[Monty Python]…and a spokeman for douchebags said he was glad no douchebags were involved…[/MP]
Yes, there were 13 of them. If you can find me a polling district in any major city in America where no white votes are cast in the last election, I will concede that the description of the district as “all black” was misleading.
Well, on a personal level, I’m really just concerned about my vote counting, but yes, in general I’m extremely concerned about vote manipulation of any kind. However, given the apparent lack of evidence against the accused and the lack of motive, I am not ready to hang the Justice Department over dropping the case, which is what we’re really discussing.
I don’t recall ever specifically discussing ACORN in any thread here, but if Mickey Mouse ever casts a vote for a Democratic nominee (or a Republican, for that matter) you will have my full support in castigating ACORN for vote rigging.
Which is exactly what they were accused of, and which I pointed out is illegal. If the evidence is so clear, why was the Bush Justice Department only able to win an injunction against the New Black Panther Party prohibiting it from engaging in actions already prohibited by law?
I’m just one man, and it’s a big bad world of community organizers out there.
I think the concern is justified; it’s clear, given the statements of the national New Black Panther Party, that the conduct of the poll watcher and his companions was at least inappropriate.
However, I also think some people are trying to make more out of the issue than is really there, including intention, whose only posts on the SDMB seem to consist of “I’m a liberal…” followed by a shot at Obama.
The statute makes a specific exception for nightsticks or batons utilized by police officers or on-duty security guards, meaning the definition of baton encompasses nightsticks or batons:
To be fair, his argument is that he’s “a Democrat, but…”, not a liberal. Knowing that there are plenty of conservadems and Blue Dogs out there is the only thing keeping me from asking for a scan of his voter registration card as a cite on that, despite frequent temptation. I’m trying to learn from the bad example of the Republicans and not start (unofficially) kicking out everyone who doesn’t toe my line.
No skin off my nose if he’s a Democrat or not. I just find it weird that all his posts are criticisms of Obama.
Well, he IS the only President we’ve got.
I’ve been through this before, but I’ll go through it again. It’s taking longer than I thought.
Unless and until we Democrats clean up our own messes and fix our own mistakes and police our own house, the Republicans will gleefully do it, to our great detriment.
There is no need for me to post anything here lauding Obama or castigating Rush. There are lots and lots and lots of people who do that, what would possibly be the point? Sure, I could post wonderful saccharine encomiums about the various good things that Obama has done … but to what end? I learned here on the Dope the meaning of the word “dittohead”, which I found out means people who call up Rush Limbaugh just to say they agree with him. I have no intention of being, as are so many people here, an Obama dittohead. There’s no reason for me to apotheosize Obama here. You folks are doing a fantastic job of that, I have no desire to compete with the experts, I leave that to you.
I truly don’t understand the Democratic fixation with pointing at the Republicans going off the rails, while studiously refusing to discuss any possible Democratic wrongdoings of any kind, any time, anywhere. Whenever I say that it seems to me that the Democrats have done something wrong, people rush to say “Yeah, but look at what the Republicans have done … oooh, shiny … and besides, you’re an asshole for saying bad things about Obama” and everyone goes haring off to look at anything except what the Democrats might have done.
In the current instance, I point out that a clear case of voter intimidation, with witnesses, video, and a default judgement, has been summarily overturned by the Obama DOJ. I point out that the case is egregious enough that the Justice Department has instituted its own internal inquiry into how this happened, how it came to pass that the DOJ higher-ups have over-ruled career lawyers and prosecutors … and what happens? What is the response of the “fighting ignorant”?
People attack me, and try to excuse the intimidation by saying nothing happened, or by saying that they are much too manly to be intimidated so there was no intimidation, or by saying that truncheons are already illegal, or by saying that it is a mostly black district, or by publicly demonstrating that they are too stupid to follow a link on the NBPP web page, or by saying anything at all to avoid acknowledging that a Democrat might have done something wrong.
Meanwhile, the Republicans are laughing all the way to the bank because they get to exploit our mistakes to their political advantage, and I’m the idiot for having the insufferable gall to point out that Democrats make mistakes just like everyone else.
Despite coming in with enormous goodwill, Obama is rushing headlong toward being a one-term President, his popularity is dropping faster than any President since 1953, he and his administration have made far too many newbie mistakes, and you guys want to discuss the shortcomings of idiots like Rush and Glen Beck and tell me how you can’t be intimidated …
Denial, anyone?
More like wishful thinking on your part.
You’re a walking bag of Republican talking points. You say that you don’t watch Beck or listen to Limbaugh, but every post of yours is a point by point match of what they say everyday. By the way, Obama’s popularity has been steady in the low 50’s since August. There is only one pollster who is showing less than 50% support, and that’s Rasmussen, who is rapidly becoming a joke. Go to Pollster.com and see what an outlier Rasmussen is. If you threw out Rasmussen, which you should, there would be no decline at all.
I’m still waiting for you to explain what “radical” means.
Thanks, I didn’t expect you to address that, but your reasoning is sound.
I don’t think you understand what a default judgment is. It means one party essentially failed to show up, so the court has ruled against them not on the merits of the case but summarily.
An internal inquiry is not in and of itself evidence of anything, other than the fact that congresscritters are complaining. If the inquiry finds anything worth reporting, I’m sure you’ll read about it here more or less immediately.
However, if the facts are as reported by Fox News and the DOJ attempted to sweep the matter under the rug, I agree that the Attorney General has a lot of apologizing to do, as does Obama.
There was nothing to sweep under the rug. It was a non-story. A couple guys were walkking around with sticks. That’s not anything that’s worth the DOJ’s time, even if they were black.
So you watch them every day and can make that comparison? Because I don’t watch them at all, I can’t stand their brainless, divisive chatter, so I fear I can’t comment on your allegation. But every post of mine is a “point by point match”? Seems unlikely. Let’s see … I support health care reform, and I have posted that here on the Dope. So you have a choice.either you come up with Beck or Limbaugh saying that, or admit that you are just exaggerating in the true Beck/Limbaugh fashion … here’s a post of mine from July that you can start with:
Find Beck or Rush saying anything remotely like that and you win. Otherwise, I’ll accept your apology for mindless exaggeration.
Rasmussen has consistently been in the top three most accurate polls at predicting election results, as reported on fivethirtyeight.com in several separate analyses of a variety of elections. Probably just a coincidence … but let’s set that aside for the moment.
According to Pollster.com, which you cite above, the average approval ratings without Rasmussen were:
Jan 1 '09, 72%
Feb 1, 70%
Mar 1, 67%
Apr 1, 65%
May 1, 65%
Jun 1, 64%
Jul 1, 62%
Aug 1, 58%
Sep 1, 55%
Oct 1, 55%
Hardly looks like “no decline at all” to me" …
However, I’m not clear what this has to do with my statement, which was:
That was a result from a Gallup Poll as reported in Time Magazine …
What on earth does that have to do with Rasmussen?
PS - What is a “radical”? I’ll go over this once more for the hard of thinking. A “radical” is generally someone who is out at one of the extreme ends of a political or belief spectrum, someone who wants to introduce huge changes into a system. From Google Define:
• extremist: (used of opinions and actions) far beyond the norm; “extremist political views”; “radical opinions on education”; “an ultra conservative”
• a person who has radical ideas or opinions
• revolutionary: markedly new or introducing radical change; “a revolutionary discovery”; “radical political views”
From Yahoo Dictionary:
• Departing markedly from the usual or customary; extreme: radical opinions on education.
• Favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions: radical political views.
From Microsoft Dictionary:
• Favoring or making economic, political, or social changes of a sweeping or extreme nature
From Merriam Webster
• Marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional : extreme
• Tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions
• Of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change
• Advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs <the radical right>
From the Cambridge Dictionary:
• Believing or expressing the belief that there should be great or extreme social or political change <He was known as a radical reformer/thinker/politician>.
So in American politics we have the right, and the radical right. We have the left, and the radical left. And clearly Rush was talking about the radical left.
But you knew that …
Obama’s drop is only relative to numbers that started as absurdly high to begin with. He’s still solidly over 50%, which is remarkable for a President dealing with a recession, a two front war and a media complex devoted to a full scale, 24/7 demonization campaign.
How would you know that? You are unfamiliar with Rush, you are as innocent of Rush as a newborn lamb is innocent of malice, as it gambols and frolics amongst the daffodils. How can you have any expertise on which to draw?
Yes, indeed, Rush is talking about the “radical” left, but he doesn’t know what he’s talking about or, more likely, he is lying. Those things that he identifies as “radical” left are little more than white bread and mayo liberalism, quite dull, actually.
But you knew that…
I have cited several very radical moves that Richard Nixon made, which you dismissed becase radicals are far left generally, a view which none of your quoted definitions support. Obama’s done nothing radical, yet you and Rush are in lockstep that he’s the most radical President ever. Or, the most radical Democratic President. Or the most radical black President. Yeah, I think it’s the last one - It’s clear that that was the way Rush intended it.
By the way, care to give some examples of the radical things Obama has done?
Yes, I know that very well. However, if people are innocent, they tend to show up to proclaim and establish their innocence. Not evidence, to be sure, but an indication.
On the other hand, the fact that it is a default judgement is very relevant to the overturning of the ruling. I could understand it if say the NBPP guys showed up and were convicted on flimsy evidence or perjured testimony. Then an overturned verdict would make some sense. But in the case of a default judgement, where one party doesn’t even show up, it is unheard of for the DOJ to overturn it. That’s the part that is evidence in my mind, evidence of biased action.
Congressfools on both sides of the aisle have complained long and loud about a host of things that have not resulted in internal inquiries. Again, not evidence, but an indication. I would much rather have had an external inquiry, but that’s like Democrats asking Rangel to step down from Ways and Means … a good idea, but not very probable.
And since MSNBC has totally ignored the story since the beginning, you are right that we will hear about it … but perhaps not from MSNBC.
Time will tell. Thanks for the comments.
Obama is definitely the most radical Black President … do you even notice what you write?
I said nothing about “radicals are far left generally”. I said that Rush clearly meant radical on the left, and so that was the meaning I took. Unless you think Rush meant that Obama was radically conservative, in which case I can’t help you.
As to what he has done that is radical, oh, how about signing on to the UN statement proposing that it be a crime for me to say that Mohammed is a flaming asshole … radical enough for you?
I said that I have never watched Rush, which is true. However, I went on the internet and googled the statement in question, and read what he had said … and that’s “how I would know that.” Duh …
I can see why “It’s taking longer than we thought” …
This is completely made up.
I think when Limbaugh said “radical” he probably meant “radical”. I’m sure he thinks (or wants to foster the impression) that Obama is a radical liberal, so if he wanted to say that Obama is the most radical liberal president ever, I’m sure he would have said that, and wouldn’t be surprised if he has in the past.
Because the level of mental gymnastics you are apparently willing to engage in to defend the truthfulness of a comment Rush Limbaugh made is at once astonishing and frustrating to the reader.
Ooooh, this is hard. Let’s see. Dio, who wasn’t there, says there was no intimidation, nothing to see here, it’s a “non-story”.
On the other hand, a number of people who witnessed the incident said it was intimidation. And the video shows a big man with a nightstick in front of the polling place. And some people who were there said they felt intimidated. And the DOJ issued an injunction to stop the intimidation.
Hmmm … witnesses’ and participants’ statements and video and the DOJ on one side … Dio who cannot be intimidated on the other side … gosh, that’s a tough one, I’ll have to ponder that for a while.