# New Black Panther Party Leader - ... you want freedom ... kill some crackers



## KMAN

I bet half of you have not heard anything about this....

Sad thing is some liberals on this board won't have a probably with this....  

http://politisite.com/2010/07/07/vi...om-youre-going-to-have-to-kill-some-crackers/


----------



## bucs90

Mods- PLEASE keep this thread in politics and not race. The story is only a story because Eric Holder forced the gov't to drop charges. That is the Black Panther party. Thats how they think. Thats decades going and really not a new story.

What is a new story is the fact that the charges were brought, the defendants didn't show up and were found guilty in their absence, and then Eric Holder forced the prosecution to drop charges.

Whats even wilder is how many left wing media outlets have refused to cover this story.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

KMAN said:


> I bet half of you have not heard anything about this....
> 
> Sad thing is some liberals on this board won't have a probably with this....
> 
> http://politisite.com/2010/07/07/vi...om-youre-going-to-have-to-kill-some-crackers/



I'd like to meet that dude on a dark street somewhere.


----------



## AllieBaba

It's actually about law.
Or current events.

It doesn't matter, it's fine wherever it is.

BTW, it's not the Black Panthers but the NEW Black Panthers who intimidated voters.
The Black Panthers themselves think these guys are losers because they've never killed anyone.


----------



## bucs90

Lonestar_logic said:


> KMAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bet half of you have not heard anything about this....
> 
> Sad thing is some liberals on this board won't have a probably with this....
> 
> http://politisite.com/2010/07/07/vi...om-youre-going-to-have-to-kill-some-crackers/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to meet that dude on a dark street somewhere.
Click to expand...


Those Black Panther cowards only do that shit in far left urban areas. But hey, Eric Holder has basically granted them permission to extend their voter intimidation, so maybe that'll change too.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

bucs90 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bet half of you have not heard anything about this....
> 
> Sad thing is some liberals on this board won't have a probably with this....
> 
> http://politisite.com/2010/07/07/vi...om-youre-going-to-have-to-kill-some-crackers/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to meet that dude on a dark street somewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those Black Panther cowards only do that shit in far left urban areas. But hey, Eric Holder has basically granted them permission to extend their voter intimidation, so maybe that'll change too.
Click to expand...


I hope they try that shit where I vote.


----------



## Truthmatters

You are such a lying shithead.

Where did anyone say the had no problem with what he said?


----------



## Big Black Dog

Can you imagine the shit storm that would come down if white guys had of done this?  Guess it's ok though because it was done by a bunch of radical black guys.  That's America for you.


----------



## Truthmatters

Hate is not a crime now is it?

This guy is every much an asshole as the racists on the other side.

You just think they are better people.


----------



## MikeK

Lonestar_logic said:


> I'd like to meet that dude on a dark street somewhere.


Looks like we think the same on this issue.


----------



## Truthmatters

Would you feel the same of the assholes who say that about black people?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Truthmatters said:


> Hate is not a crime now is it?
> 
> This guy is every much an asshole as the racists on the other side.
> 
> You just think they are better people.



Voter intimidation is.


----------



## Truthmatters

Show us the people who said they doidnt vote because he was there?


----------



## syrenn

Lonestar_logic said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hate is not a crime now is it?
> 
> This guy is every much an asshole as the racists on the other side.
> 
> You just think they are better people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voter intimidation is.
Click to expand...



Did you miss the thread? TM doesn't think it was voter intimidation. 

This is nothing new, the panthers have held this view since its inception.


----------



## Coyote

Count Dracula said:


> Can you imagine the shit storm that would come down if *white guys had of done this?*  Guess it's ok though because it was done by a bunch of radical black guys.  That's America for you.



They did.  Minutemen attempted to intimidate hispanic voters.  Case was dropped by the Bush DoJ.

Guess Fox didn't think it newsworthy eh?  That's America for you.


----------



## Truthmatters

syrenn said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hate is not a crime now is it?
> 
> This guy is every much an asshole as the racists on the other side.
> 
> You just think they are better people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voter intimidation is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you miss the thread? TM doesn't think it was voter intimidation.
> 
> This is nothing new, the panthers have held this view since its inception.
Click to expand...


Its only intimidation if someone felt intimidated you idiot


----------



## AllieBaba

No, it's intimidation if it is meant to be intimidating.
And it was.
Besides which people did feel intimidated and were lined up to testify to such.


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthmatters said:


> Would you feel the same of the assholes who say that about black people?



Yes. We do feel the same about those that speak that way about blacks. That's why we are against liberalism/progressivism. That's why we are against abortion was the progressive started advocating for the sole purpose of eliminating minority offspring.

Why this should shock you is beyond me. We have always denounced this crap.


----------



## Avatar4321

Can someone explain to me how carrying a weapon around in uniform while yelling at people going into vote is not intimidation?


----------



## Truthmatters

where is the tape of him yelling while in front of the polls?


----------



## Truthmatters

Avatar4321 said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you feel the same of the assholes who say that about black people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. We do feel the same about those that speak that way about blacks. That's why we are against liberalism/progressivism. That's why we are against abortion was the progressive started advocating for the sole purpose of eliminating minority offspring.
> 
> Why this should shock you is beyond me. We have always denounced this crap.
Click to expand...



You are totally warped in the head.


----------



## driveby

Crackers deserve to die, how dare Newt Ging-a-rich tell Louis Farrkhan what to do !


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Truthmatters said:


> Show us the people who said they doidnt vote because he was there?



Watch the video, you non-spelling retard! The guy clearly states that they (the idiot panthers) were intimidating and voter intimidation is against the law.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Coyote said:


> Count Dracula said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you imagine the shit storm that would come down if *white guys had of done this?*  Guess it's ok though because it was done by a bunch of radical black guys.  That's America for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did.  Minutemen attempted to intimidate hispanic voters.  Case was dropped by the Bush DoJ.
> 
> Guess Fox didn't think it newsworthy eh?  That's America for you.
Click to expand...


Link?


----------



## CaféAuLait

Truthmatters said:


> where is the tape of him yelling while in front of the polls?




He was demanding ID and claiming to be security while brandishing a weapon. If that had been a member of the KKK dressed in uniform it would rightly be called voter intimidation however it seems the rules are changed for some. 


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU]YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly[/ame]


----------



## Truthmatters

Lonestar_logic said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show us the people who said they doidnt vote because he was there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch the video, you non-spelling retard! The guy clearly states that they (the idiot panthers) were intimidating and voter intimidation is against the law.
Click to expand...


That tapoe was not in front of the polling place.

In the tape of him at the polling place he is not intimidating anyone, he is also not a Democrat as far as I know.


----------



## driveby

Pfffttt, it was all a diversion so the ACORN people could go in and out more than once to cast multiple votes.........


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Truthmatters said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show us the people who said they doidnt vote because he was there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch the video, you non-spelling retard! The guy clearly states that they (the idiot panthers) were intimidating and voter intimidation is against the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That tapoe was not in front of the polling place.
> 
> In the tape of him at the polling place he is not intimidating anyone, he is also not a Democrat as far as I know.
Click to expand...


You're an idiot.


----------



## Truthmatters

CaféAuLait;2487336 said:
			
		

> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> where is the tape of him yelling while in front of the polls?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was demanding ID and claiming to be security while brandishing a weapon. If that had been a member of the KKK dressed in uniform it would rightly be called voter intimidation however it seems the rules are changed for some.
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU]YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly[/ame]
Click to expand...


He asked politely and demanded nothing.

You are biased


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthmatters said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you feel the same of the assholes who say that about black people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. We do feel the same about those that speak that way about blacks. That's why we are against liberalism/progressivism. That's why we are against abortion was the progressive started advocating for the sole purpose of eliminating minority offspring.
> 
> Why this should shock you is beyond me. We have always denounced this crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are totally warped in the head.
Click to expand...


I know judging someone by the content of his character and actions and not his race is a foreign concept to you, but the general population understands it very clearly.


----------



## AllieBaba

I'm sure Splatter would be just as understanding of guys in hoods.


----------



## AllieBaba

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIrKtoHYPsE]YouTube - "You want freedom you gonna have to kill some crackers".."gonna have to kill some of their babies"[/ame]


----------



## AllieBaba

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN67KJdd6Mw]YouTube - The Obama Administration Protected Black Panther Who Advocates Killing White Babies[/ame]


----------



## Truthmatters

Dear all in babble,


That one smuck screaming hate has what to do with the democratic partry?


----------



## AllieBaba

Oh look, people called the police because they felt intimidated.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSYQ_yq7A58]YouTube - Intimidation at the Voting Polls[/ame]


----------



## HUGGY

Lonestar_logic said:


> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to meet that dude on a dark street somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those Black Panther cowards only do that shit in far left urban areas. But hey, Eric Holder has basically granted them permission to extend their voter intimidation, so maybe that'll change too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope they try that shit where I vote.
Click to expand...


You vote in dark alleys?


----------



## AllieBaba

Truthmatters said:


> Dear all in babble,
> 
> 
> That one smuck screaming hate has what to do with the democratic partry?



Dumbshit. You said nobody was intimidated.

And he was for your guy. It must make you proud.


----------



## syrenn

Truthmatters said:


> CaféAuLait;2487336 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> where is the tape of him yelling while in front of the polls?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was demanding ID and claiming to be security while brandishing a weapon. If that had been a member of the KKK dressed in uniform it would rightly be called voter intimidation however it seems the rules are changed for some.
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU]YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He asked politely and demanded nothing.
> 
> You are biased
Click to expand...


I wasn't aware that *nightsticks *could talk.


----------



## Truthmatters

HAHAHAHAHAHA, he was not a voter.

He said himself he wasnt bothered and walked between the men,


----------



## Lonestar_logic

HUGGY said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those Black Panther cowards only do that shit in far left urban areas. But hey, Eric Holder has basically granted them permission to extend their voter intimidation, so maybe that'll change too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope they try that shit where I vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You vote in dark alleys?
Click to expand...


Go back to your crack pipe troll!


----------



## HUGGY

AllieBaba said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear all in babble,
> 
> 
> That one smuck screaming hate has what to do with the democratic partry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbshit. You said nobody was intimidated.
> 
> And he was for your guy. It must make you proud.
Click to expand...


You are afraid of this one wacked out guy?  Just follow him home and shoot up the house from the street.  The police will close the case within an hour as "unsolved" drive by.


----------



## syrenn

Truthmatters said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHA, he was not a voter.
> 
> He said himself he wasnt bothered and walked between the men,











haven't we been here before truthdoesntmatter?



You don't have to be a voter, to be someone who is participating in voter  intimidation..


----------



## AllieBaba

Does splatter partake of the grape?


----------



## Truthmatters

syrenn said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> HAHAHAHAHAHA, he was not a voter.
> 
> He said himself he wasnt bothered and walked between the men,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haven't we been here before truthdoesntmatter?
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to be a voter, to be someone who is participating in voter  intimidation..
Click to expand...


Listen to it again fool, he said it didnt effect him and walked between the men.

Hes a republican opperative fool


----------



## CaféAuLait

Truthmatters said:


> CaféAuLait;2487336 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> where is the tape of him yelling while in front of the polls?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was demanding ID and claiming to be security while brandishing a weapon. If that had been a member of the KKK dressed in uniform it would rightly be called voter intimidation however it seems the rules are changed for some.
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU]YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He asked politely and demanded nothing.
> 
> You are biased
Click to expand...


Ahhh, yes because it is always 'polite' when brandishing a weapon while asking for ID.


----------



## CaféAuLait

A republican operative who knew that some asshole was going to be standing outside a place of voting with a weapon? So this was the republicans fault that this man decided to do what he did?


----------



## Coyote

> From a November 8, 2006, Austin American-Statesman article:  ...In Arizona, Roy Warden, an anti-immigration activist with the Minutemenand a handful of supporters staked out a Tucson precinct and questioned Hispanic voters at the polls to determine whether they spoke English...
> 
> ...*Armed with a 9mm Glock automatic* strapped to his side, Warden said he planned to photograph Hispanic voters entering polls in an effort to identify illegal immigrants and felons. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund reported the incident to the FBI...
> 
> From a November 21, 2006, Salon.com article:
> 
> On Election Day, a posse of three men in Tucson, Ariz., proved that the Wild West still lives.
> 
> The group, which was three strong, and allegedly composed of two anti-immigration activists, Russ Dove and Roy Warden, carried a camcorder, a clipboard -- on which, they said, was information about a proposed law to make English the state's official language -- and a gun. While one man would approach a voter, holding the clipboard, another would follow, pointing the video camera at them. The third would stand behind, holding his hand to the gun at his hip in what activists on the other side called classic voter intimidation tactics in a precinct one local paper had previously declared the bellwether of the area's Hispanic vote.



Yet, the case was dropped by the Bush DoJ ....

So...did Christian Adams...self-described "whistle-blower"..... fall victim to a whistle malfunction in 2006?  Or...is it only racism when it's the Obama Administration? Or...is it not "voter intimidation" when they don't speak good English?

Or maybe Adams is just another testosterone deficient jackoff with a huge chip on his shoulder?


----------



## gautama

Truthmatters said:


> Would you feel the same of the assholes who say that about black people?



TruthDoes NOT matter,

Listen you Obamarrhoidal fucking moron, First this is NOT only about HATE (white, black, or technicolour) ....... this is PRIMARILY about FLAGRANT violation of VOTER INTIMIDATION at a polling station procedures ......which is a CRIMINAL MATTER. SECOND, this is about the OVERTLY BLACK RACIST behaviour of the Attorney General of the United States of America, ERIC HOLDER  who is blatantly misusing his office to further his BLACK RACIST AGENDA with the APPARENT APPROVAL of the EXPOSED MONUMENTAL FRAUD, i.e. The Black Racist MARXIST Political Guardian Muslim PC Protector AND now, ALSO.....the SUPPORTER, AIDER and ABETTOR of Mexican Human Trafficking and MEXICAN DRUG CARTEL PUSSY Obami Salaami ......who is, of all things.....THE PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA !!!!! !!!!!

IS THIS PENETRATING YOUR OBAMARRHOIDALLY AND TERMINALLY DAMAGED FUCKING PERCEPTION OF REALITY ?!?!?!?

And.....this is PRIMARILY a POLITICAL ISSUE and should not be relegated to a secondary role by the moderators who have a habit of transferring this type of issue to  a LESS PROMINENT CATEGORY as a Flame, Race, or some other relatively buried category. I noticed that some other poster noticed this also.


----------



## Mini 14

How is this not hate speech?

If I went to downtown Philadelphia, and started yelling that "we need to kill some *******," how fast would I be put in jail?

Why is this POS racist still among us?
merged with duplicate thread


----------



## KMAN

Count Dracula said:


> Can you imagine the shit storm that would come down if white guys had of done this?  Guess it's ok though because it was done by a bunch of radical black guys.  That's America for you.



Hell yeah!  Obama and Holder would have white guys under the jail right now.  There would be riots in the street had white guys said or done this...  Just look at Oakland right now.  I'm thinking Obama may really be a racist.  

Oakland riots, looting after manslaughter verdict in BART shooting trial (video, photos)


----------



## KMAN

Truthmatters said:


> Would you feel the same of the assholes who say that about black people?




Truth - That's where you still don't get it... and I don't think you ever will...  99% of white people in this country think this is out of line no matter what race you are...  I don't know your race but if you have to ask this question obviously you aren't in that 99%.  Sad.


----------



## KMAN

Truthmatters said:


> Show us the people who said they doidnt vote because he was there?



Dude, please read about the case before you make some out of the blue comment.  They had witnesses ready to go up on the stand.  

Thank you for showing everyone where you stand on this issue...  Instead of condemning the acts you defend these guys....  enough said....  

Truth - *You are a racist and I don't want anything else to do with you.  Good day!*


----------



## blastoff

Mini 14 said:


> How is this not hate speech?
> 
> If I went to downtown Philadelphia, and started yelling that "we need to kill some *******," how fast would I be put in jail?
> 
> Why is this POS racist still among us?



Hopefully fast enough to avoid getting your ass kicked by black folks.


----------



## Mini 14

blastoff said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this not hate speech?
> 
> If I went to downtown Philadelphia, and started yelling that "we need to kill some *******," how fast would I be put in jail?
> 
> Why is this POS racist still among us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully fast enough to avoid getting your ass kicked by black folks.
Click to expand...


Which then begs the question:

"Why aren't white folks kicking this dude's ass?"


----------



## chanel

Check out her signature.  She tries to equate McVeigh with the tea party.  The woman clearly has issues.  We should pity her.


----------



## chanel

Perhaps this is why:



> Michael Anthony Nutter (born June 29, 1957) is the Mayor of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He is Philadelphia's third black mayor, and Philadelphia is currently the largest city in the United States with a black mayor.


----------



## L.K.Eder

chanel said:


> Check out her signature.  She tries to equate McVeigh with the tea party.  The woman clearly has issues.  We should pity her.



yeah pity her, while equating shabazz with the dems and the obama admin.


----------



## HUGGY

KMAN said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show us the people who said they doidnt vote because he was there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, please read about the case before you make some out of the blue comment.  They had witnesses ready to go up on the stand.
> 
> Thank you for showing everyone where you stand on this issue...  Instead of condemning the acts you defend these guys....  enough said....
> 
> Truth - *You are a racist and I don't want anything else to do with you.  Good day!*
Click to expand...


Witnesses of what exactly?  Was anyone verbally threatened?  Was anyone physically threatened?  Was any legitimate voter turned away?  Other than a guy or two standing out in the open that could have been dressed a little less intimidating(looking like an angry black guy) what was the crime?


----------



## Avatar4321

People shouldn't be arrested for speech. No matter how vile it is. 

Now, voter intimidation, that's another story. If he actually attempts to carry out his rhetoric, that's another story. But I say let him speak this way. It exposes who he really is.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Mini 14 said:


> How is this not hate speech?
> 
> If I went to downtown Philadelphia, and started yelling that "we need to kill some *******," how fast would I be put in jail?
> 
> Why is this POS racist still among us?



It is hate speech that incites violence.   Do you have a video of it?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIrKtoHYPsE]YouTube - "You want freedom you gonna have to kill some crackers".."gonna have to kill some of their babies"[/ame]


The thing is that this man in the video and another member of the new black panther party were both convicted of voter intimidation for doing what is in the video below.   After the conviction but before the sentance the DOJ under eric holder (appointed by obama) dropped the charges against them citing "We will not prosecute cases of voter intimidation with black defendants and white plantiffs"   The video with proof follows the one with the voter intimidation.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU]YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nekx_9cFRDQ]YouTube - Pt. 1 - Meet J. Christian Adams[/ame]


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Coyote said:


> Count Dracula said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you imagine the shit storm that would come down if *white guys had of done this?*  Guess it's ok though because it was done by a bunch of radical black guys.  That's America for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did.  Minutemen attempted to intimidate hispanic voters.  Case was dropped by the Bush DoJ.
> 
> Guess Fox didn't think it newsworthy eh?  That's America for you.
Click to expand...


Sorry Hoss.... allegations were made, but there was no evidence, unlike this incident where they were CAUGHT ON FILM.

Nice try though.


----------



## L.K.Eder

chanel said:


> Perhaps this is why:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Anthony Nutter (born June 29, 1957) is the Mayor of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He is Philadelphia's third black mayor, and Philadelphia is currently the largest city in the United States with a black mayor.
Click to expand...



spit it out, what do you really want to say?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Anyway.. citing mediamatters now?  There's credibility.


----------



## Truthmatters

This asshole is you peoples counterpart.

If you hate him you should hate yourself


----------



## Lonestar_logic

HUGGY said:


> KMAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show us the people who said they doidnt vote because he was there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, please read about the case before you make some out of the blue comment.  They had witnesses ready to go up on the stand.
> 
> Thank you for showing everyone where you stand on this issue...  Instead of condemning the acts you defend these guys....  enough said....
> 
> Truth - *You are a racist and I don't want anything else to do with you.  Good day!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Witnesses of what exactly?  Was anyone verbally threatened?  Was anyone physically threatened?  Was any legitimate voter turned away?  Other than a guy or two standing out in the open that could have been dressed a little less intimidating(looking like an angry black guy) what was the crime?
Click to expand...


The fact that the black thug was holding a weapon constitutes a threat of violence which is intimidation.

The most significant federal law banning intimidation is the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which states in Section 11(b:

(b) No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, *shall intimidate*, threaten, or coerce, *or attempt to intimidate*, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce, *or attempt to intimidate*, threaten, or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for exercising any powers or duties under section 3(a), 6, 8, 9, 10, or 12(e).


----------



## ConHog

Avatar4321 said:


> People shouldn't be arrested for speech. No matter how vile it is.
> 
> Now, voter intimidation, that's another story. If he actually attempts to carry out his rhetoric, that's another story. But I say let him speak this way. It exposes who he really is.



There are of course limitations on free speech. I'm pretty sure that standing on a street encouraging murder at least approaches that line.


----------



## Immanuel

Truthmatters said:


> This asshole is you peoples counterpart.
> 
> If you hate him you should hate yourself



He actually sounds very much like you with the way you spread your hatred around this site.

Immie


----------



## gautama

Coyote said:


> From a November 8, 2006, Austin American-Statesman article:  ...In Arizona, Roy Warden, an anti-immigration activist with the Minutemenand a handful of supporters staked out a Tucson precinct and questioned Hispanic voters at the polls to determine whether they spoke English...
> 
> ...*Armed with a 9mm Glock automatic* strapped to his side, Warden said he planned to photograph Hispanic voters entering polls in an effort to identify illegal immigrants and felons. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund reported the incident to the FBI...
> 
> From a November 21, 2006, Salon.com article:
> 
> On Election Day, a posse of three men in Tucson, Ariz., proved that the Wild West still lives.
> 
> The group, which was three strong, and allegedly composed of two anti-immigration activists, Russ Dove and Roy Warden, carried a camcorder, a clipboard -- on which, they said, was information about a proposed law to make English the state's official language -- and a gun. While one man would approach a voter, holding the clipboard, another would follow, pointing the video camera at them. The third would stand behind, holding his hand to the gun at his hip in what activists on the other side called classic voter intimidation tactics in a precinct one local paper had previously declared the bellwether of the area's Hispanic vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, the case was dropped by the Bush DoJ ....
> 
> So...did Christian Adams...self-described "whistle-blower"..... fall victim to a whistle malfunction in 2006?  Or...is it only racism when it's the Obama Administration? Or...is it not "voter intimidation" when they don't speak good English?
> 
> Or maybe Adams is just another testosterone deficient jackoff with a huge chip on his shoulder?
Click to expand...


Wetback Coyoted-Peyote is a La Raza Freak and is either a Media Matters or Move On.Org paid stooge or afficianado of same. 

Nuff said.


----------



## amrchaos

CaféAuLait;2487532 said:
			
		

> A republican operative who knew that some asshole was going to be standing outside a place of voting with a weapon? So this was the republicans fault that this man decided to do what he did?



How did the "republican" find out?

Actually, extremist groups usually announce their madness before they act on it.  All we know, the anti-defamation league picked up on it and acted.

I guess that kills the theory that "Republicans excited the Black Panthers"  

Try "the New Black panther party are a bunch of vocal extremists kooks" and then we are dealing with reality.


----------



## peach174

This is outrageous enough to drop the charges of voter intimidation but also for Samir Shabazz to think that the white man has put his people into the housing projects and welfare system.
It was the black leaders of the 60's and 70's like Rev. Jackson and Rev. Sharpton who fought for welfare . These are the one's he should be blaming . It's them that they have to thank, for the terrible houseing, the drugs and the breakup of the families..
It's terrible that he believe's the lie's that has been taught to him.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Truthmatters said:


> This asshole is you peoples counterpart.
> 
> If you hate him you should hate yourself



I dont hate the racist black panther guy at all.  I feel sorry for him that he is behaving just like the old KKK idiots used to and I hope one day he can get past his prejudices and be a happier man.

That being said he should be punished, legally, for the instance of voter intimidation that he was found guilty of instead of after being convicted of voter intimidation having the case dropped by Eric Holder's DOJ.


----------



## Truthmatters

you are a race baitor


----------



## kwc57

There is already a thread on this.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ader-you-want-freedom-kill-some-crackers.html


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

ConHog said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> People shouldn't be arrested for speech. No matter how vile it is.
> 
> Now, voter intimidation, that's another story. If he actually attempts to carry out his rhetoric, that's another story. But I say let him speak this way. It exposes who he really is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are of course limitations on free speech. I'm pretty sure that standing on a street encouraging murder at least approaches that line.
Click to expand...


The speech showin in the video is defined as "Hate speech which incites violence" and thus could be considered "illegal".   I dont like what he said but I dont like the idea of the government telling him he cant say stupid crap like that.

This is a different issue with this individual than the voter intimidation case.  The 2 instances are unrelated other than providing insight into the content of that man's character.


----------



## Ravi

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> This asshole is you peoples counterpart.
> 
> If you hate him you should hate yourself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont hate the racist black panther guy at all.  I feel sorry for him that he is behaving just like the old KKK idiots used to and I hope one day he can get past his prejudices and be a happier man.
> 
> That being said he should be punished, legally, for the instance of voter intimidation that he was found guilty of instead of after being convicted of voter intimidation having the case dropped by Eric Holder's DOJ.
Click to expand...

Well...that would all be true but there is no evidence any voters were intimidated or any real proof that he tried to intimidate someone.


----------



## peach174

What is sad is this guy believe's that white people put his people into the terrible housing projects and welfare system , when it was the black leaders of the 60's & 70's, like Rev. Jackson & Rev. Sharpton who has done this to them.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Ravi said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> This asshole is you peoples counterpart.
> 
> If you hate him you should hate yourself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont hate the racist black panther guy at all.  I feel sorry for him that he is behaving just like the old KKK idiots used to and I hope one day he can get past his prejudices and be a happier man.
> 
> That being said he should be punished, legally, for the instance of voter intimidation that he was found guilty of instead of after being convicted of voter intimidation having the case dropped by Eric Holder's DOJ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well...that would all be true but there is no evidence any voters were intimidated or any real proof that he tried to intimidate someone.
Click to expand...


Yeah thats why the police removed them for intimidation at a polling place.   C'mon ravi.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFOKnJ0oXYY&feature=related]YouTube - EJ Exclusive - Police Respond to Intimidation[/ame]

See Below RAVI

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX4dcvIYk9A&feature=related]YouTube - BLACK PANTHERS ATTACK VOTERS IN PHILLY VOTING PLACE[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU]YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly[/ame]


----------



## WillowTree

Mini 14 said:


> How is this not hate speech?
> 
> If I went to downtown Philadelphia, and started yelling that "we need to kill some *******," how fast would I be put in jail?
> 
> Why is this POS racist still among us?



You know what's most astounding to me? Not one black leader including the asswipe in the whitehouse has stood up and dennounced this behavior which leads me to believe they agreee with it.


----------



## Coyote

gautama said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From a November 8, 2006, Austin American-Statesman article:  ...In Arizona, Roy Warden, an anti-immigration activist with the Minutemenand a handful of supporters staked out a Tucson precinct and questioned Hispanic voters at the polls to determine whether they spoke English...
> 
> ...*Armed with a 9mm Glock automatic* strapped to his side, Warden said he planned to photograph Hispanic voters entering polls in an effort to identify illegal immigrants and felons. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund reported the incident to the FBI...
> 
> From a November 21, 2006, Salon.com article:
> 
> On Election Day, a posse of three men in Tucson, Ariz., proved that the Wild West still lives.
> 
> The group, which was three strong, and allegedly composed of two anti-immigration activists, Russ Dove and Roy Warden, carried a camcorder, a clipboard -- on which, they said, was information about a proposed law to make English the state's official language -- and a gun. While one man would approach a voter, holding the clipboard, another would follow, pointing the video camera at them. The third would stand behind, holding his hand to the gun at his hip in what activists on the other side called classic voter intimidation tactics in a precinct one local paper had previously declared the bellwether of the area's Hispanic vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, the case was dropped by the Bush DoJ ....
> 
> So...did Christian Adams...self-described "whistle-blower"..... fall victim to a whistle malfunction in 2006?  Or...is it only racism when it's the Obama Administration? Or...is it not "voter intimidation" when they don't speak good English?
> 
> Or maybe Adams is just another testosterone deficient jackoff with a huge chip on his shoulder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wetback Coyoted-Peyote is a La Raza Freak and is either a Media Matters or Move On.Org paid stooge or afficianado of same.
> 
> Nuff said.
Click to expand...


Ah....Guano....yer so sweet, you have a way with words that makes my heart go pitter patter.  Where you been lately?  I've missed you.


----------



## Truthmatters

When did you or sarah ever say anything about people lynching Obama in effigy?


----------



## Immanuel

Truthmatters said:


> When did you or sarah ever say anything about people lynching Obama in effigy?



What does that have to do with this thread?

Are you going to derail this thread too?  Of course you are.

Immie


----------



## Ravi

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont hate the racist black panther guy at all.  I feel sorry for him that he is behaving just like the old KKK idiots used to and I hope one day he can get past his prejudices and be a happier man.
> 
> That being said he should be punished, legally, for the instance of voter intimidation that he was found guilty of instead of after being convicted of voter intimidation having the case dropped by Eric Holder's DOJ.
> 
> 
> 
> Well...that would all be true but there is no evidence any voters were intimidated or any real proof that he tried to intimidate someone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah thats why the police removed them for intimidation at a polling place.   C'mon ravi.
> 
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFOKnJ0oXYY&feature=related"]YouTube - EJ Exclusive - Police Respond to Intimidation[/ame]
> 
> See Below RAVI
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX4dcvIYk9A&feature=related"]YouTube - BLACK PANTHERS ATTACK VOTERS IN PHILLY VOTING PLACE[/ame]
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU"]YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly[/ame]
Click to expand...

I watched the videos. What I see is that some black guys are standing in front of a polling place, one with a night stick. Some white guy is claiming they are intimidated even though the guy with the night stick never makes any kind of threat. The police arrive and ask the black guys to leave and they do.

As far as I can tell there is no real evidence of intimidation.


----------



## Immanuel

Ravi said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well...that would all be true but there is no evidence any voters were intimidated or any real proof that he tried to intimidate someone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah thats why the police removed them for intimidation at a polling place.   C'mon ravi.
> 
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFOKnJ0oXYY&feature=related"]YouTube - EJ Exclusive - Police Respond to Intimidation[/ame]
> 
> See Below RAVI
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX4dcvIYk9A&feature=related"]YouTube - BLACK PANTHERS ATTACK VOTERS IN PHILLY VOTING PLACE[/ame]
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU"]YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I watched the videos. What I see is that some black guys are standing in front of a polling place, one with a night stick. Some white guy is claiming they are intimidated even though the guy with the night stick never makes any kind of threat. The police arrive and ask the black guys to leave and they do.
> 
> As far as I can tell there is no real evidence of intimidation.
Click to expand...


The "white guy" came because he was called because some people were intimidated (or claimed to have been) by these guys.

Now you may want to claim that we can't prove that these guys had the intent to intimidate, but that is just plain bullshit, Ravi.  Standing in front of a polling place with a weapon such as a nightstick is clearly an attempt to intimidate. Only a fool would claim otherwise.

Immie


----------



## L.K.Eder

WillowTree said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this not hate speech?
> 
> If I went to downtown Philadelphia, and started yelling that "we need to kill some *******," how fast would I be put in jail?
> 
> Why is this POS racist still among us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what's most astounding to me? Not one black leader including the asswipe in the whitehouse has stood up and dennounced this behavior which leads me to believe they agreee with it.
Click to expand...



how about bobby seale?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VALtpXOKJ4w]YouTube - Bobby Seale on the New Black Panther Party [CNN Interview][/ame]


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Mini 14 said:


> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this not hate speech?
> 
> If I went to downtown Philadelphia, and started yelling that "we need to kill some *******," how fast would I be put in jail?
> 
> Why is this POS racist still among us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully fast enough to avoid getting your ass kicked by black folks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which then begs the question:
> 
> "Why aren't white folks kicking this dude's ass?"
Click to expand...


If he was in Texas, that would have already happened.


----------



## Yukon.

Mini 14 said:


> How is this not hate speech?
> 
> If I went to downtown Philadelphia, and started yelling that "we need to kill some *******," how fast would I be put in jail?
> 
> Why is this POS racist still among us?



Why don,t you try yelling "kill some *******" and see what happens. At least this Negro has the guts to say what he thinks, cowards like you only think it.


----------



## Ravi

Immanuel said:


> The "white guy" came because he was called because some people were intimidated (or claimed to have been) by these guys.
> 
> Now you may want to claim that we can't prove that these guys had the intent to intimidate, but that is just plain bullshit, Ravi.  Standing in front of a polling place with a weapon such as a nightstick is clearly an attempt to intimidate. Only a fool would claim otherwise.
> 
> Immie



Right...they claimed it. Was anyone actually intimidated? I have almost no doubt that while the black guy is an asshole the white guys were fakes...maybe they are aligned with that faux pimp?

How about hanging around a polling place with a confederate flag...is that also intimidation?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Ravi said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well...that would all be true but there is no evidence any voters were intimidated or any real proof that he tried to intimidate someone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah thats why the police removed them for intimidation at a polling place.   C'mon ravi.
> 
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFOKnJ0oXYY&feature=related"]YouTube - EJ Exclusive - Police Respond to Intimidation[/ame]
> 
> See Below RAVI
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX4dcvIYk9A&feature=related"]YouTube - BLACK PANTHERS ATTACK VOTERS IN PHILLY VOTING PLACE[/ame]
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU"]YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I watched the videos. What I see is that some black guys are standing in front of a polling place, one with a night stick. Some white guy is claiming they are intimidated even though the guy with the night stick never makes any kind of threat. The police arrive and ask the black guys to leave and they do.
> 
> As far as I can tell there is no real evidence of intimidation.
Click to expand...


If the blacks guys were doing nothing wrong, why were they told to leave?


----------



## Mini 14

Ravi said:


> I watched the videos. What I see is that some black guys are standing in front of a polling place, one with a night stick. Some white guy is claiming they are intimidated even though the guy with the night stick never makes any kind of threat. The police arrive and ask the black guys to leave and they do.
> 
> As far as I can tell there is no real evidence of intimidation.



You just lost any credibility you possibly had (I'm relatively new here, so I am still forming my own judgements of people).

You're ignorant, and dishonest, and are drunk with the kool aid.

I wonder what your reaction would be if it were white men in white hoods and robes? What's more dangerous:

A white hood?

Or a billy club?

You're an ignorant, dishonest hypocrite!


----------



## Mini 14

Yukon. said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this not hate speech?
> 
> If I went to downtown Philadelphia, and started yelling that "we need to kill some *******," how fast would I be put in jail?
> 
> Why is this POS racist still among us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don,t you try yelling "kill some *******" and see what happens. At least this Negro has the guts to say what he thinks, cowards like you only think it.
Click to expand...


I don't want to kill anyone, but when I do, IF I do, you'll know about it.

Don't worry.


----------



## Coyote

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Count Dracula said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you imagine the shit storm that would come down if *white guys had of done this?*  Guess it's ok though because it was done by a bunch of radical black guys.  That's America for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did.  Minutemen attempted to intimidate hispanic voters.  Case was dropped by the Bush DoJ.
> 
> Guess Fox didn't think it newsworthy eh?  That's America for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Hoss.... allegations were made, but there was no evidence, unlike this incident where they were CAUGHT ON FILM.
> 
> Nice try though.
Click to expand...


Hey sweetheart - are you suggesting that the only admissible evidence is being "caught on film"?  I don't think you'll get very far with that, especially since the ACORN crap showed how film can be edited and chopped.

Nice try though.  Sounds like you are just another one of those selectively partisan "racists".


----------



## Coyote

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Anyway.. citing mediamatters now?  There's credibility.



Ya...credibility....like Fox?


----------



## Immanuel

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "white guy" came because he was called because some people were intimidated (or claimed to have been) by these guys.
> 
> Now you may want to claim that we can't prove that these guys had the intent to intimidate, but that is just plain bullshit, Ravi.  Standing in front of a polling place with a weapon such as a nightstick is clearly an attempt to intimidate. Only a fool would claim otherwise.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right...they claimed it. Was anyone actually intimidated? I have almost no doubt that while the black guy is an asshole the white guys were fakes...maybe they are aligned with that faux pimp?
> 
> How about hanging around a polling place with a confederate flag...is that also intimidation?
Click to expand...


It sure as hell could be if you were in the middle of an area populated by minorities depending on the stance you were taking.  Just as two white guys wearing white robes, one of them carrying a night stick in front of a polling place would be intimidating.  

Two black guys standing out side a polling place in black panther military garb one carrying a nightstick sure as hell would be intimidating.  I would have called the cops myself.

I sure as hell would not have approached the precinct with my wife and family who are eligible to vote at least not unarmed.

Immie


----------



## Coyote

peach174 said:


> This is outrageous enough to drop the charges of voter intimidation but also for Samir Shabazz to think that the white man has put his people into the housing projects and welfare system.
> It was the black leaders of the 60's and 70's like Rev. Jackson and Rev. Sharpton who fought for welfare . These are the one's he should be blaming . It's them that they have to thank, for the terrible houseing, the drugs and the breakup of the families..
> It's terrible that he believe's the lie's that has been taught to him.



Shabazz has the right to think whatever he wants.  There's no law against being an asshole and the truth is usually, somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.


----------



## Ravi

Mini 14 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I watched the videos. What I see is that some black guys are standing in front of a polling place, one with a night stick. Some white guy is claiming they are intimidated even though the guy with the night stick never makes any kind of threat. The police arrive and ask the black guys to leave and they do.
> 
> As far as I can tell there is no real evidence of intimidation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just lost any credibility you possibly had (I'm relatively new here, so I am still forming my own judgements of people).
> 
> You're ignorant, and dishonest, and are drunk with the kool aid.
> 
> I wonder what your reaction would be if it were white men in white hoods and robes? What's more dangerous:
> 
> A white hood?
> 
> Or a billy club?
> 
> You're an ignorant, dishonest hypocrite!
Click to expand...

Unless someone is physically threatening me I don't feel intimidated...


----------



## ConHog

Ravi said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I watched the videos. What I see is that some black guys are standing in front of a polling place, one with a night stick. Some white guy is claiming they are intimidated even though the guy with the night stick never makes any kind of threat. The police arrive and ask the black guys to leave and they do.
> 
> As far as I can tell there is no real evidence of intimidation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just lost any credibility you possibly had (I'm relatively new here, so I am still forming my own judgements of people).
> 
> You're ignorant, and dishonest, and are drunk with the kool aid.
> 
> I wonder what your reaction would be if it were white men in white hoods and robes? What's more dangerous:
> 
> A white hood?
> 
> Or a billy club?
> 
> You're an ignorant, dishonest hypocrite!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unless someone is physically threatening me I don't feel intimidated...
Click to expand...


Ravi, matters not how YOU feel. Here is the Penn Law (I know I keep bringing up facts to you and you hate it, but it is what it is.)

_What constitutes illegal intimidation of voters at the polls?

In Pennsylvania it is illegal for any person or corporation to directly or indirectly practice
intimidation or coercion through use of force, violence, restraint, or infliction or threatened
infliction of injury, damage, harm, or loss, in order to induce or compel a person to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate or on a particular political issue.169
Additionally, it is illegal for a person or corporation to use abduction, duress, coercion, or any other
forcible or fraudulent means to impede, prevent or otherwise interfere with a persons right to vote.170
Further, no election officer may knowingly refuse the vote of a registered voter.171
Moreover, employers in Pennsylvania are prohibited from attempting to influence an employees
vote by placing an employees paycheck in an envelope that displays any political motto or written
statement. It is likewise illegal for an employer to exhibit in the workplace any handbill or placard
containing any threat, notice, or information that implies if a certain candidate is elected or defeated
there will be repercussions in the workplace that could include employees wages being cut and
closing of the job site.172
Finally it is illegal for any police officer to intimidate, threaten force, or unduly influence any voter
into not voting or voting in a certain way.173 Nor is it permissible for any person to unlawfully hit,
wound or commit assault and battery on any voter at or near the polls.174_


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...oyRvhLlXRvmCoQGVg&sig2=YAm2eTefJVs8JXDFrmO0cg


----------



## KissMy

blastoff said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this not hate speech?
> 
> If I went to downtown Philadelphia, and started yelling that "we need to kill some *******," how fast would I be put in jail?
> 
> Why is this POS racist still among us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully fast enough to avoid getting your ass kicked by black folks.
Click to expand...


Racist Black Folk couldn't whip their way out of a wet paper bag.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQJFv9SMSMQ"]RACIST TRANSIT BUS FIGHT[/ame]


----------



## ConHog

KissMy said:


> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this not hate speech?
> 
> If I went to downtown Philadelphia, and started yelling that "we need to kill some *******," how fast would I be put in jail?
> 
> Why is this POS racist still among us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully fast enough to avoid getting your ass kicked by black folks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racist Black Folk couldn't whip their way out of a wet paper bag.
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQJFv9SMSMQ"]RACIST TRANSIT BUS FIGHT[/ame]
Click to expand...


LOL , 67 y/o white man beats the shit out of a brother. I sure wouldn't want that shit on the net.


----------



## Ravi

Not one person has come forward and claimed they were intimidated.

Therefore, there is no case to be made.


----------



## Gatekeeper

I wonder who the human race would blame for whatever befalls them if we were all blind and the color of a persons skin couldn't be seen. Maybe the skin texture, their vocalizations, or verbiage?

It will be a great day when we all realize that one of the 'tools of division' used by those that desire continued chaos in any society, is RACE. Let's put and end to this bullshit once and for all. God forbid we should all get along, it would spell the end for these 'purveyors of conflict' who are nourished by the hate of others.

I have my moments................


----------



## HUGGY

*"You're gonna have to kill some crackers..." *

I hate saltines.  I'm in!


----------



## ConHog

Ravi said:


> Not one person has come forward and claimed they were intimidated.
> 
> Therefore, there is no case to be made.



Hey stupid, the case was already made. The racist DoJ simply walked away before sentencing.

Oh by way , the state can act as a complainant in many instances moron. For instance LEO sees wife being beaten. HE can file the domestic violence charge even if the woman refuses to file charges or cooperate.

You truly are retarded.


----------



## ConHog

HUGGY said:


> *"You're gonna have to kill some crackers..." *
> 
> I hate saltines.  I'm in!



I prefer Ritz myself, but every once in awhile a saltine is good.


----------



## Ravi

No one was intimidated. Get over it.


----------



## ConHog

Ravi said:


> No one was intimidated. Get over it.



The one guy was already found guilty, so as a matter of law, you are wrong.

But from a practicality standpoint, how do you know this?


----------



## Ravi

No one was found guilty.


----------



## rikules

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this not hate speech?
> 
> If I went to downtown Philadelphia, and started yelling that "we need to kill some *******," how fast would I be put in jail?
> 
> Why is this POS racist still among us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is hate speech that incites violence.   Do you have a video of it?
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIrKtoHYPsE]YouTube - "You want freedom you gonna have to kill some crackers".."gonna have to kill some of their babies"[/ame]
> 
> 
> The thing is that this man in the video and another member of the new black panther party were both convicted of voter intimidation for doing what is in the video below.   After the conviction but before the sentance the DOJ under eric holder (appointed by obama) dropped the charges against them citing "We will not prosecute cases of voter intimidation with black defendants and white plantiffs"   The video with proof follows the one with the voter intimidation.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU]YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nekx_9cFRDQ]YouTube - Pt. 1 - Meet J. Christian Adams[/ame]
Click to expand...


"It is hate speech that incites violence."


that isn't what cons say about conservative hate speech


----------



## ConHog

Ravi said:


> No one was found guilty.



Yes Ravi he was , he was found guilty of a civil offense when he didn't even bother to show up for court.  he SHOULD also be facing criminal charges.

this is clearly another case of Ravi not knowing what she is attempting to discuss.


----------



## ConHog

rikules said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this not hate speech?
> 
> If I went to downtown Philadelphia, and started yelling that "we need to kill some *******," how fast would I be put in jail?
> 
> Why is this POS racist still among us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is hate speech that incites violence.   Do you have a video of it?
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIrKtoHYPsE]YouTube - "You want freedom you gonna have to kill some crackers".."gonna have to kill some of their babies"[/ame]
> 
> 
> The thing is that this man in the video and another member of the new black panther party were both convicted of voter intimidation for doing what is in the video below.   After the conviction but before the sentance the DOJ under eric holder (appointed by obama) dropped the charges against them citing "We will not prosecute cases of voter intimidation with black defendants and white plantiffs"   The video with proof follows the one with the voter intimidation.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU]YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nekx_9cFRDQ]YouTube - Pt. 1 - Meet J. Christian Adams[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "It is hate speech that incites violence."
> 
> 
> that isn't what cons say about conservative hate speech
Click to expand...


post a video of a conservative spreading hate like that black panther was, do it. Of course you cant.


----------



## WillowTree

the tug is doing an interview on FOX at 12:30 Central time. A white woman is gonna axe him some tough questions.


----------



## ConHog

WillowTree said:


> the tug is doing an interview on FOX at 12:30 Central time. A white woman is gonna axe him some tough questions.



I'll bet he will hate every iota of her.


I bet that's his real problem, he's mad cuz he can't get no white pussy.


----------



## WillowTree

they had them some race riots in librul land last night and the DOJ is gonna inviestigate dat white police officer. Fancy that shit.


----------



## Truthmatters

racist pieces of shit


----------



## WillowTree

Truthmatters said:


> racist pieces of shit


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Ravi said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well...that would all be true but there is no evidence any voters were intimidated or any real proof that he tried to intimidate someone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah thats why the police removed them for intimidation at a polling place.   C'mon ravi.
> 
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFOKnJ0oXYY&feature=related"]YouTube - EJ Exclusive - Police Respond to Intimidation[/ame]
> 
> See Below RAVI
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX4dcvIYk9A&feature=related"]YouTube - BLACK PANTHERS ATTACK VOTERS IN PHILLY VOTING PLACE[/ame]
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU"]YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I watched the videos. What I see is that some black guys are standing in front of a polling place, one with a night stick. Some white guy is claiming they are intimidated even though the guy with the night stick never makes any kind of threat. The police arrive and ask the black guys to leave and they do.
> 
> As far as I can tell there is no real evidence of intimidation.
Click to expand...


LOL you missed the 2nd video didn't you.  (obviously from your post )


----------



## WillowTree

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah thats why the police removed them for intimidation at a polling place.   C'mon ravi.
> 
> 
> YouTube - EJ Exclusive - Police Respond to Intimidation
> 
> See Below RAVI
> 
> YouTube - BLACK PANTHERS ATTACK VOTERS IN PHILLY VOTING PLACE
> 
> YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly
> 
> 
> 
> I watched the videos. What I see is that some black guys are standing in front of a polling place, one with a night stick. Some white guy is claiming they are intimidated even though the guy with the night stick never makes any kind of threat. The police arrive and ask the black guys to leave and they do.
> 
> As far as I can tell there is no real evidence of intimidation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL you missed the 2nd video didn't you.  (obviously from your post )
Click to expand...


according to our racist DOJ they will not pursue crimes against white people. that's their policy.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Ravi said:


> Not one person has come forward and claimed they were intimidated.
> 
> Therefore, there is no case to be made.



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX4dcvIYk9A&feature=related[/ame]

The case was made and the case was won ravi.  Between conviction and sentancing the DOJ dropped the case at the direction of eric holder's appointees (and obama appointed holder)

Get your facts straight or go back to the foo foo frilly threads.


----------



## Truthmatters

Proove the case was won


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthmatters said:


> racist pieces of shit



Yeah, that's what most people think about these New Black Panthers.

For once you're on the same page as alot of other people.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Truthmatters said:


> Proove the case was won



Go back and watch the video I TOLD YOU TO EARLIER where on of the lawyers who won the case was talking about it.


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthmatters said:


> Proove the case was won



They don't usually schedule sentencing in cases that are lost.


----------



## Truthmatters

No video , if the case was won produce the court documents.

I have produced court documentation.


----------



## Claudette

Wonder what OL'TM's thought would be if it were a couple of KKK or White Supremacists out there in front of the polling booth with bats. Of course the work ****** would be flying. 

Bet TM would be screaming at the top of her/his lungs about RACISM and how they were trying to prevent folks from voting.  LOL


----------



## ConHog

Truthmatters said:


> Proove the case was won



The Bush Justice Department brought the first case against three members of the group, accusing them in a civil complaint of violating the Voter Rights Act. The Obama administration initially pursued the case,* winning a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 when the Black Panther members did not appear in court. *But then the administration moved to dismiss the charges the following month after getting one of the New Black Panther members to agree to not carry a "deadly weapon" near a polling place until 2012. The department boasted that justice had been served

FOXNews.com - Former Justice Attorney Set to Testify in New Black Panther Case

Can't produce court documents because the DoJ won't voluntarily release them, but they are being sued to do so

http://www.politicalbyline.com/2010/05/27/judicial-watch-sues-for-new-black-panther-party-documents/


----------



## Avatar4321

Until 2012??? What impeccable timing!


----------



## AllieBaba

WillowTree said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> racist pieces of shit
Click to expand...


Silly girl, don't you know you can't be a non-racist unless you use the word "******"?


----------



## Truthmatters

ConHog said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proove the case was won
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bush Justice Department brought the first case against three members of the group, accusing them in a civil complaint of violating the Voter Rights Act. The Obama administration initially pursued the case,* winning a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 when the Black Panther members did not appear in court. *But then the administration moved to dismiss the charges the following month after getting one of the New Black Panther members to agree to not carry a "deadly weapon" near a polling place until 2012. The department boasted that justice had been served
> 
> FOXNews.com - Former Justice Attorney Set to Testify in New Black Panther Case
> 
> Can't produce court documents because the DoJ won't voluntarily release them, but they are being sued to do so
> 
> Judicial Watch sues for New Black Panther Party documents | Political Byline
Click to expand...


Nope that is an article, GO GET THE COURT DOCUMENTS!


----------



## HUGGY

*"Kill Crackers?"*

Two words....

"Tomato Soup"


----------



## Truthmatters

ConHog 
View Public Profile 
Send a private message to ConHog 
Send email to ConHog 
Find all posts by ConHog 
Add ConHog to Your Contacts 

  #46 (permalink)          Today, 10:17 AM  
 WillowTree  
European American
Member #11947
    Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 27,412 
Thanks: 2,071
Thanked 1,843 Times in 1,401 Posts 
Rep Power: 347 



the tug is doing an interview on FOX at 12:30 Central time. A white woman is gonna axe him some tough questions.  
__________________
"They're democrats; they form firing squads in a cirlce." Dick Morris. : 


WillowTree 
View Public Profile 
Send a private message to WillowTree 
Find all posts by WillowTree 
Add WillowTree to Your Contacts 

  #47 (permalink)          Today, 10:19 AM  
ConHog  
Registered User
Member #23723   Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 4,403 
Thanks: 76
Thanked 351 Times in 290 Posts 
Rep Power: 37 



Quote: Originally Posted by WillowTree  
the tug is doing an interview on FOX at 12:30 Central time. A white woman is gonna axe him some tough questions. 
I'll bet he will hate every iota of her.


I bet that's his real problem, he's mad cuz he can't get no white pussy. 
__________________

Quote: Originally Posted by Ravi  
: I live in a state that has always had illegal immigrants...still waiting for proof that they commit crimes at a bigger rate than legals.


ConHog 
View Public Profile 
Send a private message to ConHog 
Send email to ConHog 
Find all posts by ConHog 
Add ConHog to Your Contacts 

  #48 (permalink)          Today, 10:25 AM  
 WillowTree  
European American
Member #11947
    Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 27,412 
Thanks: 2,071
Thanked 1,843 Times in 1,401 Posts 
Rep Power: 347 



they had them some race riots in librul land last night and the DOJ is gonna inviestigate dat white police officer. Fancy that shit.  
__________________
"They're democrats; they form firing squads in a cirlce." Dick Morris. : 








If you dont think this is racism you are a racist plain and simple.


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthmatters said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proove the case was won
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bush Justice Department brought the first case against three members of the group, accusing them in a civil complaint of violating the Voter Rights Act. The Obama administration initially pursued the case,* winning a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 when the Black Panther members did not appear in court. *But then the administration moved to dismiss the charges the following month after getting one of the New Black Panther members to agree to not carry a "deadly weapon" near a polling place until 2012. The department boasted that justice had been served
> 
> FOXNews.com - Former Justice Attorney Set to Testify in New Black Panther Case
> 
> Can't produce court documents because the DoJ won't voluntarily release them, but they are being sued to do so
> 
> Judicial Watch sues for New Black Panther Party documents | Political Byline
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope that is an article, GO GET THE COURT DOCUMENTS!
Click to expand...


I will, when you provide court documents that you are an honest person.


----------



## AllieBaba

Truthmatters said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proove the case was won
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bush Justice Department brought the first case against three members of the group, accusing them in a civil complaint of violating the Voter Rights Act. The Obama administration initially pursued the case,* winning a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 when the Black Panther members did not appear in court. *But then the administration moved to dismiss the charges the following month after getting one of the New Black Panther members to agree to not carry a "deadly weapon" near a polling place until 2012. The department boasted that justice had been served
> 
> FOXNews.com - Former Justice Attorney Set to Testify in New Black Panther Case
> 
> Can't produce court documents because the DoJ won't voluntarily release them, but they are being sued to do so
> 
> Judicial Watch sues for New Black Panther Party documents | Political Byline
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope that is an article, GO GET THE COURT DOCUMENTS!
Click to expand...


You are an idiot, splatter.


----------



## Truthmatters

I am asking for teh sam level of proof I have proivided for you folks.

COLD HARD DOCUMENTATION not reporting snips.


The funny thing is you assholes still refuse the best evidence that can be produced in this country when you dont like what it means.

I will accept the court documents.


----------



## AllieBaba

Here you go, splats.
NewBlackPanther.com

Have fun there. They won't appreciate you, I promise.


----------



## Nonelitist

Ravi said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well...that would all be true but there is no evidence any voters were intimidated or any real proof that he tried to intimidate someone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah thats why the police removed them for intimidation at a polling place.   C'mon ravi.
> 
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFOKnJ0oXYY&feature=related"]YouTube - EJ Exclusive - Police Respond to Intimidation[/ame]
> 
> See Below RAVI
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX4dcvIYk9A&feature=related"]YouTube - BLACK PANTHERS ATTACK VOTERS IN PHILLY VOTING PLACE[/ame]
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU"]YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I watched the videos. What I see is that some black guys are standing in front of a polling place, one with a night stick. Some white guy is claiming they are intimidated even though the guy with the night stick never makes any kind of threat. The police arrive and ask the black guys to leave and they do.
> 
> As far as I can tell there is no real evidence of intimidation.
Click to expand...


But you liberals think asking someone to identify themselves is intimidation?

Discpicable human beings.


----------



## AllieBaba

Truthmatters said:


> I am asking for teh sam level of proof I have proivided for you folks.
> 
> COLD HARD DOCUMENTATION not reporting snips.
> 
> 
> The funny thing is you assholes still refuse the best evidence that can be produced in this country when you dont like what it means.
> 
> I will accept the court documents.



You're an idiot.


----------



## WillowTree

Truthmatters said:


> ConHog
> View Public Profile
> Send a private message to ConHog
> Send email to ConHog
> Find all posts by ConHog
> Add ConHog to Your Contacts
> 
> #46 (permalink)          Today, 10:17 AM
> WillowTree
> European American
> Member #11947
> Join Date: Sep 2008
> Posts: 27,412
> Thanks: 2,071
> Thanked 1,843 Times in 1,401 Posts
> Rep Power: 347
> 
> 
> 
> the tug is doing an interview on FOX at 12:30 Central time. A white woman is gonna axe him some tough questions.
> __________________
> "They're democrats; they form firing squads in a cirlce." Dick Morris. :
> 
> 
> WillowTree
> View Public Profile
> Send a private message to WillowTree
> Find all posts by WillowTree
> Add WillowTree to Your Contacts
> 
> #47 (permalink)          Today, 10:19 AM
> ConHog
> Registered User
> Member #23723   Join Date: Jun 2010
> Posts: 4,403
> Thanks: 76
> Thanked 351 Times in 290 Posts
> Rep Power: 37
> 
> 
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by WillowTree
> the tug is doing an interview on FOX at 12:30 Central time. A white woman is gonna axe him some tough questions.
> I'll bet he will hate every iota of her.
> 
> 
> I bet that's his real problem, he's mad cuz he can't get no white pussy.
> __________________
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by Ravi
> : I live in a state that has always had illegal immigrants...still waiting for proof that they commit crimes at a bigger rate than legals.
> 
> 
> ConHog
> View Public Profile
> Send a private message to ConHog
> Send email to ConHog
> Find all posts by ConHog
> Add ConHog to Your Contacts
> 
> #48 (permalink)          Today, 10:25 AM
> WillowTree
> European American
> Member #11947
> Join Date: Sep 2008
> Posts: 27,412
> Thanks: 2,071
> Thanked 1,843 Times in 1,401 Posts
> Rep Power: 347
> 
> 
> 
> they had them some race riots in librul land last night and the DOJ is gonna inviestigate dat white police officer. Fancy that shit.
> __________________
> "They're democrats; they form firing squads in a cirlce." Dick Morris. :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you dont think this is racism you are a racist plain and simple.



so fucking what? you have defended the "now you're gonna know what it's like to be ruled by a black man cracker" who gives a shit anymore about racism. live wit it thug.


----------



## ConHog

AllieBaba said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking for teh sam level of proof I have proivided for you folks.
> 
> COLD HARD DOCUMENTATION not reporting snips.
> 
> 
> The funny thing is you assholes still refuse the best evidence that can be produced in this country when you dont like what it means.
> 
> I will accept the court documents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.
Click to expand...


Now now, don't be so harsh. Everyone here's a winner you know , TM just happens to be the winner of the least intelligent person in this thread award, and honestly if ravi or curvedlight show up all bets are off.

Listen TM, how can we produce court documents when the DoJ won't release them to the public? Besides YOU are the one claiming that this DoJ whistle blower is lying, the burden is therefor on YOU to prove he's lying.


----------



## AllieBaba

That's too complicated for splatter.
We're better off to just keep telling her she's an idiot. Maybe eventually it will seek in and she will seek enlightenment.


----------



## Nonelitist

Hey Truthmatters...

I have the court documents that you are asking for.

I will post them when you post the following:

Any documentation that shows BP was criminally negligent with this oil spill.
Any documentation that Dick Cheney made any money from Halliburton after 2000.
Any documentation that Bush has made any money in oil from the Iraq War.
Any documentation that any oil company in the United States has made any money from oil in Iraq.
Any documentation that Reagan had any knowledge of "Iran-Contra"
Any documentation that Bush was the cause of any delay in aid to Katrina victims
Any documentation that Bush didn't serve what he should have in the National Guard.
Any documentation that Bush ignored terrorist threats leading up to 9/11.
Any documentation that you are not a forcibly housed mental patient.
Any documentation that US soldiers in Iraq are TARGETING civilians and committing war crimes.
Any documentation that Saddam didn't have WMD before the war began.



Now, since you can't... but you will claim most of the things above... you can shove your current argument up your ass and try to realize that you are only laughed at here.

My god you are the most ignorant person that I have ever encountered here.  And realize this... if the dems get smoked this fall, nobody on here is going to have one ounce of pity for you when you are near suicidal with the realization that Obama will be a neutered president capable of getting NOTHING done... and we will all celebrate that.

Get the documentation you whorish bitch.


----------



## mudwhistle

Avatar4321 said:


> People shouldn't be arrested for speech. No matter how vile it is.
> 
> Now, voter intimidation, that's another story. If he actually attempts to carry out his rhetoric, that's another story. But I say let him speak this way. It exposes who he really is.



You can be arrested for hate-speech.....especially if you have the motive and the means to carry out the threat.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

mudwhistle said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> People shouldn't be arrested for speech. No matter how vile it is.
> 
> Now, voter intimidation, that's another story. If he actually attempts to carry out his rhetoric, that's another story. But I say let him speak this way. It exposes who he really is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can be arrested for hate-speech.....especially if you have the motive and the means to carry out the threat.
Click to expand...


From talking with avatar in the past I believe he knows that.

I think what he is saying is he, like myself, feel that people shouldn't be able to be arrested for it


----------



## AllieBaba

People confuse freedom of speech with voter intimidation.
We PROTECT our voters in this country. At least we used to.


----------



## ConHog

Nonelitist said:


> Hey Truthmatters...
> 
> I have the court documents that you are asking for.
> 
> I will post them when you post the following:
> 
> Any documentation that Dick Cheney made any money from Halliburton after 2000.
> Any documentation that Bush has made any money in oil from the Iraq War.
> Any documentation that any oil company in the United States has made any money from oil in Iraq.
> Any documentation that Reagan had any knowledge of "Iran-Contra"
> Any documentation that Bush was the cause of any delay in aid to Katrina victims
> Any documentation that Bush didn't serve what he should have in the National Guard.
> Any documentation that Bush ignored terrorist threats leading up to 9/11.
> *Any documentation that you are not a forcibly housed mental patient.*
> Any documentation that US soldiers in Iraq are TARGETING civilians and committing war crimes.
> Any documentation that Saddam didn't have WMD before the war began.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, since you can't... but you will claim most of the things above... you can shove your current argument up your ass and try to realize that you are only laughed at here.
> 
> My god you are the most ignorant person that I have ever encountered here.  And realize this... if the dems get smoked this fall, nobody on here is going to have one ounce of pity for you when you are near suicidal with the realization that Obama will be a neutered president capable of getting NOTHING done... and we will all celebrate that.
> 
> Get the documentation you whorish bitch.



So TM is room mates with Ravi..........


----------



## Mini 14

mudwhistle said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> People shouldn't be arrested for speech. No matter how vile it is.
> 
> Now, voter intimidation, that's another story. If he actually attempts to carry out his rhetoric, that's another story. But I say let him speak this way. It exposes who he really is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can be arrested for hate-speech.....especially if you have the motive and the means to carry out the threat.
Click to expand...


Like, say......a deep hatred for crackers, and a nightstick in your hand?


----------



## LibocalypseNow

Oh those wonderful "Community Organizers." People better wake up and realize that these loons are actually now running our country. Vote out all "Community Organizer" Democrats. Make 2010 count America.


----------



## AllieBaba

ConHog said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Truthmatters...
> 
> I have the court documents that you are asking for.
> 
> I will post them when you post the following:
> 
> Any documentation that Dick Cheney made any money from Halliburton after 2000.
> Any documentation that Bush has made any money in oil from the Iraq War.
> Any documentation that any oil company in the United States has made any money from oil in Iraq.
> Any documentation that Reagan had any knowledge of "Iran-Contra"
> Any documentation that Bush was the cause of any delay in aid to Katrina victims
> Any documentation that Bush didn't serve what he should have in the National Guard.
> Any documentation that Bush ignored terrorist threats leading up to 9/11.
> *Any documentation that you are not a forcibly housed mental patient.*
> Any documentation that US soldiers in Iraq are TARGETING civilians and committing war crimes.
> Any documentation that Saddam didn't have WMD before the war began.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, since you can't... but you will claim most of the things above... you can shove your current argument up your ass and try to realize that you are only laughed at here.
> 
> My god you are the most ignorant person that I have ever encountered here.  And realize this... if the dems get smoked this fall, nobody on here is going to have one ounce of pity for you when you are near suicidal with the realization that Obama will be a neutered president capable of getting NOTHING done... and we will all celebrate that.
> 
> Get the documentation you whorish bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So TM is room mates with Ravi..........
Click to expand...


Nah, I think Ravi on some level knows she is clueless. 
Splatter is just a confused zealot. I could see radicals convincing her to strap a bomb to herself.


----------



## ConHog

Mini 14 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> People shouldn't be arrested for speech. No matter how vile it is.
> 
> Now, voter intimidation, that's another story. If he actually attempts to carry out his rhetoric, that's another story. But I say let him speak this way. It exposes who he really is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can be arrested for hate-speech.....especially if you have the motive and the means to carry out the threat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like, say......a deep hatred for crackers, and a nightstick in your hand?
Click to expand...


I shudder to think what he might have done had that video camera not been present.


----------



## Nonelitist

AllieBaba said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Truthmatters...
> 
> I have the court documents that you are asking for.
> 
> I will post them when you post the following:
> 
> Any documentation that Dick Cheney made any money from Halliburton after 2000.
> Any documentation that Bush has made any money in oil from the Iraq War.
> Any documentation that any oil company in the United States has made any money from oil in Iraq.
> Any documentation that Reagan had any knowledge of "Iran-Contra"
> Any documentation that Bush was the cause of any delay in aid to Katrina victims
> Any documentation that Bush didn't serve what he should have in the National Guard.
> Any documentation that Bush ignored terrorist threats leading up to 9/11.
> *Any documentation that you are not a forcibly housed mental patient.*
> Any documentation that US soldiers in Iraq are TARGETING civilians and committing war crimes.
> Any documentation that Saddam didn't have WMD before the war began.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, since you can't... but you will claim most of the things above... you can shove your current argument up your ass and try to realize that you are only laughed at here.
> 
> My god you are the most ignorant person that I have ever encountered here.  And realize this... if the dems get smoked this fall, nobody on here is going to have one ounce of pity for you when you are near suicidal with the realization that Obama will be a neutered president capable of getting NOTHING done... and we will all celebrate that.
> 
> Get the documentation you whorish bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So TM is room mates with Ravi..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, I think Ravi on some level knows she is clueless.
> Splatter is just a confused zealot. I could see radicals convincing her to strap a bomb to herself.
Click to expand...



Good point.


----------



## AllieBaba

Nothing. He's a coward.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

I think TruthMatters is secretly a conservative trying to make liberals look as bad as possible.


----------



## Mini 14

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> I think TruthMatters is secretly a conservative trying to make liberals look as bad as possible.



I've wondered that about ravi as well.

It would be a good ruse, and it certainly is effective.


----------



## mudwhistle

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> People shouldn't be arrested for speech. No matter how vile it is.
> 
> Now, voter intimidation, that's another story. If he actually attempts to carry out his rhetoric, that's another story. But I say let him speak this way. It exposes who he really is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can be arrested for hate-speech.....especially if you have the motive and the means to carry out the threat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From talking with avatar in the past I believe he knows that.
> 
> I think what he is saying is he, like myself, feel that people shouldn't be able to be arrested for it
Click to expand...


It's kind of like a probable cause case.

If this jerk talks about killing babies and after an investigation shows that he's targeting families with babies then that's a good thing that he can be arrested.

If he has a violent past or a history of mental-illness then that's one more reason to take him seriously.


----------



## ConHog

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> I think TruthMatters is secretly a conservative trying to make liberals look as bad as possible.



Just as I think Ravi is really a white person trying to make blacks look stupid. 

They are both doing a damn fine job of proving their message.


----------



## chanel

If someone "kills a cracker" and claims they were inspired by Jackson and Shabazz, I believe they can be charged. But as I also posted, a nightstick is a prohibited weapon in Phila. He should be arrested the next time he waves that whether at a polling station or just in front of Starbucks. He's been reappointed by the Dems again in case anyone hadn't heard that.


----------



## mudwhistle

chanel said:


> If someone "kills a cracker" and claims they were inspired by Jackson and Shabazz, I believe they can be charged. But as I also posted, a nightstick is a prohibited weapon in Phila. He should be arrested the next time he waves that whether at a polling station or just in front of Starbucks. He's been reappointed by the Dems again in case anyone hadn't heard that.



The Dems are just trying to be fair and help the brother out.


----------



## Immanuel

AllieBaba said:


> Here you go, splats.
> NewBlackPanther.com
> 
> Have fun there. They won't appreciate you, I promise.



I love this comment from that site:



> *What Intimidation?*
> 
> There is no evidence, not one statement from any person at the polling station that day to prove that any voter, regardless to race creed or color was intimidated from voting or offended in any way.  The Philadelphia police took no action and no complaint from any voter was filed...



Morons, what do you think intimidation is all about.  People are scared of those kinds of tactics.  They are not going to go to the police because they know the police won't be there when thugs come breaking down doors.  

These people live in that neighborhood.  They are not going to put their lives at risk by filing a complaint against thugs. 

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

Nonelitist said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah thats why the police removed them for intimidation at a polling place.   C'mon ravi.
> 
> 
> YouTube - EJ Exclusive - Police Respond to Intimidation
> 
> See Below RAVI
> 
> YouTube - BLACK PANTHERS ATTACK VOTERS IN PHILLY VOTING PLACE
> 
> YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly
> 
> 
> 
> I watched the videos. What I see is that some black guys are standing in front of a polling place, one with a night stick. Some white guy is claiming they are intimidated even though the guy with the night stick never makes any kind of threat. The police arrive and ask the black guys to leave and they do.
> 
> As far as I can tell there is no real evidence of intimidation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you liberals think asking someone to identify themselves is intimidation?
> 
> Discpicable human beings.
Click to expand...


I asked TM that question yesterday.  She ignored it.

Why is it that she is opposed to removing invalid names from the voters roles?

Why is it that she is opposed to photo ids at polling locations?

Are the answers to those two questions related?

Immie


----------



## AllieBaba

Immanuel said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go, splats.
> NewBlackPanther.com
> 
> Have fun there. They won't appreciate you, I promise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love this comment from that site:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Intimidation?*
> 
> There is no evidence, not one statement from any person at the polling station that day to prove that any voter, regardless to race creed or color was intimidated from voting or offended in any way.  The Philadelphia police took no action and no complaint from any voter was filed...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Morons, what do you think intimidation is all about.  People are scared of those kinds of tactics.  They are not going to go to the police because they know the police won't be there when thugs come breaking down doors.
> 
> These people live in that neighborhood.  They are not going to put their lives at risk by filing a complaint against thugs.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


It's a lie, anyway. People were intimidated, and did call the police, who had the dumbshit leave.

The student cameraman was intimidated, and he said that ON TAPE.


----------



## logical4u

Truthmatters said:


> When did you or sarah ever say anything about people lynching Obama in effigy?



We learned from the left, when they had films of Bush being assinated, books encouraging people to do violence to him, even a halloween display with him lynched, all 'protected' under 'artistic' expression.

Believe me, I don't know anyone that wants Obama dead, now.  The alternatives: Joe Biden, and then Nancy Pelosi.  If something happened to Obama,  Nancy and Joe would walk into a room and Nancy would walk out as our next president.  As bad as I think that man is for the country, I think Nancy would be a thousand times worse (she is white and I am white, is that a racist statement?).


----------



## chanel

That's an easy one. Because dead people don't carry their ID and poor people are too stupid to remember where they left it. Silly immie. Lol


----------



## Immanuel

chanel said:


> That's an easy one. Because dead people don't carry their ID and poor people are too stupid to remember where they left it. Silly immie. Lol



Right and if the state doesn't know that they are dead and doesn't check id's immoral people can vote in their place.  Who is gonna know?

Now why is it that TM doesn't want the roles cleaned up or photo ids?

Immie


----------



## Political Junky

Mini 14 said:


> How is this not hate speech?
> 
> If I went to downtown Philadelphia, and started yelling that "we need to kill some *******," how fast would I be put in jail?
> 
> Why is this POS racist still among us?


Link?


----------



## Ravi

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah thats why the police removed them for intimidation at a polling place.   C'mon ravi.
> 
> 
> YouTube - EJ Exclusive - Police Respond to Intimidation
> 
> See Below RAVI
> 
> YouTube - BLACK PANTHERS ATTACK VOTERS IN PHILLY VOTING PLACE
> 
> YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly
> 
> 
> 
> I watched the videos. What I see is that some black guys are standing in front of a polling place, one with a night stick. Some white guy is claiming they are intimidated even though the guy with the night stick never makes any kind of threat. The police arrive and ask the black guys to leave and they do.
> 
> As far as I can tell there is no real evidence of intimidation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL you missed the 2nd video didn't you.  (obviously from your post )
Click to expand...

Some republican dbag talking isn't evidence.


----------



## chanel

The link has been posted many many times PJ. Its shocking. Even for you. Lol


----------



## mudwhistle

Ravi said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I watched the videos. What I see is that some black guys are standing in front of a polling place, one with a night stick. Some white guy is claiming they are intimidated even though the guy with the night stick never makes any kind of threat. The police arrive and ask the black guys to leave and they do.
> 
> As far as I can tell there is no real evidence of intimidation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL you missed the 2nd video didn't you.  (obviously from your post )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some republican dbag talking isn't evidence.
Click to expand...


I thought this thread was about some racist New Blank Panther talking.


----------



## ConHog

Ravi said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I watched the videos. What I see is that some black guys are standing in front of a polling place, one with a night stick. Some white guy is claiming they are intimidated even though the guy with the night stick never makes any kind of threat. The police arrive and ask the black guys to leave and they do.
> 
> As far as I can tell there is no real evidence of intimidation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL you missed the 2nd video didn't you.  (obviously from your post )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some republican dbag talking isn't evidence.
Click to expand...


Can ANYONE post a link to single instance of Ravi adding ANYTHING of value to a thread?

Hey Ravi, when someone (you) starts threads and offers NO evidence to support her claims, even after 43 pages of being asked to, that person (you) should probably shut the fuck up about the validity of evidence posted by others.


----------



## Ravi

Immanuel said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go, splats.
> NewBlackPanther.com
> 
> Have fun there. They won't appreciate you, I promise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love this comment from that site:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Intimidation?*
> 
> There is no evidence, not one statement from any person at the polling station that day to prove that any voter, regardless to race creed or color was intimidated from voting or offended in any way.  The Philadelphia police took no action and no complaint from any voter was filed...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Morons, what do you think intimidation is all about.  People are scared of those kinds of tactics.  They are not going to go to the police because they know the police won't be there when thugs come breaking down doors.
> 
> These people live in that neighborhood.  They are not going to put their lives at risk by filing a complaint against thugs.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

So you are saying just claiming intimidation is proof of intimidation?


----------



## Ravi

btw...an injunction isn't quite the same thing as a conviction of guilt.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

mudwhistle said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can be arrested for hate-speech.....especially if you have the motive and the means to carry out the threat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From talking with avatar in the past I believe he knows that.
> 
> I think what he is saying is he, like myself, feel that people shouldn't be able to be arrested for it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's kind of like a probable cause case.
> 
> If this jerk talks about killing babies and after an investigation shows that he's targeting families with babies then that's a good thing that he can be arrested.
> 
> If he has a violent past or a history of mental-illness then that's one more reason to take him seriously.
Click to expand...


That is definately sound logic.  I just have severe reservations about making ANY kind of speech an arrestable offense.  It goes against the core of my values to do so.


----------



## ConHog

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go, splats.
> NewBlackPanther.com
> 
> Have fun there. They won't appreciate you, I promise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love this comment from that site:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Intimidation?*
> 
> There is no evidence, not one statement from any person at the polling station that day to prove that any voter, regardless to race creed or color was intimidated from voting or offended in any way.  The Philadelphia police took no action and no complaint from any voter was filed...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Morons, what do you think intimidation is all about.  People are scared of those kinds of tactics.  They are not going to go to the police because they know the police won't be there when thugs come breaking down doors.
> 
> These people live in that neighborhood.  They are not going to put their lives at risk by filing a complaint against thugs.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *So you are saying just claiming intimidation is proof of intimidation? *
Click to expand...



No you god damned moron, we're saying claiming intimidation is enough to warrant a case being opened.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Ravi said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I watched the videos. What I see is that some black guys are standing in front of a polling place, one with a night stick. Some white guy is claiming they are intimidated even though the guy with the night stick never makes any kind of threat. The police arrive and ask the black guys to leave and they do.
> 
> As far as I can tell there is no real evidence of intimidation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL you missed the 2nd video didn't you.  (obviously from your post )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some republican dbag talking isn't evidence.
Click to expand...


I missed the part where he said he was a republican    I may have to watch again


----------



## Truthmatters

Just someone claiming intimidation does not a conviction make.

You see that tape was a huge piece of evidence and in it there was no intimidation.

The guy agreed not to carry a nightstick if he does security again.

What you wnat is blood because this black man hates you, you dont care about the facts surrounding the case.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

mudwhistle said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL you missed the 2nd video didn't you.  (obviously from your post )
> 
> 
> 
> Some republican dbag talking isn't evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought this thread was about some racist New Blank Panther talking.
Click to expand...



Yeah we are talking about that same exact guy here.  He is one of those 2 black panthers (the one with the billyclub) that were at the voting booth intimidating people.

Watch the 2 different videos you will see the guy with the club is the same guy that was on national geographic's show saying "kill their cracker babies".  Thats kinda how the conversation got on the track you were seeing.

I just hope one day that man can get over his prejudice, racism, and hatred of other races and be a much happier man for it.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Truthmatters said:


> Just someone claiming intimidation does not a conviction make.
> 
> You see that tape was a huge piece of evidence and in it there was no intimidation.
> 
> The guy agreed not to carry a nightstick if he does security again.
> 
> What you wnat is blood because this black man hates you, you dont care about the facts surrounding the case.



Another example of a conservative person pretending to be a liberal in order to make liberals look bad.   We see right through it now TruthMatters, your impact is zero.


----------



## Ravi

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just someone claiming intimidation does not a conviction make.
> 
> You see that tape was a huge piece of evidence and in it there was no intimidation.
> 
> The guy agreed not to carry a nightstick if he does security again.
> 
> What you wnat is blood because this black man hates you, you dont care about the facts surrounding the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another example of a conservative person pretending to be a liberal in order to make liberals look bad.   We see right through it now TruthMatters, your impact is zero.
Click to expand...

She's right, though. There is no intimidation on the tape. No one is being prevented from entering the precinct and no one is being spoken to except the camera man.


----------



## ConHog

Truthmatters said:


> Just someone claiming intimidation does not a conviction make.
> 
> You see that tape was a huge piece of evidence and in it there was no intimidation.
> 
> The guy agreed not to carry a nightstick if *he does security again.*
> 
> What you wnat is blood because this black man hates you, you dont care about the facts surrounding the case.



Who hired that ****** to do security? I want documentation. Prove he was hired by anyone to do security...................... PROVE IT................... I'll accept a signed employment contract as proof.


----------



## ConHog

Ravi said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just someone claiming intimidation does not a conviction make.
> 
> You see that tape was a huge piece of evidence and in it there was no intimidation.
> 
> The guy agreed not to carry a nightstick if he does security again.
> 
> What you wnat is blood because this black man hates you, you dont care about the facts surrounding the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another example of a conservative person pretending to be a liberal in order to make liberals look bad.   We see right through it now TruthMatters, your impact is zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She's right, though. There is no intimidation on the tape. No one is being prevented from entering the precinct and no one is being spoken to except the camera man.
Click to expand...


So you wouldn't feel intimidated if you went to vote in November and a clucker was standing there screaming "******" and slapping his baton on his hand? You're such a liar.


----------



## Immanuel

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go, splats.
> NewBlackPanther.com
> 
> Have fun there. They won't appreciate you, I promise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love this comment from that site:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Intimidation?*
> 
> There is no evidence, not one statement from any person at the polling station that day to prove that any voter, regardless to race creed or color was intimidated from voting or offended in any way.  The Philadelphia police took no action and no complaint from any voter was filed...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Morons, what do you think intimidation is all about.  People are scared of those kinds of tactics.  They are not going to go to the police because they know the police won't be there when thugs come breaking down doors.
> 
> These people live in that neighborhood.  They are not going to put their lives at risk by filing a complaint against thugs.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are saying just claiming intimidation is proof of intimidation?
Click to expand...


I'm saying intimidation is intimidation.

Whether or not anyone shout out, "that man is intimidating me."  

If I approach a half dozen gang members walking down the street, I'm not going to shout out that I am worried about them, I'm going to make a sudden turn and go a different direction rather than crossing paths with six thugs who may or may not want to break open my skull.

Immie


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Ravi said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just someone claiming intimidation does not a conviction make.
> 
> You see that tape was a huge piece of evidence and in it there was no intimidation.
> 
> The guy agreed not to carry a nightstick if he does security again.
> 
> What you wnat is blood because this black man hates you, you dont care about the facts surrounding the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another example of a conservative person pretending to be a liberal in order to make liberals look bad.   We see right through it now TruthMatters, your impact is zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She's right, though. There is no intimidation on the tape. No one is being prevented from entering the precinct and no one is being spoken to except the camera man.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ravi

Immanuel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love this comment from that site:
> 
> Morons, what do you think intimidation is all about.  People are scared of those kinds of tactics.  They are not going to go to the police because they know the police won't be there when thugs come breaking down doors.
> 
> These people live in that neighborhood.  They are not going to put their lives at risk by filing a complaint against thugs.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying just claiming intimidation is proof of intimidation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying intimidation is intimidation.
> 
> Whether or not anyone shout out, "that man is intimidating me."
> 
> If I approach a half dozen gang members walking down the street, I'm not going to shout out that I am worried about them, I'm going to make a sudden turn and go a different direction rather than crossing paths with six thugs who may or may not want to break open my skull.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

You're entitled to your opinion. I saw no intimidation on the videos...and the camera man certainly had the opportunity to record any if it were happening.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

ConHog said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another example of a conservative person pretending to be a liberal in order to make liberals look bad.   We see right through it now TruthMatters, your impact is zero.
> 
> 
> 
> She's right, though. There is no intimidation on the tape. No one is being prevented from entering the precinct and no one is being spoken to except the camera man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you wouldn't feel intimidated if you went to vote in November and a clucker was standing there screaming "******" and slapping his baton on his hand? You're such a liar.
Click to expand...


I'm white and that would intimidate me.


----------



## Immanuel

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL you missed the 2nd video didn't you.  (obviously from your post )
> 
> 
> 
> Some republican dbag talking isn't evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I missed the part where he said he was a republican    I may have to watch again
Click to expand...


They did.  They said he was a republican who was called by other people who felt they were being intimidated.

Immie


----------



## ConHog

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another example of a conservative person pretending to be a liberal in order to make liberals look bad.   We see right through it now TruthMatters, your impact is zero.
> 
> 
> 
> She's right, though. There is no intimidation on the tape. No one is being prevented from entering the precinct and no one is being spoken to except the camera man.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I hate a pea, I hate every iota of a pea. There's serious issues here and you're eating peas, what the hell is wrong with you white man?


----------



## ConHog

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying just claiming intimidation is proof of intimidation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying intimidation is intimidation.
> 
> Whether or not anyone shout out, "that man is intimidating me."
> 
> If I approach a half dozen gang members walking down the street, I'm not going to shout out that I am worried about them, I'm going to make a sudden turn and go a different direction rather than crossing paths with six thugs who may or may not want to break open my skull.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're entitled to your opinion. I saw no intimidation on the videos...and the camera man certainly had the opportunity to record any if it were happening.
Click to expand...


Yeah because I'm sure that ****** didn't tone down his bullshit once the camera showed up.


----------



## gautama

LibocalypseNow said:


> Oh those wonderful "Community Organizers." People better wake up and realize that these loons are actually now running our country. Vote out all "Community Organizer" Democrats. Make 2010 count America.



If it was up to the Libtards, especially the ones on this forum......Shabaz, or any other Blank Panther arseholes would be the next Obamas or Holders in control of our Country.


----------



## Immanuel

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying just claiming intimidation is proof of intimidation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying intimidation is intimidation.
> 
> Whether or not anyone shout out, "that man is intimidating me."
> 
> If I approach a half dozen gang members walking down the street, I'm not going to shout out that I am worried about them, I'm going to make a sudden turn and go a different direction rather than crossing paths with six thugs who may or may not want to break open my skull.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're entitled to your opinion. I saw no intimidation on the videos...and the camera man certainly had the opportunity to record any if it were happening.
Click to expand...


You assume they would have done so while a camera was rolling.

I'm not about to commit a crime in front of a camera and I doubt they were either.  No one said they were stupid.

Immie


----------



## Foxfyre

I almost started a new thread on this before I saw this one.

The real scandal here is not voter intimidation or hate speech.  We all know there are people, black and white, willing to do both.

The scandal here is that after having their case made, having a case that would result in certain conviction of voter intimidation, Eric Holder ordered everybody to back off and filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of its lawsuit against the two defendents.   And the mainstream media - CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, all major newspapers and their affiliates - have ignored that.

Why would he do that?  Why isn't it being covered by the MSM?

You know damn good and well had those two guys been white Republicans, there would be no voluntary dismissal or any other dismissal of the lawsuit.  And this story would be emblazoned across the front page of every newspaper and lead every newscast.

The message is clear.  If you are a supporter of the Obama Administration, more particularly if you are a black supporter of the Obama Administration, you're going to get away with just about anything you want to do or say short of provable actual murder.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Foxfyre said:


> I almost started a new thread on this before I saw this one.
> 
> The real scandal here is not voter intimidation or hate speech.  We all know there are people, black and white, willing to do both.
> 
> The scandal here is that after having their case made, having a case that would result in certain conviction of voter intimidation, Eric Holder ordered everybody to back off and filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of its lawsuit against the two defendents.
> 
> Why would he do that?
> 
> You know damn good and well had those two guys been white Republicans, there would be no voluntary dismissal or any other dismissal of the lawsuit.
> 
> The message is clear.  If you are a supporter of the Obama Administration, more particularly if you are a black supporter of the Obama Administration, you're going to get away with just about anything you want to do or say short of provable actual murder.



Get out of here we are in the no facts zone right now with this thread and your post doesn't fit that mold.


----------



## Ravi

Immanuel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying intimidation is intimidation.
> 
> Whether or not anyone shout out, "that man is intimidating me."
> 
> If I approach a half dozen gang members walking down the street, I'm not going to shout out that I am worried about them, I'm going to make a sudden turn and go a different direction rather than crossing paths with six thugs who may or may not want to break open my skull.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> You're entitled to your opinion. I saw no intimidation on the videos...and the camera man certainly had the opportunity to record any if it were happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You assume they would have done so while a camera was rolling.
> 
> I'm not about to commit a crime in front of a camera and I doubt they were either.  No one said they were stupid.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

You assume that the cameraman couldn't have filmed discreetly. I don't. In fact the cameraman went out of his way to accuse the guy of misbehavior and try to antagonize him.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

LOL now its the cameraman's fault they dressed up in uniforms and weilded a weapon in front of the polling station.


----------



## Immanuel

ConHog said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying intimidation is intimidation.
> 
> Whether or not anyone shout out, "that man is intimidating me."
> 
> If I approach a half dozen gang members walking down the street, I'm not going to shout out that I am worried about them, I'm going to make a sudden turn and go a different direction rather than crossing paths with six thugs who may or may not want to break open my skull.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> You're entitled to your opinion. I saw no intimidation on the videos...and the camera man certainly had the opportunity to record any if it were happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah because I'm sure that ****** didn't tone down his bullshit once the camera showed up.
Click to expand...


Must you really use that word?

I realize you have the legal right to use it, but is it really necessary?

Man or black man or New Black Panther would have gotten the message through loud and clear.  Using racist terms in such needless ways as that only adds fuel to the claims that all conservatives are racists.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're entitled to your opinion. I saw no intimidation on the videos...and the camera man certainly had the opportunity to record any if it were happening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You assume they would have done so while a camera was rolling.
> 
> I'm not about to commit a crime in front of a camera and I doubt they were either.  No one said they were stupid.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You assume that the cameraman couldn't have filmed discreetly. I don't. In fact the cameraman went out of his way to accuse the guy of misbehavior and try to antagonize him.
Click to expand...


If it were me, I would have filmed them from a distance for a while at least until they had noticed me doing so.

But whether they ever actually intimidated anyone at all is irrelevant.  People of the City of Brotherly Love have a reputation of being tough little buggers.  No one involved may have felt intimidated at all, but those two were there for the purpose of doing so, and that is all that matters.

Immie


----------



## LibocalypseNow

gautama said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh those wonderful "Community Organizers." People better wake up and realize that these loons are actually now running our country. Vote out all "Community Organizer" Democrats. Make 2010 count America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it was up to the Libtards, especially the ones on this forum......Shabaz, or any other Blank Panther arseholes would be the next Obamas or Holders in control of our Country.
Click to expand...


They already are in control of this country. This hateful nutter is definitely a registered Democrat. All despicable "Community Organizers" are Democrats. Wake the F*CK UP AMERICA!!


----------



## Ravi

Immanuel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You assume they would have done so while a camera was rolling.
> 
> I'm not about to commit a crime in front of a camera and I doubt they were either.  No one said they were stupid.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> You assume that the cameraman couldn't have filmed discreetly. I don't. In fact the cameraman went out of his way to accuse the guy of misbehavior and try to antagonize him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it were me, I would have filmed them from a distance for a while at least until they had noticed me doing so.
> 
> But whether they ever actually intimidated anyone at all is irrelevant.  People of the City of Brotherly Love have a reputation of being tough little buggers.  No one involved may have felt intimidated at all, but those two were there for the purpose of doing so, and that is all that matters.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

I don't know, I can't read their minds and discover their intent. But without evidence there is no case...and there is no evidence.


----------



## Nonelitist

you idiotic hypocritical liberals claim intimidation any time GOP has anyone near a polling site.

I agree.. truthmatter and Ravi are conversative plants to make libs look bad.

Nice job fellas... I apologize for the neg reps... keep it up!


----------



## Jarhead

Coyote said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is outrageous enough to drop the charges of voter intimidation but also for Samir Shabazz to think that the white man has put his people into the housing projects and welfare system.
> It was the black leaders of the 60's and 70's like Rev. Jackson and Rev. Sharpton who fought for welfare . These are the one's he should be blaming . It's them that they have to thank, for the terrible houseing, the drugs and the breakup of the families..
> It's terrible that he believe's the lie's that has been taught to him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shabazz has the right to think whatever he wants.  There's no law against being an asshole and the truth is usually, somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.
Click to expand...


I agree.
But he and his way of thinking should be given no more credibility than the thinking of the KKK.
But for some reason, there are people on the left and in this forum that seem to feel he and his group deserves credibility.


----------



## ConHog

Immanuel said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're entitled to your opinion. I saw no intimidation on the videos...and the camera man certainly had the opportunity to record any if it were happening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah because I'm sure that ****** didn't tone down his bullshit once the camera showed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Must you really use that word?
> 
> I realize you have the legal right to use it, but is it really necessary?
> 
> Man or black man or New Black Panther would have gotten the message through loud and clear.  Using racist terms in such needless ways as that only adds fuel to the claims that all conservatives are racists.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


I will not use it again in this thread, since you asked.


----------



## Foxfyre

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I almost started a new thread on this before I saw this one.
> 
> The real scandal here is not voter intimidation or hate speech.  We all know there are people, black and white, willing to do both.
> 
> The scandal here is that after having their case made, having a case that would result in certain conviction of voter intimidation, Eric Holder ordered everybody to back off and filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of its lawsuit against the two defendents.
> 
> Why would he do that?
> 
> You know damn good and well had those two guys been white Republicans, there would be no voluntary dismissal or any other dismissal of the lawsuit.
> 
> The message is clear.  If you are a supporter of the Obama Administration, more particularly if you are a black supporter of the Obama Administration, you're going to get away with just about anything you want to do or say short of provable actual murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get out of here we are in the no facts zone right now with this thread and your post doesn't fit that mold.
Click to expand...


Oh my.  So sorry.  Didn't mean to commit a faux pas.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM




----------



## ConHog

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You assume that the cameraman couldn't have filmed discreetly. I don't. In fact the cameraman went out of his way to accuse the guy of misbehavior and try to antagonize him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it were me, I would have filmed them from a distance for a while at least until they had noticed me doing so.
> 
> But whether they ever actually intimidated anyone at all is irrelevant.  People of the City of Brotherly Love have a reputation of being tough little buggers.  No one involved may have felt intimidated at all, but those two were there for the purpose of doing so, and that is all that matters.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know, I can't read their minds and discover their intent. *But without evidence there is no case...and there is no evidence*.
Click to expand...


You are wrong, AGAIN. Without evidence there might not be a conviction, but certainly there can be a case, not to mention that this single video is not necessarily the only evidence there is.

You're a racist Ravi. You wouldn't admit a black person did something wrong if one were found standing over a dead white guy with a bloody knife in his hands. 

I'm still waiting for either you or that idiot TM to present evidence that these fools were providing security.


----------



## WillowTree

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some republican dbag talking isn't evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought this thread was about some racist New Blank Panther talking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah we are talking about that same exact guy here.  He is one of those 2 black panthers (the one with the billyclub) that were at the voting booth intimidating people.
> 
> Watch the 2 different videos you will see the guy with the club is the same guy that was on national geographic's show saying *"kill their cracker babies".*  Thats kinda how the conversation got on the track you were seeing.
> 
> I just hope one day that man can get over his prejudice, racism, and hatred of other races and be a much happier man for it.
Click to expand...


NO! he said. "kill they cracker babies",, I'm very curious why this doesn't upset the likes of TM and Ravioli? Oh, yes, cause they izz white crackers, being threatened which is okay with TM and Ravioli,


----------



## ConHog

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


>



Look there in that picture, that woman is calling the po po to report that she feels intimidated. Prove me wrong Ravi.


----------



## ConHog

WillowTree said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought this thread was about some racist New Blank Panther talking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah we are talking about that same exact guy here.  He is one of those 2 black panthers (the one with the billyclub) that were at the voting booth intimidating people.
> 
> Watch the 2 different videos you will see the guy with the club is the same guy that was on national geographic's show saying *"kill their cracker babies".*  Thats kinda how the conversation got on the track you were seeing.
> 
> I just hope one day that man can get over his prejudice, racism, and hatred of other races and be a much happier man for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO! he said. "kill they cracker babies",, I'm very curious why this doesn't upset the likes of TM and Ravioli? Oh, yes, cause they izz white crackers, being threatened which is okay with TM and Ravioli,
Click to expand...


You misunderstood his comments about killing they white babies. He was only advocating pro choice.


----------



## Ravi

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> blatant propaganda


I'm curious PP, are you as upset that charges weren't brought against the Arizona Minutemen for intimidating Hispanic voters in 2006? I'm not because I think there was a similar lack of evidence.


----------



## WillowTree

ConHog said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah we are talking about that same exact guy here.  He is one of those 2 black panthers (the one with the billyclub) that were at the voting booth intimidating people.
> 
> Watch the 2 different videos you will see the guy with the club is the same guy that was on national geographic's show saying *"kill their cracker babies".*  Thats kinda how the conversation got on the track you were seeing.
> 
> I just hope one day that man can get over his prejudice, racism, and hatred of other races and be a much happier man for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO! he said. "kill they cracker babies",, I'm very curious why this doesn't upset the likes of TM and Ravioli? Oh, yes, cause they izz white crackers, being threatened which is okay with TM and Ravioli,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You misunderstood his comments about killing they white babies. He was only advocating pro choice.
Click to expand...


Then he should have sayed crack babies.


----------



## Coyote

Jarhead said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is outrageous enough to drop the charges of voter intimidation but also for Samir Shabazz to think that the white man has put his people into the housing projects and welfare system.
> It was the black leaders of the 60's and 70's like Rev. Jackson and Rev. Sharpton who fought for welfare . These are the one's he should be blaming . It's them that they have to thank, for the terrible houseing, the drugs and the breakup of the families..
> It's terrible that he believe's the lie's that has been taught to him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shabazz has the right to think whatever he wants.  There's no law against being an asshole and the truth is usually, somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.
> *But he and his way of thinking should be given no more credibility than the thinking of the KKK.*
> But for some reason, there are people on the left and in this forum that seem to feel he and his group deserves credibility.
Click to expand...


I agree.

But as to the second statement, I think you will find there are no more people on this board who feel he deserves cred than there are those on the right who feel the KKK deserve cred.

Certainly, there don't appear to be many postings indicating that.


----------



## Foxfyre

Not only did they have an iron clad case against these two guys, but when the Justice Dept., no doubt ordered to do so by the Administration, dropped the case, they had an up close and personal witness to that who quit in disgust and has done some heavy duty testifying about it.

And again the MSM ignores that, doesn't seem to know anything about it, and it is a non story so far as they are concerned.

Again, if we were dealing with Republicans, or the George Bush administration, that same news media would be falling all over themselves to dig up as much dirt as they could find, would make up whatever dirt they needed, and would be using huge front page headlines and major newscasts to report it probably for days and days.  They would certainly be getting as much mileage out of it as possible.

And some wonder why I don't want the feds having the right to decide what is and is not controversial for people to see.  (Another thread is devoted to that subject.)


----------



## Jarhead

Coyote said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shabazz has the right to think whatever he wants.  There's no law against being an asshole and the truth is usually, somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> *But he and his way of thinking should be given no more credibility than the thinking of the KKK.*
> But for some reason, there are people on the left and in this forum that seem to feel he and his group deserves credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> But as to the second statement, I think you will find there are no more people on this board who feel he deserves cred than there are those on the right who feel the KKK deserve cred.
> 
> Certainly, there don't appear to be many postings indicating that.
Click to expand...


You may be correct. I spoke from assumption.
I take it back.


----------



## Ravi

Foxfyre said:


> Not only did they have an iron clad case against these two guys, but when the Justice Dept., no doubt ordered to do so by the Administration, dropped the case, they had an up close and personal witness to that who quit in disgust and has done some heavy duty testifying about it.
> 
> And again the MSM ignores that, doesn't seem to know anything about it, and it is a non story so far as they are concerned.
> 
> Again, if we were dealing with Republicans, or the George Bush administration, that same news media would be falling all over themselves to dig up as much dirt as they could find, would make up whatever dirt they needed, and would be using huge front page headlines and major newscasts to report it probably for days and days.  They would certainly be getting as much mileage out of it as possible.
> 
> And some wonder why I don't want the feds having the right to decide what is and is not controversial for people to see.  (Another thread is devoted to that subject.)


What about you? Were you upset when charges weren't brought against the Arizona Minutemen for voter intimidation against Hispanics?


----------



## Ravi

ConHog said:


> Look there in that picture, that woman is calling the po po to report that she feels intimidated. Prove me wrong Ravi.


She's in the video and is not acting intimidated in any way.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Ravi Im upset about all voter intimidation.  White on black, black on white, black on black, white on white, whomever on whomever....it doesn't matter the color of skin.

Its all offensive and horrendeous behavior....not to mention illegal.


It appears from your posting that you are the opposite.  It only bothers you when a certain specific race does it....that, in itself, is a close-minded approach at best and a bigoted and racist approach at the worst.

BTW your not supposed to alter people's quotes in an attempt to misrepresent their posts.


----------



## ConHog

Ravi said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> blatant propaganda
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious PP, are you as upset that charges weren't brought against the Arizona Minutemen for intimidating Hispanic voters in 2006? I'm not because I think there was a similar lack of evidence.
Click to expand...


The answer is yes you idiot. Only racists like yourself feel that only SOME voter intimidation cases should be investigated. Normal thinking people want ALL legal voters to feel comfortable exercising their rights.


----------



## ConHog

Ravi said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look there in that picture, that woman is calling the po po to report that she feels intimidated. Prove me wrong Ravi.
> 
> 
> 
> She's in the video and is not acting intimidated in any way.
Click to expand...


That's not proof.

now where is your proof that these fine colored gentleman were hired to do security?


----------



## Immanuel

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You assume that the cameraman couldn't have filmed discreetly. I don't. In fact the cameraman went out of his way to accuse the guy of misbehavior and try to antagonize him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it were me, I would have filmed them from a distance for a while at least until they had noticed me doing so.
> 
> But whether they ever actually intimidated anyone at all is irrelevant.  People of the City of Brotherly Love have a reputation of being tough little buggers.  No one involved may have felt intimidated at all, but those two were there for the purpose of doing so, and that is all that matters.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know, I can't read their minds and discover their intent. But without evidence there is no case...and there is no evidence.
Click to expand...


Only because you do not want to see it.

Had these been Rednecks carrying Confederate Flags and nightsticks in front of a predominantly black precinct, you would undoubtedly be singing a different tune.

Immie


----------



## Coyote

Jarhead said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> *But he and his way of thinking should be given no more credibility than the thinking of the KKK.*
> But for some reason, there are people on the left and in this forum that seem to feel he and his group deserves credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> But as to the second statement, I think you will find there are no more people on this board who feel he deserves cred than there are those on the right who feel the KKK deserve cred.
> 
> Certainly, there don't appear to be many postings indicating that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may be correct. I spoke from assumption.
> I take it back.
Click to expand...


I think we are each more sensitized to perceiving the negative from the other side...I know I tend to be


----------



## ConHog

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Ravi Im upset about all voter intimidation.  White on black, black on white, black on black, white on white, whomever on whomever....it doesn't matter the color of skin.
> 
> Its all offensive and horrendeous behavior....not to mention illegal.
> 
> 
> It appears from your posting that you are the opposite.  It only bothers you when a certain specific race does it....that, in itself, is a close-minded approach at best and a bigoted and racist approach at the worst.
> 
> BTW your not supposed to alter people's quotes in an attempt to misrepresent their posts.



Ravi is a racist PERIOD. She simply justifies black on white racism in her mind and pretends its not racism.


----------



## Ravi

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Ravi Im upset about all voter intimidation.  White on black, black on white, black on black, white on white, whomever on whomever....it doesn't matter the color of skin.
> 
> Its all offensive and horrendeous behavior....not to mention illegal.
> 
> 
> It appears from your posting that you are the opposite.  It only bothers you when a certain specific race does it....that, in itself, is a close-minded approach at best and a bigoted and racist approach at the worst.
> 
> BTW your not supposed to alter people's quotes in an attempt to misrepresent their posts.


I didn't misrepresent your post...it was blatant propaganda. Report me if you like.

I'm against voter intimidation as well. But I understand that if you don't have evidence, you don't have evidence. It is a hard thing to prove...just like hate crimes. You must prove intent.

If you think that makes me racist, well...that's your problem, not mine.


----------



## Immanuel

ConHog said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah because I'm sure that ****** didn't tone down his bullshit once the camera showed up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Must you really use that word?
> 
> I realize you have the legal right to use it, but is it really necessary?
> 
> Man or black man or New Black Panther would have gotten the message through loud and clear.  Using racist terms in such needless ways as that only adds fuel to the claims that all conservatives are racists.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will not use it again in this thread, since you asked.
Click to expand...


You were asked that in another thread and I believe you said the same thing and followed through with it... thank you.

Am I pushing my luck to ask that you refrain from using it in any thread?  

Immie


----------



## chanel

Is this guy a "Republican d-bag Ravi"?



> But Bartle Bull, who was a poll watcher in Philadelphia in 2008, doesn't buy the Justice Department denials.
> 
> "I find it deeply offensive," Bull said. "I know people who died over these issues, like Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. If we can't defend their legacy, it's shameful to us and this administration."
> 
> Bull is a prominent New York Democrat and longtime political adviser. He was Robert F. Kennedy's New York campaign manager, went to the south in the 1960s to protect the voting rights of black voters and just came back from Afghanistan where he traveled with the troops.
> 
> He says the administration's actions amount to protecting the New Black Panthers.



FOXNews.com - Former Justice Attorney Set to Testify in New Black Panther Case





> A poll watcher who provided an affidavit to prosecutors in the case noted that Bartle Bull, who worked as a civil rights lawyer in the south in the 1960's and is a former campaign manager for Robert Kennedy, said it was the most blatant form of voter intimidation he had ever seen.
> 
> In his affidavit, obtained by FOX News, Bull wrote "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."
> 
> He also said they tried to "interfere with the work of other poll observers ... whom the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically," noting that one of the panthers turned toward the white poll observers and said "you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker


FOXNews.com - Charges Against 'New Black Panthers' Dropped by Obama Justice Dept.

Oh and by the way - I don't if it's just Philly or not, but police can no longer patrol polling stations because it has been argued that their presence is "intimidating".  Hmmmm.


----------



## Ravi

ConHog said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> blatant propaganda
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious PP, are you as upset that charges weren't brought against the Arizona Minutemen for intimidating Hispanic voters in 2006? I'm not because I think there was a similar lack of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer is yes you idiot. Only racists like yourself feel that only SOME voter intimidation cases should be investigated. Normal thinking people want ALL legal voters to feel comfortable exercising their rights.
Click to expand...

Riiiight...that's why none of you fucktards ever said a peep about it.


----------



## Ravi

ConHog said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look there in that picture, that woman is calling the po po to report that she feels intimidated. Prove me wrong Ravi.
> 
> 
> 
> She's in the video and is not acting intimidated in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not proof.
> 
> now where is your proof that these fine colored gentleman were hired to do security?
Click to expand...

I never said they were. Calm down before you have a heart attack.


----------



## ConHog

Ravi said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi Im upset about all voter intimidation.  White on black, black on white, black on black, white on white, whomever on whomever....it doesn't matter the color of skin.
> 
> Its all offensive and horrendeous behavior....not to mention illegal.
> 
> 
> It appears from your posting that you are the opposite.  It only bothers you when a certain specific race does it....that, in itself, is a close-minded approach at best and a bigoted and racist approach at the worst.
> 
> BTW your not supposed to alter people's quotes in an attempt to misrepresent their posts.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't misrepresent your post...it was blatant propaganda. Report me if you like.
> 
> I'm against voter intimidation as well. But I understand that if you don't have evidence, you don't have evidence. *It is a hard thing to prove*...just like hate crimes. You must prove intent.
> 
> If you think that makes me racist, well...that's your problem, not mine.
Click to expand...


You're a liar, stupid, and a racist to boot.

Where do crimes get proven Ravi? Oh that's right in court, but if the government won't prosecute well there is no chance to prove anything.


----------



## Ravi

Immanuel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it were me, I would have filmed them from a distance for a while at least until they had noticed me doing so.
> 
> But whether they ever actually intimidated anyone at all is irrelevant.  People of the City of Brotherly Love have a reputation of being tough little buggers.  No one involved may have felt intimidated at all, but those two were there for the purpose of doing so, and that is all that matters.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, I can't read their minds and discover their intent. But without evidence there is no case...and there is no evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only because you do not want to see it.
> 
> Had these been Rednecks carrying Confederate Flags and nightsticks in front of a predominantly black precinct, you would undoubtedly be singing a different tune.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

Is the precinct in question predominately white? 

What I THINK doesn't matter in a court of law.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Ravi said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi Im upset about all voter intimidation.  White on black, black on white, black on black, white on white, whomever on whomever....it doesn't matter the color of skin.
> 
> Its all offensive and horrendeous behavior....not to mention illegal.
> 
> 
> It appears from your posting that you are the opposite.  It only bothers you when a certain specific race does it....that, in itself, is a close-minded approach at best and a bigoted and racist approach at the worst.
> 
> BTW your not supposed to alter people's quotes in an attempt to misrepresent their posts.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't misrepresent your post...it was blatant propaganda. Report me if you like.
> 
> I'm against voter intimidation as well. But I understand that if you don't have evidence, you don't have evidence. It is a hard thing to prove...just like hate crimes. You must prove intent.
> 
> If you think that makes me racist, well...that's your problem, not mine.
Click to expand...


Someone hit a nerve, lol.

Sorry to hit you on the head with the truth of how you appear in this thread like that...and no I wasn't reporting you but thanks for confirming that it is indeed against the rules, I wasn't sure.

The case was already in court and the decision was against the 2 black panthers, then the DOJ voluntarily dropped the case.   They were found guilty which is probably why everyone is giving you a hard time.   I can't help it if your not willing to see the facts and accept that all voter intimidation is wrong and shouldn't be excused.

Maybe you can open your mind and join the rest of us in the 21st century where we consider actions before race.


----------



## Ravi

chanel said:


> Is this guy a "Republican d-bag Ravi"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Bartle Bull, who was a poll watcher in Philadelphia in 2008, doesn't buy the Justice Department denials.
> 
> "I find it deeply offensive," Bull said. "I know people who died over these issues, like Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. If we can't defend their legacy, it's shameful to us and this administration."
> 
> Bull is a prominent New York Democrat and longtime political adviser. He was Robert F. Kennedy's New York campaign manager, went to the south in the 1960s to protect the voting rights of black voters and just came back from Afghanistan where he traveled with the troops.
> 
> He says the administration's actions amount to protecting the New Black Panthers.
> 
> 
> 
> FOXNews.com - Former Justice Attorney Set to Testify in New Black Panther Case
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A poll watcher who provided an affidavit to prosecutors in the case noted that Bartle Bull, who worked as a civil rights lawyer in the south in the 1960's and is a former campaign manager for Robert Kennedy, said it was the most blatant form of voter intimidation he had ever seen.
> 
> In his affidavit, obtained by FOX News, Bull wrote "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."
> 
> He also said they tried to "interfere with the work of other poll observers ... whom the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically," noting that one of the panthers turned toward the white poll observers and said "you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FOXNews.com - Charges Against 'New Black Panthers' Dropped by Obama Justice Dept.
> 
> Oh and by the way - I don't if it's just Philly or not, but police can no longer patrol polling stations because it has been argued that their presence is "intimidating".  Hmmmm.
Click to expand...

Bartle Bull was working for the McCain campaign.


----------



## Immanuel

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, I can't read their minds and discover their intent. But without evidence there is no case...and there is no evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only because you do not want to see it.
> 
> Had these been Rednecks carrying Confederate Flags and nightsticks in front of a predominantly black precinct, you would undoubtedly be singing a different tune.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is the precinct in question predominately white?
> 
> What I THINK doesn't matter in a court of law.
Click to expand...


Do you know that it is not predominantly white?

For that matter, does it matter?

I note your question and response between my posts about the minutemen.

So, I will take your word for it that you would have a problem with it, but I must say that I am a little skeptical.  I think you favor these guys because they supported Obama.  Had they been there working for McCain, I have to wonder if you would feel the same way.

Immie


----------



## Foxfyre

Ravi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only did they have an iron clad case against these two guys, but when the Justice Dept., no doubt ordered to do so by the Administration, dropped the case, they had an up close and personal witness to that who quit in disgust and has done some heavy duty testifying about it.
> 
> And again the MSM ignores that, doesn't seem to know anything about it, and it is a non story so far as they are concerned.
> 
> Again, if we were dealing with Republicans, or the George Bush administration, that same news media would be falling all over themselves to dig up as much dirt as they could find, would make up whatever dirt they needed, and would be using huge front page headlines and major newscasts to report it probably for days and days.  They would certainly be getting as much mileage out of it as possible.
> 
> And some wonder why I don't want the feds having the right to decide what is and is not controversial for people to see.  (Another thread is devoted to that subject.)
> 
> 
> 
> What about you? Were you upset when charges weren't brought against the Arizona Minutemen for voter intimidation against Hispanics?
Click to expand...


I am opposed to any voter intimidation committed by anybody anywhere, and believe that if there is sufficient evidence, all should be prosecuted.

And I am opposed to the media overlooking a valid, prosecutable case about that, and I am opposed to the Justice Dept. dismissing a valid case about that just because the defendents are black or more specifically members of the "New Black Panthers".

And for the life of me, I can't understand how anybody would not be offended by that unless he or she condoned it.

Edit:  Oh, and I won't consider throwing in any more red herrings or changing the subject to be an honest response to that.


----------



## Againsheila

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "white guy" came because he was called because some people were intimidated (or claimed to have been) by these guys.
> 
> Now you may want to claim that we can't prove that these guys had the intent to intimidate, but that is just plain bullshit, Ravi.  Standing in front of a polling place with a weapon such as a nightstick is clearly an attempt to intimidate. Only a fool would claim otherwise.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right...they claimed it. Was anyone actually intimidated? I have almost no doubt that while the black guy is an asshole the white guys were fakes...maybe they are aligned with that faux pimp?
> 
> How about hanging around a polling place with a confederate flag...is that also intimidation?
Click to expand...


Guess that depends on the poll the flag is on, I've NEVER known a flag to be used as a weapon, not like a nightstick.


----------



## Ravi

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi Im upset about all voter intimidation.  White on black, black on white, black on black, white on white, whomever on whomever....it doesn't matter the color of skin.
> 
> Its all offensive and horrendeous behavior....not to mention illegal.
> 
> 
> It appears from your posting that you are the opposite.  It only bothers you when a certain specific race does it....that, in itself, is a close-minded approach at best and a bigoted and racist approach at the worst.
> 
> BTW your not supposed to alter people's quotes in an attempt to misrepresent their posts.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't misrepresent your post...it was blatant propaganda. Report me if you like.
> 
> I'm against voter intimidation as well. But I understand that if you don't have evidence, you don't have evidence. It is a hard thing to prove...just like hate crimes. You must prove intent.
> 
> If you think that makes me racist, well...that's your problem, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone hit a nerve, lol.
> 
> Sorry to hit you on the head with the truth of how you appear in this thread like that...and no I wasn't reporting you but thanks for confirming that it is indeed against the rules, I wasn't sure.
> 
> The case was already in court and the decision was against the 2 black panthers, then the DOJ voluntarily dropped the case.   They were found guilty which is probably why everyone is giving you a hard time.   I can't help it if your not willing to see the facts and accept that all voter intimidation is wrong and shouldn't be excused.
> 
> Maybe you can open your mind and join the rest of us in the 21st century where we consider actions before race.
Click to expand...

No...they weren't found guilty. Not sure where you are getting your information but it isn't correct.

I'm not looking at race in this issue...I'm looking at evidence. There is no evidence that voter intimidation was happening. That doesn't mean that it wasn't, it means that there is no evidence to back it up.

Perhaps it is you that sees _scary black man_ and jumps to conclusions.


----------



## Immanuel

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi Im upset about all voter intimidation.  White on black, black on white, black on black, white on white, whomever on whomever....it doesn't matter the color of skin.
> 
> Its all offensive and horrendeous behavior....not to mention illegal.
> 
> 
> It appears from your posting that you are the opposite.  It only bothers you when a certain specific race does it....that, in itself, is a close-minded approach at best and a bigoted and racist approach at the worst.
> 
> BTW your not supposed to alter people's quotes in an attempt to misrepresent their posts.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't misrepresent your post...it was blatant propaganda. Report me if you like.
> 
> I'm against voter intimidation as well. But I understand that if you don't have evidence, you don't have evidence. It is a hard thing to prove...just like hate crimes. You must prove intent.
> 
> If you think that makes me racist, well...that's your problem, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone hit a nerve, lol.
> 
> Sorry to hit you on the head with the truth of how you appear in this thread like that...and no I wasn't reporting you but thanks for confirming that it is indeed against the rules, I wasn't sure.
> 
> *The case was already in court and the decision was against the 2 black panthers*, then the DOJ voluntarily dropped the case.   They were found guilty which is probably why everyone is giving you a hard time.   I can't help it if your not willing to see the facts and accept that all voter intimidation is wrong and shouldn't be excused.
> 
> Maybe you can open your mind and join the rest of us in the 21st century where we consider actions before race.
Click to expand...


Actually, I don't think they were found guilty.  From what I read, it was a default judgment which came about because they did not show up in court.  There really was no trial, no facts were presented, no evidence weighed.  They were simply found guilty because they did not show up in court.  

I think they would have been found guilty if there had been a trial, but there was not one.

Immie


----------



## Godboy

Truthmatters said:


> This asshole is you peoples counterpart.
> 
> If you hate him you should hate yourself



When did any of us talk about killing people and their babies? Elaborate please, because i dont see the connection between myself and that racist.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Im walking away from the thread now but i may end up checking back in this weekend.  Probably not though.


Enjoy your weekends and DOWN WITH VOTER INTIMIDATION!!!!!!!


----------



## ConHog

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, I can't read their minds and discover their intent. But without evidence there is no case...and there is no evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only because you do not want to see it.
> 
> Had these been Rednecks carrying Confederate Flags and nightsticks in front of a predominantly black precinct, you would undoubtedly be singing a different tune.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is the precinct in question predominately white?
> 
> What I THINK doesn't matter in a court of law.
Click to expand...


Everything I have readd says yes, mostly white precinct

Voting Precinct | Virginia Right!

Watch,  her reaction will be to poopoo the link

I'm also still waiting for proof that these gentleman were hired security


----------



## Ravi

Immanuel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only because you do not want to see it.
> 
> Had these been Rednecks carrying Confederate Flags and nightsticks in front of a predominantly black precinct, you would undoubtedly be singing a different tune.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> Is the precinct in question predominately white?
> 
> What I THINK doesn't matter in a court of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know that it is not predominantly white?
> 
> For that matter, does it matter?
> 
> I note your question and response between my posts about the minutemen.
> 
> So, I will take your word for it that you would have a problem with it, but I must say that I am a little skeptical.  I think you favor these guys because they supported Obama.  Had they been there working for McCain, I have to wonder if you would feel the same way.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

I don't know what the precinct was...but if you are claiming it was white when it was actually black that would matter. In fact, if it is predominantly black then your entire argument of racial intimidation goes out the window.


----------



## ConHog

Ravi said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't misrepresent your post...it was blatant propaganda. Report me if you like.
> 
> I'm against voter intimidation as well. But I understand that if you don't have evidence, you don't have evidence. It is a hard thing to prove...just like hate crimes. You must prove intent.
> 
> If you think that makes me racist, well...that's your problem, not mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone hit a nerve, lol.
> 
> Sorry to hit you on the head with the truth of how you appear in this thread like that...and no I wasn't reporting you but thanks for confirming that it is indeed against the rules, I wasn't sure.
> 
> The case was already in court and the decision was against the 2 black panthers, then the DOJ voluntarily dropped the case.   They were found guilty which is probably why everyone is giving you a hard time.   I can't help it if your not willing to see the facts and accept that all voter intimidation is wrong and shouldn't be excused.
> 
> Maybe you can open your mind and join the rest of us in the 21st century where we consider actions before race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No...they weren't found guilty. Not sure where you are getting your information but it isn't correct.
> 
> I'm not looking at race in this issue...I'm looking at evidence. There is no evidence that voter intimidation was happening. That doesn't mean that it wasn't, it means that there is no evidence to back it up.
> 
> Perhaps it is you that sees _scary black man_ and jumps to conclusions.
Click to expand...


Bullshit you aren't looking at race. You lying fucking bitch.


----------



## Ravi

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Im walking away from the thread now but i may end up checking back in this weekend.  Probably not though.
> 
> 
> Enjoy your weekends and DOWN WITH VOTER INTIMIDATION!!!!!!!


Concession duly noted and accepted.


----------



## Ravi

ConHog said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone hit a nerve, lol.
> 
> Sorry to hit you on the head with the truth of how you appear in this thread like that...and no I wasn't reporting you but thanks for confirming that it is indeed against the rules, I wasn't sure.
> 
> The case was already in court and the decision was against the 2 black panthers, then the DOJ voluntarily dropped the case.   They were found guilty which is probably why everyone is giving you a hard time.   I can't help it if your not willing to see the facts and accept that all voter intimidation is wrong and shouldn't be excused.
> 
> Maybe you can open your mind and join the rest of us in the 21st century where we consider actions before race.
> 
> 
> 
> No...they weren't found guilty. Not sure where you are getting your information but it isn't correct.
> 
> I'm not looking at race in this issue...I'm looking at evidence. There is no evidence that voter intimidation was happening. That doesn't mean that it wasn't, it means that there is no evidence to back it up.
> 
> Perhaps it is you that sees _scary black man_ and jumps to conclusions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit you aren't looking at race. You lying fucking bitch.
Click to expand...

If you can't address me in a civil manner I will stop responding to your posts.


----------



## Nonelitist

In a thread about people bringing guns to a Obama rally, Ravi said the following:

I don't see it so much as a threat against the President...I think it is more to intimidate anyone that supports health care reform including any politicians and the general public.

And while I have no problem with people expressing their second amendment rights I have a problem with being the subject of intimidation. Civil rights shouldn't be used to deprive others of their civil rights. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...ers-carrying-rifle-outside-obama-rally-8.html

Ravi went on to say, that because one of the gun carrying men made statements about taxation, carrying the gun was a direct threat against the pres
Ravi said:

My bad. Apparently it is a direct threat against Obama, according to this video posted by the guy with the semi-automatic.
Man With Assault Rifle Outside Obama Event: 'Taxation Is Theft' | LiveWire 

So Ravi... what the Black Panthers said about whites isn't intimidation, but this guy saying that he didn't like the amount of taxation is?

So Ravi seems to have a racist view of what is intimidation and what isn't.


----------



## Immanuel

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the precinct in question predominately white?
> 
> What I THINK doesn't matter in a court of law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know that it is not predominantly white?
> 
> For that matter, does it matter?
> 
> I note your question and response between my posts about the minutemen.
> 
> So, I will take your word for it that you would have a problem with it, but I must say that I am a little skeptical.  I think you favor these guys because they supported Obama.  Had they been there working for McCain, I have to wonder if you would feel the same way.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know what the precinct was...but if you are claiming it was white when it was actually black that would matter. In fact, if it is predominantly black then your entire argument of racial intimidation goes out the window.
Click to expand...


Maybe you are right on that.

Because the way our voting goes it is based upon the majority vote in each precinct, so if it were a majority black precinct then the few whites voting there would most likely not matter in the first place.  So, I'll think about that a bit.

I have not looked at Conhog's link regarding the precinct, so I am not sure.

Immie


----------



## Neubarth

Truthmatters said:


> This asshole is you peoples counterpart.
> 
> ... you should hate yourself



LieNatters, you have outdone yourself.  That criminal wants to murder people for the color of their skin.  He is a merchant of hate.  

Now, I am a strong believer in killing Radical Islamics.  Those drones are doing a good job. We need more drones.  

This guy can be off'd if we pay somebody enough money.  I hope the FBI does that soon before he gets some low IQ buffoon to kill some little children because they are white.


----------



## chanel

They lost the case. Guilty by default. What part of that don't you understand?

Can we get these threads merged? Its hard to keep up.


----------



## ConHog

Nonelitist said:


> In a thread about people bringing guns to a Obama rally, Ravi said the following:
> 
> I don't see it so much as a threat against the President...I think it is more to intimidate anyone that supports health care reform including any politicians and the general public.
> 
> And while I have no problem with people expressing their second amendment rights I have a problem with being the subject of intimidation. Civil rights shouldn't be used to deprive others of their civil rights.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...ers-carrying-rifle-outside-obama-rally-8.html
> 
> Ravi went on to say, that because one of the gun carrying men made statements about taxation, carrying the gun was a direct threat against the pres
> Ravi said:
> 
> My bad. Apparently it is a direct threat against Obama, according to this video posted by the guy with the semi-automatic.
> Man With Assault Rifle Outside Obama Event: 'Taxation Is Theft' | LiveWire
> 
> So Ravi... what the Black Panthers said about whites isn't intimidation, but this guy saying that he didn't like the amount of taxation is?
> 
> *So Ravi seems to have a racist view of what is intimidation and what isn't*.



That's because Ravi is in fact a racist. She claims no case should be opened because SHE doesn't see evidence of voter intimidation despite there being a law against having a weapon at a polling place and despite eyewitness accounts of intimidation.


----------



## Truthmatters

Neubarth said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> This asshole is you peoples counterpart.
> 
> ... you should hate yourself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LieNatters, you have outdone yourself.  That criminal wants to murder people for the color of their skin.  He is a merchant of hate.
> 
> Now, I am a strong believer in killing Radical Islamics.  Those drones are doing a good job. We need more drones.
> 
> This guy can be off'd if we pay somebody enough money.  I hope the FBI does that soon before he gets some low IQ buffoon to kill some little children because they are white.
Click to expand...


Dear fcuking idiot, 

He is not charged with hate you asshole , he was charged with threatening people at a polling place. The evidence the right claimed was damning actually exsonerated the guy.

You want him in jail because he hates white people, that is not a crime you fool.


----------



## Jack Fate

I think you're all a bunch of crackers and we should kill you and some cracker babies.


----------



## ConHog

Immanuel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know that it is not predominantly white?
> 
> For that matter, does it matter?
> 
> I note your question and response between my posts about the minutemen.
> 
> So, I will take your word for it that you would have a problem with it, but I must say that I am a little skeptical.  I think you favor these guys because they supported Obama.  Had they been there working for McCain, I have to wonder if you would feel the same way.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what the precinct was...but if you are claiming it was white when it was actually black that would matter. In fact, if it is predominantly black then your entire argument of racial intimidation goes out the window.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you are right on that.
> 
> Because the way our voting goes it is based upon the majority vote in each precinct, so if it were a majority black precinct then the few whites voting there would most likely not matter in the first place.  So, I'll think about that a bit.
> 
> I have not looked at Conhog's link regarding the precinct, so I am not sure.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Actually, here is another link calling it a majority black precinct. So who knows. I'm looking or actual data, but what does it matter? A person can be intimidated by someone they agree with even. In fact as the law reads, which I posted earlier in the thread and Ravi conveniently ignores, no one actually has to report being intimidated , actions which COULD intimidate are enough to be illegal. 

Racial motive cited in Justice Dept. decision


----------



## AllieBaba

It's a crime to tell people to kill people.

It's a hate crime to tell black people to kill white babies.

It's a crime to stake out polling places and menace the population.

So. What next?


----------



## AllieBaba

Jack Fate said:


> I think you're all a bunch of crackers and we should kill you and some cracker babies.



I enjoy crackers with smoked oysters or liver pate.


----------



## Againsheila

Ravi said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...they weren't found guilty. Not sure where you are getting your information but it isn't correct.
> 
> I'm not looking at race in this issue...I'm looking at evidence. There is no evidence that voter intimidation was happening. That doesn't mean that it wasn't, it means that there is no evidence to back it up.
> 
> Perhaps it is you that sees _scary black man_ and jumps to conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit you aren't looking at race. You lying fucking bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If you can't address me in a civil manner I will stop responding to your post*s.
Click to expand...


Oh, if only I'd known it was that easy earlier.......


----------



## ConHog

Truthmatters said:


> Neubarth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> This asshole is you peoples counterpart.
> 
> ... you should hate yourself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LieNatters, you have outdone yourself.  That criminal wants to murder people for the color of their skin.  He is a merchant of hate.
> 
> Now, I am a strong believer in killing Radical Islamics.  Those drones are doing a good job. We need more drones.
> 
> This guy can be off'd if we pay somebody enough money.  I hope the FBI does that soon before he gets some low IQ buffoon to kill some little children because they are white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear fcuking idiot,
> 
> He is not charged with hate you asshole , he was charged with threatening people at a polling place.* The evidence the right claimed was damning actually exsonerated the guy.
> *
> You want him in jail because he hates white people, that is not a crime you fool.
Click to expand...


Now if THAT were the case, you would think he would be anxious to go to trial and end this........

And hate isn't illegal but advocating murder is.


----------



## ConHog

AllieBaba said:


> It's a crime to tell people to kill people.
> 
> It's a hate crime to tell black people to kill white babies.
> 
> It's a crime to stake out polling places and menace the population.
> 
> So. What next?



Must spread reputation around before blah blah blah.


That racist Ravi will never concede.


----------



## Nonelitist

truthmatters seems to be a racist when it comes to voter intimidation:

The bitch says:

It seems the republican masses dont care what the republican party does to win elections.

I wonder why the "liberal" media refuses to report on these repeted criminal acts against American voters? 

So, to truthmatters, men in uniforms outside a polling booth, making threatening comments and holding a weapon aren't intimidating....

... but GOP asking that peope identify themselves before voting is intimidating.

Racist much Truth?


----------



## Ravi

Nonelitist said:


> In a thread about people bringing guns to a Obama rally, Ravi said the following:
> 
> I don't see it so much as a threat against the President...I think it is more to intimidate anyone that supports health care reform including any politicians and the general public.
> 
> And while I have no problem with people expressing their second amendment rights I have a problem with being the subject of intimidation. Civil rights shouldn't be used to deprive others of their civil rights.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...ers-carrying-rifle-outside-obama-rally-8.html
> 
> Ravi went on to say, that because one of the gun carrying men made statements about taxation, carrying the gun was a direct threat against the pres
> Ravi said:
> 
> My bad. Apparently it is a direct threat against Obama, according to this video posted by the guy with the semi-automatic.
> Man With Assault Rifle Outside Obama Event: 'Taxation Is Theft' | LiveWire
> 
> So Ravi... what the Black Panthers said about whites isn't intimidation, but this guy saying that he didn't like the amount of taxation is?
> 
> So Ravi seems to have a racist view of what is intimidation and what isn't.


Did the New Black Panthers make any statements of intimidation? No.


----------



## Truthmatters

ConHog said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neubarth said:
> 
> 
> 
> LieNatters, you have outdone yourself.  That criminal wants to murder people for the color of their skin.  He is a merchant of hate.
> 
> Now, I am a strong believer in killing Radical Islamics.  Those drones are doing a good job. We need more drones.
> 
> This guy can be off'd if we pay somebody enough money.  I hope the FBI does that soon before he gets some low IQ buffoon to kill some little children because they are white.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear fcuking idiot,
> 
> He is not charged with hate you asshole , he was charged with threatening people at a polling place.* The evidence the right claimed was damning actually exsonerated the guy.
> *
> You want him in jail because he hates white people, that is not a crime you fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now if THAT were the case, you would think he would be anxious to go to trial and end this........
> 
> And hate isn't illegal but advocating murder is.
Click to expand...


He doesnt have to go to trial bacause there is not enough evidence to charge him with intimidation at a polling place which is why the case was tossed.


Now tell me all you know about the Bush DOJ bringing false charges against people like singleton?


----------



## Jack Fate

What you all have to realize that in the moonbat liberal mind the only racists are white people.  The black man has been a slave and disenfranchised for their entire existence.  They are the downtrodden of our time.  They are still victims so they are allowed to spew their hatred and incite violence.  They're just getting back so it's okay.

That's exactly how the moonbat liberal BO supporter thinks.  Liberalism is a mental disease.


----------



## daveman

Nonelitist said:


> In a thread about people bringing guns to a Obama rally, Ravi said the following:
> 
> I don't see it so much as a threat against the President...I think it is more to intimidate anyone that supports health care reform including any politicians and the general public.
> 
> And while I have no problem with people expressing their second amendment rights I have a problem with being the subject of intimidation. Civil rights shouldn't be used to deprive others of their civil rights.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...ers-carrying-rifle-outside-obama-rally-8.html
> 
> Ravi went on to say, that because one of the gun carrying men made statements about taxation, carrying the gun was a direct threat against the pres
> Ravi said:
> 
> My bad. Apparently it is a direct threat against Obama, according to this video posted by the guy with the semi-automatic.
> Man With Assault Rifle Outside Obama Event: 'Taxation Is Theft' | LiveWire
> 
> So Ravi... what the Black Panthers said about whites isn't intimidation, but this guy saying that he didn't like the amount of taxation is?
> 
> So Ravi seems to have a racist view of what is intimidation and what isn't.


I don't think it's racist so much as political.

Ravi (and Truthmatters, too) will simply excuse and dismiss any wrongdoing by any liberal.  It's a tropism, an automatic reflex.    

Normal Person:  "Hey, look at what this liberal did!"

Ravi/TM:  "That's not wrong.  [insult spurious racism charge here]!!"

It's like your leg jerking when the doctor taps your knee with a hammer, and requires the exact same amount of thought.  In fact, far leftists such as they could function equally well in society if they possessed nothing above the brain stem.


----------



## Nonelitist

Ravi said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a thread about people bringing guns to a Obama rally, Ravi said the following:
> 
> I don't see it so much as a threat against the President...I think it is more to intimidate anyone that supports health care reform including any politicians and the general public.
> 
> And while I have no problem with people expressing their second amendment rights I have a problem with being the subject of intimidation. Civil rights shouldn't be used to deprive others of their civil rights.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...ers-carrying-rifle-outside-obama-rally-8.html
> 
> Ravi went on to say, that because one of the gun carrying men made statements about taxation, carrying the gun was a direct threat against the pres
> Ravi said:
> 
> My bad. Apparently it is a direct threat against Obama, according to this video posted by the guy with the semi-automatic.
> Man With Assault Rifle Outside Obama Event: 'Taxation Is Theft' | LiveWire
> 
> So Ravi... what the Black Panthers said about whites isn't intimidation, but this guy saying that he didn't like the amount of taxation is?
> 
> So Ravi seems to have a racist view of what is intimidation and what isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Did the New Black Panthers make any statements of intimidation? No.
Click to expand...


in the thread i quoted you in... you stated that the man was intimidating and a threat to the pres because he was upset about the amount of taxation. 

Why did you think that was intimidation  you racist little monkey?


----------



## Foxfyre

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Im walking away from the thread now but i may end up checking back in this weekend.  Probably not though.
> 
> 
> Enjoy your weekends and DOWN WITH VOTER INTIMIDATION!!!!!!!



And I'm following Plymco out.  Ya'll have a good one.


----------



## MikeK

blastoff said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this not hate speech?
> 
> If I went to downtown Philadelphia, and started yelling that "we need to kill some *******," how fast would I be put in jail?
> 
> Why is this POS racist still among us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully fast enough to avoid getting your ass kicked by black folks.
Click to expand...

And that kind of cocky bullshit is exactly why the prison populations are overwhelmingly Black.  

In case you've ever wondered about that.


----------



## WillowTree

Nonelitist said:


> In a thread about people bringing guns to a Obama rally, Ravi said the following:
> 
> I don't see it so much as a threat against the President...I think it is more to intimidate anyone that supports health care reform including any politicians and the general public.
> 
> And while I have no problem with people expressing their second amendment rights I have a problem with being the subject of intimidation. Civil rights shouldn't be used to deprive others of their civil rights.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...ers-carrying-rifle-outside-obama-rally-8.html
> 
> Ravi went on to say, that because one of the gun carrying men made statements about taxation, carrying the gun was a direct threat against the pres
> Ravi said:
> 
> My bad. Apparently it is a direct threat against Obama, according to this video posted by the guy with the semi-automatic.
> Man With Assault Rifle Outside Obama Event: 'Taxation Is Theft' | LiveWire
> 
> So Ravi... what the Black Panthers said about whites isn't intimidation, but this guy saying that he didn't like the amount of taxation is?
> 
> So Ravi seems to have a racist view of what is intimidation and what isn't.



Ravi dear is a hypocrite. She's all for intimidation if it's a black group doing the intimidation. That's obvious.


----------



## Truthmatters

go fuck yourself you racist.

Dont you have to run and teach your kids to hate black people or something?


----------



## Yukon.

Truthmatters said:


> go fuck yourself you racist.
> 
> Dont you have to run and teach your kids to hate black people or something?





........me thinks you are the racist.


----------



## Truthmatters

ConHog said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying intimidation is intimidation.
> 
> Whether or not anyone shout out, "that man is intimidating me."
> 
> If I approach a half dozen gang members walking down the street, I'm not going to shout out that I am worried about them, I'm going to make a sudden turn and go a different direction rather than crossing paths with six thugs who may or may not want to break open my skull.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> You're entitled to your opinion. I saw no intimidation on the videos...and the camera man certainly had the opportunity to record any if it were happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah because I'm sure that ****** didn't tone down his bullshit once the camera showed up.
Click to expand...


racist


----------



## Truthmatters

WillowTree said:


> the tug is doing an interview on FOX at 12:30 Central time. A white woman is gonna axe him some tough questions.



racist


----------



## Truthmatters

Yukon. said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> go fuck yourself you racist.
> 
> Dont you have to run and teach your kids to hate black people or something?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ........me thinks you are the racist.
Click to expand...


You dont think you reverse and spew


----------



## MikeK

Mini 14 said:


> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this not hate speech?
> 
> If I went to downtown Philadelphia, and started yelling that "we need to kill some *******," how fast would I be put in jail?
> 
> Why is this POS racist still among us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully fast enough to avoid getting your ass kicked by black folks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which then begs the question:
> 
> "Why aren't white folks kicking this dude's ass?"
Click to expand...

Because he's not significant enough to move against him.   He exists in the raving lunatic category.  He is an annoyance, not a threat.

When you move on a character like this you don't "kick his ass."  You kill him, which is a significant action.  It's not something you do on impulse, because that's how you end up in jail.  

This guy will keep runing his mouth and each time he gets away with it he'll get bolder.  One day he'll be found lying between two parked cars with a couple of bullets in him or his skull crushed.  And it won't even make Page 6.  

He just hasn't pissed anyone off enough yet.


----------



## Yukon.

Yo bro, yo momma's a cracker.


----------



## Jack Fate

Truthmatters said:


> go fuck yourself you racist.
> 
> Dont you have to run and teach your kids to hate black people or something?



Moonbat race card alert......unable to offer a coherent thought....alert, alert, alert.


----------



## ConHog

How does Yukon continually get away with insulting people's moms?


----------



## MikeK

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> The speech showin in the video is defined as "Hate speech which incites violence" and thus could be considered "illegal".   I dont like what he said but I dont like the idea of the government telling him he cant say stupid crap like that.



I agree.  Let him rave.  And he is by no means the worst of his kind I've ever heard.  

Going back to the Seventies, when I lived and worked in New York City, there was a group of Blacks called _The New Israelites_ who wore bizarre Michael Jackson type uniforms.  They wore dredlocks and carried large African flags and would gather on street corners in the Times Square area.  And anyone who thinks what the creep in the video is saying is outlandish should hear those screwballs.  They raved about lynching Whites on lamp posts, throwing them off high rooftops, crushing White babies skulls and tearing their limbs off, etc.

But things like that do not raise eyebrows in New York City, which is host to all sorts of pathological characters.  If you sit on a bench anywhere in the City at 9AM, by 5PM no less than a dozen raving maniacs will walk by.  So these _New Israelite_ psychos were little more than an novel curiosity.  Sometimes a White crazy would verbally engage them and they would exchange curses and threats for awhile and gradually get bored with each other.


----------



## chanel

Ravi said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this guy a "Republican d-bag Ravi"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Bartle Bull, who was a poll watcher in Philadelphia in 2008, doesn't buy the Justice Department denials.
> 
> "I find it deeply offensive," Bull said. "I know people who died over these issues, like Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. If we can't defend their legacy, it's shameful to us and this administration."
> 
> Bull is a prominent New York Democrat and longtime political adviser. He was Robert F. Kennedy's New York campaign manager, went to the south in the 1960s to protect the voting rights of black voters and just came back from Afghanistan where he traveled with the troops.
> 
> He says the administration's actions amount to protecting the New Black Panthers.
> 
> 
> 
> FOXNews.com - Former Justice Attorney Set to Testify in New Black Panther Case
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A poll watcher who provided an affidavit to prosecutors in the case noted that Bartle Bull, who worked as a civil rights lawyer in the south in the 1960's and is a former campaign manager for Robert Kennedy, said it was the most blatant form of voter intimidation he had ever seen.
> 
> In his affidavit, obtained by FOX News, Bull wrote "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."
> 
> He also said they tried to "interfere with the work of other poll observers ... whom the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically," noting that one of the panthers turned toward the white poll observers and said "you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FOXNews.com - Charges Against 'New Black Panthers' Dropped by Obama Justice Dept.
> 
> Oh and by the way - I don't if it's just Philly or not, but police can no longer patrol polling stations because it has been argued that their presence is "intimidating".  Hmmmm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bartle Bull was working for the McCain campaign.
Click to expand...


So that makes him a liar and a "d-bag"?  Man, are you truthmattersnot's sock puppet?  

There were other witnesses who testified as well.  One was a black poll watcher who called the cops. 



> Multiple witnesses complained that they felt intimidated, and several filed affidavits attesting as much. One witness said that one Black Panther told a white man, "Cracker, you are about to be ruled by a black man." A Justice Department memo also says that a black couple, both Republican poll watchers, told authorities they were concerned for their safety when leaving the polling place at day's end because the Black Panthers accused them of being "race traitors."



EDITORIAL: Panther politics - Washington Times


----------



## Rozman

What a joke.How far will the freedom of speech angle work if it was a white guy saying let's kill some....
insert "N" word here...The white person who said it would have been dead a second after he said it.
Welcome to the New America under Obama


----------



## Avatar4321

ConHog said:


> How does Yukon continually get away with insulting people's moms?



Im not sure anyone reads what he says.


----------



## AllieBaba

Or a guy in a hood, with a whip, hanging outside the voting place in a black neighborhood.


----------



## chanel

It wouldn't surprise me if it happens next time. The backlash could get ugly. Perhaps that's what they'd like? Of course that story will be front page for months.


----------



## Charles_Main

Mini 14 said:


> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this not hate speech?
> 
> If I went to downtown Philadelphia, and started yelling that "we need to kill some *******," how fast would I be put in jail?
> 
> Why is this POS racist still among us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully fast enough to avoid getting your ass kicked by black folks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which then begs the question:
> 
> "Why aren't white folks kicking this dude's ass?"
Click to expand...


Apparently Eric Holder has his back.

Has anyone noticed, that at least up until last night. NBC, ABC and CBS had covered this story for a combined total of 0 seconds. Even after the Human rights Court gets involved Still they ignore it. How can a story in which the highest levels of our DOJ are accused of having a policy of Never bringing voter intimidation Case against a black if the plaintiff is white not be news? Even if it ends up being not true? That is news. Any real News outlet has to cover it.

Nearly every lawyer who has looked at the case, Besides a handful on the DOJ, say their was ample evidence to get a conviction. I have heard more than one call it the most striking case of clear cut voter intimidation they had seen since the bad old days of the 50's and 60's. Yet the DOJ gets default judgments on the defendants and then Drops the case.

This is a clear manifestation of the Liberal double standard on Racism. Many liberals actually think Black people are incapable of being Racist, or even if they are, white people have no right to complain because "we" did it to them first. Only We didn't do shit, Our freaking parents and grand parents did. I know I have never done anything even remotely racist to a minority. I work with Blacks and Hispanics all the time, only I do not even really think about them that way. They are just my friends and Co workers. It is liberals today that are always thinking in terms of Race.


----------



## R.C. Christian

"You're gonna have to kill some crackers" is not in itself a hate crime because there was no other crime committed. Depending on it's usage and context it would may or may not violate the fighting words exception to protected free speech.

As loathsome as this speech is I'd rather live with it than have some other civil liberty crushing knee jerk legislation enacted because of it.


----------



## The T

They're domestic terrorists...and should be treated as such.

'Nuff Said.


----------



## R.C. Christian

The T said:


> They're domestic terrorists...and should be treated as such.
> 
> 'Nuff Said.



That's brilliant genius. I realize the constitution doesn't matter much to retarded neocons like yourself so your sentiment doesn't really surprise me. While your at it why don't you strip them of their citizenship and throw them in some cell indefinitely without legal counsel too?


----------



## washamericom

is there a panther acorn connection ?


----------



## ConHog

R.C. Christian said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're domestic terrorists...and should be treated as such.
> 
> 'Nuff Said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's brilliant genius. I realize the constitution doesn't matter much to retarded neocons like yourself so your sentiment doesn't really surprise me. While your at it why don't you strip them of their citizenship and throw them in some cell indefinitely without legal counsel too?
Click to expand...


Please learn the definition of neocon. Sick of seeing political labels misapplied.


----------



## Charles_Main

Looks like TM is trying to bury all the good posts about this with meaningless BS lol


----------



## Charles_Main

ConHog said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're domestic terrorists...and should be treated as such.
> 
> 'Nuff Said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's brilliant genius. I realize the constitution doesn't matter much to retarded neocons like yourself so your sentiment doesn't really surprise me. While your at it why don't you strip them of their citizenship and throw them in some cell indefinitely without legal counsel too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please learn the definition of neocon. Sick of seeing political labels misapplied.
Click to expand...


It simply means New Conservative. The libs like to use it though because they think it sounds sinister like Neo Nazi


----------



## Charles_Main

R.C. Christian said:


> "You're gonna have to kill some crackers" is not in itself a hate crime because there was no other crime committed. Depending on it's usage and context it would may or may not violate the fighting words exception to protected free speech.
> 
> As loathsome as this speech is I'd rather live with it than have some other civil liberty crushing knee jerk legislation enacted because of it.



Nobody is asking for that. What we want is for him to actually be prosecuted for Voter Intimidation. Between the Tape of him at the polls With a weapon in hand, and what he said then, and this, Can you really say he was not at that poll to scare white people away?


----------



## ConHog

Charles_Main said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's brilliant genius. I realize the constitution doesn't matter much to retarded neocons like yourself so your sentiment doesn't really surprise me. While your at it why don't you strip them of their citizenship and throw them in some cell indefinitely without legal counsel too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please learn the definition of neocon. Sick of seeing political labels misapplied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It simply means New Conservative. The libs like to use it though because they think it sounds sinister like Neo Nazi
Click to expand...


It does NOT mean new conservative. Most conservatives are no more neocons that most liberals are communists.


----------



## Ravi

chanel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this guy a "Republican d-bag Ravi"?
> 
> FOXNews.com - Former Justice Attorney Set to Testify in New Black Panther Case
> 
> 
> 
> FOXNews.com - Charges Against 'New Black Panthers' Dropped by Obama Justice Dept.
> 
> Oh and by the way - I don't if it's just Philly or not, but police can no longer patrol polling stations because it has been argued that their presence is "intimidating".  Hmmmm.
> 
> 
> 
> Bartle Bull was working for the McCain campaign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that makes him a liar and a "d-bag"?  Man, are you truthmattersnot's sock puppet?
> 
> There were other witnesses who testified as well.  One was a black poll watcher who called the cops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Multiple witnesses complained that they felt intimidated, and several filed affidavits attesting as much. One witness said that one Black Panther told a white man, "Cracker, you are about to be ruled by a black man." A Justice Department memo also says that a black couple, both Republican poll watchers, told authorities they were concerned for their safety when leaving the polling place at day's end because the Black Panthers accused them of being "race traitors."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> EDITORIAL: Panther politics - Washington Times
Click to expand...

Where are these affidavits? They should be a matter of pubic record.


----------



## Charles_Main

ConHog said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please learn the definition of neocon. Sick of seeing political labels misapplied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It simply means New Conservative. The libs like to use it though because they think it sounds sinister like Neo Nazi
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does NOT mean new conservative. Most conservatives are no more neocons that most liberals are communists.
Click to expand...



Neo means new bud



> neo-
> &#8194;
> 1.
> a combining form meaning &#8220;new,&#8221; &#8220;recent,&#8221; &#8220;revived,&#8221; &#8220;modified,&#8221; used in the formation of compound words: neo-Darwinism; Neolithic; neoorthodoxy; neophyte.
> 2.
> Chemistry . a combining form used in the names of isomers having a carbon atom attached to four carbon atoms: neoarsphenamine.



Or maybe they mean Revived Conservatives, or Modified Conservatives? lol


----------



## Ravi

chanel said:


> It wouldn't surprise me if it happens next time. The backlash could get ugly. Perhaps that's what they'd like? Of course that story will be front page for months.


Who are they?


----------



## ConHog

Ravi said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bartle Bull was working for the McCain campaign.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that makes him a liar and a "d-bag"?  Man, are you truthmattersnot's sock puppet?
> 
> There were other witnesses who testified as well.  One was a black poll watcher who called the cops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Multiple witnesses complained that they felt intimidated, and several filed affidavits attesting as much. One witness said that one Black Panther told a white man, "Cracker, you are about to be ruled by a black man." A Justice Department memo also says that a black couple, both Republican poll watchers, told authorities they were concerned for their safety when leaving the polling place at day's end because the Black Panthers accused them of being "race traitors."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> EDITORIAL: Panther politics - Washington Times
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where are these affidavits? They should be a matter of pubic record.
Click to expand...


Yes they should be, but as I posted earlier stupid the DoJ is having to be sued to turn over court documents.


----------



## R.C. Christian

Charles_Main said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's brilliant genius. I realize the constitution doesn't matter much to retarded neocons like yourself so your sentiment doesn't really surprise me. While your at it why don't you strip them of their citizenship and throw them in some cell indefinitely without legal counsel too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please learn the definition of neocon. Sick of seeing political labels misapplied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It simply means New Conservative. The libs like to use it though because they think it sounds sinister like Neo Nazi
Click to expand...


No, we just won't want jackasses to be confused with true conservatives.


----------



## R.C. Christian

Charles_Main said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You're gonna have to kill some crackers" is not in itself a hate crime because there was no other crime committed. Depending on it's usage and context it would may or may not violate the fighting words exception to protected free speech.
> 
> As loathsome as this speech is I'd rather live with it than have some other civil liberty crushing knee jerk legislation enacted because of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is asking for that. What we want is for him to actually be prosecuted for Voter Intimidation. Between the Tape of him at the polls With a weapon in hand, and what he said then, and this, Can you really say he was not at that poll to scare white people away?
Click to expand...


I have no problem with that if it can be proven, but it doesn't meet the definition of domestic terrorism. Indeed, if sufficient evidence exists then get the sorry bastard.


----------



## chanel

From what I understand about "terroristic threats" it seems to be in the eye of the beholder (not unlike sexual harrassment) If a guy with a billy club says "Kill the crackers" and someone is terrified enough to believe that is his intent, then it is a crime. Sounds ok to me. It hasn't happened yet with these two but methinks they've been empowered with the AG in their court and all. Hmmmm.


----------



## Mini 14

The more I think about this situation, the more I realize that the problem with this guy is that he isn't like Obama. We all understand Obama's popularity, because he's light-skinned, and doesn't speak with a negro dialect.

But this guy is too dark, and he has some serious ebonics going on which many of us have to use babelfish or the urban dictionary to translate.

Right, Mr. Reid?


----------



## Capitalist

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JunrpGf5QRc&feature=player_embedded"]I just love this video!![/ame]
It's so Eric Holderish.....


----------



## R.C. Christian

Neocon is simply a perjorative in the sense of followers of the Bush doctrine or the policy of using economic and especially military power to acheive foreign policy goals. See the PNAC for a good example. No need to split hairs about whether it means new, or psuedo. It's about nation building by force which is not an American ideal or a conservative principle.


----------



## Charles_Main

R.C. Christian said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You're gonna have to kill some crackers" is not in itself a hate crime because there was no other crime committed. Depending on it's usage and context it would may or may not violate the fighting words exception to protected free speech.
> 
> As loathsome as this speech is I'd rather live with it than have some other civil liberty crushing knee jerk legislation enacted because of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is asking for that. What we want is for him to actually be prosecuted for Voter Intimidation. Between the Tape of him at the polls With a weapon in hand, and what he said then, and this, Can you really say he was not at that poll to scare white people away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with that if it can be proven, but it doesn't meet the definition of domestic terrorism. Indeed, if sufficient evidence exists then get the sorry bastard.
Click to expand...


If it can be proven? Isn't the the point of actually having a trail and prosecuting the guy, to either find him guilty or innocent. That is kinda the whole point of this story. The DOJ claims there is not enough evidence of voter intimidation, when he is on tape intimidating people with a weapon, using racial slurs, and telling people to be prepared to be "ruled by the black man"

It is a clear cut case, and the fact that Obama's DOJ is refusing to do anything about it is very troubling.

If the accusations the DOJ attorney who quit claims are true then it is 1000 times worse. If the DOJ is actually telling its people to NEVER prosecute a case of voter intimidation when the defendant is Black and the accuser is white, well then FUCK man that is a serious problem. We have to investigate this fully. We just have to. 

Personally I think It is Clear as day that Voter intimidation happened and the DOJ is full of crap saying there is not enough evidence. Watch the video what more do you need? Whether or not they actually have a policy not to prosecute Black people is less clear, and will be harder to get to the bottom of, but my god people, Black white dem Republican, you should want to know.


----------



## Capitalist




----------



## Charles_Main

R.C. Christian said:


> Neocon is simply a perjorative in the sense of followers of the Bush doctrine or the policy of using economic and especially military power to acheive foreign policy goals. See the PNAC for a good example. No need to split hairs about whether it means new, or psuedo. It's about nation building by force which is not an American ideal or a conservative principle.



So by that definition then nearly every president we have had, Dem Republican Whig what ever, since our founding was a neocon. Because they all at least used economic power to achieve policy goals. Or at least tried to, and many of them used Military power for the same reasons 

Obama is using Military and Economic Power right now to try and push his Policy and agenda. He must be a neocon


----------



## R.C. Christian

washamericom said:


> is there a panther acorn connection ?



Probably. I wouldn't put it past those scumbags.


----------



## Ravi

chanel said:


> From what I understand about "terroristic threats" it seems to be in the eye of the beholder (not unlike sexual harrassment) If a guy with a billy club says "Kill the crackers" and someone is terrified enough to believe that is his intent, then it is a crime. Sounds ok to me. It hasn't happened yet with these two but methinks they've been empowered with the AG in their court and all. Hmmmm.


So you think all charges of hate crimes are legitimate? Somehow I doubt it.


----------



## Care4all

FYI



> The Foundation
> Ten-Point Program
> Vision
> Legacy
> *
> There Is No New Black Panther Party: An Open Letter From the Dr. Huey P. Newton Foundation*
> 
> 
> In response from numerous requests from individual's seeking information on the "New Black Panthers," the Dr. Huey P. Newton Foundation issues this public statement to correct the distorted record being made in the media by a small band of African Americans calling themselves the New Black Panthers. As guardian of the true history of the Black Panther Party, the Foundation, which includes former leading members of the Party, denounces this group's exploitation of the Party's name and history. Failing to find its own legitimacy in the black community, this band would graft the Party's name upon itself, which we condemn.
> 
> Firstly, the people in the New Black Panthers were never members of the Black Panther Party and have no legitimate claim on the Party's name. On the contrary, they would steal the names and pretend to walk in the footsteps of the Party's true heroes, such as Black Panther founder Huey P. Newton, George Jackson and Jonathan Jackson, Bunchy Carter, John Huggins, Fred Hampton, Mark Cark, and so many others who gave their very lives to the black liberation struggle under the Party's banner.
> 
> Secondly, they denigrate the Party's name by promoting concepts absolutely counter to the revolutionary principles on which the Party was founded. Their alleged media assault on the Ku Klux Klan serves to incite hatred rather than resolve it. The Party's fundamental principle, as best articulated by the great revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara, was: "A true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love." The Black Panthers were never a group of angry young militants full of fury toward the "white establishment." The Party operated on love for black people, not hatred of white people.
> 
> Furthermore, this group claims it would "teach" the black community about armed self-defense. The arrogance of this claim is overwhelmed by its reactionary nature. Blacks, especially in the South, have been armed in self-defense for a very long time; indeed, the spiritual parent of the Party itself was the Louisiana-based Deacons for Defense. However, the Party understood that the gun was not necessarily revolutionary, for the police and all other oppressive forces had guns. It was the ideology behind the gun that determined its nature.



continued:  http://www.blackpanther.org/newsalert.htm


----------



## Care4all

sheesh...

FYI



> The Foundation
> Ten-Point Program
> Vision
> Legacy
> *
> There Is No New Black Panther Party: An Open Letter From the Dr. Huey P. Newton Foundation*
> 
> 
> In response from numerous requests from individual's seeking information on the "New Black Panthers," the Dr. Huey P. Newton Foundation issues this public statement to correct the distorted record being made in the media by a small band of African Americans calling themselves the New Black Panthers. As guardian of the true history of the Black Panther Party, the Foundation, which includes former leading members of the Party, denounces this group's exploitation of the Party's name and history. Failing to find its own legitimacy in the black community, this band would graft the Party's name upon itself, which we condemn.
> 
> Firstly, the people in the New Black Panthers were never members of the Black Panther Party and have no legitimate claim on the Party's name. On the contrary, they would steal the names and pretend to walk in the footsteps of the Party's true heroes, such as Black Panther founder Huey P. Newton, George Jackson and Jonathan Jackson, Bunchy Carter, John Huggins, Fred Hampton, Mark Cark, and so many others who gave their very lives to the black liberation struggle under the Party's banner.
> 
> Secondly, they denigrate the Party's name by promoting concepts absolutely counter to the revolutionary principles on which the Party was founded. Their alleged media assault on the Ku Klux Klan serves to incite hatred rather than resolve it. The Party's fundamental principle, as best articulated by the great revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara, was: "A true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love." The Black Panthers were never a group of angry young militants full of fury toward the "white establishment." The Party operated on love for black people, not hatred of white people.
> 
> Furthermore, this group claims it would "teach" the black community about armed self-defense. The arrogance of this claim is overwhelmed by its reactionary nature. Blacks, especially in the South, have been armed in self-defense for a very long time; indeed, the spiritual parent of the Party itself was the Louisiana-based Deacons for Defense. However, the Party understood that the gun was not necessarily revolutionary, for the police and all other oppressive forces had guns. It was the ideology behind the gun that determined its nature.
> 
> 
> http://www.blackpanther.org/newsalert.htm


----------



## Jack Fate

This is good stuff.  Watch the video.

Michelle Malkin  Whitewashing black racism; Shabazz: &#8220;Prepare for war&#8221;


----------



## R.C. Christian

Charles_Main said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is asking for that. What we want is for him to actually be prosecuted for Voter Intimidation. Between the Tape of him at the polls With a weapon in hand, and what he said then, and this, Can you really say he was not at that poll to scare white people away?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with that if it can be proven, but it doesn't meet the definition of domestic terrorism. Indeed, if sufficient evidence exists then get the sorry bastard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it can be proven? Isn't the the point of actually having a trail and prosecuting the guy, to either find him guilty or innocent. That is kinda the whole point of this story. The DOJ claims there is not enough evidence of voter intimidation, when he is on tape intimidating people with a weapon, using racial slurs, and telling people to be prepared to be "ruled by the black man"
> 
> It is a clear cut case, and the fact that Obama's DOJ is refusing to do anything about it is very troubling.
> 
> If the accusations the DOJ attorney who quit claims are true then it is 1000 times worse. If the DOJ is actually telling its people to NEVER prosecute a case of voter intimidation when the defendant is Black and the accuser is white, well then FUCK man that is a serious problem. We have to investigate this fully. We just have to.
> 
> Personally I think It is Clear as day that Voter intimidation happened and the DOJ is full of crap saying there is not enough evidence. Watch the video what more do you need? Whether or not they actually have a policy not to prosecute Black people is less clear, and will be harder to get to the bottom of, but my god people, Black white dem Republican, you should want to know.
Click to expand...


I don't necessarily disagree with you. However, it's the prosecuting attorney who is going to have to make the decision if the case is even worth prosecuting. I'd say it's iffy, but if the state wants to take that chance then more power to them.


----------



## gautama

Coyote said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shabazz has the right to think whatever he wants.  There's no law against being an asshole and the truth is usually, somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> *But he and his way of thinking should be given no more credibility than the thinking of the KKK.*
> But for some reason, there are people on the left and in this forum that seem to feel he and his group deserves credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> But as to the second statement, I think you will find there are no more people on this board who feel he deserves cred than there are those on the right who feel the KKK deserve cred.
> 
> Certainly, there don't appear to be many postings indicating that.
Click to expand...


Whenever the wetback Coyote-Peyote, i.e., The La Raza Freako and the voice of Media Matters and/or Move On .Org (and carries the same credibility) ejaculates with what may seem as a reasonable utterance.......you will notice this piece of Obamarrhoidal shit will IMMEDIATELY not only NEGATE the rational aspect of his initial assertion (against which there isn't any possible Obamarrhoidal defense that could be even remotely rational ..... although there are always some Libtards like TruthDoesNOTMatter who usually sally forth with their idiotic verbal feces), but comes up with some obfuscating factor that desperately attempts to mitigate the INCONTROVERTIBLE TRUTH OF THE ISSUE IN QUESTION against which THERE IS NO DEFENSE.


----------



## Charles_Main

R.C. Christian said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with that if it can be proven, but it doesn't meet the definition of domestic terrorism. Indeed, if sufficient evidence exists then get the sorry bastard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it can be proven? Isn't the the point of actually having a trail and prosecuting the guy, to either find him guilty or innocent. That is kinda the whole point of this story. The DOJ claims there is not enough evidence of voter intimidation, when he is on tape intimidating people with a weapon, using racial slurs, and telling people to be prepared to be "ruled by the black man"
> 
> It is a clear cut case, and the fact that Obama's DOJ is refusing to do anything about it is very troubling.
> 
> If the accusations the DOJ attorney who quit claims are true then it is 1000 times worse. If the DOJ is actually telling its people to NEVER prosecute a case of voter intimidation when the defendant is Black and the accuser is white, well then FUCK man that is a serious problem. We have to investigate this fully. We just have to.
> 
> Personally I think It is Clear as day that Voter intimidation happened and the DOJ is full of crap saying there is not enough evidence. Watch the video what more do you need? Whether or not they actually have a policy not to prosecute Black people is less clear, and will be harder to get to the bottom of, but my god people, Black white dem Republican, you should want to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't necessarily disagree with you. However, it's the prosecuting attorney who is going to have to make the decision if the case is even worth prosecuting. I'd say it's iffy, but if the state wants to take that chance then more power to them.
Click to expand...



You watched that video and still think it is Iffy whether or not there is even enough evidence to take the case? Please dude be real. There is more than enough evidence on that tape alone to bring a case, and there are also Multiple witnesses. It was not the "decision" of the prosecuting attorney either. They wanted to prosecute, and actually did and the defendants did not show up and the Feds WON a default judgment. Top Officials in the DOJ then Threw out a case in which they have plenty of evidence and already had a default judgment.

Sorry I have to call Bullshit now, anyone who has watched the tape should based on that alone feel there was at least enough evidence to warrant a trail. unless of course they are a Democrat Partisan that is.


----------



## ConHog

Ravi said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what I understand about "terroristic threats" it seems to be in the eye of the beholder (not unlike sexual harrassment) If a guy with a billy club says "Kill the crackers" and someone is terrified enough to believe that is his intent, then it is a crime. Sounds ok to me. It hasn't happened yet with these two but methinks they've been empowered with the AG in their court and all. Hmmmm.
> 
> 
> 
> *So you think all charges of hate crimes are legitimate?* Somehow I doubt it.
Click to expand...


That's what courts are for . DUH!!


----------



## Ravi

Uh...you have to have evidence to bring a case to court. Again, what planet do you live on?


----------



## Mini 14

Jack Fate said:


> This is good stuff.  Watch the video.
> 
> Michelle Malkin  Whitewashing black racism; Shabazz: Prepare for war



Malkin is hot.

And smart.

And cool under fire.

I'd hit it


----------



## ConHog

Ravi said:


> Uh...you have to have evidence to bring a case to court. Again, what planet do you live on?



Ravi, the ONLY people who don't see enough evidence to take this case to court are the ones who don't want to.

Go ahead and ignore me if you like, but you're a stupid piece of shit. Seriously, you are exactly what is wrong with this country. It isn't your political leanings. It's your blind stupidity and blatant racism. There is not a single person on this board who doubts that if that had been a white guy instead of a black guy you would be on this board screaming racism and intimidation. This planet would be oh so much better off without stupid bigots like you on it.


----------



## R.C. Christian

Charles_Main said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it can be proven? Isn't the the point of actually having a trail and prosecuting the guy, to either find him guilty or innocent. That is kinda the whole point of this story. The DOJ claims there is not enough evidence of voter intimidation, when he is on tape intimidating people with a weapon, using racial slurs, and telling people to be prepared to be "ruled by the black man"
> 
> It is a clear cut case, and the fact that Obama's DOJ is refusing to do anything about it is very troubling.
> 
> If the accusations the DOJ attorney who quit claims are true then it is 1000 times worse. If the DOJ is actually telling its people to NEVER prosecute a case of voter intimidation when the defendant is Black and the accuser is white, well then FUCK man that is a serious problem. We have to investigate this fully. We just have to.
> 
> Personally I think It is Clear as day that Voter intimidation happened and the DOJ is full of crap saying there is not enough evidence. Watch the video what more do you need? Whether or not they actually have a policy not to prosecute Black people is less clear, and will be harder to get to the bottom of, but my god people, Black white dem Republican, you should want to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't necessarily disagree with you. However, it's the prosecuting attorney who is going to have to make the decision if the case is even worth prosecuting. I'd say it's iffy, but if the state wants to take that chance then more power to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You watched that video and still think it is Iffy whether or not there is even enough evidence to take the case? Please dude be real. There is more than enough evidence on that tape alone to bring a case, and there are also Multiple witnesses. It was not the "decision" of the prosecuting attorney either. They wanted to prosecute, and actually did and the defendants did not show up and the Feds WON a default judgment. Top Officials in the DOJ then Threw out a case in which they have plenty of evidence and already had a default judgment.
> 
> Sorry I have to call Bullshit now, anyone who has watched the tape should based on that alone feel there was at least enough evidence to warrant a trail. unless of course they are a Democrat Partisan that is.
Click to expand...



I didn't watch the video my friend because I'm currently at work and bandwith is limited right now due to multiple FTP sessions. I did, however, read other transcripts of the event and when I get a chance to view the damning video and you're proven right then I will promptly state you were right and give you much thanks


----------



## Coyote

gautama said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> *But he and his way of thinking should be given no more credibility than the thinking of the KKK.*
> But for some reason, there are people on the left and in this forum that seem to feel he and his group deserves credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> But as to the second statement, I think you will find there are no more people on this board who feel he deserves cred than there are those on the right who feel the KKK deserve cred.
> 
> Certainly, there don't appear to be many postings indicating that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whenever the wetback Coyote-Peyote, i.e., The La Raza Freako and the voice of Media Matters and/or Move On .Org (and carries the same credibility) ejaculates with what may seem as a reasonable utterance.......you will notice this piece of Obamarrhoidal shit will IMMEDIATELY not only NEGATE the rational aspect of his initial assertion (against which there isn't any possible Obamarrhoidal defense that could be even remotely rational ..... although there are always some Libtards like TruthDoesNOTMatter who usually sally forth with their idiotic verbal feces), but comes up with some obfuscating factor that desperately attempts to mitigate the INCONTROVERTIBLE TRUTH OF THE ISSUE IN QUESTION against which THERE IS NO DEFENSE.
Click to expand...


Ah....you sure know the way to a 'yote's hart Guano....I'm...well...speechless

I realize your INCONTROVERTIBLE verbal incontinence does occassionally cause you public embarressment, but have no fear - I know your heart is in the right place and your diatribe, though seemingly psychotic and out of touch with the world around you, is in reality an artistic construct carefully crafted for maximum impact and minimal adherance to Webster's English Dictionary. Although often under appreciated by the common lackeys who surround you - be assured, I appreciate every syllable to it's maximum extent.  

Now back to the public embarressment....I'm not sure how to help you there but I might suggest the following.

Remove the lampshade from your head.
Remember your new mantra: Spandex is NOT your friend
Do not leave your Preparation-H lying next to your toothpaste.
The toothbrush is for your TEETH.
and, lastly.....even though you ripped out pages 13-76 of the Rightwing Manifesto...it was a really baaaaad idea to replace it with excerpts from the White Trash Cookbook.

Love ya, Guano - don't forget to iron yer shorts eh?


----------



## Mini 14

ConHog said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...you have to have evidence to bring a case to court. Again, what planet do you live on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi, the ONLY people who don't see enough evidence to take this case to court are the ones who don't want to.
> 
> Go ahead and ignore me if you like, but you're a stupid piece of shit. Seriously, you are exactly what is wrong with this country. It isn't your political leanings. It's your blind stupidity and blatant racism. There is not a single person on this board who doubts that if that had been a white guy instead of a black guy you would be on this board screaming racism and intimidation. This planet would be oh so much better off without stupid bigots like you on it.
Click to expand...


I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

Ravi's hypocrisy, and her biggest problem, stem from the fact that she is a blatant racist.

She would have followed Hitler into the bunker, if Hitler weren't white.


----------



## R.C. Christian

ConHog said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...you have to have evidence to bring a case to court. Again, what planet do you live on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi, the ONLY people who don't see enough evidence to take this case to court are the ones who don't want to.
> 
> Go ahead and ignore me if you like, but you're a stupid piece of shit. Seriously, you are exactly what is wrong with this country. It isn't your political leanings. It's your blind stupidity and blatant racism. There is not a single person on this board who doubts that if that had been a white guy instead of a black guy you would be on this board screaming racism and intimidation. This planet would be oh so much better off without stupid bigots like you on it.
Click to expand...


The only problem is that there is no definite guarantee that video will even be admitted as evidence, just saying.


----------



## ConHog

Mini 14 said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...you have to have evidence to bring a case to court. Again, what planet do you live on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi, the ONLY people who don't see enough evidence to take this case to court are the ones who don't want to.
> 
> Go ahead and ignore me if you like, but you're a stupid piece of shit. Seriously, you are exactly what is wrong with this country. It isn't your political leanings. It's your blind stupidity and blatant racism. There is not a single person on this board who doubts that if that had been a white guy instead of a black guy you would be on this board screaming racism and intimidation. This planet would be oh so much better off without stupid bigots like you on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
> 
> Ravi's hypocrisy, and her biggest problem, stem from the fact that she is a blatant racist.
> 
> She would have followed Hitler into the bunker, if Hitler weren't white.
Click to expand...


I'm sick of her fucking lies and out right racism. It's bullshit, and more people need to start calling her and like minded morons out. 

Fuck I just heard Obama say people don't like b/c of his middle name. What a fucking racist asshole.


----------



## ConHog

R.C. Christian said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...you have to have evidence to bring a case to court. Again, what planet do you live on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi, the ONLY people who don't see enough evidence to take this case to court are the ones who don't want to.
> 
> Go ahead and ignore me if you like, but you're a stupid piece of shit. Seriously, you are exactly what is wrong with this country. It isn't your political leanings. It's your blind stupidity and blatant racism. There is not a single person on this board who doubts that if that had been a white guy instead of a black guy you would be on this board screaming racism and intimidation. This planet would be oh so much better off without stupid bigots like you on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only problem is that there is no definite guarantee that video will even be admitted as evidence, just saying.
Click to expand...


You won't know until you take it court, this needs to go to court.


----------



## chanel

Jerry Jackson is an elected Democratic Committeeman for the 14th ward of Phila. So one might suggest that he "represents the party" Isn't that what committeemen do? Sheeez.


----------



## R.C. Christian

ConHog said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi, the ONLY people who don't see enough evidence to take this case to court are the ones who don't want to.
> 
> Go ahead and ignore me if you like, but you're a stupid piece of shit. Seriously, you are exactly what is wrong with this country. It isn't your political leanings. It's your blind stupidity and blatant racism. There is not a single person on this board who doubts that if that had been a white guy instead of a black guy you would be on this board screaming racism and intimidation. This planet would be oh so much better off without stupid bigots like you on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only problem is that there is no definite guarantee that video will even be admitted as evidence, just saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You won't know until you take it court, this needs to go to court.
Click to expand...


Sure, and I suppose it shall. But then again we also have politics in play here. I assume the prosecuting attorney of that city is elected. Politics are always present when it comes to race.


----------



## ConHog

R.C. Christian said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only problem is that there is no definite guarantee that video will even be admitted as evidence, just saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You won't know until you take it court, this needs to go to court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, and I suppose it shall. But then again we also have politics in play here. I assume the prosecuting attorney of that city is elected. Politics are always present when it comes to race.
Click to expand...


Well the city attorney has nothing to do with it, this is a federal case. Although there are state laws concerning voter intimidation as well. I would assume Obama would probably sue Pennsylvania if they enforced state laws.


----------



## R.C. Christian

ConHog said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> You won't know until you take it court, this needs to go to court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, and I suppose it shall. But then again we also have politics in play here. I assume the prosecuting attorney of that city is elected. Politics are always present when it comes to race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the city attorney has nothing to do with it, this is a federal case. Although there are state laws concerning voter intimidation as well. I would assume Obama would probably sue Pennsylvania if they enforced state laws.
Click to expand...


Doh, good point. Missed that.


----------



## Immanuel

ConHog said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi, the ONLY people who don't see enough evidence to take this case to court are the ones who don't want to.
> 
> Go ahead and ignore me if you like, but you're a stupid piece of shit. Seriously, you are exactly what is wrong with this country. It isn't your political leanings. It's your blind stupidity and blatant racism. There is not a single person on this board who doubts that if that had been a white guy instead of a black guy you would be on this board screaming racism and intimidation. This planet would be oh so much better off without stupid bigots like you on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only problem is that there is no definite guarantee that video will even be admitted as evidence, just saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You won't know until you take it court, this needs to go to court.
Click to expand...


Is a video like that even admissible as evidence?  Some how, I doubt it would be.

Immie


----------



## ConHog

Immanuel said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only problem is that there is no definite guarantee that video will even be admitted as evidence, just saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You won't know until you take it court, this needs to go to court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is a video like that even admissible as evidence?  Some how, I doubt it would be.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Why not? I think it would be.


----------



## R.C. Christian

ConHog said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> You won't know until you take it court, this needs to go to court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is a video like that even admissible as evidence?  Some how, I doubt it would be.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not? I think it would be.
Click to expand...


I don't know exactly "why not" but you'd be amazed at what a good defense attorney can keep out of evidence. The race card will be employed liberally.


----------



## chanel

Which video?


----------



## ConHog

R.C. Christian said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is a video like that even admissible as evidence?  Some how, I doubt it would be.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? I think it would be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know exactly "why not" but you'd be amazed at what a good defense attorney can keep out of evidence. The race card will be employed liberally.
Click to expand...


True enough, but you don't just say "oh well they will try to have that video squashed, so let's not bother trying the case."


----------



## rikules

Mini 14 said:


> How is this not hate speech?
> 
> If I went to downtown Philadelphia, and started yelling that "we need to kill some *******," how fast would I be put in jail?
> 
> Why is this POS racist still among us?



I (a moderate liberal, a sane and rational person)
DENOUNCE ALL SUCH HATE SPEECH and SUGGESTIONS OF VIOLENCE.

I denounce them from the LEFT
and I denounce them from the RIGHT


----------



## Immanuel

ConHog said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> You won't know until you take it court, this needs to go to court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is a video like that even admissible as evidence?  Some how, I doubt it would be.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not? I think it would be.
Click to expand...


Because videos can be edited and/or not shown in full context.  I don't think, but am not certain on this, that a video such as this can be used in court unless maybe both parties stipulate to an agreement.

Don't quote me on that.  I don't know that is correct.  I'm sure there are attorneys on site that can tell us if such a video would be acceptable to the court.

Immie


----------



## Mini 14

Immanuel said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only problem is that there is no definite guarantee that video will even be admitted as evidence, just saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You won't know until you take it court, this needs to go to court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is a video like that even admissible as evidence?  Some how, I doubt it would be.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Video is admissible under most circumstances. Cops use it all the time in traffic stops. If it is taken in a public location, or at a public gathering, then it is admissible. It will certainly be admissible in this case.


----------



## ConHog

Immanuel said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is a video like that even admissible as evidence?  Some how, I doubt it would be.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? I think it would be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because videos can be edited and/or not shown in full context.  I don't think, but am not certain on this, that a video such as this can be used in court unless maybe both parties stipulate to an agreement.
> 
> Don't quote me on that.  I don't know that is correct.  I'm sure there are attorneys on site that can tell us if such a video would be acceptable to the court.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...



My wife is in fact an attorney, and she says incorrect. Now the defense would of course be given a copy of the video and the impetus would be on them to prove the video was fake and or altered if they wished, otherwise it would be accepted at face value.


----------



## Immanuel

Here is a site I found regarding Video Evidence:

Evidence Technology Magazine - Can Video Evidence Be Trusted?



> THE SCIENCE of forensic video analysis is not what it used to be. The recent migration from analog video to digital video recording (DVR) systems changed the foundation of recording technology and the way video evidence is processed. The switch from analog to digital has also brought a dramatic change to the way the courts look at video evidence.
> 
> In an analog-video world, the courts often viewed video evidence as the silent witness that simply spoke for itself. Jurors were frequently instructed to just trust their eyes. However, in todays CCTV marketwhere no standards exist for image reliability, and where video evidence is often produced by DVR systems that are mostly mass-produced in developing countriesvideo can no longer be accepted at face value, nor can it be expected to accurately represent what it purports to show. In this digital world, compression, motion prediction, and enhancement technology may inadvertently change and alter the events captured by the camera.
> 
> In short: A picture may still be worth a thousand words, but the lay interpretation of that picture may be nothing more than fiction.



From the link (which I only scanned) I am not sure it cannot be used in court, but I would question whether a video such as was provided in this thread would be admissible.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

ConHog said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? I think it would be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because videos can be edited and/or not shown in full context.  I don't think, but am not certain on this, that a video such as this can be used in court unless maybe both parties stipulate to an agreement.
> 
> Don't quote me on that.  I don't know that is correct.  I'm sure there are attorneys on site that can tell us if such a video would be acceptable to the court.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My wife is in fact an attorney, and she says incorrect. Now the defense would of course be given a copy of the video and the impetus would be on them to prove the video was fake and or altered if they wished, otherwise it would be accepted at face value.
Click to expand...


Tell your wife I said thank you for clearing that up.

Immie


----------



## Mini 14

rikules said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this not hate speech?
> 
> If I went to downtown Philadelphia, and started yelling that "we need to kill some *******," how fast would I be put in jail?
> 
> Why is this POS racist still among us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I (a moderate liberal, a sane and rational person)
> DENOUNCE ALL SUCH HATE SPEECH and SUGGESTIONS OF VIOLENCE.
> 
> I denounce them from the LEFT
> and I denounce them from the RIGHT
Click to expand...


----------



## daveman

Charles_Main said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's brilliant genius. I realize the constitution doesn't matter much to retarded neocons like yourself so your sentiment doesn't really surprise me. While your at it why don't you strip them of their citizenship and throw them in some cell indefinitely without legal counsel too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please learn the definition of neocon. Sick of seeing political labels misapplied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It simply means New Conservative. The libs like to use it though because they think it sounds sinister like Neo Nazi
Click to expand...

I discovered among leftists it's code for "JOOOO!!!"


----------



## Immanuel

rikules said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this not hate speech?
> 
> If I went to downtown Philadelphia, and started yelling that "we need to kill some *******," how fast would I be put in jail?
> 
> Why is this POS racist still among us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I (a moderate liberal, a sane and rational person)
> DENOUNCE ALL SUCH HATE SPEECH and SUGGESTIONS OF VIOLENCE.
> 
> I denounce them from the LEFT
> and I denounce them from the RIGHT
Click to expand...


Haha,

Please don't take this wrong but from what I have read of your postings (granted I have not paid a whole hell of a lot of attention to you) but I would not describe you as "moderate" and I'm not sure I would use either sane or rational in a description of you either.  

But, I do appreciate that you are a lefty and that you have denounced hate speech unlike TM who seems to think it is okay as long as it comes out of the mouths of liberals.

Immie


----------



## KissMy

Perhaps this administration refused to prosecute these black criminals because they support the New Black Panthers & Kamau Kambon's agenda?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISN1RCxko2Q&feature=related"]Extermination of white people[/ame]


----------



## ConHog

KissMy said:


> Perhaps this administration refused to prosecute these black criminals because they support the New Black Panthers & Kamau Kambon's agenda?
> 
> Extermination of white people



Maybe Obama is ready to rumble to.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nc0l_a5yt-c]YouTube - Leader of Black Panthers Threatens War with Tea Party, RNC, Glenn Beck, Congress[/ame]


----------



## daveman

KissMy said:


> Perhaps this administration refused to prosecute these black criminals because they support the New Black Panthers & Kamau Kambon's agenda?
> 
> Extermination of white people


Hey, Ravi, Truthmatters -- this guy thanks you for your useful idiocy, but he still wants you dead.


----------



## gautama

Coyote said:


> gautama said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> But as to the second statement, I think you will find there are no more people on this board who feel he deserves cred than there are those on the right who feel the KKK deserve cred.
> 
> Certainly, there don't appear to be many postings indicating that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever the wetback Coyote-Peyote, i.e., The La Raza Freako and the voice of Media Matters and/or Move On .Org (and carries the same credibility) ejaculates with what may seem as a reasonable utterance.......you will notice this piece of Obamarrhoidal shit will IMMEDIATELY not only NEGATE the rational aspect of his initial assertion (against which there isn't any possible Obamarrhoidal defense that could be even remotely rational ..... although there are always some Libtards like TruthDoesNOTMatter who usually sally forth with their idiotic verbal feces), but comes up with some obfuscating factor that desperately attempts to mitigate the INCONTROVERTIBLE TRUTH OF THE ISSUE IN QUESTION against which THERE IS NO DEFENSE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah....you sure know the way to a 'yote's hart Guano....I'm...well...speechless
> 
> I realize your INCONTROVERTIBLE verbal incontinence does occassionally cause you public embarressment, but have no fear - I know your heart is in the right place and your diatribe, though seemingly psychotic and out of touch with the world around you, is in reality an artistic construct carefully crafted for maximum impact and minimal adherance to Webster's English Dictionary. Although often under appreciated by the common lackeys who surround you - be assured, I appreciate every syllable to it's maximum extent.
> 
> Now back to the public embarressment....I'm not sure how to help you there but I might suggest the following.
> 
> Remove the lampshade from your head.
> Remember your new mantra: Spandex is NOT your friend
> Do not leave your Preparation-H lying next to your toothpaste.
> The toothbrush is for your TEETH.
> and, lastly.....even though you ripped out pages 13-76 of the Rightwing Manifesto...it was a really baaaaad idea to replace it with excerpts from the White Trash Cookbook.
> 
> Love ya, Guano - don't forget to iron yer shorts eh?
Click to expand...


The wetback Coyote-Peyote i.e., the La Raza Freako,

You're going to a lot of trouble  appearing as an amusing clown only to prove that as an Obamarrhoidal fucktard you can't refute a single assertion of mine.

But, keep on truckin......you might impress that demented crunt TruthDoesn'tMatter enough to get her to service you.


----------



## ConHog

daveman said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this administration refused to prosecute these black criminals because they support the New Black Panthers & Kamau Kambon's agenda?
> 
> Extermination of white people
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Ravi, Truthmatters -- this guy thanks you for your useful idiocy, but he still wants you dead.
Click to expand...


Ravi, did you lie when you told me you were black several weeks ago?


----------



## chanel

Uh oh.  More video:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JunrpGf5QRc&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Malik Shabazz incriminates himself in black panther case[/ame]


----------



## ConHog

chanel said:


> Uh oh.  More video:
> 
> YouTube - Malik Shabazz incriminates himself in black panther case



oops , here's another one.

FOXNews.com - New Black Panther Leader Defends Group in Voter Intimidation Case


----------



## R.C. Christian

There are always vigilante methods available to deal with the Panther punks.


----------



## ConHog

R.C. Christian said:


> There are always vigilante methods available to deal with the Panther punks.



They threatened to see Beck in DC, he essentially said they are a bunch of pussies and will never show up. LOL


----------



## chanel

I wonder if King Samir Shabazz and Malik Shabazz are related.  Strange coincidence.


----------



## hortysir

Ravi said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> This asshole is you peoples counterpart.
> 
> If you hate him you should hate yourself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont hate the racist black panther guy at all.  I feel sorry for him that he is behaving just like the old KKK idiots used to and I hope one day he can get past his prejudices and be a happier man.
> 
> That being said he should be punished, legally, for the instance of voter intimidation that he was found guilty of instead of after being convicted of voter intimidation having the case dropped by Eric Holder's DOJ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well...that would all be true but there is no evidence any voters were intimidated or any real proof that he tried to intimidate someone.
Click to expand...

1st: why am I not surprised you would be the first piece of shit to step up and defend this garbage??

2nd: to your post; just the simple fact that the cops were called is all the evidence needed to show that somebody felt intimidated.


----------



## ConHog

hortysir said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont hate the racist black panther guy at all.  I feel sorry for him that he is behaving just like the old KKK idiots used to and I hope one day he can get past his prejudices and be a happier man.
> 
> That being said he should be punished, legally, for the instance of voter intimidation that he was found guilty of instead of after being convicted of voter intimidation having the case dropped by Eric Holder's DOJ.
> 
> 
> 
> Well...that would all be true but there is no evidence any voters were intimidated or any real proof that he tried to intimidate someone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1st: why am I not surprised you would be the first piece of shit to step up and defend this garbage??
> 
> 2nd: to your post; just the simple fact that the cops were called is all the evidence needed to show that somebody felt intimidated.
Click to expand...


What Ravi the racist moron won't admit is that the law doesn't require that anyone actually was intimidated. All it requires is proving that someone COULD have been intimidated. I posted the actual law earlier in the thread, but as per her usual Ravi totally ignores facts. 

She's a waste of good bandwidth AND good air.


----------



## hortysir

Ravi said:


> I watched the videos. What I see is that some black guys are standing in front of a polling place, one with a night stick. Some white guy is claiming they are intimidated even though the guy with the night stick never makes any kind of threat. The police arrive and ask the black guys to leave and they do.
> 
> As far as I can tell there is no real evidence of intimidation.


You love discussing that video....

now how about addressing the one referred to in the OP??


----------



## Immanuel

ConHog said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh oh.  More video:
> 
> YouTube - Malik Shabazz incriminates himself in black panther case
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oops , here's another one.
> 
> FOXNews.com - New Black Panther Leader Defends Group in Voter Intimidation Case
Click to expand...


If you ask me, Dr. Shabazz (hope I spelled that correctly) did a fine job in that interview.  He makes a compelling argument that the man wielding the night stick was not acting under the authority of the NBPP.  He also states that the party is not racist.  I have to say, that from his actions, I felt quite at ease with him unlike the other man (Nzinga) that was interviewed by Hannity and Colmes in a post above.  

Dr. Shabazz defended his group well.  He was very polite and someone that appeared easy to talk to not to mention respectable.

Immie


----------



## Coyote

gautama said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gautama said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever the wetback Coyote-Peyote, i.e., The La Raza Freako and the voice of Media Matters and/or Move On .Org (and carries the same credibility) ejaculates with what may seem as a reasonable utterance.......you will notice this piece of Obamarrhoidal shit will IMMEDIATELY not only NEGATE the rational aspect of his initial assertion (against which there isn't any possible Obamarrhoidal defense that could be even remotely rational ..... although there are always some Libtards like TruthDoesNOTMatter who usually sally forth with their idiotic verbal feces), but comes up with some obfuscating factor that desperately attempts to mitigate the INCONTROVERTIBLE TRUTH OF THE ISSUE IN QUESTION against which THERE IS NO DEFENSE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah....you sure know the way to a 'yote's hart Guano....I'm...well...speechless
> 
> I realize your INCONTROVERTIBLE verbal incontinence does occassionally cause you public embarressment, but have no fear - I know your heart is in the right place and your diatribe, though seemingly psychotic and out of touch with the world around you, is in reality an artistic construct carefully crafted for maximum impact and minimal adherance to Webster's English Dictionary. Although often under appreciated by the common lackeys who surround you - be assured, I appreciate every syllable to it's maximum extent.
> 
> Now back to the public embarressment....I'm not sure how to help you there but I might suggest the following.
> 
> Remove the lampshade from your head.
> Remember your new mantra: Spandex is NOT your friend
> Do not leave your Preparation-H lying next to your toothpaste.
> The toothbrush is for your TEETH.
> and, lastly.....even though you ripped out pages 13-76 of the Rightwing Manifesto...it was a really baaaaad idea to replace it with excerpts from the White Trash Cookbook.
> 
> Love ya, Guano - don't forget to iron yer shorts eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wetback Coyote-Peyote i.e., the La Raza Freako,
> 
> You're going to a lot of trouble  appearing as an amusing clown only to prove that as an Obamarrhoidal fucktard you can't refute a single assertion of mine.
> 
> But, keep on truckin......you might impress that demented crunt TruthDoesn'tMatter enough to get her to service you.
Click to expand...


Dear Guano,

I am presently engaged in the Music Thread and can't attend to your ...issues....at present.  However, if you can spare a few minutes to seperate your drivel into coherent sentences (I suggest the use of proper punctuation and capitalization) then your single assertion (and maybe a few other assertions) might make refutable sense.  Until then, dear, it's just one long run-on rant.

Back to Steppenwolf.

Sincerely,

Peyote Coyote La Raza Freakazoide


----------



## chanel

He's a liar.  I just watched an older video of him.



> The Southern Poverty Law Center, a NBPP critic, has pointed to NBPP members stating sympathy or understanding of Kamau Kambon's advocacy of *the genocide of whites*, and Khalid Abdul Muhammad in his statement that "there are no good crackers, and* if you find one, kill him* before he changes."[12][13][14]





> Critics have called the NBPP extremist, citing Muhammad's "Million Youth March", a youth equivalent of the Million Man March in Harlem in which 6,000 people protested police brutality but also featured a range of speakers c*alling for the extermination of whites in South Africa.* The rally ended in scuffles with the New York Police Department as *Muhammad urged the crowd to attack those officers who had attempted to confiscate the NBPP members' guns*. Chairs and bottles were thrown at the police but only a few in the conflict suffered injuries. *Al Sharpton appeared* and spoke at this event, and was criticized later for taking part in its controversial rhetoric. .



New Black Panther Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wow.  Unbelievable that a smart man like Holder would stick his neck out for these creeps.  There's got to be more to this.  NAACP? Acorn?  Project Vote?


----------



## Immanuel

chanel said:


> He's a liar.  I just watched an older video of him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Southern Poverty Law Center, a NBPP critic, has pointed to NBPP members stating sympathy or understanding of Kamau Kambon's advocacy of *the genocide of whites*, and Khalid Abdul Muhammad in his statement that "there are no good crackers, and* if you find one, kill him* before he changes."[12][13][14]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Critics have called the NBPP extremist, citing Muhammad's "Million Youth March", a youth equivalent of the Million Man March in Harlem in which 6,000 people protested police brutality but also featured a range of speakers c*alling for the extermination of whites in South Africa.* The rally ended in scuffles with the New York Police Department as *Muhammad urged the crowd to attack those officers who had attempted to confiscate the NBPP members' guns*. Chairs and bottles were thrown at the police but only a few in the conflict suffered injuries. *Al Sharpton appeared* and spoke at this event, and was criticized later for taking part in its controversial rhetoric. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> New Black Panther Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Wow.  Unbelievable that a smart man like Holder would stick his neck out for these creeps.  There's got to be more to this.  NAACP? Acorn?  Project Vote?
Click to expand...


I wouldn't mind seeing the video you "just watched"

Kambon appeared to me to be evil as in on the lines of Adolf Hitler kind of evil, but Shabazz appeared well spoken and quite frankly likable.

Immie


----------



## Care4all

i feel sorry for the real Black Panthers, who are getting all this bad press from these people calling themselves the new black panthers...while the media makes no effort to clarify that this is just some group stealing the black panther name.


----------



## Immanuel

Care4all said:


> i feel sorry for the real Black Panthers, who are getting all this bad press from these people calling themselves the new black panthers...while the media makes no effort to clarify that this is just some group stealing the black panther name.



Are the "real" Black Panthers still in existence?  I saw the link you provided earlier, but I thought it was a comment from a foundation that was run by a former member.

Immie


----------



## ConHog

chanel said:


> He's a liar.  I just watched an older video of him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Southern Poverty Law Center, a NBPP critic, has pointed to NBPP members stating sympathy or understanding of Kamau Kambon's advocacy of *the genocide of whites*, and Khalid Abdul Muhammad in his statement that "there are no good crackers, and* if you find one, kill him* before he changes."[12][13][14]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Critics have called the NBPP extremist, citing Muhammad's "Million Youth March", a youth equivalent of the Million Man March in Harlem in which 6,000 people protested police brutality but also featured a range of speakers c*alling for the extermination of whites in South Africa.* The rally ended in scuffles with the New York Police Department as *Muhammad urged the crowd to attack those officers who had attempted to confiscate the NBPP members' guns*. Chairs and bottles were thrown at the police but only a few in the conflict suffered injuries. *Al Sharpton appeared* and spoke at this event, and was criticized later for taking part in its controversial rhetoric. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> New Black Panther Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Wow.  Unbelievable that a smart man like Holder would stick his neck out for these creeps.  There's got to be more to this.  NAACP? Acorn?  Project Vote?
Click to expand...


Eric Holder hates every iota of a cracker.


----------



## chanel

Immanuel said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's a liar.  I just watched an older video of him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Southern Poverty Law Center, a NBPP critic, has pointed to NBPP members stating sympathy or understanding of Kamau Kambon's advocacy of *the genocide of whites*, and Khalid Abdul Muhammad in his statement that "there are no good crackers, and* if you find one, kill him* before he changes."[12][13][14]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Critics have called the NBPP extremist, citing Muhammad's "Million Youth March", a youth equivalent of the Million Man March in Harlem in which 6,000 people protested police brutality but also featured a range of speakers c*alling for the extermination of whites in South Africa.* The rally ended in scuffles with the New York Police Department as *Muhammad urged the crowd to attack those officers who had attempted to confiscate the NBPP members' guns*. Chairs and bottles were thrown at the police but only a few in the conflict suffered injuries. *Al Sharpton appeared* and spoke at this event, and was criticized later for taking part in its controversial rhetoric. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> New Black Panther Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Wow.  Unbelievable that a smart man like Holder would stick his neck out for these creeps.  There's got to be more to this.  NAACP? Acorn?  Project Vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't mind seeing the video you "just watched"
> 
> Kambon appeared to me to be evil as in on the lines of Adolf Hitler kind of evil, but Shabazz appeared well spoken and quite frankly likable.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Well spoken - yes.  I'm sure Hitler was well-spoken too.  Likable?  He is head of a KKK like organization.  Immie, c'mon.

My bad.  The video I watched was of "Minister Malik Shabazz" not "Attorney Malik Shabazz".  Sheez.  This Shabazz family certainly has some racist relatives.  lol

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4-RKipPLyE&feature=related]YouTube - Black Panther Minister Malik - The white man is not your friend[/ame]


----------



## American Horse

Truthmatters said:


> Show us the people who said they doidnt vote because he was there?


Truth, If you were a little old white lady, and came to the poll to vote, and was confronted with two big guys who were hurling racial epithets about people of your own color, might you think twice about crossing there?  As an "older gentleman" I would hesitate, unless I had back-up.  This was voter intimidation.  

We are led to believe that when cops drive past a polling place, that's voter intimidation, because those among the voting public, who might have open warrants out for them, feel "intimidated" from entering a polling place.  If a police car is seen two blocks away from a polling place where black folks may happen to vote, that's called "voter suppression" today.


----------



## American Horse

Coyote said:


> Count Dracula said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you imagine the shit storm that would come down if *white guys had of done this?*  Guess it's ok though because it was done by a bunch of radical black guys.  That's America for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did.  Minutemen attempted to intimidate hispanic voters.  Case was dropped by the Bush DoJ.
> 
> Guess Fox didn't think it newsworthy eh?  That's America for you.
Click to expand...

Coyote, Can you back that up with a link to a news source; a link of any kind except to a message board?


----------



## American Horse

Coyote said:


> From a November 8, 2006, Austin American-Statesman article:  ...In Arizona, Roy Warden, an anti-immigration activist with the Minutemenand a handful of supporters staked out a Tucson precinct and questioned Hispanic voters at the polls to determine whether they spoke English...
> 
> ...*Armed with a 9mm Glock automatic* strapped to his side, Warden said he planned to photograph Hispanic voters entering polls in an effort to identify illegal immigrants and felons. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund reported the incident to the FBI...
> 
> From a November 21, 2006, Salon.com article:
> 
> On Election Day, a posse of three men in Tucson, Ariz., proved that the Wild West still lives.
> 
> The group, which was three strong, and allegedly composed of two anti-immigration activists, Russ Dove and Roy Warden, carried a camcorder, a clipboard -- on which, they said, was information about a proposed law to make English the state's official language -- and a gun. While one man would approach a voter, holding the clipboard, another would follow, pointing the video camera at them. The third would stand behind, holding his hand to the gun at his hip in what activists on the other side called classic voter intimidation tactics in a precinct one local paper had previously declared the bellwether of the area's Hispanic vote.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Yet, the case was dropped by the Bush DoJ ....*
> 
> So...did Christian Adams...self-described "whistle-blower"..... fall victim to a whistle malfunction in 2006?  Or...is it only racism when it's the Obama Administration? Or...is it not "voter intimidation" when they don't speak good English?
> 
> Or maybe Adams is just another testosterone deficient jackoff with a huge chip on his shoulder?
Click to expand...


Ok, so three guys were arrested for illegal activity, voter intimidation by any description; now where's the link to the dismissal by the Bush administration?


----------



## American Horse

Truthmatters said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHA, he was not a voter.
> 
> He said himself he wasnt bothered and walked between the men,


HE was a Republican poll watcher, lived in the building, and was, by authority of his office entitled to be there, voting at the moment or not.  

I'll tell you, that lots of old folks, and yeah, I know, everyone here at USMB is fearless, but lots of old folks would just say to themselves "I'm not going there, mine is only one vote and won't change anything anyway; and those guys look and sound dangerous. I don't need a broken hip at my age, screw this I'm going home where it's safe"


----------



## gautama

Coyote said:


> gautama said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah....you sure know the way to a 'yote's hart Guano....I'm...well...speechless
> 
> I realize your INCONTROVERTIBLE verbal incontinence does occassionally cause you public embarressment, but have no fear - I know your heart is in the right place and your diatribe, though seemingly psychotic and out of touch with the world around you, is in reality an artistic construct carefully crafted for maximum impact and minimal adherance to Webster's English Dictionary. Although often under appreciated by the common lackeys who surround you - be assured, I appreciate every syllable to it's maximum extent.
> 
> Now back to the public embarressment....I'm not sure how to help you there but I might suggest the following.
> 
> Remove the lampshade from your head.
> Remember your new mantra: Spandex is NOT your friend
> Do not leave your Preparation-H lying next to your toothpaste.
> The toothbrush is for your TEETH.
> and, lastly.....even though you ripped out pages 13-76 of the Rightwing Manifesto...it was a really baaaaad idea to replace it with excerpts from the White Trash Cookbook.
> 
> Love ya, Guano - don't forget to iron yer shorts eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wetback Coyote-Peyote i.e., the La Raza Freako,
> 
> You're going to a lot of trouble  appearing as an amusing clown only to prove that as an Obamarrhoidal fucktard you can't refute a single assertion of mine.
> 
> But, keep on truckin......you might impress that demented crunt TruthDoesn'tMatter enough to get her to service you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Guano,
> 
> I am presently engaged in the Music Thread and can't attend to your ...issues....at present.  However, if you can spare a few minutes to seperate your drivel into coherent sentences (I suggest the use of proper punctuation and capitalization) then your single assertion (and maybe a few other assertions) might make refutable sense.  Until then, dear, it's just one long run-on rant.
> 
> Back to Steppenwolf.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Peyote Coyote La Raza Freakazoide
Click to expand...


The La Raza Freako: Coyote-Peyote,

I have two Masters, one from UC Berkeley, the other from Stanford. Obviously, I know how to string a few sentences together that would provoke multiple orgasms in the most demanding grammarians. I CHOOSE not to because I find it easier to express myself the way I do without wasting more time than necessary......as long as this method doesn't impinge on coherency. And, IMO.....it doesn't. 

Anyone who has problems with my style, has my permission to suck either one of the two most prominent Hussein dicks. I suggest that you get a digging implement for Numero DUO.

Steppenshit is "MUSIC "?!?!? Figgers.


----------



## Ravi

ConHog said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this administration refused to prosecute these black criminals because they support the New Black Panthers & Kamau Kambon's agenda?
> 
> Extermination of white people
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Ravi, Truthmatters -- this guy thanks you for your useful idiocy, but he still wants you dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ravi, did you lie when you told me you were black several weeks ago?
Click to expand...

I didn't tell you I was black.

The video could be used as evidence...if we are talking about the video taken at the polling place. It wouldn't help convict this man as it shows no intimidation.


----------



## Ravi

hortysir said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont hate the racist black panther guy at all.  I feel sorry for him that he is behaving just like the old KKK idiots used to and I hope one day he can get past his prejudices and be a happier man.
> 
> That being said he should be punished, legally, for the instance of voter intimidation that he was found guilty of instead of after being convicted of voter intimidation having the case dropped by Eric Holder's DOJ.
> 
> 
> 
> Well...that would all be true but there is no evidence any voters were intimidated or any real proof that he tried to intimidate someone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1st: why am I not surprised you would be the first piece of shit to step up and defend this garbage??
> 
> 2nd: to your post; just the simple fact that the cops were called is all the evidence needed to show that somebody felt intimidated.
Click to expand...

I'm not defending him, I'm pointing out that there is no evidence that anyone was intimidated.

And your second statement makes you look like a second grader, as does your name calling.


----------



## Ravi

Care4all said:


> i feel sorry for the real Black Panthers, who are getting all this bad press from these people calling themselves the new black panthers...while the media makes no effort to clarify that this is just some group stealing the black panther name.


I've noticed that, too. The posters on this thread are doing the same thing.


----------



## chanel

This is from their website.  These are the ten principals and tactics that Dr. Shabazz endorses.



> What the New Black Panthers Want What the New Black Panthers Believe
> 
> 1. We want freedom. We want the power to practice self-determination, and to determine the destiny of our community and *THE BLACK NATION.*
> 2. We want full employment for our people and we demand the dignity to do for ourselves what we have begged the white man to do for us.
> We believe further in: POWER IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE! WEALTH IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE! *ARMS IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE!*
> 3. We want *tax exemption* and an end to robbery of THE BLACK NATION by the CAPITALIST. We believe that this wicked racist government has robbed us, and now we are demanding the overdue debt of *reparations*. genocide crimes continue, *people's tribunals must be set up to prosecute and to execute.*
> 4. We want decent housing, fit for shelter of human beings, free health-care (preventive and maintenance). We believe since the white landlords will not give decent housing and quality health care to our Black Community, the he housing, the land, the social, political and economic institutions should be made into independent UUAMAA *New African Communal/Cooperatives so that our community, with government reparations* and aid (until we can do for ourselves) can build and make drug free, decent housing with health facilities for our people.
> 5. We want education for our people that exposes the true nature of this devilish and decadent American society. We want education that teaches us our true history/herstory and our role in the present day society.
> 6. We want all Black Men and Black Women to be* exempt from military service.*
> We believe that Black People should not be forced to fight in the military service to defend a racist government that holds us captive and does not protect us. We will not fight and kill other people of color in the world who, like Black People, are being victimized by the white racist government of America. *We will protect ourselves from the force and violence of the racist police and the racist military, by any means necessary.*
> 7. We want an immediate end to POLICE HARRASSMENT, BRUTALITY and MURDER of Black People. We want an end to Black-on-Black violence, *snitching, cooperation and collaboration with the oppresso*r.
> We believe we can end police brutality in our community by organizing Black self-defense groups* (Black People's Militias/Black Liberation Armies)* that are dedicated to defending our Black Community from racist, fascist, police/military oppression and brutality. The Second Amendment of white America's Constitution gives a right to bear arms. We therefore believe that all Black People should unite and form an* African United Front and arm ourselves for self-defense.*
> 8. We want freedom for all Black Men and Black Women held in international, military, federal, state, county, city jails and prisons. We believe that all Black People and people of color should be released from the many jails and prisons because they have not received a fair and impartial trial.
> 9. We want all Black People when brought to trial to be tried in a court by a jury of their peer group or people from their Black Communities, as defined by white law of the Constitution of the United States.
> 10. WE DEMAND AN END TO THE RACIST DEATH PENALTY AS IT IS APPLIED TO BLACK AND OPPRESSED PEOPLE IN AMERICA. WE DEMAND FREEDOM FOR ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS OF THE BLACK RED AND BROWN NATION!
> 
> We want land, bread, housing, education, clothing, justice and peace. And, as our political objective, we want NATIONAL LIBERATION in a separate state or territory of our own, here or elsewhere, a liberated zone (New Africa or Africa), and a plebiscite to be held throughout the BLACK NATION in which only we will be allowed to participate for the purposes of determining our will and DIVINE destiny as a people. FREE THE LAND! UP YOU MIGHTY NATION! YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH WHAT YOU WILL! BLACK POWER!* History has proven that the white man is absolutely disagreeable to get along with in peace*. No one has been able to get along with the white man. All the people of color have been subjected to the white man's wrath. We believe that his very nature will not allow for true sharing, fairness, equity and justice.
> 
> NewBlackPanther.com



Oh my.  It almost sounds like a revolution.


----------



## The T

R.C. Christian said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're domestic terrorists...and should be treated as such.
> 
> 'Nuff Said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's brilliant genius. I realize the constitution doesn't matter much to retarded neocons like yourself so your sentiment doesn't really surprise me. While your at it why don't you strip them of their citizenship and throw them in some cell indefinitely without legal counsel too?
Click to expand...

 

There are already calls to have them placed on the terrorist watchlist dipshit. And NeoCon? You have no clue junior. None whatsoever. You don't know what the term means.


----------



## gautama

chanel said:


> This is from their website.  These are the ten principals and tactics that Dr. Shabazz endorses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the New Black Panthers Want What the New Black Panthers Believe
> 
> 1. We want freedom. We want the power to practice self-determination, and to determine the destiny of our community and *THE BLACK NATION.*
> 2. We want full employment for our people and we demand the dignity to do for ourselves what we have begged the white man to do for us.
> We believe further in: POWER IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE! WEALTH IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE! *ARMS IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE!*
> 3. We want *tax exemption* and an end to robbery of THE BLACK NATION by the CAPITALIST. We believe that this wicked racist government has robbed us, and now we are demanding the overdue debt of *reparations*. genocide crimes continue, *people's tribunals must be set up to prosecute and to execute.*
> 4. We want decent housing, fit for shelter of human beings, free health-care (preventive and maintenance). We believe since the white landlords will not give decent housing and quality health care to our Black Community, the he housing, the land, the social, political and economic institutions should be made into independent UUAMAA *New African Communal/Cooperatives so that our community, with government reparations* and aid (until we can do for ourselves) can build and make drug free, decent housing with health facilities for our people.
> 5. We want education for our people that exposes the true nature of this devilish and decadent American society. We want education that teaches us our true history/herstory and our role in the present day society.
> 6. We want all Black Men and Black Women to be* exempt from military service.*
> We believe that Black People should not be forced to fight in the military service to defend a racist government that holds us captive and does not protect us. We will not fight and kill other people of color in the world who, like Black People, are being victimized by the white racist government of America. *We will protect ourselves from the force and violence of the racist police and the racist military, by any means necessary.*
> 7. We want an immediate end to POLICE HARRASSMENT, BRUTALITY and MURDER of Black People. We want an end to Black-on-Black violence, *snitching, cooperation and collaboration with the oppresso*r.
> We believe we can end police brutality in our community by organizing Black self-defense groups* (Black People's Militias/Black Liberation Armies)* that are dedicated to defending our Black Community from racist, fascist, police/military oppression and brutality. The Second Amendment of white America's Constitution gives a right to bear arms. We therefore believe that all Black People should unite and form an* African United Front and arm ourselves for self-defense.*
> 8. We want freedom for all Black Men and Black Women held in international, military, federal, state, county, city jails and prisons. We believe that all Black People and people of color should be released from the many jails and prisons because they have not received a fair and impartial trial.
> 9. We want all Black People when brought to trial to be tried in a court by a jury of their peer group or people from their Black Communities, as defined by white law of the Constitution of the United States.
> 10. WE DEMAND AN END TO THE RACIST DEATH PENALTY AS IT IS APPLIED TO BLACK AND OPPRESSED PEOPLE IN AMERICA. WE DEMAND FREEDOM FOR ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS OF THE BLACK RED AND BROWN NATION!
> 
> We want land, bread, housing, education, clothing, justice and peace. And, as our political objective, we want NATIONAL LIBERATION in a separate state or territory of our own, here or elsewhere, a liberated zone (New Africa or Africa), and a plebiscite to be held throughout the BLACK NATION in which only we will be allowed to participate for the purposes of determining our will and DIVINE destiny as a people. FREE THE LAND! UP YOU MIGHTY NATION! YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH WHAT YOU WILL! BLACK POWER!* History has proven that the white man is absolutely disagreeable to get along with in peace*. No one has been able to get along with the white man. All the people of color have been subjected to the white man's wrath. We believe that his very nature will not allow for true sharing, fairness, equity and justice.
> 
> NewBlackPanther.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my.  It almost sounds like a revolution.
Click to expand...


Well, one thing it most definitely DOES sound like : A truck load of unmitigated, unadulterated SHIT.

The type of SHIT that you Obamarrhoidal fucktards gobble up by the spadeful.


----------



## chanel

> The New Black Panther Party (NBPP)  which despite its name has no connection with the original Black Panther Party  is a black separatist organization. The Southern Poverty Law Center identifies the NBPP as a hate group based on the anti-white, anti-gay and anti-Semitic views its leaders have repeatedly expressed.
> 
> NBPP members were present outside polling places in at least six major U.S. cities last Nov. 4. The group claimed they were providing voter information and protecting the rights and safety of black voters.



Feds Investigate Dropping of Panther Case | Southern Poverty Law Center

The Southern Poverty Law Center?  Are they Republican d-bags too?  Shabazz is as bad as his predecessor.  He's just more "articulate".

Once Again, Arson Follows New Black Panther Protest | Southern Poverty Law Center

Panther Leader Makes Hay With Case | Southern Poverty Law Center


----------



## daveman

chanel said:


> This is from their website.  These are the ten principals and tactics that Dr. Shabazz endorses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the New Black Panthers Want What the New Black Panthers Believe
> 
> 1. We want freedom. We want the power to practice self-determination, and to determine the destiny of our community and *THE BLACK NATION.*
> 2. We want full employment for our people and we demand the dignity to do for ourselves what we have begged the white man to do for us.
> We believe further in: POWER IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE! WEALTH IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE! *ARMS IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE!*
> 3. We want *tax exemption* and an end to robbery of THE BLACK NATION by the CAPITALIST. We believe that this wicked racist government has robbed us, and now we are demanding the overdue debt of *reparations*. genocide crimes continue, *people's tribunals must be set up to prosecute and to execute.*
> 4. We want decent housing, fit for shelter of human beings, free health-care (preventive and maintenance). We believe since the white landlords will not give decent housing and quality health care to our Black Community, the he housing, the land, the social, political and economic institutions should be made into independent UUAMAA *New African Communal/Cooperatives so that our community, with government reparations* and aid (until we can do for ourselves) can build and make drug free, decent housing with health facilities for our people.
> 5. We want education for our people that exposes the true nature of this devilish and decadent American society. We want education that teaches us our true history/herstory and our role in the present day society.
> 6. We want all Black Men and Black Women to be* exempt from military service.*
> We believe that Black People should not be forced to fight in the military service to defend a racist government that holds us captive and does not protect us. We will not fight and kill other people of color in the world who, like Black People, are being victimized by the white racist government of America. *We will protect ourselves from the force and violence of the racist police and the racist military, by any means necessary.*
> 7. We want an immediate end to POLICE HARRASSMENT, BRUTALITY and MURDER of Black People. We want an end to Black-on-Black violence, *snitching, cooperation and collaboration with the oppresso*r.
> We believe we can end police brutality in our community by organizing Black self-defense groups* (Black People's Militias/Black Liberation Armies)* that are dedicated to defending our Black Community from racist, fascist, police/military oppression and brutality. The Second Amendment of white America's Constitution gives a right to bear arms. We therefore believe that all Black People should unite and form an* African United Front and arm ourselves for self-defense.*
> 8. We want freedom for all Black Men and Black Women held in international, military, federal, state, county, city jails and prisons. We believe that all Black People and people of color should be released from the many jails and prisons because they have not received a fair and impartial trial.
> 9. We want all Black People when brought to trial to be tried in a court by a jury of their peer group or people from their Black Communities, as defined by white law of the Constitution of the United States.
> 10. WE DEMAND AN END TO THE RACIST DEATH PENALTY AS IT IS APPLIED TO BLACK AND OPPRESSED PEOPLE IN AMERICA. WE DEMAND FREEDOM FOR ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS OF THE BLACK RED AND BROWN NATION!
> 
> We want land, bread, housing, education, clothing, justice and peace. And, as our political objective, we want NATIONAL LIBERATION in a separate state or territory of our own, here or elsewhere, a liberated zone (New Africa or Africa), and a plebiscite to be held throughout the BLACK NATION in which only we will be allowed to participate for the purposes of determining our will and DIVINE destiny as a people. FREE THE LAND! UP YOU MIGHTY NATION! YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH WHAT YOU WILL! BLACK POWER!* History has proven that the white man is absolutely disagreeable to get along with in peace*. No one has been able to get along with the white man. All the people of color have been subjected to the white man's wrath. We believe that his very nature will not allow for true sharing, fairness, equity and justice.
> 
> NewBlackPanther.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my.  It almost sounds like a revolution.
Click to expand...

"We hate Whitey, but he better give us free money!!"

Buncha lazy bastards who want something they didn't work for.  Fuck 'em.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Care4all said:


> i feel sorry for the real Black Panthers, who are getting all this bad press from these people calling themselves the new black panthers...while the media makes no effort to clarify that this is just some group stealing the black panther name.



Care I do have a bone to pick with this comment.  I know your very open minded so you will probably find this interesting.

Read the 2 platforms

Black Panther Party Platform

NewBlackPanther.com

Those platforms are extremely similar to each other.    Just read each side by side and compare.


----------



## mudwhistle

Ravi said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well...that would all be true but there is no evidence any voters were intimidated or any real proof that he tried to intimidate someone.
> 
> 
> 
> 1st: why am I not surprised you would be the first piece of shit to step up and defend this garbage??
> 
> 2nd: to your post; just the simple fact that the cops were called is all the evidence needed to show that somebody felt intimidated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not defending him, *I'm pointing out that there is no evidence that anyone was intimidated.
> *
> And your second statement makes you look like a second grader, as does your name calling.
Click to expand...


Welding a club in front of a polling place would be quite intimidating for most voters. 

The evidence was on video.....it's been all over the news. Everyone has seen it except you I guess.

Also....it is impossible to get statistical evidence of who turned around and went home at the site of black racists wearing uniforms and holding clubs in front of the entry to a polling place. But the probability that whites were intimidated is reasonable to deduce and also reasonable to assume many of them didn't file a complaint because that's usually not what they do.

 The New Black Panthers were trying to be intimidating so as a result they are guilty of intimidation. No reasonable person could deduce otherwise.....that is unless you're not reasonable...and a racist yourself.

The question isn't the numbers but the potential. It is illegal to do what they did plain and simple. You can't scream racism at every turn then turn your head the moment you see it from blacks. It only reveals your own racist views. I wouldn't make excuses for Skinheads and I don't think you should make excuses for their polar-opposites.


----------



## chanel

Former chairman of NBPP:  "Kill a Faggot.  Kill a Lesbian.  Kill the white woman.  Kill their babies.  Then when they are in their grave, shoot them again."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTFLBNb6lQk&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - AFRICAN AMERICAN'S ONLY SOLUTION TO RACISM[/ame]


----------



## American Horse

chanel said:


> This is from their website.  These are the ten principals and tactics that Dr. Shabazz endorses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the New Black Panthers Want What the New Black Panthers Believe
> 
> 1. We want freedom. We want the power to practice self-determination, and to determine the destiny of our community and *THE BLACK NATION.*
> 2. We want full employment for our people and we demand the dignity to do for ourselves what we have begged the white man to do for us.
> We believe further in: POWER IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE! WEALTH IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE! *ARMS IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE!*
> 3. We want *tax exemption* and an end to robbery of THE BLACK NATION by the CAPITALIST. We believe that this wicked racist government has robbed us, and now we are demanding the overdue debt of *reparations*. genocide crimes continue, *people's tribunals must be set up to prosecute and to execute.*
> 4. We want decent housing, fit for shelter of human beings, free health-care (preventive and maintenance). We believe since the white landlords will not give decent housing and quality health care to our Black Community, the he housing, the land, the social, political and economic institutions should be made into independent UUAMAA *New African Communal/Cooperatives so that our community, with government reparations* and aid (until we can do for ourselves) can build and make drug free, decent housing with health facilities for our people.
> 5. We want education for our people that exposes the true nature of this devilish and decadent American society. We want education that teaches us our true history/herstory and our role in the present day society.
> 6. We want all Black Men and Black Women to be* exempt from military service.*
> We believe that Black People should not be forced to fight in the military service to defend a racist government that holds us captive and does not protect us. We will not fight and kill other people of color in the world who, like Black People, are being victimized by the white racist government of America. *We will protect ourselves from the force and violence of the racist police and the racist military, by any means necessary.*
> 7. We want an immediate end to POLICE HARRASSMENT, BRUTALITY and MURDER of Black People. We want an end to Black-on-Black violence, *snitching, cooperation and collaboration with the oppresso*r.
> We believe we can end police brutality in our community by organizing Black self-defense groups* (Black People's Militias/Black Liberation Armies)* that are dedicated to defending our Black Community from racist, fascist, police/military oppression and brutality. The Second Amendment of white America's Constitution gives a right to bear arms. We therefore believe that all Black People should unite and form an* African United Front and arm ourselves for self-defense.*
> 8. We want freedom for all Black Men and Black Women held in international, military, federal, state, county, city jails and prisons. We believe that all Black People and people of color should be released from the many jails and prisons because they have not received a fair and impartial trial.
> 9. We want all Black People when brought to trial to be tried in a court by a jury of their peer group or people from their Black Communities, as defined by white law of the Constitution of the United States.
> 10. WE DEMAND AN END TO THE RACIST DEATH PENALTY AS IT IS APPLIED TO BLACK AND OPPRESSED PEOPLE IN AMERICA. WE DEMAND FREEDOM FOR ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS OF THE BLACK RED AND BROWN NATION!
> 
> We want land, bread, housing, education, clothing, justice and peace. And, as our political objective, we want NATIONAL LIBERATION in a separate state or territory of our own, here or elsewhere, a liberated zone (New Africa or Africa), and a plebiscite to be held throughout the BLACK NATION in which only we will be allowed to participate for the purposes of determining our will and DIVINE destiny as a people. FREE THE LAND! UP YOU MIGHTY NATION! YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH WHAT YOU WILL! BLACK POWER!* History has proven that the white man is absolutely disagreeable to get along with in peace*. No one has been able to get along with the white man. All the people of color have been subjected to the white man's wrath. We believe that his very nature will not allow for true sharing, fairness, equity and justice.
> 
> NewBlackPanther.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my.  It almost sounds like a revolution.
Click to expand...


In light of this, statements like "kill the crackers" and "you have to kill their babies" become clear: 'if we terrorize whitie, our demands will be met;' only terrorism will work.  At least that's what Shabazz thinks.


----------



## mudwhistle

American Horse said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is from their website.  These are the ten principals and tactics that Dr. Shabazz endorses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the New Black Panthers Want What the New Black Panthers Believe
> 
> 1. We want freedom. We want the power to practice self-determination, and to determine the destiny of our community and *THE BLACK NATION.*
> 2. We want full employment for our people and we demand the dignity to do for ourselves what we have begged the white man to do for us.
> We believe further in: POWER IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE! WEALTH IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE! *ARMS IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE!*
> 3. We want *tax exemption* and an end to robbery of THE BLACK NATION by the CAPITALIST. We believe that this wicked racist government has robbed us, and now we are demanding the overdue debt of *reparations*. genocide crimes continue, *people's tribunals must be set up to prosecute and to execute.*
> 4. We want decent housing, fit for shelter of human beings, free health-care (preventive and maintenance). We believe since the white landlords will not give decent housing and quality health care to our Black Community, the he housing, the land, the social, political and economic institutions should be made into independent UUAMAA *New African Communal/Cooperatives so that our community, with government reparations* and aid (until we can do for ourselves) can build and make drug free, decent housing with health facilities for our people.
> 5. We want education for our people that exposes the true nature of this devilish and decadent American society. We want education that teaches us our true history/herstory and our role in the present day society.
> 6. We want all Black Men and Black Women to be* exempt from military service.*
> We believe that Black People should not be forced to fight in the military service to defend a racist government that holds us captive and does not protect us. We will not fight and kill other people of color in the world who, like Black People, are being victimized by the white racist government of America. *We will protect ourselves from the force and violence of the racist police and the racist military, by any means necessary.*
> 7. We want an immediate end to POLICE HARRASSMENT, BRUTALITY and MURDER of Black People. We want an end to Black-on-Black violence, *snitching, cooperation and collaboration with the oppresso*r.
> We believe we can end police brutality in our community by organizing Black self-defense groups* (Black People's Militias/Black Liberation Armies)* that are dedicated to defending our Black Community from racist, fascist, police/military oppression and brutality. The Second Amendment of white America's Constitution gives a right to bear arms. We therefore believe that all Black People should unite and form an* African United Front and arm ourselves for self-defense.*
> 8. We want freedom for all Black Men and Black Women held in international, military, federal, state, county, city jails and prisons. We believe that all Black People and people of color should be released from the many jails and prisons because they have not received a fair and impartial trial.
> 9. We want all Black People when brought to trial to be tried in a court by a jury of their peer group or people from their Black Communities, as defined by white law of the Constitution of the United States.
> 10. WE DEMAND AN END TO THE RACIST DEATH PENALTY AS IT IS APPLIED TO BLACK AND OPPRESSED PEOPLE IN AMERICA. WE DEMAND FREEDOM FOR ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS OF THE BLACK RED AND BROWN NATION!
> 
> We want land, bread, housing, education, clothing, justice and peace. And, as our political objective, we want NATIONAL LIBERATION in a separate state or territory of our own, here or elsewhere, a liberated zone (New Africa or Africa), and a plebiscite to be held throughout the BLACK NATION in which only we will be allowed to participate for the purposes of determining our will and DIVINE destiny as a people. FREE THE LAND! UP YOU MIGHTY NATION! YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH WHAT YOU WILL! BLACK POWER!* History has proven that the white man is absolutely disagreeable to get along with in peace*. No one has been able to get along with the white man. All the people of color have been subjected to the white man's wrath. We believe that his very nature will not allow for true sharing, fairness, equity and justice.
> 
> NewBlackPanther.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my.  It almost sounds like a revolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In light of this, statements like "kill the crackers" and "you have to kill their babies" become clear: 'if we terrorize whitie, our demands will be met;' only terrorism will work.  At least that's what Shabazz thinks.
Click to expand...


It's a great attitude to have if you have a death-wish.


----------



## Yukon.

Cornholio,

I insulted nobody's Mum.


----------



## ConHog

As usual 25 pages later and the racist Ravi refuses to admit facts.

We'll try again.


Read the Penn state law Ravi

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...oyRvhLlXRvmCoQGVg&sig2=vJaTGuna7V35auQb1wztMw

It says nothing about anyone has to report feeling intimidated, it simply says a condition has to exist whee someone could have felt intimidated. Clearly those two guys hanging outside in new black panther gear one with a weapon hurling racial slurs COULD intimidate someone.

Also from the 1965 federal Voter's Rights Act Section 1973i

(b) Intimidation, threats, or coercion

No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or *attempt to intimidate*, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for exercising any powers or duties under section 1973a(a), 1973d, 1973f, 1973g, 1973h, or 1973j(e) of this title.

Civil Rights Division Home Page

There is absolutely NO requirement that someone actually was intimidated before a case can be brought.

Also Ravi, I'm still waiting for your proof that these guys were some sort of security team at that polling place.


----------



## The T

ConHog said:


> As usual 25 pages later and the racist Ravi refuses to admit facts.
> 
> We'll try again.
> 
> 
> Read the Penn state law Ravi
> 
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...oyRvhLlXRvmCoQGVg&sig2=vJaTGuna7V35auQb1wztMw
> 
> It says nothing about anyone has to report feeling intimidated, it simply says a condition has to exist whee someone could have felt intimidated. Clearly those two guys hanging outside in new black panther gear one with a weapon hurling racial slurs COULD intimidate someone.
> 
> Also from the 1965 federal Voter's Rights Act Section 1973i
> 
> (b) Intimidation, threats, or coercion
> 
> No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or *attempt to intimidate*, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for exercising any powers or duties under section 1973a(a), 1973d, 1973f, 1973g, 1973h, or 1973j(e) of this title.
> 
> Civil Rights Division Home Page
> 
> There is absolutely NO requirement that someone actually was intimidated before a case can be brought.
> 
> Also Ravi, I'm still waiting for your proof that these guys were some sort of security team at that polling place.


 
It's evident they weren't registered _poll watchers._


----------



## ConHog

The T said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual 25 pages later and the racist Ravi refuses to admit facts.
> 
> We'll try again.
> 
> 
> Read the Penn state law Ravi
> 
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...oyRvhLlXRvmCoQGVg&sig2=vJaTGuna7V35auQb1wztMw
> 
> It says nothing about anyone has to report feeling intimidated, it simply says a condition has to exist whee someone could have felt intimidated. Clearly those two guys hanging outside in new black panther gear one with a weapon hurling racial slurs COULD intimidate someone.
> 
> Also from the 1965 federal Voter's Rights Act Section 1973i
> 
> (b) Intimidation, threats, or coercion
> 
> No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or *attempt to intimidate*, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for exercising any powers or duties under section 1973a(a), 1973d, 1973f, 1973g, 1973h, or 1973j(e) of this title.
> 
> Civil Rights Division Home Page
> 
> There is absolutely NO requirement that someone actually was intimidated before a case can be brought.
> 
> Also Ravi, I'm still waiting for your proof that these guys were some sort of security team at that polling place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's evident they weren't registered _poll watchers._
Click to expand...


Only Ravi and her fellow racists would deny this is a clear case of a violation of the voter intimidation laws.


----------



## Againsheila

KissMy said:


> Perhaps this administration refused to prosecute these black criminals because they support the New Black Panthers & Kamau Kambon's agenda?
> 
> Extermination of white people



Take a look at that "black" guy.  I would have asked him how far back he had to go to find his nearest white ancestor and if he wanted that person "exterminated".  I have a niece blacker than him.


----------



## Ravi

The Fed doesn't enforce Pennsylvania state law.

There was no attempted intimidation on the only evidence presented...the video taken by the Republican poll watcher.

I have never made a claim that they were security workers.


----------



## ConHog

Ravi said:


> The Fed doesn't enforce Pennsylvania state law.
> 
> There was no attempted intimidation on the only evidence presented...the video taken by the Republican poll watcher.
> 
> I have never made a claim that they were security workers.



The Civil Rights Act is a FEDERAL law stupid; and I'm sure Penn is scared they will get sued by the feds if they attempt to enforce a state law which has a federal counterpart.

Unless you can read minds, and I know you can't because you can barely read words, you  don't KNOW what their intentions were, BUT the law doesn't require intent, it only requires that someone COULD have been intimidated. 

I know YOU didn't make the claim that they were security workers, your stupid pal TM did, but yall have been butt buddies through the entire thread so I asked for proof from EITHER of you that they were.

You really are one stupid, racist, hack.


----------



## KissMy

Againsheila said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this administration refused to prosecute these black criminals because they support the New Black Panthers & Kamau Kambon's agenda?
> 
> Extermination of white people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take a look at that "black" guy.  I would have asked him how far back he had to go to find his nearest white ancestor and if he wanted that person "exterminated".  I have a niece blacker than him.
Click to expand...


It is like they learned nothing from Hitler's Germany. They start by exterminating one type & soon they want to exterminate everyone except their "perfect race" all the while others want to exterminate them because in their eyes they are not perfect. They are defiantly pushing for a race war.

And the wheels on the bus go round & round, round & round, round & round all day long.


----------



## Yukon.

ConHog said:


> Only Ravi and her fellow racists would deny this is a clear case of a violation of the voter intimidation laws.



Cornholio.

When did you get your Law degree? You didnt pass out of elementary school for goodness sake. Leave these matters to those of us who understand how to manage them. Go play with your toy soldiers.


----------



## ConHog

Yukon. said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only Ravi and her fellow racists would deny this is a clear case of a violation of the voter intimidation laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cornholio.
> 
> When did you get your Law degree? You didnt pass out of elementary school for goodness sake. Leave these matters to those of us who understand how to manage them. Go play with your toy soldiers.
Click to expand...


Yukon, we all know it is YOU who enjoys playing with miniature men.  

Oh PS - I have 4 degrees, one of which is a Masters, compared to what? Your prison degree of what happens  to one who is put in prison for child molestation?


----------



## Trajan

I wonder how mr. kill the cracka's feels about Obamas parents......


----------



## ConHog

Trajan said:


> I wonder how mr. kill the cracka's feels about Obamas parents......



Easy, he'd like to kill his mom, and I guess kill Obama except on every other weekend when he's with his black daddy.


----------



## Coyote

chanel said:


> He's a liar.  I just watched an older video of him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Southern Poverty Law Center, a NBPP critic, has pointed to NBPP members stating sympathy or understanding of Kamau Kambon's advocacy of *the genocide of whites*, and Khalid Abdul Muhammad in his statement that "there are no good crackers, and* if you find one, kill him* before he changes."[12][13][14]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Critics have called the NBPP extremist, citing Muhammad's "Million Youth March", a youth equivalent of the Million Man March in Harlem in which 6,000 people protested police brutality but also featured a range of speakers c*alling for the extermination of whites in South Africa.* The rally ended in scuffles with the New York Police Department as *Muhammad urged the crowd to attack those officers who had attempted to confiscate the NBPP members' guns*. Chairs and bottles were thrown at the police but only a few in the conflict suffered injuries. *Al Sharpton appeared* and spoke at this event, and was criticized later for taking part in its controversial rhetoric. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> New Black Panther Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Wow.  *Unbelievable that a smart man like Holder would stick his neck out for these creeps.*  There's got to be more to this.  NAACP? Acorn?  Project Vote?
Click to expand...


Maybe he is simply following the law.


----------



## ConHog

Coyote said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's a liar.  I just watched an older video of him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Southern Poverty Law Center, a NBPP critic, has pointed to NBPP members stating sympathy or understanding of Kamau Kambon's advocacy of *the genocide of whites*, and Khalid Abdul Muhammad in his statement that "there are no good crackers, and* if you find one, kill him* before he changes."[12][13][14]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Critics have called the NBPP extremist, citing Muhammad's "Million Youth March", a youth equivalent of the Million Man March in Harlem in which 6,000 people protested police brutality but also featured a range of speakers c*alling for the extermination of whites in South Africa.* The rally ended in scuffles with the New York Police Department as *Muhammad urged the crowd to attack those officers who had attempted to confiscate the NBPP members' guns*. Chairs and bottles were thrown at the police but only a few in the conflict suffered injuries. *Al Sharpton appeared* and spoke at this event, and was criticized later for taking part in its controversial rhetoric. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> New Black Panther Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Wow.  *Unbelievable that a smart man like Holder would stick his neck out for these creeps.*  There's got to be more to this.  NAACP? Acorn?  Project Vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe he is simply following the law.
Click to expand...


or maybe he's just a racist fuck. yeah I think I'll think that is more likely.


----------



## Truthmatters

You dont charge people when the evidence is not there.


----------



## ConHog

Truthmatters said:


> You dont charge people when the evidence is not there.



Which is why I charge you with stupidity. I will have no problem getting a conviction.


----------



## Truthmatters

tell me the main evidence in the case?


----------



## ConHog

Truthmatters said:


> tell me the main evidence in the case?



ANY of your posts will suffice.


----------



## hortysir

Ravi said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well...that would all be true but there is no evidence any voters were intimidated or any real proof that he tried to intimidate someone.
> 
> 
> 
> 1st: why am I not surprised you would be the first piece of shit to step up and defend this garbage??
> 
> 2nd: to your post; just the simple fact that the cops were called is all the evidence needed to show that somebody felt intimidated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not defending him, I'm pointing out that there is no evidence that anyone was intimidated.
> 
> And your second statement makes you look like a second grader, as does your name calling.
Click to expand...

Still no response, short of a negrep, towards the video in the Opening Post, I see.

By not condemning that behavior, you are only condoning it.


----------



## Truthmatters

KMAN said:


> I bet half of you have not heard anything about this....
> 
> Sad thing is some liberals on this board won't have a probably with this....
> 
> http://politisite.com/2010/07/07/vi...om-youre-going-to-have-to-kill-some-crackers/



This video had nothing to do with the case you fool.

You dont seem to understand the justice system very well.


----------



## hortysir

Truthmatters said:


> KMAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bet half of you have not heard anything about this....
> 
> Sad thing is some liberals on this board won't have a probably with this....
> 
> http://politisite.com/2010/07/07/vi...om-youre-going-to-have-to-kill-some-crackers/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This video had nothing to do with the case you fool.
> 
> You dont seem to understand the justice system very well.
Click to expand...

What case?
What about the Justice system?

You just quoted the OP, dumbass.


----------



## ConHog

hortysir said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1st: why am I not surprised you would be the first piece of shit to step up and defend this garbage??
> 
> 2nd: to your post; just the simple fact that the cops were called is all the evidence needed to show that somebody felt intimidated.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not defending him, I'm pointing out that there is no evidence that anyone was intimidated.
> 
> And your second statement makes you look like a second grader, as does your name calling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still no response, short of a negrep, towards the video in the Opening Post, I see.
> 
> By not condemning that behavior, you are only condoning it.
Click to expand...


Ravi DOES condone the behavior, b/c she is a racist herself.


----------



## chanel

Maybe. Or maybe not. Let the Civil Rights Commission decide. No harm. No foul.

Coverups often lead to conspiracy theories.  They left that part out of the Alinsky manual.


----------



## L.K.Eder

ConHog said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only because you do not want to see it.
> 
> Had these been Rednecks carrying Confederate Flags and nightsticks in front of a predominantly black precinct, you would undoubtedly be singing a different tune.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> Is the precinct in question predominately white?
> 
> What I THINK doesn't matter in a court of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything I have readd says yes, mostly white precinct
> 
> Voting Precinct | Virginia Right!
> 
> Watch,  her reaction will be to poopoo the link
> 
> I'm also still waiting for proof that these gentleman were hired security
Click to expand...


great example of confirmation bias. conhog wants the precinct to be mostly white, looks for soucres that support this, finds it in a blog, and eureka, the precinct is mostly white.



according to the census 2000, in this precinct live 2158 people.

118 of those are white.



conhog has obviously never been in downtown philadelphia, let alone ventured north in the direction of temple U.


----------



## Ravi

ConHog said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's a liar.  I just watched an older video of him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Black Panther Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Wow.  *Unbelievable that a smart man like Holder would stick his neck out for these creeps.*  There's got to be more to this.  NAACP? Acorn?  Project Vote?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe he is simply following the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> or maybe he's just a racist fuck. yeah I think I'll think that is more likely.
Click to expand...

I think he's following the law. But interesting that you call people that you disagree with racist.


----------



## Ravi

hortysir said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1st: why am I not surprised you would be the first piece of shit to step up and defend this garbage??
> 
> 2nd: to your post; just the simple fact that the cops were called is all the evidence needed to show that somebody felt intimidated.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not defending him, I'm pointing out that there is no evidence that anyone was intimidated.
> 
> And your second statement makes you look like a second grader, as does your name calling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still no response, short of a negrep, towards the video in the Opening Post, I see.
> 
> By not condemning that behavior, you are only condoning it.
Click to expand...

Riiight. This video was discussed months ago on another thread. I gave my opinion of the guy there.

Are you one of these people that insist people take the pledge before you believe they are true Americans?

Piss off, fucktard.


----------



## Ravi

L.K.Eder said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the precinct in question predominately white?
> 
> What I THINK doesn't matter in a court of law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything I have readd says yes, mostly white precinct
> 
> Voting Precinct | Virginia Right!
> 
> Watch,  her reaction will be to poopoo the link
> 
> I'm also still waiting for proof that these gentleman were hired security
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> great example of confirmation bias. conhog wants the precinct to be mostly white, looks for soucres that support this, finds it in a blog, and eureka, the precinct is mostly white.
> 
> 
> 
> according to the census 2000, in this precinct live 2158 people.
> 
> 118 of those are white.
> 
> 
> 
> conhog has obviously never been in downtown philadelphia, let alone ventured north in the direction of temple U.
Click to expand...

I'm laughing.


----------



## daveman

Truthmatters said:


> You dont charge people when the evidence is not there.



Then why did they?  

You seem to be forgetting the fact the DoJ did, in fact, charge the offenders, it went to trial, the defendants didn't show up to defend themselves against what you claim didn't happen, so DoJ had won the trial already.

_Then_, after they'd won the case, Eric Holder's DoJ decides there was insufficient evidence.  Normal people everywhere call bullshit.


----------



## Ravi

daveman said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dont charge people when the evidence is not there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why did they?
> 
> You seem to be forgetting the fact the DoJ did, in fact, charge the offenders, it went to trial, the defendants didn't show up to defend themselves against what you claim didn't happen, so DoJ had won the trial already.
> 
> _Then_, after they'd won the case, Eric Holder's DoJ decides there was insufficient evidence.  Normal people everywhere call bullshit.
Click to expand...

Actually, they filed a civil suit against this dude and his compatriots. Not quite the same thing as charging them.

But if you think filing a civil suit is the same as a judgment of guilt...how droll.


----------



## Annie

Ravi said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dont charge people when the evidence is not there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why did they?
> 
> You seem to be forgetting the fact the DoJ did, in fact, charge the offenders, it went to trial, the defendants didn't show up to defend themselves against what you claim didn't happen, so DoJ had won the trial already.
> 
> _Then_, after they'd won the case, Eric Holder's DoJ decides there was insufficient evidence.  Normal people everywhere call bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, they filed a civil suit against this dude and his compatriots. Not quite the same thing as charging them.
> 
> But if you think filing a civil suit is the same as a judgment of guilt...how droll.
Click to expand...


DOJ brought a civil suit? Based upon what in the Voter's Protection? What damages were they seeking?


----------



## Mini 14

Ravi said:


> Actually, they filed a civil suit against this dude and his compatriots. Not quite the same thing as charging them.
> 
> But if you think filing a civil suit is the same as a judgment of guilt...how droll.



Let that soak in, people.

Then thank the Creator, for letting us all be witness to the dumbest thing EVER posted on the Internet.

Wow!


----------



## daveman

Ravi said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dont charge people when the evidence is not there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why did they?
> 
> You seem to be forgetting the fact the DoJ did, in fact, charge the offenders, it went to trial, the defendants didn't show up to defend themselves against what you claim didn't happen, so DoJ had won the trial already.
> 
> _Then_, after they'd won the case, Eric Holder's DoJ decides there was insufficient evidence.  Normal people everywhere call bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, they filed a civil suit against this dude and his compatriots. Not quite the same thing as charging them.
> 
> But if you think filing a civil suit is the same as a judgment of guilt...how droll.
Click to expand...

You miss the point.  They felt they had sufficient evidence when they filed suit.  Suddenly, the evidence evaporated?


----------



## Ravi

daveman said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why did they?
> 
> You seem to be forgetting the fact the DoJ did, in fact, charge the offenders, it went to trial, the defendants didn't show up to defend themselves against what you claim didn't happen, so DoJ had won the trial already.
> 
> _Then_, after they'd won the case, Eric Holder's DoJ decides there was insufficient evidence.  Normal people everywhere call bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, they filed a civil suit against this dude and his compatriots. Not quite the same thing as charging them.
> 
> But if you think filing a civil suit is the same as a judgment of guilt...how droll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You miss the point.  They felt they had sufficient evidence when they filed suit.  Suddenly, the evidence evaporated?
Click to expand...

It's possible they reviewed the evidence and saw that they were wasting their time. I would certainly reach that conclusion if the evidence were merely the tape made by the Republican poll watcher.

But they did put an injunction on the guy in question...not exactly dropping the case.


----------



## daveman

Ravi said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, they filed a civil suit against this dude and his compatriots. Not quite the same thing as charging them.
> 
> But if you think filing a civil suit is the same as a judgment of guilt...how droll.
> 
> 
> 
> You miss the point.  They felt they had sufficient evidence when they filed suit.  Suddenly, the evidence evaporated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's possible they reviewed the evidence and saw that they were wasting their time. I would certainly reach that conclusion if the evidence were merely the tape made by the Republican poll watcher.
Click to expand...

You would reach that conclusion no matter what the tape showed.  


Ravi said:


> But they did put an injunction on the guy in question...not exactly dropping the case.


Yeah...and he'll be back to his ol' paramilitary-gear-and-waving-a-weapon tricks in time for the next Presidential election.  

Ooooh.  Punished him real bad, didn't they?


----------



## Ravi

There is no evidence of voter intimidation on the video. It really is that simple.


----------



## Mini 14

Ravi said:


> There is no evidence of voter intimidation on the video. It really is that simple.



Ravi,

I have some black neighbors.

If I go out in the yard tonight, put on a white robe and hood, and light a 7 foot cross in my own front yard, would that be intimidating?


----------



## Tech_Esq

Ravi said:


> There is no evidence of voter intimidation on the video. It really is that simple.



The court disagreed with you on summary judgment and found that the government had proved its case of voter intimidation. The case was withdrawn in the sentencing phase.

So, you would be wrong on that point. If there were no voter intimidation, the court would not have found the was.


----------



## KissMy

Nonelitist said:


> truthmatters seems to be a racist when it comes to voter intimidation:
> 
> The bitch says:
> 
> It seems the republican masses dont care what the republican party does to win elections.
> 
> I wonder why the "liberal" media refuses to report on these repeted criminal acts against American voters?
> 
> So, to truthmatters, men in uniforms outside a polling booth, making threatening comments and holding a weapon aren't intimidating....
> 
> ... but GOP asking that peope identify themselves before voting is intimidating.
> 
> Racist much Truth?


The racist black bitch calls the TEA party members intimidating terrorist but condones this  action.


----------



## Ravi

Mini 14 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of voter intimidation on the video. It really is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi,
> 
> I have some black neighbors.
> 
> If I go out in the yard tonight, put on a white robe and hood, and light a 7 foot cross in my own front yard, would that be intimidating?
Click to expand...

To me? No...but if you did it on one of your black neighbor's lawns more than likely.


----------



## daveman

Ravi said:


> There is no evidence of voter intimidation on the video. It really is that simple.



You seem to think that the video is all the testimony there is.

It isn't.


----------



## Ravi

Tech_Esq said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of voter intimidation on the video. It really is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The court disagreed with you on summary judgment and found that the government had proved its case of voter intimidation. The case was withdrawn in the sentencing phase.
> 
> So, you would be wrong on that point. If there were no voter intimidation, the court would not have found the was.
Click to expand...

The civil suit was filed but never carried through. So there was no proof of anything.


----------



## Annie

Ravi said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of voter intimidation on the video. It really is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The court disagreed with you on summary judgment and found that the government had proved its case of voter intimidation. The case was withdrawn in the sentencing phase.
> 
> So, you would be wrong on that point. If there were no voter intimidation, the court would not have found the was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The civil suit was filed but never carried through. So there was no proof of anything.
Click to expand...


DOJ does not bring civil suits. They brought criminal complaints regarding voter intimidation through the civil rights division.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Ravi said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of voter intimidation on the video. It really is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The court disagreed with you on summary judgment and found that the government had proved its case of voter intimidation. The case was withdrawn in the sentencing phase.
> 
> So, you would be wrong on that point. If there were no voter intimidation, the court would not have found the was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The civil suit was filed but never carried through. So there was no proof of anything.
Click to expand...


Wrong. Summary judgment was entered in the case.


----------



## daveman

Ravi said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of voter intimidation on the video. It really is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The court disagreed with you on summary judgment and found that the government had proved its case of voter intimidation. The case was withdrawn in the sentencing phase.
> 
> So, you would be wrong on that point. If there were no voter intimidation, the court would not have found the was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The civil suit was filed but never carried through. So there was no proof of anything.
Click to expand...

Wrong.


> April 1:
> The day the Black Panthers miss their deadline to contest the charges against them, Mr. Perrelli meets at the White House with Deputy White House Counsel Cassandra Butts, herself a former lawyer for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
> April 2:
> With no objection yet from Ms. King, the clerk for U.S. District Judge Stewart R. Dalzell enters the default judgment against all four original defendants.
> April 8:
> Mr. Perrelli and fellow Justice Department political appointee Spencer Overton again meet with Ms. Butts at the White House. Mr. Overton is the author of "Stealing Democracy: The New Politics of Voter Suppression," which criticizes Republican efforts at "ballot security." Mr. Overton is a noted critic of requiring voters to show identification at the polls.
> April 17:
> Judge Dalzell issues an order recognizing that the Black Panthers were in default and giving Justice until May 1 to file their official Motion for Default Judgment.


----------



## Immanuel

chanel said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's a liar.  I just watched an older video of him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Black Panther Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Wow.  Unbelievable that a smart man like Holder would stick his neck out for these creeps.  There's got to be more to this.  NAACP? Acorn?  Project Vote?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't mind seeing the video you "just watched"
> 
> Kambon appeared to me to be evil as in on the lines of Adolf Hitler kind of evil, but Shabazz appeared well spoken and quite frankly likable.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well spoken - yes.  I'm sure Hitler was well-spoken too.  Likable?  He is head of a KKK like organization.  Immie, c'mon.
> 
> My bad.  The video I watched was of "Minister Malik Shabazz" not "Attorney Malik Shabazz".  Sheez.  This Shabazz family certainly has some racist relatives.  lol
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4-RKipPLyE&feature=related]YouTube - Black Panther Minister Malik - The white man is not your friend[/ame]
Click to expand...


I have not yet watched the video in this quote but (now that my headache is gone and I have had 14 hours of sleep) I wanted to comment on this:



> Well spoken - yes.  I'm sure Hitler was well-spoken too.  Likable?  He is head of a KKK like organization.  Immie, c'mon.



My comments about the interview with the Dr. Malik Shabazz are based only upon his appearance in the Fox News Interview and I must say that in that interview, the man seemed very likable.  He did not appear to be a racist.  There was no ranting of any kind.  No hate speech.  He simply did a very good job of defending his organization in a respectable manner.

I have three pictures of the NBPP.  One is the picture of Dr. Shabazz sitting through an interview with Fox News and presenting his case in a manner deserving respect and the other two are the two individuals standing outside a Philadelphia polling place obviously trying to intimidate voters and the guy (who if I am not mistaken was one of the two standing outside the polling place) shouting that if blacks want freedom they have to kill white people.  

Obviously the organization contains racists and I suspect it holds quite a few maybe Dr. Shabazz is also a racist who lied in the interview, but from that interview alone the man did present a good case and he appeared to be reasonable.

Immie


----------



## mudwhistle

Ravi said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, they filed a civil suit against this dude and his compatriots. Not quite the same thing as charging them.
> 
> But if you think filing a civil suit is the same as a judgment of guilt...how droll.
> 
> 
> 
> You miss the point.  They felt they had sufficient evidence when they filed suit.  Suddenly, the evidence evaporated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's possible they reviewed the evidence and saw that they were wasting their time. I would certainly reach that conclusion if the evidence were merely the tape made by the Republican poll watcher.
> 
> But they did put an injunction on the guy in question...not exactly dropping the case.
Click to expand...


That's not how it happened.

Bush DOJ filed a civil complaint and won a judgement.....Obama dropped the case afterwards.


----------



## Immanuel

Truthmatters said:


> KMAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bet half of you have not heard anything about this....
> 
> Sad thing is some liberals on this board won't have a probably with this....
> 
> http://politisite.com/2010/07/07/vi...om-youre-going-to-have-to-kill-some-crackers/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This video had nothing to do with the case you fool.
> 
> *You dont seem to understand the justice system very well.*
Click to expand...


Coming from someone like you, who doesn't have any idea what the word allegation means, that is absolutely hilarious.

Immie


----------



## mudwhistle

Truthmatters said:


> KMAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bet half of you have not heard anything about this....
> 
> Sad thing is some liberals on this board won't have a probably with this....
> 
> http://politisite.com/2010/07/07/vi...om-youre-going-to-have-to-kill-some-crackers/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This video had nothing to do with the case you fool.
> 
> You dont seem to understand the justice system very well.
Click to expand...


The video is what is called video evidence...or exhibit number one.

Concrete video evidence is admissible in court.

The guilty parties were positively identified and they were videoed making threats and welding weapons. 

Open and shut case.


----------



## chanel

Here's Malik Shabazz defending this video.  Scary.  Video at link:



> "So," writes Tabitha Hale at RedState, "just for the sake of this interview, killing white babies is not okay. But those other times, in the proper context? Its totally okay. You know, as long as the crackers are out of the way."
> 
> Shabazz is saying that he considers violence towards police officers to be a more productive activity in battling white people than killing their children. Phew. What a relief.
> 
> Where is the media on this?
> 
> Read more: Imagine If a Conservative Had Said It: Child- and Cop-killer Edition | NewsBusters.org


----------



## AquaAthena

bucs90 said:


> Mods- PLEASE keep this thread in politics and not race. The story is only a story because Eric Holder forced the gov't to drop charges. That is the Black Panther party. Thats how they think. Thats decades going and really not a new story.
> 
> What is a new story is the fact that the charges were brought, the defendants didn't show up and were found guilty in their absence, and then Eric Holder forced the prosecution to drop charges.
> 
> Whats even wilder is how many left wing media outlets have refused to cover this story.



Current Events would be an appropriate place for this thread, since it happened recently. 

And the reason most prople will have not heard of this news is because they don't really want to know what is going on. If they did, they would be watching Fox News...


----------



## Yukon.

ConHog said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how mr. kill the cracka's feels about Obamas parents......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easy, he'd like to kill his mom, and I guess kill Obama except on every other weekend when he's with his black daddy.
Click to expand...


CornHole,

Iv'e reported you for the above comment clearly made to incite violence.


----------



## Mini 14

Yukon. said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how mr. kill the cracka's feels about Obamas parents......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easy, he'd like to kill his mom, and I guess kill Obama except on every other weekend when he's with his black daddy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CornHole,
> 
> Iv'e reported you for the above comment clearly made to incite violence.
Click to expand...


I don't see any intention to incite violence?

I'm sure Ravi will be along any second to explain it to you.


----------



## Yukon.

Mini,

Ravi isnt capable of accurately explaining what day it is and the CornHole is in the same category. When dealing with these two one must remember that their collective IQ doesn't total 100.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Yukon. said:


> Mini,
> 
> Ravi isnt capable of accurately explaining what day it is and the CornHole is in the same category. When dealing with these two one must remember that their collective IQ doesn't total 100.



STFU Yukon, you can't find your ass with both hands anyway.


----------



## hortysir

Ravi said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not defending him, I'm pointing out that there is no evidence that anyone was intimidated.
> 
> And your second statement makes you look like a second grader, as does your name calling.
> 
> 
> 
> Still no response, short of a negrep, towards the video in the Opening Post, I see.
> 
> By not condemning that behavior, you are only condoning it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Riiight. This video was discussed months ago on another thread. I gave my opinion of the guy there.
> 
> Are you one of these people that insist people take the pledge before you believe they are true Americans?
> 
> Piss off, fucktard.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about the "voter intimidation" aspect, slow-shit. Keep up. Watch the entire video and address the part where the same guy that was holding the night-stick, in front of the polling place, is shouting to the crowd,
"You want freedom you gonna have to kill some crackers."
"You gonna have to kill their babies"

Now, defend THAT lunatic.


----------



## Zander




----------



## L.K.Eder

^mucho intimidated


----------



## Ravi

daveman said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> The court disagreed with you on summary judgment and found that the government had proved its case of voter intimidation. The case was withdrawn in the sentencing phase.
> 
> So, you would be wrong on that point. If there were no voter intimidation, the court would not have found the was.
> 
> 
> 
> The civil suit was filed but never carried through. So there was no proof of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> April 1:
> The day the Black Panthers miss their deadline to contest the charges against them, Mr. Perrelli meets at the White House with Deputy White House Counsel Cassandra Butts, herself a former lawyer for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
> April 2:
> With no objection yet from Ms. King, the clerk for U.S. District Judge Stewart R. Dalzell enters the default judgment against all four original defendants.
> April 8:
> Mr. Perrelli and fellow Justice Department political appointee Spencer Overton again meet with Ms. Butts at the White House. Mr. Overton is the author of "Stealing Democracy: The New Politics of Voter Suppression," which criticizes Republican efforts at "ballot security." Mr. Overton is a noted critic of requiring voters to show identification at the polls.
> April 17:
> Judge Dalzell issues an order recognizing that the Black Panthers were in default and giving Justice until May 1 to file their official Motion for Default Judgment.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Sorry, the Washington Times is not a credible source. Also, I stopped reading after they referred to the perps as Black Panthers. They are New Black Panthers. If they got this wrong, or perhaps lied about it, there is no telling what other false information they are passing along.


----------



## ConHog

L.K.Eder said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the precinct in question predominately white?
> 
> What I THINK doesn't matter in a court of law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything I have readd says yes, mostly white precinct
> 
> Voting Precinct | Virginia Right!
> 
> Watch,  her reaction will be to poopoo the link
> 
> I'm also still waiting for proof that these gentleman were hired security
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> great example of confirmation bias. conhog wants the precinct to be mostly white, looks for soucres that support this, finds it in a blog, and eureka, the precinct is mostly white.
> 
> 
> 
> according to the census 2000, in this precinct live 2158 people.
> 
> 118 of those are white.
> 
> 
> 
> conhog has obviously never been in downtown philadelphia, let alone ventured north in the direction of temple U.
Click to expand...


Actually stupid, I posted one source that said mostly white, one source that said mostly black and I wrote that there was no telling. Way to be honest.


----------



## Foxfyre

I wish you would advise some of your like minded colleagues that there IS an entity called the New Black Panthers, Ravi.  Some of them have been arguing that we are all full of it because there is no such thing as the "New" Black Panthers.


----------



## ConHog

Yukon. said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how mr. kill the cracka's feels about Obamas parents......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easy, he'd like to kill his mom, and I guess kill Obama except on every other weekend when he's with his black daddy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CornHole,
> 
> Iv'e reported you for the above comment clearly made to incite violence.
Click to expand...


That's nice child molester, how did that work out? oh that's right, I didn't say anything bad about anyone's family.


----------



## ConHog

Ravi said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The civil suit was filed but never carried through. So there was no proof of anything.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> April 1:
> The day the Black Panthers miss their deadline to contest the charges against them, Mr. Perrelli meets at the White House with Deputy White House Counsel Cassandra Butts, herself a former lawyer for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
> April 2:
> With no objection yet from Ms. King, the clerk for U.S. District Judge Stewart R. Dalzell enters the default judgment against all four original defendants.
> April 8:
> Mr. Perrelli and fellow Justice Department political appointee Spencer Overton again meet with Ms. Butts at the White House. Mr. Overton is the author of "Stealing Democracy: The New Politics of Voter Suppression," which criticizes Republican efforts at "ballot security." Mr. Overton is a noted critic of requiring voters to show identification at the polls.
> April 17:
> Judge Dalzell issues an order recognizing that the Black Panthers were in default and giving Justice until May 1 to file their official Motion for Default Judgment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, the Washington Times is not a credible source. Also, I stopped reading after they referred to the perps as Black Panthers. They are New Black Panthers. If they got this wrong, or perhaps lied about it, there is no telling what other false information they are passing along.
Click to expand...


Don't lie, you stopped reading once you realized they were accusing a black person of doing something wrong.


----------



## Mini 14

Foxfyre said:


> I wish you would advise some of your like minded colleagues that there IS an entity called the New Black Panthers, Ravi.  Some of them have been arguing that we are all full of it because there is no such thing as the "New" Black Panthers.



Check out their platform (10 points):

They want to be exempt from taxes, exempt from military service, they demand reparations, want free housing and healthcare, and want all blacks immediately released from any prison anywhere, among other crazy shit:

NewBlackPanther.com

The New Black Panther Party is what a radical fringe group looks like.

They are the 21st century equivalent of the KKK.


----------



## mudwhistle

Ravi said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The civil suit was filed but never carried through. So there was no proof of anything.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> April 1:
> The day the Black Panthers miss their deadline to contest the charges against them, Mr. Perrelli meets at the White House with Deputy White House Counsel Cassandra Butts, herself a former lawyer for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
> April 2:
> With no objection yet from Ms. King, the clerk for U.S. District Judge Stewart R. Dalzell enters the default judgment against all four original defendants.
> April 8:
> Mr. Perrelli and fellow Justice Department political appointee Spencer Overton again meet with Ms. Butts at the White House. Mr. Overton is the author of "Stealing Democracy: The New Politics of Voter Suppression," which criticizes Republican efforts at "ballot security." Mr. Overton is a noted critic of requiring voters to show identification at the polls.
> April 17:
> Judge Dalzell issues an order recognizing that the Black Panthers were in default and giving Justice until May 1 to file their official Motion for Default Judgment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, the Washington Times is not a credible source. Also, I stopped reading after they referred to the perps as Black Panthers. They are New Black Panthers. If they got this wrong, or perhaps lied about it, there is no telling what other false information they are passing along.
Click to expand...


You say Potato, he says POTAAAATOE....same friggen difference.

You know what he meant.

Parsing words isn't going to win this argument for you.


----------



## Ravi

Foxfyre said:


> I wish you would advise some of your like minded colleagues that there IS an entity called the New Black Panthers, Ravi.  Some of them have been arguing that we are all full of it because there is no such thing as the "New" Black Panthers.


I haven't seen that. I've seen posters calling this the Black Panthers and not the New Black Panthers.

I think even the Black Panthers are displeased with the New Black Panthers.


----------



## hortysir

Ravi said:


> they referred to the perps as Black Panthers. They are New Black Panthers.



Now who has the 4-yr old literal mind, fuckface?

Still condoning the hate speech in the OP's video?
Haven't heard you condemn it, so.....


----------



## daveman

Yukon. said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how mr. kill the cracka's feels about Obamas parents......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easy, he'd like to kill his mom, and I guess kill Obama except on every other weekend when he's with his black daddy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CornHole,
> 
> Iv'e reported you for the above comment clearly made to incite violence.
Click to expand...

You really think a man who wants to kill whitey is going to be inspired by whitey to kill Obama?


----------



## daveman

Ravi said:


> Sorry, the Washington Times is not a credible source. Also, I stopped reading after they referred to the perps as Black Panthers. They are New Black Panthers. If they got this wrong, or perhaps lied about it, there is no telling what other false information they are passing along.


Good Gaea, you're absolutely terrified of conflicting views, aren't you?

Is your faith in your own view so shallow, so fragile, that it will come apart if you see something you disagree with?

Pathetic, weak-minded fool.


----------



## daveman

Mini 14 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish you would advise some of your like minded colleagues that there IS an entity called the New Black Panthers, Ravi.  Some of them have been arguing that we are all full of it because there is no such thing as the "New" Black Panthers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check out their platform (10 points):
> 
> They want to be exempt from taxes, exempt from military service, they demand reparations, want free housing and healthcare, and want all blacks immediately released from any prison anywhere, among other crazy shit:
> 
> NewBlackPanther.com
> 
> The New Black Panther Party is what a radical fringe group looks like.
> 
> They are the 21st century equivalent of the KKK.
Click to expand...

So, they're lazy, want other people to give them free stuff, don't want the responsibilities that come with the freedom they've been given, and they're soft on crime.

Yep.  They're leftists, all right.


----------



## Mini 14

While the Black Panthers are quick to distinguish themselves from the New Black Panthers, their "10 point programs" are almost identical.

BOTH of these groups are nothing but hate groups, radical fringe, and racist organizations.

http://www.blackpanther.org/TenPoint.htm  (Black Panther 10 point program)
NewBlackPanther.com (New Black Panther 10 point program)

There is no difference between the two. They are both racist organization, and anyone who defends either of them is defending racism.


----------



## hortysir

hortysir said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Still no response, short of a negrep, towards the video in the Opening Post, I see.*
> 
> By not condemning that behavior, you are only condoning it.
> 
> 
> 
> Riiight. This video was discussed months ago on another thread. I gave my opinion of the guy there.
> 
> Are you one of these people that insist people take the pledge before you believe they are true Americans?
> 
> Piss off, fucktard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not talking about the "voter intimidation" aspect, slow-shit. Keep up. Watch the entire video *and address the part *where the same guy that was holding the night-stick, in front of the polling place, is shouting to the crowd,
> *"You want freedom you gonna have to kill some crackers."
> "You gonna have to kill their babies"*
> 
> Now, defend THAT lunatic.
Click to expand...

Dumb-bump.


Waiting,,,,,,,


----------



## Foxfyre

Ravi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish you would advise some of your like minded colleagues that there IS an entity called the New Black Panthers, Ravi.  Some of them have been arguing that we are all full of it because there is no such thing as the "New" Black Panthers.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen that. I've seen posters calling this the Black Panthers and not the New Black Panthers.
> 
> I think even the Black Panthers are displeased with the New Black Panthers.
Click to expand...


Fair enough though as Mini pointed out, the platforms of the two organizations are almost identical.

This clip is a little long, but it shows one of the toughest interviews I've ever seen conducted on a television program.  Those who stick it out I think it will find it constructive:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruw7et66s08]YouTube - Megyn Kelly interviews malik zulu shabazz on Fox news[/ame]


----------



## ConHog

Mini 14 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish you would advise some of your like minded colleagues that there IS an entity called the New Black Panthers, Ravi.  Some of them have been arguing that we are all full of it because there is no such thing as the "New" Black Panthers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check out their platform (10 points):
> 
> They want to be exempt from taxes, exempt from military service, they demand reparations, want free housing and healthcare, and want all blacks immediately released from any prison anywhere, among other crazy shit:
> 
> NewBlackPanther.com
> 
> The New Black Panther Party is what a radical fringe group looks like.
> 
> They are the 21st century equivalent of the KKK.
Click to expand...


Well almost. The KKK was just as loony, but some people actually took them seriously. No one take either the old or the new black panthers seriously. Well 'cept Ravi, she wants her reparations.


----------



## mudwhistle

Foxfyre said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish you would advise some of your like minded colleagues that there IS an entity called the New Black Panthers, Ravi.  Some of them have been arguing that we are all full of it because there is no such thing as the "New" Black Panthers.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen that. I've seen posters calling this the Black Panthers and not the New Black Panthers.
> 
> I think even the Black Panthers are displeased with the New Black Panthers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair enough though as Mini pointed out, the platforms of the two organizations are almost identical.
> 
> This clip is a little long, but it shows one of the toughest interviews I've ever seen conducted on a television program.  Those who stick it out I think it will find it constructive:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruw7et66s08]YouTube - Megyn Kelly interviews malik zulu shabazz on Fox news[/ame]
Click to expand...


If Shabazz accepts anyone into his party that says we need to kill crackers and their babies then he accepts what they say and do. If he wants to prove to us that he doesn't tolerate that kind of thought....then he should expel them from his party....not allow them to remain.

At this point the guilty members are still in good standing in the New Black Panther Party.

I've heard Shabazz make similar statements by the way. He isn't innocent ether. He also claims he's going after Glenn Beck.....a definite threat.


----------



## ConHog

mudwhistle said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen that. I've seen posters calling this the Black Panthers and not the New Black Panthers.
> 
> I think even the Black Panthers are displeased with the New Black Panthers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough though as Mini pointed out, the platforms of the two organizations are almost identical.
> 
> This clip is a little long, but it shows one of the toughest interviews I've ever seen conducted on a television program.  Those who stick it out I think it will find it constructive:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruw7et66s08]YouTube - Megyn Kelly interviews malik zulu shabazz on Fox news[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Shabazz accepts anyone into his party that says we need to kill crackers and their babies then he accepts what they say and do. If he wants to prove to us that he doesn't tolerate that kind of thought....then he should expel them from his party....not allow them to remain.
> 
> At this point the guilty members are still in good standing in the New Black Panther Party.
> 
> I've heard Shabazz make similar statements by the way. He isn't innocent ether. He also claims he's going after Glenn Beck.....a definite threat.
Click to expand...


Yeah Bill Oreilly asked Beck if he was worried, Beck essentially said they were pussies and wouldn't be there.


----------



## Ravi

hortysir said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> they referred to the perps as Black Panthers. They are New Black Panthers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now who has the 4-yr old literal mind, fuckface?
> 
> Still condoning the hate speech in the OP's video?
> Haven't heard you condemn it, so.....
Click to expand...

If it interests you that much, dig up the thread we had about it a month or so ago.


----------



## Foxfyre

ConHog said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough though as Mini pointed out, the platforms of the two organizations are almost identical.
> 
> This clip is a little long, but it shows one of the toughest interviews I've ever seen conducted on a television program.  Those who stick it out I think it will find it constructive:
> 
> YouTube - Megyn Kelly interviews malik zulu shabazz on Fox news
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Shabazz accepts anyone into his party that says we need to kill crackers and their babies then he accepts what they say and do. If he wants to prove to us that he doesn't tolerate that kind of thought....then he should expel them from his party....not allow them to remain.
> 
> At this point the guilty members are still in good standing in the New Black Panther Party.
> 
> I've heard Shabazz make similar statements by the way. He isn't innocent ether. He also claims he's going after Glenn Beck.....a definite threat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah Bill Oreilly asked Beck if he was worried, Beck essentially said they were pussies and wouldn't be there.
Click to expand...


And then there's this dated today on the site where I got it: 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg47fNTpcV8]YouTube - Glenn Beck Sneaky Little Devil New Black Panther Party Malik Zulu Shabazz[/ame]


----------



## hortysir

Ravi said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> they referred to the perps as Black Panthers. They are New Black Panthers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now who has the 4-yr old literal mind, fuckface?
> 
> Still condoning the hate speech in the OP's video?
> Haven't heard you condemn it, so.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it interests you that much, dig up the thread we had about it a month or so ago.
Click to expand...

You're also a liar.
This "Kill the cracker" video is brand new.
You show me how it's a month old.



Again, since you don't condemn that means you condone it.

I'm a cracker. Wanna see me killed, Ravi?


----------



## daveman

Foxfyre said:


> And then there's this dated today on the site where I got it:
> 
> YouTube - Glenn Beck Sneaky Little Devil New Black Panther Party Malik Zulu Shabazz


It's sad to see how so few leaders in the black community have lived up to Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech.


----------



## Mini 14

Foxfyre said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Shabazz accepts anyone into his party that says we need to kill crackers and their babies then he accepts what they say and do. If he wants to prove to us that he doesn't tolerate that kind of thought....then he should expel them from his party....not allow them to remain.
> 
> At this point the guilty members are still in good standing in the New Black Panther Party.
> 
> I've heard Shabazz make similar statements by the way. He isn't innocent ether. He also claims he's going after Glenn Beck.....a definite threat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah Bill Oreilly asked Beck if he was worried, Beck essentially said they were pussies and wouldn't be there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And then there's this dated today on the site where I got it:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg47fNTpcV8]YouTube - Glenn Beck Sneaky Little Devil New Black Panther Party Malik Zulu Shabazz[/ame]
Click to expand...


I'm with Beck. They're pussies and they won't show up.

I saw a longer clip of that same interview, and shabazz refers to himself as "a general" then says he would never tell people what he is going to do or where he is going to be because "a good general doesn't do that."

He won't be there. He and the other bp are all talk, no walk pussies.


----------



## Againsheila

KissMy said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this administration refused to prosecute these black criminals because they support the New Black Panthers & Kamau Kambon's agenda?
> 
> Extermination of white people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take a look at that "black" guy.  I would have asked him how far back he had to go to find his nearest white ancestor and if he wanted that person "exterminated".  I have a niece blacker than him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is like they learned nothing from Hitler's Germany. They start by exterminating one type & soon they want to exterminate everyone except their "perfect race" all the while others want to exterminate them because in their eyes they are not perfect. They are defiantly pushing for a race war.
> 
> And the wheels on the bus go round & round, round & round, round & round all day long.
Click to expand...


I keep thinking.......Didn't they watch Star Trek?????


----------



## Trajan

king and rossenbaum (sp) who didn't want the case to go forward also had the case sent to the appellate div. of the DOJ, asking them to weigh in, they weighed in, and to their chagrin, on the side of the DOJ going forward with the case...just another fun tidbit.


----------



## ConHog

hortysir said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now who has the 4-yr old literal mind, fuckface?
> 
> Still condoning the hate speech in the OP's video?
> Haven't heard you condemn it, so.....
> 
> 
> 
> If it interests you that much, dig up the thread we had about it a month or so ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're also a liar.
> This "Kill the cracker" video is brand new.
> You show me how it's a month old.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, since you don't condemn that means you condone it.
> 
> I'm a cracker. Wanna see me killed, Ravi?
Click to expand...


I 100% believe that if Ravi were honest, she'd admit to admiring the new black panthers and that she would love to kill some crackers.


----------



## mudwhistle

ConHog said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it interests you that much, dig up the thread we had about it a month or so ago.
> 
> 
> 
> You're also a liar.
> This "Kill the cracker" video is brand new.
> You show me how it's a month old.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, since you don't condemn that means you condone it.
> 
> I'm a cracker. Wanna see me killed, Ravi?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I 100% believe that if Ravi were honest, she'd admit to admiring the new black panthers and that she would love to kill some crackers.
Click to expand...


I killed me some crackers today. Dipped em in peanut-butter and killed em.


----------



## hortysir

I prefer that canned cheese


----------



## L.K.Eder

hortysir said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now who has the 4-yr old literal mind, fuckface?
> 
> Still condoning the hate speech in the OP's video?
> Haven't heard you condemn it, so.....
> 
> 
> 
> If it interests you that much, dig up the thread we had about it a month or so ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're also a liar.
> This "Kill the cracker" video is brand new.
> You show me how it's a month old.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, since you don't condemn that means you condone it.
> 
> I'm a cracker. Wanna see me killed, Ravi?
Click to expand...


you sound a little overexcited. did glenn beck rile you up good?

the video is not brand new. it is from before january 15th 2009.


----------



## hortysir

L.K.Eder said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it interests you that much, dig up the thread we had about it a month or so ago.
> 
> 
> 
> You're also a liar.
> This "Kill the cracker" video is brand new.
> You show me how it's a month old.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, since you don't condemn that means you condone it.
> 
> I'm a cracker. Wanna see me killed, Ravi?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you sound a little overexcited. did glenn beck rile you up good?
> 
> the video is not brand new. it is from before january 15th 2009.
Click to expand...

Ravi has that effect on me....sorry.
Don't watch Beck, thanks though.

January, hunh? Why just coming forward now?
Only a week before inauguration?
Coincidence?


----------



## ConHog

hortysir said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're also a liar.
> This "Kill the cracker" video is brand new.
> You show me how it's a month old.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, since you don't condemn that means you condone it.
> 
> I'm a cracker. Wanna see me killed, Ravi?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you sound a little overexcited. did glenn beck rile you up good?
> 
> the video is not brand new. it is from before january 15th 2009.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ravi has that effect on me....sorry.
> Don't watch Beck, thanks though.
> 
> January, hunh? Why just coming forward now?
> Only a week before inauguration?
> Coincidence?
Click to expand...


 You better check under your bed tonite cracker, Ravi hates every iota of a cracker.


----------



## Foxfyre

We interrupt this thread to inform Mudwhistle that those crackers have cheese between them and not peanut butter.

This has been a public service announcement, and we now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.


----------



## ConHog

Foxfyre said:


> We interrupt this thread to inform Mudwhistle that those crackers have cheese between them and not peanut butter.
> 
> This has been a public service announcement, and we now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.



See how nervous Ravi's threats to kill a cracker have made him?


----------



## hortysir

Is that why I had cheese on my brain?
Subliminal messaging????


----------



## washamericom

we got a lot of troublemaker illegals in new hampshire. not near so bad as the arizona folks got it though. them canadiens come right over the land boarder with their frenchie attitude.


----------



## Foxfyre

washamericom said:


> we got a lot of troublemaker illegals in new hampshire. not near so bad as the arizona folks got it though. them canadiens come right over the land boarder with their frenchie attitude.



Illegal canucks?   Don't imagine there's a whole lot of that.  

I was impressed though when in Vancouver years ago, the Canadians charged us I think about $15 each to leave Canada.  If we hadn't paid it, would they have kept us?


----------



## hortysir

Foxfyre said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> we got a lot of troublemaker illegals in new hampshire. not near so bad as the arizona folks got it though. them canadiens come right over the land boarder with their frenchie attitude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal canucks?   Don't imagine there's a whole lot of that.
> 
> I was impressed though when in Vancouver years ago, the Canadians charged us I think about $15 each to leave Canada.  If we hadn't paid it, would they have kept us?
Click to expand...

I've met several, in Florida, so I can imagine how many more are in the northern states


----------



## Ravi

hortysir said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now who has the 4-yr old literal mind, fuckface?
> 
> Still condoning the hate speech in the OP's video?
> Haven't heard you condemn it, so.....
> 
> 
> 
> If it interests you that much, dig up the thread we had about it a month or so ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're also a liar.
> This "Kill the cracker" video is brand new.
> You show me how it's a month old.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, since you don't condemn that means you condone it.
> 
> I'm a cracker. Wanna see me killed, Ravi?
Click to expand...

That's quite a big chip you have on your shoulder. Are you afraid of everyone, or just black people?


----------



## ConHog

Ravi said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it interests you that much, dig up the thread we had about it a month or so ago.
> 
> 
> 
> You're also a liar.
> This "Kill the cracker" video is brand new.
> You show me how it's a month old.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, since you don't condemn that means you condone it.
> 
> I'm a cracker. Wanna see me killed, Ravi?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's quite a big chip you have on your shoulder. Are you afraid of everyone, or just black people?
Click to expand...


Nice try to deflect Ravi.

Are you a racist? Would you kill a cracker if you thought you could get away with it? Just answer.


----------



## hortysir

hortysir said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riiight. This video was discussed months ago on another thread. I gave my opinion of the guy there.
> 
> Are you one of these people that insist people take the pledge before you believe they are true Americans?
> 
> Piss off, fucktard.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about the "voter intimidation" aspect, slow-shit. Keep up. Watch the entire video *and address the part *where the same guy that was holding the night-stick, in front of the polling place, is shouting to the crowd,
> *"You want freedom you gonna have to kill some crackers."
> "You gonna have to kill their babies"*
> 
> Now, defend THAT lunatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumb-bump.
> 
> 
> Waiting,,,,,,,
Click to expand...


Condemn or Condone, Ravi?




And, BTW, I can't say I have ever met anyone worthy of being afraid of.
(that ventriloquist's dummy in elementary school doesn't count  )


----------



## fyrenza

As it turns out,

I was WRONG.

Those men weren't sons/grandsons/cousins

or anything ELSE related to the ladies at the poll.

They were there to intimidate folks.

To STEAL from, and silence voters.

Wow.  It feels GOOD to be back on this side!


----------



## ConHog

hortysir said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about the "voter intimidation" aspect, slow-shit. Keep up. Watch the entire video *and address the part *where the same guy that was holding the night-stick, in front of the polling place, is shouting to the crowd,
> *"You want freedom you gonna have to kill some crackers."
> "You gonna have to kill their babies"*
> 
> Now, defend THAT lunatic.
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb-bump.
> 
> 
> Waiting,,,,,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Condemn or Condone, Ravi?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, BTW, I can't say I have ever met anyone worthy of being afraid of.
> (that ventriloquist's dummy in elementary school doesn't count  )
Click to expand...


She won't comment , because she is a racist , but cowardly.


----------



## chanel

*Video Surfaces Of New Black Panther Party President Praising Bin Laden In 2002*




> Holding up an illustration of Bin Laden at what appears to be an NBPP meeting, Shabazz dramatically sings the praising of the head of Al-Qaeda:
> 
> Lets talk about this brother, because hes a bold man Usama Bin Laden, Mr. Bin Laden. Gotta give him his respect. Hes not bowing down. Hes not cutting [?] the tap dance Mr. Bin Laden standing up. Theres a man born in Saudi Arabia bringing reform, Mr. Bin Laden. But youre not supposed to say these things about him. I thought we had free speech.



Malik Zulu Shabazz | Bin Laden | Black Panthers | Mediaite


----------



## mudwhistle

Ravi said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it interests you that much, dig up the thread we had about it a month or so ago.
> 
> 
> 
> You're also a liar.
> This "Kill the cracker" video is brand new.
> You show me how it's a month old.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, since you don't condemn that means you condone it.
> 
> I'm a cracker. Wanna see me killed, Ravi?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's quite a big chip you have on your shoulder. Are you afraid of everyone, or just black people?
Click to expand...


I wonder why you think anyone is afraid of black people?

Should whites fear them? Is that what you want?

I've seen racism from both sides all the way back to the 60s. I don't condone it and when I see it from ether side I condemn it. I don't look the other way like you do. I don't make up lame excuses to rationalize it.


----------



## Ravi

I've excused no racism.


----------



## Mini 14

Ravi said:


> I've excused no racism.



Wow!

Just wow!

You're the biggest racist on the board, and you've excused racism about 900 times in this thread alone.

WOW!!!


----------



## daveman

chanel said:


> *Video Surfaces Of New Black Panther Party President Praising Bin Laden In 2002*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holding up an illustration of Bin Laden at what appears to be an NBPP meeting, Shabazz dramatically sings the praising of the head of Al-Qaeda:
> 
> Lets talk about this brother, because hes a bold man Usama Bin Laden, Mr. Bin Laden. Gotta give him his respect. Hes not bowing down. Hes not cutting [?] the tap dance Mr. Bin Laden standing up. Theres a man born in Saudi Arabia bringing reform, Mr. Bin Laden. But youre not supposed to say these things about him. I thought we had free speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Malik Zulu Shabazz | Bin Laden | Black Panthers | Mediaite
Click to expand...

Well, now we know what leftists mean by "reform".


----------



## Yukon.

Racism is a natural human emotion.


----------



## Foxfyre

Yukon. said:


> Racism is a natural human emotion.



Is it?  You sure don't see it among kids.  You would think that if it was an inate human trait it would show up there before it becomes learned behavior.


----------



## Yukon.

CornHole,

Would you shoot a Negro if you could get away with it? Do you have the guts to shoot someone (unarmed of course, we know what your answer would be if the person were armed " Feet do you thang").


----------



## Foxfyre

daveman said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Video Surfaces Of New Black Panther Party President Praising Bin Laden In 2002*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holding up an illustration of Bin Laden at what appears to be an NBPP meeting, Shabazz dramatically sings the praising of the head of Al-Qaeda:
> 
> Lets talk about this brother, because hes a bold man Usama Bin Laden, Mr. Bin Laden. Gotta give him his respect. Hes not bowing down. Hes not cutting [?] the tap dance Mr. Bin Laden standing up. Theres a man born in Saudi Arabia bringing reform, Mr. Bin Laden. But youre not supposed to say these things about him. I thought we had free speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Malik Zulu Shabazz | Bin Laden | Black Panthers | Mediaite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, now we know what leftists mean by "reform".
Click to expand...


No kidding.  I thanked Chanel for this find, but that is major remarkable.  Note the apologists for these guys aren't commenting on it either.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Foxfyre said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Video Surfaces Of New Black Panther Party President Praising Bin Laden In 2002*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Malik Zulu Shabazz | Bin Laden | Black Panthers | Mediaite
> 
> 
> 
> Well, now we know what leftists mean by "reform".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No kidding.  I thanked Chanel for this find, but that is major remarkable.  Note the apologists for these guys aren't commenting on it either.
Click to expand...



nbpp = leftists. no kidding?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Well its hard for them to defend the racism and anti semitism in the very words of the members of this organization without turning themselves into completely obvious hypocrites .


----------



## L.K.Eder




----------



## Ravi

L.K.Eder said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, now we know what leftists mean by "reform".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding.  I thanked Chanel for this find, but that is major remarkable.  Note the apologists for these guys aren't commenting on it either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> nbpp = leftists. no kidding?
Click to expand...

Not if he admires OBL. bin laden is a far right kind of guy.


----------



## WillowTree

Mini 14 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've excused no racism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!
> 
> Just wow!
> 
> You're the biggest racist on the board, and you've excused racism about 900 times in this thread alone.
> 
> WOW!!!
Click to expand...


she could do with reading a little robert burns hey?


----------



## Truthmatters

ConHog said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying intimidation is intimidation.
> 
> Whether or not anyone shout out, "that man is intimidating me."
> 
> If I approach a half dozen gang members walking down the street, I'm not going to shout out that I am worried about them, I'm going to make a sudden turn and go a different direction rather than crossing paths with six thugs who may or may not want to break open my skull.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> You're entitled to your opinion. I saw no intimidation on the videos...and the camera man certainly had the opportunity to record any if it were happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah because I'm sure that ****** didn't tone down his bullshit once the camera showed up.
Click to expand...


Heres your racist


----------



## Foxfyre

L.K.Eder said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, now we know what leftists mean by "reform".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding.  I thanked Chanel for this find, but that is major remarkable.  Note the apologists for these guys aren't commenting on it either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> nbpp = leftists. no kidding?
Click to expand...


Yep.  Have you read their 10-pt plan?

They want power to practice self-determination but they want the government to give them that power.

They want the government to guarantee them a job.

They want a tax exemption and an end 'to the capitalistic domination of Africa in all it's forms'.

They demand reparations and want to be exempt from all taxation until they get that.  (They say they'll accept payment in "fertile and mine rally rich land, precious metals, industry, commerce and currency."

They expect the government to provide them decent housing.  (So much for the self-determination stuff I guess.)

They demand that government provide "education for our people that exposes the true nature of this devilish and decadent American society. . . ."

They want all black men and women to be exempt from military service.

They want all black prisoners to be released.

They want black people to be exempt from the death penalty.

This sure as hell isn't from any conservative or rightwing play book.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Foxfyre said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding.  I thanked Chanel for this find, but that is major remarkable.  Note the apologists for these guys aren't commenting on it either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nbpp = leftists. no kidding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  Have you read their 10-pt plan?
> 
> They want power to practice self-determination but they want the government to give them that power.
> 
> They want the government to guarantee them a job.
> 
> They want a tax exemption and an end 'to the capitalistic domination of Africa in all it's forms'.
> 
> They demand reparations and want to be exempt from all taxation until they get that.  (They say they'll accept payment in "fertile and mine rally rich land, precious metals, industry, commerce and currency."
> 
> They expect the government to provide them decent housing.  (So much for the self-determination stuff I guess.)
> 
> They demand that government provide "education for our people that exposes the true nature of this devilish and decadent American society. . . ."
> 
> They want all black men and women to be exempt from military service.
> 
> They want all black prisoners to be released.
> 
> They want black people to be exempt from the death penalty.
> 
> This sure as hell isn't from any conservative or rightwing play book.
Click to expand...


spare me that bullshit.

and even if i follow your "logic" then the nbpp are still not representative of all leftists, and certainly not representative of dems or the obama admin. and this connection is tried to be established here for quite some time now.

after all the disingenuous whining about how the teabaggers were victimized.

what do the phony pearlclutchers say? ah yes,

"isn't it sad."


----------



## WillowTree

L.K.Eder said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> nbpp = leftists. no kidding?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  Have you read their 10-pt plan?
> 
> They want power to practice self-determination but they want the government to give them that power.
> 
> They want the government to guarantee them a job.
> 
> They want a tax exemption and an end 'to the capitalistic domination of Africa in all it's forms'.
> 
> They demand reparations and want to be exempt from all taxation until they get that.  (They say they'll accept payment in "fertile and mine rally rich land, precious metals, industry, commerce and currency."
> 
> They expect the government to provide them decent housing.  (So much for the self-determination stuff I guess.)
> 
> They demand that government provide "education for our people that exposes the true nature of this devilish and decadent American society. . . ."
> 
> They want all black men and women to be exempt from military service.
> 
> They want all black prisoners to be released.
> 
> They want black people to be exempt from the death penalty.
> 
> This sure as hell isn't from any conservative or rightwing play book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> spare me that bullshit.
> 
> and even if i follow your "logic" then the *nbpp are still not representative of all leftists, and certainly not representative of dems or the obama admin. and this connection is tried to be established here for quite some time now.*after all the disingenuous whining about how the teabaggers were victimized.
> 
> what do the phony pearlclutchers say? ah yes,
> 
> "isn't it sad."
Click to expand...


where did anybody say that? show me please? What I heard people saying is the DOJ failed to prosecute them for voter intimidation. And a former attorney for the DOJ has testified in front of a civil rights panel that the DOJ will not prosecute black people if the injustice is against a white person. Do you agree with that politcy?


----------



## Foxfyre

L.K.Eder said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> nbpp = leftists. no kidding?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  Have you read their 10-pt plan?
> 
> They want power to practice self-determination but they want the government to give them that power.
> 
> They want the government to guarantee them a job.
> 
> They want a tax exemption and an end 'to the capitalistic domination of Africa in all it's forms'.
> 
> They demand reparations and want to be exempt from all taxation until they get that.  (They say they'll accept payment in "fertile and mine rally rich land, precious metals, industry, commerce and currency."
> 
> They expect the government to provide them decent housing.  (So much for the self-determination stuff I guess.)
> 
> They demand that government provide "education for our people that exposes the true nature of this devilish and decadent American society. . . ."
> 
> They want all black men and women to be exempt from military service.
> 
> They want all black prisoners to be released.
> 
> They want black people to be exempt from the death penalty.
> 
> This sure as hell isn't from any conservative or rightwing play book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> spare me that bullshit.
> 
> and even if i follow your "logic" then the nbpp are still not representative of all leftists, and certainly not representative of dems or the obama admin. and this connection is tried to be established here for quite some time now.
> 
> after all the disingenuous whining about how the teabaggers were victimized.
> 
> what do the phony pearlclutchers say? ah yes,
> 
> "isn't it sad."
Click to expand...


Let's try to focus and not divert the subject here okay?

I didn't say that the NBP are representative of all leftist or Democrats or the Obama administration; they have nothing to do with the Tea partiers; and I don't know who the pearlclutchers are but I certainly didn't reference them either.

I did illustrate how the NBP reflects a leftist ideology by which the social order should be ordered to their liking and the government should do the ordering.


----------



## L.K.Eder

WillowTree said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  Have you read their 10-pt plan?
> 
> They want power to practice self-determination but they want the government to give them that power.
> 
> They want the government to guarantee them a job.
> 
> They want a tax exemption and an end 'to the capitalistic domination of Africa in all it's forms'.
> 
> They demand reparations and want to be exempt from all taxation until they get that.  (They say they'll accept payment in "fertile and mine rally rich land, precious metals, industry, commerce and currency."
> 
> They expect the government to provide them decent housing.  (So much for the self-determination stuff I guess.)
> 
> They demand that government provide "education for our people that exposes the true nature of this devilish and decadent American society. . . ."
> 
> They want all black men and women to be exempt from military service.
> 
> They want all black prisoners to be released.
> 
> They want black people to be exempt from the death penalty.
> 
> This sure as hell isn't from any conservative or rightwing play book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> spare me that bullshit.
> 
> and even if i follow your "logic" then the *nbpp are still not representative of all leftists, and certainly not representative of dems or the obama admin. and this connection is tried to be established here for quite some time now.*after all the disingenuous whining about how the teabaggers were victimized.
> 
> what do the phony pearlclutchers say? ah yes,
> 
> "isn't it sad."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> where did anybody say that? show me please? What I heard people saying is the DOJ failed to prosecute them for voter intimidation. And a former attorney for the DOJ has testified in front of a civil rights panel that the DOJ will not prosecute black people if the injustice is against a white person. Do you agree with that politcy?
Click to expand...


i knew that would be coming. i don't play.

it is clear, very clear.


----------



## ConHog

Yukon. said:


> CornHole,
> 
> Would you shoot a Negro if you could get away with it? Do you have the guts to shoot someone (unarmed of course, we know what your answer would be if the person were armed " Feet do you thang").



A) No I wouldn't shoot someone just for being black, how stupid
B) How many wars have you fought in? How many purple hearts do you have? Get back to me when the answer to either of those questions is even 1, until then you can shove your statements about running up your hiney hole.

Pedophile.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Foxfyre said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  Have you read their 10-pt plan?
> 
> They want power to practice self-determination but they want the government to give them that power.
> 
> They want the government to guarantee them a job.
> 
> They want a tax exemption and an end 'to the capitalistic domination of Africa in all it's forms'.
> 
> They demand reparations and want to be exempt from all taxation until they get that.  (They say they'll accept payment in "fertile and mine rally rich land, precious metals, industry, commerce and currency."
> 
> They expect the government to provide them decent housing.  (So much for the self-determination stuff I guess.)
> 
> They demand that government provide "education for our people that exposes the true nature of this devilish and decadent American society. . . ."
> 
> They want all black men and women to be exempt from military service.
> 
> They want all black prisoners to be released.
> 
> They want black people to be exempt from the death penalty.
> 
> This sure as hell isn't from any conservative or rightwing play book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> spare me that bullshit.
> 
> and even if i follow your "logic" then the nbpp are still not representative of all leftists, and certainly not representative of dems or the obama admin. and this connection is tried to be established here for quite some time now.
> 
> after all the disingenuous whining about how the teabaggers were victimized.
> 
> what do the phony pearlclutchers say? ah yes,
> 
> "isn't it sad."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's try to focus and not divert the subject here okay?
> 
> I didn't say that the NBP are representative of all leftist or Democrats or the Obama administration; they have nothing to do with the Tea partiers; and I don't know who the pearlclutchers are but I certainly didn't reference them either.
> 
> I did illustrate how the NBP reflects a leftist ideology by which the social order should be ordered to their liking and the government should do the ordering.
Click to expand...


no, let's not.

you can now continue your self-righteous whiny circle jerk with the other concerned citizens and great americans.


----------



## Truthmatters

http://www.usmessageboard.com/race-...r-you-want-freedom-kill-some-crackers-13.html


----------



## Truthmatters

Truthmatters said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're entitled to your opinion. I saw no intimidation on the videos...and the camera man certainly had the opportunity to record any if it were happening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah because I'm sure that ****** didn't tone down his bullshit once the camera showed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heres your racist
Click to expand...




conhog is a racist POS


----------



## daveman

Yukon. said:


> Racism is a natural human emotion.



Well, that's one way of excusing your own, I suppose.


----------



## WillowTree

L.K.Eder said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> spare me that bullshit.
> 
> and even if i follow your "logic" then the *nbpp are still not representative of all leftists, and certainly not representative of dems or the obama admin. and this connection is tried to be established here for quite some time now.*after all the disingenuous whining about how the teabaggers were victimized.
> 
> what do the phony pearlclutchers say? ah yes,
> 
> "isn't it sad."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> where did anybody say that? show me please? What I heard people saying is the DOJ failed to prosecute them for voter intimidation. And a former attorney for the DOJ has testified in front of a civil rights panel that the DOJ will not prosecute black people if the injustice is against a white person. Do you agree with that politcy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i knew that would be coming. i don't play.
> 
> it is clear, very clear.
Click to expand...


chickenshit


----------



## daveman

Foxfyre said:


> No kidding.  I thanked Chanel for this find, but that is major remarkable.  Note the apologists for these guys aren't commenting on it either.


Allow me to predict:

"That's different.  Somehow.  It just is.  You racist!!"


----------



## daveman

L.K.Eder said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, now we know what leftists mean by "reform".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding.  I thanked Chanel for this find, but that is major remarkable.  Note the apologists for these guys aren't commenting on it either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> nbpp = leftists. no kidding?
Click to expand...

They're lazy, want other people to give them free stuff, don't want the responsibilities that come with the freedom they've been given, and they're soft on crime.

Yep. They're leftists, all right.


----------



## WillowTree

Truthmatters said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah because I'm sure that ****** didn't tone down his bullshit once the camera showed up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heres your racist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> conhog is a racist POS
Click to expand...


so are you, if you can be a racist pos then so can the rest of us. You and LK make a good team


----------



## ConHog

Truthmatters said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah because I'm sure that ****** didn't tone down his bullshit once the camera showed up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heres your racist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> conhog is a racist POS
Click to expand...


Aww TM why you single me out? I'm hardly unique in making you looking stupid in thread after thread.


----------



## daveman

Ravi said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding.  I thanked Chanel for this find, but that is major remarkable.  Note the apologists for these guys aren't commenting on it either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nbpp = leftists. no kidding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if he admires OBL. bin laden is a far right kind of guy.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that explains why we've been killing all his pals.  

Oh, wait...no, it doesn't.


----------



## Truthmatters

I have shown evidence of this assholes racism right from his own mouth.

You claim Im racist on what basis?


----------



## L.K.Eder

WillowTree said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heres your racist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> conhog is a racist POS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so are you, if you can be a racist pos then so can the rest of us. You and LK make a good team
Click to expand...


ah, more guilt by association.


----------



## WillowTree

L.K.Eder said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> conhog is a racist POS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so are you, if you can be a racist pos then so can the rest of us. You and LK make a good team
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ah, more guilt by association.
Click to expand...


you don't wish to discuss it remember? go play in your sandbox with TM.


----------



## L.K.Eder

WillowTree said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> so are you, if you can be a racist pos then so can the rest of us. You and LK make a good team
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ah, more guilt by association.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you don't wish to discuss it remember? go play in your sandbox with TM.
Click to expand...


don't tell me what to do, granny. that is a leftist monster trait. beneath you.


----------



## Truthmatters

Truthmatters said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah because I'm sure that ****** didn't tone down his bullshit once the camera showed up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heres your racist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> conhog is a racist POS
Click to expand...


Look at the righties scramble to protect one of their little racist friends.

"I know you are" is not evidence of anything now is it?

Will any of you admitt conhog is without a doubt a racist asshole


----------



## WillowTree

Truthmatters said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heres your racist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> conhog is a racist POS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at the righties scramble to protect one of their little racist friends.
> 
> "I know you are" is not evidence of anything now is it?
> 
> Will any of you admitt conhog is without a doubt a racist asshole
Click to expand...


No but we will admit you are. Will that help????


----------



## ConHog

Truthmatters said:


> I have shown evidence of this assholes racism right from his own mouth.
> 
> You claim Im racist on what basis?



So let me get this straight, saying the word ****** is racist, but saying cracker isn't ?


noun
1.
Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive .
a.
a black person.
b.
a member of any dark-skinned people.
2.
Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive . a person of any race or origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, ignorant, etc.
3.
a victim of prejudice similar to that suffered by blacks; a person who is economically, politically, or socially disenfranchised.


It's a word. That's all

Now show quotes from me saying black people are dumber than white people, more prone to violence, lazier, or anything similar, that a racist would believe................... I'll wait.............


----------



## WillowTree

L.K.Eder said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> ah, more guilt by association.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you don't wish to discuss it remember? go play in your sandbox with TM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> don't tell me what to do, granny. that is a leftist monster trait. beneath you.
Click to expand...


----------



## Yukon.

CornHole and the WillowTree now there's a real pair of absolute wack-jobs.


----------



## ConHog

Yukon. said:


> CornHole and the WillowTree now there's a real pair of absolute wack-jobs.



Should a mulit convicted sex offender be calling ANYONE a whack job?


----------



## Silkcity19

I hate retelling this story. I live in the same city that this piece of shit squirms in, hate him, but there is far more to this story them the video shows. 

This area is 99.999% black where this video was shot, the building in the picture is a retirement high rise for the low income , there are project homes surrounding the area, the rest of the neighborhood is crack ridden with criminals, hookers and junkies wandering the streets like zombies.
 Everyone votes at this building from the neighborhood. That being said theses two guys IMHO and with great knowledge of the area were there to protect the elderly in the area, and people coming from the new housing project homes that were just built in the area. There has not been a white person that has voted in that area in 50 years. Once again IMHO these reporters seen this and put their selves into a situation and made a mountain out of a molehill. 

Was this right, no, was it voter intimidation, again no. I have seen this piece of shit countless times in the city I love, and have no problem calling this angry little man the piece of shit he really is, but this time I think he's getting a bad wrap


----------



## Truthmatters

You dont prosicute people for a crime with evidence that has nothing to do with the alledged crime.

The right here doesnt care they just hate instead of thinking


----------



## ConHog

Truthmatters said:


> You dont prosicute people for a crime with evidence that has nothing to do with the alledged crime.
> 
> The right here doesnt care they just hate instead of thinking



So, where is this proof that I'm a racist, you piece of shit? Provide the proof or stop saying it.


----------



## Sky Dancer

KMAN said:


> I bet half of you have not heard anything about this....
> 
> Sad thing is some liberals on this board won't have a probably with this....
> 
> http://politisite.com/2010/07/07/vi...om-youre-going-to-have-to-kill-some-crackers/



You're surprised that racist hatred still exists?


----------



## Truthmatters

ConHog said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dont prosicute people for a crime with evidence that has nothing to do with the alledged crime.
> 
> The right here doesnt care they just hate instead of thinking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, where is this proof that I'm a racist, you piece of shit? Provide the proof or stop saying it.
Click to expand...


I think throwing arround the word ****** does it fella


----------



## Truthmatters

http://www.usmessageboard.com/race-...freedom-kill-some-crackers-5.html#post2490574



"Who hired that ****** to do security?"


----------



## Sky Dancer

We have a message board that encourages free use of the N word and racist hatred..


----------



## Truthmatters

Some seem to get away with these things


----------



## Sky Dancer

Looks like racism is forum policy.


----------



## Foxfyre

Silkcity19 said:


> I hate retelling this story. I live in the same city that this piece of shit squirms in, hate him, but there is far more to this story them the video shows.
> 
> This area is 99.999% black where this video was shot, the building in the picture is a retirement high rise for the low income , there are project homes surrounding the area, the rest of the neighborhood is crack ridden with criminals, hookers and junkies wandering the streets like zombies.
> Everyone votes at this building from the neighborhood. That being said theses two guys IMHO and with great knowledge of the area were there to protect the elderly in the area, and people coming from the new housing project homes that were just built in the area. There has not been a white person that has voted in that area in 50 years. Once again IMHO these reporters seen this and put their selves into a situation and made a mountain out of a molehill.
> 
> Was this right, no, was it voter intimidation, again no. I have seen this piece of shit countless times in the city I love, and have no problem calling this angry little man the piece of shit he really is, but this time I think he's getting a bad wrap



The problem is that they have credible witnesses who say that white voters were turned away at that polling place.  And at least two of those witnesses were black.  And they apparently have at least some video of that.



> The evidence at hand in Philadelphia includes video of two thuggish African-American men dressed in military fatigues. As one wielded a baton in a menacing manner, they hurled racial slurs at white voters who understandably were scared away from the polling place. The Justice Department under President George W. Bush filed criminal charges against the two men. After Obama took office, default judgments resulted when the defendants failed to show for their trials. But Holder's Justice Department later dropped the charges following a plea deal in which one of the men agreed not to carry a weapon near the Philadelphia polling place until 2012. Both men are now free to intimidate voters again.
> 
> Read more at the Washington Examiner: Reverse discrimination in New Black Panther case | Washington Examiner



I  don't think anybody is going to buy that those two guys were there to protect the elderly.  Even their NBP spokesperson didn't pretend they were there for that and didn't attempt to make that case.

I posted this picture on another thread also discussing this:







If they said they were there to protect the elderly, would you believe them?


----------



## Truthmatters

You need to look at the video again.

There is no indimidation going on which is why the case was dumped.


----------



## ConHog

Truthmatters said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dont prosicute people for a crime with evidence that has nothing to do with the alledged crime.
> 
> The right here doesnt care they just hate instead of thinking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, where is this proof that I'm a racist, you piece of shit? Provide the proof or stop saying it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think throwing arround the word ****** does it fella
Click to expand...


Really? hmmm cuz you're saying the black guy who hurled racial epithets wasn't being a racist. Why he can call me a cracker and I can't call him a ******?


----------



## Foxfyre

Not even Eric Holder has the balls to say that no intimidation was going on.  The leader of the New Black Panthers, in his interview with Megyn Kelly, suspended the guy from NBP for two weeks BECAUSE voter intimidation was against their policy.  You have black and white witnesses who went to the polls themselves to investigate when people called to say they had been scared away from the polls.  They all testified that these guys were in fact doing that.   They have video proof.

So again the spologists trying to defend these guys are ringing really hollow.

The Youtube video we have posted here is from a media source.  There was apparently more video than that used at the hearing.


----------



## Sky Dancer

The case was dismissed due to lack of evidence.  Either the video wasn't admitted or it was inadequate evidence.

Check history in past administrations.  This isn't the first time voter intimidation was taken lightly.


----------



## Ravi

Silkcity19 said:


> I hate retelling this story. I live in the same city that this piece of shit squirms in, hate him, but there is far more to this story them the video shows.
> 
> This area is 99.999% black where this video was shot, the building in the picture is a retirement high rise for the low income , there are project homes surrounding the area, the rest of the neighborhood is crack ridden with criminals, hookers and junkies wandering the streets like zombies.
> Everyone votes at this building from the neighborhood. That being said theses two guys IMHO and with great knowledge of the area were there to protect the elderly in the area, and people coming from the new housing project homes that were just built in the area. There has not been a white person that has voted in that area in 50 years. Once again IMHO these reporters seen this and put their selves into a situation and made a mountain out of a molehill.
> 
> Was this right, no, was it voter intimidation, again no. I have seen this piece of shit countless times in the city I love, and have no problem calling this angry little man the piece of shit he really is, but this time I think he's getting a bad wrap


Thanks for that...I think you've got it correct.


----------



## Zander

Silkcity19 said:


> I hate retelling this story. I live in the same city that this piece of shit squirms in, hate him, but there is far more to this story them the video shows.
> 
> This area is 99.999% black where this video was shot, the building in the picture is a retirement high rise for the low income , there are project homes surrounding the area, the rest of the neighborhood is crack ridden with criminals, hookers and junkies wandering the streets like zombies.
> Everyone votes at this building from the neighborhood. That being said theses two guys IMHO and with great knowledge of the area were there to protect the elderly in the area, and people coming from the new housing project homes that were just built in the area. There has not been a white person that has voted in that area in 50 years. Once again IMHO these reporters seen this and put their selves into a situation and made a mountain out of a molehill.
> 
> Was this right, no, was it voter intimidation, again no. I have seen this piece of shit countless times in the city I love, and have no problem calling this angry little man the piece of shit he really is, but this time I think he's getting a bad wrap



So you are saying that the votes of the small percentage of non-blacks in the neighborhood are unimportant. How enlightened of you.  Sorry, but if even one person decided not to vote (regardless of race!) because some hate-filled asshole with a billy club was standing in front of the building - it is voter intimidation. PERIOD. 

BTW,  The video shows a white girl standing right in front of the the building talking on her cell, so I  seriously doubt the neighborhood is 99.99% black.......


----------



## Truthmatters

And she looks completely untrheatened too, just like the "reporters" who are talking to him.

He did not threaten anyone no matter how much you wish the tape showed that.


----------



## Silkcity19

Foxfyre said:


> Silkcity19 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate retelling this story. I live in the same city that this piece of shit squirms in, hate him, but there is far more to this story them the video shows.
> 
> This area is 99.999% black where this video was shot, the building in the picture is a retirement high rise for the low income , there are project homes surrounding the area, the rest of the neighborhood is crack ridden with criminals, hookers and junkies wandering the streets like zombies.
> Everyone votes at this building from the neighborhood. That being said theses two guys IMHO and with great knowledge of the area were there to protect the elderly in the area, and people coming from the new housing project homes that were just built in the area. There has not been a white person that has voted in that area in 50 years. Once again IMHO these reporters seen this and put their selves into a situation and made a mountain out of a molehill.
> 
> Was this right, no, was it voter intimidation, again no. I have seen this piece of shit countless times in the city I love, and have no problem calling this angry little man the piece of shit he really is, but this time I think he's getting a bad wrap
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that they have credible witnesses who say that white voters were turned away at that polling place.  And at least two of those witnesses were black.  And they apparently have at least some video of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence at hand in Philadelphia includes video of two thuggish African-American men dressed in military fatigues. As one wielded a baton in a menacing manner, they hurled racial slurs at white voters who understandably were scared away from the polling place. The Justice Department under President George W. Bush filed criminal charges against the two men. After Obama took office, default judgments resulted when the defendants failed to show for their trials. But Holder's Justice Department later dropped the charges following a plea deal in which one of the men agreed not to carry a weapon near the Philadelphia polling place until 2012. Both men are now free to intimidate voters again.
> 
> Read more at the Washington Examiner: Reverse discrimination in New Black Panther case | Washington Examiner
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I  don't think anybody is going to buy that those two guys were there to protect the elderly.  Even their NBP spokesperson didn't pretend they were there for that and didn't attempt to make that case.
> 
> I posted this picture on another thread also discussing this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they said they were there to protect the elderly, would you believe them?
Click to expand...


My friend trust me, there are no white voters in that district.


----------



## Truthmatters

The fact remains there is no intimidation on that tape


----------



## Silkcity19

Zander said:


> Silkcity19 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate retelling this story. I live in the same city that this piece of shit squirms in, hate him, but there is far more to this story them the video shows.
> 
> This area is 99.999% black where this video was shot, the building in the picture is a retirement high rise for the low income , there are project homes surrounding the area, the rest of the neighborhood is crack ridden with criminals, hookers and junkies wandering the streets like zombies.
> Everyone votes at this building from the neighborhood. That being said theses two guys IMHO and with great knowledge of the area were there to protect the elderly in the area, and people coming from the new housing project homes that were just built in the area. There has not been a white person that has voted in that area in 50 years. Once again IMHO these reporters seen this and put their selves into a situation and made a mountain out of a molehill.
> 
> Was this right, no, was it voter intimidation, again no. I have seen this piece of shit countless times in the city I love, and have no problem calling this angry little man the piece of shit he really is, but this time I think he's getting a bad wrap
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that the votes of the small percentage of non-blacks in the neighborhood are unimportant. How enlightened of you.  Sorry, but if even one person decided not to vote (regardless of race!) because some hate-filled asshole with a billy club was standing in front of the building - it is voter intimidation. PERIOD.
> 
> BTW,  The video shows a white girl standing right in front of the the building talking on her cell, so I  seriously doubt the neighborhood is 99.99% black.......
Click to expand...


Very enlighten on this story my friend. Be smarter then the video, this was election day in Philly, there were people from every Democratic group in the world on the streets of my home town. Believe me, that women does not live in the neighborhood. 

And you would know better the makeup of the area being 3000 miles away, and me being only 5


----------



## ConHog

Foxfyre said:


> Not even Eric Holder has the balls to say that no intimidation was going on.  The leader of the New Black Panthers, in his interview with Megyn Kelly, suspended the guy from NBP for two weeks BECAUSE voter intimidation was against their policy.  You have black and white witnesses who went to the polls themselves to investigate when people called to say they had been scared away from the polls.  They all testified that these guys were in fact doing that.   They have video proof.
> 
> So again the spologists trying to defend these guys are ringing really hollow.
> 
> The Youtube video we have posted here is from a media source.  There was apparently more video than that used at the hearing.



It's just this plain. Anyone who denies voter intimidation went on here is a racist who the world would be better off without, I wish them a speedy death.


----------



## Foxfyre

ConHog said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not even Eric Holder has the balls to say that no intimidation was going on.  The leader of the New Black Panthers, in his interview with Megyn Kelly, suspended the guy from NBP for two weeks BECAUSE voter intimidation was against their policy.  You have black and white witnesses who went to the polls themselves to investigate when people called to say they had been scared away from the polls.  They all testified that these guys were in fact doing that.   They have video proof.
> 
> So again the spologists trying to defend these guys are ringing really hollow.
> 
> The Youtube video we have posted here is from a media source.  There was apparently more video than that used at the hearing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just this plain. Anyone who denies voter intimidation went on here is a racist who the world would be better off without, I wish them a speedy death.
Click to expand...


I want to be absolutely clear that I wish no harm to come to anybody, not even those black panther guys who think it would be fine to kill me, the cracker, and/or my babies.


----------



## Ravi

ConHog said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not even Eric Holder has the balls to say that no intimidation was going on.  The leader of the New Black Panthers, in his interview with Megyn Kelly, suspended the guy from NBP for two weeks BECAUSE voter intimidation was against their policy.  You have black and white witnesses who went to the polls themselves to investigate when people called to say they had been scared away from the polls.  They all testified that these guys were in fact doing that.   They have video proof.
> 
> So again the spologists trying to defend these guys are ringing really hollow.
> 
> The Youtube video we have posted here is from a media source.  There was apparently more video than that used at the hearing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just this plain. Anyone who denies voter intimidation went on here is a racist who the world would be better off without, I wish them a speedy death.
Click to expand...

You're no different than the guy in the film that wishes to kill crackers because they disagree with him.

Total asshole.


----------



## ConHog

Ravi said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not even Eric Holder has the balls to say that no intimidation was going on.  The leader of the New Black Panthers, in his interview with Megyn Kelly, suspended the guy from NBP for two weeks BECAUSE voter intimidation was against their policy.  You have black and white witnesses who went to the polls themselves to investigate when people called to say they had been scared away from the polls.  They all testified that these guys were in fact doing that.   They have video proof.
> 
> So again the spologists trying to defend these guys are ringing really hollow.
> 
> The Youtube video we have posted here is from a media source.  There was apparently more video than that used at the hearing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just this plain. Anyone who denies voter intimidation went on here is a racist who the world would be better off without, I wish them a speedy death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're no different than the guy in the film that wishes to kill crackers because they disagree with him.
> 
> Total asshole.
Click to expand...


Ravi fail again

He doesn't wish white crackers death , he incites people to cause those deaths. I don't want anyone to cause a death. Plus of course he hates simply b/c they are white, while I just have no use for a racist.


----------



## chanel

Silkcity and I have had this debate before. And while I accepted that their motives may have been benign, their methods were not. However, as we have seen recently, there is no reason to believe that these two have a benign bone in their body. And the fact still remains that they were found guilty - even if by default. The bigger story is who made that decision and why. And why has the press dedicated more time to the racist rant of Mel Gibson than all these videos that have surfaced.

The NAACP is going after the tea party. If they were a party to having this dropped, they will lose ALL credibility.


----------



## AllieBaba

I'm trying to think of what it "looks" like to be intimidated, and who gets to determine whether or not somebody else is intimidated based on what they look like.


----------



## chanel

There were allegations that voters in Philly were voting twice. That went nowhere. But maybe that's what these guys were protecting. Hmmmm.

They intimidated the poll watchers - all who testified before the DOJ.


----------



## Truthmatters

how funny conhog calls anyone a racist.

hes the one who spews the word ****** all over.


----------



## Sky Dancer

AllieBaba said:


> I'm trying to think of what it "looks" like to be intimidated, and who gets to determine whether or not somebody else is intimidated based on what they look like.



If someone is armed, they are intimidating.


----------



## Truthmatters

ConHog said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another example of a conservative person pretending to be a liberal in order to make liberals look bad.   We see right through it now TruthMatters, your impact is zero.
> 
> 
> 
> She's right, though. There is no intimidation on the tape. No one is being prevented from entering the precinct and no one is being spoken to except the camera man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you wouldn't feel intimidated if you went to vote in November and a clucker was standing there screaming "******" and slapping his baton on his hand? You're such a liar.
Click to expand...


The man was not doing what you claim on the tape.

Why do you lie?


----------



## Sky Dancer

Silkcity19 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silkcity19 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate retelling this story. I live in the same city that this piece of shit squirms in, hate him, but there is far more to this story them the video shows.
> 
> This area is 99.999% black where this video was shot, the building in the picture is a retirement high rise for the low income , there are project homes surrounding the area, the rest of the neighborhood is crack ridden with criminals, hookers and junkies wandering the streets like zombies.
> Everyone votes at this building from the neighborhood. That being said theses two guys IMHO and with great knowledge of the area were there to protect the elderly in the area, and people coming from the new housing project homes that were just built in the area. There has not been a white person that has voted in that area in 50 years. Once again IMHO these reporters seen this and put their selves into a situation and made a mountain out of a molehill.
> 
> Was this right, no, was it voter intimidation, again no. I have seen this piece of shit countless times in the city I love, and have no problem calling this angry little man the piece of shit he really is, but this time I think he's getting a bad wrap
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that they have credible witnesses who say that white voters were turned away at that polling place.  And at least two of those witnesses were black.  And they apparently have at least some video of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence at hand in Philadelphia includes video of two thuggish African-American men dressed in military fatigues. As one wielded a baton in a menacing manner, they hurled racial slurs at white voters who understandably were scared away from the polling place. The Justice Department under President George W. Bush filed criminal charges against the two men. After Obama took office, default judgments resulted when the defendants failed to show for their trials. But Holder's Justice Department later dropped the charges following a plea deal in which one of the men agreed not to carry a weapon near the Philadelphia polling place until 2012. Both men are now free to intimidate voters again.
> 
> Read more at the Washington Examiner: Reverse discrimination in New Black Panther case | Washington Examiner
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I  don't think anybody is going to buy that those two guys were there to protect the elderly.  Even their NBP spokesperson didn't pretend they were there for that and didn't attempt to make that case.
> 
> I posted this picture on another thread also discussing this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they said they were there to protect the elderly, would you believe them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My friend trust me, there are no white voters in that district.
Click to expand...


But were there white poll watchers?  Someone felt intimidated or there would have been no case.


----------



## Trajan

Truthmatters said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> She's right, though. There is no intimidation on the tape. No one is being prevented from entering the precinct and no one is being spoken to except the camera man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you wouldn't feel intimidated if you went to vote in November and a clucker was standing there screaming "******" and slapping his baton on his hand? You're such a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The man was not doing what you claim on the tape.
> 
> Why do you lie?
Click to expand...


read the affidavit.


----------



## Truthmatters

Produce it


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Truthmatters said:


> Produce it



Black Panthers - Bull Declaration_04.07.2009

there you go

so what is your new defense for this behavior?


----------



## daveman

Ravi said:


> You're no different than the guy in the film that wishes to kill crackers because they disagree with him.
> 
> Total asshole.


But you give the total asshole in the film a pass for his assholery.


----------



## daveman

AllieBaba said:


> I'm trying to think of what it "looks" like to be intimidated, and *who gets to determine whether or not somebody else is intimidated based on what they look like.*



Pffft.  White liberals on the internet, of course.


----------



## Truthmatters

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Produce it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black Panthers - Bull Declaration_04.07.2009
> 
> there you go
> 
> so what is your new defense for this behavior?
Click to expand...


Whos behavior?

You do understand that one witnesses testimony is not enough to convict on right?


----------



## Sky Dancer

If a few black people hate whites do you hate all blacks in return?


----------



## mudwhistle

Truthmatters said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Produce it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black Panthers - Bull Declaration_04.07.2009
> 
> there you go
> 
> so what is your new defense for this behavior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whos behavior?
> 
> You do understand that one witnesses testimony is not enough to convict on right?
Click to expand...


Try 20 million witnesses that watched the video.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Truthmatters said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Produce it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black Panthers - Bull Declaration_04.07.2009
> 
> there you go
> 
> so what is your new defense for this behavior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whos behavior?
> 
> You do understand that one witnesses testimony is not enough to convict on right?
Click to expand...


LOL whats the goalpost now?   I would like to know before I reach it and have you shift it again.

Sworn testimony from the actual case isn't enough so what do you want?  Did you read it...do you know who that man is who gave the testimony?  Look him up sometime (oh you posted in my thread about him   http://www.bartlebull.com/)

Type J Christian Adams into your google, i'm not going to research it for you.  This man was a respected attorney who testified that he was told to drop this case.

Its almost like you have no knowledge of the case and are just making knee jerk posts.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Truthmatters said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Produce it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black Panthers - Bull Declaration_04.07.2009
> 
> there you go
> 
> so what is your new defense for this behavior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whos behavior?
> 
> You do understand that one witnesses testimony is not enough to convict on right?
Click to expand...


I haven't read this entire thread, but i read a good deal of it Please don't tell me you are a dumb assed racist. Because by making excuses for this trash that is all you could be.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Sky Dancer said:


> If a few black people hate whites do you hate all blacks in return?



only if your ignorant.


----------



## Truthmatters

Do you people know the differance between a perponderance of the evidence and one persons testimony?


----------



## daveman

Truthmatters said:


> Do you people know the differance between a perponderance of the evidence and one persons testimony?


You seem to know an awful lot about a case for which the files haven't been released.  

Could it be you're just making shit up?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

daveman said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you people know the differance between a perponderance of the evidence and one persons testimony?
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to know an awful lot about a case for which the files haven't been released.
> 
> Could it be you're just making shit up?
Click to expand...


i found one document that slipped out

Black Panthers - Bull Declaration_04.07.2009


----------



## daveman

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you people know the differance between a perponderance of the evidence and one persons testimony?
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to know an awful lot about a case for which the files haven't been released.
> 
> Could it be you're just making shit up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i found one document that slipped out
> 
> Black Panthers - Bull Declaration_04.07.2009
Click to expand...

He obviously hates black people.


----------



## Truthmatters

daveman said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you people know the differance between a perponderance of the evidence and one persons testimony?
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to know an awful lot about a case for which the files haven't been released.
> 
> Could it be you're just making shit up?
Click to expand...


Oh really then how did you know its true if you had the same level of info that I had?


----------



## hortysir

Ravi said:


> You're no different than the guy in the film that wishes to kill crackers because they disagree with him.
> 
> Total asshole.


Is that a hint of condemnation?
Finally?


----------



## hortysir

Sky Dancer said:


> The case was dismissed due to lack of evidence.  Either the video wasn't admitted or it was inadequate evidence.
> 
> Check history in past administrations.  This isn't the first time voter intimidation was taken lightly.


Incorrect.
A guilty verdict had already been made.
The case wasn't dismissed until the sentencing phase.


----------



## Truthmatters

Please give us the documents that show a conviction had already been handed down?


----------



## chanel

Do you ever read the news?


----------



## daveman

Truthmatters said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you people know the differance between a perponderance of the evidence and one persons testimony?
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to know an awful lot about a case for which the files haven't been released.
> 
> Could it be you're just making shit up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really then how did you know its true if you had the same level of info that I had?
Click to expand...

Because they filed the suit to begin with!


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

daveman said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to know an awful lot about a case for which the files haven't been released.
> 
> Could it be you're just making shit up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really then how did you know its true if you had the same level of info that I had?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they filed the suit to begin with!
Click to expand...


And then were ordered to voluntairily dismiss it after they won the conviction but prior to the sentancing.

That is according to the sworn testimony of one of the lawyers involved, J Christian Adams.  Use google for more information about it Truth


----------



## chanel

> The first three live witnesses were Mike Mauro, Chris Hill, and Bartle Bull. Mauro is a lawyer from Connecticut who had gone to Philadelphia as a volunteer. Hill is a former infantry soldier who lives only nine blocks from the polling place. They were part of a roving team that responded on Election Day to *a desperate call for help from a black poll watcher. *The poll watcher told Hill that the Panthers had called him a race traitor and threatened him, saying there would be hell to pay if he came out. Hill said *the man was visibly scared* and had clearly been intimidated. Hill added that the poll watcher *was afraid to testify *before the commission or in the original voter-intimidation case because he lives in that neighborhood.
> 
> Hill was called a white devil and a cracker, and was told he would be ruled by the black man the next day, and he would have to get used to living under his boot. Hill saw several voters, i*ncluding two elderly women, *stop abruptly as they were walking up to the polling place when they saw the two Panthers standing right in front of the door. The voters *turned around and left*; they said they would come back later to vote.



Voter Intimidation, New Black Panther Style | The Heritage Foundation

These were LIVE witnesses - not Adam.  Sheez.


----------



## hortysir

Not that truth really matters, but:
Here's a link for ya.
If you don't like the source, prove/link it wrong or secede


> After the case was effectively won by the Department of Justice  and a default sentencing was imminent in May of 2009, the DOJ made the  unheard of move to suddenly file a notice of voluntary dismissal of the  lawsuit for two of the defendants.


Department of 'Social Justice'? - Glenn Beck - FOXNews.com


----------



## daveman

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really then how did you know its true if you had the same level of info that I had?
> 
> 
> 
> Because they filed the suit to begin with!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And then were ordered to voluntairily dismiss it after they won the conviction but prior to the sentancing.
> 
> That is according to the sworn testimony of one of the lawyers involved, J Christian Adams.  Use google for more information about it Truth
Click to expand...


She doesn't want more information.  All she wants is what she's already been programmed with.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Truthmatters said:


> Please give us the documents that show a conviction had already been handed down?



didn't you receive a link to the lawsuit filed to get that document released?   Yeah that was rhetorical as I know you were.

Asking for something that isn't available.   The only reason I was able to produce a document from the actual court case is that it got released before the lawyer resigned last tuesday turning this into a story again.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

chanel said:


> The first three live witnesses were Mike Mauro, Chris Hill, and Bartle Bull. Mauro is a lawyer from Connecticut who had gone to Philadelphia as a volunteer. Hill is a former infantry soldier who lives only nine blocks from the polling place. They were part of a roving team that responded on Election Day to *a desperate call for help from a black poll watcher. *The poll watcher told Hill that the Panthers had called him a race traitor and threatened him, saying there would be hell to pay if he came out. Hill said *the man was visibly scared* and had clearly been intimidated. Hill added that the poll watcher *was afraid to testify *before the commission or in the original voter-intimidation case because he lives in that neighborhood.
> 
> Hill was called a white devil and a cracker, and was told he would be ruled by the black man the next day, and he would have to get used to living under his boot. Hill saw several voters, i*ncluding two elderly women, *stop abruptly as they were walking up to the polling place when they saw the two Panthers standing right in front of the door. The voters *turned around and left*; they said they would come back later to vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voter Intimidation, New Black Panther Style | The Heritage Foundation
> 
> These were LIVE witnesses - not Adam.  Sheez.
Click to expand...


Hey in case you missed it a few pages ago here is the actual document of one of those men's testimony

Black Panthers - Bull Declaration_04.07.2009


----------



## Ravi

chanel said:


> There were allegations that voters in Philly were voting twice. That went nowhere. But maybe that's what these guys were protecting. Hmmmm.
> 
> They intimidated the poll watchers - all who testified before the DOJ.


 Sometimes I think you drink.


----------



## chanel

Oh I drink.  

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of60z-MOYrE]YouTube - Double Voting In Philly[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZwng4omanI]YouTube - CNN-Philly Man says he is voted a couple of times[/ame]


----------



## Truthmatters

hortysir said:


> Not that truth really matters, but:
> Here's a link for ya.
> If you don't like the source, prove/link it wrong or secede
> 
> 
> 
> After the case was effectively won by the Department of Justice  and a default sentencing was imminent in May of 2009, the DOJ made the  unheard of move to suddenly file a notice of voluntary dismissal of the  lawsuit for two of the defendants.
> 
> 
> 
> Department of 'Social Justice'? - Glenn Beck - FOXNews.com
Click to expand...


Beck is not an acceptable source


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

*Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence -John Adams*


----------



## chanel

This is both funny and quite sad. Pilgrim could say "I was there. I was afraid to vote. My wife voted twice" and TM would say "Oh no you dinnit!" 

Funny how she demands that Republicans own every act of terror comitted by a white guy, but she can't see the hypocrisy here. Sad indeed.


----------



## Care4all

*So, I hear on the news TONIGHT, that FOX NEWS FAILED to tell you as they are making a big deal about this New Black Panther group and the blogs FUELING the racism call on Obama and Holder, that it was the BUSH ADMNINISTRATION that CHOSE NOT to charge these people criminally.... *

Were YOU(all of you) played a FOOL by the right wing, making you say and think that it was Holder and Obama that did not go after these people for voter intimidation?


----------



## Againsheila

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a few black people hate whites do you hate all blacks in return?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> only if your ignorant.
Click to expand...


you're.....sorry, but when using words like "stupid" and "ignorant", you should make sure you aren't showing yourself to be the same.


----------



## Immanuel

Truthmatters said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Produce it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black Panthers - Bull Declaration_04.07.2009
> 
> there you go
> 
> so what is your new defense for this behavior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whos behavior?
> 
> You do understand that one witnesses testimony is not enough to convict on right?
Click to expand...


OMG!  But as far as you are concerned an accusation by a single Democrat (Malone) is proof of corruption of the entire Republican Party.  My Lord, you are unbelievable.

Immie


----------



## Silkcity19

chanel said:


> Silkcity and I have had this debate before. And while I accepted that their motives may have been benign, their methods were not. However, as we have seen recently, there is no reason to believe that these two have a benign bone in their body. And the fact still remains that they were found guilty - even if by default. The bigger story is who made that decision and why. And why has the press dedicated more time to the racist rant of Mel Gibson than all these videos that have surfaced.
> 
> The NAACP is going after the tea party. If they were a party to having this dropped, they will lose ALL credibility.



And how i love debating with a beautiful women


----------



## SFC Ollie

Care4all said:


> *So, I hear on the news TONIGHT, that FOX NEWS FAILED to tell you as they are making a big deal about this New Black Panther group and the blogs FUELING the racism call on Obama and Holder, that it was the BUSH ADMNINISTRATION that CHOSE NOT to charge these people criminally.... *
> 
> Were YOU(all of you) played a FOOL by the right wing, making you say and think that it was Holder and Obama that did not go after these people for voter intimidation?



This is dated 7 April 09. well after Bush was gone.
Black Panthers - Bull Declaration_04.07.2009


----------



## daveman

Care4all said:


> *So, I hear on the news TONIGHT, that FOX NEWS FAILED to tell you as they are making a big deal about this New Black Panther group and the blogs FUELING the racism call on Obama and Holder, that it was the BUSH ADMNINISTRATION that CHOSE NOT to charge these people criminally.... *
> 
> Were YOU(all of you) played a FOOL by the right wing, making you say and think that it was Holder and Obama that did not go after these people for voter intimidation?


What news, Care?


----------



## Truthmatters

Who is malone?

BTW bush DOJ filed a civil injuction against the black panther dudes on 1/7/2009.

That means there was no dropping of the case by holder, they won an injuction against one of the guys( the club guy) for carring a weapon in front of a polling place, not intimidation.

The Bush DOJ decided themselves that no criminal case would fly.


----------



## Truthmatters

Care4all said:


> *So, I hear on the news TONIGHT, that FOX NEWS FAILED to tell you as they are making a big deal about this New Black Panther group and the blogs FUELING the racism call on Obama and Holder, that it was the BUSH ADMNINISTRATION that CHOSE NOT to charge these people criminally.... *
> 
> Were YOU(all of you) played a FOOL by the right wing, making you say and think that it was Holder and Obama that did not go after these people for voter intimidation?



They will just rewrite the history when they can.


----------



## Immanuel

Care4all said:


> *So, I hear on the news TONIGHT, that FOX NEWS FAILED to tell you as they are making a big deal about this New Black Panther group and the blogs FUELING the racism call on Obama and Holder, that it was the BUSH ADMNINISTRATION that CHOSE NOT to charge these people criminally.... *
> 
> Were YOU(all of you) played a FOOL by the right wing, making you say and think that it was Holder and Obama that did not go after these people for voter intimidation?



Wasn't that the claim of MediaMatters?

I guess that is your proof.  I'm not yet sure what happened, but I did read that shit in a link provided a few days ago from MediaMatters.  I'm not convinced of its accuracy.

Immie


----------



## SFC Ollie

Truthmatters said:


> Who is malone?
> 
> BTW bush DOJ filed a civil injuction against the black panther dudes on 1/7/2009.
> 
> That means there was no dropping of the case by holder, they won an injuction against one of the guys( the club guy) for carring a weapon in front of a polling place, not intimidation.
> 
> The Bush DOJ decided themselves that no criminal case would fly.



How did Bush manage that when he left power 2 1/2 months before that? besides that who dropped whatever case there was after it was won?


----------



## Immanuel

Truthmatters said:


> Who is malone?
> 
> BTW bush DOJ filed a civil injuction against the black panther dudes on 1/7/2009.
> 
> That means there was no dropping of the case by holder, they won an injuction against one of the guys( the club guy) for carring a weapon in front of a polling place, not intimidation.
> 
> The Bush DOJ decided themselves that no criminal case would fly.



How quickly you forget when your ass gets handed to you on a silver platter.

Malone was one of the the cases from the link that YOU provided that you claimed proved RNC corruption.  The case was dismissed, but it was one that you have claimed was proof of RNC corruption for a couple of weeks now.

Here is the post you gave us the link to.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...y-keep-blacks-from-voting-21.html#post2462679

And here is the link you provided note that the case was dismissed.  However, though the rest of that thread you used this link as one of the absolute proofs of RNC corruption.

DNC v. RNC Consent Decree | Brennan Center for Justice

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

Truthmatters said:


> Who is malone?
> 
> BTW bush DOJ filed a civil injuction against the black panther dudes on 1/7/2009.
> 
> That means there was no dropping of the case by holder, they won an injuction against one of the guys( the club guy) for carring a weapon in front of a polling place, not intimidation.
> 
> The Bush DOJ decided themselves that no criminal case would fly.



OMG!  Why do you think it is illegal to carry a weapon in from of a polling place?  Why because it is intimidating and works to scare voters away.

Immie


----------



## Truthmatters

Umm idiot the case was dismissed why?


Because the Republican party entered a consent decree with the democratic party in which they could no longer do any voter purging.

they then also broke the consent decree repeatedly.

There was plenty of evidence and I still dont know who malone is


----------



## Truthmatters

Immanuel said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is malone?
> 
> BTW bush DOJ filed a civil injuction against the black panther dudes on 1/7/2009.
> 
> That means there was no dropping of the case by holder, they won an injuction against one of the guys( the club guy) for carring a weapon in front of a polling place, not intimidation.
> 
> The Bush DOJ decided themselves that no criminal case would fly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!  Why do you think it is illegal to carry a weapon in from of a polling place?  Why because it is intimidating and works to scare voters away.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


They did not charge him with intimidation , they got him to refrain from carrying a weapon near a polling place.

BTW it was the Bush DOJ who dropped the criminal case silly


----------



## Immanuel

Truthmatters said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is malone?
> 
> BTW bush DOJ filed a civil injuction against the black panther dudes on 1/7/2009.
> 
> That means there was no dropping of the case by holder, they won an injuction against one of the guys( the club guy) for carring a weapon in front of a polling place, not intimidation.
> 
> The Bush DOJ decided themselves that no criminal case would fly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!  Why do you think it is illegal to carry a weapon in from of a polling place?  Why because it is intimidating and works to scare voters away.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did not charge him with intimidation , they got him to refrain from carrying a weapon near a polling place.
> 
> BTW it was the Bush DOJ who dropped the criminal case silly
Click to expand...


Right... why don't you present the evidence to that... silly?

Of course, how could that have happened if the case was dropped long after Bush left office.  Let me guess, you are going to claim that because there may still have been Bush appointees in the DOJ at the time of the dropping of the case, that it was Bushes decision.

Not surprisingly, I suspect that is exactly what you believe.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

Truthmatters said:


> Umm idiot the case was dismissed why?
> 
> 
> Because the Republican party entered a consent decree with the democratic party in which they could no longer do any voter purging.
> 
> they then also broke the consent decree repeatedly.
> 
> There was plenty of evidence and I still dont know who malone is



Um, idiot, you are lying again.

The consent decree had been in effect for seventeen years before the case was even filed and the later request for the dismissal of the consent decree (which was denied) didn't come until five years later.  

The Malone case was filed because the intervenor "claimed" that the RNC had broken the consent decree.  It was dismissed because of the _en banc_ decision.

Malone was a suit to enforce the Consent Decree that had been in force for 17 years.  It was not dismissed because of the decree!  The Malone case was based upon the accusation that the RNC had used caging tactics and there was not plenty of evidence or it would not have been thrown out.

Maybe you should read your own links?

You don't know who Malone is?  You screamed for three days that the Malone Case was proof positive of RNC Corruption, moron, but you don't even know what the case was about?  Just proves you are an idiot!

Immie


----------



## ConHog

TruthMatters is the worst kind of scum. Racist, stupid, hard headed, willfully ignorant, and possibly psychotic. If I had a dog that showed those traits well, I would no longer have a dog.


----------



## Ravi

Our story so far.

Black man accused of voter intimidation on the say so of Republican operatives.

Charges mostly dropped when it is discovered that said voter intimidation happened in a predominantly black precinct.

"Conservatives" go wild, never realizing how foolish it would be to make a federal case out of a black man intimidating black people into voting for a black man.

"Conservatives" accuse everyone that doubts voter intimidation was occurring of racism, while insisting that black men cover up black crimes.

You people amaze me sometimes.


----------



## Truthmatters

Actually he was charged with a civil injuction and not a criminal charge by the Bush era people.

The DOJ under Obama won the civil injunction for the guy with the billy club for carryong a weapon near a polling place. The case against the other two was dropped because well they were not carrying a billy club.


Not voter intimidation but carrying a weapon.

Now the right got its little lacy panties all twisted up yesterday because "Obama" didnt try these guys and dropped the Bush case. Sad part is the case was not dropped against the guy they keep screaming about and it was in fact won. They were mad because more didnt happen to this guy. It was filed under Bush not Obama so it should be Bush they are mad at. I dont think they will twist their lacy little panties about it anymore. Dig the lace out of your cracks people and realise you have been played YET AGAIN by the right wing media bosses who seem to own your every emotion.


----------



## Truthmatters

ConHog said:


> TruthMatters is the worst kind of scum. Racist, stupid, hard headed, willfully ignorant, and possibly psychotic. If I had a dog that showed those traits well, I would no longer have a dog.



Says the guy who likes to call black people ******


----------



## Ravi

Truthmatters said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> TruthMatters is the worst kind of scum. Racist, stupid, hard headed, willfully ignorant, and possibly psychotic. If I had a dog that showed those traits well, I would no longer have a dog.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy who likes to call black people ******
Click to expand...

Worse, he calls whites and Mexicans ****** and yet insists that only blacks are *******.



Still waiting for Babble to take him to task.


----------



## Truthmatters

Immanuel said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm idiot the case was dismissed why?
> 
> 
> Because the Republican party entered a consent decree with the democratic party in which they could no longer do any voter purging.
> 
> they then also broke the consent decree repeatedly.
> 
> There was plenty of evidence and I still dont know who malone is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, idiot, you are lying again.
> 
> The consent decree had been in effect for seventeen years before the case was even filed and the later request for the dismissal of the consent decree (which was denied) didn't come until five years later.
> 
> The Malone case was filed because the intervenor "claimed" that the RNC had broken the consent decree.  It was dismissed because of the _en banc_ decision.
> 
> Malone was a suit to enforce the Consent Decree that had been in force for 17 years.  It was not dismissed because of the decree!  The Malone case was based upon the accusation that the RNC had used caging tactics and there was not plenty of evidence or it would not have been thrown out.
> 
> Maybe you should read your own links?
> 
> You don't know who Malone is?  You screamed for three days that the Malone Case was proof positive of RNC Corruption, moron, but you don't even know what the case was about?  Just proves you are an idiot!
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Please go get the particulars of this case, I would like to see dociumentation of what you claim.

BTW was the "malone" case of which you speak the only infraction the republican party was said to have made against the consent decree?

I sreamed about the repeated infractions over the years Immie and now you claim I ONLY talked of one?

I dont even know who malone is.

Looks like to me YOU picked out one infraction that was settled in the rs favor out of the long list of court cases.


----------



## Truthmatters

Ravi said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> TruthMatters is the worst kind of scum. Racist, stupid, hard headed, willfully ignorant, and possibly psychotic. If I had a dog that showed those traits well, I would no longer have a dog.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy who likes to call black people ******
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Worse, he calls whites and Mexicans ****** and yet insists that only blacks are *******.
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for Babble to take him to task.
Click to expand...


Immie caledl me a racist for telling people the guy was repeatedly using the word, I go back to the thread and see Immie nicely asking him not to use the word and never once called him a racist for actually using it as an epithat.

Ive known Immie for like 7 years and he used to be a fair guy, hes now one of the mouth breathing rabble who piss in their own eyes daily.


----------



## Ravi

Truthmatters said:


> Actually he was charged with a civil injuction and not a criminal charge by the Bush era people.
> 
> The DOJ under Obama won the civil injunction for the guy with the billy club for carryong a weapon near a polling place. The case against the other two was dropped because well they were not carrying a billy club.
> 
> 
> Not voter intimidation but carrying a weapon.
> 
> Now the right got its little lacy panties all twisted up yesterday because "Obama" didnt try these guys and dropped the Bush case. Sad part is the case was not dropped against the guy they keep screaming about and it was in fact won. They were mad because more didnt happen to this guy. It was filed under Bush not Obama so it should be Bush they are mad at. I dont think they will twist their lacy little panties about it anymore. Dig the lace out of your cracks people and realise you have been played YET AGAIN by the right wing media bosses who seem to own your every emotion.


Not to mention that the Bush Administration decided this wasn't worth pursuing.



> *When Was The New Black Panther Case  Downgraded?*
> I did an interview with _New York Daily News_ Columnist *Errol  Louis* about the New Black Panther Party case today and realized  that there's a specific data point that has been lost in all the  breathless coverage of this case and whether or not it represents a  racist agenda from the *Obama* administration: The decision not to  file a criminal case occurred before Obama was even in office.
> From the testimony  of *Thomas Perez*, head of the Civil Rights Division,  before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in May:


Adam Serwer Archive | The American Prospect

Damn, I can't wait to see the spin on this.

"Conservatives" really do seem to believe that black people are evil liars.

Sad.


----------



## Ravi

Truthmatters said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy who likes to call black people ******
> 
> 
> 
> Worse, he calls whites and Mexicans ****** and yet insists that only blacks are *******.
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for Babble to take him to task.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Immie caledl me a racist for telling people the guy was repeatedly using the word,* I go back to the thread and see Immie nicely asking him not to use the word and never once called him a racist for actually using it as an epithat.
> 
> Ive known Immie for like 7 years and he used to be a fair guy, hes now one of the mouth breathing rabble who piss in their own eyes daily.
Click to expand...

I hope that isn't true, it doesn't sound like something Immie would do. However, Babble calls me a racist for pointing out that cornjob calls people *******.

wtf is wrong with people?


----------



## Truthmatters

I was surprized too, yes he did do this, I pointed it out to him and he insulted me some more.


----------



## Truthmatters

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...ents-in-tea-party-movement-4.html#post2502600

Here the start of it, he blows my mind by insisting Im a racist for telling people conhog has been calling black people ******* repeatedly but for conhog all he has is sweet talk.


----------



## Ravi




----------



## hortysir

Truthmatters said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not that truth really matters, but:
> Here's a link for ya.
> *If you don't like the source, prove/link it wrong *or secede
> 
> 
> 
> After the case was effectively won by the Department of Justice  and a default sentencing was imminent in May of 2009, the DOJ made the  unheard of move to suddenly file a notice of voluntary dismissal of the  lawsuit for two of the defendants.
> 
> 
> 
> Department of 'Social Justice'? - Glenn Beck - FOXNews.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beck is not an acceptable source
Click to expand...

Then prove it wrong.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Care4all said:


> *So, I hear on the news TONIGHT, that FOX NEWS FAILED to tell you as they are making a big deal about this New Black Panther group and the blogs FUELING the racism call on Obama and Holder, that it was the BUSH ADMNINISTRATION that CHOSE NOT to charge these people criminally.... *
> 
> Were YOU(all of you) played a FOOL by the right wing, making you say and think that it was Holder and Obama that did not go after these people for voter intimidation?



The charges were dropped in 09 care...after bush left office.

Bush's admin is the one who started the prosecution though.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Againsheila said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a few black people hate whites do you hate all blacks in return?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> only if your ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you're.....sorry, but when using words like "stupid" and "ignorant", you should make sure you aren't showing yourself to be the same.
Click to expand...


Againsheila do you not find racism to be a sign of ignorance?

According to what you are saying in your post it seems like you do not find racism to equal ignorance.  What is the opposite of ignorance?  Enlighthenment....so racists are enlightened in your book?

I'm only asking as your post has me confused as to your position on racism now.


----------



## Truthmatters

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> *So, I hear on the news TONIGHT, that FOX NEWS FAILED to tell you as they are making a big deal about this New Black Panther group and the blogs FUELING the racism call on Obama and Holder, that it was the BUSH ADMNINISTRATION that CHOSE NOT to charge these people criminally.... *
> 
> Were YOU(all of you) played a FOOL by the right wing, making you say and think that it was Holder and Obama that did not go after these people for voter intimidation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The charges were dropped in 09 care...after bush left office.
> 
> Bush's admin is the one who started the prosecution though.
Click to expand...


no under Bush the charges were a civil injunction.

Under Obama they guy with the billy club was sucessfully charged with the civil injunction.

The two cohorts had their civil injuctions abandoned.

So you people were whipped into a false frenzy by the right wing media.


----------



## hortysir

Ravi said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually he was charged with a civil injuction and not a criminal charge by the Bush era people.
> 
> The DOJ under Obama won the civil injunction for the guy with the billy club for carryong a weapon near a polling place. The case against the other two was dropped because well they were not carrying a billy club.
> 
> 
> Not voter intimidation but carrying a weapon.
> 
> Now the right got its little lacy panties all twisted up yesterday because "Obama" didnt try these guys and dropped the Bush case. Sad part is the case was not dropped against the guy they keep screaming about and it was in fact won. They were mad because more didnt happen to this guy. It was filed under Bush not Obama so it should be Bush they are mad at. I dont think they will twist their lacy little panties about it anymore. Dig the lace out of your cracks people and realise you have been played YET AGAIN by the right wing media bosses who seem to own your every emotion.
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention that the Bush Administration decided this wasn't worth pursuing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *When Was The New Black Panther Case  Downgraded?*
> I did an interview with _New York Daily News_ Columnist *Errol  Louis* about the New Black Panther Party case today and realized  that there's a specific data point that has been lost in all the  breathless coverage of this case and whether or not it represents a  racist agenda from the *Obama* administration: The decision not to  file a criminal case occurred before Obama was even in office.
> From the testimony  of *Thomas Perez*, head of the Civil Rights Division,  before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in May:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Adam Serwer Archive | The American Prospect
> 
> Damn, I can't wait to see the spin on this.
> 
> "Conservatives" really do seem to believe that black people are evil liars.
> 
> Sad.
Click to expand...

Ya'll are being fed 2 half-truths, and you're making it a whole.
Yes it's true it was the previous admin that brought charges, and then downgraded it to a civil suit. There is the one half.
That, also, makes it true that it wasn't this admin that downgraded the case. There is your other half.

Now. 
AFTER the case was lowered to a civil case, the defendant was found to be guilty. Whether it was intimidation or carrying a weapon (which is the same thing, really), it is still GUILTY.

THIS admin shut it down before the sentencing phase.


While I'm here, I would like to point out a statement that was made that I think is one of the most racially ignorant posts of the decade.



			
				 Ravi said:
			
		

> "Conservatives" go wild, never realizing how foolish it would be to make  a federal case out of a black man intimidating black people into voting  for a black man.


----------



## chanel

The penalty for voter intimidation is 1 - 5 years in jail. The penalty for Shabazz was "don't do that again in PHILLY til 2012" Of course he can go anywhere else. Ridiculous.

Despite the "fox news blah blah blah" the truth will come out and at a minimum, the DOJ may start doing their fricken job. Of course the naysayers don't want that. They think felons and illegals should have the right to vote. And white people suck.


----------



## Annie

Truthmatters said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> *So, I hear on the news TONIGHT, that FOX NEWS FAILED to tell you as they are making a big deal about this New Black Panther group and the blogs FUELING the racism call on Obama and Holder, that it was the BUSH ADMNINISTRATION that CHOSE NOT to charge these people criminally.... *
> 
> Were YOU(all of you) played a FOOL by the right wing, making you say and think that it was Holder and Obama that did not go after these people for voter intimidation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The charges were dropped in 09 care...after bush left office.
> 
> Bush's admin is the one who started the prosecution though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no under Bush the charges were a civil injunction.
> 
> Under Obama they guy with the billy club was sucessfully charged with the civil injunction.
> 
> The two cohorts had their civil injuctions abandoned.
> 
> So you people were whipped into a false frenzy by the right wing media.
Click to expand...


Shockingly TM has some FACTS and TRUTHS wrong. Better summary found in this 9/09 article, which predates the latest broohaha.

EXCLUSIVE: Inquiry opened into New Black Panther case - Washington Times



> The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility has begun an official inquiry into the dismissal in May of a civil complaint against the New Black Panther Party and two of its members who disrupted a Philadelphia polling place during the November general elections.
> 
> The inquiry is disclosed in an Aug. 28 letter to Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee who first raised questions about the dismissal in May and asked unsuccessfully that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. make available the head of the department's Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division for a closed-door briefing on the decision.
> 
> ...
> 
> In January, the Justice Department filed a civil complaint in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia against the New Black Panther Party, claiming two of its members in black berets, black combat boots, black shirts and black jackets with military insignias intimidated voters with racial insults, slurs and a nightstick. A third party member was accused of managing, directing and endorsing their behavior.
> 
> The complaint said two New Black Panthers 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 continue 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."...
> 
> ...Witnesses said Mr. Samir Shabazz, armed with the nightstick, and Mr. Jackson used racial slurs and made threats as they stood outside the polling place door.
> 
> The Justice Department did obtain an injunction against Mr. Samir Shabazz that prohibits him from brandishing a weapon outside a polling place through Nov. 15, 2012, and Ms. Schmaler has said the department "will fully enforce the terms of that injunction."
> 
> Mr. Jackson was an elected member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee and was credentialed to be at the polling place as an official Democratic Party polling watcher, according to the Philadelphia city commissioner's office. Records show he obtained new credentials as a poll watcher "at any ward/division in Philadelphia" just days after the charges against him were dismissed.
> 
> None of the New Black Panthers responded to the charges or made any appearance in court. The party has not returned e-mails for comment, and the voice mailbox at its Washington headquarters Wednesday was full....
> 
> ...The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights also has demanded that the Justice Department explain the dismissal, saying a previous response "paints the department in a poor light." In a letter to Mr. Holder, the commission noted that it is "answerable" to the president, Congress and the public to ensure that civil rights laws are enforced and had the authority to subpoena witnesses and documents to guarantee that the laws are being followed.
> 
> Commissioner Todd Gaziano, an independent named to the agency by Congress in February 2008, has outlined a witness list in a request for a "major study project" by the commission that would include an extensive investigation by its staff armed with subpoenas and public hearings in both Washington and Philadelphia.
> 
> Mr. Gaziano, a former Justice Department lawyer who served in the Office of Legal Counsel during the Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations, said the commission needs to determine, among other things, whether the decision to drop the charges constituted a departure from prior enforcement policy and whether it ultimately would lead to more voter intimidation.
> 
> "The dismissal of the lawsuit has the potential to significantly change the understanding some officials have regarding the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, for good or for bad," he said.


----------



## Foxfyre

The outrage that should be noted is that if the complaint is correct that Justice told everybody to back off from the Black Panthers or New Black Panthers period, that should send chills down the spines of ALL law abiding Americans whatever your skin color might be.  That's just wrong.

And if they drop the investigation into whether that is in fact the case, then there is no hope that we will ever see impartial and unbiased law enforcement from this Justice Dept. or Admnistration.

Even the most leftists among us should want better from their government.


----------



## KMAN

hortysir said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not that truth really matters, but:
> Here's a link for ya.
> *If you don't like the source, prove/link it wrong *or secede
> Department of 'Social Justice'? - Glenn Beck - FOXNews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beck is not an acceptable source
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then prove it wrong.
Click to expand...


You have probably figured this out by now but any source that has a different point of view than truthmatters is not reliable.  Yet another reason people hate liberals so much.  It never goes both ways with them.


----------



## Yukon.

To quote Glenn Beck as a credible source is like saying Hitler liked the Jews. Beck is an absolute crazy racist wack-job who should be jailed for his subtle threats against Obama.


----------



## Immanuel

Truthmatters said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm idiot the case was dismissed why?
> 
> 
> Because the Republican party entered a consent decree with the democratic party in which they could no longer do any voter purging.
> 
> they then also broke the consent decree repeatedly.
> 
> There was plenty of evidence and I still dont know who malone is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, idiot, you are lying again.
> 
> The consent decree had been in effect for seventeen years before the case was even filed and the later request for the dismissal of the consent decree (which was denied) didn't come until five years later.
> 
> The Malone case was filed because the intervenor "claimed" that the RNC had broken the consent decree.  It was dismissed because of the _en banc_ decision.
> 
> Malone was a suit to enforce the Consent Decree that had been in force for 17 years.  It was not dismissed because of the decree!  The Malone case was based upon the accusation that the RNC had used caging tactics and there was not plenty of evidence or it would not have been thrown out.
> 
> Maybe you should read your own links?
> 
> You don't know who Malone is?  You screamed for three days that the Malone Case was proof positive of RNC Corruption, moron, but you don't even know what the case was about?  Just proves you are an idiot!
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please go get the particulars of this case, I would like to see dociumentation of what you claim.
> 
> BTW was the "malone" case of which you speak the only infraction the republican party was said to have made against the consent decree?
> 
> I sreamed about the repeated infractions over the years Immie and now you claim I ONLY talked of one?
> 
> I dont even know who malone is.
> 
> Looks like to me YOU picked out one infraction that was settled in the rs favor out of the long list of court cases.
Click to expand...


I linked the case that you linked first moron! The particulars are in the link that you initially provided and then when I brought it up and you asked about it, I went and dug out your own link for you.  Don't be stupid.  I am not going to dig it out again.  It is in this set of posts we are discussing now.

You are such an idiot.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

Truthmatters said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy who likes to call black people ******
> 
> 
> 
> Worse, he calls whites and Mexicans ****** and yet insists that only blacks are *******.
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for Babble to take him to task.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immie caledl me a racist for telling people the guy was repeatedly using the word, I go back to the thread and see Immie nicely asking him not to use the word and never once called him a racist for actually using it as an epithat.
> 
> *Ive known Immie for like 7 years and he used to be a fair guy, hes now one of the mouth breathing rabble who piss in their own eyes daily*.
Click to expand...


You have described yourself to a T.

And I did ask him nicely three times.  I have treated you nicely many, many times and you have been shitting on me forever.

You expect me to just take your shit without giving in return?  Shove that up your ass and spit it out into Obama's because that is where your head is.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

Ravi said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worse, he calls whites and Mexicans ****** and yet insists that only blacks are *******.
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for Babble to take him to task.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Immie caledl me a racist for telling people the guy was repeatedly using the word,* I go back to the thread and see Immie nicely asking him not to use the word and never once called him a racist for actually using it as an epithat.
> 
> Ive known Immie for like 7 years and he used to be a fair guy, hes now one of the mouth breathing rabble who piss in their own eyes daily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hope that isn't true, it doesn't sound like something Immie would do. However, Babble calls me a racist for pointing out that cornjob calls people *******.
> 
> wtf is wrong with people?
Click to expand...


She is throwing the word around as if it was the word "the".  She is calling everyone on the right racist.  It kind of gets sickening and when someone does that, I have to believe they are in fact racists.

She is projecting.

I did ask CONhog nicely to stop using the word.  I have done so three times, actually if he is reading this thread, it could be stated that I have done it many more times including in this post.  Sometimes you have to use different methods with different people. 

TM has been asked nicely by me to stop lying especially to stop lying about me, but she keeps doing so.  She has every right to expect my ire.

Immie


----------



## L.K.Eder

Immanuel said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worse, he calls whites and Mexicans ****** and yet insists that only blacks are *******.
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for Babble to take him to task.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immie caledl me a racist for telling people the guy was repeatedly using the word, I go back to the thread and see Immie nicely asking him not to use the word and never once called him a racist for actually using it as an epithat.
> 
> *Ive known Immie for like 7 years and he used to be a fair guy, hes now one of the mouth breathing rabble who piss in their own eyes daily*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have described yourself to a T.
> 
> And I did ask him nicely three times.  I have treated you nicely many, many times and you have been shitting on me forever.
> 
> You expect me to just take your shit without giving in return?  Shove that up your ass and spit it out into Obama's because that is where your head is.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


just don't kill each other's pets, rose-warriors.


----------



## Coyote

Annie said:


> Mr. Gaziano, a former Justice Department lawyer who served in the Office of Legal Counsel during the Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations, said the commission needs to determine, among other things, *whether the decision to drop the charges constituted a departure from prior enforcement policy* and whether it ultimately would lead to more voter intimidation.



That should be interesting.


----------



## Immanuel

L.K.Eder said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immie caledl me a racist for telling people the guy was repeatedly using the word, I go back to the thread and see Immie nicely asking him not to use the word and never once called him a racist for actually using it as an epithat.
> 
> *Ive known Immie for like 7 years and he used to be a fair guy, hes now one of the mouth breathing rabble who piss in their own eyes daily*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have described yourself to a T.
> 
> And I did ask him nicely three times.  I have treated you nicely many, many times and you have been shitting on me forever.
> 
> You expect me to just take your shit without giving in return?  Shove that up your ass and spit it out into Obama's because that is where your head is.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> just don't kill each other's pets, rose-warriors.
Click to expand...


I would never kill a pet... unless it was a pet tarantula that somehow got loose in my house.

Immie


----------



## Annie

Coyote said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Gaziano, a former Justice Department lawyer who served in the Office of Legal Counsel during the Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations, said the commission needs to determine, among other things, *whether the decision to drop the charges constituted a departure from prior enforcement policy* and whether it ultimately would lead to more voter intimidation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That should be interesting.
Click to expand...


I think so. This article as I stated was written in Sept. of last year. At the time, really only the more conservative news sources covered more than the 'dropping' of charges. Now I notice, all the players are covering the broohaha, which they tried for weeks to ignore. This coverage has been driven by FOX and much more so by the alternative media of blogs and Pajamas Media in particular.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Immanuel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Immie caledl me a racist for telling people the guy was repeatedly using the word,* I go back to the thread and see Immie nicely asking him not to use the word and never once called him a racist for actually using it as an epithat.
> 
> Ive known Immie for like 7 years and he used to be a fair guy, hes now one of the mouth breathing rabble who piss in their own eyes daily.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that isn't true, it doesn't sound like something Immie would do. However, Babble calls me a racist for pointing out that cornjob calls people *******.
> 
> wtf is wrong with people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She is throwing the word around as if it was the word "the".  She is calling everyone on the right racist.  It kind of gets sickening and when someone does that, I have to believe they are in fact racists.
> 
> She is projecting.
> 
> I did ask CONhog nicely to stop using the word.  I have done so three times, actually if he is reading this thread, it could be stated that I have done it many more times including in this post.  Sometimes you have to use different methods with different people.
> 
> TM has been asked nicely by me to stop lying especially to stop lying about me, but she keeps doing so.  She has every right to expect my ire.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Lighten up Nancy, it's just a word. And as far as TM being honest? You can forget it.


----------



## Ravi

Coyote said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Gaziano, a former Justice Department lawyer who served in the Office of Legal Counsel during the Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations, said the commission needs to determine, among other things, *whether the decision to drop the charges constituted a departure from prior enforcement policy* and whether it ultimately would lead to more voter intimidation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That should be interesting.
Click to expand...

Well...seeing as the Bush administration downgraded the charges and the Bush administration didn't pursue charges with the Arizona militiamen intimidating Latinos, I'd say it didn't constitue a departure from prior enforcement policy.

But lets enjoy watching the "conservatives" insist it is a racial thing.


----------



## hortysir

Yukon. said:


> To quote Glenn Beck as a credible source is like saying Hitler liked the Jews. Beck is an absolute crazy racist wack-job who should be jailed for his subtle threats against Obama.


Then I propose the same challenge to you.
Provide your own "credible source" proving him wrong.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

hortysir said:


> Yukon. said:
> 
> 
> 
> To quote Glenn Beck as a credible source is like saying Hitler liked the Jews. Beck is an absolute crazy racist wack-job who should be jailed for his subtle threats against Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> Then I propose the same challenge to you.
> Provide your own "credible source" proving him wrong.
Click to expand...


 @ Yukon.

Someone is off their meds I see.


@ hortysir....they can't prove him wrong which is why you are getting responses like the one you quoted.


----------



## Coyote

Ravi said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Gaziano, a former Justice Department lawyer who served in the Office of Legal Counsel during the Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations, said the commission needs to determine, among other things, *whether the decision to drop the charges constituted a departure from prior enforcement policy* and whether it ultimately would lead to more voter intimidation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That should be interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well...seeing as the Bush administration downgraded the charges and the Bush administration didn't pursue charges with the Arizona militiamen intimidating Latinos, I'd say it didn't constitue a departure from prior enforcement policy.
> 
> But lets enjoy watching the "conservatives" insist it is a racial thing.
Click to expand...


Exactly what I was thinking but it seems to fly right over the racist-screaming masses.


----------



## KMAN

Just like I thought....


Breitbart.tv  Democrat Congressman &#8216;Unaware&#8217; of the New Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case


----------



## Zander

Silkcity19 said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silkcity19 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate retelling this story. I live in the same city that this piece of shit squirms in, hate him, but there is far more to this story them the video shows.
> 
> This area is 99.999% black where this video was shot, the building in the picture is a retirement high rise for the low income , there are project homes surrounding the area, the rest of the neighborhood is crack ridden with criminals, hookers and junkies wandering the streets like zombies.
> Everyone votes at this building from the neighborhood. That being said theses two guys IMHO and with great knowledge of the area were there to protect the elderly in the area, and people coming from the new housing project homes that were just built in the area. There has not been a white person that has voted in that area in 50 years. Once again IMHO these reporters seen this and put their selves into a situation and made a mountain out of a molehill.
> 
> Was this right, no, was it voter intimidation, again no. I have seen this piece of shit countless times in the city I love, and have no problem calling this angry little man the piece of shit he really is, but this time I think he's getting a bad wrap
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that the votes of the small percentage of non-blacks in the neighborhood are unimportant. How enlightened of you.  Sorry, but if even one person decided not to vote (regardless of race!) because some hate-filled asshole with a billy club was standing in front of the building - it is voter intimidation. PERIOD.
> 
> BTW,  The video shows a white girl standing right in front of the the building talking on her cell, so I  seriously doubt the neighborhood is 99.99% black.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very enlighten on this story my friend. Be smarter then the video, this was election day in Philly, there were people from every Democratic group in the world on the streets of my home town. Believe me, that women does not live in the neighborhood.
> 
> And you would know better the makeup of the area being 3000 miles away, and me being only 5
Click to expand...

 You will have to prove that the the entire district is 100% black voters, otherwise your claim is specious.  I'd lay 1000-1 odds that there is at least 1 non-black voter in that district.   

At any rate, I find it disgusting that anyone would defend these thugs.


----------



## Againsheila

Zander said:


> Silkcity19 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that the votes of the small percentage of non-blacks in the neighborhood are unimportant. How enlightened of you.  Sorry, but if even one person decided not to vote (regardless of race!) because some hate-filled asshole with a billy club was standing in front of the building - it is voter intimidation. PERIOD.
> 
> BTW,  The video shows a white girl standing right in front of the the building talking on her cell, so I  seriously doubt the neighborhood is 99.99% black.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very enlighten on this story my friend. Be smarter then the video, this was election day in Philly, there were people from every Democratic group in the world on the streets of my home town. Believe me, that women does not live in the neighborhood.
> 
> And you would know better the makeup of the area being 3000 miles away, and me being only 5
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You will have to prove that the the entire district is 100% black voters, otherwise your claim is specious.  I'd lay 1000-1 odds that there is at least 1 non-black voter in that district.
> 
> At any rate, *I find it disgusting that anyone would defend these thugs*.
Click to expand...


Ditto!


----------



## Yukon.

The Negro people run the USA. You 'crackers' are dead scared of the negro.


----------



## daveman

KMAN said:


> Just like I thought....
> 
> 
> Breitbart.tv  Democrat Congressman Unaware of the New Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case



Oh, well, he's _extremely_ sure.  

Moron.


----------



## daveman

Yukon. said:


> The Negro people run the USA. You 'crackers' are dead scared of the negro.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Truthmatters said:


> http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...ents-in-tea-party-movement-4.html#post2502600
> 
> Here the start of it, he blows my mind by insisting Im a racist for telling people conhog has been calling black people ******* repeatedly but for conhog all he has is sweet talk.



Who cares if some poster from a message board calls you a racist?    If you're not, you can relax.


----------



## Truthmatters

Immanuel said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is malone?
> 
> BTW bush DOJ filed a civil injuction against the black panther dudes on 1/7/2009.
> 
> That means there was no dropping of the case by holder, they won an injuction against one of the guys( the club guy) for carring a weapon in front of a polling place, not intimidation.
> 
> The Bush DOJ decided themselves that no criminal case would fly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How quickly you forget when your ass gets handed to you on a silver platter.
> 
> Malone was one of the the cases from the link that YOU provided that you claimed proved RNC corruption.  The case was dismissed, but it was one that you have claimed was proof of RNC corruption for a couple of weeks now.
> 
> Here is the post you gave us the link to.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...y-keep-blacks-from-voting-21.html#post2462679
> 
> And here is the link you provided note that the case was dismissed.  However, though the rest of that thread you used this link as one of the absolute proofs of RNC corruption.
> 
> DNC v. RNC Consent Decree | Brennan Center for Justice
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Here is what you claime Immie, you were wrong because the court did find that the RNC broke the consent decree and had to stop the practices the DNC complained about, after the election the freeze was dismissed.

you just dont understand what a consent decree is about.


----------



## Immanuel

Truthmatters said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is malone?
> 
> BTW bush DOJ filed a civil injuction against the black panther dudes on 1/7/2009.
> 
> That means there was no dropping of the case by holder, they won an injuction against one of the guys( the club guy) for carring a weapon in front of a polling place, not intimidation.
> 
> The Bush DOJ decided themselves that no criminal case would fly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How quickly you forget when your ass gets handed to you on a silver platter.
> 
> Malone was one of the the cases from the link that YOU provided that you claimed proved RNC corruption.  The case was dismissed, but it was one that you have claimed was proof of RNC corruption for a couple of weeks now.
> 
> Here is the post you gave us the link to.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...y-keep-blacks-from-voting-21.html#post2462679
> 
> And here is the link you provided note that the case was dismissed.  However, though the rest of that thread you used this link as one of the absolute proofs of RNC corruption.
> 
> DNC v. RNC Consent Decree | Brennan Center for Justice
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is what you claime Immie, you were wrong because the court did find that the RNC broke the consent decree and had to stop the practices the DNC complained about, after the election the freeze was dismissed.
> 
> you just dont understand what a consent decree is about.
Click to expand...


You want to know what I understand?  I understand that you are an absolute certifiable idiot who cannot read beyond the second grade level.




> The case was dismissed, but it was one that you have claimed was proof of RNC corruption for a couple of weeks now



This is the frigging lie you have been trying to make everyone else believe and it is a lie:



> the court did find that the RNC broke the consent decree and had to stop the practices the DNC complained about



ONCE AGAIN FOR THE MENTALLY CHALLENGED... the court found no such thing.  THE FRIGGING CASE WAS DISMISSED!!!!!   What part of that do you not understand?  The case was dismissed.  It was not even settled.  It was dismissed.  Is that too hard to understand?

Three years later the motion to vacate the decree was denied because dishonest people such as the Malone's, people just like you, had filed frivolous lawsuits against the RNC.  

I understand exactly what the decree is about.  The DNC filed a lawsuit against the RNC.  During pretrial maneuvering, the two sides came to an agreement and decided to settle out of court.  There was NO... NONE... NOT ONE IOTA... of guilt found.  The two sides settled out of court and came to an agreement that the alleged (that does not mean proven) practices would not be continued.  That was what they agreed to.  There is no finding of guilt nor admission of guilt in that document.  It even states so yet, you (who has read it) continue to spread your lies on this site.

Now, do you want to know why I think they settled?  I think they settled because the RNC came up with the same kind of allegations against the DNC and the DNC did not want those allegations brought to court.  The frigging DNC pissed in their pants when they realized the truth could be brought to light in court.

Now, quit lying about what I say.

Immie


----------



## Truthmatters

Immy why do you refuse the court documents that clearly state that the RNC must STOP their actions against the voter rolls until the election is over?

You can scream at me and call me names all day long and it will not change the fact that the court odered the RNC to stop what they were doing and said they broke the decree.


----------



## Truthmatters

Sky Dancer said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...ents-in-tea-party-movement-4.html#post2502600
> 
> Here the start of it, he blows my mind by insisting Im a racist for telling people conhog has been calling black people ******* repeatedly but for conhog all he has is sweet talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares if some poster from a message board calls you a racist?    If you're not, you can relax.
Click to expand...


For years he was my friend


----------



## Godboy

Truthmatters said:


> Immy why do you refuse the court documents that clearly state that the RNC must STOP their actions against the voter rolls until the election is over?
> 
> You can scream at me and call me names all day long and it will not change the fact that the court odered the RNC to stop what they were doing and said they broke the decree.



The RNC is fine. Just because something happens in a court room, doesnt make it right. I mean.... OJ was aquitted by a court. Were they right to do that?

You should be on your knees daily, thanking the RNC for keeping dumbass liberals safe. You mother fuckers would walk right into a fire if we werent there to put up a rope to stop you.


----------



## Immanuel

Truthmatters said:


> Immy why do you refuse the court documents that clearly state that the RNC must STOP their actions against the voter rolls until the election is over?
> 
> You can scream at me and call me names all day long and it will not change the fact that the court odered the RNC to stop what they were doing and said they broke the decree.



I have not refused a single court document you frigging liar.  The only thing I have said in this discussion is that a dismissed case is NOT proof of wrong doing and that the consent decree did not find any guilt nor did either party admit to any guilt.  That is all I have said about this, yet you continue to lie about it.

The Malone case the court did not find that the RNC had done anything.  The case was dismissed!  

The consent decree was not a court order.  It was an agreement between the two parties.  Do you understand that idiot?

The Malone Case was a case brought about frivolously 17 years later claiming that the RNC had broken the Consent Decree.  The Malone case was dismissed and is not therefore *PROOF* of any guilt.  The Malones were not even part of the original agreement. 

Five years later, (I earlier mistakenly typed three) the RNC requested the decree be vacated.  The court... an extremely liberal court in New Jersey refused to vacate the decree for the RNC (yet allowed the DNC out of the agreement which makes no sense at all) and left the decree in force.  It is only... ONLY and agreement between the DNC and the RNC.

You continue to prove that you do not have an honest bone in your body every time you try to change my words.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

Truthmatters said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...ents-in-tea-party-movement-4.html#post2502600
> 
> Here the start of it, he blows my mind by insisting Im a racist for telling people conhog has been calling black people ******* repeatedly but for conhog all he has is sweet talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares if some poster from a message board calls you a racist?    If you're not, you can relax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For years he was my friend
Click to expand...


Well, there comes a point when even the best human being gets tired of people lying about him.

Immie


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

If this psycho wasn't dead i'd make a thread about just him

Khalid Abdul Muhammad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Khallid Muhammad's Speech - Kill The White Man - Video

The new black panther party is freaking insane!!!  This exceeds hate speech, this is purely inciting violence against gays, white women, and anyone else who gets in the way.


----------



## Sky Dancer

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> If this psycho wasn't dead i'd make a thread about just him
> 
> Khalid Abdul Muhammad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Khallid Muhammad's Speech - Kill The White Man - Video
> 
> The new black panther party is freaking insane!!!  This exceeds hate speech, this is purely inciting violence against gays, white women, and anyone else who gets in the way.



He's dead.  Why bring him up?


----------



## KissMy

Obama's Black Panthers

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DQAOZlNrO8"]Obama's Black Panthers[/ame]


----------



## Annie

Immanuel said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares if some poster from a message board calls you a racist?    If you're not, you can relax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For years he was my friend
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, there comes a point when even the best human being gets tired of people lying about him.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


I just came across this nice posting that sums up all the misdirections we've been seeing and lies spouted over and over again. Of course, one can also go to Media Matters and see how they've dribbled out:

Downgrading Voter Intimidation - Hans A. von Spakovsky - The Corner on National Review Online

Not that the  that needs to read this will, but some might want to take a look, a sample:



> ...Adams confirmed many of the details that I have reported for National Review over the past year, and Megyn Kelly of FOX News has done an outstanding job further exposing the sordid and frankly infuriating particulars of the politically biased and pernicious actions taken by the political leadership at the DOJ, as well as the hateful, racist, and anti-Semitic views of the members of the New Black Panther Party. I will have more comments on Adamss testimony, but first I wanted to comment on the latest excuse (and tired old refrain) that has been conjured up over the past two days: It was the fault of the Bush administration. (I kid you not.)
> 
> Yes, the latest claim, according to Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal Constitution and others, is that the charges against the New Black Panthers were downgraded by the Bush Department of Justice [inasmuch as] the decision not to file a criminal case occurred before Obama was even in office. This downgrade talking point is apparently supposed to excuse the Obama administrations decision to dismiss virtually the entire civil voter intimidation case and to neuter the injunction sought against the one remaining defendant so substantially that what was left was little more than a minor annoyance.
> 
> These claims by a nonlawyer betray a fundamental ignorance of the difference between civil and criminal prosecutions and a total misunderstanding of how things work at the Justice Department and the Civil Rights Division. First of all, although the Civil Rights Division has a Criminal Section, the vast majority of its voting-rights prosecutions are civil cases conducted by the divisions Voting Section. Whenever someone violates the Voting Rights Act and does so in a way that is potentially both a civil and a criminal violation, the division must decide whether to proceed first with a civil or a criminal case. With most voting cases, the decision is usually to go with a civil case, particularly if there are elections coming up in the near future. That is because civil cases have a lower burden of proof and give the government the opportunity to obtain almost immediately a temporary injunction to stop the defendants from engaging in the same wrongful behavior as the case winds its way through the federal courts...



You might notice that our resident  has spent a good part of the past few days on and on about the above and more.


----------



## Sky Dancer

In response from numerous requests from individual's seeking information on the "New Black Panthers," the Dr. Huey P. Newton Foundation issues this public statement to correct the distorted record being made in the media by a small band of African Americans calling themselves the New Black Panthers. As guardian of the true history of the Black Panther Party, the Foundation, which includes former leading members of the Party, denounces this group's exploitation of the Party's name and history. Failing to find its own legitimacy in the black community, this band would graft the Party's name upon itself, which we condemn.

Firstly, the people in the New Black Panthers were never members of the Black Panther Party and have no legitimate claim on the Party's name. On the contrary, they would steal the names and pretend to walk in the footsteps of the Party's true heroes, such as Black Panther founder Huey P. Newton, George Jackson and Jonathan Jackson, Bunchy Carter, John Huggins, Fred Hampton, Mark Cark, and so many others who gave their very lives to the black liberation struggle under the Party's banner.

Secondly, they denigrate the Party's name by promoting concepts absolutely counter to the revolutionary principles on which the Party was founded. Their alleged media assault on the Ku Klux Klan serves to incite hatred rather than resolve it. The Party's fundamental principle, as best articulated by the great revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara, was: "A true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love." The Black Panthers were never a group of angry young militants full of fury toward the "white establishment." The Party operated on love for black people, not hatred of white people.

Furthermore, this group claims it would "teach" the black community about armed self-defense. The arrogance of this claim is overwhelmed by its reactionary nature. Blacks, especially in the South, have been armed in self-defense for a very long time; indeed, the spiritual parent of the Party itself was the Louisiana-based Deacons for Defense. However, the Party understood that the gun was not necessarily revolutionary, for the police and all other oppressive forces had guns. It was the ideology behind the gun that determined its nature.

Daily Kos: State of the Nation


----------



## HUGGY

Immanuel said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> How quickly you forget when your ass gets handed to you on a silver platter.
> 
> Malone was one of the the cases from the link that YOU provided that you claimed proved RNC corruption.  The case was dismissed, but it was one that you have claimed was proof of RNC corruption for a couple of weeks now.
> 
> Here is the post you gave us the link to.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...y-keep-blacks-from-voting-21.html#post2462679
> 
> And here is the link you provided note that the case was dismissed.  However, though the rest of that thread you used this link as one of the absolute proofs of RNC corruption.
> 
> DNC v. RNC Consent Decree | Brennan Center for Justice
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what you claime Immie, you were wrong because the court did find that the RNC broke the consent decree and had to stop the practices the DNC complained about, after the election the freeze was dismissed.
> 
> you just dont understand what a consent decree is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want to know what I understand?  I understand that you are an absolute certifiable idiot who cannot read beyond the second grade level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The case was dismissed, but it was one that you have claimed was proof of RNC corruption for a couple of weeks now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the frigging lie you have been trying to make everyone else believe and it is a lie:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the court did find that the RNC broke the consent decree and had to stop the practices the DNC complained about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ONCE AGAIN FOR THE MENTALLY CHALLENGED... the court found no such thing.  *THE FRIGGING CASE WAS DISMISSED!!!!! *  What part of that do you not understand?  The case was dismissed.  It was not even settled.  It was dismissed.  Is that too hard to understand?
> 
> Three years later the motion to vacate the decree was denied because dishonest people such as the Malone's, people just like you, had filed frivolous lawsuits against the RNC.
> 
> I understand exactly what the decree is about.  The DNC filed a lawsuit against the RNC.  During pretrial maneuvering, the two sides came to an agreement and decided to settle out of court.  There was NO... NONE... NOT ONE IOTA... of guilt found.  The two sides settled out of court and came to an agreement that the alleged (that does not mean proven) practices would not be continued.  That was what they agreed to.  There is no finding of guilt nor admission of guilt in that document.  It even states so yet, you (who has read it) continue to spread your lies on this site.
> 
> Now, do you want to know why I think they settled?  I think they settled because the RNC came up with the same kind of allegations against the DNC and the DNC did not want those allegations brought to court.  The frigging DNC pissed in their pants when they realized the truth could be brought to light in court.
> 
> Now, quit lying about what I say.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


*THE FRIGGING CASE WAS DISMISSED!!!!! *

Minolli... what do you mean??????


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Sky Dancer said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> If this psycho wasn't dead i'd make a thread about just him
> 
> Khalid Abdul Muhammad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Khallid Muhammad's Speech - Kill The White Man - Video
> 
> The new black panther party is freaking insane!!!  This exceeds hate speech, this is purely inciting violence against gays, white women, and anyone else who gets in the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's dead.  Why bring him up?
Click to expand...


he is what is considered acceptable in a leader of the new black panther party.  It provides context on to the type of people that group attracts.   David Duke, Khalid_abdul_Muhammad, Hitler....they are all peas in a pod.


----------



## Sky Dancer

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> If this psycho wasn't dead i'd make a thread about just him
> 
> Khalid Abdul Muhammad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Khallid Muhammad's Speech - Kill The White Man - Video
> 
> The new black panther party is freaking insane!!!  This exceeds hate speech, this is purely inciting violence against gays, white women, and anyone else who gets in the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's dead.  Why bring him up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he is what is considered acceptable in a leader of the new black panther party.  It provides context on to the type of people that group attracts.   David Duke, Khalid_abdul_Muhammad, Hitler....they are all peas in a pod.
Click to expand...

The average black person isn't going to give the New Black Panther Party any more attention than a white person gives the KKK.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Sky Dancer said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's dead.  Why bring him up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he is what is considered acceptable in a leader of the new black panther party.  It provides context on to the type of people that group attracts.   David Duke, Khalid_abdul_Muhammad, Hitler....they are all peas in a pod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The average black person isn't going to give the New Black Panther Party any more attention than a white person gives the KKK.
Click to expand...


I know but its outrageous that people who are just like the KKK are allowed to stand outside polling stations with batons in their hand.   I would be equally pissed if it were some KKK people standing outsid a polling place with a baton in their hand.

Don't both of those situations bother you?


----------



## Immanuel

Annie said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> For years he was my friend
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there comes a point when even the best human being gets tired of people lying about him.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just came across this nice posting that sums up all the misdirections we've been seeing and lies spouted over and over again. Of course, one can also go to Media Matters and see how they've dribbled out:
> 
> &#8216;Downgrading&#8217; Voter Intimidation - Hans A. von Spakovsky - The Corner on National Review Online
> 
> Not that the  that needs to read this will, but some might want to take a look, a sample:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Adams confirmed many of the details that I have reported for National Review over the past year, and Megyn Kelly of FOX News has done an outstanding job further exposing the sordid and frankly infuriating particulars of the politically biased and pernicious actions taken by the political leadership at the DOJ, as well as the hateful, racist, and anti-Semitic views of the members of the New Black Panther Party. I will have more comments on Adams&#8217;s testimony, but first I wanted to comment on the latest excuse (and tired old refrain) that has been conjured up over the past two days: It was the fault of the Bush administration. (I kid you not.)
> 
> Yes, the latest claim, according to Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal Constitution and others, is that the &#8220;charges against the New Black Panthers were downgraded by the Bush Department of Justice [inasmuch as] the decision not to file a criminal case occurred before Obama was even in office.&#8221; This &#8220;downgrade&#8221; talking point is apparently supposed to excuse the Obama administration&#8217;s decision to dismiss virtually the entire civil voter intimidation case and to neuter the injunction sought against the one remaining defendant so substantially that what was left was little more than a minor annoyance.
> 
> These claims by a nonlawyer betray a fundamental ignorance of the difference between civil and criminal prosecutions and a total misunderstanding of how things work at the Justice Department and the Civil Rights Division. First of all, although the Civil Rights Division has a Criminal Section, the vast majority of its voting-rights prosecutions are civil cases conducted by the division&#8217;s Voting Section. Whenever someone violates the Voting Rights Act and does so in a way that is potentially both a civil and a criminal violation, the division must decide whether to proceed first with a civil or a criminal case. With most voting cases, the decision is usually to go with a civil case, particularly if there are elections coming up in the near future. That is because civil cases have a lower burden of proof and give the government the opportunity to obtain almost immediately a temporary injunction to stop the defendants from engaging in the same wrongful behavior as the case winds its way through the federal courts...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might notice that our resident  has spent a good part of the past few days on and on about the above and more.
Click to expand...




> This &#8220;downgrade&#8221; talking point is apparently supposed to excuse the Obama administration&#8217;s decision to dismiss virtually the entire civil voter intimidation case and to neuter the injunction sought against the one remaining defendant so substantially that what was left was little more than a minor annoyance.
> 
> Whenever someone violates the Voting Rights Act and does so in a way that is potentially both a civil and a criminal violation, the division must decide whether to proceed first with a civil or a criminal case. With most voting cases, the decision is usually to go with a civil case, particularly if there are elections coming up in the near future. That is because civil cases have a lower burden of proof and give the government the opportunity to obtain almost immediately a temporary injunction to stop the defendants from engaging in the same wrongful behavior as the case winds its way through the federal courts...



Thank you, 

I have been trying to find a way to say that, but that is the case and the left has been lying about this issue for a long time.  They have tried to make it sound like it was the Bush Admin that decided to dismiss the case and that is untrue.

The Bush Admin chose to prosecute the case as a civil case rather than a criminal case.  Think of the OJ Simpson case.  They did not convict OJ in a criminal court because the burden of proof was too high.  Later they found him responsible for the death of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman in a civil court because the required amount of proof was lower.

The Bush Admin went for the sure win... the Obama Administration let the violator go.

Immie


----------



## Annie

Immanuel said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there comes a point when even the best human being gets tired of people lying about him.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just came across this nice posting that sums up all the misdirections we've been seeing and lies spouted over and over again. Of course, one can also go to Media Matters and see how they've dribbled out:
> 
> Downgrading Voter Intimidation - Hans A. von Spakovsky - The Corner on National Review Online
> 
> Not that the  that needs to read this will, but some might want to take a look, a sample:
> 
> 
> 
> You might notice that our resident  has spent a good part of the past few days on and on about the above and more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This downgrade talking point is apparently supposed to excuse the Obama administrations decision to dismiss virtually the entire civil voter intimidation case and to neuter the injunction sought against the one remaining defendant so substantially that what was left was little more than a minor annoyance.
> 
> Whenever someone violates the Voting Rights Act and does so in a way that is potentially both a civil and a criminal violation, the division must decide whether to proceed first with a civil or a criminal case. With most voting cases, the decision is usually to go with a civil case, particularly if there are elections coming up in the near future. That is because civil cases have a lower burden of proof and give the government the opportunity to obtain almost immediately a temporary injunction to stop the defendants from engaging in the same wrongful behavior as the case winds its way through the federal courts...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> I have been trying to find a way to say that, but that is the case and the left has been lying about this issue for a long time.  They have tried to make it sound like it was the Bush Admin that decided to dismiss the case and that is untrue.
> 
> The Bush Admin chose to prosecute the case as a civil case rather than a criminal case.  Think of the OJ Simpson case.  They did not convict OJ in a criminal court because the burden of proof was too high.  Later they found him responsible for the death of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman in a civil court because the required amount of evidence was lower.
> 
> The Bush Admin went for the sure win... the Obama Administration let the violator go.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


You're welcome!


----------



## Sky Dancer

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> he is what is considered acceptable in a leader of the new black panther party.  It provides context on to the type of people that group attracts.   David Duke, Khalid_abdul_Muhammad, Hitler....they are all peas in a pod.
> 
> 
> 
> The average black person isn't going to give the New Black Panther Party any more attention than a white person gives the KKK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know but its outrageous that people who are just like the KKK are allowed to stand outside polling stations with batons in their hand.   I would be equally pissed if it were some KKK people standing outsid a polling place with a baton in their hand.
> 
> Don't both of those situations bother you?
Click to expand...


Personally? No.  I always vote absentee.  

It all has to do with context.  The old Black Panther Party used to be protection for blacks in the neighborhood from politic brutality.

If Black Panthers with batons are protecting little old ladies who want to vote in bad neighborhoods it's another story.

I don't know much about this story other than what I've read here.  I don't have a TV.  I remember that the Black Panther Party was intimidating in the old days and had a lot of white people scared.

The New Black Panthers are very small with a mouthy leader.


----------



## Truthmatters

Absentee votes are sometimes not counted


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Sky Dancer said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The average black person isn't going to give the New Black Panther Party any more attention than a white person gives the KKK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know but its outrageous that people who are just like the KKK are allowed to stand outside polling stations with batons in their hand.   I would be equally pissed if it were some KKK people standing outsid a polling place with a baton in their hand.
> 
> Don't both of those situations bother you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally? No.  I always vote absentee.
> 
> It all has to do with context.  The old Black Panther Party used to be protection for blacks in the neighborhood from politic brutality.
> 
> If Black Panthers with batons are protecting little old ladies who want to vote in bad neighborhoods it's another story.
> 
> I don't know much about this story other than what I've read here.  I don't have a TV.  I remember that the Black Panther Party was intimidating in the old days and had a lot of white people scared.
> 
> The New Black Panthers are very small with a mouthy leader.
Click to expand...


Not Personally but instead as a matter of principle.  Don't both those situations bother you as a matter of principle?   The Uniformed New Black Panther Party and the Robed KKK standing in front of polling stations with batons in their hands....dont both those situations bother you on pure principle?

Sorry I asked 2 times but i wanted my question to be clear.


----------



## Sky Dancer

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know but its outrageous that people who are just like the KKK are allowed to stand outside polling stations with batons in their hand.   I would be equally pissed if it were some KKK people standing outsid a polling place with a baton in their hand.
> 
> Don't both of those situations bother you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally? No.  I always vote absentee.
> 
> It all has to do with context.  The old Black Panther Party used to be protection for blacks in the neighborhood from politic brutality.
> 
> If Black Panthers with batons are protecting little old ladies who want to vote in bad neighborhoods it's another story.
> 
> I don't know much about this story other than what I've read here.  I don't have a TV.  I remember that the Black Panther Party was intimidating in the old days and had a lot of white people scared.
> 
> The New Black Panthers are very small with a mouthy leader.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not Personally but instead as a matter of principle.  Don't both those situations bother you as a matter of principle?   The Uniformed New Black Panther Party and the Robed KKK standing in front of polling stations with batons in their hands....dont both those situations bother you on pure principle?
> 
> Sorry I asked 2 times but i wanted my question to be clear.
Click to expand...


Sure.  People standing around with batons in their hands are intimidating.  The point is who is it that thinks they need this kind of protection?    Were the cops present or not?


----------



## Immanuel

Truthmatters said:


> Absentee votes are sometimes not counted



Let me be just like you.

Only when they are Republican Ballots.

I don't need proof, I just need to post that 500 times in the next three days and that will be enough.

Immie

PS I don't believe that to be the case, but, I can be just like TM


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Sky Dancer said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally? No.  I always vote absentee.
> 
> It all has to do with context.  The old Black Panther Party used to be protection for blacks in the neighborhood from politic brutality.
> 
> If Black Panthers with batons are protecting little old ladies who want to vote in bad neighborhoods it's another story.
> 
> I don't know much about this story other than what I've read here.  I don't have a TV.  I remember that the Black Panther Party was intimidating in the old days and had a lot of white people scared.
> 
> The New Black Panthers are very small with a mouthy leader.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not Personally but instead as a matter of principle.  Don't both those situations bother you as a matter of principle?   The Uniformed New Black Panther Party and the Robed KKK standing in front of polling stations with batons in their hands....dont both those situations bother you on pure principle?
> 
> Sorry I asked 2 times but i wanted my question to be clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  People standing around with batons in their hands are intimidating.  The point is who is it that thinks they need this kind of protection?    Were the cops present or not?
Click to expand...


TY for answering.   I was worried that you were justifying voter intimidation based soley on the race of the intimidators.


----------



## Sky Dancer

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not Personally but instead as a matter of principle.  Don't both those situations bother you as a matter of principle?   The Uniformed New Black Panther Party and the Robed KKK standing in front of polling stations with batons in their hands....dont both those situations bother you on pure principle?
> 
> Sorry I asked 2 times but i wanted my question to be clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  People standing around with batons in their hands are intimidating.  The point is who is it that thinks they need this kind of protection?    Were the cops present or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TY for answering.   I was worried that you were justifying voter intimidation based soley on the race of the intimidators.
Click to expand...


Not at all.  Voter intimdation, unfortunately, comes in all colors.


----------



## Immanuel

Sky Dancer said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  People standing around with batons in their hands are intimidating.  The point is who is it that thinks they need this kind of protection?    Were the cops present or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TY for answering.   I was worried that you were justifying voter intimidation based soley on the race of the intimidators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.  Voter intimdation, unfortunately, comes in all colors.
Click to expand...


And in each case it is wrong.

Immie


----------



## Againsheila

Sky Dancer said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's dead.  Why bring him up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he is what is considered acceptable in a leader of the new black panther party.  It provides context on to the type of people that group attracts.   David Duke, Khalid_abdul_Muhammad, Hitler....they are all peas in a pod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The average black person isn't going to give the New Black Panther Party any more attention than a white person gives the KKK.
Click to expand...


The difference is, that if two members of the KKK did what those black panthers did, they'd be in jail, and rightfully so.


----------



## logical4u

Truthmatters said:


> Would you feel the same of the assholes who say that about black people?



Can you find any (other than in other countries) that would call a woman filthy names because she was with another race and then say they would kill that race's women, and their babies?
It is one thing to hate with ignorance (you have a chance of learning), but to threaten to kill the weakest of a race (and which race doesn't matter), specifically, because you hate is cowardly.


----------



## logical4u

Truthmatters said:


> Show us the people who said they doidnt vote because he was there?



So you really don't have a problem with racism, or violent acts on another race, as long as it is the race you choose doing the violence?


----------



## logical4u

CaféAuLait;2487336 said:
			
		

> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> where is the tape of him yelling while in front of the polls?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was demanding ID and claiming to be security while brandishing a weapon. If that had been a member of the KKK dressed in uniform it would rightly be called voter intimidation however it seems the rules are changed for some.
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU]YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly[/ame]
Click to expand...




This is why NO group should be elevated above the individual.... only with individual rights can we live in liberty.


----------



## Ravi

He wasn't demanding id. The woman behind him does not appear intimidated. 

You cannot convict someone of voter intimidation if no one is being intimidated.


----------



## daveman

Ravi said:


> He wasn't demanding id. The woman behind him does not appear intimidated.
> 
> You cannot convict someone of voter intimidation if no one is being intimidated.


So, the reactions of ONE woman means NO ONE is intimidated?  Who called the police, then?


----------



## Ravi

daveman said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't demanding id. The woman behind him does not appear intimidated.
> 
> You cannot convict someone of voter intimidation if no one is being intimidated.
> 
> 
> 
> So, the reactions of ONE woman means NO ONE is intimidated?  Who called the police, then?
Click to expand...

Probably the Republican operative.


----------



## daveman

Ravi said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't demanding id. The woman behind him does not appear intimidated.
> 
> You cannot convict someone of voter intimidation if no one is being intimidated.
> 
> 
> 
> So, the reactions of ONE woman means NO ONE is intimidated?  Who called the police, then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Probably the Republican operative.
Click to expand...

  You really have come down squarely on the wrong side of this.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Dave that's because everything is black and white for you.  There's only one way, your way or the highway.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Ravi said:


> He wasn't demanding id. The woman behind him does not appear intimidated.
> 
> You cannot convict someone of voter intimidation if no one is being intimidated.



Bartle Bull, a 2008 poll watcher and a longtime civil rights activist and former aide to Sen. Robert F. Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign stated 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. 

"In my opinion, the men created an intimidating presence at the entrance to a poll,"..."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." 

EXCLUSIVE: Career lawyers overruled on voting case - Washington Times


----------



## Nonelitist

Truthmatters said:


> And she looks completely untrheatened too, just like the "reporters" who are talking to him.
> 
> He did not threaten anyone no matter how much you wish the tape showed that.




Truth... I think the rest of us are going to go out now and find all your comments about people at Tea Party rallies being racist, violent and hateful.

Interesting that you think someone protesting against the taking of freedoms as racist and dangerous but not these guys.

Could it be that you are a racist political, hypocritical hack?  Surely not.


----------



## Coyote

Lonestar_logic said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't demanding id. The woman behind him does not appear intimidated.
> 
> You cannot convict someone of voter intimidation if no one is being intimidated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bartle Bull, a 2008 poll watcher and a longtime civil rights activist and former aide to Sen. Robert F. Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign stated 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.
> 
> "In my opinion, the men created an intimidating presence at the entrance to a poll,"..."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."
> 
> EXCLUSIVE: Career lawyers overruled on voting case - Washington Times
Click to expand...


Seems like some facts are being left out.

Bartle Bull was a McCain "poll watcher" for one.

In his own words: "Well, I had been serving in New York State, my second Republican candidate, as Chairman of Democrats for McCain in New York State. I knew we were going to lose New York. I thought perhaps I could help in Philadelphia. So, I took the train down there at 5:00 in the morning, and spent a day there, troubleshooting on Election Day for the McCain Campaign."

Bartle Bull also strongly dislikes Obama (if his words are true) and that, in addition to some lack of corroberation, makes his statement suspect (for example, only one of the men carried a night stick).

I think this statement sums it up:

But no civil rights issue is getting as much media traction as the Panther story. Even though there is no evidence of the New Black Panther Party repeating this stunt at other polling locations, it has kept the attention of conservative media and of Republicans such as Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.), who has kept up demands for more information even after a meeting with the Justice Department lawyers who made the case. The story has gotten even more extreme in the re-tellings; On an August 24 episode of Glenn Becks Fox News show, erstwhile Democratic pollster Pat Caddell *accused the attorney general of decid[ing] that Black Panthers  who carry guns into precincts should not be prosecuted*.​
It's being spun into outright lies with the endless background refrain of racism racism - Obama is a scary black extremist.


----------



## daveman

Sky Dancer said:


> Dave that's because everything is black and white for you.  There's only one way, your way or the highway.



I suppose I'm just not nuanced enough to see that a black man in paramilitary gear brandishing a weapon at a polling place is harmless, and a white man in paramilitary gear brandishing a weapon at a polling place is wrong.

I just can't hold two mutually-exclusive ideas in my head simultaneously and believe both of them.  How do you do it?


----------



## Foxfyre

The point as I see it is that it doesn't matter whether the NBP guys intentions were good; it doesn't matter what color they were or what organization they represented; it doesn't matter who reported it or who supports who or what sort of 'operative' anybody is.  It doesn't matter whether it is black or white voters who are 'intimidated'.

Two menacing looking guys in paramilitary uniforms thumping a billy club into the palm of their hands, glaring sternly and making remarks at people, will be intimidating in any setting.

I don't think anybody can be intellectually honest and defend that as appropriate or legal in front of any American polling place/


----------



## Yukon.

Cowardly little men like you people are frightened by the Negro. You are only "brave" when you have a gun or have a half-dozen other people to back you up. You'll never change.


----------



## chanel

Forgive me for being naïve, but isn't the poll watcher's JOB to WATCH for this kind of shenanigans? Maybe we should just get rid of them. If they are Republican of course.

I went out to dinner with a group of educated, accomplished women last night. They barely knew anything about this. Sad isn't it?


----------



## Ravi

chanel said:


> Forgive me for being naïve, but isn't the poll watcher's JOB to WATCH for this kind of shenanigans? Maybe we should just get rid of them. If they are Republican of course.
> 
> I went out to dinner with a group of educated, accomplished women last night. They barely knew anything about this. Sad isn't it?


No...it's just a bunch of internet stupidity.


----------



## chanel

Really? From my perspective it is far less "stupid" than Mel Gibson, Lindsay Lohan and Lebton James. We all knew about that!


----------



## Coyote

chanel said:


> Forgive me for being naïve, but isn't the poll watcher's JOB to WATCH for this kind of shenanigans? Maybe we should just get rid of them. If they are Republican of course.
> 
> I went out to dinner with a group of educated, accomplished women last night. *They barely knew anything about this*. Sad isn't it?



Maybe because it really isn't that big a deal like it's been blown up to be in the opinion-media?


----------



## chanel

See my last post.

BTW - We get Philly news here.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Ravi said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forgive me for being naïve, but isn't the poll watcher's JOB to WATCH for this kind of shenanigans? Maybe we should just get rid of them. If they are Republican of course.
> 
> I went out to dinner with a group of educated, accomplished women last night. They barely knew anything about this. Sad isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> No...it's just a bunch of internet stupidity.
Click to expand...


 @ Ravi the left wing talking point machine


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Coyote said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forgive me for being naïve, but isn't the poll watcher's JOB to WATCH for this kind of shenanigans? Maybe we should just get rid of them. If they are Republican of course.
> 
> I went out to dinner with a group of educated, accomplished women last night. *They barely knew anything about this*. Sad isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because it really isn't that big a deal like it's been blown up to be in the opinion-media?
Click to expand...


I know right coyote....who cares if people intimidate others at polling stations, its not like it threatens a legitimate democracy or anything  

Now Mel Gibson on the other hand........


----------



## Ravi

chanel said:


> Really? From my perspective it is far less "stupid" than Mel Gibson, Lindsay Lohan and Lebton James. We all knew about that!


But even stupider is the group of militia men that got caught plotting against the police and the government...right?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

chanel said:


> Forgive me for being naïve, but isn't the poll watcher's JOB to WATCH for this kind of shenanigans? Maybe we should just get rid of them. If they are Republican of course.
> 
> I went out to dinner with a group of educated, accomplished women last night. They barely knew anything about this. Sad isn't it?



You use the word "educated" loosely in your description of these women.


----------



## chanel

Trust me they are lonestar.  One in fact is a PhD.  They just don't watch Fox, and that's the only station covering it.


----------



## Coyote

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forgive me for being naïve, but isn't the poll watcher's JOB to WATCH for this kind of shenanigans? Maybe we should just get rid of them. If they are Republican of course.
> 
> I went out to dinner with a group of educated, accomplished women last night. *They barely knew anything about this*. Sad isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because it really isn't that big a deal like it's been blown up to be in the opinion-media?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know right coyote....who cares if people intimidate others at polling stations, its not like it threatens a legitimate democracy or anything
> 
> Now Mel Gibson on the other hand........
Click to expand...


No, it's not that - it's whether or not voter intiimidation took place with sufficient evidence to meet the requirements of the law - that is what matters, whether the law is upheld.  Otherwise - you could claim "intimidation" just because I looked at you funny when you were voting.  

And was it blown out of proportion?  Seems like it - it morphed into 3 men all carrying billy clubs and even guns in some accounts, but in the end, only one had a nightstick, and that one had an injunction against him.

The law shouldn't be politically biased - is it in this incident?  All we seem to have is one man's hearsay account of what went on the DoJ - and there is no evidence at the moment supporting his claims.

IF voter intimidation is such a hot issue, why aren't these same people clamoring for a look at the case of the Minutemen intimidating hispanic voters dismissed under the previous administration?  That guy actually had a gun.

It is because of this hypocrisy - and lack of strong evidence - combined with a hell of a lot of emotionally-charged accusations of "racism" being flung around by both sides - that I am very skeptical.

These things need to be decided by law, not emotion and if the Civil Rights Commission is looking into it, then I am convinced it will be done in accordance with the law and not political partisanship.


----------



## Foxfyre

chanel said:


> Trust me they are lonestar.  One in fact is a PhD.  They just don't watch Fox, and that's the only station covering it.



And THAT is the most frustrating thing about all this.  If those guys standing in front of a polling place had been Minutemen or Tea Party advocates or NRA representatives, and had been charged with voter intimidation. . . .

. . . .and if later a member of the Justice Dept. quit in protest and went public that the Justice Dept. had dropped the case with instructions that no Minutemen or Tea Partiers or NRA guys would be investigated. . . .

. . . .you KNOW every major newspaper would carry that on the front page and every television network would be leading their newscasts with it, and everybody would know about it.

If it wasn't for Fox News, conservative talk radio, and the internet, only half the news in this country would be reported at all these days, and most of us wouldn't know half the stuff that is going on.


----------



## hortysir

I've noticed that so many apologists seem to get hung up on the voter-intimidation case/aspect, but conveniently ignore the title of the thread.
Is it because it's easier for Ravi, TM, to dismiss that case than it is for them to defend killing crackers and their babies?
Is it because they agree with the killing but don't want to get caught actually saying it, so they deflect to the intimidation case?


----------



## Ravi

Coyote said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because it really isn't that big a deal like it's been blown up to be in the opinion-media?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know right coyote....who cares if people intimidate others at polling stations, its not like it threatens a legitimate democracy or anything
> 
> Now Mel Gibson on the other hand........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not that - it's whether or not voter intiimidation took place with sufficient evidence to meet the requirements of the law - that is what matters, whether the law is upheld.  Otherwise - you could claim "intimidation" just because I looked at you funny when you were voting.
> 
> And was it blown out of proportion?  Seems like it - it morphed into 3 men all carrying billy clubs and even guns in some accounts, but in the end, only one had a nightstick, and that one had an injunction against him.
> 
> The law shouldn't be politically biased - is it in this incident?  All we seem to have is one man's hearsay account of what went on the DoJ - and there is no evidence at the moment supporting his claims.
> 
> IF voter intimidation is such a hot issue, why aren't these same people clamoring for a look at the case of the Minutemen intimidating hispanic voters dismissed under the previous administration?  That guy actually had a gun.
> 
> It is because of this hypocrisy - and lack of strong evidence - combined with a hell of a lot of emotionally-charged accusations of "racism" being flung around by both sides - that I am very skeptical.
> 
> These things need to be decided by law, not emotion and if the Civil Rights Commission is looking into it, then I am convinced it will be done in accordance with the law and not political partisanship.
Click to expand...

Nice post but it is probably useless...people suffer from confirmation bias and even when facts hit them in the face they continue on ignoring them.


----------



## Coyote

hortysir said:


> I've noticed that so many apologists seem to get hung up on the voter-intimidation case/aspect, but conveniently ignore the title of the thread.
> Is it because it's easier for Ravi, TM, to dismiss that case than it is for them to defend killing crackers and their babies?
> Is it because they agree with the killing but don't want to get caught actually saying it, so they deflect to the intimidation case?



Nope.  No one has defended that idiot's views despite vociferous claims to the contrary.

A careful examination of the thread's evolution indicates it was derailed at Post #2 with a direct track to Holder and the Voter Intimidation Case....and, the derailer was

....drum roll.....

well...you can look it up for yourself, but it weren't Ravi or TM....


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Coyote said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because it really isn't that big a deal like it's been blown up to be in the opinion-media?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know right coyote....who cares if people intimidate others at polling stations, its not like it threatens a legitimate democracy or anything
> 
> Now Mel Gibson on the other hand........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not that - it's whether or not voter intiimidation took place with sufficient evidence to meet the requirements of the law - that is what matters, whether the law is upheld.  Otherwise - you could claim "intimidation" just because I looked at you funny when you were voting.
> 
> And was it blown out of proportion?  Seems like it - it morphed into 3 men all carrying billy clubs and even guns in some accounts, but in the end, only one had a nightstick, and that one had an injunction against him.
> 
> The law shouldn't be politically biased - is it in this incident?  All we seem to have is one man's hearsay account of what went on the DoJ - and there is no evidence at the moment supporting his claims.
> 
> IF voter intimidation is such a hot issue, why aren't these same people clamoring for a look at the case of the Minutemen intimidating hispanic voters dismissed under the previous administration?  That guy actually had a gun.
> 
> It is because of this hypocrisy - and lack of strong evidence - combined with a hell of a lot of emotionally-charged accusations of "racism" being flung around by both sides - that I am very skeptical.
> 
> These things need to be decided by law, not emotion and if the Civil Rights Commission is looking into it, then I am convinced it will be done in accordance with the law and not political partisanship.
Click to expand...


The man with the baton was already found guilty by the DOJ...then the charges were dropped before sentancing at the direction of Eric Holder.  Then J Christian Adams, one of the attorneys involved in the case, testified under oath that he was told not to pursue cases where there are white plaintiffs and black defendants in any type of civil rights case.


I know I'm lumping it all together fast but I've been researching this thing so much my patience level is zero.


Do you have a problem with the Uniformed New Black Panther Party leader standing in front of a polling station with the baton?
Do you have a problem with a Hooded KKK member standing in front of a polling place with a baton?

If your answer in not Yes to both then you and I will not see eye to eye in this discussion.


----------



## Coyote

Foxfyre said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trust me they are lonestar.  One in fact is a PhD.  They just don't watch Fox, and that's the only station covering it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And THAT is the most frustrating thing about all this. * If those guys standing in front of a polling place had been Minutemen *or Tea Party advocates or NRA representatives, and had been charged with voter intimidation. . . .
> 
> . . . .and if later a member of the Justice Dept. quit in protest and went public that the Justice Dept. *had dropped the case with instructions that no Minutemen* or Tea Partiers or NRA guys would be investigated. . . .
> 
> . . . .*you KNOW every major newspaper would carry that on the front page *and every television network would be leading their newscasts with it, and everybody would know about it.
> 
> If it wasn't for Fox News, conservative talk radio, and the internet, only half the news in this country would be reported at all these days, and most of us wouldn't know half the stuff that is going on.
Click to expand...


There was a voter intimidation case against some Minutemen, one of whom carried a gun - intimidating hispanic voters - under the last administration.  Case was dropped for the same reason as the NBP case.  Must not have been in the news much.

Care to explain?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Ravi said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know right coyote....who cares if people intimidate others at polling stations, its not like it threatens a legitimate democracy or anything
> 
> Now Mel Gibson on the other hand........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not that - it's whether or not voter intiimidation took place with sufficient evidence to meet the requirements of the law - that is what matters, whether the law is upheld.  Otherwise - you could claim "intimidation" just because I looked at you funny when you were voting.
> 
> And was it blown out of proportion?  Seems like it - it morphed into 3 men all carrying billy clubs and even guns in some accounts, but in the end, only one had a nightstick, and that one had an injunction against him.
> 
> The law shouldn't be politically biased - is it in this incident?  All we seem to have is one man's hearsay account of what went on the DoJ - and there is no evidence at the moment supporting his claims.
> 
> IF voter intimidation is such a hot issue, why aren't these same people clamoring for a look at the case of the Minutemen intimidating hispanic voters dismissed under the previous administration?  That guy actually had a gun.
> 
> It is because of this hypocrisy - and lack of strong evidence - combined with a hell of a lot of emotionally-charged accusations of "racism" being flung around by both sides - that I am very skeptical.
> 
> These things need to be decided by law, not emotion and if the Civil Rights Commission is looking into it, then I am convinced it will be done in accordance with the law and not political partisanship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice post but it is probably useless...people suffer from confirmation bias and even when facts hit them in the face they continue on ignoring them.
Click to expand...


Wow thats my opinion of your responses ravi...interesting.


----------



## Immanuel

Ravi said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know right coyote....who cares if people intimidate others at polling stations, its not like it threatens a legitimate democracy or anything
> 
> Now Mel Gibson on the other hand........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not that - it's whether or not voter intiimidation took place with sufficient evidence to meet the requirements of the law - that is what matters, whether the law is upheld.  Otherwise - you could claim "intimidation" just because I looked at you funny when you were voting.
> 
> And was it blown out of proportion?  Seems like it - it morphed into 3 men all carrying billy clubs and even guns in some accounts, but in the end, only one had a nightstick, and that one had an injunction against him.
> 
> The law shouldn't be politically biased - is it in this incident?  All we seem to have is one man's hearsay account of what went on the DoJ - and there is no evidence at the moment supporting his claims.
> 
> IF voter intimidation is such a hot issue, why aren't these same people clamoring for a look at the case of the Minutemen intimidating hispanic voters dismissed under the previous administration?  That guy actually had a gun.
> 
> It is because of this hypocrisy - and lack of strong evidence - combined with a hell of a lot of emotionally-charged accusations of "racism" being flung around by both sides - that I am very skeptical.
> 
> These things need to be decided by law, not emotion and if the Civil Rights Commission is looking into it, then I am convinced it will be done in accordance with the law and not political partisanship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice post but it is probably useless...people suffer from confirmation bias and even when facts hit them in the face they continue on ignoring them.
Click to expand...


I hate to say this, because I respect both you and Coyote, but I believe you two have suffered from this confirmation bias.  The facts have been presented and you both ignore the facts.  Those two men were there to intimidate voters.  It does not matter whether or not anyone was actually intimidated by them, but that was what they were there for.  

IMHO the important part of this equation is intent, not success.

You made a good point a couple of days back about the fact that this was a majority black precinct and there was no need for them to be there to intimidate voters.  You are, of course, right in that respect, but need is not a factor either.  They were there and they made a very clear statement of intimidation.  Something to the effect that a Black Man would rule "you" tomorrow. 

They might not have been intimidating to you, but if I were a white man living in their neighborhood and voting at that precinct, I would have been intimidated.  I don't know whether or not I would have decided not to vote, but I would have been extremely uncomfortable having a man who probably did not agree with my position, standing outside with a nightstick in his hand while I voted.

Immie


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Coyote said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trust me they are lonestar.  One in fact is a PhD.  They just don't watch Fox, and that's the only station covering it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And THAT is the most frustrating thing about all this. * If those guys standing in front of a polling place had been Minutemen *or Tea Party advocates or NRA representatives, and had been charged with voter intimidation. . . .
> 
> . . . .and if later a member of the Justice Dept. quit in protest and went public that the Justice Dept. *had dropped the case with instructions that no Minutemen* or Tea Partiers or NRA guys would be investigated. . . .
> 
> . . . .*you KNOW every major newspaper would carry that on the front page *and every television network would be leading their newscasts with it, and everybody would know about it.
> 
> If it wasn't for Fox News, conservative talk radio, and the internet, only half the news in this country would be reported at all these days, and most of us wouldn't know half the stuff that is going on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a voter intimidation case against some Minutemen, one of whom carried a gun - intimidating hispanic voters - under the last administration.  Case was dropped for the same reason as the NBP case.  Must not have been in the news much.
> 
> Care to explain?
Click to expand...


It was in the news and I remember being pissed about it.  I was mad at the minutemen for acting like that and still dont support them as a result.


----------



## Ravi

Immanuel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not that - it's whether or not voter intiimidation took place with sufficient evidence to meet the requirements of the law - that is what matters, whether the law is upheld.  Otherwise - you could claim "intimidation" just because I looked at you funny when you were voting.
> 
> And was it blown out of proportion?  Seems like it - it morphed into 3 men all carrying billy clubs and even guns in some accounts, but in the end, only one had a nightstick, and that one had an injunction against him.
> 
> The law shouldn't be politically biased - is it in this incident?  All we seem to have is one man's hearsay account of what went on the DoJ - and there is no evidence at the moment supporting his claims.
> 
> IF voter intimidation is such a hot issue, why aren't these same people clamoring for a look at the case of the Minutemen intimidating hispanic voters dismissed under the previous administration?  That guy actually had a gun.
> 
> It is because of this hypocrisy - and lack of strong evidence - combined with a hell of a lot of emotionally-charged accusations of "racism" being flung around by both sides - that I am very skeptical.
> 
> These things need to be decided by law, not emotion and if the Civil Rights Commission is looking into it, then I am convinced it will be done in accordance with the law and not political partisanship.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice post but it is probably useless...people suffer from confirmation bias and even when facts hit them in the face they continue on ignoring them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate to say this, because I respect both you and Coyote, but I believe you two have suffered from this confirmation bias.  The facts have been presented and you both ignore the facts.  Those two men were there to intimidate voters.  It does not matter whether or not anyone was actually intimidated by them, but that was what they were there for.
> 
> IMHO the important part of this equation is intent, not success.
> 
> You made a good point a couple of days back about the fact that this was a majority black precinct and there was no need for them to be there to intimidate voters.  You are, of course, right in that respect, but need is not a factor either.  They were there and they made a very clear statement of intimidation.  Something to the effect that a Black Man would rule "you" tomorrow.
> 
> They might not have been intimidating to you, but if I were a white man living in their neighborhood and voting at that precinct, I would have been intimidated.  I don't know whether or not I would have decided not to vote, but I would have been extremely uncomfortable having a man who probably did not agree with my position, standing outside with a nightstick in his hand while I voted.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

Well, Immie...you said it would make a difference if it were a mostly black precinct. It looks like that is the case.

I don't know if the intent was to intimidate or not, but I suspect not since it was a mostly black precinct. With the press all over the place claiming the vast majority of blacks would vote for a black man...why would anyone feel the need to intimidate blacks into voting for a black man?

That and I do not see anything in the evidence presented that shows these two dudes intimidating anyone.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Coyote said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trust me they are lonestar.  One in fact is a PhD.  They just don't watch Fox, and that's the only station covering it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And THAT is the most frustrating thing about all this. * If those guys standing in front of a polling place had been Minutemen *or Tea Party advocates or NRA representatives, and had been charged with voter intimidation. . . .
> 
> . . . .and if later a member of the Justice Dept. quit in protest and went public that the Justice Dept. *had dropped the case with instructions that no Minutemen* or Tea Partiers or NRA guys would be investigated. . . .
> 
> . . . .*you KNOW every major newspaper would carry that on the front page *and every television network would be leading their newscasts with it, and everybody would know about it.
> 
> If it wasn't for Fox News, conservative talk radio, and the internet, only half the news in this country would be reported at all these days, and most of us wouldn't know half the stuff that is going on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a voter intimidation case against some Minutemen, one of whom carried a gun - intimidating hispanic voters - under the last administration.  Case was dropped for the same reason as the NBP case.  Must not have been in the news much.
> 
> Care to explain?
Click to expand...


Two wrongs do not make a right. I don't have any knowledge of what you're talking about, but I'll just take you at your word that it happened as you say. If they were intimidating voters, they need to be prosecuted. If they weren't, that was wrong.

If Holder dropped the sentencing of these NBP members because of the Minuteman issue in a little "tit for tat" then he needs to be fired. If he did it because it's policy not to prosecute Black on White intimidation - because as we all have been told, "blacks don't hold the power in this country so there can't be any black racism against whites" - He should probably re-check who the president and the attorney general are. I think he's been making the argument so long, he forgets. 

In any case, it seems more than clear to me (and oh by the way, to the court) that there was voter intimidation by the two NBP members. There is no legitimate excuse for dropping the case in the sentencing phase. Furthermore, this action is dangerous because of the signal it sends to the American public that this behavior is tolerated. I don't need members of either side lingering around polling places with weapons of any description. It will only lead to violence around polling places. Believe me, this election there will be armed people looking for polling places with "these kind of guards" to "confront" them and let the chips fall where they may.

That would be a disastrous result! The justice department needs to man up say they were wrong and finish the prosecution. They cannot allow people to think this is OK.


----------



## Coyote

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know right coyote....who cares if people intimidate others at polling stations, its not like it threatens a legitimate democracy or anything
> 
> Now Mel Gibson on the other hand........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not that - it's whether or not voter intiimidation took place with sufficient evidence to meet the requirements of the law - that is what matters, whether the law is upheld.  Otherwise - you could claim "intimidation" just because I looked at you funny when you were voting.
> 
> And was it blown out of proportion?  Seems like it - it morphed into 3 men all carrying billy clubs and even guns in some accounts, but in the end, only one had a nightstick, and that one had an injunction against him.
> 
> The law shouldn't be politically biased - is it in this incident?  All we seem to have is one man's hearsay account of what went on the DoJ - and there is no evidence at the moment supporting his claims.
> 
> IF voter intimidation is such a hot issue, why aren't these same people clamoring for a look at the case of the Minutemen intimidating hispanic voters dismissed under the previous administration?  That guy actually had a gun.
> 
> It is because of this hypocrisy - and lack of strong evidence - combined with a hell of a lot of emotionally-charged accusations of "racism" being flung around by both sides - that I am very skeptical.
> 
> These things need to be decided by law, not emotion and if the Civil Rights Commission is looking into it, then I am convinced it will be done in accordance with the law and not political partisanship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The man with the baton was already found guilty by the DOJ...then the charges were dropped before sentancing at the direction of Eric Holder.  *Then J Christian Adams, one of the attorneys involved in the case, testified under oath that he was told not to pursue cases where there are white plaintiffs and black defendants in any type of civil rights case.*
> 
> I know I'm lumping it all together fast but I've been researching this thing so much my patience level is zero.
Click to expand...


I've been researching it too....is there any evidence beyond hearsay?  For example Adams made claims of things said when he wasn't even there.  Adams own credabilty is itself strained since he was a part of the DoJ that was found by an independent commission to have been inappropriately politicized in it's hiring practices and it's decisions on what cases to pursue.

What actual evidence is there *that is not hearsay* -  that Adams was told that?



> Do you have a problem with the Uniformed New Black Panther Party leader standing in front of a polling station with the baton?



Depends on what they were doing - just standing there, but not blocking people - I wouldn't care.  If they were attempting to block me, get information from me, or interact with me - then yes, I would have a problem.  But would that meet the requirements of the law?



> Do you have a problem with a Hooded KKK member standing in front of a polling place with a baton?



KKK has a history - a well documented history of racial intimidation, murder, and violence - so yes, I would have a problem but I'm not sure "my problem" would meet the requirements of the law which should be strict because *it's a fine line between "free speech" and "intimidation".*



> If your answer in not Yes to both then you and I will not see eye to eye in this discussion.



See my answer....


----------



## Tech_Esq

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice post but it is probably useless...people suffer from confirmation bias and even when facts hit them in the face they continue on ignoring them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to say this, because I respect both you and Coyote, but I believe you two have suffered from this confirmation bias.  The facts have been presented and you both ignore the facts.  Those two men were there to intimidate voters.  It does not matter whether or not anyone was actually intimidated by them, but that was what they were there for.
> 
> IMHO the important part of this equation is intent, not success.
> 
> You made a good point a couple of days back about the fact that this was a majority black precinct and there was no need for them to be there to intimidate voters.  You are, of course, right in that respect, but need is not a factor either.  They were there and they made a very clear statement of intimidation.  Something to the effect that a Black Man would rule "you" tomorrow.
> 
> They might not have been intimidating to you, but if I were a white man living in their neighborhood and voting at that precinct, I would have been intimidated.  I don't know whether or not I would have decided not to vote, but I would have been extremely uncomfortable having a man who probably did not agree with my position, standing outside with a nightstick in his hand while I voted.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, Immie...you said it would make a difference if it were a mostly black precinct. It looks like that is the case.
> 
> I don't know if the intent was to intimidate or not, but I suspect not since it was a mostly black precinct. With the press all over the place claiming the vast majority of blacks would vote for a black man...why would anyone feel the need to intimidate blacks into voting for a black man?
> 
> That and I do not see anything in the evidence presented that shows these two dudes intimidating anyone.
Click to expand...


What legitimate purpose was there for the guy to have a billy club in his hands? 

Why are you not intimidated when you approach a large, apparently strong man, who is slapping his hand -- like he wants to use it -- with a billy club and he is not in law enforcement? Are you dumb? Self preservation instinct set on -- "thin the herd"?

If that guy doesn't intimidate you, you're either lying or stupid. I'm pretty big and pretty fit and trained and I'm pretty sure it would be an all day affair if I tangled with that guy. If you aren't, you'd have no shot.


----------



## hortysir

Ravi said:


> why would anyone feel the need to intimidate blacks into voting for a black man?


Still with the presumption that black voters only vote for black candidates?
Projecting, Ravi?


----------



## Immanuel

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice post but it is probably useless...people suffer from confirmation bias and even when facts hit them in the face they continue on ignoring them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to say this, because I respect both you and Coyote, but I believe you two have suffered from this confirmation bias.  The facts have been presented and you both ignore the facts.  Those two men were there to intimidate voters.  It does not matter whether or not anyone was actually intimidated by them, but that was what they were there for.
> 
> IMHO the important part of this equation is intent, not success.
> 
> You made a good point a couple of days back about the fact that this was a majority black precinct and there was no need for them to be there to intimidate voters.  You are, of course, right in that respect, but need is not a factor either.  They were there and they made a very clear statement of intimidation.  Something to the effect that a Black Man would rule "you" tomorrow.
> 
> They might not have been intimidating to you, but if I were a white man living in their neighborhood and voting at that precinct, I would have been intimidated.  I don't know whether or not I would have decided not to vote, but I would have been extremely uncomfortable having a man who probably did not agree with my position, standing outside with a nightstick in his hand while I voted.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, Immie...you said it would make a difference if it were a mostly black precinct. It looks like that is the case.
> 
> I don't know if the intent was to intimidate or not, but I suspect not since it was a mostly black precinct. With the press all over the place claiming the vast majority of blacks would vote for a black man...why would anyone feel the need to intimidate blacks into voting for a black man?
> 
> That and I do not see anything in the evidence presented that shows these two dudes intimidating anyone.
Click to expand...


People do not always use intimidation for those reasons.  They were there to scare white voters... as in, we're coming to get you.  Drug dealers use those tactics all the time.  Think about it.  You go vote and leave the precinct, three days later a brick comes through your window or tires are flattened or three thugs are pounding on your door.  

White or black people in paramilitary gear are there to intimidate.  That is why they were wearing that gear.  They were calling attention to themselves and telling people... "you better watch out".  The threat was evident.

Immie


----------



## Ravi

Tech_Esq said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to say this, because I respect both you and Coyote, but I believe you two have suffered from this confirmation bias.  The facts have been presented and you both ignore the facts.  Those two men were there to intimidate voters.  It does not matter whether or not anyone was actually intimidated by them, but that was what they were there for.
> 
> IMHO the important part of this equation is intent, not success.
> 
> You made a good point a couple of days back about the fact that this was a majority black precinct and there was no need for them to be there to intimidate voters.  You are, of course, right in that respect, but need is not a factor either.  They were there and they made a very clear statement of intimidation.  Something to the effect that a Black Man would rule "you" tomorrow.
> 
> They might not have been intimidating to you, but if I were a white man living in their neighborhood and voting at that precinct, I would have been intimidated.  I don't know whether or not I would have decided not to vote, but I would have been extremely uncomfortable having a man who probably did not agree with my position, standing outside with a nightstick in his hand while I voted.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Immie...you said it would make a difference if it were a mostly black precinct. It looks like that is the case.
> 
> I don't know if the intent was to intimidate or not, but I suspect not since it was a mostly black precinct. With the press all over the place claiming the vast majority of blacks would vote for a black man...why would anyone feel the need to intimidate blacks into voting for a black man?
> 
> That and I do not see anything in the evidence presented that shows these two dudes intimidating anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What legitimate purpose was there for the guy to have a billy club in his hands?
> 
> Why are you not intimidated when you approach a large, apparently strong man, who is slapping his hand -- like he wants to use it -- with a billy club and he is not in law enforcement? Are you dumb? Self preservation instinct set on -- "thin the herd"?
> 
> If that guy doesn't intimidate you, you're either lying or stupid. I'm pretty big and pretty fit and trained and I'm pretty sure it would be an all day affair if I tangled with that guy. If you aren't, you'd have no shot.
Click to expand...

The woman standing behind him chatting on the phone wasn't intimidated...was she? So I think your argument is ridiculous.

As for legitimate purpose...I did read somewhere that the NBPs were expecting people to intimidate the voters at that precinct and therefore they were providing guard duty. That may or may not be true but it is a logical assumption and makes more sense than them intimidating their own group.

Are they stupid...apparently. Were they trying to intimidate voters? I don't see it.


----------



## Ravi

hortysir said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> why would anyone feel the need to intimidate blacks into voting for a black man?
> 
> 
> 
> Still with the presumption that black voters only vote for black candidates?
> Projecting, Ravi?
Click to expand...

That was the message the press drummed into everyone 24/7 and apparently it turned out to be true for the large majority.

If that gets your knickers in a twist then why would Democrat supporters need to intimidate Democrat supporters?


----------



## Ravi

Immanuel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to say this, because I respect both you and Coyote, but I believe you two have suffered from this confirmation bias.  The facts have been presented and you both ignore the facts.  Those two men were there to intimidate voters.  It does not matter whether or not anyone was actually intimidated by them, but that was what they were there for.
> 
> IMHO the important part of this equation is intent, not success.
> 
> You made a good point a couple of days back about the fact that this was a majority black precinct and there was no need for them to be there to intimidate voters.  You are, of course, right in that respect, but need is not a factor either.  They were there and they made a very clear statement of intimidation.  Something to the effect that a Black Man would rule "you" tomorrow.
> 
> They might not have been intimidating to you, but if I were a white man living in their neighborhood and voting at that precinct, I would have been intimidated.  I don't know whether or not I would have decided not to vote, but I would have been extremely uncomfortable having a man who probably did not agree with my position, standing outside with a nightstick in his hand while I voted.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Immie...you said it would make a difference if it were a mostly black precinct. It looks like that is the case.
> 
> I don't know if the intent was to intimidate or not, but I suspect not since it was a mostly black precinct. With the press all over the place claiming the vast majority of blacks would vote for a black man...why would anyone feel the need to intimidate blacks into voting for a black man?
> 
> That and I do not see anything in the evidence presented that shows these two dudes intimidating anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People do not always use intimidation for those reasons.  They were there to scare white voters... as in, we're coming to get you.  Drug dealers use those tactics all the time.  Think about it.  *You go vote and leave the precinct, three days later a brick comes through your window or tires are flattened or three thugs are pounding on your door.*
> 
> White or black people in paramilitary gear are there to intimidate.  That is why they were wearing that gear.  They were calling attention to themselves and telling people... "you better watch out".  The threat was evident.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

Yet that did not occur. btw...how the hell would anyone know who people voted for? Jesus, this is getting to be more and more of a conspiracy theory.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Coyote said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not that - it's whether or not voter intiimidation took place with sufficient evidence to meet the requirements of the law - that is what matters, whether the law is upheld.  Otherwise - you could claim "intimidation" just because I looked at you funny when you were voting.
> 
> And was it blown out of proportion?  Seems like it - it morphed into 3 men all carrying billy clubs and even guns in some accounts, but in the end, only one had a nightstick, and that one had an injunction against him.
> 
> The law shouldn't be politically biased - is it in this incident?  All we seem to have is one man's hearsay account of what went on the DoJ - and there is no evidence at the moment supporting his claims.
> 
> IF voter intimidation is such a hot issue, why aren't these same people clamoring for a look at the case of the Minutemen intimidating hispanic voters dismissed under the previous administration?  That guy actually had a gun.
> 
> It is because of this hypocrisy - and lack of strong evidence - combined with a hell of a lot of emotionally-charged accusations of "racism" being flung around by both sides - that I am very skeptical.
> 
> These things need to be decided by law, not emotion and if the Civil Rights Commission is looking into it, then I am convinced it will be done in accordance with the law and not political partisanship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The man with the baton was already found guilty by the DOJ...then the charges were dropped before sentancing at the direction of Eric Holder.  *Then J Christian Adams, one of the attorneys involved in the case, testified under oath that he was told not to pursue cases where there are white plaintiffs and black defendants in any type of civil rights case.*
> 
> I know I'm lumping it all together fast but I've been researching this thing so much my patience level is zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been researching it too....is there any evidence beyond hearsay?  For example Adams made claims of things said when he wasn't even there.  Adams own credabilty is itself strained since he was a part of the DoJ that was found by an independent commission to have been inappropriately politicized in it's hiring practices and it's decisions on what cases to pursue.
> 
> What actual evidence is there *that is not hearsay* -  that Adams was told that?
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what they were doing - just standing there, but not blocking people - I wouldn't care.  If they were attempting to block me, get information from me, or interact with me - then yes, I would have a problem.  But would that meet the requirements of the law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a problem with a Hooded KKK member standing in front of a polling place with a baton?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> KKK has a history - a well documented history of racial intimidation, murder, and violence - so yes, I would have a problem but I'm not sure "my problem" would meet the requirements of the law which should be strict because *it's a fine line between "free speech" and "intimidation".*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your answer in not Yes to both then you and I will not see eye to eye in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See my answer....
Click to expand...


Sworn testimony is hearsay?


----------



## Foxfyre

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And THAT is the most frustrating thing about all this. * If those guys standing in front of a polling place had been Minutemen *or Tea Party advocates or NRA representatives, and had been charged with voter intimidation. . . .
> 
> . . . .and if later a member of the Justice Dept. quit in protest and went public that the Justice Dept. *had dropped the case with instructions that no Minutemen* or Tea Partiers or NRA guys would be investigated. . . .
> 
> . . . .*you KNOW every major newspaper would carry that on the front page *and every television network would be leading their newscasts with it, and everybody would know about it.
> 
> If it wasn't for Fox News, conservative talk radio, and the internet, only half the news in this country would be reported at all these days, and most of us wouldn't know half the stuff that is going on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was a voter intimidation case against some Minutemen, one of whom carried a gun - intimidating hispanic voters - under the last administration.  Case was dropped for the same reason as the NBP case.  Must not have been in the news much.
> 
> Care to explain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was in the news and I remember being pissed about it.  I was mad at the minutemen for acting like that and still dont support them as a result.
Click to expand...


I remember a case where a Republican candidate for Congress or something was accused of sending out mail to people with Hispanic surnames informing them that illegals could not vote or something like that.  The state GOP party was embarassed and angry at this guy and asked him to drop out of the race.  In other words it was his action and his alone and not part of any organized movement and he was not supported or defended in any way by the party.

I've been hunting for a Minuteman case re voter intimidation that was dropped though, but haven't been able to find it anywhere but on leftwing blogs and I think maybe Huffington Post?   If there was something to it, don't you think the wide array of mainstream leftwing media would have covered it?  I'm not saying it didn't happen because I don't know, but if there was such a case, I would think it would be better publicized.

But regardless of who commits voter intimidation, it should not be acceptable or tolerated or defended in any form.


----------



## Coyote

Tech_Esq said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And THAT is the most frustrating thing about all this. * If those guys standing in front of a polling place had been Minutemen *or Tea Party advocates or NRA representatives, and had been charged with voter intimidation. . . .
> 
> . . . .and if later a member of the Justice Dept. quit in protest and went public that the Justice Dept. *had dropped the case with instructions that no Minutemen* or Tea Partiers or NRA guys would be investigated. . . .
> 
> . . . .*you KNOW every major newspaper would carry that on the front page *and every television network would be leading their newscasts with it, and everybody would know about it.
> 
> If it wasn't for Fox News, conservative talk radio, and the internet, only half the news in this country would be reported at all these days, and most of us wouldn't know half the stuff that is going on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was a voter intimidation case against some Minutemen, one of whom carried a gun - intimidating hispanic voters - under the last administration.  Case was dropped for the same reason as the NBP case.  Must not have been in the news much.
> 
> Care to explain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two wrongs do not make a right. I don't have any knowledge of what you're talking about, but I'll just take you at your word that it happened as you say. If they were intimidating voters, they need to be prosecuted. If they weren't, that was wrong.
Click to expand...


No, two wrongs don't make a right but - that is an argument frequently brought up when someone attempts to show that a similar issue, was handled in a similar way - recently - but ignored!  Part of the Commission's investigation includes examining whether the NBT case indicates a significant departure from standard practice/interpretation of law in the DoJ and, bringing up a similar case dismissed for similar reasons would seem to indicate it is not.



> If Holder dropped the sentencing of these NBP members because of the Minuteman issue in a little "tit for tat" then he needs to be fired.



If the Minuteman case is representative of a case where the demands for evidence did not meet the law then it was correct to drop it - as with the Black Panther case.  I'm not going to say there is a tit-for-a-tat here becuase there is no evidence to support that beyond circumstantial.



> If he did it because it's policy not to prosecute Black on White intimidation - because as we all have been told, "blacks don't hold the power in this country so there can't be any black racism against whites" - He should probably re-check who the president and the attorney general are. I think he's been making the argument so long, he forgets.



IF that is the case, then yes he should be held accountable -* but WHAT evidence is there beyond hearsay and circumstantial?*  Adams himself admitted that he has *no first-hand knowledge* of the events and conversations he claimes to support his accusations.



> In any case, it seems more than clear to me *(and oh by the way, to the court) *that there was voter intimidation by the two NBP members. There is no legitimate excuse for dropping the case in the sentencing phase.



What court?  My understanding is that the judgegment that would have been obtained was by default of the guy not showing up  not as a matter of evidence. In fact, judgement was obtained against the person that actually had a nightstick (which, by the way, is more than any judgement against the Minutemen).

Have any voters claimed to have been intimidated?



> *Furthermore, this action is dangerous because of the signal it sends to the American public that this behavior is tolerated. I don't need members of either side lingering around polling places with weapons of any description. *It will only lead to violence around polling places. Believe me, this election there will be armed people looking for polling places with "these kind of guards" to "confront" them and let the chips fall where they may.
> 
> That would be a disastrous result! The justice department needs to man up say they were wrong and finish the prosecution. They cannot allow people to think this is OK.



I actually agree with that - and, in this case - the fellow with the nightstick did have an injunction filed against him as a result.


----------



## Coyote

Lonestar_logic said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The man with the baton was already found guilty by the DOJ...then the charges were dropped before sentancing at the direction of Eric Holder.  *Then J Christian Adams, one of the attorneys involved in the case, testified under oath that he was told not to pursue cases where there are white plaintiffs and black defendants in any type of civil rights case.*
> 
> I know I'm lumping it all together fast but I've been researching this thing so much my patience level is zero.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been researching it too....is there any evidence beyond hearsay?  For example Adams made claims of things said when he wasn't even there.  Adams own credabilty is itself strained since he was a part of the DoJ that was found by an independent commission to have been inappropriately politicized in it's hiring practices and it's decisions on what cases to pursue.
> 
> What actual evidence is there *that is not hearsay* -  that Adams was told that?
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what they were doing - just standing there, but not blocking people - I wouldn't care.  If they were attempting to block me, get information from me, or interact with me - then yes, I would have a problem.  But would that meet the requirements of the law?
> 
> 
> 
> KKK has a history - a well documented history of racial intimidation, murder, and violence - so yes, I would have a problem but I'm not sure "my problem" would meet the requirements of the law which should be strict because *it's a fine line between "free speech" and "intimidation".*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your answer in not Yes to both then you and I will not see eye to eye in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See my answer....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sworn testimony is hearsay?
Click to expand...


In his sworn testimony he admitted he had no first hand knowledge of the events or conversations he was claiming to know about.


----------



## Immanuel

Tech_Esq said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to say this, because I respect both you and Coyote, but I believe you two have suffered from this confirmation bias.  The facts have been presented and you both ignore the facts.  Those two men were there to intimidate voters.  It does not matter whether or not anyone was actually intimidated by them, but that was what they were there for.
> 
> IMHO the important part of this equation is intent, not success.
> 
> You made a good point a couple of days back about the fact that this was a majority black precinct and there was no need for them to be there to intimidate voters.  You are, of course, right in that respect, but need is not a factor either.  They were there and they made a very clear statement of intimidation.  Something to the effect that a Black Man would rule "you" tomorrow.
> 
> They might not have been intimidating to you, but if I were a white man living in their neighborhood and voting at that precinct, I would have been intimidated.  I don't know whether or not I would have decided not to vote, but I would have been extremely uncomfortable having a man who probably did not agree with my position, standing outside with a nightstick in his hand while I voted.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Immie...you said it would make a difference if it were a mostly black precinct. It looks like that is the case.
> 
> I don't know if the intent was to intimidate or not, but I suspect not since it was a mostly black precinct. With the press all over the place claiming the vast majority of blacks would vote for a black man...why would anyone feel the need to intimidate blacks into voting for a black man?
> 
> That and I do not see anything in the evidence presented that shows these two dudes intimidating anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What legitimate purpose was there for the guy to have a billy club in his hands?
> 
> Why are you not intimidated when you approach a large, apparently strong man, who is slapping his hand -- like he wants to use it -- with a billy club and he is not in law enforcement? Are you dumb? Self preservation instinct set on -- "thin the herd"?
> 
> If that guy doesn't intimidate you, you're either lying or stupid. I'm pretty big and pretty fit and trained and I'm pretty sure it would be an all day affair if I tangled with that guy. If you aren't, you'd have no shot.
Click to expand...


It is not only the thought that they might bash your brains in on your way out of the precinct.  Typically thugs don't do that and definitely not when they might be arrested for doing so.  They have someone follow you home and then in the middle of the night when you are asleep they attack.

Immie


----------



## Tech_Esq

Ravi said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Immie...you said it would make a difference if it were a mostly black precinct. It looks like that is the case.
> 
> I don't know if the intent was to intimidate or not, but I suspect not since it was a mostly black precinct. With the press all over the place claiming the vast majority of blacks would vote for a black man...why would anyone feel the need to intimidate blacks into voting for a black man?
> 
> That and I do not see anything in the evidence presented that shows these two dudes intimidating anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What legitimate purpose was there for the guy to have a billy club in his hands?
> 
> Why are you not intimidated when you approach a large, apparently strong man, who is slapping his hand -- like he wants to use it -- with a billy club and he is not in law enforcement? Are you dumb? Self preservation instinct set on -- "thin the herd"?
> 
> If that guy doesn't intimidate you, you're either lying or stupid. I'm pretty big and pretty fit and trained and I'm pretty sure it would be an all day affair if I tangled with that guy. If you aren't, you'd have no shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The woman standing behind him chatting on the phone wasn't intimidated...was she? So I think your argument is ridiculous.
> 
> As for legitimate purpose...I did read somewhere that the NBPs were expecting people to intimidate the voters at that precinct and therefore they were providing guard duty. That may or may not be true but it is a logical assumption and makes more sense than them intimidating their own group.
> 
> Are they stupid...apparently. Were they trying to intimidate voters? I don't see it.
Click to expand...


You can't argue from the particular to the general (i.e. the woman talking on the phone...) it's a logical fallacy. So you get a FAIL on that.

So, your argument is that yes, they were intimidating, but it's ok because they were guarding against other people who "might" intimidate others? So the aforementioned "crackers" were going to go to what you claim to be a predominantly black precinct and intimidate voters? In Philly? Come'on, you don't even expect anyone to believe that do you?

You can't believe that story yourself, hell you won't even believe voter intimidation when you see it with your own two eyes. You can't tell me you would believe some cock'n bull story like that.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Immanuel said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Immie...you said it would make a difference if it were a mostly black precinct. It looks like that is the case.
> 
> I don't know if the intent was to intimidate or not, but I suspect not since it was a mostly black precinct. With the press all over the place claiming the vast majority of blacks would vote for a black man...why would anyone feel the need to intimidate blacks into voting for a black man?
> 
> That and I do not see anything in the evidence presented that shows these two dudes intimidating anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What legitimate purpose was there for the guy to have a billy club in his hands?
> 
> Why are you not intimidated when you approach a large, apparently strong man, who is slapping his hand -- like he wants to use it -- with a billy club and he is not in law enforcement? Are you dumb? Self preservation instinct set on -- "thin the herd"?
> 
> If that guy doesn't intimidate you, you're either lying or stupid. I'm pretty big and pretty fit and trained and I'm pretty sure it would be an all day affair if I tangled with that guy. If you aren't, you'd have no shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not only the thought that they might bash your brains in on your way out of the precinct.  Typically thugs don't do that and definitely not when they might be arrested for doing so.  They have someone follow you home and then in the middle of the night when you are asleep they attack.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


True. I'd rather they find me at home, but that's me. I'd have a better shot there.


----------



## Immanuel

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Immie...you said it would make a difference if it were a mostly black precinct. It looks like that is the case.
> 
> I don't know if the intent was to intimidate or not, but I suspect not since it was a mostly black precinct. With the press all over the place claiming the vast majority of blacks would vote for a black man...why would anyone feel the need to intimidate blacks into voting for a black man?
> 
> That and I do not see anything in the evidence presented that shows these two dudes intimidating anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People do not always use intimidation for those reasons.  They were there to scare white voters... as in, we're coming to get you.  Drug dealers use those tactics all the time.  Think about it.  *You go vote and leave the precinct, three days later a brick comes through your window or tires are flattened or three thugs are pounding on your door.*
> 
> White or black people in paramilitary gear are there to intimidate.  That is why they were wearing that gear.  They were calling attention to themselves and telling people... "you better watch out".  The threat was evident.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet that did not occur. btw...how the hell would anyone know who people voted for? Jesus, this is getting to be more and more of a conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...


I never said anyone would know.  That has nothing to do with it.

They were there in paramilitary gear to intimidate people.  That is all that matters.

Immie


----------



## hortysir

Ravi said:


> how the hell would anyone know who people voted for?


Well, if they're black they voted for the black candid.......oops.....
I mean; if they're Democrats, they obviously voted for a Democrat.
And the white peop......errr..ummm...
I mean the REPUBLICANS voted for a Republican.

Yea.
That's how it works.

 What a fucking idiot.....


----------



## Immanuel

Tech_Esq said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> What legitimate purpose was there for the guy to have a billy club in his hands?
> 
> Why are you not intimidated when you approach a large, apparently strong man, who is slapping his hand -- like he wants to use it -- with a billy club and he is not in law enforcement? Are you dumb? Self preservation instinct set on -- "thin the herd"?
> 
> If that guy doesn't intimidate you, you're either lying or stupid. I'm pretty big and pretty fit and trained and I'm pretty sure it would be an all day affair if I tangled with that guy. If you aren't, you'd have no shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not only the thought that they might bash your brains in on your way out of the precinct.  Typically thugs don't do that and definitely not when they might be arrested for doing so.  They have someone follow you home and then in the middle of the night when you are asleep they attack.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. I'd rather they find me at home, but that's me. I'd have a better shot there.
Click to expand...


Do you have kids?

How about kids that go to school in the neighborhood?

As for the argument that they were there to prevent McCain supporters from intimidating voters.  That is bullshit.  No one showed up and if they were coming in groups, these two thugs would not have been a problem and don't even try to tell me that one or two McCain supporters are going to go into a neighborhood like that to scare people off.  That would have been a suicide mission.  

Immie


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Coyote said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been researching it too....is there any evidence beyond hearsay?  For example Adams made claims of things said when he wasn't even there.  Adams own credabilty is itself strained since he was a part of the DoJ that was found by an independent commission to have been inappropriately politicized in it's hiring practices and it's decisions on what cases to pursue.
> 
> What actual evidence is there *that is not hearsay* -  that Adams was told that?
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what they were doing - just standing there, but not blocking people - I wouldn't care.  If they were attempting to block me, get information from me, or interact with me - then yes, I would have a problem.  But would that meet the requirements of the law?
> 
> 
> 
> KKK has a history - a well documented history of racial intimidation, murder, and violence - so yes, I would have a problem but I'm not sure "my problem" would meet the requirements of the law which should be strict because *it's a fine line between "free speech" and "intimidation".*
> 
> 
> 
> See my answer....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sworn testimony is hearsay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In his sworn testimony he admitted he had no first hand knowledge of the events or conversations he was claiming to know about.
Click to expand...


Read what he has to say for yourself. That is if you can pull your head out of your ass long enough.

Today, I testified to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights about the Department of Justice's hostility to race-neutral law enforcement. I hope these hearings spur those responsible to explain their actions to Americans.


----------



## Coyote

Immanuel said:


> I hate to say this, because I respect both you and Coyote, but I believe you two have suffered from this confirmation bias.  *The facts have been presented and you both ignore the facts.*  Those two men were there to intimidate voters.  It does not matter whether or not anyone was actually intimidated by them, but that was what they were there for.
> 
> IMHO the important part of t*his equation is intent, not success.
> *
> You made a good point a couple of days back about the fact that this was a majority black precinct and there was no need for them to be there to intimidate voters.  You are, of course, right in that respect, but need is not a factor either.  They were there and they made a very clear statement of intimidation.  *Something to the effect that a Black Man would rule "you" tomorrow. * is this fact or opinion or hearsay?
> 
> They might not have been intimidating to you, but if I were a white man living in their neighborhood and voting at that precinct, I would have been intimidated.  I don't know whether or not I would have decided not to vote, but I would have been extremely uncomfortable having a man who probably did not agree with my position, standing outside with a nightstick in his hand while I voted.
> 
> Immie



Have the facts been presented or, opinions?  I agree with intent when it comes to accusations like "racism" - intent matters.  But laws can't be decided on intent alone.

Was any voter intimidated or claim to have been intimidated?

I think this National Review article says it best:

    Forget about the New Black Panther Party case; it is very small potatoes. Perhaps the Panthers should have been prosecuted under section 11 (b) of the Voting Rights Act for their actions of November 2008, *but the legal standards that must be met to prove voter intimidation -- the charge -- are very high.*

    In the 45 years since the act was passed, *there have been a total of three successful prosecutions.* The incident involved only three Panthers at a single majority-black precinct in Philadelphia. So far -- after months of hearings, testimony and investigation --* no one has produced actual evidence that any voters were too scared to cast their ballots.* Too much overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges has been devoted to this case.

    A number of conservatives have charged that the Philadelphia Black Panther decision demonstrates that attorneys in the Civil Rights Division have racial double standards. How many attorneys in what positions? A pervasive culture that affected the handling of this case? *No direct quotations or other evidence substantiate the charge.*

    Thomas Perez, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, makes a perfectly plausible argument: *Different lawyers read this barely litigated statutory provision differently. It happens all the time, especially when administrations change in the middle of litigation. Democrats and Republicans seldom agree on how best to enforce civil-rights statutes; this is not the first instance of a war between Left and Right within the Civil Rights Division.*

The two Panthers have been described as &#8220;armed&#8221; &#8212; which suggests guns. One of them was carrying a billy club, and it is alleged that his repeated slapping of the club against his palm constituted brandishing it in a menacing way. They have also been described as wearing &#8220;jackboots,&#8221; but the boots were no different from a pair my husband owns.

A disaffected former Justice Department attorney has written: &#8220;We had indications that polling-place thugs were deployed elsewhere.&#8221; &#8220;Indications&#8221;? *Again, evidence has yet to be offered. *

(entire article in link​

Only 3 cases in 45 years!  That is a hell of a high bar.


----------



## chanel

As silkcity has mentioned - 99% of the voters in that neighborhood are black.  I don't doubt that.  No rabble rousing whities would be dumb enough to make trouble in that area.  Especially on election day.


----------



## Ravi

Tech_Esq said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> What legitimate purpose was there for the guy to have a billy club in his hands?
> 
> Why are you not intimidated when you approach a large, apparently strong man, who is slapping his hand -- like he wants to use it -- with a billy club and he is not in law enforcement? Are you dumb? Self preservation instinct set on -- "thin the herd"?
> 
> If that guy doesn't intimidate you, you're either lying or stupid. I'm pretty big and pretty fit and trained and I'm pretty sure it would be an all day affair if I tangled with that guy. If you aren't, you'd have no shot.
> 
> 
> 
> The woman standing behind him chatting on the phone wasn't intimidated...was she? So I think your argument is ridiculous.
> 
> As for legitimate purpose...I did read somewhere that the NBPs were expecting people to intimidate the voters at that precinct and therefore they were providing guard duty. That may or may not be true but it is a logical assumption and makes more sense than them intimidating their own group.
> 
> Are they stupid...apparently. Were they trying to intimidate voters? I don't see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't argue from the particular to the general (i.e. the woman talking on the phone...) it's a logical fallacy. So you get a FAIL on that.
> 
> So, your argument is that yes, they were intimidating, but it's ok because they were guarding against other people who "might" intimidate others? So the aforementioned "crackers" were going to go to what you claim to be a predominantly black precinct and intimidate voters? In Philly? Come'on, you don't even expect anyone to believe that do you?
> 
> You can't believe that story yourself, hell you won't even believe voter intimidation when you see it with your own two eyes. You can't tell me you would believe some cock'n bull story like that.
Click to expand...

IMO, there is no evidence of voter intimidation. You asked for an alternate scenario...I gave you one. I didn't say I agreed with it.

I have seen no evidence that voter intimidation was taking place.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

chanel said:


> As silkcity has mentioned - 99% of the voters in that neighborhood are black.  I don't doubt that.  No rabble rousing whities would be dumb enough to make trouble in that area.  Especially on election day.



I'll be there in November.


----------



## Ravi

hortysir said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> how the hell would anyone know who people voted for?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if they're black they voted for the black candid.......oops.....
> I mean; if they're Democrats, they obviously voted for a Democrat.
> And the white peop......errr..ummm...
> I mean the REPUBLICANS voted for a Republican.
> 
> Yea.
> That's how it works.
> 
> What a fucking idiot.....
Click to expand...

No, that would be you.

Ballots are secret...there is no way for anyone to know who voted for who.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Coyote said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was a voter intimidation case against some Minutemen, one of whom carried a gun - intimidating hispanic voters - under the last administration.  Case was dropped for the same reason as the NBP case.  Must not have been in the news much.
> 
> Care to explain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two wrongs do not make a right. I don't have any knowledge of what you're talking about, but I'll just take you at your word that it happened as you say. If they were intimidating voters, they need to be prosecuted. If they weren't, that was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, two wrongs don't make a right but - that is an argument frequently brought up when someone attempts to show that a similar issue, was handled in a similar way - recently - but ignored!  Part of the Commission's investigation includes examining whether the NBT case indicates a significant departure from standard practice/interpretation of law in the DoJ and, bringing up a similar case dismissed for similar reasons would seem to indicate it is not.
> 
> 
> 
> If the Minuteman case is representative of a case where the demands for evidence did not meet the law then it was correct to drop it - as with the Black Panther case.  I'm not going to say there is a tit-for-a-tat here becuase there is no evidence to support that beyond circumstantial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, analysis of the court did not need to proceed to whether stare decisis applied because default judgment was entered as you note further on in your comments. So, I don't think attempting to impune the facts and assuming what the court would or would not have done is appropriate. The facts were sufficient for the court to find that the government made a prima facie case of voter intimidation, you can't get a default judgment with less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF that is the case, then yes he should be held accountable -* but WHAT evidence is there beyond hearsay and circumstantial?*  Adams himself admitted that he has *no first-hand knowledge* of the events and conversations he claimes to support his accusations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, a prima facie case was made by the government. (The facts, in the light most favorable to the government, showed the accused were guilty of voter intimidation).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In any case, it seems more than clear to me *(and oh by the way, to the court) *that there was voter intimidation by the two NBP members. There is no legitimate excuse for dropping the case in the sentencing phase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What court?  My understanding is that the judgegment that would have been obtained was by default of the guy not showing up  not as a matter of evidence. In fact, judgement was obtained against the person that actually had a nightstick (which, by the way, is more than any judgement against the Minutemen).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The judgment was obtained, but the prosecution was dropped in the sentencing phase. An even more difficult to understand decision by the justice department. I could more easily see just not prosecuting.
> 
> 
> 
> Have any voters claimed to have been intimidated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's my understanding. I would say, since the government had to make out a prima facie case, then they must have had to show actual intimidation if that is an element of the crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Furthermore, this action is dangerous because of the signal it sends to the American public that this behavior is tolerated. I don't need members of either side lingering around polling places with weapons of any description. *It will only lead to violence around polling places. Believe me, this election there will be armed people looking for polling places with "these kind of guards" to "confront" them and let the chips fall where they may.
> 
> That would be a disastrous result! The justice department needs to man up say they were wrong and finish the prosecution. They cannot allow people to think this is OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually agree with that - and, in this case - the fellow with the nightstick did have an injunction filed against him as a result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really believe, "don't show up at another polling place armed for a couple of years" is enough to send any kind of a message except, "We don't really mind if you do this -- wink, wink, nod, nod" If so, you and Ravi are on an island with TM and I don't envy you that.
Click to expand...


----------



## Tech_Esq

Ravi said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The woman standing behind him chatting on the phone wasn't intimidated...was she? So I think your argument is ridiculous.
> 
> As for legitimate purpose...I did read somewhere that the NBPs were expecting people to intimidate the voters at that precinct and therefore they were providing guard duty. That may or may not be true but it is a logical assumption and makes more sense than them intimidating their own group.
> 
> Are they stupid...apparently. Were they trying to intimidate voters? I don't see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't argue from the particular to the general (i.e. the woman talking on the phone...) it's a logical fallacy. So you get a FAIL on that.
> 
> So, your argument is that yes, they were intimidating, but it's ok because they were guarding against other people who "might" intimidate others? So the aforementioned "crackers" were going to go to what you claim to be a predominantly black precinct and intimidate voters? In Philly? Come'on, you don't even expect anyone to believe that do you?
> 
> You can't believe that story yourself, hell you won't even believe voter intimidation when you see it with your own two eyes. You can't tell me you would believe some cock'n bull story like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IMO, there is no evidence of voter intimidation. You asked for an alternate scenario...I gave you one. I didn't say I agreed with it.
> 
> I have seen no evidence that voter intimidation was taking place.
Click to expand...


Thankfully, the court did.


----------



## daveman

Yukon. said:


> Cowardly little men like you people are frightened by the Negro. You are only "brave" when you have a gun or have a half-dozen other people to back you up. You'll never change.


Talking to yourself again?


----------



## Ravi

In case anyone is interested, here is one article on the voter intimidation in Arizona. The case was dropped by the Bush administration.

Anti-immigrant activists accused of voter harassment

You have to scroll down to read the article.


----------



## Care4all

immie, did you think all the guns and rifles at the different Obama rallies and speeches were as intimidating as a billy-club?

I don't liker either, but the loaded guns, scares me much more...


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Care4all said:


> immie, did you think all the guns and rifles at the different Obama rallies and speeches were as intimidating as a billy-club?
> 
> I don't liker either, but the loaded guns, scares me much more...



I'm not Immie, but I'll answer and say NO. The reason being is that openly carried weapons is somewhat the norm in those areas.  Oh and "speeches" isn't spelled with an "a".


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Ravi said:


> In case anyone is interested, here is one article on the voter intimidation in Arizona. The case was dropped by the Bush administration.
> 
> Anti-immigrant activists accused of voter harassment
> 
> You have to scroll down to read the article.



Did you read "Border Patrol rescues migrant from well"?


----------



## Tech_Esq

Care4all said:


> immie, did you think all the guns and rifles at the different Obama rallies and speaches were as intimidating as a billy-club?
> 
> I don't liker either, but the loaded guns, scares me much more...



Loaded guns were at 2nd amendment rallies not Obama rallies.

I get the feeling some folks on the left have tried to blur this distinction. I don't think having guns were any president is, is a good idea. 

I think guns at a 2nd amendment rally is perfectly appropriate.


----------



## Foxfyre

Ravi said:


> In case anyone is interested, here is one article on the voter intimidation in Arizona. The case was dropped by the Bush administration.
> 
> Anti-immigrant activists accused of voter harassment
> 
> You have to scroll down to read the article.



Assuming that's a legitimate site, Ravi, and it looks pretty suspect as a leftist blog site the way it is laid out, where is the evidence the Bush administration dropped the case?  IF...and that's a big IF....the information shown is correct, then of course those people should have been prosecuted and appropriate consequences imposed.  It should not be tolerable no matter who does it.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Immanuel said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not only the thought that they might bash your brains in on your way out of the precinct.  Typically thugs don't do that and definitely not when they might be arrested for doing so.  They have someone follow you home and then in the middle of the night when you are asleep they attack.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. I'd rather they find me at home, but that's me. I'd have a better shot there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have kids?
> 
> How about kids that go to school in the neighborhood?
> 
> As for the argument that they were there to prevent McCain supporters from intimidating voters.  That is bullshit.  No one showed up and if they were coming in groups, these two thugs would not have been a problem and don't even try to tell me that one or two McCain supporters are going to go into a neighborhood like that to scare people off.  That would have been a suicide mission.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Unless there was a Charles Bronson movie that followed, the issue would end at my doorstep.


----------



## Ravi

Foxfyre said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> In case anyone is interested, here is one article on the voter intimidation in Arizona. The case was dropped by the Bush administration.
> 
> Anti-immigrant activists accused of voter harassment
> 
> You have to scroll down to read the article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming that's a legitimate site, Ravi, and it looks pretty suspect as a leftist blog site the way it is laid out, where is the evidence the Bush administration dropped the case?  IF...and that's a big IF....the information shown is correct, then of course those people should have been prosecuted and appropriate consequences imposed.  It should not be tolerable no matter who does it.
Click to expand...

It's not a leftist blog site...it is a cached page of a newspaper. Newspapers normally don't keep stories on their sites past a few years.

That the charges were dropped is a matter of court record, I don't think it was picked up by the media. 

But there was no outrage over this...which makes some of us scratch our heads that the NBP thing is getting so much attention.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Care4all said:


> immie, did you think all the guns and rifles at the different Obama rallies and speeches were as intimidating as a billy-club?
> 
> I don't liker either, but the loaded guns, scares me much more...



Apples and Oranges.   No one is attempting to enter a polling place at the rallies .


But yeah guns are more intimidating than billyclubs which is why I'm making sure I have mine on voting day.     (Oh calm down people i'm not going to stand outside a polling place like a hypocrite and harass people)


----------



## Tech_Esq

Foxfyre said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> In case anyone is interested, here is one article on the voter intimidation in Arizona. The case was dropped by the Bush administration.
> 
> Anti-immigrant activists accused of voter harassment
> 
> You have to scroll down to read the article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming that's a legitimate site, Ravi, and it looks pretty suspect as a leftist blog site the way it is laid out, where is the evidence the Bush administration dropped the case?  IF...and that's a big IF....the information shown is correct, then of course those people should have been prosecuted and appropriate consequences imposed.  It should not be tolerable no matter who does it.
Click to expand...


I agree, both with your analysis and the outcome, that if the facts as stated are true, they should have been prosecuted.

I did note that every single "source" quoted in the article was either from the left or sympathetic to the complaining individual.


----------



## Coyote

Lonestar_logic said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sworn testimony is hearsay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In his sworn testimony he admitted he had no first hand knowledge of the events or conversations he was claiming to know about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read what he has to say for yourself. That is if you can pull your head out of your ass long enough.
> 
> Today, I testified to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights about the Department of Justice's hostility to race-neutral law enforcement. I hope these hearings spur those responsible to explain their actions to Americans.
Click to expand...




Now wipe the brown stuff out of your eyes and read the transcript.  It's full of stuff like:

MR. BLACKWOOD: Now we've had several witnesses who were present at Fairmont Street and they indicate that the Department of Justice lawyers, part of a roving team, met with them on Election Day to take some statements. Do you know who those individuals were? 
MR. ADAMS: *I do not actually.* I knew 1 that there was a team deployed to Fairmont Street, but *I don't know who the individuals* were. 
MR. BLACKWOOD: Do you know whether those individuals took written statements from any of the witnesses? 
MR. ADAMS: I know they took statements from the witnesses. 
MR. BLACKWOOD: *Did you actually see them?* 
MR. ADAMS: *I did not.*​


----------



## The Infidel

Coyote said:


> Count Dracula said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you imagine the shit storm that would come down if *white guys had of done this?*  Guess it's ok though because it was done by a bunch of radical black guys.  That's America for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did.  Minutemen attempted to intimidate hispanic voters.  Case was dropped by the Bush DoJ.
> 
> Guess Fox didn't think it newsworthy eh?  That's America for you.
Click to expand...


Proof?


No, I didnt think so....


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Ravi said:


> In case anyone is interested, here is one article on the voter intimidation in Arizona. The case was dropped by the Bush administration.
> 
> Anti-immigrant activists accused of voter harassment
> 
> You have to scroll down to read the article.



Ravi please stop with the lies....

MORE PROOF SHE IS LYING

http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/04-23-2010_NBPPhearing.pdf
Bartle Bull


----------



## Ravi

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> In case anyone is interested, here is one article on the voter intimidation in Arizona. The case was dropped by the Bush administration.
> 
> Anti-immigrant activists accused of voter harassment
> 
> You have to scroll down to read the article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi please stop with the lies....
> 
> MORE PROOF SHE IS LYING
> 
> http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/04-23-2010_NBPPhearing.pdf
> Bartle Bull
Click to expand...

What are you trying to say...that the case wasn't dropped? It was.


----------



## Immanuel

Coyote said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to say this, because I respect both you and Coyote, but I believe you two have suffered from this confirmation bias.  *The facts have been presented and you both ignore the facts.*  Those two men were there to intimidate voters.  It does not matter whether or not anyone was actually intimidated by them, but that was what they were there for.
> 
> IMHO the important part of t*his equation is intent, not success.
> *
> You made a good point a couple of days back about the fact that this was a majority black precinct and there was no need for them to be there to intimidate voters.  You are, of course, right in that respect, but need is not a factor either.  They were there and they made a very clear statement of intimidation.  *Something to the effect that a Black Man would rule "you" tomorrow. * is this fact or opinion or hearsay?
> 
> They might not have been intimidating to you, but if I were a white man living in their neighborhood and voting at that precinct, I would have been intimidated.  I don't know whether or not I would have decided not to vote, but I would have been extremely uncomfortable having a man who probably did not agree with my position, standing outside with a nightstick in his hand while I voted.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have the facts been presented or, opinions?  I agree with intent when it comes to accusations like "racism" - intent matters.  But laws can't be decided on intent alone.
> 
> Was any voter intimidated or claim to have been intimidated?
> 
> I think this National Review article says it best:
> 
> Forget about the New Black Panther Party case; it is very small potatoes. Perhaps the Panthers should have been prosecuted under section 11 (b) of the Voting Rights Act for their actions of November 2008, *but the legal standards that must be met to prove voter intimidation -- the charge -- are very high.*
> 
> In the 45 years since the act was passed, *there have been a total of three successful prosecutions.* The incident involved only three Panthers at a single majority-black precinct in Philadelphia. So far -- after months of hearings, testimony and investigation --* no one has produced actual evidence that any voters were too scared to cast their ballots.* Too much overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges has been devoted to this case.
> 
> A number of conservatives have charged that the Philadelphia Black Panther decision demonstrates that attorneys in the Civil Rights Division have racial double standards. How many attorneys in what positions? A pervasive culture that affected the handling of this case? *No direct quotations or other evidence substantiate the charge.*
> 
> Thomas Perez, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, makes a perfectly plausible argument: *Different lawyers read this barely litigated statutory provision differently. It happens all the time, especially when administrations change in the middle of litigation. Democrats and Republicans seldom agree on how best to enforce civil-rights statutes; this is not the first instance of a war between Left and Right within the Civil Rights Division.*
> 
> The two Panthers have been described as &#8220;armed&#8221; &#8212; which suggests guns. One of them was carrying a billy club, and it is alleged that his repeated slapping of the club against his palm constituted brandishing it in a menacing way. They have also been described as wearing &#8220;jackboots,&#8221; but the boots were no different from a pair my husband owns.
> 
> A disaffected former Justice Department attorney has written: &#8220;We had indications that polling-place thugs were deployed elsewhere.&#8221; &#8220;Indications&#8221;? *Again, evidence has yet to be offered. *
> 
> (entire article in link​
> 
> Only 3 cases in 45 years!  That is a hell of a high bar.
Click to expand...


Ms. Thernstrom is perfectly welcomed to her opinion and I respect that she (allegedly (since I do not know anything about her) a conservative expresses a difference of opinion from other conservatives.  I have been known to do so as well.  

That does not change the fact that despite the rarity "3 cases in 45 years" or the difficulty of successful prosecution "legal standards that must be met to prove voter intimidation" that these two should have been prosecuted.  If you let them get away with it in one precinct in 2008, then in 2010, they will be in five.  

Neither does the fact that the NBPP is a small insignificant organization matter.  To Ms. Thernstrom they may be small and insignificant, but not to the people living around them.

Edit:


> Something to the effect that a Black Man would rule "you" tomorrow.  is this fact or opinion or hearsay?



Coming from me it is hearsay.  I heard it on one of the videos I have seen.  I think, but cannot swear, that it was the Fox Interview with Dr. Malik Zulu Shabazz.  The one where I earlier said that he seemed like a likable man and stand by that.

Immie


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Coyote said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not that - it's whether or not voter intiimidation took place with sufficient evidence to meet the requirements of the law - that is what matters, whether the law is upheld.  Otherwise - you could claim "intimidation" just because I looked at you funny when you were voting.
> 
> And was it blown out of proportion?  Seems like it - it morphed into 3 men all carrying billy clubs and even guns in some accounts, but in the end, only one had a nightstick, and that one had an injunction against him.
> 
> The law shouldn't be politically biased - is it in this incident?  All we seem to have is one man's hearsay account of what went on the DoJ - and there is no evidence at the moment supporting his claims.
> 
> IF voter intimidation is such a hot issue, why aren't these same people clamoring for a look at the case of the Minutemen intimidating hispanic voters dismissed under the previous administration?  That guy actually had a gun.
> 
> It is because of this hypocrisy - and lack of strong evidence - combined with a hell of a lot of emotionally-charged accusations of "racism" being flung around by both sides - that I am very skeptical.
> 
> These things need to be decided by law, not emotion and if the Civil Rights Commission is looking into it, then I am convinced it will be done in accordance with the law and not political partisanship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The man with the baton was already found guilty by the DOJ...then the charges were dropped before sentancing at the direction of Eric Holder.  *Then J Christian Adams, one of the attorneys involved in the case, testified under oath that he was told not to pursue cases where there are white plaintiffs and black defendants in any type of civil rights case.*
> 
> I know I'm lumping it all together fast but I've been researching this thing so much my patience level is zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been researching it too....is there any evidence beyond hearsay?  For example Adams made claims of things said when he wasn't even there.  Adams own credabilty is itself strained since he was a part of the DoJ that was found by an independent commission to have been inappropriately politicized in it's hiring practices and it's decisions on what cases to pursue.
> 
> What actual evidence is there *that is not hearsay* -  that Adams was told that?
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what they were doing - just standing there, but not blocking people - I wouldn't care.  If they were attempting to block me, get information from me, or interact with me - then yes, I would have a problem.  But would that meet the requirements of the law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a problem with a Hooded KKK member standing in front of a polling place with a baton?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> KKK has a history - a well documented history of racial intimidation, murder, and violence - so yes, I would have a problem but I'm not sure "my problem" would meet the requirements of the law which should be strict because *it's a fine line between "free speech" and "intimidation".*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your answer in not Yes to both then you and I will not see eye to eye in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See my answer....
Click to expand...


Yes it is his word, under oath, as the only evidence.  YOu are right.

As far as the history of the KKK, which we all know, here is some video of NBPP leaders that you may not have seen.

Khallid Muhammad's Speech - Kill The White Man - Video
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3MbqupVxMY]YouTube - Black Panthers Say That Blacks Have To "Kill Some Crackers And Their Babies!"[/ame] (this is the same guy with that baton beating it off his hand at the polling place...here is that video too )
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU]YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly[/ame]


SOunds pretty violent to me.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Just to clarify a couple of things. This is from the record of the Civil Rights Commission hearing:



> The lawsuit sought
> 4 * a permanent injunction against each of these
> 5  defendants from in part engaging in coercing,
> 6  threatening or intimidating behavior at polling
> 7  locations during elections.*
> 8  The record reveals that each of the
> 9  defendants was served with a complaint; however, none
> 10  of them contested the charges, and a default was
> 11  entered against them.* As a matter of law, that meant
> 12  that none of the factual allegations contained in the
> 13  complaint were contested by the defendants.*



So, this was what was at stake when the Obama Justice department pulled the rug out. A permanent injunction from "engaging in coercing, threatening or intimidating behavior at polling locations during elections". 

Now why in the hell would you not want that injunction in place? It is outrageous that they would prevent such an injunction.

As I stated in my response to Coyote, the Court had entered a judgment in the case and as a matter of law the prima facie case was proven by the government.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Ravi said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> In case anyone is interested, here is one article on the voter intimidation in Arizona. The case was dropped by the Bush administration.
> 
> Anti-immigrant activists accused of voter harassment
> 
> You have to scroll down to read the article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi please stop with the lies....
> 
> MORE PROOF SHE IS LYING
> 
> http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/04-23-2010_NBPPhearing.pdf
> Bartle Bull
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you trying to say...that the case wasn't dropped? It was.
Click to expand...


The testimony that I just linked for you in the 2nd link..from April 2009 was from this very case.   The civil case was not dropped by bush and you have blatantly swallowed and repeated a lie that it was.

@ coyote...read the testimony in the 2nd link, the entire testimony.  YOu dont have all the information of the case and the behavior of the 2 individuals that you did not see in the video i just linked for you. (the last of the 3 videos.)


----------



## hortysir

Ravi said:


> In case anyone is interested, here is one article on the voter intimidation in Arizona. The case was dropped by the Bush administration.
> 
> Anti-immigrant activists accused of voter harassment
> 
> You have to scroll down to read the article.


Liar.
Nowhere is that said in the article.

From your link


> Wyn Hornbuckle, spokesman with the Arizona U.S. Attorney's Office,  said the office has received some isolated reports of voter intimidation  and other issues, such as voter fraud. However, he said, it would be  premature to talk about those reports.
> "The U.S. Attorney continues to monitor the situation and will  prosecute any violation of criminal law if such violation exists," he  said.


Did ya think no one would read your link, and just take your word?


----------



## Tech_Esq

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The man with the baton was already found guilty by the DOJ...then the charges were dropped before sentancing at the direction of Eric Holder.  *Then J Christian Adams, one of the attorneys involved in the case, testified under oath that he was told not to pursue cases where there are white plaintiffs and black defendants in any type of civil rights case.*
> 
> I know I'm lumping it all together fast but I've been researching this thing so much my patience level is zero.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been researching it too....is there any evidence beyond hearsay?  For example Adams made claims of things said when he wasn't even there.  Adams own credabilty is itself strained since he was a part of the DoJ that was found by an independent commission to have been inappropriately politicized in it's hiring practices and it's decisions on what cases to pursue.
> 
> What actual evidence is there *that is not hearsay* -  that Adams was told that?
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what they were doing - just standing there, but not blocking people - I wouldn't care.  If they were attempting to block me, get information from me, or interact with me - then yes, I would have a problem.  But would that meet the requirements of the law?
> 
> 
> 
> KKK has a history - a well documented history of racial intimidation, murder, and violence - so yes, I would have a problem but I'm not sure "my problem" would meet the requirements of the law which should be strict because *it's a fine line between "free speech" and "intimidation".*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your answer in not Yes to both then you and I will not see eye to eye in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See my answer....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is his word, under oath, as the only evidence.  YOu are right.
> 
> As far as the history of the KKK, which we all know, here is some video of NBPP leaders that you may not have seen.
> 
> Khallid Muhammad's Speech - Kill The White Man - Video
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3MbqupVxMY]YouTube - Black Panthers Say That Blacks Have To "Kill Some Crackers And Their Babies!"[/ame] (this is the same guy with that baton beating it off his hand at the polling place...here is that video too )
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU]YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly[/ame]
> 
> 
> SOunds pretty violent to me.
Click to expand...


I have to say the camera boy is kind of a pussy. He should have walked straight through, since he had a "Poll watcher cert." and force dude to hit him if he was going to. Then we wouldn't be left with this, "Is he or isn't he," we'd know.


----------



## Immanuel

Care4all said:


> immie, did you think all the guns and rifles at the different Obama rallies and speeches were as intimidating as a billy-club?
> 
> I don't liker either, but the loaded guns, scares me much more...



Thank you for bringing that incident up.

Yes, I did think they were intimidating and that they were there to intimidate.  And yes, the loaded guns were more intimidating.  I also felt that the people who brought weapons to those rallies were absolutely stupid and I was surprised that the Secret Service allowed them to be there.

Immie


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Ah but we have sworn testimony from a long time civil rights man as to what types of behavior those 2 individuals exhibited.

Bartle Bull


----------



## Care4all

Tech_Esq said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> immie, did you think all the guns and rifles at the different Obama rallies and speaches were as intimidating as a billy-club?
> 
> I don't liker either, but the loaded guns, scares me much more...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loaded guns were at 2nd amendment rallies not Obama rallies.
> 
> I get the feeling some folks on the left have tried to blur this distinction. I don't think having guns were any president is, is a good idea.
> 
> I think guns at a 2nd amendment rally is perfectly appropriate.
Click to expand...

Guns at Obama Rallies: Where's the Outrage? - Newsweek

Protester defends bringing guns to Obama rally | StarTribune.com

Cenk Uygur: Man with a Gun Near Obama Rally -- Hell No!

azcentral.com blogs - PHXBeat - Man with AR-15 rifle at Obama rally sparks concerns

guns at obama rally - Google Search


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Care4all said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> immie, did you think all the guns and rifles at the different Obama rallies and speaches were as intimidating as a billy-club?
> 
> I don't liker either, but the loaded guns, scares me much more...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loaded guns were at 2nd amendment rallies not Obama rallies.
> 
> I get the feeling some folks on the left have tried to blur this distinction. I don't think having guns were any president is, is a good idea.
> 
> I think guns at a 2nd amendment rally is perfectly appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guns at Obama Rallies: Where's the Outrage? - Newsweek
> 
> Protester defends bringing guns to Obama rally | StarTribune.com
> 
> Cenk Uygur: Man with a Gun Near Obama Rally -- Hell No!
> 
> azcentral.com blogs - PHXBeat - Man with AR-15 rifle at Obama rally sparks concerns
> 
> guns at obama rally - Google Search
Click to expand...


Yes care there were guns at rallies and guns are more intimidating, in my opinion, than billyclubs in the hands of uniformed individuals.

However, it is apples/oranges comparing intimidation at a rally to intimidation at a polling station.  We have specific civil rights laws protecting ALL americans from polling place intimidation.


----------



## Immanuel

Tech_Esq said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> True. I'd rather they find me at home, but that's me. I'd have a better shot there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have kids?
> 
> How about kids that go to school in the neighborhood?
> 
> As for the argument that they were there to prevent McCain supporters from intimidating voters.  That is bullshit.  No one showed up and if they were coming in groups, these two thugs would not have been a problem and don't even try to tell me that one or two McCain supporters are going to go into a neighborhood like that to scare people off.  That would have been a suicide mission.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless there was a Charles Bronson movie that followed, the issue would end at my doorstep.
Click to expand...


What if they didn't come to your doorstep but rather had high school kids beat the hell out of your third grader?  Assuming of course, there was any hell in your third grader   If he/she is anything like my kids there was.

Immie


----------



## Coyote

Tech_Esq said:


> However, analysis of the court did not need to proceed to whether stare decisis applied because default judgment was entered as you note further on in your comments. So, I don't think attempting to impune the facts and assuming what the court would or would not have done is appropriate. The facts were sufficient for the court to find that the government made a prima facie case of voter intimidation, you can't get a default judgment with less.
> 
> Again, a prima facie case was made by the government. (The facts, in the light most favorable to the government, showed the accused were guilty of voter intimidation).
> 
> The judgment was obtained, but the prosecution was dropped in the sentencing phase. An even more difficult to understand decision by the justice department. I could more easily see just not prosecuting.
> 
> 
> That's my understanding. I would say, since the government had to make out a prima facie case, then they must have had to show actual intimidation if that is an element of the crime.



I am not a lawyer, I can't argue with legal terminology.  If the defendent doesn't show, and you get a default judgement as a result - that does not necessarily mean that there is enough evidence to win the case.  

I think it's significant that in 45 years, only 3 cases of voter intimidation have been won.  I can't imagine that the NBT case, occuring in a predominately black Democratic precinct - where "intimidation" seems limited to appearance - not blocking the polls etc etc could possibly be a strong enough case and conservative lawyers have even concurred.

In addition, I think it's important to note that the case was downgraded to a civil case before any of the current players were in the DoJ or Obama was in office.  I think all that indicates a weak case.



> Do you really believe, "don't show up at another polling place armed for a couple of years" is enough to send any kind of a message except, "We don't really mind if you do this -- wink, wink, nod, nod" If so, you and Ravi are on an island with TM and I don't envy you that.



Actually, I do.  When you considered that they did what they did in a black democratic precinct - who were they "intimidating"?  Or were they being self-congratulatory assholes on a power trip?


----------



## Coyote

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Ah but we have sworn testimony from a long time civil rights man as to what types of behavior those 2 individuals exhibited.
> 
> Bartle Bull



But, as I noted and linked to earlier in response to Lonestar - Bartle is not exactly unbiased.  He was campaigning for McCain, had strongly denounced Obama and was a McCain "poll watcher".


----------



## Ravi

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi please stop with the lies....
> 
> MORE PROOF SHE IS LYING
> 
> http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/04-23-2010_NBPPhearing.pdf
> Bartle Bull
> 
> 
> 
> What are you trying to say...that the case wasn't dropped? It was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The testimony that I just linked for you in the 2nd link..from April 2009 was from this very case.   The civil case was not dropped by bush and you have blatantly swallowed and repeated a lie that it was.
> 
> @ coyote...read the testimony in the 2nd link, the entire testimony.  YOu dont have all the information of the case and the behavior of the 2 individuals that you did not see in the video i just linked for you. (the last of the 3 videos.)
Click to expand...


You are not talking about the Arizona case, I was...so your accusation of me being a liar is bullshit.

It is true though that the Bush administration dropped criminal charges in the NBP case.


----------



## Ravi

hortysir said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> In case anyone is interested, here is one article on the voter intimidation in Arizona. The case was dropped by the Bush administration.
> 
> Anti-immigrant activists accused of voter harassment
> 
> You have to scroll down to read the article.
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.
> Nowhere is that said in the article.
> 
> From your link
> 
> 
> 
> Wyn Hornbuckle, spokesman with the Arizona U.S. Attorney's Office,  said the office has received some isolated reports of voter intimidation  and other issues, such as voter fraud. However, he said, it would be  premature to talk about those reports.
> "The U.S. Attorney continues to monitor the situation and will  prosecute any violation of criminal law if such violation exists," he  said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did ya think no one would read your link, and just take your word?
Click to expand...

 I didn't say it was in that link...that is just one article discussing the case right after it happened. Subsequently the charges were dropped.

Maybe you should get more creative with your insults, they've become boring.


----------



## Immanuel

Tech_Esq said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been researching it too....is there any evidence beyond hearsay?  For example Adams made claims of things said when he wasn't even there.  Adams own credabilty is itself strained since he was a part of the DoJ that was found by an independent commission to have been inappropriately politicized in it's hiring practices and it's decisions on what cases to pursue.
> 
> What actual evidence is there *that is not hearsay* -  that Adams was told that?
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what they were doing - just standing there, but not blocking people - I wouldn't care.  If they were attempting to block me, get information from me, or interact with me - then yes, I would have a problem.  But would that meet the requirements of the law?
> 
> 
> 
> KKK has a history - a well documented history of racial intimidation, murder, and violence - so yes, I would have a problem but I'm not sure "my problem" would meet the requirements of the law which should be strict because *it's a fine line between "free speech" and "intimidation".*
> 
> 
> 
> See my answer....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is his word, under oath, as the only evidence.  YOu are right.
> 
> As far as the history of the KKK, which we all know, here is some video of NBPP leaders that you may not have seen.
> 
> Khallid Muhammad's Speech - Kill The White Man - Video
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3MbqupVxMY]YouTube - Black Panthers Say That Blacks Have To "Kill Some Crackers And Their Babies!"[/ame] (this is the same guy with that baton beating it off his hand at the polling place...here is that video too )
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU]YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly[/ame]
> 
> 
> SOunds pretty violent to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to say the camera boy is kind of a pussy. He should have walked straight through, since he had a "Poll watcher cert." and force dude to hit him if he was going to. Then we wouldn't be left with this, "Is he or isn't he," we'd know.
Click to expand...


I highly doubt the coward would have hit him at least not with other witnesses around.

But, would you want to take that chance if you were alone?

Immie


----------



## Tech_Esq

Hopefully this shows up right. I think this is a fairly huge statement, the affidavit of the "poll observer" this guy is a lawyer that worked for Robert F. Kennedy, he did civil rights voting law in the 1960s in Mississippi trying to ensure blacks had the right to vote without impediment there and here is what he swore to under oath:



> 4. 	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 wapon was openly displayed and brandished in plain sight of voters.
> 5. 	I watched two uniformed men attempt to intimidate, and interfere with the work of other poll observers whom the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically.
> 6.	In my opinion, the men created an intimidating presence at the entrance to a poll. In all of my experience in politics, in civil rights litigation, and in my efforts in the 1960s to secure the right to vote in Mississippi through participation with civil rights leaders and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, 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. *Their clear purpose and intent was to intimidate voters with whom they did not agree.*



Bull's Affidavit


----------



## Immanuel

Coyote said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, analysis of the court did not need to proceed to whether stare decisis applied because default judgment was entered as you note further on in your comments. So, I don't think attempting to impune the facts and assuming what the court would or would not have done is appropriate. The facts were sufficient for the court to find that the government made a prima facie case of voter intimidation, you can't get a default judgment with less.
> 
> Again, a prima facie case was made by the government. (The facts, in the light most favorable to the government, showed the accused were guilty of voter intimidation).
> 
> The judgment was obtained, but the prosecution was dropped in the sentencing phase. An even more difficult to understand decision by the justice department. I could more easily see just not prosecuting.
> 
> 
> That's my understanding. I would say, since the government had to make out a prima facie case, then they must have had to show actual intimidation if that is an element of the crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a lawyer, I can't argue with legal terminology.  If the defendent doesn't show, and you get a default judgement as a result - that does not necessarily mean that there is enough evidence to win the case.
> 
> I think it's significant that in 45 years, only 3 cases of voter intimidation have been won.  I can't imagine that the NBT case, occuring in a predominately black Democratic precinct - where "intimidation" seems limited to appearance - not blocking the polls etc etc could possibly be a strong enough case and conservative lawyers have even concurred.
> 
> In addition, I think it's important to note that the case was downgraded to a civil case before any of the current players were in the DoJ or Obama was in office.  I think all that indicates a weak case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe, "don't show up at another polling place armed for a couple of years" is enough to send any kind of a message except, "We don't really mind if you do this -- wink, wink, nod, nod" If so, you and Ravi are on an island with TM and I don't envy you that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I do.  When you considered that they did what they did in a black democratic precinct - who were they "intimidating"?  Or were they being self-congratulatory assholes on a power trip?
Click to expand...




> In addition, I think it's important to note that the case was downgraded to a civil case before any of the current players were in the DoJ or Obama was in office.  I think all that indicates a weak case.



There is a reason for that and that is that a Civil Case is much easier to prosecute.  There is an article that was presented earlier in reference to this.  I can go back and find it if need be, but if you do an Advanced Search using me as the poster and "simpson" as a keyword, I suspect you will find that link relatively easily as I commented on it.

Immie


----------



## Ravi

Tech_Esq said:


> Hopefully this shows up right. I think this is a fairly huge statement, the affidavit of the "poll observer" this guy is a lawyer that worked for Robert F. Kennedy, he did civil rights voting law in the 1960s in Mississippi trying to ensure blacks had the right to vote without impediment there and here is what he swore to under oath:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.     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 wapon was openly displayed and brandished in plain sight of voters.
> 5.     I watched two uniformed men attempt to intimidate, and interfere with the work of other poll observers whom the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically.
> 6.    In my opinion, the men created an intimidating presence at the entrance to a poll. In all of my experience in politics, in civil rights litigation, and in my efforts in the 1960s to secure the right to vote in Mississippi through participation with civil rights leaders and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, 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. *Their clear purpose and intent was to intimidate voters with whom they did not agree.*
> 
> 
> 
> Bull's Affidavit
Click to expand...

Again, a McCain poll watcher suffering from confirmation bias.

This evidence is way too flimsy to convict on, especially when the actual video of events shows no intimidation.


----------



## Coyote

Immanuel said:


> Ms. Thernstrom is perfectly welcomed to her opinion and I respect that she (allegedly (since I do not know anything about her) a conservative expresses a difference of opinion from other conservatives.  I have been known to do so as well.
> 
> That does not change the fact that despite the rarity "3 cases in 45 years" or the difficulty of successful prosecution "legal standards that must be met to prove voter intimidation" that these two should have been prosecuted.  If you let them get away with it in one precinct in 2008, then in 2010, they will be in five.
> 
> Neither does the fact that the NBPP is a small insignificant organization matter.  To Ms. Thernstrom they may be small and insignificant, but not to the people living around them.
> 
> Edit:
> Something to the effect that a Black Man would rule "you" tomorrow.  is this fact or opinion or hearsay?
> 
> Coming from me it is hearsay.  I heard it on one of the videos I have seen.  I think, but cannot swear, that it was the Fox Interview with Dr. Malik Zulu Shabazz.  The one where I earlier said that he seemed like a likable man and stand by that.
> 
> Immie





Think about the case Immie:
3 men, dressed in paramilitary gear - but, apparently not the "jack boots" claimed by some, and one carried a nightstick.
walking around *in an overwelmingly black and Democratic precinct*.
no voters complained of being intimidated
the case was downgraded to civil before it even got to the Obama DoJ

Is it really so clear and obvious a case or, does it seem so in response to: 

a partisan reaction to the politicization of the Bush DoJ now being brought to bear on the Obama DoJ; 
the fact that black on white racism is frequently ignored in media and in prosecution; 
the possibility that a black man in the highest office might seem threatening to a white majority uncomfortable with the unfairness (percieved or real) with such programs as Affirmative Action or Hate Crime legislation?

I'm not saying this is so, but I'm asking - would you entertain the possibility it could be?

I think the bar for prosecuting these cases must be set high and it's not a matter of "letting them get away" with something - it's because "intimidation" could be claimed over something as subtle as how one looks or moves or stares....(JMO)


----------



## Tech_Esq

Immanuel said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is his word, under oath, as the only evidence.  YOu are right.
> 
> As far as the history of the KKK, which we all know, here is some video of NBPP leaders that you may not have seen.
> 
> Khallid Muhammad's Speech - Kill The White Man - Video
> YouTube - Black Panthers Say That Blacks Have To "Kill Some Crackers And Their Babies!" (this is the same guy with that baton beating it off his hand at the polling place...here is that video too )
> YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly
> 
> 
> SOunds pretty violent to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say the camera boy is kind of a pussy. He should have walked straight through, since he had a "Poll watcher cert." and force dude to hit him if he was going to. Then we wouldn't be left with this, "Is he or isn't he," we'd know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I highly doubt the coward would have hit him at least not with other witnesses around.
> 
> But, would you want to take that chance if you were alone?
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


I think you have to, don't you?

Sometimes you have to do physically unpleasant things to prove your point. Remember Ghandi's action of walking men one by one up to the police line to be beaten down by police while offering now resistance. For hours the police beat the men down, one by one. Similar circumstance here. If the camera guy was beaten down by the NBP guy, the violence and lack of moral standing would be made crystal clear.


----------



## Foxfyre

Coyote said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a lawyer, I can't argue with legal terminology.  If the defendent doesn't show, and you get a default judgement as a result - that does not necessarily mean that there is enough evidence to win the case.
> 
> I think it's significant that in 45 years, only 3 cases of voter intimidation have been won.  I can't imagine that the NBT case, occuring in a predominately black Democratic precinct - where "intimidation" seems limited to appearance - not blocking the polls etc etc could possibly be a strong enough case and conservative lawyers have even concurred.
> 
> [/B]
> You made a good point a couple of days back about the fact that this was a majority black precinct and there was no need for them to be there to intimidate voters.  You are, of course, right in that respect, but need is not a factor either.  They were there and they made a very clear statement of intimidation.  *Something to the effect that a Black Man would rule "you" tomorrow. * is this fact or opinion or hearsay?
> 
> They might not have been intimidating to you, but if I were a white man living in their neighborhood and voting at that precinct, I would have been intimidated.  I don't know whether or not I would have decided not to vote, but I would have been extremely uncomfortable having a man who probably did not agree with my position, standing outside with a nightstick in his hand while I voted.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have the facts been presented or, opinions?  I agree with intent when it comes to accusations like "racism" - intent matters.  But laws can't be decided on intent alone.
> 
> Was any voter intimidated or claim to have been intimidated?
> 
> I think this National Review article says it best:
> 
> Forget about the New Black Panther Party case; it is very small potatoes. Perhaps the Panthers should have been prosecuted under section 11 (b) of the Voting Rights Act for their actions of November 2008, *but the legal standards that must be met to prove voter intimidation -- the charge -- are very high.*
> 
> In the 45 years since the act was passed, *there have been a total of three successful prosecutions.* The incident involved only three Panthers at a single majority-black precinct in Philadelphia. So far -- after months of hearings, testimony and investigation --* no one has produced actual evidence that any voters were too scared to cast their ballots.* Too much overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges has been devoted to this case.
> 
> A number of conservatives have charged that the Philadelphia Black Panther decision demonstrates that attorneys in the Civil Rights Division have racial double standards. How many attorneys in what positions? A pervasive culture that affected the handling of this case? *No direct quotations or other evidence substantiate the charge.*
> 
> Thomas Perez, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, makes a perfectly plausible argument: *Different lawyers read this barely litigated statutory provision differently. It happens all the time, especially when administrations change in the middle of litigation. Democrats and Republicans seldom agree on how best to enforce civil-rights statutes; this is not the first instance of a war between Left and Right within the Civil Rights Division.*
> 
> The two Panthers have been described as &#8220;armed&#8221; &#8212; which suggests guns. One of them was carrying a billy club, and it is alleged that his repeated slapping of the club against his palm constituted brandishing it in a menacing way. They have also been described as wearing &#8220;jackboots,&#8221; but the boots were no different from a pair my husband owns.
> 
> A disaffected former Justice Department attorney has written: &#8220;We had indications that polling-place thugs were deployed elsewhere.&#8221; &#8220;Indications&#8221;? *Again, evidence has yet to be offered. *
> 
> (entire article in link​
> 
> Only 3 cases in 45 years!  That is a hell of a high bar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ms. Thernstrom is perfectly welcomed to her opinion and I respect that she (allegedly (since I do not know anything about her) a conservative expresses a difference of opinion from other conservatives.  I have been known to do so as well.
> 
> That does not change the fact that despite the rarity "3 cases in 45 years" or the difficulty of successful prosecution "legal standards that must be met to prove voter intimidation" that these two should have been prosecuted.  If you let them get away with it in one precinct in 2008, then in 2010, they will be in five.
> 
> Neither does the fact that the NBPP is a small insignificant organization matter.  To Ms. Thernstrom they may be small and insignificant, but not to the people living around them.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> 
> 
> Something to the effect that a Black Man would rule "you" tomorrow.  is this fact or opinion or hearsay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coming from me it is hearsay.  I heard it on one of the videos I have seen.  I think, but cannot swear, that it was the Fox Interview with Dr. Malik Zulu Shabazz.  The one where I earlier said that he seemed like a likable man and stand by that.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

[/quote]



Think about the case Immie:
3 men, dressed in paramilitary gear - but, apparently not the "jack boots" claimed by some, and one carried a nightstick.
walking around *in an overwelmingly black and Democratic precinct*.
no voters complained of being intimidated
the case was downgraded to civil before it even got to the Obama DoJ

Is it really so clear and obvious a case or, does it seem so in response to: 

a partisan reaction to the politicization of the Bush DoJ now being brought to bear on the Obama DoJ; 
the fact that black on white racism is frequently ignored in media and in prosecution; 
the possibility that a black man in the highest office might seem threatening to a white majority uncomfortable with the unfairness (percieved or real) with such programs as Affirmative Action or Hate Crime legislation?

I'm not saying this is so, but I'm asking - would you entertain the possibility it could be?

I think the bar for prosecuting these cases must be set high and it's not a matter of "letting them get away" with something - it's because "intimidation" could be claimed over something as subtle as how one looks or moves or stares....(JMO)(/QUOTE]
*********************************************
(Quote function not working right now for some reason)


The issue as I see it is not whether the case was prosecuted.  The issue is that IF DOJ personnel determined there was justification to prosecute it and . . .

IF it was dropped, as one of their own has testified, for political reasons unrelated to any issues of justice and. . .

IF, as it has been said, the DOJ is now under orders not to investigate or prosecute the New Black Panthers. . . .

THAT should be seen as a problem by all of us no matter how much we do or do not worship our fearless leaders or what our personal ideologies might be.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Ravi said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully this shows up right. I think this is a fairly huge statement, the affidavit of the "poll observer" this guy is a lawyer that worked for Robert F. Kennedy, he did civil rights voting law in the 1960s in Mississippi trying to ensure blacks had the right to vote without impediment there and here is what he swore to under oath:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.     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 wapon was openly displayed and brandished in plain sight of voters.
> 5.     I watched two uniformed men attempt to intimidate, and interfere with the work of other poll observers whom the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically.
> 6.    In my opinion, the men created an intimidating presence at the entrance to a poll. In all of my experience in politics, in civil rights litigation, and in my efforts in the 1960s to secure the right to vote in Mississippi through participation with civil rights leaders and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, 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. *Their clear purpose and intent was to intimidate voters with whom they did not agree.*
> 
> 
> 
> Bull's Affidavit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, a McCain poll watcher suffering from confirmation bias.
> 
> This evidence is way too flimsy to convict on, especially when the actual video of events shows no intimidation.
Click to expand...


There is no leftie on this board who has credentials that can begin to stand up to his. Were you in Mississippi engaged in getting the blacks civil rights in the 1960s when people died (not just a few) for doing such things? Then STFU.

Seriously. You can make the second statement if you want to, but I'm not going to sit back and let you denigrate someone was there, who fought the fights in very tough and dangerous circumstances. It's a shame you feel that you can do that.


----------



## Coyote

Tech_Esq said:


> Hopefully this shows up right. I think this is a fairly huge statement, the affidavit of the "poll observer" this guy is *a lawyer that worked for Robert F. Kennedy, he did civil rights voting law in the 1960s in Mississippi *trying to ensure blacks had the right to vote without impediment there and here is what he swore to under oath:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. 	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 wapon was openly displayed and brandished in plain sight of voters.
> 5. 	I watched two uniformed men attempt to intimidate, and interfere with the work of other poll observers whom the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically.
> 6.	In my opinion, the men created an intimidating presence at the entrance to a poll. In all of my experience in politics, in civil rights litigation, and in my efforts in the 1960s to secure the right to vote in Mississippi through participation with civil rights leaders and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, 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. *Their clear purpose and intent was to intimidate voters with whom they did not agree.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull's Affidavit
Click to expand...


But, more recently - he was also a McCain supporter actively working for McCain's campaign, had strongly denounced Obama and was a McCain pollwatcher.  All of that kind of nulls his "civil rights" credentials in terms of weighting his opinion which is what he is giving us.


----------



## L.K.Eder

a definitely hostile witness.


----------



## Care4all

Correct me if I am wrong, but there is NEVER jailtime associated with civil law suits, but only damages that would have to be paid, towards the person they harmed????  No???


----------



## Coyote

Foxfyre said:


> *********************************************
> (Quote function not working right now for some reason)
> 
> 
> The issue as I see it is not whether the case was prosecuted.  The issue is that IF DOJ personnel determined there was justification to prosecute it and . . .
> 
> IF it was dropped, as one of their own has testified, for political reasons unrelated to any issues of justice and. . .
> 
> IF, as it has been said, the DOJ is now under orders not to investigate or prosecute the New Black Panthers. . . .
> 
> THAT should be seen as a problem by all of us no matter how much we do or do not worship our fearless leaders or what our personal ideologies might be.



The quote function gets frustrating with nested quotes - I had to keep going back and editing mine 

IF - and that is the crux - IF any of that is true, and all we have so far is hearsay from J. Christian Adams - someone who may well have his own ax to grind - then yes, I agree with you.

However, the Civil Righs Commission is investigating, and I'm content to see what they have to say.


----------



## Ravi

Foxfyre said:


> IF, as it has been said, the DOJ is now under orders not to investigate or prosecute the New Black Panthers. . . .


Where are you getting this from? IMO, it is total bullshit. That'd be like saying the Bush administration ordered no prosecuting of the KKK...it's just too far out there to be credible.

You people worry me sometimes.


----------



## Ravi

Tech_Esq said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully this shows up right. I think this is a fairly huge statement, the affidavit of the "poll observer" this guy is a lawyer that worked for Robert F. Kennedy, he did civil rights voting law in the 1960s in Mississippi trying to ensure blacks had the right to vote without impediment there and here is what he swore to under oath:
> 
> Bull's Affidavit
> 
> 
> 
> Again, a McCain poll watcher suffering from confirmation bias.
> 
> This evidence is way too flimsy to convict on, especially when the actual video of events shows no intimidation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no leftie on this board who has credentials that can begin to stand up to his. Were you in Mississippi engaged in getting the blacks civil rights in the 1960s when people died (not just a few) for doing such things? Then STFU.
> 
> Seriously. You can make the second statement if you want to, but I'm not going to sit back and let you denigrate someone was there, who fought the fights in very tough and dangerous circumstances. It's a shame you feel that you can do that.
Click to expand...

GMAFB. Confirmation bias strikes the best of us...I'm surprised that you being an attorney don't realize this truth.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Ravi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF, as it has been said, the DOJ is now under orders not to investigate or prosecute the New Black Panthers. . . .
> 
> 
> 
> Where are you getting this from? IMO, it is total bullshit. That'd be like saying the Bush administration ordered no prosecuting of the KKK...it's just too far out there to be credible.
> 
> You people worry me sometimes.
Click to expand...


they have already turned the unhinged outrage to 11. what will they do after the midterms?

go waco? lol lol


----------



## Ravi

Care4all said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but there is NEVER jailtime associated with civil law suits, but only damages that would have to be paid, towards the person they harmed????  No???


Certainly that was the case for OJ Simpson.


----------



## Coyote

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The man with the baton was already found guilty by the DOJ...then the charges were dropped before sentancing at the direction of Eric Holder.  *Then J Christian Adams, one of the attorneys involved in the case, testified under oath that he was told not to pursue cases where there are white plaintiffs and black defendants in any type of civil rights case.*
> 
> I know I'm lumping it all together fast but I've been researching this thing so much my patience level is zero.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been researching it too....is there any evidence beyond hearsay?  For example Adams made claims of things said when he wasn't even there.  Adams own credabilty is itself strained since he was a part of the DoJ that was found by an independent commission to have been inappropriately politicized in it's hiring practices and it's decisions on what cases to pursue.
> 
> What actual evidence is there *that is not hearsay* -  that Adams was told that?
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what they were doing - just standing there, but not blocking people - I wouldn't care.  If they were attempting to block me, get information from me, or interact with me - then yes, I would have a problem.  But would that meet the requirements of the law?
> 
> 
> 
> KKK has a history - a well documented history of racial intimidation, murder, and violence - so yes, I would have a problem but I'm not sure "my problem" would meet the requirements of the law which should be strict because *it's a fine line between "free speech" and "intimidation".*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your answer in not Yes to both then you and I will not see eye to eye in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See my answer....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is his word, under oath, as the only evidence.  YOu are right.
> 
> As far as the history of the KKK, which we all know, here is some video of NBPP leaders that you may not have seen.
> 
> Khallid Muhammad's Speech - Kill The White Man - Video
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3MbqupVxMY]YouTube - Black Panthers Say That Blacks Have To "Kill Some Crackers And Their Babies!"[/ame] (this is the same guy with that baton beating it off his hand at the polling place...here is that video too )
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU]YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly[/ame]
> 
> 
> SOunds pretty violent to me.
Click to expand...



On the polling place video: 

I am totally not seeing what others are apparently.  I'm seeing a white guy walking towards two black guys, one with a night stick in his hand saying to the black guys that he is feeling intimidated by the night stick.  The black guys are speaking in a normal tone of voice -hard to hear what they are saying and one points out that the white guy has a camera.  The white guy says "but a camera is not a weapon"....ok...I see the black guy with a night stick moving it around while he walks (in the manner that anyone holding an object will fiddle with while talking).  What I'm not seeing - at all - is brandishing, whacking, or making any kind of threatening moves with it.  I am not even seeing threatening body language.  Would I, as a white female, feel threatened by that short segment?  No.

This is the first time I've watched that video and, it was cut off so I don't know what happened afterwards but - I expected to see militarestic movement, looming glaring staring men, heavy combat boots and forceful body language - especially with the baton.

Watching this makes me less and less convinced that there is merit.

On the NBP video - they are a new group, they have little history - in fact, before this case I had never heard of them (had you?) and I suspect many hadn't.  While their hate-filled rhetoric is comparable to the KKK their history is not - yet - no one knows who they are, they have yet to do anything but mouth racist rhetoric, they are not the Black Panthers - have been forceably disowned by the BP (something the title of the tape does not distinquish).

Also, the actions of the polling place are not the actions of the other tape and shouldn't be confused - they are seperate.  If a white person were to watch the one tape first, and then watch the polling tape with the forknowledge that these were the same people - then they might well feel intimidated.  But that isn't the case here.

Were there any voters actually intimidated?


----------



## SFC Ollie

I'm dropping this thread. All this defending of racist assholes is making me physically ill.


----------



## Coyote

SFC Ollie said:


> I'm dropping this thread. All this defending of racist assholes is making me physically ill.



Is anyone actually defending *them*?


----------



## L.K.Eder

Coyote said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm dropping this thread. All this defending of racist assholes is making me physically ill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone actually defending *them*?
Click to expand...



hehehe, good question.

but even, vids of black panthers denouncing the nbpp are ignored.


so, ollie just takes his ball and goes home, while setting of a stink bomb.


----------



## Care4all

Ravi said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong, but there is NEVER jailtime associated with civil law suits, but only damages that would have to be paid, towards the person they harmed????  No???
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly that was the case for OJ Simpson.
Click to expand...


I don't think you can get jail time for a civil offense, unless maybe if you failed to pay your judgment...but even then, I am not certain, because OJ has never paid a dime of his from what I have read and he was not jailed for such?  though he had money and power from the money so maybe this is why he never went to jail for not paying up?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Coyote said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah but we have sworn testimony from a long time civil rights man as to what types of behavior those 2 individuals exhibited.
> 
> Bartle Bull
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, as I noted and linked to earlier in response to Lonestar - Bartle is not exactly unbiased.  He was campaigning for McCain, had strongly denounced Obama and was a McCain "poll watcher".
Click to expand...


Did you read his bio at the beginning of his testimony?   I understand your distrust due ot the behavior you describe but if you look into the man's history you will see he is highly qualified to make this type of judgement.


----------



## Immanuel

Tech_Esq said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say the camera boy is kind of a pussy. He should have walked straight through, since he had a "Poll watcher cert." and force dude to hit him if he was going to. Then we wouldn't be left with this, "Is he or isn't he," we'd know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I highly doubt the coward would have hit him at least not with other witnesses around.
> 
> But, would you want to take that chance if you were alone?
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you have to, don't you?
> 
> Sometimes you have to do physically unpleasant things to prove your point. Remember Ghandi's action of walking men one by one up to the police line to be beaten down by police while offering now resistance. For hours the police beat the men down, one by one. Similar circumstance here. If the camera guy was beaten down by the NBP guy, the violence and lack of moral standing would be made crystal clear.
Click to expand...


Well, like I said, I don't think the coward would attack the camera man as their were hostile witnesses.

My question was, as a voter by yourself without any friendly (to you) witness would you take that chance and quite frankly no I would not.

Seeing as how that is a black precinct that everyone knew would go to Obama, my vote for Paul... or did I vote for Barr?  I can't remember because I cast a protest vote and would have sooner voted "none of the above... really had no meaning.  I would not have risked my safety for that vote.  Not to mention the fact that I generally go to the polls with my wife and kids (who are now all voting age but still live with me) and I would not put them at risk.

No, I don't "have" to vote, but I feel it is my civic duty and right to do so.

Immie


----------



## Ravi

Care4all said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong, but there is NEVER jailtime associated with civil law suits, but only damages that would have to be paid, towards the person they harmed????  No???
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly that was the case for OJ Simpson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you can get jail time for a civil offense, unless maybe if you failed to pay your judgment...but even then, I am not certain, because OJ has never paid a dime of his from what I have read and he was not jailed for such?  though he had money and power from the money so maybe this is why he never went to jail for not paying up?
Click to expand...

I don't know...the penalty for voter intimidation could be a fine and/or one year in prison...but I don't know if that depends on if there are criminal or civil charges.


----------



## Immanuel

Care4all said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but there is NEVER jailtime associated with civil law suits, but only damages that would have to be paid, towards the person they harmed????  No???



Not sure, but I believe you are right.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

Coyote said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm dropping this thread. All this defending of racist assholes is making me physically ill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone actually defending *them*?
Click to expand...


I must say that it seems to me as if both you and Ravi are defending them and doing a decent job of it too.

Immie


----------



## Ravi

Coyote said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been researching it too....is there any evidence beyond hearsay?  For example Adams made claims of things said when he wasn't even there.  Adams own credabilty is itself strained since he was a part of the DoJ that was found by an independent commission to have been inappropriately politicized in it's hiring practices and it's decisions on what cases to pursue.
> 
> What actual evidence is there *that is not hearsay* -  that Adams was told that?
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what they were doing - just standing there, but not blocking people - I wouldn't care.  If they were attempting to block me, get information from me, or interact with me - then yes, I would have a problem.  But would that meet the requirements of the law?
> 
> 
> 
> KKK has a history - a well documented history of racial intimidation, murder, and violence - so yes, I would have a problem but I'm not sure "my problem" would meet the requirements of the law which should be strict because *it's a fine line between "free speech" and "intimidation".*
> 
> 
> 
> See my answer....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is his word, under oath, as the only evidence.  YOu are right.
> 
> As far as the history of the KKK, which we all know, here is some video of NBPP leaders that you may not have seen.
> 
> Khallid Muhammad's Speech - Kill The White Man - Video
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3MbqupVxMY"]YouTube - Black Panthers Say That Blacks Have To "Kill Some Crackers And Their Babies!"[/ame] (this is the same guy with that baton beating it off his hand at the polling place...here is that video too )
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU"]YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly[/ame]
> 
> 
> SOunds pretty violent to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> On the polling place video:
> 
> I am totally not seeing what others are apparently.  I'm seeing a white guy walking towards two black guys, one with a night stick in his hand saying to the black guys that he is feeling intimidated by the night stick.  The black guys are speaking in a normal tone of voice -hard to hear what they are saying and one points out that the white guy has a camera.  The white guy says "but a camera is not a weapon"....ok...I see the black guy with a night stick moving it around while he walks (in the manner that anyone holding an object will fiddle with while talking).  What I'm not seeing - at all - is brandishing, whacking, or making any kind of threatening moves with it.  I am not even seeing threatening body language.  Would I, as a white female, feel threatened by that short segment?  No.
> 
> This is the first time I've watched that video and, it was cut off so I don't know what happened afterwards but - I expected to see militarestic movement, looming glaring staring men, heavy combat boots and forceful body language - especially with the baton.
> 
> Watching this makes me less and less convinced that there is merit.
> 
> On the NBP video - they are a new group, they have little history - in fact, before this case I had never heard of them (had you?) and I suspect many hadn't.  While their hate-filled rhetoric is comparable to the KKK their history is not - yet - no one knows who they are, they have yet to do anything but mouth racist rhetoric, they are not the Black Panthers - have been forceably disowned by the BP (something the title of the tape does not distinquish).
> 
> Also, the actions of the polling place are not the actions of the other tape and shouldn't be confused - they are seperate.  If a white person were to watch the one tape first, and then watch the polling tape with the forknowledge that these were the same people - then they might well feel intimidated.  But that isn't the case here.
> 
> Were there any voters actually intimidated?
Click to expand...

I just watched it again, this time with the sound turned off so I'd pay more attention to what was going on than what was being said. It appeared to be nothing more than a conversation...and at the end two voters walked out of the polling station...not looking intimidated. The woman on the phone did not look intimidated. *In fact the interviewer at the end turned his back on the two black men*...not the action of someone that was intimidated.


----------



## Care4all

Immanuel said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong, but there is NEVER jailtime associated with civil law suits, but only damages that would have to be paid, towards the person they harmed????  No???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure, but I believe you are right.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


I'm really not certain...I am just guessing or speculating that there is not....


----------



## Immanuel

Care4all said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong, but there is NEVER jailtime associated with civil law suits, but only damages that would have to be paid, towards the person they harmed????  No???
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly that was the case for OJ Simpson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you can get jail time for a civil offense, unless maybe if you failed to pay your judgment...but even then, I am not certain, because OJ has never paid a dime of his from what I have read and he was not jailed for such?  though he had money and power from the money so maybe this is why he never went to jail for not paying up?
Click to expand...


If I am not mistaken they took all of OJ's assets, what they could not take was his pension... which was quite hefty like $25k a month if I am not mistaken.  So he would be living high on the hog they might say if he had not screwed up again.

Immie


----------



## Ravi

Immanuel said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm dropping this thread. All this defending of racist assholes is making me physically ill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone actually defending *them*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I must say that it seems to me as if both you and Ravi are defending them and doing a decent job of it too.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

Defending the truth isn't quite the same as defending these jokers.


----------



## Coyote

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah but we have sworn testimony from a long time civil rights man as to what types of behavior those 2 individuals exhibited.
> 
> Bartle Bull
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, as I noted and linked to earlier in response to Lonestar - Bartle is not exactly unbiased.  He was campaigning for McCain, had strongly denounced Obama and was a McCain "poll watcher".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read his bio at the beginning of his testimony?   I understand your distrust due ot the behavior you describe but if you look into the man's history you will see he is highly qualified to make this type of judgement.
Click to expand...


I'm not questioning his qualifications - I'm questioning his ability to be unbiased in giving an opinion.


----------



## Coyote

Immanuel said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm dropping this thread. All this defending of racist assholes is making me physically ill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone actually defending *them*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I must say that it seems to me as if both you and Ravi are defending them and doing a decent job of it too.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


*Where am I defending them?*  Please, link.

Finding that a case hasn't enough evidence to satisfy the law doesn't equal "defending" them.

Is it justice to convict someone just because you don't like them or like what they say?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Coyote said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, as I noted and linked to earlier in response to Lonestar - Bartle is not exactly unbiased.  He was campaigning for McCain, had strongly denounced Obama and was a McCain "poll watcher".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read his bio at the beginning of his testimony?   I understand your distrust due ot the behavior you describe but if you look into the man's history you will see he is highly qualified to make this type of judgement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not questioning his qualifications - I'm questioning his ability to be unbiased in giving an opinion.
Click to expand...


I wanna throw chocolate on you now......but i dont think its appropriate in this thread....got me all hot n bothered


----------



## L.K.Eder

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read his bio at the beginning of his testimony?   I understand your distrust due ot the behavior you describe but if you look into the man's history you will see he is highly qualified to make this type of judgement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not questioning his qualifications - I'm questioning his ability to be unbiased in giving an opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wanna throw chocolate on you now......but i dont think its appropriate in this thread....got me all hot n bothered
Click to expand...



no xocolatl, hombre.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

L.K.Eder said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not questioning his qualifications - I'm questioning his ability to be unbiased in giving an opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanna throw chocolate on you now......but i dont think its appropriate in this thread....got me all hot n bothered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no xocolatl, hombre.
Click to expand...


Je ne parle pas espagnol mais je parle francais.  Tres mal et tres peu mais je parle


----------



## L.K.Eder

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wanna throw chocolate on you now......but i dont think its appropriate in this thread....got me all hot n bothered
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no xocolatl, hombre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Je ne parle pas espagnol
Click to expand...


pas de xocolatl, mon petit bonhomme, a-a-a-a-a--aa


----------



## Coyote

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read his bio at the beginning of his testimony?   I understand your distrust due ot the behavior you describe but if you look into the man's history you will see he is highly qualified to make this type of judgement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not questioning his qualifications - I'm questioning his ability to be unbiased in giving an opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wanna throw chocolate on you now......but i dont think its appropriate in this thread....got me all hot n bothered
Click to expand...


Are you trying to derail this thread?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

L.K.Eder said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> no xocolatl, hombre.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Je ne parle pas espagnol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> pas de xocolatl, mon petit bonhomme, a-a-a-a-a--aa
Click to expand...


oh you dirty, multi-lingual, SOB

chooo chooo


----------



## Neubarth

The New Black Panthers are our friends.  All people are our friends even if they don't think so.
Remember to extend love for hatred.


----------



## Ravi

SFC Ollie said:


> I'm dropping this thread. All this defending of racist assholes is making me physically ill.


I have a brilliant idea...why not go to another thread and make comments about Michelle Obama's body type...oh, wait.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Coyote said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone actually defending *them*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I must say that it seems to me as if both you and Ravi are defending them and doing a decent job of it too.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Where am I defending them?*  Please, link.
> 
> Finding that a case hasn't enough evidence to satisfy the law doesn't equal "defending" them.
> 
> Is it justice to convict someone just because you don't like them or like what they say?
Click to expand...




Coyote said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not questioning his qualifications - I'm questioning his ability to be unbiased in giving an opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanna throw chocolate on you now......but i dont think its appropriate in this thread....got me all hot n bothered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to derail this thread?
Click to expand...




PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Je ne parle pas espagnol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pas de xocolatl, mon petit bonhomme, a-a-a-a-a--aa
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh you dirty, multi-lingual, SOB
> 
> chooo chooo
Click to expand...



no derailment, pilgrim.


----------



## Neubarth

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> I wanna throw chocolate on you now......but i dont think its appropriate in this thread....got me all hot n bothered



Oh my goodness!  That is gross!  

You fecal smearers should be required to post on a restricted page.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Ravi said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm dropping this thread. All this defending of racist assholes is making me physically ill.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a brilliant idea...why not go to another thread and make comments about Michelle Obama's body type...oh, wait.
Click to expand...



the male type of phony pearl clutching phreak.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Neubarth said:


> The New Black Panthers are our friends.  All people are our friends even if they don't think so.
> Remember to extend love for hatred.



How christian of you.


----------



## Sky Dancer

daveman said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dave that's because everything is black and white for you.  There's only one way, your way or the highway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose I'm just not nuanced enough to see that a black man in paramilitary gear brandishing a weapon at a polling place is harmless, and a white man in paramilitary gear brandishing a weapon at a polling place is wrong.
> 
> I just can't hold two mutually-exclusive ideas in my head simultaneously and believe both of them.  How do you do it?
Click to expand...


For the second time,  I agree that anyone brandishing a baton is intimidating.  Is that clear enough for you?


----------



## Againsheila

chanel said:


> Trust me they are lonestar.  One in fact is a PhD.  They just don't watch Fox, and that's the only station covering it.



Well, there's "educated" and then there is "educated".  My grandfather was a self educated man and he was the smartest man I ever knew.  Never went to college but he could converse intelligently on ANY topic.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Coyote said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In his sworn testimony he admitted he had no first hand knowledge of the events or conversations he was claiming to know about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read what he has to say for yourself. That is if you can pull your head out of your ass long enough.
> 
> Today, I testified to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights about the Department of Justice's hostility to race-neutral law enforcement. I hope these hearings spur those responsible to explain their actions to Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now wipe the brown stuff out of your eyes and read the transcript.  It's full of stuff like:
> 
> MR. BLACKWOOD: Now we've had several witnesses who were present at Fairmont Street and they indicate that the Department of Justice lawyers, part of a roving team, met with them on Election Day to take some statements. Do you know who those individuals were?
> MR. ADAMS: *I do not actually.* I knew 1 that there was a team deployed to Fairmont Street, but *I don't know who the individuals* were.
> MR. BLACKWOOD: Do you know whether those individuals took written statements from any of the witnesses?
> MR. ADAMS: I know they took statements from the witnesses.
> MR. BLACKWOOD: *Did you actually see them?*
> MR. ADAMS: *I did not.*​
Click to expand...


We know he wasn't there you stupid fuck.


----------



## Foxfyre

Againsheila said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trust me they are lonestar.  One in fact is a PhD.  They just don't watch Fox, and that's the only station covering it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there's "educated" and then there is "educated".  My grandfather was a self educated man and he was the smartest man I ever knew.  Never went to college but he could converse intelligently on ANY topic.
Click to expand...


But would you agree that people who watch ONLY MSNBC and ONLY read Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and Salon.com are going to be less well informed than those who read these and also watch Fox and/or also listen to some good conservative talk radio?  And that would be true despite their formal education level or IQ?

And when Fox is the ONLY major news sources carrying some of this stuff, those who don't watch at all are going to be very uninformed on some of it.

Fox isn't #1 and miles ahead of everybody else because it's conservative.  It is miles ahead because it is covering all the news and not just the leftwing politically correct stuff.


----------



## Immanuel

Coyote said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone actually defending *them*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I must say that it seems to me as if both you and Ravi are defending them and doing a decent job of it too.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Where am I defending them?*  Please, link.
> 
> Finding that a case hasn't enough evidence to satisfy the law doesn't equal "defending" them.
> 
> Is it justice to convict someone just because you don't like them or like what they say?
Click to expand...


No, it is justice to convict them when they are breaking the law and as far as I know taking steps to intimidate voters is against the law as it should be.

Immie


----------



## Againsheila

Foxfyre said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trust me they are lonestar.  One in fact is a PhD.  They just don't watch Fox, and that's the only station covering it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there's "educated" and then there is "educated".  My grandfather was a self educated man and he was the smartest man I ever knew.  Never went to college but he could converse intelligently on ANY topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But would you agree that people who watch ONLY MSNBC and ONLY read Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and Salon.com are going to be less well informed than those who read these and also watch Fox and/or also listen to some good conservative talk radio?  And that would be true despite their formal education level or IQ?
> 
> And when Fox is the ONLY major news sources carrying some of this stuff, those who don't watch at all are going to be very uninformed on some of it.
> 
> Fox isn't #1 and miles ahead of everybody else because it's conservative.  It is miles ahead because it is covering all the news and not just the leftwing politically correct stuff.
Click to expand...


To be perfectly honest, I've given up on television news.  I get my news from the net.  Newspapers, the BBC, whatever.  I also get a lot of information from various posts here when they put in the links.  I sure wouldn't have known about the NBP intimidating voters if it weren't for the video links here.


----------



## Sky Dancer

We don't need news anymore.  Any fool with a webcam will do.


----------



## Againsheila

Sky Dancer said:


> We don't need news anymore.  Any fool with a webcam will do.



Have you seen our news lately?  Not one of them carried the story about Alberto Lozano.  Not one of them has told the true story of the civil war in Kenya....nope our news is filtered by our government.  We are now living in what I was taught the Soviet Union was like.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Againsheila said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't need news anymore.  Any fool with a webcam will do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you seen our news lately?  Not one of them carried the story about Alberto Lozano.  Not one of them has told the true story of the civil war in Kenya....nope our news is filtered by our government.  We are now living in what I was taught the Soviet Union was like.
Click to expand...


I don't have a TV.


----------



## Foxfyre

Againsheila said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there's "educated" and then there is "educated".  My grandfather was a self educated man and he was the smartest man I ever knew.  Never went to college but he could converse intelligently on ANY topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But would you agree that people who watch ONLY MSNBC and ONLY read Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and Salon.com are going to be less well informed than those who read these and also watch Fox and/or also listen to some good conservative talk radio?  And that would be true despite their formal education level or IQ?
> 
> And when Fox is the ONLY major news sources carrying some of this stuff, those who don't watch at all are going to be very uninformed on some of it.
> 
> Fox isn't #1 and miles ahead of everybody else because it's conservative.  It is miles ahead because it is covering all the news and not just the leftwing politically correct stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be perfectly honest, I've given up on television news.  I get my news from the net.  Newspapers, the BBC, whatever.  I also get a lot of information from various posts here when they put in the links.  I sure wouldn't have known about the NBP intimidating voters if it weren't for the video links here.
Click to expand...


I do follow all the alphabet networks, their subsidiaries, and CNN and Fox because they've got access to world news feeds and every once in awhile actually do some decent investigative reporting.  I don't trust them to always identify what needs to be reported and, with the exception of Fox, I don't trust them to be nonjudgmental in what they think we the public should be informed of.  Fox hands down does the best job overall of putting it all out there, pro and con, good and bad, without ideological filtering.

All of these of course are on line so I get as much here as actually watching the broadcast.

And I do supplement that with WSJ and Times on line and some sites that are doing superb research such as Breitbart, occasionally Drudge, WSJ online, and others as well as newspapers, some of which aren't any more reliable to tell it like it really is than are some of the networks.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Foxfyre said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But would you agree that people who watch ONLY MSNBC and ONLY read Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and Salon.com are going to be less well informed than those who read these and also watch Fox and/or also listen to some good conservative talk radio?  And that would be true despite their formal education level or IQ?
> 
> And when Fox is the ONLY major news sources carrying some of this stuff, those who don't watch at all are going to be very uninformed on some of it.
> 
> Fox isn't #1 and miles ahead of everybody else because it's conservative.  It is miles ahead because it is covering all the news and not just the leftwing politically correct stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be perfectly honest, I've given up on television news.  I get my news from the net.  Newspapers, the BBC, whatever.  I also get a lot of information from various posts here when they put in the links.  I sure wouldn't have known about the NBP intimidating voters if it weren't for the video links here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do follow all the alphabet networks, their subsidiaries, and CNN and Fox because they've got access to world news feeds and every once in awhile actually do some decent investigative reporting.  I don't trust them to always identify what needs to be reported and, with the exception of Fox, I don't trust them to be nonjudgmental in what they think we the public should be informed of.  Fox hands down does the best job overall of putting it all out there, pro and con, good and bad, without ideological filtering.
> 
> All of these of course are on line so I get as much here as actually watching the broadcast.
> 
> And I do supplement that with WSJ and Times on line and some sites that are doing superb research such as Breitbart, occasionally Drudge, WSJ online, and others as well as newspapers, some of which aren't any more reliable to tell it like it really is than are some of the networks.
Click to expand...


Fox is biased.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Sky Dancer said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be perfectly honest, I've given up on television news.  I get my news from the net.  Newspapers, the BBC, whatever.  I also get a lot of information from various posts here when they put in the links.  I sure wouldn't have known about the NBP intimidating voters if it weren't for the video links here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do follow all the alphabet networks, their subsidiaries, and CNN and Fox because they've got access to world news feeds and every once in awhile actually do some decent investigative reporting.  I don't trust them to always identify what needs to be reported and, with the exception of Fox, I don't trust them to be nonjudgmental in what they think we the public should be informed of.  Fox hands down does the best job overall of putting it all out there, pro and con, good and bad, without ideological filtering.
> 
> All of these of course are on line so I get as much here as actually watching the broadcast.
> 
> And I do supplement that with WSJ and Times on line and some sites that are doing superb research such as Breitbart, occasionally Drudge, WSJ online, and others as well as newspapers, some of which aren't any more reliable to tell it like it really is than are some of the networks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fox is biased.
> Fox News Channel and journalism ethics and standards - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


wikipedia isn't a good source....check out this link.

Electoral fraud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look at the opening in the article....it says "For Sky_Dancer"

See anyone can put anything they want on a wiki page


----------



## Againsheila

Sky Dancer said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be perfectly honest, I've given up on television news.  I get my news from the net.  Newspapers, the BBC, whatever.  I also get a lot of information from various posts here when they put in the links.  I sure wouldn't have known about the NBP intimidating voters if it weren't for the video links here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do follow all the alphabet networks, their subsidiaries, and CNN and Fox because they've got access to world news feeds and every once in awhile actually do some decent investigative reporting.  I don't trust them to always identify what needs to be reported and, with the exception of Fox, I don't trust them to be nonjudgmental in what they think we the public should be informed of.  Fox hands down does the best job overall of putting it all out there, pro and con, good and bad, without ideological filtering.
> 
> All of these of course are on line so I get as much here as actually watching the broadcast.
> 
> And I do supplement that with WSJ and Times on line and some sites that are doing superb research such as Breitbart, occasionally Drudge, WSJ online, and others as well as newspapers, some of which aren't any more reliable to tell it like it really is than are some of the networks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fox is biased.
> Fox News Channel and journalism ethics and standards - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


So are the rest of them.


----------



## Sky Dancer

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do follow all the alphabet networks, their subsidiaries, and CNN and Fox because they've got access to world news feeds and every once in awhile actually do some decent investigative reporting.  I don't trust them to always identify what needs to be reported and, with the exception of Fox, I don't trust them to be nonjudgmental in what they think we the public should be informed of.  Fox hands down does the best job overall of putting it all out there, pro and con, good and bad, without ideological filtering.
> 
> All of these of course are on line so I get as much here as actually watching the broadcast.
> 
> And I do supplement that with WSJ and Times on line and some sites that are doing superb research such as Breitbart, occasionally Drudge, WSJ online, and others as well as newspapers, some of which aren't any more reliable to tell it like it really is than are some of the networks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fox is biased.
> Fox News Channel and journalism ethics and standards - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wikipedia isn't a good source....check out this link.
> 
> Electoral fraud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Look at the opening in the article....it says "For Sky_Dancer"
> 
> See anyone can put anything they want on a wiki page
Click to expand...


If you check the wiki source I cited you will see plenty of research..  wiki articles vary in 'weightedness'.


----------



## Foxfyre

Againsheila said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do follow all the alphabet networks, their subsidiaries, and CNN and Fox because they've got access to world news feeds and every once in awhile actually do some decent investigative reporting.  I don't trust them to always identify what needs to be reported and, with the exception of Fox, I don't trust them to be nonjudgmental in what they think we the public should be informed of.  Fox hands down does the best job overall of putting it all out there, pro and con, good and bad, without ideological filtering.
> 
> All of these of course are on line so I get as much here as actually watching the broadcast.
> 
> And I do supplement that with WSJ and Times on line and some sites that are doing superb research such as Breitbart, occasionally Drudge, WSJ online, and others as well as newspapers, some of which aren't any more reliable to tell it like it really is than are some of the networks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fox is biased.
> Fox News Channel and journalism ethics and standards - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are the rest of them.
Click to expand...


Yes, but Fox is nowwhere nearly as biased as most of the mainstream news sources, and it certainly is more reliabile and trustworthy than is a Wiki article and far less biased than any political internet site.

This is perhaps the most comprehensive study that has been done on the mainstream media in the last decade:
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom


----------



## Sky Dancer

Foxfyre said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fox is biased.
> Fox News Channel and journalism ethics and standards - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are the rest of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but Fox is nowwhere nearly as biased as most of the mainstream news sources, and it certainly is more reliabile and trustworthy than is a Wiki article and far less biased than any political internet site.
> 
> This is perhaps the most comprehensive study that has been done on the mainstream media in the last decade:
> Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom
Click to expand...


You think Fox is reliable because it leans right and that's your persuasion.  It's just human nature, I suppose.  I like to read both sides and find my own view.  What's frustrating is to find unbiased news sources.  I've been known to change my mind with new information.


----------



## The Infidel

Coyote said:


>




I just thought this was worth repeating


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

The Infidel said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just thought this was worth repeating
Click to expand...


+1

Allright guys this thread was a blast.

I've said what I had to say, given the links to evidence, and generally gone in circles for the last 15 posts.   

Considering the black panthers are a very small violent and vocal minority, who are unrespresentative of the american populace as a whole, i'm going to relegate them to the hole I've thrown the KKK in and walk away.


----------



## Foxfyre

Sky Dancer said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are the rest of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but Fox is nowwhere nearly as biased as most of the mainstream news sources, and it certainly is more reliabile and trustworthy than is a Wiki article and far less biased than any political internet site.
> 
> This is perhaps the most comprehensive study that has been done on the mainstream media in the last decade:
> Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think Fox is reliable because it leans right and you lean right.  It's just human nature I suppose.
Click to expand...


I provided you a link to back up my opinion.  In all due respect, you don't know what I think or why I think it.  All you have to go on is what anybody here has to go on which is what any of us post.

But I'm going to take Pilgrim's cue and back off the thread at this point.  Our friends are absolutely right that it has been hopelessly derailed, and I apologize for my part in that happening.

The fact that the incident did not receive fair and balanced treatment from any mainstream news source BUT Fox, and in fact received almost no coverage at all except for Fox is relevent to the thread.   

Evaluation of whether these guys were or were not intimidating at a polling place is relevant to this thread.  The fact that some will defend them and argue that their presence was not a problem is relevant to this thread.  The fact that those who defend them would most likely not defend a Tea Partier or Minuteman or NRA representative behaving in the same manner is relevant to this thread.

The issue of who is and isn't the most biased news source is not relevant and belongs elsewhere on a separate thread.

So adieu everybody until somebody has something new and interesting to offer.


----------



## Ravi

Thanks for ending the thread with humor, Foxfyre...Fox - fair and balanced. bwahahahaha


----------



## hortysir

Crap!
I deleted the e-mail from ColorOfChange.
They're whining that CNN is jumping on FOX's "race-baiting" badwagon by reporting the whole story


----------



## Immanuel

hortysir said:


> Crap!
> I deleted the e-mail from ColorOfChange.
> They're whining that CNN is jumping on FOX's "race-baiting" badwagon by reporting the whole story



Never heard of this group.

ColorOfChange.org

What Is ColorOfChange.org?



> ColorOfChange.org exists to strengthen Black America's political voice. Our goal is to empower our membersBlack Americans and our alliesto make government more responsive to the concerns of Black Americans and to bring about positive political and social change for everyone.
> 
> We were heart-broken and outraged by the catastrophe that followed Hurricane Katrina. And we were devastated to realize that no African-American organization or coalition had the capacity to respond on the necessary scale.
> 
> Hurricane Katrina made it clear that our lack of a political voice has life-and-death consequences.  With no one to speak for them, hundreds of thousands of peoplelargely Black, poor, and elderlywere left behind to die.  But it wasn't just Black folks.  Poor, sick, and elderly people of every color were abandoned too.  We are not alone, and when we work to protect Black lives and interests, we do the same for all who have been left behind in political silence.
> 
> ColorOfChange.org is comprised of Black folks from every economic class, as well as those of every color who seek to help our voices be heard.  Our members are united behind a simple, powerful pledge: we will do all we can to make sure all Americans are represented, served, and protectedregardless of race or class.



Underlining by me. 

There are things that I like when I read that.

I don't know any more than that about this organization, but the stated goals at least leave some hope.

Immie


----------



## hortysir

Immanuel said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Crap!
> I deleted the e-mail from ColorOfChange.
> They're whining that CNN is jumping on FOX's "race-baiting" badwagon by reporting the whole story
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never heard of this group.
> 
> ColorOfChange.org
> 
> What Is ColorOfChange.org?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ColorOfChange.org exists to strengthen Black America's political voice. Our goal is to empower our membersBlack Americans and our alliesto make government more responsive to the concerns of Black Americans and to bring about positive political and social change for everyone.
> 
> We were heart-broken and outraged by the catastrophe that followed Hurricane Katrina. And we were devastated to realize that no African-American organization or coalition had the capacity to respond on the necessary scale.
> 
> Hurricane Katrina made it clear that our lack of a political voice has life-and-death consequences.  With no one to speak for them, hundreds of thousands of peoplelargely Black, poor, and elderlywere left behind to die.  But it wasn't just Black folks.  Poor, sick, and elderly people of every color were abandoned too.  We are not alone, and when we work to protect Black lives and interests, we do the same for all who have been left behind in political silence.
> 
> ColorOfChange.org is comprised of Black folks from every economic class, as well as those of every color who seek to help our voices be heard.  Our members are united behind a simple, powerful pledge: we will do all we can to make sure all Americans are represented, served, and protectedregardless of race or class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Underlining by me.
> 
> There are things that I like when I read that.
> 
> I don't know any more than that about this organization, but the stated goals at least leave some hope.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

All-in-all they DO stand for some fair stuff.
That's why I subscribed, to begin with.

Once in a blue-moon they veer off into some affirmative action crap I don't agree with.
Right now they have a campaign against the big internet-provider merging.

More recently they've been trying to get advertisers to drop Glenn Beck.
(Van Jones was one of it's founders)


----------



## ConHog

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just thought this was worth repeating
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> Allright guys this thread was a blast.
> 
> I've said what I had to say, given the links to evidence, and generally gone in circles for the last 15 posts.
> 
> Considering the black panthers are a very small violent and vocal minority, who are unrespresentative of the american populace as a whole, i'm going to relegate them to the hole I've thrown the KKK in and walk away.
Click to expand...


That would be the thing to do if you didn't have a friggin AG and President who oppose investigating crimes committed by them. You can be sure that if a dude in a hood down in Alabama was standing on the town square talking about hangin some ******* there would be an FBI investigation. You can be sure that if that hooded dude was standing at a polling station whacking a baton and yelling racial slurs, there would be a trial........


----------



## KMAN

Lawyer: Black Panther case shows civil rights of white voters are ignored - The Oakland Press News: The best place for news in and around Oakland County


----------



## logical4u

Ravi said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? From my perspective it is far less "stupid" than Mel Gibson, Lindsay Lohan and Lebton James. We all knew about that!
> 
> 
> 
> But even stupider is the group of militia men that got caught plotting against the police and the government...right?
Click to expand...


The Bill Ayers gang?


----------



## Coyote

KMAN said:


> Lawyer: Black Panther case shows civil rights of white voters are ignored - The Oakland Press News: The best place for news in and around Oakland County



What white voters?


----------



## LilOlLady

I know all blacks look alike, but the man raving about killing crackers and their babies *IS NOT THE NEW BLACK PANTHER LEADER*


----------



## Againsheila

LilOlLady said:


> I know all blacks look alike, but the man raving about killing crackers and their babies *IS NOT THE NEW BLACK PANTHER LEADER*



No, he's the NBP leader's brother, same last name and admitted by the leader.


----------

