jump to last post 1-19 of 19 discussions (100 posts)

Rolling Heads?

  1. Sab Oh profile image54
    Sab Ohposted 7 years ago

    Will heads roll at the DOJ over the New Black Panther case? Should they?

    1. livelonger profile image95
      livelongerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Who came forward to say they were intimidated from voting?

      And why didn't the DOJ under Bush prosecute Roy Warden for intimidating Latino voters in Tucson in 2006?
      http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/i … adly-force

      1. Sab Oh profile image54
        Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        If there was voter intimidation in that case then those responsible certainly should have been prosecuted. Were you expecting me to say otherwise? Do you suppose that mitigates what the current DOJ is doing? Do you deny that there was voter intimidation of the worst and most obvious sort in this case? Would you dare to defend what the DOJ is doing now? Are you aware that these scum were in fact already convicted before authorities in the DOJ ordered that the case be dropped?

        And did you watch the vid I linked to?

        1. livelonger profile image95
          livelongerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          I don't know if there was "voter intimidation of the worst and most obvious sort" - doesn't it strike you as somewhat odd that not a single person has come forward to say that they were intimidated, and that the video was shot by Republican poll watchers who were not registered to vote there? Given the "backwards B" Ashley Todd incident was completely fabricated to make white conservatives look like victims at the hands of violent African Americans, there's reason to be skeptical about an incident in which not a single person has come forward.

          1. Sab Oh profile image54
            Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            "I don't know if there was "voter intimidation of the worst and most obvious sort" "

            How on earth do you not know? If a couple of white thugs were outside a polling place, in militaristic uniform, carrying weapons and using racial epithets to threaten black voters would you twist your sense of reality this way to try and excuse it? Would you watch that video if they were white thugs and say, "well, if no one complains we should let it go"?  I should hope not. If these thugs were caught on tape, tried, and convicted would you be in doubt? Do you think the video evidence was cooked up using special effects? Does political partisanship really warp your sense of reality and morality this far? I am truly shocked that anyone would try to defend this kind of illegal behavior. Did you watch the video I linked to?

            1. livelonger profile image95
              livelongerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Don't twist my words and expect to be taken seriously.

              I did not defend the thugs' actions.

              I said that I was not sure it was voter intimidation of the worst and most obvious sort. There is some fishiness to the entire scenario that made me skeptical about it.

              And I believe that you're innocent until proven guilty. I assume that local law enforcement authorities and the criminal justice system will determine their level of guilt and an appropriate punishment. Why you expect the DOJ to get involved when there is not a single person to step forward to claim voter intimidation is beyond me.

              1. Sab Oh profile image54
                Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                "I said that I was not sure it was voter intimidation of the worst and most obvious sort. There is some fishiness to the entire scenario that made me skeptical about it. "


                I am deeply, deeply disappointed that you would let political partisanship take you this far.


                "And I believe that you're innocent until proven guilty. "

                THEY WERE PROVEN GUILTY!!! It is a federal crime! The DOJ got involved, tried the case, found them guilty, then demanded the whole thing be dropped just before sentencing was to be enforced.

                1. livelonger profile image95
                  livelongerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  And I understand why everyone else accuses you of being a troll. You have a nasty habit of putting words in other people's mouths.

                  1. Sab Oh profile image54
                    Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    Whoa, whoa, whoa...what words did I put in your mouth, and could you please address the points in the above post?

            2. donotfear profile image90
              donotfearposted 7 years agoin reply to this


              Shocking and apalling....has it been on national news? Has this been shown on CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, & all the other mainline media?  Has it made the Washington Post?  What about the New York Times?  Why or why not?  Had the situation been reversed, as spoken in Sab Oh's post here, who would be reporting it?

      2. profile image0
        kimberlyslyricsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        huh?

    2. mythbuster profile image83
      mythbusterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Bigger questions.....

      Is it responsible of the news network to air such things, thus creating hatred and shock from the other end of things?

      To begin with - one form of definite hate speech...

      What will the retaliation/defense be now?

      Will this create a "I'll say hateful things in defense since HE started all this..." ?

      1. Sab Oh profile image54
        Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        ?????????

  2. Flightkeeper profile image73
    Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago

    Hell yes! The first one should be Assist Att. Gen Perez's.

    1. Sab Oh profile image54
      Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Let's see if it really happens though

  3. MikeNV profile image80
    MikeNVposted 7 years ago

    Probably not.  They will probably get a secret backend retirement deal and a pat on the back.  After all look who is in the Whitehouse.

  4. Sab Oh profile image54
    Sab Ohposted 7 years ago

    Have y'all seen the video of one of those two men who were intimidating voters in the case in question? Some shocking and appallingly violent and racist hate speech.

    What will the mainstream media say? NOTHING.

    What will the DOJ under this administration do? Apparently NOTHING.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv8ckjMlR-c


    Hate speech doesn't get much more blatant than this.

    1. Sab Oh profile image54
      Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      And as we can see, what will the liberals on HP say? NOTHING.

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image65
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      If the YouTube video had been taken of the incident at the Philadelphia polling station it would provide support for your point. I agree. Hate speech doesn't get more blatant than this. It sounds like something from the period of the Detroit, Watts and New Jersey riots.

  5. Doug Hughes profile image60
    Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago

    Sab Oh - As usual, you have your facts WRONG!

    As of July 3, as reported by Amy Proctor (who is a conservative blogger) the case was dropped!

    Not tried! Not Convicted!

    The DOJ decided not to prosecute. We all know how you want to spin that but try to stay within the facts. As Sarah Palin says, 'Ya' can't just make stuff up!'

    1. tony0724 profile image61
      tony0724posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Actually Doug you got the facts wrong. The sentencing phase of the trial was to begin the penalty phase. But the DOJ official was made to drop the case. And yes Holder knew. A civl rights group is Investigating the case now.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        There was no trial. It appears the defendents did not show  I don't know the reason. If you do know the reason please supply a source. I have a problem with sentencing people who have not put up a defense.

        1. Sab Oh profile image54
          Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          There WAS a trial. If the defendants don't bother to show up there is still a trial. Happens all the time. A warrant to appear was issued and the defendants still did not show. In such cases the police can arrest you and hold you until trial or a summary judgement can be reached without you. That is what happened. Not at all uncommon except that in a case this serious I would expect arrests to be made, forcing them to appear. They got a pass on that front as well.

          1. Doug Hughes profile image60
            Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            A 'Trial' where the defendents are not present, and no defense is presented is NOT a trial.

            1. Sab Oh profile image54
              Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              You are wrong, and you apparently do not understand the legal issues and procedures involved. That is not your fault, but you should not pontificate from a position of ignorance.

            2. Jim Hunter profile image60
              Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Sure is.

        2. Jim Hunter profile image60
          Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Aren't you the one that said liberals provide facts to discredit conservatives?

          Do you really not understand how the judicial system in this country works?

          I'm completely stunned.

          1. Doug Hughes profile image60
            Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            "The Star Chamber (Latin Camera stellata) was an English court of law that sat at the royal Palace of Westminster until 1641...   Court sessions were held in secret, with no indictments, no right of appeal, no juries, and no witnesses. Evidence was presented in writing. Over time it evolved into a political weapon and became a symbol of the misuse and abuse of power by the English monarchy and courts."

            Wilipedia

            I know what it means when a court can win a conviction without the defense presenting  his side of the case.  I wouldn't convict George W. Bush under those circumstances.

            You can jump up and down and say it's techmically legal and a conviction - but setting aside the verdict and making a decision you disagree with was just as technically legal. So you got no beef.

            As a matter of opinion, I wish the case had been heard by a jury. But the adjucation outside the courtroom is what happened and it's not unusual for cases to be settled in agreements between the prosecution and the defense. Y'all sound disappointed because you didn't get to lynch a couple of...

            1. Sab Oh profile image54
              Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              "As a matter of opinion, I wish the case had been heard by a jury. "


              Maybe you should start by wishing the defendants had shown up for their court dates (or hadn't engaged in criminal voter intimidation in the first place).

              Are you trying to tell me that you don't care about racially motivated voter intimidation? I hope that is not the case.

            2. Jim Hunter profile image60
              Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              A couple of what?

              Is there any other way of seeing things besides White and Black for you?

              Try this

              The DEFENDANTS were found guilty.

              Not the BLACK DEFENDANTS were found guilty.

              Your stress level may be reduced if you lose your outrage about convicting bad guys even if they are black.

  6. profile image0
    Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago

    They are "entitled" by the master of "entitlement" (Obama) to avoid prosecution because their skins are black.

    And livelonger's comparison to the radical Roy-whats-his-name isn't the same.  In THAT case, the guy was (gulp) trying to stop ILLEGALS from voting.   ILLEGALS.  Ya know---people who are NOT American citizens.   God forbid anyone should try keep ILLEGALS out of American politics.  roll

    But it figgers that Obama-lovers make up excuses for everything their icon or his followers do.   I guess the weird honeymoon isn't quite over yet.

    1. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Pure racism.

      There is not one shread of evidence that President Obama was even aware this case existed. Obama was raised by a white mother, heavily influenced by his white grandmother - and it's politically expedient to spin a case whose outcome you don't like as RACISM as a cheap, quick and dirty way of hustling white votes.

      And it won't work - because most Americans no longer see Obama as the first black President - they see him as the President. Whoever you run against him in 2012 is going to need more than being white because to voters it's going to be qualifications, issues and answers. All the GOP candidates so far are weak in all three.

      1. profile image0
        Brenda Durhamposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        If if it were true that all Americans just see Obama as President, then there would never be the issue of race because HE and YOU would never bring it up and pit the races against each other like HE did in the Professor Gates incident and in his speeches and in his SUING a State over HIS lack of proper insight into the border issues.

        I don't care if the next President is white or black.
        I just hope he's a man of integrity and good morals.  And I say "he" because I do want it to be a man, not a woman, and definitely not an effeminate man.

        It is YOU who spouts pure racism.  You cannot get past the fact that your icon's only claim to being properly eligible for the Presidency rests on his skin color, so you defend him on that basis entirely.

        1. Don W profile image84
          Don Wposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Out of interest, why don't you want the next president to be a woman?

          1. luvpassion profile image61
            luvpassionposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Good question..

      2. Sab Oh profile image54
        Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        "There is not one shread of evidence that President Obama was even aware this case existed"

        He was not even aware that a case of extreme racial discrimination threatening the very foundation of our democratic system existed as it was tried by HIS justic dept.? If that is true then he is grossly negligent. He was aware enough of a case involving some dopey Harvard prof. to call police officers "stupid" before getting all the details, but he wasn't aware of a case that went through the justice system under his watch? NO, I don't buy it.

        And obama being "raised by a white mother, heavily influenced by his white grandmother" - you know, the "typical white person" - is NO excuse.

      3. Jim Hunter profile image60
        Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        "Pure racism"

        It always is isn't it?

  7. profile image0
    china manposted 7 years ago

    So - there was not rial, no defendant and the complaint was made from a dodgy source - Hmmmmm    more noise about nothing huh!

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Umm....the defendants dodged court orders to appear.

      Obvious cover-up by Attorney General (and I use that title loosely) Holder.

    2. Sab Oh profile image54
      Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      There is irrefutable evidence and there WAS a trial and a conviction. How far will people let politics distort their perception of reality?

    3. lovemychris profile image62
      lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      "extreme racial discrimination threatening the very foundation of our democratic system"

      So---a Black Panther member standing at a polling place with a stick is more threatening than tea-baggers with guns?

      More threatening than Die-Bolt (?) shady doings?
      More threatening than throwing people off the voter rolls?
      More threatening than having a family member of one of the candidates own the voting machines?
      More threatening than having a mob break through the doors while you are counting shads?
      More threatening than having to march with shouts of N and police with nightsticks beating you on the head because you want the right to vote?
      More threatening than being DENIED the right to vote for how many years? (women too!)

      Talk about skewered perception!!!

      And uh, it WAS kind of stupid to arrest a man in his OWN house, don't  you think?
      And racial profiling IS a fact. Don't you know?
      Are you just come to this country, or what?

      1. lovemychris profile image62
        lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        How could I forget this one?

        Having the Supreme Court hand you the election????

        How much more threatening can you get than that? The highest court in the land, in the pocket of the Powers That Be....makes you cringe huh?

        But not you...you get your panties in  a twist about one angry man with a stick.

  8. profile image48
    charlesmanlyposted 7 years ago

    when the fans go protest in front of the femexfut, get them to get out, get out of control, and make them get out or else things will go worse and no femexfut is left only the mexican federation of the ppl?

    Force Factor

  9. profile image0
    Will Bensonposted 7 years ago

    This issue came up in "Yahoo Answers" and one contributor wrote this:

    "...Now you are riled up about these issues which--remember--are not important in your daily life, and while you are running around like Chicken Little, the people in power are stealing your jobs, your money, your sanity, your health and your future.

    These are called "wedge issues." They make the "lower" classes fight among themselves so the wealthy can tiptoe away with all the money and all the power. Think about it..."

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index … 718AAJHqFP

    Interesting thought, IMO.

  10. lovemychris profile image62
    lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

    Well, I think it's more than that....
    I do thinkg it's racially motivated.
    Because there is a video out there that shows a 22 year old black man on the ground with a police officer's boot on his neck. And another officer draws his gun and shoots him, point blank.

    Do you see Fox playing that video day after day after day, like the Black Panther one?

    Is anyone playing that video day after day?

    This is the reality of life for African Americans....and no one is talking about it...they talk about the Black Panthers.

    It's racial IMO.

    1. Sab Oh profile image54
      Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      "Because there is a video out there that shows a 22 year old black man on the ground with a police officer's boot on his neck"


      And the 'proof' that it was racially motivated is that the two were of different races?

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Let me see if I got you straight. You don't see aracial connection between a white cop shooting a black unasrmed subject who is not resisting.

        OK - Maybe he would have shot a white unarmed subject who was not resisting.. Maybe.
        However if a black AG dismisses charges against black defendents, that's automatically racist...Huh?

        1. Sab Oh profile image54
          Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          "Let me see if I got you straight. You don't see aracial connection between a white cop shooting a black unasrmed subject who is not resisting."


          That is racial soley because the two were of different races?

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
            Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Would you consider it racist if a Black Panther shot a white cop? Get real. Cut the petty sophistry.

            1. Sab Oh profile image54
              Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              If he shot him during a botched robbery or something it might not be. If he shot him while wearing a military-style uniform and calling him a "cracker," then it would sure appear to be. The New Black Panther party is a racist organization, so your example is biased. If a black police officer shoots a white criminal in the course of his duties I would of course not assume it was racially motivated just because of the color of their respective skins.

              Did you look at the video I linked to earlier?

              1. Jim Hunter profile image60
                Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Your description of a black officer shooting a white bad guy is exactly what they don't get.

                White cop equals racist.

                Black panther (who is actually a racist) equals freedom fighter.

                Its all so backwards.

        2. Sab Oh profile image54
          Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          " if a black AG dismisses charges against black defendents, that's automatically racist...Huh?"


          I never said that.

  11. lovemychris profile image62
    lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

    Yeah...if white people get so upset about one man's racism, imagine how it feels for black people to deal with institutional racsim?

    1. Jim Hunter profile image60
      Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      At least you agree that he is racist.

      1. lovemychris profile image62
        lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Of course!

        But I also say that the police officer who shot that kid killed him because he was black. Do you admit to that?

        And do you see the problem with Institutional Racism versus a small group of racists?

        1. Jim Hunter profile image60
          Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          So a small group of racists in your opinion is preferable to a large group of racists?

          I prefer that no racism existed, I do not find a little racism to be ok to me its a bad thing.

          Can I say that a police officer who I have never met and a case involving him with facts I have never heard is a racist? No.

          1. lovemychris profile image62
            lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            You can watch the video!!!!
            The kid is on the ground, and the cop just shoots him!

            How can that be right on ANY level?
            It's because the kid was black!!

            And it's not just "a large group of racists"...these were policeman, judges, employers, teachers, politicians, you name it. The system was set up as a racist system.

            That is far more damaging than one group of people. And the fact that you get so upset about one group tells me you would be apoplectic if a whole society was leveled against you!

            Just think about it.

            And if you dislike racism, you really should boycott Fox Channel. They play racism like a fiddle.

            1. Jim Hunter profile image60
              Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Actually you play racism like a fiddle.

              I have never watched fox news.

              1. lovemychris profile image62
                lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Explain that one please.

                1. Jim Hunter profile image60
                  Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Everything is about race to you, in the real world we can disagree and it not be about the color of ones skin.

                  But you, you thrive on race conflict. Post after post of negativity as if it will change peoples way of thinking.

                  If someone is racist they will remain racist, no amount of badgering them will change that thought process.

                  It is best to ignore them and move on. Being stuck in the past assures you of no future.

        2. Sab Oh profile image54
          Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          "I also say that the police officer who shot that kid killed him because he was black. "


          Is there any proof of that?

  12. lovemychris profile image62
    lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

    "Being stuck in the past assures you of no future."
    This happened in 2009...HARDLY the past. It is happening every day TODAY as we speak.
    80% of drug convictions are black men, when they are only 13% of the problem...TODAY in 2010.
    It needs to be dealt with NOW.

    "Is there any proof of that?"

    When's the last time you heard of a white man being shot by the police while on the ground under a jackboot?
    Shawn Bell, Amadeu Diallo, Now this 22 year old....You detect a pattern here? What of that Chicago sarge, who was TORTURING black men....not white. Sometimes 1+1=2!!!

    Besides, where's the proof that Obama has a deep seated hatred of white people and is part of the New Black Panthers?? This gets repeated ad-nauseum by your media machine.

    And people believe it.

    1. Sab Oh profile image54
      Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      ""Is there any proof of that?"

      When's the last time you heard of a white man being shot by the police"


      White people are shot by the police all the time, and you didn't answer my question.

      "where's the proof that Obama has a deep seated hatred of white people and is part of the New Black Panthers?? "

      Who here said either of those things? Straw man?

  13. lovemychris profile image62
    lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

    "White people are shot by the police all the time, and you didn't answer my question."

    Name ONE. Shot to death while he is on the ground.

    Glenn Beck, Shawn Hannity, Rush Limbaugh.....don't you watch your own network? Or listen to them on the radio?...they do both you know.

    How many times did they repeat that Panther video during the last week?
    How many times did they play the cop-killer video?

    BTW, Obtuse is not an attractive trait.

    1. Sab Oh profile image54
      Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      "Name ONE. Shot to death while he is on the ground."

      If you do a little math, use a little common sense, and if really necessary do a little googling you will find more info than you know what to do with.

      Why let political partisanship completely overshadow rationality?

      1. profile image0
        china manposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Again you completely fail to answer the question, provide any information to back up your totally constructed and ignorant view of society and the things around you that seem obvious to everyone else.  You should get out of that confined space a bit more and get some experience instead of sucking in Youtube and borrowing info from online sources.

        1. Sab Oh profile image54
          Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Come on now, use that noodle for a minute. There are many more whites than blacks in the US. White people commit crime and/or end up in the wrong place at the wrong time just like anyone else. Police sometimes use deadly force of necessity, rarely by mistake, and more rarely out of malice. It does not take a doctorate in advanced mathematics to figure out the rest, but if doubt remains there is no end of data about crime and police shootings that one can access if one is really interested in said data rather than in emotive posturing.

          We both know what your comments about "experience" are really about and I'm willing to overlook what has become a tiresome theme between us by now.

          1. profile image0
            china manposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            It isn't that we are treated to video footage of blacks being beaten without apparent reason by white police at the roadside, there is not any white police brutality against black suspects and any white kid is liable to be stopped for no reason just the same as any black kid - grow up !! We discussed your bright idea of not looking and then you won't see, I thought we kinda nailed that no-brainer.

            And what conspiracy theory are you hinting at now?   the one where you think chatting to random people online is equivalent to experience, or the one about some apparent communist agenda I have becasuse I live in China - derrrr !!!

            Get real, go get some education, a sprinkling of experience, learn how to resist lying to order, learn how to argue a point, learn what information is that does not come from Youtube and then come back and discuss stuff that you have some idea about, instead of the propaganda you have been sucking up without question from your favoured war mongering pack of political criminals, wanted in several different countries for war crimes already !

            1. Sab Oh profile image54
              Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              "grow up !! " = liberalspeak for "shut up and agree with whatever I demand!"

              "Get real" = liberalspeak for "shut up and agree with whatever I demand!"

              "go get some education" = liberalspeak for "shut up and agree with whatever I demand!"



              roll

  14. lovemychris profile image62
    lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

    It's very sinister the way the leaders of this country have worked it.
    The shadow gvt under Reagan brought crack cocaine into the ghetto's to make money to fund their illegal Contra war.
    Then the sentencing laws make crack a much higher crime than powder cocaine. So, a kid from the ghetto selling crack gets a much stiffer sentence than a kid from the suburbs doing the same with powder cocaine. (Senator Levin said they tried to fix that this year, but the best they could do with the Republicans blocking was to reduce the disparity from 100 to 10.)
    Then comes Clinton with 3 strikes your out, and a minor infraction can end up getting you a 20 year sentence.
    Meanwhile, the War On Drugs is doing nothing to end drug use or sales, it's just locking up the competition for the CIA!...WHO is the biggest drug dealer on the planet.IMO

    Since the ghetto's are already poor and there are not many job opportunities flowing, it's pretty much a guarentee you are going to end up in the system if you want to eat, or feed your family. In fact,another hubber mentioned this once.

    Norm Stamper
    "The major police corruption scandals of the last several decades have had their roots in drug enforcement."

    please google this web site and read it: LEAP - Norm Stamper

    It's a rotten, unfair, life-killing system and we need to do something abut it NOW, before the Republicans or Tea-Baggers get in there and kill any hope of reform.

    You know how you can tell what I'm saying is true?
    I did not have to google to find a black man who had been shot to death by police.....it was right there at the tip of my consciousness....why? Because it happens all the time.

  15. habee profile image95
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    How can anyone defend members of a hate group standing at a polling place brandishing a billy club? How would liberals react had it been KKK members in white garb? The guys were subpoenaed to court and never showed up. They were being racist, saying things such as "You're gonna be ruled by a black man! Like it or not!"

    I thought it was terrible when blacks were kept from the polls in FL, too. Those responsible should have been thrown in jail! I believe the right to vote is sacred - for every legally registered voter.

    1. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      habee - I am not defending what they are accused of doing. I said earlier that they should have been tried by a jury. A conviction withut a defense is not a fair trial. If they missed their court date, they should have been arrested and held in jsil until a new court date could be set.

      What did happen was a settlement outside the court, which was just as technically legal as the 'conviction' without a defense being presented.

      Maybe the injustices offset and justice was served - I don't know. But the shreiks from wingnuts that there was a 'conviction' without mentioning that the 'trial' was a kangaroo court is more than a bit deceptive.

      1. Sab Oh profile image54
        Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        It is not a "kangaroo court" just because YOU don't understand how legal proceedings work. Distracting from the issue at hand by complaining about proceedings you don't understand seems like a rather transparent way of trying to write off a very serious crime because it suits your political leanings. You either do, or do not, condone hate speech and racially motivated voter intimidation. Which is it?

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image65
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Nobody is "defending a hate group." But critics are making a mountain out of a mole hill. From what I've read only two people were involved and nobody came forward to testify that they were menaced. The New Black Panther Party is a tiny group nobody paid any attention to until GOPers started whining about the case in Philadelphia. This case pales into insignificance compared to GOP voter suppression efforts across the country.

      1. habee profile image95
        habeeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        That's not entirely true, Ralph. The New Black Panthers got a lot of attention when they came out as supporters of Obama and there was a link to the organization on Obama's campaign website. It was taken down after the public uproar.

        I totally agree that there has been voter suppression from both sides. I think the difference is that this one was seen as physically threatening, while the others were more covert: e.g. trickery and underhandedness. How would you feel if robed KKK memebers had been at the polling place holding a noose?

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
          Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          I would ignore them as I do the nutjobs from Lyndon Larouche who have been picketing Obama at my local post office lately. Or, if they tried to block my way I might punch them out.

          1. Sab Oh profile image54
            Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            And if, as seems very likely, you couldn't "punch them out"? That is why we have a justice system.  It should have been allowed to complete its task in this case.

    3. Ralph Deeds profile image65
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I haven't heard anyone defending the New Black Panthers. The organization has been classified as a hate group by Human Rights Watch. The issue is what they did at the poll in Philadelphia and whether or not a violation of the law could be proven and a conviction obtained. I don't claim to know the facts, and I am of the opinion that this incident has been given more attention than it deserves. The guy who's screaming is one of the former Bush racist, incompetent clowns in the Justice Department.

      1. Sab Oh profile image54
        Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        "The issue is what they did at the poll in Philadelphia and whether or not a violation of the law could be proven and a conviction obtained. "

        That is NOT an issue, as the crime was caught on camera, the violation of law proven, and a conviction obtained. The issue is why, after all that had been done, the case was ordered dropped by someone(s) high up in the obama Justice Dept.

        I don't know who you think is "screaming," but if you are claiming the DOJ lawyer who came forward as a whistleblower is a racist I wonder if you have anything upon which to base such a claim.

        Finally, did you ever watch the vid I linked to?

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
          Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          As I said above the video you posted has nothing to do with the Philadelphia incident. The New Panthers has been designated a hate group by Human Rights watch. I did watch the video. I haven't seen anybody here in Hubpages defending the Panthers, old or new.

          The Bush appointees to the Justice Department from Gonzales on down were the most incompetent and partisan since the Nixon administration.

          1. Sab Oh profile image54
            Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            " I haven't seen anybody here in Hubpages defending the Panthers, old or new. "

            Maybe you haven't read all the posts.


            "The Bush appointees to the Justice Department from Gonzales on down were the most incompetent and partisan since the Nixon administration."


            And because you think so, that excuses ANYTHING that happens under the current administration? That doesn't make sense.

  16. lovemychris profile image62
    lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

    Would you call a person with a sign showing Obama as a voodoo witch doctor with a bone through his nose racist?
    This happened at tea-bag rallies all the time.
    And they carry GUNS, not sticks!
    Yet, you all said no big deal.

    Double standard.

    White cop who is racist=racist.
    Black Panther who is racist =racist

    WHO has done more damage and has more power and gets away with murder more often?
    And WHO are you screaming about?
    Not the police, but the Panthers....

    That is what is backwards!!!

    1. Sab Oh profile image54
      Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Not at all. The New Black Panthers ARE a racist organization by their very nature. The police are not.

      1. lovemychris profile image62
        lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Wrong. Some of them are racist, just as some police are.
        But the whole system is based on an un-equal application of the law.

        That is fact.

        1. Sab Oh profile image54
          Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          NO, that is your opinion. If we can't settle on definitions based on reason rather than emotion then there is no point in trying to have a serious discussion.

    2. Jim Hunter profile image60
      Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      "Would you call a person with a sign showing Obama as a voodoo witch doctor with a bone through his nose racist?
      This happened at tea-bag rallies all the time.
      And they carry GUNS, not sticks!
      Yet, you all said no big deal."

      I would call it in poor taste and not really appropriate. I would also say the same with Bush displayed as Hitler.

      They are public figures and public figures get lampooned and made fun of all the time.

      If its legal to carry guns I don't see a problem.

      You don't like freedom much do you?

      1. lovemychris profile image62
        lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        You see what I mean? A voodoo witch doctor with a bone through his nose is only poor taste to you. You don't see the racial implication at all!
        What about refering to an escaped chimpanzee as "Michelle's relative"?

        The you turn it around and call Obama the racist...
        It is craziness. You are out of your mind with Beckmania!

        Guns are legal....So...how do you then turn around and want a man prosecuted for having a stick?

        1. Sab Oh profile image54
          Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          If two white men were standing in front of a polling station brandishing a weapon OF ANY KIND and making threatening racial comments there would be no question as to the crime involved, JUST AS THERE IS NOT QUESTION IN THIS CASE.

          And there were no end of the posters and 'cute' editorial cartoons portraying President Bush as a monkey during his two terms in office. Come on, a little consistency please.

          1. lovemychris profile image62
            lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Bush was portrayed as a monkey because of his ears, not because they were insinuating he was from Africa.
            I guess you lived so far removed from things you don't remember the terms "porch monkey" or "jungle bunny".
            People direct their "funny and cute" insults at the Obama's on a racial basis--insulting a whole group of people at the same time.

            Bush's insults were directed at him personally.

            1. Sab Oh profile image54
              Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              It's interesting how things are interpreted according to whatever suits a predetermined point of view.

              1. lightning john profile image59
                lightning johnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Sab Oh, I watched the video of this man. Although I agree with him on some things, his behavior is simply uncivilized.
                This may have already been said, we need free speech, but at some point it isn't o.k. to promote violence, and other criminal acts.

        2. Jim Hunter profile image60
          Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          I don't want a man prosecuted for having a stick, the men were prosecuted.

          They were not sentenced as they should have been.

          As far as the witch doctor thing goes I didn't see it so I don't know what was meant by it.

          I don't even know if it really existed or even care.

  17. habee profile image95
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    Especially if they were dressed in white sheets. The media would have a field day!

    1. lovemychris profile image62
      lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Not enough of one. All kinds of racial crap has gone on since Obama has been out there. Not enough media attention has been given to it, and certainly nothing like Fox is giving this incident.

      Why doesn't Fox play the vidoe of that 22 year old black kid being shot by a white officer?
      You can be sure if it was a black officer shooting a white kid they would.

      Why no mention of the amount of death threats that Obama gets, more than triple of Bush?

      You have white people coming to public meetings brandishing guns, signs saying "we won't shoot...this time". And people say no Big Deal.

      Deal with your own racism before worrying about someone elses. Not you habee--I know you are not a racist. I'm talking about the closet racists who hide.


      They are the most depicable bunch of mind-manipultors on the planet.

      1. Sab Oh profile image54
        Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Hang on. Because you imagine some people here are racists, that means that the men in question should not have been prosecuted for blatant, racially-motivated voter fraud? What kind of sense does that make?

        1. lovemychris profile image62
          lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Who said anything like that?

          I'm sayin there is MORE racially motivated crime against black people--historically and now-- and you could care less about that.

          1. Sab Oh profile image54
            Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Leaving aside for the moment the absurd notion that you know what I could care less about, does historical racism against African Americans excuse these men in this case from their crime?

      2. habee profile image95
        habeeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I haven't watched FOX lately, but I agree with you. I can't believe that officer wasn't charged with murder. If I were that boy's mother, I'd be screaming "Injustice!" I can't imagine how she feels.

        Like it or not, many (not all) police forces have racists among their numbers. In our town, for example, it's against Hispanics - or at least it was before a friend of mine with a TV station began filming the abuse.

        As for guns, I have a few, but I would never dream of taking one to a political rally. That's just asking for problems!

  18. Jim Hunter profile image60
    Jim Hunterposted 7 years ago

    Ok I just saw the poster, it is satire and funny satire at that.

    Kind of like portraying Bush as a cowboy.

  19. Ralph Deeds profile image65
    Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago

    The NRA might be supporting Shabazz if he'd been carrying a pistol or AK47 instead of a night stick.

 
working