Color me shocked.
Again, color me shocked.
Bull****. The headline attacks were less than 24 hours. There wasn't time for this guy to be hoisted up by the right.
But considering your bias I'm not surprised you don't see that
Not exactly. You fought me at every turn when I said we had proof of their breakage of the law then for some reason you went after the DA angle.
What proof do you have? Like I said, I remember this very clearly because I was assigned to write about it and the headline was something like "Joe the Plumber: GOP Messiah?". I'd like to see a timeline with these "attack" headlines
No I conceded at every turn that we have evidence of them breaking the law but that we don't have evidence (aside from the guy's testimony) that they dropped the case for political reasons.
Yes which is why you can INVESTIGATE the matter. But I hate to think of a world where one can be condemned by just the hearsay of one man.
Sigh. Your own words
Right here you deny there is enough evidence of a conviction.
Read your own words more carefully next time.
Both sides accuse each other of policies which are bad for the country but it's far more common for the left to use terms like "selfish" and "greed" when criticizing their political opponents. They play the race card as if they have an unlimited supply and routinely try to demonize the right. You also have the issue of political correctness. The right is guilty of censorship but it's usually things like nudity, rather than trying to silence their opponents.In the grand scheme of things, I think conservatives are much more close-minded in their bias then liberals. At least most of the liberals I know are willing to question their own position, where as the conservatives I know are much more apprehensive to opposing views.
That was blatant media bias. Joe asked an excellent question that shed light on an extremely important issue. It didn't matter who asked the question. The question could've been asked by a serial killer and it still would've been an excellent question. The media deflected attention away from the question by focusing on Joe, which aided Obama greatly. This guy was a nobody, what possible reason could they have for digging up dirt on him aside from helping Obama? They don't even dig that deep when Democratic VIPs are accused of wrong doing.I remember this whole Joe the Plumber fiasco very clearly as I was actually working for a news media outlet during the election (I won't say which because some people on here would label it as verrry biased). Joe the Plumber was immediately ascended as John McCain's savior by Fox and Talk Radio, and by extension all the media outlets were talking about him. This heinous background check didn't happen until AFTER he became a conservative hero, and it was the conservatives who gave him fame for that one little question.
Who wrote that headline?What proof do you have? Like I said, I remember this very clearly because I was assigned to write about it and the headline was something like "Joe the Plumber: GOP Messiah?". I'd like to see a timeline with these "attack" headlines
What proof do you have? Like I said, I remember this very clearly because I was assigned to write about it and the headline was something like "Joe the Plumber: GOP Messiah?". I'd like to see a timeline with these "attack" headlines
I'm talking about investigating those who dropped the case, not the Black Panthers. And you just conceded that we don't have solid evidence against them, only the Black Panthers. I've never argued that we don't have the evidence for the Panthers, just the Justice Department.
Who wrote that headline?
Let's look at the law and then review the complete circumstances surrounding what these New Black Panther members did - or rather what the one individual in question did - and then make a rational decision.
The Voters Rights Act, Sec. 11(b) reads:
So, what did the one member in question of the New Black Pather party do? He utter hostile or otherwise threatening words directed at white voters outside a polling place in Philly:
He made these statements right outside a polling place and his words were directed at white voters. So, under the law he should have been prosecuted, right? Well, let's look at the specifics of the law again because as legal history has shown, words AND actions on both sides - the person doing the intimidating, threatening, coersion, etc, and those who allegedly are threatened - play a role here.
Clearly, his words were mean spirited, hateful and threatening. But who did he intimidate? Did he directly intimidate, threaten or coerce any white voter and stop them from casting their vote? Was any white voter denied their right to vote as a direct result of his words? (In other words, did any white voter turn away from the polling place because they were affraid of him or the New Black Pather members who were present?)
I understand how some people view this incident. In all honesty, his actions really aren't that much different from white hate groups, i.e., the Klan or any of its knock-offs, who would do the same thing to blacks. But here's the difference...
Throughout the history of the Black Pather party, no member has ever been prosecuted for violating Section 11(b) of the Voters Rights Act...until now. To put it another way, no voters rights or civil rights case made against members of the Black Pathers has ever been succesfully prosecuted whereby it was proven that their actions denied a white person his or her right to vote. So you ask, "How could I make the claim that these members were prosecuted? From the FoxNews article in the OP:
In otherwords, a plea bargain was reached, but you have to ask yourself why wasn't this case pursued to the fullest extent of the law? Well, consider that:
a. No one was hurt.
b. No voter was denied their right to vote.
c. It's the individuals protected right to free speech; the only knock is he happen to make such a vile statement outside a polling place on the night of the Presidential election.
Although there apparently is evidence that this wasn't the first time this has happened in recent history w/the New Black Pather party, there hasn't been any evidence to my knowledge (that has been made publicly atleast) that shows that any white voters were denied their right to vote. In fact, according to atleast one website that has covered this incident, some eyewiteness to the Philly account have stated that they saw white voters laughing at the individual who spoke. Clearly, no one was intimidate by his words, and that's the key here, folks.
Before responding to this thread, I did some research and no better commentary as to how insignificant this issue is can be summarized better than the words from Abigail Thernstrom, the Republican vice-chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, who not only called this incident "small potatoes, but also considers it to be a "manufactured controversy" by his own party.
From MediaMatters.com:
In the grand scheme of things, I'd have to agree with him. Again, I understand how polarized this incident has become; whites in particular want "tit-for-tat" justice, but really how does this compare with the voting rights denied of African-Americans since before the 15th Amendement, the Civil Rights Act and the Voters Rights Act were all passed? Believe me, I understand where many whites (and Conservatives) are coming from because as an African-American, I've been on that side of racial injustice. But when you really take the racial and partician blinders off, what real harm has this small trio of racially bias individuals done other than communicating a threat and uttering hate speech?
Easily done.
The Washington Post wasted no time
Joe the Plumber is not exactly a plumber, he's "not even close" to making the kind of money that would result in higher taxes from Democrat Barack Obama's proposals and has such an aversion to taxes that a lien was filed against him by the state of Ohio.
Joe the Plumber: Not a Licensed Plumber | 44 | washingtonpost.com
The same day with the new york times and even his home paper
Now where are all the Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh interviews hoisting this guy up before that article?
Ditto, but couldnt the states that these douches were found try them in their own courts if the feds refuse to take the case?
I dunno. A couple questions come to mind: 1) Would the state have the jurisdiction/authority to press charges and
2) Would this fall under double jeopardy?
Or, is Pennsylvania just as guilty as the Feds of not going after a crime?
The black dude sayz he's a warrior... I literally laughed out loud at that statement. It just sounds so SILLY.
As for the douche hating on whites, I wonder why that is? I bet his hatred is more for those who are successful (not saying that others aren't successful) than actual race difference. I bet he hates successful blacks as much as the previously mentioned group.
I dunno. A couple questions come to mind: 1) Would the state have the jurisdiction/authority to press charges and 2) Would this fall under double jeopardy?
Or, is Pennsylvania just as guilty as the Feds of not going after a crime?
Now I've seen everything. You quoted yourself to support your arguement.Me, although I don't think it was that verbatim, the article has been taken down since.
Now I've seen everything. You quoted yourself to support your arguement.
Does everybody arguing in this thread understand that the New Black Panthers were never charged with a crime at all, even by the career attorneys at the DoJ who wanted to continue the lawsuits? This was a civil lawsuit for an injunction (restraining order), not a criminal prosecution. The reason why Holder probably dropped the suits that he did drop is probably that he couldn't show cause for the injunction and he wouldn't have gotten them. And oh by the way they did pursue the suit and obtain an injunction against one of the men doing to voter intimidation.
It seems to me that a lot of the people who are so up in arms about this dummied up non-controversy keep going on and on about how the New Black Panthers committed a crime and should have been prosecuted and evidently have absolutely no clue what actually happened.
Well if there was state and local elections I would assume their would be joint-justidiction.
Wouldnt they have to be tried first in order for double jeopardy to come into play?
Very possible.
Actually, these two black panthers were not only charged with a crime, but they were convicted of a crime.
You weren't using it as an example, you used it to support your assertion that the media attacks on Joe were justified. If you trace the discussion back, you used it to support your last sentence in post #66.Haha, no, although that would be hilarious. I said that I wrote an article about it and someone (you?) asked me what the headline was. I was in no way using that as an example of how media covered Joe the plumber.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?