so wat yuh seyinn iss dat de furst ag in da histaree fe be held in contempt aff cangress iss blakk ann yuh nuh see da racism widd dat
Ya know Blu, you can only pull the race card so many times before it becomes an old stale excuse for failure or wrong doing. So the answer is no, I don't I see racism, I see contempt. You see a black and white issue. I simply see the issue as black and white = not complictated and without malice.
Tuff Gong: Mr. Holder: “You don’t want to go there, buddy. You don’t want to go there, OK?”
Thats what Barry and Eric get for saving the Bushes and RePugs collective ***.
That does not make any sense to me. I don't see Holder or Obama saving the Bush's backside (or the Repugs) for anything, as the Obama administration has spent the entire term in office(up to date ) making excuses and blaming the Bush administration and Repugs for their own ineptness and inability to govern.
Barry and Eric are racists? Wow, this is the new thinking?
In any case the standard by which all Presidents and AG have been judged Barry and Eric is way out front. They p have kept Amurica from been attacked, defend Israel to hilt and help put food on the table.....What the hell more you want?
I don't see things that way...and Israel hates the Obama administration
Below is more truth that cannot be ignored about Holder.
By Edwin Meese III And
J. Kenneth Blackwell
Sept. 28, 2014 6:58 p.m. ET
Attorney General Eric Holder, who announced his resignation on Thursday, leaves a dismal legacy at the Justice Department, but one of his legal innovations was especially pernicious: the demonizing of state attempts to ensure honest elections.As a former U.S. attorney general under President Reagan, and a former Ohio secretary of state, we would like to say something that might strike some as obvious: Those who oppose photo voter-ID laws and other election-integrity reforms are intent on making it easier to commit vote fraud.
That conclusion is inescapable, given the well-established evidence that voter-ID laws don't disenfranchise minorities or reduce minority voting, and in many instances enhance it, despite claims to the contrary by Mr. Holder and his allies. As more states adopt such laws, the left has railed against them with increasing fury, even invoking the specter of the Jim Crow era to describe electoral safeguards common to most nations, including in the Third World.
Heritage Foundation Senior Legal Fellow Hans von Spakovsky on the attorney general's record. Ascribing racial animus to people who are trying to safeguard democratic integrity is a crude yet effective political tactic that obscures the truth. But there's something even worse than name-calling: legal interference from Washington with valid laws.
Attorney General Holder has sued Texas and North Carolina since the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling last year in Shelby County v. Holder. That decision invalidated Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which made inoperable Section 5, a provision requiring the Justice Department or a D.C.-based federal court panel to pre-clear all election-law changes in nine states and multiple jurisdictions. The court rightly noted that the data on which the law was based are no longer valid, and that times have changed.
What has been lost in media coverage is that the court rightly left untouched Sections 2 and 3, which together give the federal government ample power to enforce a national ban on racial discrimination in voting. Section 2 bars intentional discrimination as well as racially discernible "results" based on a court review. Section 3 empowers a court to pre-clear any changes if the court finds intentional discrimination. Following the Shelby ruling, Mr. Holder proved the point by invoking Section 2 to sue Texas and North Carolina.
In April, Eastern Wisconsin U.S. District Judge Lynn S. Adelman, a Clinton appointee, put a stay on the Badger State's new photo voter-ID law, but on Sept. 12 a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals panel lifted it, clearing the way for the law to apply to November's election. Judge Adelman had justified his ruling with a questionable finding that 300,000 minority citizens might lose the right to vote if required to show an ID.
One common assertion is that low-income Wisconsinites, or poor people anywhere, cannot afford to obtain a birth certificate or other proof of identity or easily find their way to government offices that issue such documents. You could apply that reasoning to almost any interaction with government or business and claim discrimination. Judge Adelman was among those concerned about the poor being capable of obtaining a valid ID, an inability "traceable to the effects of discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and housing."
Let's consider the facts. For starters, voter-ID laws include measures for people who fail to produce identification on Election Day, such as provisional ballots, and many states go to great lengths to see that anyone who wants an ID but cannot afford one can get it free of charge.
In November last year under its new photo-ID law, Texas held off-year primary elections without incident. Although the state set up offices issuing free voter IDs to those who lacked them, only 121 were issued statewide by Election Day. For those who say voter-ID laws suppress the vote: Overall turnout in Texas rose to 1,144,844 in 2013, from 690,052 votes cast in 2011. In several counties dominated by minorities, turnout increased even more significantly.
In 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Indiana's photo voter-ID law, which has become a model for many states. The court found no evidence that such laws disproportionately affect minorities. Minority participation in the Hoosier State rose in subsequent statewide elections, including in the nonpresidential election year of 2010.
Minority voting in Georgia also increased significantly under its photo-ID law, which took effect statewide in 2008. As noted by Hans von Spakovsky and John Fund in their 2012 book "Who's Counting?," the law didn't exactly discourage turnout, with 65% of the black voting-age population casting ballots in 2008, compared with 54.4% in 2004. Even without Barack Obama on the ballot, the pattern held, the authors noted: "While only 42.9 percent of registered black Georgians voted in 2006, 50.4 percent voted in 2010."
One of the most often-cited factoids—something that sounds authoritative but is not fact-based—is the NAACP's claim that 25% of black American adults lack a government-issued photo ID. Think about that for a moment. This would mean that millions of African-American men and women are unable to legally drive, cash a check, board an airliner or participate in everyday activities of modern life enabled by a photo ID such as a driver's license.
One final point. The validity of laws does not hinge on popular surveys—except for laws approved directly by voters at the ballot box. Public opinion can wax and wane. Nonetheless, it is instructive to note that a majority of Americans in all demographic categories, including political party, consistently support voter photo-ID laws. In a national Fox News poll released in May, 70% overall approved of voter-ID laws, including majorities in all age groups and by race, sex and party affiliation.
When the Senate holds confirmation hearings for Mr. Holder's replacement, Republicans should make a point of exploring the nominee's thinking about voter-ID laws. After the Holder Justice Department sued North Carolina over its new photo-ID law, Republican Gov. Pat McCrory said: "I believe if showing a voter ID is good enough and fair enough for our own president in Illinois, then it's good enough for the people in North Carolina." We think so, too.
Mr. Meese, a former U.S. attorney general, and Mr. Blackwell, a former mayor of Cincinnati and Ohio secretary of state, serve on the policy board of the American Civil Rights Union.
Ya know Blu, you can only pull the race card so many times before it becomes an old stale excuse for failure or wrong doing. So the answer is no, I don't I see racism, I see contempt. You see a black and white issue. I simply see the issue as black and white = not complictated and without malice.
That does not make any sense to me. I don't see Holder or Obama saving the Bush's backside (or the Repugs) for anything, as the Obama administration has spent the entire term in office(up to date ) making excuses and blaming the Bush administration and Repugs for their own ineptness and inability to govern.
think of it that they both Holder and Obama actually believe in the US constitution..so did Mcain, and Romney, Bush. Yes i actually beleive bush is a constiutionalist....They are IMHO are aware of its fragility and pushj against the restraints..
forget the press... ask ur self this .. why does Barry and Eric not close Gitmo ???? Who put the prisoners in Gitmo ???Is this because he is a member of the illuminati or there are bad people in there ??? Why does he not hold a public trial as he promised ? could it be that there are limits on the proof ? If he did hold a non military public trial as he promised and the prisoners will be freed because of the lack of credible "legal obtained evidence"....
u think Bush did not protected the legacy of Clinton ? He never did a full inquiry into the bombing of that aspirin factory in Sudan that killed a innocent Guard and his child ??????.
all Presidents and administration abused the system... From Jefferson buying Lousiana without congress approval, the purhase of Alaska, the Saintly Lincoln who suspended Habeous Corpus... Roosevelt the Republican who misled congress on Columbia and Roosevelt the Democrat who misled congress on the sale of war materiel to the UK which was illegal under the neutrality act..
Barry uses drones to kill people his military and intelligence sees as threat... this is in countries without which the US has not declared war on??? the president was set by his predesesors..if he does not protect Bush then his entire basis for doing this will be questioned... both Eric and he have sailed close to the line of legality...
But i am stupid sell out unconsious dont listen to me... is lie me ah tell...
stop being viserally opposed to Obama and see him in the context of a flawed man like all other presidents and u will realise that he is less flawed athan he is portrayed....
if they did give these document a whole rain of **** would rain down on the previous administration (s)... where the use of collateral damage, torture, redition, illegal searches, seizures and killings would come out....But if you want this thread to be pulled go for it.. it suits the rest of the world!
LOL Sorry, but I miss your point. Why would a thread be pulled for a discussion about US politics? You have lost me Wahalla, please clarify?
What suits the rest of the world? And yes, thank you, I will go for it, if IT is the truth. I have not a problem with facts and the truth and I have no favorites on the political stage. I think all politicians are self serving parasites with their own agendas.
Really? (yawn, again) If all else fails pull the race card (again)
So, backlash against politicians is new? If there is backlash against the Obama administration, that means they are being treated as any other administration. Criticism of politicians has been going on since day one.
Well, he is certainly the most arrogant. That's the word that comes to mind when I think of Eric Holder.
BRUCE: Eric Holder’s contempt for the American people
Wherever Team Obama is taking the nation, ‘you don’t want to go there’
By Tammy Bruce - - Thursday, April 10, 2014
In what some have referred to as “fireworks” during a House hearing with Attorney General Eric H. Holder, one of the more important revelations was the exposure of exactly how much literal contempt Mr. Holder actually holds for the American people.
In a bizarre scene, Mr. Holder, emboldened with a rather grandiose opinion of himself, became enraged when Rep. Louie Gohmert referenced Mr. Holder being sanctioned for contempt of Congress two years ago. Check out their exchange:
Mr. Gohmert: ” I still do not understand why your department can provide documents to terrorists’ lawyers, and many of them to four out of eight of the terrorists, and not provide them to members of Congress.
“Sir, I’ve read you what your department promised, and it is inadequate, and I realize that contempt is not a big deal to our attorney general, but it is important that we have proper oversight.”
Mr. Holder: “You don’t want to go there, buddy. You don’t want to go there, OK?”
this is the typical king of dishonesty you get from commentators like tammy bruce (and most of the right wing talkers)...and is the reason why people who depend on them for information are very misinformed. she leaves out much of the context of the comment to use it to her ends.
he is the relevant part of the exchange:
Sir, I’ve read you what your department promised, and it is inadequate, and I realize that contempt is not a big deal to our attorney general, but it is important that we have proper oversight,” Gohmert said.Holder: “You don’t want to go there, buddy. You don’t want to go there, okay?” Gohmert: “I don’t want to go there?” Holder: “No.” Gohmert: “About the contempt?” Holder: “You should not assume that that is not a big deal to me. I think that it was inappropriate. I think it was unjust, but never think that that was not a big deal to me. Don’t ever think that.”
When its hot in the jungle of peace I go swimming in the ocean of love.....
Thanks Rich, Ok, no problem, but what else did he say that was relevant?... Nothing. So, what did you post that left me or anyone else any more informed? Nothing. You informed me that there were more words in the exchange, but there is nothing that changes the context of what was orginally posted.He was found in contempt because he said nothing of relevance.So, what you posted is irrelevant.
I don't care about how Holder felt about being held in contempt. How he feels is not relevant. His explanation of his actions as A.G. are relevant....Get it?
Dishonesty is changing subject matter to take focus off of the real subject...One more time, why was Holder held in contempt?
this is the typical king of dishonesty you get from commentators like tammy bruce (and most of the right wing talkers)...and is the reason why people who depend on them for information are very misinformed. she leaves out much of the context of the comment to use it to her ends.
he is the relevant part of the exchange:
Sir, I’ve read you what your department promised, and it is inadequate, and I realize that contempt is not a big deal to our attorney general, but it is important that we have proper oversight,” Gohmert said.Holder: “You don’t want to go there, buddy. You don’t want to go there, okay?”
Gohmert: “I don’t want to go there?”
Holder: “No.”
Gohmert: “About the contempt?”
Holder: “You should not assume that that is not a big deal to me. I think that it was inappropriate. I think it was unjust, but never think that that was not a big deal to me. Don’t ever think that.”
LOL Sorry, but I miss your point. Why would a thread be pulled for a discussion about US politics? You have lost me Wahalla, please clarify?
What suits the rest of the world? And yes, thank you, I will go for it, if IT is the truth. I have not a problem with facts and the truth and I have no favorites on the political stage. I think all politicians are self serving parasites with their own agendas.
Pull the thread means you investigate this to its full exent athe whole cloth will unravel... and the full unvarnished would subject both administrations to prosecution at the Hague in a manner similar to the denizens of the former Yugoslavia are now undergoing. ..the rest of the world can do without the fear that the single super power has... with the flood that is china and Russia gaining more spheres of influence... if u think the US is bad then those two smaller gorillas will be an object in real poltics...
I dont think Bush or Macain or Obama or Clinton did not have the best issue of the their nation.. and yes politicians all have their own agenda.. if you want saints join Tropicanas church...
Thanks Rich, Ok, no problem, but what else did he say that was relevant?... Nothing. So, what did you post that left me or anyone else any more informed? Nothing. You informed me that there were more words in the exchange, but there is nothing that changes the context of what was orginally posted.He was found in contempt because he said nothing of relevance.So, what you posted is irrelevant.
I don't care about how Holder felt about being held in contempt. How he feels is not relevant. His explanation of his actions as A.G. are relevant....Get it?
Dishonesty is changing subject matter to take focus off of the real subject...One more time, why was Holder held in contempt?
is that what the article you posted was about? ..explaining why he was held in contempt?
was his "dont go there buddy" a response to his being held in contempt? I appears to me that the reason you posted that article is you would have readers believe that this was the reason he was held in contempt
the intent of my posting additional dialog was to show readers who are not informed that Nolders response was in keeping with the tone of the questioning and not a response to being held in contem but rather a response to the denigrating way the congressman was was questioning him characterizing his behavior.
I don't see things that way...and Israel hates the Obama administration
Seems to I Israel has got a free pass to do whatever under this admin and previous ones, so they would have no reason to hate Barry's Admin.
So what about Barry and Eric being racists?
Pull the thread means you investigate this to its full exent athe whole cloth will unravel... and the full unvarnished would subject both administrations to prosecution
Ok, I get it now, and I say good! The truth will set you free.
I dont think Bush or Macain or Obama or Clinton did not have the best issue of the their nation.. and yes politicians all have their own agenda.. if you want saints join Tropicanas church...
No, I don't want saints, I want competance and I want full disclosure. This administration promised transparency. That's what I expect. Maybe incompetance and withholding information and lies will suffice for people in the UK.
As a US citizen I won't except it....Maybe that's why they took away your guns in the UK?
The With- Holder held back information on fast and furious. Many claim fast and furious was an attempted scheme that backfired for more gun control in the US. If you control the weapons, you control the sheeple
..the rest of the world can do without the fear that the single super power has... with the flood that is china and Russia gaining more spheres of influence... if u think the US is bad then those two smaller gorillas will be an object in real poltics...
Obama showed Russia and Putin he does not have the balls to be a true leader. Putin laughs at Obama.
We still have our weapons, and the number one fear of the old soviet union for invasion of the US was private ownership of weapons by the American people.
”He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.”
”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither
think of it that they both Holder and Obama actually believe in the US constitution..so did Mcain, and Romney, Bush. Yes i actually beleive bush is a constiutionalist....They are IMHO are aware of its fragility and pushj against the restraints..
forget the press... ask ur self this .. why does Barry and Eric not close Gitmo ???? Who put the prisoners in Gitmo ???Is this because he is a member of the illuminati or there are bad people in there ??? Why does he not hold a public trial as he promised ? could it be that there are limits on the proof ? If he did hold a non military public trial as he promised and the prisoners will be freed because of the lack of credible "legal obtained evidence"....
u think Bush did not protected the legacy of Clinton ? He never did a full inquiry into the bombing of that aspirin factory in Sudan that killed a innocent Guard and his child ??????.
all Presidents and administration abused the system... From Jefferson buying Lousiana without congress approval, the purhase of Alaska, the Saintly Lincoln who suspended Habeous Corpus... Roosevelt the Republican who misled congress on Columbia and Roosevelt the Democrat who misled congress on the sale of war materiel to the UK which was illegal under the neutrality act..
Barry uses drones to kill people his military and intelligence sees as threat... this is in countries without which the US has not declared war on??? the president was set by his predesesors..if he does not protect Bush then his entire basis for doing this will be questioned... both Eric and he have sailed close to the line of legality...
But i am stupid sell out unconsious dont listen to me... is lie me ah tell...
stop being viserally opposed to Obama and see him in the context of a flawed man like all other presidents and u will realise that he is less flawed athan he is portrayed....
you are asking for some thought...not going to happen.
When its hot in the jungle of peace I go swimming in the ocean of love.....
Really? (yawn, again) If all else fails pull the race card (again)
So, backlash against politicians is new? If there is backlash against the Obama administration, that means they are being treated as any other administration. Criticism of politicians has been going on since day one.
so you really believe that this stuff is completely non-racial?
that over 200 years of american history just completely vanished since 2008?
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment