Manufactured New Black Panther story reaches stage three of right-wing propaganda machine

FACTs are shown by the two videos on the being shown about NBPP. It does seem that the liberals refuse to do their fact checking when all they need to do is look at the videos. Doesn't take too much common sense to see that someone hitting his leg with a night stick after releasing his previous video is not trying to cause harm to someone.

someone said look at the people going in and out and used that as example that he was not doing anything. the only people that were going in and out other than the poll verifiers were black. He doesn't threaten blacks, it is the whites that he is talking about killing. I guess the liberals thank that is OK.

Darreth, have you seen the video of the guys standing outside the polling place with night sticks in their hands?

sure have brent.. how about the minutemen with guns in Arizona.. yeah bush dropped that case.. just like the Bush DOJ DROPPED ALL CRIMINAL CHARGES IN THIS CASE.

Unlike the minuteman case this case did not have a single solitary voter complaint. The only complaint came from the guy with the camera.

and all criminal charges were dropped before obama took office.

What some of you are complaining about is the fact that AFTER THE BUSH DOJ DROPPED ALL CRIMINAL CHARGES. the Obama DOJ Dropped the civil charges.

why?

cause they did not have a single solitary actual voter complain.

You cant go to someone elses district and complain for them.

FarmerFrog, are you trying to compare the US border with a polling place?

Straw man?

Post a seed on the minute men and send me a link-I'll debate with you.

FarmerFrog - so what you're saying is that it's OK to break the law - as long as no one complains? That's rich!!!

FarmerFrog - so what you're saying is that it's OK to break the law - as long as no one complains?

Speaking of straw men...

I don't want to speak for him, but I assume what he's actually saying is that harassment charges are predicated on complaints. In the cases of most crimes (i.e. murder, theft, etc), charges can be brought without complaint, because evidence that a crime has been committed are readily apparent without anyone stepping forward. In cases of intimidation or harassment, complaints are the evidence. If no one complains, the police have nothing to go on.

Steve - and you call MINE a strawman argument! LOL!!!!

CRIMINAL complaints are brought by the government. No one has to "complain" - someone just has to break a law. If I smoke a joint and the police see me but no one compains, I can still be arrested! Duh!!!

Criminal threatening can be the result of verbal threats of violence, physical conduct (such as hand gestures or raised fists), actual physical contact, or even simply the placing of a sign^[7], an object or graffiti on the property of another person with the purpose of coercing or terrorizing (wikipedia)

Civil cases are brought by INDIVIDUALS which would require a complaint. You said it yourself

"in the cases of most crimes...charges can be brought without complaint, because evidence that a crime has been committed are readily apparent" What do you call the videos?

If I smoke a joint and the police see me but no one compains, I can still be arrested!

Which isn't harassment or intimidation. So you're really not addressing my point at all.

As to your Wikipedia entry...

Criminal threatening can be the result of verbal threats of violence,

Which didn't happen.

physical conduct (such as hand gestures or raised fists),

Which didn't happen.

actual physical contact,

Which didn't happen.

or even simply the placing of a sign^[7], an object or graffiti on the property of another person with the purpose of coercing or terrorizing (wikipedia)

Which didn't happen.

Hey, thanks for defeating your own argument for me! Very nice of you to do that legwork.

You think carrying a club doesn't fall within the category of hand gestures or raised fists?

As far as my marijuana example, I'M talking about CRIMES. CRIMES as in CRIMINAL ACTS. Intimidation and harrassment are CRIMINAL ACTS as opposed to CIVIL wrongs.

Just keep on comparing your apples to oranges to get to the outcome you want. Oh well... And by the way, your last sentences make you sound like an idiot

You think carrying a club doesn't fall within the category of hand gestures or raised fists?

No, actually, I don't. Clubs don't require a particular license to carry, and he wasn't raising it in a threatening manner -- just carrying it around. I don't think Tea Partiers who show up with guns are threatening people either (as long as they're carrying a license for it). I think if I head down to the local mall and stand outside with a baseball bat, I'll have one heck of a lawsuit against the local police department if they try to arrest me for it.

The presence of a weapon, in itself, is not a threat in the eyes of the law. That's why the entry that you cited specifically referred to behaviors that actively constitute a threat (hand gestures, raised fists) instead of simply standing there.

You lost the argument, and what's worse is you lost it by citing a source that undercut your own points. I enjoy the hilarious irony of how you brought this on yourself.

Wow, you're so wrong it's unbelievable. A person only has to BELIEVE he might have been subject to violance for Intimidation to exist.

Intimidation (also called cowing) is intentional behavior "which would cause a person of ordinary sensibilities" fear of injury or harm. It's not necessary to prove that the behavior was so violent as to cause terror or that the victim was actually frightened (Wikipedia)

In most U.S. jurisdictions, the crime remains a misdemeanor unless a deadly weapon is involved or actual violence is committed, in which case it is usually considered a felony

Terrorizing" generally means to cause alarm, fright, or dread in another person or inducing apprehension of violence from a hostile or threatening event, person or object. “It is not requisite, in order to constitute this crime, that personal violence should be committed.” ^[10]

^{And NOW your response would be???????}

Wow, you're so wrong it's unbelievable. A person only has to BELIEVE he might have been subject to violance for Intimidation to exist.

The problem with your argument is that nobody there reported being intimidated, not even the cameraman. You being intimidated by watching the video doesn't warrant the arrest of the individual on charges of intimidation. Bottom line, the local prosecutor didn't press charges. Was he wrong?

I'm just wondering if anyone has actually been to the NBPP web site to see what they stand for? It's really pretty interesting. Their objectives look alot like the KKKs, in black instead of white of course. There application criteria is interesting as well. Especially the parts where they ask about military background and training. Wonder why they would need to know that.

I never claimed personal violence had to be committed, kjm. I pointed out that according to your own source, criminal threatening is defined by particular criteria that this case didn't meet. In response to discovering you've shot yourself in the foot, you pull up another Wikipedia entry. This one goes back to the question of intent (which is unprovable) and people feeling threatened (which no one reported). You've already been proven wrong there as well, so I don't quite see the point of switching tacks.

Either way, you're wrong. If it's criminal based on unprovable intent and people "feeling" threatened, the lack of police reports makes it worthy of dismissal. If it's criminal based on the specific criteria, the lack of any of said criteria makes it worthy of dismissal.

I eagerly await your next source which will prove you wrong in some new way. You're being incredibly entertaining today, kudos.

I don't know about the local prosecutor. Does he have jurisdiction over a polling place in a NATIONAL election? Or was that why this went to the DoJ to begin with?

There IS no problem with my argument. Intimidation (also called cowing) is intentional behavior "which would cause a person of ordinary sensibilities" fear of injury or harm. What part of that do you not understand? It doesn't say it HAS to cause a particular person fear of injury.

No, but it does say it has to be intentional, which is unprovable. More so, none of the witnesses (who I assume were of ordinary sensibilities) reported fearing injury or harm. So it doesn't fit those criteria, or the ones you laid out for criminal threatening. So sorry, but you've lost.

Out of genuine curiosity, would you advocate arresting all Tea Party rally members who show up with guns? Personally, I wouldn't, but by the standards you're putting forth here, you would stand behind locking them all up.

I don't know about the local prosecutor. Does he have jurisdiction over a polling place in a NATIONAL election? Or was that why this went to the DoJ to begin with?

That national polling place is also a state and local polling place. It's in the city of Philadelphia, the local DA has initial authority. It was taken to DOJ due to the accusation that they were preventing people from entering the polling place, which was not the case.

There IS no problem with my argument. Intimidation (also called cowing) is intentional behavior "which would cause a person of ordinary sensibilities" fear of injury or harm. What part of that do you not understand? It doesn't say it HAS to cause a particular person fear of injury.

As I said, the local DA did not bring charges of intimidation, harassment or anything else because there was no provable crime. Nobody reported being intimidated or harassed. Did you ever stop to think that maybe the people going to that particular polling place aren't easily intimidated by a guy in a beret with a black stick? Why don't you look up the statute in Philadelphia instead of on Wikipedia. See, this is what happens when FOX runs out of stories to make up. They re-hash an old one.

Well Steve I have been unable to find ANY legal precedent to support either MY argument OR yours. So the balls' in your court now. Apparently, this issue has NOT been decided in court so there is no way to prove either of us is right at this point.

My argument, of course, would be that if there was no "intent" to threaten, the club would not have been present.

My argument, of course, would be that if there was no "intent" to threaten, the club would not have been present.

Nor would a gun be present at a Tea Party rally, right? So we should arrest them all?

gee, if there was no complaint made, (which keeps being stated on this site) I wonder why this was reported:

The complaint continued, "Shabazz and Jackson made statements containing racial threats and racial insults at both black and white individuals" and "made menacing and intimidating gestures, statements and movements directed at individuals who were present to aid voters."

"That would be intimidating to anybody," says Linda A. Kerns, an attorney who was representing the GOP city committee that day. The police were called, and they escorted Shabazz from the polling place. Jackson, a credentialed Democratic poll watcher, was allowed to remain -- and credentialed again for last spring's primary.

The Panthers and their chairman, Malik Zulu Shabazz, were also named in the complaint.

Bartle Bull, a former civil rights attorney and campaign aide to Robert F. Kennedy, witnessed the Panthers' actions and called them "the most blatant form of voter intimidation" he had ever seen

hmm, how did those dastardly foxnews people get Bartle Bull, (former aide to Robert Kennedy!) to say that he witnessed this??

here's the link:

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/09/dismissal_of_philadelphia_vote.html

KJM -

Steve says intent is unproven yet the evidence, video, poll watcher statements - can easily prove intent, he is arguing in a circle.

The fact remains, that there is a committee hearing the the evidence and testimony given, and a determination of action from the hearing. Steve has made points that if they were on seperate instances, would have merit, but since these points are in combination of a single instance can and will (in my opinion) show intent to intimidate.

In Steve's own words:

I'm not saying it's not intimidating. If someone had shown up and been intimidated, I would understand.

People were there and saw this as intimidation and called authorites. Intent is all over the place in this event.

gee, if there was no complaint made, (which keeps being stated on this site) I wonder why this was reported:

I suppose I'd have to see who filed the complaint to respond. All the sources I've seen have claimed that no one was intimidated from voting, and that no voters from that precinct have come forward to allege intimidation. Obviously there was some form of complaint, since the police were called and Shabazz was taken from the premises. (Sorry if that was a bit unclear before). He received a minor punishment when he didn't show to court. But pressing a voter intimidation without any actual voters alleging they were intimidated? That's a hard case to win, especially considering the precedent.

Which brings me back to the point I've been saying from the beginning: if you think this should have been pressed in court, fine. But to claim it's some kind of racially-motivated Obama conspiracy is insane. The Bush DOJ dropped the charges, after dropping charges for a similar incident in 2006 wherein white men were carrying guns around Latino voters.

kjmgirl

Great comments.

Terroristic threats like kill whitie and kill the crackers and kill white babies is a crime and should be prosecuted! That is beyond free speech when said in a public place. This moron is just like a KKK member! If a white man said or advocated killing black and there babies, guess what, he is going to be prosecuted. What went on in Philly was wrong. It is what it is a hate crime and intimidation of voters rights! Get real! We the people are not going to put up with this BS!

Terroristic threats like kill whitie and kill the crackers and kill white babies is a crime and should be prosecuted!

Did we watch the same video? Can you link me to the video where the guy says those exact things?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhYL-gmPdwg

Same Dude at the Polls in Philly! It is a pattern of hate speech and terroristic threats that if used by any caucasean person would land them in court and convicted!

smellitcoming -

Under law I believe this can also be used to show in the civil case, that was dropped, towards the character of the individual in question.

Same Dude at the Polls in Philly! It is a pattern of hate speech and terroristic threats that if used by any caucasean person would land them in court and convicted!

Here's the video taken at the poll. Please tell me what hate speech was used and what intimidation was done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU

And did you also see the video of the interview with the poll watcher and what was stated to him. It is attached to my link in post #17.

And did you also see the video of the interview with the poll watcher and what was stated to him. It is attached to my link in post #17.

Your poll watcher was the guy who shot the video. Listen to his voice. If what he claims was actually said and he was threatened, then the police monitoring the polls would have arrested the individual. I only believe what can be verified in situations like this. I'd take the same position no matter what.

Hopefully the new subpoenas that are too be issued will settle many questions we all seem to have and are not getting adequate answers for.

I believe what i see. And i also believe things that are possible to believe.

F Harry Reid

do you mean like the acorn videos? tell me was he dressed as a pimp? what did the Hispanic acorn worker do right after the people who were taping him left?

F Harry Reid, was the Iranian photo of their missile test real? WHY DONT YOU BELIEVE YOUR OWN EYES?

I must give credit to Soph first for posting another thought provoking article.

I think it's ironic that either side claims innocence when it comes to spouting unfounded partisan rhetoric. I think it is true just based on recent past that FOX News has a propensity to publish factually unstable stories in an effort to shape public opinion in favor of a right wing agenda. However, that does not mean that MSNBC, CNN nor HLN are not guilty of the same.... maybe not as agregious as the FOX stories but all part of the political game playing nonetheless.

It's also ironic that people use information and stories like this to bolster thier arguments while totally forgetting about history, facts and truth. I see "right wingers" on this very blog who have bought the "Scary Black Panther" assertions .. hook, line and sinker. Yet in the same space of writing totally ignore the proven claims of voter intimidation by political organizations in states like South Carolina, Georgia, North Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida... all groups associated with the republican party who gave out misinformation to re-direct blacks to incorrect voting districts, who lied about "poll closings" to thwart huge black turn outs, even to providing misinformation about the voting process to help discount the validity of a person's vote upon a potential recount. ( ie Florida, during Bush race). So to sit up here within the confines of newsvine and cry out "foul" is hypocritical at best.... We all are pawns in a political game of which we can either choose to enlighten ourselves with facts.... or be slaves to information disseminated from major media outlets who have a clear agenda. It's up to us !

Witnesses have came forward testifying of threats of violence

No, they haven't. There were not potential voters who claimed that they were threatened in any way. What you had were a couple of fox news junior reporters with their handhelds videotaping two idiots in costumed, one of whom was arrested and removed less than two hours after he appeared. What do you call a case without any evidence. DISMISSED. By the way, there was no criminal prosecution. A civil action was commenced and a default judgment entered. That means that there was never a trial or any other proceeding where a court heard evidence.

There wasn't even ONE police report made that anyone was intimidated. In fact, the very video fox showed proves people - including old, white women and men - were walking in and out unhindered, and apparently without concern.

What a joke!

And some how they have been convicted even though they refused to show up. Go figure.

If this would have been kkk knuckleheads do you think your response would have been the same?

If the facts were the same, certainly.

So why after the DOJ won the case (the Defendants did not show up for the hearing) did they suddenly drop it?

If you were entering a place and there were two individuals dressed in black, one branshing a weapon and standing infront of the door you were trying to enter, would you be intimidated and cautious of how or should you even enter?

Did anyone also see the video where the one man who was branishing the weapon, calling for the death of all whites and the killing of white children?

Geez, take off the political agenda hats and look at the situation as a person!

Witnesses have came forward testifying of threats of violence and racist comments being made.

Really? I can't find any credible source for that. Can you provide a credible link? I'd like to read about it.

gatoralum,

If the facts were the same, certainly.

What would your stance be on the issue?

Go Noles!

No witnesses huh?

How about this guy?

The Black Panther Party Vision:

The original vision of the Black Panther Party was to serve the needs of the oppressed people in our communities and defend them against their oppressors. When the Party was initiated we knew that these goals would raise the consciousness of the people and motivate them to move more firmly for their total liberation. We also recognized that we live in a country which has become one of the most repressive governments in the world; repressive in communities all over the world. We did not expect such a repressive government to stand idly by while the Black Panther Party went forward to the goal of serving the people. We expected repression.

Hmmmmm......

If you were entering a place and there were two individuals dressed in black, one branshing a weapon and standing infront of the door you were trying to enter, would you be intimidated and cautious of how or should you even enter?

Tea partiers do that! They stand outside political venues with guns and signs threatening to use them. Have you any problem with that??

This is absolutely hilarious. First you make a claim that the intimidation never happened. Then I provided a link showing without a shadow of a doubt that it took place, and yet you still deny it. You guys are so partisand that good sense has escaped you. Imagine if those guys were white robe wearing klansmen. Not doing anything. Just standing there. Their very image. Their very presence is intimidation. Same holds for the black panthers. They were standing there with weapons scaring the begeebies out of voters. But because they were there showing their support for Obama, you're willing to cast a blind eye. You're own very prejudice casts doubt on anything you say. And the data I've seen states that intimidation claims WERE filed.

But let me break this down to nuts and bolts. If you condone or defend the actions of an openly racist, openly violent group of hate mongers like the Black Panthers, then I can only make one assumption. That you are a racist as well.

Let me reiterate. The prosecution had already won this case and the defendants were awaiting sentencing. Eric holder took it upon himself to drop all charges.

Witnesses have came forward testifying of threats of violence and racist comments being made.

only the guy running the camera and his crew, otherwise this is a bold face lie.

"no voters at all in the Philadelphia precinct have come forward to allege intimidation" adding, "The complaints have come from white Republican poll watchers, who have given no evidence they were registered to vote in the majority black precinct."

http://mediamatters.org/research/201007060036

If you condone or defend the actions of an openly racist, openly violent group of hate mongers like the Black Panthers, then I can only make one assumption.

I condone reality and what you are excreting is not reality.

If you were entering a place and there were two individuals dressed in black, one branshing a weapon and standing infront of the door you were trying to enter, would you be intimidated and cautious of how or should you even enter?

Um, yes....

What is not real about the clip? Please tell me? If that had been a skinhead there holding a billy club you liberals would be all bent out of shape. Black Panthers and Skinheads being one in the same. Both preach hate, both condone violence, and both spread hate against people because of their skin color. Me personally, I condemn them both equally. But you seem to find nothing wrong with the Panthers which I find discomforting. Like I said earlier. If you condone their racist beliefs and the spreading of hate, then I must assume that you are a racist as well.

And by the way. Media Matters is agenda driven garbage. Nothing but editorials. To cite a source from them only diminishes any argument you are trying to make.

If you were entering a place and there were two individuals dressed in black, one branshing a weapon and standing infront of the door you were trying to enter, would you be intimidated and cautious of how or should you even enter?

Tea partiers do that! They stand outside political venues with guns and signs threatening to use them. Have you any problem with that??

Sure do. Are you going to answer the question or just deflect more?

Found this article from Nov. 2008, it makes some points.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/obama_volunteer_on_scene_dispu.php

But she says one was an officially designated poll watcher (it was not immediately clear which municipal office had designated him in that role), and the second was his friend. The second panther, who left two or three hours ago, was the one with the nightstick, she says.

And that wasn't a nightstick, it looks more like a cane, not that that couldn't be a weapon, but inaccurately referring to it as a billyclub or nightstick rather than a cane demonstrates the misleading nature of this reporting.

The police came roughly an hour and a half later. She says she talked to the cops and told them there had been no incident. The police drove away without getting out of the car, she adds.

Without getting out of the car?

That's where things now stand. "There has been no fighting, no voter intimidation at all," she said.

So the question is, Why would you pursue a case when this is the statement of a poll worker? Sounds like reasonable doubt, or whatever they use for Elections cases.

YOU CAN'T PROVE THE CASE, that's why it was dropped.

The prosecution had already won the case. Thus the case was proven. Eric Holder dropped the charges for whatever reason. His motives for dropping a case that had already been ruled on is what's in question here.

The prosecution had already won the case. Thus the case was proven. Eric Holder dropped the charges for whatever reason. His motives for dropping a case that had already been ruled on is what's in question here.

It was a civil indictment by the DOJ and a judgement had be rendered due to the individual not appearing in court. The AG has the authority to dismiss whatever he pleases. The criminal charges were dropped prior to Obama being sworn in.

These men were only different from Tea partiers in that they weren't carrying guns and signs threatening to use those guns.

bonos_rama:

I haven't seen any recent video clips of a tea party rally where members were discussing the need or requirement to kill innocent civilians or their kids to earn their version of "freedom". You know the same group who are defending these guys actions and their statements are the same ones who voice their constant disapproval of any tea party events, members, or statements. So what is it going to be? Equal playing field or do as I say and not as I do? The New Black Panther Party can carry weapons and even openly walk around with a weapon and talk about shooting white people and killing kids but watch has fast that idea will change or the media coverage if this had been a Neo Nazi party, or some racist group of individuals making statements.

Mac, bonos is talking about this guy, who was carrying a gun at a Tea Party rally.

Had this story been about two capped clad KKK members standing in front of a voters registration with a baseball bat, would we be seeing this same approach?

Luckily we dont have to wonder.

You mean like the anti Hispanic minutemen who were intimidating american Hispanic citizens in 2006? AND THEY HAD A GUN, not a billy club.

http://mediamatters.org/iphone/research/201007050005

and they had actual complaints from voters.. not just from the youtube videographer.

So I guess the problem or question is why not conduct an investigation on the charges?

it was and it was the BUSH DOJ that threw out all criminal charges due to a lack of evidence.

The Obama DOJ threw out the civil charges for the same reason.

The video shows white people going into vote and not being stopped or even looked at. The DOJ and the GOP could not find a single solitary person who had the right to vote in that district, to complain.

this is just like the doctored acorn BS.
The GOP take 30 seconds of film and say it proves something when taken totally out of context.

Once again Farmer Frog, it's like answering a questions with a question. The point that so many here are asking is, "where is the media?" On this guy? How is it that it soon becomes a "GOP" issue or method of diverting the truth? It's like we look the other way and our only response is, "well that happened back in 2006 so fair is fair?" If there was a rally with a large group of tea party members walking around yelling, "how that the only thing we need is to start killing all other races and that maybe we need to start shooting kids." Then I think many people here who seem to think that this group (New Black Panther Party) is totally harmless would be demanding serious action against the tea party members. How many threads or vines have we seen with the left concerned about "armed right wing militia groups"? It's like you see something and then say, "no, this is nothing more then some worked up GOP ploy." Much like the guy who punches the protestor in the face. No media, no big deal. If roles were reversed and a tea party member went to a pro-Obama rally and punched a guy in the face the media would be all over it and milking it for every second of PR worth.

The GOP take 30 seconds of film and say it proves something when taken totally out of context.

Try not to be an ideologue for a few seconds: How is it being taken out of context? What context explains this behavior?

Although it seems many viewers of the video are intimidated by black men, apparently none of the voters at the polling station were.

It was the Bush DoJ that dropped the criminal complaint. Civil cases are are for addressing damages. If no one claimed any damages, there simply is no case to pursue.

Rocket science, I know.

Sharpear,

I knew if I read down far enough, someone would give the totally correct answer.

Thanks!

I will add only this. To argue that there is no wrong doing in this particular case, does not mean that those arguing that the DoJ did the right thing means that they are arguing that the Black Panthers are in any reguard a great bunch of guys.

I will add only this. To argue that there is no wrong doing in this particular case, does not mean that those arguing that the DoJ did the right thing means that they are arguing that the Black Panthers are in any reguard a great bunch of guys.

Exactly. Like I've been saying, I can see how someone would be intimidated, but I can also see how the DOJ decided it was a smart move to drop the case. The two aren't mutually exclusive, and neither implies some massive conspiracy is at work.

Brent, thanks for #5.3.....the MSNBCers, I'm sure "missed" it! LOL

Can anyone give me a reason the case wasn't prosecuted by the DOJ?

Eric Holder?

Yes shawn I can.

The Bush admin after looking into it thoroughly, dropped all criminal charges after they could not find a single solitary voter willing to say they were intimidated.

100% of the complaints came from the videographer, his crew and the republican poll watchers.

Without a doubt in my eyes it was wrong for him to be there.But with no real witnesses all the Obama admin could do, is ban him from ever doing it again.

BUT ShawnD19, if you take nothing from this comment, take this. THE BUSH DOJ DROPPED ALL CRIMINAL CHARGES IN THE BLACK PANTHER CASE, LEAVING ONLY MINOR CIVIL CHARGES IN A CASE WITH ZERO COMPLAINANTS.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201007060036

I watched the video, and I can see how both sides feel passionately about it. Certainly the video makes it look intimidating, particularly in how the man brandishing the club is staring at the cameraman. So as a pure visceral reaction, sure, it looks intimidating.

Unfortunately, that's not how the law works. If anyone felt intimidated, they didn't report it to the police. The fact of the matter is that the case was dropped under the Bush administration due to lack of complaints. FarmerFrog keeps pointing this out, and I'm not sure why it's not getting through. That fact is the single most important one in this entire discussion. We're talking about the justice system, and so we have to look at it from the perspective of how the justice system works. The criminal charges were dropped by the Bush DOJ, which in and of itself should be enough to silence critics.

None of this matters to Fox News, of course -- they market in sensationalism. Right-wing slanted or not, they've made their bones on presenting sensational stories in a sensational way. They like to get the blood up. Why wouldn't they? It makes for some great ratings.

How many different ways can it be said that a MSM outlet is literally scripting and performing "news" and getting away with it? and that same MSM outlet hides behind a definition of itself as offering entertainment? Watch how it covers one of its star performer's presentation at a special event in August.

I don't really care who is reporting this story. It should be looked into. It seems a pretty clear case of intimidation. Can anyone give me a reason the case wasn't prosecuted by the DOJ? Particularly when you consider that lower courts already had a conviction?

No conviction, a default judgement. Means they didn't come to court. Civil charge as well, not criminal. DOJ never pursued criminal charges due to lack of evidence.

DOJ was awarded a default judgement in April 2009 as the defendants did not show. They dropped the case after the initial judgement was rendered. I stand corrected.

But even at that, I believe there was enough to go through the process for a final ruling.

I still believe a criminal case should have been sought, but since there really is no criminal penalty for violating the Voting Rights Act Section 11(b) maybe it was a waste of time anyways. Criminal penalties were taken away by Congress in 1968 - Something else I think needs to be changed!

Thank you for clarifying my statement. Here's that link again.

http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/NBPH.htm

With the Panel investigating taking the actions to subpeona additional witnesses and sending a message that they are seriously looking into the situation, with cause.

I read alot about how this is all hype, but maybe it is not, and something we should all be looking at.

This is the Department that handles the National Level Judicial Process and should be watched. CAREFULLY.

I agree. Do I think they should be prohibited from standing near a polling place? Sure. They will need to prove that someone was intimidated. If they can get someone to stand up and say that they were indeed intimidated by these individuals then they can get something done. Until then, I don't see this going anywhere.

Yeah but the whistleblower, was a republican looking for a story like this and he found a story like this.

Thing is, the story was not credible enough to actually find a single solitary voter to say they were the least bit intimidated. Not even one that said they were scared just by him being there.
NONE.

as for the white man BS, THEY DID AND IT WASNT A PIPE IT WAS A GUN AND THE SAME THING HAPPENED.. ALL CHARGES DROPPED>

http://mediamatters.org/iphone/research/201007050005

Unfortunately the GOP and fox and yous guys have not put up any facts but a 20 second video, and frankly you actually need more than that. WHICH IS WHY THE BUSH ADMIN AND NOT THE OBAMA ADMIN DROPPED ALL CRIMINAL CHARGES.
the Obama admin only had civil charges left but still zero evidence.

Farmer -

Folks are looking for ways to get their negative message to gain traction with Panther "news" in the same manner that they got traction with the phony ACORN pimp housing loan "expose". No matter what you say about the "news" staff providing voter intimidation complaints rather than the voters, we will continue to see "news" that attempts to gain traction for the white voter intimidation message along with supporting cartoonish proofs to provide validation of racism against white voters. All of this is voter distraction from electronic voting shennanigans.

Ok there is a difference between photographing people and asking questions at the poles to BLOCKING THE ENTRANCE WITH A WEAPON IN YOUR HAND

2006 case involved a person with a firearm IN A HOLSTER ON HIS SIDE. This is a right to carry state meaning that a good portion of Az population CARRIES FIREARMS

The Panthers case involves a person BLOCKING THE ENTRANCE WITH A WEAPON IN HIS HAND

The two cases aren't even remotely similar

minutemen had guns and they had their charges dropped. Where were you in 2006? Or do you think it is ok because they are WHITE?
http://mediamatters.org/iphone/research/201007050005

I see the right wing and FOX never mentioned that story and they had guns.

I can only conclude that it is because they are white.

Farmer, you need to find another site to copy and paste from. Your repetitive comments are getting a little stale.

Janice

Farmer's message appears to be ignored no matter how many times he repeats it.

He has facts that validate his comments, however, none of the people who he is trying to engage in thinking about his information want to be caught thinking about it beause it might chip away at the truth that they have already accepted.

LOLOL
stoneyT
Bush dropped the criminal charges against this man because not a single solitary voter would testify they were intimidated.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201007060036

I wonder why you are not upset that the BUSH admin dropped simular charged against armed white people at polls, when they actually had complaints from voters?

Is it ok because they are white?
http://mediamatters.org/iphone/research/201007050005

in a nearly all black neighborhood? Probably.
And they did not stop a single solitary white person from entering and left when asked.

The only complain came from the republicans behind the camera.

Tell me this though.. what were the white minutemen doing with guns outside a polling place? and why are the right upset at this? Is it because they are white?
I mean they had guns, they had complaints from voters. They did not have the right wing ditto machine repeating the same lines over and over.

So tell me do you have no problem with the armed minutemen asking american hispanic citizens for their ID?

Harassment at voting precincts is always wrong, and the only person asking to see ID should be the person checking your eligibility when you get ready to vote. What's really sad is all the intimidation that goes on legally by both party's who both equally misrepresent each other and try to "scare" their faithful into voting for "their" person whether they really are the best candidate for the job or not.

http://mediamatters.org/iphone/research/201007050005

but it is ok for white people and when bush does it.

armed minutemen in arizona at polls harassing Hispanics is ok
a black man with a stick not even talking to the white folks going to vote behind him is not.

Starting to make me wonder if this isnt a racist thing with the right.

I mean you have to wonder why they freak over a black man who got no complaints from the voters and yet look the other way when it comes to white men with guns and actual complaints from voters.

It just sounds racist. I'd hate to be like the right though and just assume without evidence.

So I will ask, are you racist? Or is the armed minutemen wrong as well? was dropping their charges wrong as well.

Anyone who can watch that video and tell me that these men, who identified themselves as "security" (which they were not) were not attempting to intimidate voters is being willfully blind.

Why do you think they were there? Give me one good reason besides an attempt to intimidate voters that they were standing there brandishing a club?

If they were doing nothing wrong, then why did the police take them away?

They have evidence from the legal poll watcher (legally there to watch for just this kind of incident) that someone reported them as intimidating them, the man states on video that he got a phone call, a complaint and that the NBP's were threatening him, so he called the police!

What more do you want?

Thanks, Midwestlady, for posting this...a picture truly is worth a thousand words!

It is a nearly all black district.
The witness here, is not even a voter in this district. It is a republican poll watcher.

They could not find a single solitary voter, to complain. NOT ONE. which is why the BUSH admin and not the OBAMA admin dropped all criminal charges.

the Obama admin had the civil case, which they dropped due to lack of evidence just like the BUSH DOJ.

I wonder though, why did the right not freak about the armed with guns white minutemen at arizona polls, that bush dropped the charges on?

Is it because they are white?

http://mediamatters.org/iphone/research/201007050005

Geez, that is intelligent. "What is good for the goose is good for the gander?"

It is still WRONG and should be prosecuted!

Intimidation is obviously the reason for the presence of these men, much the same as the minutemen. (Which I sent emails and letters against the dropping of those charges as well.)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/career-lawyers-overruled-on-voting-case/

Career lawyers pursued the case for months, including obtaining an affidavit from a prominent 1960s civil rights activist who witnessed the confrontation and described it as "the most blatant form of voter intimidation" that he had seen, even during the voting rights crisis in Mississippi a half-century ago.

The career Justice lawyers were on the verge of securing sanctions against the men earlier this month when their superiors ordered them to reverse course, according to interviews and documents. The court had already entered a default judgment against the men on April 20.

Now tell me why again?

You're reference is to a civil suit, not criminal proceedings. You guys really need to know what your referencing. Just because Fox said it doesn't make it true. On the contrary, it's probably made up.

The reason why no criminal charges were filed is because nobody filed a complaint. The video doesn't show them intimidating anyone. There wasn't enough evidence to prosecute without a complaint. Move on.

Intimidation is obviously the reason for the presence of these men, much the same as the minutemen. (Which I sent emails and letters against the dropping of those charges as well.)

I commend you on being internally consistent with your outrage, but this statement highlights the problem with this being hailed as an important story. The Minutemen had charges dropped against them too. That might outrage you, but it also sets a precedent. This story is being focused on by the right-wing as a sure sign of Obama loyalists in the media and foul-play from the administration. But your own example (the Minutemen case) shows that party affiliation and shady deals have nothing to do with it.

If you're personally outraged by both cases, more power to you. I just ask that you don't support the (false) notion that this case is particularly egregious.

The reason why no criminal charges were filed is because nobody filed a complaint. The video doesn't show them intimidating anyone. There wasn't enough evidence to prosecute without a complaint. Move on.

That is a load of crap. INTENT has been used as a proven evidentiary in court cases around this country and landed solid guilty verdicts. I will not move on, I will stand and state what I feel is right.

Both sides are to blame for having no backbone to stand up against these cases and throwing in the towel just because of their own agenda.

All these claims of NO EVIDENCE is pure crap.

INTENT has been used as a proven evidentiary in court cases around this country and landed solid guilty verdicts.

Interesting. Could you cite a few of those cases, particularly in regards to harassment and intimidation charges?

Here is one case:

2001 -- Black (O'Mara) vs Virgina - intent to intimidate. Vote 6-3, Virgina Supreme Court upheld the INTENT of the action as intimidation.

The burning of a cross with the intent to intimidate is a type of true threat that can be constitutionally prohibited.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/casesummary.aspx?case=Virginia_v_Black

So, a guy holding a night stick infront of the door of a polling place saying racial slurs against white people does not fall far from that conclusion. His intent was to intimidate.

Intent to kill

Intent to defraud

Intent to intimidate

Intent to distribute/sell

These have all been used in cases.

So, a guy holding a night stick infront of the door of a polling place saying racial slurs against white people does not fall far from that conclusion.

I didn't hear any racial slurs, in the video or in the news sources I've read. Maybe I'm missing something. At any rate, that's some extremely selective editing you've chosen regarding that case. Here's a little more that you may or may not have read:

However, the court also ruled 7-2 that the state cannot pass a provision to the law saying that the burning of a cross is prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate. In other words, a majority of the court determined that not every cross burner is intending to intimidate.

This case arises out of two separate cross-burning incidents. In May 1998, two men — Richard J. Elliott and Jonathan O'Mara — burned a cross in the yard of James Jubilee, an African-American neighbor of Elliott. In August 1998, Barry Elton Black leads a Ku Klux Klan rally on private property with the consent of the owner. Black burns a cross at the rally, which frightens a neighbor of the property owner.

So intent has to be provable, which it isn't in this case. In the cases of cross-burning, it apparently helps the case if it's on the property of another citizen, which wasn't true in this case either. Besides which, we already established in my discussion with kjm that graffiti or symbolic imagery on another person's property is an illegally threatening act.

In other words, a burning cross in and of itself isn't enough to prove intent. Just like carrying a weapon on public property isn't enough to prove intent. I said it to kjm and I'll say it here: using the reasoning by which we would arrest these two men, we should arrest every Tea Party rally member who brings a gun to said rallies.

I don't think we should arrest either. I think carrying a weapon on public property is legal, if not a bit silly, as long as the weapon itself isn't illegal. You're taking it one step further, to claim that intent is enough to prosecute, and then to claim that the presence of a weapon alone proves intent. I'm sorry, but that's a far cry from burning a cross on someone else's lawn.

You are seperating them, but in combination...

How is the fact that 2 guys standing directly infront of the polling place entryway, one openly carrying around a weapon and swinging it around in a "hostile" manner, in clothing that can be directly tied to a known hate group (The New Black Panthers) not intimidating?

There are laws regardin polling places.

Where does it not show intent to intimidate?

Is that not what Sondra Day O'Connor was stating?

Seperately they are not conclusive, but in combination, intent can be proven.

How is the fact that 2 guys standing directly infront of the polling place entryway, one openly carrying around a weapon and swinging it around in a "hostile" manner, in clothing that can be directly tied to a known hate group (The New Black Panthers) not intimidating?

I'm not saying it's not intimidating. If someone had shown up and been intimidated, I would understand. What I am saying is that intent to intimidate is hard, or even impossible, to prove, and the local police received not one single complaint of intimidation or harassment. Carrying a weapon is not illegal, and the two men weren't making particularly hostile gestures towards anyone. They were just standing there. One was pacing.

Those facts make the charges incredibly hard to hold up in court, so it's understandable why the Department of Justice would drop said charges. Heck, if I were the defense attorney, I'd want the case. It would be a slam dunk. All I'd have to argue is that they were standing there to protect the elderly residents of a mostly black community from possible voter intimidation. Black voting blocks mostly voted for Obama, so why would they stand there to intimidate people into voting for a person they'd probably have voted for anyway? If intimidation was the goal, wouldn't it make more sense to, say, go somewhere that tended to lean Republican?

Let's take a step back and remember what spawned all this discussion. The controversy is based on accusing the Obama administration of foul play by deciding not to press charges. With that in mind, let's look at the facts:

• The two men made no threats towards anyone
• The two men made no racial comments that I am aware of
• The police received no reports of intimidation or harassment
• The Bush DOJ dropped criminal charges
• Carrying a weapon (club, cane, whatever it may be) is not illegal
• Standing in a public place is not illegal
• Wearing purple jackets is not illegal
• Intent to intimidate is illegal, but has to be easily provable, such as burning a cross on someone else's private property

Considering all of that, can you seriously support the side that suggests the Obama administration was corrupt in dropping the charges? Honestly? To me, it seems like dropping them was the smart move for any attorney. The case would have been a waste of time and they would be destined to lose.

Both Administrations dropped the ball (Bush on the Criminal and Obama on the Civil) and did not push to get this case all the way to a solid ruling and justice it needed, with no ruling to stand as case law.

There were statements by the poll watchers that racial slurs and innuendos were used. One is on the link I posted in 17.

Easily provable? So just fight if it is easily proven? By my examples I believe it can be proven 100% in this case.

Smart move? Not in my opinion (this is where we agree to disagree) and definately not the correct action to take.

We'll have to agree to disagree, then. I think it was a case that would be nigh-impossible to prove, especially against any defense attorney smart enough to look at the polling district. If you think it was worth pursuing, that's fine. I'm just asking you to consider the possibility that it was dropped for plain-old, boring reasons instead of the massive racist Obama conspiracy that Fox News is pushing.

When have I ever said it was a "massive racist Obama conspiracy"?

I used one link only because it had most of the videos I was wanting to link. I had also stated that with the link.

You haven't, Midwestlady, and I apologize for implying that you had.

My point is that the entire reason this case is stirring up so much partisan discussion and vitriol from the Fox News crowd is that it's (kinda sorta not really but a little bit) related to Obama. They're shouting that this is a cover-up, that it's racially motivated, etc. I'm saying that if you reasonably think the DOJ should have pursued the case (as you seem to be), that's fine with me. I just don't see how one makes the leap from that to "Obama hates white people!"

That's the difference between a front-page story (Obama administration excuses racists!) and a page seven story (DOJ dismisses case similar to other cases that have been dismissed). The righties are attempting to stir a hornet's nest and make this appear more as the former than the latter. You've been pretty reasonable in simply claiming it should have been pursued further, and that I have no problem with. I can understand your perspective, I just also understand why the DOJ would drop it.

Well, thank you Steve. When it somes to the DOJ, I would rather everyone drop politics and deal with the issue at hand.

I have no doubt that the cases were solid enough for a ruling to be made with the evidence (as I see it) present.

This "whistle blower" having stepped up with a statement of racial inequality in determining which cases are tossed and which are kept does have me concerned, and I hope the truth; be it good or bad, will come to light.

So with that, I bid you Steve a enjoyable evening and thanks for a straight forward debate.

been there done that.. same thing happened.
If you are a fox watcher, you probably dont know.
http://mediamatters.org/iphone/research/201007050005

And these white racists, were armed with GUNS.

Have to wonder why Fox refuses to report on it, when it is white folks.

WEll goes to show why their viewers are constantly ranked the most misinformed.

Mary in Appleton

Okay, let's have a couple thugs with White Sheets, carrying a night stick standing in front of the polls. Shouldn't have a problem with that as long as they aren't saying anything, just standing there.

if they are standing in a caucasian conservative district such as the one close to ruby ridge i doubt that you are going to find much complaints. there have been attempts to intimidate black voters from using teh franchise. this has bee historically documented, not just in hte past, but in recent elections. florida highway patrol officers turned around black voters not allowing them to vote.

voter intimidation and fraud

http://www.midtod.com/election.phtml

Republicans sent out postcards over Jeb Bush's signature in a get-out-the-vote effort that ran afoul of the laws intended to prevent abuse of absentee voting. In Oskaloosa County in the Florida panhandle, which is heavily Republican, officials sent out more than 17,000 absentee ballots, including to people who did not request them - a clear violation of state law.

*Ballots ran out in certain precincts.

*Carpools of African-American voters were stopped by police. In some cases, officers demanded to see a "taxi license."

*Polls closed with people still in line in Tampa.

*In Osceola County, ballots did not line up properly, possibly causing Gore voters to have their ballots cast for Harry Browne. Also, Hispanic voters were required to produce two forms of id when only one is required.

*Dozens, and possibly hundreds, of voters in Broward County were unable to vote because the Supervisor of Elections did not have enough staff to verify changes of address.

*Voters were mistakenly removed from voter rolls because their names were similar to those of ex-cons.

*According to Reuters news service, many voters received pencils rather than pens when they voted, in violation of state law.

*The Miami Herald reported that many Haitian-American voters were turned away from precincts where they were voting for the first time.

*The mayoral candidate whose election in Miami was overturned due to voter fraud, Xavier Suarez, said he was involved in preparing absentee ballots for George w. Bush.

*CBS's Dan Rather reported a possible "computer error" in Volusia County, Florida, where James Harris, a Socialist Workers Party candidate, won 9,888 votes. (He got only 583 in the rest of the state).

*Many African-American first-time voters who registered at motor vehicles offices or in campus voter registration drives did not appear on the voting rolls, according to a hearing conducted by the NAACP and televised on C-SPAN

*The London Times has reported a suspected pro-Bush vote fraud operation in Miami involving thousands of ballots.

*Jewish precincts had a suspiciously high number of double-punched ballots, and another lost its computerized votes altogether when a poll worker "accidentally" erased them.

*The Florida Highway Patrol confirmed that the department did conduct what it called a "routine" check point near a black precinct in Tallahassee on election day. Police asked black men to get out of their vehicles and produce identification.

*African Americans received calls the weekend before the election from a speaker who falsely claimed to be with the NAACP, asking them to vote for Bush. Similar calls were reported in Michigan and Virginia.

*Sandy Goard, supervisor of elections of Seminole County, admitted allowing two Republican operatives to add missing voter-identification numbers to 4,700 incomplete absentee ballot requests, mostly GOP voters -- actions that were illegal.

The Bush minions have been harping about the military ballots which they claim the Gore team got thrown out. Ironically, the election officials who passed judgment on these ballots used criteria established weeks ago by Republican Secretary of State Katherine Harris.

The GOP apparently has no qualms about the disenfranchisement of thousands of other voters, who would be missed if hand recounts did not go forward. Nor do they care about many of the veterans whose votes have not yet been counted.

As Carl Bernstein of the Washington Post commented on MSNBC recently, no doubt somebody somewhere is, at this very moment, compiling a book which will be published after this controversy is over. Surely it will be a blockbuster. Only then will we find out more about the behind-the-scenes machinations going on in this election dispute.

It is sad, indeed, that our national media are not up to the task of keeping the public informed of the broader complexities of this matter as they unfold.

+ In Palm Beach County, there were 19,120 ballots disqualified because of double-voting. The Palm Beach County canvassing board analyzed a sample of these disqualified ballots. From that sample of 144 ballots, 80 ballots -- or 56 percent -- showed punches for both Buchanan and Gore, according to the Nov. 21 New York Times.. If that sample percentage reflects the entire batch, Gore may have lost as many as 10,622 votes.

you know FarmerFrog your own link kind of blows your comparison out of the water; this is from the article you linked:

affiliated with the Minutemen, one of whom was carrying a gun,

note -- carrying. Not brandshing. Now you may be freaked out by someone simply carrying a gun around but in many parts of Arizona it would not be unusual in the least.

(I am only saying that perhaps you'd be freaked out because you keep bringing it up as if simply having a gun is reason to become hysterical)

allegedly intimidated Latino voters at a polling place by approaching several persons, filming them, and advocating and printing voting materials in Spanish." [U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/05-14-2010_NBPPhearing.pdf blocked::http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/05-14-2010_NBPPhearing.pdf" href="http://smd12364.newsvine.com/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usccr.gov%2FNBPH%2F05-14-2010_NBPPhearing.pdf">http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/05-14-2010_NBPPhearing.pdf">5/14/10]

so, unlike the case where the New Black Panthers were being filmed (and we have the film) doing intimidation -- in your case the guys you think did the intimidation were the ones filming --- apparently you would say filming themselves doing something illegal.

(although -- where is the film?)

Anti-immigrant activist in 2006 case reportedly had "9mm Glock strapped to his side" at polling place

Strapped to his side -- should I repeat that?

Strapped to his side. That means he never even removed it from the holster.

So he was carrying, (not brandishing) a gun which he is obviously licensed to do which was witnessed to be strapped to his side -- (definitely not brandishing a weapon)

Speaking personally, I'd be more scared of a person with a holstered gun than I would be of a person carrying around a club, regardless of race. I can outrun a club.

Braveheart50

GREAT POST

lmao @ Mary In Appleton.. goodness.

Braveheart's post was pure ignorance, not even factual, all opinions generated from a partisan perspective. All making assumptions and mostly oversimplifying issues to make a point.

1. Obama beats up on his countrymen - AZ lmaooo ( on the floor with tears ). Some would say that he stands up for the ideals of this country as set forth in the US Constitution. Some would say that AZ, cares less about infringing on the rights of others while trying to achieve an objective. But of course none of that will make sense to Braveheart... there's only relevance in right wing ideology and it permeates his every perspective... blindly I might add.

2. He defends illegal mexican smuggling lmaooo.. Where to even start with this nonsenwe. Once again, simply because he doth not agree with the conservative approach to illegal immigration, he suddenly becomes an advocate of everything bad that flows from it. How stupid is that?....it's a wonder they do not hand out liscences to enter this site... it might segregate out some of the more outlandish BS that dawns the blogs.

3. He denies the use of blatant voter intimidation. Where on earth was your outrage when RNC people gave out misinformation to minorities regarding poll closings, polling locations, and even the polling process.. during the Bush election? Even moreover.. this was proven to be true.. even had undercover people pose as voters in districts in Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, North Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama.. to uncover the fraud in time enough to get them away from the polling areas so good information could be shared. Ohhhhh lest I forget... the claims are only an outrage or have veracity.... if told from a "right wing" perspective.

4. Hope and change is so over... No .. it has just begun. We had an abject idiot in the White House for 8 years, who singlehandedly destroyed all of our diplomatic influence with some of our closest allies. ( which is why we basically went into Iraq alone and got Trillions in debt from it). Obama has restored that faith.. as witnessed by the unilateral support by UN nations in new sanctions against Iran. ( G Bush sanctions had no support, the world had no confidence in him as a leader, nor his intellectual capacity or ability to think a situation through before reacting).

The hope for people who were getting denied health care for pre-existing conditions.. is bright too

Not too mention the .. hope for personal investments ( including mine).. due to the reform of the financial services industry . ( legislation Obama is responsible for)

The list goes on... and trust me.. I am not an Obama fan.. but facts are facts.

Some would say that he stands up for the ideals of this country as set forth in the US Constitution. Some would say that AZ,

And supporting lawlessness is Constitutional?

Source #3....no Koz or Huff if you please.

because he doth not agree with the conservative approach to illegal immigratio

Then, he does not agree with upholding the friggin LAW. Gheesh, dude...get a grip.

lol @ Brent.. Let me guess again, persuing lawlessness by breaking the laws yourself and potentially trampling on the rights of others.. is a good thing?

lol... no differing opinions either? Almost impossible to have a discussion.. ya think?

Brent , stop whining and being a hypocrit.. and most of all get hit with a "good book" or some "solid facts". For the life of me I cannot understand how you prioritize the issues that inflame you the most. You do not bat an eye at the lawlessnes that has put us in a recession, devalued our currency, created unemployment, leveraged our international credit rating, increased our trade deficit, and devalued our financial markets. Yet, you are here focussing on the rampid, lawlessness of illegal immigrants. Who.. might I add.. contribute billions in tax revenue to the AZ government and this country. Who might I again add... are responsible for generating tengential tax revenue due to businesses that cater just to that demographic. So instead of thinking logically about the entirety of our country .. the aggreggate social dynamic... and the aggreggate economic impact... in true "tunnel vision" and shortsighted fashion are affixed on one issue. Most disturbing of all is you are misinterpreting that one issue on which you lay claim to.. by not only making assumptions about what the pres thinks.. but total misrepresentations.. just to fit your argument.

I would say... take in more info that revovles around facts and not rhetoric

Simon.....you are unbelievable. Do you even read what you write?

paraphrased...."so what if they are law breakers....they pay taxes".

Great....just perfect logic. L O L

lol Bravheart, I like your spirit. You are relentless but unfortunately suffer from oversimplification most of the times. I understand you are paraphrasing but you are additionally surmising that which I did not infer.

I questioned the validity of your outrage on this issue in comparison to so many other broader social and economic issues which impact us more. I further highlighted the hypocrisy of your partisan based outrage surrounding the lawlessness issue.. by clearly showing you how other "accepted" lawlessness has bankrupted our economy. The only reason I mentioned tax revenue associated with illegals... was so you could get off the "right wing" soap box, and see that the net impact of them being here is actually a gain in most areas of the country. So if it is true, that your overarching concern is for the betterment of American people and society... your argument does the exact opposite.

Braveheart.. Try not to be so stupid all the time. The AZ law doesn't even go into effect until July 29th. Meanwhile the U.S. Justice Dept., along with several others are challenging the law's legality. Challenging the law is perfectly within reason considering the AZ law is in conflict with federal law. Meanwhile, if allowed to go forward as planned, there would be 50 new immigration laws in 50 different states, a nightmare to institute and an even greater nightmare to police.

This is a dumb as the multiple times you kept asking why Obama didn't vacate the Jones Act so we could bring foreign oil skimmers and other ships into the gulf to help clean up the mess caused by the Bush administration and BP. The Jones Act is only in effect for ships that are WITHIN 3 miles of our coast, and only for those who are bringing goods into our ports. Since none of these skimmers or other disaster workers are within the 3 mile limit, and since none of them are bringing goods to our ports, the ACT isn't even relevant. In fact, there are about 30 foreign skimmers in the gulf right now, (or were until the seas became too dangerous) from a dozen or so different nations. The only thing consistent about your posts is that they are uniformly insulting and always wrong!

Imagine, just imagine, as Mary stated.....a KKK uniformed couple, standing in front of a voting station in, say....Harlem, minding there own business.....right....Sharpton and Jackson would be stirring up riots within 45 minutes. And, the PMSNBC, CNN, NBC state run media, would just turn there eyes away.

braveheart

if the kkk members were there not bothering anybody they would be tolerated, watched but tolerated. freedom of dress was ajudicated as an issue in the sixties and maybe one or two suits in the seventies. it is considered a part of freedom of speech. wearing kkk robes is not in and of itself a crime. that is why the klan was allowed to march in full regalia in skokey, illinois. a jewish aclu attorney was the person who successfully fought for their right.

People who believe Fox news is "fair and balanced" have either had a successful lobotomy or are under the influence of LSD. Fox is a right wing propaganda machine nothing more and nothing less.

Fox rules....they are virtually NEVER proven wrong, by the Sorros group Media Matters. They also own 7 of the 11 cable news markets. There demo is fairly evenly split between R, D, and I's......Yes, they are fair and balanced. Sorry....your Koz propaganda, just can't accept success.

They are always proven wrong by, wait for it, the truth. Using their talk show hosts as "sources" is a common tactic to report a story.

They are always proven wrong by, wait for it, the truth.

So, prove it...source it and verify it...give us some examples of blatant mis-reporting from FOX......tic, tic, tic.....

Fox more than doubled the on screen errors of any network.
Nearly all of them were against the dems.

But do you really want a list of blatant mis-reporting?
do you want links to when they used the wrong footage of a protest to suggest the tea party protest was larger? or do you want a list of all the criminal republicans labeled as dems on FOX?

There is a reason why for the past 6 years, FOX has always topped the list of most misinformed viewers.

Here's a recent one:

FoxNews.com ran with skeptic blog's claim in reporting IPCC's Amazon statement "was discredited ... when it emerged that the findings were based on numbers from a study ... that had nothing to do with the issue of global warming.

Here's one BH

http://mediamatters.org/research/201006100021

Don't worry, you won't catch the prog by clicking the link I promise.Just more uninformed lies about how much Obama got from the BP during his campaign.

Farmer - One of my favorite 'WTF' moments while watching Fox was during that segment when they were showing the wrong tape to justify their inflated rally attendance numbers. Glenn Beck stated that they had gotten a report proving the number of people based on a computer program used by.....wait for it......the...."University of I don't remember". He remembers the exact estimate of people from the report....but not the name of the University that supposedly generated it. They were on for a good 10 minutes discussing this and there was zero attempt to get the name to Glenn so he could provide it.

But, as he explained in a later interview (on the View I think), since he is not a journalist he has no need to fact check.

I just love Fox. Anything that can draw this kind of true hate from Liberals is wonderful.

Right, who needs fair and balanced reporting when you have blind partisan idiocy. You're exactly who they are catering to.

All liberals hate FOX.....gee...wonder why? TRUTH, maybe?

I thought you knew, truth has a liberal bias.

All liberals hate FOX.....gee...wonder why? TRUTH, maybe?

Exactly.

Still waiting on that response BH......tic, tic, tic.....

No, that's just stage 4. CNN is trying to be all things to all people lately, so they've taken to following FOX News' lead. They tend to jump on these kinds of non-stories faster than other outlets.

Oh my God! CNN's been infected too?????
;-)

But it's a good infection, Brent!

"Brent-320354

Oh my God! CNN's been infected too?????
;-)"

since rupert murdock (yes he of fox ownership) bought all of ted turner's assets cnn has gone down the tubes.

I saw that on MSNBC, where they clearly showed a black man with an assault rifle, along with another white guy. But thats not the point,
The point about the armed white guy, taking pictures and harassing Latin American voters is the issue, to which the Bush DOJ didn't even bother to investigate, though they had been informed.

waffle....you quite obviously have never watched Fox News.....You are aware there is a Fox Entertainment channel, perhaps that is where you spend your time.

On the contrary, I have watched it and am quite familiar with the positive feedback cycle of the commentary shows hyping a story and the news shows reporting this hype as if it were news.

great catch, waffle!

Many of the Fox pundits are not journalists, so, their "fair and balanced news" does not have to be factual or "fair and balanced" or news.