RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama

RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Louve00 -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/14/2009 5:18:00 AM)
That, thishereboi, is my whole point. Its not just one side, and something inside me gets almost demonic when I hear 'right is good, left is bad; left is good, right is bad' mentality. If we spent more time looking at what WE, as individuals, need, then maybe (just maybe) a politician would have to work for his kudos. Not just get them because he belongs to a certain party. But when I hear people stating things like..."The Left is too busy falling apart and becoming more shrill and hateful than its ever been to consider the long term consequences of their dark ages behavior."...it makes me go nuts, because looking at this whole picture fairly, it is not the left being shrill and hateful. It is a democratic president trying to get Americans who need health care the health care they need. Trying to tackle the high expenses and the profit margins that are so protected by the people recieving them. People would sooner just resort to name calling then look at a problem.

Sanity -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/14/2009 5:29:57 AM)
Why is it that as all these things are revealed you on the left start screaming about Bush or Fox News. Why not stick to the subject at hand? The subject here is the president of the United States coddling racists who stood outside a voting place with billy clubs. Not Bbbbbush! Not Fox News. *Voter intimidation at a polling place.* quote: ORIGINAL: Louve00 Just the left, huh? Hmmm. Then why are television sponsors deciding to boycott FOX for its right wing nutsism? http://foxnewsboycott.com/tag/boycott/ Seems like the right wing talk show hosts are the hateful ones. (But I know, I know....you have it all figured out, right?) [sm=lame.gif]

Louve00 -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/14/2009 5:41:22 AM)
Are you hearing things, Sanity?? Because I never mentioned (or even thought of Bush). And just for the record, I don't believe the President of the United States encouraged, coddled, or promoted anyone, black or otherwise, to stand outside voting polls with billy clubs. And what was the point of them standing with those billy clubs, too? How on earth could they beat anyone up for NOT voting for Obama...or anything...if voting is confidential. I didn't read the link, cuz I thought it was rubbish. Still do. editted to add. Maybe not disputing that Black Panthers were there. If they were there, they were there. What their agenda is though, I haven't a clue. And that the President sent them there with his blessings, I doubt....seriously.

Sanity -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/14/2009 6:03:51 AM)
It was DK who was trying to switch the subject to Bush: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=2758253 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=2758096 You were trying to switch the subject to Fox News. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=2758356 [sm=book.gif]

Sanity -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/14/2009 6:05:37 AM)
You don't have a clue what their agendas were? Maybe that's Obama's excuse too. [sm=biggrin.gif] quote: ORIGINAL: Louve00 editted to add. Maybe not disputing that Black Panthers were there. If they were there, they were there. What their agenda is though, I haven't a clue. And that the President sent them there with his blessings, I doubt....seriously.

FullCircle -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/14/2009 6:05:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity The subject here is the president of the United States coddling racists who stood outside a voting place with billy clubs. Not Bbbbbush! Not Fox News. *Voter intimidation at a polling place.* Oh is that the topic[:D] If I was a political genius I'd have no qualms about using the group for voter intimidation and then hanging the group out to dry in a legal proceeding. You seem to be under the impression that politicians have loyalties and would act to save such a group? If I had been involved in such a plot I would almost certainly ensure I was able to bring a case against them to prove they had nothing to do with me or my administration. This didn't happen because perhaps the administration has no stake in that case one way or another? You don't need boycotts to defeat the right when they are doing such a good job with their own paranoia.

Sanity -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/14/2009 6:17:54 AM)
Obama spent twenty years worshiping under "the Reverend" Jeremiah Wright with his family in what would have been, if they were white, the equivalent of the Aryan Nations, or White Supremacists, and the Black Panthers are every bit the equivalent of the KKK. If the shoe were on the other foot, your attitude would be completely different though, wouldn't it. And justifiably so, because racism is wrong, and it's extremely odd to me how many on the left have suddenly become so blind to such a basic indisputable fact as that.

FullCircle -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/14/2009 6:33:12 AM)
I've heard Obama distance himself from the Rev. Wright and I don't know if he does or doesn't have a proven connection to the black panthers (highly doubtful). I've heard of the black panthers and they appear to be far more extreme than the Rev. Wright in their views. If anyone had such associations they would have been exposed years ago not just in the presidential election; any senator with such connections would have had them highlighted, I’m thinking. Many people elected him from all backgrounds and I know you American's research the backgrounds of your politicians very comprehensively, so how was it possible you elected a man that apparently has such connections? What you are suggesting beggars belief quite frankly. People with such extreme opinions are a political gift to their opposition because at some point a floating voter has to stop and ask themselves what is most likely to be true or can I see a pattern of unrealistic views?

Sanity -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/14/2009 6:38:19 AM)
Obama spent twenty years worshiping under Wright and calling him his mentor and his spiritual adviser but only about five minutes "distancing himself" from Wrights' low and vile insanity. Yeah, that had ought to do it. [8\|] Regarding Obama's connection to the Black Panthers, read the OP - that's the whole basis for this thread. And no, Obama wasn't vetted at all. Concerns were raised, but then swept under the rug as most news networks were very open about their undying love for Obama and their blind trust in "the "Hope" and "Change" that he promised. Chris Mathews got a tingle up his leg whenever he heard a "magical" Obama speech... it was all really sad and pathetic, and we're paying for it now. The only politicians thoroughly vetted in America are those on the right, and fro them even false charges make headlines for weeks.

tazzygirl -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/14/2009 6:38:26 AM)
quote: if they were white, the equivalent of the Aryan Nations, or White Supremacists, and the Black Panthers are every bit the equivalent of the KKK. an argument could be made that it wasnt Obama's team who put them out there, but McCain's. im not implying they did. but to assume they are "Obama's boys" based upon their color is just as racist.

Sanity -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/14/2009 6:41:50 AM)
The career prosecutors at the Justice Department were in the final stages of prosecution in this matter when Obama's direct political appointees stepped in and forced the career people to drop the charges. McCain didn't have anything to do with this - he couldn't have. He lost the election, remember? quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: if they were white, the equivalent of the Aryan Nations, or White Supremacists, and the Black Panthers are every bit the equivalent of the KKK. an argument could be made that it wasnt Obama's team who put them out there, but McCain's. im not implying they did. but to assume they are "Obama's boys" based upon their color is just as racist.

tazzygirl -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/14/2009 6:46:29 AM)
He didnt have anything to do with it being dropped... your right. and thats not what i said. These things can work two ways... one...Obama put them out there... or.. two.. someone else did. I would not have viewed them as intimidating because, as someone else pointed out, they would have no idea who i voted for. and if asked on my way out... shrugs. too late to worry about it then.

FullCircle -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/14/2009 6:49:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Obama spent twenty years worshiping under Wright and calling him his mentor and his spiritual adviser but only about five minutes "distancing himself" from Wrights' low and vile insanity. Is it perhaps possible (can you entertain the thought in your mind) that the Rev. Wrights views became more extreme and distorted from truth as time went on meaning that Obama wasn't exposed to twenty years of his racism but instead five minutes and that is when he realised he misjudged him and so distanced himself? The Rev. Wright also distanced himself from his own comments and apologised for some of his highly contentious preaching meaning that the man himself isn't so straightforward to stereotype as one thing or another. quote: Regarding Obama's connection to the Black Panthers, read the OP - that's the whole basis for this thread. Have we found evidence yet in this thread? Or are we not meant to look for such a connection but just assume there is or isn't one? The op is not evidence just supposition based on the behaviour of the administration with regards to prosecuting a single case.

Sanity -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/14/2009 6:53:46 AM)
Oh, I get it now... You think that the Black Panthers might have gotten their marching orders from John McCain... [sm=rofl.gif] I can't imagine how I missed reading that into the first post you meant to say it in, except for the fact that it defies all logic!!! ******** No one is suggesting that Barack Obama sent them there, the heart of the matter is that they aren't being prosecuted by the Obama Justice Department, charges were dropped - and voter intimidation cases such as this should always be prosecuted, no matter the skin color of those involved.

FullCircle -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/14/2009 7:09:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity No one is suggesting that Barack Obama sent them there, the heart of the matter is that they aren't being prosecuted by the Obama Justice Department, charges were dropped - and voter intimidation cases such as this should always be prosecuted, no matter the skin color of those involved. A case can only be prosecuted if there is substantial evidence that a crime was committed. The article appears to suggest civil rights lawyers advised that was not clearly the case and further more one of the Panthers was certified to be there anyway. I'm guessing statements about feeling intimidated are not evidence of people actually being intimidated and unless there is actual clear evidence of people making threats not much can be done. This is all beside the point because you’ve insinuated an Obama link by the very act of bringing up his past preacher. It is more likely for you that the Obama administration had a hand in dismissing it for their own reasons rather than it simply being a case of no case to answer.

Sanity -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/14/2009 7:11:49 AM)
No, I'd have to say that your theory about the Reverend Wright seems extremely far fetched, primarily because Barack Obama would have said that same thing if it were true. His excuse for sitting there for twenty years was that he never heard it - which is really odd, because I heard it from Boise, Idaho on Youtube. Obama was sitting there every Sunday and he didn't have a clue. Yeah, Wright. [sm=abducted.gif] And no, Wright never apologized, if anything he's doubled down on all his hatred and bigotry. quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle Is it perhaps possible (can you entertain the thought in your mind) that the Rev. Wrights views became more extreme and distorted from truth as time went on meaning that Obama wasn't exposed to twenty years of his racism but instead five minutes and that is when he realised he misjudged him and so distanced himself? The Rev. Wright also distanced himself from his own comments and apologised for some of his highly contentious preaching meaning that the man himself isn't so straightforward to stereotype as one thing or another. The president's job as head of the Justice Department is to prosecute these cases - if his people dismissed a case such as this without Obama's direct orders, heads should roll. But instead, we hear nary a word. quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle Have we found evidence yet in this thread? Or are we not meant to look for such a connection but just assume there is or isn't one? The op is not evidence just supposition based on the behaviour of the administration with regards to prosecuting a single case.

Sanity -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/14/2009 7:16:11 AM)
There was video, widely publicized, and police witnesses, as the local police were called - and again, the career prosecutors were in the final stages of prosecution when high level Obama *political appointees* stepped in and forced the career prosecutors to drop the charges. The past preacher link is strong evidence that Obama has ulterior motives for instructing his justice department to drop the voter intimidation charges. quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle A case can only be prosecuted if there is substantial evidence that a crime was committed. The article appears to suggest civil rights lawyers advised that was not clearly the case and further more one of the Panthers was certified to be there anyway. I'm guessing statements about feeling intimidated are not evidence of people actually being intimidated and unless there is actual clear evidence of people making threats not much can be done. This is all beside the point because you’ve insinuated an Obama link by the very act of bringing up his past preacher. It is more likely for you that the Obama administration had a hand in it than it simply being a case of no case to answer.

FullCircle -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/14/2009 7:20:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity No, I'd have to say that your theory about the Reverend Wright seems extremely far fetched, primarily because Barack Obama would have said that same thing if it were true. His excuse for sitting there for twenty years was that he never heard it - which is really odd, because I heard it from Boise, Idaho on Youtube. Has youtube been going for twenty years then? Seems Obama said the same as me in that he didn't hear it. quote: The president's job as head of the Justice Department is to prosecute these cases - if his people dismissed a case such as this without Obama's direct orders, heads should roll. But instead, we hear nary a word. What you mean he never delegates even though he made it clear that he wanted people in his administration with past experience to advise him not just take orders? I find it hard to believe that any single man is saying yes or no on every such case being considered by the justice department.

Sanity -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/14/2009 7:34:06 AM)
Wright's racism is the racism of an old man who is set in his ways. It's old school racism. In the Youtube video the whole congregation says "AMEN" to every hateful things that is preached in Trinity, have a look, it's commonly available (and I'm sure you've seen it). AMEN to something like hateful racism being first introduced into a church??? This idea that it was something new... seems desperate.

Sanity -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/14/2009 7:40:23 AM)
This case was singled out by a high level Obama operative. This came straight from the top. The run of the mill, every day prosecutors were overruled by the number three guy in the Justice Department, who (again) was appointed directly by Obama. quote: What you mean he never delegates even though he made it clear that he wanted people in his administration with past experience to advice him not just take orders? I find it hard to believe that any single man is saying yes or no on every such case being considered by the justice department.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.711914E-02