|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 7, 2010 12:52:50 GMT -8
xrl.us/bhq6pzObama's DOJ Protected Black Panther Who Advocates Killing White Babies
|
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Jul 7, 2010 12:56:00 GMT -8
If true...........absolutely disgusting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aztec89 on Jul 7, 2010 16:47:34 GMT -8
xrl.us/bhq6pzObama's DOJ Protected Black Panther Who Advocates Killing White Babies Not surprising. I think this administration is one step away from advocating the killing of white babies too. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jul 8, 2010 8:48:29 GMT -8
xrl.us/bhq6pzObama's DOJ Protected Black Panther Who Advocates Killing White Babies Not surprising. I think this administration is one step away from advocating the killing of white babies too. Getting that white robe back from the cleaners any time soon? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 10, 2010 13:01:40 GMT -8
Here is this issued in a nutshell for you. They admit what they did and why they did it! This also intimates that they feel protected by the DOJ's policy of not going after this kind of Black on White Crime. xrl.us/bhrhqiWhere is the outrage in the media? |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jul 10, 2010 13:58:03 GMT -8
Here is this issued in a nutshell for you. They admit what they did and why they did it! This also intimates that they feel protected by the DOJ's policy of not going after this kind of Black on White Crime. xrl.us/bhrhqiWhere is the outrage in the media? I doubt that there should be any outrage at all. Because, relying as you do on extremist sources, you've entirely botched the story of what DOJ did -- the DOJ did not protect the Black Panther. Quoting from a little more mainstream news source, "The Obama administration won a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 when the Black Panthers didn't appear in court to fight the charges. But the administration moved to dismiss the charges in May 2009. Justice attorneys said a criminal complaint against Samir Shabazz, which resulted in the injunction, proceeded successfully." The black guy was convicted and nobody vacated anything at all against him. Only the organization was let off, presumably on the theory that he wasn't operating under the direction of the organization. I haven't a clue what the merits of the case are or are not. I don't know whether the Bush DOJ operated politically in overcharging or whether the Obama DOJ operated politically by letting off some bad people who shouldn't have been let off. But what I do know is that when you rely on extremist sources, you end up with some pretty extremist opinions. And they make money off of you. Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 10, 2010 14:10:15 GMT -8
Here is this issued in a nutshell for you. They admit what they did and why they did it! This also intimates that they feel protected by the DOJ's policy of not going after this kind of Black on White Crime. xrl.us/bhrhqiWhere is the outrage in the media? I doubt that there should be any outrage at all. Because, relying as you do on extremist sources, you've entirely botched the story of what DOJ did -- the DOJ did not protect the Black Panther. Quoting from a little more mainstream news source, "The Obama administration won a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 when the Black Panthers didn't appear in court to fight the charges. But the administration moved to dismiss the charges in May 2009. Justice attorneys said a criminal complaint against Samir Shabazz, which resulted in the injunction, proceeded successfully." The black guy was convicted and nobody vacated anything at all against him. Only the organization was let off, presumably on the theory that he wasn't operating under the direction of the organization. I haven't a clue what the merits of the case are or are not. I don't know whether the Bush DOJ operated politically in overcharging or whether the Obama DOJ operated politically by letting off some bad people who shouldn't have been let off. But what I do know is that when you rely on extremist sources, you end up with some pretty extremist opinions. And they make money off of you. Yoda out... You obviously did not watch the clip I posted or you would not have made such a silly statement. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jul 10, 2010 14:22:49 GMT -8
I doubt that there should be any outrage at all. Because, relying as you do on extremist sources, you've entirely botched the story of what DOJ did -- the DOJ did not protect the Black Panther. Quoting from a little more mainstream news source, "The Obama administration won a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 when the Black Panthers didn't appear in court to fight the charges. But the administration moved to dismiss the charges in May 2009. Justice attorneys said a criminal complaint against Samir Shabazz, which resulted in the injunction, proceeded successfully." The black guy was convicted and nobody vacated anything at all against him. Only the organization was let off, presumably on the theory that he wasn't operating under the direction of the organization. I haven't a clue what the merits of the case are or are not. I don't know whether the Bush DOJ operated politically in overcharging or whether the Obama DOJ operated politically by letting off some bad people who shouldn't have been let off. But what I do know is that when you rely on extremist sources, you end up with some pretty extremist opinions. And they make money off of you. Yoda out... You obviously did not watch the clip I posted or you would not have made such a silly statement. I watched three clips, I think. But unlike you, I watched with an open mind. I wasn't looking to provide support for opinions already formed. Clearly, the guy who was convicted -- and who stayed convicted -- was an idiot. Nobody disputes that. The question is whether or not the organization and it's officers were also legally culpable and that is not something that can be determined by dueling youtube clips. Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 10, 2010 14:39:47 GMT -8
You obviously did not watch the clip I posted or you would not have made such a silly statement. I watched three clips, I think. But unlike you, I watched with an open mind. I wasn't looking to provide support for opinions already formed. Clearly, the guy who was convicted -- and who stayed convicted -- was an idiot. Nobody disputes that. The question is whether or not the organization and it's officers were also legally culpable and that is not something that can be determined by dueling youtube clips. Yoda out... You may have an open mind, but no ability to process what you hear and see! Open and shut! |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jul 10, 2010 14:39:51 GMT -8
Here is this issued in a nutshell for you. They admit what they did and why they did it! This also intimates that they feel protected by the DOJ's policy of not going after this kind of Black on White Crime. xrl.us/bhrhqiWhere is the outrage in the media? I doubt that there should be any outrage at all. Because, relying as you do on extremist sources, you've entirely botched the story of what DOJ did -- the DOJ did not protect the Black Panther. Quoting from a little more mainstream news source, "The Obama administration won a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 when the Black Panthers didn't appear in court to fight the charges. But the administration moved to dismiss the charges in May 2009. Justice attorneys said a criminal complaint against Samir Shabazz, which resulted in the injunction, proceeded successfully." The black guy was convicted and nobody vacated anything at all against him. Only the organization was let off, presumably on the theory that he wasn't operating under the direction of the organization. I haven't a clue what the merits of the case are or are not. I don't know whether the Bush DOJ operated politically in overcharging or whether the Obama DOJ operated politically by letting off some bad people who shouldn't have been let off. But what I do know is that when you rely on extremist sources, you end up with some pretty extremist opinions. And they make money off of you. Yoda out... You must be awfully dizzy from the risible spinning you are doing. "conviction"? heh... thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/107297-new-black-panther-dismissal-is-sleeper-issue-for-2010-midtermsWhen none of the named defendants nor the New Black Panther Party showed up for trial in April 2009, a default judgment was entered in favor of the government.
Here's where things get interesting. After the government had won its case in the absence of the defense to present itself, the Department of Justice abruptly changed course and sought to voluntarily dismiss the charges against three of the defendants while giving a slap on the hand to another by telling him that he was not able to go to Philadelphia polling stations through the 2012 elections. Is "the hill" an "extremist" source? Yeah, I guess anything that is counter to your position is "extremist". You are wearing out the epithet. |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 10, 2010 15:24:32 GMT -8
What should the punishment have been?
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jul 10, 2010 16:04:51 GMT -8
What should the punishment have been? Oh, maybe a year in the slammer. INTERFERENCE WITH THE RIGHT TO VOTE (18 U.S.C. § 241, 18 U.S.C. § 242, 18 U.S.C. § 245, 18 U.S.C. § 594 and 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-10(1)) -- Voter intimidation or voter suppression schemes that target victims on the basis of race, color, national origin, or religion. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 10, 2010 16:05:20 GMT -8
What should the punishment have been? What are the sentences for Civil Rights Law violations? Fine and restricted from political activity including any kind of hate speech. |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 10, 2010 17:36:01 GMT -8
What should the punishment have been? Oh, maybe a year in the slammer. INTERFERENCE WITH THE RIGHT TO VOTE (18 U.S.C. § 241, 18 U.S.C. § 242, 18 U.S.C. § 245, 18 U.S.C. § 594 and 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-10(1)) -- Voter intimidation or voter suppression schemes that target victims on the basis of race, color, national origin, or religion. So do you get outraged every time someone might have been eligible for a year in the slammer but wasn't? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 11, 2010 10:02:36 GMT -8
Oh, maybe a year in the slammer. INTERFERENCE WITH THE RIGHT TO VOTE (18 U.S.C. § 241, 18 U.S.C. § 242, 18 U.S.C. § 245, 18 U.S.C. § 594 and 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-10(1)) -- Voter intimidation or voter suppression schemes that target victims on the basis of race, color, national origin, or religion. So do you get outraged every time someone might have been eligible for a year in the slammer but wasn't? Do you mean didn't? Do you think voter intimidation at the polling place is not worthy of some sort of punishment? |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 11, 2010 10:10:29 GMT -8
So do you get outraged every time someone might have been eligible for a year in the slammer but wasn't? Do you mean didn't? Do you think voter intimidation at the polling place is not worthy of some sort of punishment? Of course I do, but I am realistic enough to realize that crimes happen all over the place and are often not pursued for various reasons, I just don't think this is a tempest. Threatening calls and letters and people and 'overseers' have been part of elections for a number of years. These are symptoms of the root of the nightmare of american elections - you campaign your entire term, you raise ungodly money, you bring on rogue elements that intimidate, you smear your rival, then you payback your backers and roast your opponents. It will only get worse with the supreme courts ruling on campaign finance |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 11, 2010 10:38:37 GMT -8
Do you mean didn't? Do you think voter intimidation at the polling place is not worthy of some sort of punishment? Of course I do, but I am realistic enough to realize that crimes happen all over the place and are often not pursued for various reasons, I just don't think this is a tempest. Threatening calls and letters and people and 'overseers' have been part of elections for a number of years. These are symptoms of the root of the nightmare of american elections - you campaign your entire term, you raise ungodly money, you bring on rogue elements that intimidate, you smear your rival, then you payback your backers and roast your opponents. It will only get worse with the supreme courts ruling on campaign finance Is all that rhetoric after "Of course I do" just a bunch of distraction to avoid saying voter intimidation at the polls should be punished in every case on both or all sides? |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jul 11, 2010 13:00:08 GMT -8
Oh, maybe a year in the slammer. INTERFERENCE WITH THE RIGHT TO VOTE (18 U.S.C. § 241, 18 U.S.C. § 242, 18 U.S.C. § 245, 18 U.S.C. § 594 and 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-10(1)) -- Voter intimidation or voter suppression schemes that target victims on the basis of race, color, national origin, or religion. So do you get outraged every time someone might have been eligible for a year in the slammer but wasn't? Not every time I suppose, but I happen to think voter intimidation is a very serious matter. Voting places should be sacrosanct. If some idiots showed up in hoods and white sheets at a polling place slapping billy clubs in their hands and using the "n" word in the presence of people just trying to exercise their franchise, and the authorities just dismissed the whole thing with, "Look, Bubba, you oughten ta' not be doin' that, so jus' stay away from the polling place next time (wink, wink)"... yeah, I'd be outraged. |
|
