Transparency - Not!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

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.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

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.

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.