- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
You're incorrect, the crimnal charges were dropped. These two dudes broke the law and walk away, scot free.
What's your point, exactly? The issue here is a civil complaint that the DoJ dropped, and my point is that no criminal charges were ever dropped.
You're incorrect, the crimnal charges were dropped. These two dudes broke the law and walk away, scot free.
Actually, these two black panthers were not only charged with a crime, but they were convicted of a crime.
Do you see a contradiction there? I haven't heard anything about criminal charges that were dropped or not. If all this nonsense you're talking about is true, please provide some links. Otherwise, you're wrong.
This just goes to show what a poor grasp you have on the issue. What this whole thread is about are civil suits for injunctions that were dropped, nothing criminal was ever at issue.
One thing for sure if you watch this video this man can be charged with sedition which BTW is a much heavier charge than voter intimidation. What I wonder is how this man is able to acquire a weapon and then advocates the murdering of white women and babies and also advocates revolution.Do you see a contradiction there? I haven't heard anything about criminal charges that were dropped or not. If all this nonsense you're talking about is true, please provide some links. Otherwise, you're wrong.
This just goes to show what a poor grasp you have on the issue. What this whole thread is about are civil suits for injunctions that were dropped, nothing criminal was ever at issue.
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.
You quoted yourself in support of your arguement.
God, it's like arguing with a brick wall. I wasn't saying that the "attacks" on Joe the Plumber were justified, I was saying that people like you exagerrate them ad nausem. Can't say i'm suprised.
All i'm saying is in the grand scheme of partisan politics, Joe got off pretty damn easy. Book deal, speeches, conventions...yea i'd say he's done alright for himself.
I remember when this happened during the election. As far as I know, only Fox showed the footage. CNN didn't show it. So, is it surprising that only Fox News is covering this now? But of course, Fox is biased, so the left will be in its usual collective denial that there is a problem because Fox News is not a legitimate news source...
"exaggerate"? All I said was that they dug up dirt on him and took attention away from the question that he asked. How is that an exaggeration?God, it's like arguing with a brick wall. I wasn't saying that the "attacks" on Joe the Plumber were justified, I was saying that people like you exagerrate them ad nausem. Can't say i'm suprised.
WSJ said:In the first week of January, the Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members...When none of the defendants filed any response to the complaint or appeared in federal district court in Philadelphia to answer the suit, it appeared almost certain Justice would have prevailed by default. Instead, the department in May suddenly allowed the party and two of the three defendants to walk away. Against the third defendant, Minister King Samir Shabazz, it sought only an injunction barring him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling place for the next three years—action that's already illegal under existing law.
I think what these guys did is a violation of election laws, it is as plain as the nose on my face, voter intimidation a relatively minor charge so I suppose we can ignore this law for now. There will be a day perhaps when this will boil over and become a shooting match and then perhaps we can pull our heads out of the sand. The New Black Panther groups are a militant group that advocates murder and revolution, although I really don't take them seriously and I kind of find it amusing but then again I don't live in Phillie. This will sink the Democrats and the Obama administration even further so perhaps it was a good thing that the DOJ dropped the charges, regardless of the reasons. The American people will come to their own conclusions which will not favor Obama and in his relection campaign, this issue will most likely be in his face.I'm not sure if you posted that to disagree with me or not, because the article only goes to my point
Maybe you could explain your point a little better, delta? I don't want to attack your point if you're essentially agreeing with me. I don't think what these New Black Panthers did was right, far from it. But the fact remains that no criminal charges were ever sought against them. That isn't the Justice Department's job anyway, that would have been up to the local sheriff to pursue criminal charges. Here, the feds were only seeking a restraining order (i.e. injunction) to keep the Black Panthers away from the polling places. They got on restraining order. The rest they didn't have enough evidence.
Just because a defendant doesn't show up for the court date and is in default doesn't mean you automatically get an injunction, plaintiff (here the Justice Dept.) still has to show cause for the injunction. They had an reasonable decision that they didn't have the evidence to show cause, and there could have been any number of reasons for this. Apparently one of the Panthers lived in that very building. It'd be hard to show cause for an injunction to keep a guy away from his own building just because he was standing outside of it wearing paramilitary fatigues. Keep in mind only one guy was carrying a weapon, a billyclub IIRC, and I'd bet dollars to donuts he's the Shabazz that they got the injunction against.
This is a complete nonissue, that's why the only media outlets carrying it have been Fox News and WSJ. This so-called whistleblower is just trying to make a career for himself as a blogger, and he's probably already got a book deal out of it. It's just a bunch of spin. This was a reasonable decision.
Thats not all you said. As usual you only present half of the truth. The other half was your quote:
The very fact you claim he "got off easy" by having his life probed illegally by Obama supporters for simply disagreeing with Obama on camera tells us all we need to know about how you really feel about him and your inability to understand how going after him was completely unjustified by the far left.
"exaggerate"? All I said was that they dug up dirt on him and took attention away from the question that he asked. How is that an exaggeration?
Anyhoo, you supported your arguement by quoting yourself, lol.
He absolutely did get a pretty good deal in the end, I will not back down from that assertion. Now do I support these ruthless attack politics? No, I don't, but both parties are guilty of using sleazy tactics for political gain. It's not just the "far left" (spoiler alert: the Democrats are not far left!) or the right. What about James O'Keefe heavily doctoring that ACORN video to run them out of business, causing countless people (many of whom are poor) to lose their jobs? To me, that is a far greater tragedy then someone using illegal tactics to expose Joe as a phony.
I have a feeling that in the grand scheme of things, Joe the plumber is happy that he got all that media attention, he obviously is, why else would he continually put himself on television and give speeches after the fact?
We've gotten pretty far off topic here though. I've watched that tape that is circulating on Fox and the conservative blogs, and yes it's terrifying. The man saying these awful things was also the only person charged with anything in the DOJ case, so you should be glad for that. I will say this though, crying for him to be charged with "treason" is ridiculous, if white supremacists and neo-nazi's can march through American cities with police protection, the NBPP can certainly say those awful things without legislative reprisal.
Well if your referring to my post, I don't want him tried for treason, the charge would be sedition. Treason is when you act upon your threats. BTW this would go for anyone who promotes murder of women and children of any race and revolution through violent means, which this individual professes.I will say this though, crying for him to be charged with "treason" is ridiculous,
As long as they don't break the law, I have no problem with political operatives digging up dirt on someone, but the media dug up dirt on him, big difference.well sorry, maybe I confused you with texmaster. And hey I agree that they dug up dirt on him using illegal tactics, but thats it. It wasn't a coordinated far-left/socialist/marxist plot to destroy Joe the plumber, it's actually pretty standard attack politics. You have to discredit your enemy in any way, talk radio does this on a daily basis, as do MSNBC and FOX, Joe certainly wasn't the first.
As long as they don't break the law, I have no problem with political operatives digging up dirt on someone, but the media dug up dirt on him, big difference.
Would this be other political operatives, or do you mean anyone.As long as they don't break the law, I have no problem with political operatives digging up dirt on someone, but the media dug up dirt on him, big difference.
Could you paraphrase that please?Would this be other political operatives, or do you mean anyone.
Like Joe the plumber, would he be a political operative and fall under your rule of thumb. Joe the plumber was approached by Obama and at that time was a private citizen. Grant it he then became a political operative so to speak after being attacked and he is now fair game. Attacking a citizen who asks tough questions or has criticism against a candidate is off limits in my book to personal and political attacks along with background checks not authorized, if this is done then it should be criminal penalty. Now if one jumps into the ring of politics than yes they are fair game.Could you paraphrase that please?
I have no problem with political operatives digging up dirt on him or anyone else as long as they don't break the law. OTOH, if the media does it on Obama's behalf (which they did), it's blatant media bias.Like Joe the plumber, would he be a political operative and fall under your rule of thumb. Joe the plumber was approached by Obama and at that time was a private citizen. Grant it he then became a political operative so to speak after being attacked and he is now fair game. Attacking a citizen who asks tough questions or has criticism against a candidate is off limits in my book to personal and political attacks along with background checks not authorized, if this is done then it should be criminal penalty. Now if one jumps into the ring of politics than yes they are fair game.
The Obama admin is as transparent as a steel curtain, and resembles the propaganda tactics employed by Joseph Goebbels.
Tim-
Very likely Fox was at that time biased, but also very likely MSNBC was also biased against reporting a story that might have caused problems with the Democrats.
Two sides to a coin.
A scholar whom President George W. Bush appointed as vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Abigail Thernstrom has a reputation as a tough conservative critic of affirmative action and politically correct positions on race.
But when it comes to the investigation that the Republican-dominated commission is now conducting into the Justice Department’s handling of an alleged incident of voter intimidation involving the New Black Panther Party — a controversy that has consumed conservative media in recent months — Thernstrom has made a dramatic break from her usual allies.
“This doesn’t have to do with the Black Panthers; this has to do with their fantasies about how they could use this issue to topple the [Obama] administration,” said Thernstrom, who said members of the commission voiced their political aims “in the initial discussions” of the Panther case last year.
“My fellow conservatives on the commission had this wild notion they could bring Eric Holder down and really damage the president,” Thernstrom said in an interview with POLITICO.
The criticism has focused attention not just on Thernstrom, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, but on the partisan nature of the Civil Rights Commission and on a story that, like the controversy over the anti-poverty group ACORN, has raged almost completely outside the mainstream media.
The facts of the case are relatively simple. Two men were captured on a video standing outside a polling place in a black Philadelphia neighborhood on Election Day in 2008. One of the men had a nightstick, if an unclear agenda — though a member of the black nationalist New Black Panther Party, he had earlier professed loathing for the Democratic "puppet" candidate, Barack Obama, who went on to overwhelmingly carry that precinct.
Three Republican poll monitors filed complaints of intimidation — itself a federal crime — but no voters attested to being turned away. The Justice Department, while Bush was still president, investigated the incident and later, after Obama took office, decided that "the facts and the law did not support pursuing" the claims against the party and against a second, unarmed man, Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said.
Read more: A conservative dismisses right-wing Black Panther 'fantasies' - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com
The latest on this New Black Panther party voter intimidation issue...
From an article on Politico.com:
A conservative dismisses right-wing Black Panther 'fantasies'
By BEN SMITH | 7/16/10 5:48 PM EDT
Read more: A conservative dismisses right-wing Black Panther 'fantasies' - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com
And there you have it...partisian politics as usual.
The latest on this New Black Panther party voter intimidation issue...
From an article on Politico.com:
A conservative dismisses right-wing Black Panther 'fantasies'
By BEN SMITH | 7/16/10 5:48 PM EDT
Read more: A conservative dismisses right-wing Black Panther 'fantasies' - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com
And there you have it...partisian politics as usual.
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?