Conservative's Assertions re: Obama Admin

[HairOfTheDog]

Started this new thread because the topics no longer fit in the "Arizona Takes a Step Back" thread where the discussion originated.

Do you want to move on to Eric holder? He's is the holder of the race war.

Are you talking about AG Holder's skirting the House Oversight Committee's subpoena in relation to the Mexican cartel sting that wound up killing 200 Mexican citizens and a border patrol agent? I think there are also allegations that guns were supplied to the Cartels by the US ? Yep, I wana hear a whole lot more about that too and don't think the administration has been as forthcoming as they should with the public about it, unless they're holding back because they have undercover operatives to worry about. That would be the only justification I could see for Holder's dragging his feet (that's me guessing; saw no such report about u/c opreratives on the topic).

Or, are you talking about his statements about how he and Obama are criticized because "they are both African-American". I don't know if I'd equate these matter to race wars, but I am disturbed and curious about the lack of details on the cartel fiasco and some of Holder's statements regarding race.

IMaDick wrote: HotD was wondering about the loss of free speech, this is the legislation that was designed to begin that process in earnest.

I think the NDDA provision was indeed too broad. I'm glad that Judge Forrest ruled for injunction. I don't know if I can agree that the clause regarding detention for those who associate with terrorists was intended to include journalists, but it sure left the door wide open for that to occur. Hedges, Chomsky and the other journalists were right to file suit and testify, imo (along with the Occupy leader who feared they could be labeled as a "terrorist organization"). Based on the news coverage from several sources, the DOJ attorneys did a very poor job in defending the vagueness of the provisions and Obama's assurance that his administration would use prudence and not exceed the intent of the provision was weak, at best. The injunction was a good ruling, imo.

There are a lot of objections to NDDA and other national security provisions as reducing government transparency that also came up during the Bush administration. I think there will be controversy regarding attempts to minimize underground terrorist activity while also minimizing privacy and civil rights infringements on US citizens, regardless of who's sitting in the White House, for some time to come.

[IMaDick]

http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/h...-panthers/

[Maggot]

It may come down to states rights and Federal government oversight. Either way whoever has the brass ring conservatives/progressives will want or need to have a lawful tool at their disposal to be able to jump into anybodies business when its needed. The problem comes when it depends on whos agenda is the backbone of the law. Both parties believe that they are obligated to do whats right, its just a bit fuzzy when you try to pinpoint exactly what truly is. Any agency will have their own human element discerning what is and what is not. And God help the fool that truly believes that what they do is for the good of everyone. They have a very big and heavy coat to wear and if they are wrong all they can say is "whoops".

[HairOfTheDog]

http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/h...-panthers/

I could possibly entertain a claim of racial bias, but race wars? I think you're off base. I think the Mexican Cartel fiasco comes closer (and even that doesn't approach "race war" ignition, imo).

From Politico:

Rep. Chaka Fattah, a Democrat from Philadelphia, said the Black Panthers "should not have been there (HOTD: at voter polling booths)." But he said the GOP was making too much out of a fleeting incident involving a couple of people.

"The most unethical thing a person can do is make allegations based on absolutely nothing," Fattah said. "The only issue of race is singling out this particular decision...That this rises to national significance is bogus on its face."

[HairOfTheDog]

Both parties believe that they are obligated to do whats right, its just a bit fuzzy when you try to pinpoint exactly what truly is. Any agency will have their own human element discerning what is and what is not. And God help the fool that truly believes that what they do is for the good of everyone. They have a very big and heavy coat to wear and if they are wrong all they can say is "whoops".

I see it much the same way. Sometimes there is bad/sneaky intent on the part of the govt, regardless of whether Dems or Repubs (progressives or conservatives) are in the majority ruling it. But, much of the public discord comes from the simple reality that you can't please everyone; especially when you're talking about a nation full of very diverse people.

[Maggot]

http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/h...-panthers/

I could possibly entertain a claim of racial bias, but race wars? I think you're off base. I think the Mexican Cartel fiasco comes closer (and even that doesn't approach "race war" ignition, imo).

From Politico:

Rep. Chaka Fattah, a Democrat from Philadelphia, said the Black Panthers "should not have been there (HOTD: at voter polling booths)." But he said the GOP was making too much out of a fleeting incident involving a couple of people.

"The most unethical thing a person can do is make allegations based on absolutely nothing," Fattah said. "The only issue of race is singling out this particular decision...That this rises to national significance is bogus on its face."

I wonder how this might change the next election. This came out AFTER. And If it happens again I can only hope that citizens will again bring it up as a consern as it should be. Let a fight break out over it then the media might cover it.

[username]

Government is totally corrupt and both sides are influenced by money, special interest groups and their party base.

We're fucked until we take all 3 of those out of the equation and elect people who are actually independent thinkers and are unbeholden to special interest groups and hostage to their party base.

[HairOfTheDog]

http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/h...-panthers/

I could possibly entertain a claim of racial bias, but race wars? I think you're off base. I think the Mexican Cartel fiasco comes closer (and even that doesn't approach "race war" ignition, imo).

From Politico:

Rep. Chaka Fattah, a Democrat from Philadelphia, said the Black Panthers "should not have been there (HOTD: at voter polling booths)." But he said the GOP was making too much out of a fleeting incident involving a couple of people.

"The most unethical thing a person can do is make allegations based on absolutely nothing," Fattah said. "The only issue of race is singling out this particular decision...That this rises to national significance is bogus on its face."

I wonder how this might change the next election. This came out AFTER. And If it happens again I can only hope that citizens will again bring it up as a consern as it should be. Let a fight break out over it then the media might cover it.

Obama's campaign management better be all over this kind of shit this time out. Hard to know if the 2008 incident was greatly overblown by his opponents or if there legitimately was voter intimidation by the Black Panthers at the polls. Of course, depending on which side is weighing in and what media source you consult, the assessment is much different. Nobody was prosecuted, which I think is part of Dick's heartache with Holder; conservatives contend the decision not to prosecute was based on racial bias. I don't think Obama can afford such an incident in 2012; he's not the new kid on the block anymore and has enough existing controversy to overcome. JMO.

[IMaDick]

People in his own office made the assertion that the decision not to prosecute was racially motivated.

"Conservatives contend" is a mis statement, on purpose or an accident it's a shame it happened.

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/ob...n-2200481/

[HairOfTheDog]

People in his own office made the assertion that the decision not to prosecute was racially motivated.

"Conservatives contend" is a mis statement, on purpose or an accident it's a shame it happened.

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/ob...n-2200481/

I didn't see a quote from an Obama official in your link or the related story link within the article. Who made that direct statement? I read several different sources and didn't see a statement to that effect; not that I couldn't have missed it. I'd like to see it.

[IMaDick]

It was in the first paragraph.

A former Justice Department attorney who quit his job to protest the Obama administration’s handling of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case is accusing Attorney General Eric Holder of dropping the charges for racially motivated reasons.

[HairOfTheDog]

It was in the first paragraph.

A former Justice Department attorney who quit his job to protest the Obama administration’s handling of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case is accusing Attorney General Eric Holder of dropping the charges for racially motivated reasons.

I saw that. I thought that you meant that it was made by someone who is still in the administration and that there is more than an "accusation", but a definitive public statement. In any case, it's a bad scene that it even occurred, I agree. I don't like any of it either.

Here's where I'm not connecting the dots, Dick. Your post in the previous thread said that "race wars" are being propagated. Do you see voter intimidation and lack of prosecution as being synonomous with enflaming race wars? I'm trying to see where you're at, but I hope you can understand that this is a discussion/exchange. I don't know what you have in your mind and how you've intepreted it, and we will not have seen all the same news. It's not me playing stupid or you being an ass (I hope). So, please don't just give me links without at least a bit of the point, because I really do want to understand your perspective, some of which I agree with so far (and some I see differently).

[Disciple]

Government is totally corrupt and both sides are influenced by money, special interest groups and their party base.

We're fucked until we take all 3 of those out of the equation and elect people who are actually independent thinkers and are unbeholden to special interest groups and hostage to their party base.

Amen.

Anyone else think that eliminating the Electoral Collage and specifically legislating that corporations are NOT people under the law would be a good place to start?

[Ma Huang Sor]

Government is totally corrupt and both sides are influenced by money, special interest groups and their party base.

We're fucked until we take all 3 of those out of the equation and elect people who are actually independent thinkers and are unbeholden to special interest groups and hostage to their party base.

That's why we Vermonters put Bernie in Congress many many moons ago.

[IMaDick]

Government is totally corrupt and both sides are influenced by money, special interest groups and their party base.

We're fucked until we take all 3 of those out of the equation and elect people who are actually independent thinkers and are unbeholden to special interest groups and hostage to their party base.

Amen.

Anyone else think that eliminating the Electoral Collage and specifically legislating that corporations are NOT people under the law would be a good place to start?

I would like to see the Electoral college done away with, we don't need them anymore, Corps should not be allowed to donate to a campaign it completely undermines the individual, I would take this even one or 2 steps further and do away with super pacs and give a set amount of $ that can be spent by each candidate.

[Ma Huang Sor]

They tried that already.

[Ma Huang Sor]

Government is totally corrupt and both sides are influenced by money, special interest groups and their party base.

We're fucked until we take all 3 of those out of the equation and elect people who are actually independent thinkers and are unbeholden to special interest groups and hostage to their party base.

Amen.

Anyone else think that eliminating the Electoral Collage and specifically legislating that corporations are NOT people under the law would be a good place to start?

That Corporate Personhood definition is pretty scary. The Electoral College is part of that messy thing called Democracy, otherwise us Vermonters would be dictating shit to you Californians

Our insistence on sticking to the Original Fathers interpretation of the Constitution is important. It's the one document that defines free will, free speech, free democracy, rule of law. It's why the only dictator to actually get elected (bush) failed miserably.

[IMaDick]

Government is totally corrupt and both sides are influenced by money, special interest groups and their party base.

We're fucked until we take all 3 of those out of the equation and elect people who are actually independent thinkers and are unbeholden to special interest groups and hostage to their party base.

Amen.

Anyone else think that eliminating the Electoral Collage and specifically legislating that corporations are NOT people under the law would be a good place to start?

That Corporate Personhood definition is pretty scary. The Electoral College is part of that messy thing called Democracy, otherwise us Vermonters would be dictating shit to you Californians

Our insistence on sticking to the Original Fathers interpretation of the Constitution is important. It's the one document that defines free will, free speech, free democracy, rule of law. It's why the only dictator to actually get elected (bush) failed miserably.

Which is why we are a Republic and not a democracy.

One state cannot dictate to another.

[HairOfTheDog]

Anyone else think that eliminating the Electoral Collage and specifically legislating that corporations are NOT people under the law would be a good place to start?

I agreed with the 2010 Bi-Partisan Reform Act that eventually got shot down. The court's ruling that it was against the first amendment rights of the corporations and unions to limit their contributions to candidates essentially did equate to considering corporations to be "people" and considered money to be "speech". This needs to change, imo. I believe these are among the complaints of the Occupy movement group as well.

We need financial election reform ahead of considering the electoral college abolishment, imo. I believe it's the corruption within the system, rather than the system itself, that needs to be addressed immediately.

On a related note, I read this a couple of days back at the CNN site; it's astounding the amount of money these candidates are raking in.

The (Obama) campaign had $115,157,432.79 cash on hand after raising $25.7 million that month (April). Combined with other Democratic efforts, including the Democratic National Committee, they raised $43.6 million in April, slightly more than the $40.1 million GOP candidate Mitt Romney and his allies raised. Romney ended the month with $104 million cash on hand.

[username]

Do those figures even include the super pacs' money?