Printable View
...fucking moving targets with this administration.
Instead, he's trying to appoint a woman, who's a member of the Hispanic equivalent of The New Black Panthers, to the U. S. Supreme Court.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Surber
I heard someone say this the other day, "This is Chicago Politics writ large." Nothing more.
So how would the two scary black men know how any one particular voter voted?
Please explain fully.
The point of the post is that Political appointees in the Justice Department ordered bureaucratic employees of the Justice Department to drop the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Nice try at bait and switch. It doesn't matter what they knew or didn't know, what they were doing is illegal. Why isn't the Obama administration going to pursue prosecution?
It's been suggested it's because of this:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_orkXxp0bhE...nbp-before.jpg
Tell me why I should believe othewise.
It's an extremely weak case if its only basis is Bull's affidavit. He's got two black men standing in a public area. Where's the beef?
Props to Bull for not bothering to make his corrections on his word processor. Very professional.
There is no reason you should believe otherwise -- you're an idiot and that can't be helped.
The incuriosity continues...Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
If you've got more than the Bull affidavit, show it.
I am mainly curious as to why Bull would submit such a weak affidavit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
From the Washington Times:
"Documents," "interviews," and the video seem to say there is more than just the Bull affidavit.Quote:
Justice Department political appointees overruled career lawyers and ended a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day, according to documents and interviews.
For your benefit, I hasten to point out that the word "including" means the affidavit wasn't the only piece of evidence the DOJ accumulated in the months they were pursuing the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by articlecontinues
In this instance it is hard to see a legitimate motive for dropping the case. DOJ dismissed two defendants completely and as to the third, settled for an order that he not bring a weapon to a polling place in Philadelphia until 2012. One of the three Panthers is a member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee.
By the way, did you know this organization campaigned for Barack Obama in 2008? The Obama campaign proudly displayed a New Black Panther endorsement on it's official web page until someone pointed out just how fucking stupid that was.
Are you any more curious? I doubt it.
obviously president obama had direct knowledge.
thanks yoni
:rolleyes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
curious about what yoni?
Why Holder had his Department drop the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
What other case has the DOJ dropped? What cases did Bush's DOJ drop? DO you have any idea? Curious?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Why do you think Holder had the DOJ dropped the case? 2 votes?
If one had been brought to my attention, I might have been. Do you know of one?Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
Why do you think Holder had the DOJ dropped the case? 2 votes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
In this case the Justice Department filed a complaint under Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act (which prohibits any attempt to “intimidate, threaten or coerce” any voter) against the New Black Panther Party.
Neither the New Black Panther Party nor any of the individual defendants responded to the suit. The federal judge therefore ordered the Civil Rights Division to file a default judgment. However, without providing any grounds for doing so the Division moved to dismiss the complaint — in essence forfeiting the case.
That isn't curious?
I have no idea, it's be a good question for him to answer. Don't you think?Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
You won't believe any explanation so just admit you know this is an inside job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
So, you're not curious?Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
why should i be?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
I find it curious the DOJ, at the behest of Eric Holder, dropped a voters rights case it spent months developing and had essentially won...and, did so against defendants that endorsed President Obama during the election.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
Yeah, I think you should be. But, I can't make you be curious.
So where are they? Let's see them all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
I am very curious to see all the documentation concerning this. I appreciate your compiling them all for me in advance.
The Bush DoJ?Quote:
For your benefit, I hasten to point out that the word "including" means the affidavit wasn't the only piece of evidence the DOJ accumulated in the months they were pursuing the case.
Yeah, I can see their pursuing a flimsy-ass case that would make Obama supporters look bad. I can also see it's being dropped by a less partisan DoJ -- you know, one that doesn't fire US attorneys for not pursuing flimsy voting rights cases like the Bush administration did.
In the hands of the DOJ that threw the case out the window. If you're that curious, I suggest you contact them.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
The defendants failed to respond to the charges and a default judgement had already been issued.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
And, the case was pursued by career DOJ staffers, not political appointees.
But, nice try.
And, if what you're suggesting is true, I think it behooves President Obama to stick to his transparency pledge and let us know.
I find it curious that yoni was never curious during mt rushmore's 8 yrs.
don't play the video........just look at the first frame.......
that must conjure up some disturbing feelings...huh yoni?
So you aren't curious, are you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
:lol Let's see the summary judgment. Certainly you were curious enough to read that. Oh, that's right -- you aren't that curious.Quote:
The defendants failed to respond to the charges and a default judgement had already been issued.
From whom do DoJ staffers take their orders?Quote:
And, the case was pursued by career DOJ staffers, not political appointees.
But, nice try.
Nice try.
They did. It's not like you never heard of their decision. If you are really that curious to know more, I suggest you contact them.Quote:
And, if what you're suggesting is true, I think it behooves President Obama to stick to his transparency pledge and let us know.
Surely, there must be some Obama supporters out there who are upset with this. Replace the NBPP thugs with white guys in white hoods.
Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act:
No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote.
So far, all I've seen them specifically charged with is being black and holding a nightstick.
I'm curious to see all the other actions alleged here. I'd be fine with pursuing a case if there was one to pursue. All the evidence I've seen so far only points to black men being scary to many posters here.
Actually, by obtaining an order against one of the involved parties, the DOJ got relief and, in essence, did away with any need to get a memorialized default.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Of course, that doesn't fit with the Cult of Obama's Corruption's side of the tale, so such a fact wouldn't understandably be downplayed in favor of more politically motivated misapprehensions about federal procedure.
Well, from what I understand---and I admit, I might be wrong---after the NBPP failed to respond to the DOJ's accusations, all the DOJ had to do was file a motion for default judgment. Instead, they filed a motion to dismiss. That's a bit odd, I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
As far as specific factual allegations, all I've heard---again, I might be wrong---is that they were twirling their batons in a threatening manner while shouting "you're being ruled by a black man now, cracker!"
If it was an especially weak case that should never have been brought in the first place, I wouldn't consider it odd at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by doobs
That's it? "Threatening manner"? Who was stopped from voting? Who was told to vote one way or another? If these menacing black men were so clearly a threat, why were they not arrested on the spot? Were the people there so petrified with fear at the sight of black men with sticks that they couldn't use their cell phones to actually call the police?Quote:
As far as specific factual allegations, all I've heard---again, I might be wrong---is that they were twirling their batons in a threatening manner while shouting "you're being ruled by a black man now, cracker!"
True enough. I take it the order was "no carrying sticks at the polls" or something like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
I don't know. Why do you think NBPP members were wielding nightsticks? To scratch their backs?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I just told you what I understood. I'm not a DOJ lawyer, nor am I a member of the NBPP. Again, imagine white guys in white hoods with nightsticks. In my opinion---and you may not agree with this---the KKK and NBPP are roughly equivalent. I wonder if the result would be different.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I have no idea what it said, but it's quite conceivable to me that with facts that might be less than ideal to take to court (even if leaving political guys like Yonivore salivating) and faced with trying to uphold a default that might have been difficult to hold on to (no-answer defaults, in particular, can be relatively easy to get reversed; the law frowns on adjudications against people who didn't participate in litigation), DOJ could have reached a deal with counsel for the defendants by which it agreed to drop the non-weapons based charges and to impose a specific order (no weapons at polling places?) upon the defendant who was apparently brandishing a weapon. Again, it would akin to a plea bargain in a criminal context; it would certainly be an understandable settlement for the government to reach in a case that it might have believed was going to be legally difficult to prove if contested.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Sounds to me like this one particular member was trying to emulate a kind of watered-down display of weaponry the original Panthers used to put on back in the day to show no one should fuck with them. I had never known those displays to be used to intimidate voters, but it's possible they were. Mainly they just caused whitey to freak out, like when the Panthers legally brought guns into state capitol buildings and the like. After sending their pants out to be cleaned, white lawmakers decided the 2nd Amendment wasn't an absolute guarantee after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by doobs
Depends on the neighborhood. I imagine someone would have been smart enough to call the police were actual intimidation taking place.Quote:
I just told you what I understood. I'm not a DOJ lawyer, nor am I a member of the NBPP. Again, imagine white guys in white hoods with nightsticks. In my opinion---and you may not agree with this---the KKK and NBPP are roughly equivalent. I wonder if the result would be different.
You're white right?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Nearly translucent.Quote:
Originally Posted by PEP
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I learned long ago not to debate CD unless your ready to give it all you got and be ready for fist fight and most important do your homework.
Good luck Yonivore :tu
BoniVore continues his hilarious ankle-biting, stretching, dissembling.
:rollinQuote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Please tell me how this makes sense at all, any more than saying that Ron Paul is as bad as Hitler. :lol
Repugs are firing blanks, except for their own sheeples.
Repug extremists purging/blackablling the party moderates and centrists to assure ideological hard-core purity is making them more and more irrelevant, esp at the polls.
If two members of the Ku Klux Klan had stood outside a polling place in rural Georgia in full white-robed regalia brandishing clubs, and one of them had said to a black voter walking by, "You're still gonna be ruled by white men, n*****," and if all this were captured on YouTube, and if the Klan simply refused to participate in the criminal proceedings, would the Department of Justice really have dropped all charges and felt satisfied with an injunction against further carrying of weapons at polling places?
I have a very, very, VERY hard time believing that.
I think that's probably a true dichotomy regardless of who runs DOJ.Quote:
Originally Posted by Extra Stout
I'm with the conservatives on this one. It should have been pursued. You shouldn't be allowed to brandish a weapon and patrol the outside of a polling place. Although they probably see it as scary black people being mean to the poor white man.. I just see it as a clear cut case of voter intimidation.
I agree that they should have pursued this case... but there's a chance they dropped it due to a perceived inability to actually convict. How great was the evidence in favor of the prosecution?
If there was anything truly damning in those court papers, it would have come out in the Washington Times article. As it was, all they quoted was Barlte Bull's vague and poorly written affidavit that wasn't even entered into the record.
From all I've seen, an injunction to keep the one dude from carrying a legal weapon around a polling station was probably all they were going to get -- and it is exactly what they got.
I was really CURIOUS to see what else anyone had on these goofballs. Turns out it's nothing.
That's because there has not been an opportunity to fully develop the record---all we really have is a complaint and a youtube video, and the NBPP did not respond to the allegations in the complaint---and this already appears to be a self-evident case of voter intimidation.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
What else is there to prove, really? Two NBPP thugs were brandishing clubs and shouting racial insults to voters. We agree on this, yes?
Six months wasn't long enough? Please -- had anybody really been intimidated, there would have been local complaints to the police by -- you know -- voters who were intimidated.Quote:
Originally Posted by doobs
It appears to be a doofus with a stick.Quote:
and this already appears to be a self-evident case of voter intimidation.
It looks like only one had a legal stick (belief in second amendment rights is obviously not absolute, eh?) and one allegedly said the word "cracker" with no reference at all to voting (I didn't have the sound on the video turned up -- if he said it then I freely stipulate that).Quote:
What else is there to prove, really? Two NBPP thugs were brandishing clubs and shouting racial insults to voters. We agree on this, yes?
Does that really meet the statutory definition of intimidation?
What would you expect the penalties to be for only these two actions?
"as a clear cut case of voter intimidation."
there were many such cases of Repugs and their thugs intimidating voting lines, throwing up road blocks in FL on voting day, blocking ex-felons from voting, etc, etc, in 2000 and 2004.
There was almost riot outside a FL recount office by dubya thugs yelling at recounters inside.
And, it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
All allegations investigated and none sustained.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
That's not voter intimidation, that's recounter intimidation. And, that was because certain Florida election judges were trying to steal the election for Algore.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
Seriously, besides the vague Bull affidavit that proves nothing, what is the case against the scary black men?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
So it's been a couple of days --has anyone else found any other testimony regarding this case?
Or are you just not that curious?
well, this is the year of the hit and miss for these guys.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
they have to get some wood on the ball at some point.
I've got my FOIA request into the DOJ. I'll let you know what they release.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Post a copy of your FOIA request.
Suck a dick.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Give him something new. He does that allot already.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Original ES.
So that was just another lie.
How incurious of you, Yoni.
Did you ever figure out who the teenage boy you are fantasizing about is?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I'm not fantasizing about that avatar. It's you're avatar, it's you who would be fantasizing...Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Don't know. Not that important. I'm not a psychologist, so I won't try to figure out your fantasy.
he has me on ignore.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
are you saying he had a falling out with that whore in the strip joint?
No you're the one who is picturing this teenage boy performing oral sex.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Why is that your fantasy, WC?
He's pretty obviously not into women.Quote:
Originally Posted by clambake
i knew that Amanda had to be a guy. did you see how big his hands were when he was flipping us off?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I will not start a thread with this question..... What party has the most fags? Dems or Rep. I think I know the answer but I am curious if they have a poll (haha) 0r if anyone has done a study on this. I think it's pretty obvious but I have been wrong before.
I would guess that it is about equal, at least when it comes to voting. Listening to talk radio as much as I have, it's amazing how many gays call in and are conservative. I suspect that many gays are closeted conservatives, not admitting to their friend their dark side.Quote:
Originally Posted by jack sommerset
oh i get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
a-man-duh
It's amazing how many posters here regularly express such an active interest in homosexuality..
They are very curious about it.
bipartisan curious posters......
I'm always amazed at the different conversation levels between the political forum, the club and the nba forum......I just got reemed for gay trash talk over in the nba forum by Kori....
different levels of trash. :lol
Any updates on the explosive, clear-cut voter intimidation case?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Surely it should have lasted longer than one news cycle.
Those guys were definitely out of line, but I'm not losing any sleep over them not being convicted of anything.
Ironic, Yoni.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore