soooooo..... am i missing something here? or is this as blatant a bull**** move as it seems?



apparently the case of voter intimidation was made against these guys then dropped by some higher ups in the DOJ...

www.washingtontimes.com

also even though its from fox this is a really interesting interview.

www.foxnews.com

Man, the ignorance some people display is astounding. I really shouldn't be surprised anymore, but it still amazes me sometimes.

This is one of the guys in the video.



This is the group involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party

Cue KKK....

What the ****.

It's not racist if the victim is white.

Yeah that's not even what bothers me that much. Of course I am bothered when I hear someone talking about killing crackers and their babys, but as abhorrent as that may be it fall squarely under the first amendment. What I find really disturbing about this is the seemingly blatant voter intimidation. And the governments unwillingness to do anything, apparently because of the color of the guys skin.

You are defiantly missing something, and the fact that you are turning to the crazy cult Washington Times is a strong signal of how bull**** these stupid claims are.

Media Matters and Adam Serwer have some excellent breakdowns of the this faux scandal pushed by Republican media figures, but here are the key facts:

1. Adams isn't a good-intentioned whistle blower. He's a GOP hack embedded in the DoJ by the Bush administration. He was hired during a time when the Civil Rights Division was highly and illegally politicized by right-wingers. His intentions are to get invited on to TV shows and get a book deal.

2. It was the Bush DoJ that chose not to bring charges, NOT the Obama DoJ (the incident of course happened before Obama even took office).

3. The main purpose of the Civil Rights Division is to investigate and prosecute cases related to institutional and systematic discrimination. Three idiots ranting outside a polling station is wrong and stupid, but it's not necessarily the DoJ's responsibility. If you think harder charges should have been pressed, then you need to contact the local law enforcement in Philadelphia.

4. No one was prevented from voting, and no one has come forward to allege that they were intimated. The DoJ looked into it.

This is a pretty obvious case of projection. The Civil Rights Division under Bush's DoJ was inappropriately politicized and fermented a racially hostile atmosphere that lead to the head of the Division resigning after making racist jokes. So naturally right-wing media outlets are eager to project this shame on to the dreaded Obama.

Now, of course standing outside of a polling place with a weapon is unquestionably wrong--and they should have been removed by local law enforcement. But complaining about a mistake by the Philadelphia Police Department instead of OMG OBAMA IS RACIST won't get you famous and invited on Hannity's TV show.

My problem is that, while it may not be strictly illegal, it is a pretty ****ed up thing to do.

Indeed. And, in fact, this sort of behavior is counter-productive to anti-racism agenda. Stuff like this creates racists.

Imagine for a moment that you are a small child, and you are all excited because you are going with daddy to vote! You get there, and you see this large black man screaming about crackers. Now, you think crackers are delicious, and don't understand why this man is so upset about them; but what do you remember? A large black man yelling at you. You will remember that forever, and whether you consciously realize it or not, whether it manifests itself in hate or not, you will be forever slightly uneasy around large black men.

lol

This post is interesting because it criticizes the Washington Times for being biased and then links to Media Matters.

Meh. The washinton times actually does a good job of keeping the editorializing in the editorials. Much better than the washington post. http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Washington+Post+Bias&word2=Washington+Times+Bias

I consider it a hate crime, Because that individual made a public death threat to white people in general, but I keep forgetting that they reserve that right as long as its against white people. Even if I was another race I would still think its wrong wrong wrong!

I don't know what a stick figure fight is supposed to prove, but the fact that the circulation of the Times is 1/10th to 1/8th the Post (most likely less), and still has 1/2 have the number of bias claims isn't exactly a feather in it's cap.

The Times has always been a hacky newspaper. It misquotes, gets facts wrong, and portrays events in ways that are nowhere even close to the truth. The Post has been going downhill lately, but it's still nowhere close to as bad as the Times, who, in the last year or two, has faced a terrible crisis as reporters are jumping ship as they shut down.

Yeah, so I looked into this briefly... what's wrong with Media Matters? I don't know much about it. It's a not-for-profit organization and they seem to rail on both conservative and liberal pundits.

Who said anything about bias? I criticize the Washington Times because it's a goofy rag subsidized by a guy who literally thinks he's the second coming of Christ.

As for Media Matters, yes they argue from a progressive point-of-view, but they do a lot of good work. And yes, sometimes they hurt Billy O'Reilly's feefees. But did you actually read the information presented in the link? What about it seemed inaccurate or untrue to you?

You are right. As the stick fight demonstrates, conservatives whine about liberal bias a lot--almost constantly. Also: the Post mostly sucks. The days of Bernstein and Woodward are long gone.

The original post is confusing me. Are you saying it's bull**** that these guys are just standing there? Or bull**** that this media tool is making a scene about it?

What if I think you rposting is bull****?

Surely there's some kind of limit or clause regarding that though? I'm not familiar with your laws but I imagine that if I was, for (extreme) example, in the US, yelling at a cop, threatening to kill him and his family, and laugh while I crush his babies skull under my feet... he wouldn't just shrug and go "freedom of speech"
When you're threatening, or trying to tell people that all white people must die, trying to incite violence.... surely there's something the police/government can, nay, SHOULD do.

The real problem with MM is, and this is fact, it was basically founded and funded by democrat politicians, activists, and groups to combat the right wing attack machine. You should give Media Matters the same sort of credibility you give Fox News.

So because it was started and funded by democratic activists, it must be completely unreliable? Are you nuts? Fox News is not a grassroots republican movement. It's a business designed specifically to drive high revenue through controversy by any means necessary. Not at ALL the same.

What are you like Hank Hill or something?

Hahahaha, nice.

Hank Hill is an American Hero.

Sometimes I am amazed that some random Texan from Beavis and Butthead could be such an amazing citizen.

I love Hank Hill, loved Daria too, so much better then Beavis and Butthead

+1 for Hank and Daria

I have still seen nothing that convinces me that the DoJ dropped the case for any reason other than that they would be unable to prove their case in court.

Ok, perhaps a bit of backtracking is in order. I am not really sure who's jurisdiction voter intimidation falls under, I would assume it would be a federal issue. If not the my bad. To me it seems that even if no one was kept from actually voting these guys were out here to intimidate. Obviously there are videos. As well as eye whitnesses. Courts in several states have also upheld that even just verbal threats constitute intimidation. I am just baffled as to how this could not be considered voter intimidation and oersted as such. I guess you could argue that I should give the doj the benifit of the doubt... But I'm not.

I never said they were. One is a news organization and the other is a propaganda arm for the democrat party. I simply said that you should not give one any more credibility than the other.

Okay, so where's your evidence that it's a "propaganda arm?" What have they published that is so incorrect?

You know, it would have been a lot funnier if you had said:

Both questions are equally important.

Ah, we can agree on somethings.

There was a mentally ill black man walking around in front of a cafe that my wife & I were planning to eat at a few years ago in Nashville, TN. He was yelling at the top of his lungs that he hates white people & that he'd kill us if we looked at him. We just smiled, went inside & had some great ****ing hamburgers & a nice cold beer.

Yeah, I totally wish I was there where the New Black Panthers were. Probably would have acted like a couple of *****es if you got in their grill.

Burden of proof.

Okay, finally looked into this, and it turns out the DoJ got their injunction against the guy with the nightstick. So what's the problem?

Seems to me, and I could be wrong, but the problem Darth_Alran had in his opening post was that the DOJ wasn't prosecuting the case.

It would be pretty remarkable if they secured an injunction without prosecuting the case.