WorstPreviews.com Logo Join the community [Login / Register]
Follow WorstPreviews.com on Twitter
What\ News Coming Soon In Theaters On DVD Trailer,Posters,Pictures,Wallpapers, Screensavers PeliBlog.com Trivia/Quizzes
News/Headlines
Did Aquaman Save superman in "Man of Steel"? Aquaman's Look Possibly Revealed
Sep 20th, 2014
Deadpool Creator Comments on "Deadpool" Movie Announcement
Sep 20th, 2014
Two New Posters for Christopher Nolan's "Interstellar" Sci-Fi Film
Sep 20th, 2014
"Olympus Has Fallen" Sequel Loses Director
Sep 20th, 2014
Angelina Jolie to Next Direct "Africa"
Sep 20th, 2014
Trailer For "Low Down," with John Hawkes and Elle Fanning
Sep 20th, 2014
If You Downloaded "The Expendables 3" Illegally, Lionsgate is Coming For You
Sep 19th, 2014
Trailer For Tim Burton's "Big Eyes," with Amy Adams and Christoph Waltz
Sep 19th, 2014
Matthew McConaughey NOT Returning For "Magic Mike" Sequel
Sep 19th, 2014
Restricted Trailer For "V/H/S: Viral" Horror Film Arrives Online
Sep 19th, 2014
"Insidious: Chapter 3" Unveils First Poster
Sep 19th, 2014
"X-Men" Spin-Off "Deadpool" is Finally Happening, Release Date Announced
Sep 18th, 2014
Trailer For "A Most Violent Year," From "Margin Call" Director
Sep 18th, 2014
Sony Unveils Animation Test For "Popeye" Movie
Sep 18th, 2014
See Batmobile in Action on "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" Set
Sep 18th, 2014
"Jason Borne" Producer Says Both Matt Damon's and Jeremy Renner's Films are in the Works
Sep 18th, 2014
"Paranormal Activity 5" Gets New Title and Release Date
Sep 18th, 2014
New Posters For Matthew McConaughey's "Interstellar" and Brad Pitt's "Fury"
Sep 18th, 2014
New Trailer for Robert Downey Jr's "The Judge"
Sep 18th, 2014
David Fincher Regrets Making "The Game," Says Superhero Film are Dull
Sep 17th, 2014
Tom Hardy Says Making "This Means War" Was a Bad Experience
Sep 17th, 2014
Jack Huston to Star in "Ben-Hur" Remake
Sep 17th, 2014
Poster for Disney's "Into the Woods," with Meryl Streep and Johnny Depp
Sep 17th, 2014
Tom Hiddleston to Star in "King Kong" Prequel, "Skull Island"
Sep 16th, 2014
Poster for Christopher Nolan's "Interstellar" Arrives Online
Sep 16th, 2014
"Avengers: Age of Ultron" Plot Synopsis Revealed
Sep 16th, 2014
"I Know What You Did Last Summer" is Being Rebooted
Sep 16th, 2014
Leslie Mann in Talks for "Vacation" Sequel as Audrey Griswold
Sep 16th, 2014
"You're Next" Director to Remake "I Saw the Devil" Thriller
Sep 16th, 2014
Matt Damon to Return For "Jason Bourne 5"
Sep 16th, 2014
First Look at "By the Sea," with Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie
Sep 16th, 2014
New Trailer for "The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1" Arrives Online
Sep 16th, 2014
Massive Banner For "The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies"
Sep 15th, 2014
Previous News Stories Next News Stories

Quentin Tarantino Uses N-Word Backstage at Golden Globes, Says US Prison System is Modern Slavery

Posted: January 16th, 2013 by WorstPreviews.com Staff
Quentin Tarantino Uses N-Word Backstage at Golden Globes, Says US Prison System is Modern SlaverySubmit Comment
Quentin Tarantino recently won for Best Screenplay at the Golden Globes. After the event, he met reports backstage, where he told everyone not to ask him about the use of the N-word in "Django Unchained." He did that by actually using the N-word, which shocked some of the reporters.

"If somebody is out there actually saying [that] when it comes to the word 'n*gger,' I was using it in the movie more than it was being used in the south in Mississippi, then feel free to make that case," he said. "But no one's actually making that case. They are saying I should lie, and I never do that when it comes to my characters."

Tarantino went on to say that the US legal system has become modern-day slavery since it targets black citizens. "Drug laws put so many black males in jails," he said. "The way private and public prisons trade prisoners back and forth, it's like they are not even hiding it anymore."

Tarantino spoke about this in more detail in December, stating: "This 'war on drugs' and the mass incarcerations that have happened pretty much for the last 40 years has just decimated the black male population. It's slavery. And it's just the same fear of the black male that existed back in the 1800s."

Source: THR


Bookmark and Share
You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register.
Displaying 105 comment(s) Profanity: Turn On
boogiel writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 7:05:33 AM

All I can say is that the word "n*gger" was one of the kinder words used to refer to black people during this period in AMERICAN history.
zxz writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 7:09:14 AM

Whether you love him or hate him, and I'm not the biggest fan, Tarantino is absolutely right. The 14th Amendment abolished slavery for all except "those found guilty of a crime." This was the loophole Lincoln left so he could pass it. Right after the Civil War, blacks were rounded up, charged with crimes they didn't commit, and thrown in to chain gangs in the period known as "reconstruction." To deny this history is to yet further lionize Lincoln, rather than looking at America's real history. To this day, we have a system that feeds off the desperate. Our prisons are not penitentiaries, as there is no opportunity for penitence, but barracons for the pressing of license plates for the state and free labor for private industry. The US will ultimately dissolve, as there is little holding it together but fear and intimidation from an out of control federal government, and shallow jingoism.
Taco writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 7:12:04 AM

I bet if the black male population would obay laws and not kill, rape, steal or sell drugs, there would probably be a lot less of them in jail. Who woulda thunk yo?
dub031 writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 7:13:51 AM

This kind of news reporting is really, really dumb. And in a sense actually also kind of dangerous. The headline makes it seem as if QT was drunk and started babbling inapproriately or something. But given the context the exact opposite seems to have been the case. QT actually makes a good point and critizes the legal system to a certain degree. It's just that he did not use "N-word" but actually said "nig ger" which must be regarded in the context he is uses it in! It would be totally hypocritical and actually ludicrous if he'd say "N-word" after writing such a film, everybody knows what the deal is. People just need to think and not dumbly be "shocked" because he said the word! He did not use it in a reckless but in a very deliberate manner.
If there is a "responsibility" that filmmakers have with their material or with what they write then there must exist a certain responsibilty for these news reporters (or whatever they call themselves) to contextualize certain utterances even in the headlines and not just post them as seen here, strongly suggesting QT did some racist sh*t.
MarshallErikson writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 7:18:51 AM

Dude they're not going to put the word in the headline. He's not saying that Tarantino physically said "N-Word" verbatim, he's expressing that Tarantino used the n-word backstage which he did.
BlackDynamite writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 7:22:22 AM

Considering I was neither born during the slave years, nor have I never been to prison (I am a black male), I'm ignorant as to Quentin Tarantino's argument. I assume QT has a time machine, and went back to the past to find out exactly how much people used the word n*gger, and I'm assuming he was a black male in a past life, and has been sent to prison.

Either way, if a PERSON gets sent to prison, regardless of race, most of the time its because they committed a crime.
dub031 writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 7:30:42 AM

Marshal...that's what I was trying to say. If one reads this headline, one immediately has the notion QT used it in some careless or inappropriate way. But actually the opposite is the case. My point is this "news" should not even be news or the headline should read something like "Tarantino claims legal system is 'modern day slavery'" or something along those lines then (if necessary) maybe mention that he used "nig ger " instead of the "n-word". But you know it doesn't really matter anyway, I'm not trying to be the journalism-police here, it just stung me in the eye.
biniwoo writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 7:33:37 AM


Hey, Spike Lee, Tarantino used the the word n*gger backstage!! It's the end of the world!

Say something! Oh wait, nobody gives a crap about you (nor your "joints" anymore, which should be called junks instead)
BadChadB33 writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 8:16:38 AM

Uh oh Spike, your gonna beat Tarantino's ass now??
Fat Guy in a Little Coat writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 8:21:42 AM

Tarantino either thinks he's black or really wants to be black...
Avirex writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 8:43:02 AM

"But thur crimanals and do bad stuff! Thats why thur in jail!" ..said all the ignorant people in response.

No one wants to consider that the drug trade is heavily if not totally supported by world governments. I remember reading about a CIA jet found after it crashed with 6 tons of coke and heroin inside it. Of course the response was "uh we totally misplaced that jet so uh umm it was someone else who put coke in it" or something like that.

Anyway, they help import the drugs then imprison people who distribute or use it. As a result they get to legally enslave people through free labor.
Avirex writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 8:45:12 AM

...hold on a sec..I think I hear a black helicopter hovering over my house..be right back...
Kurskij writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 8:52:54 AM

Let it go already.

"n*gger", "fag", "nicknolte" and half of the population has panties up the ass, regardless of the context in which it was used.

Rambo writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 9:03:00 AM

QT needs more attention then a crying baby
Rocksteddy writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 10:20:18 AM

I don't care, honestly.

Plus, this is old news. Nobody cares unless he calls someone a n*gger.
The Media is just a bunch of f*cking d*ckwads who are trying to make Quentin look like a racist.
pornfly writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 10:51:56 AM

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xu90kb_public-enemy-i-don-t-wanna-be-called-yo-nigga_music
pornfly writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 11:21:10 AM

TRAILER
just able to see Harry Brown thru my tv no more than four hours ago
My roommate woke and asked what is was watching,wheni told her Harry Brown she replied,"harry brown what?"
Just kidding shes not that clever

Good film
Have to say though, that police department was packed with sissy boys and they gave that dumb bitch a bravery award??
Her poor partner, man
I wanna try that tweekers' weed
Ya know its gotta be some sick sh*t lol
I liked the pace
Good realistic payoff, i guess the police went back to the station to get their guns lol

pornfly writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 11:22:38 AM

Thx for recommending it btw
SpookyCupcakes writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 12:37:06 PM

inb4 a Minkowski rant filled with strawmans that is so long that painstakingly refuting each and every point would make you look like an idiot either way
Stapes writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 2:33:06 PM

Wow, what an idiot. Last i checked jailed felons werent being used to produce anything. If you want to say the jusctice system is biases that's one thing (but that has more to do with class and money) but to equate it to slavery? You just joined the moron team along with Ben Affleck.
cruzcontrol39 writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 2:38:56 PM

Private prisons is the number one business in America. Hence the stupid drug war in America. There are a lot of folks in prison that should not be...including blacks...
Stapes writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 3:03:45 PM

And the same modern drug laws that destroy the lives of young WHITE males and females may have had some small root in racial fear, they are no longer implimented as such. Calling the war on drugs socially detrimental is one thing, blaming it on fear of the black man is another. How about calling to attention the dissolution of the family unit and replacing the father's role with government assistance? The closest parallel I can logically arrive at to slavery is the democratic parties push towards the welfare state. Great filmmaker but grow a f*cking brain.
minkowski writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 3:11:43 PM

The prison system doesn't target black people, it imprisons them because they commit the bulk of crimes. That's like saying the FBI targets serial killers because they're mostly white, or the ATF targets militias because they're mostly white too.

Also, private contractors and industries make a lot of money on the prison system because the US puts more people there because of steep criminal penalties for drug-related offenses.

Make a conspiracy of that if you will, but there's no proof whatsoever of any circular flow of money from contractors to lobbyists to the politicians drafting hard-edged crime legislation.

In fact, most people are imprisoned at the state level, not the federal, if that makes much of difference.

As for tyhe slavery thing, well, then, any man in prison is a slave, not just a black person, by his definition. If he simply isolates black people, he's being totally irrational and illogical. What applies to a black man would apply to a white person, a latino, and Asian. They're all there because they were convicted and/or charged with a crime, not because of some conspiracy.

Slavery was the imprisonment of free, innocent people, people who were forced to produce a product, while in captivity. They were forced labor of an immoral capitalist system.

Once you get past the captivity and racial comparison, the two are nothing alike in the big ways that matter.

QT is a total idiot.

@Spooky: I don't think you even understand the definition of strawman. In fact, you never even used the damned word until I did.

Now, now, don't go running off to dictionary.com now. It's too late little buddy.




Anyway. Obviously QT is feverishly pandering to blacks. He's the obvious end result of liberal white stupidity and I won't read anything he says or watch anything he makes ever again. As far as I'm concerned, he doesn't even exist.
Ranger writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 3:12:05 PM

He met reports?

The legal system targets black folk? Damn... I thought it just targeted criminals.

Learn something new every day.

Apparently feet-licking has given QT a parasite in his brain.

"Drug laws put so many black males in jails," - question: were any of those black males breaking the law by BEING INVOLVED WITH DRUGS?!?!

Here's a tip (white, black, green... I don't give a f*ck): 'If you can't do the time, don't do the crime!'

Like I give a sh*t if a criminal is black or white?!
Devious Dylan writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 3:12:57 PM

Who gives a sh*t? Why does this website post so much gossip crap now? Do you really think the kind of people that visit this website give two sh*ts about this kind of stuff? *spoiler* no, we don't.
minkowski writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 3:17:25 PM

And one final thing. I say we take all these "slaves" QT is so concerned about and release them and move them into HIS neighborhood. He can live next door to the murderers and gang-bangers and dopedealers, since he's in such a damned hurry to return them to the neighborhoods they terrorized and destroyed.

A little known fact, btw: most of the tough on crime and anti-drug legislation, like tough crack laws, was supported and demanded by black people who live in the neighborhoods these criminals terrorized, and to presume that black people are copacetic with high levels of crime and drugs is an outright insult to black Americans everywhere.
Ranger writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 3:20:37 PM

No one (in power) wants to end drugs entering the US. It's too big a business. From border patrols being paid off, to Senators.

It's like fighting in hockey. Sure the odd person dies from a fight, but many people go just for the fights (Rome... The Coliseum anyone?). They could stop fighting in hockey in 1 day. You fight, $1 MILLION fine. Same as drug lords in S. America. Tell them, you have 1 year to cease ALL business. Get your affairs in order. If we catch ONE drug submarine, ONE border-jumper with a bag on him... and we will cruise missile ALL drug lords homes REGARDLESS who owns the sub, or the border runner. NO exceptions. Why don't they? They're scared of reprisals, the pay-offs stopping (which is why failed business people go into political office... for kick-backs, NOT the pay).

The law targeting blacks. f*ck off with that nonsense.
Ranger writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 3:21:17 PM

@mink - well said.
Curbcooler writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 3:21:49 PM

MINK & TACO:

Look you bigoted morons, as even "Ron Paul " has pointed bLcks and Hispanics in the prison system get charged worse than White people do for the EXACT SAME CRIMES! They get worse charges, worse deals, and almost always have to serve more time than white counterparts who commit e same things.

Not to mention all the thousands of black men fearing Jim Crow who were FALSLEY improsisoned for rapes they did not commit. Ad oVer 60 percent of those innocent wrongly given the death sentence then later on found to be innocent are also lack. So why don't you two nimrods explain that one.
Ranger writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 3:24:51 PM

@Curb - before you get on my ass for being bigoted.

The argument made by QT isn't the treatment of blacks AFTER they're in prison. The conversation is that the law it targeting black criminals.

Get emotional if you want, but stick to the specifics of the topic please.

QT: "Drug laws put so many black males in jails," --- which I'll assume if those said black males didn't involve themselves with drugs... THEY WOULDN'T BE IN PRISON!

Jesus.
Ranger writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 3:25:48 PM

re: in prison for rapes they didn't commit. And you're blaming whitey for that? Not some bitch that cried 'RAPE!' that got the dude into trouble in the first place?

Your anger and logic is misplaced sir.
Ranger writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 3:31:32 PM

White or black. Who's in prison. Criminals.

Who's treated worse? The convicts making the most trouble.... white and black.

If prisoners don't like their treatment, how about NOT getting into prison beforehand. They're expecting someone to wipe their criminal ass for them and cuddle them?

Put all those 'government employees' back into labor camps. f*ck that TV and pool table sh*t.
Ranger writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 3:36:07 PM

And the guards don't care what color you are. You stir up sh*t in prison. Throw your feces at them. They're coming at you with a mattress, tear gas, and a stun gun. They don't give a f*ck who's ass that sh*t came from.
minkowski writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 3:53:19 PM

Oh here we go, we're racists and bigots because we point out the facts.
minkowski writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 3:58:53 PM

"Look you bigoted morons, as even "Ron Paul " has pointed bLcks and Hispanics in the prison system get charged worse than White people do for the EXACT SAME CRIMES! They get worse charges, worse deals, and almost always have to serve more time than white counterparts who commit e same things."



So what you're saying, then, is if I get caught with a grocery bag full of crack and hundred dollar bills, I'll get charged with disorderly conduct, but a black guy will get charged drug trafficking?

Can you prove or shot that this has EVER happened?


Face the absolute incontrovertible and inescapable fact: Black Americans, as a group, commit FAR MORE crime than white Americans, as a group.

Now cue the changing of goalposts by citing banking fraud, Enron, et cetera.




Yeah, I've played this song for so long, I know every note.
minkowski writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 4:03:54 PM

@Ranger: thanks!
Rambo writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 4:05:17 PM

Woman 'killed man with her breasts' :

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2013/01/16/10/32/woman-killed-man-with-her-breasts
minkowski writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 4:12:30 PM

"If prisoners don't like their treatment, how about NOT getting into prison beforehand. They're expecting someone to wipe their criminal ass for them and cuddle them?"

Yep. It's called self-discipline. Choice. Responsibility. Freedom of will.

And many, many black urban Americans, especially young males, choose very poorly in all the wrong departments. They start off with no father, just a mother with ten kids from eleven fathers, and then go out into the streets selling drugs, shooting up houses, killing people, and then, all the other people, who are largely white and law-abiding, are supposed to look the other way, right?

Maybe tougher laws are there for a reason. Maybe that reason is to curb the violence and destruction in many black communities. Maybe sending gang-bangers and murderers and drug-dealers to prison for longer sentences than what whites get, assuming that's even accurate, is a prudent policy intent on saving the communities where such crime is rife and endemic?

I mean, you have two people. One's white the other black. The white hails from a decent family, nice neighborhood, and it's his first time in trouble with the law. They're both caught with a gun. The white kid is just being f*cking stupid, but the black kid comes from a neighborhood full of murderers and shootings. The black kid has gang tattoos and affiliations, the white kid doesn't. Which one should get the tougher application of the law? The white kid? And if neither, how does such "equality" help save the black kid's war-torn neighborhood?

minkowski writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 4:23:33 PM

"They are saying I should lie, and I never do that when it comes to my characters."


How can they when they're fictional characters, Quentin? How can a fictional character tell a lie? It only does what it's told, says what it's told to say. Do you mean to say, Quent, your characters are real, not fictional, that they're based on actual people? Do you think Django Unchained and Lincoln are both equally historical? And if so, may I have some of the sh*t you're smoking, sir?
Ranger writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 4:24:04 PM

'...ten kids from eleven fathers,'

f*ck! Almost choked on my coffee you bastard!
minkowski writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 4:26:54 PM

lol! You're a hoot Ranger.
sbjj writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 4:29:15 PM

I
minkowski writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 4:30:55 PM

^Agreed!
sbjj writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 4:34:12 PM

I actually agree with QT on the drug war. And a great man once said...WE do not need more prisons, we need fewer laws. That said, while the drug war probably hurts the inner city much more than it does suburbia. That still does not equate slavery or racism. It is simply a stupid policy that hurts everyone in America, and reaches further into Latin America. Bottom line, the Gov. should not monitor what you put in your body, should not infringe on your right to CARRY, yes CARRY a firearm, and should not pick your pocket through taxation. The stuff going on right now would have our founding fathers screaming revolution.
minkowski writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 4:44:40 PM

^^No sh*t. I actually agree with you on the drugs issue. Legalize it, tax it, and then use those taxes to pay for treatment, which perhaps stupid and circular, but it's better than filling up prisons with people convicted of carting around naturally occurring weeds that grow in ditches. Never mind the fact that people who go to prison come out a hell of a lot more f*cked up than when they went in.
minkowski writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 4:45:15 PM

sounds...
sbjj writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 4:49:13 PM

Amen, brother. And while I believe the Income tax is unconstitutional. I would have no problem taxing a product, in essence, a consumption tax.

But people #1 do not think about things like this, and #2 are to lazy to do some research on a paticular subject.
sbjj writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 4:54:18 PM

I find it ironic that we have a government that puts its citizens away for consuming "illegal" drugs while encouraging drug companies to get people hooked on just as dangerous prescription drugs. We have a government that blows men, women, and children away oversees, but wants us to hand over our weapons because there is no way they would ever turn on us. Watching Obama his stage puppets(children) today just shows how low our Fed. Gov. can really go.
minkowski writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 4:58:34 PM

^^The Federal Income Tax was unconstitutional until certain people got the Supreme Court to rule it wasn't, and then those certain people passed legislation making it a law, thus giving the government unlimited power to do what they want, like putting you in prison for anything they see fit, and flying spy drones over your home.

I was reading Sherlock Holmes one day, a way back. The real Holmes written by Doyle, and in the story I was reading, Holmes had a JAR, a f*cking JAR of cocaine. No big deal. In other stories, Holmes and Watson go to places where people are doing heroin freely, IIRC. Where were the laws then? I mean, I know Sherlock Holmes is fiction, but still, it's based on London as it was then. So, if Anglo-Saxon civilization survived coke and heroin then, wouldn't we now? How is then any better than now?
Electro Rock writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 5:04:51 PM

QT looks like the high guy meme.
minkowski writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 5:09:02 PM

@sbjj:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334


Regarding Newtown and guns:

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

-- Rahm Emanuel.




Tyranny is coming, buddy. It grows stronger with each and every passing day.
sbjj writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 5:11:41 PM

Yea, I understand the Income tax is the law of the land. But it is IMO still unconstitutional. Hell, there were things going on in our country from the beginning that were unconstitutional. We are a kneejerk society, and are so quick to enact laws out of emotion and fear. And we are an envious society where people seem to think the reason a person has more is because they stole it from someone else. And we are a socirty that is stealing from the next generations because we are cowards and will not live within our means. I pretty much hate our government and pretty much hate my generation. But other than that, i'm a pretty mellow and likable guy.
sbjj writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 5:15:31 PM

Yea Mink, the only thing missing for all out tyranny IMO is a huge financial crisis. And we have a good 50/50 shot of that occuring in the next 5 years. Or maybe an all out war...WW3 type stuff. Hell, our current President seems to think he is King. And the one before him laid the groundwork for him.
minkowski writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 5:18:08 PM

^^Were we separated at birth, or did you just read my mind?!
sbjj writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 5:21:26 PM

I'm just amazed more people do not think like this. I do not know if it is just a lack of trying. Or maybe people just do not give a sh*t. But the writing is on the wall, and it is just so clear what is coming. Honestly, there is almost no reasonable way out of it. Our country WILL go broke, not might, it WILL. And then the good times begin.
Ranger writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 5:23:51 PM

I'm busy here... only scanning updates. But I agree with you both.
Champ1432 writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 5:26:12 PM

If someone is in prison, by and large, it's because they committed a crime and deserve to be there. Are there innocent people in prison? Of course, I'm sure there are. Are all of these wrongly incarcerated people black? I HIGHLY doubt it.

If the government really wanted to put people in jail because they want to pop out more license plates, do you really think they care what color they are? Again, I highly doubt it.

As someone already pointed out, if there's a bias in the criminal justice system, it's based on class and money, not color. Just ask O.J. Simpson about that. He's black, last time I checked. How many years did he do for killing two people? How about Ray Lewis?

If you're poor and white, you're just as likely to get screwed as if you're poor and black. If you're black and have money, you've got no problems. Just like rich whiteys.

If there are more black people in prison, could it POSSIBLY be because they commit more crimes? Oh, can't suggest that, it's automatically racist.

This is just so ridiculous. If you're in prison for a drug crime, I think I'm safe in saying that chances are, you did it. Again, there are certainly innocent people of all races in prison, but I think the system is still working well enough to think that most people in prison deserve to be there.

You think penalties for drug crimes are too harsh? You think they punish people too severely to keep them in prison? There's a way around that. DON'T DO DRUGS. Don't smoke them, don't shoot them, don't sell them, don't have anything to do with them. Have the smallest amount of accountibility and self-control and responsibility and just stay away from them. Then you don't have to worry about becoming a "slave" in prison.
minkowski writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 5:28:26 PM

^^^So, where do you see the US in twenty years? Seriously and realistically.

Me, I don't know. It could all blow over I guess. People say the debt and deficit aren't a big deal and Obama is reining it in by the month, and then others say he's trying to spend us into bankruptcy on purpose so the government can take control of the areas it wants to control, which wold essentially be all of the US.

But in the end, it's about power, and the power of the federal government continues to grow unabated. More and more prisons, more and more surveillance, more and more laws and rules and regulations. Now they own health insurance. Obama wants to issue executive orders for gun control even though according to the Constitution Congress and only Congress has the power, as representatives of the people, to make and pass laws. The President is only supposed to carry them out, and here we have the President doing the opposite. Bush did the same.

Even if the economy doesn't implode, I think we have a cancer growing in D.C., and I think there's only way to solve it. I just think things will have to get much, much worse before people wake up, before people give up their security and comforts, to take back their nation from the politicians and the parasite corporations, and I think, I hope anyway, that day is drawing nearer than it appears.
sbjj writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 5:31:44 PM

Not the governments role to tell you NOT to do drugs are imprison you for doing so. So, if the government passed a law against men and women having sex, would you just say "WEll, if you do not want to go to prison, do not have sex". How bout if the government made it unlawful to have more than one child. We, I guess its the law. Come on man.
Wallace writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 5:32:30 PM

Saying "the N-Word" is as bad as actually saying n*gger. Maybe even worse, since you force me to think it in my own head.
Wallace writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 5:33:03 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF1NUposXVQ
Wallace writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 5:33:04 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF1NUposXVQ
Wallace writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 5:33:27 PM

Louis CK, you said it!
sbjj writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 5:34:27 PM

No way that we get out of this mess...No way. Wait till Medicare and SS implode. Politicians do not have the balls to do what it takes.
minkowski writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 5:42:53 PM

@Champ: I agree with you. One thing though I care to point out:

"if there's a bias in the criminal justice system, it's based on class and money, not color."

Many would argue that because blacks are often mired in poverty, they don't get as good a chance in court as whites, who are often wealthier by comparison, and that's true, but it's also true that whites don't often get proper representation by a lawyer who gives a sh*t either.


Maybe we should draw up a list of the things we need, and a list of the things we don't, and use tax money to support the former and not the latter.

You know, maybe de-unionize America' teachers, save a few billion a year, and then put that towards mandatory professional criminal court representation.
Champ1432 writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 5:45:13 PM

"Not the governments role to tell you NOT to do drugs are imprison you for doing so. So, if the government passed a law against men and women having sex, would you just say "WEll, if you do not want to go to prison, do not have sex". How bout if the government made it unlawful to have more than one child. We, I guess its the law. Come on man."

Not the government's role? The government is (ideally) here to protect the safety of the people. Drugs destroy your body and mind. Why shouldn't they be legislated against? Do you honestly think society would be better off if all drugs were legal. That's scary in my opinion. Yes I know alcohol is harmful, too, before you even bring that up. Sugar is harmful, too. So are fatty foods. You're not going to convince me that having a couple of beers is as bad as shooting heroin.

The government outlawing sex is not a legitimate comparison. Of course that would be an overstep of authority. Sex is not something that is guaranteed to harm you. It's not even a valid comparison.

I'm not for bigger government overall, but I really do not think all drugs should be legal.
minkowski writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 5:46:05 PM

@curbcooler: are you the guy from American History X, the black guy who cooled his heels biting the curb?
Champ1432 writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 5:50:41 PM

@Mink

I agree things are not in great shape right now. Where will we be in 20 years? I honestly don't know. I think the next four years will go a long way in giving us a taste. I agree the recent trend is a little alarming. It does seem that the government is taking more and more power. As is said in my last post, I'm not for that overall. I don't agree with the government controlling healthcare. I don't agree with this ridiculous, reckless spending. I don't agree with a lot of what has gone on the past few years.

I don't think the government should make all drugs legal, however. I think that would be a step in the wrong direction. Sure, you could raise a lot of revenue through taxation, but I think the the negatives far outweigh the positives there.

I don't really know what to say about 20 years from now. Like I said, I think the next 4 years will tell us a lot, and I guess I'm just hopeful that things begin to get a little better. Maybe that's naive, but I really do hope we can get things going in the right direction again, because I still think this is a good country.
minkowski writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 5:53:37 PM

"I'm not for bigger government overall, but I really do not think all drugs should be legal."

Maybe, maybe not, but when you look at how many people already do drugs, and when you look at the endless destruction in America and abroad from the criminal drug trade, you have to wonder if the War on Drugs is even remotely the best policy possible.
sbjj writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 5:54:04 PM

Actually, everything you listed, alcohol, fatty foods, and probably sex are just as harmful as drugs. Cars are dangerous also, and so are airplanes. many things in life are dangerous. And when is it the governments role to protect someone from themself. I must have missed that one. You can continue to choose which freedoms you want and which ones you do not want. As for legalization ruining society...LOL! It is the prohibition that is ruining society. Thought we, as a society already learned that lesson. But sadly, some people believe they have a moral right to tell others what they can and can not do with their own body.
GERARD KENNELLY 27 writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 6:02:56 PM



what are the odds...
i am watching JACKIE BROWN as i write this comment

it feels pretty dated
they are all trying too hard to be cool

but Robert Forster is pure class
what a tired charismatic character
sbjj writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 6:04:51 PM

Would really encourage you to do some research on drugs. To act as if they are some boogeyman is just not right. Yes, some drugs are very destructive, and many people ruin their lives with addiction. But the overall negatives of prohibition are much worse. Tax dollars spent, incarceration of non violent criminals who become violent when let out. Gang wars over drug turf. Law enforcemnet deaths. A bloody war across the border to feed our appetite. Young kids in the inner city who look up to rich drug dealers, who the in turn end up dealing drugs. Champ, you, like me, were probably not raised around the center of the war on drugs. This war is effecting many, many innocent people including many children.
minkowski writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 6:11:33 PM

It's not just ruining America, it's enormously empowering criminal cartels in other nations to ruin those countries as well, like Mexico and Columbia.

Believe me, I was never much in favor of legalizing drugs either until I saw the destruction occurring inside other nations thanks to America's illicit consumption of coke and weed.

It's like during Prohibition when alcohol was outlawed. People still got drunk, but the only people to make any money off of it were criminals, which fueled gang wars, murder syndicates and mob bosses.

My only concern is that some drugs, like cocaine, are currently pretty expensive, and legalizing them would probably reduce their cost so much it would far too easy for the average person to get addicted to them.
Champ1432 writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 6:14:05 PM

"Actually, everything you listed, alcohol, fatty foods, and probably sex are just as harmful as drugs"

We both know that's not true. I cannot envision a scenario where legalizing all drugs would be better for society than havign some kind of program against them.

No, I was not raised around the center of the war on drugs (thankfully), but I do have some experience with them in my life. Not personally, but people I knew/know. There is no way society would be better with more people like that.
Champ1432 writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 6:16:14 PM

@Mink

perhaps the war on drugs as presently constituted isn't the best possible policy, and there may be a better way out there. I'm not going to act like I have that answer, but I just can't imagine that complete legalization is that answer. Like I said, I think it's a step in the wrong direction.
sbjj writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 6:23:45 PM

Champ, do some research on Alcohol consumption rates and crime statisctics before, during, and after prohibition. i just can not say it any other way but to say that you are flat out wrong in your assumptions that we are better off with drug prohibition. Factually, you are just 100% wrong. As for alcohol and fatty foods not being as bad as drugs...Once again, you are just 100% wrong. You can continue to say it and believe it. but the facts disprove you.
sbjj writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 6:30:41 PM

As for things going to hell if you decriminalize or legalize...tell that to Porugal....

Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."

Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html#ixzz2IBD25w6o
Champ1432 writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 6:32:36 PM

lol what facts?

Tell you what, I'll eat three hamburgers a day, and you shoot up heroin three times a day. We'll see who ends up worse more quickly.

Yes, of course food like that can be dangerous. But you can mitigate the effects with excercise and being active and eating other healthy things. There's nothing you can do to mitigate the effects of drug use except stop. I'm not going to look up stats on crime rates. Maybe they are higher during prohibition. But tell me this... if drugs are legalized, are they going to be dirt cheap? Do you really think the government would tax the HELL out of them? SO in this economy, do you really think everyone who wants to be a piece of sh*t junkie is going to be able to afford to? No, they will not. So they will resort to stealing them, or getting them from people who steal them. So there will still be an illegal trade of drugs. Maybe not as extensive, but to posit that legalizing all drugs will eliminate all illegal drug trade is preposterous. Don't tell me I'm 100% wrong about something you can't prove, because you, I, and all of us know drugs are never going to be legal in this country.
Champ1432 writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 6:34:52 PM

How is America remotely comparable to Portugal?

Lol I love these types of arguements. "Policy X worked in one European country with a fraction of the people in the US, so it's guaranteed to work here, too."
sbjj writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 6:38:30 PM

So let me get this straight, facts and statistics mean nothing, but you saying drugs are worse and that things will get worse is OK. Look, keep your head in the sand. Discount what is happening in countries that are getting rid of old drug laws. Turn a blind eye to facts and stats that show addiction and violent crime is higher during prohibition. but also understand that you are full of sh*t when you speak if you are to close minded are lazy to read up on a subject you obviously know nothing about.
sbjj writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 6:41:36 PM

Wait, you believe there will still be an illegal drug trade if they are legal? Dude, you are on drugs. Kinda like the illegal ciggarette trade, or the illegal advil trade. Man, you are just set in your mindset.
Champ1432 writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 6:41:48 PM

Ok, so you're right that it worked in Portugal. Again, what does that have to do with our country? It's a completely different culture.

What about my point of there still existing an illegal trade? Is my head in the sand there, too?
sbjj writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 6:43:30 PM

Champ, I can 100% prove that prohibition is worse, to the contrary of what you say. Like I said, look up the stats before, during, and after alcohol prohibition. It is all there for you.
Champ1432 writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 6:44:01 PM

Are you serious?

Guns are legal. Is there an illegal gun market in this country?

There's an illegal market for just about everything. Just because drugs would be "legal" doesn't mean they would be "legally accessible" for everyone. So there would still exist an illegal market for them. If you think that's not the case, I think it's your head that's in the sand.
Trivia Newton John writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 6:45:54 PM

Silly n*gger
sbjj writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 6:46:02 PM

How is Portugal so much different. there stats are in %, not total people. they had a major problem with drugs, much like us. You seem to just have a kneejerk reaction to anything against your view.

As for there still being an illegal trade...What? i really do not know how to answer that. can you name me a product 100% legal here that still has an underground market?
sbjj writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 6:47:38 PM

Illegal gun market for criminals who are not allowed to purchase them legally. Does not qualify. Are you only going to let certain people do drugs?
sbjj writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 6:49:06 PM

Where can I get me some illegal cigarrettes?
sbjj writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 6:50:44 PM

We seem to be dancing around each other champ. like I said can you name me an illegal market for a 100% legal product. Firearms are not 100% legal.
Champ1432 writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 6:57:42 PM

There are illegal markets for many things in this country. Advil? No, probably not. But then again, even if drugs are legalized, you're not going to be able to go to Rite-Aid and pick up $50 of crack.

If things are "100% leagl", no, there's probably not much of an illegal market. But drugs would not be 100% legal. They would be regulated and probably taxed heavily. So agai, when Junkie John wants his fix and can't afford it through legal means, what is he to do? He's going to steal it or get it from someone who did. Maybe it wouldn't be as bad as what happens now, but I think it's ridiculous to think it wouldn't happen at all.

Either way, this really isn't going anywhere. Yes, I'm set in my mind, and so are you. You're not convincing me, and I'm not convincing you. No offense to you, you seem reasonably intelligent and decent, but honestly I weep for this country if what you propose ever came to pass. The likely rise in people addicted and lives destroyed will far outweigh any possible benefits in my mind.

There will always be addicts and junkies no matter what you do, no matter how illegal drugs are and how harsh the penalties are. But just because someone wants to destroy their life AND the lives of those around them doesn't mean they should always be allowed. Because drug addiction rarely affects only the addict, and I hope you can at least agree with me on that. I think drug legalization is more than a slippery slope, I think it's going right over the edge.
Dark8 writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 6:58:40 PM

f*ck n*ggers.....
minkowski writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 7:00:09 PM

^^I think he means legalized like cigarettes and alcohol. There's virtually no black market for either. No one sits around growing tobacco plants and making beer to sell on the black market, so arguably if the government can properly regulate those consumptives, surely they can also regulate weed and perhaps cocaine.
sbjj writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 7:04:11 PM

Champ, you also seem intelligent and somewhat reasonable. we just disagree. I just wish you(people) would stop saying they KNOW addiction and crime would rise when all the evidence we have points to that being wrong. I mean, how can someone say they know someting is going to happen, when all the past data shows that it is not going to happen. To me that shows arrogance in ones belief.
sbjj writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 7:07:00 PM

And yes Champ, addiction does effect those around the addict. Just as gambling, alcohol, and sex addiction do.
Gnarkill writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 7:19:52 PM

What makes me angry is that when then waynes brothers made Dont Be A Menace and made fun of their own race , no one said sh*t , mind you this was when americans were not c*nts... second I guess its ok for every black comedian to talk sh*t on white people( cause they're ancestor was a slave makes me sick to my stomach!)...Third
I just watched Django Unchained and if anything ! ANYTHING AT ALL! it makes white people look stupid . So when sc*mbags like Little Big Guy Kat Williams and any other coon says somthing about this moive or just general life needs to be labeled a racist...... Ohhh wait im sorry sc*mbag blacks cant be racist i forgot its only 2013 and they're still hate crimes in a court system but when you look on TV EVEYONE IS THE SAME PERSON .
minkowski writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 7:22:56 PM

Full disclosure: My ancestors didn't own slaves.

Thanks.
Gnarkill writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 7:27:02 PM

by 2030 they will outlaw the color black and white cause blacks bitch about the white man but yet if i did a experiment and put black people from the ghetto into a brandnew suburban area and told them to start over one year later it will be destoyed by drugs dog fights fights in general robbery murder ex ex cause thats how they think !!!!! they label themselves that way and cant take the run around when all said and done but in all honesty they will shoot anyone for no reason..... GOD IF YOUR LISTENING segregation!!!!!!!!
Gnarkill writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 7:31:02 PM

funniest black name i ever heard was alabama porch monkey but yeah they just bitch about anything , and i do have black friends who talk white and are ed·u·cat·ed and i know some thatare straight n*ggers but they know respect and even call other blacks n*ggers so i guess it just boils down to common sense
vincere01 writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 8:14:57 PM

Bullsh*t. Go suck a few d*cks in prison Queertin Terriblino
Gnarkill writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 8:21:35 PM

yeah really stop holding grudges just stay hard in ur hometown and keep selling drugs and killing people and blame the whites for everything ... im not saying all african americans are bad but 75%
minkowski writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 8:26:30 PM

"If somebody is out there actually saying [that] when it comes to the word 'n*gger,' I was using it in the movie more than it was being used in the south in Mississippi, then feel free to make that case,"

How could anyone ever possibly make that case?

Hey Spooky, here's your strawman. QT wants someone to make an impossible case, a case he knows can't be made because no one has a clue how often people said "n*gger" back then, not that the number of times a certain word was uttered throughout an entire state for only God knows how many years should somehow compete with a movie in which everyone says the word every three seconds, but I digress.
minkowski writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 8:27:06 PM

@Gnarkill@ You should stop or they'll start calling me racist.
GERARD KENNELLY 27 writes:
on January 16th, 2013 at 10:24:26 PM



@ minkowski

maybe legalizing drugs would wipe out the crime element not to mention stop people losing their loved ones
drugs would be like coffee or alcohol
something that you choose to enjoy
Damon242 writes:
on January 17th, 2013 at 12:11:59 AM

Are people really that sensitive? One can't even use the word when discussing the use of the word? Ridiculous.
TRUEMAN writes:
on January 17th, 2013 at 8:36:08 AM

i don't get alll this buzz about that word, when i was a child, i told to a classmate niger niger niger, every time i wan't it, and every one was doing the same thing and none of us got kill, i have a n*gger friend, and when i see him i always salute him what's up my n*gger and he never piss of about that, i just don't get why you can't use that word in public and why is so ofensive?

Director James Gunn Comments on "Guardians of the Galaxy" Becoming Highest Grossing Movie of 2014

"The Sopranos" Creator Finally Reveals Whether Tony Soprano Died

Matt Damon to Return For "Jason Bourne 5"

"Guardians of the Galaxy" Wins Worst Box Office Weekend of the Year

"No Good Deed" Beats "Dolphin Tale 2" For First Place at Box Office

"Captain America 3" Director Hints at End of Chris Evans as Captain America

If You Downloaded "The Expendables 3" Illegally, Lionsgate is Coming For You

Warner Bros Has a "No Jokes" Policy For Its Superhero Films?

What Happens to Jimmy Olsen in "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice"?

David Fincher Regrets Making "The Game," Says Superhero Film are Dull
Buy High Quality Waterproof Camera Products at Wholesale Price
WorstPreviews.com hosted by pair Networks WorstPreviews.com
Hosted by pair Networks
News Feeds | Box Office | Movie Reviews | Buzz: Top 100 | Popularity: Top 100
Poster Store | About Us | Advertising | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Web Tools | Site Map
Copyright © 2009 WorstPreviews.com. All rights reserved