Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Charges Against Black Panthers Dropped by Obama JD (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Charges Against Black Panthers Dropped by Obama JD
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"We ARE better than anyone else."

Oh man, Jeebus got a whuppin' in store for you, chile.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Justice Department whistleblower alleging racial bias, corruption, testifies today

quote:
Former Justice Department attorney, J. Christian Adams, will testify today before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, as to why the department dropped a case against the Black Panthers, in what some have called the most clear case of voter intimidation since the Civil Rights era.

Adams, who resigned last month over the case, claims it was dropped for purely racial reasons, alleging bias and corruption.

Last year, Attorney General Eric Holder dropped charges against three Black Panthers, who were caught on video, trying to intimidate voters outside of a Philadelphia polling location on Election Day 2008.

Shabazz held a nightstick, pointing it at people. Prosecutors said he “supports racially motivated violence against non-blacks and Jews.”

Charges were brought against the Black Panthers by the Bush administration. However, the Obama administration dropped them in May 2009, settling instead, for an agreement with Shabazz to not carry a “deadly weapon” into or near a polling place until 2012.

Seriously? [DOH] It still boggles my mind that they would agree to allow carrying a “deadly weapon” into a polling place after 2011.

Hmmm... I wonder what the Obama Justice departments reaction would be if Tea Party members showed up to a Philadelphia polling place brandishing night sticks?

quote:
At the time of the incident, poll watcher Bartle Bull provided a sworn affidavit to the crime saying: “I watched the two uniformed men confront voters and attempt to intimidate voters. They were positioned in a location that forced every voter to pass in close proximity to them. The weapon was openly displayed and brandished in plain sight of voters.”

Bull also claimed that the Black Panthers tried to "interfere with the work of other poll observers ... whom the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically.” He said that one of the black panthers told a white poll worker “you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.”

quote:
In June 2009, during testimony before a Senate panel considering new hate crimes legislation, Attorney General Eric Holder clearly suggested that any new laws passed would only apply to non-white victims.
So much for Justice being Blind. We're going from a Justice system based on law to a Justice system based on men.

Source

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Top Justice Dept. Official Lied Under Oath About Dismissal of New Black Panther Case, Ex-DOJ Lawyer Says

quote:
A former Justice Department attorney who resigned last month in protest of the Obama administration's handling of a voter intimidation case involving the New Black Panther Party accused a top Justice official of lying under oath about the circumstances surrounding the decision to drop the case.

J. Christian Adams, now an attorney in Virginia and a blogger for Pajamas Media, told Fox News in an exclusive interview that aired Wednesday that Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez provided false testimony in May to the United States Commission on Civil Rights, which is investigating the department's decision to drop charges against three members of the radical group in a case that the government won.

Perez told the commission that the facts and the law didn't support the case against the group.

"I know about the truth…and I know what the truth is and I know to say the facts and law don't support the Black Panther case is not true," Adams said, adding that Perez ignored his warnings not to provide false testimony.

"We made it very clear that continuing to say that the facts and the law don't support this case would not be consistent with the truth," he said.

Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler called Adams' allegations "baseless."

"I don't think the department or the fine people who work there are corrupt, but in this particular instance, to abandon law-abiding citizens and abet wrongdoers constitutes corruption," he said.

Adams said he quit last month after the department ordered attorneys to ignore a subpoena from the commission.

"After being ordered not to comply with the lawful subpoena, after hearing the lies that are being said about the case, after the corruption that we had witnessed in the case, I just said that's it, that I resign and now I'm no longer there," he said.

Source
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah, Dave Gibson. Here's a guy who's been working on better couching his racist message for nearly a decade now. [Smile]

http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/2002/gibson/qtr3/0729.htm

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Ah, Dave Gibson. Here's a guy who's been working on better couching his racist message for nearly a decade now. [Smile]

http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/2002/gibson/qtr3/0729.htm

Your post doesn't seem to have anything to do with this topic. What is the connection I'm missing or did you just post to the wrong thread?

Ahh, he was the author of the first source. Nevermind.

[ July 07, 2010, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: JWatts ]

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are there actually facts to contradict what the article said the Justice Dept did, or is Tom's ad homeniem supposed to close the argument?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Are there actually facts to contradict what the article said the Justice Dept did, or is Tom's ad homeniem supposed to close the argument?

Since the article Tom linked was from 2002, I don't think it has a lot of relevance to the current topic.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom's point seems to be that since the author taught a racist message 8 years ago (which seems true from the article) that we should not pay attention to any facts that he points us to now.

the video clips should speak for themselves, though, and if Fox misquoted the result, ie that the Obama administration dropped charges in May 2009, settling instead, for an agreement with Shabazz to not carry a “deadly weapon” into or near a polling place until 2012, they'd have been called on the carpet. Here is a Washington Times article on the topic. I also noticed some Fox News videoclips from a Democratic Party witness.


Okay, Shabazz. No more using weapons to intimidate voters at polling places, until Obama's next presidential election in 2012. [Eek!]

[ July 07, 2010, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On the other hand, Media Matters reports that:

quote:
Adams himself acknowledged during his Fox interview that his claims are based on hearsay...
and

quote:
It should be noted that no voter in Philadelphia has come forward to complain about intimidation stemming from the Black Panthers' presence at the polling station.
I would provide the link, but for some reason it keeps getting dumped because of a parenthesis hidden in the URL address. [Frown]

Still, those are two interesting tidbits that I'm sure are not emphasized in any of the Right-Wing Media.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
On the other hand, Media Matters reports that:

quote:
Adams himself acknowledged during his Fox interview that his claims are based on hearsay...
and

quote:
It should be noted that no voter in Philadelphia has come forward to complain about intimidation stemming from the Black Panthers' presence at the polling station.
I would provide the link, but for some reason it keeps getting dumped because of a parenthesis hidden in the URL address. [Frown]

Still, those are two interesting tidbits that I'm sure are not emphasized in any of the Right-Wing Media.

[Mad] Did you bother to read the Washington Times Article that I just provided you, or to watch the attached video?

Hint: not by Adams. Not hearsay either:

quote:
The incident - which gained national attention when it was captured on videotape and distributed on YouTube - had prompted the government to sue the men, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring would-be voters with the weapon, racial slurs and military-style uniforms.

Career lawyers pursued the case for months, including obtaining an affidavit from a prominent 1960s civil rights activist who witnessed the confrontation and described it as "the most blatant form of voter intimidation" that he had seen, even during the voting rights crisis in Mississippi a half-century ago.

Not hearsay, Wayward. Video and sworn affadavit.

If this were a Republican Prez making the same limp deal with a KKK member who brandished a nightstick outside a polling place during an election, how would you feel about such blithe dismissals?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The hearsay that Adams is alledged to have admitted to is not the facts of the incident--which no one disputes, AFAIK--but probably has to do with his charge that Prerez lied or the reasons why the case was dropped. I haven't listened to the interview myself, so I can't say for sure. But I am pretty sure it is not the estblished facts of the case.

The video certainly looks bad, but you have to wonder why no voters complained about it, considering how bad it looks. If a KKK guy brandished a nightstick in front of a poling place, do you think that no one but an out-of-state observer would complain? [Wink]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
If a KKK guy brandished a nightstick in front of a poling place, do you think that no one but an out-of-state observer would complain? [Wink]

Today, no. Back when the KKK were politically correct and convenient to the powers that be, like in the days when President Wilson was singing praises of the KKK-friendly "birth of the nation, quite possibly yes.

quote:
AFAIK--but probably has to do with his charge that Prerez lied or the reasons why the case was dropped. I haven't listened to the interview myself...
Neither have I. Don't see how that would be needful. I'm astonished that you would not admit that "an agreement with Shabazz to not carry a “deadly weapon” into or near a polling place until 2012" is a complete joke, given the video and affadavit evidence. The indisputable facts are enough to toss up very big red flags.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would like to read a summary of the court arguments.

I would also like to know why no one left the polling place and didn't come back with some baseball bats.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No court arguments, Kenmeer. Prosecution dropped charges. This was a stipulated agreement between the prosecution (the AG's office) and the defendant, Shabazz, a leader of a supremacist organization so maliciously racist that the Black Panther's founder, Huey Newton, has disowned it. There's no court argument when the court just rubber-stamps an agreement between both parties. But career attorneys in the AG's office protested the deal, and some quit over it.

quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
I would also like to know why no one left the polling place and didn't come back with some baseball bats.

Because not everyone has enough political connections to commit such crimes with impunity.

[ July 07, 2010, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Another reason there would be no court argument, Kenmeer .... the prosecution controls the evidence that comes before the court. Here, Obama's political appointees overruled the carreer lawyers in the Justice Department, and prevented the key evidence from even going before the judge. See bottom of this linked page:

quote:
The complaint said the three men engaged in "coercion, threats and intimidation, ... racial threats and insults, ... menacing and intimidating gestures, ... and movements directed at individuals who were present to vote." It said that unless prohibited by court sanctions, they would "continued to violate ... the Voting Rights Act by continuing to direct intimidation, threats and coercion at voters and potential voters, by again deploying uniformed and armed members at the entrance to polling locations in future elections, both in Philadelphia and throughout the country."

To support its evidence, the government had secured an affidavit from Bartle Bull, a longtime civil rights activist and former aide to Sen. Robert F. Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign. Mr. Bull said in a sworn statement dated April 7 that he was serving in November as a credentialed poll watcher in Philadelphia when he saw the three uniformed Panthers confront and intimidate voters with a nightstick.

Inexplicably, the government did not enter the affidavit in the court case, according to the files.

Top of the next page:
quote:
"In my opinion, the men created an intimidating presence at the entrance to a poll," he declared. "In all my experience in politics, in civil rights litigation and in my efforts in the 1960s to secure the right to vote in Mississippi ... I have never encountered or heard of another instance in the United States where armed and uniformed men blocked the entrance to a polling location."

Mr. Bull said the "clear purpose" of what the Panthers were doing was to "intimidate voters with whom they did not agree." He also said he overheard one of the men tell a white poll watcher: "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."


Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Tom's point seems to be that since the author taught a racist message 8 years ago (which seems true from the article) that we should not pay attention to any facts that he points us to now.
No. My "point" was that I've always found Gibson amusing. He's a racist prat, and he's been struggling for years to come up with ways to convince people that he's not a racist; he's just reacting to all the racism he sees around him. He's a poor white man being oppressed!

*laugh* I had the dubious pleasure of running into him once or twice in a former life, so frankly it's always funny to see him dancing to the same tune in article after article. It's seriously the only issue he cares about, and his motives are so transparent that it's painful. I can only assume that someone called him on his racism back in college and he never got over it; he's certainly dedicated his entire adult life to proving that everyone's a racist except him. [Smile]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah, then JWatts was right, and I apologize for accusing you of being relevant. [Razz]

In this country, anyone exposed to the news eventually becomes a racist of one stripe or another. Many blacks racist against whites as a reaction to past racism of whites, some whites racist as a counter-reaction, other whites racist against whites in order to prove they aren't racist, some blacks racist against both whites and blacks and hispanics, in different ways, Immigrants who imported different forms of racism from their own countries. At least never to my recollection denied that he was racist. JB. Too bad he never reached the next step of trying to see past it.

[ July 07, 2010, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Because not everyone has enough political connections to commit such crimes with impunity."

Crime is impunious (recombinant word graft alert)by nature, yes? Not to dispute your point; I get what you're saying. But, you know, just one big beefy bubba coming up with a giant grin on his face and a bat in each hand, walking straight for them bruthahs. Would've made a priceless video to see 'em drop and run.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stayne
Member
Member # 1944

 - posted      Profile for stayne   Email stayne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
He's a poor white man being oppressed!

Tom, I must be you a moment. (Puts on Tom hat) White men cannot be oppressed?
Posts: 594 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom's point, I think is that they can *also* be racist.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"He's a poor white man being oppressed!"

Tom, is what Kenmeer just said your point, i.e. that Gibson might be both racist and oppressed in America? Or were you suggesting, as Stayne inferred, that it's unlikely that anyone can be persecuted for being white in America?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's unlikely that white people complaining of reverse racism have been oppressed, certainly. [Wink]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's the accusation against the justice department, that they feel the same way in seeing that black voter intimidation against whites isn't worth bothering about. So when we see people making the same claims here it just goes to show that it wouldn't be farfetched to believe that the position isn't that uncommon.
Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kenmeer, I think you've given Tom too much credit here.

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
It's unlikely that white people complaining of reverse racism have been oppressed, certainly. [Wink]

So here here, where a white Democratic poll watcher is threatened wuth a nightstick and told now you know how it feels to get ruled over by the black man, you say, probably not oppression, because he's white and complaining?

Watch the video on the link. The KKK doesn't even do stuff like this anymore.

quote:
"In my opinion, the men created an intimidating presence at the entrance to a poll," he declared. "In all my experience in politics, in civil rights litigation and in my efforts in the 1960s to secure the right to vote in Mississippi ... I have never encountered or heard of another instance in the United States where armed and uniformed men blocked the entrance to a polling location."

Mr. Bull said the "clear purpose" of what the Panthers were doing was to "intimidate voters with whom they did not agree." He also said he overheard one of the men tell a white poll watcher: "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."

In case anyone gets confused by the word "overheard," that is NOT hearsay. It's direct testimony for the fact that these thugs were attempting to intimidate people. (The statement would be hearsay if we were using it as evidence for the claim that the man spoken to was actually a "cracker" who was about to be ruled by the black man," but that's not the point here.)

quote:


He called their conduct an "outrageous affront to American democracy and the rights of voters to participate in an election without fear." He said it was a "racially motivated effort to limit both poll watchers aiding voters, as well as voters with whom the men did not agree."

The three men named in the complaint - New Black Panther Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson - refused to appear in court to answer the accusations over a near-five month period, court records said.

So they didn't even bother to show to court to confront the charges. "The court had already entered a default judgment against the men on April 20," but the Obama admin got the court to reverse the conviction and dropped charges in exchange for this joke of a deal.

Does anyone seriously argue here that the Obama admin hasn't coddled a racial supremacist group that supported him in the election?

Republicans should move to impeach the attorney general.

[ July 08, 2010, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Does anyone seriously argue here that the Obama admin hasn't coddled a racial supremacist group that supported him in the election?

Republicans should move to impeach the attorney general.

Depends what you mean by "coddle." [Smile]

I don't know enough about this situation--and I don't have the time or inclination to do much research--so I won't argue in support of Obama's Administration on this issue.

But I did notice when looking up those Media Matters quotes that this has gone viral in the Conservative Blogosphere. All the major players--Rush, Laura, Hannity, etc.--have jumped on the bandwagon, plus dozens of websites. And when that's happened in the past, it typically has come to nothing.

I bet that within one month, a reasonable explanation will be provided for the Justice Department's decision. (Reasonable for most people, that is. [Smile] ) I also predict that, not only will Republicans not impeach the Attorney General, but no official investigation will be made. The Administration's explanation will be accepted, and this will die down except for the partisans who will try to keep it alive through endless repetition.

I mainly believe this because, in this country, those in power very, very rarely do anything as blatant as this is proported to be. The Obama Administration is under no illusion that it can flaunt the law with impunity, especially for some half-baked inner-city radicals. It doesn't jive with reality.

A more reasonable explanation, IMHO, is that the Conservative Media is omitting certain mitigating facts to make the Administration look worse than it is. They have done this before; this could certainly be another case.

Admittedly, I have no facts to back up this assertion. But those who are getting hot under the collar because of this blatant disregard for the law, chill. Come back in a month and see what the situation is. I bet that it will be far less blatant that it is today.

Criswell predicts! [Smile]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So here here, where a white Democratic poll watcher is threatened wuth a nightstick and told now you know how it feels to get ruled over by the black man, you say, probably not oppression, because he's white and complaining?
I say, yes, it's unlikely. I'm sure it occasionally happens. I'm equally sure it's not an endemic thing that we need to throw up, as a certain journalist whose name has already been mentioned tends to do, as proof that all the real racism nowadays is against white people. [Smile]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
So here here, where a white Democratic poll watcher is threatened wuth a nightstick and told now you know how it feels to get ruled over by the black man, you say, probably not oppression, because he's white and complaining?
I say, yes, it's unlikely. I'm sure it occasionally happens. I'm equally sure it's not an endemic thing that we need to throw up, as a certain journalist whose name has already been mentioned tends to do, as proof that all the real racism nowadays is against white people. [Smile]
Dodge and straw man. I'm talking about this specific case, in light of sworn testimony and a video whicn I've provided you with.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.newblackpanther.com/intro.html

Funny, looks like the guy actually got suspended from the New Black Panther party. Odd that the organization itself imposed a harsher penalty than the justice department. What a joke for the administration.

Combine that with Eric Holder's attempt to remove white people from hate crime protection (much in the spirit of what TomD is preaching here), and things look very bad for the Obama admin.

It's really too bad, because racial issues are the point where I really did have most hope for Obama. I thought he was beyond that sort of inanity.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Unequal protection violates Romer v. Evans, incidentally, and Obama's man Holder seems to want to institutionalize unequal protection. This case is just the tip of the iceberg; the hate crimes bill is a much bigger chunk of it. The failure of the left MSM to report on this is fairly shocking.

Setting aside the constitutional issues, if you want to stop hate crimes against minorities, then you should NOT want to enact unequal laws that build natural resentment in the majority.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
...Conservative Media is omitting certain mitigating facts to make the Administration look worse than it is....

Admittedly, I have no facts to back up this assertion.

[Roll Eyes] Seriously? You do realize that your are pretty much admitting that facts don't matter to you.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I bet that within one month, a reasonable explanation will be provided for the Justice Department's decision.
Do you really think that one month is reasonable for them to need to respond to something like this?

Like you, I'm bothered by the lack of center and left input on this matter. I don't like to reply on blogs and Fox for a story. But there's video footage, and a witness that seems very credible, so I'm not willing to just dismiss this based on source bias.

Not seeing anything back from the left on Holder's purported stance on unequal hate-crimes laws.

I do respect that youv'e at least admitted that if the facts are what they are purported to be, that it's an outrage. That distinguishes your position from Tom, who seems to take the position that it's probably no big deal because the targets are white.

quote:
I mainly believe this because, in this country, those in power very, very rarely do anything as blatant as this is proported to be. The Obama Administration is under no illusion that it can flaunt the law with impunity, especially for some half-baked inner-city radicals. It doesn't jive with reality.

A more reasonable explanation, IMHO, is that the Conservative Media is omitting certain mitigating facts to make the Administration look worse than it is. They have done this before; this could certainly be another case.

YES, that was my response too. But then ... where is the response from the left and from the rest of the MSM? Just the fact that the right is making these accusations is in itself newsworthy. The lack of timely response evokes suspicion.

I want to be wrong about this. But there should have been a response to this by now.

[ July 08, 2010, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
[Roll Eyes] Seriously? You do realize that your are pretty much admitting that facts don't matter to you.
No, facts matter. But I've seen too many instances where Conservatives (and some Liberals) make a huge deal of an incident, only to have facts emerge later that mitigates the apparent outrageousness of the situation.

Facts very much matter. I am just waiting for all the facts to come out. My nose tells me that there are some that haven't been mentioned yet.

quote:
Do you really think that one month is reasonable for them to need to respond to something like this?
I expect a response much earlier than that. Of course, the response will then be challenged, then the challenge will be challenged, etc., etc.

A month should be enough time for the dust to settle and all the facts and distortions have been sorted out.

quote:
Like you, I'm bothered by the lack of center and left input on this matter. I don't like to reply on blogs and Fox for a story. But there's video footage, and a witness that seems very credible, so I'm not willing to just dismiss this based on source bias.
Also remember that this is an old story. This thread started over a year ago. Perez all ready answered questions over the original incident and the Justice Department's response.

It is only the new accusations--that Perez lied under oath--that are new, and needs to be addressed. How quickly do you expect them to respond? They are probably waiting for Adams to testify before crafting their response.

The incident is old, but the perjury charges are new, and that's what is fueling the outrage right now. A little time will bring out more facts--facts that Fox may be ignoring. I predict that this will happen again.

I very well may be wrong. But I've seen too many outrages like this that turned out to be overblown to get caught up in it right away.

Time will tell.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
[QB]
quote:
[Roll Eyes] Seriously? You do realize that your are pretty much admitting that facts don't matter to you.
No, facts matter. But I've seen too many instances where Conservatives (and some Liberals) make a huge deal of an incident, only to have facts emerge later that mitigates the apparent outrageousness of the situation.

Facts very much matter. I am just waiting for all the facts to come out. My nose tells me that there are some that haven't been mentioned yet.

That seems a fair position.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm talking about this specific case...
Yeah, it's obvious. I think it's equally obvious that I'm not. Frankly, I don't know enough about this specific case to form an opinion on it.

quote:
Just the fact that the right is making these accusations is in itself newsworthy.
Yes, that's almost exactly how slurs work. "It's newsworthy because we're talking about it!"
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
I'm talking about this specific case...
Yeah, it's obvious. I think it's equally obvious that I'm not. Frankly, I don't know enough about this specific case to form an opinion on it.

quote:
Just the fact that the right is making these accusations is in itself newsworthy.
Yes, that's almost exactly how slurs work. "It's newsworthy because we're talking about it!"

It must be so frustrating to you that America's news input isn't limited to stories that you think are beneficial to the public mind.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It must be so frustrating to you that America's news input isn't limited to stories that you think are beneficial to the public mind.
Specifically, it frustrates me that all it takes to manufacture a "scandal" or a "controversy" is two pundits willing to announce that there's a scandal or controversy. The line "some people say/think" is horribly, horribly misused nowadays to absolve newscasters of the need to actually verify the truth of any information before reporting on it; if it's true that people are saying it, you can report that it's being said without having to actually go to the inconvenience of validating the content of the message. This makes it very, very easy to get a bit of slander out into the public discourse; all it takes is the announcement that, hey, someone else is talking about it.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
It must be so frustrating to you that America's news input isn't limited to stories that you think are beneficial to the public mind.
Specifically, it frustrates me that all it takes to manufacture a "scandal" or a "controversy" is two pundits willing to announce that there's a scandal or controversy. .
If you acquire any evidence whatsoever that this is what happened here, please wake me up. [Frown]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why does it apparently frustrate you that I continue to not speak to the specifics of a case I have repeatedly said I don't know well enough to discuss in the specific? Certainly the specifics of this case do not make it any harder to expose the danger of a claim like "Just the fact that the right is making these accusations is in itself newsworthy."

Surely you are not now demanding that we only talk about the things you find interesting.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Talk about what you like. But please stop pretending that what you're talking about somehow constitutes a meaningful reply to what I said. Here, there's video and affadavit testimony, not from a right-wing source. It deserves a response.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here it is from MSNBC

Gonna call that, and the Washington Times, right wing blogs?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1