Eric Holder: Black Panther case focus demeans 'my people'

[Zebo]

In 2006 Roy Warden of the Minutemen and now the Tea Party was accused of voter intimidation. He had a 9 mm glock strapped to his side, along a several other people, one carrying a camera, and another a clip board. They approached hispanics to see if they could speak english or were illegal at a polling place. Presdient Bush declined not only to prosecute, but even declined to press charges.

The fat pig attorney who quit over the black panther situation was also an attorney at that time as well. But fat boy didn't quit. So it appears Holder is no different than the previous AG. There were also 3-4 other cases that the previous Administration refused to look in to.

To me it's all clowning. Y'all need to go back in history to what Holder is talking about for REAL intimidation.

 

[classy]

Mines scarier throck

PE
Public Enemy

My favorite group growing up.

Public Enemy - Black Steel in the Hour of Chaos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PmsBpBKGIY

All these suckers here............................

 

[spidey07]

PE
Public Enemy

My favorite group growing up.

The revolution will not be televised.

 

[PokerGuy]

Not sure how the topic of the voter intimidation case derailed this thread, but that's basically irrelevant. The AG's statement is racist, and racism should not be tolerated. Period.

 

[Zebo]

Still is mine.

 

[classy]

Not sure how the topic of the voter intimidation case derailed this thread, but that's basically irrelevant. The AG's statement is racist, and racism should not be tolerated. Period.

Okay lets cut through the bullshit. To compare this as being voter intimidation to what happened back during the Civil Rights Era is a joke. It is offensive and demeaning to those who paid a price usually with their blood to be able to vote. So if you find that racist...............well you know what can go and do.

Also nothing happened, they said nothing, and did nothing. All to do about nothing, all because you are mad because Obama won the election. Time to move on........

 

[thraashman]

Okay lets cut through the bullshit. To compare this as being voter intimidation to what happened back during the Civil Rights Era is a joke. It is offensive and demeaning to those who paid a price usually with their blood to be able to vote. So if you find that racist...............well you know what can go and do.

Also nothing happened, they said nothing, and did nothing. All to do about nothing, all because you are mad because Obama won the election. Time to move on........

I think trying to argue with PokerGuy is like trying to argue with a rabid opossum. The only response you're going to get is unintelligible hissing and foam. Though in truth the opossum is only crazy because of rabies so it least it has an excuse.

 

[zinfamous]

This is not equating the history of racism against blacks and racism against whites.

Doesn't change what these two guys did though and the fact that they should have been prosecuted.

well, what exactly did they do? One thing you can be sure of in terms of equal enforcement--the law will do essentially nothing until there is a prosecutable action.

personal bias aside, however one wants to feel--good luck challenging word against word in court when nothing happened.

Whitey:
"I felt that they were intimidating me!! WAAAA!"

Evil Black Panther
"Yo, I was just hanging out in front of the building? wtf??"

Judge: gtfo, whitey.

 

[classy]

What is really lame about this whole thing is. While they look ridiculous on how they are dressed, its not illegal. While a night stick is a weapon, carrying one is not illegal. They did not break one legal law. Now clearly any of this is bs on their part, but its not illegal. I walk past these idiots dressed like this every friggin Thursday here in Philly by the clothespin. They are a peice of work, trust me, but they broke no laws. While their appearance is less than inviting, you can't convict people because they look like misfits.

 

[zinfamous]

What is really lame about this whole thing is. While they look ridiculous on how they are dressed, its not illegal. While a night stick is a weapon, carrying one is not illegal. They did not break one legal law. Now clearly any of this is bs on their part, but its not illegal. I walk past these idiots dressed like this every friggin Thursday here in Philly by the clothespin. They are a peice of work, trust me, but they broke no laws. While their appearance is less than inviting, you can't convict people because they look like misfits.

yeah, that's the thing. Idiots for sure, but nothing illegal about what they're doing.

and lol at dude earlier--some claiming nightstickare intimidating, and then he does a "WAAA! I'm intimidated!" mockery at you for mentioning that the one teabagger had a holstered GUN.



how can you claim intimidation from someone armed with a fucking nightstick, but not someone armed with a fucking gun?

lulz.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

how can you claim intimidation from someone armed with a fucking nightstick, but not someone armed with a fucking gun?

lulz.

Because the guy with the nightstick was black. I mean, that's what this entire issue has been about, right? Black scary folks belong in prison, and the AG is racist for not putting them there.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

OK aside from our resident idiots not understanding that he said comparing it to the Civil Rights movement "does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line for my people".... which is completely different from what the OP of this thread claims...


How is it intimidating to carry a nightstick? Is that like how it's intimidating to carry a gun and should be illegal because guns are scary? You know what guns are most intimidating? "Assault weapons". I guess we really should ban them, since people are so intimidated. Or at least only let white people carry them, because whites aren't as intimidating as blacks.

So are you saying that people who belong to political organizations and whom are walking around with guns and/or nightsticks at a polling station should be free to do so?

Also where is did anyone mention banning nightsticks? Where did this come up in the conversation that there should be a ban on nightsticks in general?

Oh and your pictures don't prove a god damn thing other then demonstrating your distorted opinion on the discussion at hand.

Edit: It was Eric Holder who brought up the the statement and made the assertion of the comparison between the Civil Rights Movement in response to a comment about made by another person declaring this incident the "worst incident of voter intimidation they've seen in their career" according to the article.

So it seems that Eric (maybe you do too) believe that any form of voter intimidation today (or in the future) in which someone provides a evaluation the severity of the act is automatically exclusive and synonymous with them comparing it to the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's. That's a nice form of deflection IMHO.

 

[Red Dawn]

So are you saying that people who belong to political organizations and whom are walking around with guns and/or nightsticks at a polling station should be free to do so?

Also where is did anyone mention banning nightsticks? Where did this come up in the conversation that there should be a ban on nightsticks in general?

Oh and your pictures don't prove a god damn thing other then demonstrating your distorted opinion on the discussion at hand.

Edit: It was Eric Holder who brought up the the statement of the comparison between the Civil Rights Movement in response to a comment about made by another person declaring this incident the "worst incident of voter intimidation they've seen in their career".

So it seems that Eric (maybe you do too) believe that any form of voter intimidation today in the future and someone commenting on it is exclusively synonymous with the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's and that any statement made on the nature of such an act is somehow a comparison between to the two.

You and your ilk need to stop being such pussies.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

You and your ilk need to stop being such pussies.

I take this as "I can't think of anything to say." response.

 

[Red Dawn]

I take this as "I can't think of anything to say." response.

You can take it anyway you can and I suspect you do. That said you sure seem like a little sniveling wimp to let a couple of black guy dressed in costume intimidate you

 

[DucatiMonster696]

You can take it anyway you can and I suspect you do. That said you sure seem like a little sniveling wimp to let a couple of black guy dressed in costume intimidate you

Your emotional outburst isn't very convincing.

Here's a tissue.

 

[Red Dawn]

Your emotional outburst isn't very convincing.

Here's a tissue.

Save it, you'll probably need it for bedtime.

 

[Fern]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshg...ack_Panther_case_focus_demeans_my_people.html


Looks like a case of double standards and a bit of payback to me

I went back and re-read your link.

I recall back when this story (DoJ dropping the case) came out, at least one career attorney in DoJ voting right division resigned because of claimed bias in prosecutions. He said Holder's/Obama's political appointees were pursuing racially biased policies.

This attorney gave testimony to the Civil Rights Commission. We knew then this commission was pretty toothless. Now there are claims that the DoJ is not cooperating with the commission and Congress is looking into it.

IDK if this article is accurate, but Holder's response to claims of bias and non-cooperation with the commission strike me as odd. Why bring his sister-in-law's history? WTH does that have to do with any of this?

It strikes me as part diversion, and part indignant outrage that black people could be accused of being racist. Why else drag up this stuff from the 60's? How the heck is that relevent?

Given the entire context of the matter (claims of racial bias in the DoJ etc), his remarks seem totally inept and out-of-place. I don't think his remarks in any way work to dispel that notion of racial bias. In fact, they seem to support it.

We need citizens to believe in the integrety of our institutions like the DoJ. We can't have even the appearance of racial bias. Nor is it remotely beneficial to have the appearence that the DoJ is not cooperating in a government civil rights investigation committee

I confess I've never thought much of Holder. IIRC, he's the one that personally approved the pardon of Mark Rich, the white collar criminal hiding in Switzerland. At this point I'd like to see Holder replaced.

Fern

 

[Double Trouble]

Holder should be replaced (though I doubt that will happen), he apparently doesn't understand that he represents all the people, not just some. He seems to be one of those "the goal justifies the means" kind of liberals who thinks racism and bias are fine as long as it's in support of some goal he approves of or agrees with.

 

[classy]

I went back and re-read your link.

I recall back when this story (DoJ dropping the case) came out, at least one career attorney in DoJ voting right division resigned because of claimed bias in prosecutions. He said Holder's/Obama's political appointees were pursuing racially biased policies.

This attorney gave testimony to the Civil Rights Commission. We knew then this commission was pretty toothless. Now there are claims that the DoJ is not cooperating with the commission and Congress is looking into it.

IDK if this article is accurate, but Holder's response to claims of bias and non-cooperation with the commission strike me as odd. Why bring his sister-in-law's history? WTH does that have to do with any of this?

It strikes me as part diversion, and part indignant outrage that black people could be accused of being racist. Why else drag up this stuff from the 60's? How the heck is that relevent?

Given the entire context of the matter (claims of racial bias in the DoJ etc), his remarks seem totally inept and out-of-place. I don't think his remarks in any way work to dispel that notion of racial bias. In fact, they seem to support it.

We need citizens to believe in the integrety of our institutions like the DoJ. We can't have even the appearance of racial bias. Nor is it remotely beneficial to have the appearence that the DoJ is not cooperating in a government civil rights investigation committee

I confess I've never thought much of Holder. IIRC, he's the one that personally approved the pardon of Mark Rich, the white collar criminal hiding in Switzerland. At this point I'd like to see Holder replaced.

Fern

LOL
Oh Fern. Clearly you have compeletly ignored the voting mishaps overlooked by the last Administration. By the way all of them were white, so much for that can't have an appearance of racial bias. Then in one sentence you accuse Holder of being racist, but then two sentences later you say you want him removed because he personally approved the pardon of Mark Rich, who by the way, maybe you didn't know is white.

 

[Fern]

LOL
Oh Fern. Clearly you have compeletly ignored the voting mishaps overlooked by the last Administration. By the way all of them were white, so much for that can't have an appearance of racial bias. Then in one sentence you accuse Holder of being racist, but then two sentences later you say you want him removed because he personally approved the pardon of Mark Rich, who by the way, maybe you didn't know is white.

I don't remember any articles etc about voter intimidation at the polls before this current one. Somebody earlier in this thread mentioned somebody with a gun hanging around the voting place harrassing Hispanics. That shouldn't be tolerated either.

My complaint about Holder is much much broader than this incident. I suppose I failed to adequately express my feelings on the matter.

I don't want him out because I think he's a racist. I'd like to see him go because I think he's damaging the DoJ, not compling with an investigation by the Civil Rights Commission, and general incompetence.

I don't like his policies (filing suit against AZ etc.), but since he's a Dem and they won the election I'm prepared to live with that.

As regards Marc Rich, I don't think most, whether Left or Right, agree with that pardon, and IMO he shouldn't escape blame for that.

Fern

 

[umbrella39]

You and your ilk need to stop being such pussies.

You have hit the nail on the head. Cowards walk around in fear all the time and do nothing about it IRL. they come here to vent to try and save some face by at least typing tough and convicted. But when it comes time to stand up and serve the tough stay here and continue to post. Faith without deeds is dead. No stones no deeds.

 

[Ozoned]

I think trying to argue with PokerGuy is like trying to argue with a rabid opossum. The only response you're going to get is unintelligible hissing and foam. Though in truth the opossum is only crazy because of rabies so it least it has an excuse.

The opossum has a body temperature of 94-97º F making it nearly impossible for the rabies virus to survive. If IIRC, the statistical possibility of having an encounter with a rabid opossum is less than 1 in 1,000,000 ....Just sayin.

 

[Ozoned]

You have hit the nail on the head. Cowards walk around in fear all the time and do nothing about it IRL. they come here to vent to try and save some face by at least typing tough and convicted. But when it comes time to stand up and serve the tough stay here and continue to post. Faith without deeds is dead. No stones no deeds.

And just how are you any different?