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

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/15/2009 9:10:20 AM)
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. new depths of delusion

tazzygirl -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/15/2009 9:23:31 AM)
so its ok to just ASSUME Obama had them there its ok to just ASSUME because these men were black they worked for a black man an awful lots of assumptions for a couple of white boys, dont ya think?

Sanity -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/15/2009 9:36:29 AM)
Again, nobody is alleging that Obama sent those Black Panthers to that polling place. The problem is that with ample evidence, Obama's right hand man in the Justice Department intervened and had the charges dropped. If a white president had done this sort of thing for KKK members there would have been a shit storm of protests, and rightfully so. Obama does it and Democrats seem to applaud.

DomKen -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/15/2009 9:37:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Perhaps the lack of outrage when a US governor illegally disenfranchised thousands of US citizens to elect his brother POTUS compared to the claimed outrage over a single precinct in Philadelphia is teh twist kittin refers to? Good thing it never happened. It is proven that it did happen.

UncleNasty -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/15/2009 9:38:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rightwinghippie So you are rejecting the Legitimacy of the American Judicial System....Thats Radical! with a capital R and an exclamation point. But kind of nonsense. Isn't it? You really think the courts are illigitimate? That whole innocent till proven guilty thing, is kind of quaint. The new world of armed thugs at the polls and no courts will be so much better. Yay!! Radical! You're presuming that our courts are functioning as they are supposed to, or we imagine they are supposed to. You may do well to spend some time gaining some first hand experience - not as a defendant, but as an informed observer. Uncle Nasty

rightwinghippie -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/15/2009 10:05:45 AM)
Yes Uncle Nasty, I am asserting that the American Government, and the rulings of its courts, are legitimate. Apperantly some on here disagree. Radical!!

Sanity -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/15/2009 10:08:24 AM)
Something fishy's going on - maybe we had better report this. I have it on good authority that anyone who disagrees with the government is un-American!!! quote: ORIGINAL: rightwinghippie Yes Uncle Nasty, I am asserting that the American Government, and the rulings of its courts, are legitimate. Apperantly some on here disagree. Radical!!

rightwinghippie -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/15/2009 10:14:23 AM)
Domken, I guess it is true that we can both spin the fact that the case was settled and not decided. For Instance I am sure you would argue the other way and not say that Clinton settling with Paula Jones, shows his guilt. But in this case, no court found any illegal act or guilty person. If you want to declare that no conviction is needed to declare illegality, you can. Radical!! And if that somehow excuses the non prosecution of the armed thugs in the OP, you haven't made the case to my satisfaction. Is it some variant of 2 wrongs make a right?

hsimlexx -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/15/2009 10:17:46 AM)
I must have missed something during the Bush years. I recall some serious cries of how un-American the anti-war protesters were. The irresponsible heat of the rhetoric we are seeing at the moment is just setting us up for another bout of violence by individuals sent over the edge. The Father Coughlin's of our time are going to feign innocence but the demonization they are propogating is the equivilant of yelling fire in a movie theater. That is the "dissent" that I find abhorent and un-American.

Sanity -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/15/2009 10:38:01 AM)
How protests were viewed through the Bush White House years: White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer on Anti-war protesters: I think the president welcomes the fact that we are a democracy and people in the United States, unlike Iraq, are free to protest and to make their case known,” White House Press Secretary Trent Duffy on anti-war protests: The American people have a right to protest, and the right of free speech is something that we’re fighting for in this war on terror, to preserve that right of free speech. So the President welcomes opinions from all Americans. Now, things are different. The Democratic National Committee addresses health care protests: The Republicans and their allied groups – desperate after losing two consecutive elections and every major policy fight on Capitol Hill – are inciting angry mobs of a small number of rabid right wing extremists funded by K Street Lobbyists to disrupt thoughtful discussions about the future of health care in America taking place in Congressional Districts across the country. However, much like we saw at the McCain-Palin rallies last year where crowds were baited with cries of ‘socialist,’ ‘communist,’ and where the birthers movement was born – these mobs of extremists are not interested in having a thoughtful discussion about the issues – but like some Republican leaders have said – they are interested in ‘breaking’ the President and destroying his Presidency. These mobs are bussed in by well funded, highly organized groups run by Republican operatives and funded by the special interests who are desperately trying to stop the agenda for change the President was elected to bring to Washington. Despite the headline grabbing nature of these angry mobs and their disruptions of events, they are not reflective of where the American people are on the issues – or the hundreds of thousands of thoughtful discussions taking place around kitchen tables, water coolers and in homes. The right wing extremists’ use of things like devil horns on pictures of our elected officials, hanging members of Congress in effigy, breathlessly questioning the President’s citizenship and the use of Nazi SS symbols and the like just shows how outside of the mainstream the Republican Party and their allies are. This type of anger and discord did not serve Republicans well in 2008 – and it is bound to backfire again. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on health care protests: “I hope people will take a jaundiced eye to what is clearly the Astroturf nature of grass-roots lobbying,” said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs during a morning off-camera session in his office with reporters. “This is manufactured anger,” he said.

Sanity -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/15/2009 10:45:04 AM)
Nancy Pelosi calling dissent Un-American has been the talk around water coolers for days now, but how many have heard of this - Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: Protesters are 'evil-mongers'

Kaledorus -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/15/2009 11:22:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jack45 'Non-responsive' Justice Dept. pressed again on Panthers case, By Jerry Seper, Washington Times, August 8, 2009 See also affidavit by Poll Watcher Bartle Bull quote: “I watched the two uniformed men confront voters, and attempt to intimidate voters. They were positioned in a location that forced every voter to pass in close proximity to them. The weapon was openly displayed and brandished in plain sight of voters… “Their clear purpose and intent was to intimidate voters with whom they did not agree. Their views were, in part, made apparent by the uniform of the organization the two men wore and the racially charged statements they made. For example, I heard the shorter man make a statement directed toward white poll observers that ‘you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.’” “...the most blatant form of voter intimidation I have encountered in my life in political campaigns in many states, even going back to the work I did in Mississippi in the 1960s.” Bartle Bull is an old time civil rights lawyer who was there in the 1960s fighting for voter rights. That he would testify to this shows how bad it was. As you quoted: “the most blatant form of voter intimidation I have encountered in my life in political campaigns in many states, even going back to the work I did in Mississippi in the 1960s.” This is one of the most troubling reports I've read about this administration. This is basic constitutional rights being violated. Scary times. It really does remind one of the Soviets.

DomKen -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/15/2009 12:08:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rightwinghippie Domken, I guess it is true that we can both spin the fact that the case was settled and not decided. For Instance I am sure you would argue the other way and not say that Clinton settling with Paula Jones, shows his guilt. But in this case, no court found any illegal act or guilty person. If you want to declare that no conviction is needed to declare illegality, you can. Radical!! And if that somehow excuses the non prosecution of the armed thugs in the OP, you haven't made the case to my satisfaction. Is it some variant of 2 wrongs make a right? You're hiding behind the fact that the only entities that could have brought criminal charges in the Florida situation were the state's own prosecutors, who answered to Jeb Bush, and the US DoJ,which answered to GWB. ChoicePoint did remove thousands of legal Florida voters simply because someone with a similiar name had been convicted of a felony at some time somehwere. No effort was made to verify the identity of the people purged were the those ChoicePoint claimed they were. As a matter of fact since ChoicePoints primary source of felony convict names was Texas it was extremely unlikely that thousands of convicted felons from Texas had all migrated to Florida and slghtly changed their names. The fact is it is quite clear that removing a voter from the rolls without cause is illegal. The Jones case is quite a bit murkier. The Jones case was dismissed as frivolous and then settled under appeal. The facts of the case were never verified. However according to the trial judge even if Jones facts are true then Clinton is not guilty.

rightwinghippie -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/15/2009 3:31:31 PM)
No, Clinton was in charge of the DOJ durring and after the 2000 election. Every state purges its voter rolls periodically. Every time at least one person gets dropped iincorrectly. There is nothing criminal about it at all. Whats murkey? The judge who had known Clinton since College dissmissed the case. It was appealed. Durring the appeal it came out that Clinton had directly lied. He settled out of court, paying Ms Jones a huge amount of money, since it was clear that he was going to lose the appeal. Cinton was found in contempt of court for his misleading answers, and was ordered to pay a penalty to Ms ones on top of his settlement, he also lost his right to practice law for 5 years. Nothing murkey there. We both want to spin it the way we want. But I maintain that guilt requires conviction. You don't have to agree. And that your example in no way justifies the armed thugs refered to in the OP.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/15/2009 3:46:12 PM)
I almost amusing what I have noticed about racial inequities lately. Has anyone else noticed that while there are systemic and egregious racial imbalances against women, blacks, hispanics etc., (for example, take a look at the average income of a white male and an average black male), this is just the way things are. But let ONE white person meet with racial problems and it becomes a matter of horror and distress. No, I don't view the fact that there were a couple of black guys with a stick giving crap to voters at a polling place as a good thing. I do however, view this attitude of comparing it to what the KKK or Nazi party does as a clear sign of just how much privilege white males enjoy in this society. Perhaps along with calling for the entire government to prosecute every case of white people getting racial problems, no matter how small, we should think of just why there is such anger on the part of those not in the "old boy's club" in general.

rightwinghippie -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/15/2009 3:52:39 PM)
SOT, but are you in favor of dropping the charges as Obama did, and if so why? I guess I understand why you want to diminish this incedent. But there are far smaller racial slights white people could complain about. I do see a conection between violently intimidating voters to the KKK or Nazis. And think that if we are going to have a new future of violent thugs at polling sites, it's going to be Radical!! Why would you think Obama had his people drop the case?

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/15/2009 4:25:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rightwinghippie SOT, but are you in favor of dropping the charges as Obama did, and if so why? I guess I understand why you want to diminish this incedent. But there are far smaller racial slights white people could complain about. I do see a conection between violently intimidating voters to the KKK or Nazis. And think that if we are going to have a new future of violent thugs at polling sites, it's going to be Radical!! Why would you think Obama had his people drop the case? Ok....first of all, I'm not in favor of any intimidation at the polling place. Second, I would like to know more about what happened. From what I have been able to find out, there were three charges pressed and two were dropped. Third, I would like to know what reasoning was used to justify this. and Last, I would like to know what Obama knew and when he knew it. Just because I think Obama is doing a good job does not mean I think he's anything other than a politician and a politician needs to be watched. However, until I get those answers, I'm not going to jump to conclusions or start claiming that Obama supports disenfranchisement.

DomKen -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/15/2009 4:40:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rightwinghippie No, Clinton was in charge of the DOJ durring and after the 2000 election. Every state purges its voter rolls periodically. Every time at least one person gets dropped iincorrectly. There is nothing criminal about it at all. Whats murkey? The judge who had known Clinton since College dissmissed the case. It was appealed. Durring the appeal it came out that Clinton had directly lied. He settled out of court, paying Ms Jones a huge amount of money, since it was clear that he was going to lose the appeal. Cinton was found in contempt of court for his misleading answers, and was ordered to pay a penalty to Ms ones on top of his settlement, he also lost his right to practice law for 5 years. Nothing murkey there. We both want to spin it the way we want. But I maintain that guilt requires conviction. You don't have to agree. And that your example in no way justifies the armed thugs refered to in the OP. And how would anyone have been convicted? Long before charges could have been brought GWB was in charge and that would have ended any investigation. Wright and Clinto were friends? Maybe that explains why she went over his head to complain about her grade from his class and worked for his opponent in several elections? As usual a judge made a decision the GOP didn'y like and got slandered for it. As to the case in question you are arguing that voter disenfranchisement that definitely had no effect on the oputcome is somehow worse than voter disenfranchisement that definitely did effect the outcome of the election.

rightwinghippie -> RE: Voter Disenfranchisement OK with Obama (8/15/2009 7:22:04 PM)
Thats just plain intellectuall dishonesty. No where did I say they were friends. The changing quote gambit is lame, and going to get called every single time. No, you are the only one tying to tie the 2 events together, in an attempt to change the subject. I think that the case where thugs with weopons threatened people at te polls on Video should be investigated. Just like the case you bring up to attempt to change the subject was. The case that was settled with no criminality assigned. I think you are forgetting about the scene in Micheal Moores movie, where Gore himself casts the vote to not investigate the election, but to certify GWB as the winner. Clinton was President at the time.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875