The Justice Department has told the federal attorneys who filed a civil complaint against the New Black Panther Party for disrupting a Philadelphia polling place last year not to cooperate with an investigation of the incident by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

The commission last week subpoenaed at least two Justice Department lawyers and sought documents from the department to explain why the complaint was dismissed just as a federal judge was about to punish the New Black Panther Party and three of its members for intimidating voters.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/16/justice-restrains-lawyers-in-panther-inquiry/

Mr. Spindell wrote: “There are forces in this country that are working to get the President killed and that isn’t conspiracy madness, but a remembrance of the 60’s and the deaths of 3 very good people.”

When our President was sworn in with Lincoln’s bible, I received a case of deja vu. I perceived that Obama had already had the premonition that his life would be cut short, and accepted it. It was after all Lincoln’s death that healed this country.

It is, in my belief, Obama’s death that will heal the world.

“It is treacherous water indeed to equate the political views of a lawyer’s clients with the lawyer’s personal views.”

Mespo,
How much legal work do lawyer’s do as magazine Presidents and Publishers? Are you aware of how New York Magazine and the Village Voice changed into Right Wing screeds after Murdoch took over. Do you think that a President/Publisher and member of the board of Directors might have some involvement with their change of political attitude? That wasn’t lawyer’s work he was doing.

“McCain seems an honorable man to me under most circumstances.”

I didn’t discuss McCain’s honor so that is irrelevant. My point all along was that this was and continues to be a setup to go along with the current Republican Talking point that President Obama is a racist. I provided evidence of the reasons for my belief and attacked no one here personally in the process. In return most of the points I’ve made haven’t been answered and I have been called abusive, biased and a twister of facts. My integrity has been definitely questioned. It’s irrelevant whether people agree with my point of view or not, what is relevant is that there was nothing dishonorable in my making my case.

Translation: Don’t present me with any facts my minds made up, oh and by the way you’re a biased liar.

“Regardless, I still like you and consider you a fine man.”

Translation: You may be a biased liar but you’re a good person.
I feel so comforted by that.

“Mr. Bull was an associate of Rupert Murdoch and helped facilitate the purchase of these publications by Murdoch and then was named to significant positions on them.”

“The above link establishes that in the 2008 campaign Lawyer Bull was Chairman of New York Democrats for McCain.”

***************

It is treacherous water indeed to equate the political views of a lawyer’s clients with the lawyer’s personal views. Even more hazardous is to divine why someone supports another for political office given the myriad of entanglements of family, business, past assistance, etc. I tend to judge credibility, inter alia, by relying on manifestations of past character, reasoning that leopards usually retain their spots. There are exceptions, of course, but they are few and far between. McCain seems an honorable man to me under most circumstances. As for Giuliani,… well, anyone can make a bad decision.

The NY/Rudy G connection alone smacks of Mukasey and his disastrous stint as Attorney General at DOJ all over again.

That he ended up supporting McCain/Palin doesn’t conjur up ‘Democrat’, exactly, in my mind, either.

If you post more, please do not do so for my benefit because I will not read your material until some time has passed and on a different subject. Regardless, I still like you and consider you a fine man.

I am glad to read others’ opposing views about this thread because this is a very important issue to me.

FFLEO,
Interesting statement that since it avoids the main point which was that Mr. Bull has clearly shifted his point of view from his Civil Rights days. Then too were I of thinner skin I might think that there was a slap directed at me, but how could that be so?

Oh yes, it doesn’t have to be because you already have cast aspersions at my integrity:

“Mike Spindell,
You are as biased and partisan as any other ideologue, Republican or otherwise. You treat all contrary evidence as tainted, you twist facts, and you use ad hominem attacks more than any other regular does.”

“Here is an interview with Attorney Bartle Bull. Now you biased people listen up.”

“Mike is well aware that I like him, but his posts of late are just going to be something that I will skip for awhile.”

FFLEO, with friends like you I guess a man has no need for enemies. What I would have expected from you was a fair reading of what I wrote whether or not you agreed. Instead you chose to cast aspersions on my integrity, my supposed twisting facts and supposed ad hominem attacks. You will notice, if you bother to read this, that I nowhere attacked you or your integrity. The fact is that other than saying that Jill was “Full of it”, in response to her accusing me of being abusive, I never attacked her in the ways you describe. Polls, such as your previous one don’t interest me, especially when I am certain of my position. However, I invite anyone to fair mindedly go back through this thread and first show me where attacked Jill and/or FFLEO and secondly where my reasoning that this is another Republican hatchet job is specious. is specious.

The above link establishes that in the 2008 campaign Lawyer Bull was Chairman of New York Democrats for McCain. He had previously backed Rudy G for President but switched to McCain when Rudy G dropped out. Actually if you take the time to fully Google Mr. Bull you discover that he became disenchanted with Jimmy Carter, around the same time. It is curiously that his financial ties to Rupert Murdoch grew. If someone had looked further than that they would see he disliked Bill Clinton and perhaps that is why the “prominent Democrat” also didn’t support Hillary for the Presidency, but more likely it was that he was entwined politically with Rudy G.

This now goes back to his Civil Rights credentials because Rudy G while while Mayor for two terms never would meet with Black civil rights leaders. Many people in the Civil Rights struggle moved away from it as they grew older, initially it was because the “Black Power Movement” eschewed and alienated
white leadership. Even Eldridge Cleaver BPP celebrity became a dress designer in his later years. Clearly, Bull had become more conservative as he aged.

Now to go to the Bill O’Reilly interview, on the propaganda network’s run by Bull collaborator Rupert Murdoch, Bull clearly states in his interview that he was at seven polling sites that day and that this was the only place he saw intimidation. Isn’t curious that the supposedly fair Mr. Bull was chairman of New York Democrats for McCain and visiting voting sites under the campaigns auspices in Philadelphia and came across the one site where a paid Republican blogger video’s the two men? He was hardly a disinterested party. He also mentions further in the O’Reilly interview that the man heading up the DOJ prosecution was one Christian Adams, had someone been interested in looking him up they might have found this about Mr. Adams:

“In his day job, Christian Adams writes legal briefs for the voting rights section of the Justice Department, a job that requires a nonpartisan approach. Off the clock, Adams belongs to the Republican National Lawyers Association, a group that trains hundreds of Republican lawyers to monitor elections and pushes for confirmation of conservative nominees for federal judgeships.”

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/002990.php

Which returns full circle to my premise that this whole thing was a Republican put up job to try to smear the President. Notice to in the O’Reilly interview Mr. Bull said he was never contacted by any other major media except for the Washington Times. So we have the Moonie Washington Times and the propaganda network FOX the only two media outlets interested.

“Folks, regardless of our opinions, Prof. Turley’s ‘#1 LEGAL THEORY AND LAW PROFESSOR BLOG OF THE TOP 100 LEGAL BLOGS BY THE ABA JOURNAL’ must demand the highest standards of discourse possible when discussing a person’s character and honesty.”

Yes it should FFLEO and frankly your “research” might no have met that test.

“As a nonlawyer, I take every declaration I have signed as a solemn oath. I would assume that any attorney who is a full partner in a law firm and with 42 years of lawyering experience would not risk his career or reputation by falsifying his declaration in this matter, or any other.”

People have a tendency to hear what they expect to hear and clearly Mr. Bull came there expecting to hear something. Beyond that though the point is not well taken because Bull risked nothing in making his statement, there was no way to prosecute it if it were a lie, or a convenient mis-hearing.

Now does it seem like I mis-characterized Bull as a Republican, well yes it seems so, or else why would he be the New York Chairman of Democrats for McCain? As I stated:

ME: “Isn’t it interesting that the prominent Bartle Bull, whether pere or fils, was a Republican who happened to be poll watching?”

Yes I was wrong to call him a Republican, but the man clearly had a vested Republican interest.

Me: “The group, by the facts was not allowed to intimidate, nor is there any evidence except by the Republican operatives involved in this, that any one was actually intimidated, leaving this a well handled local matter.”

This is the essence of the point I’ve been making and I find that no one has directly answered any of my relevant points except to canonize Mr. Bull, who I don’t think has yet attained saintly status.

I never heard of this lawyer, professionally or otherwise, when I was part of the established Boston legal community, before med school, and I lived in downtown Boston for the better parts of 20 years!

He looks just like a lot of other Boston lawyers I do know, though.
No question about that.

FFLEO,
Before you accuse me of duplicity, which you just did, you should realize that I don’t make accusations lightly, or without research. Below you will find a references and link to Mr. Bull and his attachment to Rupert Murdoch, yes that Rupert Murdoch the prominent “liberal” publisher. I’m going to write this rebuttal in consecutive posts because I’m afraid if I put in more than one link it will be held for moderation and I did want to get back to you and your charges quickly, before

“Rupert Murdoch” By Jerome Tuccille pp.58 through 62
http://books.google.com/books?id=2mj1FcArTE8C&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=Village+Voice+Rupert+Murdoch+purchase&source=bl&ots=jIagzgSnAy&sig=kDl4eB6hijvnpmRGOkp0dcS8Dm8&hl=en&ei=Irh1SoP0ENH7tgemxdyWCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Mr. Bull was an associate of Rupert Murdoch and helped facilitate the purchase of these publications by Murdoch and then was named to significant positions on them. That is how I knew about Bartle Bull, because I was a Liberal NY’er through those years and watched these two formerly excellent
liberal outlets, deteriorate under Murdoch’s reign, of which the estimable Mr. Bull was a tool. This first happened to the NY Post, which for 130 years had been the leading liberal newspaper in NY, only to become a rag under Murdoch. The purchase of New York Magazine was described by former owner and up to that point friend of Murdoch as a “rape” and as the link showed Mr. Bull, the honorable attorney, was a key participant for which he was later rewarded with positions.

Now Bull does claim credentials in the Civil Rights battles and did later even support Bobby Kennedy. However, loyalties change through the years, since you FFLEO have even said that you a loyal Republican voted for President Obama. See next post.

Your comment reflects my overall judgment of you.

“As a nonlawyer, I take every declaration I have signed as a solemn oath. I would assume that any attorney who is a full partner in a law firm and with 42 years of lawyering experience would not risk his career or reputation by falsifying his declaration in this matter, or any other.”

*************

We make a grave error assuming that men of honor and integrity do not exist. That is another one of those self-fulfilling prophesies. Thanks for serving as a counter-example to the cynics among us.

Thank you. That is the point I was trying to make and it helps to have an attorney weigh in with a general comment. We may disagree with what he states, but we must not outrightly disparage his credentials or possible associations with whomever or malign whatever political persuasions he espouses.

As a nonlawyer, I take every declaration I have signed as a solemn oath. I would assume that any attorney who is a full partner in a law firm and with 42 years of lawyering experience would not risk his career or reputation by falsifying his declaration in this matter, or any other.

Attorney Bull seems credentialed enough to me to listen to what he says. We liberals should guard against the natural human tendency to canonize our allies and demonize our opponents. Every event rises or falls on its own merit.

One of the things that has most shocked and angered me about Democrats after the election of Obama has been their willingness to trade out the rights of others, because the person abolishing those rights is their candidate. Just from a practical standpoint, this is unwise. Obama will not be in power forever, but the rights that have been abolished will remain abolished.

Glenn Greenwald is pointing out that there are rights, innumerated in our Constitution and our laws that no citizen should be willing to trade out for any reason. I think it is a powerful statement and truly worth serious consideration.

Thanks for finding this interview. Another aspect of this story that has been really bothering me is the lack of reporting on it. Besides the WT article I was able to find the DOJ original report and a short interview CNN did with the NBPP. I was wondering why I couldn’t find anything in the NYTimes and Washington Post that would give an analysis of the issue.

The politicization of the DOJ has been a hugh problem for a long time. I would like to hear what the career people said about the case and I would like to hear what the political wing has to say, then I would like to hear someone really dig into the matter.

I find that many important stories do not show up in our news. This is worrying and Glenn Greenwald was speaking to the muzzling of Bill O’Reilly and Olberman, just yesterday, by their corporate news owners. Our news appears completely managed and controlled.

The other thing that has just startled me is the reversal taking place in the right and left wings in this nation. I don’t believe Bill O’Reilly every cared about Republican operatives engaging in all kinds of voter intimidation, now suddenly he cares. While his conversion to “caring” is obviously insincere, I’m glad he will do this story, even with bad motives, because someone needs to look into it. On the other hand, liberal groups who complained loudly about Republican voter intimidation, seem completely unconcerned about the issue in this case. It seems like few people are operating from priciple–that being, the intimidation of voters is unacceptable, no matter who is doing it, because the right to vote is a precious right which deserves our protection, each and every time. There seems to be the idea that if my team is doing it, it’s O.K. While Republicans were in power that is how many of them acted. Now Democrats are in power, and that is how many of them are behaving. But Glenn Greenwald was correct to point out that certain things are above politics and they are called rights. What he said bears repeteing:

By the design of the Founders, most American political issues are driven by the vicissitudes of political realities, shaped by practicalities and resolved by horse-trading compromises among competing factions. But not all political questions were to be subject to that process. Some were intended to be immunized from those influences. Those were called “principles,” or “rights,” or “guarantees” — and what distinguishes them from garden-variety political disputes is precisely that they were intended to be both absolute and adhered to regardless of what Massing calls “the practical considerations policymakers must contend with.”

We don’t have to guess what those principles are. The Founders created documents — principally the Constitution — which had as their purpose enumerating the principles that were to be immunized from such “practical considerations.” All one has to do in order to understand their supreme status is to understand the core principle of Constitutional guarantees: no acts of Government can conflict with these principles or violate them for any reason. And all one has to do to appreciate their absolute, unyielding essence is to read how they’re written: The President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” “[A]ll Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.” “No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Even policies which enjoy majoritarian support and ample “practical” justification will be invalid — nullified — if they violate those guarantees.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/799hlime.asp?pg=1

Bill O’Reilly: Black Panthers Intimidate Voters

Please give Mr. Bull a call to discuss his declaration. I know that from declarations I have signed, they become public record as soon as they are submitted to the court, just like legal briefs or amici curiae.

For anyone wanting to contact Attorney Bull, his e-mail address is available at his law office website link posted below.

From Jones Hirsch Connors & Bull P.C.
Attorneys At Law

http://www.jhcb.com/staff.html#p_bull
_________________________________

{Quote:

BARTLE BULL

Education: Harvard College, A.B., cum laude, 1963. Magdalen College, Oxford University, 1963 – 1964. Harvard Law School, J.D., 1967.

Bar Admission: New York, 1967.

Experience: Partner with firm since 1980. Publisher, President and Co-founder, Firehouse Magazine, 1977 – 1980; Director, New York Magazine, The Village Voice and New West Magazine, 1976 – 1980; President and/or Publisher, The Village Voice, 1971 – 1976; Associate, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, 1967 – 1970.

Other Professional and Community Activities: Author of: Safari – A Chronicle of Adventure, The White Rhino Hotel, A Cafe on the Nile, The Devil’s Oasis.
Published articles in The New York State Bar Journal, Connoisseur Magazine, Science Digest, Amicus Journal, The Wall Street Journal, The Daily News, The Village Voice, The New York Post and The New York Times;
Director, Fulbright International Scholarship Program, 1977 – 1980; Vice President and Trustee, St. Bernard’s School, 1977-2001.

End Quote}
________________________________

Folks, regardless of our opinions, Prof. Turley’s ‘#1 LEGAL THEORY AND LAW PROFESSOR BLOG OF THE TOP 100 LEGAL BLOGS BY THE ABA JOURNAL’ must demand the highest standards of discourse possible when discussing a person’s character and honesty.

My apologies, it must have been my background in philosophy that pushed me to taunt the Buddha.

—
Is it ’snit’ season again already?

Mike S. I thought your statements about the MSM and the Washington Times the other day were thoughtful and well-reasoned.

Should have said so. My bad…

Let’s not forget that as our ‘resident voter fraud activist’, Jill, wasn’t even properly registered, herself, for the LAST few (three?) elections… Including up to the day of the last Presiential one!

How is that even possible?

Mike S. I thought your statements about the MSM and the Washington Times the other day were thoughtful and well-reasoned.

Should have said so. My bad…

Let’s not forget that as our ‘resident voter fraud activist’, Jill, wasn’t even properly registered, herself, for the few (three?) elections…

How is that even possible?

Ma’am, sometimes you juss caint win…

Let’s discuss more Greenwald et al.

I don’t think Jill is being thin-skinned about Mike’s exchange with her. He deliberately misquoted her, attributing to her views that she finds abhorrent. In my book, this is an insult & a form of abuse.

We should all be careful to understand what the other person has said & to be absolutely scrupulous when we quote or paraphrase that person. Anything less than this is sophistical & discourteous & can even descend to the level of abusiveness.

If we are aiming at the serious discussion of political & social issues, we should all join the debate squarely. There should be no room for misrepresentation of the views of others.

“Jill, you are as aware as I am of the first Amendment. Given that are you in favor of the DOJ going after every dissenting group in the country, knowing well that that would include the Cindy Sheehan’s and Pink Panther’s as well as the NBPP?”

Jills cropped version making what was a question into a statement and implication.

“Jill, you are as aware as I am of the first Amendment. Given that are you in favor of the DOJ going after every dissenting group in the country,”

This was cropped by Jill so she could claim abuse, when none was given. There was also further context which anyone can see, where all I was saying was that this particular act didn’t raise itself to the level of a situation the DOJ should involve itself in. Your charges of abuse and your supposed victimization by me was clearly because you did not like that I disagreed with you, using your own statements. I was neither abusive, disrespectful, nor did I engage in attacking you.

Do you really think I’m an idiot Jill? I have read your posts for two years now and you have presumably read mine. To state that I was accusing you of being against the First Amendment is beyond absurd. When my point was why should the DOJ investigate this one isolated instance that was well handled by the local police?

Perhaps you should heed your own words below because to me your behavior is moving beyond offensive into quite another realm. You neither have to read my posts nor respond to me if that is your choice.

“Mike S.,
My last attempt and I’m done.”

Mike S. said that I wanted the DOJ to go after dissident groups. I never said that and yet he presented that as my words, my thinking. That is absolutely abusive. That wasn’t just a misunderstanding or a disagreement. That was presenting me as believing and having said something I do not believe and did not say. No one has a right to present false statements about others and that includes Mike S. If you ever have someone taking an idea that you hold sacred, the right of free speech for all, and someone else misrepresents you as being against this when: 1. you are for it and 2. you have backed up your words with money and action and 3. you did not have this statement in your post, but someone else is saying you did, then that is abusive. It is wrong to misrepresent what someone else said. If you read my posts you will not see that statement or anything like it.

Mike made up a statement from whole cloth, which he attributed to me. Here is what he said: “Jill, you are as aware as I am of the first Amendment. Given that are you in favor of the DOJ going after every dissenting group in the country,” I replied”–that is an absolute misrepresentation of what I said and I believe you know you are misrepresenting my work. That is insulting.”

If you think that is O.K. then so mote it be, but it is not O.K. with me and I will not accept that.

I went through Mike’s post line by line showing how it did misrepresent what I’d said and in this case, actually made up something I never said. If you think that is fair, again, that is your right, but I do not have to think it is right or accept this behavior.

I do not object to people disagreeing with me. It happens all the time. I do object to name calling, twisting of my words and actually making something up and attributing it to me as if I’d said it. If you are fine with people doing those things to you that is your choice. In my book that is wrong. Since we are not the same people we don’t have to react the same way but that is crossing a line for me and I will stand up for myself on this matter. Choosing my words carefully, I consisder it abusive.

If you’ve become this thin skinned, a salon that celebrates freedom of speech and the right to disagree may not be the best place to hang out. Perhaps you need to take a break. Everyone does from time to time. This can be a rough place and even the friendlies are capable of being tough customers.

I’m taking a break and on the way to a boat poker run. Livations and wetness with lots of visible fun bags attached to wonderful bodies. Have a great day!!!!

Jill,
Given you latest post I think your own words in all those posts directed at me are my best case and people can decide for themselves.

However, Jill, if you want to talk about twisting words, let’s talk about the word “abusive”.

One does not get to be as thick skinned as I am without knowing EXACTLY what constitutes physical or verbal abuse both legally and philosophically.

Disagreeing with someone isn’t “abuse”. But calling someone an abuser for disagreeing with you could be categorized as abusive. Abuse, abuser and abusive are all words with very specific application and they imply a necessary dualistic interaction (even if that interaction is between self as in the case of a drug addicts abusing themselves). It is also a “threshold allegation” in escalation – once spoken hard to retract. I had a marriage annulled because of abusive behavior. As in actual legally defined and sanctioned abusive behavior. As in “she got time” for it.

As far as “abusive” goes, Mike’s behavior is not even in the same neighborhood let alone inside the park. Be as offended he disagreed with you as you like, but attempting to paint Mike as your abuser is quite frankly offensive tactically. It’s weak and it reads as a sign of weakness.

You should not use that word so casually. You diminish its true meaning. Abuse requires a victim. You’ve been disagreed with, Jill, not victimized. The only harm you’ve done your position is with your disproportionate outrage and inappropriate word choice – NOT Mike’s statements (which I disagree with in part as I do yours). You could have made your clarification without trying to paint yourself as abused (which you weren’t or is at best debatable) instead of in disagreement (which is without doubt). Self-victimization may get you on Oprah, but it won’t win you an argument as a general rule. In fact, it often leaves a mote in the observer’s eye.

If you’ve become this thin skinned, a salon that celebrates freedom of speech and the right to disagree may not be the best place to hang out. Perhaps you need to take a break. Everyone does from time to time. This can be a rough place and even the friendlies are capable of being tough customers. Even water eventually wears through stone. Don’t let that drive you to mistake friends for enemies or drive you to create new enemies over a point of relatively little import (isolated voter intimidation by non-state actors) considering the whole scope of the problem (fascism in general and the Neocons illegal usurpation of power by systemic manipulation of the campaign finance system to put their puppets in power). It’s the choice of going to battle over a molehill versus over a mountain.

I invite you to revisit your word choice.

Lest you risk throwing out the baby (the Constitution and friends of said document) with the bath water (the sunshine and trials required to re-claim the government for We the People).

It’s called having blinders on no different then anything else we all do it, some more so then others. To help remove the blinders there are people who are trained to help called trainers. Here’s an example.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203609204574317090690242698.html

Eric Holder was a senior partner with Covington & Burling, a prestigious Washington, D.C. law firm, which represents 17 Yemenis currently held at Gitmo.

From thier website http://www.cov.com/probonooverview/probono.aspx?show=morehighlights
The firm represents 17 Yemeni nationals and one Pakistani citizen held at Guantánamo Bay. The Supreme Court will soon review the D.C. Circuit’s ruling that ordered the dismissal of a number of habeas petitions filed by Guantánamo detainees; some of our clients are petitioners in the Supreme Court case. We expect to play a substantial role in the briefing. We also plan to petition the Supreme Court to hear our Pakistani client’s appeal from the D.C. Circuit’s order dismissing his case. Further, we are pursuing relief in the D.C. Circuit under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 for all of our clients. On a separate front, we filed amicus briefs and coordinated the amicus effort in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in which the Supreme Court in the summer of 2006 invalidated President Bush’s military commissions and in which we have obtained favorable rulings that our clients have rights under the Fifth Amendment and the Geneva Conventions.

Mr. Holder, while Deputy Attorney General, pushed for the release of 16 violent FALN terrorists against the advice of the FBI, the US Attorneys who prosecuted them and the NYPD officers who were maimed by them, suggests that he was perfectly willing to put politics before the national security interests of the country. He is not suited for the job of attorney general, which is central to the issues surrounding the disposition of war on terror detainees.

My point is, come on, are these two thugs really that bad. No, they did not commit any acts of terrorism. But I’m sure if they had, they would of still been looked upon favorably by this AG.

And now, let’s all gather around the picnic table for a beer …

—Abraham Lincoln

My last attempt and I’m done. Here’s why your posts are insulting and here’s why they are factually incorrect.

#

Jill,
“Gyges is correct you did mis-read what I said. Local law enforcement did go after these guys and they did their job. That would have been the end of it, but it wasn’t.” __ I am aware of your position and I do not agree with it. CNN did an interview with the NBPP and they called what he did intimidation and they kicked him out of the organization. I think he should have done jail time for his actions. That is my position and if differs from yours. It is not a misunderstanding, it is a disagreement on what consequences should follow. “Don’t you find it curious that the Washington Times own story stated that the blogger was called in by the Republican Party to video this.

“Unless you believe that white Republicans asked him to come to the poll that way and gave him a script for what he said”–Is this what you believe? Was the man told by Republicans to go to the polls with a weapon and engage in voter intimidation? If it is what you believe, why? The NBPP did not say this man wasn’t a member of their organization. They have since kicked him out, but he was a member. I’m not against conspiracy theories but that one doesn’t make sense. If you have some evidence of this being a conspiracy I would be happy to read it and will give it an honest hearing. That people were at the voting both with cell phones taking pictures is not strange to me, because that is what ABLE was doing when we received complaints of voter intimidation. You may not like Republicans or the Washington Times but that doesn’t mean that the cell phone video is inaccurate.

“First knowing the history of the NBPP I think it is highly likely they were paid, or told in advance to show up. Secondly, how did the Republican Party know in advance to tape there? Third, I just re-watched the tape and I didn’t hear the man with the club say anything inappropriate. What did you hear on the tape that I didn’t.”– As I said earlier it isn’t weird that people from the Republican party were out monitoring polling places. Democrats and those of us in non-partisan organizations were doing the same thing. I did think his questions were much like overly agreesive LEOs and I still have a hard time understanding why you think it is appropriate for him to show up in a military type uniform with a weapon at a polling place. As his own group said, he engaged in voter intimidation and they purged him from the group for doing so.

“How did the party know that at this particular polling place there would be anything to video. Isn’t it interesting that the prominent Bartle Bull, whether pere or fils, was a Republican who happened to be poll watching? Senior is a Wall Street Lawyer and Junior is an author yet there one of them was doing their civic duty?”–This I’ve adressed twice above. “Doesn’t it further interest you that the video guy taped nothing showing overt intimidation”–it is over itimidation to dress in a military style uniform with a weapon, “the billy club guy was taken away”– as well it should have been, “in terms of accosting voters entering to vote?”–this was accosting voters, his own group got rid of him for that. “Yet wasn’t around to tape the officers coming and taking the club guy away?”–yep, that’s sleezy. The Republicans should have shown the whole thing.

“No group, however small, nor any person, be it only one or two people should be allowed to intimidate voters. This somewhat reminds me of war crimes.”

“The group, by the facts was not allowed to intimidate, nor is there any evidence except by the Republican operatives involved in this, that any one was actually intimidated,”–wrong, in the article with CNN the NBPP said they asked him to leave because they do not wish to engage in voter intimidation. That’s pretty factual when his own group says he should leave for intimidating voters. “leaving this a well handled local matter”–in your opinion, not in mine, I feel voter intimdation is quite serious and should trigger jail time.. “There is also no evidence that the NBPP did this anywhere else in the country.
The NBPP does not in fact support President Obama, or his campaign, so what exactly were they intimidating for?”– That’s great they don’t do this elsewhere. It doesn’t mean it didn’t happen here. You will have to ask these two men what they were intimidating for, I have no insight into their thoughts, nor do you. I did not claim they were intimidating for Obama.

“Since it violated local laws and was restricted to one site in Philadelphia this was a local matter and not the purview of the DOJ.”–That is your opinion and people at DOJ disagree with you as do I. We may be wrong, but you may also be incorrect. “The Aryan Nation for instance and the KKK are large groups that operate in several states.”–true and there are small white hate groups which I do not want intimidating voters at the polls. “The Republican Party is larger than both of them and operates nationwide.”–agreed and it is my position that certain member of it should be arrested for engaging in voter intimdation as I clearly said above. “Finally, to say this reminds you of a war crime is to make insignificant almost every post you’ve written to document war crimes on this blog and I find the statement beyond amazing. The reason I say this is that this incident is not within a thousand miles of the least of the war crimes you’ve discussed.”–Here is where you fail to understand my point. I am drawing the analogy not to the actions of torture and killing civlians, but as I cearly stated, voter intimidation is as rampant as war crimes. This rampant nature has presented a problem for prosecutions for some people, because it is rather overwhelming and so many people are involved. This is the nature of my analogy and if you reread my post you will see I state this very clearly.

“if you commit voter intimidation, be it with a gun or a pen, you are going to do time? For me, it is the latter.”

Jill there was no gun to begin with so that is a hyperbolic statement”.–Again Mike, you are taking the words from a song as a literal statement. These lyrics were intended to show that both this man and members of the Republican party engaged in voter intimidation. This is your misunderstanding, not my meaning. “Secondly, if you read the dismissed DOJ’s
recommendations that were asking for an injunction against the
baton wielder to stay away from polling places, not for jail time.”–This is true. “They weren’t asking for jail time because they could not have made a case that wouldn’t have been thrown out of court by the judge.”–this is speculation by you and people in the DOJ disagree with your speculation. Neither of us knows the reason this case was dismissed.

“To me, the answer is, we go after those who committed war crimes. In this case, we have obvious voter intimidation by a weapon weilding person, who additionally is acting out of a black hate group philosophy.”–I notice you fail to quote the entirety of what I said and then present it as a straw man in the argument below. That quote was about the need to go after people who engage in voter intimidation with a weapon and those who do it with a pen–ie, lawyers, and operatives in the Republican party. To misuse a quote by cutting it up and taking it out of context shows a weakness of character and argument.

“Jill, you are as aware as I am of the first Amendment. Given that are you in favor of the DOJ going after every dissenting group in the country,”–that is an absolute misrepresentation of what I said and I believe you know you are misrepresenting my work. That is insulting. I am not, nor have I ever been in favor of the DOJ going after any group on the grounds of their speech. If the NBPP wants to parade down my hometown street shouting death to whites and so on, I’ve paid my ACLU dues to defend them. What I don’t have to do is look the other way when someone is spouting hate speech. Free speech belongs to me and to them. I may say they are idiots for what they believe. What they may not do is show up a voting booth dressed in a military style uniform and wearing a weapon. That is not about free speech. It is an unprotected action that even the NBPP has repudiated. So for you to make up something like this about me is truly wrong. It is immoral for you to say something about me which you know is untrue, presenting lies as if I had said them and I say, shame on you. “knowing well that that would include the Cindy Sheehan’s and Pink Panther’s as well as the NBPP?”–again, shame on you for misrepresenting what I said. I said no such thing and I support free speech for all, including the NBPP.

“We also have a clear pattern of voter intimidation committed via lawyers and political strategists/operatives by the Republican party.”

Yes and as I pointed out to you the Bush DOJ went after none of that, but picked this forlorn and set up incident in Philadelphia to go after. Primarily because they could stereotype all black people with it.”–I am aware that you pointed this out. You seem unaware that I pointed this out in several of my posts as well. This is what my analogy to war crimes was about. Voter intimidation takes many forms, all of them are wrong, no one who commits it should be left off the hook.

When you call me names, misrepresent my argument, twist my words to your own aims–all of it is shameful and insulting. You seem unable to take on my arguments in a straightforward manner. For this reason, and because you are completely dishonest in your representation of what I am writing, I feel no longer that I will engage with you on this blog. You are being abusive. You should be ashamed.
#
65

“I hate every one and every thing; excepting present company of course.Let’s sing along; shall we Buddha?”

*************

Now I am hurt!!

Let’s sing along; shall we Buddha?

Aw shucks Gyges and I thought I was a regular wit and anyway he’s supposed to be The Buddha, who taught mildness in one’s dealings with their fellow man.

“(Until Mike called Jill Full of it)”

That was clearly meant to be an insult, but c’mon is that even really anything that one would equate as a real insult? No one here has ever told a friend or loved one that they were full of it? My model for real insults was the play Cyrano DeBergerac, in the dueling scene, now those were insults. My response here wasn’t even at Defcom status, why should it have been, we’re talking about a disagreement in viewpoints and not some line of political/moral principle being crossed?

No insult was taken.

“I’ve had tough debates with many of the regulars here, Mespo most recently and no one but you and some trolls have ever called me insulting.”

*********

I always think the other side is “insulting” when they’re wining the argument. Call it a personal flaw!!

I try to come to the defense of who-ever I see is being unfairly branded, I’m sure anyone who reads the comments section of this blog will agree. We’ve both come to Jill’s defense on numerous occasions, and in this case I have to say that I’m in agreement you, I just can’t see the insult. (Until Mike called Jill Full of it).

I wasn’t passing judgment on you, you know I generally just skip your posts when you go into attack mode, but I understand your reasons. I was just stating that Mike doesn’t hold a candle to you when it comes to insults.

And that is still all I have to say about that.

“Mike is well aware that I like him, but his posts of late are just going to be something that I will skip for awhile.”

FFLEO,
That first quote is truly insulting and if you don’t want to read my posts that’s fine. However, you original post quoted at top showed a complete misreading of what I was saying and I find that more sad, than annoying.

I’m not sure why Mike is trouble.

Sure, he’s disagreeing, but I’ve read that last post three times now and I still don’t get the insult. His reply was terse perhaps, but as one who can deliver a fairly serious mauling, I’m just not seeing it. Admittedly I am thicker skinned than most and under abnormal stress that could be keeping me from seeing it. Today was . . . today, but that is beside the point other than being relevant to my current state of mind and the perception of slight.

I’m not trying to start trouble between regulars either, all three of whom I like and respect for different reasons. No response is required from any of the parties involved. I just thought a comment was appropriate since I was invoked.

And that is all I have to say about that.

“Finally, to say this reminds you of a war crime is to make insignificant almost every post you’ve written to document war crimes on this blog and I find the statement beyond amazing. The reason I say this is that this incident is not within a thousand miles of the least of the war crimes you’ve discussed.”

This is the only thing that I believe you might have taken umbrage at and it in no way insults you, but pays homage to your constant denouncing of war crimes, in which I’ve consistently agreed with you. For you to compare this to the actual war crimes committed is factually hyperbolic as in the below standard definition:

“hy⋅per⋅bol⋅ic
  /ˌhaɪpərˈbɒlɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hahy-per-bol-ik] Show IPA
Use hyperbolic in a Sentence
–adjective
1. having the nature of hyperbole; exaggerated.
2. using hyperbole; exaggerating.
3. Mathematics.
a. of or pertaining to a hyperbola.
b. derived from a hyperbola, as a hyperbolic function.”

However, to say someone is being hyperbolic and to cite the instance, is not an ad hominem attack, nor a nasty statement by any stretch of the imagination. If this is not the cause of the insult then what specifically is Jill?

Am I not allowed to disagree with you? Am I not allowed to rebut your points? Am I not allowed to say that your argument is over the top? Who gave you the status of someone who can’t be disagreed with. This is the second time that you have accused me of insulting you, when I’ve merely disagreed with you and mildly at that.

Now I truly find your claiming insult to be in itself insulting and I agree with you to let people judge for themselves. This isn’t about whether we disagree on a certain point, it is about whether I was insulting in my disagreement with you, which by any stretch of the imagination is simply not true.

You seem to arrogate to yourself a special status in that people can’t disagree with you without it being insulting. I don’t believe you have a right to that status Jill and further if you are given it then it would go against the principles this site is based on. I’ve had tough debates with many of the regulars here, Mespo most recently and no one but you and some trolls have ever called me insulting. In the trolls case I was being insulting, in your case I wasn’t. You’ve read my stuff Jill, I am capable of being very insulting when the need arises. It’s not my style to be insulting with the regulars here and there is a body of work that proves it.