Transparency - Not!

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Was it to promote and support the actions of one race over another, or was it to promote and support the actions of one group over another?

In the case of the Dayton officers it was to promote and support the actions of one group over another, based purely on race, not merit.

In the case of the New Black Panthers it was a violation of laws which prevent voter intimidation, in this case white people trying to vote at a generally black dominated area, and not different than the KKK keeping blacks away from voting booths in the South during segregation.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

In the case of the Dayton officers it was to promote and support the actions of one group over another, based purely on race, not merit.

In the case of the New Black Panthers it was a violation of laws which prevent voter intimidation, in this case white people trying to vote at a generally black dominated area, and not different than the KKK keeping blacks away from voting booths in the South during segregation.

In the case of Dayton, it was enforcing a court-ordered settlement. One can disagree with the law and claim that law is racist but an AG who simply enforces the law is just doing what the court and the law required.

In the case of the NBP voter intimidation, the evidence did meet the standards of the law, given that no voters claimed they were intimidated, thus a lesser civil injunction was applied. Again, acting by the requirements of the law.

added:

Given that Bush's AG Mukasey initiated the employment discrimination case against Dayton and who agreed with the career attorneys over the objection of the Republican appointees in the DoJ in not having the evidence to meet the requirements of the Voting Rights Act for a criminal prosecution in the NBP case, wouldnt that make him the racist?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

In the case of Dayton, it was enforcing a court-ordered settlement. One can disagree with the law and claim that law is racist but an AG who simply enforces the law is just doing what the court and the law required.

Racism never the less. It was done because of race and standards were lowered. It ignored merit. That is racism.

In the case of the NBP voter intimidation, the evidence did meet the standards of the law, given that no voters claimed they were intimidated, thus a lesser civil injunction was applied. Again, acting by the requirements of the law.

Holder and the DOJ illegally withheld documents pertinent to the case. The case was dropped because of the new prevailing attitude that cases not involving "minority" cases were not going to be followed, racism.

Do they pay you to be a shill for the Obama Administration?

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Racism never the less. It was done because of race and standards were lowered. It ignored merit. That is racism.

That is the law. Some might suggest it is racist, I would disagree.

But under your standards, why is Bush's AG Mukasey not the racist, given that he was the one who initiated the employment discrimination case against Dayton, not Holder, and he, not Holder, was the one who agreed to the settlement that lowered the testing standards?

Holder was enforcing the court order as required by the law.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

That is the law. Some might suggest it is racist, I would disagree.

Of course you do, it is your job.

But under your standards, why is Bush's AG Mukasey not the racist, given that he was the one who initiated the employment discrimination case against Dayton, not Holder, and he, not Holder, was the one who agreed to the settlement that lowered the testing standards?

Holder was enforcing the court order as required by the law.

I never said Mukasey was not. I said Holder was, and there is ample evidence that Holder and the Obama Administration pushed the issue to drop any cases that were not dealing with minorities only. That is a huge difference.

Hell, Holder should be brought up on charges if they find out he knew about the ATF gun sales that lead directly to the death of an agent on the border.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Of course you do, it is your job.


I never said Mukasey was not. I said Holder was, and there is ample evidence that Holder and the Obama Administration pushed the issue to drop any cases that were not dealing with minorities only. That is a huge difference.

Hell, Holder should be brought up on charges if they find out he knew about the ATF gun sales that lead directly to the death of an agent on the border.

Your prejudice is blatant and non-productive as is repeating baseless charges.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

Your prejudice is blatant and non-productive as is repeating baseless charges.

It is not prejudice to ask for equal protection and treatment under the law. Not what we are currently getting from Obama, Holder, and the DOJ.