The New Black Panthers/Voter Intimidation

[Shwa]

You supplied a list of previous cases that have no bearing to the current discussion.

Really? I thought the discussion was about voter intimidation, so I posted a small - easily accessible - list of similar instances of voter intimidation to show that it has happened quite often before and to also show that the current President had a pet bill on voter intimidation that never made it to law. I am quite surprised you didn't reference these instances before because they were all over the news at the time and further surprised that you weren't readily aware of them since you have a keen interest in voter intimidation issues in the US.

But I guess with the introduction of the make believe white-bubbas, you wanted to focus on the racial aspect and now want evidence of white intimidation of black or non-white voters. Is that what you are asking for when you say 'bearing to the current discussion?"

"b-b-but... Jim Crow!" You guys continue to try to make excuses for the way the DoJ handled this case by talking about injustices of the past.

No, I don't think that is quite the point. The point about Jim Crow, Dred Scott et al is that you would likely not have a full enough understanding about background issues to be able to place this incident in context. This became apparent when you slid the actual underneath the make believe.

Now the criteria as to whether it's "news" is apparently that it still has to be getting substantial coverage in the NY Times in 3 months.

Yeah, you know, like all those other voter intimidation news stories that you were aware of over the past decade? How about the KKK, are you aware of them and their history of voter intimidation? How about any of the stories on the list I had posted earlier? Were you familiar with most of them?

No? I didn't think so. I wonder why...

Edited July 15, 2010 by Shwa

[GostHacked]

especially when democrats never use props like the Obama girl, the hihop world (jay-z and young jeezy), mtv, etc to popularize their candidates.

Welcome to the new world. Obama's presidency was slated to use all the technology it can. It was designed to look like an MTV bit so that people and the younger generation would get into it all. Expect more with the remainder of his term. No one before has had the opportunity to use the Internet and latest technology like Obama. Sure the net has been around for almost 20 years, but now that it is widespread, getting on Youtube will reach more people than a television ad.

[Shwa]

You keep moving the goal posts. First it was only Fox News that was covering it. After that claim was smashed, you moved on to MSNBC lies. After I post a story from the New York Times you change your tune to something about 3 months from now. You arguments are weak, and getting weaker by the post. Just give up, and move on. You've pretty much been pwned by everybody in this thread. The latest being kimmy.

The goalposts on voter intimidation news stories were clearly defined long before FOX decided to make this little noise about the latest allegations. The fact that you can't recognize this is no surprise to me, but is of little consequence.

You don't own a confederate t-shirt do you?

[Shwa]

Of course they are!!!

They put on some fringe bigot nutjob,who is speaking to about 10 equally lunatic nutters at their "meetings" and leave it to good 'ol Fox to throw the red meat at the base..

"But it does'nt matter!!!!!THEY BROKE THE LAW!!!!"

"It's reverse racism!!!!It's hypocracy!!!"

Dance puppets...DANCE!!!

Aye, and dance they do to the same old tune completely unawares. That sir, is scary.

[bush_cheney2004]

....No, I don't think that is quite the point. The point about Jim Crow, Dred Scott et al is that you would likely not have a full enough understanding about background issues to be able to place this incident in context. This became apparent when you slid the actual underneath the make believe.

This point has little relevance or depth in terms of actual voter "intimidation" today when one considers ALL voters and the process for registration, absentee balloting, polling place restrictions, identification cards, precinct voting locations, and other "barriers". "Jim Crow" is as relevant today as pointing to the head tax barriers for Chinese immigrants in Canada.

[Shwa]

This point has little relevance or depth in terms of actual voter "intimidation" today when one considers ALL voters and the process for registration, absentee balloting, polling place restrictions, identification cards, precinct voting locations, and other "barriers". "Jim Crow" is as relevant today as pointing to the head tax barriers for Chinese immigrants in Canada.

Agreed. If the topic were, strictly speaking, about the phenomenon of voter intimidation in general. If the discussion was about voter intimidation and racism however, Dred Scott and "Jim Crow" are relevant as reasonable starting points in history that have bearing on that topic today.

[bush_cheney2004]

Agreed. If the topic were, strictly speaking, about the phenomenon of voter intimidation in general. If the discussion was about voter intimidation and racism however, Dred Scott and "Jim Crow" are relevant as reasonable starting points in history that have bearing on that topic today.

Not sure how it applies in a lawsuit or DOJ action to prosecute voter intimidation, not actions to perpetuate "Jim Crow" laws. There is simply no substance for a basis which invokes such history as justification on a voting day in modern Philadelphia. The law is clear on such matters.

If anything....the topic would be "reverse racism".

[lictor616]

Agreed. If the topic were, strictly speaking, about the phenomenon of voter intimidation in general. If the discussion was about voter intimidation and racism however, Dred Scott and "Jim Crow" are relevant as reasonable starting points in history that have bearing on that topic today.

oh i see, since the intimidators were BLACK! all of a sudden we have to take their race into consideration and give them preferential treatment. If they were merely white then, at best we just focus on voter intimidation, at worst we prolong their jail sentence ant tack up a hatecrime charge on while were at it...

in both cases we notice one thing: if the perpetrator is black, his race is used to his benefit to get wiggle away from the law,

if however the perp is WHITE, then race can only precipitate imprisonment and is quite likely to prolong the sentence...

this is pure institutionalized hatred, but since its anti-white, leftists make excuses for it... typical

[Jack Weber]

Agreed. If the topic were, strictly speaking, about the phenomenon of voter intimidation in general. If the discussion was about voter intimidation and racism however, Dred Scott and "Jim Crow" are relevant as reasonable starting points in history that have bearing on that topic today.

Thank you...

Historical context is necessary in this case...

It should be noted,for all the all the folks here demanding legal action,that IF the US government had stepped in and stopped the thuggish actions of neo-Confederate paramilitary groups,(which they were there to do),Jim Crow laws might never had taken place...

Afrocentric nationalist bigot's,like the wacko with the baton (and his apologists),don't just show up in a vacuum of Obamaism...

[Shady]

Historical context is necessary in this case...

No, it isn't necessary. A law is either broken or it isn't. Law enforcement either enforces laws, or it doesn't. You don't pick and choose based on history or skin colour. All that does is contribute to more lawlessness. You don't make up for injustices in the past by allowing injustices in the present.

If there is any question about who is doing the most to fan the flames of racism in America, Mediamatters answers the question:

Actually, allowing injustices to take place in the present day, soley based on skin colour, does more to "fan the flames of racism" then any news coverage. But I find it more than ironic that you're sourcing media matter, a far leftwing website, as some kind of beacon of objectivity. While at the same time, complaining about Fox News. Unbelievable!

Uh oh! Looks like the Civil Rights Commission wants to speak to lawyers at the DOJ about the Black Panther case. I'm sure the Civil Rights Commission must be controlled by Fox News.

Letter to DOJ from Civil Rights Commission

On July 6, 2010, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights heard testimony from former career

Department attorney J. Christian Adams. This testimony raised serious concerns as to whether the

Civil Rights Division’s enforcement policies are being pursued in a race-neutral fashion and further

calls into question the Department’s decision to change course in the New Black Panther Party

litigation

[lictor616]

Thank you...

Historical context is necessary in this case...

It should be noted,for all the all the folks here demanding legal action,that IF the US government had stepped in and stopped the thuggish actions of neo-Confederate paramilitary groups,(which they were there to do),Jim Crow laws might never had taken place...

Afrocentric nationalist bigot's,like the wacko with the baton (and his apologists),don't just show up in a vacuum of Obamaism...

but you could logically use that excuse when a black man for instance shoots a cop in a riot... he could allege that with the history of the Race riots in the 20's, we shouldn't allow riot police to get near those blacks since doing so causes trauma to the dear creatures delicately attuned psyche...

or for when a black man rapes a white woman (after all, wasn't he reacting to generations of the illegality of miscegenation?)

law turned into therapy...

this is the most anti-common sense, anti-justice concept in existence today.

and on top of it liberals would maintain that its a strength to have the black presence in America, even when they can turn a legal system upside down and cause such a bald menace to law and order.

or would they argue that its a strength for a country to have a minority of hate filled, highly aggressive, resentful people who are above the law in many respects and can terrorize ordinary citizens in impunity because of their "minority status"?

Edited July 15, 2010 by lictor616

[lictor616]

Thank you...

Historical context is necessary in this case...

It should be noted,for all the all the folks here demanding legal action,that IF the US government had stepped in and stopped the thuggish actions of neo-Confederate paramilitary groups,(which they were there to do),Jim Crow laws might never had taken place...

Afrocentric nationalist bigot's,like the wacko with the baton (and his apologists),don't just show up in a vacuum of Obamaism...

this whole argument can only passably work if you can demonstrate that the black had his feelings damaged by Jim Crow or the old litany of segregation....which is impossible because you can't see or examine feelings, and legally you can't give get out of jail free cards for hurt feelings.. why? because there is no way to ascertain when feelings are hurt..

I can tell when a person has an arm broken, I can tell when a house has been looted, I can tell when a black ape wielding a weapon is threatening others... But you're a barefaced liar if you can sit here and tell me that the black guy did what he did because of Jim Crow... and hurt feelings

and to go from there and argue that that was a suitable excuse... is simply disgusting, and disqualifies you from being a civilized person who believes in the rule of law.

Edited July 15, 2010 by lictor616

[bush_cheney2004]

....or would they argue that its a strength for a country to have a minority of hate filled, highly aggressive, resentful people who are above the law in many respects and can terrorize ordinary citizens in impunity because of their "minority status"?

Nah.... any liberal who really wanted to invoke the history of voting rights in America would damn well not tolerate polling place intimidation by New Black Panther thugs or any other kind of political yahoos. This is just politics now, with nothing to do about voting rights. Obama's DoJ has their tits in a wringer.

[WIP]

yeah only the left should decide what non-leftist use as tactics... we get it...

especially when democrats never use props like the Obama girl, the hihop world (jay-z and young jeezy), mtv, etc to popularize their candidates.

if only we could ban parties that aren;t certified left wingers!

I don't care for using sex to sell products or personalities, but the worst offenders are on your side who make the false claims of higher moral standards (that they fail to live up to) and try to censor the airwaves and repress all forms of sexual expression elsewhere. If you can't figure out the hypocrisy of conservatives using sex and sexual imagery for their messaging, you're either in denial or being deliberately deceitful.

[lictor616]

I don't care for using sex to sell products or personalities, but the worst offenders are on your side who make the false claims of higher moral standards (that they fail to live up to) and try to censor the airwaves and repress all forms of sexual expression elsewhere. If you can't figure out the hypocrisy of conservatives using sex and sexual imagery for their messaging, you're either in denial or being deliberately deceitful.

by "my side" you mean the "atheist, ethnonationalist, libertarian" side?

really we repress all form of sexual expression? What does sexual expression even mean?

Seriously you may have a point only in the respect that my side looks down upon miscegenation, but I regard sex and in particular the sexual attractiveness of the female body as supremely healthy, more then that: vital even...

you<re talking about biblebashers,who aren't real conservatives, they espouse a doctrine FAR FAR closer to Marx's communist manifesto, and and all the essential issues: "the equality of man etc" they are liberals..

Edited July 15, 2010 by lictor616

[Shwa]

Not sure how it applies in a lawsuit or DOJ action to prosecute voter intimidation, not actions to perpetuate "Jim Crow" laws. There is simply no substance for a basis which invokes such history as justification on a voting day in modern Philadelphia. The law is clear on such matters.

If anything....the topic would be "reverse racism".

Yes, as invoked by the phantom bubbas.

[WIP]

No, it isn't necessary. A law is either broken or it isn't. Law enforcement either enforces laws, or it doesn't. You don't pick and choose based on history or skin colour. All that does is contribute to more lawlessness. You don't make up for injustices in the past by allowing injustices in the present.

That's a crock of !@#$%. You know as well as anyone else who chooses to be honest, that minorities can be marginalized in a political system that doesn't need their votes...especially when they don't have money. One of the duties of a judicial system is to protect minority rights from the tyranny of a majority. A quick scan of arrests, convictions, and incarcerations, would reveal that you are more likely to be arrested for an offense if you're black, and more likely to be convicted and incarcerated as well, especially if you are way down the economic ladder and have a public defender hired as your attorney. If law enforcement was really colour-blind and not skewed by money, Rush Limbaugh would be doing hard time for his two drug trafficking offenses!

Actually, allowing injustices to take place in the present day, soley based on skin colour, does more to "fan the flames of racism" then any news coverage.

And as mentioned above, it is already in the present system.

But I find it more than ironic that you're sourcing media matter, a far leftwing website, as some kind of beacon of objectivity. While at the same time, complaining about Fox News. Unbelievable!

And just like Faux News, you cannot refute the sources MM provides which show how this new Black Panther Party is an FN creation designed to feed the frenzy of their fat, middle-aged white audience.

MediaMatters, which in spite of all of the whining and bleating from your favourite millionaires and billionaires, is unable to demonstrate any inaccuracy in their analysis of the top right wing offenders, like Limbaugh and the assorted nuts and freaks on FoxNews. Most of what David Brock does...who pretty much is MediaMatters, with an assist from mostly volunteers who send in video....is take the most outrageous crap on popular right wing shows, and present it to us non-fans who don't watch their crap anymore. I'm sure you have well financed right wing media watchdogs like Accuracy IN Media, in your bookmarks, so don't act like it's an outrage for the opposition to have someone keeping track of right wing propaganda.

Uh oh! Looks like the Civil Rights Commission wants to speak to lawyers at the DOJ about the Black Panther case. I'm sure the Civil Rights Commission must be controlled by Fox News.

I'm surprised you even bothered trying to respond to this, since as I pointed out yesterday, Adam Serwer of the American Prospect proved that DOJ decision took place before the Obama Administration was in office.....so blame it on those Bush Administration commies! And, in all of the manufactured outrage of Faux News, they never mentioned that fact.

[Jack Weber]

Yes, as invoked by the phantom bubbas.

I would call it bitter historic irony...

The US government did almost nothing to preserve the peace 150 years ago to stop neo-Confederate intimidation and death squads...And they fought a bloody war to bring that peace about!

Now the US government deos'nt seem to be willing to do anything against some threatening and menacing Arfrocentric nationalist kooks...

Not saying any of it is right,but it seems more things change,the more they stay the same...

[Shady]

One of the duties of a judicial system is to protect minority rights from the tyranny of a majority.

Actually, the job of the judicial system is to uphold the law. Whether it's minority, or majority, or whatever. Justice is suppose to be blind, or have you forgotten?

A quick scan of arrests, convictions, and incarcerations, would reveal that you are more likely to be arrested for an offense if you're black

Yes, which has more to do with socio-economic reasons, not judicial reasons. But if you're arguing that because of this, the judicial system should allow certain minorities to break the law, that's retarded, and only promotes more lawlessness.

I'm surprised you even bothered trying to respond to this, since as I pointed out yesterday, Adam Serwer of the American Prospect proved that DOJ decision took place before the Obama Administration was in office

Actually, you're completely wrong. The decision not to further pursue the civil complaint was made in May. Not before Obama took office. If you more thoroughly examined your own sources, you would have known this to be true. This from your own American Prospect...

A few commenters on my previous post about the Obama administration not being in office when the decision was made not to pursue a criminal case against the New Black Panther Party are arguing out that conservative outrage is over the subsequent decision, made in May, not to further pursue the civil complaint after obtaining an injunction against the individual who was holding a baton

The American Prospect

That's from Adam Serwer himself. Now wipe that egg off your face!

But that's what you get for completely relying on leftwing blogs composed of liars like David Brock. Ever read his book called The Real Anita Hill? Anyways, as I've already posted. I've relied on actual news organizations. Fox News, MSNBC, The New York Times, etc. All you do is cite biased leftwingers to support your argument that certain minorities should be allowed to commit crimes. But where does it end? Should Asians be allowed to commit voting rights crimes? What about East-Indians? How about the Irish? Historically, they were persecuted pretty badly up until the mid 1950's. Remember the "No Irish need apply" incidents? Can they commit voting rights crimes too? Or, because their skin is white, they don't get the same free pass from you and your ilk? I'm just trying to figure you your twisted logic.

[WIP]

Actually, the job of the judicial system is to uphold the law. Whether it's minority, or majority, or whatever. Justice is suppose to be blind, or have you forgotten?

Since when is justice blind? Justice is skewed by race, social status and money. As noted back during the O.J. trial, a millionaire has never received the death penalty for murder in America, even though there have been a few millionaires convicted of first degree murder. Having the money to afford a defense team that can turn corrupt, incompetent police departments inside out usually puts the heat on the D.A. to wrap things up before more bad publicity gets aired.

Yes, which has more to do with socio-economic reasons, not judicial reasons. But if you're arguing that because of this, the judicial system should allow certain minorities to break the law, that's retarded, and only promotes more lawlessness.

So, why did Rush Limbaugh get away with paying a fine for drug trafficking, instead of getting up to 15 years in prison, like some less fortunate, less well-connected addicts have received in Florida for similar offenses? Why was the adjoining investigation into the allegations that he laundered money used for his drug buys dropped by the police? Some people seem to be above the law!

Actually, you're completely wrong. The decision not to further pursue the civil complaint was made in May. Not before Obama took office. If you more thoroughly examined your own sources, you would have known this to be true. This from your own American Prospect...

That's from Adam Serwer himself. Now wipe that egg off your face!

No, the right wing squawking was about the case being downgraded from a criminal investigation to a civil case, which Adam Serwer pointed out was made in January when Bush & co. were still in charge of the ship. Now they are shifting the goal posts to complain about not pursuing a civil case. Face it, these morons didn't even bother to check the date of the first decision, and that's why they now have to feign outrage over a civil complaint.

And in your brief quote, cut off in mid sentence, you added your own words at the end of it....some people get prosecuted for that kind of tampering! Why not post the complete paragraph anyway to provide proper context? Then again, why don't post Phil Jones complete answer for the same reason?

A few commenters on my previous post about the Obama administration not being in office when the decision was made not to pursue a criminal case against the New Black Panther Party are arguing out that conservative outrage is over the subsequent decision, made in May, not to further pursue the civil complaint after obtaining an injunction against the individual who was holding a baton. That decision was made by a career official at the Justice Department after an evidence review and reportedly approved by an Obama political appointee, Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli. The decision was still made by career lawyers in the section; there's no evidence, beyond J. Christian Adams' statements, that Perrelli had the case dismissed. At any rate, several conservative figures have suggested that the Obama administration refused to pursue a criminal case, and that's not what happened.

But, as I've explained previously, the decision not to further pursue the civil case reflected long-standing practice regarding Section 11(, which prior to the Bush administration had last been used to stop a statewide voter-caging effort. The allegation that would have supported pursuing a broader case was the idea that there was a nationwide effort to place New Black Panthers at polling stations for the purpose of suppressing white votes -- the original complaint read that the NBPP "made statements and posted notice that over 300 members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense would be deployed at polling locations during voting on November 4, 2008, throughout the United States." The career attorneys recommended dismissing the case on the basis that there wasn't enough evidence to support that claim.

Not only did no voters come forward to say they had been intimidated by the NBPP that day, there were no further incidents on Election Day 2008 that would have suggested a large-scale effort to intimidate white voters. According to a letter sent to Rep. Lamar Smith by Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich, the NBPP "suspended" its Philadelphia political chapter over the incident and subsequently disavowed their actions, which seems like an odd thing to do for an organization that is supposedly disclosing its attempt to intimidate white voters in its publicly available materials.

But that's what you get for completely relying on leftwing blogs composed of liars like David Brock.

Show me your evidence for lies at MediaMatters!

Ever read his book called The Real Anita Hill?

Are you serious? Did you actually read it? Brock admitted afterwards in a number of editorials and books that he was a hired goon just to write hit pieces for his benefactors....I'm surprised you would want to shine a light on strategy of big money right wing think tanks and their fake news and information sites! David Brock was getting payed 300,000 a year by the American Spectator, just to write editorials. That didn't include his royalties from writing books like the one you mentioned, which was created just to impugn the character of the woman who was in a position to derail Clarence Thomas from getting on the Supreme Court. How many other right wing mouthpieces are in it, not for what they believe, but because there is so much money to be made from these well-heeled benefactors? One thing for certain, David Brock doesn't have near as lucrative career today as an honest journalist, as when he was a right wing hit man.

Anyways, as I've already posted. I've relied on actual news organizations. Fox News, MSNBC, The New York Times, etc. All you do is cite biased leftwingers to support your argument that certain minorities should be allowed to commit crimes. But where does it end? Should Asians be allowed to commit voting rights crimes? What about East-Indians? How about the Irish? Historically, they were persecuted pretty badly up until the mid 1950's. Remember the "No Irish need apply" incidents? Can they commit voting rights crimes too? Or, because their skin is white, they don't get the same free pass from you and your ilk? I'm just trying to figure you your twisted logic.

And when was the last time the Irish were a disenfranchised group in America? Certainly long before the Kennedys rose to prominence!

[bloodyminded]

Well, I did, actually...

No, you didn't; let me clarify: I was admonished for not specifically posting that a specific criminal should be prosecuted. Neither did you...you didn't say: "This man should be prosecuted."

This was my grievous sin of ommission: not stating clearly, every time criminal behaviour is mentioned, that the perpetrator in question should be prosecuted.

Indeed, i take it as a given that he should, and agree wholeheartedly that the situation is ridiculous. But that wasn't my point; and indeed, my view here is insufficient to the commissars. They can't stand 90% agreement; they demand 100% agreement.

Do you think our hypothetical "bubba" would have got off the hook just by agreeing to not stand outside polling stations with his baseball bat on voting day in 2010? Do you think that decision to drop further proceedings against these people is questionable, especially in light of the DOJ lawyer's alleged comment that "I didn't take this job to prosecute black people"? Does that seem like an attitude consistent with the rule of law?

I have no argument with anything you're saying here. And never did.

I'm not so sure. Sure, they should both be prosecuted, but you're not just asking for that. You're also asking us to view these two guys differently. You seek to rationalize the first guy's conduct in terms of historical injustice and unfortunate family circumstances without explaining what he actually did. It's "thanks to" his terrible that his environment that he did what he did, although we don't actually know what he did or how it relates to his terrible past.

No, the "terrible personal environment" was an analogy, not a direct reference to this man's life. The different historical circumstances matter...but I wasn't talking about what should or shouldn't happen in specific cases.

i was laughing at the hilrious, bigoted, masturbatory notion that "all racism is exactly the same."

It's bigoted because these same voiuces only swell and screech in indignaiton when the poor white man is the victim.

All other racist injustices--which are largely predicated on issues of power--are generaly dismissed as "political correctness."

And most of the time, when people summon the term "political correctness," they're simply being lazy, and of course hypocritical. Because they love political correctness, providing it moves in the proper direction.

You seek to demonize the second guy's conduct by mentioning his apparent privilege and fortunate circumstances, without any explanation of what he did or how that relates to his privileged background.

no, again, I'm not, not at all. I"m talking about institutional differences in power relations. Hardly a strange or even controversial view, except among those who think the real social/cultural victims are monied white males...the most victimized group in North America, evidently.

And remember, I didn't bring up these issues...others did. I was only laughing at them.

Edited July 16, 2010 by bloodyminded

[kimmy]

That's a crock of !@#$%. You know as well as anyone else who chooses to be honest, that minorities can be marginalized in a political system that doesn't need their votes...especially when they don't have money.

Sure. But how does allowing belligerent armed thugs to stand outside a polling station help minorities vote?

One of the duties of a judicial system is to protect minority rights from the tyranny of a majority.

And how does declining to prosecute those polling station thugs protect minority rights?

-k

[sharkman]

i was laughing at the hilrious, bigoted, masturbatory notion that "all racism is exactly the same."

It's bigoted because these same voiuces only swell and screech in indignaiton when the poor white man is the victim.

All other racist injustices--which are largely predicated on issues of power--are generaly dismissed as "political correctness."

Wow, bloody, on top of being pretty full of yourself, you've got about 3 kinds of bull s@#t going on there. That actually takes some kind of talent I suppose. So the notion that all racism is exactly the same is masturbatory to you, eh? Please don't explain that, and take note that some thoughts in one's head should stay there even though they seem really cool.

You and WIP should get together and sing Kumbaya sometime, you're singin' from the same choir book.

[bloodyminded]

Wow, bloody, on top of being pretty full of yourself, you've got about 3 kinds of bull s@#t going on there.

How am I full of myself? Please be specific. Because I suspect that my disagreement with you is what motivates your thinking on this.

That actually takes some kind of talent I suppose. So the notion that all racism is exactly the same is masturbatory to you, eh? Please don't explain that, and take note that some thoughts in one's head should stay there even though they seem really cool.

Of course all racism isn't the same, and it's monumentally ignorant to think that it is. There are institutional factors, and matters of Power, to be taken into account.

Or do you really think that any Jewish racism against gentiles is exactly the same as the historical racism agaisnt the Jewish people?

Really?

You and WIP should get together and sing Kumbaya sometime, you're singin' from the same choir book.

I don't know what drooling knuckledragger first started this "why don't y'all join hands and sing Kumbaya" theme; but I do know there is a sector of the political right that summons the exact same idea continually, betraying their lack of originality and their penchant for cribbing from others.

At any rate, I can't imagine why this inoffensive, banal, Christian song is the height of ridicule for certain conservatives. Interesting.

Edited July 17, 2010 by bloodyminded

[JerrySeinfeld]

I don't come on this site mouch anymore. However, once in awhile, when bored, I'll be watching the news and something like a black panther saying "kill cracker's babies" will cause me to say "hey, I wonder how the lefty loons on Mapleleaf are going to rationalize this one". And I visit the site, and sure enough, am never dissappointed.

Hey lefty loons: stop being so predictable. Some things are objectively wrong.

I know your knee jerk multiculti training has conditioned you to explain away every bizarre behavior as "rich white guy's fault", but come now. Get serious.