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

[Ravi]

Really? From my perspective it is far less "stupid" than Mel Gibson, Lindsay Lohan and Lebton James. We all knew about that!

But even stupider is the group of militia men that got caught plotting against the police and the government...right?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Forgive me for being naïve, but isn't the poll watcher's JOB to WATCH for this kind of shenanigans? Maybe we should just get rid of them. If they are Republican of course.

I went out to dinner with a group of educated, accomplished women last night. They barely knew anything about this. Sad isn't it?

You use the word "educated" loosely in your description of these women.

 

[chanel]

Trust me they are lonestar. One in fact is a PhD. They just don't watch Fox, and that's the only station covering it.

 

[Coyote]

Forgive me for being naïve, but isn't the poll watcher's JOB to WATCH for this kind of shenanigans? Maybe we should just get rid of them. If they are Republican of course.

I went out to dinner with a group of educated, accomplished women last night. They barely knew anything about this. Sad isn't it?

Maybe because it really isn't that big a deal like it's been blown up to be in the opinion-media?

I know right coyote....who cares if people intimidate others at polling stations, its not like it threatens a legitimate democracy or anything

Now Mel Gibson on the other hand........

No, it's not that - it's whether or not voter intiimidation took place with sufficient evidence to meet the requirements of the law - that is what matters, whether the law is upheld. Otherwise - you could claim "intimidation" just because I looked at you funny when you were voting.

And was it blown out of proportion? Seems like it - it morphed into 3 men all carrying billy clubs and even guns in some accounts, but in the end, only one had a nightstick, and that one had an injunction against him.

The law shouldn't be politically biased - is it in this incident? All we seem to have is one man's hearsay account of what went on the DoJ - and there is no evidence at the moment supporting his claims.

IF voter intimidation is such a hot issue, why aren't these same people clamoring for a look at the case of the Minutemen intimidating hispanic voters dismissed under the previous administration? That guy actually had a gun.

It is because of this hypocrisy - and lack of strong evidence - combined with a hell of a lot of emotionally-charged accusations of "racism" being flung around by both sides - that I am very skeptical.

These things need to be decided by law, not emotion and if the Civil Rights Commission is looking into it, then I am convinced it will be done in accordance with the law and not political partisanship.

 

[Foxfyre]

Trust me they are lonestar. One in fact is a PhD. They just don't watch Fox, and that's the only station covering it.

And THAT is the most frustrating thing about all this. If those guys standing in front of a polling place had been Minutemen or Tea Party advocates or NRA representatives, and had been charged with voter intimidation. . . .

. . . .and if later a member of the Justice Dept. quit in protest and went public that the Justice Dept. had dropped the case with instructions that no Minutemen or Tea Partiers or NRA guys would be investigated. . . .

. . . .you KNOW every major newspaper would carry that on the front page and every television network would be leading their newscasts with it, and everybody would know about it.

If it wasn't for Fox News, conservative talk radio, and the internet, only half the news in this country would be reported at all these days, and most of us wouldn't know half the stuff that is going on.

 

[hortysir]

I've noticed that so many apologists seem to get hung up on the voter-intimidation case/aspect, but conveniently ignore the title of the thread.
Is it because it's easier for Ravi, TM, to dismiss that case than it is for them to defend killing crackers and their babies?
Is it because they agree with the killing but don't want to get caught actually saying it, so they deflect to the intimidation case?

 

[Ravi]

Maybe because it really isn't that big a deal like it's been blown up to be in the opinion-media?

I know right coyote....who cares if people intimidate others at polling stations, its not like it threatens a legitimate democracy or anything

Now Mel Gibson on the other hand........

No, it's not that - it's whether or not voter intiimidation took place with sufficient evidence to meet the requirements of the law - that is what matters, whether the law is upheld. Otherwise - you could claim "intimidation" just because I looked at you funny when you were voting.

And was it blown out of proportion? Seems like it - it morphed into 3 men all carrying billy clubs and even guns in some accounts, but in the end, only one had a nightstick, and that one had an injunction against him.

The law shouldn't be politically biased - is it in this incident? All we seem to have is one man's hearsay account of what went on the DoJ - and there is no evidence at the moment supporting his claims.

IF voter intimidation is such a hot issue, why aren't these same people clamoring for a look at the case of the Minutemen intimidating hispanic voters dismissed under the previous administration? That guy actually had a gun.

It is because of this hypocrisy - and lack of strong evidence - combined with a hell of a lot of emotionally-charged accusations of "racism" being flung around by both sides - that I am very skeptical.

These things need to be decided by law, not emotion and if the Civil Rights Commission is looking into it, then I am convinced it will be done in accordance with the law and not political partisanship.

Nice post but it is probably useless...people suffer from confirmation bias and even when facts hit them in the face they continue on ignoring them.

 

[Coyote]

I've noticed that so many apologists seem to get hung up on the voter-intimidation case/aspect, but conveniently ignore the title of the thread.
Is it because it's easier for Ravi, TM, to dismiss that case than it is for them to defend killing crackers and their babies?
Is it because they agree with the killing but don't want to get caught actually saying it, so they deflect to the intimidation case?

Nope. No one has defended that idiot's views despite vociferous claims to the contrary.

A careful examination of the thread's evolution indicates it was derailed at Post #2 with a direct track to Holder and the Voter Intimidation Case....and, the derailer was

....drum roll.....

well...you can look it up for yourself, but it weren't Ravi or TM....

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Maybe because it really isn't that big a deal like it's been blown up to be in the opinion-media?

I know right coyote....who cares if people intimidate others at polling stations, its not like it threatens a legitimate democracy or anything

Now Mel Gibson on the other hand........

No, it's not that - it's whether or not voter intiimidation took place with sufficient evidence to meet the requirements of the law - that is what matters, whether the law is upheld. Otherwise - you could claim "intimidation" just because I looked at you funny when you were voting.

And was it blown out of proportion? Seems like it - it morphed into 3 men all carrying billy clubs and even guns in some accounts, but in the end, only one had a nightstick, and that one had an injunction against him.

The law shouldn't be politically biased - is it in this incident? All we seem to have is one man's hearsay account of what went on the DoJ - and there is no evidence at the moment supporting his claims.

IF voter intimidation is such a hot issue, why aren't these same people clamoring for a look at the case of the Minutemen intimidating hispanic voters dismissed under the previous administration? That guy actually had a gun.

It is because of this hypocrisy - and lack of strong evidence - combined with a hell of a lot of emotionally-charged accusations of "racism" being flung around by both sides - that I am very skeptical.

These things need to be decided by law, not emotion and if the Civil Rights Commission is looking into it, then I am convinced it will be done in accordance with the law and not political partisanship.

The man with the baton was already found guilty by the DOJ...then the charges were dropped before sentancing at the direction of Eric Holder. Then J Christian Adams, one of the attorneys involved in the case, testified under oath that he was told not to pursue cases where there are white plaintiffs and black defendants in any type of civil rights case.


I know I'm lumping it all together fast but I've been researching this thing so much my patience level is zero.


Do you have a problem with the Uniformed New Black Panther Party leader standing in front of a polling station with the baton?
Do you have a problem with a Hooded KKK member standing in front of a polling place with a baton?

If your answer in not Yes to both then you and I will not see eye to eye in this discussion.

 

[Coyote]

Trust me they are lonestar. One in fact is a PhD. They just don't watch Fox, and that's the only station covering it.

And THAT is the most frustrating thing about all this. If those guys standing in front of a polling place had been Minutemen or Tea Party advocates or NRA representatives, and had been charged with voter intimidation. . . .

. . . .and if later a member of the Justice Dept. quit in protest and went public that the Justice Dept. had dropped the case with instructions that no Minutemen or Tea Partiers or NRA guys would be investigated. . . .

. . . .you KNOW every major newspaper would carry that on the front page and every television network would be leading their newscasts with it, and everybody would know about it.

If it wasn't for Fox News, conservative talk radio, and the internet, only half the news in this country would be reported at all these days, and most of us wouldn't know half the stuff that is going on.

There was a voter intimidation case against some Minutemen, one of whom carried a gun - intimidating hispanic voters - under the last administration. Case was dropped for the same reason as the NBP case. Must not have been in the news much.

Care to explain?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I know right coyote....who cares if people intimidate others at polling stations, its not like it threatens a legitimate democracy or anything

Now Mel Gibson on the other hand........

No, it's not that - it's whether or not voter intiimidation took place with sufficient evidence to meet the requirements of the law - that is what matters, whether the law is upheld. Otherwise - you could claim "intimidation" just because I looked at you funny when you were voting.

And was it blown out of proportion? Seems like it - it morphed into 3 men all carrying billy clubs and even guns in some accounts, but in the end, only one had a nightstick, and that one had an injunction against him.

The law shouldn't be politically biased - is it in this incident? All we seem to have is one man's hearsay account of what went on the DoJ - and there is no evidence at the moment supporting his claims.

IF voter intimidation is such a hot issue, why aren't these same people clamoring for a look at the case of the Minutemen intimidating hispanic voters dismissed under the previous administration? That guy actually had a gun.

It is because of this hypocrisy - and lack of strong evidence - combined with a hell of a lot of emotionally-charged accusations of "racism" being flung around by both sides - that I am very skeptical.

These things need to be decided by law, not emotion and if the Civil Rights Commission is looking into it, then I am convinced it will be done in accordance with the law and not political partisanship.

Nice post but it is probably useless...people suffer from confirmation bias and even when facts hit them in the face they continue on ignoring them.

Wow thats my opinion of your responses ravi...interesting.

 

[Immanuel]

I know right coyote....who cares if people intimidate others at polling stations, its not like it threatens a legitimate democracy or anything

Now Mel Gibson on the other hand........

No, it's not that - it's whether or not voter intiimidation took place with sufficient evidence to meet the requirements of the law - that is what matters, whether the law is upheld. Otherwise - you could claim "intimidation" just because I looked at you funny when you were voting.

And was it blown out of proportion? Seems like it - it morphed into 3 men all carrying billy clubs and even guns in some accounts, but in the end, only one had a nightstick, and that one had an injunction against him.

The law shouldn't be politically biased - is it in this incident? All we seem to have is one man's hearsay account of what went on the DoJ - and there is no evidence at the moment supporting his claims.

IF voter intimidation is such a hot issue, why aren't these same people clamoring for a look at the case of the Minutemen intimidating hispanic voters dismissed under the previous administration? That guy actually had a gun.

It is because of this hypocrisy - and lack of strong evidence - combined with a hell of a lot of emotionally-charged accusations of "racism" being flung around by both sides - that I am very skeptical.

These things need to be decided by law, not emotion and if the Civil Rights Commission is looking into it, then I am convinced it will be done in accordance with the law and not political partisanship.

Nice post but it is probably useless...people suffer from confirmation bias and even when facts hit them in the face they continue on ignoring them.

I hate to say this, because I respect both you and Coyote, but I believe you two have suffered from this confirmation bias. The facts have been presented and you both ignore the facts. Those two men were there to intimidate voters. It does not matter whether or not anyone was actually intimidated by them, but that was what they were there for.

IMHO the important part of this equation is intent, not success.

You made a good point a couple of days back about the fact that this was a majority black precinct and there was no need for them to be there to intimidate voters. You are, of course, right in that respect, but need is not a factor either. They were there and they made a very clear statement of intimidation. Something to the effect that a Black Man would rule "you" tomorrow.

They might not have been intimidating to you, but if I were a white man living in their neighborhood and voting at that precinct, I would have been intimidated. I don't know whether or not I would have decided not to vote, but I would have been extremely uncomfortable having a man who probably did not agree with my position, standing outside with a nightstick in his hand while I voted.

Immie

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Trust me they are lonestar. One in fact is a PhD. They just don't watch Fox, and that's the only station covering it.

And THAT is the most frustrating thing about all this. If those guys standing in front of a polling place had been Minutemen or Tea Party advocates or NRA representatives, and had been charged with voter intimidation. . . .

. . . .and if later a member of the Justice Dept. quit in protest and went public that the Justice Dept. had dropped the case with instructions that no Minutemen or Tea Partiers or NRA guys would be investigated. . . .

. . . .you KNOW every major newspaper would carry that on the front page and every television network would be leading their newscasts with it, and everybody would know about it.

If it wasn't for Fox News, conservative talk radio, and the internet, only half the news in this country would be reported at all these days, and most of us wouldn't know half the stuff that is going on.

There was a voter intimidation case against some Minutemen, one of whom carried a gun - intimidating hispanic voters - under the last administration. Case was dropped for the same reason as the NBP case. Must not have been in the news much.

Care to explain?

It was in the news and I remember being pissed about it. I was mad at the minutemen for acting like that and still dont support them as a result.

 

[Ravi]

No, it's not that - it's whether or not voter intiimidation took place with sufficient evidence to meet the requirements of the law - that is what matters, whether the law is upheld. Otherwise - you could claim "intimidation" just because I looked at you funny when you were voting.

And was it blown out of proportion? Seems like it - it morphed into 3 men all carrying billy clubs and even guns in some accounts, but in the end, only one had a nightstick, and that one had an injunction against him.

The law shouldn't be politically biased - is it in this incident? All we seem to have is one man's hearsay account of what went on the DoJ - and there is no evidence at the moment supporting his claims.

IF voter intimidation is such a hot issue, why aren't these same people clamoring for a look at the case of the Minutemen intimidating hispanic voters dismissed under the previous administration? That guy actually had a gun.

It is because of this hypocrisy - and lack of strong evidence - combined with a hell of a lot of emotionally-charged accusations of "racism" being flung around by both sides - that I am very skeptical.

These things need to be decided by law, not emotion and if the Civil Rights Commission is looking into it, then I am convinced it will be done in accordance with the law and not political partisanship.

Nice post but it is probably useless...people suffer from confirmation bias and even when facts hit them in the face they continue on ignoring them.

I hate to say this, because I respect both you and Coyote, but I believe you two have suffered from this confirmation bias. The facts have been presented and you both ignore the facts. Those two men were there to intimidate voters. It does not matter whether or not anyone was actually intimidated by them, but that was what they were there for.

IMHO the important part of this equation is intent, not success.

You made a good point a couple of days back about the fact that this was a majority black precinct and there was no need for them to be there to intimidate voters. You are, of course, right in that respect, but need is not a factor either. They were there and they made a very clear statement of intimidation. Something to the effect that a Black Man would rule "you" tomorrow.

They might not have been intimidating to you, but if I were a white man living in their neighborhood and voting at that precinct, I would have been intimidated. I don't know whether or not I would have decided not to vote, but I would have been extremely uncomfortable having a man who probably did not agree with my position, standing outside with a nightstick in his hand while I voted.

Immie

Well, Immie...you said it would make a difference if it were a mostly black precinct. It looks like that is the case.

I don't know if the intent was to intimidate or not, but I suspect not since it was a mostly black precinct. With the press all over the place claiming the vast majority of blacks would vote for a black man...why would anyone feel the need to intimidate blacks into voting for a black man?

That and I do not see anything in the evidence presented that shows these two dudes intimidating anyone.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Trust me they are lonestar. One in fact is a PhD. They just don't watch Fox, and that's the only station covering it.

And THAT is the most frustrating thing about all this. If those guys standing in front of a polling place had been Minutemen or Tea Party advocates or NRA representatives, and had been charged with voter intimidation. . . .

. . . .and if later a member of the Justice Dept. quit in protest and went public that the Justice Dept. had dropped the case with instructions that no Minutemen or Tea Partiers or NRA guys would be investigated. . . .

. . . .you KNOW every major newspaper would carry that on the front page and every television network would be leading their newscasts with it, and everybody would know about it.

If it wasn't for Fox News, conservative talk radio, and the internet, only half the news in this country would be reported at all these days, and most of us wouldn't know half the stuff that is going on.

There was a voter intimidation case against some Minutemen, one of whom carried a gun - intimidating hispanic voters - under the last administration. Case was dropped for the same reason as the NBP case. Must not have been in the news much.

Care to explain?

Two wrongs do not make a right. I don't have any knowledge of what you're talking about, but I'll just take you at your word that it happened as you say. If they were intimidating voters, they need to be prosecuted. If they weren't, that was wrong.

If Holder dropped the sentencing of these NBP members because of the Minuteman issue in a little "tit for tat" then he needs to be fired. If he did it because it's policy not to prosecute Black on White intimidation - because as we all have been told, "blacks don't hold the power in this country so there can't be any black racism against whites" - He should probably re-check who the president and the attorney general are. I think he's been making the argument so long, he forgets.

In any case, it seems more than clear to me (and oh by the way, to the court) that there was voter intimidation by the two NBP members. There is no legitimate excuse for dropping the case in the sentencing phase. Furthermore, this action is dangerous because of the signal it sends to the American public that this behavior is tolerated. I don't need members of either side lingering around polling places with weapons of any description. It will only lead to violence around polling places. Believe me, this election there will be armed people looking for polling places with "these kind of guards" to "confront" them and let the chips fall where they may.

That would be a disastrous result! The justice department needs to man up say they were wrong and finish the prosecution. They cannot allow people to think this is OK.

 

[Coyote]

I know right coyote....who cares if people intimidate others at polling stations, its not like it threatens a legitimate democracy or anything

Now Mel Gibson on the other hand........

No, it's not that - it's whether or not voter intiimidation took place with sufficient evidence to meet the requirements of the law - that is what matters, whether the law is upheld. Otherwise - you could claim "intimidation" just because I looked at you funny when you were voting.

And was it blown out of proportion? Seems like it - it morphed into 3 men all carrying billy clubs and even guns in some accounts, but in the end, only one had a nightstick, and that one had an injunction against him.

The law shouldn't be politically biased - is it in this incident? All we seem to have is one man's hearsay account of what went on the DoJ - and there is no evidence at the moment supporting his claims.

IF voter intimidation is such a hot issue, why aren't these same people clamoring for a look at the case of the Minutemen intimidating hispanic voters dismissed under the previous administration? That guy actually had a gun.

It is because of this hypocrisy - and lack of strong evidence - combined with a hell of a lot of emotionally-charged accusations of "racism" being flung around by both sides - that I am very skeptical.

These things need to be decided by law, not emotion and if the Civil Rights Commission is looking into it, then I am convinced it will be done in accordance with the law and not political partisanship.

The man with the baton was already found guilty by the DOJ...then the charges were dropped before sentancing at the direction of Eric Holder. Then J Christian Adams, one of the attorneys involved in the case, testified under oath that he was told not to pursue cases where there are white plaintiffs and black defendants in any type of civil rights case.

I know I'm lumping it all together fast but I've been researching this thing so much my patience level is zero.

I've been researching it too....is there any evidence beyond hearsay? For example Adams made claims of things said when he wasn't even there. Adams own credabilty is itself strained since he was a part of the DoJ that was found by an independent commission to have been inappropriately politicized in it's hiring practices and it's decisions on what cases to pursue.

What actual evidence is there that is not hearsay - that Adams was told that?

Do you have a problem with the Uniformed New Black Panther Party leader standing in front of a polling station with the baton?

Depends on what they were doing - just standing there, but not blocking people - I wouldn't care. If they were attempting to block me, get information from me, or interact with me - then yes, I would have a problem. But would that meet the requirements of the law?

Do you have a problem with a Hooded KKK member standing in front of a polling place with a baton?

KKK has a history - a well documented history of racial intimidation, murder, and violence - so yes, I would have a problem but I'm not sure "my problem" would meet the requirements of the law which should be strict because it's a fine line between "free speech" and "intimidation".

If your answer in not Yes to both then you and I will not see eye to eye in this discussion.

See my answer....

 

[Tech_Esq]

Nice post but it is probably useless...people suffer from confirmation bias and even when facts hit them in the face they continue on ignoring them.

I hate to say this, because I respect both you and Coyote, but I believe you two have suffered from this confirmation bias. The facts have been presented and you both ignore the facts. Those two men were there to intimidate voters. It does not matter whether or not anyone was actually intimidated by them, but that was what they were there for.

IMHO the important part of this equation is intent, not success.

You made a good point a couple of days back about the fact that this was a majority black precinct and there was no need for them to be there to intimidate voters. You are, of course, right in that respect, but need is not a factor either. They were there and they made a very clear statement of intimidation. Something to the effect that a Black Man would rule "you" tomorrow.

They might not have been intimidating to you, but if I were a white man living in their neighborhood and voting at that precinct, I would have been intimidated. I don't know whether or not I would have decided not to vote, but I would have been extremely uncomfortable having a man who probably did not agree with my position, standing outside with a nightstick in his hand while I voted.

Immie

Well, Immie...you said it would make a difference if it were a mostly black precinct. It looks like that is the case.

I don't know if the intent was to intimidate or not, but I suspect not since it was a mostly black precinct. With the press all over the place claiming the vast majority of blacks would vote for a black man...why would anyone feel the need to intimidate blacks into voting for a black man?

That and I do not see anything in the evidence presented that shows these two dudes intimidating anyone.

What legitimate purpose was there for the guy to have a billy club in his hands?

Why are you not intimidated when you approach a large, apparently strong man, who is slapping his hand -- like he wants to use it -- with a billy club and he is not in law enforcement? Are you dumb? Self preservation instinct set on -- "thin the herd"?

If that guy doesn't intimidate you, you're either lying or stupid. I'm pretty big and pretty fit and trained and I'm pretty sure it would be an all day affair if I tangled with that guy. If you aren't, you'd have no shot.

 

[hortysir]

why would anyone feel the need to intimidate blacks into voting for a black man?

Still with the presumption that black voters only vote for black candidates?
Projecting, Ravi?

 

[Immanuel]

Nice post but it is probably useless...people suffer from confirmation bias and even when facts hit them in the face they continue on ignoring them.

I hate to say this, because I respect both you and Coyote, but I believe you two have suffered from this confirmation bias. The facts have been presented and you both ignore the facts. Those two men were there to intimidate voters. It does not matter whether or not anyone was actually intimidated by them, but that was what they were there for.

IMHO the important part of this equation is intent, not success.

You made a good point a couple of days back about the fact that this was a majority black precinct and there was no need for them to be there to intimidate voters. You are, of course, right in that respect, but need is not a factor either. They were there and they made a very clear statement of intimidation. Something to the effect that a Black Man would rule "you" tomorrow.

They might not have been intimidating to you, but if I were a white man living in their neighborhood and voting at that precinct, I would have been intimidated. I don't know whether or not I would have decided not to vote, but I would have been extremely uncomfortable having a man who probably did not agree with my position, standing outside with a nightstick in his hand while I voted.

Immie

Well, Immie...you said it would make a difference if it were a mostly black precinct. It looks like that is the case.

I don't know if the intent was to intimidate or not, but I suspect not since it was a mostly black precinct. With the press all over the place claiming the vast majority of blacks would vote for a black man...why would anyone feel the need to intimidate blacks into voting for a black man?

That and I do not see anything in the evidence presented that shows these two dudes intimidating anyone.

People do not always use intimidation for those reasons. They were there to scare white voters... as in, we're coming to get you. Drug dealers use those tactics all the time. Think about it. You go vote and leave the precinct, three days later a brick comes through your window or tires are flattened or three thugs are pounding on your door.

White or black people in paramilitary gear are there to intimidate. That is why they were wearing that gear. They were calling attention to themselves and telling people... "you better watch out". The threat was evident.

Immie

 

[Ravi]

I hate to say this, because I respect both you and Coyote, but I believe you two have suffered from this confirmation bias. The facts have been presented and you both ignore the facts. Those two men were there to intimidate voters. It does not matter whether or not anyone was actually intimidated by them, but that was what they were there for.

IMHO the important part of this equation is intent, not success.

You made a good point a couple of days back about the fact that this was a majority black precinct and there was no need for them to be there to intimidate voters. You are, of course, right in that respect, but need is not a factor either. They were there and they made a very clear statement of intimidation. Something to the effect that a Black Man would rule "you" tomorrow.

They might not have been intimidating to you, but if I were a white man living in their neighborhood and voting at that precinct, I would have been intimidated. I don't know whether or not I would have decided not to vote, but I would have been extremely uncomfortable having a man who probably did not agree with my position, standing outside with a nightstick in his hand while I voted.

Immie

Well, Immie...you said it would make a difference if it were a mostly black precinct. It looks like that is the case.

I don't know if the intent was to intimidate or not, but I suspect not since it was a mostly black precinct. With the press all over the place claiming the vast majority of blacks would vote for a black man...why would anyone feel the need to intimidate blacks into voting for a black man?

That and I do not see anything in the evidence presented that shows these two dudes intimidating anyone.

What legitimate purpose was there for the guy to have a billy club in his hands?

Why are you not intimidated when you approach a large, apparently strong man, who is slapping his hand -- like he wants to use it -- with a billy club and he is not in law enforcement? Are you dumb? Self preservation instinct set on -- "thin the herd"?

If that guy doesn't intimidate you, you're either lying or stupid. I'm pretty big and pretty fit and trained and I'm pretty sure it would be an all day affair if I tangled with that guy. If you aren't, you'd have no shot.

The woman standing behind him chatting on the phone wasn't intimidated...was she? So I think your argument is ridiculous.

As for legitimate purpose...I did read somewhere that the NBPs were expecting people to intimidate the voters at that precinct and therefore they were providing guard duty. That may or may not be true but it is a logical assumption and makes more sense than them intimidating their own group.

Are they stupid...apparently. Were they trying to intimidate voters? I don't see it.