You're right about Coates.

His testimony was hearsay. I dont recall a Congressional investigation finding any evidence to support the claim.

Adams was the Republican political appointee mostly behind the claims of voter intimidation, even though he wasnt there in Philly and had no evidence to support his claim, other than a video by Republicans that did not show any voters being intimidated. He ultimately tried to make the case that intimidating the videographers falls under voter intimidation.

I read the link.

I am getting back to you.

Now, explain the statement you made. I read the article, there's a statement in there by a couple people that say this. There are other people's statements that say just the opposite. I believe you're picking the statement that justifies your conclusion.

I will tell you that there is NOT a prevailing attitude in the whole of my experience that minorities are benefiting from racial attitudes and actions. They're not. We could argue about what constitutes racism, and certainly racism can be experienced in any color. But that's like characterizing climate by one day's weather. It is an unreasonable and uselessly narrow attempt to redefine the term.

I sure wish you'd expand on this UT.

Do you mean it's unfair because it's so hard to prove?

Do you mean it's unfair because it's so pervasive?

Do you mean it's unfair because it's practically invisible?

Do you mean it's unfair because it's practically non-existent?

Maybe we need another thread.

When racism is declared in a political context, it is almost never actual racism taking place, but people feel like they can throw the label around at will.

They feel elevated by the accusation. To accuse you of racism means that I am pure of it. Or even better, I am more able to detect it, even where my fellow travelers do not.

The matter of charging somebody with hate is not considered so relevant. I don't know why. It's poor behavior on its own.

And using race as the universal charge with which we disparage others will not improve race relations one iota.

You have to admit that there are times when it is racism, and should be declared. The problem that I see, is that when the accusation is legitimate, people are dismissive, referring to it as "playing the race card." Typically, those are the same people who declare that Christmas is under attack.

Exactly wrong.

That's right - there is no such thing as racism. In fact, there never has been. :right:

Why is racism wrong, Spexx?

I guess it depends on your personal experiences. Mine support the notion that you must be of a minority group to experience racism, that is the prevailing attitude in my experiences. It is supported by statements in this article and others. It is supported by actions of the Holder DOJ. It is sickening. I completely support a color-race blind society. That is not what we are getting out of this DOJ.

Do you really need to ask that, Tony?

From my personal experience, when charges of racism are based on cherry picking selected facts while ignoring or misrepresenting other equally relevant facts, or based on unsubstantiated allegations or innuendo to further feed the misrepresent of all the facts, it is politically motivated and not for any altruistic reasons.

Yeah I do, or rather Biggie wants me to go on.

His testimony was a first hand account from a person who worked there and has more insight as to what went on then either you or I. I take his word over yours. Keep trying to spin it. Dizzy yet?

When the DOJ engages in race motivated decisions that exclude one race over another in choosing which cases to pursue we have a major problem in this country. I have not seen anything like this since the 60's where blacks were blatantly discriminated against. It is sickening.

I'll agree with V and leave it at that:
You often (more than not) cherry picking information, treat allegations as facts and ignore other facts that are counter to your predispose position.

Facts are facts. They stand alone. I have sited three cases where this DOJ has corrupted it authority and gone outside the law. All I can hope for it that Holder goes down in flames and Obama is a one term president.:D

I agree. Facts are facts and you chose them selectively.

The fact is that it was the Bush AG who charged the city of Dayton with employment discrimination and it was a federal court that imposed the settlement lowering the testing standards. I still dont understand how that makes Holder, the current AG, a racist. In fact, if he didnt enforce the cout order, that would be acting outside the law.

And in the Philly voter intimidation case, you misrepresented the facts. There was not one voter who filed a complaint of intimidation, with the sole testimony coming from a Republican video person on site and a Republican attorney who was not on site. Yet you claim that the DoJ had a strong case that voters were intimidated. Which is not true and why the Bush DoJ ultimately chose not to seek a criminal charge and chose to pursue a civil suit instead. Holder also sought a civil injuntion against the one person carrying the club and dropped the charge against the one who was legally present as a poll watcher certified by the city. In fact, there is nothing outside the law about Holder's action.

Facts are facts but you cant simply ignore the facts you dont like.

IMO, you ignored what I think objective oberservers would consider highly relevant and pertinant facts.

Facts are facts? lol Maybe if you were prsenting 'facts' rather than selecting the opinions of some which (as has been pointed out) don;t tally with the opinions of others in the same article.

Just to be Fair & Balanced - the Fox version (notice the differing) headlines



ETA - I have no sound on my computer here at work, so I don't know what the audio on either video is.


Figured that I'd post these so everyone can see what the conversation is about.

Personally, I would be more than a little concerned about the guy wielding a nightstick. Enough to leave and go to another place? If I could, sure. I don't know how that works though.
Were laws broken? Somehow the answer is no. Either way I don't think its proper for a man to be wielding a weapon outside a polling place, unless you are a police officer.

I actually posted the first video earlier and asked Mercenary to explain how it met the law's criteria for voter intimidation.

And what Fox and others never showed was the second video that shows the cops confroting the two NBP party members; one of whom (w/o the nightstick) was an official poll watcher authorized by the city, a fact neglected to be reported by Fox et al.





The Voting Rights Act is pretty specific as to what constitutes voter intimidation, which is why neither the Bush D0J nor the current DoJ pursued criminal charges and why both sought civil injunctions against the guy with the night stick.

The description from from wiki

I got all that F&B. Lets look at it a little more realistically. If my daughter was going there to vote and these guys were out front shouting racial slurs and brandishing a nightstick... I can tell you with virtual certainty that she would not vote.
I also doubt very highly that she would call the DA. Nor do I think she is in the minority (no pun intended)

I got a laugh out of the last line of the Wiki:
Thompson, the very conservative Vice Chair voted with the Democrats on the Commission once before and that translates to "consistently"?

Shouting racial slurs? I missed that in the video.

Was he holding the nightstick in a threatening manner?

Or was the Republican video guy making more out of it than accutually occured, particularly given the second with the cops on the scene that the right seems to ignore.

FYI in PA a poll watcher oversees the vote count at the end of the voting day. It's not an appointed or paid position, merely a notice that it's OK for them to be there and watch the count.

Not in my experience.

The role is partisan by its very nature, but requires approval by the election board and it is to watch over the election process on behalf of a candidate or party.

Quite frankly, the only race issue I am beginning to see here is something approaching racial stereotyping (scary black men).

But to be clear, I am not suggesting the Republican videographer or anyone in this discussion is racist.

Sorry for my late edit. I am talking about what a poll watcher is in Pennsylvania. The poll watcher's duty starts when the poll closes. You are there to watch the count.

I could show you the relevant statute, as I have read it. I have known and worked with many poll watchers my whole life, starting from when I was just a lad. I have run candidacies at every level in this state. My ex was Inspector of Elections for a decade.

These days the count pretty much consists of pressing a button and printing out the numbers from each machine.

I know it varies by state as do the laws regarding electioneering outside a polling station or even videotaping outside a polling station.

But I still havent seen any evidence of voter intimidation as defined under the Voting Rights Act, just allegations.

So I am still trying to understand how Holder filing a civil injuntion against the guy with a nightstick is racist.

I choose to believe those on the inside who experienced the actions at the DOJ, you choose to ignore them as not relevant. What else is new. It is your job to defend this Administration. Their word trumps your opinion.

Ahhh - the race card, then pulling it back? Well played. Weak, but well played.

Since I'm simple or whatever it is you said... Fill in the blank for me. Who is that is racially stereotyping?

Those who put selected opinion over fact along with those who continue to look for a way to rationalize the charge of Holder as a racist.

You think it is weak for me to raise the issue of racial stereotyping but not weak to charge the AG with racism based on nothing other than opionions of other partisns?

Too fucking bad if you dont like what I posted.

I took it as directed toward me. If that is the case, you are goddamned right I don't like it.


If not, ... Gilda/never mind/Radnor.

Where on the video is anyone shouting racial slurs or brandishing a night stick in a threaghtening manner as you suggested?

Those characterizations, without substantiation, sounds like racial stereotyping to me.

And I played the race card, but not Mercenary. What discussion have you been following?

So the simple answer is "Yes Classic, I'm calling you a racist."

Man the fuck up and say it!
From my Post #79
From the wiki link in post #80

You suggest racial slurs with not even listening and based solely on a Republican poll watcher.

And you want me to man the fuck up?

Dont count on it.

What slurs, what brandishing?

At the very least, asumptions make you look like an ass.

I haven't - not for a long time. You are incapable.

At this point, I'll just move on. Everything was very clear. You called me a racist - plain and simple. I have less than anything nice to say to you.
There can be no further discussion. It is not worth it - rather YOU are not worth it.

Cool. Your over-sensitive ego is rearing its ugly head again.

Believe what you want and keep making your assumptions about racial slurs based on not actually having heard one but based solely on one partisan's word.

Thats not racial stereotyping. :eyebrow:

What an asshole you are for again tryin to defend calling me a racist instead of simply admitting you are totally wrong and, god forbid, apologizing.
You still don't get it. I take it very personal to be called that.
Off to ignore land you go - You may now kindly go fuck yourself.

Damn, dude.

Take a breath and read what I posted:
You obviously dont understand the difference between "approaching racial stereotyping," which by the way people do every day and for the most part is not with with racist intent, as opposed to calling you or anyone a racist, which I thought I made clear in my post that there was a distinction between the two, but that you evidently read it with a defensive closed mind.

When you suggest your daughter might feel threatened by black men in street clothes, looking mean and holding a club but with no evidence of intent to harm or threaten her, IMO, that is approaching racial stereotyping. Much like a woman walking down the street pulling her handbag closer to her body as a tough looking black man approaches her as opposed to a white guy in the same street clothes. It is not racist, it is a reaction based on racial stereotype.

You get defensive, overly sensitive and then overreact and get even more defensive and the nasty side comes out.

And that my friend, is your problem, not mine.

ps. I really hope you take a second look with a more open mind, but its your choice. If you want to apologize for overreacting, that is your choice as well. It doesnt really matter to me either way. :)

:lol:

Hey, I'm still trying to understand how the Bush DoJ filing charges of employment discrimination against City of Dayton, what you might characterize as a race motivated decision or the federal court making what you might characterize as a race motivated settlement, makes Holder, who had nothing to do with either action, the racist.

I read your last post thinking perhaps you had finally come to your senses and apologized.
I thought I would have missed it with you on ignore.
I should have known better.

Lets get this right - I'll try one last time.
My daughter will most likely feel, as I think most women would, threatened by men in street clothes,
looking mean, waving a club and shouting racial slurs (ie. looking threatening or like they may harm her.)
Much like a woman walking down the street pulling her handbag closer to her body as a tough looking man/men approach her.
It is not racist, it is wise of them, and it is reality.

The odds of me apologizing for you calling me a racist are ZERO.

Holder drives the train. The result is nothing short of Affirmative Action, which is a racist program in and of itself. He could have stopped it, just like he did when he stopped the action against the voter intimidation case. Everything he does is suspect as being race motivated as evidenced by the testimony of the whistleblowers in the voter case.

In fact, he couldnt have just not enforced a court order w/o being in contempt of court, far different from making a determination to file a civil injunction as opposed to a criminal complaint in the NBP case.

Ah...I see.

Corrective affirmation action (short of hard quotas) is a racist program.

So does that make every every president since the 60s, the Supreme Court on numerous occasions, and much of the public racists? Or basically, anyone who doesnt share your position on affirmative action.

added:

Actually, the fact is that in the Dayton case, Holder acted within the law by enforcing the court order but you want him to go outside the law.

BTW, he didnt go outside the law in the NBP case either.

I'm so confused.

So your daughter isn't racist, she's sexist! :lol::rotflol:

You know what the Bible says. Sins of the father.....

Or maybe that just applies to sons.

So you still dont get the difference between racial stereotyping and racism.

I am secure in knowing what I posted and making it clear that I was not calling anyone a racist.

And you're still lashing out at me by falsely characterizing what I wrote rather than looking inward at your own defensiveness and insecurities. Oh well, too bad for you.

:corn:

I am still confused with your doublespeak, claiming Holder acted outside the law when he didnt, but that you think he should act outside the law, because you dont the law? :eek:

The self-described "most transparent administration in history" announced it will not "read out the dialogue from the meetings" on the debt and deficit negotiations.


Perhaps they're trying to be nice and not make EVERY "R" look like a total asshole for holding them hostage on SS when it has virtually NOTHING to do with this.

but thats just a guess.

So our president storms out of a meeting over the debt. At least he is doing something.

Perhaps he figured that since the R's had done it a couple times ... ... ...
meh never mind.

GE expected to report 13 percent rise in profit

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...76K7FO20110721

Obama jobs chief -- the CEO of GE -- pays no corporate taxes

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...porate-taxes/1

The GE-Obama affair, and Jeff Immelt’s harsh words

Except for maybe Google, no company has been closer and more in synch with the Obama administration than General Electric.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/...-s-harsh-words