On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Jerry Barnes <critic...@gmail.com> wrote: > "1: This is the New Black Panther party, not the Black Panthers." > > Typical. Ignore the overall issue while dwelling on minor details. Of > course it was the New Black Panthers. The "Old" Black Panthers don't count > for much these days. I think most people on the list are smart enough to > make the correct connection.
Your source quote conflated the New Black Panther party with the Black Panthers. The Black Panthers have name recognition. The New Black Panther party does not. To conflate the two is patently dishonest and self serving. I pointed out that they are utterly different entities and that the Black Panthers disavow and condemn the New Black Panther party. Since your source dishonestly conflates the two, I felt it was worth while to distinguish the two. And I do not ignore the overall issue, I go right into it as you can tell by the fact that you address my criticism of the main issue. > "2. The DOJ case was downgraded from a criminal case to a civil case by the > *Bush* DOJ, not the Obama DOJ." > > I don't care who downgraded the case. Who dropped the case: The *Bush* > DOJ or the *Obama* DOJ? Should the case have been pursued? Of course. There we disagree. Even the Bush DOJ, which was patently one of the most political in recent history, couldn't make a criminal case out of it even though they desperately wanted to. You don't care? Fine, that is your choice and you are putting on blinders. Be my guest. > "3. The reason that it isn't being pursued further is that there isn't > anyone complaining. Not a single voter." > > Absurd. Just because you don't see it on MSNBC, ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS, or hear > about it on NPR doesn't mean it's not an issue. Just because Breitbart > raises the issue doesn't rule outs its validity. Sometimes the MSM isn't > exactly forthcoming with information. See John Edwards. > > "But there hasn't been a voter intimidation case brought forth because there > wasn't any voter intimidation." > > Don't let the facts get in your way. There was sworn testimony from witness > who said they were intimidated. What the fuck? I did not put out anything that is not a fact. The complainant in the case is a Republican operative who is not a voter in that district. I'm quite sure that if there were any voters in the district who were at the polling place and complained that they were intimidated that the DOJ would pursue the case. As I mentioned, the SPLC designates the New Black Panther party as a hate group. Everyone would like to see these guys asses kicked to the curb with perhaps the exception of a couple of black supremacists. If you don't have a witness willing to come forward as a complainant, you don't have a case. Even the Bush DOJ could see that. Find me a voter at that polling place that wants to push a complaint that they were intimated and I will back you and call upon the DOJ to pull up the case again. I'd love to see the NBP smacked around, they certainly deserve it. Until then, stop being a reactionary jerk who just spouts Fox News lin ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:323083 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
