Obama vs. Fox

Great Debates
521

Well, I was responding to Flonks talking about the Limbaugh quote. Flonks quoted from an interview with Rush, saying:

(Limbaugh actually said we have “never seen this kind of radical leadership at such a high level of power”, so Flonks’ paraphrase was accurate.)

Now, perhaps Rush meant that Obama was radically conservative, but I kind of doubt it. I kinda think he meant radically liberal, but YMMV, perhaps you believe Rush thinks Obama is too conservative for him …

So I responded that I think Obama is the most radical (i.e. obviously from context radically liberal) president we’ve had, and I’m glad he is.

Of course, the grammar police had to point out that “radical” can mean radical right like Nixon and GWB. Yes, I know that. I also know it can mean the square root sign, or a group of two atoms bound together as one unit, or the form of a word after all prefixes and suffixes are removed …

So? How is this even remotely relevant to what we were discussing, Rush’s comment?

522

Hang on… You said it was an ‘all-black neighborhood’, implying that white voter intimidation couldn’t have happened because there were no white voters.

But that’s not true, is it? There ARE white voters who vote there. It’s a predominantly black neighborhood, which is a whole different matter. Let’s say the neighborhood was 80% black. That would mean perhaps 20% of all voters were intimidated.

I looked up the 4th Ward myself. I couldn’t find any specific demographic information, but I found lots of photos and articles which showed plenty of white people.

And frankly, I find it most likely that the black panthers would try to intimidate white voters in exactly this kind of area - one they claim as their ‘own’, and in which the majority of people won’t oppose them. And perhaps one where they see ‘white votes’ as being unrepresentative of their neighborhood and they want t to send a unified message of black support or whatever.

The fact is, you said it was an all-black neighborhood. It’s not. Your implication was that if it was all-black, then no voter intimidation was possible because there were no whites to intimidate. When I asked for a cite, you tried to pass off a cite that says it is a ‘largely’ black community. For the purposes of determining if voter intimidation was possible, it’s not the same thing at all.

523

First, “largely African-American” ≠ “all Black”.

Regarding the injunction, from the DOJ website:

So I’m not sure what your point is … from the video, my guess is that the NBPP claimed that they weren’t intimidating anybody, the guy just happened to be carrying a nightstick. For self defense. In case something happened. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

The DOJ replied with an injunction against carrying any weapons around polling places … because contrary to your claim, as near as I can tell carrying a nightstick near a polling place is not illegal. I find laws making it illegal to carry a concealed weapon or a deadly weapon into a polling place, but I find no laws against carrying nightsticks outside the polling place … hence the injunction.

ETA - what Sam Stone said, but faster and clearer than me.

524

I had said:

and I thought I had cited it … but looking back, noooo … It is on that bastion of right-wing conservatism, the NPR website. Apologies for the lack of clarity.

525

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2373884/posts

526

Why was it dropped? Because lawyers are human? (I’m not here to debate that, besides, there is DNA evidence…)

Imagine: you work in Justice, you eat lunch with, oh, Chuck Johnson, and he rattles on and on about the big time cases he’s on, international jewel thieves, computer security scams from Belgrade and Singapore, he’s about to indict Ernst Stavro Blofeld…

And he looks to you and says “Hey, how’s that big case you’re on coming? A couple of black guys scowling, was it? And one of them had a stick?..”

527

Your attempt to minimize a clear case of voter intimidation is pathetic.

We don’t know why the case was dropped, because the Obama DOJ has totally stonewalled on the case. However, after weeks of complaints and the DOJ not responding to Freedom of Information requests, I do find this:

SOURCE

So fortunately, unlike you, they don’t find it a laughing matter, ha, ha … although given the DOJ actions, I foresee a whitewash. I’m willing to be surprised, however.

Regarding the ludicrous claim that the NBPP wouldn’t do such a stupid thing as to intimidate people in a black district, I find this:

SOURCE

Where is Jimmy Carter when we need him? And more to the point, elucidator, what the hell are you doing trying to minimize this? People are getting threatened at a polling place, a black guy is being called a “race traitor”, and you want to make jokes about “a black guy scowling”??? Here’s a clue. Intimidating people to influence their vote is not funny.

528

I implied no such thing. I implied that since there were virtually no white voters, intimidation was not worthwhile.

Excellent job of refuting a claim I didn’t make. I would ask you to go back and read my post again, but since you had trouble with it the first time I’ll explain it to you. I said it is illegal to brandish a weapon outside a polling place, not to carry one. I’m sure you can appreciate the difference.

529

You did not say that there were ‘virtually no white voters’. You said it was an ‘all-black neighborhood’ - a ‘fact’ you apparently pulled out of thin air. You’ve since been shown that there in fact white voters there, and they complained of intimidation.

And aren’t you of the party that screams up and down that every vote must count, even if a poll-worker has to divine intent through examining dimpled chads? You’re being awfully blase’ about actual voter intimidation now that it’s your side being accused - just like you seem to be awfully blase’ about vote fraud being perpetrated by ACORN.

530

But what if I’m right? What if it is nothing? What if my *Talking Points Memo *take on the matter is exactly right? You are aware, I trust, that your sources have a dog in this fight, yes? That the Washington Times is notorious around these parts for being totally full of shit? That your cites are suspect?

You see, those cites would be the same, whether there is a glimmer of truth to this or no. If there is nothing whatsoever there, which is the main thrust of the cite I offered above (which seems to have escaped your attention)… They would be doing exactly the same thing!

“Why is the White House refusing to act regarding the dreadful scandal of [nothing]!” “What is Eric Holder hiding when he refuses to act about [nothing]!” “Today, Lamar Smith (R-Scratchbutt) demanded a full Congressional investigation into the growing scandal of [nothing]!” “You know, a lot of people are saying that there is a huge cover-up in the whole [nothing] firestorm!”

You act as though scandal-mongering by commited partisans has some relevence. Says who? What if it really is [nothing]? What would be different if it were?

Unless, of course, there’s [nothing].

How will you know? If its [nothing], genuinely [nothing], isn’t that going to look exactly like a “whitewash”? What test to you propose to check?

Who said this? It always helps when your refuting something specific to specify who and/or what you are refuting. Because some guys like to knock down something nobody ever said because it adds a false gleam of respectability to lying scum. So, maybe don’t do what they do, or you’ll give a bad impression.

Huh?

We can only hope…

What if its [nothing]? I offer testimony that its [nothing], you ignore it and insist that its severely something super-dooper important because the *Washington Times *and Lamar Smith say so? You worry me, I’m afraid you’re not kidding, or don’t know that you are.

I don’t know anything about these people, and you don’t know much more than that. I do recollect that in the roughly forty-odd years since the Black Panther Party sank beneath the waves, a whole bunch of half-assed “black radicals” have tried to cash in on the brand.

So I suspect these guys are trying to draw some attention by posing as protectors of the polling place. They hope to represent themselves as protecting the black polling places, like the old school Panthers had done. I doubt such protection is needed, and thus I doubt their motives.

That they had harsh words with persons who present themselves a Republican pollwatchers? Well, catch me as I clutch my pearls and faint dead away!

This is all you got?

531

Nobody got “threatened” anyway. The whole story is a fucking racist, paranoid jerkoff. A couple of black guys stood around with sticks. Wooooooooooo. They were worried that some

There’s no evidence that a single person was threatened or intimidated. Rednecks show up at rallies with guns and assasination signs and nobody cares. A black guy carries a stick around and whitey pees his pants. Jesus, what a joke this story was. A classic example of Fox using a black boogeyman as a surrogate to scare people away from Obama. It was pathetic, disgraceful hate-mongering.

532

If you hang in through the first 18 seconds of this video, you’ll see plenty of brandishing.

Existence of videos like this and reams of eyewitness testimony is what makes the dismissal of this case so perplexing. It looks open-and-shut. The violation of the law is clear to see.

533

“Intimidation,” my ass. They were afraid some rednecks might try to fuck with black voters (a completely reasonable fear, given the incontinent, blubbering hysteria of Redneck America we keep seeing at the teabag circle jerks). If they’d been white people with batons, no one would have batted an eye.

534

Boy, he’s got you there, Not…Bright! Why, I saw you just the other day, hanging around being blase. You didn’t have anything to say about the huge voter fraud committed by ACORN. Nothing!

What gives you the right to be so blase about such a massive scandal, simply because it never actually happened? Is that some kind of post-modernist thing?

535

Jesus Christ, Sam, you’re still trying to peddle that “ACORN voter fraud” horseshit? Did you find any actual evidence yet?

536

My Og, the terror! You’re right, he was standing there! With a stick! And the way that guy was telling him that he was being intimidating, and he still stood there! I was thinking, any minute now, he’s going to give him the Samuel L. Jackson eyeball…

537

Can you not read? I will re-quote:

Yes, there is evidence. When a black guy with a nightstick says “white power don’t rule here”, that’s intimidation. Black people said they were scared, but in Dio’s world, somehow that doesn’t count. Who is racist here, when you are all too willing to throw out the testimony of a black couple who said they were intimidated? Hey, a big guy with a nightstick is intimidating to me regardless of color … but not to Dio, he’s a he-man, he’s not intimidated by a little thing like an angry man with a big stick making racial epithets. He doesn’t care that “several voters said they were afraid”, clearly they’re just wimps.

This is not Fox and a boogeyman, that’s your sick twisted perversion of the truth. The Justice Department took it seriously. And they are still taking it seriously. The judge in the case took it seriously. The people who were scared took it seriously. And you think it’s a joke … I know what the joke is here, and if you grab a mirror, so will you.

Finally, if you don’t see the difference between a weapon at a rally, and a weapon at a polling place, I’m sure Jimmy Carter can explain it too you. It has to do with this thing called “voting”, which has special rules to keep assholes from intimidating people when they go to vote, whether the assholes are white, black, or green. Google “voting” or “democracy”, there’s a good fellow …

538

I don’t believe anyone was scared. If they really were, then they’re idiots. How is “white power don’t rule here,” intimidating or a threat. I’d say “fuck yeah.”

A couple of black Republicans got called “race traitors” (which they kind of were) and “wondered” if somebody might bomb them? Since when is “wondering” if somebody might do something evidence that might actually do it?
I used to get worse racial slurs hurled at me all the time when I worked in the inner city running after school programs and summer day camps. “Redneck,” “white boy,” “cracker.” I didn’t piss myself and go sobbing for a cop. I just waved. Half the time, they thought I was looking for crack. The other half of the time, they were just saying hello. I’m no tough guy either. I’m a complete candy ass. It just never occurred to me to be afraid for my life and go screaming for the law.

What I see here is not racist intimidation. I just see partisans hoping to wring some kind of pathetic (and racist) political gain out of pretending to be scared. An endeavor Fox News was only too happy (and desperate enough on election day) to assist with.

539

Dio, please pick one delusion and stick to it. Either you are tough and you don’t get intimidated, or you are a “complete candy ass”. You can’t be both. Complete candy asses are easily intimidated.

I begin to seriously question your reading skills. The NBPP guys with the nightstick tried to deny a poll watcher entrance to the polling place, and said that “white power don’t rule here.” A guy with a stick who is trying to stop a poll watcher from entering a polling place is intimidation no matter what he says. Period. Doesn’t matter if the poll watcher is a candy ass or a he-man.

So if a couple of big skinheads with a truncheon were to show up in front of a polling place in full Nazi uniforms and start hurling racial epithets at black voters, I suppose you’d say that’s not intimidation either, right? Just boys having fun?

Yeah, I thought not. You’d be screaming for the cops, as would I. And rightly so, because big guys with a nightstick in uniforms in front of a polling place shouting epithets is intimidation.

PS - you say:

An old lady in a wheelchair saying “white power don’t rule here” is not intimidation or a threat, it’s just bad grammar. A big guy with a nightstick saying “white power don’t rule here” is intimidation. And bad grammar.

If you are truly so foolish that you think the intimidation is in the words, and not the implied threat of the big guy with the stick, I fear I can’t help you.

Finally, to say that a black person who, for whatever reason, doesn’t choose to vote for Obama is a “race traitor” says a whole lot about your character. Kinda makes me a “race traitor” since I did vote for Obama, but never mind … I know this is a difficult concept for you, but for some people, white or black, not everything is about race …

540

Dio, further to your foolishness above equating a weapon at a rally and a weapon at a polling place, I was amused to find this in one of the citations I gave above:

So even though you don’t seem to see the difference … they do. And even though you think they did nothing wrong … they are clear that the Philadelphia chapter did, and so they kicked them out of the organization.

Would that you were as intelligent as they are …