PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues EDITORIAL: Menacing turn in Black Panther case


petegz28
01-14-2010, 10:37 PM
The Justice Department asserts tyrannical privileges

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Justice Department told the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to drop dead yesterday. The growing controversy is over a voter-intimidation case involving the radical New Black Panther Party and why Justice is carrying water for the villains. The department's intransigence should frighten Congress because Justice is asserting broad privileges that undermine congressional authority to oversee government's executive branch.

That's why the timing is propitious today for the House Judiciary Committee to consider, and approve, a resolution of inquiry introduced by Rep. Frank Wolf, Virginia Republican. The Wolf resolution would direct Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to "transmit to the House of Representatives, not later than 14 days after the date of adoption of this resolution, copies of any document, memo or correspondence of the Department of Justice with regard to United States v. New Black Panther Party."

Democrats tempted to kill this resolution today on a party-line vote should understand that they would be setting a precedent with ramifications far beyond this case. The constitutional balance of powers would be fundamentally shifted away from Congress to an unaccountable executive, and future corruption easily could go unchecked.

The Commission on Civil Rights, acting according to explicit statutory authority to subpoena executive departments, demanded that Justice answer 49 detailed questions, with accompanying document requests. In yesterday's response, the department wrote that on the basis of seven distinct claimed "privileges," it objects "to each and every Interrogatory and Document Request." The cover letter to the commission from Justice official Joseph H. Hunt asserts a broader need to "protect against disclosures that would ... undermine its ability to carry out its mission."

Not even President Nixon at the nadir of Watergate asserted such a broad privilege against outside review. Sustaining such a privilege would let an executive agency assert that anything it self-defines as its "mission" would be immune from scrutiny. That way lies tyranny.

The Washington Times asked Michael Carvin, deputy assistant attorney general for both the Civil Rights Division and the Office of Legal Counsel under President Reagan, to review the Department of Justice's privilege assertions. His response was scathing.

"They are relying on privileges that the Office of Legal Counsel says do not exist," Mr. Carvin asserted. "There is no privilege, for instance, saying that the Justice Department will not identify personnel working on the case. ... Generally, a number of these privileges [are ones] I've literally never heard of."

Mr. Carvin specifically noted, contrary to Justice claims, "Normally there is no general attorney-client privilege unless you are dealing with the president. So a claim would have to come under the 'work product' or 'deliberative process' exemption. But 'work product' is very narrow, and the deliberative-process privilege is moot ... once the case closes. This is especially true when the [request for the information] does not involve litigants but instead an agency with statutory responsibilities concerning civil rights."

The Justice Department is out of control. If this power grab doesn't trigger a congressional investigation, Congress is admitting it is no more than a body of lapdogs, fetching slippers for their executive masters.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=30

petegz28
01-14-2010, 10:38 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/neGbKHyGuHU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/neGbKHyGuHU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

petegz28
01-14-2010, 10:39 PM
Guess we better worry about those Teabaggers waving flags and the pro-life crowd, heh, Mr. Holder?

Mizzou_8541
01-14-2010, 11:06 PM
What were they security for?

blaise
01-15-2010, 04:21 AM
transparency

Chief Henry
01-15-2010, 09:19 AM
I'd like to see one of those m-f stand in front of me when I go to the booth.

The justice dept. is not releasing any of its findings on this. We the people are getting
it up the A$$ on this.

Just another reason why only 35 % of the people would vote for obama today.

KC native
01-15-2010, 09:22 AM
I'd like to see one of those m-f stand in front of me when I go to the booth.

The justice dept. is not releasing any of its findings on this. We the people are getting
it up the A$$ on this.

Just another reason why only 35 % of the people would vote for obama today.

ROFL What would you do about it tough guy?

Garcia Bronco
01-15-2010, 09:28 AM
ROFL What would you do about it tough guy?

He'd stand up to them just like any other American. Not everyone is a complete pussy and is affraid to get their ass beat.

Chief Henry
01-15-2010, 09:31 AM
ROFL What would you do about it tough guy?


Use your imagination. What any responsible citizen would do. I'd call
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and all the TV stations in the area to let them know that two nappy headed negro's were preventing me from voting !

KC native
01-15-2010, 09:37 AM
He'd stand up to them just like any other American. Not everyone is a complete pussy and is affraid to get their ass beat.

ROFL Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggght. Just because he's an internet tough guy doesn't mean he's a tough guy in real life.


Use your imagination. What any responsible citizen would do. I'd call
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and all the TV stations in the area to let them know that two nappy headed negro's were preventing me from voting !

Paging don imus...

BTW, who did these guys prevent from voting? (hint hint>>>>>>no one).

blaise
01-15-2010, 10:22 AM
ROFL Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggght. Just because he's an internet tough guy doesn't mean he's a tough guy in real life.




Paging don imus...

BTW, who did these guys prevent from voting? (hint hint>>>>>>no one).

You can't think it's a good idea to have people standing in front of polling places with nightsticks in their hands. What if they were skinheads all tatted up with Nazi crap?

HonestChieffan
01-15-2010, 10:28 AM
You can't think it's a good idea to have people standing in front of polling places with nightsticks in their hands. What if they were skinheads all tatted up with Nazi crap?

What if ..http://www.lets-have-a-party.co.uk/media/images/product_category/25509.jpg

KC native
01-15-2010, 10:39 AM
You can't think it's a good idea to have people standing in front of polling places with nightsticks in their hands. What if they were skinheads all tatted up with Nazi crap?

Like I told Patty, I have no problem with it provided they aren't harassing and intimidating people. I may not agree with them but they still have a right to be there.

Have you watched the video? These guys were standing around in what looks like the projects or at least a black neighborhood and then a random white guy walks up with a camera . These guys weren't doing shit and if you would have been scared of them then you are a bitch (that last line isn't really directed at you).

KC native
01-15-2010, 10:40 AM
What if ..http://www.lets-have-a-party.co.uk/media/images/product_category/25509.jpg

Hey I liked how you ran from that economics thread. Way to be a stand up, honest person.

ROYC75
01-15-2010, 10:46 AM
Thugs and No Hugs is the Obo way !

blaise
01-15-2010, 10:58 AM
Like I told Patty, I have no problem with it provided they aren't harassing and intimidating people. I may not agree with them but they still have a right to be there.

Have you watched the video? These guys were standing around in what looks like the projects or at least a black neighborhood and then a random white guy walks up with a camera . These guys weren't doing shit and if you would have been scared of them then you are a bitch (that last line isn't really directed at you).

I think their mere presence with the sticks could be seen as intimidating to some people. I did watch the video. I'm not saying the did anything wrong in the video, I just don't really think having militant looking dudes from any organization standing around carrying batons in front of a polling place is a good idea.

Donger
01-15-2010, 10:59 AM
Like I told Patty, I have no problem with it provided they aren't harassing and intimidating people. I may not agree with them but they still have a right to be there.

Have you watched the video? These guys were standing around in what looks like the projects or at least a black neighborhood and then a random white guy walks up with a camera . These guys weren't doing shit and if you would have been scared of them then you are a bitch (that last line isn't really directed at you).

Do you agree that signs and such promoting one candidate should also be allowed at polling places?

KC native
01-15-2010, 11:01 AM
Do you agree that signs and such promoting one candidate should also be allowed at polling places?

In an ideal world they wouldn't be necessary but I don't have a problem as long as all the candidates can post signs and have equal room. I would prefer no signs but I'm really ambivalent about it.

Iowanian
01-15-2010, 11:19 AM
kcnaive is such a badass, He could crush a cockroaches dick with his kung fu grip.


Toughguy....bitch....toughguy...bitch....coward...toughguy...toughgun...bitch

Is that about the usual order?

KC native
01-15-2010, 11:21 AM
kcnaive is such a badass, He could crush a cockroaches dick with his kung fu grip.


Toughguy....bitch....toughguy...bitch....coward...toughguy...toughgun...bitch

Is that about the usual order?

Better than crushing them with my lips like you do huh?

Also, yet another comment about penis from Io-allicanthinkaboutispenis-awanian.

Iowanian
01-15-2010, 11:23 AM
ROAR!!!!!



btw, that wasn't funny any of the first 97 times you used the same tired homoerotic attempt at humor.
It doesn't bother me if you gobble skin pickles, do whatever you have to do to get the tv out of the pawn shop.




*neg rep anticpated impact, using same iowpenis, gay or toughguy impact in 4-3-2...

KC native
01-15-2010, 11:27 AM
ROAR!!!!!


You forgot to attach your pic

http://www.deonandan.com/uploaded_images/gaycat-731274.jpg

The Mad Crapper
01-15-2010, 11:43 AM
Thugs and No Hugs is the Obo way !

It's a hard knock life for us!

petegz28
01-15-2010, 11:54 AM
Like I told Patty, I have no problem with it provided they aren't harassing and intimidating people. I may not agree with them but they still have a right to be there.

Have you watched the video? These guys were standing around in what looks like the projects or at least a black neighborhood and then a random white guy walks up with a camera . These guys weren't doing shit and if you would have been scared of them then you are a bitch (that last line isn't really directed at you).

Weapon are not allowed on the voting grounds. If that is the case they are going to end up pissing of someone with a CCW permit. And yes, they were there to intimidate. Why else have your night stick displayed. In fact, it is borderline assault for brandishing such a weapon.

KC native
01-15-2010, 11:55 AM
Weapon are not allowed on the voting grounds. If that is the case they are going to end up pissing of someone with a CCW permit. And yes, they were there to intimidate. Why else have your night stick displayed. In fact, it is borderline assault for brandishing such a weapon.

:spock:

petegz28
01-15-2010, 11:57 AM
:spock:

Well I guess the law is something you just don't care for. That's your problem. People carrying nightscticks out in public like that is the reason I live the CCW permit.

Not sure what the Philly law is but here is Columbio, Mo and it is similar across the country.

Section 16-246 Brandishing a weapon.




(a) A person commits the offense of brandishing a weapon when the person exhibit s any deadly or dangerous weapon in a rude, angry or threatening manner to any person in the city or go es into any courthouse, church, school or any other public meeting carrying a deadly or dangerous weapon.


(b) For the purposes of this section, the term "deadly or dangerous weapon" means any weapon other than a firearm, from which a shot, readily capable of producing death or serious physical injury, may be discharged, or a knife, dagger, billy, blackjack or metal knuckles .


(c) The provisions of this section shall not apply to police officers and other officers or persons whose duty it is to execute process or warrants or to make arrests.


(d) The crime of brandishing a weapon is a class A misdemeanor.


(Code 1964, 7.1170; Ord. No. 018042, 1, 4-19-04)




(Ord. 018042, Amended, 04/19/2004, Prior Text)

KC native
01-15-2010, 12:01 PM
Well I guess the law is something you just don't care for. That's your problem. People carrying nightscticks out in public like that is the reason I live the CCW permit.

Not sure what the Philly law is but here is Columbio, Mo and it is similar across the country.

So, what did they do that was rude, angry, or threatening?

petegz28
01-15-2010, 12:02 PM
So, what did they do that was rude, angry, or threatening?

Standing there uniformed without a permit with a weapon displayed is rude and threatening.

JFC, you really are idiotic at times for as smart as you are.

KC native
01-15-2010, 12:04 PM
Standing there uniformed without a permit with a weapon displayed is rude and threatening.

JFC, you really are idiotic at times for as smart as you are.

I'm sorry pete but just standing there doesn't fit that description for me. I watched the video and didn't seen anything that was rude, angry, or threatening.

Donger
01-15-2010, 12:06 PM
So, what did they do that was rude, angry, or threatening?

The moron in the Black Panther get-up was wielding the night stick. That by itself is threatening, IMO. If it were in a holster or something? No.

KC native
01-15-2010, 12:09 PM
The moron in the Black Panther get-up was wielding the night stick. That by itself is threatening, IMO. If it were in a holster or something? No.

Well, then you are a panzy. I could understand if he was animated and swinging it around but the guy was pretty calm considering some random guy is shoving a camera in his face and asking him questions.

petegz28
01-15-2010, 12:09 PM
I'm sorry pete but just standing there doesn't fit that description for me. I watched the video and didn't seen anything that was rude, angry, or threatening.

I'm telling you what, Champ, I know personally that if I was to approach a voting booth and saw that the only reason my hand wouldn't go straight to my firearm is because I follow the law and would leave it in the car. Having said that I would have called the Police ASAP.

petegz28
01-15-2010, 12:10 PM
Well, then you are a panzy. I could understand if he was animated and swinging it around but the guy was pretty calm considering some random guy is shoving a camera in his face and asking him questions.

There was no need to have it in his hand ready to use where there is no cause. By doing what he did he is demonstrating an intimidating and threatening posture.

Donger
01-15-2010, 12:11 PM
Well, then you are a panzy. I could understand if he was animated and swinging it around but the guy was pretty calm considering some random guy is shoving a camera in his face and asking him questions.

Please try to remember where this happened, outside a polling booth. And, from what I've read, the guy with the night stick was not authorized to be there (although the non-armed guy was) and the cops eventually told him to leave.

KC native
01-15-2010, 12:12 PM
There was no need to have it in his hand ready to use where there is no cause. By doing what he did he is demonstrating an intimidating and threatening posture.

I agree there was no need to have it in hand but I don't feel his behavior is anything other than stupid.

KC native
01-15-2010, 12:14 PM
Please try to remember where this happened, outside a polling booth. And, from what I've read, the guy with the night stick was not authorized to be there (although the non-armed guy was) and the cops eventually told him to leave.

Sorry, but the location is kind of irrelevant. He was either being rude, angry or threatening and brandishing a weapon which would be assualt or he wasn't. IMO he wasn't.

petegz28
01-15-2010, 12:14 PM
I agree there was no need to have it in hand but I don't feel his behavior is anything other than stupid.

And illegal. If he had it holstered you may have an argument. By having it in hand for no purpose he is brandishing and obviously since there was no trouble it was to intimidate.

KC native
01-15-2010, 12:16 PM
And illegal. If he had it harnessed you may have an argument. By having it in hand for no purpose he is brandishing and obviously since there was no trouble it was to intimidate.

In the video the man is calm and non-threatening. His behavior was not illegal because of that. Nothing he did indicated any threat of physical violence nor was he angry or rude.

petegz28
01-15-2010, 12:19 PM
In the video the man is calm and non-threatening. His behavior was not illegal because of that. Nothing he did indicated any threat of physical violence nor was he angry or rude.

Had it in his hand for no reason. You can keep spinning it all you want but that is the fact. I'm telling you now that 90% of the time anyone else who did such would be arrested. And this guy should have been. Why else have it out? What was the point?

petegz28
01-15-2010, 12:21 PM
Native is right,t he guy did nothing wrong. That is they why the Holder Justice Dept. has had to cite imaginary "privleges" that simply as stated, do not exist to cover this up.

KC native
01-15-2010, 12:21 PM
Had it in his hand for no reason. You can keep spinning it all you want but that is the fact. I'm telling you now that 90% of the time anyone else who did such would be arrested. And this guy should have been. Why else have it out? What was the point?

Who cares what the point was. The issue with you is whether he was committing a crime or not. IMO his behavior doesn't fit the definition.

Donger
01-15-2010, 12:24 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550604574361071968458430.html

President Obama's Justice Department continues to stonewall inquiries about why it dropped a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party.

The episode—which Bartle Bull, a former civil rights lawyer and publisher of the left-wing Village Voice, calls "the most blatant form of voter intimidation I've ever seen"—began on Election Day 2008. Mr. Bull and others witnessed two Black Panthers in paramilitary garb at a polling place near downtown Philadelphia. (Some of this behavior is on YouTube.)

One of them, they say, brandished a nightstick at the entrance and pointed it at voters and both made racial threats. Mr. Bull says he heard one yell "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker!"

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.

There was outrage over the decision among Congressional Republicans, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division—especially after it was learned one of the defendants who walked was Jerry Jackson, a member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee and a credentialed poll watcher for the Democratic Party last Election Day.

Then the Washington Times reported on July 30 that six career lawyers at Justice who had recommended continuing to pursue the case were overruled by Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli—a top administration political appointee. One of the career attorneys, Appellate Chief Diana Flynn, had urged in an internal memo that a judgment be pressed against the defendants to "prevent the paramilitary style intimidation of voters" in the future.

Justice spokesman Alejandro Miyar says the dismissal was "based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law." But Rep. Frank Wolf (R., Va.), has been asking for more information. Assistant Attorney General Ronald Welch, for example, claims in a July 13 letter to Mr. Wolf that charges against the New Black Panther Party itself were dropped because there wasn't "evidentiary support" to prove they "directed" the intimidation. But Mr. Wolf notes in a letter sent to Justice that one defendant, Black Panther Party Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, said on Fox News just after the election that his activities at the polling station were part of a nationwide effort. Mr. Shabazz added that the Black Panther activities in Philadelphia were justified due to "an emergency situation."

Mr. Wolf's demands that Justice make the career attorneys on the case available for questions have been rebuffed. He also wants the House Judiciary Committee to hold hearings. A spokesman for House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers was noncommittal as to whether any hearing would be held.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights voted on Aug. 7 to send a letter to Justice expanding its own investigation and demanding more complete answers. "We believe the Department's defense of its actions thus far undermines respect for rule of law," its letter stated. It noted "the peculiar logic" of one Justice argument, that defendants' failure to show up in court was a reason for dismissing the case: "Such an argument sends a perverse message to wrongdoers—that attempts at voter suppression will be tolerated so long as the persons who engage in them are careful not to appear in court to answer the government's complaint."

The commission noted that it could subpoena witnesses and documents if Justice doesn't better explain its actions.

President Obama needs to clear the air. As a former law professor who specialized in voting rights, he is aware of how important even-handed application of the law is to election integrity. In 2007, then-Sen. Obama introduced a bill to protect Americans from tactics that intimidate voters. It also increased the criminal penalty for voter intimidation to five years in prison from one year.

"There is no place for politics in this debate," he testified before Mr. Conyers's committee in March, 2007. "Both parties at different periods in our history have been guilty in different regions of preventing people from voting for a tactical advantage. We should be beyond that."

One way to get there is for Mr. Obama to insist his Justice Department reinstate the Black Panther case or provide a full explanation for why it was dropped.

Donger
01-15-2010, 12:25 PM
Who cares what the point was. The issue with you is whether he was committing a crime or not. IMO his behavior doesn't fit the definition.

See above. It seems that displaying a weapon at a polling place is illegal.

petegz28
01-15-2010, 12:34 PM
Who cares what the point was. The issue with you is whether he was committing a crime or not. IMO his behavior doesn't fit the definition.

You are free to keep telling yourself that lie.

petegz28
01-15-2010, 12:45 PM
See above. It seems that displaying a weapon at a polling place is illegal.

I love how the court says it wasn't but the law said it was. And now Holder has to make up "privleges" to not follow up on the case. The whole thing stinks of racial favoritism.

Meahwhile Holder wants to go after anyone with a Pro-life bumper sticker.

blaise
01-15-2010, 12:47 PM
Well, then you are a panzy. I could understand if he was animated and swinging it around but the guy was pretty calm considering some random guy is shoving a camera in his face and asking him questions.

There's no panzy/non panzy requirement to vote.

Iowanian
01-15-2010, 12:48 PM
The moron in the Black Panther get-up was wielding the night stick. That by itself is threatening, IMO. If it were in a holster or something? No.

Panzy! Toughguy....


You'll have to forgive Naive, he sees a 24" dark colored baton and immediately thinks of an intimate act, and he's got just the holster for it.

KC native
01-15-2010, 12:49 PM
See above. It seems that displaying a weapon at a polling place is illegal.

Well, pete was making the case for assualt and I disagreed with that. I'm not a lawyer nor am I familiar with PA election law so excuse me if I didn't know that simply having the nightstick was against the law.

petegz28
01-15-2010, 12:50 PM
Well, pete was making the case for assualt and I disagreed with that. I'm not a lawyer nor am I familiar with PA election law so excuse me if I didn't know that simply having the nightstick was against the law.

Brandishing a weapon at someone IS assault, Champ. You need to brush up on your law.

Donger
01-15-2010, 12:50 PM
I love how the court says it wasn't but the law said it was. And now Holder has to make up "privleges" to not follow up on the case. The whole thing stinks of racial favoritism.

Meahwhile Holder wants to go after anyone with a Pro-life bumper sticker.

Ain't he sweet?

"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot in things racial, we have always been, and we, I believe, continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards," Holder said at the Justice Department in Washington, D.C. "Though race-related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion, and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about things racial.

blaise
01-15-2010, 12:51 PM
Really KC Native, that's what we want? A bunch of people standing around with batons in front of voting places? I'm finding it incredibly hard to believe your take would be the same had the people been skinheads.

Donger
01-15-2010, 12:52 PM
Brandishing a weapon at someone IS assault, Champ. You need to brush up on your law.

You know, watching the video, I don't think you can claim he was brandishing the night stick. Displaying it, yes, but he wasn't waving it at the cracker (we can say that now, right?) and hitting his other hand with it.

KC native
01-15-2010, 12:52 PM
Panzy! Toughguy....


You'll have to forgive Naive, he sees a 24" dark colored baton and immediately thinks of an intimate act, and he's got just the holster for it.

Hey hey more talk of penis and homosexual sex acts from Io-allicanthinkofispenis-awanian. ROFL Just admit it, you love the cock ROFL

KC native
01-15-2010, 12:55 PM
Really KC Native, that's what we want? A bunch of people standing around with batons in front of voting places? I'm finding it incredibly hard to believe your take would be the same had the people been skinheads.

Believe it or not it would have been the same even if it were skinheads. There was nothing in that video that indicated they were threatening people. Now, if they were threatening people then they should have gotten a ride to the police department with an assault charge at the end.

petegz28
01-15-2010, 01:05 PM
Believe it or not it would have been the same even if it were skinheads. There was nothing in that video that indicated they were threatening people. Now, if they were threatening people then they should have gotten a ride to the police department with an assault charge at the end.

Pure BS.

petegz28
01-15-2010, 01:07 PM
You know, watching the video, I don't think you can claim he was brandishing the night stick. Displaying it, yes, but he wasn't waving it at the cracker (we can say that now, right?) and hitting his other hand with it.

I think you had better watch it again. Pay attention at .17 when the guy starts to walk towars the reporter. He is bouncing the club up and down.

Garcia Bronco
01-15-2010, 01:07 PM
You can't think it's a good idea to have people standing in front of polling places with nightsticks in their hands. What if they were skinheads all tatted up with Nazi crap?

Exactly. They shouldn't have been there doing that and everyone knows it...except the "Constitutional Scholar"

Garcia Bronco
01-15-2010, 01:08 PM
Brandishing a weapon at someone IS assault, Champ. You need to brush up on your law.

Not only that....it's considered voter intimidation to have Police there by the "black" community.

Iowanian
01-15-2010, 01:10 PM
Hey hey more talk of penis and homosexual sex acts from Io-allicanthinkofispenis-awanian. ROFL Just admit it, you love the cock ROFL


There is more of that always fresh, clever witt. You're probably the easiest poster to draw out of anyone here.

Thinking you drink from a dickhole is not the same as being a village people.

KC native
01-15-2010, 01:13 PM
There is more of that always fresh, clever witt. You're probably the easiest poster to draw out of anyone here.

Thinking you drink from a dickhole is not the same as being a village people.

Awwww, is the one trick pony out of tricks?

Iowanian
01-15-2010, 01:39 PM
Awwww, is the one trick pony out of tricks?

Apparently you are indeed.

Dance for me.

http://www.vam.ac.uk/images/image/29497-large.jpg

KC native
01-15-2010, 02:19 PM
Apparently you are indeed.

Dance for me.


Ayup, that's what I thought.

Dallas Chief
01-15-2010, 02:27 PM
Well, pete was making the case for assualt and I disagreed with that. I'm not a lawyer nor am I familiar with PA election law so excuse me if I didn't know that simply having the nightstick was against the law.

So basically you were talking out of your anus-lips??? Didn't you just get smacked down in the Wal-Mart thread for the same thing? Did someone around here just accuse you of being a smart guy? I think it was Pete.

You gotta represent the DFDubya better than that, man. Jeez- you and DroopingPubic are making us all look bad to these midwestern pea pickers...

KC native
01-15-2010, 02:36 PM
So basically you were talking out of your anus-lips??? Didn't you just get smacked down in the Wal-Mart thread for the same thing? Did someone around here just accuse you of being a smart guy? I think it was Pete.

You gotta represent the DFDubya better than that, man. Jeez- you and DroopingPubic are making us all look bad to these midwestern pea pickers...

:spock: Um, pete said they were guilty of assault and I disagreed. The fact that having a weapon near a polling place being a crime in PA was something I didn't know nor did anyone else until Donger posted the article he did. I said their behavior was stupid but it wasn't assault. Perhaps you should work on your reading comprhension.

WTF are you talking about in the Wal-mart thread? I had very little to do with that thread and don't recall having arguments in there.

oh, and fizzuck dfw. I was born and raised in KC and KC will always be my home no matter where I live.

Dallas Chief
01-15-2010, 02:56 PM
:spock: Um, pete said they were guilty of assault and I disagreed. The fact that having a weapon near a polling place being a crime in PA was something I didn't know nor did anyone else until Donger posted the article he did. I said their behavior was stupid but it wasn't assault. Perhaps you should work on your reading comprhension.

WTF are you talking about in the Wal-mart thread? I had very little to do with that thread and don't recall having arguments in there.

oh, and fizzuck dfw. I was born and raised in KC and KC will always be my home no matter where I live.

Um yourself! You tried to call stevieray out in the Wal-Mart thread for using catchprases and keywords, calling it bullshit, then you turn around and do the exact thing with your Wal-Mart speak supply chain management blah blah blah. I was ROFL!!! You obviously have no idea how things actually work with the world's largest retailer. MSNBC says they are the boogeyman, so they must be, huh?

And I said you were using your anus-lips because you jumped a conclusion with no factual support and zero knowlegde about PA law. Chalk it up to a lesson learned on running your mouth and move along. I forgive you.

I apologize for the DFW remark. You don't make us look bad. I'd like to think you are probably a pretty smart dude, just reckless and bit froggy sometimes. :D

KC native
01-15-2010, 03:11 PM
Um yourself! You tried to call stevieray out in the Wal-Mart thread for using catchprases and keywords, calling it bullshit, then you turn around and do the exact thing with your Wal-Mart speak supply chain management blah blah blah. I was ROFL!!! You obviously have no idea how things actually work with the world's largest retailer. MSNBC says they are the boogeyman, so they must be, huh?

And I said you were using your anus-lips because you jumped a conclusion with no factual support and zero knowlegde about PA law. Chalk it up to a lesson learned on running your mouth and move along. I forgive you.

I apologize for the DFW remark. You don't make us look bad. I'd like to think you are probably a pretty smart dude, just reckless and bit froggy sometimes. :D

The difference between stevie's and my post were mine was actually what happens. I actually have a good understanding of Walmart's business model as it is a case study in just about every business class I've ever taken.

As far as this thread was concerned, I said it wasn't assault. I wasn't speaking to any other crimes committed.

and finally apology accepted.:toast:

Dallas Chief
01-15-2010, 03:37 PM
The difference between stevie's and my post were mine was actually what happens. I actually have a good understanding of Walmart's business model as it is a case study in just about every business class I've ever taken.

As far as this thread was concerned, I said it wasn't assault. I wasn't speaking to any other crimes committed.

and finally apology accepted.:toast:

That's kind of my point. Case study versus actual first hand knowledge. Of course a case study will pick the worst of the worst to highlight. What the case study may or may not tell is about the bunch of dildos running a particular company that is trying to do business with Wal-Mart. Think Rubbermaid or Vlasic Pickles. Those are two of the more famous case studies. Anyway I tend to babble on about this stuff. Have a good weekend down there Fortworther...