PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security Remember the black panthers who were intimidating voters


***SPRAYER
05-28-2009, 11:30 AM
B.O. dismissed the case

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/6439885/Black-Panthers---Notice-of-Dismissal-Doc-17

What a surprise

:rolleyes:

whatsmynameagain
05-28-2009, 03:20 PM
its only a matter of time now until his all black army is ready to go door to door and rape all the women and take everyone's guns. this is what we get electing a negro to the white house, its white for a reason!
Posted via Mobile Device

***SPRAYER
05-28-2009, 03:58 PM
its only a matter of time now until his all black army is ready to go door to door and rape all the women and take everyone's guns. this is what we get electing a negro to the white house, its white for a reason!
Posted via Mobile Device

I hope so, I need some target practice.

jAZ
05-28-2009, 04:00 PM
He (as in the DOJ) also dismissed the white-Republican NH phone jamming case and the white-Republican Ted Stevens corruption case. Two very high profile GOP corruption cases.

But it couldn't possible be based on a lack of merits to the case.

KC native
05-28-2009, 04:01 PM
He (as in the DOJ) also dismissed the white-Republican NH phone jamming case and the white-Republican Ted Stevens corruption case. Two very high profile GOP corruption cases.

But it couldn't possible be based on a lack of merits to the case.

Not at all. it's all noObama's fault/ shtsprayer

jAZ
05-28-2009, 04:02 PM
its only a matter of time now until his all black army is ready to go door to door and rape all the women and take everyone's guns. this is what we get electing a negro to the white house, its white for a reason!
Posted via Mobile Device

I hope so, I need some target practice.

Amazing. Has there ever been a more disgusting exchange between to posters.

jAZ
05-28-2009, 04:02 PM
Not at all. it's all noObama's fault/ shtsprayer

You forgot the handful of racist references.

***SPRAYER
05-28-2009, 04:03 PM
Last week, I called the Justice Department to inquire about an unusual decision they made to dismiss default judgements in a voter intimidation lawsuit the government filed under the Bush administration against the New Black Panther Party.

You remember the case of the menacing NBPP thugs who threatened voters at a Philly precinct. I blogged about it many times since the fall.

The Bush DOJ filed suit against Malik Shabazz and two of the local NBPP radicals who were on site — one with a billy club. None of them filed an answer to the lawsuit, putting them all into default. I am told this is the easiest way to win a lawsuit. But instead of taking the default judgment that DOJ is entitled to against all of the defendants, the department last week dismissed the lawsuit against two out of the three defendants. As Election Journal (which broke the story with exclusive video of the intimidation) notes, one of the individual defendants who was dismissed, Jerry Jackson, “is an elected member of the Philadelphia Democratic Committee and was a credentialed poll watcher.”

According to a legal source familiar with DOJ procedures, dismissing a lawsuit won by default is unheard of.

I contacted one of the DOJ lawyers, Spencer Fisher, who signed his name to the voluntary dismissal order. He referred me to Public Affairs. Spokesman Alejandro Miyar told me that the DOJ dropped the cases against Jackson nutball Malik Shabazz “after careful review.” I asked what new evidence caused the Obama DOJ to make such an unprecedented move. He said he “wasn’t a lawyer” and would try and find out. Good luck with that.

-Michelle Malkin

KC native
05-28-2009, 04:04 PM
You forgot the handful of racist references.

That's vail's thing.

it's all noObama's fault. he should prosecute the jungle dwellers and wetbacks and if he doesn't I'll cry about it while living in a border state/vail

Cannibal
05-28-2009, 04:04 PM
I hope so, I need some target practice.

Start with that mostly hollow vessel on the top of your shoulders with the little peanut rolling around in it.

KC native
05-28-2009, 04:06 PM
Last week, I called the Justice Department to inquire about an unusual decision they made to dismiss default judgements in a voter intimidation lawsuit the government filed under the Bush administration against the New Black Panther Party.

You remember the case of the menacing NBPP thugs who threatened voters at a Philly precinct. I blogged about it many times since the fall.

The Bush DOJ filed suit against Malik Shabazz and two of the local NBPP radicals who were on site — one with a billy club. None of them filed an answer to the lawsuit, putting them all into default. I am told this is the easiest way to win a lawsuit. But instead of taking the default judgment that DOJ is entitled to against all of the defendants, the department last week dismissed the lawsuit against two out of the three defendants. As Election Journal (which broke the story with exclusive video of the intimidation) notes, one of the individual defendants who was dismissed, Jerry Jackson, “is an elected member of the Philadelphia Democratic Committee and was a credentialed poll watcher.”

According to a legal source familiar with DOJ procedures, dismissing a lawsuit won by default is unheard of.

I contacted one of the DOJ lawyers, Spencer Fisher, who signed his name to the voluntary dismissal order. He referred me to Public Affairs. Spokesman Alejandro Miyar told me that the DOJ dropped the cases against Jackson nutball Malik Shabazz “after careful review.” I asked what new evidence caused the Obama DOJ to make such an unprecedented move. He said he “wasn’t a lawyer” and would try and find out. Good luck with that.

-Michelle Malkin

Have you even watched the video of them supposedly intimidating voters? They were standing outside of building and then some guy ambushes them with a camera. It wasn't intimdation in the least (and if you were scared of them then you are a bitch)

PunkinDrublic
05-28-2009, 04:15 PM
Do you just troll the internet all day looking to drum up fake outrage?

blaise
05-28-2009, 05:27 PM
Do you just troll the internet all day looking to drum up fake outrage?

jAZ or SHTSPRYER?

|Zach|
05-28-2009, 10:11 PM
jAZ or SHTSPRYER?

No matter how much you may disagree with Jaz. Equating those two is disingeniousness at best.

***SPRAYER
05-29-2009, 01:51 PM
No matter how much you may disagree with Jaz. Equating those two is disingeniousness at best.

Thank you. kOZ is way more disingenious than me.

Donger
05-29-2009, 01:53 PM
Have you even watched the video of them supposedly intimidating voters? They were standing outside of building and then some guy ambushes them with a camera. It wasn't intimdation in the least (and if you were scared of them then you are a bitch)

I presume you'd be okay with the KKK standing outside a polling place, holding clubs?

KC native
05-29-2009, 02:11 PM
I presume you'd be okay with the KKK standing outside a polling place, holding clubs?

If they're not fucking with anyone then I would be fine with it.

Donger
05-29-2009, 02:13 PM
If they're not ****ing with anyone then I would be fine with it.

Alrighty then.

Chief Henry
05-29-2009, 02:42 PM
Do you just troll the internet all day looking to drum up fake outrage?

You must be talking about Jiz !

KC Dan
05-29-2009, 02:43 PM
If they're not ****ing with anyone then I would be fine with it.I say....

Chief Henry
05-29-2009, 02:46 PM
Have you even watched the video of them supposedly intimidating voters? They were standing outside of building and then some guy ambushes them with a camera. It wasn't intimdation in the least (and if you were scared of them then you are a bitch)

Why do you think they were dressed in they're all BLACK outfits and berets
in front of the polling place. We're they just chillin and waitin to score or
were they're intentions something else :spock:

KC native
05-29-2009, 02:47 PM
I say....

and I say eat a dick. If they aren't harassing people coming in and out of the place just like these guys were then I have no problem with them standing there. They have their 1st amendment rights too even if I don't agree with them.

KC native
05-29-2009, 02:48 PM
Why do you think they were dressed in they're all BLACK outfits and berets
in front of the polling place. We're they just chillin and waitin to score or
were they're intentions something else :spock:

Have you watched the video?

KC Dan
05-29-2009, 02:51 PM
and I say eat a dick.
Isn't that nice...

Radar Chief
05-29-2009, 03:16 PM
I say....

To be fair, KC native wasn’t here for the previous two election cycles when the selective outragers were calling a police officer in a polling place or requiring that identification be provided “voter intimidation”, so we don’t know that he is :BS:-ing us.

KC Dan
05-29-2009, 03:22 PM
To be fair, KC native wasn’t here for the previous two election cycles when the selective outragers were calling a police officer in a polling place or requiring that identification be provided “voter intimidation”, so we don’t know that he is :BS:-ing us.yea maybe, but anyone that says that KKK members standing outside a polling place with clubs (minding their own business) would not be intimidation just on the appearance alone is full of it.

KC native
05-29-2009, 03:28 PM
To be fair, KC native wasn’t here for the previous two election cycles when the selective outragers were calling a police officer in a polling place or requiring that identification be provided “voter intimidation”, so we don’t know that he is :BS:-ing us.

I have no problem with a police officer being present however I do oppose mandatory photo id's for voting.

KC native
05-29-2009, 03:29 PM
yea maybe, but anyone that says that KKK members standing outside a polling place with clubs (minding their own business) would not be intimidation just on the appearance alone is full of it.

If it's a large group then I would agree that it would be intimidation however it it is only 2 as was in this case then I have no problem with it.

Donger
05-29-2009, 03:32 PM
I have no problem with a police officer being present however I do oppose mandatory photo id's for voting.

Why do you oppose that?

KC native
05-29-2009, 03:33 PM
Why do you oppose that?

Because it's unnecessary and places a burden on many voters.

Donger
05-29-2009, 03:36 PM
Because it's unnecessary and places a burden on many voters.

Seems like a great way to reduce the number of people who aren't legally eligible to vote to me.

KC native
05-29-2009, 03:38 PM
Seems like a great way to reduce the number of people who aren't legally eligible to vote to me.

Um, considering that's not much of a problem I feel it places an undue burden on the poor and elderly.

KC Dan
05-29-2009, 03:42 PM
Because it's unnecessary and places a burden on many voters.
Carrying a license in your wallet is a burden? However do you and those burdened make it each day? jeesus

KC native
05-29-2009, 03:46 PM
Carrying a license in your wallet is a burden? However do you and those burdened make it each day? jeesus

...What about the people who don't have driver's licenses? It's not a burden to me and if you would have read I specifically cited the poor and elderly (neither of which describe me).

penchief
05-29-2009, 03:50 PM
He (as in the DOJ) also dismissed the white-Republican NH phone jamming case and the white-Republican Ted Stevens corruption case. Two very high profile GOP corruption cases.

But it couldn't possible be based on a lack of merits to the case.

I can't believe the phone jamming case got dismissed.

KC Dan
05-29-2009, 03:55 PM
...What about the people who don't have driver's licenses? It's not a burden to me and if you would have read I specifically cited the poor and elderly (neither of which describe me).
well, Obama gave every American (middle-low income) a tax cut - right? They can afford it with the "new" money that they didn't have previously. Could they not get a d/l or ID at their DMV/DOL/whatever your state calls it? Or, is that over-burdening them? Come on dude...

Dave Lane
05-29-2009, 03:56 PM
well, Obama gave every American (middle-low income) a tax cut - right? They can afford it with the "new" money that they didn't have previously. Could they not get a d/l or ID at their DMV/DOL/whatever your state calls it? Or, is that over-burdening them? Come on dude...

Some people have lost their licenses or never got one.

KC Dan
05-29-2009, 03:59 PM
Some people have lost their licenses or never got one.wah.

KC native
05-29-2009, 03:59 PM
Some people have lost their licenses or never got one.

or just don't need one. My wifey is from NYC and didn't get a drivers license until she was 21.

KC Dan
05-29-2009, 04:02 PM
.

Donger
05-29-2009, 04:03 PM
Um, considering that's not much of a problem I feel it places an undue burden on the poor and elderly.

I don't think it's too much of a burden, but I can see your point minimally. That being said, I would imagine it keeps a good share of the illegals from voting, so that's good.

KC native
05-29-2009, 04:04 PM
I don't think it's too much of a burden, but I can see your point minimally. That being said, I would imagine it keeps a good share of the illegals from voting, so that's good.

Illegals don't vote. If they're not on the voter rolls, how can they vote?

KC Dan
05-29-2009, 04:06 PM
Illegals don't vote. If they're not on the voter rolls, how can they vote?
ACORN

KC native
05-29-2009, 04:09 PM
ACORN

:shake: You are aware that those registrations that are submitted by them still must be verified by whatever official/office that verifies them right?

Donger
05-29-2009, 04:10 PM
Illegals don't vote. If they're not on the voter rolls, how can they vote?

I'm sure those law-abiding folk would never have a path to circumvent that.

KC native
05-29-2009, 04:14 PM
I'm sure those law-abiding folk would never have a path to circumvent that.

Well, here's where you guys that believe it's a problem can either put up or shut up. Prove that illegals vote in significant numbers.

KC Dan
05-29-2009, 04:16 PM
:shake: You are aware that those registrations that are submitted by them still must be verified by whatever official/office that verifies them right?
Yes I am aware but how do they verify them if the voter never has to prove he/she is a citizen with an id either at registration or the booth?

Let's just be honest here, having to show an id at a voting booth is no big deal. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

Getting an id or dl is easy and cheap. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

There can be only one reason to allow people to vote without proving who they are or that they are even citizens. Wanna guess what that reason is? You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.


Voter fraud. You will make a lame attempt at justification for no id but we both know what it really is - a lame attempt and nothing more

Donger
05-29-2009, 04:16 PM
Well, here's where you guys that believe it's a problem can either put up or shut up. Prove that illegals vote in significant numbers.

I didn't claim they voted in significant numbers. Do you think they should be allowed to vote?

KC Dan
05-29-2009, 04:17 PM
Well, here's where you guys that believe it's a problem can either put up or shut up. Prove that illegals vote in significant numbers.Prove that they don't or show an id.

KC native
05-29-2009, 04:19 PM
Yes I am aware but how do they verify them if the voter never has to prove he/she is a citizen with an id either at registration or the booth?

Let's just be honest here, having to show an id at a voting booth is no big deal. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

Getting an id or dl is easy and cheap. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

There can be only one reason to allow people to vote without proving who they are or that they are even citizens. Wanna guess what that reason is? You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.


Voter fraud. You will make a lame attempt at justification for no id but we both know what it really is - a lame attempt and nothing more

So, if voter fraud is such a problem (and it was a focus of Bush's DOJ) then why have we seen no prosecutions for it?

Beyond that when registrations are validated it means that the person who has registered is deemed eligible to vote.

KC native
05-29-2009, 04:20 PM
I didn't claim they voted in significant numbers. Do you think they should be allowed to vote?

No, but I don't that an irrational fear of them voting should place a burden on people who have a right to vote.

KC native
05-29-2009, 04:21 PM
Prove that they don't or show an id.

I'm not the one claiming it's a problem beyond that it's impossible to prove a negative so the burden of proof remains on you.

Donger
05-29-2009, 04:24 PM
No, but I don't that an irrational fear of them voting should place a burden on people who have a right to vote.

Fair enough.

KC Dan
05-29-2009, 04:24 PM
So, if voter fraud is such a problem (and it was a focus of Bush's DOJ) then why have we seen no prosecutions for it? -politicians want the vote, no matter where it came from. Look at how this case was brushed under the carpet.

Beyond that when registrations are validated it means that the person who has registered is deemed eligible to vote. -by a person or persons paid to get that name on the voter roll regardless of correctness

stevieray
05-29-2009, 05:32 PM
I'm not the one claiming it's a problem beyond that it's impossible to prove a negative so the burden of proof remains on you.
...the brakes on the car failed.