“High-level” political officials interfered in NBPP case, forced withdrawal

posted at 10:32 am on October 29, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

The US Civil Rights Commission has concluded in an extensive report that the strange decision to dismiss a case the Department of Justice had won by default against a New Black Panther Party activist for voter intimidation came after the involvement of political appointees.  Furthermore, and most embarrassing, the 131-page report accuses the Department of Justice of attempting to cover up that involvement, and that the cover-up came from “high-level” officials in the DoJ.  The USCRC concludes that the Civil Rights Division is “at war with its core mission”:

The Justice Department has tried to hide the involvement of high-level political officials in the dismissal of a controversial voter-intimidation lawsuit against members of the New Black Panther Party, a federal commission concluded in a draft report.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights said the department’s reversal in the case, which drew criticism from conservatives, indicates that its Civil Rights Division is failing to protect white voters and is “at war with its core mission of guaranteeing equal protection of the laws for all Americans.” …

The commission’s draft report said the department’s “repeated attempts to obscure” the involvement of political appointees in the dismissal “raise questions about what the Department is trying to hide. ”

The report accuses the Justice Department of stonewalling the commission’s investigation and of failing to turn over key documents and make witnesses available. Schmaler disputed that, saying the department provided more than 4,000 pages of documents.

The news comes at a particularly and obviously bad time for the White House.  One of the more secondary messages this election cycle from Democrats was a claim that a new Republican majority in the House would do nothing but conduct vendettas against the Obama administration.  Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) would become the chair of the Oversight Committee and already has this case on his radar.  This report strongly suggests that Congress needs to start demanding accountability from the executive branch, and that Democrats have utterly failed in their constitutional duty to provide it.

It also poses a conundrum for all of those who screamed about the politicization of the Department of Justice during the Bush administration.  The claims centered on the requests for resignations of political appointees in order to emphasize a focus on vote fraud, which critics charged was an abuse of power — even though political appointees serve at the pleasure of the President at all times, with the exception of the judiciary.  Now we have solid evidence of not just politicization of prosecution decisions, but a political cover-up as well.  Will we get the same level of demands for inquiries now?

And I’m not just talking about elected officials, either.  Will the media give this the kind of coverage that a political cover-up deserves?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

You’re ignoring me like a stalker.

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 1:23 PM

Another terrific, substantive post by massrighty. No wonder he has such a first-rate reputation here.

; )

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 1:26 PM

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 1:20 PM

Yes, and you’ve responded with emoticons.
Substantive, indeed.

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 1:28 PM

You’re still attacking me, and calling names.

cry me a river.

for one last time: being the sole source doesn’t take away her credibility. ffs, she’s a conservative with impeccable credentials. the 8-member commission includes four republicans and two conservatives recently registered as republicans but masquerading as independents. all of those who have recently come forward to accuse holder are former DOJ officials appointed by bush in a process that government reports criticized as improperly politicized. the whole story is a manufactured outrage over an inconsequential voting rights case that’s milked by the conservative media.

in any case, i’ll take my brave defender’s advice from now on.

sesquipedalian on October 29, 2010 at 1:31 PM

sesquipedalian on October 29, 2010 at 1:05 PM

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 1:08 PM

So have you two set a wedding date yet? I’ll do the catering.

As to the “politicization” of the CRC, you folks on the Left had absolutely no problem when the CRC was truly politicized 10 years ago. Or have you already forgotten the infamous Mary Frances Berry? She actually chaired that Commission, and was an embarrassment to America. She actually sued to prevent one of Chimpy Bush’s appointees from sitting on said Commission. And of course before that, she injected racism into the CRC during the aftermath of the 2000 Florida election.

BTW, Berry is still embarrassing herself-she recently admitted calling tea party members “racists”.

Del Dolemonte on October 29, 2010 at 1:38 PM

the 8-member commission includes four republicans and two conservatives recently registered as republicans but masquerading as independents.

sesquipedalian on October 29, 2010 at 1:31 PM

That’s simply your personal opinion. Not a fact.

Del Dolemonte on October 29, 2010 at 1:39 PM

sesquipedalian on October 29, 2010 at 1:31 PM

Okay, I’ll give this one more shot:

being the sole source doesn’t take away her credibility.

Actually, yes it does. If only one person offers an opinion, it’s reasonable to question the validity of their position.

the whole story is a manufactured outrage over an inconsequential voting rights case that’s milked by the conservative media.

Except that there was voter intimidation (seen on video;) and that the case was dismissed; and that it would appear, from the testimony of several witnesses (whose reputations are at least as credible as the single source you cite,) that the decision was politically motivated.

Continuing to claim, as you do, that the claims of one member of the commision refute those facts just doesn’t make any sense.

in any case, i’ll take my brave defender’s advice from now on.

If you wish; I was actually engaging you in a conversation that’s pertinent to the thread. I’d prefer to do it without personal attacks and the distractions wrought by crrs.

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 1:41 PM

Endless hearings to remove Holder are the order of the day, and when we learn that he gets his marching orders from the Barry O’Blarney administration, impeach that POS, too.

Jaibones on October 29, 2010 at 1:48 PM

That’s simply your personal opinion. Not a fact.

Del Dolemonte on October 29, 2010 at 1:39 PM

i knew that your deep thinking was needed to elevate this conversation.

sesquipedalian on October 29, 2010 at 1:49 PM

Except that there was voter intimidation (seen on video;)

No, not really. The Philadelphia DA thought it was a non-incident, and the Bush DoJ never identified any voters which were actually “intimidated” by the conduct. It’s hard to justify making their conduct into a federal case.

and that the case was dismissed;

It was. And before that it was downgraded from a criminal to a criminal case by the Bush DoJ. Why do you think that was?

and that it would appear, from the testimony of several witnesses (whose reputations are at least as credible as the single source you cite,) that the decision was politically motivated.

Then was the Bush DoJ’s decision to downgrade the case politically motivated? To the extent the dismissal was a result of “politics”, it was due to the entrenched career attorneys in the DOJ that don’t think the CRA should be used to prosecute minorities. That attitude has been around long before Obama. If you read the report, you’d know the sources you refer to explicitly say that attitude existed under Bush as well. But of course, you don’t care about that.

If you wish; I was actually engaging you in a conversation that’s pertinent to the thread.

No, you weren’t You were pulling your typical routine of tepidly responding to a post, and then retreating into your “reputation” cocoon when you’ve been bested.

I’d prefer to do it without personal attacks and the distractions wrought by crrs.

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 1:41 PM

I’d prefer it if you let the adults do the talking. If you don’t bring up any substantive points other than “but that’s one source” consider yourself ignored. You clearly haven’t read about the issue outside the blog posts on Hotair.

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 1:51 PM

It was. And before that it was downgraded from a criminal to a criminacivil case by the Bush DoJ. Why do you think that was?

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 1:51 PM

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 1:51 PM

Again; this is how you ignore me?
Creepy.

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 1:53 PM

Again; this is how you ignore me?
Creepy.

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 1:53 PM

This is a perfect example. It doesn’t substantively respond to anything.
crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 1:15 PM

It’s almost as if you’re trying to prove me right at this point. Thanks, I guess.

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 1:57 PM

Actually, yes it does. If only one person offers an opinion, it’s reasonable to question the validity of their position.

the democrats on the commission don’t count because we all know they’re lying through their teeth or something.

Except that there was voter intimidation (seen on video;) and that the case was dismissed; and that it would appear, from the testimony of several witnesses (whose reputations are at least as credible as the single source you cite,) that the decision was politically motivated.

while the NBPP could have been prosecuted under section 11 (b) of the VRA, it is difficult to prove actual voter intimidation – since VRA passed, there have been only three successful prosecutions. this particular incident involved two people at one precinct, and no one has produced any actual evidence that any voters were intimidated.

sesquipedalian on October 29, 2010 at 2:07 PM

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 1:57 PM

It responds to your obsession with claiming to ignore me, while pestering me non-stop on this thread.

Clearly, you agree with yourself as to the claim that my post are insubstantial.

Good for you.

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 2:07 PM

It responds to your obsession with claiming to ignore me, while pestering me non-stop on this thread.

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 2:07 PM

Is substantively responding to your posts “pestering you?” I suppose you’d think it is.

In any event, carry on. Your routine is apparent for all to see. You can keep your “reputation.” I’m perfectly happy with mine.

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 2:10 PM

sesquipedalian on October 29, 2010 at 2:07 PM

Actually, my post should have referenced attempts at intimidation. You are correct, actual intimidation is hard to prove.

With regard to sucessfull prosecutions under VRA; how many times were charges brought, if only 3 sucesses obtained?

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 2:11 PM

Will the media give this the kind of coverage that a political cover-up deserves?

Who cares, the question is will we see indictments against everyone involved in the interference and cover-up?

It won’t happen now, but could happen in January.

jeffn21 on October 29, 2010 at 2:13 PM

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 2:11 PM

that’s entirely beside the point. voter intimidation is not a very widespread phenomenon in American politics. what matters is that there is no reason, other than a few biased testimonies, to suggest that the DOJ’s decision to drop the case was politically motivated.

sesquipedalian on October 29, 2010 at 2:31 PM

what matters is that there is no reason, other than a few biased testimonies, to suggest that the DOJ’s decision to drop the case was politically motivated.

sesquipedalian on October 29, 2010 at 2:31 PM

We are to weigh the “few” biased testimonies on one side against the “one” interview you cite?

Why no answer on the number of attempted VRA prosecutions?

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 2:34 PM

Therenstrom is on the Civil Rights Commission. And she’s a conservative. That’s a very reasonable definition of proof of the CRC’s motives. You’re spinning like a top.

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 1:04 PM

Aside from the fact that she was appointed by Bush, (which in itself is no guarantee of conservatism in a given appointee), in what manner and depth do you have information about or knowledge of this woman that enables you to state that she is a conservative?

tigerlily on October 29, 2010 at 2:34 PM

Aside from the fact that she was appointed by Bush, (which in itself is no guarantee of conservatism in a given appointee), in what manner and depth do you have information about or knowledge of this woman that enables you to state that she is a conservative?

tigerlily on October 29, 2010 at 2:34 PM

She’s a registered Republican, she’s a former Senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and she’s been published by the National Review. So there’s that.

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 2:38 PM

I’m sick of the whole rat’s nest of liars in the Obama administration.

I don’t doubt for one minute that Holder and Obama know all about voter fraud, and are working around the clock to expand it.

Why else would you support no ID verification at polling places. It seems crystal clear to me.

saiga on October 29, 2010 at 2:41 PM

And I’m not just talking about elected officials, either. Will the media give this the kind of coverage that a political cover-up deserves?

Heh

I am actually surprised the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights didn’t cover up its own investigation.

I take this as positive news

entagor on October 29, 2010 at 2:44 PM

Will the media give this the kind of coverage that a political cover-up deserves?

Media is the coverup.

the_nile on October 29, 2010 at 10:37 AM

Reminds me of the story told by the late, great Malcolm Muggeridge: Long before his conversion to Roman Catholicism, when Malcolm was a young, atheistic, Leftist reporter for the atheistic, Leftist British press, he was on location with other like minded British journalists in Stalin’s USSR, in order to report back to the world exactly what this nation changing ideology was all about.

Stalin, not even bothering to hide the mass starvation which was happening in the Ukraine, sent these reporters (he must have known they were useful idiots) on a tour of the countryside, including Ukraine. Malcolm and the reporters witnessed the horrific results of Stalinism firsthand, then dutifully sent their reports back home to the West extolling the virtues, wonders and successes of communism and Stalin’s programs.

Now, as then, the “mainstream” elitist media in this country are not separate from this deadly ideology – they are active participants in it’s promotion and they have very powerful means of making sure the Great Lies continue while the truth gets buried, along with the suffering millions that communism has snuffed out.

Thank goodness for Gore and the internet, right? /

tigerlily on October 29, 2010 at 2:46 PM

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 2:34 PM
tigerlily on October 29, 2010 at 2:34 PM

let’s ask the host:

It’s Abigail Thernstrom, who, as far as I know, is a well-respected scholar and sufficiently credible to be worthy of publication by the Manhattan Institute and National Review, among others.

Really? Thernstrom cooked up a bombshell allegation about bias on the Commission (which, according to Politico, is nothing new under either Republican or Democratic administrations) out of simple pique about a conference? Given the scrutiny she’s going to get for making this accusation, I’m skeptical about that.

me too.

sesquipedalian on October 29, 2010 at 2:48 PM

sesquipedalian on October 29, 2010 at 2:48 PM

But, your answer does not respond to my question;

We are to weigh the “few” biased testimonies on one side against the “one” interview you cite?

I’m sticking to my original position; absent either documentation or coroboration, it’s still just one source, and therefore worthy of doubt.

I can’t say it any more plainly.

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 2:56 PM

She’s a registered Republican, she’s a former Senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and she’s been published by the National Review. So there’s that.

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 2:38 PM

Not specific enough by a long shot to be defined a conservative. A whole world of RINOs are registered Republicans, some RINOs are published in the National Review; one would have to see the content of what was published and also what her contributions were to the Manhattan Institute before one could definitively state that she is a conservative, since what you list above provides no substantive information to support your conclusion. And if you don’t have this information, then calling her a conservative in your post is premature, at best.

tigerlily on October 29, 2010 at 2:57 PM

She’s a registered Republican, she’s a former Senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and she’s been published by the National Review. So there’s that.

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 2:38 PM

Not specific enough by a long shot to be defined a conservative. A whole world of RINOs are registered Republicans, some RINOs are published in the National Review; one would have to see the content of what was published and also what her contributions were to the Manhattan Institute before one could definitively state that she is a conservative, since what you list above provides no substantive information to support your conclusion. And if you don’t have this information, then calling her a conservative in your post is premature, at best.

tigerlily on October 29, 2010 at 2:57 PM

Your goalposts have frequent flier miles.

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 2:58 PM

tigerlily on October 29, 2010 at 2:57 PM

“Goalpost-moving” is the accusation du jour.

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 3:01 PM

tigerlily on October 29, 2010 at 2:57 PM

In any event, I’ve provided plenty of info. The burden of proof is now on you. If you wish to read her books and articles you’re free to do so. But I’m not going to sort through them just to have you move the goalposts again afterwards.

“Goalpost-moving” is the accusation du jour.

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 3:01 PM

Quiet down, child.

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 3:04 PM

Quiet down, child.

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 3:04 PM

My comment was not addressed to you, stalker.

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 3:06 PM

She’s a registered Republican, she’s a former Senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and she’s been published by the National Review. So there’s that.

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 2:38 PM

Not specific enough by a long shot to be defined a conservative. A whole world of RINOs are registered Republicans, some RINOs are published in the National Review; one would have to see the content of what was published and also what her contributions were to the Manhattan Institute before one could definitively state that she is a conservative, since what you list above provides no substantive information to support your conclusion. And if you don’t have this information, then calling her a conservative in your post is premature, at best.

tigerlily on October 29, 2010 at 2:57 PM

Your goalposts have frequent flier miles.

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 2:58 PM

Not at all. When you make a statement which you think is factual or true, you should be well able to back it up – with substance, not superficiality or a quick click to wikipedia.

tigerlily on October 29, 2010 at 3:07 PM

Quiet down, child.

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 3:04 PM

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 3:06 PM

You’re not very good at following directions.

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 3:08 PM

You’re not very good at following directions.

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 3:08 PM

I’m under no obligation to follow yours.
Seriously, your harassment of me on this and other threads speaks to an unbalance.

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 3:10 PM

Not at all. When you make a statement which you think is factual or true, you should be well able to back it up – with substance, not superficiality or a quick click to wikipedia.

tigerlily on October 29, 2010 at 3:07 PM

I’d say mentioning someone’s membership as a senior fellow on a prominent conservative think tank is “substantive” evidence of them being a conservative. It’s alright to just admit you’re wrong. You’ll feel much better.

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 3:10 PM

You’re not very good at following directions.

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 3:08 PM

I’m under no obligation to follow yours.
Seriously, your harassment of me on this and other threads speaks to an unbalance.

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 3:10 PM

Oh come off it. You’re posting in a public forum and you’re being mocked. You richly deserve it. If you can’t handle it, then cease posting in this topic.

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 3:13 PM

Oh come off it. You’re posting in a public forum and you’re being mocked. You richly deserve it. If you can’t handle it, then cease posting in this topic.

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 3:13 PM

How about: I’ll continue to have conversation with those who interest me, and you’ll stop stalking?

You are 100% of the posters who have asked me to stop posting on any topic on this blog.

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 3:20 PM

How about: I’ll continue to have conversation with those who interest me, and you’ll stop stalking?

First of all, responding to you on a public forum isn’t “stalking.” Your hysterics speak to an unbalance.

And if you don’t want to draw me in then don’t refer to or respond to my posts. You’re welcome to do so at any time.

You are 100% of the posters who have asked me to stop posting on any topic on this blog.

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 3:20 PM

No one asked you to stop posting here. I said if you can’t handle it, don’t.

I think we’re done here.

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 3:24 PM

But, your answer does not respond to my question;

We are to weigh the “few” biased testimonies on one side against the “one” interview you cite?

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 2:56 PM

three facts – the lack of incentive on her part, other than her conscience, to speak out against fellow conservatives, the partisan bias of the former DOJ officials now coming forward, and that the majority of CRC members are conservative activists – give weight to her claim.

sesquipedalian on October 29, 2010 at 3:27 PM

I think we’re done here.

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 3:24 PM

It’s what I’ve been asking for.
Glad you can follow directions.

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 3:27 PM

three facts – the lack of incentive on her part, other than her conscience, to speak out against fellow conservatives, the partisan bias of the former DOJ officials now coming forward, and that the majority of CRC members are conservative activists – give weight to her claim.

sesquipedalian on October 29, 2010 at 3:27 PM

But all of these are actually subjectively, rather than objectively, measured values.

They may, as you evaluate them, give weight to her claim; but those who stand in oppostition to her viewpoint have equally valid (if equally subjective) props and supports for their claims.

Also, a look at her bio, from her own web page, belies her conservatism.

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 3:32 PM

Oh come off it. You’re posting in a public forum and you’re being mocked. You richly deserve it. If you can’t handle it, then cease posting in this topic.

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 3:13 PM

Something is definately wrong with you. 99% of the time, you show up and bingo, the thread becomes full of your insults; it becomes nasty, tiresome, intellectually juvenile and downright boring, because those are the characteristics you display. Then you have the temerity to be a good little Leftist and try to censor someone else’s right to speak.

If you have an opinion to express, or a point you would like to make or an argument you would like forward, why can’t you just do it without the nails-on-the-chalkboard, sure-as-the-sun-will-rise insults, mockery and ridicule of others? What happened to you that your maturity level and ability to communicate doesn’t rise above that of a high-school freshman? Excuse me if you are in high school, that would explain, some, but not all of your oafish and repellent manners. And if you are old enough to work or deal with adults daily, do you speak to them and act out with them as you do here? You make coming here a very depressing experience because it’s always the same ugliness coming from you. I feel sorry for you and hope that you can learn to exchange ideas and thoughts with some respect for your fellow man. It seems that you get a thrill out of attempting to hurt others. That’s no way to go through life; hatefulness is unattractive in the extreme.

tigerlily on October 29, 2010 at 3:40 PM

tigerlily on October 29, 2010 at 3:40 PM

I treat the adults here like adults. I treat the children here like children.

If you’re the former rather than the latter you’d do well to respond to the following, rather than going on another “nasty, tiresome, intellectually juvenile and downright boring” tirade..

I’d say mentioning someone’s membership as a senior fellow on a prominent conservative think tank is “substantive” evidence of them being a conservative.
crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 3:10 PM

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 3:49 PM

Oh come off it. You’re posting in a public forum and you’re being mocked. You richly deserve it. If you can’t handle it, then cease posting in this topic.

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 3:13 PM

Something is definately wrong with you. 99% of the time, you show up and bingo, the thread becomes full of your insults; it becomes nasty, tiresome, intellectually juvenile and downright boring, because those are the characteristics you display. Then you have the temerity to be a good little Leftist and try to censor someone else’s right to speak.

If you have an opinion to express, or a point you would like to make or an argument you would like forward, why can’t you just do it without the nails-on-the-chalkboard, sure-as-the-sun-will-rise insults, mockery and ridicule of others? What happened to you that your maturity level and ability to communicate doesn’t rise above that of a high-school freshman? Excuse me if you are in high school, that would explain, some, but not all of your oafish and repellent manners. And if you are old enough to work or deal with adults daily, do you speak to them and act out with them as you do here? You make coming here a very depressing experience because it’s always the same ugliness coming from you. I feel sorry for you and hope that you can learn to exchange ideas and thoughts with some respect for your fellow man. It seems that you get a thrill out of attempting to hurt others. That’s no way to go through life; hatefulness is unattractive in the extreme.

tigerlily on October 29, 2010 at 3:40 PM

I treat the adults here like adults. I treat the children here like children.

If you’re the former rather than the latter you’d do well to respond to the following, rather than going on another “nasty, tiresome, intellectually juvenile and downright boring” tirade..

I’d say mentioning someone’s membership as a senior fellow on a prominent conservative think tank is “substantive” evidence of them being a conservative.

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 3:49 PM

I am not aware of anyone who posts here who is a child.
You calling them “children” is another insult on your part, of which you seem to have an exhaustible supply along with an equally inexhaustible unwillingness to examine yourself in order to better yourself. I do really wonder whether you speak and act out in the “real world” as you do in this forum. And if so, what are the results of your behavior in the real world?

And if you treat children in the way you treat those here who you consider “children”, then I fear for any little one who comes across your path. As far as being diverted from the real problem here by answering your above comment re: the meaning of “substative”, I think that horse has been beaten sufficiently and I don’t think I will be distracted from the greater question here, which I have stated in the above posts, to wit: If you have an opposing point of view, or an arguement you would like to advance, why can’t you state what it is, why you support it, and do so without insult and profound disrespect toward others?

tigerlily on October 29, 2010 at 4:15 PM

tigerlily on October 29, 2010 at 4:15 PM

I know you weren’t explicitly jumping to my defense, but thank you anyway. For those just trying to have a conversation, (you know, the real kind; with both questions and comments, founded in the rules of reasonable discourse,) these kinds of attacks are a distraction from the reason why we’re here.

I’d like to think we can have the intelectual jousting without the name-calling.

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 4:32 PM

3:49 PM

tigerlily on October 29, 2010 at 4:15 PM

I know you weren’t explicitly condemning massrighty, but thank you anyway. Surely we can all agree that we can have intellectual jousting without juvenile name-calling people such as calling people “stalkers” and the like.

Again, thanks.

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 4:41 PM

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 4:32 PM

I know you don’t need my defense so I was speaking from what I have seen happening here for a very long time.

If crr6 has an opinion, pov, assertion or disagreement on any subject, I wish crr6 would make it in an intelligent way. The constant, relentless ridicule and name calling are enough to drive one insane. By employing these methods of “communication”, she/he makes null and void any point (many times there is no point, it’s just disagreement for the sake of being disagreeable) he/she is trying to make and in fact brands him/herself as a complete imbecile who is incapable of disagreeing by supporting opposing opinion with facts/evidence/historical back-up, etc., but instead chooses to act, first, last and always like a feces-throwing ape. As I said in an earlier thread, I feel sorry for crr6. That’s no way to go through life.

tigerlily on October 29, 2010 at 4:50 PM

tigerlily on October 29, 2010 at 4:50 PM

Indeed. Throwing around serious terms like “stalker” does nothing to advance the argument, and it only brands massrighty as a complete imbecile who is incapable of disagreeing without acting like a feces throwing ape. I truly do feel sorry for him or her.

Again, thanks.

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 4:53 PM

tigerlily on October 29, 2010 at 4:50 PM

Indeed. Throwing around serious terms like “stalker” does nothing to advance the argument, and it only brands massrighty as a complete imbecile who is incapable of disagreeing without acting like a feces throwing ape. I truly do feel sorry for him or her.

Again, thanks.

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 4:53 PM

crr6,

If you are going to continue to cut and paste my posts and incorporate them (in a disingenuous manner, though) into your own, why not this one, with an answer, please?

If you have an opposing point of view, or an argument you would like to advance, why can’t you state what it is, why you support it, and do so without insult and profound disrespect toward others?

tigerlily on October 29, 2010 at 5:02 PM

tigerlily on October 29, 2010 at 4:50 PM

Now crr6 has turned his/her attention on you; same mocking tone; same faux-superiority.

Sorry you got dragged into this. It started with a real conversation (see above in this thread,) between sesquipedalian and me. crr6 jumped in for some reason, and the downward spiral began.

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 5:03 PM

tigerlily on October 29, 2010 at 5:02 PM

Oh, lord. And now I see massrighty has tried to twist the record of the thread to hide the fact that
1) He was the one who began by mocking sesqui prior to me getting involved at all. See here:

sesquipedalian on October 29, 2010 at 11:07 AM

Bushs’ fault!

Heh.

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 11:16 AM

In short, what’s funny is, you make a ridiculous, unsubstantiated claim, then offer umbrage when it’s mocked.

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 11:40 AM

We both have reputations here; I’ll keep mine, thanks.

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 12:30 PM

And 2) He used the most vicious ad hominems in the thread. See here:

My comment was not addressed to you, stalker.

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 3:06 PM

Sorry you got dragged into this tiger. Sesqi was trying to make legitimate points, and massrighty dragged it into a downward spiral, as always. Surely we can all join in condemning him.

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 5:09 PM

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 5:03 PM

You are so sweet to post that, mass. But don’t you spend one more second worrying about me. crr6 is just a little ole tempest in a teacup. I’ll be fine. Maybe even get crr6 to be friends with us all someday.

tigerlily on October 29, 2010 at 5:11 PM

If you are going to continue to cut and paste my posts and incorporate them (in a disingenuous manner, though) into your own, why not this one, with an answer, please?

If you have an opposing point of view, or an argument you would like to advance, why can’t you state what it is, why you support it, and do so without insult and profound disrespect toward others?

tigerlily on October 29, 2010 at 5:02 PM

If you’d been paying attention, you’d know that happens frequently. Particularly when the poster I’m dealing with is honest or when the discussion begins in good faith. But when the poster has a history of bad behavior towards me, or when the post itself is an ad hominem or not in good faith, I don’t waste my time with niceties. It really is that simple.

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 5:12 PM

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 5:09 PM

1. Responding to a post with a modicum of sarcasm is not the same as mocking a poster.
2. I didn’t start calling you a stalker until you started stalking me.
3. It’s not an ad hominem if it’s true.

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 5:16 PM

3. It’s not an ad hominem if it’s true.

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 5:16 PM

Well, setting aside the laughable notion that responding to someone on a public internet forum constitutes “stalking them”, as a purely logical matter, your statement is plainly incorrect. It’s still an ad hominem even if it’s true.

1. Responding to a post with a modicum of sarcasm is not the same as mocking a poster.

Oh, ok. What was this?

We both have reputations here; I’ll keep mine, thanks.

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 12:30 PM

I think we’re done here.

Again.

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 5:19 PM

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 5:09 PM

There is something that you might try. It has nothing to do with this thread in particular, but is a very good thing to incorporate into one’s life in order to learn how to live in harmony with oneself and others. It’s called an examination of conscience. Take five minutes every night before retiring and review the day. Review the good and the bad you have done. Make a resolution to right any wrongs if possible and to avoid repeating them; instead replacing them with a good act(s) the next day.

And now I must leave you all. Adieu and God bless.

tigerlily on October 29, 2010 at 5:20 PM

This is a perfect example. It doesn’t substantively respond to anything. It just makes dismissive, contentless retorts like “I’ll keep my reputation” or “this speaks for itself.” It’s a complete waste of time to engage it.

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 1:15 PM

You mean like posting “Count it!” or “HTH”?

Good Solid B-Plus on October 29, 2010 at 5:21 PM

And now I must leave you all. Adieu and God bless.

tigerlily on October 29, 2010 at 5:20 PM

Me too, actually. Have fun sorting all that out, massrighty. I’m sure you’ll find some sort of tortured way to make your self-righteous stand against ad hominems, and your liberal use of them, internally consistent.

Later.

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 5:23 PM

Sorry you got dragged into this tiger. Sesqi was trying to make legitimate points, and massrighty dragged it into a downward spiral, as always. Surely we can all join in condemning him.

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 5:09 PM

Aha. Sesqui make a legitimate point?

I’m surprised that the obfuscating hit and run artist managed to stick around for more than one post this time.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 29, 2010 at 5:24 PM

I think we’re done here.

Again.

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 5:19 PM

I wish you meant that; you just keep declaring yourself the winner, but you won’t stop badgering me.

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 5:24 PM

Good Solid B-Plus on October 29, 2010 at 5:24 PM

We were actually in a (moderately) reasonable dialog.

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 5:25 PM

We were actually in a (moderately) reasonable dialog.

massrighty on October 29, 2010 at 5:25 PM

That’s quite shocking, actually. I haven’t seen a Sesqui post that wasn’t a one-note disingenuous molotov cocktail for months, so the fact that he actually engaged someone here in a conversation is refreshing.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 29, 2010 at 5:28 PM

High level DOJ officials accused of stonewalling investigations, US Treasury actively circumventing FOIA requests in order to hide TARP details …

Hmm, now what was the MSM’s favorite phrase for GOP administrations?

Ah, yes, ‘The embattled administration.’

I think the only problem the GOP House members will have next year is deciding which outrageous overreach of the Left to investigate.

chimney sweep on October 29, 2010 at 5:41 PM

If you’d been paying attention, you’d know that happens frequently. Particularly when the poster I’m dealing with is honest or when the discussion begins in good faith. But when the poster has a history of bad behavior towards me, or when the post itself is an ad hominem or not in good faith, I don’t waste my time with niceties. It really is that simple.

crr6 on October 29, 2010 at 5:12 PM

But just before I left I saw this and thought you needed a reply:

“If you’d been paying attention…” Another bone-wearying insult, crr6?

If you think your behavior is justified by your above checklist, no, it’s not. And you sure seem to have a whole lot of posters who fit your bill; that deserve your wrathful “schooling”. More than anyone on this forum combined, I would guess.

Your behavior, as I posted earlier, would get you canned and slapped across the mouth in the real world. I don’t know if you speak there as you do to people here, or if you just come here to vent poison, but poison it is. And it only hurts you. The longer you are unable to see that real men/women DO NOT insult and attempt to degrade and hurt fellow human beings (even when truly and justifiably provoked, if you ever were in this forum) the sooner you will get out of the dark hole you are in. But the more you practice being ugly, the harder it will be for you to change. If all you have to offer is sludge, people will avoid you like the plague.

tigerlily on October 29, 2010 at 5:46 PM

good call solid b-plus! count it!

mpk on October 29, 2010 at 7:22 PM

That’s simply your personal opinion. Not a fact.

Del Dolemonte on October 29, 2010 at 1:39 PM

i knew that your deep thinking was needed to elevate this conversation.

sesquipedalian on October 29, 2010 at 1:49 PM

Sorry, had to step out for a few hours. I see this thread went downhill.

Meanwhile, back to the current CRC, this O’bama/Pelosi Stooge on the Commission is all yours. From this afternoon via WaPo:

A federal commission had to postpone a vote on a report that criticizes the Justice Department’s handling of a voter-intimidation lawsuit Friday after a Democratic panelist walked out of the meeting in protest.

The draft of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report says that Justice tried to hide the extensive involvement of high-level political officials in the dismissal of the suit against members of the New Black Panther Party. The move, the report says, indicates that Justice’s Civil Rights Division is failing to protect white voters and is “at war with its core mission of guaranteeing equal protection (under) the laws for all Americans.”

The Justice Department has strongly denied the allegations in the report, which follows the commission’s year-long investigation into the Obama administration’s handling of the 2008 incident. The Bush administration had filed the lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party members, but the Justice Department under the Obama administration dismissed most of the case.

The commission, which is controlled by a bloc of conservative and liberterian members, was scheduled to vote on the report Friday morning. But it could not reach a quorum because commissioner Michael Yaki, a Democratic appointee, refused to participate.

“This has been a procedural and partisan farce from the beginning,” Yaki said in an impromptu news conference. “It’s not my responsibility to make a quorum for this kangaroo court … they want to score political points against the Obama Justice Department.”

Yaki is a former member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and past senior advisor to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In 2008, he was named as the National Platform Director for the Obama for America campaign.

Del Dolemonte on October 29, 2010 at 7:49 PM

Del Dolemonte on October 29, 2010 at 7:49 PM

What is it with these lib/dems walking out when the truth is being told…Yaki can’t handle the truth!

d1carter on October 29, 2010 at 8:41 PM

Such whining from our resident leftists. Tell ya what, let’s think about this in simpler terms so you can understand it better. I saw the video of these NBPP goons, and, like pornography, I know it when I see it.

But beyond that, consider if the exact same behavior had been displayed by KKK members in a polling place frequented by both blacks and whites. Do you really believe the DOJ would have dropped the case after already winning it? Do you really believe there would be no case for voter intimidation if the roles had been reversed?

Of course you believe these things. You are unthinking robots who do and say and believe what you are told. You are useless to the conversation.

runawayyyy on October 29, 2010 at 9:40 PM

Team Soros polluting another thread…amounts to a confession.

Inanemergencydial on October 29, 2010 at 11:27 PM

Comment pages: 1 2