Eric Holder is a Racist

[Big Fitz]

Please provide some news source beyond Fox News, which is not news, but editorial, thank you.

The instant you refuse ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN/MSNBC as partisan hackery, does that complaint has validity.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ever notice how the left sees partisanship as a bad thing when they get their asses handed to them? Particularly when we point to the white sheets and hoods back from their dry cleaners? Or are they now BLACK sheets and hoods?

I wonder if it would change any perceptions if we referred to the Attorney General as

Eric "Bull Connor" Holder, or Eric 'call me George Wallace' Holder.

Or is racism merely copasetic for one side only...

 

[Sky Dancer]

Fox is anti-administration in every story.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Ever notice how the left sees partisanship as a bad thing when they get their asses handed to them? Particularly when we point to the white sheets and hoods back from their dry cleaners? Or are they now BLACK sheets and hoods?

I wonder if it would change any perceptions if we referred to the Attorney General as

Eric "Bull Connor" Holder, or Eric 'call me George Wallace' Holder.

Or is racism merely copasetic for one side only...

Stick to the facts. A case was dismissed for lack of evidence. An employee makes charges of racism. I haven't made up my mind yet.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ever notice how the left sees partisanship as a bad thing when they get their asses handed to them? Particularly when we point to the white sheets and hoods back from their dry cleaners? Or are they now BLACK sheets and hoods?

I wonder if it would change any perceptions if we referred to the Attorney General as

Eric "Bull Connor" Holder, or Eric 'call me George Wallace' Holder.

Or is racism merely copasetic for one side only...

Stick to the topic. A case was dismissed for lack of evidence.

SD, this is the weakest of defenses...

Since the episode has been captured on vid for all to see, and since a civil rights attorney, Mr. Bull, witnessed the event, and has the experience of the voter registration wars in the South in another era, surely his conclusion carries more weight than the political appointee who said 'not enough evidence' AFTER the case was won...

When you are in a clearer thinking period, I'm sure reponderation will change your position.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I wonder if it would change any perceptions if we referred to the Attorney General as

Eric "Bull Connor" Holder, or Eric 'call me George Wallace' Holder.

Or is racism merely copasetic for one side only...

Stick to the topic. A case was dismissed for lack of evidence.

SD, this is the weakest of defenses...

Since the episode has been captured on vid for all to see, and since a civil rights attorney, Mr. Bull, witnessed the event, and has the experience of the voter registration wars in the South in another era, surely his conclusion carries more weight than the political appointee who said 'not enough evidence' AFTER the case was won...

When you are in a clearer thinking period, I'm sure reponderation will change your position.

Why wasn't the video presented in court if it's real evidence? You have Adams unsubstantiated allegation which amounts to hearsay.

I make my decisions based on facts. I don't have enough information yet.

Too many 'analysts' not enough evidence. There is precedent for this kind of DOJ decision in previous administrations.

Perez highlighted a case that completely undermines the notion that the DOJ's decisions in the Black Panthers case were unprecedented or racially motivated. Perez testified that in 2006, the Justice Department "declined to bring any action for alleged voter intimidation" "when three well-known anti-immigrant advocates affiliated with the Minutemen, one of whom was carrying a gun, allegedly intimidated Latino voters at a polling place by approaching several persons, filming them, and advocating and printing voting materials in Spanish." [U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 5/14/10

I don't recall any disgruntled leftist employees of the DOJ calling the Bush adminstration racist, do you?

 

[Big Fitz]

Fox is anti-administration in every story.

Huh. Must be Fox Radio is a totally different entity. And FNC's website as well. I don't see a total anti-admin bias. I see straight news stories, both critical AND when possible, approving of the government. It's just when well, you suck as hard as the P-BO administration and **** up with every step (I'm assuming incompetence here instead of treason to give you the benefit of the doubt) there's not much good to say about you.

You look at the cheerleading from the 5 state controlled networks, you see almost the exact opposite. Nothing critical except when it can't be avoided. Spin to make disasters less horrific and generally lying by omission on any embarrassing story that comes down the pike.

Stick to the topic. A case was dismissed for lack of evidence. An employee makes charges of racism.

The Racist General Eric Holder says there's no evidence. There's video and audio and testimony from eye witnesses and victims of the incident. Huh. Yeah, lack of evidence.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4MTQVMatW0]YouTube - RACIST GROUP INTIMIDATES VOTERS[/ame]

Nooooooo... there's no voter intimidation HERE!

 

[Sky Dancer]

Fox is anti-administration in every story.

Huh. Must be Fox Radio is a totally different entity. And FNC's website as well. I don't see a total anti-admin bias. I see straight news stories, both critical AND when possible, approving of the government. It's just when well, you suck as hard as the P-BO administration and **** up with every step (I'm assuming incompetence here instead of treason to give you the benefit of the doubt) there's not much good to say about you.

You look at the cheerleading from the 5 state controlled networks, you see almost the exact opposite. Nothing critical except when it can't be avoided. Spin to make disasters less horrific and generally lying by omission on any embarrassing story that comes down the pike.

Stick to the topic. A case was dismissed for lack of evidence. An employee makes charges of racism.

The Racist General Eric Holder says there's no evidence. There's video and audio and testimony from eye witnesses and victims of the incident. Huh. Yeah, lack of evidence.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4MTQVMatW0]YouTube - RACIST GROUP INTIMIDATES VOTERS[/ame]

Nooooooo... there's no voter intimidation HERE!

Was this video was entered in evidence? What do the court documents say?

BTW your whistleblower failed to blow the whistle in a similiar situation during the Bush adminsitration . Minutemen brandishing a weapons/gun in order to intimidate Latino voters. Where was Fox News for that story? Why is Fox ignoring the precedents in previous adminstrations for not being tough on voter intimidation? There's a wider context to consider.

 

[Big Fitz]

I'm starting to wonder if Sky is a minority and believes that because of this, she has a right to be racist too. I don't give two shits about anyone's skin color or ethnicity, but their character and actions on the other hand mean a lot. So, is this the case, Sky on why you deny what is blatantly obvious to 98% of those who see the videos?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Stick to the topic. A case was dismissed for lack of evidence.

SD, this is the weakest of defenses...

Since the episode has been captured on vid for all to see, and since a civil rights attorney, Mr. Bull, witnessed the event, and has the experience of the voter registration wars in the South in another era, surely his conclusion carries more weight than the political appointee who said 'not enough evidence' AFTER the case was won...

When you are in a clearer thinking period, I'm sure reponderation will change your position.

Why wasn't the video presented in court if it's real evidence? You have Adams unsubstantiated allegation which amounts to hearsay.

I make my decisions based on facts. I don't have enough information yet.

Too many 'analysts' not enough evidence. There is precedent for this kind of DOJ decision in previous administrations.

Perez highlighted a case that completely undermines the notion that the DOJ's decisions in the Black Panthers case were unprecedented or racially motivated. Perez testified that in 2006, the Justice Department "declined to bring any action for alleged voter intimidation" "when three well-known anti-immigrant advocates affiliated with the Minutemen, one of whom was carrying a gun, allegedly intimidated Latino voters at a polling place by approaching several persons, filming them, and advocating and printing voting materials in Spanish." [U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 5/14/10

I don't recall any disgruntled leftist employees of the DOJ calling the Bush adminstration racist, do you?

You seem not conversant with the case.

The two were convicted, and the judge merely awaited the suggestion for punishment by the DoJ...then the NAACP intervened, put pressure on the administration to quash the case, and ...walah! it was dropped, and attorney Adams states that the lawyers in the department were told that this type of case, i.e. black parpetrator, white victim in elections, would no longer be brought.

Based on his position, AG Holder had to have been involved in said decision.

QED. racist.

I'm suggesting that you abjure the doctrinaire approach, and consider the words of our great 16th President:

"Stand with anybody that stands RIGHT. Stand with him while he is right and PART with him when he goes wrong."
Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (October 16, 1854),

 

[Sky Dancer]

If the video were such a crucial piece of evidence why was the case dismissed for lack of evidence?

The DOJ must have had justification for dropping the case. Previous administrations have dropped what looked like good cases too and haven't been labelled racist.

Why is that?

What business is it of yours what color my skin is?

 

[Sky Dancer]

SD, this is the weakest of defenses...

Since the episode has been captured on vid for all to see, and since a civil rights attorney, Mr. Bull, witnessed the event, and has the experience of the voter registration wars in the South in another era, surely his conclusion carries more weight than the political appointee who said 'not enough evidence' AFTER the case was won...

When you are in a clearer thinking period, I'm sure reponderation will change your position.

Why wasn't the video presented in court if it's real evidence? You have Adams unsubstantiated allegation which amounts to hearsay.

I make my decisions based on facts. I don't have enough information yet.

Too many 'analysts' not enough evidence. There is precedent for this kind of DOJ decision in previous administrations.

Perez highlighted a case that completely undermines the notion that the DOJ's decisions in the Black Panthers case were unprecedented or racially motivated. Perez testified that in 2006, the Justice Department "declined to bring any action for alleged voter intimidation" "when three well-known anti-immigrant advocates affiliated with the Minutemen, one of whom was carrying a gun, allegedly intimidated Latino voters at a polling place by approaching several persons, filming them, and advocating and printing voting materials in Spanish." [U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 5/14/10

I don't recall any disgruntled leftist employees of the DOJ calling the Bush adminstration racist, do you?

You seem not conversant with the case.

The two were convicted, and the judge merely awaited the suggestion for punishment by the DoJ...then the NAACP intervened, put pressure on the administration to quash the case, and ...walah! it was dropped, and attorney Adams states that the lawyers in the department were told that this type of case, i.e. black parpetrator, white victim in elections, would no longer be brought.

Based on his position, AG Holder had to have been involved in said decision.

QED. racist.

I'm suggesting that you abjure the doctrinaire approach, and consider the words of our great 16th President:

"Stand with anybody that stands RIGHT. Stand with him while he is right and PART with him when he goes wrong."
Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (October 16, 1854),

I haven't made my mind up yet. So far, I'm not convinced that any adminstration GOP or Dem has been tough enough on voter intimidation. I think the parties are quick to label each other racist, and I think that's wrong.

The track records of Dem and GOP on voter intimidation leave alot to be desired.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If the video were such a crucial piece of evidence why was the case dismissed for lack of evidence?

The DOJ must have had justification for dropping the case. Previous administrations have dropped what looked like good cases too and haven't been labelled racist.

Why is that?

What business is it of yours what color my skin is?

Your question is the crux of the matter "...why was the case dismissed for lack of evidence?"

Since the evidence is there for all to see...can you provide any other scenario outside of the the OP?

 

[Sky Dancer]

If the video were such a crucial piece of evidence why was the case dismissed for lack of evidence?

The DOJ must have had justification for dropping the case. Previous administrations have dropped what looked like good cases too and haven't been labelled racist.

Why is that?

What business is it of yours what color my skin is?

Your question is the crux of the matter "...why was the case dismissed for lack of evidence?"

Since the evidence is there for all to see...can you provide any other scenario outside of the the OP?

No, I can't. I don't have enough information about why the case was dismissed. I do see that there is precedent for such dismissals in other voter intimidation cases throughout history.

It looks like we don't do a good job of trying these cases. Does that mean our government is corrupt and racist throughout history? I wouldn't go that far.

I concede you make a lot of good points, I just disagree with your conclusions. Adams has an ax to grind. Adams is a longtime conservative activist hired by a Bush appointee who politicized the Justice Department.

 

[Big Fitz]

Awesome!

If the video were such a crucial piece of evidence why was the case dismissed for lack of evidence?

Answer: Because he's a racist with a political agenda to protect OTHER black racists.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular......

 

[Big Fitz]

Previous administrations have dropped what looked like good cases too and haven't been labeled racist.

Provide some links so I may be able to judge for myself if they're racist or not. Specific examples would be appreciated. They very well may have been racist, and that's wrong regardless of color.

 

[Neubarth]

Of course you don't your a member of the left that protects and condones Black Racism. Facts are FACTS, voter intimidation was a problem in this country, so STRONG voter intimidation laws were set in place. He numbnutz broke those FEDERAL laws. They didn't even show up at court. Yet their charges were ordered to be dropped by Holder. What if White KKK guys were doing this at poll stations in black neighborhoods? You would be all over it, screaming racism. Then image if the WHITE attorney general let them off. You would be screaming racism.

So very true. Sky Danger and her kind are hypocrites. Of course, that has never stopped them before.

 

[daveman]

Stick to the facts. A case was dismissed for lack of evidence.

Lack of evidence? No. DoJ had all but won the case.

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—action that's already illegal under existing law.

DoJ refused to continue a case they would have won. You cannot claim it was due to lack of evidence.

 

[Coyote]

Please provide some news source beyond Fox News, which is not news, but editorial, thank you.

Why?

Fox is the most trusted television news network in the country, according to a new poll out Tuesday.
A Public Policy Polling nationwide survey of 1,151 registered voters Jan. 18-19 found that 49 percent of Americans trusted Fox News, 10 percentage points more than any other network.
Thirty-seven percent said they didn’t trust Fox, also the lowest level of distrust that any of the networks recorded.


Read more: Poll: Fox most trusted name in news - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com

That's misleading in another poll, the results actually split along partisan lines.

74% of Republicans trust Fox News, but no more than 23% trust any of the other four sources....which goes to show that the stereotype that conservatives don't trust the mainstream media is pretty accurate.

However, for Democrats the numbers are opposite - only 30% have faith in Fox.

Your poll had:
36% self identified as Democrat, 35% as Republican, 29% as Indpendent.

I think it would be more accurate to say Republicans and Conservatives "trust" Fox News.

Interesting quote from your source though: “But the media landscape has really changed and now they’re turning more toward the outlets that tell them what they want to hear.”

I don't think that's a good thing for anyone.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Of course you don't your a member of the left that protects and condones Black Racism. Facts are FACTS, voter intimidation was a problem in this country, so STRONG voter intimidation laws were set in place. He numbnutz broke those FEDERAL laws. They didn't even show up at court. Yet their charges were ordered to be dropped by Holder. What if White KKK guys were doing this at poll stations in black neighborhoods? You would be all over it, screaming racism. Then image if the WHITE attorney general let them off. You would be screaming racism.

So very true. Sky Danger and her kind are hypocrites. Of course, that has never stopped them before.

Weak debaters always resort to name calling. See ya Neubarth.