NAALCP wages war on Tea Party using LIE about N-word as justification

[drsmith1072]

David Duke is your man Samurai.

You have nothing to say about the lies being spread? I guess you would rather hurl lame ass insults than to acknowledge the facts. Typical idiot liberal!

Do you see the contradiction?? LOL

thing is that several rightwingers on this board have admitted that the N word was used but that it's only a minority that you shouldn't use to define the whole. So what lies are you referring to in this spamming cut and paste of someone else's opinions??

Don't you think it's funny that rightwing blogs are spamming the same exact astroturf content as they try desperately to control their followers as they feed them information and tlaking points?

NAACP CONDEMNS TEA PARTY MOVEMENT | latest-news | news

http://remakeamericanow.org/2010/07...-using-phantom-ae˜n-wordae™-as-justification/

http://blog.survivalstation.org/naa...-phantom-‘n-word’-as-justification-55610.html

 

[rightwinger]

A) Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source

B) The KKK was founded by the Democrat Party and continued as a arm of the Democrat party.

C) Jim Crowe laws were passed by Democrats.

D) The three Senators that filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were all DEMOCRATS including Robert Byrd and Al Gore, Sr.

E) It took Republicans in the Senate to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. More Republicans voted for it, than Democrats.

Just because Democrats LIE about their past now in Wikipedia and the like won't get past those facts.

Another rightwing conservative unable to distinguish the actions of Southern Democrats AND Republicans who enacted racist policies.

Show where a single Southern Republican spoke out about Jim Crow or the Civil Rights Act

One thing they had in common was none of them were Liberals

That's like asking where the "moderate" muslims are in the ME. They keep their heads down rather than get killed by the extremists.

The same was true of the South. It was run by the Democrats and anyone that didn't cowtow ended up lynched. And if you don't think that included whites, I suggest you watch Mississippi Burning.

Your knowledge of Civil Rights era politics is apalling. There were both Democrats and Republicans in the South......Both voted consistently against Civil Rights legislation

I invited you to provide a single southern republican who voted or spoke out in favor of Civil Rights and you were unable to do so

 

[drsmith1072]

Can anyone explain why the Bush administration refused to charge the intimidation of the Black Panthers outside a polling place after the Obama/McCain election? They dropped the case three month BEFORE Obama was sworn in.

Exactly and on foxnews today megan kelly was still trying to blame obama for a "policy" that apparently existed BEFORE he was even president.

 

[Jack Fate]

Another rightwing conservative unable to distinguish the actions of Southern Democrats AND Republicans who enacted racist policies.

Show where a single Southern Republican spoke out about Jim Crow or the Civil Rights Act

One thing they had in common was none of them were Liberals

That's like asking where the "moderate" muslims are in the ME. They keep their heads down rather than get killed by the extremists.

The same was true of the South. It was run by the Democrats and anyone that didn't cowtow ended up lynched. And if you don't think that included whites, I suggest you watch Mississippi Burning.

Your knowledge of Civil Rights era politics is apalling. There were both Democrats and Republicans in the South......Both voted consistently against Civil Rights legislation

I invited you to provide a single southern republican who voted or spoke out in favor of Civil Rights and you were unable to do so

That means nothing. Civil rights legislation would not have passed without republican votes. There were only a handful of southern democrats who voted for the bill.

 

[Jarhead]

That's like asking where the "moderate" muslims are in the ME. They keep their heads down rather than get killed by the extremists.

The same was true of the South. It was run by the Democrats and anyone that didn't cowtow ended up lynched. And if you don't think that included whites, I suggest you watch Mississippi Burning.

Your knowledge of Civil Rights era politics is apalling. There were both Democrats and Republicans in the South......Both voted consistently against Civil Rights legislation

I invited you to provide a single southern republican who voted or spoke out in favor of Civil Rights and you were unable to do so

That means nothing. Civil rights legislation would not have passed without republican votes. There were only a handful of southern democrats who voted for the bill.

Please please please. RightWinger does not wish to address those republicans that done good nor does he want to address those democrats that done bad. He only wants to address those repubnlicans that done bad by not speaking out against those that were against the civil rights act.....you know...those southern democrats that were not at fault. They would have done the right thing if the republicans spoke out against them.

Nasty republicans!

 

[Jarhead]

Can anyone explain why the Bush administration refused to charge the intimidation of the Black Panthers outside a polling place after the Obama/McCain election? They dropped the case three month BEFORE Obama was sworn in.

Exactly and on foxnews today megan kelly was still trying to blame obama for a "policy" that apparently existed BEFORE he was even president.

Exactly my ass.
Made up/spun post and you agree with it.
quite pathetic Smith.

 

[drsmith1072]

Can anyone explain why the Bush administration refused to charge the intimidation of the Black Panthers outside a polling place after the Obama/McCain election? They dropped the case three month BEFORE Obama was sworn in.

That is a complete lie. The DOJ was bringing charges. It was dropped after the Obama admin took over.

What charges was the W DOJ bringing?? Did they actually bring criminal charges or did they just file a civil lawsuit in Jan 08 that they never followed up with despite the fact that the defendents never responded?? Fact is that no criminal charges were brought.

So please explain what you wanted to occur according to the legal limits of the law and please be specific if you can?

 

[drsmith1072]

What about the teabagger sign showing Obama as a witch doctor with a bone through his nose?

You're saying that's not racist?

Oh gosh ONE SIGN. I see you that and raise you this!

The zombietime Hall of Shame

Photos from the rally in S.F. on February 16, 2003

zombietime

Beat THAT!

So he provides an example and instead of adressing the facts you try to change the subject or avoid facts but isn't that what you were claiming demcorats in this post were doing when you posted this

When they can't refute they just make infantile attacks

plus there were several other right wingers making similar claims about "the left ignoring facts" and yet you seem to have no problem ignoring facts that don't suit your spin.
Why is that??

 

[drsmith1072]

A) Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source

B) The KKK was founded by the Democrat Party and continued as a arm of the Democrat party.

C) Jim Crowe laws were passed by Democrats.

D) The three Senators that filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were all DEMOCRATS including Robert Byrd and Al Gore, Sr.

E) It took Republicans in the Senate to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. More Republicans voted for it, than Democrats.

Just because Democrats LIE about their past now in Wikipedia and the like won't get past those facts.

Wikepedia is a better source than you, teabag. Why do 80% of blacks vote democrat?

The same reason Democrats do NOT want blacks to get school vouchers such as the program in DC that Obama cancelled. Because if blacks ever learned the REAL history of the Democrat party instead of the lies told in public school, they would run Democrats out on a rail.

The reason I am against school vouchers is that they will not cover the full cost of the "good schools" or private schools and therefore will only serve to subsidize those who can already afford to send their children to such places while those at the bottom remain trapped in poor schools that will only get worse as more money is taken from them.

Why did you have to try to bring race into education? Do you see racism everywhere except where it exists in your own groups?? or do you just excuse it in your own groups?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ut-n-word-as-justification-3.html#post2504005

 

[Jarhead]

Can anyone explain why the Bush administration refused to charge the intimidation of the Black Panthers outside a polling place after the Obama/McCain election? They dropped the case three month BEFORE Obama was sworn in.

That is a complete lie. The DOJ was bringing charges. It was dropped after the Obama admin took over.

What charges was the W DOJ bringing?? Did they actually bring criminal charges or did they just file a civil lawsuit in Jan 08 that they never followed up with despite the fact that the defendents never responded?? Fact is that no criminal charges were brought.

So please explain what you wanted to occur according to the legal limits of the law and please be specific if you can?

They were charged with voter intimdaton
The DoJ presented the court with testimony and video as evidence.
The judge approved the case as viable and it was put on the docket.
Come trial time not only were the charges not answered to, but the defndants waived their right to a trial and refusd to appear.
A default jdgement was entered against all defendants.
While pending sentencing, the DoJ dropped the charges against all but one defendant. Yes, the DoJ that presented evidence showing a viable case.
Yes, the DoJ who said they had a viable case dropped the charges AFTER conviction (default judegenmt) citing that they had no evidence.
The one defendent who was "sentenced" was the one with the billy club and sentenced for bringing a weapon within 100 feet of a polling place.
His punishment? He can not go to any Philly polling place for 2 years...but can go to any other Pa polling place.

 

[drsmith1072]

That's like asking where the "moderate" muslims are in the ME. They keep their heads down rather than get killed by the extremists.

The same was true of the South. It was run by the Democrats and anyone that didn't cowtow ended up lynched. And if you don't think that included whites, I suggest you watch Mississippi Burning.

Your knowledge of Civil Rights era politics is apalling. There were both Democrats and Republicans in the South......Both voted consistently against Civil Rights legislation

I invited you to provide a single southern republican who voted or spoke out in favor of Civil Rights and you were unable to do so

That means nothing. Civil rights legislation would not have passed without republican votes. There were only a handful of southern democrats who voted for the bill.

Just love the spin as right wingers try to claim that they are the reason why civil rights legislation passed. Fact is that both democrats and republicans voted for and against it. So to try and claim that republicans are solely responsible for it's passage as you ignore the fact that some voted against it and when it wouldn't have passed without demcoratic support either is beyond dishonest.

 

[drsmith1072]

That is a complete lie. The DOJ was bringing charges. It was dropped after the Obama admin took over.

What charges was the W DOJ bringing?? Did they actually bring criminal charges or did they just file a civil lawsuit in Jan 08 that they never followed up with despite the fact that the defendents never responded?? Fact is that no criminal charges were brought.

So please explain what you wanted to occur according to the legal limits of the law and please be specific if you can?

They were charged with voter intimdaton
The DoJ presented the court with testimony and video as evidence.
The judge approved the case as viable and it was put on the docket.
Come trial time not only were the charges not answered to, but the defndants waived their right to a trial and refusd to appear.
A default jdgement was entered against all defendants.
While pending sentencing, the DoJ dropped the charges against all but one defendant. Yes, the DoJ that presented evidence showing a viable case.
Yes, the DoJ who said they had a viable case dropped the charges AFTER conviction (default judegenmt) citing that they had no evidence.
The one defendent who was "sentenced" was the one with the billy club and sentenced for bringing a weapon within 100 feet of a polling place.
His punishment? He can not go to any Philly polling place for 2 years...but can go to any other Pa polling place.

Nice spin but as usual I have to ask you for proof because, as usual you spew a lot of propaganda but are heavily lacking in the substance department.

Even John Fund states that a civil lawsuit was filed but I saw nothing in his article about criminal charges or a criminal trial, I wonder why??

In the first week of January, the Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring voters with the weapon, uniforms and racial slurs. In March, Mr. Bull submitted an affidavit at Justice's request to support its lawsuit.
When none of the defendants filed any response to the complaint or appeared in federal district court in Philadelphia to answer the suit, it appeared almost certain Justice would have prevailed by default. Instead, the department in May suddenly allowed the party and two of the three defendants to walk away. Against the third defendant, Minister King Samir Shabazz, it sought only an injunction barring him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling place for the next three years
John Fund: Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case Dropped - WSJ.com

BTW I see that you are still in the habit of ignoring my questions but how about you provide some specifics? Here are my questions again.

What charges was the W DOJ bringing?? Did they actually bring criminal charges or did they just file a civil lawsuit in Jan 08 that they never followed up with despite the fact that the defendents never responded?? Fact is that no criminal charges were brought.

So please explain what you wanted to occur according to the legal limits of the law and please be specific if you can?

 

[daveman]

Oh boo-hoo-hoo.

People that we loathe with a passion don't like us.

Grow some balls, lad.

So the fact that you're ruled solely by emotion and are incapable of controlling yourself means it's okay to tell lies about people?

 

[Jarhead]

What charges was the W DOJ bringing?? Did they actually bring criminal charges or did they just file a civil lawsuit in Jan 08 that they never followed up with despite the fact that the defendents never responded?? Fact is that no criminal charges were brought.

So please explain what you wanted to occur according to the legal limits of the law and please be specific if you can?

They were charged with voter intimdaton
The DoJ presented the court with testimony and video as evidence.
The judge approved the case as viable and it was put on the docket.
Come trial time not only were the charges not answered to, but the defndants waived their right to a trial and refusd to appear.
A default jdgement was entered against all defendants.
While pending sentencing, the DoJ dropped the charges against all but one defendant. Yes, the DoJ that presented evidence showing a viable case.
Yes, the DoJ who said they had a viable case dropped the charges AFTER conviction (default judegenmt) citing that they had no evidence.
The one defendent who was "sentenced" was the one with the billy club and sentenced for bringing a weapon within 100 feet of a polling place.
His punishment? He can not go to any Philly polling place for 2 years...but can go to any other Pa polling place.

Nice spin but as usual I have to ask you for proof because, as usual you spew a lot of propaganda but are heavily lacking in the substance department.

Even John Fund states that a civil lawsuit was filed but I saw nothing in his article about criminal charges or a criminal trial, I wonder why??

In the first week of January, the Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring voters with the weapon, uniforms and racial slurs. In March, Mr. Bull submitted an affidavit at Justice's request to support its lawsuit.
When none of the defendants filed any response to the complaint or appeared in federal district court in Philadelphia to answer the suit, it appeared almost certain Justice would have prevailed by default. Instead, the department in May suddenly allowed the party and two of the three defendants to walk away. Against the third defendant, Minister King Samir Shabazz, it sought only an injunction barring him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling place for the next three years
John Fund: Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case Dropped - WSJ.com

BTW I see that you are still in the habit of ignoring my questions but how about you provide some specifics? Here are my questions again.

What charges was the W DOJ bringing?? Did they actually bring criminal charges or did they just file a civil lawsuit in Jan 08 that they never followed up with despite the fact that the defendents never responded?? Fact is that no criminal charges were brought.

So please explain what you wanted to occur according to the legal limits of the law and please be specific if you can?

Fuck off. You are still a waste of my time.
I tried but you needed to act like an ass as usual.
Got away little boy.

 

[drsmith1072]

They were charged with voter intimdaton
The DoJ presented the court with testimony and video as evidence.
The judge approved the case as viable and it was put on the docket.
Come trial time not only were the charges not answered to, but the defndants waived their right to a trial and refusd to appear.
A default jdgement was entered against all defendants.
While pending sentencing, the DoJ dropped the charges against all but one defendant. Yes, the DoJ that presented evidence showing a viable case.
Yes, the DoJ who said they had a viable case dropped the charges AFTER conviction (default judegenmt) citing that they had no evidence.
The one defendent who was "sentenced" was the one with the billy club and sentenced for bringing a weapon within 100 feet of a polling place.
His punishment? He can not go to any Philly polling place for 2 years...but can go to any other Pa polling place.

Nice spin but as usual I have to ask you for proof because, as usual you spew a lot of propaganda but are heavily lacking in the substance department.

Even John Fund states that a civil lawsuit was filed but I saw nothing in his article about criminal charges or a criminal trial, I wonder why??

In the first week of January, the Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring voters with the weapon, uniforms and racial slurs. In March, Mr. Bull submitted an affidavit at Justice's request to support its lawsuit.
When none of the defendants filed any response to the complaint or appeared in federal district court in Philadelphia to answer the suit, it appeared almost certain Justice would have prevailed by default. Instead, the department in May suddenly allowed the party and two of the three defendants to walk away. Against the third defendant, Minister King Samir Shabazz, it sought only an injunction barring him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling place for the next three years
John Fund: Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case Dropped - WSJ.com

BTW I see that you are still in the habit of ignoring my questions but how about you provide some specifics? Here are my questions again.

What charges was the W DOJ bringing?? Did they actually bring criminal charges or did they just file a civil lawsuit in Jan 08 that they never followed up with despite the fact that the defendents never responded?? Fact is that no criminal charges were brought.

So please explain what you wanted to occur according to the legal limits of the law and please be specific if you can?

Fuck off. You are still a waste of my time.
I tried but you needed to act like an ass as usual.
Got away little boy.

So you presenting unsubstantiated drivel is you "trying"? LOL

However, as usual when asked for substance you engage in your usual hit and run tactics. Anything to get away from an actual debate on the FACTS.

You spewed, I asked you for specifics to substantiate your spin and you attack and run.
How typical and just like old times.

Civil lawsuit/Criminal charges. Civil lawsuit dropped/criminal charges dropped. Differences. Educate yourself.

 

[WillowTree]

David Duke is your man Samurai.

I never took you for someone who would defend a liar no matter what their color. I guess I've been proven wrong. Kerry On.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Can anyone explain why the Bush administration refused to charge the intimidation of the Black Panthers outside a polling place after the Obama/McCain election? They dropped the case three month BEFORE Obama was sworn in.

Please dont come in here and lie Rdean. The information I have shows the case was dropped in 2009...this information is the sworn testimony of J Christian Adams and the court document of testimony in this case from Bartle Bull in april of 2009

Bartle Bull Affidavit


drsmith1072, Political Junky, rightwinger the 3 of you should recind your thanking this false statement...it shows the 3 of you are ill informed on this case and need to study up before you continue posting.

 

[ABikerSailor]

What about the teabagger sign showing Obama as a witch doctor with a bone through his nose?

You're saying that's not racist?

If you are able to pinpoint one or two people out of tens of thousands, I'd say you are seeing LESS racism at the tea party ralley's than you would see in mainstrweam America.

Does it not strike you odd that of all the thousands of people, the media can only come up with a small handful of indications of racism to the point where they all show that same dam ONE sign and play that same dam ONE muffled n-word.

See why we call you sheep? The meda is leading you around and you are ignoring basic logic.

Okay.....wanna explain why the Republicans now want to drug test everyone who gets an unemployment check? They're checking for drugs so they can shut out the minorities, same reason pot was made illegal in the first place (look it up).

I mean.........everyone knows from movies and television that minorities make up the most drug usage in this country, right? /sarcasm.

 

[drsmith1072]

Can anyone explain why the Bush administration refused to charge the intimidation of the Black Panthers outside a polling place after the Obama/McCain election? They dropped the case three month BEFORE Obama was sworn in.

Please dont come in here and lie Rdean. The information I have shows the case was dropped in 2009...this information is the sworn testimony of J Christian Adams and the court document of testimony in this case from Bartle Bull in april of 2009

Bartle Bull Affidavit


drsmith1072, Political Junky, rightwinger the 3 of you should recind your thanking this false statement...it shows the 3 of you are ill informed on this case and need to study up before you continue posting.

Yes the civil case was dropped on a few of the defendents and one had an injuction filed against him. It's funny how you are sometimes good with specific details and then other times you shy away from them.

It was a civil suit and the bush administration did not criminaly charge the defendents. So based on the right wing claims that obama's DOJ "dropped the charges" rdean's question is valid, why didn't the bush administration CHARGE them and prosecute them?? Another valid question is why are the republcians trying to make such a huge deal out of this when it happened over a year ago??
Could it be because an election is coming up and republicans are desperate??

Oh and the "sworn testimony" that you linked to seems to be nothing but a google search that has links to a bunch of youtube videos of his interviews with foxnews. You may have the time to watch them all but I don't have the time to weed through them and find what you are claiming that you are providing.

 

[FA_Q2]

What about the teabagger sign showing Obama as a witch doctor with a bone through his nose?

You're saying that's not racist?

If you are able to pinpoint one or two people out of tens of thousands, I'd say you are seeing LESS racism at the tea party ralley's than you would see in mainstrweam America.

Does it not strike you odd that of all the thousands of people, the media can only come up with a small handful of indications of racism to the point where they all show that same dam ONE sign and play that same dam ONE muffled n-word.

See why we call you sheep? The meda is leading you around and you are ignoring basic logic.

Okay.....wanna explain why the Republicans now want to drug test everyone who gets an unemployment check? They're checking for drugs so they can shut out the minorities, same reason pot was made illegal in the first place (look it up).

I mean.........everyone knows from movies and television that minorities make up the most drug usage in this country, right? /sarcasm.

??? ludicrous. People want to drug test welfare and unemployment because those people are using taxes collected to purchase DRUGS instead of sustaining them until they can get back on their feet. Most of us know better though, a program of that nature is both logistically and cost prohibitive. That makes it a bad idea, not an unwarranted one.