• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you think these Black Panthers should be prosecuted for voter intimidation?

Should these Black Panthers be prosecuted?

  • Yes

    Votes: 43 86.0%

  • No

    Votes: 4 8.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 3 6.0%
  • Total voters
    50
O_Guru said:
LMAO Ive seen the whole thing a bunch of times what "supposedly" happens I see a little female walking around in the back having almost a valley girl style type conversation in the back ground walking back and fourth like they are even there, she seems real intimidated LOL

again i dont condone this but im looking at reality, this video alone couldnt convict them of anything that I know of
Click to expand...

He is brandishing a stick and voters and poll watchers reported that they felt intimidated. I guess some people are so closed minded to reality that no matter how you shove it in their faces, it still won't penetrate!
 
ludahai said:
He is brandishing a stick and voters and poll watchers reported that they felt intimidated. I guess some people are so closed minded to reality that no matter how you shove it in their faces, it still won't penetrate!
Click to expand...

whoooooa they "felt" intimidate so its HEARSAY lol
sorry you can shoveBS in my face all you want doesnt mean im going to buy it, you can also attempt to insult and write me off again but ill just keep using reality

nothing here to covict them, you need evidence not assumptions, like i said give me evidence and ill gladly support locking them up but with out i wont guess, sorry thats not how the law works its the same for all of us
 
O_Guru said:
well again not familiar but i dont think those compare at all because the minute men by what you are saying are trying to stop a crime.

also while i might agree thats why they were there it still an assumption, they said they were there to make sure there wasnt imtimiadation from stopping black voters, no we both know this could be total BS but thats not enough in court.

and again they dont seem to be intimidating anybody has people walk right by them

and again just to be clear im am NOT condoning what they did im simply asking for prove without a reasonable doubt, like the law needs. to convict these guys on nothing but this video cant be done with out lots of assuming, assuming i may very well share BUT that doesnt make it right
Click to expand...

Well, the Minutemen were labeled as racists. Shouldn't these Black Panthers be labeled as racists? This same "gentleman" in the video is a racist and talks of murdering whites and white babies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APZ3-Lcbwmc
 
Last edited:
bicycleman said:
Well, the Minutemen were labeled as racists. Shouldn't these Black Panthers be labeled as racists? This same "gentleman" in the video is a racist and talks of murdering whites and white babies.
Click to expand...

again I dont know about the minute men so that doesnt help
no black panthers should not be labeled as racist unless they are, there are plenty BPPs with white members

now on to these two specifically, if ONE of them did say that and it was based on race alone then YES! absolutely he gets my vote for being a racist, the other one, no, since I know nothing about him

but even if he is a racist this video still isnt enough to convict him without "assuming" more went on
 
O_Guru said:
again I dont know about the minute men so that doesnt help
no black panthers should not be labeled as racist unless they are, there are plenty BPPs with white members

now on to these two specifically, if ONE of them did say that and it was based on race alone then YES! absolutely he gets my vote for being a racist, the other one, no, since I know nothing about him

but even if he is a racist this video still isnt enough to convict him without "assuming" more went on
Click to expand...

I just added a video to the post you quoted. Check out the video and re-coment.
 
TripleAgent said:
Here is Nigel Coleman, a leader in the Virginia Tea party, holding a hangman of Democratic Congressman Frank Kratovil in front of his office.

hangingKratovil-1.jpg


He also planned to light effigies of Nancy Pelosi and Tom Perriello. He hasn't been arrested or accused of intimidation. I saw no mention of this on news outlets, ESPECIALLY Fox News. But, as soon as they get video of a Black Panther with a billy club, they're all over it. I wonder, where are your priorities, Fox News?

It seems to me that Conservatives are all about the right to bear arms wherever they please, but as soon as the other side begins to do the same, they cry foul. The Second Amendment applies outside of a place of polling just as much as it applies in Washington D.C., where Tea Partiers marched with their guns.
Click to expand...

Were the polls inside the Congressman's office?
 
O_Guru said:
again I dont know about the minute men so that doesnt help
no black panthers should not be labeled as racist unless they are, there are plenty BPPs with white members

now on to these two specifically,
Click to expand...

Where do you come up this that idea? The point of the BP is to oppose "white oppresion" The BPs hate anyone that isnt white and views people like Obama, Rice and Powell as house (fill in the blank)
 
bicycleman said:
I just added a video to the post you quoted. Check out the video and re-coment.
Click to expand...

theres nothing to really re comment about?
I said if he talked like that yes absolutely he'd get my vote for being a racist and now with the video he certainly does :)

my stance on more evidence then the cell phone video needed to convict him hasnt changed, the law doesnt work that way, not liking him and thinkin he is a jackhole Id like to punch in the face cant make me abuse the justice system and convict him on assumption
 
O_Guru said:
whoooooa they "felt" intimidate so its HEARSAY lol
sorry you can shoveBS in my face all you want doesnt mean im going to buy it, you can also attempt to insult and write me off again but ill just keep using reality

nothing here to covict them, you need evidence not assumptions, like i said give me evidence and ill gladly support locking them up but with out i wont guess, sorry thats not how the law works its the same for all of us
Click to expand...

That is NOT hearsay... you apparently don't know what hearsay is. The feeling of intimidation is at the heart of the relevant section of the Voter's Rights legislation in question here...

There is evidence here, you just refuse to see it in your partisan blindness...
 
chevydriver1123 said:
Where do you come up this that idea? The point of the BP is to oppose "white oppresion" The BPs hate anyone that isnt white and views people like Obama, Rice and Powell as house (fill in the blank)
Click to expand...

I didnt come up with this idea its a fact, there are white members, supporters, helps in black panther groups. There are also BPPs that are entirely about black and black only but that doesnt change the fact there are other that are not. The negative ones just get the most coverage like racist tea party members, doesnt mean they ALL are
 
O_Guru said:
I didnt come up with this idea its a fact, there are white members, supporters, helps in black panther groups. There are also BPPs that are entirely about black and black only but that doesnt change the fact there are other that are not. The negative ones just get the most coverage like racist tea party members, doesnt mean they ALL are
Click to expand...

None of which changes the fact that those two men in jackboots, black uniforms, and wielding nightsticks causes an intimidating situation for voters. No amount of mental gymnastics of the likes of Mary Lou Retton (am I dating myself) will do anything to change that...
 
ludahai said:
That is NOT hearsay... you apparently don't know what hearsay is. The feeling of intimidation is at the heart of the relevant section of the Voter's Rights legislation in question here...

There is evidence here, you just refuse to see it in your partisan blindness...
Click to expand...

yes it is hearsay because what intimidates you might not me and so on and so on.
what if I go to vote tomorrow and theres a guy built like shaq standing out side the voting place with a shirt on of the guy i dont want to vote for and I feel intimidated? do we just lock that guy up? what if he is chanting how the guy i want to vote for is bad and saying vote for his guy and since he is so big it scares me, guess we should lock him up!!!! LMAO

sorry i live in reality i have no "partisan" genius im a centrist and independent LMAO
again nice try but you fail

if all you need is your heart to be intimidated then theres intimidation EVERYWHERE lol my eyes are very open to reality
 
ludahai said:
None of which changes the fact that those two men in jackboots, black uniforms, and wielding nightsticks causes an intimidating situation for voters. No amount of mental gymnastics of the likes of Mary Lou Retton (am I dating myself) will do anything to change that...
Click to expand...

actually reality changes that and the video shows no conclusive evidence of that without tons of assumptions :D
 
Look, you have repeatedly demonstrated that you don't understand the following:

1. The nature of hearsay evidence (see below)
2. The purpose of the Voter Right's Act and other relevant legislation
3. The threatening nature of a man in black uniform and jackboots brandishing a nightstick
4. The nature of evidence in such cases -- video evidence is pretty powerful

This would be a drop dead conviction. The fact that you can't see that indicates YOU are the one with the problem, not me.

Hearsay evidence:
hearsay: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com
1.Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
2.Law. Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.
Click to expand...

Child Advocate
Hearsay, of course, takes place when a witness testifies to a statement he or she heard someone else make.
Click to expand...
 
ludahai said:
Look, you have repeatedly demonstrated that you don't understand the following:

1. The nature of hearsay evidence (see below)
2. The purpose of the Voter Right's Act and other relevant legislation
3. The threatening nature of a man in black uniform and jackboots brandishing a nightstick
4. The nature of evidence in such cases -- video evidence is pretty powerful

This would be a drop dead conviction. The fact that you can't see that indicates YOU are the one with the problem, not me.

Hearsay evidence:
hearsay: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com


Child Advocate
Click to expand...

LMAO I understand it all sorry I just do not MISINTERPRET it and use emotion over logic :)
sorry it isnt a drop dead conviction and thats why its not in court now lmao
video is VERY powerful and i saw nobody being threatened or intimidated, i saw a guy speak calmly, people come and goe as they felt and a little non-black girl walk by them repeatedly talking like a valley girl like she didnt even see them, yep they were REAL intimidating

the law is the same for me and you as it is for them and you are ASSUMING you know what happen and their intent BUT the fact remains you DONT you are just guessing

like i said ill use reality and hearsay about how a person felt in this case is meaningless to me and to a judge
until theres MORE evidence theres nothing here that couldnt be argued for the polls i go to all the time LOL like i said REALITY
 
I am done with you on this thread. You have no understanding of how the law works and you have shown this on multiple occasions. You don't even know what hearsay evidence is...
 
I apologize if someone has posted these videos today. I didn't read the whole thread.

Here is the original video + one NBP member discussing how much he LOVES crackers (Yummy!) -- You've probably already seen this on this thread....

YouTube - The Obama Administration Protected Black Panther Who Advocates Killing White Babies


Here's another NBP chairman (Malik Shabazz) saying he disagrees with the above person......sort of....

I'll say this. The new Black Panther Party does not believe in going out on the streets and berating black people. We don't believe on getting out and attacking people in the streets. We don't believe in telegraphing what we may or may not do. I don't believe in. I believe as an attorney and as a wise general, I don't believe in telegraphing anything and I don't believe. I don't believe in overhyped rhetoric. I don't believe in overhyped rhetoric that is not calculated to lead to serious action. And so I would say that he [the man from the above video who wants to kill crackers babies] has to speak better if he's going to speak for this organization ever again in the future, he has to speak with a better, more calculated representation, and I believe that he has it in him to do it.

VOICE: Well, obviously you don't believe in killing white babies?

(long pause)

Not in that context, no, sir.

(Does anyone have the video for that? I can't find it.)
 
ludahai said:
I am done with you on this thread. You have no understanding of how the law works and you have shown this on multiple occasions. You don't even know what hearsay evidence is...
Click to expand...

if you say so but that would be you sir, the video has no evidence to convict no matter how bad you or i want it to or how bad you or I dislike that guy, the law is the same for me you and them and thats why it didnt go to trial so you convince yourself of what ever you need reality wont change. :probably why you didnt answer any questions of mine. Good day :D
 
Last edited:
O_Guru said:
if you say so but that would be you sir, the video has no evidence to convict no matter how bad you or i want it to or how bad you or I dislike that guy, the law is the same for me you and them and thats why it didnt go to trial so you convince yourself of what ever you need reality wont change. :probably why you didnt answer any questions of mine. Good day :D
Click to expand...

The Justice Department didn't see it that way, they saw it as voter intimidation. Evidentally your law is Eric Holder law.
 
bicycleman said:
The Justice Department didn't see it that way, they saw it as voter intimidation. Evidentally your law is Eric Holder law.
Click to expand...

"my" law?, our law
and remind me who is "eric holder"? <a little sarcasm>;)
and like i said you can prosucute but you couldnt convice over the video alone, not enough evidence
 
O_Guru said:
"my" law?, our law
and remind me who is "eric holder"? <a little sarcasm>;)
and like i said you can prosucute but you couldnt convice over the video alone, not enough evidence
Click to expand...

There is something called TESTIMONY from eyewitnesses....

In the immortal words of Charlie Brown "Good Grief"
 
ludahai said:
There is something called TESTIMONY from eyewitnesses....

In the immortal words of Charlie Brown "Good Grief"
Click to expand...

yeah so, testimony of feelings? really?
sorry testimony of feelings and that video are not enough

again like i said im not condoning just using reality and law

ill go to the police station tomorrow and testify that i feel harassed by you should they just lock you up or should there be a thing called due process and should they look for evidence that proves WITHOUT doubt to move forward, that is my point

it can easily be argued that theres not enough there to convict LMAO like I said the law is the same for me you and them, it may suck sometimes but you cant convict on assumptions, this isnt rocket science
 
ludahai said:
You are hopeless. Have a nice day and thank you for getting me all riled up... I might be able to stay up with our national elite riders this afternoon....
Click to expand...

your welcome and thats the difference, my emotions arent wired in with my logic, they are separate as they should be, I may not like what they did, i may not like that one guy and think he is a racist and would love to punch him in the face but i could never convict him based on that. All that has to be kept separate and when i watch the video I see nothing that shows me to convict, i wish i did but i do not cause theres nothing there.

you have a nice day also:2wave:
 
Last edited:
Lakryte said:
Back to this thread...for those who voted no, how is holding a night club outside a polling station and saying "you're about to know what its like to be ruled by the black man crackers" and "kill all white babies" not voter intimidation/discrimination?

This video says it all:
Hot Air » Video: The nice young man Eric Holder let off the hook
Click to expand...

Did you watch this specific video? In this video nothing like that occurred. There is another circumstance involving the BPP that is quite a bit more despicable, however, and I think that you're mixing it up with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom