Thread: Oil

Oh, so if it is Fox news it's conservative and immediately suspect, but if it is CNN it's ok?

I get it.

Who do you think the DOJ works for right now? Who refused to take action against the Black Panthers and Eric Holder? I'm sure their numbers are right on the mark.

Originally Posted by Crotalus

Who refused to take action against Eric Holder?

The republican party controlled house of representatives which held him in contempt? May be you should write to your representative how disappointed you are.



BTW what does your so called 'CNN link' have to do with being OK or not - you allege it confirms your data, yet you really can not provide it. For all I know if it ever existed it is an interview with some incompetent idiot who simply made outrageous claims because he 'believed them to be true'.
And yes, your other two sources have plain agenda stated right there, and even then what you call data is statements of 'estimated up to'.

I'm rather confused why are you bringing up foxnews too - what you wrote makes absolutely no sense.

Come on, you're better off if you don't show-off your gullibility so proudly. It's not a good thing, Santa Claus is only for little children.

Originally Posted by Crotalus

Oh, so if it is Fox news it's conservative and immediately suspect, but if it is CNN it's ok?

I get it.

Who do you think the DOJ works for right now? Who refused to take action against the Black Panthers and Eric Holder? I'm sure their numbers are right on the mark.

It wasn't FoxNews, it was NewsMax. I did not speak to the CNN link because you said it was broken.

Regardless of whether I trust NewsMax or CIS.org, none of those articles said anything about 1/3 prisoners being immigrants. I wound up Googling it and the only thing I could find was some crap that Lou Dobbs spouted off about in '03. Probably also without any real citations.

This was a half decent conversation until CNN and Newsmax were considered hard evidence. One thing that was taught in my school was to consider the source and always follow up with the source of information provided by any media outlet. Any news outlet can snip data they think is relevant to their article but leave out other data. It would be better practice to follow up with your news groups sources for the data you speak of. If I was in your shoes a good start would be compiling data from the DOJ and from local prison systems.

I just find it interesting a news source was used as a fact when the real facts posted by local and federal governments is readily available. Unbelievable.

I'm leaving this conversation. It's no longer worth it.

Originally Posted by Crotalus

Oh, so if it is Fox news it's conservative and immediately suspect, but if it is CNN it's ok?

I get it.

Who do you think the DOJ works for right now? Who refused to take action against the Black Panthers and Eric Holder? I'm sure their numbers are right on the mark.

The dreaded "Black panthers". A couple of dudes dress the part and call themselves the panthers and you guys have an instant Bogey man to flail around. yes you are right there are hundreds of thousands of them and they are about to exercise their second amendment rights and they're coming after YOU.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

The dreaded "Black panthers". A couple of dudes dress the part and call themselves the panthers and you guys have an instant Bogey man to flail around. yes you are right there are hundreds of thousands of them and they are about to exercise their second amendment rights and they're coming after YOU.

If you will remember, the Black Panthers posted themselves outside of a polling place and were intimidating Republican voters. It was videoed, clearly illegal, and Holder refused to act.

It had nothing to do with the second amendment. Even campaigning is against the law within a certain distance of a polling place. The Black Panthers were carrying clubs.

Evidence That New Black Panther Party Did Intimidate Voters

Originally Posted by Crotalus

If you will remember, the Black Panthers posted themselves outside of a polling place and were intimidating Republican voters. It was videoed, clearly illegal, and Holder refused to act.

It had nothing to do with the second amendment. Even campaigning is against the law within a certain distance of a polling place. The Black Panthers were carrying clubs.

Evidence That New Black Panther Party Did Intimidate Voters

More facts? From a conservative think tank...

Well if we are just throwing blogs out there as facts, I guess I will also throw out this quote from one of your fellow conservatives:

" Abigail Thernstrom, a commission member and a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute, called it "small potatoes" and said conservatives should pursue more important issues against the Obama administration. The case, she pointed out, invokes a narrow and rarely used provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which has been used successfully to prosecute only three times since its passage.

"If you want to criticize [Attorney General] Eric Holder, there are lots of grounds on which to criticize him," she said. "Why waste your breath on this one?"

Thernstrom said that she did not find Adams's testimony convincing and that the facts of the case raised doubts in her mind, noting that the Black Panthers were standing in front of a majority-black precinct that had voted overwhelmingly for Democrats in previous elections -- not a prime spot for intimidating white voters. "

Quote from - 2008 voter-intimidation case against New Black Panthers riles the right

Originally Posted by ryanjewell

More facts? From a conservative think tank...

Well if we are just throwing blogs out there as facts, I guess I will also throw out this quote from one of your fellow conservatives:

" Abigail Thernstrom, a commission member and a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute, called it "small potatoes" and said conservatives should pursue more important issues against the Obama administration. The case, she pointed out, invokes a narrow and rarely used provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which has been used successfully to prosecute only three times since its passage.

"If you want to criticize [Attorney General] Eric Holder, there are lots of grounds on which to criticize him," she said. "Why waste your breath on this one?"

Thernstrom said that she did not find Adams's testimony convincing and that the facts of the case raised doubts in her mind, noting that the Black Panthers were standing in front of a majority-black precinct that had voted overwhelmingly for Democrats in previous elections -- not a prime spot for intimidating white voters. "

Quote from - 2008 voter-intimidation case against New Black Panthers riles the right

If you had bothered to look, it was a video, not just a blog.

What does it matter what the predominant voters were? They were standing outside a polling place holding weapons.

Originally Posted by Crotalus

If you had bothered to look, it was a video, not just a blog.

What does it matter what the predominant voters were? They were standing outside a polling place holding weapons.

i watched the video. very definitive. the conversation they had really spells out all the details of what was going on there...

well, maybe not, but you graciously filled in all the blanks with your theories...so thanks for that.

So it's ok for Gang Members to stand outside a polling place holding clubs?

I'm glad we cleared that up.