The New Black Panthers/Voter Intimidation

[Shwa]

you desperately need to do that yourself... You know chinese coolies in Canada and the states were also slaves and were furthermore treated abhorrently by whites AND their former chinese motherland. In fact a summary of the rich and ancient history of China is an account of human cruelty that far exceeds what sub saharan africans ever suffered.

Conspicuously, Asians are free of the special problems that plague blacks EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD... In fact Asians are better behaved then WHITES even.

ANd to be fair, how do you expect us to take you seriously when the only people affected by black slavery are descendants of balck salves living in the US... and so this cannot apply to blacks IN the UK for instance (which are again at the lower echelon of society, and plagued with crime and inefficiency) or blacks in Canada, most of them have historically absolutely no contact with Jim Crow or the rest of the litany of BS that liberals use to pathetically excuse the atrocity of black criminality.

The literal equivelent to a long sticky drool down the front of your shirt.

Come back when you can be coherent instead of a raving lunatic for saying lictarded stuff like this:

ANd to be fair, how do you expect us to take you seriously when the only people affected by black slavery are descendants of balck salves living in the US...

Riiiight. Did you pee your pants when you wrote that? Wait, I don't really want to know...

[Shady]

Great video of New Black Panther President Malik Zulu Shabazz on Geraldo At Large from Saturday. Geraldo completely ownes him! Btw, Malik Zulu Shabazz uses the same excuses as some of our forum members have.

Video

[bush_cheney2004]

.....The issue isn't about making two wrongs right, it is about comprehending the background to why this is even thought of as something even remotely worthy of serious attention in these times. I can see why it would be for someone like you though, so no worries there.

In what times? How about the "times" of so called disenfranchised voters in 2000 and 2004 elections? Dismissing this as only inconsequential ignores political "optics" (Canada-speak) and perception of bias in DOJ's decision.

[lictor616]

The literal equivelent to a long sticky drool down the front of your shirt.

Come back when you can be coherent instead of a raving lunatic for saying lictarded stuff like this:

Riiiight. Did you pee your pants when you wrote that? Wait, I don't really want to know...

what did I say that wasn<t coherent enough for you to understand?

oh wait, or are you the one ditching the obvious problem of productivity gaps between asian and blacks?

[Shwa]

In what times? How about the "times" of so called disenfranchised voters in 2000 and 2004 elections? Dismissing this as only inconsequential ignores political "optics" (Canada-speak) and perception of bias in DOJ's decision.

Oh there are political optics and a perception of bias in DOJ's decision no doubt about that, but there is difference between insubstantial and inconsequential. I am saying that there is not enough traction in this issue to provide the impetus for, say, another Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act which, as I understood, was partly to respond to disenfranchised voters in previous elections.

If there is that sort of drive to actually do something about it, well wouldn't that be delicious irony (Brit-speak) since it was a dear pet issue a few years ago to an Illinois senator who happens to be President now...

[Jack Weber]

Great video of New Black Panther President Malik Zulu Shabazz on Geraldo At Large from Saturday. Geraldo completely ownes him! Btw, Malik Zulu Shabazz uses the same excuses as some of our forum members have.

Video

The guy is an Afrocentrist,black supremecist kook...

He does'nt deserve the time he is given...

[kimmy]

I mention it because I'm sick of right wing hypocrisy that is always decrying sexual immorality and pushing abstinence-only education, gay marriage bans, re-criminalizing abortion etc. while they continually use sex to sell their messages.

haha, ok, sure. You're not demeaning those women based on their appearance, you're satirizing right-wing hypocrisy.

-k

{I'm not accusing you of lying, I'm just satirizing the left's difficulties in practicing what they preach. }

[kimmy]

No, it isn't a joke because it is basically a non-story everywhere else with the exception of the pandering FOX. Voter intimidation by a couple of black guys, one of which is carry a billy club, and you create a false opposition with "bubbas" in confederate t-shirts? Nice stab at the double-standard argument again kimmy. If anything you are at least consistent.

For every case you can cite about a couple of black guys "intimidating" at a polling station, can be countered with dozens, if not hundreds, cases of white (and sometimes black) intimidation of black voters over the years. You missed the Jim Crow reference as an impetus for social perspective, but that isn't anything new is it? Why were the NBPP members there? To ensure that black voters were not themselves intimidated. And why did they think they would be? A hundred fifty years of experience that's why?

Did FOX news do reports on these recent cases?

How about these incidents, do you remember the big FOX investigation about all these incidents?

The news story here is not voter intimidation, as disgusting as Samir Shabazz's words are.

The news story is the DOJ declining to pursue charges and even vacating a judgment obtained against one of the defendants because, according to a former employee, the defendants were black.

It may create the appearance that the DOJ has decided that redressing racial inequities of the past takes precedence over maintaining the rule of law. Or, to put it succinctly...

Dismissing this as only inconsequential ignores political "optics" (Canada-speak) and perception of bias in DOJ's decision.

Justice must be done, and justice must be seen to be done.

-k

[Shwa]

The news story here is not voter intimidation, as disgusting as Samir Shabazz's words are.

The news story is the DOJ declining to pursue charges and even vacating a judgment obtained against one of the defendants because, according to a former employee, the defendants were black.

Slight correction kimmy:

The news story is the DOJ declining to pursue voter intimidation charges and even vacating a judgment obtained against one of the defendants because, according to a former employee, the defendants were black.

It may create the appearance that the DOJ has decided that redressing racial inequities of the past takes precedence over maintaining the rule of law.

According to a former employee. (or employees if we include both Adams and Coates)

If you want to hear the 'truth behind' Canadian bureaucracy and justice, spend some time in Ottawa seeking out the fascinating stories of former employees. You would be amazed...

Or, to put it succinctly...

Justice must be done, and justice must be seen to be done.

Here is Adams blog to see more details. He is busy arranging more scheduled radio appearances.

Here is an editorial from the Washington Times.

Regardless if there is traction with this story or not - and by the above editorial you will get a sense as to why the NY Times, Post, CBS or NBC can't be bothered - this story has generated revenue for Fox, Adams and the Washington Times. So it isn't all bad.

[kimmy]

Slight correction kimmy:

So in which of your "counterexamples" has the DOJ declined to pursue charges for explicitly racial reasons?

According to a former employee. (or employees if we include both Adams and Coates)

If you want to hear the 'truth behind' Canadian bureaucracy and justice, spend some time in Ottawa seeking out the fascinating stories of former employees. You would be amazed...

Here is Adams blog to see more details. He is busy arranging more scheduled radio appearances.

Here is an editorial from the Washington Times.

Regardless if there is traction with this story or not - and by the above editorial you will get a sense as to why the NY Times, Post, CBS or NBC can't be bothered - this story has generated revenue for Fox, Adams and the Washington Times. So it isn't all bad.

All of this-- blah blah blah bureaucrats are sleazy, blah blah blah he's becoming an instant celebrity-- fails to address the issue.

-k

[Shady]

Regardless if there is traction with this story or not - and by the above editorial you will get a sense as to why the NY Times, Post, CBS or NBC can't be bothered - this story has generated revenue for Fox, Adams and the Washington Times. So it isn't all bad.

This story has also been covered on MSNBC. But you continue to imply that if all of the media doesn't cover a story, it isn't valid. That's complete nonsense. Each story should be judged on its details, not who's covering it. And the details of this story are pretty awful.

[Shwa]

So in which of your "counterexamples" has the DOJ declined to pursue charges for explicitly racial reasons?

Being the unbiased, unpartisan and unprejudicial person you are kimmy, I was hoping you might tell me. But you might have to source a former employee or two. Better yet, in the sense of fairness, what blatant US voter intimidation acts have never been prosecuted over the years? I am sure google can help you with that.

All of this-- blah blah blah bureaucrats are sleazy, blah blah blah he's becoming an instant celebrity-- fails to address the issue.

What is the issue really? That justice is blind or that justice is carrying scales or both; or that an former DOJ employee made an "allegation?"

[Shwa]

This story has also been covered on MSNBC. But you continue to imply that if all of the media doesn't cover a story, it isn't valid. That's complete nonsense. Each story should be judged on its details, not who's covering it. And the details of this story are pretty awful.

MSNBC covered it? Whoa, full stop! That changes everything.

Pffff. Even Bill O'Reilly says, "people lie on MSNBC every day."

Really, who can you trust these days anyways?

[Shady]

MSNBC covered it? Whoa, full stop! That changes everything.

How about The New York Times too?

Racial Motive Alleged in a Justice Dept. Decision

Testimony before the Civil Rights Commission brought new attention to the handling of a case against the New Black Panther Party.

The New York Times

There goes your narrative!

[Shwa]

When the NY Times is carrying the story to an substantial degree in 3 months you'll have your narrative. In the meantime, all you got is histrionics.

[kimmy]

Being the unbiased, unpartisan and unprejudicial person you are kimmy, I was hoping you might tell me. But you might have to source a former employee or two. Better yet, in the sense of fairness, what blatant US voter intimidation acts have never been prosecuted over the years? I am sure google can help you with that.

I don't think I've ever claimed to be free of bias or prejudice. You're surely not going to claim that you are either.

If you have a point, feel free to make it. I'll consider your argument, if you have one, but I am certainly not going to make your case for you, or do research that you're too lazy or inept to do for yourself.

Cut-and-pasting some random data from some random articles and acting as if you've proven something doesn't cut it. Listing some random voter intimidation cases is about as useful a contribution as listing some random football stats.

If you've got a case you think is relevant to this discussion, let's hear about it. Otherwise, maybe you should get back to helping charter.rights redefine the field of modern physics, Neutrino-Man!

What is the issue really? That justice is blind or that justice is carrying scales or both; or that an former DOJ employee made an "allegation?"

Are you saying that the DoJ using race as a criterion for deciding whether to pursue a case isn't newsworthy? I think most people would disagree.

Are you saying that something isn't newsworthy if it's an "allegation"? Many news items are based on allegations.

When the NY Times is carrying the story to an substantial degree in 3 months you'll have your narrative. In the meantime, all you got is histrionics.

Moving goalposts.

-k

Edited July 14, 2010 by kimmy

[Shwa]

I don't think I've ever claimed to be free of bias or prejudice. You're surely not going to claim that you are either.

I was never punched out by someone with a different skin colour, so that aspect of things doesn't fit into my bias or prejudice. So I wouldn't have attempted the worn out 'double-standard' argument using white "bubbas" in Confederate t-shirts as some sort of reasonable counterpoint. If anything kimmy, you are consistent.

If you have a point, feel free to make it. I'll consider your argument, if you have one, but I am certainly not going to make your case for you, or do research that you're too lazy or inept to do for yourself.

Cut-and-pasting some random data from some random articles and acting as if you've proven something doesn't cut it. Listing some random voter intimidation cases is about as useful a contribution as listing some random football stats.

The point of cutting and pasting random, but topical data, shows how easy it is to counter weak arguments driven by personal hysteria over race. As if this story someone points out a general trend. A simple google search would have made you honest, but all you can come up with is a what-if-white-bubba scenario.

If you've got a case you think is relevant to this discussion, let's hear about it. Otherwise, maybe you should get back to helping charter.rights redefine the field of modern physics, Neutrino-Man!

And what did you bring to this discussion? A make-believe white-bubba in a Confederate t-shirt! Uh-huh... I supplied you with a list of previous cases that you could have easily done a little digging yourself on, but all you have are excuses and derision about method and source without actually making any methodological attempt or critique of sources yourself. You aren't lazy, you're brain-dead. Which is pretty much the reason the histrionics of FOX would appeal to you.

Are you saying that the DoJ using race as a criterion for deciding whether to pursue a case isn't newsworthy? I think most people would disagree.

Start here and work forward: Dred Scott I am betting that you won't have the time nor inclination to do any sort of research on US civil rights/race issues.

Are you saying that something isn't newsworthy if it's an "allegation"? Many news items are based on allegations.

I am not saying that at all. I am saying there is little substance to this as a news item that has any sort of long term value in the face of all the other voter intimidation "allegations" over the past couple of decades.

Moving goalposts.

Like make-believe white bubbas in Confederate t-shirts with baseball bats? Riiiight....

Edited July 14, 2010 by Shwa

[kimmy]

I was never punched out by someone with a different skin colour, so that aspect of things doesn't fit into my bias or prejudice. So I wouldn't have attempted the worn out 'double-standard' argument using white "bubbas" in Confederate t-shirts as some sort of reasonable counterpoint. If anything kimmy, you are consistent.

The point of cutting and pasting random, but topical data, shows how easy it is to counter weak arguments driven by personal hysteria over race. As if this story someone points out a general trend. A simple google search would have made you honest, but all you can come up with is a what-if-white-bubba scenario.

What do you mean "as if" this were at trend? This does not need to be a "trend" to be newsworthy.

In considering whether the DoJ handling of this case was appropriate, the question "would this have been handled differently if the defendants had been of a different race?" is not just relevant, it's central to the issue.

And what did you bring to this discussion? A make-believe white-bubba in a Confederate t-shirt!

I introduced "make-believe bubbas" because there weren't any real ones. Feel free to supply information about actual armed white goons standing at the door of polling stations harrassing black voters.

Uh-huh... I supplied you with a list of previous cases that you could have easily done a little digging yourself on, but all you have are excuses and derision about method and source without actually making any methodological attempt or critique of sources yourself. You aren't lazy, you're brain-dead. Which is pretty much the reason the histrionics of FOX would appeal to you.

You supplied a list of previous cases that have no bearing to the current discussion. If you believe one of those cases is actually similar to the one under discussion, the onus is on you to explain why. I don't think you can. You skipped the part about showing a comparable case and went straight to the part where you act as if you provided relevant information, because the truth is that you don't have anything comparable.

Start here and work forward: Dred Scott I am betting that you won't have the time nor inclination to do any sort of research on US civil rights/race issues.

"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.

I am not saying that at all. I am saying there is little substance to this as a news item that has any sort of long term value in the face of all the other voter intimidation "allegations" over the past couple of decades.

Is the DoJ supposed to uphold the law in 2010, or is the DoJ supposed to avenge injustices of the past?

Like make-believe white bubbas in Confederate t-shirts with baseball bats? Riiiight....

First you guys were arguing that Fox was wrong and negligent to be covering this story at all. 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.

-k

[lictor616]

I tried posting this video as a new thread... I think it got removed...

did anyone see this clip?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8uMM58a6SE

this is the new black panther party that receives nearly zero attention from the media... has anyone seen this clip ANYWHERE in the MSM?

Edited July 14, 2010 by lictor616

[Shady]

When the NY Times is carrying the story to an substantial degree in 3 months you'll have your narrative.

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.

[WIP]

How about The New York Times too?

There goes your narrative!

Every one of J. Christian Adams's allegations have been refuted, and the decision not to file a case was made before the Obama Administration took officeand Eric Holder was sworn in as Attorney General......there goes your racist narrative!

Edited July 14, 2010 by WIP

[WIP]

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

FNC has hosted New Black Panther fringe group more than 50 times

Fox News takes a radical fringe group and packages them so that they can keep average white dolts supporting the corporate mob who is robbing the country blind!

[Jack Weber]

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

FNC has hosted New Black Panther fringe group more than 50 times

Fox News takes a radical fringe group and packages them so that they can keep average white dolts supporting the corporate mob who is robbing the country blind!

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 hypocricy!!!"

Dance puppets...DANCE!!!

Edited July 15, 2010 by Jack Weber

[WIP]

haha, ok, sure. You're not demeaning those women based on their appearance, you're satirizing right-wing hypocrisy.

-k

{I'm not accusing you of lying, I'm just satirizing the left's difficulties in practicing what they preach. }

I make no apologies for going after the right wing for using sex to sell their messages, because these are the same hypocrites who call for sexual abstinence and bans on abortion and birth control. The sexually frustrated should not be allowed to get away with using sex to sell their advertising, their on-air personalities, and especially their politicians, while calling for sexual repression elsewhere....sometimes even on the same damn shows! Billo, for example, will get on his soapbox about immorality (when he's not busy making harassing phone sex calls) and show "immoral" videos over and over again on an almost continuous loop. And it's open season on the bimbos who degrade themselves by parroting foxnoise propaganda for a career move!

[lictor616]

I make no apologies for going after the right wing for using sex to sell their messages, because these are the same hypocrites who call for sexual abstinence and bans on abortion and birth control. The sexually frustrated should not be allowed to get away with using sex to sell their advertising, their on-air personalities, and especially their politicians, while calling for sexual repression elsewhere....sometimes even on the same damn shows! Billo, for example, will get on his soapbox about immorality (when he's not busy making harassing phone sex calls) and show "immoral" videos over and over again on an almost continuous loop. And it's open season on the bimbos who degrade themselves by parroting foxnoise propaganda for a career move!

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!

Edited July 14, 2010 by lictor616