100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Black Panthers free to Supervise FUTURE Elections. | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
(This is a mix of quotes from different people)
Next Nov., let's see some white supremacists with billy-clubs keeping order out front of the voting stations. Recon naap will holler foul and scream for doj to do something? Special interest groups generally behave irrationally and inconsistently...they are special interest groups, not 'even handed interest' groups. While millions seem to think a gun in every pocket, belt, purse, or holster is ok - suddenly a person with a stick is a threat. A person who was standing with arms down by his sides, not shouting, not making verbal threats.... REALLY - what was it that made (some) people feel threatened? Come on - out with it!
 
YOU go tell the dude with the stick who wants to put a beatdown on whitey that he's all wrong and that he should practice 'peace 'n lub' and all that stuff. Go ahead - I'll wait ... somebody call 911
I see no evidence that these guys actually want to put a beat down on anyone. I think their real motives are probably petty and immature (seeking attention, feeling of importance, it 'feels cool' to dress up), and their self-rationalized motives are probably altruistic (securing the polling place from an imaginary threat against black voters). If anyone of them really wanted to assault someone, white or otherwise, they would do so under stealthier conditions (a dark alley). So, no one would have a problem with white supremacists keepin' da' peace.
I see it as the same. I don't assume that all white supremacists are violence prone anymore than I assume that all BPs are violence prone. OTOH, I'd rather not have any beweaponed people outside polling places (except for police responding to a problem). i just watched the vids, both of them, and it seems like white people just acting stupid to a stupid situation...i'm embarrassed for my kind right now...
Yep. The one video I saw, the white guy is being even more ridiculous than the ridiculous BP. on a sidenote, I dont think you are supposed to be taking cell video or pictures at a polling place, so it possibly would have been legitimate cause to stop that person although the party in question was not an official with such authority
The old privacy vs security (through accountability) issue...are we talking inside or outside? If people are going to be stupid (dress up and carry weapons) outside a polling place, it should be perfectly legal to record that stupidity. because it was DEALT with by the law IMMEDIATELy there is not much of a DOJ case to pursue after the fact
In my ignorance, I'm wondering if thats the most significant point being made in this thread. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(This is a mix of quotes from different people) Next Nov., let's see some white supremacists with billy-clubs keeping order out front of the voting stations. Recon naap will holler foul and scream for doj to do something? Special interest groups generally behave irrationally and inconsistently...they are special interest groups, not 'even handed interest' groups. While millions seem to think a gun in every pocket, belt, purse, or holster is ok - suddenly a person with a stick is a threat. A person who was standing with arms down by his sides, not shouting, not making verbal threats.... REALLY - what was it that made (some) people feel threatened? Come on - out with it!
YOU go tell the dude with the stick who wants to put a beatdown on whitey that he's all wrong and that he should practice 'peace 'n lub' and all that stuff. Go ahead - I'll wait ... somebody call 911
I see no evidence that these guys actually want to put a beat down on anyone. I think their real motives are probably petty and immature (seeking attention, feeling of importance, it 'feels cool' to dress up), and their self-rationalized motives are probably altruistic (securing the polling place from an imaginary threat against black voters). If anyone of them really wanted to assault someone, white or otherwise, they would do so under stealthier conditions (a dark alley). So, no one would have a problem with white supremacists keepin' da' peace.
I see it as the same. I don't assume that all white supremacists are violence prone anymore than I assume that all BPs are violence prone. OTOH, I'd rather not have any beweaponed people outside polling places (except for police responding to a problem). i just watched the vids, both of them, and it seems like white people just acting stupid to a stupid situation...i'm embarrassed for my kind right now...
Yep. The one video I saw, the white guy is being even more ridiculous than the ridiculous BP. on a sidenote, I dont think you are supposed to be taking cell video or pictures at a polling place, so it possibly would have been legitimate cause to stop that person although the party in question was not an official with such authority
The old privacy vs security (through accountability) issue...are we talking inside or outside? If people are going to be stupid (dress up and carry weapons) outside a polling place, it should be perfectly legal to record that stupidity. because it was DEALT with by the law IMMEDIATELy there is not much of a DOJ case to pursue after the fact
In my ignorance, I'm wondering if thats the most significant point being made in this thread. Well, I think the TITLE of the thread and the referenced dismissed charges/case are misleading. So I think the relevant points in the thread have been regarding whether an NBP member should be patrolling at the polls. The central defendant in all of this is the NBP Party instead of the individual or individuals at the site. There are so many practices in place to observe and monitor these sites and I imagine plenty of important questions were asked before making a determination about this case. Is there any proof that the NBP party promoted or encouraged these activities? Is there any proof that voters were actually stopped from participating at the polls? Is there any law regarding what can and cant be worn at the polling place(besides political attire supporting any candidates or issues)? ,,,,my guess is the DOJ dotted their eyes and crossed their tees when deciding there was no CASE against the actual NBP party. I also doubt anyone sought out specifically members of the NBP to monitor the polling places. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For clarity, I meant "wondering if, and thinking it likely that it is".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kings_Knight
on
Sat 07/03/10 07:33 PM
|
|
" ... Well, I think the TITLE of the thread and the referenced dismissed charges/case are misleading. So I think the relevant points in the thread have been regarding whether an NBP member should be patrolling at the polls. The central defendant in all of this is the NBP Party instead of the individual or individuals at the site. There are so many practices in place to observe and monitor these sites and I imagine plenty of important questions were asked before making a determination about this case. Is there any proof that the NBP party promoted or encouraged these activities? Is there any proof that voters were actually stopped from participating at the polls? Is there any law regarding what can and cant be worn at the polling place(besides political attire supporting any candidates or issues)? ,,,,my guess is the DOJ dotted their eyes(?) and crossed their tees(?) when deciding there was no CASE against the actual NBP party. I also doubt anyone sought out specifically members of the NBP to monitor the polling places. ... " Then riddle me THIS ... http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/05/the-us-department-of-injustice/ Two weeks ago, in a highly unusual move, Holder dismissed default judgments his department had won against two of three defendants charged with violating the Voting Rights Act. On November 4, 2008, a billy club-wielding militant in military-style boots and beret stood outside a Philly polling location with a similarly-dressed partner. Citizen journalists from the Pennsylvania-based blog Election Journal captured the menacing duo on video. One of the watchdogs observed: “I think it might be a little intimidating that you have a stick in your hand.” That was an understatement. Witness Bartle Bull, a Democratic lawyer who organized for Bobby Kennedy and worked for the civil rights movement in Mississippi, signed a sworn affidavit decrying the Election Day brutishness. Serving as a poll watcher that day, he called the behavior of Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson “the most blatant form of voter discrimination I have encountered in my life.” One of them, Bull reported, taunted poll observers: “[Y]ou are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.” If the pair had been dressed in white sheets, all hell would have broken loose. But the ebony-clad thugs were members of the New Black Panther Party who had been dispatched by Malcolm X wannabe Malik Shabazz to “guard” the polls. Translation: Protect them from scrutiny. Shield them from sunlight. Keep independent voters and observers out. Who is Malik Shabazz? The bespectacled race hustler grabbed the spotlight in the weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks by defending Osama bin Laden, blaming President Bush for 9/11, bashing Israel, and blasting our founding fathers as “snakes.” His group also infamously rallied behind the Duke University lacrosse rape hoaxer. And on the day before the presidential election last fall, one of Shabazz’s “field marshals,” Minister Najee Muhammad, held a “black power” rally promising to send his forces to polls across the country “to ensure that the enemy does not sabotage the black vote.” ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If ANY of those things had been done by whites, NO suit would EVER have been dismissed. Just justify for me why this was (or should have been) dismissed. It's a clear VIOLATION of the VOTING RIGHTS ACT ... you ARE famililar with that one, right ... ? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
quite an involved reading http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=100&page=transcript perhaps one can see MANY reasons this case would not be able to go forward,,,,,,just off of a phone camera video of a man with a baton whom POLICE and the courts dealt with already on a sidenote, I dont think you are supposed to be taking cell video or pictures at a polling place, so it possibly would have been legitimate cause to stop that person although the party in question was not an official with such authority Oh. Are you saying then that it's okay to have a POLICE BATON to beat down people trying to exercise their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to VOTE ... ? This is such hairsplitting it strains credulity. who did they "beat down"????? your just being ridiculous... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" ... Well, I think the TITLE of the thread and the referenced dismissed charges/case are misleading. So I think the relevant points in the thread have been regarding whether an NBP member should be patrolling at the polls. The central defendant in all of this is the NBP Party instead of the individual or individuals at the site. There are so many practices in place to observe and monitor these sites and I imagine plenty of important questions were asked before making a determination about this case. Is there any proof that the NBP party promoted or encouraged these activities? Is there any proof that voters were actually stopped from participating at the polls? Is there any law regarding what can and cant be worn at the polling place(besides political attire supporting any candidates or issues)? ,,,,my guess is the DOJ dotted their eyes(?) and crossed their tees(?) when deciding there was no CASE against the actual NBP party. I also doubt anyone sought out specifically members of the NBP to monitor the polling places. ... " Then riddle me THIS ... http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/05/the-us-department-of-injustice/ Two weeks ago, in a highly unusual move, Holder dismissed default judgments his department had won against two of three defendants charged with violating the Voting Rights Act. On November 4, 2008, a billy club-wielding militant in military-style boots and beret stood outside a Philly polling location with a similarly-dressed partner. Citizen journalists from the Pennsylvania-based blog Election Journal captured the menacing duo on video. One of the watchdogs observed: “I think it might be a little intimidating that you have a stick in your hand.” That was an understatement. Witness Bartle Bull, a Democratic lawyer who organized for Bobby Kennedy and worked for the civil rights movement in Mississippi, signed a sworn affidavit decrying the Election Day brutishness. Serving as a poll watcher that day, he called the behavior of Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson “the most blatant form of voter discrimination I have encountered in my life.” One of them, Bull reported, taunted poll observers: “[Y]ou are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.” If the pair had been dressed in white sheets, all hell would have broken loose. But the ebony-clad thugs were members of the New Black Panther Party who had been dispatched by Malcolm X wannabe Malik Shabazz to “guard” the polls. Translation: Protect them from scrutiny. Shield them from sunlight. Keep independent voters and observers out. Who is Malik Shabazz? The bespectacled race hustler grabbed the spotlight in the weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks by defending Osama bin Laden, blaming President Bush for 9/11, bashing Israel, and blasting our founding fathers as “snakes.” His group also infamously rallied behind the Duke University lacrosse rape hoaxer. And on the day before the presidential election last fall, one of Shabazz’s “field marshals,” Minister Najee Muhammad, held a “black power” rally promising to send his forces to polls across the country “to ensure that the enemy does not sabotage the black vote.” ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If ANY of those things had been done by whites, NO suit would EVER have been dismissed. Just justify for me why this was (or should have been) dismissed. It's a clear VIOLATION of the VOTING RIGHTS ACT ... you ARE famililar with that one, right ... ? lol, I posted the link to the whole document(voting rights act) for others to read. I guess we will have to wait for the actual FACTS OF EVIDENCE to say which part of that LONG list of conditions were or werent met sufficiently enough to pursue the case or stand by the judgment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top Justice Dept. Official Lied Under Oath About Dismissal of New Black Panther Case, Ex-DOJ Lawyer Says
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/01/justice-dept-official-lied-oath-dismissal-new-black-panther-case-ex-doj-lawyer/?cmpid=prn_baynote_Top_Justice_Dept._Official_Lied_Under_Oath_About_Dismissal_of_New_Black_Panther_Case,_Ex-DOJ_Lawyer_Says |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" ... I guess we will have to wait for the actual FACTS OF EVIDENCE to say which part of that LONG list of conditions were or werent met sufficiently enough to pursue the case or stand by the judgment. ... " Oh - so the FACT that this case had ALREADY been adjudicated and the Panthers found GUILTY and was then DISMISSED by Holder means nothing, right ... ? Please - go peddle that pap to someone who's stupid enough to believe it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top Justice Dept. Official Lied Under Oath About Dismissal of New Black Panther Case, Ex-DOJ Lawyer Says http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/01/justice-dept-official-lied-oath-dismissal-new-black-panther-case-ex-doj-lawyer/?cmpid=prn_baynote_Top_Justice_Dept._Official_Lied_Under_Oath_About_Dismissal_of_New_Black_Panther_Case,_Ex-DOJ_Lawyer_Says lawyer says... i can say things too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is probably the most obvious case of Presidential corruption and lawlessness in history. I find the wars in the mideast to be a more obvious case of Presidential corruption and lawlessness, but that's JMHO. does the President even have a say in who the department of justice decides to prosecute or not? Ummmmmmm.......Yes. so do certain Congressmen and Senators. my bad,, didnt learn that in school, what with all the other duties of a the executive office, didnt realize that he was so involved with the legislative as well,,,, so does the story reference any ORDER from the presidents office to drop the case? All's Congress's has to do to make the DOJ do thri bidding is threaten them with an oversight committee. |
|
|
|
|
