Afghan POW Freed After Five Years

[GoIrish41]

Nothing is dire anymore as long as obama has his pen and a phone

In a couple of years Obama won't be around any more. He is just keeping the chair warm for Hillary, who will almost certainly win in 2016. If the GOP does win the Senate back they should make the most of it.

 

[GoIrish41]

I do if he was flaunting a baseball bat in front of them while doing so.

Would you be ok with a sidearm and a carry permit? Both are legal and should not be perceived as menacing.

 

[Booslum31]

I heard that of the five we traded...some of them were in leadership positions. I heard that the one we got back left his post with a compass and some water. I heard that the Taliban didn't take prisoners but let this guy live...for five years. I heard soldiers lost their lives trying to rescue him. Now it's established how America will respond future negotiations with terrorist. Obama's supporter will rationalize this in any way they can. Just like Hiliary supporters dont care how she responded when "she got the call in the middle of the night" Can't believe anyone is defending this guy. IMO Obama is an asshole and assholes do asshole things.

 

[connor_in]

In a couple of years Obama won't be around any more. He is just keeping the chair warm for Hillary, who will almost certainly win in 2016. If the GOP does win the Senate back they should make the most of it.

Question

Do you feel it's OK for people to bring up HRC's age/health as an issue of concern? I guess it hinges on how you felt about Reagan, Dole, McCain on the same issue. Reagan & Dole were the same age as she will be in election year 2016...McCain was about 3 years older.

 

[GoIrish41]

Question

Do you feel it's OK for people to bring up HRC's age/health as an issue of concern? I guess it hinges on how you felt about Reagan, Dole, McCain on the same issue. Reagan & Dole were the same age as she will be in election year 2016...McCain was about 3 years older.

All questions are fair game for a pres candidate IMO.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I didn't ask what they weren't doing, I asked what they were doing.

Again, what's the plausible reasoning for standing outside a voting precinct with baseball bats for a prolonged period of time? How is that not disenfranchising a potential voter, but requiring an identification is?


I tried to exclude race from the discussion in my previous comment, but yet you want to keep talking about black people. Newsflash-- black people are allowed not to vote for obama. Some even did not.

Once again, what is being discussed here isn't what happened. Wasn't in '12 all those were election volunteers, with a pre-assigned job. The incident was in 2008 :

The conduct for which members of the New Black Panther Party were accused of voter intimidation took place on Election Day in November 2008, at a polling station in a predominantly African-American, Democratic voting district of Philadelphia.[1] Two members of the New Black Panther party, Minister King Samir Shabazz, and Jerry Jackson, stood in front of the entrance to the polling station in uniforms that have been described as military or paramilitary.[2][3][4] Minister King Shabazz carried a billy club, and is reported to have pointed it at voters while both men shouted racial slurs,[5] including phrases such as "white devil" and "you're about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."[6]

The incident drew the attention of police, who around 10:00 am, sent King Samir away in part because of his billy club. Jackson was allowed to stay, in part because he was a certified poll watcher.[7] Stephen Robert Morse, a journalist and filmmaker, upon arriving at the scene, pulled out a Flip video camera and focused on Samir Shabazz. Morse turned over the video of the incident to ElectionJournal.org.[8] The incident gained national attention after being uploaded to YouTube.[2] No complaints were filed by voters about the incident, although poll watchers witnessed some voters approach the polls and then turn away, apparently in response to the New Black Panther Party members.[9]

I have a friend who is former SF, retired Sherriff Deputy, and a current county investigator. I will never forget what he said. It was one thing Obama being elected the first time. But being re-elected? He said. "Now I feel like I am really a part of America." There are a whole lot of African-Americans that had a whole lot of deep emotional involvement with the last two elections. Oh, I almost forgot to say it. This friend is African-American. He was the guy that bled for this country, but wasn't allowed off base for free liberty in the deep south.

 

[BobD]

Once again, what is being discussed here isn't what happened. Wasn't in '12 all those were election volunteers, with a pre-assigned job. The incident was in 2008 :



I have a friend who is former SF, retired Sherriff Deputy, and a current county investigator. I will never forget what he said. It was one thing Obama being elected the first time. But being re-elected? He said. "Now I feel like I am really a part of America." There are a whole lot of African-Americans that had a whole lot of deep emotional involvement with the last two elections. Oh, I almost forgot to say it. This friend is African-American. He was the guy that bled for this country, but wasn't allowed off base for free liberty in the deep south.

Imagine what women are gonna do in 2016.

 

[irishog77]

Would you be ok with a sidearm and a carry permit? Both are legal and should not be perceived as menacing.

As long as the person isn't flaunting his weapon, pacing or loitering outside the voting precinct for a prolonged period of time, yes.


See, I don't mind answering your questions. How about you actually answer mine.

 

[GoIrish41]

As long as the person isn't flaunting his weapon, pacing or loitering outside the voting precinct for a prolonged period of time, yes.


See, I don't mind answering your questions. How about you actually answer mine.

Having a baseball bat in your possession -- not illegal. Just like carrying a firearm with a carry permit is not illegal. I could make an argument that simply wearing a gun on your hip in public IS flaunting the weapon. Those who do this are certainly not trying to hide the fact that they have a weapon. On the other side of the coin, a baseball bat is a kids' toy. I've owned at least one of them since I've been four years old. I used to hook my glove onto it, sling it over my shoulder and walk down the public street every single day of the summer to go to the ball field, where others with bats gathered and hung out all day long. Are you suggesting that there should be a crack-down on such behavior? Should the cops made us disperse?

Hanging out in front of city hall or a public voting facility -- not illegal. In fact, where I vote (and everywhere I have ever voted) there are people who are there from the minute the polls open until they close, trying to sway voters to vote for their candidate and handing out pamphlets. I haven't seen you make any objection to these people since we began this conversation.

Look, I get that you feel like the guys hanging out in front of the polling stations, holding baseball bats was somehow meant to intimidate voters. Their stated intent was to make sure that no irregularities took place in which voters were harrassed. I'm not arguing that they were not trying to make a statement with their presence, but you seem to have no problem with the other groups who try to make a statement with their presence at the polling stations.

What questions have I not answered?

 

[irishog77]

On the other side of the coin, a baseball bat is a kids' toy. I've owned at least one of them since I've been four years old. I used to hook my glove onto it, sling it over my shoulder and walk down the public street every single day of the summer to go to the ball field, where others with bats gathered and hung out all day long.

The MEN holding the bats outside a voting precinct weren't boys, nor where they being used as "a kids' toy."

Are you suggesting that there should be a crack-down on such behavior? Should the cops made us disperse?

I haven't suggested anything. I'm trying to figure out what constitutes intimidating a voter in the liberal mindset. But this is a ridiculous analogy by you. What I'd probably want most from the cops is to figure out why a group of kids aren't in school and why they're roaming the streets on a Tuesday in November.

Hanging out in front of city hall or a public voting facility -- not illegal. In fact, where I vote (and everywhere I have ever voted) there are people who are there from the minute the polls open until they close, trying to sway voters to vote for their candidate and handing out pamphlets. I haven't seen you make any objection to these people since we began this conversation.

I've said on more than occasion if somebody is flaunting a weapon and loitering or pacing in front of a voting precinct on election day, I wouldn't want them there. If the people you mentioned above aren't brandishing a weapon nor requiring the voter to show an ID, then they're irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Their stated intent was to make sure that no irregularities took place in which voters were harrassed.

Yes, by flaunting weapons.

but you seem to have no problem with the other groups who try to make a statement with their presence at the polling stations.

Without weapons.

If it makes you feel better, I don't particularly like these people. It doesn't intimidate anybody I know from voting though.

Also, if it makes you feel better, I don't particularly like people knocking on my door, calling me, nor stoping me on the street to support their cause. But it's legal....and they aren't holding a weapon in their hand while doing so.

What questions have I not answered?

Post #178
Again, what's the plausible reasoning for standing outside a voting precinct with baseball bats for a prolonged period of time? How is that not disenfranchising a potential voter, but requiring an identification is?

Post #183
So "not breaking any law" is the standard for disenfranchising voters? Neither is requiring an identification to vote. But yet you don't like that one.

POST #185
My main point is that you are very anti-voter ID laws (which are legal), but backing these guys up. If you are against voter disenfranchisement, why are you not against all things that could persuade or prohibit a potential voter from voting?

 

[ab2cmiller]

Having a baseball bat in your possession -- not illegal. Just like carrying a firearm with a carry permit is not illegal. I could make an argument that simply wearing a gun on your hip in public IS flaunting the weapon. Those who do this are certainly not trying to hide the fact that they have a weapon. On the other side of the coin, a baseball bat is a kids' toy. I've owned at least one of them since I've been four years old. I used to hook my glove onto it, sling it over my shoulder and walk down the public street every single day of the summer to go to the ball field, where others with bats gathered and hung out all day long. Are you suggesting that there should be a crack-down on such behavior? Should the cops made us disperse?

Hanging out in front of city hall or a public voting facility -- not illegal. In fact, where I vote (and everywhere I have ever voted) there are people who are there from the minute the polls open until they close, trying to sway voters to vote for their candidate and handing out pamphlets. I haven't seen you make any objection to these people since we began this conversation.

Look, I get that you feel like the guys hanging out in front of the polling stations, holding baseball bats was somehow meant to intimidate voters. Their stated intent was to make sure that no irregularities took place in which voters were harrassed. I'm not arguing that they were not trying to make a statement with their presence, but you seem to have no problem with the other groups who try to make a statement with their presence at the polling stations.

What questions have I not answered?

Is there any Democrat/liberal action that you will not blindly try to justify?

 

[RDU Irish]

I didn't know Irishhog knew how to be serious about anything.

GoIrish quote "Their stated intent was to make sure that no irregularities took place in which voters were harrassed." If this stated intent is true, what other use for the bat can be contrived than to bash someone's head in if they don't like what they see? Are they not admitting to vigilantism? You think you are being coy and cute saying they are looking for a pick up game of baseball but really just come off as a zealot intent on obfuscating a debate in which you are having your rear end handed to you.

I find defensive positions against voter ID laws laughable and your defense of these thugs is even worse.

For the record, I think Brian31 sums up the actual thread topic perfectly.

 

[GoIrish41]

I didn't know Irishhog knew how to be serious about anything.

GoIrish quote "Their stated intent was to make sure that no irregularities took place in which voters were harrassed." If this stated intent is true, what other use for the bat can be contrived than to bash someone's head in if they don't like what they see? Are they not admitting to vigilantism? You think you are being coy and cute saying they are looking for a pick up game of baseball but really just come off as a zealot intent on obfuscating a debate in which you are having your rear end handed to you.

I find defensive positions against voter ID laws laughable and your defense of these thugs is even worse.

For the record, I think Brian31 sums up the actual thread topic perfectly.

I'm not defending anyone. I'm saying that if someone isn't breaking the law, we shouldn't question their motives. If they swung the bats at someone, different story. Arrest them, lock them up and throw away the key. They went from being law abiding citizens to law breakers.

When I lived in the south, I saw people every day walking around with guns on their hips. I didn't get to question why they needed a gun to go for a walk or into a grocery store like a bunch of people on here are doing about these black panther dudes. It was the law, and every time I've ever questioned the 2nd Amendment crowd on IE, I was told that it was their sacred right to carry a gun, even if it freaked everyone else out around them. The same isn't true of baseball bats? If not, why?

I've seen stories over the past couple of weeks about morons who decided to go into fast food joints armed to the teeth as a demonstration of their 2nd amendment rights. Forget that everyone in the place was terrified -- the gun weilding nuts' rights were more important than people eating lunch with their families and friends. If you don't want weapons outside of polling places, do like the restaurants did when the gun nuts came a callin'. Change the rules. Tell them they can't do it. Make it illegal. Nobody on the right will advocate that though. That represents a slippery sloap on which the government will set a precident on which they can systematically disarm ... first they came for my bat, then they came for my gun.

Until the law is changed, I'm about over all the hypocricy. How is this even newsworthy in a country where one southern state has just made it legal to carry guns into schools, public buildings, movie theaters and the like, and where days after Newtown people were talking about arming teachers. These guys held baseball bats and stood in a public place. They did nothing illegal -- nothing more than gun nuts do every day in this country. So, I don't want to hear from the right wing about how those scary black fellas were intimidating voters. This is the world they manufactured with all of their strained logic about the right to bear arms. In this instance, arms were baseball bats and since they didn't use them, everyone should just shut the fuck up about it. Mind your own business and stop questioning these law abiding baseball bat owners. The only difference between people walking the streets with handguns and carry permits and what happened in 2008 at a single polling place in Philadelphia is that these guys were black, and therefore thugs up to no good.

 

[Wild Bill]

I'm not defending anyone. I'm saying that if someone isn't breaking the law, we shouldn't question their motives. If they swung the bats at someone, different story. Arrest them, lock them up and throw away the key. They went from being law abiding citizens to law breakers.

When I lived in the south, I saw people every day walking around with guns on their hips. I didn't get to question why they needed a gun to go for a walk or into a grocery store like a bunch of people on here are doing about these black panther dudes. It was the law, and every time I've ever questioned the 2nd Amendment crowd on IE, I was told that it was their sacred right to carry a gun, even if it freaked everyone else out around them. The same isn't true of baseball bats? If not, why?

I've seen stories over the past couple of weeks about morons who decided to go into fast food joints armed to the teeth as a demonstration of their 2nd amendment rights. Forget that everyone in the place was terrified -- the gun weilding nuts' rights were more important than people eating lunch with their families and friends. If you don't want weapons outside of polling places, do like the restaurants did when the gun nuts came a callin'. Change the rules. Tell them they can't do it. Make it illegal. Nobody on the right will advocate that though. That represents a slippery sloap on which the government will set a precident on which they can systematically disarm ... first they came for my bat, then they came for my gun.

Until the law is changed, I'm about over all the hypocricy. How is this even newsworthy in a country where one southern state has just made it legal to carry guns into schools, public buildings, movie theaters and the like, and where days after Newtown people were talking about arming teachers. These guys held baseball bats and stood in a public place. They did nothing illegal -- nothing more than gun nuts do every day in this country. So, I don't want to hear from the right wing about how those scary black fellas were intimidating voters. This is the world they manufactured with all of their strained logic about the right to bear arms. In this instance, arms were baseball bats and since they didn't use them, everyone should just shut the fuck up about it. The only difference between people walking the streets with handguns and carry permits and what happened in 2008 at a single polling place in Philadelphia is that these guys were black, and therefore thugs up to no good.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. They did more than just held bats and stood in a public place.

John Fund: Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case Dropped - WSJ

One of them, they say, brandished a nightstick at the entrance and pointed it at voters and both made racial threats. Mr. Bull says he heard one yell "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker!"

In the first week of January, the Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring voters with the weapon, uniforms and racial slurs. In March, Mr. Bull submitted an affidavit at Justice's request to support its lawsuit.

When none of the defendants filed any response to the complaint or appeared in federal district court in Philadelphia to answer the suit, it appeared almost certain Justice would have prevailed by default. Instead, the department in May suddenly allowed the party and two of the three defendants to walk away. Against the third defendant, Minister King Samir Shabazz, it sought only an injunction barring him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling place for the next three years—action that's already illegal under existing law.

 

[GoIrish41]

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. They did more than just held bats and stood in a public place.

John Fund: Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case Dropped - WSJ

Oh facts. Are accusations facts? Nope. The Justice Department found insufficient evidence to prosecute the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation. That is a fact.

 

[condoms SUCk]

Now the White House says Hagel made final call on Bergdahl as criticism of Obama over prisoner swap mounts | Mail Online

I'm at a loss for words, this is getting to be down right disgusting/ laughable/pathetic.
The story had changes so many times now that I doubt we'll never know exactly what happened, who made the call and what was the true motivation behind it all.


How do people still defend this administration? I for one would imagine that it's getting rather taxing.

 

[condoms SUCk]

Has anyone been hearing about the VA scandal? Crickets

 

[ab2cmiller]

Oh facts. Are accusations facts? Nope. The Justice Department found insufficient evidence to prosecute the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation. That is a fact.

I'm assuming this is the same Justice Department that decides to selectively enforce (or in most cases not enforce) immigration laws. This justice department is charged with upholding the laws of this country, but continually ignores the laws on the books.

So forgive me if I don't put a lot of credence in your statement. It actually just makes me laugh.

We listen to you come up with excuse after excuse, you dismiss every reasonable argument. It is literally like talking to a brick wall. If there is a political thread on IE, I know you are here and you constantly spout your drivel. I usually ignore it, but you just go on and on. You are a blind loyalist and you defend Obama without question imploring us to take into account that he's trying to do the right thing. Please!!!!!!!!! SMH

 

[irishog77]

Now the White House says Hagel made final call on Bergdahl as criticism of Obama over prisoner swap mounts | Mail Online

I'm at a loss for words, this is getting to be down right disgusting/ laughable/pathetic.
The story had changes so many times now that I doubt we'll never know exactly what happened, who made the call and what was the true motivation behind it all.


How do people still defend this administration? I for one would imagine that it's getting rather taxing.

I like also that obama couldn't go to congress, and risked breaking the law, because he had to keep this exchange a secret, yet 70-80 people in the pentagon knew this was in the works.

Meanwhile, congressman Boehner and multiple other congressmen were given multiple briefs about that guy whose name we can't write on here. Yeah, the single biggest CIA/special forces operation in decades (perhaps in the history of our country) and obama has every swinging dick in there for briefings, but bowe bergdahl is too big of a secret to risk telling ANYBODY in congress.

 

[Wild Bill]

Oh facts. Are accusations facts? Nope. The Justice Department found insufficient evidence to prosecute the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation. That is a fact.

It was more than a mere allegation. The DOJ had affidavits that made it clear these men were doing more than just standing around. They chose to ignore them, for the most part. They did, however, secure an injunction preventing one of these morons from brandishing a weapon at a polling booth. I don't think it's reasonable to assume they sought relief to prevent him from playing baseball games at the polls going forward.

 

[GoIrish41]

It was more than a mere allegation. The DOJ had affidavits that made it clear these men were doing more than just standing around. They chose to ignore them, for the most part. They did, however, secure an injunction preventing one of these morons from brandishing a weapon at a polling booth. I don't think it's reasonable to assume they sought relief to prevent him from playing baseball games at the polls going forward.

an affidavit is nothing more than a statement of someone's account ... these were the accusations. Where is the proof? They accusations were not enough to convict anyone of a crime. I can accuse anybody of anything. It would be easier if I didn't like them or were offended by the way they looked. That's all that happened here. And, yes, they managed to get an injunction to prevent a guy from having a weapon within 100 feet of a polling station ... probably should have been a law anyway. Point is, nobody was convicted of a crime because it appears there was not enough evidence to get a conviction. You might know it in the fiber of your being that these guys were up to no good, and you may be 100% correct. Lucky for all of us that your gut feeling is not what the law is based upon.

 

[GoIrish41]

I'm assuming this is the same Justice Department that decides to selectively enforce (or in most cases not enforce) immigration laws. This justice department is charged with upholding the laws of this country, but continually ignores the laws on the books.

So forgive me if I don't put a lot of credence in your statement. It actually just makes me laugh.

We listen to you come up with excuse after excuse, you dismiss every reasonable argument. It is literally like talking to a brick wall. If there is a political thread on IE, I know you are here and you constantly spout your drivel. I usually ignore it, but you just go on and on. You are a blind loyalist and you defend Obama without question imploring us to take into account that he's trying to do the right thing. Please!!!!!!!!! SMH

Oh, the personal attack. Wonderful. If you don't want to read my posts, don't read them. It is really that simple.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Oh facts. Are accusations facts? Nope. The Justice Department found insufficient evidence to prosecute the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation. That is a fact.

lol you are cracking me up this week. blind loyalty hits the nail on the head. as for the guys at the polling place, go on youtube and find the vids if you don't believe the accusations.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I printed a pretty good article about what happened. And I read multiple sources about it. What some of you guys are talking about isn't what any of the reports say happened.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Oh, the personal attack. Wonderful. If you don't want to read my posts, don't read them. It is really that simple.

miller's point on the Justice Dept and immigration laws weren't a personal attack. look at what's happened on our southern border just in the past month.

 

[Wild Bill]

an affidavit is nothing more than a statement of someone's account ... these were the accusations. Where is the proof?

Not quite. An affiant is swearing under oath that the contents of the affidavit are true. They are doing so under the penalty of perjury. Depending on the jurisdiction, one could serve jail time for lying under oath. A person making a simple statement or accusation risks nothing. Bartle Bull voluntarily signed the affidavit. He's an attorney and was fully aware of the consequences of lying - he'd lose his license to practice law, credibility and perhaps face jail time. Why would he lie, given he had absolutely nothing to gain? That, coupled with the fact that nobody rebutted his affidavit (it was simply ignored) and the video corroborating some of his statements lead me to believe he's being honest.

They accusations were not enough to convict anyone of a crime. I can accuse anybody of anything. It would be easier if I didn't like them or were offended by the way they looked.That's all that happened here. And, yes, they managed to get an injunction to prevent a guy from having a weapon within 100 feet of a polling station ... probably should have been a law anyway.

So, it was a weapon, not a toy like you suggested earlier? It is a law. That's how inept and inefficient the DOJ has become. They get orders to make illegal something that is illegal.

Point is, nobody was convicted of a crime because it appears there was not enough evidence to get a conviction. You might know it in the fiber of your being that these guys were up to no good, and you may be 100% correct. Lucky for all of us that your gut feeling is not what the law is based upon.

The trial team that filed the suit disagrees. They believed they had enough evidence and wanted to pursue the case. Their appellate lawyers agreed and wrote memos expressing their support. The DOJ, for political reasons, ordered them to dismiss the case and issued a meaningless injunction.

This has nothing to do with my gut or my feelings. This is about examining the evidence, i.e., unrebutted affidavits, the video of the panthers at the polls, the DOJ dismissing even though attorneys believed they should pursue, and having the moral courage to condemn their actions. I don't need a criminal conviction to do it.

 

[MJ12666]

If you are discussing the 2008 incident in Philadelphia, I believe the individuals in question were actually found guilty but were not yet sentence before Holder was sworn in a AG. When he became AG he dropped the case. I could be wrong but I believe that is what happened.

 

[GoIrish41]

miller's point on the Justice Dept and immigration laws weren't a personal attack. look at what's happened on our southern border just in the past month.

I think it was clear that me spouting my drivel was meant to be taken personally. Lol

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I think it was clear that me spouting my drivel was meant to be taken personally. Lol

Still dodging this admin and illegal immigration. Wanna go on a trip to the southern border and check out what's happening? I doubt CNN and MSLSD are covering it.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

EDITORIAL: Children's surge of illegals overwhelms southwest border - Washington Times