Forum Thread

Fox News manufacturing racial tension out of a non-story with Black Panthers


Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 18 1 2 Next
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Did anyone see the interview with Megyn Kelly and the New Black Panther Party leader Malik Zulu Shabazz? They were discussing, if you wanna call it that, when a member of the Black Panther community stood outside of a Philly polling station with a baton, threatening people to not go in unless they were black. After Shabazz plainly says that this man was not acting under the consent or instruction of the party, Kelly continues to push the issue. Crazy interview.

    Doesn't stop there though. This should be a non-story after this interview. However, Fox News being what they are run with this one and spend another 8+ hours on 6 different shows talking about it. Seems to me they are clearly, as Mr. Shabazz suggests, trying to pander to the white Republican closet racists. I'm paraphrasing, and not sugar coating. But, that's basically what he said and seems like what's going on here. Agree?

    Source: Fox News has hyped phony New Black Panthers scandal at least 95 times
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I saw that interview.  I watch Fox News as well as all the liberal slanted news stations.  Yes, liberal slanted.  You cannot have a true discussion unless you've seen it all.  I need to listen to it all to get a good perspective.  Fox news also has good information and you're burying your head in the sand if you don't know what is going on.  

    Those men in front of the voting place should have been arrested for intimidation.  Fundamental law.  Eric Holder said that no black man should be arrested and that he would not pursue a case against black men.  He is a racist and needs to be put out of office.   I may lean to the Democrates (although I'm an independant), but racism is racism and I won't support it.   This is a disgrace.  Obama gives his blessing to Holder.  I will not be voting for Obama this coming election.  He is a disappointment.  He is a hypocrite.  This is not the same Democratic party I knew and supported all these many years.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Patriot, if you are looking for an excuse to not vote for Obama, then you'll always find it on Fox News.  Fox News has a reputation for hyping news events that are not really newsy at all.  They don't really care about professional journalism...they'll go to any lengths to make a mountain out of a mole hill or even engage in shoddy practices such as pushing a James O'Keefe manufactured story or creating hysteria about the cost of Obama's trip to the Far East based on an unknown Indian blogger or creating rage about a "ground zero mosque" or in this case, going on and on and on about the New Black Panther episode.  The conservative National Review commented on that story at the time:

    "Forget about the New Black Panther Party case; it is small potatoes...the legal standards that must be met to prove voter intimidation -- the charge -- are very high. In the 45 years since the act was passed, there have been a total of three successful prosecutions. The incident involved only two Panthers at a single majority-black precinct in Philadelphia. So far — after months of hearings, testimony and investigation — no one has produced actual evidence that any voters were too scared to cast their ballots. Too much overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges has been devoted to this case."

    You may certainly get another view at Fox News, but if you believe everything you watch there then you'll become one of those that the University of Maryland has dubbed most misinformed.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I live in Philly and I know this nitwit well. He can often be seen screaming death to whitey through a bullhorn in front of the Septa bus station in North Philly. So he stands in front of a place to vote, armed with a club threatening whilte people and Fox is manufacturing a racial event. Come on is their stupid in the water? Its as racial as hell
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The point I am making is that there are some 300 million Americans, and Fox News will seek out the one that has a racial bent against whites and give him top news coverage day after day after day...ginning up rage and hate in an attempt at stereotyping all blacks. If you're going to get so worked up by one New Black Panther's racial slurs, then you only need to look at people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh who spew out racial hatred almost every day across the airwaves.

    The New Black Panther, King Samir Shabazz, is indeed a rascist but he affects a tiny tiny percentatge of the population.  Beck and Limbaugh, on the other hand,...they are really bad for America because of the large number of people who are taken in by their vitriol.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    fox news is lies and garbage like all gop
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I watch both and will continue to watch both.  You can't believe everything from any ONE source.  I watch MSNBC too.  I consider MSNBC to be the clown news.  They are so utterly dumb.  I saw the video of the black panther intimdating folks at the voting place.  This is no small potatoes.  What's the matter with you.  The case is substantiated.  It doesn't matter if anyone was too scared to vote... the problem is that they tried to make them that scared.  How can you turn your back on the truth?   Eric Holder is a bigot.  By his own words.

    And here's a news flash for you.  There are good and bad people on both sides.  One side is not against anything "intellectual."  One side isn't trying to make us Communists/Marxists.  I find Bill O'Reilly a very good man.  Nothing hateful about him.  I don't find the Tea Party extreme.  I don't find them racist.   The U of Maryland is liberal slanted and political.  

    Good grief, I find myself making a case for the Republicans and Tea Party.  The thing is, folks are folks.  We all care about this country.  I have dear friends and acquaintances on both sides.  Not one of them is evil.  But I'm not at all happy where this administration stands.  

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    To Schmidt,

    Sigh, and the liberal slanted news will seek out the one story that is also a "non" story.  Rick Parry's comment about Social Security being a Ponzi scheme.  They're picking up and telling as if Parry meant that it is being run as an evil illegal scheme.  What he said is true, it is a Ponzi scheme; being that it is based on the older folks being kept solvent by the new folk's contributions.  

    So it's true on both sides.  Fox will bring up stories that meet their agenda and the liberal news will bring up stories that meet theirs.   Both have valid news and are worth watching.  If you only watch one, then you just don't know what you're talking about.  And talk about vitriol...have you watched MSNBC?  And quite frankly, the only ones I actually hear spew racial hatred is Maxine Waters and the Congressional Black Caucus.  What the heck?

    The Democrats have to offer more than they are at this moment.  If what the new Dems are offering IS Marxism, then maybe I'm no longer a Democrat.  But I don't think so.. not yet.  

    We have to stop hating each other.  We have to stop calling each other names.  We cannot allow any news organization to be "cut off" from providing news by saying they are NOT a true news organization.  Ridiculous!!

    Rush Limbaugh is the equivalent of Chris Matthewsand Rachel Maddow, only funnier.  I miss Peter Jennings.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Patriot, Social Security is an insurance program and not an investment scheme.  FICA withheld from your paycheck stands Federal Insurance Contributions Act. The definition of a Ponzi scheme is according to Investopedia:

    A fraudulent investing scam promising high rates of return with little risk to investors. The Ponzi scheme generates returns for older investors by acquiring new investors. This scam actually yields the promised returns to earlier investors, as long as there are more new investors. These schemes usually collapse on themselves when the new investments stop. 

    The problem is public perception much of it created by politicians like Rick Perry and perpetuated by Fox News.  When Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan increased payroll taxes in 1983, it created surplus taxes that went directly to the US Treasury and were immediately spent, as they always had been since the program's inception in 1935.  There was no provision for investment of those surplus funds in equities or precious metals or any kind of promises of higher payouts in the future.  The Social Security Administration keeps track of those surplus funds by issuing special interest bearing bonds that are not redeemable on the market place.  The so called Social Security Trust Fund is nothing more than an accounting of these bonds.  The bonds will be "redeemed" as necessary from the US Treasury as future payroll tax revenues do not keep pace with benefit payout.  According to the Social Security Trustees, the special interest bonds "will be redeemed until trust fund reserves are exhausted in 2036...thereafter the payroll tax income will continue to pay three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2085."

    There have never been any promises of higher payouts.  The Social Security Trustees have issued their public reports annually since the inception of the program.  The only thing that differs each year is the dates that the Trust Funds run out.  In the last 10 years the dates have varied from the low 2040s to the high 2030s.  The CBO also estimates those dates using a different set of assumptions.  Their latest report shows 2049 as the magic date and not 2036. This reflects the uncertainty in the assumptions going into the long term estimates.

    Also it should be noted that the program never goes bankrupt. If Congress does nothing, the program will still payout 3/4 of the benefits after 2036 (or 2049 as the case may be).

    All of this information has been public knowledge every year since 1935, and especially regarding the surplus since 1983.  Any candidate for the Presidency that suggests this is an investment scheme or Ponzi scheme is either totally ignorant or a liar.  In either case it should disqualify him/her as a candidate for President.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    one more thing I wish to add: Mr. Shabazz does not have a radio station nor a tv/radio show to spew venom. interpret what you will...speech is different than legislation and disresppectful rhetoric;;;you cannot legislate love, but you can instill hate...our choice
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Here's a question for all those left wingers out there who do not think the actions of this black man was WRONG....AND RACIAL...AND A NON-STORY...

    What if there was a "Tea-Partier, dressed in revolutionary garb and he was threatening all black men/democratic voters...

    YOU WOULD BE UP IN ARMS SCREAMING FROM THE PULPIT ABOUT THE RACIAL ATTACKS AND VOTER INTIMIDATION...

    SO LET"S BE FAIR....THAT MAN WAS WRONG, HE WAS INTIMIDATING WHITES, SAYING RACIAL ATTACKS ON WHITES...THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WAS WRONG NOT TO GO AFTER HIM...I EVEN SAW ON A NEWS PROGRAM WHERE THIS MAN SAYS THAT THEY(THE BLACK POPULATION)  SHOULD KILL ALL WHITE BABIES...SO STICK UP FOR HIM AND SHOW JUST HOW WRONG AND HOW MUCH OF A HYPERCRITE  YOU REALLY ARE.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chapmanooka Wrote: one more thing I wish to add: Mr. Shabazz does not have a radio station nor a tv/radio show to spew venom. interpret what you will...speech is different than legislation and disresppectful rhetoric;;;you cannot legislate love, but you can instill hate...our choice


    Mr. Shabazz is a criminal and should be tried as such. As far as the radio retards go, I have only listened to them here and there and know of no crime they've committed. If Mr. Shabazz would like to get his own radio show to spew his garbage that's fine with me too but threating assult at the polls is clearly a violation of someone else's civil rights, you seriously can't can't compare Mr. Shabazz to the radio retards. 1st Admendment of the Contistution gives us Freedom of Speech- even the people we find repulsive but nowhere does it give you the right to physically threaten someone. Voter Intimidation is illegal, being an asshole is not.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt,

    SS is a ponzi scheme by the very  definition you provided.  No one, but the usual koolaid drinking loon, thought that SS was being called an actual fraudulent scam.  But it is funded by acquiring new investors.   It certainly is not an insurance program.  Insurance is required to have the money to back up the promised payoff.  If SS were covered by the trust fund it was originally set up to have, SS would have no problem being funded; in the past, present, and future.   The funds were STOLEN by those in office for their own greed.

    As it is, a person facing SS is not a stake holder in his/her future.  If the folks were put into a system such as the government's Thrift Savings Plan, then everyone would have a stake.  There would be something tangible to receive.  There would be a huge REDUCTION in POVERTY.  I will not be content to hear that the program will still payout 3/4 of the benefits after 2036, thereby immersing the elderly deeper into poverty.  That is not an answer; that is not a solution.

    In the Thrift Savings Plan, you may have your contribution placed into several types of funds.  You can invest in stocks.  But not stocks only as the scaremongers on the left put over when Bush made the suggestion.  Your contributions can be shifted.  I happen to have been a participant in the Thrift Savings Plan.  When the stock market got hit, I split my funds from the stocks area to bonds and the general fund.  I lost all of (approx.) $400.00.  I was too close to retirement to leave my funds in danger.   I had a choice.

    But no, keep the seniors in poverty and scare them to vote for the "saviors of the elderly" when election time comes around.  Keep them begging for an existance as long as you can scare them into voting to sustain their slavery.   WELFARE IS THE SLAVERY OF THE COMMON ERA.

    Obama DARED to state that he would consider not paying social security, veterans benefits, etc. when the budget wasn't passed (again).  Those folks were going to get paid.  I believe he really would hold payment if he truly had that power; just to keep folks scared and under his thumb.  His tactics have really turned me off.

    All our elected folks should be scrutinized for past actions.  All monies, perks, contracts that have gone to business partners (present & future), family & big contributors should be repaid and penalties assessed.  That will fund many of our humanitarian projects.  Their self-voted salaries should be reduced back to the 1970's salaries.  Any increase in pay should be voted on by the folks in their districts.

    Raising taxes is not the answer.  Class warfare is not the answer.  Status Quo is not the answer.  We need to hash out and reform every aspect of our problems; health care, immigration, pork addendums, government contracts, foreign policy.  We cannot have some quack write out a bill and have it passed without reading.  There is NO thinking in this administration.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Okay...this posting was supposed to be about the new Black Panthers and Fox News but it got off topic onto Social Security. I'll continue it anyway to rebut Patriot's points.  We have lots of discussion of Social Security buried in other posts.  Those that want to criticize Social Security like to use derogatory language that resonates with uninformed voters.  However, calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme is like calling Mitt Romney a liberal because he believes in human induced climate change. Ha! Some at Fox News might even put that label on him because of his position.

    Yes Social Security does rely on a continual supply of new payers to augment the benefits paid out to current recipents.  And so does a Ponzi scheme. But that is NOT only what a Ponzi scheme is about. A Ponzi scheme involves fraudulent investments. The Social Security Trust Fund has never invested in anything except "the full faith of government" to pay back the surplus funds with interest that were borrowed since the surpluses were created in 1983.  When politicians or media pundits talk about the Social Security Trust Fund being "raided" or "robbed" they are either ignorant or liars. There was never anything in the Trust Fund to rob.  Every penny of the monthly surplus funds paid by taxpayers was immediately borrowed and spent on other government programs.  Everyone in Congress knows this...or should know it. It's part of the unified budget.

    Social Security is old age insurance that provides for a bare substinence level to live in the event your personal savings (IRAs, 401Ks, etc) for retirement didn't materialize due to unforeseen health costs, company CEOs raiding retirement accounts, or just bad investments in the market.  If you die before retiring you get nothing back (although your spouse will still draw benefits). Nothing more was ever promised.  It's been that way since Roosevelt created it.  And it's been demagogued by the right ever since Roosevelt created it.  Ronald Reagan is one who hated Social Security and he lost elections because of his earlier negative public stances.  But then he seemlngly flip flopped in order to get elected. But he still hated it.

    Now I have called the Social Security Trust Fund a scam not because of it's lack of investments or Ponzi type of fraud, but rather because it was designed to transfer more of the tax burden from the rich to the middle class and poor.  And it has been successful in that regard, but there was nothing illegal about it.  That's what Congress openly voted for and Reagan signed into law....a wealth redistribution plan linked to types of taxes. That has nothing to do with a Ponzi scheme.

    If you have insurance on your house and pay for 40 years, and then sell it, you get nothing back on your insurance.  However, if your house burns down one month after buying it, the insurance company pays up.  The insurance company relies on the premiums paid by other insurers to pay the poor guy whose house burned down.  That's just like Social Security insurance. And neither are Ponzi schemes although both rely on current and new payers to support the beneficiaries.  If that's the new Fox News definition of a Ponzi scheme then it can be applied to every insurance company in America. Ha!

    I'll leave the other aspects of Patriot's post to another thread...later.  I just wanted to push back on the Ponzi scheme misconception.

    Read more about Ponzi Schemes here at The Real Ponzi.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Social Security has been in place for more than 50 years. It was instituted by Republicans and Democrats alike. The first ones to receive Social Security did not contribute at all and I do not that those who started contributing minded the contribution. Most politicians' parents have been on SS and they have not mind it. The fact that the young now does not want to take care of those who will be old in a few years that is absurd. Social Security is just to assure that those who work at this time for low wages and do not make enough to live can have a small amount to live on. If we leave for people to put money aside and only use that amount to live on later it may not be enough to live on. Social Security is the only way. Those who put money into private retirement accounts saw themselves losing that money because what ever money you put into the market is gambling money, money that you should be able to afford to lose. (read the fine print, they disclose that they do not guarantee a gaining and that there is a risk of losing ALL or PART of the money invested). Social Security is the only way we can be sure the money will be there. Everybody, pays into it as a tax. Only the greedy will say not to this. Of course no one is stopping any one from paying into a 401k if they want to. But that is a choice.