I remember watching the video of this on election day, it was very disturbing and should be to anyone

here is video on the whole incident at voting booth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU

7/7/2010 4:45:41 PM

Quote :

"I would just LOVE to see the response if a republican administration asked for charges to be dropped against a KKK or NRA member who said similar things and was intimidating voters at the polls."

There's a huge difference between all three of those groups. Huge difference.

7/7/2010 4:47:42 PM

^^as always, the Youtube commentary is gold.

7/7/2010 4:48:11 PM

why hasnt Holder made a statement?

7/7/2010 5:37:01 PM

^^^ The New Black Panther Party is a black supremacist group and the KKK is a white supremacist group. The analogy is a fair one.

As for the NRA, many leftists treat the organization as a dangerous group and its membership as doltish rubes capable of gun-related violence at any moment. Based on this distorted image held by many leftists and propagated by the mainstream media, it's not hard to understand how aaronburro might conflate the two groups at issue.



[Edited on July 7, 2010 at 6:40 PM. Reason : Right?]

7/7/2010 6:27:12 PM

There's a huge difference between the Black Panthers and the KKK. If you don't understand that, then I don't know what to tell you.

7/7/2010 7:50:34 PM

no there isnt. you are trolling. they are both racist, terrorist organizations. one is older than the other. thats it.


again, why hasnt Holder (or Obama for that matter) made a statement.

7/7/2010 8:19:59 PM

also to be fair the many independent Klan organizations have hegemonic status on account of being white and Christian, so they are potentially more dangerous

but still even the SPLC characterizes black-separatist organizations among "hate groups"

and I lol@ the belief that the NRA is dangerous; sure it's the most powerful (but not largest) special-interest group in the country, but "expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment" does not mean "terrist"

7/7/2010 8:31:23 PM

Quote :

"no there isnt. you are trolling. they are both racist, terrorist organizations. one is older than the other. thats it. "

Do I really need to spell this out? Do you know nothing of U.S. History?

The Black Panthers arose out of an anger against institutionalized racism against Blacks in the United States. 600 years of slavery, Jim Crow laws, lack of civil rights, the KKK, etc. People got fed up with playing nice and having nothing happening. Think of it as the "Yang" to Martin Luther King Jr.

I also don't think the Black Panthers regularly lynched White people.

[Edited on July 8, 2010 at 8:35 AM. Reason : ]

7/8/2010 8:33:10 AM

^ As usual, you have no idea what you're babbling about. The Black Panther Party and The New Black Panther Party are two separate groups.

The Black Panther Party were black nationalists with Marxist leanings. They advocated love for black people, not hatred of white people--and they have condemned The New Black Panther Party.

The New Black Panther Party, on the other hand, is a black supremacist group, just as the KKK is a white supremacist group. Members of this group have advocated violence against white people simply for the color of their skin.

Now that I have educated you, please evaporate. Thanks.

[Edited on July 8, 2010 at 9:44 AM. Reason : Right?]

7/8/2010 9:44:15 AM

Still waiting for any violence perpetrated by them.

You know, something like violently beating a person of another race and hanging them from a tree.

7/8/2010 9:47:51 AM

^ So, you admit that you didn't know what you were talking about?

7/8/2010 9:51:16 AM

Cool God. I must be terribly off base. please, go show up at a New Black Panther party (assuming you are white) and report back how much they dont hate white people.

7/8/2010 10:10:26 AM

There are many "new" kkk organizations that denounce violence and racist speech, but are more for support white interests. Therefore these "new" klan groups do not have a history of violence, just like the "new" panthers do not. Does that make it ok for a new klan group to stand outside of a voting booth with a bat, even if they dont prevent anyone from voting or say anything racist? No its not ok because it is intimidating to have someone outside a voting booth with a weapon, no matter what race color or group affiliation.

7/8/2010 10:11:44 AM

I'm not saying that what they did was wrong. I'm saying that they are two completely different groups.

7/8/2010 10:14:09 AM

^ You don't know what you're saying.

7/8/2010 10:16:28 AM

^dude, you should tell him that he doesn't know what he's talking about, he might not have saw it the first three times

7/8/2010 1:01:02 PM

^ Thanks for your input.

7/8/2010 1:25:51 PM

^no seriously dude, you should let him know that he doesn't know what he's talking about, for reels

7/8/2010 1:32:24 PM

again, why hasnt Obama or Holder commented on this?

Holder is a boob.

7/8/2010 2:11:40 PM

^
The main-stream media has also been pretty mum on this story.

7/8/2010 11:30:57 PM

maybe because a non-story?

7/8/2010 11:55:58 PM

^ And maybe you're wrong.

Former DOJ Attorney Alleges "Lawlessness" in Civil Rights Division
July 06, 2010

Quote :

"In a May 9, 2010 letter to the Attorney General, Commission Chairman Gerald A. Reynolds expressed his displeasure with delays from the Justice Department in the inquiry asserting, 'The Department has repeatedly delayed the production of critical documents and information. When it has provided information, the Department appears to have done so only to maintain the appearance of cooperation and has timed its production of voluminous, but largely non-responsive documents to prevent adequate review by the Commission before critical junctures in the Commission's scheduled proceedings. It has further refused outright to provide answers and documents to some of the Commission's most critical questions and requests, and has refused to permit its employees with substantive knowledge of this case to cooperate with the Commission's subpoenas.'"

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/07/former-doj-attorney-alleges-lawlessness-in-civil-rights-division.html

7/9/2010 12:36:47 AM

oh shit, you mean individuals working in government agencies have political leanings? my mind is fucking blown...

7/9/2010 2:33:47 AM

Poll: 62% of Americans say U.S. on wrong track
June 24, 2010

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38961.html

Right Direction or Wrong Track
June 30, 2010

Quote :

"Sixty-six percent (66%) of all voters believe the country is heading down the wrong track, showing little change for several weeks now. Following the passage of the health care bill, voter pessimism dropped to 60% but has risen as high as 67% since then."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/right_direction_or_wrong_track

Crucial independent voters abandoning Obama, now under 40%, lowest ever
July 7, 2010

Quote :

"Two new polls this morning augur ill for President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats who control Congress. The worst -- from Gallup -- finds that for the first time since Obama took the oath, his support among independents, a key voter segment in his decisive 2008 coalition election win, has fallen below 40%. The new tracking finds that Obama's support among all voter segments has declined in the past year, but nowhere more than among independents."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/07/independents-abandoning-obama-gallup-poll.html

The numbers just don't look very good for Obama and the Democrats.

7/10/2010 3:46:02 AM

As if we needed more proof to know "Obama is not 'anti-business,'....he's just anti-free market."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Obama-revs-up-corporate-welfare-98062834.html

Quote :

" [C]heck out the minutes from the Ex-Im board meeting at which the Stolle [Machinery] subsidy was finalized. The other subsidies given either final or preliminary approval weren't so photo-op friendly: a federal guarantee for JP Morgan to subsidize a Boeing aircraft sale to Turkey's Pegasus Airlines; another loan guarantee for Boeing to sell jets to Asiana Airlines; $20 million in financing to subsidize GE turbines going to Slovakia; a direct loan of more than $20 million to the Pakistani government to buy GE locomotives; and yet another Boeing subsidy guaranteeing jet sales to Nigeria. If you think Boeing's showing up a lot, you're getting the point. Last year, Ex-Im dedicated 64 percent of loans and long-term guarantees to subsidize Boeing sales. Yes, this federal agency exists mostly to subsidize one corporation. Which brings us to the President's Export Council. Its chairman is Jim McNerney, CEO of Boeing. "

7/10/2010 3:48:03 PM

7/10/2010 3:59:37 PM

^^ that's alarming, but why do you care?

From what I remember, you were all for the Bush admin's collusion with Haliburton. I guess the "free market" didn't matter to you then?

7/10/2010 4:10:18 PM

I was actually going to say "BUT BUSH DID IT TOO," but I decided to let it come out on its own. I just didn't know it would happen so soon.

7/10/2010 4:34:29 PM

The difference is that LoneSnark didn't actually care when Bush did it and his quip that this is about the "free market" and not his blind zealotry for Republicans just adds that much more humor to the situation for me.

I didn't like Bush doing it, and I don't like Obama doing it either.

[Edited on July 10, 2010 at 4:43 PM. Reason : ]

7/10/2010 4:43:00 PM

^x5 And it looks like Wall Street has finally figured that out.

Democratic campaign committees losing big Wall Street donors
Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Quote :

"A revolt among big donors on Wall Street is hurting fundraising for the Democrats' two congressional campaign committees, with contributions from the world's financial capital down 65 percent from two years ago."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/05/AR2010070502913.html

Finally.

7/10/2010 7:05:39 PM

Quote :

"The difference is that LoneSnark didn't actually care when Bush did it"

You must be thinking of someone else. I don't recall bush using the im ex board to subsidize haliburton. But it does sound like something he would do. And just in case I was unclear those years ago, I will once again condemn Bush as a corporatist of the worst sort. Corporatism suppresses competition, kills efficiency, and misallocates resources, and is therefore always a bad thing, recognizing it might somehow be the lesser of bad things since democracy is messy. To the best of my knowledge, I have always believed this, can you demonstrate different?

What might have happened is that when you demonstrate Bush to be a corporatist, Republicans thought it was a good thing, conservatives hate change afterall and corporatism enshrines the status quo, so railing against Bush's immoral interference would gain you nothing. However, Democrats view their dear leader as their savior against the evil corporations, so demonstrating Obama to be the corporatist he is scores real disillusionment points. Or so I think. Are there any Democrats here that would defend the handouts to Boeing?

7/11/2010 3:17:30 AM

^ I brought this. . .

Quote :

"Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto by Mark Levin "

message_topic.aspx?topic=503739&page=2

. . .up over a year ago. Levin is continually complaining about corporatists in our country (free alliteration here).

But you can't tell some of the liberals here anything, LoneSnark. They think every conservative is some version of Bush or Jerry Falwell.

7/11/2010 4:54:32 AM

On the other hand, maybe moron is comparing apples to oranges. While the im ex board is a direct subsidy of business the government has nothing to do with, the government did hire Haliburton as a government contractor under questionable methodology (no-bid contracts). While no-bid contracts are the wrong way to do it, I am a firm believer in the privatization of legitimate government work through the use of contractors. Recognizing that bush was rarely engaged in legitimate government work.

7/11/2010 9:55:21 AM

^^^ I wasn't talking about Bush, i'm referring to your double standard when criticizing the Obama admin as "anti free market."

So Dick Cheney was the CEO of Haliburton, but Haliburton was the "legitimate privatization of gov. functions" but the CEO of GE on the finance board leads to this conflict of interest that is anti-free market.

They both are in similar veins of gov. corporatism that should be fought against, but the right only musters the strength to decry it, with the added subtlety of painting obama as a communist, when it suits them.

7/11/2010 1:11:01 PM

If Haliburton had won the contract in a competitive marketplace of some sort, then yes, that would be legitimate. But I don't believe I have ever called any no-bid contract legitimate. So you go right on trying to distract everyone from Obama's corporatism. Last I heard, neither Cheney nor Bush are standing for any elected office, so criticizing them now is a waste of time. What we as citizens need to do is shame the current administration into good behavior, which includes both Obama and any bills voted for by present members of Congress from both parties. Afterall, some Republican congressmen voted to pay for the im ex board, if it would make you feel better I hereby condemn them too.

7/11/2010 1:32:02 PM

FYI: Obama political advisor David Axelrod was spinning like a Whirling Dervish on Sunday's This Week (just one example):

'This Week' Transcript: Axelrod
July 11, 2010

Quote :

"[Jake] TAPPER: And the Financial Times reported that a member of the White House recovery board, General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt, in a private dinner recently, quote, 'had harsh words for Barack Obama, U.S. president, lamenting what he called a terrible national mood and expressing concern that overregulation in response to the global financial crisis would damp a tepid U.S. economic recovery. "Business did not like the U.S. president, and the president did not like business," he said.' Now, I know you reject the notion that the White House and the president is anti-business. But if that -- that perception's out there, and it's having an effect on the business community's willingness to create jobs, is that not a failure of the Obama administration? AXELROD: Let me -- let's just review history here. When we took office -- no, no, no, this is important. TAPPER: Don't go -- don't go that far [back]."

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-axelrod/story?id=11136250&page=2

7/12/2010 2:13:18 AM

^ how do you figure that as Axelrod spinning and not the GE CEO?

How can the previous posts be about the government shoveling GE money, then another with the CEO of GE claiming the gov. is too harsh, and say it was Axelrod that was spinning?

And I love how they are attributing "over regulation" to Obama but no one ever lists what they're talking about. I guess though politics have always been about throwing shit and see what sticks, and it looks like certain people are just stickier than others...

7/12/2010 9:10:59 AM

Perception is often king. While it is quite true Obama has not passed many new regulations, although the ones he has passed suck ass, he has succeeded in convincing everyone that the era of regulation is upon us.

You see, Clinton succeeded in making people believe the era of big government was over. He lied, the government grew every year, but people that don't spend their time following such things believed him and invested accordingly. Well, people that don't follow such things don't know Obama has not regulated everything under the sun, but he has managed to convince them that either he has or is going to do so, and they are acting accordingly.

7/12/2010 10:38:51 AM

Quote :

"he has managed to convince them that either he has or is going to do so, and they are acting accordingly"

No, you have done that by saying the same kind of stupid stuff you're saying right now.

Additionally the above paragraph is the worst thing I've ever seen you write in this section. I'm throughly disappointed, as not only is it completely baseless, it's logically inconsistent.

7/12/2010 10:44:16 AM

Fine. The people have become convinced Obama is a regulator because the Republicans told them so. It doesn't matter who convinced them, they are convinced. Obama has not done enough to dissuade such beliefs. Sure, I'm speaking in generalities based on recent polling data showing people view Obama as a massive regulator, even a socialist in another poll. However, polls can be wrong, so I don't really know what most American's believe. But I certainly wouldn't call my words baseless, much less logically inconsistent. Perhaps you can be a little more verbose?

7/12/2010 10:54:07 AM

I was refering more to your Clinton conspiracy theory and your thoughts of investors as to stupid to accurately price.

7/12/2010 12:48:29 PM

Once again, communists think everything is a conspiracy.

No, Clinton actually meant it when he said in front of congress that the era of big government was over.

And why would investors need to be stupid to at least partially believe what the president said before Congress?

As usual, Kris, you need to make even the mundane a big conspiratorial controversy.

7/12/2010 1:17:36 PM

Quote :

"Clinton actually meant it when he said in front of congress that the era of big government was over. And why would investors need to be stupid to at least partially believe what the president said before Congress? "

So then if he were not attempting to trick them, why would he have done so, and even more obvious, why would they have fallen for it?
What this line of thinking would imply is both that the president had devious motives and the investors are just plain stupid. Thus the logical inconsistency.

Quote :

"As usual, Kris, you need to make even the mundane a big conspiratorial controversy."

I'm not the one actually suggesting some sort of big conspiracy. Well that or idiotic investors or both.

7/12/2010 2:24:51 PM

Interesting. I see why you are a communist. In your mind, it is not possible for the president to mispredict future policy and it is impossible for the American people to similarly guess wrong without being stupid. In your mind only perfect information exists, anyone that acts or speaks contrary to future facts is either evil or stupid, no room for asymetric information... which just happens to be one of the main reasons Communism functions poorly.

7/12/2010 5:52:11 PM

Quote :

"he has succeeded in convincing everyone that the era of regulation is upon us. "

LOL

The fact that you even managed to type this out is shocking to me.

You think it's Obama that's spreading this misinformation and not people like you who assert this? It's not the Republicans or Tea Baggers using propaganda for their own gains?

You realize that you have been framing this as an us vs. them issue for the past couple of posts, which is exactly what the power brokers, on both sides really, want you to think.

7/12/2010 6:05:43 PM

Quote :

"In your mind, it is not possible for the president to mispredict future policy and it is impossible for the American people to similarly guess wrong without being stupid."

People don't guess. On the aggregate we operate mechanically, this is what the entire study of economics is based around. If investors made the wrong decision it was a market failure.

7/12/2010 6:35:10 PM

I corrected myself. There is no question that the repubs and teabags have done much of the convincing. But I don't think they could have done so well without Obama's help, since I have also seen Obama himself giving speeches on the need for more regulation, although he is rarely specific. "It's time to get serious about regulatory oversight," quoth Obama in an "I'm feeling lucky" google search.

It does not seem like disinformation to suggest a Democrat is in favor of more regulation in some form. Especially when several forms of brand new regulatory schemes have already been put into law. Sure, Bush imposed vast new regulatory schemes of his own, but not at anywhere near the scope of the Obama presidency.

So, I don't understand why you found it shocking for me to type that. Do you not believe it to be true, or do you feel it is too one-sided because I didn't take the time to bash Bush?

That said, I am also mentally getting ready for the midterm elections. From now on, the Republicans were never as bad as they really were, and the Democrats' ideas are all that bad. As a libertarian, our utopia is a government divided with a Democrat in the white house and Republicans ruling Congress. I am going to shift my opinions a little bit in hopes of achieving this. It does mean I will need to be an Obama supporter come 2012, but I digress.

Quote :

"If investors made the wrong decision it was a market failure."

Says you. In my opinion, if a group of investors guess wrong and lose all their bananas, that is a properly functioning market. To be a market failure, the bad behavior must persist forever.

And again, your world view that all humans are mechanical calculators is why you are a communist, it is also why you are wrong. Homo-economicus is an imaginary construct, no real economist believes people actually are that way. We have hopes, dreams, and guess with imperfect information very often.

[Edited on July 12, 2010 at 6:45 PM. Reason : .,.]

7/12/2010 6:38:35 PM

To moron: If you don't think Axelrod was spinning to an obscene degree in the This Week interview, then you didn't watch it. Sure, each side spins in interviews, but Axelrod's was simply over the top on Sunday.

7/12/2010 6:57:56 PM

Quote :

"But I don't think they could have done so well without Obama's help, since I have also seen Obama himself giving speeches on the need for more regulation, although he is rarely specific. "It's time to get serious about regulatory oversight," quoth Obama in an "I'm feeling lucky" google search. "

This is literally what EVERYONE has been saying. Do you know someone who will plainly say the banking system or the regulatory system worked how it was supposed to over the past couple of years?

Why is this noteworthy, outside the purposes of propaganda?

Quote :

"It does not seem like disinformation to suggest a Democrat is in favor of more regulation in some form. Especially when several forms of brand new regulatory schemes have already been put into law. Sure, Bush imposed vast new regulatory schemes of his own, but not at anywhere near the scope of the Obama presidency. "

It's not disinformation, in the same sense it's not disinformation to say that Stalin was an effective charismatic leader. Obviously the context with which you say it, and your intent is what matters. In the context you were saying it, you seemed to be implying that "regulation" is inherently bad, which I know is not a position you ascribe to (nor is it a position any thinking person ascribes to).

The fact of the matter is that Obama has been far more centrist than the Tea Party, Fox News, or Hooksaw wants you to believe. It shouldn't be an axiom of any discussion that Obama has somehow imposed a regulatory or tax burden on Americans, when taxes are generally lower, and the regulations put in place so far have not been controversial. The fact that this is the case shows just how distorted the media is.

7/12/2010 7:06:24 PM