Transparency - Not!

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Major fail on your part Shillster....

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.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Read the link and get back to me.

I read the link.

I am getting back to you.

Now, explain the

the case was dropped because of the new prevailing attitude that cases not involving "minority" cases were not going to be followed, racism.

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.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

It's almost never fair game to call racism.

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.

[Undertoad]

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.

[Spexxvet]

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.

[Undertoad]

Exactly wrong.

[Spexxvet]

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

[Undertoad]

Why is racism wrong, Spexx?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by BigV

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 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.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Why is racism wrong, Spexx?

Do you really need to ask that, Tony?

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

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.

[Undertoad]

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

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

You're right about Coates.

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

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?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

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.

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.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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:

Originally Posted by BigV

Now, explain the statement you made. (the case was dropped because of the new prevailing attitude that cases not involving "minority" cases were not going to be followed, racism. ).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.

You often (more than not) cherry picking information, treat allegations as facts and ignore other facts that are counter to your predispose position.