New Black Panther Party Admits to Voter Intimidation
Nice. So they admit that their members used batons to intimidate voters based on their race at a voting place and welcome those members back into their party. The New Black Panther Party is the KKK of the 21st century.
Hat tip Big Government.
< sarcasm >Owen you silly cracker, only white people can be racist. We must quickly pass some hate crime and sensitivity legislation so we can better understand the plight of the Black Panthers. Now is not time to play the blame game, now is a time for understanding.< /sarcasm >
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 10, 2010 at 2213 hrs
..and if you don’t “believe in the ‘white man’s’ voting system,” well then….
buh bye
This comment is all-inclusive, race aside.
Posted by GAMazy on July 10, 2010 at 2225 hrs
Sad.
Posted by scott on July 11, 2010 at 0026 hrs
The even sadder issue is Holder’s unwillingness to look at potential cases with his own racism clouding the issue.
Disgusting.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 11, 2010 at 0222 hrs
So this is what “post racial” is? Well, if the definition of the ability to be a racist is one who has power over others to determine an outcome, it surely proves the ability of this administration to be just that. There is no covert racism on display here, it is clearly obvious.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 11, 2010 at 1332 hrs
Nice to see their racist meetings include balloons, though.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 12, 2010 at 0643 hrs
Mr. Pelican Pants:
Nice to see their racist meetings include balloons, though.
That’s because they’re “festive” racists.
They may hate you, but they don’t want you to think they hate you so much that they might be a danger to you.King Shamir Shabbaz:
“We just be kidding mien! We be coo.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 12, 2010 at 0842 hrs
I would have loved to see their planning committee agenda checklist for this meeting:
1. Militant Islamic garb
2. Racially-charged talking points about “whitey”.
3. Lapel pins.
4. Bowties.
5. Mr. Microphone.
6. Balloons.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 12, 2010 at 0853 hrs
Mr. Microphone??? Now that’s funny
Probably ended the evening with a rousing round of karaoke. I can just imagine the light skinned brotha on the right belting out “My Way”. Or a group sing, featuring"YMCA”
High fives all around, “Whoot, whoot, MAN, we nailed it!”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 12, 2010 at 0924 hrs
The even sadder issue is Holder’s unwillingness to look at potential cases with his own racism clouding the issue.
Really? I mean, REALLY!?!?!. Would you care to elaborate/support your statement?
The only racism here is on the part of the New Black Panther Party and the individuals radical wing nuts involved. Could it possibly be that Holder felt that the Department of Justice had more important things to do than follow up with the weight of the Federal government on something that seems to have been handled by the Philadelphia Police Department? Maybe he felt that the original investigation was an “over reaction” by the previous administration???
Racism? That six letter word that I’ve been chastised for envoking, yet you seem so at ease to use in this instance…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 12, 2010 at 0926 hrs
Militant Islamic garb???
Come now Mr. Pants. Can’t you tell that is just a costume purchased from Michael Jackson’s estate??? (This board DEFINITELY needs a sarcasm font…)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 12, 2010 at 0929 hrs
laker, you can’t post without invoking racism. These fools make themselves the joke by mirroring the KKK. The only things missing are the “black” hoods. Though, now that I think about it, seems “hoodies” are a significant part of gangsta outer wear. A fashion statement, or is imitation the truest form of flattery?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 12, 2010 at 0945 hrs
laker, you can’t post without invoking racism.
Wow, you mean like this, Scott(K-KK)???
“We just be kidding mien! We be coo.”
I can just imagine the light skinned brotha…
“Scott(K-KK)” Oh well, I guess I’m guilty as charged, huh?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 12, 2010 at 0957 hrs
Really? I mean, REALLY!?!?!. Would you care to elaborate/support your statement?
Really.Remember last week when J. Christian Adams outed the DOJ for internal statements that indicated they would not prosecute “black” voter intimidation? Is the news cycle that short, and your memory that weak?
a reminder:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703636404575353052562578046.htmlRacism is a two way street, and unfortunately our society has become blind to the FACT that government policy that provides an unequal benefit or disadvantage on the basis of race, is in fact racism.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 12, 2010 at 1034 hrs
Is the news cycle that short, and your memory that weak?
Thanks for the link, but no need for insults…yet. I just happened to be on vacation is all; that’s why I asked about the comment about “Holder’s own racism clouding the issue”. Unfortunately, I couldn’t access this website to find out what keeps conservatives’ panties in a wad.
“We’re not interested in those kind of cases. What do they have to do with helping increase minority access and turnout? We want to increase access to the ballot, not limit it.”
Wow. If this is the official policy of the DOJ and not a statement taken out of context, then there is a serious problem that needs to be investigated.
Racism is INDEED a two way street. And I suspect that many folks, in particular conservatives, are tired of their protestations going “ignored” or “unheard”. Unfortunately history has shown that our Country moves at glacial speed to effectively correct equality issues. Take a number and wait in line is what people have been told for generations.Legislation by the government has been necessary because of the refusal of people to do the next right thing on their own accord. Policies enacted in the 60’s and 70’s should be reviewed and determined if they are in fact still necessary But make no mistake, they WERE necessary at the time. And these policies were NOT instituted because of feelings of racial superiority of non-whites over whites. In that regard, they do not fit the definition of racism. Punitive? Yes. Racist? I don’t believe so.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 12, 2010 at 1126 hrs
I thought the issue was that nobody could be found who claimed they were intimidated.
Posted by scott on July 12, 2010 at 1141 hrs
If a white guy was holding a baton outside of polling station and yelling that black babies should be killed - how long would it take Holder to prosecute that case?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 12, 2010 at 1207 hrs
If a white guy was holding a baton outside of polling station and yelling that black babies should be killed - how long would it take Holder to prosecute that case?
C’mon Bill. Grow the hell up! At least provide us with a half believable race hate crime scenario, will ya’? The bottom line is I asked you to explain your comment about Holder being “clouded by this own racism” and this is the best you can come up with??? Stop wasting our time here. The question would be whether a white guy would be prosecuted for “intimidation” at a polling place where he allegedly KEPT black people from voting or would Holder prosecute the mob that kicked the guy’s ass?
Obviously you have nothing meaningful to offer here other than your whining…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 12, 2010 at 1233 hrs
Legislation by the government has been necessary because of the refusal of people to do the next right thing on their own accord.
I just disagree with this on every level.
The creation of laws to benefit one group over another, for WHATEVER reason, is WRONG, and racist. We as Americans are guaranteed ‘equal’ protection of the laws. No matter what speed societal mores travel at, it is NOT EVER the place of the government to change or control them.
Scott, c’mon…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX4dcvIYk9A&feature=related
You’re right, nothing intimidating about that guy… Hey Scott, let’s try the same thing in 2012, we’ll stand outside a central Milwaukee polling place with nooses, baseball bats, and ropes tied to pickup truck bumpers, we won’t threaten anyone, or really say anything… see how far we get.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 12, 2010 at 1246 hrs
Legislation by the government has been necessary because of the refusal of people to do the next right thing on their own accord.
I just disagree with this on every level.
The creation of laws to benefit one group over another, for WHATEVER reason, is WRONG, and racist. We as Americans are guaranteed ‘equal’ protection of the laws. No matter what speed societal mores travel at, it is NOT EVER the place of the government to change or control them.
Scott, c’mon…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX4dcvIYk9A&feature=related
You’re right, nothing intimidating about that guy… Hey Scott, let’s try the same thing in 2012, we’ll stand outside a central Milwaukee polling place in paramilitary garb with nooses, baseball bats, and ropes tied to pickup truck bumpers, we won’t threaten anyone, or really say anything… see how far we get.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 12, 2010 at 1247 hrs
Pray tell, laker, what is racist about pointing out grammatical laziness? Why do you assume I’m not posting as such so that our “Black” brothers can comprehend the post? If they are going to speak bastardized English why can’t I so I know my point is being understood? If King Sham-ir Shabbaz can declare his hate for “Crackers”, and call for “Cracker babies” to be killed, why should his potential victims be morally restrained by your one sided outrage? You, like the idiots in the video, are so full of crap you couldn’t make a pertinent point if your life depended on it. Cry your hypocritical tears of woe, and pronounce only that which “you” deem racist as such and see if it changes anything. As for me, I’ll treat you as the moronic joke you are, and take your criticisms with the required grain of salt, but nothing more.
Da bras whanna tauk like ig-nant foos, I be rye dare wid um. Yaum?
If the brothers want to talk like ignorant fools, I’ll be right there with them.
You understand?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 12, 2010 at 1257 hrs
The creation of laws to benefit one group over another, for WHATEVER reason, is WRONG, and racist.
Could you explain what law benefits one group over another?
If they are going to speak bastardized English why can’t I so I know my point is being understood?
I find it quite funny that you are stating they are speaking a bastardized English when there are some people across the Atlantic who would level the same statement at you. People fear what they don’t understand.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 12, 2010 at 1343 hrs
I just disagree with this on every level.
The creation of laws to benefit one group over another, for WHATEVER reason, is WRONG, and racist. We as Americans are guaranteed ‘equal’ protection of the laws. No matter what speed societal mores travel at, it is NOT EVER the place of the government to change or control them.
“Some Americans” were guaranteed “equal” protection of the laws. Not blacks, who were initially only counted as three-fifths of a person under the original Constitution. Are you saying that the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 24th Amendments to the United States Constitution are “inappropriate” and should not have been written into law? Shit, after FOUR amendments to the Constitution (FIVE if you include the 19th Amendment for Women’s suffrage), it was STILL necessary to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1965! Again, yet MORE legislation because people failed to do the right thing and follow our Constitution! Are you saying that the Supreme Court decision of Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954 is “misguided”?
If “the creation of laws to benefit one group over another for WHATEVER reason, is WRONG, and racist”, then how do you reconcile the inherent racism of this country’s past and why it remains so difficult for us to “get it right”?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 12, 2010 at 1415 hrs
@LSTW….I don’t understand you; I don’t fear you.
Back to my original thought: I still can’t get over the balloons!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 12, 2010 at 1425 hrs
Pray tell, laker, what is racist about pointing out grammatical laziness? Why do you assume I’m not posting as such so that our “Black” brothers can comprehend the post?
I guess the only question you need to grapple with is why I referred to you as “Scott-KKK”? Are you a racist asshole? Or, was it necessary for your mother to enroll you in kindergarten three different times because you’re a FUCKTARD? Somehow, I think either reason is correct.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 12, 2010 at 1451 hrs
Cry your hypocritical tears of woe, and pronounce only that which “you” deem racist as such and see if it changes anything.
Shit, did I write this??? Silly,silly me. Yeah, I’m such a fucking hypocrite!
The only racism here is on the part of the New Black Panther Party and the individuals radical wing nuts involved.
Hey FUCKTARD, please try and keep up, will ya? I know it’s hard for you to read the laptop screen while you’re bouncing around on the back of the short yellow school bus…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 12, 2010 at 1458 hrs
I’m taken aback by your vitriol laker, I guess I better not ever comment on here again. Feel free to hold your breath in anticipation of my holding to that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 12, 2010 at 2000 hrs
The only arguments I’m hearing from Laker is a lot of rage - against what I’m not really sure.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 12, 2010 at 2238 hrs
Oh well. I don’t suffer fools gladly.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 13, 2010 at 0846 hrs
“Some Americans” were guaranteed “equal” protection of the laws. Not blacks, who were initially only counted as three-fifths of a person under the original Constitution. Are you saying that the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 24th Amendments to the United States Constitution are “inappropriate” and should not have been written into law? Shit, after FOUR amendments to the Constitution (FIVE if you include the 19th Amendment for Women’s suffrage), it was STILL necessary to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1965! Again, yet MORE legislation because people failed to do the right thing and follow our Constitution! Are you saying that the Supreme Court decision of Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954 is “misguided”?
Moron, the “Equal Protection Clause” is in the 14th amendment… One of the - you know - post civil war amendments. Slavery was wrong, we rectified it by amending the constitution. An action that the founding fathers knew would have to occur.
Slavery is a dark stain on this nations history, but I had nothing to do with it, nor did my family, ever. I don’t know where you would ever get the idea that I think B v. B was misguided, but hey, you are pretty good at putting words in my mouth.
You are right Laker, government action sure has eradicated racism…
Oh, wait…. No, it hasn’t. It has moved it underground, it has created hidden hostility that courses beneath the surface of our entire society. It has created a society where even the mention of racial differences or criticisms of culture leads to people like you labeling people like me. It has forced upon society what should have been allowed to happen naturally.
For instance:
I support gay marriage. However, I know that if the government tells the people they have to accept it, it will create nothing but resentment. I want the society to be ready for it before it is foisted upon them. Trying to change the folkways of a culture with the iron glove of government is just plain stupid.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 13, 2010 at 0856 hrs
If “the creation of laws to benefit one group over another for WHATEVER reason, is WRONG, and racist”, then how do you reconcile the inherent racism of this country’s past and why it remains so difficult for us to “get it right”?
We can’t get it right, because we are instituting laws and policies that overcorrect to ease the guilty conscience of people like you. We are instituting specifically “racist” policies in order to compensate for the specifically “racist” policies of the past. Two wrongs never make a right….
We will never “get it right” so long as people with your mindset run the country. I want a level playing field, across the board. I want a truly colorblind society, and you are working against me on that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 13, 2010 at 0905 hrs
Could you explain what law benefits one group over another?
There are dozens of laws and policies which have been instituted in the name of “diversity” which actively deny qualified candidates to the benefit of specific minority groups. That you have to ask this question is VERY telling.
Would you like me to start citing case law? Or is Holder’s policy of not prosecuting “black” voter intimidation enough for you?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 13, 2010 at 0911 hrs
I see there is video out there with Malik Shabbaz, leader of the New Black Panther Party, praising Osama bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks on Americans, some time in 2002. This is clearly a terrorist, (or traitors at the very least) organization, and these animals should be seen for what they are. Holder in refusing to investigate them proves he is a coward unworthy of the position he holds.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 13, 2010 at 0952 hrs
djmamayek – I am not accusing you or your family of ANYTHING for our nation’s past. So please stop accusing me of some manufactured guilt on my part, OK? You really don’t know enough about me to make that comment. Guilt??? Hardly. Save the guilt label for Senator Robert Byrd. If I have labeled you in the past as a “racist”, then I was wrong and I apologize for that. There are others here who fit that description. While I disagree with you a lot of the time, you are one of a small number of people on this board who is at least willing to engage in rational discussion without being inflammatory. Thanks for that. NOW!
It has forced upon society what should have been allowed to happen naturally.
No disagreement from me, except that it didn’t happen naturally. My point of listing multiple amendments and legislation was to show that, left on its own, society has proven time and time again that it will NOT do the right thing unless forced to do so by government interaction. How else was it going to happen? (BTW, I was just using Brown vs. Board of Education as an EXTREME example.)Slavery was wrong, we rectified it by amending the constitution. An action that the founding fathers knew would have to occur.
While the Constitution was amended, the problem of equal protection and rights was hardly rectified. The amendment became effective in 1865! Again, my point for citing multiple amendments and legislation. Do you honestly think that blacks had equal protection and rights upon the passing of that amendment? Are you aware of the failed Constitutional amendment forbidding interracial marriage?I want a level playing field, across the board. I want a truly colorblind society, and you are working against me on that.
So do I. Just how am I working against you?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 13, 2010 at 1002 hrs
Or is Holder’s policy of not prosecuting “black” voter intimidation enough for you?
Except he is not following a law telling him not to prosecute. Maybe you are trying to say laws are interpreted incorrectly and as such, are given as explanation to deny one group over another. The example I can think of is the firefighters case on the east coast. The people giving the supervisors test thought they needed x amount of minority applicants for the test to be valid. Since they didn’t get x minority applicants, they threw out the test. Which was proved incorrect via the courts.
Since Holder is actually NOT following a law specifically stating what you think, I would certainly like to see what else you have.
@MPP, Nice to see you added something mature to the discussion as usual. I still suggest you go back to rdw, where if you want to make a point, it doesn’t have to be based in reality.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 13, 2010 at 1007 hrs
“C’mon Bill. Grow the hell up! At least provide us with a half believable race hate crime scenario, will ya’?”
No, that’s a completely accurate portrayal of Samir Shabazz’s rhetoric. He’s an absolutely insane racist with just enough charisma to exploit other people’s anger. He’s like the KKK in that regard I guess. But he’s also a clown who most people laugh off, which is why there were no voter intimidation victims reporting this situation to the DA. Yes, yes, you’re going to kill my babies. I know, I know, I heard you on the bus last week.
No offense, but the things that might frighten and intimidate a Wisconsin suburbanite are not necessarily the same things that would frighten and intimidate your average Philladephan. Doesn’t make that kind of behavior right, but I think it’s more of a theoretical harm than an actual injury. And I also think they’re still a few million men short of a valid comparison to the second KKK.
PS - djmamayek, the 5th Amendment is the original equal protection/due process clause, and it did not apply equally, nor did it provide due process to blacks.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 13, 2010 at 1242 hrs
PS - djmamayek, the 5th Amendment is the original equal protection/due process clause, and it did not apply equally, nor did it provide due process to blacks
.
Huh, color me corrected. :scratch-head:
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Equal_protection
Guess not. The Fifth Amendment provides no such protections. The 14th was written specifically so no jurisdictions could deprive the freed slaves, now made citizens, of their fifth amendment (or any) rights.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 13, 2010 at 1303 hrs
Jason is an idiot, I was referring to the second iteration of the KKK, which numbered somewhere between 3 and 5 million people during the first half of the 1900s. That’s why I said the second KKK. This early 21st century version of the BPP would be its second iteration, hence the comparison.
djmamayek’s iPhone, the 14th amendment, like the 5th amendment, has both an equal protection clause and a due process clause. The article you link to is only discussing the equal protection portion of the 14th, but that doesn’t mean that’s the only, or the first, or the strongest equal protection guarantee in the US Constitution. The 5th amendment is the actual basis for our rights of due process and equal protection; the 14th just incorporated those rights to the states. That was necessary because, although the federal government was doing a decent (not great…) job of treating blacks like human beings, the states were not. But up to that point most of the US Constitution was only binding on the feds, not the states.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 13, 2010 at 1503 hrs
Here is the text of the 5th amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.Please, Jason, show me it’s equal protection clause?
The Fifth is the amendment which provides for due process, prevents double jeopardy, prevents self incrimination at trial, and protects private property. You are right about due process, you are wrong about equal protection… just pointing it out.
You are absolutely right that the 14th is pointed directly at the states, but the 5th Amendment does not provide for the equal protection of the laws, this is the very reason that the reconstruction amendments were written.
13th - Abolished and outlawed slavery.
14th - Gave former slaves equal rights, and the right to representation equaling their total sum.
15th - Gave former slaves the right to vote.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 13, 2010 at 1617 hrs
Black Panthers = club for racist black people
Tea Party = club for racist white people.
Gotta love America.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 13, 2010 at 1952 hrs
Black Panthers = club for racist black people
Tea Party = club for racist white people.
Gotta love America.
Posted by kate on July 13, 2010 at 1952 hrs
Gotta love your right to be an imbecile.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 13, 2010 at 2045 hrs
You’re right djmamayek, I thought of that as I was walking back to my office last night, and I apologize for being so flippant.
It’s not an equal protection clause per se in the 5th, but the concept of equal protection is derived from what came to be considered the substantive due process portion of the amendment – the portion that limits how laws may be applied, in this case with respect to “discrete and insular minorities.” It was the original basis for maintaining that people need to be treated equally under the law, which was eventually codified as its own amendment and imposed on the states using very explicit equal protection language. The 14th also incorporates other unremunerated 5th amendment rights to the states, but equal protection was the big one and became its own independent concept no longer tied to due process after the amendment was adopted. It wasn’t an entirely new idea though.
I agree with you to a large extent that you can’t force different people to get along by threatening or insulting them, it has to come about naturally as they spend more and more time around eachother. But there have been bumps in our nation’s history that necessitated legislative intervention. You can argue that the 14th forced the whole country to stop being blatantly racist even though they weren’t ready, but if it wasn’t done that way all the racists would just scamper off to the states that had no equal protection guarantees and continue their bigotry and racially isolated existence.
I actually agree with Rand Paul to some degree about the illegitimacy of using the commerce clause as the hook to enforce the Civil Rights Act too (which makes me incredibly popular in Madison, as you can imagine). But that was another time when things were just not going to change if there wasn’t some government mandate. What good does it do if the state government treats you equally but you still can’t eat in a restaurant or work in an office? Hard to call that equality, but it took another hundred years after the adoption of the 14th for black people to get anything even close to resembling equal treatment in this country. And 50 years later I think they’d still be waiting if it weren’t for that legislation.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 14, 2010 at 0839 hrs
Gotta love your right to be an imbecile.
You seem to exercise it daily!
It’s very telling that Scott(I-C) and friends don’t see how messed up his posts are. Belling fans, obviously. Mainstream racism foolishly denied.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 15, 2010 at 1053 hrs
You seem to exercise it daily!
About this, there can be NO doubt. Just ask my wife.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 16, 2010 at 0939 hrs
The only thing I see is Liberals acting like only Whites are capable of racism, while openly dismissing blatant Black racism. You people are pathetic enablers who’s actions encourage Black on White crime. Your criticisms and denigration of how I express myself matters little to me seeing as my counterparts are worse than I’ll ever be. I may mock their speech, but you’ve never seen me call for their deaths, nor their hos , or their illegitimate off spring.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 16, 2010 at 2104 hrs
The only thing I see is Liberals acting like only Whites are capable of racism, while openly dismissing blatant Black racism.
Not true. Here is what I wrote way back on post #10: “The only racism here is on the part of the New Black Panther Party and the individuals radical wing nuts involved.” While what this asshole said and what this group stands for is reprehensible, I think they are largely given a pass by the media because they are essentially irrelevant. They are neither a hate group of a civil rights group that is taken seriously by many people. Frankly, my impression is that few people, Black or White, even CARE about the New Black Panther Party.
You people are pathetic enablers who’s actions encourage Black on White crime.
Wow, I would love to see a shred of evidence or data from the Department of Justice supporting THAT asinine statement.
Your criticisms and denigration of how I express myself matters little to me seeing as my counterparts are worse than I’ll ever be.
Not sure what you mean by “your counterparts”. Are you referring to your fellow racist friends or us Liberals who are destroying the fabric of the American way of life one thread at a time? Either way, it appears it DOES matter to you as you are here on this board justifying yourself to people who you don’t care about.
I may mock their speech, but you’ve never seen me call for their deaths, nor their hos , or their illegitimate off spring.
So in other words, you may have made some racist statements or used racial stereotypes, but you’re nowhere as bad as the other guy??? And that makes you feel good about yourself??? Fine Scott, you just keep right on rationalizing and justifying your immature behavior and overall existence in life. The bottom line is you and I can’t control what some assholes say at a mock press conference at Chuck E. Cheese dressed like they just came from an audition for a video for the Janet Jackson Rhythm Nation Tour of 1990. But the 1st Amendment gives us all the right of free speech, no matter how ridiculous or hate filled it is. So while you’re free to say what you want, the 1st Amendment also gives me and others the right to call you on your bullshit. This not your first meltdown in this board. You may want to take a long look at yourself in the mirror and ask why you’re so angry.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 17, 2010 at 1606 hrs
Nice cut-and-paste job.
Interestingly, though, in this very long essay no law is cited that the alleged Panthers broke. I was always under the impression that when the DOJ brought charges, they were required to cite to specific criminal laws in Title 18 of the United States Code that had been broken.
So you tell us, in your own words, what law they broke.
Here is a link to the entire federal criminal code. Let’s see the law that they broke:
facebook backgroundsPosted by facebook backgrounds on July 20, 2010 at 0220 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134037
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 12:32 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 116
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 05:08 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).