Again, criminal cases were dropped by the Bush DOJ and Civil were dropped against the other people standing there who were not wielding the Baton. Look up the applicable law, and see if this is not exactly what should have happened. If I decided to go and stand outside the polling booth in paramilitary guard do I not have that right? They did get a judment agains the one who appeared to be saying intimidating stuff. Before you get all riled, see what the relief could possibly be. I think you are assuming something else should happen, but the law is not with you on this one.

Again, criminal cases were dropped by the Bush DOJ and Civil were dropped against the other people standing there who were not wielding the Baton. Look up the applicable law, and see if this is not exactly what should have happened. If I decided to go and stand outside the polling booth in paramilitary guard do I not have that right? They did get a judment agains the one who appeared to be saying intimidating stuff. Before you get all riled, see what the relief could possibly be. I think you are assuming something else should happen, but the law is not with you on this one.

Would it be OK to stand outside a polling place dressed in white hood and robe? Just asking. I think we know the answer to that. The Black Panthers are what they are, no better than the Klan.

Edited July 13, 201016 yr by FarBeyondDriven

Again, criminal cases were dropped by the Bush DOJ and Civil were dropped against the other people standing there who were not wielding the Baton. Look up the applicable law, and see if this is not exactly what should have happened. If I decided to go and stand outside the polling booth in paramilitary guard do I not have that right? They did get a judment agains the one who appeared to be saying intimidating stuff. Before you get all riled, see what the relief could possibly be. I think you are assuming something else should happen, but the law is not with you on this one.

 

They did not get a judgement, they got an injunction after which they dropped the charges. Bush administration brought charges, Obama administration dropped them. That's it in a nutshell.

Would it be OK to stand outside a polling place dressed in white hood and robe? Just asking. I think we know the answer to that. The Black Panthers are what they are, no better than the Klan.

 

Something tells me they would not have dropped charges and settled for a meaningless injunction if this were the circumstances.

Kirsten Powers just became much more attractive to me:

 

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/13/megyn-kelly-flips-out/

Kirsten Powers just became much more attractive to me:

 

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/13/megyn-kelly-flips-out/

You’ve been completely doing the “scary black man thing”?

 

Did KP miss the video of this clown talking about killing white people and their babies?

 

That's attractive to you, ace? :idunno:

You’ve been completely doing the “scary black man thing”?

 

Did KP miss the video of this clown talking about killing white people and their babies?

 

That's attractive to you, ace? :idunno:

 

I didn't say Samir Shabazz was attractive, AND don't conflagrate his statement at one point with the actions at the polling. 2 separate incidents and THIS case is about his actions at the polling area.

 

She is absolutely correct, this is a non-story that is being made a story by the likes of Megan Kellye. They did NOT drop the judgment against Samir.

I didn't say Samir Shabazz was attractive, AND don't conflagrate his statement at one point with the actions at the polling. 2 separate incidents and THIS case is about his actions at the polling area.

 

She is absolutely correct, this is a non-story that is being made a story by the likes of Megan Kellye. They did NOT drop the judgment against Samir.

Answer FarBeyondDriven's question, would it be OK to stand outside a polling place dressed in white hood and robe? Think it would be a a non-story? Think charges would have been dropped?

Answer FarBeyondDriven's question, would it be OK to stand outside a polling place dressed in white hood and robe? Think it would be a a non-story? Think charges would have been dropped?

 

I'd be curious to read the legal precedents on this. From what I've read its not consistent. Does a "hood" represent a threat of violence? Would it be considered a freedom of speech issue? Does the hood equate to the pipe?

I'd be curious to read the legal precedents on this. From what I've read its not consistent. Does a "hood" represent a threat of violence? Would it be considered a freedom of speech issue? Does the hood equate to the pipe?

I'd be willing to bet it would be considered intimidation. I just don't see that being dismissed, especially if there were any number of black voters at the polling place.

Answer FarBeyondDriven's question, would it be OK to stand outside a polling place dressed in white hood and robe? Think it would be a a non-story? Think charges would have been dropped?[/quote

 

Is a white man carrying a semi-automatic weapon to a public protest a non-story? I seem to recall that was a non-issue to many of you. THE CHARGES WERE NOT DROPPED ON SAMIR. THE CHARGES WERE NOT DROPPED ON SAMIR. THE CHARGES WERE NOT DROPPED ON SAMIR.

Kirsten Powers just became much more attractive to me:

 

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/13/megyn-kelly-flips-out/

I’m amazed Kelly remained as calm as she did. The fact she takes this nonsense on and calls it for what it is makes her more attractive to many.

 

Powers clearly had not read the testimony given before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights detailing the specifics of the case. She is paid to appear as an informed voice of dissent, offering a clear picture from the left side of the political spectrum. Her role is to provide a more complete understanding of the relevant facts. Nonetheless, she had nothing more informed to offer than her opinion based upon her feelings about the matter apart from all of the facts.

 

Kelly asked her if she had read the testimony and Powers replied, “I don’t have to…”

 

What?

 

What is it with liberals and not reading things they offer their opinions on?

 

Holder didn’t have to read the Arizona Immigration law to determine it was racist. A majority of Democrats in the House and Senate didn’t have to read the 2,000 page Health Care Bill to vote it into law so as Nancy Pelosi said, "We have to pass the Bill so that you can find out what is in it." And now, the lovely Kirsten Powers says she doesn’t have to read the actual testimony to determine a fair outcome???

 

Say what you will, but this speaks of a prevailing worldview… if not an outright agenda… that has nothing to do with actual facts or events… merely an allegiance to a party line that must succeed.

 

The fact that a school principal finds attractive the voicing of opinion without first reading the relevant facts is disturbing to me. The fact that officials in D.C. pass judgment on state laws without reading the laws they are judging is disturbing. The fact that politicians in D.C. pass bills into laws without ever reading the contents of the bill should be a crime in and of itself.

 

I was raised to believe that "Reading is Fundamental" I genuinely believe we would be better off if more of our public officials and media pundits felt the same way. :thumb:

I’m amazed Kelly remained as calm as she did. The fact she takes this nonsense on and calls it for what it is makes her more attractive to many.

 

Powers clearly had not read the testimony given before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights detailing the specifics of the case. She is paid to appear as an informed voice of dissent, offering a clear picture from the left side of the political spectrum. Her role is to provide a more complete understanding of the relevant facts. Nonetheless, she had nothing more informed to offer than her opinion based upon her feelings about the matter apart from all of the facts.

 

Kelly asked her if she had read the testimony and Powers replied, “I don’t have to…”

 

What?

 

What is it with liberals and not reading things they offer their opinions on?

 

Holder didn’t have to read the Arizona Immigration law to determine it was racist. A majority of Democrats in the House and Senate didn’t have to read the 2,000 page Health Care Bill to vote it into law so as Nancy Pelosi said, "We have to pass the Bill so that you can find out what is in it." And now, the lovely Kirsten Powers says she doesn’t have to read the actual testimony to determine a fair outcome???

 

Say what you will, but this speaks of a prevailing worldview… if not an outright agenda… that has nothing to do with actual facts or events… merely an allegiance to a party line that must succeed.

 

The fact that a school principal finds attractive the voicing of opinion without first reading the relevant facts is disturbing to me. The fact that officials in D.C. pass judgment on state laws without reading the laws they are judging is disturbing. The fact that politicians in D.C. pass bills into laws without ever reading the contents of the bill should be a crime in and of itself.

 

I was raised to believe that "Reading is Fundamental" I genuinely believe we would be better off if more of our public officials and media pundits felt the same way. :thumb:

 

WOW - I thought you guys would know your fox news pundits. Kirsten Powers is by no means a liberal and she is a regular CONSERVATIVE contributor to various FNews shows all of the time. So before you go casting those "liberal" stones you might want to make sure the YOU know what you are talking about. I thought I was being cute in saying that I thought a conservative pundit was attractive, apparently that irony was lost on you.

 

Kirsten knows the prevailing law. She called it like it was, she also knows that this 'whistle blower' was politcally appointed and is a conservative activists trying to stir crap that is not there.

WOW - I thought you guys would know your fox news pundits. Kirsten Powers is by no means a liberal and she is a regular CONSERVATIVE contributor to various FNews shows all of the time. So before you go casting those "liberal" stones you might want to make sure the YOU know what you are talking about. I thought I was being cute in saying that I thought a conservative pundit was attractive, apparently that irony was lost on you.

 

Kirsten knows the prevailing law. She called it like it was, she also knows that this 'whistle blower' was politcally appointed and is a conservative activists trying to stir crap that is not there.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Yeah... she's almost as conservative as Alan Colmes...

 

If you think Kirsten Powers is conservative, that tells me something about how far left you are.

 

Powers served in the Clinton administration as the Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Public Affairs. She worked for the New York State Democratic Committee, was the press secretary for Andrew Cuomo for Governor and was the press secretary for the Democratic National Committee (DNC)... yeah, she's just right of Genghis Khan.

 

Conservative, Liberal or genuinely Middle-of-the-Road... it is ridiculous to offer opinion on matters one does not read all the pertinent details.

 

As far as knowing the law, Kelly was a practicing attorney in New York City, Chicago and Washington, D.C., before pursuing a career in journalism. Powers atttended law school for a year and a half. You can see for yourself on Wikipedia.

 

Bottom line... if it was my bacon on the line, I'd prefer to have Kelly represent me over Powers. AND I think it's stupid to make laws without reading them, offer opinions without bothering to read the pertinent facts, and condemn a state for protecting its citizens without reading the law they passed. :thumb:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Yeah... she's almost as conservative as Alan Colmes...

 

If you think Kirsten Powers is conservative, that tells me something about how far left you are.

 

Powers served in the Clinton administration as the Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Public Affairs. She worked for the New York State Democratic Committee, was the press secretary for Andrew Cuomo for Governor and was the press secretary for the Democratic National Committee (DNC)... yeah, she's just right of Genghis Khan.

 

Conservative, Liberal or genuinely Middle-of-the-Road... it is ridiculous to offer opinion on matters one does not read all the pertinent details.

 

As far as knowing the law, Kelly was a practicing attorney in New York City, Chicago and Washington, D.C., before pursuing a career in journalism. Powers atttended law school for a year and a half. You can see for yourself on Wikipedia.

 

Bottom line... if it was my bacon on the line, I'd prefer to have Kelly represent me over Powers. AND I think it's stupid to make laws without reading them, offer opinions without bothering to read the pertinent facts, and condemn a state for protecting its citizens without reading the law they passed. :thumb:

 

juan williams was also once a liberal before being sucked over to the dark side.

 

Dick Morris also worked in the Clinton administration - is he too a liberal.

 

I was also very conservative prior to 1991 but thanks to the Grace of God I grew out of it.