@plainoldme,
Of course, c.i., being an independent does not preclude being a liberal nor does it preclude being a conservative. One can still lean . . . either to the left or to the right . . . and still be an independent.
@Walter Hinteler,
has okie been talking about the federal government playing a role in education or not playing a role?
Actually, the federal government has had little to do with education. That has been the bailiwick of state and city governments.
Most of the things that made education less than it should be is due to a response by frustrated teachers to the absurdities perpetrated by stupid parents.
@okie,
Quote: maybe they are more informed than you are on the subject? Maybe you need to read their opinions more seriously to see if their points are valid? You seem to be so interested in our politics here, so maybe you need to be more balance in your information?
Walter is your intellectual superior. Is that why you are so nasty to him?
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
Police and fire protection is not a federal function.
As a liberal, you are at least brighter than a few of your fellow libs, pom, including Bill Clinton, if you actually believe what you wrote. Remember when Clinton did the program to add 100,000 new policemen, which I said then was only a fox in the henhouse maneuver. Of course all the libs were defending the man as the greatest thing since FDR or something like that, which is all too predictable.
A bit of news for you, neither is our personal health care a federal function, pom.
http://www.slate.com/id/2058553/
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
I don't "manufacture" anything. You must prove I "manufactured" something that isn't true. You are the king of imagination when it comes to "manufacture" of opinions. The proof is in the pudding; many question where and how you arrived at your opinion. You have NEVER provided credible evidence.
You have manufactured all kinds of accusations that you cannot back up at all, ci. You just tried to manufacture the idea that I contradicted myself, which I dispelled. When you make accusations, you need to be able to back them up. You are calling in the above for evidence to back my opinions. Yet, you accuse constantly without one iota of evidence.
My opinions of Obama for example are all rooted in evidence that requires subjective judgements. You may not agree with them, or you may have the same evidence and come to a different conclusion. I cannot help that, ci, I can only use logic to come to my conclusions. You may use other things, such as emotion or something else. For example, I believe the fact that Obama has attempted to appoint several Marxists to positions in his administration, I believe that means something about what Obama believes as well, which I do not think are positive signs for the kind of leader that we have, while you can choose to believe that it does not mean anything at all. You can also choose to believe Obama's admiration for Jeremiah Wright means nothing at all, but I happen to think that it does. Conversely, I believe if Bush's religious mentor had been as controversial, it would have been interpreted far differently by the liberal press and by folks like you, even though you claim to be an independent.
We make judgements all the time. At the beginning of World War II, there were those that believed Hitler was dangerous and should not be trusted. Others thought he could be dealt with and be trusted to a certain point. Nobody had absolute proof, but everyone had the evidence with which to make their subjective judgements. Everyone does that all the time with all politicians. Some of us turn out to be right, while others do not. Opinions are opinions, and they are as varied as people are.
@okie,
Quote:For example, I believe the fact that Obama has attempted to appoint several Marxists to positions in his administration
But it isn't a fact that Obama attempted to appoint several Marxists. It is a fact he has appointed people. You are of the opinion some of them are marxists. That does not make it a fact that he tried to appoint marxists. That makes it your opinion that he tried to appoint marxists.
And yet you said it was a fact, okie. You seem to think your opinion is fact. Then you argue that the rest of us are stupid because we don't believe your 'facts' when it is really nothing more than your opinion.
@parados,
Quote:That's interesting okie that you think a dictatorship that stops all elections isn't really a total negative. Tell us what is positive about it.
But you haven't told us this okie...
If your argument is logical then you should be able to provide the positives for a dictatorship in the US.
"Everyone, certainly, must form his judgment on the evidence accessible to himself." --Thomas Jefferson -- Now use that remote control to turn off ABC, CBS, NBC, & MSNBC.
Judicial Watch Exposes Obama Gang’s Black Panther Misinformation — Scandal “Roars Back to Life”
Obama administration officials repeatedly denied that politics had anything to do with its Justice Department’s (DOJ) decision to abandon its lawsuit against the Black Panthers, a “civil rights” group that brandished weapons, blocked a polling station and hurled racial insults at voters on Election Day 2008. In fact, at least one Justice Department official swore to it under oath.
But according to evidence uncovered by Judicial Watch this week, this is yet another Obama administration falsehood.
On September 21, we released a draft Vaughn index prepared by the DOJ that shows that the two top political appointees at the DOJ were involved in the decision to dismiss the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense (NBPP).
The index, which we acquired pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, describes documents the government is withholding from the public. Among those documents are internal DOJ emails regarding the Black Panther case between the highest political appointees inside the DOJ, including former Deputy Attorney General David Ogden and the Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, the second and third ranking officials at the DOJ.
Here’s one example: A May 10, 2009, email from Associate Attorney General Perrelli to Deputy Associate Attorney General and former Democratic election lawyer Sam Hirsh. “Where are we on the Black Panther case?” Perrelli asks in the subject header. The email also includes Deputy Attorney General Ogden’s “current thoughts on the case.”
Does this sound like Perrelli and Ogden were on the outside looking in at the Black Panther decision? Not a chance. But wait, there’s more.
Another email, from former Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King, dated May 12, 2009, was distributed to Attorney General Eric Holder through Odgen and Perrelli. Entitled, “Weekly Report for the Week ending May 8, 2009,” the email “Identifies matters deemed significant and highlights issues for the senior offices, including an update on a planned course of action in the NBPP (New Black Panther Party) litigation.”
Now, as I mentioned, the evidence uncovered by Judicial Watch directly contradicts the sworn testimony of a top Obama White House official.
Attorney General Thomas Perez testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on May 14, 2010. The Commission, an independent, bipartisan unit of the federal government charged with investigating and reporting on civil rights issues, initiated a probe of the DOJ’s decision to drop its lawsuit. During the hearing, Perez was asked directly regarding the involvement of political leaders in the decision to dismiss the Black Panther case. And here’s the exchange:
COMMISSIONER KIRSANOW: Was there any political leadership involved in the decision not to pursue this particular case any further than it was?
ASST. ATTY. GEN. PEREZ: No. The decisions were made by Loretta King in consultation with Steve Rosenbaum, who is the Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General.
Perez also suggested that the dispute was merely “a case of career people disagreeing with career people.”
Well now we know this is false. And we have the evidence to prove it.
CORRUPTION CHRONICLES
• Language Barrier Saves Jesse Jackson Jr.
• State Dept. IG Reveals How U.S. Let Terrorist Sheik In
• U.S. Pays $50 Mil To Replace Stoves In Poor Countries
• Marijuana Farmers Join Teamsters
• Senators Ask Napolitano To Explain Backdoor Amnesty Plan
• Corruption Scandal Wipes Out City's Government
• Court Okays Longer Sentence For Illegal Immigrants
• HUD IG Exposes More ACORN Fraud
Overall, the index describes 122 documents (totaling at least 611 pages) that the Obama DOJ is withholding from the public in their entirety. A federal court hearing in the matter is scheduled on October 5, 2010, in Washington, DC, before U.S. District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton. We plan to ask the Court to require the Obama DOJ to release these (and other) secret documents about this scandal and its cover-up.
But we’re not stopping there.
In a separate but related matter, Judicial Watch also filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit this week against the DOJ to obtain records related to meetings between Perrelli and White House officials regarding the Black Panther decision.
Here’s what we’re after: “Any and all records of Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli concerning meetings with the White House on the Justice Department’s voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party. The time frame for this request is from January 20, 2009, to June 15, 2009.”
On March 26, 2010, the DOJ informed Judicial Watch that it had conducted a search for documents, and found “no records responsive to [JW’s] request.”
But we found this extremely difficult to believe. After all, a number of press outlets have reported at least nine meetings between Perrelli and White House officials between March 25 and May 27, 2009, regarding the Black Panther case. So we got tired of the run-around and sued.
Why should anyone believe the DOJ’s story regarding Perrelli’s meetings? We now know DOJ officials falsely stated that no political appointees were involved in the Black Panther decision. We know the DOJ continues to withhold hundreds of pages of records that could shed light on this scandal. And we know multiple press reports came to the same conclusion: Perrelli met with the White House specifically on the Black Panther matter. And the DOJ cannot find a single record related to these meetings?
Our good work has garnered tremendous attention, including coverage in The Washington Examiner, Investors Business Daily, and The Washington Times (The Times editorial is entitled, “Black Panther case roars back to life.”) I’m also scheduled to appear on Fox News this weekend. (I’ll send you details in a separate email.)
We’ve done three news releases on this issue alone this week so developments are breaking fast. For instance, I just returned from attending a hearing of U.S. Commission on Civil Rights during which there was much explosive discussion and testimony regarding not only our work but generally corrupt policies at the Obama/Holder DOJ. I’ll have more for you on that next week.
@ican711nm,
There is one small problem ican.
Quote:# The Bush administration’s Justice Department — not the Obama administration — made the decision not to pursue criminal charges against members of the New Black Panther Party for alleged voter intimidation at a polling center in Philadelphia in 2008;
@ican711nm,
Why would you want people to turn off right wing media sources, Ican?
@okie,
Quote:
My opinions of Obama for example are all rooted in evidence that requires subjective judgements
No evidence "requires subjective judgments."
@parados,
Quote:
But it isn't a fact that Obama attempted to appoint several Marxists
Larry Summers would be surprised and upset to learn that he is considered a Marxist. The left was disappointed in the centrist to right-leaning bush and Clinton administration retreads that Obama appointed.
@ican711nm,
Quote:"Everyone, certainly, must form his judgment on the evidence accessible to himself." --Thomas Jefferson -- Now use that remote control to turn off ABC, CBS, NBC, & MSNBC.
But we can still be brainwashed by Fox. Go reread Nineteen Eighty-Four.
@parados,
The
Obama administration’s Justice Department — not the
Bush administration’s Justice Department — made the
LATEST decision
THIS YEAR not to pursue criminal charges against members of the New Black Panther Party for alleged voter intimidation at a polling center in Philadelphia in 2008.
By the way, Bush has not been president since January 20, 2009!
@ican711nm,
Quote:
By the way, Bush has not been president since January 20, 2009!
Ding! Ding! The Witch is Dead!
Oh, sorry, that is the song that we sang the night Nixon resigned!
@JTT,
Why do you think I would want people to turn off right wing media sources, JTT?
Do you really believe ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC are really right wing media sources?
………………~~~~~~~!??!??! ~~~~~~
……….....~~~~~~~~(O|O) ~~~~
…………………~~~~~ ( \~o~/ ) ~~~~
………………............HUH?
@ican711nm,
The US media is pretty much just one big government propaganda source, Ican.
@JTT,
I would say that is largely true of the "mainstream media", but probably not of the universally despised Fox News.
@parados,
Except it was the Obama Justice Dept that decided not to charge anyone, and they got called on it by The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, way back in August of 2009.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/07/civil-rights-panel-to-push-for-panthers-explanatio/
Quote:The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is expected to approve Friday the sending of a second letter to the Justice Department, asking it to justify its decision in May to drop charges against members of the New Black Panther Party accused of intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place in the November election.
Martin Dannenfelser, staff director, said a majority of the commissioners were not satisfied with a response by the department to a June 16 letter, in which the commission said the decision to drop the case had caused it "great confusion" since the NBPP members were "caught on video blocking access to the polls, and physically threatening and verbally harassing voters."
That letter said that even after a federal judge ruled that the department had won the case since the NBPP members failed to appear it court, it "took the unusual move of voluntarily dismissing the charges," which, it said, sent "the wrong message entirely - that attempts at voter suppression will be tolerated and will not be vigorously prosecuted so long as the groups or individuals who engage in them fail to respond to the charges."
snip
Quote:In January, career lawyers at Justice filed a civil complaint in Philadelphia against the New Black Panther Party, but four months later, Justice officials dropped the charges after Ms. King, in her acting role as a political appointee, met with Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, the department's No. 3 political appointee.
That would be January of 2009, btw.
