Transparency - Not!
[QUOTE]President Obama granted plum jobs and appointments to almost 200 people who raised large sums for his presidential campaign, and his top fundraisers have won millions of dollars in federal contracts, according to a new report from the
Center for Public Integrity.
In one example, Telecom executive Donald H. Gips "bundled" half a million dollars in contributions to the president for his reelection campaign.
Gips went on to take charge of hiring in the Obama White House and (was later) named ambassador to South Africa. And his company, Level 3 Communications, was granted millions in stimulus contracts for broadband projects. Gips told iWatch he was "completely unaware" of the federal windfall. The company has taken $13.8 million in stimulus money.
The report found that 80 percent of Obama bundlers who raised $500,000 or more for Mr. Obama - many of whom are being asked to do the same for his reelection bid - ended up in "key administration posts," in the words of the White House.
Mr. Obama's decision to reward his donors follows the pattern of his presidential predecessors. But it flies in the face of his campaign promise to reduce the clout of moneyed special interests. The report shows how his bundlers ended up working in the Department of Justice, Department of Energy and the Federal Communications Commission, among other federal agencies, and been appointed to policy advisory commissions.
Read more:
I guess this just is the way it is. I still think it sucks. Don't care upon which side of the political fence you stand.
People who raised money for him, are people he can trust not to stab him in the back, once appointed.
I hear that.
Ranked by amount of money donated to Mr. Obama in 2008
2. Goldman Sachs, $994,795
6. Citibank, $701,290
7. JP Morgan Chase, $695,132
12. UBS Financial, $543,219
17. Morgan Stanley, $514,881
18. General Electric, $499,130
That's a lot of money...
Yes, but weren't they all playing both sides of the ballot?
Money buys things. That is why people spend money. Do we really think donors who spend 500,000 dollars or more are not buying something?? I don't think these were charitable contributions. I don't think there is anything really bad going on here....it is the way of the world.
@ Bruce - of course.
@Joe - "it is the way of the world."
but its gotta change.
I hear that.
Ranked by amount of money donated to Mr. Obama in 2008
2. Goldman Sachs, $994,795
6. Citibank, $701,290
7. JP Morgan Chase, $695,132
12. UBS Financial, $543,219
17. Morgan Stanley, $514,881
18. General Electric, $499,130
That's a lot of money...
Not disputing the money in politics, but these numbers regardless of the recipient, are a little deceiving in that they include contributions from any employees of the companies, from the CEO to the mail clerk or admin assistant.
Yeh, I know. but the list of names is rather interesting, no?
Notice any trends with those specific ones?
The only trend is that I would guess that many of the above probably also gave a near equal amount to the McCain campaign.
added:
And they probably all gave more to Republican congressional candidates in 2010. They tend to play both sides, but more on those they project to be the winners.
You could easily make a similar list of contributors to the Labour or Conservative Party and match it with the Honours list (people who get letters after their name or knighthoods or peerages from the Queen). All the world around, money buys you privilege. To pretend otherwise is naive.
Politics is politics, power is power. And no-one makes it to the top without a little baksheesh. But there are plenty of people who really are working for the public good and do not have the top of the tree as their intended destination. If more people VOTED for them, we'd all be more satisfied.
@ F&B
Probably - either way the big banks had/have their asses covered, even with all that talk & bluster of reform - Pah!
Yeh, I know. but the list of names is rather interesting, no?
Notice any trends with those specific ones?
Bush bailed them all out. Except GE
I win!:p:
@ F&B
Probably - either way the big banks had/have their asses covered, even with all that talk & bluster of reform - Pah!
How many people did Obama hire into his Administration from Goldman Sachs after the people gave them bailout money and golden parachutes?
Goldman was Obama’s biggest campaign contributor ($994,795) in 2008 and before that as a candidate to the Senate. Rahm took in $80,000 from Goldman Sachs as a Congressman and was on a $3,000 a month retainer from Goldman while he worked as Bill Clinton’s chief fund raiser.
Here is a short list:
http://my.firedoglake.com/fflambeau/2010/04/21/with-the-obama-administration-infested-with-goldman-sachs-people-how-real-is-the-obamademocratic-attack-on-big-banks/On a related subject.
Judicial Watch uncovered hundreds of documents from the City of Dayton, Ohio, showing that Department of Justice (DOJ) officials pressured the Dayton Police and Fire Departments to lower testing standards because not enough African-American candidates passed the written exam. On May 25, Judicial Watch also filed a lawsuit against the DOJ to obtain additional records related to the Dayton program after the DOJ failed to respond to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 11-971)).
http://biggovernment.com/tfitton/2011/06/10/racial-quota-scandal-at-obama-justice-department/And another!
The National Labor Relations Board continues to prove that the NLRB was established for Big Labor and Big Business while leaving employees out of the process. In complete arrogance, the NLRB has told South Carolina employees and their families that NLRB’s General Counsel Lafe Solomon’s plan to shut down Boeing’s South Carolina factory and eliminate jobs is none of their business.
As the National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation press release put it: “Obama NLRB to South Carolina Boeing Employees: ‘You Have No Stake in Your Jobs’”
Furthermore, the NLRB ruled that it was no one else’s business because it has chosen not to allow any amicus curiae briefs to be filed.
The Machinists union also scornfully rejected the employees’ concerns. Both Solomon and the Machinists argued that the case that Solomon has brought against Boeing is “. . . already complicated” and listening to employees’ concerns would only “ . . .complicate an already complicated proceeding.”
While the NLRB hides shamelessly behind the complications of the case, it fails to take responsibility for creating this unprecedented contorted legal argument that produced the complications that it claims prevents employees from having a say about their futures. This Big Labor powerplay that tramples on the livelihoods of South Carolina workers provides yet another reason for the Senate to reject Obama’s currently stalled appointment of Solomon and for voters to reject Obama in 2012.
http://biggovernment.com/dloos/2011/06/10/obama-nlrb-silences-sc-boeing-employees-voices-gen-counsel-says-employees-would-complicate-complex-case/The Obama SEC filed a civil action against Goldman Sachs in 2010 and the Obama DoJ is pursuing criminal charges.
What more can it do?
And then hired the same scumbags that were involved? Oh, I guess there is nothing more they could have done than give them all jobs. :rolleyes:
And then hired the same scumbags that were involved? Oh, I guess there is nothing more they could have done than give them all jobs. :rolleyes:
So the SEC and DoJ investigations are not enough?
I get it.
The DOJ has prove itself to be a failed and biased organization. The can't be trusted to carry out Obama's trash. Fact is Obama hired these scumbags into his administration after they got public money. I guess you think that it is ok to do that, I understand your love and devotion to the King.
The DOJ has prove itself to be a failed and biased organization. The can't be trusted to carry out Obama's trash. Fact is Obama hired these scumbags into his administration after they got public money. I guess you think that it is ok to do that, I understand your love and devotion to the King.
Oh. I forget that you think Holder is a racist.
Oh. I forget that you think Holder is a racist.
Holder is a racist.
The DOJ abandoned its own lawsuit against members of the radical New Black Panther Party who threatened and intimidated white voters on Election Day 2008. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence that white voters were intimidated. Even though a whistle-blower gave clear and convincing evidence in front of a Congressional hearing. Obama ignored it. Holder ignored it. But Obama could bring it upon himself to hold a "Beer Summit" when some idiot professor felt he was above the law. Yea, Holder is a GD racist.
Holder is a racist.
The DOJ abandoned its own lawsuit against members of the radical New Black Panther Party who threatened and intimidated white voters on Election Day 2008. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence that white voters were intimidated. Even though a whistle-blower gave clear and convincing evidence in front of a Congressional hearing. Obama ignored it. Holder ignored it. But Obama could bring it upon himself to hold a "Beer Summit" when some idiot professor felt he was above the law. Yea, Holder is a GD racist.
In fact, there was no evidence, other than one guy waiving a night stick, who was led away by police, Which, btw, was conveniently left out of the video that was the basis of the allegations raised by a Republican poll watcher.
There was not one voter who filed a charge of voter intimidation and yet Holder still filed a civil action against the guy that banned him from being at polling places for two years.
In fact, there was no evidence, other than one guy waiving a night stick, who was led away by police, Which, btw, was conveniently left out of the video that was the basis of the allegations raised by a Republican poll watcher.
There was not one voter who filed a charge of voter intimidation and yet Holder still filed a civil action against the guy that banned him from being at polling places for two years.
Bull shit. The video spoke for itself. SO the DOJ, until Holder and Obama came on scene just wasted all those months building a case? More Demoncratic propaganda. Now you and that racist Holder want to spin it. Laughable.
Bull shit. The video spoke for itself...
I know it is pointless to try to discuss this with someone who plays the "racist" card, but exactly what in this video meets the criteria of voter intimidation under the Voting Rights Act?
[YOUTUBE]neGbKHyGuHU[/YOUTUBE]
added:
The charges against the New Black Panthers were downgraded by the Bush Department of Justice:
The decision not to file a criminal case occurred before Obama was even in office.
This means that the case was downgraded to a civil case 11 days before Obama was inaugurated, 26 days before Eric Holder became attorney general, and about nine months before Thomas Perez was confirmed as head of the Civil Rights Division.
http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2010/07/12/bush-doj-decided-new-black-panthers-no-major-case/On a related subject.
http://biggovernment.com/tfitton/2011/06/10/racial-quota-scandal-at-obama-justice-department/
In fact, the new testing standards in Dayton, OH are a result of the settlement of an employment discrimination case that was initiated by the Bush DoJ.
The Department of Justice announced today that it has entered into a consent decree with the city of Dayton that, if approved by the court, will resolve the Department’s complaint that Dayton has been engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against African-Americans in its hiring of entry-level police officers and firefighters, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)...
...The United States’ complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in September 2008, alleges that Dayton’s use of an internally created written examination for screening entry-level police officer applicants, and its use of heightened minimum qualifications for entry-level firefighter applicants, i.e. requiring that applicants have EMT-Basic and Firefighter I and II certifications at the time they apply, resulted in disparate impact on African-Americans. The complaint also alleges that neither practice has been demonstrated by the city of Dayton to be job related and consistent with business necessity, in accordance with the requirements of Title VII.
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2009/February/09-crt-172.html
Does this make Holder a racist as well?
Holder is a God Damm Racist.
Holder is a God Damm Racist.
We certainly dont want the facts to cloud your judgement.
That would really make you look foolish. :eek:
It's almost never fair game to call racism.
It's almost never fair game to call racism.
Anytime the Chief DOJ favors one race over another he needs to be called out on it. The Demoncratic supporters are just sticking their head in the sand as they try to make excuses for his bad behavior. I will continue to draw attention to his racism.
Anytime the Chief DOJ favors one race over another he needs to be called out on it. The Demoncratic supporters are just sticking their head in the sand as they try to make excuses for his bad behavior. I will continue to draw attention to his racism.
When the current AG files the same civil injunction as was the final proposal of his predecessor as in the New Black Panther voter intimidation case, and
When the current AG is simply implementing and enforcing a settlement initiated by his predecessor and imposed by the courts and agreed to by the city, as in Dayton discrimination case...
One is left to wonder who is sticking his head in the sand.
Yep, well, anybody with any sense can see...anti-white racism is clearly the big problem for the US.
When the current AG files the same civil injunction as was the final proposal of his predecessor as in the New Black Panther voter intimidation case, and
When the current AG is simply implementing and enforcing a settlement initiated by his predecessor and imposed by the courts and agreed to by the city, as in Dayton discrimination case...
One is left to wonder who is sticking his head in the sand.
Anyone who supports that fool Holder is sticking their head in the sand. Now you want to spin it as "simply doing what his predecessor did" is pure political spin. You can't spin the deliberate racism of the current DOJ.
Yep, well, anybody with any sense can see...anti-white racism is clearly the big problem for the US.
It should have nothing to do with color. That is the point.
SO, first these people are hired to do the right thing and now they are lying under oath to a Congressional inquiry? I don't think so....
To the contrary, two Justice Department lawyers have sworn under oath that Justice's Civil Rights Division exhibits a pervasive hostility against race-neutral enforcement of the law. They independently cited multiple examples of this hostility, an attitude supported by Obama appointees. Four more former department officials - two in sworn affidavits - confirmed the bias. The same thing was told to The Washington Post last autumn by three current Justice lawyers and corroborated by other officials to The Washington Times.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/6/holder-corrupts-black-panther-probe-282218736/ Judicial Watch is exposing the emptiness of open-government promises by President Obama and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. These Democrats have stiffed the legal public-interest group’s Freedom of Information requests related to the Justice Department’s dismissal of a voter-intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party. Judicial Watch’s Dec. 7 filings reveal the false basis for the administration’s novel claims of “privilege” against disclosure.
Judicial Watch says Justice has withheld “approximately 80 documents in their entirety.” The department claims many are protected by the “deliberative process privilege.” That exemption from disclosure is intended to provide for what the administration calls “a more fulsome decision-making process” without fear of staffers being embarrassed by suggestions they made merely to examine all sides of an issue.
Courts long have established that this privilege applies only to memorandums that are “pre-decisional.” Once a decision has been made and enacted, the deliberative process has ended. Many of the unreleased documents were created after Justice ended the Black Panther case and thus clearly were not part of the deliberative process. Judicial Watch bolsters its common-sense argument by citing the Supreme Court precedent in NLRB v. Sears (1975): “Communications made after the decision and designed to explain it are not privileged.” Case closed.
The disputed documents remain important for understanding how the Black Panther case was bungled and also for examination of the more serious issue of whether Mr. Holder’s team as a matter of policy shows a “hostility to race-neutral enforcement” of the laws. On another level, what’s highly disturbing is what Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton calls the Obama administration’s “contemptuous attitude” toward the public’s legal rights to government transparency. Claiming pre-decisional privilege for actions taken after a case is over is contemptuous of the public’s right to know.
Mr. Obama and Mr. Holder repeatedly have promised what the president called “an unmatched level of transparency, participation and accountability across the entire administration.” Mr. Holder likewise advertised “a presumption of disclosure to all FOIA requests.” That Holder quote is from March 15. The next day, Associated Press ran a story that the liberal Huffington Post headlined “Obama’s broken promise: Federal agencies not more transparent under Obama administration.” By August, the left-leaning Sunlight Foundation headlined a report saying the White House “Abandons commitment to transparency.” On Dec. 8, Sunlight Executive Director Ellen S. Miller concluded, “Simply put, the president’s commitment to transparency is not yet living up to its full potential.”
On matters large and small - from the dismissal of inspectors general to the identities of Justice Department lawyers who represented suspected terrorist detainees and to the myriad issues stemming from the Black Panther investigation - this administration has turned Nixonian stonewalling into a political fortress of obfuscation. Federal District Judge Reggie B. Walton, who is overseeing the Judicial Watch case, shouldn’t allow it. The judge should personally examine the documents in question and release those for which the privilege claims are spurious.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/13/no-sunlight-on-black-panthers/Yep, well, anybody with any sense can see...anti-white racism is clearly the big problem for the US.
Extremism relies on spreading ignorance and intolerance. That is what we have seen here with the baseless charge of racism given the misrepresentation of the two cases in question - the New Black Panther Party and Dayton. One can disagree with the DoJ actions, but to characterize it as racism is extreme.
The questions remains whether it is out of ignorance or intolerance.
One can disagree with the DoJ actions, but to characterize it as racism is extreme.
Blatant abuse of power to promote and support the actions of one race over others. Pretty clear to me.
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?
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.
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?
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?
Do you have any proof of this new prevailing attitude?
because it really sounds like you're the one being racist right now.
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.
Do you have any proof of this new prevailing attitude?
because it really sounds like you're the one being racist right now.
What prevailing attitude. Cases should be taken on merit, not race. Just because a person is white does not mean they can not experience racism. Just because a person is some other color than white does not mean standards should be lowered to ensure that people with less merit are promoted above those who previously met the standards for promotion.
What prevailing attitude. Cases should be taken on merit, not race. Just because a person is white does not mean they can not experience racism. Just because a person is some other color than white does not mean standards should be lowered to ensure that people with less merit are promoted above those who previously met the standards for promotion.
So blame Bush and Mukasey for their actions.
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.
So blame Bush and Mukasey for their actions.
Are they still in those jobs?
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.
Hardly baseless charges. They are quite public.
A new supervisor, Julie Fernandes, arrived to oversee the voting section, and Coates testified that she told lawyers at a September 2009 lunch that the Obama administration was interested in filing cases - under a key voting rights section - only on behalf of minorities.
"Everyone in the room understood exactly what she meant," Coates said. "No more cases like the Ike Brown or New Black Panther Party cases."
Fernandes, through a department spokeswoman, declined to comment.
A few months later, Coates requested a transfer to the U.S. attorney's office in South Carolina. When colleagues scheduled a farewell lunch, one lawyer who attended said Coates vented his frustrations, criticizing the department for failing to enforce the law "on a nonracial basis.''
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 you have any proof of this new prevailing attitude?
because it really sounds like you're the one being racist right now.
What prevailing attitude. Cases should be taken on merit, not race. Just because a person is white does not mean they can not experience racism. Just because a person is some other color than white does not mean standards should be lowered to ensure that people with less merit are promoted above those who previously met the standards for promotion.
You tell me what prevailing attitude. You're the one who suggested it.
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.
You tell me what prevailing attitude. You're the one who suggested it.
Read the link and get back to me.
Which link? I asked a simple question about what you classified as a 'prevailing attitude' and then you seemed to back off it.
Hardly baseless charges. They are quite public.
I think it was Abigail Thernstrom, the very conservative Republican vice chairman of the Civil Rights Commission who said (paraphrasing) hearsay and unsubstantiated allegations from former Republican appointees to the DoJ are hardly evidence of some vast conspiracy within the DoJ.
Yet, those who are predisposed to believe, will believe and take it as fact.
I think it was Abigail Thernstrom, the very conservative Republican vice chairman of the Civil Rights Commission who said (paraphrasing) hearsay and unsubstantiated allegations from former Republican appointees to the DoJ are hardly evidence of some vast conspiracy within the DoJ.
Major fail on your part Shillster....
The complaint went to Christopher Coates, the section's chief. A respected voting expert, Coates had been hired at Justice during the Clinton administration after a stint with the American Civil Liberties Union. His name appeared in an internal watchdog report criticizing politicized hiring at the division during the Bush administration. The report referred to him as "a true member of the team."
Which link? I asked a simple question about what you classified as a 'prevailing attitude' and then you seemed to back off it.
I am not backing off of it. This is one, you will have to go back through the threads to look up the others.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/22/AR2010102206650.html?wprss=rss_printYou all enjoy! Off to cook some steak on the barbie! :D
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's right - there is no such thing as racism. In fact, there never has been. :right:
Why is racism wrong, Spexx?
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.
Why is racism wrong, Spexx?
Do you really need to ask that, Tony?
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.
Yeah I do, or rather Biggie wants me to go on.
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?
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.
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:
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.
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.:D
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.:D
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.
Facts are facts? lol Maybe if you were prsenting 'facts' rather than selecting the opinions of some which (as has been pointed out) don;t tally with the opinions of others in the same article.
[YOUTUBE]neGbKHyGuHU[/YOUTUBE]
Just to be Fair & Balanced - the Fox version (notice the differing) headlines
[YOUTUBE]qX4dcvIYk9A&feature[/YOUTUBE]
ETA - I have no sound on my computer here at work, so I don't know what the audio on either video is.
Figured that I'd post these so everyone can see what the conversation is about.
Personally, I would be more than a little concerned about the guy wielding a nightstick. Enough to leave and go to another place? If I could, sure. I don't know how that works though.
Were laws broken? Somehow the answer is no. Either way I don't think its proper for a man to be wielding a weapon outside a polling place, unless you are a police officer.
I actually posted the first video earlier and asked Mercenary to explain how it met the law's criteria for voter intimidation.
And what Fox and others never showed was the second video that shows the cops confroting the two NBP party members; one of whom (w/o the nightstick) was an official poll watcher authorized by the city, a fact neglected to be reported by Fox et al.
[YOUTUBE]IFOKnJ0oXYY[/YOUTUBE]
Were laws broken? Somehow the answer is no. Either way I don't think its proper for a man to be wielding a weapon outside a polling place, unless you are a police officer.
The Voting Rights Act is pretty specific as to what constitutes voter intimidation, which is why neither the Bush D0J nor the current DoJ pursued criminal charges and why both sought civil injunctions against the guy with the night stick.
The description from
from wiki
During the 2008 presidential election, poll watchers found two New Black Panther militia members shouting racial slurs outside a polling place in Philadelphia.[23] One of the two was a credentialed poll watcher, while the other was a New Black Panther member who had brought a police-style nightstick baton. A University of Pennsylvania student, Stephen Robert Morse, was hired by the local Republican Party on behalf of the John McCain presidential campaign to film the incident.[24] His video aired on several news outlets throughout the country. Republican poll watcher Chris Hill stated that voters had been complaining about intimidation, while the District Attorney's office stated that they had not been contacted by any voters.[25] The New Black Panther with the nightstick was escorted away by the police.[26][27]
On January 7, 2009, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a civil suit against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members alleging violations of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 over the incident at the Philadelphia polling place. The suit accused members King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson of being outside a polling location wearing the uniform of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, and said "that Shabazz repeatedly brandished a police-style baton weapon.[28] The suit sought an injunction preventing further violations of the Voting Rights Act. After the defendants did not appear for court, a default judgment was entered.[citation needed] On May 29, 2009, the Department of Justice requested and received an injunction against the member who had carried the nightstick, but against the advice of prosecutors who had worked on the case, department superiors ordered the suit dropped against the remaining members. On July 6, 2010, J. Christian Adams, a former lawyer for the Justice Department, testified before the Commission on Civil Rights and alleged that the case was dropped because the Justice Department did not want to protect the civil rights of white people.[29] Former Civil Rights Division Voting Section Chief Christopher Coates testified on September 24, 2010, that the case was dismissed because of "deep seated hostility to the equal enforcement of the Voting Rights Act against racial minorities." [30] Abigail Thernstrom, the Republican-appointed vice chairwoman of the Commission who has "recently voted consistently with the Democrats" on the Commission,[31] dismissed Adam's allegations and said the Department's resources were better spent elsewhere, given that the evidence did not meet the "very high" legal standards to support voter intimidation: "After months of hearing, testimony and investigation, no one has produced any actual evidence that any voters were too scared to cast their ballots."[32]
I got all that F&B. Lets look at it a little more realistically. If my daughter was going there to vote and these guys were out front shouting racial slurs and brandishing a nightstick... I can tell you with virtual certainty that she would not vote.
I also doubt very highly that she would call the DA. Nor do I think she is in the minority (no pun intended)
I got a laugh out of the last line of the Wiki:
Abigail Thernstrom, the Republican-appointed vice chairwoman of the Commission who has "recently voted consistently with the Democrats" on the Commission, dismissed Adam's allegations and said the Department's resources were better spent elsewhere, given that the evidence did not meet the "very high" legal standards to support voter intimidation: "After months of hearing, testimony and investigation, no one has produced any actual evidence that any voters were too scared to cast their ballots."
Thompson, the very conservative Vice Chair voted with the Democrats on the Commission once before and that translates to "consistently"?
I got all that F&B. Lets look at it a little more realistically. If my daughter was going there to vote and these guys were out front shouting racial slurs and brandishing a nightstick... I can tell you with virtual certainty that she would not vote.
I also doubt very highly that she would call the DA. Nor do I think she is in the minority (no pun intended)
Shouting racial slurs? I missed that in the video.
Was he holding the nightstick in a threatening manner?
Or was the Republican video guy making more out of it than accutually occured, particularly given the second with the cops on the scene that the right seems to ignore.
an official poll watcher authorized by the city, a fact neglected to be reported by Fox et al.
FYI in PA a poll watcher oversees the vote count at the end of the voting day. It's not an appointed or paid position, merely a notice that it's OK for them to be there and watch the count.
FYI the job of a poll watcher is to oversee the count at the end of the day, not to actually watch the polling place.
Not in my experience.
The role is partisan by its very nature, but requires approval by the election board and it is to watch over the election process on behalf of a candidate or party.
Quite frankly, the only race issue I am beginning to see here is something approaching racial stereotyping (scary black men).
But to be clear, I am not suggesting the Republican videographer or anyone in this discussion is racist.
Sorry for my late edit. I am talking about what a poll watcher is in Pennsylvania. The poll watcher's duty starts when the poll closes. You are there to watch the count.
I could show you the relevant statute, as I have read it. I have known and worked with many poll watchers my whole life, starting from when I was just a lad. I have run candidacies at every level in this state. My ex was Inspector of Elections for a decade.
These days the count pretty much consists of pressing a button and printing out the numbers from each machine.
I know it varies by state as do the laws regarding electioneering outside a polling station or even videotaping outside a polling station.
But I still havent seen any evidence of voter intimidation as defined under the Voting Rights Act, just allegations.
So I am still trying to understand how Holder filing a civil injuntion against the guy with a nightstick is racist.
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.
Quite frankly, the only race issue I am beginning to see here is something approaching racial stereotyping (scary black men).
But to be clear, I am not suggesting the Republican videographer or anyone in this discussion is racist.
Ahhh - the race card, then pulling it back? Well played. Weak, but well played.
Since I'm simple or whatever it is you said... Fill in the blank for me. Who is that is racially stereotyping?
Ahhh - the race card, then pulling it back? Well played. Weak, but well played.
Since I'm simple or whatever it is you said... Fill in the blank for me. Who is that is racially stereotyping?
Those who put selected opinion over fact along with those who continue to look for a way to rationalize the charge of Holder as a racist.
You think it is weak for me to raise the issue of racial stereotyping but not weak to charge the AG with racism based on nothing other than opionions of other partisns?
Too fucking bad if you dont like what I posted.
I took it as directed toward me. If that is the case, you are goddamned right I don't like it.
[COLOR="Yellow"]If not, ... Gilda/never mind/Radnor.[/COLOR]
I took it as directed toward me. If that is the case, you are goddamned right I don't like it.
[COLOR="Yellow"]If not, ... Gilda/never mind/Radnor.[/COLOR]
Where on the video is anyone shouting racial slurs or brandishing a night stick in a threaghtening manner as you suggested?
Those characterizations, without substantiation, sounds like racial stereotyping to me.
And I played the race card, but not Mercenary. What discussion have you been following?
So the simple answer is "Yes Classic, I'm calling you a racist."
Man the fuck up and say it!
From my Post #79
I have no sound on my computer here at work, so I don't know what the audio on either video is.
From the wiki link in post #80
During the 2008 presidential election, poll watchers found two New Black Panther militia members
[COLOR="Red"]shouting racial slurs [/COLOR]
outside a polling place in Philadelphia.
So the simple answer is "Yes Classic, I'm calling you a racist."
Man the fuck up and say it!
From my Post #79
From the wiki link in post #80
You suggest racial slurs with not even listening and based solely on a Republican poll watcher.
And you want me to man the fuck up?
Dont count on it.
...If my daughter was going there to vote and these guys were out front shouting racial slurs and brandishing a nightstick...
What slurs, what brandishing?
At the very least, asumptions make you look like an ass.
You want me to man the fuck up?
Dont count on it.
I haven't - not for a long time. You are incapable.
At this point, I'll just move on. Everything was very clear. You called me a racist - plain and simple. I have less than anything nice to say to you.
There can be no further discussion. It is not worth it - rather YOU are not worth it.
I haven't - not for a long time. You are incapable.
At this point, I'll just move on. Everything was very clear. You called me a racist - plain and simple. I have less than anything nice to say to you.
There can be no further discussion. It is not worth it - rather YOU are not worth it.
Cool. Your over-sensitive ego is rearing its ugly head again.
Believe what you want and keep making your assumptions about racial slurs based on not actually having heard one but based solely on one partisan's word.
Thats not racial stereotyping. :eyebrow:
What an asshole you are for again tryin to defend calling me a racist instead of simply admitting you are totally wrong and, god forbid, apologizing.
You still don't get it. I take it very personal to be called that.
Off to ignore land you go - You may now kindly go fuck yourself.
What an asshole you are for again tryin to defend calling me a racist instead of simply admitting you are totally wrong and, god forbid, apologizing.
You still don't get it. I take it very personal to be called that.
Off to ignore land you go - You may now kindly go fuck yourself.
Damn, dude.
Take a breath and read what I posted:
Quite frankly, the only race issue I am beginning to see here is something approaching racial stereotyping (scary black men).
But to be clear, I am not suggesting the Republican videographer or anyone in this discussion is racist.
You obviously dont understand the difference between "approaching racial stereotyping," which by the way people do every day and for the most part is not with with racist intent, as opposed to calling you or anyone a racist, which I thought I made clear in my post that there was a distinction between the two, but that you evidently read it with a defensive closed mind.
When you suggest your daughter might feel threatened by black men in street clothes, looking mean and holding a club but with no evidence of intent to harm or threaten her, IMO, that is approaching racial stereotyping. Much like a woman walking down the street pulling her handbag closer to her body as a tough looking black man approaches her as opposed to a white guy in the same street clothes. It is not racist, it is a reaction based on racial stereotype.
You get defensive, overly sensitive and then overreact and get even more defensive and the nasty side comes out.
And that my friend, is your problem, not mine.
ps. I really hope you take a second look with a more open mind, but its your choice. If you want to apologize for overreacting, that is your choice as well. It doesnt really matter to me either way. :)
Those who put selected opinion over fact along with those who continue to look for a way to rationalize the charge of Holder as a racist.
You think it is weak for me to raise the issue of racial stereotyping but not weak to charge the AG with racism based on nothing other than opionions of other partisns?
Too fucking bad if you dont like what I posted.
:lol:
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.
Hey, I'm still trying to understand how the Bush DoJ filing charges of employment discrimination against City of Dayton, what you might characterize as a race motivated decision or the federal court making what you might characterize as a race motivated settlement, makes Holder, who had nothing to do with either action, the racist.
I read your last post thinking perhaps you had finally come to your senses and apologized.
I thought I would have missed it with you on ignore.
I should have known better.
Lets get this right - I'll try one last time.
My daughter will most likely feel, as I think most women would, threatened by
men in street clothes,
looking mean, waving a club and shouting racial slurs (ie. looking threatening or like they may harm her.)
Much like a woman walking down the street pulling her handbag closer to her body as a tough looking
man/men approach her.
It is not racist, it is wise of them, and it is reality.
ps. If you want to apologize for me calling you a racist, that is your choice as well.
The odds of me apologizing for you calling me a racist are ZERO.
Hey, I'm still trying to understand how the Bush DoJ filing charges of employment discrimination against City of Dayton, what you might characterize as a race motivated decision or the federal court making what you might characterize as a race motivated settlement, makes Holder, who had nothing to do with either action, the racist.
Holder drives the train. The result is nothing short of Affirmative Action, which is a racist program in and of itself. He could have stopped it, just like he did when he stopped the action against the voter intimidation case. Everything he does is suspect as being race motivated as evidenced by the testimony of the whistleblowers in the voter case.
Holder drives the train. The result is nothing short of Affirmative Action, which is a racist program in and of itself. He could have stopped it, just like he did when he stopped the action against the voter intimidation case. Everything he does is suspect as being race motivated as evidenced by the testimony of the whistleblowers in the voter case.
In fact, he couldnt have just not enforced a court order w/o being in contempt of court, far different from making a determination to file a civil injunction as opposed to a criminal complaint in the NBP case.
Ah...I see.
Corrective affirmation action (short of hard quotas) is a racist program.
So does that make every every president since the 60s, the Supreme Court on numerous occasions, and much of the public racists? Or basically, anyone who doesnt share your position on affirmative action.
added:
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.:D
Actually, the fact is that in the Dayton case, Holder acted within the law by enforcing the court order but you want him to go outside the law.
BTW, he didnt go outside the law in the NBP case either.
I'm so confused.
My daughter will most likely feel, as I think most women would, threatened by men in street clothes,
looking mean, waving a club and shouting racial slurs (ie. looking threatening or like they may harm her.)
Much like a woman walking down the street pulling her handbag closer to her body as a tough looking man/men approach her.
So your daughter isn't racist, she's sexist! :lol::rotflol:
So your daughter isn't racist, she's sexist! :lol::rotflol:
You know what the Bible says. Sins of the father.....
Or maybe that just applies to sons.
I read your last post thinking perhaps you had finally come to your senses and apologized.
I thought I would have missed it with you on ignore.
I should have known better.
Lets get this right - I'll try one last time.
My daughter will most likely feel, as I think most women would, threatened by men in street clothes,
looking mean, waving a club and shouting racial slurs (ie. looking threatening or like they may harm her.)
Much like a woman walking down the street pulling her handbag closer to her body as a tough looking man/men approach her.
It is not racist, it is wise of them, and it is reality.
The odds of me apologizing for you calling me a racist are ZERO.
So you still dont get the difference between racial stereotyping and racism.
I am secure in knowing what I posted and making it clear that I was not calling anyone a racist.
And you're still lashing out at me by falsely characterizing what I wrote rather than looking inward at your own defensiveness and insecurities. Oh well, too bad for you.
The self-described "most transparent administration in history" announced it will not "read out the dialogue from the meetings" on the debt and deficit negotiations.

Perhaps they're trying to be nice and not make EVERY "R" look like a total asshole for holding them hostage on SS when it has virtually NOTHING to do with this.
but thats just a guess.
So our president storms out of a meeting over the debt. At least he is doing something.
Perhaps he figured that since the R's had done it a couple times ... ... ...
meh never mind.