graft and corruption in the tribal political systems today ............But IF you even read this and accept that YOU as much as anyone alive TODAY is far more responsible than anyone in history for the problems and solutions of the day ;  you  will  STILL blame Columbus for today AN NOT YOURSELF.
         
         Congratulations - you are the perfect victim. Here's your sign.
         

         replyreport
         1. 68

            wrenchBiscuitposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            
            
            You like to suggest that I am living in the past. But it is white Americans who created "Columbus Day". I did not petition for a holiday honoring a rapist, a murderer, and a thief. You should level your criticism at those who bring this abomination to our attention each and every year; at those who honor an evil past with parades and celebration. They do not only live in the evil past, but they glorify it.
            
            Many racists use the poverty that exists among some native people as a means to promote a false narrative. This is a common racist tactic that plays well at the local Billy Bob tavern, but the superior intellect knows better. Being poor is not a crime, and exploiting the misfortune of others as a means of furthering a racist agenda is shameful, to say the least.
            
            The legacy of Columbus is alive and well throughout America. Most notably we see it recently manifested at Standing Rock, as the progeny of evil brought in their dogs to attack the people protesting the encroachment of big oil. Columbus used dogs to hunt and kill the Indigenous, and it was a great sport for the evil Europeans to watch human beings, even pregnant mothers, being ripped apart by the vicious dogs. In spite of the fact that you would like to promote the fiction that the only poor people living in the United States are Indigenous and Black, the facts tell us a different story:
            
            According to the 2010 U.S. Census (the last census year), the five poorest counties in the country are all at least 95 percent white.The nation’s poorest county — Owsley, Kentucky — is more than 98 percent white.  In 2014, National Review’s Kevin Williams made Owsley the subject of a piece titled “The Big White Ghetto.” “If the people here were not 98.5 percent white, we’d call it a reservation,” Williams wrote. Owsley is only 0.5 percent black. The nation’s second poorest county, Lee, Kentucky, is 95 percent white. Lee is just two percent black and one percent Hispanic.
            
            Four of the five poorest counties in America are in Kentucky. Generally speaking, the rural parts of Kentucky tend to be both white and very poor. In 2014, The New York Times named the ten hardest counties to live in America. Six of them are in eastern Kentucky. Clay County — which isn’t even one of the five poorest counties — was named the hardest place to live in America. Clay’s population is 94 percent white. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul has called for massive tax reductions in Kentucky’s poorer counties to jumpstart the local economy. The nation’s fourth poorest county — Brooks, Texas — is 96 percent white.
            
            
            Concerning drug addiction, the facts tell us that drug addiction among whites has become epidemic. The New York Times recently reported:
            
            "When the nation’s long-running war against drugs was defined by the crack epidemic and based in poor, predominantly black urban areas, the public response was defined by zero tolerance and stiff prison sentences. But today’s heroin crisis is different. While heroin use has climbed among all demographic groups, it has skyrocketed among whites; nearly 90 percent of those who tried heroin for the first time in the last decade were white.
            
            " ...Last week, President Obama traveled to West Virginia, a mostly white state with high levels of overdoses, to discuss his $133 million proposal to expand access for drug treatment and prevention programs..."
            
            "... Heroin’s spread into the suburbs and small towns grew out of an earlier wave of addiction to prescription painkillers; together the two trends are ravaging the country...".
            
            "...Deaths from heroin rose to 8,260 in 2013, quadrupling since 2000 and aggravating what some were already calling the worst drug overdose epidemic in United States history..."
            
            
            "...Some black scholars said they welcomed the shift, while expressing frustration that earlier calls by African-Americans for a more empathetic approach were largely ignored..."
            
            “...This new turn to a more compassionate view of those addicted to heroin is welcome,” said Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, who specializes in racial issues at Columbia and U.C.L.A. law schools. “But,” she added, “one cannot help notice that had this compassion existed for African-Americans caught up in addiction and the behaviors it produces, the devastating impact of mass incarceration upon entire communities would never have happened...”
            
            My advice to anyone who longs for the glory days of the war criminal Harry Truman, Archie Bunker, and Bull Connor: Get on your horse and ride! And if you don't have a horse ... run...run as fast as you can!

            replyreport
4. 60

   GNelsonposted 7 years ago

   Anyone who thinks they are right and you are wrong so they should kill you should go join ISIS.  American politicians should talk to each other and do what is best for American people.  There are good conservatives and good liberals but they are not talking to one another for the best solutions.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Governor Brevin was not refering to 'sitting down and talking' about differences between ideology and practice that should be decided by the voters. He refers to the most vile of any threat in a democracy. We, progressives, are not going to sugar coat that that clearly belongs in the penalty zone.
      
      By the way, it is nice to see you, welcome to the party!!

      replyreport
5. 89

   IslandBitesposted 7 years ago

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akI7mVrsHDM
   
   The speech

   replyreport
6. 0

   ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

   Liberals are already at war with conservatism , BLM   , Never Trump ,   violent anti-trump protesters , college  campus violence ,The NEW black panthers  ........ so what if a conservative talks about  violence ;  Talk is cheap  -  Liberals Actually  turn to violence quite regularly , let a conservative talk it up and Now that's a crime ? Right ...........!

   replyreport