not at all, I'm just pointing out the flawed comparison. 

 

Where is the flaw?

---

Where is the flaw?

 

He's comparing the Black Panther holding a base ball bat in Philly to poll watchers in other districts.

 

1.) Those poll watchers are not allowed to be armed

2.) Those poll watchers are not allowed to disperse any political propaganda

3.) Those poll watchers are not allowed intimidate turn out in an way.

 

I know you're driving an agenda but you even have to admit comparing the black panther push in philly wasn't the same as poll watchers that are common at polling stations. 

---

He's comparing the Black Panther holding a base ball bat in Philly to poll watchers in other districts.

 

1.) Those poll watchers are not allowed to be armed

2.) Those poll watchers are not allowed to disperse any political propaganda

3.) Those poll watchers are not allowed intimidate turn out in an way.

 

I know you're driving an agenda but you even have to admit comparing the black panther push in philly wasn't the same as poll watchers that are common at polling stations. 

 

Sorry, maybe you could go ahead and link the federal laws that legitimize your claim.

 

As for what's allowed and what actually happens, they're far different. The big difference is that white people have had the law on their side so they didn't need to bring anything with them, they could just call the police in.

 

William Rehnquist, for example, was once an Arizona poll watcher, his job was (essentially) making sure that minorities were intimidated away from voting. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/weekin....html?_r=0

---

It's racist if, as a race they feel disenfranchised by the GOP? Should they just vote for a party they feel do not have their interests in mind. The current version of the GOP is and has been viewed as the party of and for old white men. For better or worse, true or false, that is how it is perceived. That makes them racist?

What you said would be true if they supported all democrats running with a 98% or similar rate.  They however have not, they only supported Obama with a 98% rate.  Even recent polls despite Obama's terrible Presidency show over 90% approval by the black community.


You cannot truthfully look at the numbers and say race did not come into play, if you do your lying to yourself.



As a side note it make me truly sad the way our nation has become, we are more partisan now then ever and there is little hope of that changing.  I don't like Obama's policys (not that they are his but those of the left in general), but he is still our President and I would take a bullet to protect him.  The title demands respect even when the man filling the shoes may not have been the best choice.

---

It's racist if, as a race they feel disenfranchised by the GOP? Should they just vote for a party they feel do not have their interests in mind. The current version of the GOP is and has been viewed as the party of and for old white men. For better or worse, true or false, that is how it is perceived. That makes them racist?

 

Well did 98+ whatever percent of black people also vote for Clinton, then?....

 

Look at the mayoral races of almost all major urban markets.... 

 

I'd have the same issue for white people that voted for a candidate strictly on color (if there was a choice between a white candidate or black candidate) , or if a any race of people voted that blindly/ unanimously for a candidate just because he was their own race. 

 

Its supposed to be voting for the best candidate based on resume, not color. 

---

It is.  

 

While I'm beyond confident that it's basically impossible for one candidate to get 19,605 votes with the other getting 0 votes,  in a place like Philadelphia,   the intimidation of the Democrat Party does suppress the Republican vote in certain voting districts.

 

Theres no way (without voter fraud) that you are going to get a ratio like that.....even in a predominantly democratic city in an election that featured a black man. 

 

Not shocking to see the libs actually try and argue vs your point though,  

---

Sorry, maybe you could go ahead and link the federal laws that legitimize your claim.

 

As for what's allowed and what actually happens, they're far different. The big difference is that white people have had the law on their side so they didn't need to bring anything with them, they could just call the police in.

 

William Rehnquist, for example, was once an Arizona poll watcher, his job was (essentially) making sure that minorities were intimidated away from voting. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/weekin....html?_r=0

 

You need me to link laws that you're not allowed to be armed, distribute propaganda or intimidate votes at a voting precinct? Are you serious? 

---

Is it not possible for white "poll watchers" to intimidate black voters without the use of a gun? For the record, I am not a fan of people just walking around with guns unless they are officers or hunters on the way to or from the woods.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Is it not possible for white "poll watchers" to intimidate black voters without the use of a gun? For the record, I am not a fan of people just walking around with guns unless they are officers or hunters on the way to or from the woods.

 

I'm sure it is and I would stand against a white poll watcher intimidating someone as well. What your trying to do however is justify what happened in philly and it's not justifiable. 

---

I'm sure it is and I would stand against a white poll watcher intimidating someone as well. What your trying to do however is justify what happened in philly and it's not justifiable. 

 

Its what they do

---

I'm sure it is and I would stand against a white poll watcher intimidating someone as well. What your trying to do however is justify what happened in philly and it's not justifiable. 

 

Well I'm not trying to justify anything, more using a tongue in cheek bit of humor about the situation.

 

If it were a white guy holding the gun I doubt there would be much uproar over it.

 

Like I said, though, the biggest difference is that black people have experienced intimidation without the need for guns thanks to the social situation we all live in.

---

To be truthful I didn't see guns at first on my tiny phone screen. No TMD. I don't justify it.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

What you said would be true if they supported all democrats running with a 98% or similar rate.  They however have not, they only supported Obama with a 98% rate.  Even recent polls despite Obama's terrible Presidency show over 90% approval by the black community.


You cannot truthfully look at the numbers and say race did not come into play, if you do your lying to yourself.


As a side note it make me truly sad the way our nation has become, we are more partisan now then ever and there is little hope of that changing.  I don't like Obama's policys (not that they are his but those of the left in general), but he is still our President and I would take a bullet to protect him.  The title demands respect even when the man filling the shoes may not have been the best choice.

This is the most patriotic thing i've read in the entire forum so far. 

---

Well did 98+ whatever percent of black people also vote for Clinton, then?....

 

Look at the mayoral races of almost all major urban markets.... 

 

I'd have the same issue for white people that voted for a candidate strictly on color (if there was a choice between a white candidate or black candidate) , or if a any race of people voted that blindly/ unanimously for a candidate just because he was their own race. 

 

Its supposed to be voting for the best candidate based on resume, not color. 

I get what you are saying. You think Romney was the better candidate on resume and not color. The black community overwhelmingly disagreed with you. I'm sure a portion voted for him for that exact reason. You seem to be underestimating how much the GOP has disenfranchised the black communities. They are overwhelmingly democratic and it's not even close. This has been the case before Obama's first campaign. 

---

 

 

I don't like Obama's policys (not that they are his but those of the left in general), but he is still our President and I would take a bullet to protect him.  The title demands respect even when the man filling the shoes may not have been the best choice.

 

 

This is the most patriotic thing i've read in the entire forum so far. 

 

maybe so...but probably foolish too, because I doubt the president would do the same for him. (not condoning ANY violence btw) just making a point. Obama is a narcissist and cares about himself and thats it. He wouldn't sustain a paper cut, to protect the average American. 

---

  Regarding what you mentioned regarding Ted Cruz or Rand Paul,   the same thing was said by many about Ronald Reagan.  

 

  Hillary has a multitude of baggage.   The key is let the potential voters know about the baggage.   Those two candidates  ( Cruz and Paul ) would almost certainly be more aggressive than the last two Republican Presidential candidates.     Being that the Democrats are going to continue to be aggressive and do what it takes to win elections,   the Republicans have to counter them.   Positive messages  ( what the candidate is planning on doing if elected  and his/ her own background ) certainly is needed as a major part of the campaign.   But playing defensively and not bring up the opposing candidates history and associations is a recipe for defeat.  

 

 

Don't stop believin'

 

At least the Democrats hope you don't.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Let's see your moderate Bush was a disaster in every level, McCain stood no chance and Romney couldn't make enough of a contrast between him and Obama to make a difference. Yea you neocons running the GOP with your big government lighter version of the Democratic Party are doing so well.


You want to crack on libertarians while following Karl rove off the fiscal cliff. Joe Scarborough would be proud Adam........


Neocons disgust me more than liberals, at least liberals stand somewhere you neocons are all over the place.


You want to blame someone for Obama, take a look in the mirror your kind running watered down democrats as GOP candidates is why your party is practically dead.

 

Political purity is intoxicating I'm sure. Doesn't get you into a position where you can actually get anything done, but I bet the high is terrific.

 

I've been reading from the the politically anointed on the right since Goldwater that if we just move more to the right we'd start winning. Well, just a little more to the right.

 

And now you've got whom? Rand Paul (who is much more preferable that Ted Cruz, King of the Yahoos)? Good luck with that.

 

I'm sorry - but to me you come across as much more concerned about being "right" than winning. 

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Political purity is intoxicating I'm sure. Doesn't get you into a position where you can actually get anything done, but I bet the high is terrific.

 

I've been reading from the the politically anointed on the right since Goldwater that if we just move more to the right we'd start winning. Well, just a little more to the right.

 

And now you've got whom? Rand Paul (who is much more preferable that Ted Cruz, King of the Yahoos)? Good luck with that.

 

I'm sorry - but to me you come across as much more concerned about being "right" than winning. 

 

I hear this from you establishment Neo-Cons all day.

 

Bush SR (Moderate) - lost to Clinton 

Dole (Moderate) - lost to Clinton 

Bush JR (Moderate) - wins two elections but practically destroys the economy and put republicans at a disadvantage for nearly a decade after

McCain (Moderate) - Lost to Obama 

Romney (Moderate) - Lost to Obama

 

So your whole let's be Moderates won 2 out of 6 elections, that's a winning strategy bubba, keep on swinging! 

---

I hear this from you establishment Neo-Cons all day.

 

Bush SR (Moderate) - lost to Clinton 

Dole (Moderate) - lost to Clinton 

Bush JR (Moderate) - wins two elections but practically destroys the economy and put republicans at a disadvantage for nearly a decade after

McCain (Moderate) - Lost to Obama 

Romney (Moderate) - Lost to Obama

 

So your whole let's be Moderates won 2 out of 6 elections, that's a winning strategy bubba, keep on swinging! 

 

And I hear silliness from yahoo right-wing live in a bunker types all day. What's your point?

 

You don't want to win, do you? You're in a political box. Perhaps you like that box, where it's warm and comfortable. You can't support anyone with a chance to win because a) they need a whole lot of money to win, and they need to have a modicum of charisma.

 

If they get a lot of money your purity meter goes off and you're required to say they are merely a puppet of "them" and you can no longer support them. 

 

So you're safe, you don't have to worry about your guy having to implement a policy and take a chance of being criticized. Anybody can make a speech in the House or Senate.

 

Perhaps you and TMD can run together. He'll run around yelling Liberal! Liberal! and you'll run around yelling neo-con! neo-con!

 

And by the way - who's pulling Rand Paul's strings?

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

And I hear silliness from yahoo right-wing live in a bunker types all day. What's your point?


You don't want to win, do you? You're in a political box. Perhaps you like that box, where it's warm and comfortable. You can't support anyone with a chance to win because a) they need a whole lot of money to win, and they need to have a modicum of charisma.


If they get a lot of money your purity meter goes off and you're required to say they are merely a puppet of "them" and you can no longer support them.


So you're safe, you don't have to worry about your guy having to implement a policy and take a chance of being criticized. Anybody can make a speech in the House or Senate.


Perhaps you and TMD can run together. He'll run around yelling Liberal! Liberal! and you'll run around yelling neo-con! neo-con!


And by the way - who's pulling Rand Paul's strings?

First off I'm libertarian so I don't know where your getting far right from. As for supporting people with money that can win versus candidates that take a real stand it worked out so well the last two times huh?


The GOP nominated Romney because he could win ignoring the fact him and Obama where mirror images on nearly every issue. The precious GOP loses because they're just a watered down version of the democrats in the end it's all big government.


I've supported plenty of candidates that have one, Ron Desantis for one and on most issues I've been proud to have him as my former rep.


There's a real chance Rand Paul or Ted Cruz could win the nomination, I know it just burns you msnbc republicans but the reality is either the GOP moves back right and becomes a contrast to the democrats or it will become irrelevant just like it has been for the past decade.

---