The White Man Breaks it down for Black Folks

[Harry Dresden]

Poet, what are your thoughts about blacks selling off captives during wars in Africa...and the buyers were white? Another question is...did whites invade Africa and kidnap the majority of blacks 2000 years ago? (According to the racist assinine cartoon you posted in the link). Or did that supply come from the Africans themselves?

Man has enslaved man for thousands of years. Blacks do not get top billing in the slavery market.

However..I would appreciate a balanced answer from you, if you care to give one. I find it amazing at the double edged sword that whites magically got blacks and other blacks had nothing to do with it..even though the supply usually came from Africa itself...by other blacks.

My thoughts are my own. I don't care to share them with someone who has no problem demonizing blacks, while absolving whites of clear blame as it relates to chattel slavery in America and beyond. You lecture me, and then claim you'd appreciate a "balanced answer"?> Apparently, you're "unbalanced". I have nothing for you. And apparently, the video "hit a nerve", which was the point.

just like you usually do.....post something.....but dont accept questions from the audience....you are jerk poet and you don't even no it.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Poet, what are your thoughts about blacks selling off captives during wars in Africa...and the buyers were white? Another question is...did whites invade Africa and kidnap the majority of blacks 2000 years ago? (According to the racist assinine cartoon you posted in the link). Or did that supply come from the Africans themselves?

Man has enslaved man for thousands of years. Blacks do not get top billing in the slavery market.

However..I would appreciate a balanced answer from you, if you care to give one. I find it amazing at the double edged sword that whites magically got blacks and other blacks had nothing to do with it..even though the supply usually came from Africa itself...by other blacks.

My thoughts are my own. I don't care to share them with someone who has no problem demonizing blacks, while absolving whites of clear blame as it relates to chattel slavery in America and beyond. You lecture me, and then claim you'd appreciate a "balanced answer"?> Apparently, you're "unbalanced". I have nothing for you. And apparently, the video "hit a nerve", which was the point.

You are a very bitter man. You have my pity.

like a bitter melon.....

 

[poet]

Anytime a challenge is dodged or ignored that is a cowardly act.

And you didn't merely suggest it, you claimed it as fact.

That would be your opinion, not to be confused with "truth". A challenge may be dodged or ignored "on principle", not to be construed as "cowardice", but as a rebuff of "nonsense".
As I stated...you wanted proof, here it is (that you could have easily "googled" yourself):

CIA-Contra-Crack Cocaine Controversy
Ronald Reagan: A Legacy of Crack and Cheese
Crack epidemic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking

Main article: CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US

Beginning with the Iran-Contra Affair, some politicians and journalists began arguing that the CIA contributed to the rise of the epidemic. Allegations ranged from the presence of drug ties to the Contra rebels, to possible direct involvement in drug trafficking by the Contras and even members of the CIA. The exact degree of awareness and involvement on the part of the CIA itself continues to be disputed. However, on April 17, 1986, the Reagan Administration released a three page report admitting that there were some Contra-cocaine connections in 1984 and 1985, arguing that these connections occurred at a time when the rebels were "particularly hard pressed for financial support" because U.S. aid had been cut off.[5]
The report(The Kerry Committee Report) cited legal cover provided by the CIA to anti-Sandinista rebels in the drug trade as well as accounting for $806,000 paid by the State Department to "four companies owned and operated by narcotics traffickers


And did you know that Ronald Reagan, and his then-wife, Jane Wyman, in the 40's and 50's had a proviso concerning their real estate holdings in California, that none of their properties could be rented, leased, or bought by any Jews, blacks or Hispanics???? The knowledge of which he hid, when he was voted president of the Screen Actors' Guild, and later, when he decided to go into politics.

The first link was USmessage board.

The second link was an opinion piece from Common Dreams.

The third link was from Wikipedia.

None of those links provided any proof to your initial claim.

In the early 1980s, the majority of cocaine being shipped to the United States, landing in Miami, was coming through the Bahamas and Dominican Republic.[1] Soon there was a huge glut of cocaine powder in these islands, which caused the price to drop by as much as 80 percent.[1] Faced with dropping prices for their illegal product, drug dealers made a decision to convert the powder to "crack," a solid smokeable form of cocaine, that could be sold in smaller quantities, to more people. It was cheap, simple to produce, ready to use, and highly profitable for dealers to develop.[1] As early as 1981, reports of crack were appearing in Los Angeles, San Diego, Miami, Houston, and in the Caribbean.[1]

Initially, crack had higher purity than street powder.[2] Around 1984, powder cocaine was available on the street at an average of 55 percent purity for $100 per gram, and crack was sold at average purity levels of 80-plus percent for the same price.[1] In some major cities, such as New York, Philadelphia, Houston, Los Angeles, and Detroit, one dosage unit of crack could be obtained for as little as $2.50.[1]

Crack first began to be used on a large scale in Los Angeles in 1984.[1][3] The distribution and use of the drug exploded that same year and by the end of 1986, was available in 28 states and the District of Columbia. According to the 1985–1986 National Narcotics Intelligence Consumers Committee Report, crack was available in New Orleans, Memphis, Philadelphia, New York City, Houston, San Diego, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Detroit, Chicago, Minneapolis-Saint Paul, St. Louis, Atlanta, Oakland, Kansas City, Miami, Newark, Boston, San Francisco, Albany, Buffalo, and Dallas.

In 1985, cocaine-related hospital emergencies rose by 12 percent, from 23,500 to 26,300. In 1986, then increased 210 percent, from 26,300 to 55,200. Between 1984 and 1987, cocaine incidents increased to 94,000. By 1987, crack was reported to be available in the District of Columbia and all but four states in the United States.[1] In addition, late 1984 saw an increase in fetal death rates and low birth-weight babies to mothers who were using crack cocaine in Los Angeles. The first "crack babies" were born in late 1984.[citation needed] The trend continued to increase throughout the 1980s and spread to most major American cities.[citation needed]

Some scholars have cited the crack "epidemic" as an example of a moral panic, noting that the explosion in use and trafficking of the drug actually occurred after the media coverage of the drug as an "epidemic." [4]

No mention of Reagan.

Imagine that!

No need to mention the fact that it was on "his watch", and the CIA operations were what? Without his knowledge or approval??? LOL.

 

[Harry Dresden]

remember when that Dr talked of racism at the republican get together and confused the audience.

right wing racists just want everyone to pretend there is nothing to discuss.

they are minds with their emergency brakes prementantly enguaged

I agree with you. I also think left wing racists are the same way. Every group has it's idiots.

But John, may I ask you....where is the evidence of any left wing racists? I haven't found any. There are no white left wingers calling black Republicans 'Uncle Toms" or "race traitors", as some here suggest. Blacks calling out other blacks is about accountability, not racism, as are whites calling out whites, or anyone calling out their own. I, personally, don't have anything against whites, or anyone. I have something against "racism', itself, which knows no boundaries of skin color, nationality, religion or creed. And as vocal and outspoken as I am, I have never been cautioned or rebuked for my comments by any of my white friends, who, I'm certain, would never put up with any racism or bigotry, on my part. People seem to think that my friends are "special" or different from anyone else. I am not fragile and can take constructive criticism. But not from the sorted imbeciles here.

....look how nice he is being with John the new guy here.....he cant afford to lose many more posters to his mighty ignore list.........what crock of shit this post is.....oh geezus.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

You are a very bitter man. You have my pity.

I have no pity for racists......

Me, either.

then put yourself on ignore dipshit.....because you have demonstrated your racism in no less than 7 threads going about you......

 

[Harry Dresden]

Yes. And?

Then prove it!

Right. Just as soon as you prove I'm a racist.

all anyone has to do is just go find one of the first 3-4 threads about you to prove that....

 

[poet]

Really? Anything can be "rationalized", if you're determined. Again, BS. As some like to argue, Africans, themselves were enslaving other Africans, so that made it ok for whites to enslave Africans. Not even constituting 'a defense'.

So which part of my comment is bullshit? The world wasn't violent back then? Native Americans weren't slaughtering each other?

What has that got to do with anything, or the rape of America by whites?



Your head is so wrapped up in the enslavement of your people that you can't see the tree among the forest... History of Mankind is dark, depressing, and out right cruel but that shouldn't excuse us from evolving from it and we are.
Please illustrate how "evolved" whites were in their "Manifest Destiny".

Uh, I was referring to the decision making of the Bush Administration, whose choices sent the US into the financial abyss, we're still recovering from. FDR didn't start WWII...he was drawn into it. As was Truman, in the Korean War. Eisenhower didn't start the aggression in Vietnam, but set up the potential. LBJ, escalated the aggression. George Bush started 2 unnecessary wars.

Bush II was a warmongering prick who seemed to not care how many of this nation's children went and died for his "cause." Now that we've cleared up that, what can you say about this part;

As for the Economic woes being the white man's fault, would you say the same about our country's economic success? Industrial revolution, space race, computer age, etc.

What? You think "you" did alone, without the help and input of minorities? Well of course you do..."white privilege" dictates as much. I get it...minorities are responsible for society's ills and whites are responsible for its' achievements. Got it.

Yes. I do. Problem?

So there's pretty much nothing positive a white man can do in your eyes because of something their forefathers may have done... I thought I read somewhere you had white friends? Do they know you have this kind of animosity built up?

Not true. Never said that. Plenty of white people have contributed positively.

Really? Well, why don't you illustrate how blacks have negatively impacted whites, seeing that you've been the majority since the inception of America...

Why would I? They haven't done anything to impact my life negatively... As a matter of fact quite the opposite.

Then what is all this talk about "black racism", by the peanut gallery about?

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Wow, indeed. Spoken, like a true partisan Republican, who is "drunk" on the koolaid. Of course you have evidence to support your claim of a conspiracy theory....because I have ample evidence that no WMD was ever found, and that Saddam was, in fact, being contained by the UN sanctions, so there was no need for a rush to war, which was about George W. Bush being seen as a wartime president more than anything else.
And not only do I believe that a bevy of European nations would jump at the opportunity to arrest Bush/Cheney, they would relish it, as much as they are despised around the world. I, personally, would hope so. So, I would appreciate you getting your little ducks in a row, and provide the evidence for your claims. I have mine....and they await your next "chess move". Thanks.[/QUOTE
Of coarse (Of course, you meant "course") I have evidence to support my claim of a conspiracy theory?
Where is it? You saying it is simply not enough to prove anything. Links? Evidence? Documentation?

Apparently I'm talking to myself (not the first time). I already pointed out the fallacy of your conspiracy theory (lack of evidence and fact).
You did no such thing. You did nothing to back up your statement. Forgive me, but I cannot simply take your word for anything....I don't know you.

I so disproved your conspiracy theory to such an extent that you even dropped the whole Cheney , Libby. Plame nonsense. Beyond that, I've already given evidence and facts on why we did not rush to war.
Are we doing drugs? You did no such thing. Pardon me, but you claiming something with no corroborating evidence does not crown your viewpoint as "factual, accurate, or true".
FYI:
Plame affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And Dick Cheney is above reproach, right? Please. I was born at night, but, fortunately, not "last night".


I also never said Bush found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Of course it wasn't our job to prove Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. It was Saddam's job to prove he didn't (according to the treaty he signed). After the attacks of 9/11, Saddam continued to play cat and mouse with the U.N. inspectors. This was really bad timing on Saddam's part.

Oh, give me a break. Who said it was our responsibility to contain Saddam? Apparently the sanctions were working, and he didn't have WMD, or the ability to produce a nuclear device as George Bush warned in his SOTU address. It has also been proven that not only did Saddam have nothing to do with 9/11, his presence prevented any incursions from Al Qaeda into his country, them being Shites and he being Sunni. Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. Hello?


We were not going to treat Saddam the same way we treated Osama bin Laden. The times had changed. Don't be afraid to put things in context. Also, I hope you know the difference between "wanting" and "fact". You may "want" this mysterious bevy of European nations to arrest Bush/Cheney but I see no evidence that this would ever happen.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/13/george-w-bush-dick-cheney-convicted-of-war-crimes/

I "want" to date Angelina Jolie, I see no evidence that this would ever happen either Out of curiosity, these little ducks you want me to get in row. Are you referring to racist ducks? Are these crack smoking ducks who's lives were destroyed by Ronald Reagan?
Already addressed that in another post.

Do these ducks want to arrest Bush/Cheney for war crimes? Do you see these ducks now? Are these ducks telling you that the U.S. didn't go to the moon and the FBI killed Kennedy? Do you stop seeing these ducks when certain medications are ingested?

LOL. You seem to suggest that JFK's assassination wasn't a conspiracy, which begs to reason that neither was RFK, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers, and MLK's assassinations weren't, either. I'm sorry, but you and no one here can convince me out of my convictions. Really remarkable, that you sounded so reasonable in the beginning and have now disintegrated into babble and propaganda you expect me to swallow, without "a chaser". Amazing.

I am not suggesting JFK's assassination wasn't a conspiracy, I'm stating it categorically. The same with RFK, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers, MLK, Elvis, Walt Disney and Bruce Lee. Also, I'm not sure Wikipedia should be considered the holy grail of factual content. We do agree on one thing though. I'm never going to convince you out of your convictions. Especially if your convictions are derived from Wikipedia. You complain that I give you no evidence then you post wikipedia as evidence. LOL! Irony anyone? Now granted, not everything you say is unwarranted. I did not give you a link to the verdict of Fitzgeralds findings while investigating the Plaime case but I just assumed everybody knew what the results were. I can certainly write up a wikipedia article for you and then post it here if you want. Just not quite sure what that would prove. Also, when it comes to conspiracy theories, it's usually up the theorist to attempt to prove what he believes in. In other words, it's not my job to prove that we did go to the moon but your job to prove we didn't (I'm sure there is a wikipedia article supporting your theory you can link to). Let's see, what else... uhmmm.... I guess that's it. The rest of your post was just name calling and apparent frustration. Ain't no thing but a chicken wing.

 

[Harry Dresden]

what are the odds John Burke will be on Poets ignore list very soon?....

 

[poet]

LOL. You seem to suggest that JFK's assassination wasn't a conspiracy, which begs to reason that neither was RFK, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers, and MLK's assassinations weren't, either. I'm sorry, but you and no one here can convince me out of my convictions. Really remarkable, that you sounded so reasonable in the beginning and have now disintegrated into babble and propaganda you expect me to swallow, without "a chaser". Amazing.

I am not suggesting JFK's assassination wasn't a conspiracy, I'm stating it categorically. The same with RFK, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers, MLK, Elvis, Walt Disney and Bruce Lee. Also, I'm not sure Wikipedia should be considered the holy grail of factual content. We do agree on one thing though. I'm never going to convince you out of your convictions. Especially if your convictions are derived from Wikipedia. You complain that I give you no evidence then you post wikipedia as evidence. LOL! Irony anyone? Now granted, not everything you say is unwarranted. I did not give you a link to the verdict of Fitzgeralds findings while investigating the Plaime case but I just assumed everybody knew what the results were. I can certainly write up a wikipedia article for you and then post it here if you want. Just not quite sure what that would prove. Also, when it comes to conspiracy theories, it's usually up the theorist to attempt to prove what he believes in. In other words, it's not my job to prove that we didn't go to the moon but your job to prove we didn't (I'm sure there is a wikipedia article supporting your theory you can link to). Let's see, what else... uhmmm.... I guess that's it. The rest of your post was just name calling and apparent frustration.

Ah, more condescension and dismissiveness, on your part, sir. FYI: Elvis, Walt Disney and Bruce Lee weren't subjects of assassination. And you are correct in your assumption that I cannot be convinced out of my convictions. Wikipedia is generally accepted as sound, until proven otherwise. You could always post your opinion there, but expect for it to be countered by someone with factual evidence, which is why people refer to it so frequently.
And no....you can cite evidence supporting the fact that we "went to the moon". Not mine to disprove. I happen to believe we went.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

That would be your opinion, not to be confused with "truth". A challenge may be dodged or ignored "on principle", not to be construed as "cowardice", but as a rebuff of "nonsense".
As I stated...you wanted proof, here it is (that you could have easily "googled" yourself):

CIA-Contra-Crack Cocaine Controversy
Ronald Reagan: A Legacy of Crack and Cheese
Crack epidemic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking

Main article: CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US

Beginning with the Iran-Contra Affair, some politicians and journalists began arguing that the CIA contributed to the rise of the epidemic. Allegations ranged from the presence of drug ties to the Contra rebels, to possible direct involvement in drug trafficking by the Contras and even members of the CIA. The exact degree of awareness and involvement on the part of the CIA itself continues to be disputed. However, on April 17, 1986, the Reagan Administration released a three page report admitting that there were some Contra-cocaine connections in 1984 and 1985, arguing that these connections occurred at a time when the rebels were "particularly hard pressed for financial support" because U.S. aid had been cut off.[5]
The report(The Kerry Committee Report) cited legal cover provided by the CIA to anti-Sandinista rebels in the drug trade as well as accounting for $806,000 paid by the State Department to "four companies owned and operated by narcotics traffickers


And did you know that Ronald Reagan, and his then-wife, Jane Wyman, in the 40's and 50's had a proviso concerning their real estate holdings in California, that none of their properties could be rented, leased, or bought by any Jews, blacks or Hispanics???? The knowledge of which he hid, when he was voted president of the Screen Actors' Guild, and later, when he decided to go into politics.

The first link was USmessage board.

The second link was an opinion piece from Common Dreams.

The third link was from Wikipedia.

None of those links provided any proof to your initial claim.

In the early 1980s, the majority of cocaine being shipped to the United States, landing in Miami, was coming through the Bahamas and Dominican Republic.[1] Soon there was a huge glut of cocaine powder in these islands, which caused the price to drop by as much as 80 percent.[1] Faced with dropping prices for their illegal product, drug dealers made a decision to convert the powder to "crack," a solid smokeable form of cocaine, that could be sold in smaller quantities, to more people. It was cheap, simple to produce, ready to use, and highly profitable for dealers to develop.[1] As early as 1981, reports of crack were appearing in Los Angeles, San Diego, Miami, Houston, and in the Caribbean.[1]

Initially, crack had higher purity than street powder.[2] Around 1984, powder cocaine was available on the street at an average of 55 percent purity for $100 per gram, and crack was sold at average purity levels of 80-plus percent for the same price.[1] In some major cities, such as New York, Philadelphia, Houston, Los Angeles, and Detroit, one dosage unit of crack could be obtained for as little as $2.50.[1]

Crack first began to be used on a large scale in Los Angeles in 1984.[1][3] The distribution and use of the drug exploded that same year and by the end of 1986, was available in 28 states and the District of Columbia. According to the 1985–1986 National Narcotics Intelligence Consumers Committee Report, crack was available in New Orleans, Memphis, Philadelphia, New York City, Houston, San Diego, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Detroit, Chicago, Minneapolis-Saint Paul, St. Louis, Atlanta, Oakland, Kansas City, Miami, Newark, Boston, San Francisco, Albany, Buffalo, and Dallas.

In 1985, cocaine-related hospital emergencies rose by 12 percent, from 23,500 to 26,300. In 1986, then increased 210 percent, from 26,300 to 55,200. Between 1984 and 1987, cocaine incidents increased to 94,000. By 1987, crack was reported to be available in the District of Columbia and all but four states in the United States.[1] In addition, late 1984 saw an increase in fetal death rates and low birth-weight babies to mothers who were using crack cocaine in Los Angeles. The first "crack babies" were born in late 1984.[citation needed] The trend continued to increase throughout the 1980s and spread to most major American cities.[citation needed]

Some scholars have cited the crack "epidemic" as an example of a moral panic, noting that the explosion in use and trafficking of the drug actually occurred after the media coverage of the drug as an "epidemic." [4]

No mention of Reagan.

Imagine that!

No need to mention the fact that it was on "his watch", and the CIA operations were what? Without his knowledge or approval??? LOL.

The Boston bombings were on Obama's watch. So using your logic we can say that Obama is to blame.

The fact of the matter is you claimed that Reagan put crack on the streets to ruin black America. And you knew it was a lie when you said it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I am not suggesting JFK's assassination wasn't a conspiracy, I'm stating it categorically. The same with RFK, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers, MLK, Elvis, Walt Disney and Bruce Lee. Also, I'm not sure Wikipedia should be considered the holy grail of factual content. We do agree on one thing though. I'm never going to convince you out of your convictions. Especially if your convictions are derived from Wikipedia. You complain that I give you no evidence then you post wikipedia as evidence. LOL! Irony anyone? Now granted, not everything you say is unwarranted. I did not give you a link to the verdict of Fitzgeralds findings while investigating the Plaime case but I just assumed everybody knew what the results were. I can certainly write up a wikipedia article for you and then post it here if you want. Just not quite sure what that would prove. Also, when it comes to conspiracy theories, it's usually up the theorist to attempt to prove what he believes in. In other words, it's not my job to prove that we didn't go to the moon but your job to prove we didn't (I'm sure there is a wikipedia article supporting your theory you can link to). Let's see, what else... uhmmm.... I guess that's it. The rest of your post was just name calling and apparent frustration.

Ah, more condescension and dismissiveness, on your part, sir. FYI: Elvis, Walt Disney and Bruce Lee weren't subjects of assassination. And you are correct in your assumption that I cannot be convinced out of my convictions. Wikipedia is generally accepted as sound, until proven otherwise. You could always post your opinion there, but expect for it to be countered by someone with factual evidence, which is why people refer to it so frequently.
And no....you can cite evidence supporting the fact that we "went to the moon". Not mine to disprove. I happen to believe we went.

What's Wrong with Wikipedia?
Harvard Guide to Using Sources

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales is quite clear about the uses of Wikipedia. Asked, "Do you think students and researchers should cite Wikipedia? during an interview with Business Week in 2005, he replied, "No, I don't think people should cite it, and I don't think people should cite Britannica, either... People shouldn't be citing encyclopedias in the first place. Wikipedia and other encyclopedias should...give good, solid background information to inform your studies for a deeper level."

Wikipedia is not considered a credible source.

The last link is from Wikipedia.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

I am not suggesting JFK's assassination wasn't a conspiracy, I'm stating it categorically. The same with RFK, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers, MLK, Elvis, Walt Disney and Bruce Lee. Also, I'm not sure Wikipedia should be considered the holy grail of factual content. We do agree on one thing though. I'm never going to convince you out of your convictions. Especially if your convictions are derived from Wikipedia. You complain that I give you no evidence then you post wikipedia as evidence. LOL! Irony anyone? Now granted, not everything you say is unwarranted. I did not give you a link to the verdict of Fitzgeralds findings while investigating the Plaime case but I just assumed everybody knew what the results were. I can certainly write up a wikipedia article for you and then post it here if you want. Just not quite sure what that would prove. Also, when it comes to conspiracy theories, it's usually up the theorist to attempt to prove what he believes in. In other words, it's not my job to prove that we didn't go to the moon but your job to prove we didn't (I'm sure there is a wikipedia article supporting your theory you can link to). Let's see, what else... uhmmm.... I guess that's it. The rest of your post was just name calling and apparent frustration.

Ah, more condescension and dismissiveness, on your part, sir. FYI: Elvis, Walt Disney and Bruce Lee weren't subjects of assassination. And you are correct in your assumption that I cannot be convinced out of my convictions. Wikipedia is generally accepted as sound, until proven otherwise. You could always post your opinion there, but expect for it to be countered by someone with factual evidence, which is why people refer to it so frequently.
And no....you can cite evidence supporting the fact that we "went to the moon". Not mine to disprove. I happen to believe we went.

Let's be honest Poet. The condescension and dismissiveness is going both ways. Not the worst sin in the world though and I'm sure we'll both survive. So! You think Elvis, Walt Disney and Bruce Lee weren't assassinated? I'll have you know that I have as much proof that they were assassinated as you have proof that there was a conspiracy behind the assassinations you listed. Wikipedia is generally accepted sound until proven otherwise? Alright, but it's proven otherwise quite often.

 

[Unkotare]

Wikipedia is generally accepted as sound.

What a joke. That really says it all about you, Giovanni.

 

[poet]

Ah, more condescension and dismissiveness, on your part, sir. FYI: Elvis, Walt Disney and Bruce Lee weren't subjects of assassination. And you are correct in your assumption that I cannot be convinced out of my convictions. Wikipedia is generally accepted as sound, until proven otherwise. You could always post your opinion there, but expect for it to be countered by someone with factual evidence, which is why people refer to it so frequently.
And no....you can cite evidence supporting the fact that we "went to the moon". Not mine to disprove. I happen to believe we went.

Let's be honest Poet. The condescension and dismissiveness is going both ways. Not the worst sin in the world though and I'm sure we'll both survive. So! You think Elvis, Walt Disney and Bruce Lee weren't assassinated? I'll have you know that I have as much proof that they were assassinated as you have proof that there was a conspiracy behind the assassinations you listed. Wikipedia is generally accepted sound until proven otherwise? Alright, but it's proven otherwise quite often.

Honest? Are you sure you're up to it, John? Of course you're being intellectually "dishonest", suggesting that the aforementioned were assassinated and that you possess "proof". I'm detecting a "pattern". Wikipedia is but one source. There are many others and more credible. But I'm thinking you're reluctant to want to go "there".

 

[poet]

The first link was USmessage board.

The second link was an opinion piece from Common Dreams.

The third link was from Wikipedia.

None of those links provided any proof to your initial claim.

In the early 1980s, the majority of cocaine being shipped to the United States, landing in Miami, was coming through the Bahamas and Dominican Republic.[1] Soon there was a huge glut of cocaine powder in these islands, which caused the price to drop by as much as 80 percent.[1] Faced with dropping prices for their illegal product, drug dealers made a decision to convert the powder to "crack," a solid smokeable form of cocaine, that could be sold in smaller quantities, to more people. It was cheap, simple to produce, ready to use, and highly profitable for dealers to develop.[1] As early as 1981, reports of crack were appearing in Los Angeles, San Diego, Miami, Houston, and in the Caribbean.[1]

Initially, crack had higher purity than street powder.[2] Around 1984, powder cocaine was available on the street at an average of 55 percent purity for $100 per gram, and crack was sold at average purity levels of 80-plus percent for the same price.[1] In some major cities, such as New York, Philadelphia, Houston, Los Angeles, and Detroit, one dosage unit of crack could be obtained for as little as $2.50.[1]

Crack first began to be used on a large scale in Los Angeles in 1984.[1][3] The distribution and use of the drug exploded that same year and by the end of 1986, was available in 28 states and the District of Columbia. According to the 1985–1986 National Narcotics Intelligence Consumers Committee Report, crack was available in New Orleans, Memphis, Philadelphia, New York City, Houston, San Diego, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Detroit, Chicago, Minneapolis-Saint Paul, St. Louis, Atlanta, Oakland, Kansas City, Miami, Newark, Boston, San Francisco, Albany, Buffalo, and Dallas.

In 1985, cocaine-related hospital emergencies rose by 12 percent, from 23,500 to 26,300. In 1986, then increased 210 percent, from 26,300 to 55,200. Between 1984 and 1987, cocaine incidents increased to 94,000. By 1987, crack was reported to be available in the District of Columbia and all but four states in the United States.[1] In addition, late 1984 saw an increase in fetal death rates and low birth-weight babies to mothers who were using crack cocaine in Los Angeles. The first "crack babies" were born in late 1984.[citation needed] The trend continued to increase throughout the 1980s and spread to most major American cities.[citation needed]

Some scholars have cited the crack "epidemic" as an example of a moral panic, noting that the explosion in use and trafficking of the drug actually occurred after the media coverage of the drug as an "epidemic." [4]

No mention of Reagan.

Imagine that!

No need to mention the fact that it was on "his watch", and the CIA operations were what? Without his knowledge or approval??? LOL.

The Boston bombings were on Obama's watch. So using your logic we can say that Obama is to blame.

The fact of the matter is you claimed that Reagan put crack on the streets to ruin black America. And you knew it was a lie when you said it.

Fuck you. It's what I believe. What? You think minorities were flying planes and dumping cocaine into the U.S.??? Better yet, let's imagine a "grand scheme" which gets minorities "hooked" on a cheaper and more accessible form of cocaine, which distracts from important issues like "voting", and education....which makes them vulnerable to being arrested and placed in the criminal justice "system", which amounts to "institutionalized slavery", and the ensuing 'turf wars", which leads to black on black violence and confiscation of assets which the drug trade nets, and the authorities can use as a "nest egg" to fund everything from "toys" to personal gain, and the whole thing fuels itself.
Don't you fucking tell me what I knew and worst, accuse me of being a liar...you lowlife, leftover protoplasm of afterbirth.

 

[Unkotare]

Fuck you. It's what I believe. .

And that's just part of why you're a psycho-bitch. Take that nonsense to the Conspiracy Forum, and take yourself to a shrink ASAP.

 

[poet]

This message is hidden because Unkotare is on your ignore list.
When will you get it?

 

[squeeze berry]

No need to mention the fact that it was on "his watch", and the CIA operations were what? Without his knowledge or approval??? LOL.

The Boston bombings were on Obama's watch. So using your logic we can say that Obama is to blame.

The fact of the matter is you claimed that Reagan put crack on the streets to ruin black America. And you knew it was a lie when you said it.

Fuck you. It's what I believe. What? You think minorities were flying planes and dumping cocaine into the U.S.??? Better yet, let's imagine a "grand scheme" which gets minorities "hooked" on a cheaper and more accessible form of cocaine, which distracts from important issues like "voting", and education....which makes them vulnerable to being arrested and placed in the criminal justice "system", which amounts to "institutionalized slavery", and the ensuing 'turf wars", which leads to black on black violence and confiscation of assets which the drug trade nets, and the authorities can use as a "nest egg" to fund everything from "toys" to personal gain, and the whole thing fuels itself.
Don't you fucking tell me what I knew and worst, accuse me of being a liar...you lowlife, leftover protoplasm of afterbirth.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No need to mention the fact that it was on "his watch", and the CIA operations were what? Without his knowledge or approval??? LOL.

The Boston bombings were on Obama's watch. So using your logic we can say that Obama is to blame.

The fact of the matter is you claimed that Reagan put crack on the streets to ruin black America. And you knew it was a lie when you said it.

Fuck you. It's what I believe. What? You think minorities were flying planes and dumping cocaine into the U.S.??? Better yet, let's imagine a "grand scheme" which gets minorities "hooked" on a cheaper and more accessible form of cocaine, which distracts from important issues like "voting", and education....which makes them vulnerable to being arrested and placed in the criminal justice "system", which amounts to "institutionalized slavery", and the ensuing 'turf wars", which leads to black on black violence and confiscation of assets which the drug trade nets, and the authorities can use as a "nest egg" to fund everything from "toys" to personal gain, and the whole thing fuels itself.
Don't you fucking tell me what I knew and worst, accuse me of being a liar...you lowlife, leftover protoplasm of afterbirth.

Why do you believe nonsense that you cannot prove?

I'm sorry but you are a liar.