- Joined
- Oct 12, 2009
- Messages
- 23,909
- Reaction score
- 11,003
- Location
- New Jersey
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
It's only a big deal if someone thinks laws were created to be applied equally regardless of race, creed, color or religion. It that's not something that is worth much - you're correct - much ado about nothing.Again, I'm not saying that what transpired on either side was right. What the New Black Pather member said was wrong and dispicable. AG Holder not prosecuting these individuals (or atleast the one who utter the intimidating hate speech) to the fullest extent of the law wasn't right either, but when you look at the totality of the situation, does it really amount to a helluva whole lot to be all up in arms over?
So the law only now applies to large crowds of people and not to individuals? I think not. [/quote]If it had been a massive crowd of Black Pather members standing outside the polls making hateful speeches, uttering hateful words I'd grant you this was something to truly get upset about. But it wasn't and it doesn't appear that anyone took these men seriously. So...?
Whether or not anyone took them seriously is irrelevant. However, at least one person took it seriously as they recorded video of it. :shrug:
This has nothing to do with Obama other than, it may be on Obama's suggestion that the DoJ dropped prosecution of this case - Obama is otherwise irrelevant to this story. Don't make this about something its not. This is about voter intimidation outside of a polling location. They broke the law. Both should have been prosecuted just as if they were KKK in full regalia with billie clubs - standing outside of the polling place... it's the same thing.People who oppose Pres. Obama are more up in arms over this because of their particianship (and very likely in some cases racial biasness). It's not about equal justice. Let's just call it as it truly is. This issue has reached a fevor pitch because many believe Pres. Obama to be racist...more partical to Blacks and minorities than to whites. The way I see it, there's nothing wrong with being passionate about members of your race or other minority groups receiving "fair and equaly treatment and a standard of living" that has been denied them over the years. Of course, we're talking about the President here. So, that does make it different. Still, I can understand his position on racial injustice and unequality and support same as long as he is fair about it.
Any deviation based on color, organiation, etc... is a racist tinged decision. While equal protection under the law was added with the 14th amendment, equal application of the law must also be accomplished NOT MATTER what occurred and I think you agree - they broke the law, but justice was not served and these types of errors by the DoJ further divide this country racially as it appears as though race was a motivation. This prompts you, a black man to say "justice was served" and me a white man "justice was absent". Go back 50 years and the direct reverse was occurring every day. How is continued racism 50 years after civil rights moving us as American's forward? It's not. I didn't own slaves; my family came from what is now Serbia - poor Germans who moved there at the turn of the 19th century were indenture servents to the Yugoslavians and Hungarians who wanted them out and who treated them as dirt. You're baggage and the baggage that is being trotted out by the injustice of this case only serves to divide us as Americans. You should reject it. You weren't a slave, you weren't oppressed (depending on your age) and you have the benefits of almost everything MLK dreamed of during his life. Why take steps backwards? Doesn't make sense.
Nothing wrong with passion, however when one identifies inequality in ANY manner, and then advocates it and calls it "justice", that's not doing the right thing.For example, I have an Hispanic coworker who's very passionate about her people. But that doesn't make her a racist. It simply means she wants what's right and fair for her people and won't just standby when she feels they are being oppressed or treated unjustly. Is the perceived position by the President on racial inequality towards Blacks and other minority groups that different?
The DoJ should have criminally charged these two men and let the courts decide the verdict.So, what would have been fair here?
So I guess he can do the same thing in 2012. And the other guy? Nothing.IMO, no weapons near polling places, a gag order when assembling within 50 feet of polling places at the next Presidential election (2012) and 30-days in jail (or 6 months probation from violating any civil ordinance equivalent to communicating a threat.) To me, that would have been fair.
Let's just say these guys were KKK members, and I'll apply your view to this, and the KKK members were in this locale in Philly --- intimidating black voters. Still okay with your application of what is fair - that this was "justice"? I wouldn't be.
Last edited: