New Black Panther Party Leader - ... you want freedom ... kill some crackers

[Sky Dancer]

If this psycho wasn't dead i'd make a thread about just him

Khalid Abdul Muhammad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Khallid Muhammad's Speech - Kill The White Man - Video

The new black panther party is freaking insane!!! This exceeds hate speech, this is purely inciting violence against gays, white women, and anyone else who gets in the way.

He's dead. Why bring him up?

 

[KissMy]

Obama's Black Panthers

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DQAOZlNrO8"]Obama's Black Panthers[/ame]

 

[Annie]

Who cares if some poster from a message board calls you a racist? If you're not, you can relax.

For years he was my friend

Well, there comes a point when even the best human being gets tired of people lying about him.

Immie

I just came across this nice posting that sums up all the misdirections we've been seeing and lies spouted over and over again. Of course, one can also go to Media Matters and see how they've dribbled out:

‘Downgrading’ Voter Intimidation - Hans A. von Spakovsky - The Corner on National Review Online

Not that the that needs to read this will, but some might want to take a look, a sample:

...Adams confirmed many of the details that I have reported for National Review over the past year, and Megyn Kelly of FOX News has done an outstanding job further exposing the sordid and frankly infuriating particulars of the politically biased and pernicious actions taken by the political leadership at the DOJ, as well as the hateful, racist, and anti-Semitic views of the members of the New Black Panther Party. I will have more comments on Adams’s testimony, but first I wanted to comment on the latest excuse (and tired old refrain) that has been conjured up over the past two days: It was the fault of the Bush administration. (I kid you not.)

Yes, the latest claim, according to Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal Constitution and others, is that the “charges against the New Black Panthers were downgraded by the Bush Department of Justice [inasmuch as] the decision not to file a criminal case occurred before Obama was even in office.” This “downgrade” talking point is apparently supposed to excuse the Obama administration’s decision to dismiss virtually the entire civil voter intimidation case and to neuter the injunction sought against the one remaining defendant so substantially that what was left was little more than a minor annoyance.

These claims by a nonlawyer betray a fundamental ignorance of the difference between civil and criminal prosecutions and a total misunderstanding of how things work at the Justice Department and the Civil Rights Division. First of all, although the Civil Rights Division has a Criminal Section, the vast majority of its voting-rights prosecutions are civil cases conducted by the division’s Voting Section. Whenever someone violates the Voting Rights Act and does so in a way that is potentially both a civil and a criminal violation, the division must decide whether to proceed first with a civil or a criminal case. With most voting cases, the decision is usually to go with a civil case, particularly if there are elections coming up in the near future. That is because civil cases have a lower burden of proof and give the government the opportunity to obtain almost immediately a temporary injunction to stop the defendants from engaging in the same wrongful behavior as the case winds its way through the federal courts...

You might notice that our resident has spent a good part of the past few days on and on about the above and more.

 

[Sky Dancer]

In response from numerous requests from individual's seeking information on the "New Black Panthers," the Dr. Huey P. Newton Foundation issues this public statement to correct the distorted record being made in the media by a small band of African Americans calling themselves the New Black Panthers. As guardian of the true history of the Black Panther Party, the Foundation, which includes former leading members of the Party, denounces this group's exploitation of the Party's name and history. Failing to find its own legitimacy in the black community, this band would graft the Party's name upon itself, which we condemn.

Firstly, the people in the New Black Panthers were never members of the Black Panther Party and have no legitimate claim on the Party's name. On the contrary, they would steal the names and pretend to walk in the footsteps of the Party's true heroes, such as Black Panther founder Huey P. Newton, George Jackson and Jonathan Jackson, Bunchy Carter, John Huggins, Fred Hampton, Mark Cark, and so many others who gave their very lives to the black liberation struggle under the Party's banner.

Secondly, they denigrate the Party's name by promoting concepts absolutely counter to the revolutionary principles on which the Party was founded. Their alleged media assault on the Ku Klux Klan serves to incite hatred rather than resolve it. The Party's fundamental principle, as best articulated by the great revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara, was: "A true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love." The Black Panthers were never a group of angry young militants full of fury toward the "white establishment." The Party operated on love for black people, not hatred of white people.

Furthermore, this group claims it would "teach" the black community about armed self-defense. The arrogance of this claim is overwhelmed by its reactionary nature. Blacks, especially in the South, have been armed in self-defense for a very long time; indeed, the spiritual parent of the Party itself was the Louisiana-based Deacons for Defense. However, the Party understood that the gun was not necessarily revolutionary, for the police and all other oppressive forces had guns. It was the ideology behind the gun that determined its nature.

Daily Kos: State of the Nation

 

[HUGGY]

How quickly you forget when your ass gets handed to you on a silver platter.

Malone was one of the the cases from the link that YOU provided that you claimed proved RNC corruption. The case was dismissed, but it was one that you have claimed was proof of RNC corruption for a couple of weeks now.

Here is the post you gave us the link to.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...y-keep-blacks-from-voting-21.html#post2462679

And here is the link you provided note that the case was dismissed. However, though the rest of that thread you used this link as one of the absolute proofs of RNC corruption.

DNC v. RNC Consent Decree | Brennan Center for Justice

Immie

Here is what you claime Immie, you were wrong because the court did find that the RNC broke the consent decree and had to stop the practices the DNC complained about, after the election the freeze was dismissed.

you just dont understand what a consent decree is about.

You want to know what I understand? I understand that you are an absolute certifiable idiot who cannot read beyond the second grade level.

The case was dismissed, but it was one that you have claimed was proof of RNC corruption for a couple of weeks now

This is the frigging lie you have been trying to make everyone else believe and it is a lie:

the court did find that the RNC broke the consent decree and had to stop the practices the DNC complained about

ONCE AGAIN FOR THE MENTALLY CHALLENGED... the court found no such thing. THE FRIGGING CASE WAS DISMISSED!!!!! What part of that do you not understand? The case was dismissed. It was not even settled. It was dismissed. Is that too hard to understand?

Three years later the motion to vacate the decree was denied because dishonest people such as the Malone's, people just like you, had filed frivolous lawsuits against the RNC.

I understand exactly what the decree is about. The DNC filed a lawsuit against the RNC. During pretrial maneuvering, the two sides came to an agreement and decided to settle out of court. There was NO... NONE... NOT ONE IOTA... of guilt found. The two sides settled out of court and came to an agreement that the alleged (that does not mean proven) practices would not be continued. That was what they agreed to. There is no finding of guilt nor admission of guilt in that document. It even states so yet, you (who has read it) continue to spread your lies on this site.

Now, do you want to know why I think they settled? I think they settled because the RNC came up with the same kind of allegations against the DNC and the DNC did not want those allegations brought to court. The frigging DNC pissed in their pants when they realized the truth could be brought to light in court.

Now, quit lying about what I say.

Immie

THE FRIGGING CASE WAS DISMISSED!!!!!

Minolli... what do you mean??????

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

If this psycho wasn't dead i'd make a thread about just him

Khalid Abdul Muhammad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Khallid Muhammad's Speech - Kill The White Man - Video

The new black panther party is freaking insane!!! This exceeds hate speech, this is purely inciting violence against gays, white women, and anyone else who gets in the way.

He's dead. Why bring him up?

he is what is considered acceptable in a leader of the new black panther party. It provides context on to the type of people that group attracts. David Duke, Khalid_abdul_Muhammad, Hitler....they are all peas in a pod.

 

[Sky Dancer]

If this psycho wasn't dead i'd make a thread about just him

Khalid Abdul Muhammad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Khallid Muhammad's Speech - Kill The White Man - Video

The new black panther party is freaking insane!!! This exceeds hate speech, this is purely inciting violence against gays, white women, and anyone else who gets in the way.

He's dead. Why bring him up?

he is what is considered acceptable in a leader of the new black panther party. It provides context on to the type of people that group attracts. David Duke, Khalid_abdul_Muhammad, Hitler....they are all peas in a pod.

The average black person isn't going to give the New Black Panther Party any more attention than a white person gives the KKK.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

He's dead. Why bring him up?

he is what is considered acceptable in a leader of the new black panther party. It provides context on to the type of people that group attracts. David Duke, Khalid_abdul_Muhammad, Hitler....they are all peas in a pod.

The average black person isn't going to give the New Black Panther Party any more attention than a white person gives the KKK.

I know but its outrageous that people who are just like the KKK are allowed to stand outside polling stations with batons in their hand. I would be equally pissed if it were some KKK people standing outsid a polling place with a baton in their hand.

Don't both of those situations bother you?

 

[Immanuel]

For years he was my friend

Well, there comes a point when even the best human being gets tired of people lying about him.

Immie

I just came across this nice posting that sums up all the misdirections we've been seeing and lies spouted over and over again. Of course, one can also go to Media Matters and see how they've dribbled out:

‘Downgrading’ Voter Intimidation - Hans A. von Spakovsky - The Corner on National Review Online

Not that the that needs to read this will, but some might want to take a look, a sample:

...Adams confirmed many of the details that I have reported for National Review over the past year, and Megyn Kelly of FOX News has done an outstanding job further exposing the sordid and frankly infuriating particulars of the politically biased and pernicious actions taken by the political leadership at the DOJ, as well as the hateful, racist, and anti-Semitic views of the members of the New Black Panther Party. I will have more comments on Adams’s testimony, but first I wanted to comment on the latest excuse (and tired old refrain) that has been conjured up over the past two days: It was the fault of the Bush administration. (I kid you not.)

Yes, the latest claim, according to Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal Constitution and others, is that the “charges against the New Black Panthers were downgraded by the Bush Department of Justice [inasmuch as] the decision not to file a criminal case occurred before Obama was even in office.” This “downgrade” talking point is apparently supposed to excuse the Obama administration’s decision to dismiss virtually the entire civil voter intimidation case and to neuter the injunction sought against the one remaining defendant so substantially that what was left was little more than a minor annoyance.

These claims by a nonlawyer betray a fundamental ignorance of the difference between civil and criminal prosecutions and a total misunderstanding of how things work at the Justice Department and the Civil Rights Division. First of all, although the Civil Rights Division has a Criminal Section, the vast majority of its voting-rights prosecutions are civil cases conducted by the division’s Voting Section. Whenever someone violates the Voting Rights Act and does so in a way that is potentially both a civil and a criminal violation, the division must decide whether to proceed first with a civil or a criminal case. With most voting cases, the decision is usually to go with a civil case, particularly if there are elections coming up in the near future. That is because civil cases have a lower burden of proof and give the government the opportunity to obtain almost immediately a temporary injunction to stop the defendants from engaging in the same wrongful behavior as the case winds its way through the federal courts...

You might notice that our resident has spent a good part of the past few days on and on about the above and more.

This “downgrade” talking point is apparently supposed to excuse the Obama administration’s decision to dismiss virtually the entire civil voter intimidation case and to neuter the injunction sought against the one remaining defendant so substantially that what was left was little more than a minor annoyance.

Whenever someone violates the Voting Rights Act and does so in a way that is potentially both a civil and a criminal violation, the division must decide whether to proceed first with a civil or a criminal case. With most voting cases, the decision is usually to go with a civil case, particularly if there are elections coming up in the near future. That is because civil cases have a lower burden of proof and give the government the opportunity to obtain almost immediately a temporary injunction to stop the defendants from engaging in the same wrongful behavior as the case winds its way through the federal courts...

Thank you,

I have been trying to find a way to say that, but that is the case and the left has been lying about this issue for a long time. They have tried to make it sound like it was the Bush Admin that decided to dismiss the case and that is untrue.

The Bush Admin chose to prosecute the case as a civil case rather than a criminal case. Think of the OJ Simpson case. They did not convict OJ in a criminal court because the burden of proof was too high. Later they found him responsible for the death of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman in a civil court because the required amount of proof was lower.

The Bush Admin went for the sure win... the Obama Administration let the violator go.

Immie

 

[Annie]

Well, there comes a point when even the best human being gets tired of people lying about him.

Immie

I just came across this nice posting that sums up all the misdirections we've been seeing and lies spouted over and over again. Of course, one can also go to Media Matters and see how they've dribbled out:

‘Downgrading’ Voter Intimidation - Hans A. von Spakovsky - The Corner on National Review Online

Not that the that needs to read this will, but some might want to take a look, a sample:



You might notice that our resident has spent a good part of the past few days on and on about the above and more.

This “downgrade” talking point is apparently supposed to excuse the Obama administration’s decision to dismiss virtually the entire civil voter intimidation case and to neuter the injunction sought against the one remaining defendant so substantially that what was left was little more than a minor annoyance.

Whenever someone violates the Voting Rights Act and does so in a way that is potentially both a civil and a criminal violation, the division must decide whether to proceed first with a civil or a criminal case. With most voting cases, the decision is usually to go with a civil case, particularly if there are elections coming up in the near future. That is because civil cases have a lower burden of proof and give the government the opportunity to obtain almost immediately a temporary injunction to stop the defendants from engaging in the same wrongful behavior as the case winds its way through the federal courts...

Thank you,

I have been trying to find a way to say that, but that is the case and the left has been lying about this issue for a long time. They have tried to make it sound like it was the Bush Admin that decided to dismiss the case and that is untrue.

The Bush Admin chose to prosecute the case as a civil case rather than a criminal case. Think of the OJ Simpson case. They did not convict OJ in a criminal court because the burden of proof was too high. Later they found him responsible for the death of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman in a civil court because the required amount of evidence was lower.

The Bush Admin went for the sure win... the Obama Administration let the violator go.

Immie

You're welcome!

 

[Sky Dancer]

he is what is considered acceptable in a leader of the new black panther party. It provides context on to the type of people that group attracts. David Duke, Khalid_abdul_Muhammad, Hitler....they are all peas in a pod.

The average black person isn't going to give the New Black Panther Party any more attention than a white person gives the KKK.

I know but its outrageous that people who are just like the KKK are allowed to stand outside polling stations with batons in their hand. I would be equally pissed if it were some KKK people standing outsid a polling place with a baton in their hand.

Don't both of those situations bother you?

Personally? No. I always vote absentee.

It all has to do with context. The old Black Panther Party used to be protection for blacks in the neighborhood from politic brutality.

If Black Panthers with batons are protecting little old ladies who want to vote in bad neighborhoods it's another story.

I don't know much about this story other than what I've read here. I don't have a TV. I remember that the Black Panther Party was intimidating in the old days and had a lot of white people scared.

The New Black Panthers are very small with a mouthy leader.

 

[Truthmatters]

Absentee votes are sometimes not counted

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The average black person isn't going to give the New Black Panther Party any more attention than a white person gives the KKK.

I know but its outrageous that people who are just like the KKK are allowed to stand outside polling stations with batons in their hand. I would be equally pissed if it were some KKK people standing outsid a polling place with a baton in their hand.

Don't both of those situations bother you?

Personally? No. I always vote absentee.

It all has to do with context. The old Black Panther Party used to be protection for blacks in the neighborhood from politic brutality.

If Black Panthers with batons are protecting little old ladies who want to vote in bad neighborhoods it's another story.

I don't know much about this story other than what I've read here. I don't have a TV. I remember that the Black Panther Party was intimidating in the old days and had a lot of white people scared.

The New Black Panthers are very small with a mouthy leader.

Not Personally but instead as a matter of principle. Don't both those situations bother you as a matter of principle? The Uniformed New Black Panther Party and the Robed KKK standing in front of polling stations with batons in their hands....dont both those situations bother you on pure principle?

Sorry I asked 2 times but i wanted my question to be clear.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I know but its outrageous that people who are just like the KKK are allowed to stand outside polling stations with batons in their hand. I would be equally pissed if it were some KKK people standing outsid a polling place with a baton in their hand.

Don't both of those situations bother you?

Personally? No. I always vote absentee.

It all has to do with context. The old Black Panther Party used to be protection for blacks in the neighborhood from politic brutality.

If Black Panthers with batons are protecting little old ladies who want to vote in bad neighborhoods it's another story.

I don't know much about this story other than what I've read here. I don't have a TV. I remember that the Black Panther Party was intimidating in the old days and had a lot of white people scared.

The New Black Panthers are very small with a mouthy leader.

Not Personally but instead as a matter of principle. Don't both those situations bother you as a matter of principle? The Uniformed New Black Panther Party and the Robed KKK standing in front of polling stations with batons in their hands....dont both those situations bother you on pure principle?

Sorry I asked 2 times but i wanted my question to be clear.

Sure. People standing around with batons in their hands are intimidating. The point is who is it that thinks they need this kind of protection? Were the cops present or not?

 

[Immanuel]

Absentee votes are sometimes not counted

Let me be just like you.

Only when they are Republican Ballots.

I don't need proof, I just need to post that 500 times in the next three days and that will be enough.

Immie

PS I don't believe that to be the case, but, I can be just like TM

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Personally? No. I always vote absentee.

It all has to do with context. The old Black Panther Party used to be protection for blacks in the neighborhood from politic brutality.

If Black Panthers with batons are protecting little old ladies who want to vote in bad neighborhoods it's another story.

I don't know much about this story other than what I've read here. I don't have a TV. I remember that the Black Panther Party was intimidating in the old days and had a lot of white people scared.

The New Black Panthers are very small with a mouthy leader.

Not Personally but instead as a matter of principle. Don't both those situations bother you as a matter of principle? The Uniformed New Black Panther Party and the Robed KKK standing in front of polling stations with batons in their hands....dont both those situations bother you on pure principle?

Sorry I asked 2 times but i wanted my question to be clear.

Sure. People standing around with batons in their hands are intimidating. The point is who is it that thinks they need this kind of protection? Were the cops present or not?

TY for answering. I was worried that you were justifying voter intimidation based soley on the race of the intimidators.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Not Personally but instead as a matter of principle. Don't both those situations bother you as a matter of principle? The Uniformed New Black Panther Party and the Robed KKK standing in front of polling stations with batons in their hands....dont both those situations bother you on pure principle?

Sorry I asked 2 times but i wanted my question to be clear.

Sure. People standing around with batons in their hands are intimidating. The point is who is it that thinks they need this kind of protection? Were the cops present or not?

TY for answering. I was worried that you were justifying voter intimidation based soley on the race of the intimidators.

Not at all. Voter intimdation, unfortunately, comes in all colors.

 

[Immanuel]

Sure. People standing around with batons in their hands are intimidating. The point is who is it that thinks they need this kind of protection? Were the cops present or not?

TY for answering. I was worried that you were justifying voter intimidation based soley on the race of the intimidators.

Not at all. Voter intimdation, unfortunately, comes in all colors.

And in each case it is wrong.

Immie

 

[Againsheila]

He's dead. Why bring him up?

he is what is considered acceptable in a leader of the new black panther party. It provides context on to the type of people that group attracts. David Duke, Khalid_abdul_Muhammad, Hitler....they are all peas in a pod.

The average black person isn't going to give the New Black Panther Party any more attention than a white person gives the KKK.

The difference is, that if two members of the KKK did what those black panthers did, they'd be in jail, and rightfully so.

 

[logical4u]

Would you feel the same of the assholes who say that about black people?

Can you find any (other than in other countries) that would call a woman filthy names because she was with another race and then say they would kill that race's women, and their babies?
It is one thing to hate with ignorance (you have a chance of learning), but to threaten to kill the weakest of a race (and which race doesn't matter), specifically, because you hate is cowardly.