Liberal free for all coming to an end

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I'm hearing crickets. Were you going to answer this?

I didn't answer because I cannot figure out what you are asking. Your question was: "So what did all that turn out to be?" I have absolutely no idea what "all that" is in the context of "turn out."

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

I didn't answer because I cannot figure out what you are asking. Your question was: "So what did all that turn out to be?" I have absolutely no idea what "all that" is in the context of "turn out."

The government was in the process of suing Black Panther members who were wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place on an election day. The case was moving along and then Obama's newly staffed DOJ had the case dropped.
An article about it is here.

You said it was all a hoax. So what were the Black Panther guys doing there with nightsticks and who was perpetrating the hoax?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The government was in the process of suing Black Panther members who were wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place on an election day. The case was moving along and then Obama's newly staffed DOJ had the case dropped.
An article about it is here.

You said it was all a hoax. So what were the Black Panther guys doing there with nightsticks and who was perpetrating the hoax?

I want to make clear that I am a supporter of neither the furthest left wing of the Democratic Party, the furthest right wing of the Republican Party, Libertarianism, or anything in between those poles. My interest in this issue has to do with truth and reasonable discourse about things that actually matter.

So, with that disclaimer, here is my response, Tracy.

You are correct about one thing, and it has to do with my use of the word "hoax." I misused that word by failing to make the context clear. What I meant was that the charge that the political appointees of Obama overruled "career attorneys" to have the case dropped is a hoax.

Anyone who wants to know the true story, based on full quotes that are contextual, would be wise to go beyond the Washington Times story to which you provide a link. That is a biased newspaper by any reasonable journalistic standards, and the headline of the story you linked to is proof. Why? Because it was "career lawyers" at DOJ who recommended dropping the case, and a federal judge who accepted the rationale for dropping the case. Obama political appointees only okayed the recommendation before it was passed on to the judge.

I suggest reading this Newsweek article for a fuller, less partisan, explanation: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/14/t...ew-acorn0.html

Don't get me wrong: voter intimidation is wrong. I believe the lunatic fringe New Black Panther Party (denounced by the establishe BPP, by the way), sought to intimidate voters as part of its periodic publicity stunts. But your charge is about the Obama DOJ subverting the law and the constitution.

As a conservative member of the Commission on Civil Rights says at the end of the article to which I've linked, there is a plenty of stuff to criticize Obama about (I would add: from the left or the right). She aptly notes that to pin this incident on him only lessens the validity of conservative criticism.

Tracy, I feel that your points would be stronger if you stuck to substantive arguments about foreign policy, economic policy, and so on, and got away from the distractions that are pushed from both sides to avoid us, as Americans, having those important discussions.

[randolph]

I suggest reading this Newsweek article for a fuller, less partisan, explanation: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/14/t...ew-acorn0.html

Don't get me wrong: voter intimidation is wrong. I believe the lunatic fringe New Black Panther Party (denounced by the establishe BPP, by the way), sought to intimidate voters as part of its periodic publicity stunts. But your charge is about the Obama DOJ subverting the law and the constitution.

As a conservative member of the Commission on Civil Rights says at the end of the article to which I've linked, there is a plenty of stuff to criticize Obama about (I would add: from the left or the right). She aptly notes that to pin this incident on him only lessens the validity of conservative criticism.
Tracy, I feel that your points would be stronger if you stuck to substantive arguments about foreign policy, economic policy, and so on, and got away from the distractions that are pushed from both sides to avoid us, as Americans, having those important discussions.

Very well put SMC.
Tracy is very well informed from a very conservative standpoint. Fortunately, the truth lies somewhere in the middle of all these ultra liberal and ultra conservative views.

[tslust]

Tommorrow's the big day boys and gurls.

[randolph]

I hope tomorrow is not the start of Armageddon.
There is lots of good people out there, they just need to VOTE!

[tslust]

Originally Posted by randolph

I hope tomorrow is not the start of Armageddon.
There is lots of good people out there, they just need to VOTE!

That first cartoon funny.

In all seriousness, and not to open a can of worms, the Federal government needs to be downsized.

[Slavetoebony]

If voting changed anything the establishment would make it illegal.

Stay at home. Don't bother to vote. Regardless of what party they belong to, they are all a bunch of crooks.

[ts_addict]

Could an American answer a question for me please... Why is it that people over there don't like the idea of having a national health service?

Our (UK) NHS service is something we couldn't live without and if the government said we had to pay for everything there would be riots.

[Rainrider]

Well I found a discussion I like. After reading so many of the post, I seem to forget what was said, so I will just add my little bit. Some one said the right does not have to feared, your right. If we can bring down the size of Government, they will by proxy have less to do with state law, and so leaving most things in the hands of the state. As the constitution has made clear it should be. The people have the right to govern them-selves. Some thing long forgotten by DC. Most folks don't know it any more, but in your county the Sheriff has the upper hand in all matters of law. Or should have by the constitution. Just as the left has set asaid the fact the the will of the people is what should make laws not them and what they alone want.
I also seen a list of nations that have Socialized Health-care. Of them almost every one is looking at it being a burden they can not keep up. I work in Health care, and I can tell you that what I see them doing to be ready for Obummer care is not a good thing. Most of the Docs, are looking to relocate in a nation that does not have government controlled health care. It has nothing to with their pay, they are looking to find a place they can do some good. The elderly in this nation will be forced out long term care and sent home, this is not a good thing. You see the care they get in long turm care is meant to give them a little more time on this earth. I work in long term care, and most of the family members I talk with simply can not give the care that is needed. Obummercare does have some good points don't get me wrong. Nothing in this world is with out them. Yet if you look at the cuts that will be made in medicare and medacade just to pay for all the people that will be added to them, it simply adds up to less coverage, and lower quality of care. If any thinks this is wrong, ask any one that lives in Canada why they would rather come to the USA for care.
Now lets talk about taxes. The only way to ever gt the rich to pay their share is go to a flat tax. this will do many thing for this nation. First off every one will be paying in the same. If you make 100 that year you would pay in 15. (assuming a 15% flat tax) if you make a mil you pay in 150,000, I think the math is right any how. Next, we would not have to pay out what ever it is to keep IRS working. Big savings there I bet. Cap and Tax will only drive this nation further into debt. How? With the passing of that bill you will see your house hold bills double if not more. If their is less disposable cash, then we don't spend as much. if we don't spend, we also do not produce. You see if it cost more to make, then we have one of 2 things happen. Bissness closes, we import more to make up for that. Or they move over seas. Ether way jobs are lost. With that comes less income, and more unemployment going out.
Sorry for all the misspelled words, I am dyslexic and my spell check does not work on this sight for some reason. It was earlier.
Ok got it working, Hope I fixed all the misspelled words, if not forgive me.

[Vickieslut]

It cannot end soon enough for me. I am a rare breed a tranny who loves cock and is a die hard republican conservative.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

What I meant was that the charge that the political appointees of Obama overruled "career attorneys" to have the case dropped is a hoax.

Anyone who wants to know the true story, based on full quotes that are contextual, would be wise to go beyond the Washington Times story to which you provide a link. That is a biased newspaper by any reasonable journalistic standards, and the headline of the story you linked to is proof. Why? Because it was "career lawyers" at DOJ who recommended dropping the case, and a federal judge who accepted the rationale for dropping the case. Obama political appointees only okayed the recommendation before it was passed on to the judge.

I suggest reading this Newsweek article for a fuller, less partisan, explanation: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/14/t...ew-acorn0.html

So rather than reading Washington Times' article, I should read the Newsweek article? In this article is

Originally Posted by Newsweek

So how did the incident become a replay of the ACORN scandal? There's some resemblance between the two: an organization with unacceptable practices and a vague connection to the Obama administration (through voter registration drives in the ACORN case and Justice Department litigation in the Panther case) becomes a tool for critics of the White House to attack it as corrupt and illegitimate. But as in the ACORN case, the scandal is minimal (much of the ACORN hit has been discredited)?and the allegations against Obama flimsy.

Note the link for 'discredited' in the last sentence which is a link to Media Matters. This unbiased article uses Media Matters as a source? Do you know how biased Media Matters is? They receive millions from wealthy liberals, and funds from moveon.org and the New Democrat Network.

Rather than writing about some week correlation between the voter intimidation story and the Acorn scandal in an attempt to downplay both why doesn't he report these facts:
* After winning a case of voter intimidation against The New Black Panther Party, the Obama Department of Justice inexplicably dropped the charges.

* The direct ties between the NAACP and The New Black Panther Party.

* J. Christian Adams, a legitimate government whistle-blower who has testified that he was told by his fellow DOJ staffers to all but ignore cases where the defendant is a minority and the plaintiff white.

Originally Posted by smc

Tracy, I feel that your points would be stronger if you stuck to substantive arguments about foreign policy, economic policy, and so on, and got away from the distractions that are pushed from both sides to avoid us, as Americans, having those important discussions.

I have commented about Obama's foreign policy and economic policy as well as health care and other major topics. But right now there's a pretty big election going on and I think the constant efforts of the left to illegally and dishonestly influence elections is also a major topic. There's ACORN who have been busted all over the country trying to register people multiple times or register non-existent people. There's the odd voter machines in Nevada that list Harry Reid as a default. There's even the White House who wanted to move the census from the Department of Commerce to the White House in a blatant attempt to influence future elections. The DOJ sent 400 people to Arizona, not to ensure that illegals do not vote, but to watchdog Arizona officials who are trying to ensure that illegals do not vote. Subversion of elections by the left is reaching epidemic levels and for the legitimacy of the government it has to stop.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

So rather than reading Washington Times' article, I should read the Newsweek article? In this article is Note the link for 'discredited' in the last sentence which is a link to Media Matters. This unbiased article uses Media Matters as a source? Do you know how biased Media Matters is? They receive millions from wealthy liberals, and funds from moveon.org and the New Democrat Network.

Rather than writing about some week correlation between the voter intimidation story and the Acorn scandal in an attempt to downplay both why doesn't he report these facts:
* After winning a case of voter intimidation against The New Black Panther Party, the Obama Department of Justice inexplicably dropped the charges.

* The direct ties between the NAACP and The New Black Panther Party.

* J. Christian Adams, a legitimate government whistle-blower who has testified that he was told by his fellow DOJ staffers to all but ignore cases where the defendant is a minority and the plaintiff white.



I have commented about Obama's foreign policy and economic policy as well as health care and other major topics. But right now there's a pretty big election going on and I think the constant efforts of the left to illegally and dishonestly influence elections is also a major topic. There's ACORN who have been busted all over the country trying to register people multiple times or register non-existent people. There's the odd voter machines in Nevada that list Harry Reid as a default. There's even the White House who wanted to move the census from the Department of Commerce to the White House in a blatant attempt to influence future elections. The DOJ sent 400 people to Arizona, not to ensure that illegals do not vote, but to watchdog Arizona officials who are trying to ensure that illegals do not vote. Subversion of elections by the left is reaching epidemic levels and for the legitimacy of the government it has to stop.

When you can see past your anger and read what I actually wrote, instead of what you think I'm saying, perhaps we can have a conversation. Just don't attribute to me things I didn't write.

In the meanwhile, since subversion of elections is on your mind, why don't you tell us where you stand on the the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" ruling. Did you enjoy all the advertisements on TV paid for by undisclosed donors? Do you think that is "subversion of elections"?

[randolph]

Sigh, two years of gridlock.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Sigh, two years of gridlock.

Yes, unfortunately there will be gridlock, but at least they will be spending less

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I'm hearing crickets. Were you going to answer this?

Originally Posted by smc

In the meanwhile, since subversion of elections is on your mind, why don't you tell us where you stand on the the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" ruling. Did you enjoy all the advertisements on TV paid for by undisclosed donors? Do you think that is "subversion of elections"?

When I didn't answer a question of yours, TracyCoxx. you posted your "hearing crickets" comment (above) -- implying that I was avoiding answering. I explained that your question was unclear, and as soon as you clarified it I answered.

Now I've posed some clear, direct questions to you. You've been back to the thread since those questions were posted, but have skipped over them. Perhaps you'd like to retract the implication of your "cricket" comment?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

When I didn't answer a question of yours, TracyCoxx. you posted your "hearing crickets" comment (above) -- implying that I was avoiding answering.

Yes, after several days.

Originally Posted by smc

Now I've posed some clear, direct questions to you. You've been back to the thread since those questions were posted, but have skipped over them.

Your impatience runs out after several hours. Sorry to keep you waiting but when I posted my last post it was from my cell phone. I save the deeper discussions for when I'm on my laptop.

Originally Posted by smc

In the meanwhile, since subversion of elections is on your mind, why don't you tell us where you stand on the the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" ruling. Did you enjoy all the advertisements on TV paid for by undisclosed donors? Do you think that is "subversion of elections"?

I rarely enjoy advertisements, that is what my 'mute' button is for. But to restrict them is to restrict freedom of speech. As US deputy solicitor general Malcolm Stewart pointed out to the Supreme Court, the law would even require banning a book that made the same points as the Citizens United video. Once we get to this point you can clearly see that this is unconstitutional.

Annoying Citizens United videos doesn't hold a candle to "New" Black Panthers brandishing clubs and intimidating voters, or to ACORN's attempt at the highest levels to register voters multiple times plus register non-existent voters and dead voters, or to attempts by liberals to allow illegal aliens to vote, or to the fracking president trying to grab control of the US Census office!

And if those videos are so bad, what about the plethora of left-wing media outlets that spew biased news? Everyone complains about Fox News, but what about CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, New York Times, and on and on? And don't forget Hollywood with their vocal left wing actors and movies riddled with liberal politics. But hey... it's free speech.

[TracyCoxx]

Obama says the voters just didn't understand what he was trying to do. Does anyone buy this? Or did the voters understand and whole heartedly reject it?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Yes, after several days.

The very next day, in fact ... but whose counting?

I have three sets of questions for you.

1. As I wrote in an earlier post, "I don't support the Democrats or Republicans." I believe that the Democratic Party is guilty of electoral fraud and manipulation in many instances throughout history, and I have no problem believing that Democrats (who, after all, serve the interests of a wing of the very same people served by the Republicans) do things to ensure votes go their way. Tracy, do you accept that the Republicans do things like this, too? You wrote earlier: "The DOJ sent 400 people to Arizona, not to ensure that illegals do not vote, but to watchdog Arizona officials who are trying to ensure that illegals do not vote." Whether that's true or not, do you accept that during the Bush administration government officials, acting for partisan interests, did anything like that.

2. Do you think one's ability to exercise "freedom of speech" should be dictated by one's level of wealth? Let's accept your premise about Citizens United. In the interest of ensuring the greatest amount of freedom of speech, do you support public financing of elections or some other way to ensure that everyone's voice can be heard so that those with the most millions to spend cannot drown out everyone else simply by virtue of having those millions? This is not a left-right issue.

3. In the context of "freedom of speech," do you support full disclosure of who funds political ads, whether on the left or right? It seems to me that the greatest freedom of speech is that which allows us a real discourse, together, as Americans -- something sorely lacking in our body politic today. Absent disclosure, it is difficult to know whether the voices we hear are genuine, and genuinely FOR what they purport to be for, or whether there is manipulation at play. For instance, if a corporation or corporate group that publicly supports tax credits for businesses that send jobs overseas funds a political ad (without disclosure) that accuses a politician of such support, that would be worth knowing, don't you think. Similarly, if a union stands to benefit from a certain outcome in the legislature in, say, one state and (without disclosure) funds an ad attacking a candidate in another state who has not voted as the union wishes, wouldn't it be good to know -- in the interest of encouraging a genuine public discourse in the context of freedom of speech?

These are not partisan questions. I hope you can step back from the vitriol expressed in your last post and consider these thoughtfully, in the interest of genuine dialogue. Otherwise, there's no point in continuing. You can have the thread and vent, and I'll stick to pictures of gorgeous girl cocks.