# White kids are out of luck



## Twin Fist (Mar 18, 2011)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog...8/doj-white-male-bullying-victims-tough-luck/


"The viral video sensation showing a bullying incident at an Australian  school has brought the issue of bullying back into the spotlight. Here  in the United States, the Obama administration has made school bullying a  federal issue." 


but wait

"Here is the catch. DOJ will only investigate bullying cases if the  victim is considered protected under the 1964 Civil Rights legislation.  In essence, only discrimination of the victims race, color, religion,  sex or will be considered by DOJ. The overweight straight white male who  is verbally and/or physically harassed because of his size can consider  himself invisible to the Justice Department."



Eric Holder MUST GO!!!!!


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 18, 2011)

Bullying shouldn't be within the Federal purview IMO.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 18, 2011)

Wow. 

First, to use an opinion piece as a statement of fact.

Second, those clauses protect White people as well.  You use one instance, The Black Panther Party polling issue, to make a determination that he will never prosecute against someone who bullies a white person.

The ridiculousness is beginning to get a little overwhelming.

But, you won't hear any of this, because you have ignored me.  Which mean my posts will reign supreme!!!


----------



## granfire (Mar 18, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Wow.
> 
> First, to use an opinion piece as a statement of fact.
> 
> ...


I can fix that for ya with a simple quote...


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 18, 2011)

granfire said:


> I can fix that for ya with a simple quote...


 
Ok.  Go ahead.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 18, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Bullying shouldn't be within the Federal purview IMO.


 
It really isn't about bullying, per se, it's about Hate crimes.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 18, 2011)

I don't know... "federal anti-bullying initiatives"?? If there was some sort of death associated with it maybe I could see going federal. But only if the victim was of a protected class?? What does that accomplish?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 18, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> I don't know... "federal anti-bullying initiatives"?? If there was some sort of death associated with it maybe I could see going federal. But only if the victim was of a protected class?? What does that accomplish?


 
I agree, but the Federal government in legally limited in what it can deal with.  It must abide by Constitutional principals, which limit it's scope.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 18, 2011)

I saw the convo on bullying so I had to display the OP and read the article. And the DOJ blog: nowhere did it say, 



> Here is the catch. DOJ will only investigate bullying cases if the  victim is considered protected under the 1964 Civil Rights legislation.  In essence, only discrimination of the victims race, color, religion,  sex or will be considered by DOJ. The overweight straight white male who  is verbally and/or physically harassed because of his size can consider  himself invisible to the Justice Department.



Absolutely nowhere.

It's pretty clear to me that this is a stance taken by the DOJ to get on board with the It Gets Better campaign, largely targeted at diminishing the bullying of LGBQTA youth.  All bullying should be addressed.

I'm always dismayed that straight white males cry victim like no one's looking out for them ... when the truth is they were looked after and protected for centuries.  Now they have to duke it out like everyone else ... oh the horror.

I'm sure when white straight males are the minority and are grossly and repeatedly decimated, hung, arrested and convicted in a ratio disproportionate to their population saturation and are forced to eat, drink and sit in places less clean or appealing than those for their counterparts and all the companies are owned by non-white homosexual men and trangendered persons rule the energy industry and the last white Congressional representative leaves office ... *big inhale* ... that they will be *added* as a protected class.

Buh-bye now!


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 18, 2011)

shesulsa said:


> I saw the convo on bullying so I had to display the OP and read the article. And the DOJ blog: nowhere did it say,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I wouldn't have put it quite like that.  I don't think that White men alive today should have to suffer due to the transgressions of their forefathers.

Even still, those same White men are a protected class in that no one's rights are allowed to be violated based on race or sex, and that includes White males, though it may be a more difficult burden of proof.  But it's not like it's easy for minorities to prove discrimination in court either.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 18, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I wouldn't have put it quite like that.  I don't think that White men alive today should have to suffer due to the transgressions of their forefathers.



I can see where you can derive that from what I wrote ... but it's not what I wrote ... and that is the point.



> Even still, those same White men are a protected class in that no one's rights are allowed to be violated based on race or sex, and that includes White males, though it may be a more difficult burden of proof.  But it's not like it's easy for minorities to prove discrimination in court either.



I think the general argument against protected class legislation has been that assault is assault, crime is crime and there is no such thing as "hate" crime.  I don't necessarily agree with that idea in its totality and can't buy that this nation would honor the ideal which is that all crime is crime regardless of motivation.

However, it behooves me when those who are not victims by nature of any particular affiliation just because they're the average joe cry foul.  

I'm picky about what I ... er ... swallow.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 18, 2011)

1) bullying shouldnt be a federal issue, they have enough on thier plates at the moment, but
2) if you are gonna do it, do it fairly and evenly, which Holder has already shown he cant or wont do, and since Holder still has a job, the obamasia has shown he is ok with discrimination against whites


no other way to see it really.



how cute, i just noticed i have a stalker.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 18, 2011)

Another useless federal initiative that is designed to "look like something" vs accomplish something. How often is there going to be a bulling case that goes federal? Not enough to do more than make a good sound bite I'll wager.


----------



## billc (Mar 18, 2011)

Nor do I think that Americans of african heritage should suffer for the transgressions of their african ancestors, you know, the ones who sold their ancestors into slavery in the first place.

Nor should the chinese today suffer for the transgressions of the chinese of the past, you know, the ones who killed 70 million people.

Nor should the japanese today suffer for the transgressions of the japanese of the past, the ones who started the second world war and murdered chinese, filipino, Americans, british, australians...

Nor should the africans today suffer for the transgressions of the africans of the past, the genocide in Ruwands, Idi Amin...

Nor should native americans today suffer for the transgressions of the native americans of the past, the human sacrifice, the slavery, the cannabalism...

Wow, I could do this all day.  Except, I can't think of anything the Innuit did in the past...help anyone?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 18, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Nor do I think that Americans of african heritage should suffer for the transgressions of their african ancestors, you know, the ones who sold their ancestors into slavery in the first place.
> 
> Nor should the chinese today suffer for the transgressions of the chinese of the past, you know, the ones who killed 70 million people.
> 
> ...


They are big into blood feuds; so, you got the whole culture on a murder charge.
Sean


----------



## billc (Mar 18, 2011)

Nor should the Innuit of today suffer for the transgressions of the Innuit of the past...the blood feuds.  (Thanks for the help.)


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 18, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> They are big into blood feuds; so, you got the whole culture on a murder charge.
> Sean




woah, wait a sec, those adorable innuit are into blood fueds?

thats it, there goes my faith in humanity


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 19, 2011)

*sigh*

This - again - is not about punishing the white guy.  If y'all think white hetero males are suffering ... look to who is selling you out to children in foreign lands - rich, hetero white dudes.


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 19, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Nor do I think that Americans of african heritage should suffer for the transgressions of their african ancestors, you know, the ones who sold their ancestors into slavery in the first place.
> 
> Nor should the chinese today suffer for the transgressions of the chinese of the past, you know, the ones who killed 70 million people.
> 
> ...


Seems that just about ALMOST every race on this planet is guilty of some type of heinous crime against humanity at some point in history or another. 

So whose turn is it in the barrel again?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 19, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> 1) bullying shouldnt be a federal issue, they have enough on thier plates at the moment, but


 
Bullying is not a Federal issue. A violation of Civil Rights is.



> 2) if you are gonna do it, do it fairly and evenly, which Holder has already shown he cant or wont do, and since Holder still has a job, the obamasia has shown he is ok with discrimination against whites
> 
> no other way to see it really.


 
Let's get some facts straight, shall we:




> After reviewing the matter, the Civil Rights Division determined that the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the criminal statutes. The Department did, however, file a civil action on January 7th, 2009, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief under 11(b) against four defendants. The complaint alleged that the defendants violated Section 11(b) because they attempted to engage in and engaged in both voter intimidation and intimidation of individuals aiding voters. Although none of the defendants responded to the complaint, the Department had a continuing legal and ethical obligation to ensure that any relief sought was consistent with the law and supported by the evidence. Based on the careful review of the evidence, the Department concluded that the evidence
> collected supported the allegations in the complaint against Minister King Samir Shabazz. *The Department, therefore, obtained an injunction against defendant King Samir Shabazz, prohibiting him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of an open polling place on any Election Day in the City of Philadelphia or from otherwise violating Section 11(b).c*
> The Department considers this injunction to be tailored appropriately to the scope of the violation and the onstitutional requirements and will fully enforce the injunction's terms. *Section 11(b) does not authorize any other kinds of relief, such as criminal penalties, monetary damages, or civil penalties.*​


 
​Bolding mine.​ 
Which shows us that the case was not dropped, was only won on default judgement, with no judicial determination as to guilt or innocence, and the primary culprit was held accountable within the law for which they were prosecuted. And just so we can't say, "See, his DOJ wouldn't even attempt to prosecute him criminally:​

> After reviewing the matter, the Civil Cights Division determined that the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the criminal statutes. The Department did, however, file a civil action on January 7th, 2009, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief under 11(b) against four defendants.




So under whose Administration was it that decided not to bring criminal charges....hmmmm... I think that would be Bush's DOJ.  After all, Obama didn't assume office until January 20th of that year.

But let's just ignore all of these facts, shall we?​ 
But, I guess if I could show that Bush's administration declined prosecution of a white person against a a non-white person, then I could prove that he is ok with discrimination against Blacks. Hmmm... let's see here....​ 


> In another case, in Arizona, the complaint was received by a national civil rights organization regarding events in Pima, Arizona in the 2006 election when three well-known anti-immigrant advocates affiliated with the Minutemen, one of whom was carrying a gun, allegedly intimidated Latino voters at a polling place by approaching several persons,
> filming them, and advocating and printing voting materials in Spanish. In that instance, the Department declined
> to bring any action for alleged voter intimidation, notwithstanding the requests of the complaining parties.




Oh, wait, here's another one that the Bush Administration failed to prosecute:​

> In 2005, the Division received allegations that armed Mississippi State investigators intimidated elderly minority voters during an investigation of possible voter fraud in municipal elections by visiting them in their home, asking them who they voted for, in spite of state law protections that explicitly forbid such inquiries. Here again, the Division front office leadership declined to bring a voter intimidation case in this matter.


In neither of these cases did the Bush Administrations Department of Justice choose to prosecute. 

Fact 

So I guess Bush is ok with discrimination against minorities.


----------



## billc (Mar 19, 2011)

I agree, President Obama is selling the country out to foriegn countries right now.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 19, 2011)

of course he is, HE HATES AMERICA.

I gave him the benefit of the doubt at first, but COME ON


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 19, 2011)

If anybody has ever dealt with the feds...nothing moves quickly. This is only going to be applied to some heinous death case that has some sort of bullying attached to it.

This is "feel good" politics IMO, not much else.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 19, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I agree, President Obama is selling the country out to foriegn countries right now.


 
The same as the past six or seven President's. Why single out Obama?

Of course, consider that due to our form of government, they can't do it alone. They are in collusion with Congress.

But, that is not what this thread is about.  It's about someone whining about Obama supposedly selling out little White kids, based on one case, the circumstances as presented has been shown to be false.

Bush's Administration decided not to press criminal charges.  Obama's Administration got the legally supported penalty.

The argument can't be beaten...


----------



## billc (Mar 19, 2011)

Kenpo 5-0, you site a couple of cases that were not prosecuted, but what we are talking about here is a DOJ policy coming from Eric Holder and Obama to not enforce the law equally and to use racial criteria for that policy.  Wether or not the individual cases you point to were not prosecuted because of race or just not persued for other reasons isn't clear.  However, you have at least 2 members of the justice department who testified under oath, under penalty of perjury and contempt of congress, testifying about "policy," not individual cases.  that might be the difference.

http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/09/24/doj-prosecutor-blasts-handling-of-new-black-panthers-case/

From frontpagemag.com:

When he was appointed Chief of the Voting Section in 2008, Coates said that he made it a point to ensure that prospective new trial attorneys in his section agreed that enforcement of the Voting Rights Act should be race neutral. He asked each candidate if they were equally comfortable taking cases that involved alleged discrimination against white voter, as they were taking cases in which minority voters were pressing a claim. This reasonable, equitable inquiry offended the woman that the president appointed as Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in 2009: Loretta King. Coates said that Ms. King directed him to stop asking that question, because &#8220;&#8230;she does not support equal enforcement of the Voting Rights Act and had been highly critical of the filing and civil prosecution of the Ike Brown case.&#8221; He also referred to other potential Voting Rights Act cases that the DOJ has declined to prosecute, these involving elections in largely African-American communities in which all African-American factions were accused of discriminatory acts directed against opposing, racially-integrated factions.  In one of these cases, a bank in which absentee ballots were stored was burned, apparently so votes favorable to the mixed-race faction could not be counted.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 19, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Kenpo 5-0, you site a couple of cases that were not prosecuted, but what we are talking about here is a DOJ policy coming from Eric Holder and Obama to not enforce the law equally and to use racial criteria for that policy. Wether or not the individual cases you point to were not prosecuted because of race or just not persued for other reasons isn't clear. However, you have at least 2 members of the justice department who testified under oath, under penalty of perjury and contempt of congress, testifying about "policy," not individual cases. that might be the difference.
> 
> http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/09/24/doj-prosecutor-blasts-handling-of-new-black-panthers-case/
> 
> ...


 
No, this is not a policy coming from Eric Holder. The use of these statutes against minorities has been controversial amongst the career lawyers in the DOJ since it was first used. 

For instance, in 2005, in one of the first cases of the use of this law against minorities intimidating whites, there was a a "deep division" as to whether the law applied. In other words, some contended that the law was "intended" to stop White intimidation of minority voters, not the other way around. So the lawyers *in the Bush DOJ *were divided as to whether the law could or should be enforced against minorities. Employees who worked the Brown case have described being harassed by colleagues due to the widespread belief that civil rights laws should not be used to protect white voters. One Justice Department official stated that "The Voting Rights Act was passed because people like Bull Connor were hitting people like John Lewis, not the other way around." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_intimidation_case , under the Legal Precedents section).

So to say that this is singularily an Obama / Holder issue is grossly inaccurate. As the investigation into the NBPP case shows, it was a case of career attorneys in the DOJ disagreeing with the way the law should be applied, even and at least back to the Bush Administration.

By the way, nothing in any investigation, even statements by Adams and Coates, suggests that this decision went any further up the chain of command then the head of the Civil Rights Division. In other words, there is no evidence that Holder or Obama had anything to do with this decision. Although some members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (which is not affiliated with the DOJ) concluded that there was a racial bias in the conduct of the actions of the DOJ, none of them could produce any tangible evidence that it went any further then the Civil Rights Division itself.

And, you're talking about two lawyers out of how many? (I looked for the numbers of lawyers in the Civil Rights Division, but couldn't find it.)

But what is this controversy really about? What penalty do you believe should have been applied under the law?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 19, 2011)

I want to be clear, I don't like or agree with Obama's views on race relations in this country, or the world for that matter.  I do think that, rightly or wrongly, he has a chip on his shoulder.  One which, as the elected leader for Whites as well as minorities, is inappropriate for a President.

That being said, however, I haven't seen anything from a policy standpoint that would show that he is making his decisions based on race.  For me, you would be much better off arguing socio-economic issues rather than race issues because they are much easier to prove.

And to be sure, I would be just as skeptical of a Black person making the same claims against a White President, such as the cases of Bush's Civil Rights Division failing to prosecute White voter intimidation.


----------



## K831 (Mar 19, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> That being said, however, I haven't seen anything from a policy standpoint that would show that he is making his decisions based on race.  For me, you would be much better off arguing socio-economic issues rather than race issues because they are much easier to prove.



Race issues, and policy decisions driven by racial agendas are commonly explained away as being solely based in "socio-economic" or "monetary" reasoning. It's easy to do. Even affirmative action politics based on the notion of "under-representation" are often cited as being due to "socio-economic" conditions and not race/cultural implications. That's why we throw money at problems without addressing their root cause... often making the root cause worse. 

I disagree, I think there are plenty of instances that both Obama and Holder make policy decisions based on race; 

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/03/13/naacp-says-eric-holders-doj-goes-too-far-with-race-policy/

http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/12/d...standards-f-now-a-passing-score-for-recruits/

When your race driven policy decisions are too much even for the NAACP....


----------



## yorkshirelad (Mar 19, 2011)

shesulsa said:


> I'm always dismayed that straight white males cry victim like no one's looking out for them ... when the truth is they were looked after and protected for centuries.  Now they have to duke it out like everyone else ... oh the horror.
> !


This is very true! We are speaking about chidren here though. I suppose it's ok with you that little fat, ginger Kev gets his head flush in the toilet daily and his lunch money stolen, because you have anger issues with white men. Grow up love!!I wouldn't like to see any young kid hurt of psychologically tortured by little ***** hawks. I think children on the whole should be a protected "class" even among each other.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 19, 2011)

yorkshirelad said:


> This is very true! We are speaking about chidren here though. I suppose it's ok with you that little fat, ginger Kev gets his head flush in the toilet daily and his lunch money stolen, because you have anger issues with white men. Grow up love!!I wouldn't like to see any young kid hurt of psychologically tortured by little ***** hawks. I think children on the whole should be a protected "class" even among each other.



Yes we are talking about children - and right now I don't think there *is* a child who isn't being told s/he is a victim of *something.*  I don't think that's the way to empower children ... there's a lot wrong with how bullying and violence is being handled by most schools in this country.

And kids are protected to a certain degree, though they don't really have any legal "rights."


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 20, 2011)

K831 said:


> Race issues, and policy decisions driven by racial agendas are commonly explained away as being solely based in "socio-economic" or "monetary" reasoning. It's easy to do. Even affirmative action politics based on the notion of "under-representation" are often cited as being due to "socio-economic" conditions and not race/cultural implications. That's why we throw money at problems without addressing their root cause... often making the root cause worse.
> 
> I disagree, I think there are plenty of instances that both Obama and Holder make policy decisions based on race;
> 
> ...


 
Well, except for the fact that a two minute internet serarch reveals that the initial investigation, and subsequent determination of racial bias on the Dayton, OH police examination occurred under the Bush Administration.  So then Obama would be obliged to do something about the test, in this case, the decision was to lower the passing grade.

From no less than Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/1...cision-lower-police-recruit-test-scores-ohio/): 



> The new policy stems from a 2008 lawsuit in which the Department of Justice under the Bush administration claimed Dayton was discriminatory in its testing practices for choosing police applicants.


 
So why is this an Obama policy again?


----------



## K831 (Mar 20, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Well, except for the fact that a two minute internet serarch reveals that the initial investigation, and subsequent determination of racial bias on the Dayton, OH police examination occurred under the Bush Administration.  So then Obama would be obliged to do something about the test, in this case, the decision was to lower the passing grade.
> 
> From no less than Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/1...cision-lower-police-recruit-test-scores-ohio/):
> 
> ...



I can't tell if your kidding or not, especially since the simple answer is in your own post.

The decision to force the lowering of "acceptable" test scores to failing levels in order to get more blacks hired (the topic being discussed) was made under Obama/Holder, NOT under Bush. That's a pretty simple concept.

Because an investigation is started by the DOJ while the Bush admin. is making its departure is hardly grounds to blame his administration for the continuation, findings and decision to lower test scores, particularly when it was Obama's decision and happened years into Obama's term. 

I realize that any putrid smell in the WH is due to Bush's fart in 08 and not any of Obam's yesterday... but come on.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 20, 2011)

A question, if I may, as someone not as intimately familiar with the workings of the American governmental system as most people here.

In Britain, the first few years of a new governments term are spent actually implementing policies and procedures instigated by the previous Cabinet.  Is this the same in the USA?  Or is a new president not bound by the decsions of his predecessor?


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 20, 2011)

he can, on his first day, executive order out of anything the previous president did, UNLESS it is a law passed by congress.

here is the thing, the FIRST year of obama the 1st reign, he had an excuse, but now it is MORE than half way through his term. 

everything now is on HIM and HIM ALONE

gitmo? HIM
afganistan? HIM
iraq? HIM
Lybia? HIM
Obama care? HIM
deficit? HIM

sensing a trend here?


----------



## Tanaka (Mar 20, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Nor do I think that Americans of african heritage should suffer for the transgressions of their african ancestors, you know, the ones who sold their ancestors into slavery in the first place.


Actually it was middle eastern muslims that sold them into slavery.
As they were seen as lesser men and often referred to as "kafir"


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 21, 2011)

K831 said:


> I can't tell if your kidding or not, especially since the simple answer is in your own post.
> 
> The decision to force the lowering of "acceptable" test scores to failing levels in order to get more blacks hired (the topic being discussed) was made under Obama/Holder, NOT under Bush. That's a pretty simple concept.


 
And I get that.  However, the subject up for debate here is that Obama is charging his DOJ with a policy that is racially discriminatory against White people, and that he bases his DOJ policy in a manner that favors Blacks.  The evidence used for that has been two cases that began before his administration took office.  So it begs the question of how these two cases, even though they span both Bush's and Obama's administration, becomes the sole responsibility of Obama.  

Plus, another thing that you may not have realized is that the DOJ did not "force" Dayton, OH to lower the passing testing scores.  Dayton came up with a solution to address the charge, once again, made under the Bush Administration, that it's testing was racially biased against Blacks.  That solution was to lower the passing score.  The Obama Administration accepted that solution as being reasonable and appropriate.  

Once again, from Fox News:



> *The city of Dayton is making it easier to pass its exam for police recruits* as part of an agreement with the Department of Justice aimed at addressing the police department's low number of lack of black officers.




So blame Obama all that you want, this was a solution put forth by the City of Dayton, OH, not the DOJ.  




> Because an investigation is started by the DOJ while the Bush admin. is making its departure is hardly grounds to blame his administration for the continuation, findings and decision to lower test scores, particularly when it was Obama's decision and happened years into Obama's term.


 
Now, this, in essence, is how you answer the question that I posed above.  And to a certain extent, you are correct that the ultimate _solution _is one that is accepted by the Obama Administration.  But, you would also have to agree that since Bush's Administration made the determination in the first place, that he had a policy of making decisions in favor of Blacks to the detriment of White's as well.  So White kids would be just as "out of luck" regarding this bullying issue under Bush as well as Obama.



> I realize that any putrid smell in the WH is due to Bush's fart in 08 and not any of Obam's yesterday... but come on.


 
And, as I haven't seen you and I haven't had very many debates, you may not realize that I hate Obama as President, was mostly supportive of G.W. Bush.  Anyone around here who has spoken to me for any length of time would tell you that.  

However, I am not willing to assign some sort of nebulous blame simply because it suits my dislike of his decisions when the evidence supports a different conclusion.  And that goes for anyone.  

What you should really be pissed about is the Federal government sticking it's nose into the policing affairs of local jurisdictions.  I have been involved with a police department suffering through a Federal DOJ investigation regarding Civil Rights abuses.  And it was under Obama's administration, and the results were that no consent decree was sought even though we had (unfortunately) killed a couple of unarmed Black men in one year.  (All of the shootings were deemed legally justified.)

So, wax philosophic all you want about Obama's racially motivated investigations.  I have first hand experience with the boobs at the DOJ and their Civil Rights Division.  And the conclusion of said investigation was not a forcing of us to do anything.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 21, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> he can, on his first day, executive order out of anything the previous president did, UNLESS it is a law passed by congress.
> 
> here is the thing, the FIRST year of obama the 1st reign, he had an excuse, but now it is MORE than half way through his term.
> 
> ...


 

Uh, not exactly.

At any given time, the United States Congress can defund whatever of Obama's policies that they do not like.  Gitmo for instance, could have been defunded by the primarily Democratic Congress when Bush was in office, or when Obama assumed office.  But they didn't, and still haven't.  The same holds true of Afganistan and Iraq.  With regards to Libya, the Congress can do the same now, enact legislation defunding any military action in Lybia.

With regard to Obama care you contridict yourself.  You say that unless it is a law passed by Congress, then Obama can stop anything that he wants.  Well, Obama Care is a law passed by Congress.

The President does not pass a budget.  That is passed by Congress, ie., a law.  He alone, as you have stated it, is not to blame, though he is certainly a majority of the cause.

You see, we don't live in a dictatorship, and the President's powers are limited.  That's the whole point of the Constitution thingy we have here.  Not only that, but there are checks upon the power that the President does have, such as defunding the military or Gitmo or Obama Care.

So no, "HE and HE ALONE" is not to blame, though a large part of the responsibility falls to him.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 21, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> A question, if I may, as someone not as intimately familiar with the workings of the American governmental system as most people here.
> 
> In Britain, the first few years of a new governments term are spent actually implementing policies and procedures instigated by the previous Cabinet. Is this the same in the USA? Or is a new president not bound by the decsions of his predecessor?


 
No, a new President usually seats his Cabinet within the first year in office.  The prime reason is that each of those appointees can only be made with the advice and consent of the Congress.  So one could say that the President is not fully in control of his Executive Branch until about a year into office.

That being said, the President, absent of his Cabinet members, can still make or overruled decisions made by the career agency employees.  Kind of like the Prime Minister in your country telling the principal of a school what he could or could not do, rather than leaving it to the Minister of the Department for Education to handle.  

And the President is not bound to run the agencies of the Executive Branch the same way as a previous one.  That is of course, absent any legal rulings made by the Judicial Branch.  And even then, there is wiggle room, due to the fact that there are limitations on things such as bugets which by necessity force compromise.

For instance, as related to the subject at hand, in U.S. vs. Brown, the court ruled that the laws which were enacted by Congress, though originally intended to prevent White people from preventing minorities to vote, is a colorblind statute.  In other words, Black people could be prosecuted under it as well.  So, no President could make the case that the statute doesn't apply to the prosecution of Blacks.  However, the President, as head of the Executive Branch, can lay out a policy which tells the Department of Justice not to prosecute Blacks under the law.

But all hell would break loose if he did so.  The problem in the cases that we are discussing is, IMHO, that people are so quick to judge some of these decisions without knowing the full background behind them, and without any evidence that Obama has laid out such a policy.


----------



## K831 (Mar 21, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> And I get that.  However, the subject up for debate here is that Obama is charging his DOJ with a policy that is racially discriminatory against White people, and that he bases his DOJ policy in a manner that favors Blacks.  The evidence used for that has been two cases that began before his administration took office.  So it begs the question of how these two cases, even though they span both Bush's and Obama's administration, becomes the sole responsibility of Obama.



Again, while a given case may have begun under the Bush administration, it is the responsibility of Obama because the outcome of the case falls under his administration/DOJ. It's common knowledge that the the Bush administration and the Obama administration handle DOJ/Civil rights issues with fundamental differences, why you're arguing that point is lost on me. 

From the NYT; 

 "Seven months after taking office, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.  is reshaping the Justice Departments Civil Rights Division...including voting rights, housing, employment, bank lending  practices and redistricting after the 2010 census."

"As part of this shift, the Obama administration is planning a major  revival of high-impact civil rights enforcement against policies, in  areas ranging from housing to hiring, where statistics show that  minorities fare disproportionately poorly. President George W. Bushs  appointees.... preferred to focus on  individual cases in which there is evidence of intentional  discrimination."

Clearly, its Obama and Holders DOJ.... This is clear by the ongoing attempt to spread the their decision with the Dayton PD to the fire department and beyond to other cities/states with a broad brush.



5-0 Kenpo said:


> Plus, another thing that you may not have realized is that the DOJ did not "force" Dayton, OH to lower the passing testing scores.  Dayton came up with a solution to address the charge, once again, made under the Bush Administration, that it's testing was racially biased against Blacks.  That solution was to lower the passing score.  The Obama Administration accepted that solution as being reasonable and appropriate.



Incorrect. First of all, anyone with any feeling as to how Obama plays politics is well aware of his propensity for tying the hands of others to get his agenda through... regardless, Dayton had to comply with the DOJ approved new scoring policy (the new lower passing scores) Dayton FOP protested these scores and asserted that lowering the scores to comply with the DOJ's new scoring policy would create a safety concern for both citizens an officers. Dayton PD complied due to the DOJ putting off their ability to hire months after they were already in desperate need of getting new recruits into the academy. Sure, the city complied with the DOJ's new policy, but they were effectively forced to do so. (http://fox.daytonsnewssource.com/shared/newsroom/top_stories/videos/wkef_vid_6103.shtml) 



5-0 Kenpo said:


> Once again, from Fox News:



You continue to say this, as though I care that it is from Fox news. I don't have TV/Cable and haven't since 1997. I have seen Fox news a total of probably 5 or 6 times in my life. My news does not come for TV news stations or much MSM in general. 





5-0 Kenpo said:


> So blame Obama all that you want, this was a solution put forth by the City of Dayton, OH, not the DOJ.



I have seen and read too many times now, statements  from Dayton PD officials / Dayton FOP coming out against what they describe as the DOJ policy. Yes they agreed to it and so are complicit, but to say it wasn't DOJ policy is incorrect. Had they failed to meet the DOJ's new policy, they would have remained on a federally imposed hiring freeze - their hands were tied.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 21, 2011)

K831 said:


> Again, while a given case may have begun under the Bush administration, it is the responsibility of Obama because the outcome of the case falls under his administration/DOJ.


 
It became the responsibility of Obama, true. But I think it naive to believe that things that come before have no impact on the things that come after. Imagine, if you will, a President ignoring a finding of racial discrimination. 

For instance, if the Dayton, OH Police Department did nothing to change the testing process, every Black person that now applies there and fails that test can file an individual claim against the city for a pattern of racial discrimination. Evidence in their favor: the U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civil Rights Divisions own findings. Do you think that this situation would just somehow go away if the DOJ didn't continue to pursue it?



> It's common knowledge that the the Bush administration and the Obama administration handle DOJ/Civil rights issues with fundamental differences, why you're arguing that point is lost on me.
> 
> From the NYT;
> 
> ...


 
I have no doubt that they will have a difference in the way that they enforce the laws. That is the purview of being the President. However, that does not mean that White kids will not be offered the protection of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice as some here are asserting. And they are using these cases to show a pattern of behavior for Obama's Administration. Well, explain to me how these incidents show a pattern that Obama will not protect the civil rights of White people.

And that is not clear. Until you show a pattern and practice of such things, then it is a singular incident. Especially considering that they, theoretically, could have done so with my department, but didn't. I'm failing to see the pattern.



> Incorrect. First of all, anyone with any feeling as to how Obama plays politics is well aware of his propensity for tying the hands of others to get his agenda through...


 
You mean like every other President???


> regardless, Dayton had to comply with the DOJ approved new scoring policy (the new lower passing scores) Dayton FOP protested these scores and asserted that lowering the scores to comply with the DOJ's new scoring policy would create a safety concern for both citizens an officers. Dayton PD complied due to the DOJ putting off their ability to hire months after they were already in desperate need of getting new recruits into the academy. Sure, the city complied with the DOJ's new policy, but they were effectively forced to do so. (http://fox.daytonsnewssource.com/shared/newsroom/top_stories/videos/wkef_vid_6103.shtml)


 
Let's quote your own source:

"*The Dayton Police Department* is lowering its testing standards for recruits."

"*The D.O.J. approved* new scoring policy only requires potential police officers to get a 58% and a 63%."

So this is the City Department's policy, not the DOJ. The DOJ approved of the policy shift. Another means of removing discrimination, for example, would have been to change the questions on the test. But ultimately, the policy was determined by the City, not the DOJ. 

If you actually read the terms of the Consent Decree, it merely states that the City will not use the same test that it utilized in 2006, and develop testing proceedures which comply with Title VII. It makes no specific order as to the nature of future tests, including passing scores.

Just because you keep repeating something, doesn't make it so.

And, as much as you want to deny it, you MUST blame the Bush Administration's DOJ for coming to this conclusion in the first place.




> You continue to say this, as though I care that it is from Fox news. I don't have TV/Cable and haven't since 1997. I have seen Fox news a total of probably 5 or 6 times in my life. My news does not come for TV news stations or much MSM in general.


 
I say it because I generally like to site my sources. It has nothing to do with you caring about where it comes from. It allows you to see it first hand, that's all. 



> I have seen and read too many times now, statements from Dayton PD officials / Dayton FOP coming out against what they describe as the DOJ policy. Yes they agreed to it and so are complicit, but to say it wasn't DOJ policy is incorrect. Had they failed to meet the DOJ's new policy, they would have remained on a federally imposed hiring freeze - their hands were tied.


 
And, once again, the nature of the change was up to the City, not the DOJ. And the question becomes who originally tied their hands? The Bush Administration's DOJ  

Quite frankly, the PD officials and FOP have a vested interest in blaming the DOJ.  Having gone through this situation myself, I certainly understand where they are coming from.  I absolutely resented the Feds coming in and trying to tell us what to do.  Including making such non-sensical arguments regarding the fact that we could use different calibers of handguns, and how that was a bad thing because it would be hard to track in officer involved shootings.  (That moron didn't know anything about guns.)

And were the DOJ to file suit in court, and win, then I would, too, say that they forced us to do it.  But it wouldn't be exactly accurate, because it would be the court that would be doing the forcing.

More to the point, I would actually lay blame at the hands of the career Civil Rights Division lawyers, whose very job depends upon finding the slivers of wrongdoing by other agencies.


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 21, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> "Here is the catch. DOJ will only investigate bullying cases if the  victim is considered protected under the 1964 Civil Rights legislation.  In essence, only discrimination of the victim&#8217;s race, color, religion,  sex or will be considered by DOJ. The overweight straight white male who  is verbally and/or physically harassed because of his size can consider  himself invisible to the Justice Department."



As a survivor of intense bullying I think that whoever believes that can go get bent. Hard. ALL bully victims need help!!!


----------



## K831 (Mar 21, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> It became the responsibility of Obama, true. But I think it naive to believe that things that come before have no impact on the things that come after.



You seem to enjoy making counter arguments to arguments that were never made. No one absolved Bush DOJ of anything. No one asserted that things that come before have no impact on things that come after. 



5-0 Kenpo said:


> I'm failing to see the pattern.



No ones fault but your own. Did you miss Holder's "my people" moment? 





5-0 Kenpo said:


> You mean like every other President???



Nothing to do with anything said. I know you like to mince words and get sidetracked, but regardless of weather or not other presidents push legislation etc the way Obama does isn't the point. Rather, your assertion that all presidents admins. do it only further weakens your argument. If they all do it... then your attempts at absolving Obama and placing this on Dayton's head is fallacious. 




5-0 Kenpo said:


> Let's quote your own source:


 As to patterns, you have consistently cherry picked sources for incomplete quotes. Lets try again;

    "The Dayton Police Department is lowering its testing standards for recruits.

*It's a move required by the U.S. Department of Justice* after it says not enough African-Americans passed the exam. *The DOJ has forced other police departments across the country to lower testing standards* citing once again that not enough black candidates were passing."


 I'm sorry friend but it is DOJ policy. Were it Dayton city/Dayton PD policy - none of this would have happened in the first place. 




5-0 Kenpo said:


> If you actually read the terms of the Consent Decree,



I have. The fact that the initial decree is vague means nothing accept that... its vague! The DOJ holding Dayton PD hostage by freezing their hiring indefinitely (until they get what they want) is indicative of whose making decisions.  




5-0 Kenpo said:


> Just because you keep repeating something, doesn't make it so.



True. If I were to follow your pattern, simply adding some incomplete quotes and out of context info would make it so. 




5-0 Kenpo said:


> And, as much as you want to deny it, you MUST blame the Bush Administration.



Again, this is a counter argument to an argument that was never made, and yet another incidence of your word games intended to put words in someones mouth.  I blame the Bush admin for plenty, but I will not blame him for the outcome in this case. That is squarely on the Obama admin. The history of DOJ and Fed offenses into states and cities business goes back much further than Obama or Bush. 

Back to the point...To further help you understand whose decision this actually is;

From the Free republic: _"Black applicant protests lowering police entrance exam scores. *Community leaders say Justice Departments demand is a slap in the face to black people.*" _

_"Zachary Williams is a 21-year-old black Wayne High School grad  who wants nothing more than to be a Dayton police officer or  firefighter. Hes one of 225 black applicants who took the  November police entrance exam now at the center of a dispute between the  city and the U.S. Department of Justice.*His test results are  pending the Justice Departments demand that the city lower its passing  score for a police exam* to allow for a larger pool of black applicants,  while the city argues it is trying to ensure it hires the most  qualified candidates."_ (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2687841/posts) 

From U.S. District Judge Walter H. Rice _- I  cannot make a legal judgment *on the Justice Departments method*, but  there are lots of instances where competent people test poorly. What can happen in these cases,  minorities are incorrectly branded as less qualified when they are  infinitely qualified. _ 

Now, I don't think think this next quote could be any more clear: 

_*Dayton proposed* participants had to answer 57 of 86 (66 percent)  questions correctly on one portion and 73 of 102 (72 percent) on the  other. __*The Justice Department rejected those thresholds and wants  the scores slightly lowered,* city attorney John Danish said, because  not enough blacks (57 of 225) passed compared to whites (386 of 788). _


This is after the city of Dayton hired outside consultant. at a cost of 150k, to re write the test to ensure that it complies with civil rights laws. That still wasn't good enough for this admins. DOJ!  






5-0 Kenpo said:


> I say it because I generally like to site my sources. It has nothing to do with you caring about where it comes from. It allows you to see it first hand, that's all.



I would buy that if you simply gave citations, but you don't - statements like; 



5-0 Kenpo said:


> From no less than Fox News



Clearly show any objective reader that you have some preconceived notion.. thus the "*no less"...*




5-0 Kenpo said:


> More to the point, I would actually lay blame at the hands of the career Civil Rights Division lawyers, whose very job depends upon finding the slivers of wrongdoing by other agencies.



I agree. However, this speaks more to my point. The initiation of the DOJ/Dayton issue back in 08 can be easily attributed to such lawyers as much or more than Bush, while (if we suspend the truth and run with your assertion) the willingness to accept lower tests scores falls squarely on Obama/Holder.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 21, 2011)

So ... now we're back to blaming Obama for racism in America, bullying white kids in America, the downfall of the heterosexual white male, blah blah blah and etcetera, just because he's the president *now.*

And, of course, when Bush was in office, he *inherited* all the bad **** from Clinton and he was trying to fix all the bad **** - and it wasn't his fault ... but sure as **** is Obama's.

Again (and again, and again and again and again) ... I don't like Obama.  But this preposterous ******** that everything is Obama's fault just because he's in office and not the party affiliation of others on the board nor popular radio personalities IS SO ****ING STALE.

I guess if you hammer a lie long and often and loud enough, it eventually becomes truth for some.

It's like arguing the laws of physics with a toddler - pointless and nonproductive.

I'm out ... at least until the banter gets better.


----------



## K831 (Mar 21, 2011)

I'm not sure if the last time I posted this it was deleted, or if I failed to post it correctly, so I will try one more time; 



shesulsa said:


> So ... now we're back to blaming Obama for  racism in America, bullying white kids in America, the downfall of the  heterosexual white male, blah blah blah and etcetera, just because he's  the president *now.*
> 
> And, of course, when Bush was in office, he *inherited* all the bad ****  from Clinton and he was trying to fix all the bad **** - and it wasn't  his fault ... but sure as **** is Obama's.
> 
> ...



Probably the most inapplicable and unproductive post I've ever read. 



shesulsa said:


> So ... now we're back to blaming Obama for racism in America,



Feel free to show me where I (or anyone) said that. 



shesulsa said:


> now we're back to blaming Obama for bullying white kids in America



Please show me where that was said? 



shesulsa said:


> now we're back to blaming Obama for the  downfall of the heterosexual white male,


 Didn't know they were  experiencing a downfall... but please show me where that was said, or  how it applies to the thread. 



shesulsa said:


> And, of course, when Bush was in office, he *inherited* all the bad **** from Clinton



Who brought up Clinton? Who said this? 



shesulsa said:


> and it wasn't his fault ... but sure as ****  is Obama's.


 Again... who absolved Bush of all blame? Where did  this happen? 



shesulsa said:


> I don't like Obama.  But this preposterous ******** that everything is Obama's fault



Everything? Who said that? I recall a discussion being had as to weather  the decision to lower acceptable test scored for Dayton PD was Obama's  DOJ or Dayton itself. I don't recall any mention of "everything"....  



shesulsa said:


> I guess if you hammer a lie long and often and  loud enough, it eventually becomes truth for some.



What lies would that be? I have to believe that since you are posting in response to the discussion regarding Obama's DOJ decision to lower test scores for Dayton PD  testing that you are referring to that as a lie. If that is the case,  please try to gather you maturity, refrain from projections and simply  refute all the statements I quoted. 




shesulsa said:


> It's like arguing the laws of physics with a toddler - pointless and nonproductive.



And I suppose you are the physicist and anyone with a dissenting view is the toddler. Typical to say the least. 



shesulsa said:


> I'm out ...


 If childish tantrums and  outbursts accompanied by insults like your post above is your MO for  contributing to threads... then you choosing to be "out" is hardly a  loss. 

I disagree with 5-0 as to who is _most_ responsible for this  decision, and while we may be slightly cheeky with each other, I expect  the continuation of citing articles and quotes to support our respective  opinions to be as far as it goes. Pity you can't do the same. 



shesulsa said:


> at least until the banter gets better.


  And I guess that happens when people no longer post links to articles  and quotes supporting their position, but rather, follow your example  and give in to accusations and rants?


----------



## yorkshirelad (Mar 21, 2011)

shesulsa said:


> So ... now we're back to blaming Obama for racism in America, bullying white kids in America, the downfall of the heterosexual white male, blah blah blah and etcetera, just because he's the president *now.*
> 
> And, of course, when Bush was in office, he *inherited* all the bad **** from Clinton and he was trying to fix all the bad **** - and it wasn't his fault ... but sure as **** is Obama's.
> 
> ...


 
So all this talk about Obama has got you to leave the conversation.....Nice one Mr. President, now look what you've done!!


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 21, 2011)

yorkshirelad said:


> So all this talk about Obama has got you to leave the conversation.....Nice one Mr. President, now look what you've done!!



President Obama cut me off in traffic this morning, and served me cold coffee at Starbucks.

Nice going Fartbama!


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 22, 2011)

Someone I know said something along these lines (I paraphrase): "a campaign to end bullying is praiseworthy for a school principal, noteworthy for a superintendant, questionable for a mayor, a distraction for a governor, and ridiculous for a President. "


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 22, 2011)

qft




Archangel M said:


> Someone I know said something along these lines (I paraphrase): "a campaign to end bullying is praiseworthy for a school principal, noteworthy for a superintendant, questionable for a mayor, a distraction for a governor, and ridiculous for a President. "


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 23, 2011)

K831 said:


> You seem to enjoy making counter arguments to arguments that were never made. No one absolved Bush DOJ of anything. No one asserted that things that come before have no impact on things that come after.


 
I can make new points in an on-going debate, can't I, based on what I perceive as the implications of statements made by others?  The argument still remains that it is quite inconceivable to believe that Obama could simply reject out of hand a change to the test in some manner after the Bush Administration's DOJ found evidence of bias. 

And since we are talking about responsibilty, which can cross a single day of 



> No ones fault but your own. Did you miss Holder's "my people" moment?


 
You mean where he was talking about his a disservice in a person's comments regarding people who put their lives on the line, specifically his sister-in-law, or "my people".   



> Nothing to do with anything said. I know you like to mince words and get sidetracked, but regardless of weather or not other presidents push legislation etc the way Obama does isn't the point. Rather, your assertion that all presidents admins. do it only further weakens your argument. If they all do it... then your attempts at absolving Obama and placing this on Dayton's head is fallacious.


 
You made a generalized statement, and I made one back.  There is no evidence to support that he tied anyone's hands in this case either. 



> As to patterns, you have consistently cherry picked sources for incomplete quotes. Lets try again;
> 
> "The Dayton Police Department is lowering its testing standards for recruits.
> 
> *It's a move required by the U.S. Department of Justice* after it says not enough African-Americans passed the exam. *The DOJ has forced other police departments across the country to lower testing standards* citing once again that not enough black candidates were passing."


 
Except for the fact that there is no legal document stating that the DOJ required this specific remedy. 



> I'm sorry friend but it is DOJ policy. Were it Dayton city/Dayton PD policy - none of this would have happened in the first place.


 
There is no proof of that that it is a DOJ policy.



> I have. The fact that the initial decree is vague means nothing accept that... its vague! The DOJ holding Dayton PD hostage by freezing their hiring indefinitely (until they get what they want) is indicative of whose making decisions.


 
And the fact that the only specific remedy that it requires is that they not use the 2006 test, and (generally) be compliant with Title VII.




> True. If I were to follow your pattern, simply adding some incomplete quotes and out of context info would make it so.


 
And making statements about facts not in evidence doesn't either. 




> Again, this is a counter argument to an argument that was never made, and yet another incidence of your word games intended to put words in someones mouth. I blame the Bush admin for plenty, but I will not blame him for the outcome in this case. That is squarely on the Obama admin. The history of DOJ and Fed offenses into states and cities business goes back much further than Obama or Bush.


 
And that is the problem with out discussion.  This "blame game" can go any such way, dependent upon perspective.  I could just as easily say that were in not for the Bush Administration's DOJ determination of bias, this outcome would have never happened either.  A remedy, once the determination is made, is inevitable.



> Back to the point...To further help you understand whose decision this actually is;
> 
> From the Free republic: _"Black applicant protests lowering police entrance exam scores. *Community leaders say Justice Departments demand is a slap in the face to black people.*" _


 
This I actually agree with.

_



"Zachary Williams is a 21-year-old black Wayne High School grad who wants nothing more than to be a Dayton police officer or firefighter. Hes one of 225 black applicants who took the November police entrance exam now at the center of a dispute between the city and the U.S. Department of Justice.*His test results are pending the Justice Departments demand that the city lower its passing score for a police exam* to allow for a larger pool of black applicants, while the city argues it is trying to ensure it hires the most qualified candidates." (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2687841/posts)
		
Click to expand...

 
_Again, there is no evidence that this is a Justice Department demand, and even if so, there is no way that short of a court order that they can compel compliance.



> From U.S. District Judge Walter H. Rice _- I cannot make a legal judgment *on the Justice Departments method*, but there are lots of instances where competent people test poorly. What can happen in these cases, minorities are incorrectly branded as less qualified when they are infinitely qualified. _


 
And what method is he referring to:



> The Justice Departments method of forcing cities to diversify through litigation ...


 
This says nothing about arm twisting, but litigation, which the cities are perfectly capable of going to court regarding. 



> Now, I don't think think this next quote could be any more clear:
> 
> _*Dayton proposed* participants had to answer 57 of 86 (66 percent) questions correctly on one portion and 73 of 102 (72 percent) on the other. __*The Justice Department rejected those thresholds and wants the scores slightly lowered,* city attorney John Danish said, because not enough blacks (57 of 225) passed compared to whites (386 of 788). _


 
Wants.  And the city had every right to disagree and contest it.  They chose not to.  And since the test scores were put forth by them, it is their decision.



> This is after the city of Dayton hired outside consultant. at a cost of 150k, to re write the test to ensure that it complies with civil rights laws. That still wasn't good enough for this admins. DOJ!


 
Perhaps because it was, in fact, inadequate.  I don't know, but neither will I make an assumption. 




> I would buy that if you simply gave citations, but you don't - statements like;
> 
> Clearly show any objective reader that you have some preconceived notion.. thus the "*no less"...*


 
Or it could be because of the fact that Fox is generally believed to be anti-Obama station made such a comment, perhaps lending credibility to said statement.  Otherwise, why not say Obama's DOJ forced them to do it in an effort to make him look bad.  It had nothing at all to do with your acceptance of Fox News as a credible source, but, even thinking that they might be biased against Obama, they still credited the change to Dayton, not him.  



> I agree. However, this speaks more to my point. The initiation of the DOJ/Dayton issue back in 08 can be easily attributed to such lawyers as much or more than Bush, while (if we suspend the truth and run with your assertion) the willingness to accept lower tests scores falls squarely on Obama/Holder.


 
No, I would actually say that willingness to accept lower test scores also falls to career lawyers, and not Obama.  Just like the original investigation under the Bush DOJ likely had more to do with career lawyers.  The whole theory that people have made here is that because the outcome occurred under Obama, that he must have had a hand in it's decision, and it was based on his "racial preferences".  Not only that, but future decisions of the DOJ will have the same racial bias.  I have denied that because there is nothing in the evidence to support such a conclusion.  So though he may be in charge, in an ultimate sense, it is not like he, or Eric Holder for that matter, has a hand in the day-to-day decision making of every aspect of the DOJ.


----------



## K831 (Mar 23, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I can make new points in an on-going debate, can't I, based on what I perceive as the implications of statements made by others?


 You can do anything you want, but what you do with each post, is sidestep the argument in favor of ancillary points. You aren't writing them as a "new point" you want to bring up, but rather, as a counter argument to and argument never made. 



5-0 Kenpo said:


> The argument still remains that it is quite inconceivable to believe that Obama could simply reject out of hand a change to the test in some manner after the Bush Administration's DOJ found evidence of bias.



This was never the argument. The argument revolves around Obama/Obama DOJ/Obama appointees making policy decision that are racially motivated. They have made decisions based on race politics and not law. The end result pushed by Obama et al and accepted by the same is the issue, not who started the inquiry. 






5-0 Kenpo said:


> There is no evidence to support that he tied anyone's hands in this case either.



Both sides have stated that the DOJ disallowed Dayton from continuing the hiring proccess until the DOJ was satisfied (lower test scores obtained). Dayton desperately needed new recruits, so yes, they accepted the DOJ policy. Complicit? Yes. Their policy? No. 






5-0 Kenpo said:


> Except for the fact that there is no legal document stating that the DOJ required this specific remedy.





5-0 Kenpo said:


> There is no proof of that that it is a DOJ policy.


 

Just statements by the DOJ/Loretta King, Dayton PD, city attorneys, Dayton FOP. numerous press interviews and sources etc... but you just continue to believe they are all making it up? 





5-0 Kenpo said:


> Again, there is no evidence that this is a Justice Department demand, and even if so, there is no way that short of a court order that they can compel compliance.


 
I do not think it is possible that your understanding of politics, government, legal system, lobbying etc is so shallow as to believe a court order is the only way to compel compliance. You are simply choosing to be obtuse in the face of evidence. As though budgetary/economic/time  and resource constraints as well as political capitol can't be used to compel. In our system, as well as international systems, the very threat of having to go to court against a more heavily funded opponent is enough to compel. Surely you understand this. 






5-0 Kenpo said:


> Wants.  And the city had every right to disagree and contest it.  They chose not to.



So you have come around to my original argument? The DOJ wanted test scores lowered. It was their policy. The city chose to accept rather than undergo a drawn out legal battle, bleed resources, etc... and so they are complicit, but it is still a DOJ policy. 




5-0 Kenpo said:


> Or it could be because of the fact that Fox is generally believed to be anti-Obama station made such a comment, perhaps lending credibility to said statement.



 Which is exactly what I said. You were not simply making a citation... but bringing in a preconceived notion about the source. You responded you were just making a citation as you always do. Apparently that wasn't the case.  



The notion that the Obama admin. DOJ/Holder and appointees make racially driven policies is hardly new. It's an assertion made by many on both sides of the political spectrum.

Obama's appointee Loretta King has come under much condemnation for this, as has Obama and Holder for sharing her objective. 

Yet you say you are failing to see a pattern from this admin. and DOJ? 

Perhaps this will help;

http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/21/c...-guided-more-by-racial-politics-than-the-law/


_Some of the most outlandish policies of the Holder Justice  Department over the last two years flow directly from Loretta Kings  worldview, J. Christian Adams, who worked with King while serving as a  voting rights attorney at the Justice Department, told The Daily Caller._
_According to Adams, race-based decision making has been a consistent staple of Kings actions and resume._

​_In testimony  before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights about the New Black Panther  case, former DOJ Voting Rights Section chief Christopher Coates  explained that King ordered him to stop asking trial applicants whether they would have a problem dealing with cases involving white victims._

_In the spring of 2009, Ms. King, who had by then been appointed  Acting AAG [assistant attorney general] for Civil Rights by the Obama  Administration, called me to her office and specifically instructed me  that I was not to ask any other applicants whether they would be willing  to, in effect, race-neutrally enforce the VRA [Voting Rights Act], he  testified. Ms. King took offense that I was asking such a question of  job applicants and directed me not to ask it because she does not  support equal enforcement of the provisions of the VRA._

*The bigger issue was the testimony we uncovered while we were trying to  investigate  that there is a pervasive atmosphere of hostility to  race-neutral enforcement...*_The most important thing was testimony from four witnessesthat there is a racial double standard to the enforcement...And no one in the Justice Department has denied the specific facts or specific allegations."
_​
_*In New York, King is currently the lead attorney in an effort to  disregard low test scores to allow more minority candidates to become  firefighters.* The effort, as some have pointed out,  disregards the 2009 New Haven firefighter case, Ricci v. DeStefano. In  that case, the Supreme Court ruled that objective test results could not  be thrown out merely to meet a desired racial outcome.__*Ms. King glosses over the professional challenges of firefighting to  focus on whether minorities feel stigmatized or if black firefighters  could further their sense of fairness in their place of employment if  surrounded by more workers of their own race, the Times reported.*_
Again, with regards to Dayton;

_Last week, reports came out of Dayton, Ohio that* the DOJ, led by King,  is compelling the Dayton Police Department to lower their test standards*  to make the equivalent of an F a passing grade. The reasoning behind  this: the DOJ believes that not enough African Americans are passing the  test._
When asked why the DOJ demanded that test scores be lowered, their answer wasn't it wasn't our policy, it was Dayton's..." as you suggest. It was and has always been "because not enough African Americans are passing".

They aren't just pushing this policy in Dayton, either. 

Whether or not you fail to see the pattern, doesn't mean it isn't there. 


_According to some who know her,* King simply wont allow even Supreme  Court decisions to get in the way of her pushing race-based policies.*_
_I know [King]. I worked with her, and look, she is somebody who  believes in racial quotas and she is not going to allow a Supreme Court  decision, like Ricci, prevent her from what she wants to do, said Hans  Von Spakovsky, former counsel to the assistant attorney general for the  Civil Rights Division, explaining why King has continued to push forward  with cases like Dayton._
_King declined to comment to TheDC._


It is in fact DOJ policy, and there is in fact evidence of a pattern of racially motivated policy decisions. Dayton accepted because they desperately needed to hire, and they new testing isn't the only weeder of applicants in the hiring proccess. Their willingness to submit to the DOJ doesn't mean it wasn't DOJ policy. 


​​​ ​


----------

