I agree, President Obama is selling the country out to foriegn countries right now.
White kids are out of luck
- Thread starter Twin Fist
- Start date
Archangel M
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,555
- Reaction score
- 154
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.
This is "feel good" politics IMO, not much else.
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...
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 “…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.” 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.
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 “…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.” 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.
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?
Last edited:
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.
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.
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
Master Black Belt
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."
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/):
So why is this an Obama policy again?
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.
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?
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?
OP
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
- Thread Starter
- #34
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?
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
Purple Belt
Actually it was middle eastern muslims that sold them into slavery.
As they were seen as lesser men and often referred to as "kafir"
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:
So blame Obama all that you want, this was a solution put forth by the City of Dayton, OH, not the DOJ.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 Departments 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. Bushs 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.
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)
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 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.
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?
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.
You mean like every other President???
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
