PDA

View Full Version : The NEW America, Justice for ALL!!



road kill
06-30-2010, 07:23 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/30/justice-dept-lawyer-accuses-holder-dropping-new-black-panther-case-political/


Get used to it.:(





rk

huntinman
06-30-2010, 09:16 PM
You think they would have dropped it if those had been minutemen at the polling site?

depittydawg
07-01-2010, 09:15 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/30/justice-dept-lawyer-accuses-holder-dropping-new-black-panther-case-political/
Get used to it.:(
rk

Kind of sucks to lose elections doesn't it...

dixidawg
07-01-2010, 09:30 AM
Kind of sucks to lose elections doesn't it...


Al Gore really seems to think so :-)

Doc E
07-01-2010, 09:33 AM
Kind of sucks to lose elections doesn't it...

Wait a few months and those words are going to really come back and bite ya in the butt.



.

road kill
07-01-2010, 10:59 AM
Kind of sucks to lose elections doesn't it...
Not if it's done LEGALLY!!



rk:D

YardleyLabs
07-01-2010, 01:08 PM
Beginning with John Ashcroft's appointment as Attorney General, there was a concerted effort to remake the Civil Rights Division, converting from an office dedicated to protecting minorities from illegal discrimination and focusing it instead on attacking what they viewed as unlawful policies favoring minorities. Where previously hiring for the division was controlled by members of the civil service, and 77% of the attoreys hired had prior experience in civil rights litigation, under Ashcroft appointments to the division were placed directly under the control of political appointees. The percentage with prior experience plummeted and even among those with experience, the majority gained their experience defending groups charged with discrimination. (See, for example, http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/07/23/civil_rights_hiring_shifted_in_bush_era/?page=1) (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/07/23/civil_rights_hiring_shifted_in_bush_era/?page=1). Hopefully even more of those political hacks will choose to quit now.

road kill
07-01-2010, 01:14 PM
Beginning with John Ashcroft's appointment as Attorney General, there was a concerted effort to remake the Civil Rights Division, converting from an office dedicated to protecting minorities from illegal discrimination and focusing it instead on attacking what they viewed as unlawful policies favoring minorities. Where previously hiring for the division was controlled by members of the civil service, and 77% of the attoreys hired had prior experience in civil rights litigation, under Ashcroft appointments to the division were placed directly under the control of political appointees. The percentage with prior experience plummeted and even among those with experience, the majority gained their experience defending groups charged with discrimination. (See, for example, http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/07/23/civil_rights_hiring_shifted_in_bush_era/?page=1) (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/07/23/civil_rights_hiring_shifted_in_bush_era/?page=1). Hopefully even more of those political hacks will choose to quit now.

You think Holder will quit??




rk:D

YardleyLabs
07-01-2010, 01:20 PM
You think Holder will quit??




rk:D
There was no reason for the original law suit. One of the smarter things done was to drop it, as the Philadelphia police, who responded to the initial complaint from Republican staffers, elected to do from the beginning.

Eric Johnson
07-01-2010, 02:42 PM
Jeff-

You have a remarkable talent for diverting the conversation into a context of your choosing.

The facts are these...

1. The Attorney General's office had guilty verdicts on these three.

2. Holder et. al. elected to cancel the verdicts.

3. Various representatives of the AG's Office have obfuscated the truth in explaining the sudden reversal of policy.

4. The Office of Civil Rights, normally a bastion of Democratic thinking, has elected to investigate this matter but the AG's office is refusing to cooperate.

I've seen the video of the episode. There was no question but what the three were doing deserved to be brought before a trier of fact. They refused to do so and the guilty verdict flowed from that decision.

The reason the Philadelpha PD most likely refused to act was that the violation was seen as a Federal issue or....they may have been ordered not to prosecute by the political establishment.

Or....are you saying that people have a right to threaten those with whom they don't agree with bodily harm with a nightstick?

Eric

YardleyLabs
07-01-2010, 03:03 PM
Jeff-

You have a remarkable talent for diverting the conversation into a context of your choosing.

The facts are these...

1. The Attorney General's office had guilty verdicts on these three.

2. Holder et. al. elected to cancel the verdicts.

3. Various representatives of the AG's Office have obfuscated the truth in explaining the sudden reversal of policy.

4. The Office of Civil Rights, normally a bastion of Democratic thinking, has elected to investigate this matter but the AG's office is refusing to cooperate.

I've seen the video of the episode. There was no question but what the three were doing deserved to be brought before a trier of fact. They refused to do so and the guilty verdict flowed from that decision.

The reason the Philadelpha PD most likely refused to act was that the violation was seen as a Federal issue or....they may have been ordered not to prosecute by the political establishment.

Or....are you saying that people have a right to threaten those with whom they don't agree with bodily harm with a nightstick?

Eric
Eric,

The facts are that a summary judgment was issued against three people when they failed to appear at their hearing. No evidence of guilt was ever produced. The Philadelphia Chapter had already been condemned and expelled by the national organization and the two people at the election site, representing the entire membership of the Philadelphia Chapter, were not represented by counsel and I am not even sure if they were ever served. The video shown on the news shows absolutely no intimidation of voters. People are seen entering and leaving the election site on a continuous basis. The only disturbance came from a group of Republican staffers with television cameras accosting the two men. The two men stated that their reason for standing there was to help ensure that no one would try to prevent voters from voting. They questioned the Republican staffers, who were clearly not from the area, about their intentions only after the staffers had initiated the contact. Standing in front of a voting site badly dressed is not a crime in Pennsylvania. If it were, at least ten local politicians would have been arrested at my voting site during the last primary. Carrying a police stick openly falls into a gray area. Nothing in Pennsylvania law prohibits night sticks. The relevant section of the law deems it a misdemeanor, under certain circumstances, to possess an "offensive weapon". These are defined as follows:

"Offensive weapons." Any bomb, grenade, machine gun, sawed-
off shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches, firearm specially
made or specially adapted for concealment or silent discharge,
any blackjack, sandbag, metal knuckles, dagger, knife, razor or
cutting instrument, the blade of which is exposed in an
automatic way by switch, push-button, spring mechanism, or
otherwise, any stun gun, stun baton, taser or other electronic
or electric weapon or other implement for the infliction of
serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose.

If you wish to purchase the "weapon" being carried by the man in the video, you may do so at Amazon.com for less than $27 (http://www.amazon.com/Strong-Fiberglass-Police-Tonfa-24/dp/B00337U61K/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=sporting-goods&qid=1278014233&sr=1-3). I certainly wouldn't put it in the same class as, say, a man carrying an assault weapon outside a place where the President is speaking in Arizona. When police were called by the Republican staffers, the police asked the two men to leave, which they did. The man with the baton was taken to the station and released without charge. By the way, if prosecuted for carrying the stick as an offensive weapon, it would have been a misdemeanor assuming that a court agreed that the baton was covered at all. No voter made any complaint at all and no evidence was ever provided by anyone to suggest an actual act of intimidation of a voter. Also, there was never any complaint or indication of a threat by either of the two men.

huntinman
07-01-2010, 03:32 PM
Eric,

The facts are that a summary judgment was issued against three people when they failed to appear at their hearing. No evidence of guilt was ever produced. The Philadelphia Chapter had already been condemned and expelled by the national organization and the two people at the election site, representing the entire membership of the Philadelphia Chapter, were not represented by counsel and I am not even sure if they were ever served. The video shown on the news shows absolutely no intimidation of voters. People are seen entering and leaving the election site on a continuous basis. The only disturbance came from a group of Republican staffers with television cameras accosting the two men. The two men stated that their reason for standing there was to help ensure that no one would try to prevent voters from voting. They questioned the Republican staffers, who were clearly not from the area, about their intentions only after the staffers had initiated the contact. Standing in front of a voting site badly dressed is not a crime in Pennsylvania. If it were, at least ten local politicians would have been arrested at my voting site during the last primary. Carrying a police stick openly falls into a gray area. Nothing in Pennsylvania law prohibits night sticks. The relevant section of the law deems it a misdemeanor, under certain circumstances, to possess an "offensive weapon". These are defined as follows:

"Offensive weapons." Any bomb, grenade, machine gun, sawed-
off shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches, firearm specially
made or specially adapted for concealment or silent discharge,
any blackjack, sandbag, metal knuckles, dagger, knife, razor or
cutting instrument, the blade of which is exposed in an
automatic way by switch, push-button, spring mechanism, or
otherwise, any stun gun, stun baton, taser or other electronic
or electric weapon or other implement for the infliction of
serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose.

If you wish to purchase the "weapon" being carried by the man in the video, you may do so at Amazon.com for less than $27 (http://www.amazon.com/Strong-Fiberglass-Police-Tonfa-24/dp/B00337U61K/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=sporting-goods&qid=1278014233&sr=1-3). I certainly wouldn't put it in the same class as, say, a man carrying an assault weapon outside a place where the President is speaking in Arizona. When police were called by the Republican staffers, the police asked the two men to leave, which they did. The man with the baton was taken to the station and released without charge. By the way, if prosecuted for carrying the stick as an offensive weapon, it would have been a misdemeanor assuming that a court agreed that the baton was covered at all. No voter made any complaint at all and no evidence was ever provided by anyone to suggest an actual act of intimidation of a voter. Also, there was never any complaint or indication of a threat by either of the two men.

What these Obama supporters really meant to say was "please come in and vote for whomever you like" :rolleyes:

YardleyLabs
07-01-2010, 03:45 PM
What these Obama supporters really meant to say was "please come in and vote for whomever you like" :rolleyes:
Bill, what was said in the video that constituted intimidation or a threat? There were no threatening gestures and no threatening words. Charges should be based on evidence, not prejudice. Part of the job of a prosecutor is to prevent miscarriage of justice. That is exactly what Holder did by dropping the charges.

road kill
07-01-2010, 03:48 PM
Eric,

The facts are that a summary judgment was issued against three people when they failed to appear at their hearing. No evidence of guilt was ever produced. The Philadelphia Chapter had already been condemned and expelled by the national organization and the two people at the election site, representing the entire membership of the Philadelphia Chapter, were not represented by counsel and I am not even sure if they were ever served. The video shown on the news shows absolutely no intimidation of voters. People are seen entering and leaving the election site on a continuous basis. The only disturbance came from a group of Republican staffers with television cameras accosting the two men. The two men stated that their reason for standing there was to help ensure that no one would try to prevent voters from voting. They questioned the Republican staffers, who were clearly not from the area, about their intentions only after the staffers had initiated the contact. Standing in front of a voting site badly dressed is not a crime in Pennsylvania. If it were, at least ten local politicians would have been arrested at my voting site during the last primary. Carrying a police stick openly falls into a gray area. Nothing in Pennsylvania law prohibits night sticks. The relevant section of the law deems it a misdemeanor, under certain circumstances, to possess an "offensive weapon". These are defined as follows:

"Offensive weapons." Any bomb, grenade, machine gun, sawed-
off shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches, firearm specially
made or specially adapted for concealment or silent discharge,
any blackjack, sandbag, metal knuckles, dagger, knife, razor or
cutting instrument, the blade of which is exposed in an
automatic way by switch, push-button, spring mechanism, or
otherwise, any stun gun, stun baton, taser or other electronic
or electric weapon or other implement for the infliction of
serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose.

If you wish to purchase the "weapon" being carried by the man in the video, you may do so at Amazon.com for less than $27 (http://www.amazon.com/Strong-Fiberglass-Police-Tonfa-24/dp/B00337U61K/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=sporting-goods&qid=1278014233&sr=1-3). I certainly wouldn't put it in the same class as, say, a man carrying an assault weapon outside a place where the President is speaking in Arizona. When police were called by the Republican staffers, the police asked the two men to leave, which they did. The man with the baton was taken to the station and released without charge. By the way, if prosecuted for carrying the stick as an offensive weapon, it would have been a misdemeanor assuming that a court agreed that the baton was covered at all. No voter made any complaint at all and no evidence was ever provided by anyone to suggest an actual act of intimidation of a voter. Also, there was never any complaint or indication of a threat by either of the two men.

So it's an issue of cost to you?
The weapons effectiveness is based on it's cost on amazon.com??
Have you completely lost your mind??

This argument is pathetic, we are a nation of laws and these guys VIOLATED THEM!!

Now, you tell me that they weren't and I will call you on it all day long!!!
If we were standing next to each other you would absolutely not look me in the eye and say what they did was within the law.


You are WRONG, the sad part is YOU KNOW it full well!!


rk

Buzz
07-01-2010, 03:51 PM
After reading this thread, I'm in serious need of a nap.

road kill
07-01-2010, 03:52 PM
After reading this thread, I'm in serious need of a nap.


Status Quo??





rk:D

YardleyLabs
07-01-2010, 03:55 PM
So it's an issue of cost to you?
The weapons effectiveness is based on it's cost on amazon.com??
Have you completely lost your mind??

This argument is pathetic, we are a nation of laws and these guys VIOLATED THEM!!

Now, you tell me that they weren't and I will call you on it all day long!!!
If we were standing next to each other you would absolutely not look me in the eye and say what they did was within the law.


You are WRONG, the sad part is YOU KNOW it full well!!


rk
What law was violated? What is the evidence supporting that a violation existed?

1. They did not block access to the polls.
2. They did not threaten any voter.
3. They did not attempt to prevent anyone from voting.
4. The police investigated and determined no law was broken.

You are right. We are a nation of laws. And in a nation of laws, it should be easy to shows the law that was broken and provide concrete evidence of the violation.

Marvin S
07-01-2010, 05:39 PM
Or....are you saying that people have a right to threaten those with whom they don't agree with bodily harm with a nightstick?

Eric




The relevant section of the law deems it a misdemeanor, under certain circumstances, to possess an "offensive weapon". These are defined as follows:

"Offensive weapons." Any bomb, grenade, machine gun, sawed-
off shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches, firearm specially
made or specially adapted for concealment or silent discharge,
any blackjack, sandbag, metal knuckles, dagger, knife, razor or
cutting instrument, the blade of which is exposed in an
automatic way by switch, push-button, spring mechanism, or
otherwise, any stun gun, stun baton, taser or other electronic
or electric weapon or other implement for the infliction of
serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose.

If you wish to purchase the "weapon" being carried by the man in the video, you may do so at Amazon.com for less than $27 (http://www.amazon.com/Strong-Fiberglass-Police-Tonfa-24/dp/B00337U61K/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=sporting-goods&qid=1278014233&sr=1-3). I certainly wouldn't put it in the same class as, say, a man carrying an assault weapon outside a place where the President is speaking in Arizona. When police were called by the Republican staffers, the police asked the two men to leave, which they did. The man with the baton was taken to the station and released without charge. By the way, if prosecuted for carrying the stick as an offensive weapon, it would have been a misdemeanor assuming that a court agreed that the baton was covered at all. No voter made any complaint at all and no evidence was ever provided by anyone to suggest an actual act of intimidation of a voter. Also, there was never any complaint or indication of a threat by either of the two men.

I'd like to see you try to walk into our local County Public Safety Building or any other official Public building for that matter, with that inoffensive non assault weapon in your hand :rolleyes:. I'd pay to witness how you would be ignored :cool:.

Somehow (were you to refuse to relinquish same) I don't think the officer that handcuffed you would be concerned about what it cost on Amazon :o.

depittydawg
07-01-2010, 05:46 PM
Eric,

The facts are that a summary judgment was issued against three people when they failed to appear at their hearing. No evidence of guilt was ever produced. The Philadelphia Chapter had already been condemned and expelled by the national organization and the two people at the election site, representing the entire membership of the Philadelphia Chapter, were not represented by counsel and I am not even sure if they were ever served. The video shown on the news shows absolutely no intimidation of voters. People are seen entering and leaving the election site on a continuous basis. The only disturbance came from a group of Republican staffers with television cameras accosting the two men. The two men stated that their reason for standing there was to help ensure that no one would try to prevent voters from voting. They questioned the Republican staffers, who were clearly not from the area, about their intentions only after the staffers had initiated the contact. Standing in front of a voting site badly dressed is not a crime in Pennsylvania. If it were, at least ten local politicians would have been arrested at my voting site during the last primary. Carrying a police stick openly falls into a gray area. Nothing in Pennsylvania law prohibits night sticks. The relevant section of the law deems it a misdemeanor, under certain circumstances, to possess an "offensive weapon". These are defined as follows:

"Offensive weapons." Any bomb, grenade, machine gun, sawed-
off shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches, firearm specially
made or specially adapted for concealment or silent discharge,
any blackjack, sandbag, metal knuckles, dagger, knife, razor or
cutting instrument, the blade of which is exposed in an
automatic way by switch, push-button, spring mechanism, or
otherwise, any stun gun, stun baton, taser or other electronic
or electric weapon or other implement for the infliction of
serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose.

If you wish to purchase the "weapon" being carried by the man in the video, you may do so at Amazon.com for less than $27 (http://www.amazon.com/Strong-Fiberglass-Police-Tonfa-24/dp/B00337U61K/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=sporting-goods&qid=1278014233&sr=1-3). I certainly wouldn't put it in the same class as, say, a man carrying an assault weapon outside a place where the President is speaking in Arizona. When police were called by the Republican staffers, the police asked the two men to leave, which they did. The man with the baton was taken to the station and released without charge. By the way, if prosecuted for carrying the stick as an offensive weapon, it would have been a misdemeanor assuming that a court agreed that the baton was covered at all. No voter made any complaint at all and no evidence was ever provided by anyone to suggest an actual act of intimidation of a voter. Also, there was never any complaint or indication of a threat by either of the two men.

Well with so many Republican Politicians waiving guns in their political adds I find it kind of ironic and just a tad hypocritical for the righties to try and use this argument. Doesn't the 2nd amendment provide for the freedom to carry your weapon of choice?

YardleyLabs
07-01-2010, 06:15 PM
I'd like to see you try to walk into our local County Public Safety Building or any other official Public building for that matter, with that inoffensive non assault weapon in your hand :rolleyes:. I'd pay to witness how you would be ignored :cool:.

Somehow (were you to refuse to relinquish same) I don't think the officer that handcuffed you would be concerned about what it cost on Amazon :o.
In the days when I, and later my son, studied martial arts, I had night sticks, shuriken, etc., and was never questioned about them. The fact is that the Philadelphia police did not consider it grounds for arrest and there are certainly no Federal statutes addressing possession of such "weapons". If someone is alleging that it is a weapon under Pennsylvania law, then any arrest would need to be made under Pennsylvania law. By contrast, in New York, night sticks are outlawed and would not be sold except to a law enforcement officer. The point of the Amazon.com link is as an indication of how openly and legally such items are available to the general public. No special permits are needed, and no restrictions exist limiting sales or shipment.

If you went to a voting station dressed in camo for a hunt, wearing typical hunting gear including a hunting knife, and stood outside the voting station to indicate your support for hunters' rights, would you expect to be arrested? In Pennsylvania you would not be although there would certainly be people who would find your presence intimidating.

There are no restrictions in Pennsylvania to prevent people from standing around the door of a voting site uinless they are engaging in illegal activities. Standing around the door passively, or standing around and handing out campaign materials is not illegal and is actually considered normal. I have never seen fewer than 6-10 people outside my voting station and I routinely have to push through them, refusing all of their literature, to get inside to vote. They are not permitted to enter the building while "electioneering".

Eric Johnson
07-01-2010, 06:44 PM
The key issue would be how many would-be voters didn't enter the poll. That we don't know.

The three appeared to be in the wrong. If they were not, the charges would have been dismissed. It should have gone to the jury. Since it did not, they were found guilty.

Eric

Marvin S
07-01-2010, 06:45 PM
If you went to a voting station dressed in camo for a hunt, wearing typical hunting gear including a hunting knife, and stood outside the voting station to indicate your support for hunters' rights, would you expect to be arrested? In Pennsylvania you would not be although there would certainly be people who would find your presence intimidating.

Thank You! I need post no more, you have just made everyone's point, it was intimidation :).

Gerry Clinchy
07-01-2010, 06:52 PM
I lived in South Philadelphia around 10th & Pine for a short period of time, and I remember going to vote there.

If I saw these guys in leather jackets, with black berets and carrying a nightstick ... I don't think they'd have to say or do anything to make me think twice about getting out of my car to go vote. Yes, I would feel intimidated. JMO.

YardleyLabs
07-01-2010, 07:05 PM
Thank You! I need post no more, you have just made everyone's point, it was intimidation :).
So you're saying that someone in hunting gear should be arrested for standing near a voting site? If I station ten large white men in front of a voting station in a black section of Philadelphia, or ten large black men in front of a voting station in the Philly suburbs, I can guarantee that many voters will be intimidated. That does not mean that it is illegal. If you are frightened by people who are acting in a completely legal manner and choose to give up your right to vote, that is your choice. It doesn't make their actions illegal which is what you are implying. I suspect that the most intimidating thing going on at that particular site was the crowd of white guys with cameras and microphones in front of a voting site located in an almost exclusively black neighborhood. Should they be arrested because of people who might have decided not to vote as a result? In fact, those same white guys were clearly trying to intimidate the two men exercising their own rights to observe the election process.

YardleyLabs
07-01-2010, 07:06 PM
I lived in South Philadelphia around 10th & Pine for a short period of time, and I remember going to vote there.

If I saw these guys in leather jackets, with black berets and carrying a nightstick ... I don't think they'd have to say or do anything to make me think twice about getting out of my car to go vote. Yes, I would feel intimidated. JMO.
Does that make it a crime?

dnf777
07-01-2010, 07:07 PM
The key issue would be how many would-be voters didn't enter the poll. That we don't know.

The three appeared to be in the wrong. If they were not, the charges would have been dismissed. It should have gone to the jury. Since it did not, they were found guilty.

Eric

Did any "turned away voters" go home, and in the security of their own homes or cars phone or file any complaints that they were kept away from the polls? If yes, those claims should be fully investigated. If not, end of story.

Gerry Clinchy
07-01-2010, 07:15 PM
Does that make it a crime?

From what I read from the original article from the former employee, yes, it is.

Would I have reported it? At that time in my life, I probably would simply have gone home & figured it was time to move out of the city.

dnf777
07-01-2010, 07:27 PM
At that time in my life, I probably would simply have gone home & figured it was time to move out of the city.

That's exactly what I did!

road kill
07-01-2010, 07:48 PM
Well with so many Republican Politicians waiving guns in their political adds I find it kind of ironic and just a tad hypocritical for the righties to try and use this argument. Doesn't the 2nd amendment provide for the freedom to carry your weapon of choice?
So....to you there is no difference between a TV add and a polling place??


That is absurd.





rk:D

Eric Johnson
07-01-2010, 08:01 PM
Did any "turned away voters" go home, and in the security of their own homes or cars phone or file any complaints that they were kept away from the polls? If yes, those claims should be fully investigated. If not, end of story.

That's what neither of us knows and why they have trials. Since the defendents elected to not make use the jury system, they were found guilty. Then the AG stepped in and voided the process.

Eric

subroc
07-01-2010, 09:38 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFpfQpuuVzI

link

caryalsobrook
07-01-2010, 09:44 PM
I wonder if I showed up at a voter poll wearing a white sheet and a hood and said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING if anybody could consider that as intimidating voters? It would be intersting to know what eric holder would do about that. Don't get me wrong, i'm not suggesting that I would do such a thing, only comparing people with a nightstick calling people crackers not intimidating. Maybe calling people "honkeys' might be considered a term of affection")

huntinman
07-01-2010, 09:46 PM
Bill, what was said in the video that constituted intimidation or a threat? There were no threatening gestures and no threatening words. Charges should be based on evidence, not prejudice. Part of the job of a prosecutor is to prevent miscarriage of justice. That is exactly what Holder did by dropping the charges.

Typical defense of blatant lawbreakers. If these guys were white and had nascar t-shirts on, I'll bet you would be ready to put them under the jail. Just because you did not see or hear anything on the tape, that does not mean something did not happen. it has been reported that at least one person was threatened. That is one too many. Just the fact that one of them had a nightstick would classify as intimidation. Get real. All Holder did is show what a bigot he is (again).

Nor_Cal_Angler
07-01-2010, 10:10 PM
White robes, pointy hoods with holes cut out for the eyes, standing in front of a polling place, saying the exact same thing as those two men.......what would be made of that.



Double standard regards,

NCA

david gibson
07-01-2010, 11:16 PM
White robes, pointy hoods with holes cut out for the eyes, standing in front of a polling place, saying the exact same thing as those two men.......what would be made of that.



Double standard regards,

NCA

AMEN.

isnt it unreal how these liberals cant see reality???

any day of the week i can drive down a certain street just 3-4 miles from my house and about 40% of the time there will be men in suits with bow ties passing out farrakhanian propaganda with their coffee cans out, blocking traffic after the light turns green like its their right. so there i sit, not at all a small wimpy man at all in a macho 4x4 pickup, dog in the box in back, cargo racks, usually heavily mudded since we just trained in a wet field - and some serious rock and roll blasting out of the 350 watt amp. about half the time they just pass me by, the smart ones. the other half they actually stop at my window. i roll it down if it isnt already, pretend to care for oh - about 2 seconds, then look straight at them and tell them i dont want to contribute because i think Louis and obama both suck. 1st amendment rights regards just dont block my GD green light, thank you.

i gotta get a picture of some of the faces i see when i do this. better than cow-tipping!

Nor_Cal_Angler
07-01-2010, 11:46 PM
I just call it how I see it, there is a double standard and most of america is to GUTLESS to speak up about it.

White America of the 21st century is made to feel guiltly for the sin's of our father's FATHER's....get the HELL OVER IT.

Seriously, that horse is DEAD, I am tired of this, I have nothing and I repeat NOTHING to do with keeping the "black man" down and yet every chance they, the "black man" or the simpathic "white man" (insert over-bearing liberal) gets they seem to want to remind me that I have to mind my p's and q's, dont offend anyone, dont gather with to many whites in public because that is offensive, dont say what is really going on because it will make ripples in the pond....

it is flat out BULL SH!T.....

and this B.S, the droping of this case just goes to show you that "Keeping the White man in check" is more important in the 21st century then establishing JUSTICE and EQUALITY FOR ALL.....

we have terms like "equal oppertunity" unless your white, "affirmative action" but no action if your white...what he hell is that all about....what ever happened to RISE ABOVE IT...COME TOGETHER.

What happens today is systematic, smoke and mirror, tatictial and instituional RACISIM and it is agains the white man. I for one a tired of it.

and if you dont believe me...walk a day in my shoes in this hell hole called the San Francisco Bay Area.

NCA.

Post Script Disclaimer: I AM NOT RACIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I date a single mother that is Puerto Rican with two boys. (Widowed, Iraq 2006 lost her husband)

Post Post Script: She agree's with me 100%

dnf777
07-02-2010, 10:46 AM
I just call it how I see it, there is a double standard and most of america is to GUTLESS to speak up about it.

White America of the 21st century is made to feel guiltly for the sin's of our father's FATHER's....get the HELL OVER IT.

Seriously, that horse is DEAD, I am tired of this, I have nothing and I repeat NOTHING to do with keeping the "black man" down and yet every chance they, the "black man" or the simpathic "white man" (insert over-bearing liberal) gets they seem to want to remind me that I have to mind my p's and q's, dont offend anyone, dont gather with to many whites in public because that is offensive, dont say what is really going on because it will make ripples in the pond....

it is flat out BULL SH!T.....

and this B.S, the droping of this case just goes to show you that "Keeping the White man in check" is more important in the 21st century then establishing JUSTICE and EQUALITY FOR ALL.....

we have terms like "equal oppertunity" unless your white, "affirmative action" but no action if your white...what he hell is that all about....what ever happened to RISE ABOVE IT...COME TOGETHER.

What happens today is systematic, smoke and mirror, tatictial and instituional RACISIM and it is agains the white man. I for one a tired of it.

and if you dont believe me...walk a day in my shoes in this hell hole called the San Francisco Bay Area.

NCA.

NCA,
You sound JUST LIKE my black friends, who work their a$$e$ off for a living, and the ones who are docs, too! They make it clear that Sharpton and Jackson DO NOT speak for them, and are pissed daily that their stigma is attached wrongly to them. Despite what most righties want to portray, Obama has had very little to link with those above two activists. Did you notice how they are just now resurfacing after the election? You didn't SEE them during the campaign season, and for good reason.
Post Script Disclaimer: I AM NOT RACIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I date a single mother that is Puerto Rican with two boys. (Widowed, Iraq 2006 lost her husband)

Post Post Script: She agree's with me 100%

............................

ducknwork
07-02-2010, 11:04 AM
Despite what most righties want to portray, Obama has had very little to link with those above two activists. Did you notice how they are just now resurfacing after the election? You didn't SEE them during the campaign season, and for good reason.

Do you really think that if he is linked to them, he would have allowed them to be involved in any way with his campaign? O is no dummy. He knows that Al and Jesse would have really, really hurt his public image. Now that he is the 'undisputed' POTUS, they can't chase away votes. Might as well come out of hiding now!

TCFarmer
07-02-2010, 11:28 AM
There was no reason for the original law suit. One of the smarter things done was to drop it, as the Philadelphia police, who responded to the initial complaint from Republican staffers, elected to do from the beginning.

Bartle Bull would disagree with you.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550604574361071968458430.html

dnf777
07-02-2010, 02:29 PM
Do you really think that if he is linked to them, he would have allowed them to be involved in any way with his campaign? O is no dummy. He knows that Al and Jesse would have really, really hurt his public image. Now that he is the 'undisputed' POTUS, they can't chase away votes. Might as well come out of hiding now!

None of us know him personally, but I'll bet you a saw-mill nickel that Obama doesn't want to associate with the likes of Al Sharpton!! Besides, if there is a link, we won't know about it until he secures his second undisputed POTUS, and is a lame duck, not now. Like you said, he's no dummy....and I *think* he wants a second term. Why---I have no idea!

road kill
07-02-2010, 02:58 PM
None of us know him personally, but I'll bet you a saw-mill nickel that Obama doesn't want to associate with the likes of Al Sharpton!! Besides, if there is a link, we won't know about it until he secures his second undisputed POTUS, and is a lame duck, not now. Like you said, he's no dummy....and I *think* he wants a second term. Why---I have no idea!
Rev Wright is OK though??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH5ixmT83JE

You progressives are funny!!
We know who Obama is.



rk:D

Nor_Cal_Angler
07-02-2010, 03:04 PM
"NCA,
You sound JUST LIKE my black friends, who work their a$$e$ off for a living, and the ones who are docs, too! They make it clear that Sharpton and Jackson DO NOT speak for them, and are pissed daily that their stigma is attached wrongly to them. Despite what most righties want to portray, Obama has had very little to link with those above two activists. Did you notice how they are just now resurfacing after the election? You didn't SEE them during the campaign season, and for good reason."

DNF,

While I truly respect your friends/co-workers for there hard work, sound reasoning and dedication to the American Dream...it goes much furhter than Al Sharp and Jes Jack, it goes to Ceaser Chavez, who ever for the Asian population it goes to WHITE AMERICA...

it is a problem when any group is made to feel bad about the color of there skin....AND THAT FRICKEN INCLUDES WHITES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The President plays right into it...he doesnt have to be "close" or "assoicate" with those two, he make's it plan and simple for all to see, just open the eyes of the masses and it's right there....

White Ct. cop....."acted stupidly"
White AZ...."promotes bigitory, with this new legislation" and "violates civil rights"
White Corp America..."Greed" "Dishonesty" "Schemer's"
White Oil...."Poluters"
White Wall Street..."Frauder's"

Now you can say (not you, "people") that I dont know him, I'm not a mind reader, I've never met him, he didnt say that...yada yada.

but his actions speak for themselves, his policies, his pratices...the speak with a resounding alarm, he does not promote "change" and his administration including AG Holder does not promote HOPE for anyone with regard to possible RACIAL EQUALITY.

NCA

david gibson
07-02-2010, 10:21 PM
None of us know him personally, but I'll bet you a saw-mill nickel that Obama doesn't want to associate with the likes of Al Sharpton!! Besides, if there is a link, we won't know about it until he secures his second undisputed POTUS, and is a lame duck, not now. Like you said, he's no dummy....and I *think* he wants a second term. Why---I have no idea!

of course not, who would? but i promise obama would tap toes in an airport restroom with him if it behooved him politically

JDogger
07-02-2010, 10:37 PM
of course not, who would? but i promise obama would tap toes in an airport restroom with him if it behooved him politically

Wow! you're beginning to catch on. It's not the party. It's the politics my friend. I would have thought you'd realized that by now.
Nov. or 2012...nothing will really change. We've all been played.

JD

dnf777
07-03-2010, 07:35 AM
Wow! you're beginning to catch on. It's not the party. It's the politics my friend. I would have thought you'd realized that by now.
Nov. or 2012...nothing will really change. We've all been played.

JD

Spoken like a true sage! Gibson and the likes should listen to you more often! :D

gman0046
07-03-2010, 08:28 PM
Who do you think Obongo worked for as a community organizer? He nailed posters on telephone poles for Jesse Jackson.

depittydawg
07-03-2010, 09:19 PM
"NCA,
White Ct. cop....."acted stupidly"
White AZ...."promotes bigitory, with this new legislation" and "violates civil rights"
White Corp America..."Greed" "Dishonesty" "Schemer's"
White Oil...."Poluters"
White Wall Street..."Frauder's"


NCA

Taking out your insertion of the racial ramifications, which are unfounded, Would you attempt to argue that all of the above are NOT true statemtents? I believe the only one still open for debate would be the Az law.

Nor_Cal_Angler
07-03-2010, 11:15 PM
Taking out your insertion of the racial ramifications, which are unfounded, Would you attempt to argue that all of the above are NOT true statemtents? I believe the only one still open for debate would be the Az law.


Sure...

The white cop did not act stupidly..

The whites of Arizona do not promote racisim....

The white corporate americans do not promote dishonesty....

The white big oil exc.'s do not promote the destruction of the earth...

The white wall street players do not promote fraudulent activity...

Done...easy arguement...

But Obama and his adminsitration..In My Opinion would have the american people believe that they do...

Back to my origional statement...there is a double standard brewing in america and I am SICK OF IT!!!!!

end of arguement....

From my eyes only regards,

NCA

depittydawg
07-04-2010, 12:48 AM
here is a double standard brewing in america and I am SICK OF IT!!!!!

There are many "standards" in a country as large and diverse as ours. Disagreeing or favoring one over another doesn't negate the legitimacy of another.

cotts135
07-04-2010, 05:22 AM
Kind of sucks to lose elections doesn't it...


Unfortunately you are right. Winning an election should not determine that if you broke the law you do not get prosecuted. Regardless who is in power we as citizens should see to it that this is not the case. Dismissing it because your party is holding power only leads to enabling the behavior in the future.

Clint Watts
07-04-2010, 11:16 AM
Rev Wright is OK though??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH5ixmT83JE

You progressives are funny!!
We know who Obama is.



rk:D

Why ignore this? Come on progressives, defend this. How many years was Obama in the church? He had no idea, if you believe that I have some ocean front property in Nevada to sell you.

depittydawg
07-04-2010, 11:42 AM
Unfortunately you are right. Winning an election should not determine that if you broke the law you do not get prosecuted. Regardless who is in power we as citizens should see to it that this is not the case. Dismissing it because your party is holding power only leads to enabling the behavior in the future.

That I can agree with. Bush, Cheney, and the whole Cabal should be rotting in Gitmo as we speak.

Eric Johnson
07-05-2010, 12:52 PM
What law was violated? What is the evidence supporting that a violation existed?

1. They did not block access to the polls.
2. They did not threaten any voter.
3. They did not attempt to prevent anyone from voting.
4. The police investigated and determined no law was broken.

You are right. We are a nation of laws. And in a nation of laws, it should be easy to shows the law that was broken and provide concrete evidence of the violation.

I've just seen an interview with the DOJ prosecutor. The answers to your statements are:

1. Yes they did block access. DOJ had witnesses.
2. Yes they did threaten voters. DOJ had witnesses.
3. Yes they did attempt to prevent voting. DOJ had witnessses.

As to the last, it's not possible to comment factually on the motives of the Philadelphia PD.

One poll watcher that was at this poll was a poll watcher in Mississippi during the 60's. He's on record as saying that the nooses hung outside MS polling places were not as intimidating as these three.

Tomorrow the ex-DOJ attorney will testify before the Civil Right Commission.

Eric

YardleyLabs
07-05-2010, 03:06 PM
Typical defense of blatant lawbreakers. If these guys were white and had nascar t-shirts on, I'll bet you would be ready to put them under the jail. Just because you did not see or hear anything on the tape, that does not mean something did not happen. it has been reported that at least one person was threatened. That is one too many. Just the fact that one of them had a nightstick would classify as intimidation. Get real. All Holder did is show what a bigot he is (again).
No double standard here. In PA it is normal for all sorts of people to hang out in front of the polls promoting their causes. I don't care if the cause is Black Panthers or KKK (the latter being more present in PA than the former), it's all legal unless they commit acts that are illegal. Appearances and beliefs do not count. They are fully protected by the First Amendment. In this case, I have read that there were threats made (according to right wing sources), but no such threats appear in the video and I have not heard of any complaints from voters in the area or even the specifics of any complaints. As I understand it from the reports written at the time based on information from the police, the men were there for about an hour before being removed and then released without charge. No information has been provided that would even justify the fact that they were removed. I suspect that the police would have acted in a similar manner if someone had shown up in a white sheet and hood in that neighborhood. I wonder what would happen if someone showed up in a white sheet and hood at a completely white polling station. That would actually be the equivalent action to what was done here.

With respect to the incident itself, there are two primary videos, only one of which actually shows the reportedly threatening actions and the other of which is a Republican staffer. The Republican staffer notes that one of the two men is a resident of the building and a registered voter in the district who was doing nothing illegal. The other man was threatening in that he was carrying a "weapon" and that, according to the staffer, is illegal. That becomes a matter of state, not Federal law. That is, is a night stick a weapon under Pennsylvania law that may not be carried at all or may not be carried openly.

The answer to that, as far as I can determine, is no unless or until that weapon is actually used in an offensive manner. Night sticks are subject to no restrictions on sale or possession as far as I can tell. They are effectively the equivalent (albeit less dangerous) of a baseball bat, which kids regularly carry on subways and buses. If it is not a weapon, then there is no threat.

As it is, the police removed the man carrying the night stick (the other man left on his own and was not removed), took him to the station, and released him without charge. That man was ultimately enjoined from activities outside of Philadelphia voting stations in the future (I still have no idea why). All Federal charges were dropped against the second man, who was never actually accused of any intimidating activity, and against two officers of the national NBP organization. The NBP had announced its intention to station watchers outside of polls around the country to prevent efforts to intimidate black voters (BTW, stationing such "watchers" is also done routinely by other radical political groups such as the Democrats and the Republicans). However, no one ever indicated that there were any efforts by the NBP to promote voter intimidation and the Philadelphia chapter was actually expelled because of this incident.

I remain happy that the charges were dropped. Based on every single piece of evidence I have seen (and there has not been much), this appeared to be an effort by right wing political appointees in the Bush administration to fabricate charges that represent a complete distortion of the Votring Rights Act. Those same staffers could have done much more good to the cause of fair voting by going after groups such as the Florida Election Commission that applied warped data and even worse logic to disenfranchise blacks

Eric: Can you provide any links to evidence of intimidation of voters at this station?

Eric Johnson
07-05-2010, 03:29 PM
Nope. I haven't seen the actual evidence or testimony. I merely reported on what the prosecutor said.

I would note that a couple of snippets of video won't tell the story. The polls were open for what ... 12 hours? The two videos will show maybe a couple of minutes of that.

Eric

YardleyLabs
07-05-2010, 04:18 PM
Nope. I haven't seen the actual evidence or testimony. I merely reported on what the prosecutor said.

I would note that a couple of snippets of video won't tell the story. The polls were open for what ... 12 hours? The two videos will show maybe a couple of minutes of that.

Eric
I agree. However, the guys are reported to have only been there for one hour and every single allegation of a "threat" that I have heard was based on what is shown in the few minutes of video.

road kill
07-05-2010, 04:25 PM
I agree. However, the guys are reported to have only been there for one hour and every single allegation of a "threat" that I have heard was based on what is shown in the few minutes of video.

So "threat" is based on "time?"


Interesting perspective.




rk:D

YardleyLabs
07-05-2010, 04:34 PM
So "threat" is based on "time?"


Interesting perspective.




rk:D
Actually, the time reference was related to Eric's comment that a few minutes of video didn't tell you what had happened in the prior 12 hours that the polls were open. As I noted, the guys were only there for a relatively short period. Any "threat" would be related to what the people did, not what they looked like. There is no dress code for voting or for standing around a polling station. If there were, most politicians near me would be in jail for bad taste.;-)

M&K's Retrievers
07-05-2010, 04:53 PM
Did I dream this? I thought I read or heard that the witness was a Democratic poll watcher.:confused::confused:

YardleyLabs
07-05-2010, 06:47 PM
I actually haven't heard of any witnesses or complainants other than the crowd that showed up from Republican headquarters with their cameras. That is not to say you are wrong. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any "facts" other than comments on the contents of the video.

road kill
07-05-2010, 06:50 PM
I actually haven't heard of any witnesses or complainants other than the crowd that showed up from Republican headquarters with their cameras. That is not to say you are wrong. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any "facts" other than comments on the contents of the video.
But you know all about it??
You should read my link, it has a great deal more information than the video.

Or does the "facts" just come to you?


Amazing.
You post, what, 9 paragraphs on the thread and then claim ignorance of the facts.





rk:D

YardleyLabs
07-05-2010, 07:05 PM
But you know all about it??
You should read my link, it has a great deal more information than the video.

Or does the "facts" just come to you?


Amazing.
You post, what, 9 paragraphs on the thread and then claim ignorance of the facts.





rk:D
I read your link and have read almost every other document I have found on the subject. I also was aware of the incident on election night since I don't live that far away and it was widely covered. When the only people saying anything cite no sources and provide no evidence except for the videos, repeatedly state things that are demonstrably untrue (e.g. that the one man was brandishing an illegal weapon or stating that the defendants' guilt was already proven in court), and represent a rabidly right wing agenda, I am not impressed. To top it all off, when FOX News, which has half the cable news audience, tries to portray itself as a lone voice reporting something and wondering when the "main stream media" will report the story -- ignoring the fact that they are the main stream media and the same story was published by every media outlet.

Of course, those outlets are unreliable since some also published tidbits like the dismissal and release by the Philadelphia PD and the denunciation of the incident and expulsion of the Philadelphia group by the NBP. In fact, some even noted that the two men at the site were the only members of the Philadelphia chapter. This entire incident did not even rise to the level of a tempest in a teapot and pales in comparison with almost every other proven incident of election fraud in the country. Given that, one has to question the motives of those promoting the story since the story has no legs of its own.

Eric Johnson
07-05-2010, 08:32 PM
Did I dream this? I thought I read or heard that the witness was a Democratic poll watcher.:confused::confused:

Yes indeed...one of the witnesses. In fact he was a poll watcher in MS in the 60's and said that the Philadelphia incident was worse than anything he saw in MS.

I find it curious that the DOJ is refusing to comply with Civil Rights Commission subpoenas.

Eric

M&K's Retrievers
07-05-2010, 11:20 PM
Yes indeed...one of the witnesses. In fact he was a poll watcher in MS in the 60's and said that the Philadelphia incident was worse than anything he saw in MS.

I find it curious that the DOJ is refusing to comply with Civil Rights Commission subpoenas.

Eric

Thanks! I was afraid that I had been around too many punks* this weekend.

*to light fireworks

david gibson
07-06-2010, 08:08 AM
Nope. I haven't seen the actual evidence or testimony. I merely reported on what the prosecutor said.

I would note that a couple of snippets of video won't tell the story. The polls were open for what ... 12 hours? The two videos will show maybe a couple of minutes of that.

Eric

try going to a polling place next election and put on a white robe and pointed hat and stand there for "maybe a couple of minutes" and see what happens. you wont even have to have a weapon like these thugs did. you'll either get arrested or beaten, and again - this administration would excuse it.

no law against wearing a white pointed hat, is there? not anywhere. but you know how that would go down.

"i dont have any of the facts yet, but its clear the police acted stupidly"

i cannot believe those words came out of the mouth of a man with a harvard law degree. what a p.o.s. but that right there is exactly the mentality from this administration that is being applied in the black panther case. not difficult to see at all.

BrianW
07-06-2010, 09:11 AM
Curious that we're discussing the "facts" of the case when the undeniable fact is:
The Obama administration won a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 when the Black Panthers didn't appear in court to fight the charges.

By doing that, that says to me. that the BP's admit the validity of the charges because THEY chose not to fight it.

Now if you don't think you can successfully prosecute the case, or the charges were wrongfully brought, the time to drop is before court. Without searching the court records, I'm pretty confident there was a DOJ attorney in court that day of the default judgment, indicating the validity of the charges by DOJ at that time.

Regardless of the validity of the original charge(s), or how you feel about the court, you have the responsibility to show up for the hearing. I think the deeper question is, why didn't they show? Were they advised before hand that would be a vacation of the charges?
Hopefully, the USCCR subpeona will bring the real truth out.

YardleyLabs
07-06-2010, 11:56 AM
try going to a polling place next election and put on a white robe and pointed hat and stand there for "maybe a couple of minutes" and see what happens. you wont even have to have a weapon like these thugs did. you'll either get arrested or beaten, and again - this administration would excuse it.
....
David,

You could alternatively do what was done in 2006:

From a November 8, 2006, Austin American-Statesman article:
In Arizona, Roy Warden, an anti-immigration activist with the Minutemen, and 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.

The Bush DOJ refused to prosecute this case -- I guess because a pistol is not illegal in Arizona any more than a night stick is in Philadelphia.


The parties in this case were not disinterested. For example, Batle Bull is the "Democrat" who submitted an affidavit stating that the men in Philadelphia were intimidating voters. His affidavit and the stories published by FOX News and others highlight his involvement in the civil rights movement and in Robert Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign. Bull, they say, is a liberal Democrat testifying that he never saw such intimidation. More curious is the fact that his affidavit says, simply, that he was at that polling station as an attorney poll watcher for an unnamed "political party." What it doesn't say is that the party was the Republican party. Bull had served as chair in New York State for "Democrats for McCain" and was continuing his efforts for Republicans in Philadelphia. He was part of the contingent sent over with cameras and microphones when this incident was first reported. (See, for example, http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/bull-declaration_04-07-20092.pdf. http://mediamatters.org/print/blog/201007050007
(http://mediamatters.org/print/blog/201007050007), and http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007010023.

With respect to the default judgment, the administration testified before the Civil Rights Commission that, regardless of the default judgment, that there was no real evidence of wrong-doing by three of the four defendants and that they therefore dropped the charges against those three. Are you suggesting that a prosecutor should proceed even when they do not believe there is credible evidence?

road kill
07-06-2010, 12:05 PM
David,

You could alternatively do what was done in 2006:

From a November 8, 2006, Austin American-Statesman article:
In Arizona, Roy Warden, an anti-immigration activist with the Minutemen, and 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.

The Bush DOJ refused to prosecute this case -- I guess because a pistol is not illegal in Arizona any more than a night stick is in Philadelphia.


The parties in this case were not disinterested. For example, Batle Bull is the "Democrat" who submitted an affidavit stating that the men in Philadelphia were intimidating voters. His affidavit and the stories published by FOX News and others highlight his involvement in the civil rights movement and in Robert Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign. Bull, they say, is a liberal Democrat testifying that he never saw such intimidation. More curious is the fact that his affidavit says, simply, that he was at that polling station as an attorney poll watcher for an unnamed "political party." What it doesn't say is that the party was the Republican party. Bull had served as chair in New York State for "Democrats for McCain" and was continuing his efforts for Republicans in Philadelphia. He was part of the contingent sent over with cameras and microphones when this incident was first reported. (See, for example, http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/bull-declaration_04-07-20092.pdf. http://mediamatters.org/print/blog/201007050007
(http://mediamatters.org/print/blog/201007050007), and http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007010023.

With respect to the default judgment, the administration testified before the Civil Rights Commission that, regardless of the default judgment, that there was no real evidence of wrong-doing by three of the four defendants and that they therefore dropped the charges against those three. Are you suggesting that a prosecutor should proceed even when they do not believe there is credible evidence?

AHHHHH YES, the GOLD standard.

Hope and change or more of the same because ;


HeeEEeEeEeEe StaAaaAaAAAAartEEddDdd it!!!:cry:



rk

YardleyLabs
07-06-2010, 12:14 PM
AHHHHH YES, the GOLD standard.

Hope and change or more of the same because ;


HeeEEeEeEeEe StaAaaAaAAAAartEEddDdd it!!!:cry:



rk
I'm actually reacting to all the comments concerning the existence of a double standard. I agree there is one. When the perpetrators were white men, none of the media -- right wing or main stream -- seemed to care at all about either the incident or the failure to prosecute. The Philadelphia case has less substance, was prosecuted aggressively, and has received much more media attention than worse incidents around the country. Personally, I believe that the reason is because the perpetrators are black and the perceived targets were white. However, I could be wrong. It could simply be that in Arizona the perpetrators were right wing hoodlums supporting a conservative cause while in Philadelphia the perpetrators were perceived as left wing hoodlums a liberal cause. Of course, I'm sure that made no difference to FOX, which is invariably "fair and balanced" in its presentation of the news.:rolleyes:

david gibson
07-06-2010, 12:27 PM
well well well...a new video has come out starring none other than one of the black panthers at the polling place. in it he goes into a racist rant advocating killing white people, how much he "hates all of their cracker asses" and on and on and on. was just aired so not on the website yet.

does it mean anything in this case? maybe not, but it sure shows the types of people the DOJ, obama, and DNF support and defend.

you are the company you keep regards

gman0046
07-06-2010, 12:34 PM
Isn't it ironic the racist behavior by Black Panthers occurred in dnf's great state of Pennsylvania? I'm not to sure that would have happened in Texas, Alabama, Mississippi or Florida,

YardleyLabs
07-06-2010, 12:36 PM
well well well...a new video has come out starring none other than one of the black panthers at the polling place. in it he goes into a racist rant advocating killing white people, how much he "hates all of their cracker asses" and on and on and on. was just aired so not on the website yet.

does it mean anything in this case? maybe not, but it sure shows the types of people the DOJ, obama, and DNF support and defend.

you are the company you keep regards
I've listened to racist rants all of my life. The fact remains that they are not illegal, whether spoken by a black or a white. I am happy to defend the first amendment rights of both sides even though i believe each is ignorant and revolting.

david gibson
07-06-2010, 12:45 PM
I've listened to racist rants all of my life. The fact remains that they are not illegal, whether spoken by a black or a white. I am happy to defend the first amendment rights of both sides even though i believe each is ignorant and revolting.

oh i forgot, you are just like dnf, always so supportive of the opposing viewpoint. you demonstrate that daily here in potus, and you wax so eloquently when doing so. :rolleyes:

YardleyLabs
07-06-2010, 12:51 PM
oh i forgot, you are just like dnf, always so supportive of the opposing viewpoint. you demonstrate that daily here in potus, and you wax so eloquently when doing so. :rolleyes:
Actually, I am not at all supportive of racist attitudes. That doesn't change the first amendment which allows such speech and only protects against racist acts (and only some of those).

BTW, if you are looking for good things that came ot of Africa (and the list is long), you might want to include homo sapiens.

david gibson
07-06-2010, 01:04 PM
Actually, I am not at all supportive of racist attitudes. That doesn't change the first amendment which allows such speech and only protects against racist acts (and only some of those).

BTW, if you are looking for good things that came ot of Africa (and the list is long), you might want to include homo sapiens.

please point out where it was that i said that you were supportive of racist attitudes. this is a prime example of how you make an a$$ out of yourself daily by claiming or implying
people say things about you that they didnt.

you really should consider stopping that, it does nothing to get your credibility on any subject out of the negative numbers.

YardleyLabs
07-06-2010, 02:10 PM
please point out where it was that i said that you were supportive of racist attitudes. this is a prime example of how you make an a$$ out of yourself daily by claiming or implying
people say things about you that they didnt.

you really should consider stopping that, it does nothing to get your credibility on any subject out of the negative numbers.


Well, my comment was in response to this sequence, beginning with my comment on racist attitudes and the fact that there was nothing illegal about them.


:
Originally Posted by YardleyLabs http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=640733#post640733)
I've listened to racist rants all of my life. The fact remains that they are not illegal, whether spoken by a black or a white. I am happy to defend the first amendment rights of both sides even though i believe each is ignorant and revolting.

oh i forgot, you are just like dnf, always so supportive of the opposing viewpoint. you demonstrate that daily here in potus, and you wax so eloquently when doing so. :rolleyes:

Eric Johnson
07-07-2010, 08:31 PM
Jeff-

I take note that as close as you are to the geographical location, you didn't feel threatened. However, the complaintants did. Based upon that, the DOJ brought the case and won. You and I may elect to differ but our say means nothing. It was a matter that belonged before a trier of fact to get to the bottom of the episode. Justice was denied those folks who complained.

Candidly, the punishment of "no billy clubs at the polls until 2012" is a joke. Does this mean that the defendant is free to take a billy club to the next national election? Sounds like it.
How about a fairer punishment would be "Thou can be at a poll solely to vote.....forever."

Eric

YardleyLabs
07-07-2010, 08:43 PM
Jeff-

I take note that as close as you are to the geographical location, you didn't feel threatened. However, the complaintants did. Based upon that, the DOJ brought the case and won. You and I may elect to differ but our say means nothing. It was a matter that belonged before a trier of fact to get to the bottom of the episode. Justice was denied those folks who complained.

Candidly, the punishment of "no billy clubs at the polls until 2012" is a joke. Does this mean that the defendant is free to take a billy club to the next national election? Sounds like it.
How about a fairer punishment would be "Thou can be at a poll solely to vote.....forever."

Eric
I believe the actual injunction is against any poll site activity which actually raises questions since he is an elected poll watcher or judge of elections (yes, that is an elected office in PA). I'm still waiting to know the specifics of any complainant that is a registered voter in that election district. My understanding is that every complainant is actually a person sent to the site by the Republicans and that they are not registered in the district or, in the case of Bartel Bull and possibly others, in the state. That is, I understand that not one single person voting in that polling site complained in any way, shape or form. The complaints all come from people who were sent to the site to provoke an incident with the two men.

david gibson
07-07-2010, 08:56 PM
I believe the actual injunction is against any poll site activity which actually raises questions since he is an elected poll watcher or judge of elections (yes, that is an elected office in PA). I'm still waiting to know the specifics of any complainant that is a registered voter in that election district. My understanding is that every complainant is actually a person sent to the site by the Republicans and that they are not registered in the district or, in the case of Bartel Bull and possibly others, in the state. That is, I understand that not one single person voting in that polling site complained in any way, shape or form. The complaints all come from people who were sent to the site to provoke an incident with the two men.

that is a moot point now, totally null. the issue is he was told to drop the case because they are black. period. thats all there is to discuss now. thats why he resigned and blew the whistle.

you make me sick defending that king-whatever guy. you can see in his face tha anger and disdain, and you have heard his rants. you are pathetic

Captain Mike D
07-07-2010, 09:10 PM
I believe the actual injunction is against any poll site activity which actually raises questions since he is an elected poll watcher or judge of elections (yes, that is an elected office in PA). I'm still waiting to know the specifics of any complainant that is a registered voter in that election district. My understanding is that every complainant is actually a person sent to the site by the Republicans and that they are not registered in the district or, in the case of Bartel Bull and possibly others, in the state. That is, I understand that not one single person voting in that polling site complained in any way, shape or form. The complaints all come from people who were sent to the site to provoke an incident with the two men.

Whoa, aren't you forgetting ALL people's rights in this statement. Who should give a rat's f'n azz what affiliation a person who filed a complaint was. Since when did that become a basis of who to prosecute?
Pretty simple- Big black dude with a NIGHT STICK intimidating voters or anyone he thought was consevative at a polling place. The video played on Fox news and other venues across the US in almost real time. Guess poll taxes should be illegal, but threat of harm by the oppressed is OK!!!!

Franco
07-07-2010, 09:20 PM
Holder and Obama practice what I call, "convenient law".

Had that been a Klansman wearing a cloth hood greeting voters, you can bet that person would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law!

Just like their suit against Arizona; Holder and Obama are not going to side with anyone that is white. They pander to thier base which they obviously don't see as white America.

Instead of helping the people of Arizona the Feds are going after them! All the while the Feds should be upholding the law and going after the states that allow safe havens, and breaking Federal Law.

The White House and Justice Dept are out of control. Having a bunch of weakminded Representatives and Senators doesn't help the matter.

david gibson
07-08-2010, 02:40 PM
Whoa, aren't you forgetting ALL people's rights in this statement. Who should give a rat's f'n azz what affiliation a person who filed a complaint was. Since when did that become a basis of who to prosecute?
Pretty simple- Big black dude with a NIGHT STICK intimidating voters or anyone he thought was consevative at a polling place. The video played on Fox news and other venues across the US in almost real time. Guess poll taxes should be illegal, but threat of harm by the oppressed is OK!!!!

exactly, and dnf cant explain this one away

YardleyLabs
07-08-2010, 02:54 PM
Holder and Obama practice what I call, "convenient law".

Had that been a Klansman wearing a cloth hood greeting voters, you can bet that person would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law!

Just like their suit against Arizona; Holder and Obama are not going to side with anyone that is white. They pander to thier base which they obviously don't see as white America.

Instead of helping the people of Arizona the Feds are going after them! All the while the Feds should be upholding the law and going after the states that allow safe havens, and breaking Federal Law.

The White House and Justice Dept are out of control. Having a bunch of weakminded Representatives and Senators doesn't help the matter.
I find it fascinating that the standard conservative line seems to always begin with a straw man argument. Obama and Holder, you say, practice a double standard of justice. And how do you know? Because if a white hooded klansman showed up at a (presumably white, to keep things comparable) polling site you are sure they would have prosecuted aggressively.

If a double standard of justice is being practiced by Obama and Holder, you should be able to provide evidence of it based on something that was actually done. For example, it would appear that Christian Adams at the DOJ practiced a double standard of justice when he prosecuted members of the NBPP based on the Philadelphia incident, but did not prosecute the Arizona Militia for an even more egregious incident. When you have to make up phony facts to provide evidence for your assertions, it might be time to question your assertions. The alternative is that pretty soon, you will sound like RK, posting a comment reported to be by Iacocca and thinking to yourself, "Ahhh, I can stick to those pinheads now," only to discover that Iacocca was actually talking about someone else altogether and the entire "quote" was a lie.

It is hard enough to figure out the world when dealing with facts. It is impossible when dealing with fantasy.

road kill
07-08-2010, 02:57 PM
I find it fascinating that the standard conservative line seems to always begin with a straw man argument. Obama and Holder, you say, practice a double standard of justice. And how do you know? Because if a white hooded klansman showed up at a (presumably white, to keep things comparable) polling site you are sure they would have prosecuted aggressively.

If a double standard of justice is being practiced by Obama and Holder, you should be able to provide evidence of it based on something that was actually done. For example, it would appear that Christian Adams at the DOJ practiced a double standard of justice when he prosecuted members of the NBPP based on the Philadelphia incident, but did not prosecute the Arizona Militia for and even more egregious incident. When you have to make up phony facts to provide evidence for your assertions, it might be time to question your assertions. The alternative is that pretty soon, you will sound like RK, posting a comment reported to be by Iacocca and thinking to yourself, "Ahhh, I can stick to those pinheads now," only to discover that Iacocca was actually talking about someone else altogether and the entire "quote" was a lie.

It is hard enough to figure out the world when dealing with facts. It is impossible when dealing with fantasy.

I'll address this dribble.
Pompous & verbose personal attack aside.


I never used a "strawman" argument.

It appears that these guys (DOJ) may have made a "law enforcement" decision based on skin color.

Period.





rk

Eric Johnson
07-08-2010, 03:03 PM
I've got one. I've got one.....

If the Holder DOJ is suing AZ for having an immigration law that interfers with Federal law, why are they not also suing all of the "sanctuary" cities around the country?

Eric

YardleyLabs
07-08-2010, 03:17 PM
I'll address this dribble.
Personal attack aside.


I never used a "strawman" argument.

These guys (DOJ) made a "law enforcement" decision based on skin color.

Period.





rk
No personal attack was intended (I referenced your post, not anything personal), although I was rubbing salt in a wound, which might qualify.

I tend to agree that you might be right. I believe the the Bush DoJ made different decisions in Arizona and Philadelphia because of the skin color of the perpetrators, but it might simply have been because of their politics. I believe that the original prosecution by the outgoing administration was done for racial and political reasons. It is no surprise that the decision would change when the politics of the leadership changed.

road kill
07-08-2010, 03:20 PM
No personal attack was intended (I referenced your post, not anything personal), although I was rubbing salt in a wound, which might qualify.

I tend to agree that you might be right. I believe the the Bush DoJ made different decisions in Arizona and Philadelphia because of the skin color of the perpetrators, but it might simply have been because of their politics. I believe that the original prosecution by the outgoing administration was done for racial and political reasons. It is no surprise that the decision would change when the politics of the leadership changed.


I did edit my post to be more accurate, in fairness there is no absolute here yet, just allegations.

Hence the investigation.

(my bad for missing the reference to the GOLD standard!!)





stan b

david gibson
07-08-2010, 03:56 PM
No personal attack was intended (I referenced your post, not anything personal), although I was rubbing salt in a wound, which might qualify.

I tend to agree that you might be right. I believe the the Bush DoJ made different decisions in Arizona and Philadelphia because of the skin color of the perpetrators, but it might simply have been because of their politics. I believe that the original prosecution by the outgoing administration was done for racial and political reasons. It is no surprise that the decision would change when the politics of the leadership changed.

there we go....bush did it too!!!!

david gibson
07-08-2010, 03:56 PM
I've got one. I've got one.....

If the Holder DOJ is suing AZ for having an immigration law that interfers with Federal law, why are they not also suing all of the "sanctuary" cities around the country?

Eric

because that doesnt suit there political intentions of attracting the latino vote?????

Eric Johnson
07-11-2010, 12:29 PM
Well, well, well.....

FoxNews this morning aired a piece on a documentary shot by a lifelong Democrat which accuses the Obama campaign of using Chicago style poll behaviors to block Hillary Clinton supporters from voting in primaries.

http://wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/

Eric

david gibson
07-11-2010, 05:48 PM
Well, well, well.....

FoxNews this morning aired a piece on a documentary shot by a lifelong Democrat which accuses the Obama campaign of using Chicago style poll behaviors to block Hillary Clinton supporters from voting in primaries.

http://wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/

Eric

eric, you dont understand - its not true if its on fox news. ;-)

Eric Johnson
07-11-2010, 07:47 PM
Well...it was reported on Fox but the director of the documentary has her own web site and that was the site that I mentioned.

Eric

YardleyLabs
07-11-2010, 08:14 PM
Well...it was reported on Fox but the director of the documentary has her own web site and that was the site that I mentioned.

Eric
Eric,

I don't know how much you actually looked into this in the excitement of the moment.;-)

Given the claims on her web site, her actual list of accomplishments on IMDB is almost non-existent:

Filmography

Jump to filmography as: In Development (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0309456/#indev), Producer (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0309456/#producer), Director (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0309456/#director), Cinematographer (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0309456/#cinematographer), Actress (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0309456/#actress)
In Development: http://i.media-imdb.com/images/SFb28eca88a7cdcc1e19c93c85417ddefd/tn15/meter_help.gif (http://www.imdb.com/rg/question-mark/indev-filmo/help/show_leaf?proindevelopment)


Steps (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1568885/) (details only on IMDbPro (http://pro.imdb.com/))
Crashers (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1568811/) (details only on IMDbPro (http://pro.imdb.com/))
The Margaux Hemingway Story (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1639419/) (details only on IMDbPro (http://pro.imdb.com/))
Producer:


The Cream Will Rise (1998) (producer)
Director:


2000s (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0309456/#director2000)
1990s (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0309456/#director1990)
Olivia Newton-John: Video Gold II (2005) (V) (video "I Honestly Love You")
Beyond the City Limits (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0201479/) (2001)
... aka "Rip It Off" - USA (video title)
The Cream Will Rise (1998)
Cinematographer:


The Cream Will Rise (1998)
Actress:

Plughead Rewired: Circuitry Man II (1994) .... Rider

Based on her documents, the fundamental complaint appears to be the belief that caucuses, which were essential to early Obama showings and to early Clinton failures, are inherently bad because they allow well organized groups to dominate the process. This is, of course, a well known situation that the Clintons failed to deal with in their preparation. They believed that Hillary's nomination was sewn up before the process even began and were just waiting for the coronation. By winning early caucuses, Obama gained national publicity and momentum that helped tremendously in shaping the final results. When the fat lady sang Hillary's voice was inaudible from the deep hole she had dug for herself with an incompetently managed campaign. Both parties use the caucus system, primarily in smaller states. The Republicans actually have more caucuses than the Democrats.

Eric Johnson
07-11-2010, 10:14 PM
Jeff-

It dawns on me that she has more experience and qualifications as a film maker than President Obama has as a Chief Executive.

Her basic premise seems to me to be that the Obama representatives cheated his way to the top a la Chicago politics. Several of the reports rather closely parallel the reports in the Philadelphia case....that is the witnesses reports.

Eric

JDogger
07-11-2010, 10:47 PM
Jeff-

It dawns on me that she has more experience and qualifications as a film maker than President Obama has as a Chief Executive.

Her basic premise seems to me to be that the Obama representatives cheated his way to the top a la Chicago politics. Several of the reports rather closely parallel the reports in the Philadelphia case....that is the witnesses reports.

Eric

Politics happen. If Clinton democrats were disappointed, consider how disappointed were McCain/Palin supporters?

Evidence this forum.

JD

PS Oh yeah, I forgot. It's suppossed to be honest.....