‘New Black Panther’ Case Inquiry Released - Verdict: Bogus

A Justice Dept. inquiry finds no evidence to support right wing claims of anti-white ‘racism’
Politics • Views: 37,116

The Justice Department has released the results of the inquiry into their handling of the New Black Panther “voter intimidation” case, after years of allegations from the right that the case demonstrates systemic anti-white racism in the Obama administration.

Would you be surprised to learn that this endlessly hyped case was complete nonsense right from the start?

Yesterday, the Justice Department released the long-awaited results of its inquiry into its own handling of the New Black Panther voter intimidation case, and the verdict is in: This whole tale has been complete nonsense from the very beginning. The right has been obsessing over this case for years, insisting that Justice’s decision to dismiss the case against three of four defendents accused of voter intimidation at a Philadelphia polling station in 2008 proves that the Obama administration is riddled with anti-white racists.

It should come as a shock to no one that the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility has “found no evidence that the decision to dismiss the case against three of the four defendants was predicated on political considerations” or that there was “improper political interference or influence from within or outside the Department in connection with the decision in the case.” As Ryan J. Reilly reports, this comes after OPR interviewed numerous staffers and sifted through “thousands of pages of internal Department e-mails, memoranda, and notes.”

To sum up: The New Black Panther tale — a years-long journey into the fevered right-wing imagination that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and led to no shortage of scurrilous accusations of racism against the first black president and attorney general — was a colossal waste of time and taxpayer resources.

It’s not difficult to see why Republicans worked so hard to promote this bogus story. It plays to the racist segment of the right wing base, by confirming their fear and hatred of Barack Obama. And an enraged racist base is good for the GOP.

Jump to bottom

366 comments
1 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:00:41am

What do you expect from the media-Democrat, Van Jones boot licking, Acorn fronting Party?

2 moderatelyradicalliberal  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:01:24am

Are you saying that white American has nothing to fear from all 8 of the NBPs and their horrible reverse racist acorns?

3 Kragar  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:03:16am

Obviously what we need now is a Congressional inquiry into the DoJs investigation.
///

4 Professor Chaos  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:05:11am

But it doesn’t matter now. The fantasy wingnut account of this case is now established “fact” on the right and probably among quite a few of the lesser-informed independents.

5 moderatelyradicalliberal  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:05:17am

re: #3 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Obviously what we need now is a Congressional inquiry into the DoJs investigation.
///

Obviously we need and emergency session to defund the DOJ.

//

6 brownbagj  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:06:22am

While I never thought the case was dropped due to some internal anti-white racism, there is no doubt that if I were going to that polling station that I would have perceived a threat.

7 HappyWarrior  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:06:33am

Knowing the wingnuts, the DOJ’s investigation and conclusions will be their “proof” that the Obama administration hates white people.

8 aagcobb  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:07:31am

You would never guess from the right wing coverage that the DOJ did pursue a case against one of the defendants.

9 Professor Chaos  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:08:14am

re: #6 brownbagj

While I never thought the case was dropped due to some internal anti-white racism, there is no doubt that if I were going to that polling station that I would have perceived a threat.

Heh, if I had gone to that polling station and perceived a threat, that guy would have perceived one right back.

10 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:09:37am

re: #6 brownbagj

While I never thought the case was dropped due to some internal anti-white racism, there is no doubt that if I were going to that polling station that I would have perceived a threat.

I don’t doubt that. A decision not to move ahead doesn’t mean these guys were behaving properly, or even legally, simply that the DoJ didn’t find that they had sufficient evidence or that they wanted to prioritize the case and commit resources to it.

11 Targetpractice  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:10:34am

re: #3 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Obviously what we need now is a Congressional inquiry into the DoJs investigation.
///

Don’t laugh, that’s next on the agenda. “How can we trust the DoJ not to lie? We need Congress to step in and do an investigation of their own!”

12 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:10:36am

re: #7 HappyWarrior

Knowing the wingnuts, the DOJ’s investigation and conclusions will be their “proof” that the Obama administration hates white people.

Maybe I’m confusing this with something else, but didn’t the BUSH DoJ, or Bush appointees, decide not to go ahead with the case?

13 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:10:56am

re: #12 SanFranciscoZionist

Yep.

14 brownbagj  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:12:30am

re: #12 SanFranciscoZionist

Yep - which is one of many reasons why I thought this was BS from long ago.

With so much to worry about - they pick this? Geez.

15 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:13:09am

re: #9 Girth

Heh, if I had gone to that polling station and perceived a threat, that guy would have perceived one right back.

Well, that’s nice, but wimps and little old ladies also gotta vote.

Whenever I see coverage of this case, I remember sitting in a teacher education day at my old district (the two years I did public school) with a young man who explained that his mother had been a Black Panther in Oakland in the old days, and he had been raised in that milieu. “I reach my students by any means necessary,” he said, and then went on to talk about getting into fistfights with gangbangers who acted up in class.

My principal was gobsmacked. I was eating popcorn, metaphorically.

Nice guy, aside from the violent tendencies.

16 Professor Chaos  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:13:17am

BTW Charles, Frank Says is the coolest widget in the history of the internets.

17 brownbagj  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:13:46am

re: #9 Girth

I agree - which makes these situations dangerous. Some idiot like me would get pissed and then somebody (maybe me, heck even probably) gets hurt.

18 HappyWarrior  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:14:43am

re: #12 SanFranciscoZionist

Maybe I’m confusing this with something else, but didn’t the BUSH DoJ, or Bush appointees, decide not to go ahead with the case?

Not sure but I think I remember hearing that yeah.

19 sagehen  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:19:34am

re: #6 brownbagj

While I never thought the case was dropped due to some internal anti-white racism, there is no doubt that if I were going to that polling station that I would have perceived a threat.

And yet the only person who claims to have perceived any threat is the cameraman.

20 Targetpractice  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:19:47am

re: #14 brownbagj

Yep - which is one of many reasons why I thought this was BS from long ago.

With so much to worry about - they pick this? Geez.

Because to the racists, it “proves” that Holder and/or Obama are black men looking to use their offices to enact “racial justice,” while the rest of the anti-Obama brigade believe that it “proves” that Democrats either support or are even responsible for “voter fraud” and that Obama’s abusing the powers of his office to sweep it all under the rug.

21 iossarian  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:20:50am

re: #11 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Don’t laugh, that’s next on the agenda. “How can we trust the DoJ not to lie? We need Congress to step in and do an investigation of their own!”

We should get expert witnesses from the English Defense League.

22 Political Atheist  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:22:07am

I had thought this was just an isolated incident, but actual intimidation at the particular time and place. I had thought it was a bit like the Bob Dornan election loss- Illegal votes were found by an investigation, which was dropped after those votes were found to not be enough to change the defeat of Bob Dornan.

In other words real intimidation but at an inconsequential scale.

Have I got this right?

23 wrenchwench  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:22:35am

re: #16 Girth

BTW Charles, Frank Says is the coolest widget in the history of the internets.

Yep.

Frank says:

We’ll get back to the wimp, and his low-budget conception of personal freedom, in just a moment — Thing-Fish.

24 Kragar  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:23:10am

Frothy news report:

Rick Santorum says “abortion culture” to blame for Social Security troubles


Potential 2012 Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said on a radio show Tuesday that the “abortion culture” in the United States is in part to blame for projected shortcomings in Social Security.

“The Social Security system, in my opinion, is a flawed design, period. But having said that, the design would work a lot better if we had stable demographic trends,” Santorum said on WEZS Radio in New Hampshire. “We don’t have enough workers to support the retirees. Well, a third of all the young people in America are not in America today because of abortion.”

25 Targetpractice  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:25:56am

re: #24 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Frothy news report:

Rick Santorum says “abortion culture” to blame for Social Security troubles

What utter bullshit. Bring all those jobs shipped off to China, India, and all posts east and you’ll see Social Security quickly returning to being shipshape.

“Not enough workers,” MY ASS!

26 iossarian  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:26:29am

re: #24 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Frothy news report:

Rick Santorum says “abortion culture” to blame for Social Security troubles

If only the population were doubling every 20 years! That would solve all of our problems.

Do these people even think at all about what they’re saying?

27 lostlakehiker  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:26:56am

re: #2 moderatelyradicalliberal

Are you saying that white American has nothing to fear from all 8 of the NBPs and their horrible reverse racist acorns?

I’m saying that nobody had much of anything to fear from those two guys dressed up and playing guard at the polling station. People went in and out unharmed and unchallenged. Whites included, women included.

If I’d have been going to vote there, I’d have gone past, extra politely maybe so as to not court trouble, but that would have been the only effect on me.

The real reason for not making a federal case of it was that there wasn’t any victim. There wasn’t any substance to it. The whole incident was like that commercial where the lady asks Where’s the Beef? Except with no bun or pickles either. An empty plate.

Had there been film clips of people trying to vote but getting stomped, and others turning away in fear and consternation, it’d have been a different story. But that didn’t happen. It didn’t nearly happen. It didn’t sort of happen. Aint NUTHIN happened.

The cops came and politely explained to the gentlemen that they’d have to lose the club. They complied. Barely newsworthy, if even that.

28 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:27:47am

C’mon. The Department of Justice is just filled with members of Obama’s “army of thugs.”

Who do you think you’re kidding. It’s only a matter of time before members of the New Black Panther Party are running the entire country. All six or seven of them.

29 Killgore Trout  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:28:45am

re: #22 Rightwingconspirator

In other words real intimidation but at an inconsequential scale.

Have I got this right?


Kind of. The bar is pretty high for proof on voter intimidation. One of the missing key elements in the case is that nobody who went to vote at that polling place reported being intimidated.

30 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:29:19am

Folks, there is a term for this:

“Angry black man.” Panic ensues.

31 iceweasel  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:30:35am

re: #29 Killgore Trout

Kind of. The bar is pretty high for proof on voter intimidation. One of the missing key elements in the case is that nobody who went to vote at that polling place reported being intimidated.

Of course not, because

they were too intimidated to report it. That proves it!

32 kirkspencer  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:30:45am

re: #29 Killgore Trout

Kind of. The bar is pretty high for proof on voter intimidation. One of the missing key elements in the case is that nobody who went to vote at that polling place reported being intimidated.

And equally important, no eligible voter reported not voting due to intimidation — not even after the fact during this investigation.

As noted, only the cameraman (from out of district) felt threatened.

33 lostlakehiker  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:32:59am

re: #25 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

What utter bullshit. Bring all those jobs shipped off to China, India, and all posts east and you’ll see Social Security quickly returning to being shipshape.

“Not enough workers,” MY ASS!

Trade is a two way street. It serves the general good of humanity to keep the gates of trade open. Sometimes doing the right thing is expensive. We’re trying to do the right thing in Libya. Maybe the execution could be better, but even with perfect execution it’d be expensive.

With trade, self interest and morality align better. We send stuff to China, India, etc. They send other stuff back. We both do better.

It made no sense for France to produce her own whiskey while Scotland produced her own wine. Today, again, there’s always some comparative advantage situations.

We have a different mix of jobs than we’d have with no trade, but everybody’s better off.

34 Targetpractice  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:33:13am

re: #31 iceweasel

Of course not, because

Yeah, I’ve heard that one too. “Just because there’s no reports filed doesn’t mean there’s no victims! How do you know there weren’t poor people who got turned away, but didn’t know how to file a report?!”

35 Kragar  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:33:15am

House GOP: We don’t need no stinkin’ Senate


Eric Cantor, a member of the House Republican leadership, suggested this morning that the House will pass a measure mandating that a House spending bill will become law if the Senate does not pass a spending bill of its own by next week.

How would that happen? Well, it won’t.

36 iceweasel  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:34:17am

re: #34 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Yeah, I’ve heard that one too. “Just because there’s no reports filed doesn’t mean there’s no victims! How do you know there weren’t poor people who got turned away, but didn’t know how to file a report?!”

I didn’t know anyone had ever actually heard that. My condolences.

37 Varek Raith  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:34:28am

re: #35 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

House GOP: We don’t need no stinkin’ Senate

They’ve gone mad with power.

38 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:34:35am

re: #33 lostlakehiker

Trade is a two way street. It serves the general good of humanity to keep the gates of trade open. Sometimes doing the right thing is expensive. We’re trying to do the right thing in Libya. Maybe the execution could be better, but even with perfect execution it’d be expensive.

With trade, self interest and morality align better. We send stuff to China, India, etc. They send other stuff back. We both do better.

It made no sense for France to produce her own whiskey while Scotland produced her own wine. Today, again, there’s always some comparative advantage situations.

We have a different mix of jobs than we’d have with no trade, but everybody’s better off.

Please tell that to all the U.S. call center workers who are now unemployed.

39 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:35:16am

re: #31 iceweasel

Of course not, because

This is about a very primal reaction. Black men dressed in military-style clothing, holding a stick, looking intimidating.

The existence of such men reaches into the deepest fears of a threatening “other.” The degree of outsized reaction to this insignificant incident is a direct reflection of the depth of irrational fear some people harbor of black men.

40 Targetpractice  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:35:33am

re: #35 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

House GOP: We don’t need no stinkin’ Senate

Desperation seems to be setting in, along with the realization that their “bargaining” position is not as solid as they assumed.

41 iceweasel  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:36:50am

re: #39 Talking Point Detective

This is about a very primal reaction. Black men dressed in military-style clothing, holding a stick, looking intimidating.

The existence of such men reaches into the deepest fears of a threatening “other.” The degree of outsized reaction to this insignificant incident is a direct reflection of the depth of irrational fear some people harbor of black men.

It’s all Fear of a Barack Planet, baby.

Youtube Video

BBL.

42 researchok  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:37:01am

re: #31 iceweasel

Of course not, because

This really was a case of stupid.

The loudmouthed morons with the batons were behaving stupidly (and deserved whatever they got) but in the end, no one ended up not voting.

The righties involved were stupid because clearly they were not dealing with a conspiracy to intimidate but rather, two morons.

No amount of posturing or phony righteous indignation can make this into something it wasn’t.

43 Targetpractice  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:37:03am

re: #36 iceweasel

I didn’t know anyone had ever actually heard that. My condolences.

I frequent a few “neutral” boards that have seen an upsurge in Tea Party membership, so I’ve heard it all by this point. It’s like arguing with a Truther: The moment you blow a hole in a theory, they come up with a patch to keep it going.

44 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:41:02am

re: #39 Talking Point Detective

This is about a very primal reaction. Black men dressed in military-style clothing, holding a stick, looking intimidating.

The existence of such men reaches into the deepest fears of a threatening “other.” The degree of outsized reaction to this insignificant incident is a direct reflection of the depth of irrational fear some people harbor of black men.

I’m intimidated by really tall men, unless they’re playing basketball.

I’m also intimidated by driving over very high freeway exchange overpasses. That really freaks me the hell out!

45 Buck  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:45:46am

Really? the opening sentence “the Justice Department released the long-awaited results of its inquiry into its own handling of the New Black Panther voter intimidation case” doesn’t sound funny to anyone else?


I mean to completely dismiss the sworn testimony that says that the fix was in seems premature. To say there was no evidence is to completely dismiss that testimony as non-existent. I mean you might say there is not enough evidence, but to say there is none….well I thought sworn testimony was evidence…and they have that.


Was the original case really as weak as the article suggests? Can we really be sure that there might have been people who didn’t approach, and didn’t feel safe in getting involved (even later)? Not that it is necessary for that in the law. It is fine to suggest that the lawyers who filed the original case and got default convictions were right wing racists. But this investigation says otherwise. And you can judge the video if you want, but Bartle Bull was a witness to the behavior of voter intimidation, and in sworn testimony he testified to that. He was actually there.

According to the letter cited, the lawyers who initiated the charges were right, and the people who dismissed the charges AFTER the default convictions were right.

So they investigated themselves and found themselves innocent. Shocka.

46 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:46:14am

re: #44 Alouette

I’m intimidated by really tall men, unless they’re playing basketball.

I’m also intimidated by driving over very high freeway exchange overpasses. That really freaks me the hell out!

I got vertigo driving on an LA freeway once. Fortunately, I did not lose it long enough to go over the edge…

47 researchok  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:47:33am

re: #45 Buck

Really? the opening sentence “the Justice Department released the long-awaited results of its inquiry into its own handling of the New Black Panther voter intimidation case” doesn’t sound funny to anyone else?

I mean to completely dismiss the sworn testimony that says that the fix was in seems premature. To say there was no evidence is to completely dismiss that testimony as non-existent. I mean you might say there is not enough evidence, but to say there is none…well I thought sworn testimony was evidence…and they have that.

Was the original case really as weak as the article suggests? Can we really be sure that there might have been people who didn’t approach, and didn’t feel safe in getting involved (even later)? Not that it is necessary for that in the law. It is fine to suggest that the lawyers who filed the original case and got default convictions were right wing racists. But this investigation says otherwise. And you can judge the video if you want, but Bartle Bull was a witness to the behavior of voter intimidation, and in sworn testimony he testified to that. He was actually there.

According to the letter cited, the lawyers who initiated the charges were right, and the people who dismissed the charges AFTER the default convictions were right.

So they investigated themselves and found themselves innocent. Shocka.

Bush era DOJ attorneys also torpedoed the case.

The matter seems to have been long on politics and short on real substance.

48 Political Atheist  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:49:25am

re: #29 Killgore Trout

Okay. But we would probably have a consensus that uniformed security guards at polling place entrances would generally have a negative effect on voting I would think. Certainly if the ethnic/political shoe were on the other foot.

49 Buck  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:50:36am

re: #47 researchok

Bush era DOJ attorneys also torpedoed the case.

The matter seems to have been long on politics and short on real substance.

What does “Bush also did ” have to do with anything. If ANY attorney torpedoed the case, then this investigation did not uncover it.

If what you say is true, and BOTH Bush era DOJ attorneys AND Obama era DOJ attorneys torpedoed the case, how can that be missed by the DOJ investigating itself?

50 Killgore Trout  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:51:35am

re: #45 Buck

Derp?

51 Political Atheist  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:54:25am

As a further hypothetical-Would we (the readers here) generally be comfortable with the effect baton armed or fully armed security guards would have at polling places in general? As a routine procedure I mean. Then, would the ethnicity of the guards need to match the neighborhood? As I recall the mere presence of uniformed police “on guard” at polling places is regarded as voter intimidation.

52 Killgore Trout  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:54:42am

re: #48 Rightwingconspirator

Certainly if the ethnic/political shoe were on the other foot.

Nope. There was also a case in Arizona of white supremacists intimidating Hispanic voters at a polling place.

Fox News overlooked voter-intimidation allegations against Minutemen

Which was also dismissed.

53 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:55:20am

So, Black Panthers were not hanging outside a polling area with the hopes of intimidating voters?

This story had real legs too.

I’m ashamed. I thought that it really happened.

Hell, I even remember seeing pictures.

Or… do I?

54 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:56:21am

re: #45 Buck

I mean to completely dismiss the sworn testimony that says that the fix was in seems premature.

What ‘fix’?

Not that it is necessary for that in the law. It is fine to suggest that the lawyers who filed the original case and got default convictions were right wing racists.

The default convictions were given for non-appearance, I believe. So that says absolutely nothing about the actual ability to prosecute against a defense.

Can you please be clear, instead of being a passive aggressive ass, and say who you think is suggesting the lawyers who filed the original case are right-wing racists?

Can you manage that honesty?

55 Decatur Deb  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:56:47am

re: #51 Rightwingconspirator

As a further hypothetical-Would we (the readers here) generally be comfortable with the effect baton armed or fully armed security guards would have at polling places in general? As a routine procedure I mean. Then, would the ethnicity of the guards need to match the neighborhood? As I recall the mere presence of uniformed police “on guard” at polling places is regarded as voter intimidation.

We’ve got some good ol’ boys around here who will be happy to volunteer, as soon as their sheets clothes get back from the laundry.

56 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:57:59am

re: #53 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Were the guys weirdos and probably trying to intimidate people?

Yes.

Did they intimidate anyone and prevent them from voting? Apparently not. Did they prevent anyone from going in? No.

57 Killgore Trout  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:58:07am

The wingnuts at PJM (who are largely responsible for hyping this bogus scandal) are now calling for a congressional investigation.

58 PT Barnum  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 11:58:45am

re: #42 researchok

This really was a case of stupid.

The loudmouthed morons with the batons were behaving stupidly (and deserved whatever they got) but in the end, no one ended up not voting.

The righties involved were stupid because clearly they were not dealing with a conspiracy to intimidate but rather, two morons.

No amount of posturing or phony righteous indignation can make this into something it wasn’t.

Never attribute to malevolence that which can just as easily be explained as stupidity.

59 Political Atheist  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:00:27pm

re: #52 Killgore Trout
re: #55 Decatur Deb

Okay guys, but I referred to security guards and police…. Heck people argue with me that just a basic voter ID requirement is anathema to a free election. I disagree strongly. To me voter ID should be required. Funding would be available for “state ID” as a alternative to driver licenses to help the destitute.

60 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:01:17pm

re: #56 Obdicut

re: #57 Killgore Trout

The MSM was good on this one. They had me totally fish-hooked.

(imagine that sentence with an Andy Griffith voice saying the word “good”.)

61 Killgore Trout  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:02:12pm

re: #59 Rightwingconspirator

I have no objection to voter ID laws in principal.

62 McSpiff  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:03:04pm

re: #59 Rightwingconspirator

re: #55 Decatur Deb

Okay guys, but I referred to security guards and police… Heck people argue with me that just a basic voter ID requirement is anathema to a free election. I disagree strongly. To me voter ID should be required. Funding would be available for “state ID” as a alternative to driver licenses to help the destitute.

I’d be happy to see it, but I’ll be the first to acknowledge the possibility of it leading to a national ID.

63 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:03:13pm

re: #682 Obdicut

I did read that part. I’m asking why you think last election would have been anything like an indication of what CU will bring.

There is no reason to be sanguine about CU. It’s going to be around for quite awhile, unless things get really weird. They’ll be plenty of time to point out the negative effects, lost as they may be in the negative effects of all the other ways we allow money to poison the political process.

(cont’d from previous thread)

My answer is that the previous election was deadly to incumbents. While we may need several more elections to measure precisely how much the CU ruling handicaps incumbents, it is certainly a demonstration that the CU ruling didn’t favor incumbents.

We also saw what I’ve said all along - that simply outspending an opponent does not lead to victory. Despite House Democrats outspending their Republican challengers by over $50million, they lost a bunch of seats. The theory is that once you’ve spent enough to get your message out there, additional spending doesn’t help much. That theory just gained a really big data point in 2010.

2010 does not prove what i believe (which is that the primary effect of CU will show itself to be largely anti-incumbent when we have more data points). However, 2010 did make it nearly impossible to argue the converse.

64 Decatur Deb  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:04:19pm

re: #61 Killgore Trout

I have no objection to voter ID laws in principal.

Nor do I, and since polling-place fraud has no recent history of swinging an election, I want the TPGOP to spend all their fortunes fighting it.

65 Killgore Trout  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:04:22pm

The Republican war on education is working out swell…

Former Intel CEO blasts education in Arizona

Gov. Jan Brewer and the state’s top lawmakers got a reality check Tuesday from former Intel Chief Executive and Board Chairman Craig Barrett, who told them Arizona’s education system is hindering economic-development efforts.

Barrett’s remarks come as Brewer and the Legislature are working to hammer out a state budget.

Education is a major sticking point in the discussions; Brewer is proposing a $170 million cut to universities and a reduction of $72 million in K-12.

The Senate has passed a budget with deeper cuts - $235 million to universities and $242 million to K-12. The House has yet to begin its deliberations.

“Quality education is extremely important to a place like Intel,” Barrett said. “(The) education cutbacks don’t bode well for that.”

66 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:04:44pm

re: #59 Rightwingconspirator

re: #55 Decatur Deb

Okay guys, but I referred to security guards and police… Heck people argue with me that just a basic voter ID requirement is anathema to a free election. I disagree strongly. To me voter ID should be required. Funding would be available for “state ID” as a alternative to driver licenses to help the destitute.

ID requirements are solving an absolutely non-existent problem. I don’t like the government making laws to fix problems that don’t exist.

67 Charles Johnson  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:04:57pm

re: #57 Killgore Trout

The wingnuts at PJM (who are largely responsible for hyping this bogus scandal) are now calling for a congressional investigation.

Of course they are.

PJM started as a place that was intended to go beyond the right-left paradigm. It’s turned into a far right propaganda site in every way. World Net Daily with slightly better web design.

68 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:05:58pm

re: #63 Aceofwhat?

My answer is that the previous election was deadly to incumbents. While we may need several more elections to measure precisely how much the CU ruling handicaps incumbents, it is certainly a demonstration that the CU ruling didn’t favor incumbents.

The CU ruling neither favors or doesn’t favor incumbents. Incumbency is irrelevant to CU. I’m not sure why you think it is.

69 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:06:04pm

re: #56 Obdicut

Did they intimidate anyone and prevent them from voting? Apparently not. Did they prevent anyone from going in? No.

So, they were there. I’m not trying to be an ass, but it is very hard to prove a negative.

Do we know that no one pulled into the parking lot and just drove away? No. Anyone that is hanging outside of a polling place with a baton will not be mistaken as a parade leader or a drum major.

Fuckers should have been arrested.

White or black. No matter who is running.

70 McSpiff  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:07:26pm

re: #69 Fat Bastard Vegetarian


Did they intimidate anyone and prevent them from voting? Apparently not. Did they prevent anyone from going in? No.

So, they were there. I’m not trying to be an ass, but it is very hard to prove a negative.

Do we know that no one pulled into the parking lot and just drove away? No. Anyone that is hanging outside of a polling place with a baton will not be mistaken as a parade leader or a drum major.

Fuckers should have been arrested.

White or black. No matter who is running.

Presumably the DOJ attempted to find those people. This investigation wasn’t exactly secretive

71 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:07:30pm

re: #69 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Fuckers should have been arrested.

On what charge?

72 Political Atheist  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:08:16pm

re: #62 McSpiff

Well we already have a national ID, it just lacks a photo. S/S card of course. But since states all have their own ID along with drivers licenses to me that is no big deal.

73 McSpiff  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:09:17pm

re: #72 Rightwingconspirator

Well we already have a national ID, it just lacks a photo. S/S card of course. But since states all have their own ID along with drivers licenses to me that is no big deal.

Does the SS card actually get used as an ID in the states? In Canada its just the number, and other than credit checks and utilities, its rarely used. Well, payroll of course.

74 researchok  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:09:22pm

re: #49 Buck

What does “Bush also did ” have to do with anything. If ANY attorney torpedoed the case, then this investigation did not uncover it.

If what you say is true, and BOTH Bush era DOJ attorneys AND Obama era DOJ attorneys torpedoed the case, how can that be missed by the DOJ investigating itself?

Perhaps- but what is the likelihood of two investigations resulting in a cover up?

75 researchok  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:09:35pm

re: #71 Obdicut

On what charge?

Disturbing the peace.

76 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:10:07pm

re: #68 Obdicut

The CU ruling neither favors or doesn’t favor incumbents. Incumbency is irrelevant to CU. I’m not sure why you think it is.

Because incumbents have a prominent fundraising advantage. CU permits outside organizations (unions, corporations, etc.) to spend money on behalf of a candidate. That permission is most helpful to a candidate with a fundraising deficit.

So, more precisely: the CU ruling, i think, favors candidates whose message is appealing but have a fundraising deficit. Such candidates are far more likely to be challengers.

77 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:12:07pm

re: #45 Buck

LOL

You are nothing if not extremely predictable, Buck.

78 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:12:20pm

re: #71 Obdicut

Voter intimidation. There’s a law agin’ it.

79 Targetpractice  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:12:37pm

re: #75 researchok

Disturbing the peace.

That would probably be the only thing they could get them on. As no one filed a report, there’s no proof of voter intimidation.

80 Targetpractice  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:13:26pm

re: #78 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Voter intimidation. There’s a law agin’ it.

Is there precedent for charging someone for voter intimidation where the victims were purely hypothetical?

81 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:13:41pm

re: #71 Obdicut

On what charge?

Standing there while being black. It’s gotta be illegal, right?

82 researchok  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:13:54pm

re: #78 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Voter intimidation. There’s a law agin’ it.

But no voters were actually intimidated. No one claims they were prevented from voting (as far as I know).

Disturbing the peace- now that’s a whole other thing.

83 charlz  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:14:17pm

re: #62 McSpiff

I’d be happy to see it, but I’ll be the first to acknowledge the possibility of it leading to a national ID.

State IDs have been available at DMVs in Virginia for over 25 years now. That’s a pretty slow lead up to a national ID!

84 Buck  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:15:16pm

re: #54 Obdicut

What ‘fix’?

I guess you have to read or hear the sworn testimony. J. Christian Adams testified that the DOJ instructed attorneys in the civil rights division to ignore cases that involve black defendants and white victims.


The default convictions were given for non-appearance, I believe. So that says absolutely nothing about the actual ability to prosecute against a defense.

I don’t understand why that is relevant. The DOJ was prepared to prosecute the case. This investigation says that there was every good reason to prosecute the case. If the defendants don’t show up and are convicted (by default, which I said in my post) why does that mean the case should be re investigated.

85 Achilles Tang  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:15:17pm

re: #59 Rightwingconspirator

re: #55 Decatur Deb

Heck people argue with me that just a basic voter ID requirement is anathema to a free election. I disagree strongly. To me voter ID should be required. Funding would be available for “state ID” as a alternative to driver licenses to help the destitute.

In principle I have no problem with that, but I seem to recall that many think requiring Americans to carry a voter ID is the first step to a dictatorship. What next? License all guns?//

There is another good reason to have a voter ID. It would allow drunks who have lost their licenses to buy beer or wine at Wallmart in Georgia. Can’t do that without a picture ID.

Seriously though, this proposal is just another blatant effort to reduce the Democrat voter base, just like going after unions is targeting their election funds, not budgets.

If we want to have a national ID card this can be discussed first, along with how much it will cost.

86 researchok  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:15:20pm

re: #79 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

That would probably be the only thing they could get them on. As no one filed a report, there’s no proof of voter intimidation.

Exactly.

If there were laws against stupid behavior, I would have thrown the book at them.

87 Decatur Deb  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:15:39pm

re: #83 charlz

State IDs have been available at DMVs in Virginia for over 25 years now. That’s a pretty slow lead up to a national ID!

Alabama has them, needed to buy booze and smokes.

88 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:17:04pm

re: #85 Naso Tang

In principle I have no problem with that, but I seem to recall that many think requiring Americans to carry a voter ID is the first step to a dictatorship. What next? License all guns?//

There is another good reason to have a voter ID. It would allow drunks who have lost their licenses to buy beer or wine at Wallmart in Georgia. Can’t do that without a picture ID.

Seriously though, this proposal is just another blatant effort to reduce the Democrat voter base, just like going after unions is targeting their election funds, not budgets.

If we want to have a national ID card this can be discussed first, along with how much it will cost.

How many Democrat voters don’t have some form of ID?

89 researchok  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:18:46pm

People seem to have no problem with ID’s in getting a library card, government benefits, or health care services.

Seems to me voter ID isn’t that big a deal.

90 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:19:12pm

I went to a scary high school.

I was intimidated many times about many things. We had thugs of many colors. I was scared shitless most of the time I was there.

I’m just saying, there were many, many times that I just moved in the other direction.

I was a chicken-shit, for sure. But, I was “herded” many times.

I can see why someone would be intimidated and just walk away and not say anything. I am guilty of the same thing.

Maybe this story just hit me on a more visceral level.

91 Buck  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:20:11pm

re: #69 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Fuckers should have been arrested.

White or black. No matter who is running.

They were, and charges were filed. AND they were convicted (by default). They simply didn’t show up.

The law they thought was not important was Section 11 Civil Rights Act of 1965

92 Achilles Tang  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:21:00pm

re: #88 Alouette

How many Democrat voters don’t have some form of ID?

As I understand it the issue is a photo ID.

In Florida one has to show voter card (no picture), and two forms of some other ID like a utility bill or SS, or driver license, and one needs to be registered to begin with at the polling station. But a photo ID is not required.

Anyone who wants to vote can provide those, but may not have a photo ID.

93 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:21:02pm

re: #84 Buck

It was investigated, twice, and then it was decided, twice, that there wasn’t enough to go on. Once by the Bush administration, once by the Obama administration. They didn’t prosecute because they didn’t have a good case. It’s REALLY fucking simple.

94 researchok  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:22:48pm

re: #90 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I went to a scary high school.

I was intimidated many times about many things. We had thugs of many colors. I was scared shitless most of the time I was there.

I’m just saying, there were many, many times that I just moved in the other direction.

I was a chicken-shit, for sure. But, I was “herded” many times.

I can see why someone would be intimidated and just walk away and not say anything. I am guilty of the same thing.

Maybe this story just hit me on a more visceral level.

That is quite possible.

Still, the fact remains it is likely other voters (all of whom would be outraged at the idea they might be intimidated) would have challenged the morons in defense of voters who may have been hesitant.

I submit today you would do just that. Clearly, you aren’t the same person you were in high school, on so may levels.

95 Kragar  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:23:11pm

Sarah Palin Rips Into Daily Caller For Not Featuring Her Quote High Enough


“Goodness, cleaning up the sloppiness of reporters could be a full time job,” she began a Facebook post on the article today. “In response to The Daily Caller’s online inquiry, I gave them a statement that the writer buried on his story’s second page (which most people won’t even notice - I didn’t even notice it.”

Palin’s criticism offered a window into her staff’s approach to the press. In an interview with TPM, the reporter who wrote the story, Chris Moody, said he was “surprised” to see her Facebook post given that Palin aides had demanded he make the entire Palin statement available — which he did — as a precondition to giving him any kind of a response to his questions.

“Palin’s spokesman said she could give me a quote on the condition that I run the entire statement,” Moody told TPM. “After some back and forth, I said I would write the story that accurately represented her view, with the full quotes available for readers. Her spokesman said that would be fine.”

But Palin repeatedly claimed the placement was insufficient in her Facebook post, writing that “having to set the record straight on my Facebook page yet again is further proof that the media can’t be trusted even to print a statement in a manner that people can read.”

News publications rarely run articles featuring unabridged statements as lengthy as Palin’s and Moody himself could not recall receiving similar demands from any other source.

96 Killgore Trout  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:23:15pm

re: #90 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I can see why someone would be intimidated and just walk away and not say anything. I am guilty of the same thing.

Maybe this story just hit me on a more visceral level.


The wingnuts have been hyping this story for over two years and they can’t find anybody. The Black Panthers are huge douchbags but certain legal requirements need to be met in order to take them to court.

97 McSpiff  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:23:28pm

re: #90 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I went to a scary high school.

I was intimidated many times about many things. We had thugs of many colors. I was scared shitless most of the time I was there.

I’m just saying, there were many, many times that I just moved in the other direction.

I was a chicken-shit, for sure. But, I was “herded” many times.

I can see why someone would be intimidated and just walk away and not say anything. I am guilty of the same thing.

Maybe this story just hit me on a more visceral level.

Easily could have, but these type of cases really do need victims, otherwise it would be very easy for police to declare that anyone who matches their definition of a thug is trying to intimidate voters. I’m not comfortable with a “no gang apparel” at polling places law. Too easy to disenfranchise people.

98 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:23:29pm

re: #94 researchok

I’m fatter.

99 Stanghazi  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:24:35pm

re: #95 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Sarah Palin Rips Into Daily Caller For Not Featuring Her Quote High Enough

Stolen from the TPN comment section:

Sarah’s Pressing Whine List:
—McCain press advisors
—Liberal Press
—Conservative Press
—Garlic press
—Freedom of Press
—Full court press
—Compressed gas
—Press my dress, First Dude!
—The President (anything he do)

100 Buck  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:24:49pm

re: #93 Fozzie Bear

It was investigated, twice, and then it was decided, twice, that there wasn’t enough to go on. Once by the Bush administration, once by the Obama administration. They didn’t prosecute because they didn’t have a good case. It’s REALLY fucking simple.

You are wrong, they did prosecute. This investigation states that they had good reason to prosecute. Not only did they prosecute, but the DOJ got default convictions.

They had a credible witness (Bartle Bull) ready to testify.

Ignoring that the DOJ felt that there should have been a re-investigation AFTER the default conviction seems strange to me.

Not simple.

101 researchok  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:25:17pm

re: #97 McSpiff

Easily could have, but these type of cases really do need victims, otherwise it would be very easy for police to declare that anyone who matches their definition of a thug is trying to intimidate voters. I’m not comfortable with a “no gang apparel” at polling places law. Too easy to disenfranchise people.

I have mixed feelings about the no gang apparel rule.

In our neighborhoods, the issue might not be as significant as in others.

As to the rest of your remarks, I’m in agreement.

102 Decatur Deb  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:25:31pm

re: #91 Buck

They were, and charges were filed. AND they were convicted (by default). They simply didn’t show up.

The law they thought was not important was Section 11 Civil Rights Act of 1965

Per this WaPo article, the Bush DOJ filed a suit, not charges. It includes video of the incident:

washingtonpost.com

103 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:25:40pm

re: #97 McSpiff

Easily could have, but these type of cases really do need victims, otherwise it would be very easy for police to declare that anyone who matches their definition of a thug is trying to intimidate voters. I’m not comfortable with a “no gang apparel” at polling places law. Too easy to disenfranchise people.

How you define “gang apparel” is where the rubber hits the road, and it’s not possible to define it in a way that won’t cause all kinds of problems. Not only that, but just affiliating yourself with a gang isn’t illegal. It’s distasteful to most, but not illegal.

104 researchok  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:25:57pm

re: #98 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I’m fatter.

LOLOL

105 McSpiff  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:26:14pm

re: #100 Buck

You are wrong, they did prosecute. This investigation states that they had good reason to prosecute. Not only did they prosecute, but the DOJ got default convictions.

They had a credible witness (Bartle Bull) ready to testify.

Ignoring that the DOJ felt that there should have been a re-investigation AFTER the default conviction seems strange to me.

Not simple.

If the DOJ got convictions, and the DOJ internal investigation says the DOJ handled the case properly…whats the problem again? Seems like you and the DOJ agree on the way the case was handled?

106 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:27:09pm

re: #92 Naso Tang

As I understand it the issue is a photo ID.

In Florida one has to show voter card (no picture), and two forms of some other ID like a utility bill or SS, or driver license, and one needs to be registered to begin with at the polling station. But a photo ID is not required.

Anyone who wants to vote can provide those, but may not have a photo ID.

Why is photo ID a problem for anybody?

I have 3 photo IDs. Two of them are pretty good, but one is a really crappy picture. But the absolute worst photo ID I ever had was for my visa application when I visited the Russian Federation four years ago. That picture looked like a morgue shot.

107 Buck  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:27:38pm

re: #96 Killgore Trout

The wingnuts have been hyping this story for over two years and they can’t find anybody. The Black Panthers are huge douchbags but certain legal requirements need to be met in order to take them to court.

They did find someone…. and he testified in Washington at the civil rights commission. AND during his testimony about the intimidation he was intimidated by the NBP group, right in front of the commission.

108 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:28:32pm

re: #100 Buck

You are wrong, they did prosecute. This investigation states that they had good reason to prosecute. Not only did they prosecute, but the DOJ got default convictions.

They had a credible witness (Bartle Bull) ready to testify.

Ignoring that the DOJ felt that there should have been a re-investigation AFTER the default conviction seems strange to me.

Not simple.

Ignoring that the re-investigation did occur, and also yielded no fruit seems strange to me. DA’s and AG’s don’t have to prosecute every case that comes across their desks. They prioritize and delegate, and make decisions. You disagree with their decision. That doesn’t make their decisions nefarious or conspiratorial.

Your repeated insistence that it does, however, is more than a little strange.

109 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:29:09pm

re: #103 Fozzie Bear

How you define “gang apparel” is where the rubber hits the road, and it’s not possible to define it in a way that won’t cause all kinds of problems. Not only that, but just affiliating yourself with a gang isn’t illegal. It’s distasteful to most, but not illegal.

How about just ban the “low hanging crotch” pants. I can’t understand why anyone would think it’s “cool” to dress like that. Dumbest. Fashion. Ever.

110 Buck  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:29:36pm

re: #105 McSpiff

If the DOJ got convictions, and the DOJ internal investigation says the DOJ handled the case properly…whats the problem again? Seems like you and the DOJ agree on the way the case was handled?

You are not really following this are you? They (The Obama DOJ) dismissed the convictions.

That is what this is all about.

111 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:29:47pm

re: #109 Alouette

How about just ban the “low hanging crotch” pants. I can’t understand why anyone would think it’s “cool” to dress like that. Dumbest. Fashion. Ever.

Agreed. But a literal fashion police seems to be the wrong approach, imo.

112 McSpiff  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:30:21pm

re: #101 researchok

I have mixed feelings about the no gang apparel rule.

In our neighborhoods, the issue might not be as significant as in others.

As to the rest of your remarks, I’m in agreement.

I can’t think of a fair way to define it. No red and blue on polling day doesn’t really seem right to me, and a rule like “no red on a black male between the ages of 14 and 30” obviously doesn’t fly.

113 aagcobb  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:31:17pm

re: #59 Rightwingconspirator

Where is the evidence that anyone has been running around pretending they are someone else in order to cast a fraudulent vote? This is yet another nonexistent problem the GOP is obsessed with, probably because the people least likely to have photo IDs are low income urban minorities.

114 Charles Johnson  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:31:20pm

re: #110 Buck

You are not really following this are you? They (The Obama DOJ) dismissed the convictions.

That is what this is all about.

No, what this is all about is an attempt by the right wing to drum up more phony outrage, by waving the NBP in front of the base like scary black boogeymen.

115 Decatur Deb  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:31:27pm

re: #110 Buck

You are not really following this are you? They (The Obama DOJ) dismissed the convictions.

That is what this is all about.

There were no convictions, and convictions don’t get “dismissed”. It was a civil rights suit which was not contested.

116 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:31:47pm

re: #110 Buck

You are not really following this are you? They (The Obama DOJ) dismissed the convictions.

That is what this is all about.

You’re not really following this case. That’s the problem. You can assert whatever you want, but that doesn’t make it based in anything other than your fevered imagination.

What actually happened here, is two black men decided to stand at a polling place in Black Panther outfits. That’s it. That’s all that happened. The DOJ investigated, and declined to prosecute the matter further. This is your grand conspiracy?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

117 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:31:51pm

re: #109 Alouette

Cops love it. Makes it hard to run.

I love it on the show “Cops” every time I see it.

White dudes, black dudes running from the cop… face-plant.

118 McSpiff  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:31:53pm

re: #110 Buck

You are not really following this are you? They (The Obama DOJ) dismissed the convictions.

That is what this is all about.

Uhhh, how can the DOJ dismiss a conviction? Apparently I’ve missed something very fundamental about the American legal systems. I thought only the courts could do that, short of a pardon. I didn’t think government lawyers had the ability to over rule a judge.

119 Targetpractice  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:32:05pm

re: #100 Buck

You are wrong, they did prosecute. This investigation states that they had good reason to prosecute. Not only did they prosecute, but the DOJ got default convictions.

They had a credible witness (Bartle Bull) ready to testify.

Ignoring that the DOJ felt that there should have been a re-investigation AFTER the default conviction seems strange to me.

Not simple.

Bartle Bull, you mean the guy who went on Fox & Friends and forgot to mention he was a poll watcher for the McCain campaign with an intense dislike for Obama? Or that his assertion is that the NBPs were, in actuality, there at the polls under the orders of ACORN?

Oh yeah, truly a “credible witness.” *rolls eyes*

120 researchok  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:32:20pm

re: #100 Buck

You are wrong, they did prosecute. This investigation states that they had good reason to prosecute. Not only did they prosecute, but the DOJ got default convictions.

They had a credible witness (Bartle Bull) ready to testify.

Ignoring that the DOJ felt that there should have been a re-investigation AFTER the default conviction seems strange to me.

Not simple.

Bartle Bull certainly is credible- but he was the only one out of many who examined the facts of the case. Simply being a credible witness is not necessarily enough to prosecute a case.

To be clear, the two morons behaved stupidly and despicably and were in fact ordered to stay away from polling stations, as I recall. I have nothing good to say about them.

Nor do I have anything good to say about the guy who beats a DUI charge despite driving erratically all over the road and endangering others.

121 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:32:23pm

re: #76 Aceofwhat?

the CU ruling, i think, favors candidates whose message is appealing

I can’t tell if you’re joking or not when you say things like that.

CU allows corporations, unions, and other groups to directly campaign for candidates. I don’t think that they’ll be doing so because their message is appealing, but because of the vested interests that they want that candidate to support.

Diminishing returns on spending is certainly a real thing, but this ruling means that such spending could occur in every race, at every level. It not only means that people running against incumbents will get more funding, but people who don’t actually have a message that appeals with people, but do have one that appeals to corporations.

122 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:32:38pm

re: #106 Alouette

Glad it wasn’t.

123 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:32:40pm

re: #78 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Voter intimidation. There’s a law agin’ it.

But is there a law against failing to intimidate voters?

124 jamesfirecat  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:32:52pm

re: #112 McSpiff

I can’t think of a fair way to define it. No red and blue on polling day doesn’t really seem right to me, and a rule like “no red on a black male between the ages of 14 and 30” obviously doesn’t fly.

Also how “dressed” does one have to be to vote? Is it one of those “no shirt no shoes no service” kind of deals? If a guy shows up in his underpants carrying wallet with a valid id in it is he allowed to vote?

125 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:33:46pm

re: #121 Obdicut

but people who don’t actually have a message that appeals with people, but do have onean agenda that appeals to corporations.

PIMF.

126 darthstar  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:33:50pm

re: #95 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Sarah Palin Rips Into Daily Caller For Not Featuring Her Quote High Enough

So blogs like the Daily Caller are now part of the mainstream media?

Sarah Palin has issues.

127 researchok  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:34:15pm

re: #112 McSpiff

I can’t think of a fair way to define it. No red and blue on polling day doesn’t really seem right to me, and a rule like “no red on a black male between the ages of 14 and 30” obviously doesn’t fly.

And therein lies the problem- definitions.

My fear is one day we’ll read about election day violence predicated on gang colors jackets, tshirts, etc.

128 McSpiff  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:34:19pm

re: #124 jamesfirecat

Also how “dressed” does one have to be to vote? Is it one of those “no shirt no shoes no service” kind of deals? If a guy shows up in his underpants carrying wallet with a valid id in it is he allowed to vote?

Big one in Canada at the moment is religious face covering at polling places.

129 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:34:42pm

re: #113 aagcobb

Where is the evidence that anyone has been running around pretending they are someone else in order to cast a fraudulent vote? This is yet another nonexistent problem the GOP is obsessed with, probably because the people least likely to have photo IDs are low income urban minorities.

How difficult can it be for anybody to obtain a photo ID?

130 researchok  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:34:54pm

re: #126 darthstar

So blogs like the Daily Caller are now part of the mainstream media?

Sarah Palin has issues.

Do you want those alphabetically or chronologically?

131 jamesfirecat  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:35:13pm

re: #123 Obdicut

But is there a law against failing to intimidate voters?

Attempted murder, now what is that really? Do they give a noble prize for attempted chemistry?

—-Sideshow Bob.

132 McSpiff  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:35:14pm

re: #127 researchok

And therein lies the problem- definitions.

My fear is one day we’ll read about election day violence predicated on gang colors jackets, tshirts, etc.

I think the default has to be allow anyone into a polling place, possibly requiring face uncovered, and remove anyone at the first sign of trouble. Gotta be based on actions for me.

133 Buck  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:35:19pm

re: #119 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Bartle Bull, you mean the guy who went on Fox & Friends and forgot to mention he was a poll watcher for the McCain campaign with an intense dislike for Obama? Or that his assertion is that the NBPs were, in actuality, there at the polls under the orders of ACORN?

Oh yeah, truly a “credible witness.” *rolls eyes*

OK, so here you are. Anyone who supported McCain is unqualified to testify, simply by virtue of him being a supporter of McCain and nothing else.

Well, he was an eye witness. he was addressed by the BP in front of the polling station, and he is an expert on the act in question.

You can roll your eyes all you want.

134 McSpiff  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:36:33pm

re: #133 Buck

Can you explain how the DOJ goes about dismissing a conviction?

135 darthstar  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:36:34pm

re: #130 researchok

Do you want those alphabetically or chronologically?

I think just in the order in which they appear in the DSM IV would be fine.

136 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:37:04pm

re: #129 Alouette

How difficult can it be for anybody to obtain a photo ID?

It can be an enormous fucking pain in the ass.

I spent about two months working at in Massachussets, and in the end had to go to Connecticut to get my high school yearbook.

It’s often a case of “If we had steak we could have steak and eggs if we had eggs.”

137 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:37:14pm

re: #133 Buck

If you fight every battle that comes your way, out of partisan affiliation, never admitting that your position is absurd, and never declining to argue a point, no matter how meaningless and petty the point, nobody is going to take you seriously.

You have crossed the line into self-parody, dude.

138 researchok  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:37:39pm

re: #133 Buck

OK, so here you are. Anyone who supported McCain is unqualified to testify, simply by virtue of him being a supporter of McCain and nothing else.

Well, he was an eye witness. he was addressed by the BP in front of the polling station, and he is an expert on the act in question.

You can roll your eyes all you want.

Bartle Bull is a Democrat

139 CuriousLurker  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:37:44pm

re: #121 Obdicut

I can’t tell if you’re joking or not when you say things like that.

CU allows corporations, unions, and other groups to directly campaign for candidates. I don’t think that they’ll be doing so because their message is appealing, but because of the vested interests that they want that candidate to support.

Diminishing returns on spending is certainly a real thing, but this ruling means that such spending could occur in every race, at every level. It not only means that people running against incumbents will get more funding, but people who don’t actually have a message that appeals with people, but do have one that appeals to corporations.

Sandra Day O’Connor spelled out the potential problems with CU right after the decision was made. That was good enough for me.

140 researchok  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:38:13pm

re: #135 darthstar

I think just in the order in which they appear in the DSM IV would be fine.

Welcome to my world.

141 aagcobb  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:38:15pm

re: #129 Alouette

That’s not the point. The point is that these photo ID laws are attacking a nonexistent problem, and the people most likely to be denied their right to vote because of it are low income urban minorities.

142 McSpiff  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:38:17pm

re: #138 researchok

Bartle Bull is a Democrat

Damn the facts, full speed ahead!

143 Kragar  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:39:15pm

re: #126 darthstar

So blogs like the Daily Caller are now part of the mainstream media?

Sarah Palin has issues.

Youtube Video
144 Targetpractice  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:39:15pm

re: #133 Buck

OK, so here you are. Anyone who supported McCain is unqualified to testify, simply by virtue of him being a supporter of McCain and nothing else.

Well, he was an eye witness. he was addressed by the BP in front of the polling station, and he is an expert on the act in question.

You can roll your eyes all you want.

So, they addressed him…video of that? Photos? Or is it just his word?

145 Killgore Trout  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:40:40pm

re: #119 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Bartle Bull, you mean the guy who went on Fox & Friends and forgot to mention he was a poll watcher for the McCain campaign with an intense dislike for Obama? Or that his assertion is that the NBPs were, in actuality, there at the polls under the orders of ACORN?

Oh yeah, truly a “credible witness.” *rolls eyes*

Yes, the Bartle Bull angle is bullshit. He was not voting at that polling place. The Law requires that a voter be intimidated in the process of voting.

146 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:40:45pm

re: #139 CuriousLurker

Absolutely. It’s not the big races that will be poisoned the most by this, but the small ones.

147 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:40:52pm

re: #136 Obdicut

It can be an enormous fucking pain in the ass.

I spent about two months working at in Massachussets, and in the end had to go to Connecticut to get my high school yearbook.

It’s often a case of “If we had steak we could have steak and eggs if we had eggs.”

There are no cameras in Massachusetts? North Dakota, OK, I could totally understand that, but Massachusetts? WTF?

148 Buck  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:41:28pm

re: #120 researchok

Bartle Bull certainly is credible- but he was the only one out of many who examined the facts of the case. Simply being a credible witness is not necessarily enough to prosecute a case.

The case was over. They got default convictions. The DOJ, according to the record, the DOJ dismissed the convictions because ?

Well, there is a another credible witness that says it was because the fix was in.


To be clear, the two morons behaved stupidly and despicably and were in fact ordered to stay away from polling stations, as I recall. I have nothing good to say about them.

You recall wrong. The one who was given a sentence could go to almost any OTHER polling station. It wasn’t even a slap on the wrist.

149 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:41:50pm

re: #147 Alouette

That wasn’t the issue. It was that i couldn’t prove my identity, since I didn’t have enough ID to get an ID. So they needed my high school yearbook as proof that I was me.

150 aagcobb  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:43:08pm

re: #149 Obdicut

Couldn’t get your nirf certifkat from Kenya?
/

151 McSpiff  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:43:11pm

re: #148 Buck

The case was over. They got default convictions. The DOJ, according to the record, the DOJ dismissed the convictions because ?

Well, there is a another credible witness that says it was because the fix was in.

You recall wrong. The one who was given a sentence could go to almost any OTHER polling station. It wasn’t even a slap on the wrist.

Link to the DOJ dismissing convictions please. Otherwise I’m calling you a troll and mocking you mercilessly for being an idiot.

152 Kragar  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:43:20pm

re: #149 Obdicut

That wasn’t the issue. It was that i couldn’t prove my identity, since I didn’t have enough ID to get an ID. So they needed my high school yearbook as proof that I was me.

If you were you, who else would you be?

153 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:43:50pm

re: #45 Buck

Really? the opening sentence “the Justice Department released the long-awaited results of its inquiry into its own handling of the New Black Panther voter intimidation case” doesn’t sound funny to anyone else?

I mean to completely dismiss the sworn testimony that says that the fix was in seems premature. To say there was no evidence is to completely dismiss that testimony as non-existent. I mean you might say there is not enough evidence, but to say there is none…well I thought sworn testimony was evidence…and they have that.

Was the original case really as weak as the article suggests? Can we really be sure that there might have been people who didn’t approach, and didn’t feel safe in getting involved (even later)? Not that it is necessary for that in the law. It is fine to suggest that the lawyers who filed the original case and got default convictions were right wing racists. But this investigation says otherwise. And you can judge the video if you want, but Bartle Bull was a witness to the behavior of voter intimidation, and in sworn testimony he testified to that. He was actually there.

According to the letter cited, the lawyers who initiated the charges were right, and the people who dismissed the charges AFTER the default convictions were right.

So they investigated themselves and found themselves innocent. Shocka.

Short version:

What do you expect from the media-Democrat, Van Jones boot licking, Acorn fronting Party?


littlegreenfootballs.com

154 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:43:59pm

re: #149 Obdicut

That wasn’t the issue. It was that i couldn’t prove my identity, since I didn’t have enough ID to get an ID. So they needed my high school yearbook as proof that I was me.

Well, when my son was living in Russia, he asked me to fax his Bar Mitzvah invitation to the U.S. Embassy to prove that he was a U.S. citizen in order to get a birth certificate for his daughter.

They wouldn’t accept his driver’s license or his U.S. passport or his birth certificate as proof of citizenship because “anybody can forge those.”

155 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:44:14pm

re: #148 Buck

Because default convictions are “placeholder” convictions, often given in cases of failure to appear. It’s not the same fucking thing as a regular conviction, and are automatically overturned upon appearance of the accused, such that the case in question can be adjudicated in the proper fashion. It’s a way of compelling people to show up, nothing more, nothing less.

You just have no clue what you are talking about, dude.

156 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:44:39pm

re: #149 Obdicut

God help them trying to I.D. me from my H.S. Yearbook.

5’7” 130lbs… dripping wet.

157 MinisterO  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:44:44pm

Bartle Buck is a hardcore partisan. His account of the incident shouldn’t carry much weight.

158 CuriousLurker  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:44:56pm

re: #146 Obdicut

Absolutely. It’s not the big races that will be poisoned the most by this, but the small ones.

Exactly. And if enough small ones are poisoned, it eventually becomes a big problem. Look at what’s going on at the state level right now. Ugh.

159 researchok  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:45:00pm

re: #142 McSpiff

Damn the facts, full speed ahead!

In fairness, I do understand Buck’s objections.

It was an awful situation that straddled a very thin line.

I would say if there were anyone who came forward and says they were afraid to votes, the morons in questioned would have been rightly prosecuted.

In other words, the behavior was certainly not in question. It was the legal application standard that was not met.

Buck is right to say the behavior crossed the line. That said, there was nothing legally actionable because there were no victims.

In cities, there are noise pollution laws. If a guy honks his horn all night long and no one complains, well, that’s the end of it.

160 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:45:12pm

re: #148 Buck

The case was over. They got default convictions. The DOJ, according to the record, the DOJ dismissed the convictions because ?

This is not actually true, on any number of grounds.

1) If there were default convictions, that doesn’t mean those convictions wouldn’t have been vacated by an actual defense.

2) What happened first was that the Bush admin started a criminal investigation and then dropped it due to lack of evidence. So the first people to drop charges were the Bush guys.

3) Then, a civil case was brought, in the last 2 weeks of the Bush admin. This carried over into Obama’s term.

When none of the defendants who were charged appeared in court to answer the charges, the career attorneys pursuing the lawsuit assumed that they would win it by default. However the career attorneys’ move to pursue a default judgment against the defendants was overruled by two of their line superiors, Loretta King who was acting Assistant Attorney General and Steve Rosenbaum, Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General.

So the default judgements never actually came, except against King Samir Shabazz, where they sought and obtained one.

Can you try to stick to facts, please?


en.wikipedia.org

161 Buck  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:45:13pm

re: #134 McSpiff

Can you explain how the DOJ goes about dismissing a conviction?

Read the letter please.

talkingpointsmemo.com

The DOJ decided not to pursue the default convictions.

162 McSpiff  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:45:15pm

re: #155 Fozzie Bear

Because default convictions are “placeholder” convictions, often given in cases of failure to appear. It’s not the same fucking thing as a regular conviction, and are automatically overturned upon appearance of the accused, such that the case in question can be adjudicated in the proper fashion. It’s a way of compelling people to show up, nothing more, nothing less.

You just have no clue what you are talking about, dude.

Now this actually makes sense. Standard legal procedure, nothing more nothing less. Thanks Fozzie.

163 Decatur Deb  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:45:19pm

re: #151 McSpiff

Link to the DOJ dismissing convictions please. Otherwise I’m calling you a troll and mocking you mercilessly for being an idiot.

Not snarking—Is it possible that Buck is using a different vocabulary? His use of “sentence” and ‘conviction” seems off.

164 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:46:18pm

re: #161 Buck

Read the letter please.

[Link: www.talkingpointsmemo.com…]

The DOJ decided not to pursue the default convictions.

Your problem here is you have no idea what a default conviction is, and never bothered to find out.

165 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:46:32pm

re: #155 Fozzie Bear

The default convictions were never even granted, anyway.

166 McSpiff  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:46:41pm

re: #163 Decatur Deb

Not snarking—Is it possible that Buck is using a different vocabulary? His use of “sentence” and ‘conviction” seems off.

Seems to be the case. Or rather bending vocabulary to fit his world view.

167 recusancy  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:46:42pm

re: #129 Alouette

How difficult can it be for anybody to obtain a photo ID?

If you don’t have a photo id you need a birth certificate to prove who you are. To get a copy of your birth certificate you have to pay money. It’s a poll tax.

168 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:46:49pm

re: #161 Buck

Thank you for admitting you were wrong to say that convictions had been dismissed.

169 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:47:03pm

re: #165 Obdicut

The default convictions were never even granted, anyway.

Ah, ok. Even more ridiculous then. I’m just speaking the whart a default conviction is, and more importantly, what it isn’t.

170 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:47:23pm

re: #169 Fozzie Bear

*to *what

PIMF

171 Political Atheist  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:47:26pm

re: #73 McSpiff

Anytime I deal with national authority it gets used. IRS, ATF (if I buy a gun).

172 McSpiff  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:47:54pm

re: #161 Buck

Read the letter please.

[Link: www.talkingpointsmemo.com…]

The DOJ decided not to pursue the default convictions.

Which is vastly different than what you were saying. Not perused due to lack of evidence.

Yawn.

173 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:47:57pm

My last word on the subject, but certainly not “the” last word…

I firmly do NOT think that the DOJ killed this to acquiesce to the President’s wishes.

174 Targetpractice  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:48:17pm

re: #159 researchok

In fairness, I do understand Buck’s objections.

It was an awful situation that straddled a very thin line.

I would say if there were anyone who came forward and says they were afraid to votes, the morons in questioned would have been rightly prosecuted.

In other words, the behavior was certainly not in question. It was the legal application standard that was not met.

Buck is right to say the behavior crossed the line. That said, there was nothing legally actionable because there were no victims.

In cities, there are noise pollution laws. If a guy honks his horn all night long and no one complains, well, that’s the end of it.

And I agree entirely. Were there actual victims, then there would have been a case and these men would have been rightly convicted. But without those victims, there’s no proof that anybody’s rights were violated.

175 McSpiff  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:48:33pm

re: #171 Rightwingconspirator

Anytime I deal with national authority it gets used. IRS, ATF (if I buy a gun).

O ya, taxes. Forgot that part.

176 researchok  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:48:52pm

re: #148 Buck

The case was over. They got default convictions. The DOJ, according to the record, the DOJ dismissed the convictions because ?

Well, there is a another credible witness that says it was because the fix was in.

You recall wrong. The one who was given a sentence could go to almost any OTHER polling station. It wasn’t even a slap on the wrist.

Whether or not the fix was in at the DOJ (unlikely in my opinion after two investigations) doesn’t change what happened on the ground at the polling station.

If I am indeed in error re the sentence given, I stand corrected.

177 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:49:50pm

re: #174 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

And I agree entirely. Were there actual victims, then there would have been a case and these men would have been rightly convicted. But without those victims, there’s no proof that anybody’s rights were violated.

Of course. But what Buck is saying goes beyond that. He is alleging a conspiracy to deliberately decline investigation of voter intimidation cases involving black defendants and white victims, ordered directly by Obama. To that charge, I have only one response:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

178 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:50:05pm

re: #174 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

What’s annoying is how much this was blown up, mostly by Fox, to hint darkly that this was occurring all over the place, rather than being an isolated and, in the end, pretty trivial incident.

I think the widespread practice of using churches as places to vote in deserves a hell of a lot more attention than this did.

179 McSpiff  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:51:25pm

re: #177 Fozzie Bear

Of course. But what Buck is saying goes beyond that. He is alleging a conspiracy to deliberately decline investigation of voter intimidation cases involving black defendants and white victims, ordered directly by Obama. To that charge, I have only one response:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Buck an annoying troll? Never!

Look, I get that everyone has a voice here, but Buck either lacks fundamental reading comprehension or he’s a troll. Playing “spot the lie” with every single post is getting really old.

180 Buck  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:51:36pm

re: #177 Fozzie Bear

Of course. But what Buck is saying goes beyond that. He is alleging a conspiracy to deliberately decline investigation of voter intimidation cases involving black defendants and white victims, ordered directly by Obama. To that charge, I have only one response:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

No J. Christian Adams is alleging that. In sworn testimony, he says he was a witness to that, and he has another DOJ lawyer who backs him up.

181 recusancy  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:52:43pm

How about everybody votes Oregon style and we cut all this crap out.

182 Decatur Deb  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:52:45pm

re: #178 Obdicut

What’s annoying is how much this was blown up, mostly by Fox, to hint darkly that this was occurring all over the place, rather than being an isolated and, in the end, pretty trivial incident.

I think the widespread practice of using churches as places to vote in deserves a hell of a lot more attention than this did.

Yes, my skin would melt and my head does a 360 if I enter a true (non-tourist) church.

183 Political Atheist  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:52:49pm

re: #167 recusancy

That’s a little hyperbole.
A poll tax would be all about the poll. An administrative fee to get you official documents is just that. It pays to be organized and careful with critical documents. Heh, just ask Trump!

184 Buck  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:53:04pm

re: #176 researchok

Whether or not the fix was in at the DOJ (unlikely in my opinion after two investigations) doesn’t change what happened on the ground at the polling station.

If I am indeed in error re the sentence given, I stand corrected.

AND what happened on the ground was witnessed by Bartle Bull. And in his expert opinion was a crime.

185 researchok  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:53:44pm

re: #180 Buck

No J. Christian Adams is alleging that. In sworn testimony, he says he was a witness to that, and he has another DOJ lawyer who backs him up.

If the matter were so black and white, why haven’t others picked up the case? Surely Amicus briefs could be filed.

186 jamesfirecat  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:53:49pm

re: #184 Buck

AND what happened on the ground was witnessed by Bartle Bull. And in his expert opinion was a crime.

Does he have a victim to accuse that crime was committed against?

187 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:54:24pm

re: #180 Buck

No J. Christian Adams is alleging that. In sworn testimony, he says he was a witness to that, and he has another DOJ lawyer who backs him up.

Oh I see, you’re not saying that, you’re “just saying”. Got it. Dennis Kusinich has sworn that he has been abducted by aliens. Just saying.

188 researchok  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:54:46pm

re: #184 Buck

AND what happened on the ground was witnessed by Bartle Bull. And in his expert opinion was a crime.

Again, I agree Bull is an absolutely credible witness, but that alone is not sufficient to sustain a prosecution.

189 recusancy  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:54:52pm

re: #183 Rightwingconspirator

That’s a little hyperbole.
A poll tax would be all about the poll. An administrative fee to get you official documents is just that. It pays to be organized and careful with critical documents. Heh, just ask Trump!

It’s not hyperbole. A picture ID should not be necessary to vote. It’s worked without it for a long time. The only reason the right wants it is because it disenfranchises poorer voters. It’s another hoop to jump through and it costs money.

190 Buck  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:54:57pm

re: #176 researchok

Whether or not the fix was in at the DOJ (unlikely in my opinion after two investigations) doesn’t change what happened on the ground at the polling station.

If I am indeed in error re the sentence given, I stand corrected.

Two investigations of political interference? No, just one. The DOJ did of itself.

191 researchok  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:55:33pm

re: #187 Fozzie Bear

Oh I see, you’re not saying that, you’re “just saying”. Got it. Dennis Kusinich has sworn that he has been abducted by aliens. Just saying.

Kucinich is back? The alien double has returned?
//

192 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:55:45pm

re: #121 Obdicut

I can’t tell if you’re joking or not when you say things like that.

CU allows corporations, unions, and other groups to directly campaign for candidates. I don’t think that they’ll be doing so because their message is appealing, but because of the vested interests that they want that candidate to support.

Diminishing returns on spending is certainly a real thing, but this ruling means that such spending could occur in every race, at every level. It not only means that people running against incumbents will get more funding, but people who don’t actually have a message that appeals with people, but do have one that appeals to corporations.

Yes. Appealing. Like i said. If X has a message that Y wants to support, then X’s message is appealing to Y.

Oh, did you think i meant “appealing to Obdicut”?

And when you say “this ruling means that such spending could occur in every race, at every level”…sorry to break it to you, but such spending previously occurred in most races at the incumbent level. Now it can occur in every level. Free speech + level playing field + law of diminishing returns = better for our democracy. Math is fun. (ok, now i’m being funny. or joking. not all of my jokes are funny, someone once told me.)

193 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:55:46pm

re: #190 Buck

What possible motive would there have been for Obama, or anyone else, to interfere in this case?

194 McSpiff  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:55:46pm

re: #184 Buck

AND what happened on the ground was witnessed by Bartle Bull. And in his expert opinion was a crime.

Do you feel that the DOJ should not have the authority to decide which cases to pursue? and if not the DOJ deciding that, then who?

195 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:56:01pm

re: #188 researchok

Again, I agree Bull is an absolutely credible witness, but that alone is not sufficient to sustain a prosecution.

There is gigantic gaping chasm between not having enough to go on, and a conspiracy that leads all the way to the president, with the goal of defending 2 idiots at a polling place.

196 researchok  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:56:04pm

re: #190 Buck

Two investigations of political interference? No, just one. The DOJ did of itself.

I was referring to the investigations of the incident itself.

197 Buck  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:56:20pm

re: #185 researchok

If the matter were so black and white, why haven’t others picked up the case? Surely Amicus briefs could be filed.

I guess they are waiting for the DOJ to finish the investigation of themselves.

I don’t know.

198 Targetpractice  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:56:41pm

re: #180 Buck

No J. Christian Adams is alleging that. In sworn testimony, he says he was a witness to that, and he has another DOJ lawyer who backs him up.

Sworn testimony? You mean a Fox interview where he alleges that the case was “ordered” dropped, citing “testimony” by others? Or that his knowledge of the events in question is second-hand at best?

199 McSpiff  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:56:44pm

re: #197 Buck

First honest answer from Buck today.

200 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:56:55pm

re: #194 McSpiff

Do you feel that the DOJ should not have the authority to decide which cases to pursue? and if not the DOJ deciding that, then who?

Only Buck can know whether a case is worthy. He alone is the arbiter of justice.

Buck needs a cape, I think.

201 Killgore Trout  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:57:06pm

Somebody was asking about Dragon Age II yesterday. Here’s Yahtzee’s review…
Zero Punctuation: Dragon Age II

202 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:57:14pm

re: #192 Aceofwhat?

Did you miss my PIMF?

sorry to break it to you, but such spending previously occurred in most races at the incumbent level. Now it can occur in every level.

No, that’s not what I meant. I meant what Sandra Day O’Connor meant; this will take place in judgeships, in sherrifs, in prosecutors, in all the little races, where a little bit of money goes a long way. Often, people with little name recognition are running against each other.

Free speech + level playing field + law of diminishing returns = better for our democracy.

But there isn’t a level playing field between corporations and citizens.

That’s the problem.

203 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:57:25pm

re: #197 Buck

I guess they are waiting for the DOJ to finish the investigation of themselves.

I don’t know.

Maybe they are waiting for a case they know isn’t a complete fucking waste of time.

204 Decatur Deb  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:57:37pm

It would have been better if the Double Secret DOJ had done the investigation.

205 Buck  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:58:41pm

re: #198 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Sworn testimony? You mean a Fox interview where he alleges that the case was “ordered” dropped, citing “testimony” by others? Or that his knowledge of the events in question is second-hand at best?

Or his testimony in front of the US Commission on Civil Rights. Either one.

206 simoom  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:59:16pm

re: #180 Buck

No J. Christian Adams is alleging that. In sworn testimony, he says he was a witness to that, and he has another DOJ lawyer who backs him up.

dyn.politico.com

A scholar whom President George W. Bush appointed as vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Abigail Thernstrom has a reputation as a tough conservative critic of affirmative action and politically correct positions on race.

But when it comes to the investigation that the Republican-dominated commission is now conducting into the Justice Department’s handling of an alleged incident of voter intimidation involving the New Black Panther Party — a controversy that has consumed conservative media in recent months — Thernstrom has made a dramatic break from her usual allies.

“This doesn’t have to do with the Black Panthers; this has to do with their fantasies about how they could use this issue to topple the [Obama] administration,” said Thernstrom, who said members of the commission voiced their political aims “in the initial discussions” of the Panther case last year.

“My fellow conservatives on the commission had this wild notion they could bring Eric Holder down and really damage the president,” Thernstrom said in an interview with POLITICO.

207 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 12:59:30pm

re: #139 CuriousLurker

Sandra Day O’Connor spelled out the potential problems with CU right after the decision was made. That was good enough for me.

I understand, but that is a question of judicial elections and subsequent recusals, and i frankly shiver at the thought of a justice, even an ex-justice, saying that my speech is less free because we can’t figure out how to straighten out a recusal policy with regard to elected members of the judiciary.

208 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:00:20pm

re: #207 Aceofwhat?

No, it’s not just about recusals. That wasn’t her point.

209 researchok  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:00:50pm

re: #195 Fozzie Bear

There is gigantic gaping chasm between not having enough to go on, and a conspiracy that leads all the way to the president, with the goal of defending 2 idiots at a polling place.

Let’s be honest- there can be no finer example of two stupid, unsympathetic all leathered up idiots. These two morons would have easily become the poster children for voter intimidation and everyone around the civilized worlddwould have applauded.

If the DOJ didn’t move forward, there was no real case. They had to know there would have been real grief by not moving forward.

They just didn’t have a case.

210 Targetpractice  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:01:27pm

re: #205 Buck

Or his testimony in front of the US Commission on Civil Rights. Either one.

His testimony amounts to hearsay and second-hand accounts, as he even admitted to Fox that he was not personally in attendance when the orders were given to drop the case.

211 recusancy  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:02:34pm

Vote By Mail! So much easier.

213 Kragar  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:03:35pm

re: #181 recusancy

How about everybody votes Oregon style and we cut all this crap out.

You just want voters to die from dysentery.
/

214 Decatur Deb  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:04:41pm

re: #211 recusancy

Vote By Mail! So much easier.

Primitive—all the cool kids want to vote by tweet.

215 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:05:18pm

re: #212 Varek Raith

Oh no.

216 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:05:57pm

re: #202 Obdicut

Did you miss my PIMF?

No, that’s not what I meant. I meant what Sandra Day O’Connor meant; this will take place in judgeships, in sherrifs, in prosecutors, in all the little races, where a little bit of money goes a long way. Often, people with little name recognition are running against each other.

But there isn’t a level playing field between corporations and citizens.

That’s the problem.

I don’t get the first part. Do i miss your PIMF?

And it’s not Congress’ job to “level the playing field” by restricting our speech. But if what we saw in 2010 persists, a more level playing field between incumbents and challengers, then it is a marked improvement over what we had before.

And every time you say “corporations” and not “unions”, your argument gets a little less compelling. I support the rights of both to advertise on issues dear to their organizations.

217 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:06:53pm

re: #208 Obdicut

No, it’s not just about recusals. That wasn’t her point.

One wrinkle in the Citizens United case that has largely escaped notice, O’Connor said, is that the opinion has the potential to unleash more corporate spending in campaigns for state judgeships, a problem she has already been highlighting because of the potential for donations to have a corrupting influence on the legal process.

That’s about recusals. If there’s something more to the point, it wasn’t in the linked article.

218 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:06:55pm

re: #211 recusancy

I have voted at a polling place twice in the past 20 years. I always go by the registrar’s office and vote absentee.

219 recusancy  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:08:37pm

re: #216 Aceofwhat?

I don’t get the first part. Do i miss your PIMF?

And it’s not Congress’ job to “level the playing field” by restricting our speech. But if what we saw in 2010 persists, a more level playing field between incumbents and challengers, then it is a marked improvement over what we had before.

And every time you say “corporations” and not “unions”, your argument gets a little less compelling. I support the rights of both to advertise on issues dear to their organizations.

Do you really think unions are a strong counterbalance to corporations?

220 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:10:37pm

re: #219 recusancy

Do you really think unions are a strong counterbalance to corporations?

#1 independent spender in the 2010 elections was…drumroll…

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees

yeah. pretty much.

221 allegro  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:11:24pm

re: #217 Aceofwhat?

One wrinkle in the Citizens United case that has largely escaped notice, O’Connor said, is that the opinion has the potential to unleash more corporate spending in campaigns for state judgeships, a problem she has already been highlighting because of the potential for donations to have a corrupting influence on the legal process.

That’s about recusals. If there’s something more to the point, it wasn’t in the linked article.

I’m not seeing anything about recusals there. Are you suggesting that a judge who has accepted corporate money will always and automatically own up to it and recuse him/herself from the case?

222 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:11:54pm

re: #219 recusancy

Do you really think unions are a strong counterbalance to corporations?

IIRC, total indy spending on the 2010 elections was $300MM. AFSCME spent $87.5 of it. Yup.

223 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:12:12pm

re: #217 Aceofwhat?

One wrinkle in the Citizens United case that has largely escaped notice, O’Connor said, is that the opinion has the potential to unleash more corporate spending in campaigns for state judgeships, a problem she has already been highlighting because of the potential for donations to have a corrupting influence on the legal process.

That’s about recusals. If there’s something more to the point, it wasn’t in the linked article.

It’s not about recusals, Ace! At least, not except in the most round-about way.

How do you feel it is about recusals?

224 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:12:28pm

re: #219 recusancy

Do you really think unions are a strong counterbalance to corporations?

More to the point, how can anyone deny that removing limits on political spending has a corrosive effect on the process? I guess I just don’t get how you couldn’t get that part.

225 Political Atheist  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:12:29pm

re: #189 recusancy

A hoop needed to be stepped through for upward mobility. Using some funding to help the poor get legit ID removes a harsh hurdle for those lives to have a shot at getting better.

226 sagehen  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:12:37pm

re: #129 Alouette

How difficult can it be for anybody to obtain a photo ID?

For people who don’t drive, and don’t have checking accounts or credit cards, it’s a lot more trouble than it’s ever been worth. My grandmother went her entire life without ever having one. Grandpa was over 50 when driver’s licenses started needing pictures; he never did get a passport, because a friend his age passed out from waiting in line at the county clerk’s office trying to get a birth certificate.

227 lostlakehiker  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:12:50pm

re: #38 Alouette

Please tell that to all the U.S. call center workers who are now unemployed.

What about when I have a problem with my antivirus software blocking a safe program, and it’s past U.S. working hours? Somewhere else in the world, say in India, it’s high noon and somebody’s on the job.

The increased level of service makes antivirus software more valuable than it would otherwise be. Sales of computers rise. Computers are more often protected from viruses and other malware. Computers are more useful tools.

A broad swath of society benefits. U.S. call center workers don’t. But every economic improvement has its downside for somebody. Hell, if people live longer, there’s less work for coffin makers.

And somehow, we don’t mourn that development.

228 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:13:00pm

re: #221 allegro

I’m not seeing anything about recusals there. Are you suggesting that a judge who has accepted corporate money will always and automatically own up to it and recuse him/herself from the case?

No, and that’s the problem. (as opposed to the problem being spending on advertising by an outside group)

Transparency, transparency. It’s what’s for dinner.

229 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:13:48pm

re: #224 Fozzie Bear

More to the point, how can anyone deny that removing limits on political spending has a corrosive effect on the process? I guess I just don’t get how you couldn’t get that part.

How can anyone deny that less speech makes for a better process? I don’t get how you couldn’t get that part.

230 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:14:23pm

re: #221 allegro

I’m not seeing anything about recusals there. Are you suggesting that a judge who has accepted corporate money will always and automatically own up to it and recuse him/herself from the case?

CU isn’t about direct donations. It’s about third party groups being able to spend all they want on behalf of a candidate. That’s what makes it so corrosive: the spending is decoupled from the person on whose behalf it is spent.

231 MinisterO  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:14:36pm

re: #223 Obdicut

It’s not about recusals, Ace! At least, not except in the most round-about way.

How do you feel it is about recusals?

The logic is subtle and nuanced, and simultaneously oblivious to obvious salient features.

I suggest you don’t take the bait.

232 recusancy  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:15:43pm

re: #225 Rightwingconspirator

A hoop needed to be stepped through for upward mobility. Using some funding to help the poor get legit ID removes a harsh hurdle for those lives to have a shot at getting better.

But the republicans are not offering up funding for those without id’s to get proper ones. The poor have to pay for it themselves.

233 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:15:45pm

re: #229 Aceofwhat?

How can anyone deny that less speech makes for a better process? I don’t get how you couldn’t get that part.

Regulating campaign finance doesn’t impinge upon any person’s right to speak their mind, at all, even a little.

234 allegro  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:16:02pm

re: #228 Aceofwhat?

No, and that’s the problem. (as opposed to the problem being spending on advertising by an outside group)

Transparency, transparency. It’s what’s for dinner.

Wait… I thought you were arguing for the righteousness of CU. Now you don’t like it?

(call me confusled)

235 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:16:30pm

re: #223 Obdicut

It’s not about recusals, Ace! At least, not except in the most round-about way.

How do you feel it is about recusals?

Easy. If we are concerned that a judge will alter their ruling based on having received $X from Y in terms of direct or indirect campaign spending, then judges shouldn’t be allowed to rule on cases involving Y.

The alternative, a sweeping restriction in advertising on behalf of candidates, is like filling a pothole with a bulldozer.

236 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:17:01pm

re: #235 Aceofwhat?

Easy. If we are concerned that a judge will alter their ruling based on having received $X from Y in terms of direct or indirect campaign spending, then judges shouldn’t be allowed to rule on cases involving Y.

The alternative, a sweeping restriction in advertising on behalf of candidates, is like filling a pothole with a bulldozer.

CU has nothing to do with direct campaign donations. I repeat, CU has nothing to do with direct campaign donations.

237 allegro  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:17:12pm

re: #230 Fozzie Bear

CU isn’t about direct donations. It’s about third party groups being able to spend all they want on behalf of a candidate. That’s what makes it so corrosive: the spending is decoupled from the person on whose behalf it is spent.

Oh, I suspect the donors have a way of making it real clear who they own they have supported financially.

238 recusancy  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:17:27pm

re: #229 Aceofwhat?

How can anyone deny that less speech makes for a better process? I don’t get how you couldn’t get that part.

Why is your speech better than mine simply because you have more money.

239 Political Atheist  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:18:28pm

re: #189 recusancy

The argument we got by without it is not great logic. We got by without airlines for a long time too. Oh that reminds me. Reminds me of all the things a person can not do (at least not without a lot of extra scrutiny) without photo ID. Like fly on an airliner, no matter who bought the ticket. That is a long list of ordinary things a person should be able to do at will. But need ID to do them. Drive. Work. Travel. And I say, imho vote.

240 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:18:32pm

re: #230 Fozzie Bear

CU isn’t about direct donations. It’s about third party groups being able to spend all they want on behalf of a candidate. That’s what makes it so corrosive: the spending is decoupled from the person on whose behalf it is spent.

No, it’s about speech. If a candidate had reached their theoretical limit, i wouldn’t even be allowed to create and print free brochures in my own time on behalf of my company in favor of candidate X. Not all speech is paid speech, but paid or not, it’s supposed to be free in this country.

And if it was so corrosive, why did so many incumbents lose in 2010?

241 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:19:06pm

re: #216 Aceofwhat?

And it’s not Congress’ job to “level the playing field” by restricting our speech.

You were the one who had leveling the playing field in your math.

But if what we saw in 2010 persists, a more level playing field between incumbents and challengers, then it is a marked improvement over what we had before.

If that is the only metric you decide to use, then yes, it could have a possible ‘good’ effect in that more money would be poured into challengers.

What is odd to me is that you see the last elections as somehow having produced a good result, solely because it was anti-incumbent, without regard to the actual quality of those elected, or the quality of their platform.

Do you think the GOP taking control of the House was a good thing?


And every time you say “corporations” and not “unions”, your argument gets a little less compelling. I support the rights of both to advertise on issues dear to their organizations.

Whatever. Corporations and unions and any group of people, they’re all corruptive to the process when they’re allowed to directly campaign. Rights should not be granted to organizations that are based on the rights for individuals, because groups vary enormously from individuals. They need their own set of rules and regulations, that take into account their advantages.

In that one regard, I am highly libertarian.

242 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:19:26pm

re: #237 allegro

Oh, I suspect the donors have a way of making it real clear who they own they have supported financially.

Yep. That’s the point. Now it’s a “nudge nudge wink wink” form of campaign finance, without all that pesky accountability and transparency getting in the way.

243 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:19:31pm

re: #236 Fozzie Bear

CU has nothing to do with direct campaign donations. I repeat, CU has nothing to do with direct campaign donations.

i know. thus the ‘direct or indirect’ in my post. however, if this was really a big kerfuffle over donations to judges, you’d think we’d be more concerned with the direct ones. interesting, isn’t it.

244 allegro  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:20:39pm

re: #240 Aceofwhat?

No, it’s about speech. If a candidate had reached their theoretical limit, i wouldn’t even be allowed to create and print free brochures in my own time on behalf of my company in favor of candidate X.

Now that’s just bullshit.

245 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:21:02pm

re: #243 Aceofwhat?

i know. thus the ‘direct or indirect’ in my post. however, if this was really a big kerfuffle over donations to judges, you’d think we’d be more concerned with the direct ones. interesting, isn’t it.

And why would I think that? I’m far more concerned about the donations that are untraceable and opaque.

246 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:21:15pm

re: #241 Obdicut


What is odd to me is that you see the last elections as somehow having produced a good result, solely because it was anti-incumbent, without regard to the actual quality of those elected, or the quality of their platform.

Yes. I am libertarian on that point.

Odd to me that you see the last elections as somehow having been tainted by ‘corporate money’, solely because your favored candidates lost.

I would rather incumbents be in greater jeopardy, no matter their party. I think we’d get better government from both parties.

247 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:22:01pm

re: #244 allegro

Now that’s just bullshit.

Not only is it bullshit, but what he is describing is completely legal both before and after CU. CU doesn’t address individual efforts to support candidates, at all.

248 Varek Raith  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:22:36pm

re: #246 Aceofwhat?

Yes. I am libertarian on that point.

Odd to me that you see the last elections as somehow having been tainted by ‘corporate money’, solely because your favored candidates lost.

I would rather incumbents be in greater jeopardy, no matter their party. I think we’d get better government from both parties.

Except, we didn’t get better candidates.
We got batshit crazy ones.

249 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:22:44pm

re: #244 allegro

Now that’s just bullshit.

No, i’m pretty sure I have the law exactly right.

250 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:22:53pm

re: #246 Aceofwhat?

Yes. I am libertarian on that point.

Odd to me that you see the last elections as somehow having been tainted by ‘corporate money’, solely because your favored candidates lost.

I would rather incumbents be in greater jeopardy, no matter their party. I think we’d get better government from both parties.

You are making one hell of a leap there, with absolutely no reason to make it.

251 McSpiff  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:23:08pm

re: #240 Aceofwhat?

No, it’s about speech. If a candidate had reached their theoretical limit, i wouldn’t even be allowed to create and print free brochures in my own time on behalf of my company in favor of candidate X. Not all speech is paid speech, but paid or not, it’s supposed to be free in this country.

And if it was so corrosive, why did so many incumbents lose in 2010?

If your point is simply being allowed to publish whatever you want, whenever you want, I got some bad news for you. Everything from libel to copyright to national security restricts your ability to publish. Going to need to give me a convincing argument about why this shouldn’t be a similar case.

252 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:23:39pm

re: #248 Varek Raith

Except, we didn’t get better candidates.
We got batshit crazy ones.

Even though the incumbents outspent the crazy ones. Makes it hard to complain that spending equals results, doesn’t it?

253 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:23:41pm

re: #249 Aceofwhat?

No, i’m pretty sure I have the law exactly right.

Show us where the CU decision affected, either positively or negatively, individual citizens in the efforts to support or oppose specific candidates.

254 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:24:08pm

re: #235 Aceofwhat?

Easy. If we are concerned that a judge will alter their ruling based on having received $X from Y in terms of direct or indirect campaign spending, then judges shouldn’t be allowed to rule on cases involving Y.

The alternative, a sweeping restriction in advertising on behalf of candidates, is like filling a pothole with a bulldozer.

Ace, that ‘sweeping restriction’ has been in place for a long, long time! This is a radical, sweeping change. You’re acting as though Citizens United was the conservative position, rather than the upheaval of established precedent.

And your recusal process is what sounds like a complete nightmare under this scenario. One could even make a campaign ad for a candidate you didn’t like, just so he’d have to recuse himself on future matters regarding you.

255 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:24:17pm

re: #252 Aceofwhat?

Even though the incumbents outspent the crazy ones. Makes it hard to complain that spending equals results, doesn’t it?

Spending by outside groups wasn’t tracked as it used to be. The numbers you are citing don’t mean what you think they mean.

256 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:24:30pm

re: #247 Fozzie Bear

Not only is it bullshit, but what he is describing is completely legal both before and after CU. CU doesn’t address individual efforts to support candidates, at all.

didn’t you get the ‘on behalf of my company’ part? am i typing in french accidentally?

gotta run for a minute.

257 Buck  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:24:41pm

OK, maybe I don’t understand the law in the US.


On January 7, 2009, the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division filed a civil complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that defendants Minister King Samir Shabazz, Jerry Jackson, Malik Zulu Shabazz, and the NBPP violated the Voting Rights Act by directing or engaging in, or attempting to direct or engage in,coercion, threats, and intimidation toward poll workers and voters at a polling place in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania during the November 4, 2008 federal general election.

Now, in my mind in order to prove “directing or engaging in, or attempting to direct or engage in, coercion, threats, and intimidation toward poll workers and voters” does need to have a victim to come forward.

Now, after the defendants failed to answer the complaint, the clerk of
court duly entered defaults against all four defendants.

Default what? I guess I don’t understand. However it seems to me that Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, the DOJ dismissed the case.

So there was already a case, and it was already pursued. In fact the investigation says that “the decision to initiate the NBPP case was based upon a good faith assessment of the facts and the law.”

It is not second hand that we see that just before the final judgement the DOJ dismissed the case for two defendants, and reduces the sentencing for the other two. This is the record. They had defaults, and they dismissed them.

I don’t know what I am missing. I am getting that from the DOJ investigation. Roll in the testimony of J Christian Adams AND Bartle Bull and you have evidence that the DOJ did not fullfill their duties as it relates to the Civil Right act and section 11 specifically.

Evidence mind you. However this DOJ investigation of itself says there is not evidence.

Seems weird.

258 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:24:46pm

re: #246 Aceofwhat?


Odd to me that you see the last elections as somehow having been tainted by ‘corporate money’, solely because your favored candidates lost.

Where on earth do you get off making that claim, Ace?

You’re generally much better than that.

259 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:25:54pm

re: #257 Buck

Stop playing dumb, Buck.

You know what you’re not getting. It’s been explained to you at length.

260 Political Atheist  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:26:20pm

re: #232 recusancy

California Republicans did in an in state effort. The offer was takes as inadequate, despite a list of accommodations for the poor. The partisan shoe was on the other foot.

My position is require the ID and make it possible to get for everyone legit. I dispose with the partisan distortions on this. I’ll not oppose it just because the Republicans want it. I support it because makes the most sense to do so. The poor need ID to have any shot at a better life outside of just expanded general assistance.

261 McSpiff  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:26:32pm

re: #257 Buck

We know you don’t understand. Its alright.

262 recusancy  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:26:35pm

re: #239 Rightwingconspirator

The argument we got by without it is not great logic. We got by without airlines for a long time too. Oh that reminds me. Reminds me of all the things a person can not do (at least not without a lot of extra scrutiny) without photo ID. Like fly on an airliner, no matter who bought the ticket. That is a long list of ordinary things a person should be able to do at will. But need ID to do them. Drive. Work. Travel. And I say, imho vote.

A person should have a photo ID to work? I agree on the drive and travel.

263 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:27:48pm

I think Californians who lived through Prop 8 and the enormous amount of spending by anti-gay groups have had a very direct view of how money can corrupt the political process. That was freaking insane.

The Mormon church isn’t going to get forgiven by Californians of my generation and younger anytime soon. That was a very foolish decision on their part.

264 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:28:20pm

re: #257 Buck

OK, maybe I don’t understand the law in the US.

On January 7, 2009, the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division filed a civil complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that defendants Minister King Samir Shabazz, Jerry Jackson, Malik Zulu Shabazz, and the NBPP violated the Voting Rights Act by directing or engaging in, or attempting to direct or engage in,coercion, threats, and intimidation toward poll workers and voters at a polling place in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania during the November 4, 2008 federal general election.

Now, in my mind in order to prove “directing or engaging in, or attempting to direct or engage in, coercion, threats, and intimidation toward poll workers and voters” does need to have a victim to come forward.

Now, after the defendants failed to answer the complaint, the clerk of
court duly entered defaults against all four defendants.

Default what? I guess I don’t understand. However it seems to me that Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, the DOJ dismissed the case.

So there was already a case, and it was already pursued. In fact the investigation says that “the decision to initiate the NBPP case was based upon a good faith assessment of the facts and the law.”

It is not second hand that we see that just before the final judgement the DOJ dismissed the case for two defendants, and reduces the sentencing for the other two. This is the record. They had defaults, and they dismissed them.

I don’t know what I am missing. I am getting that from the DOJ investigation. Roll in the testimony of J Christian Adams AND Bartle Bull and you have evidence that the DOJ did not fullfill their duties as it relates to the Civil Right act and section 11 specifically.

Evidence mind you. However this DOJ investigation of itself says there is not evidence.

Seems weird.

The default entry doesn’t mean anything in the American system other than “dude didn’t show up, so lets force him to show up by convicting him of the charge temporarily such that a warrant can be issued, and the case may be properly adjudicated.” That’s all it means.

The DOJ can’t dismiss cases, as the DOJ consists of attorneys. Only judges can dismiss cases. Attorneys can only decline to pursue, or be ruled against.

265 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:29:04pm

re: #255 Fozzie Bear

Spending by outside groups wasn’t tracked as it used to be. The numbers you are citing don’t mean what you think they mean.

total spending = indy + campaign spending in 2010. D outspent R in the House by over $50 million, IIRC.

Odd how that didn’t lead to more victories, given the hyperventilating some of you are struggling with in this thread. If spending is so pervasively driving election results, how did Democrats lose seats in the House? Curious.

266 McSpiff  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:30:00pm

re: #259 Obdicut

Stop playing dumb, Buck.

You know what you’re not getting. It’s been explained to you at length.

He’s just asking questions Obi. Questions he’s clearly outlined on his chalk board.

267 McSpiff  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:31:01pm

re: #265 Aceofwhat?

total spending = indy + campaign spending in 2010. D outspent R in the House by over $50 million, IIRC.

Odd how that didn’t lead to more victories, given the hyperventilating some of you are struggling with in this thread. If spending is so pervasively driving election results, how did Democrats lose seats in the House? Curious.

You find it amazing some of us have principals beyond seeing our side win? Its kind of sad that you find that surprising.

268 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:31:43pm

re: #265 Aceofwhat?

Odd how that didn’t lead to more victories, given the hyperventilating some of you are struggling with in this thread

What the hell, Ace? Why are you acting like this?

You support CU. That’s okay. But why the hell are you pretending there isn’t a rational and sober reason to dislike CU, given that it reverses established precedent, and given that sober heads like O’Connor are deeply concerned by it?

269 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:31:54pm

re: #258 Obdicut

Where on earth do you get off making that claim, Ace?

You’re generally much better than that.

You said

What is odd to me is that you see the last elections as somehow having produced a good result, solely because it was anti-incumbent, without regard to the actual quality of those elected, or the quality of their platform.

Do you think the GOP taking control of the House was a good thing?

“as somehow having produced a good result”, implying directly that you think the elections produced a bad result. the candidates you favored didn’t win. like i said.

if that’s not what you meant, you need to write it differently. because it’s what you wrote.

270 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:32:17pm

re: #265 Aceofwhat?

total spending = indy + campaign spending in 2010. D outspent R in the House by over $50 million, IIRC.

Odd how that didn’t lead to more victories, given the hyperventilating some of you are struggling with in this thread. If spending is so pervasively driving election results, how did Democrats lose seats in the House? Curious.

What you are apparently struggling with, is that CU changed the reporting requirement for outside groups. (More specifically, it eliminated it) It is now possible (where it was not before) to outspend your opponent in actual terms, and yet be outspent nominally in terms of reported spending.

If I run an advocacy group (PAC) now, I no longer have to affiliate my spending with the candidate, even if I am running ads entirely on the candidate’s behalf, so long as I claim that I am advocating an issue, and not a candidate.

271 allegro  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:32:48pm

re: #265 Aceofwhat?

total spending = indy + campaign spending in 2010. D outspent R in the House by over $50 million, IIRC.

Odd how that didn’t lead to more victories, given the hyperventilating some of you are struggling with in this thread. If spending is so pervasively driving election results, how did Democrats lose seats in the House? Curious.

I don’t think total spending tells much of a story. Looking at spending and individual races is another thing. Provide that information to support your position and it will have some meaning.

272 jamesfirecat  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:33:03pm

re: #269 Aceofwhat?

You said

“as somehow having produced a good result”, implying directly that you think the elections produced a bad result. the candidates you favored didn’t win. like i said.

if that’s not what you meant, you need to write it differently. because it’s what you wrote.

Its not that the democratic candidate didn’t win Ace, it’s that many of the Republicans who did win are way more crazy/inept than anyone elected to such an office should be in a rational world.

273 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:33:05pm

re: #253 Fozzie Bear

Show us where the CU decision affected, either positively or negatively, individual citizens in the efforts to support or oppose specific candidates.

it didn’t. for the third time, my example was ‘me acting on behalf of my company’.

274 McSpiff  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:33:32pm

re: #269 Aceofwhat?

I have this mat Ace, and you can jump to conclusions on it.

275 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:34:07pm

re: #273 Aceofwhat?

it didn’t. for the third time, my example was ‘me acting on behalf of my company’.

If you are indeed acting on behalf of your company, as an agent of your company, how in the world do you consider that to be your “speech” personally, as opposed to your company’s “speech”?

276 Political Atheist  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:34:24pm

re: #262 recusancy

To get hired certainly. I do not mean day to day at the job. Employers provide that as needed. And I think they have every right to insist that ID be worn.

277 Buck  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:34:41pm

re: #264 Fozzie Bear

convicting him of the charge temporarily

Really, a temporary conviction. I never heard of that. I thought a default judgment is a binding judgment.

And if I decide to take the word of a guy named Fozzie, I would probably believe it.

278 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:34:58pm

re: #270 Fozzie Bear

What you are apparently struggling with, is that CU changed the reporting requirement for outside groups. (More specifically, it eliminated it) It is now possible (where it was not before) to outspend your opponent in actual terms, and yet be outspent nominally in terms of reported spending.

If I run an advocacy group (PAC) now, I no longer have to affiliate my spending with the candidate, even if I am running ads entirely on the candidate’s behalf, so long as I claim that I am advocating an issue, and not a candidate.

restricting speech is a terrible way to go about making speech more transparent.

279 McSpiff  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:35:00pm

re: #275 Fozzie Bear

If you are indeed acting on behalf of your company, as an agent of your company, how in the world do you consider that to be your “speech” personally, as opposed to your company’s “speech”?

If you don’t personally love your employer, how can you claim you love America?

280 sagehen  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:35:41pm

re: #237 allegro

Oh, I suspect the donors have a way of making it real clear who they own they have supported financially.

They make it clear to the candidate, but voters have no idea.

Some “independent”, “non-partisan” group with a generic name pounds negative ads about Candidate X “B’cuz he hates Jesus, he’s wrong for our District!!”, and nobody knows that Americans4Righteousness is wholly funded by a company that owns some land Candidate Y is willing to change the zoning on.

At least if Planned Parenthood or the NRA has their name on an ad, I don’t have to wonder why they and their donors are supporting/opposing whoever it is they’re talking about.

281 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:36:05pm

re: #269 Aceofwhat?

if that’s not what you meant, you need to write it differently. because it’s what you wrote.

Jesus, I can’t believe you’re defending that.

You claimed this:


Odd to me that you see the last elections as somehow having been tainted by ‘corporate money’, solely because your favored candidates lost.

A) I don’t see the last elections as having been ‘tainted’. I do think that money corrupts the political process. CU increased the amount of money that will enter politics, it didn’t start it. Elections have always been, to a certain extent, affected by money. CU increased that amount.

B) The charge that the only reason I think that the elections were ‘tainted’ is because my candidates lost is just reprehensible bullshit on your part that I can’t believe you’re defending. I’ve always, since long before the elections, held exactly the same position I do now.

282 sagehen  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:37:16pm

re: #240 Aceofwhat?

No, it’s about speech. If a candidate had reached their theoretical limit, i wouldn’t even be allowed to create and print free brochures in my own time on behalf of my company in favor of candidate X. Not all speech is paid speech, but paid or not, it’s supposed to be free in this country.

And if it was so corrosive, why did so many incumbents lose in 2010?

The Koch Brother$.

283 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:37:22pm

re: #277 Buck

Really, a temporary conviction. I never heard of that. I thought a default judgment is a binding judgment.

And if I decide to take the word of a guy named Fozzie, I would probably believe it.

Technically, a default judgement isn’t a conviction. It’s just referred to that way for the purposes of process, until due process can be followed. It’s a measure designed to enforce due process upon the defendant, should the defendant decline to cooperate. But hey, I only work for a law firm in PA and deal with this exact issue every single day. No need to take my word for it when you can read blogs by random people who have no idea what they are talking about.

284 McSpiff  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:37:31pm

re: #280 sagehen

They make it clear to the candidate, but voters have no idea.

Some “independent”, “non-partisan” group with a generic name pounds negative ads about Candidate X “B’cuz he hates Jesus, he’s wrong for our District!!”, and nobody knows that Americans4Righteousness is wholly funded by a company that owns some land Candidate Y is willing to change the zoning on.

At least if Planned Parenthood or the NRA has their name on an ad, I don’t have to wonder why they and their donors are supporting/opposing whoever it is they’re talking about.

Trust me, you wouldn’t understand, but that’s more transparent.

///

285 Political Atheist  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:39:06pm

Would anyone disagree with the idea that a lack of ID holds a person down? Not minute to minute but overall as years go by?

286 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:39:50pm

re: #278 Aceofwhat?

restricting speech is a terrible way to go about making speech more transparent.

Transparency isn’t a restriction. It’s accountability. It allows for proper recusals, and it prevents corruption.

But hey, lets just call it “speech”, and then we can stop thinking.

287 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:40:15pm

re: #271 allegro

I don’t think total spending tells much of a story. Looking at spending and individual races is another thing. Provide that information to support your position and it will have some meaning.

sure. Dan Maffei (NY) lost to a GOP challenger despite outspending her by $2million or something.

288 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:40:35pm

re: #285 Rightwingconspirator

Not necessarily. Some people, sure. Others, who really don’t need one, no.

My grandparents stopped bothering to have IDs after they stopped driving.

289 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:40:58pm

re: #287 Aceofwhat?

sure. Dan Maffei (NY) lost to a GOP challenger despite outspending her by $2million or something.

Are you arguing that, because money isn’t the only factor, that it isn’t a factor?

290 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:41:02pm

re: #274 McSpiff

I have this mat Ace, and you can jump to conclusions on it.

you are free to describe a more logical way to understand that post.

291 McSpiff  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:41:35pm

re: #290 Aceofwhat?

Obi has. Several times.

292 jamesfirecat  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:41:45pm

re: #290 Aceofwhat?

you are free to describe a more logical way to understand that post.

See my 272.

IE: Rand Paul.

293 allegro  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:41:53pm

re: #287 Aceofwhat?

sure. Dan Maffei (NY) lost to a GOP challenger despite outspending her by $2million or something.

One case is hardly indicative of the trend you have been arguing for.

294 Achilles Tang  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:42:10pm

re: #106 Alouette

Why is photo ID a problem for anybody?

I have 3 photo IDs. Two of them are pretty good, but one is a really crappy picture. But the absolute worst photo ID I ever had was for my visa application when I visited the Russian Federation four years ago. That picture looked like a morgue shot.

It is a problem for those that don’t have a driver’s license. I have only that and my passport with my picture on it. I don’t know where I could get a different one that would be recognized.

295 MinisterO  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:42:22pm

Read Bartle Bull’s testimony and notice how he paints himself as a lifelong Democrat. He then kind of casually says that he thought he’d help out as a Republican poll watcher. The fact that he was supporting the Republican candidate is apparently not even worth mentioning.

Read on and notice how “several” potentially intimidated voters becomes “at most 2 or 3” just a few minutes later.

What’s the overlap between several and at most 2 or 3?

If you weren’t predisposed to buy what he’s so obviously selling, wouldn’t this raise a red flag?

296 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:42:29pm

re: #289 Fozzie Bear

Are you arguing that, because money isn’t the only factor, that it isn’t a factor?

i am arguing that it’s only a factor up to a point. we are overly concerned about its influence.

297 McSpiff  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:42:56pm

re: #294 Naso Tang

It is a problem for those that don’t have a driver’s license. I have only that and my passport with my picture on it. I don’t know where I could get a different one that would be recognized.

Service equalis citizenship!

Err, I mean military ID usually works as well.

298 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:44:21pm

re: #293 allegro

One case is hardly indicative of the trend you have been arguing for.

so you don’t like the overall number i gave, and then asked for an individual case. now you get an example, and it’s not indicative?

dude.

299 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:44:37pm

re: #296 Aceofwhat?

i am arguing that it’s only a factor up to a point. we are overly concerned about its influence.

That’s a qualitative argument about degrees. Would you agree that there is some degree of outside influence that could have a corrupting influence on the political process?

300 Targetpractice  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:45:20pm

re: #283 Fozzie Bear

Technically, a default judgement isn’t a conviction. It’s just referred to that way for the purposes of process, until due process can be followed. It’s a measure designed to enforce due process upon the defendant, should the defendant decline to cooperate. But hey, I only work for a law firm in PA and deal with this exact issue every single day. No need to take my word for it when you can read blogs by random people who have no idea what they are talking about.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t default verdicts stand only if the defendant fails to file for a waiver, do so without a justifiable reason for that waiver, or fail to file in a certain period of time after the verdict is issued?

301 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:45:36pm

re: #272 jamesfirecat

Its not that the democratic candidate didn’t win Ace, it’s that many of the Republicans who did win are way more crazy/inept than anyone elected to such an office should be in a rational world.

so how did more spending create that result, when D outspent R?

302 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:48:16pm

re: #300 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t default verdicts stand only if the defendant fails to file for a waiver, do so without a justifiable reason for that waiver, or fail to file in a certain period of time after the verdict is issued?

They only stand if the defendant refuses to take any action directed by the court. Even then, the state can simply have you arrested and dragged into court, such that due process can be followed. It depends on the charge. Sometimes, they just issue a bench warrant which isn’t necessarily enforced deliberately, but rather you get arrested next time you get pulled over or have any incidental interaction with police.

303 sagehen  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:48:20pm

re: #273 Aceofwhat?

it didn’t. for the third time, my example was ‘me acting on behalf of my company’.

If it’s on behalf of your company, and your company’s name is on it, then CU doesn’t change the law for you. At all.

If your company wants to sneakysneaky slip some money to Sensible People PAC to spend, without disclosing that you’re the donor, and their ad is a total lie and nobody knows it’s from you, then after the election Sensible People PAC is assessed a fine they can’t pay because there’s no money left so they close up shop… and next cycle, the former director of Sensible People PAC is now heading up Rational Decisions PAC and doing the same thing again…

And still nobody knows you or your company are in any way involved.

That’s what CU opened the floodgates on.

You and your company don’t even have to be American to be able to do this under CU.

304 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:48:20pm

re: #299 Fozzie Bear

That’s a qualitative argument about degrees. Would you agree that there is some degree of outside influence that could have a corrupting influence on the political process?

sure. but we already allowed some outside influence. and i am more concerned about the potential corruption of incumbents than the potential corruption of challengers. i am also concerned that it was becoming extremely difficult for someone to get elected when they weren’t already personally rich.

i am hopeful that CU removed free speech restrictions while simultaneously improving access to challengers.

305 Political Atheist  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:49:06pm

re: #288 Obdicut

But they had it all the time they needed it. And having it again would be no big deal, right? In case of a need to personally bank, or fly or maybe vote. I assume they have other kinds of ID…

306 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:49:22pm

re: #303 sagehen

You and your company don’t even have to be American to be able to do this under CU.

That is a complete misnomer. Widely believed, but still false.

307 Varek Raith  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:49:39pm

re: #303 sagehen

If it’s on behalf of your company, and your company’s name is on it, then CU doesn’t change the law for you. At all.

If your company wants to sneakysneaky slip some money to Sensible People PAC to spend, without disclosing that you’re the donor, and their ad is a total lie and nobody knows it’s from you, then after the election Sensible People PAC is assessed a fine they can’t pay because there’s no money left so they close up shop… and next cycle, the former director of Sensible People PAC is now heading up Rational Decisions PAC and doing the same thing again…

And still nobody knows you or your company are in any way involved.

That’s what CU opened the floodgates on.

You and your company don’t even have to be American to be able to do this under CU.

This.
A thousand times this.

308 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:49:42pm

re: #306 Aceofwhat?

That is a complete misnomer. Widely believed, but still false.

Define the term “American company”.

309 allegro  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:50:13pm

re: #298 Aceofwhat?

so you don’t like the overall number i gave, and then asked for an individual

case. now you get an example, and it’s not indicative?

dude.

Please note what I said and take particular note of the word “races”. That’s a plural. It means more than one. I suppose I should have said “provide the information for ALL of the races so a trend, if there is such a trend, may be illustrated”. But I gave you more credit for understanding the point of what you were trying to argue.

You have been quite exercised in arguing this trend you feel you have uncovered that the amount of money spent in a campaign has no influence over its outcome, and therefore CU is an overall good thing cuz of more “speech”. You have not supported this argument.

Dude

310 Varek Raith  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:50:26pm

re: #306 Aceofwhat?

That is a complete misnomer. Widely believed, but still false.

And your thoughts on the rest of what was posted?

311 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:50:47pm

re: #305 Rightwingconspirator

But they had it all the time they needed it. And having it again would be no big deal, right? In case of a need to personally bank, or fly or maybe vote. I assume they have other kinds of ID…

Well, they’ve passed away, so they don’t have anything.

But no, they voted by mail, which is kind of why this entire conversation is just missing the point, to me.

There isn’t any large-scale voter fraud, so there’s no problem to solve.

If there was large-scale voter fraud, requiring IDs would stop only the most inefficient method— actual in-person voting at polling booths.

312 McSpiff  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:50:59pm

re: #296 Aceofwhat?

i am arguing that it’s only a factor up to a point. we are overly concerned about its influence.

re: #306 Aceofwhat?

That is a complete misnomer. Widely believed, but still false.

Can you cite a case for that assertion?

313 jamesfirecat  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:51:26pm

re: #301 Aceofwhat?

so how did more spending create that result, when D outspent R?

I don’t care how that result came about Ace.

All I’m saying is that the result was in my eyes not a good one.

Address my point or leave it alone, but don’t go around trying to draw me into arguments you’re having with other people.

314 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:52:03pm

re: #309 allegro

so you don’t like the overall number i gave, and then asked for an individual

Please note what I said and take particular note of the word “races”. That’s a plural. It means more than one. I suppose I should have said “provide the information for ALL of the races so a trend, if there is such a trend, may be illustrated”. But I gave you more credit for understanding the point of what you were trying to argue.

You have been quite exercised in arguing this trend you feel you have uncovered that the amount of money spent in a campaign has no influence over its outcome, and therefore CU is an overall good thing cuz of more “speech”. You have not supported this argument.

Dude

Let’s go back to the overall number. D outspent R in the house, but got an almighty ass-whooping. They even lost to candidates I wouldn’t support, and i’m a cautious R.

Now remind me again why total election spending is such a driving factor in election victories?

315 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:52:46pm

re: #312 McSpiff

re: #306 Aceofwhat?

Can you cite a case for that assertion?

No. Rather, i welcome any attempt to demonstrate the truth of the original. (but i’m a geek, so i’ll probably look anyway.)

316 Targetpractice  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:53:27pm

re: #302 Fozzie Bear

They only stand if the defendant refuses to take any action directed by the court. Even then, the state can simply have you arrested and dragged into court, such that due process can be followed. It depends on the charge. Sometimes, they just issue a bench warrant which isn’t necessarily enforced deliberately, but rather you get arrested next time you get pulled over or have any incidental interaction with police.

Learn somethin’ new every day.

317 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:54:08pm

re: #314 Aceofwhat?

Let’s go back to the overall number. D outspent R in the house, but got an almighty ass-whooping. They even lost to candidates I wouldn’t support, and i’m a cautious R.

Now remind me again why total election spending is such a driving factor in election victories?

You aren’t addressing the issue of X spending money on behalf of D or R, and the fact that neither D nor R would have to claim or report such spending, and thus, conflicts of interest cannot be tracked, and recusals cannot be properly demanded in cases in which there is a conflict of interests. We are seeing the effects of this already. This isn’t some theoretical thing.

318 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:55:02pm

re: #312 McSpiff

re: #306 Aceofwhat?

Can you cite a case for that assertion?

politifact.com

boom goes the dynamite

319 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:55:54pm

re: #316 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Learn somethin’ new every day.

It’s highly situational. I mean, if you are accused of homicide, and get out on bail, then fail to show up for a hearing, you can be damn sure the police are going to drag you to court. However, if the charge is unpaid parking tickets, they will just issue a bench warrant and forget about it. Next time you get a speeding ticket, you’ll find yourself in cuffs, and the court will deal with you then.

320 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:55:56pm

re: #313 jamesfirecat

I don’t care how that result came about Ace.

All I’m saying is that the result was in my eyes not a good one.

Address my point or leave it alone, but don’t go around trying to draw me into arguments you’re having with other people.

so you’re only in favor of election laws in which “the result is a good one”?

i may not have properly understood your point, so please elucidate if i did not.

321 Political Atheist  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:57:02pm

re: #311 Obdicut

Small scale matters too, at least as a matter of law. If we were talking monetary fraud there would be no questioning the need for ID to reduce it. And since the vote is important, it’s important to have voter ID to continue it’s alleged accuracy. I say alleged because the issues we get into when the vote is close sure loom large at the time.

322 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:57:27pm

re: #317 Fozzie Bear

You aren’t addressing the issue of X spending money on behalf of D or R, and the fact that neither D nor R would have to claim or report such spending, and thus, conflicts of interest cannot be tracked, and recusals cannot be properly demanded in cases in which there is a conflict of interests. We are seeing the effects of this already. This isn’t some theoretical thing.

Because that is a transparency issue. CU specifically states, IIRC, that transparency is permitted (i.e. reporting can be required). Stop complaining that things aren’t transparent enough. That’s Congress’ job, and not an excuse to regulate speech.

323 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:57:40pm

re: #318 Aceofwhat?

I like that you’re citing something that says the claim is true, to say that it’s not true.

That’s an interesting move.

324 jamesfirecat  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:58:16pm

re: #320 Aceofwhat?

so you’re only in favor of election laws in which “the result is a good one”?

i may not have properly understood your point, so please elucidate if i did not.

I’m going to argue about election law.

All I’m saying was that from my point of view 2010 was a bad year for America electon wise since people who were grossly unfit for high office were elected to and became the primary candidate run by one of the main political parties in record numbers.


That’s all I’ve got to say, no more, no less.

325 jamesfirecat  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:58:56pm

re: #324 jamesfirecat

I’m going to argue about election law.

All I’m saying was that from my point of view 2010 was a bad year for America electon wise since people who were grossly unfit for high office were elected to and became the primary candidate run by one of the main political parties in record numbers.

That’s all I’ve got to say, no more, no less.

I’m not going to argue about election law…

Damn I suck.

326 allegro  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:59:22pm

re: #314 Aceofwhat?

Let’s go back to the overall number. D outspent R in the house, but got an almighty ass-whooping. They even lost to candidates I wouldn’t support, and i’m a cautious R.

Now remind me again why total election spending is such a driving factor in election victories?

Because the TOTAL spending doesn’t support your assertion that the amount of money in a given race has no influence on its outcome. It may or may not, but the total spending has no meaning. Once candidate may spend a billion dollars thus vastly skewing the total amount. You have been trying to support your argument by claiming a trend without supporting that any such trend exists.

To use an analogy… if we look at the average income of Americans and add in the fortunes of those top 1%, it’s going to tell a story that does not reflect the reality at all of the wealth of the vast majority.

327 McSpiff  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 1:59:50pm

re: #318 Aceofwhat?

[Link: www.politifact.com…]

boom goes the dynamite

No, not quite. And I disagree with polifact on this one for what its worth. Key point being:

The federal law cited above — 2 U.S.C. 441e(b)(3) — defines U.S. companies as those incorporated under U.S. law or that have their headquarters here. It is silent on the treatment of companies that are incorporated and headquartered in the United States but are owned by foreigners.

That to me is the larger issue compared to simply foreign corporations. Although Obama did explicitly say foreign corporations, so in that sense the article is correct, if narrow sighted in my opinion.

328 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 2:00:08pm

re: #323 Obdicut

I like that you’re citing something that says the claim is true, to say that it’s not true.

That’s an interesting move.

The majority opinion, authored by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, maintained that the court was not specifically overturning this barrier to foreign campaign spending, essentially saying that it was outside the scope of the opinion.

“We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process,” the majority wrote.

I’d rather quote fact and have it debated that it may not fully support my position than quote non-fact. Cards on the table here.

329 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 2:00:51pm

re: #327 McSpiff

The article says Obama’s claim is true. Barely true, but true nonetheless. They also say it’s a reasonable interpretation.

330 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 2:01:06pm

re: #324 jamesfirecat

I’m going to argue about election law.

All I’m saying was that from my point of view 2010 was a bad year for America electon wise since people who were grossly unfit for high office were elected to and became the primary candidate run by one of the main political parties in record numbers.

That’s all I’ve got to say, no more, no less.

Then, thankfully, candidates running against the new incumbents will not be hamstrung by ill-conceived restrictions on the speech of companies and unions who support them!

331 McSpiff  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 2:01:43pm

re: #328 Aceofwhat?

The article only addresses foreign corporations, not foreign influence in general. Correct but irrelevant IMO.

332 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 2:02:00pm

re: #327 McSpiff

No, not quite. And I disagree with polifact on this one for what its worth. Key point being:

That to me is the larger issue compared to simply foreign corporations. Although Obama did explicitly say foreign corporations, so in that sense the article is correct, if narrow sighted in my opinion.

It’s essentially a meaningless distinction. Where a corporation places their headquarters has precisely zero bearing on whether the corporation is essentially foreign or domestic in nature. It’s literally just the result of filing a form. You can list your corporation as residing at a P.O. box, for fuck’s sake. It doesn’t mean a thing.

333 MinisterO  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 2:02:06pm

re: #306 Aceofwhat?

That is a complete misnomer.

I do not think that means what you think it means.

334 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 2:02:10pm

re: #327 McSpiff

No, not quite. And I disagree with polifact on this one for what its worth. Key point being:

That to me is the larger issue compared to simply foreign corporations. Although Obama did explicitly say foreign corporations, so in that sense the article is correct, if narrow sighted in my opinion.

So you want congress to amend that section of federal law. No problem. Laws are better when they come from the legislation. Why is this the SCOTUS’ fault again?

335 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 2:02:10pm

re: #328 Aceofwhat?

Ace, Obama made the claim:

“Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections”

How did Politifact rate this claim? Did they rate it as on the ‘true’ side or on the ‘false’ side?

336 McSpiff  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 2:03:04pm

re: #329 Obdicut

The article says Obama’s claim is true. Barely true, but true nonetheless. They also say it’s a reasonable interpretation.

I misread it as well. Anyways, I think the rest of my point on foreign corporations being an irrelevant matter when people are concerned about foreign influence is correct.

337 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 2:03:13pm

re: #330 Aceofwhat?

Then, thankfully, candidates running against the new incumbents will not be hamstrung by ill-conceived restrictions on the speech of companies and unions who support them!

… that stood as settled law for nearly a century. Who knew we were living under a repressive regime for all that time?

338 McSpiff  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 2:04:22pm

re: #334 Aceofwhat?

So you want congress to amend that section of federal law. No problem. Laws are better when they come from the legislation. Why is this the SCOTUS’ fault again?

Uh, you’re assuming foreign influence was my primary objection. Just because I proved you wrong doesn’t mean it is.

339 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 2:05:04pm

re: #337 Fozzie Bear

I think the extent to which corporations and other organizations are centers of power would surprise and disturb the hell out of the founding fathers.

The existence of unions would be an interesting thing to see them interact with, too. I bet most founding fathers would like the collective bargaining aspect but dislike the involvement in politics.

340 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 2:05:21pm

re: #337 Fozzie Bear

… that stood as settled law for nearly a century. Who knew we were living under a repressive regime for all that time?

I mean, I lost count of how many times I opened my mouth (pre-CU) to say something political in nature, and was hauled off by storm troopers for having the temerity to have an opinion. Thank god we have finally thrown off the shackles of pre-CU America! /

341 Achilles Tang  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 2:05:59pm

re: #297 McSpiff

Service equalis citizenship!

Err, I mean military ID usually works as well.

Right, everyone has one of those from some war somewhere…///

342 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 2:07:50pm

I think the founding fathers would be amazed by putt putt, and disturbed by competitive eating.

343 Political Atheist  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 2:10:03pm

re: #339 Obdicut

I think the extent to which corporations and other organizations are centers of power would surprise and disturb the hell out of the founding fathers.

The existence of unions would be an interesting thing to see them interact with, too. I bet most founding fathers would like the collective bargaining aspect but dislike the involvement in politics.

Slave owners would be for collective bargaining? Seems a stretch to me.

344 Varek Raith  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 2:10:24pm

Libyan Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa arrives in London and tells government he has resigned, UK Foreign Office reports.

345 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 2:11:13pm

re: #342 Obdicut

I think the founding fathers would be amazed by putt putt, and disturbed by competitive eating.

I think the founding fathers probably would have been so astounded and alarmed by just about every aspect of modern society that they would probably be afraid to go outside. I mean, seriously, just look out your window and count the incredible things for which there existed no equivalent several hundred years ago. A freaking phone, or a car, would BLOW THEIR MINDS. Going 65 mph in a metal box is something that takes getting used to. It’s just that none of us really remember getting used to it, as we were acclimated to it starting at birth.

Oh, the things I would do with a time machine…

346 McSpiff  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 2:11:16pm

Just for shits and giggles, and more or less OT, I’m going to blow some American minds.

I give you… the not withstanding clause!

Section Thirty-three of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of the Constitution of Canada. It is commonly known as the notwithstanding clause (or “la clause dérogatoire” in French), or as the override power, and it allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to override certain portions of the Charter.

…


Function

The federal Parliament or a provincial legislature may declare a law or part of a law to apply temporarily “notwithstanding” countermanding sections of the Charter, thereby nullifying any judicial review by overriding the Charter protections for a limited period of time. This is done by including a section in the law clearly specifying which rights have been overridden. A simple majority vote in any of Canada’s eleven jurisdictions may suspend the core rights of the Charter. The rights to be overridden, however, must be either a fundamental right (e.g., section 2 freedom of expression, religion, association, etc.), a legal right (e.g., liberty, search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, etc.), or a section 15 equality right. Other rights such as section 6 mobility rights, democratic rights, and language rights are inalienable.

Such a declaration lapses after five years or a lesser time specified in the clause, although the legislature may re-enact the clause indefinitely. The rationale behind having a five-year expiry date is that it is also the maximum amount of time that the Parliament or legislature may sit before an election must be called. Therefore, if the people wish for the law to be repealed they have the right to elect representatives that will carry out the wish of the electorate.[1] (The provisions of the Charter that deal with elections and democratic representation are not among those that can be overridden with the notwithstanding clause.)

The Notwithstanding Clause reflects the hybrid character of Canadian political institutions. In effect it protects the British tradition of parliamentary supremacy under the American-style system of written constitutional rights and strong courts introduced in 1982.[2] Retired politician Jean Chrétien also described it as a tool that could guard against a Supreme Court ruling legalizing hate speech and child pornography as freedom of expression.[1]

Reflects a different approach from the American system.

347 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 2:11:27pm

re: #343 Rightwingconspirator

Slave owners would be for collective bargaining? Seems a stretch to me.

I think they would have been for collective bargaining for non-slaves, yes. Though really you’re right, it’s a stretch on my part simply because industry and agriculture was so, so different then. There’s no real possibility of divining their thoughts on organized labor. We do know that many of them had great reservations about corporations and the power they could accumulate.

348 McSpiff  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 2:13:02pm

Also, article 1 of the Canadian constitution that would most likely apply in a case like CU:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

349 allegro  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 2:14:14pm

re: #342 Obdicut

I think the founding fathers would be amazed by putt putt, and disturbed by competitive eating.

Since you brought it up… it about looks like competitive eating is becoming a norm of cuisine, if you watch the Food or Travel networks. On shows like Diners, Drive-Ins, and Dives that supposedly feature the Best of the Best, it appears that individual sandwiches have to be big enough to feed the whole freaking family. Big plates are overflowing with portions that are disgustingly large. And I do mean disgusting a lot of times. Do we really wonder why we’re getting fatter?

350 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 2:14:31pm

re: #348 McSpiff

Also, article 1 of the Canadian constitution that would most likely apply in a case like CU:

Oh if we only had such a clause!

Err… I mean…. the American constitution is perfect and flawless in every way, may Thomas Jefferson bless my soul.

351 Political Atheist  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 2:16:04pm

re: #345 Fozzie Bear

I always thought if you used one to go into the future you would be in big trouble fast. Likely deadly trouble.

352 Varek Raith  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 2:17:35pm

re: #351 Rightwingconspirator

I always thought if you used one to go into the future you would be in big trouble fast. Likely deadly trouble.

So?
Go back in time and prevent said trouble.
Win-Win!

353 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 2:18:03pm

re: #351 Rightwingconspirator

I always thought if you used one to go into the future you would be in big trouble fast. Likely deadly trouble.

Or too far into the past, as well. “Oh crap, I didn’t think Tyrannosaurs were so pretty!” *chomp* *gurgle* *crunch*

354 Varek Raith  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 2:19:00pm

re: #353 Fozzie Bear

Or too far into the past, as well. “Oh crap, I didn’t think Tyrannosaurs were so pretty!” *chomp* *gurgle* *crunch*

That’s why you go into the future and make clones of yourself.
Geez, don’t you people know how to time travel???
Sheesh.
:)

355 McSpiff  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 2:19:14pm

re: #350 Fozzie Bear

Oh if we only had such a clause!

Err… I mean… the American constitution is perfect and flawless in every way, may Thomas Jefferson bless my soul.

I’m a big fan of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the larger Canadian Constitution in general (its not really a single document). Its also a much newer document. The Charter came into force in…1982? And broke our final legal ties with the UK.

It takes a much different approach from the American system in many ways that seem to work well for us as a nation. YMMV of course.

356 Targetpractice  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 2:22:55pm

re: #354 Varek Raith

That’s why you go into the future and make clones of yourself.
Geez, don’t you people know how to time travel???
Sheesh.
:)

The Timelords of Gallifrey would like a word with you…

/

357 jea62  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 5:31:12pm

What a travesty - this is a blackwash.

358 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 6:18:39pm

re: #53 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

So, Black Panthers were not hanging outside a polling area with the hopes of intimidating voters?

This story had real legs too.

I’m ashamed. I thought that it really happened.

Hell, I even remember seeing pictures.

Or… do I?

They totally may have been. But the DoJ doesn’t decide to prosecute unless the case seems worth committing resources to.

359 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 6:20:38pm

re: #84 Buck

I guess you have to read or hear the sworn testimony. J. Christian Adams testified that the DOJ instructed attorneys in the civil rights division to ignore cases that involve black defendants and white victims.

Did anyone give sworn testimony to the contrary?

360 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 6:23:36pm

re: #93 Fozzie Bear

It was investigated, twice, and then it was decided, twice, that there wasn’t enough to go on. Once by the Bush administration, once by the Obama administration. They didn’t prosecute because they didn’t have a good case. It’s REALLY fucking simple.

And it’s something that happens ALL THE TIME.

361 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 6:30:10pm

re: #117 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Cops love it. Makes it hard to run.

I love it on the show “Cops” every time I see it.

White dudes, black dudes running from the cop… face-plant.

It is an atrocious style.

362 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 6:37:08pm

re: #167 recusancy

If you don’t have a photo id you need a birth certificate to prove who you are. To get a copy of your birth certificate you have to pay money. It’s a poll tax.

What if a person were permitted to get a free copy of their birth certificate for voting registration purposes?

363 MinisterO  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 7:05:47pm

re: #357 jea62

What a travesty - this is a blackwash.

They just don’t get your humor here.

364 Romantic Heretic  Wed, Mar 30, 2011 7:42:03pm

re: #95 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Sarah Palin Rips Into Daily Caller For Not Featuring Her Quote High Enough

The woman is so obviously a complete narcissist. She should get help.

365 Flavia  Fri, Apr 1, 2011 11:23:45pm

re: #6 brownbagj

While I never thought the case was dropped due to some internal anti-white racism, there is no doubt that if I were going to that polling station that I would have perceived a threat.

I clearly remember a woman (& before anyone asks, a black woman) on the news saying that she had been intimidated because she was going to vote for Hillary (I assume she had on some sort of button, or she just told them when they asked). So, while I am disappointed that nothing was done about this, I’m even more disappointed that all sorts of money went down the drain for nothing, or that anyone thought there was some sort of “racism keeping Obama from prosecuting it”. Good grief!!

366 Flavia  Fri, Apr 1, 2011 11:42:39pm

re: #154 Alouette

Well, when my son was living in Russia, he asked me to fax his Bar Mitzvah invitation to the U.S. Embassy to prove that he was a U.S. citizen in order to get a birth certificate for his daughter.

They wouldn’t accept his driver’s license or his U.S. passport or his birth certificate as proof of citizenship because “anybody can forge those.”

I don’t believe this (Or, rather, I know you’re telling the truth - I just don’t want to believe it). You can’t make stuff like this up. That has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard!!! (Okay, in the last five minutes, but you get my drift.)


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 154 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1