Violence and politicsFollow

Right. I personally stopped a million people from voting on Tuesday. But no one can prove it because they're all too intimidated so just take my word for it.

Hey, that was easy.

Now you're denigrating the indigenous original native Americans. Goddam racist!

What? They favor extremely tough immigration laws, are strongly anti-federalist, and extremely pro-gun. They're also largely socially conservative being very Christian and anti-gay. I'm not sure how you couldn't think of them as right wing extremists.

I'm saying they are putting what they want into the article, and leaving out what they don't want. Really, Bush's Attorney General decided not to do anything with this. If you think they should have been prosecuted, complain to him.

I think it's a couple of angry guys making trouble, not a "liberal organization". Not that you really care what I think.

Yup. It seems a bit unfair to point to "right wing violence", when it's all just single individuals acting out, but ignoring it when it happens on the other side. And I'll point out to Technogeek that these guys are actually part of an organization. It's called the New Black Panther Party.


If people in the Tea Party wore uniforms identifying themselves as such and stood in front of the doors to a polling place on election day with batons, wouldn't it be viewed as a serious problem? Why is this any different?

But Gbaji found an article on the interwebs that says "like, they were totally intimidating voters!", and that's all that really matters. The Bush AG must have been a real wussy.

Some sort of Jabba-oriented youth organization?

Here's a report of the NBP incident from the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/18/report-on-new-black-panth_n_767193.html

Now we sit back and watch Gbaji dismiss it completely because it's a "liberal blog", even though his report is from a right wing blog.

Have fun.

That's not what he was saying, dipshit. He was saying he spoke to the black poll watchers who were supposedly there and both said it wasn't them. Since the claim is that it was a black poll watcher, finding said black poll watcher was critical to having some sort of "evidence".

The Heritage article doesn't even make a big deal out of the poll watcher being black except that the "evidence" of the NBP guy saying the poll watcher was a race traitor would sound pretty silly if it was a white guy.

Edited, Nov 8th 2010 8:10pm by Jophiel

Yes he is. You may be missing my context though. What he's saying is that the testimony from Chris Hill (who is white) about the intimidation he witnessed and which was reported to him at that polling place was not sufficient evidence, but if one of the two black poll workers there testified, it would be.

Which is a pretty unusual standard in cases like these.



No. That's critical to having "corroborating evidence". The testimony of Hill himself plus the video of the two black panthers should have been more than sufficient evidence. What the hell more do you need?


In any other situation, if the courts dismissed a claim of a civil rights violation on these sorts of grounds you'd all be up in arms about it. And rightly so. This is a classic case of people who are afraid to testify. We have video proof of the intimidation going on. We have Hill who has testified that he arrived at the scene after having been called there by a poll worker who was afraid and that he witnessed people turning around and leaving upon seeing the two men blocking the entrance of the polls. And yet you accept the argument that since those workers refused to testify after the fact that this means that none of it happened?


This whole thing stinks of the kind of cover ups and good-ol-boy tricks played in the south during the 50s and 60s. How can you not see this? If it was two white guys standing in front of that polling place, would you accept that as long as no one who lived in the area testified that it should be dropped? Or would you be screaming that the people were afraid to come forward?

Be honest. You'd be screaming. Everyone on this board would be. Every media outlet would be. Every liberal in the country would be. So, why is this different? Is it because you think it's ok as long as it's black people intimidating other black people?



Not sure what your point is. So the conservatives don't care whether someone is black or white and the liberals do? That's not very surprising really. We stand up for people's rights regardless of the skin colors involved, and you guys only do so if specific combinations of skin colors are involved in the correct configurations. That's pretty normal. Sad, but normal.


The larger point is that regardless of what the DoJ did in response to this, can you honestly watch the video of those two guys and tell me that that is not voter intimidation? Can you honestly say that there's nothing wrong about what they are doing?

This thread is about violence and politics. Well, two guys standing in front of a polling place doorway wearing uniforms and holding batons would seem to fit quite well. The real question is why you feel such a strong need to dismiss this? I don't care what the DoJ did. What is your feeling about it? Isn't this a case of liberals using the threat of violence to manipulate the political process? Isn't that relevant to this thread then?

It's OBVIOUS!