CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Department of Justice; Racist?
Recently a case passed by J. Christian Adams for Voter Intimidation. The black panthers were infront of a Philladelphia voting place. Armed and throwing racial slurs at the white people going in. Such as "Now you get to be ruled by a black man" ETC. The case was dropped.
I saw this on the news. I thought that it was a stupid decision on all accounts and would bring up many racial things. The way that those people were behaving was horrible, and yet, they get the case thrown out.
I also thought that it was crazy how some news stations treated FOX for showing it. They made them seem like they were the bad guys for telling people the news.
The head of the DoJ was appointed there by Obama so the voice of the DoJ is the voice of Obama.
The case was dropped because the convicted were black and the victims were white.
The case had all the evidence in the world! A video and multiple witnesses.
Its just like the Bart-cop incident. A black man was shooting up people in a Bart station and a White cop shot him. THe white cop was guilty of manslaughter.
The DoJ believe as long as races aren't "even" in this country, If blacks are convicted of a federal crime and the victims are white the case will be dropped.
Thats Obama speaking. You want this type of animal leader our country?
As long as the DoJ believes that its going to stay that way and they or anyone else will not try and fix the econemy for blacks.
I would say that either Obama has just been an unlucky son of gun when it comes to the people he surrounds himself with, or the man's an incompetent moron who should not be making decisions for the fate of this country.
I DON'T know much about the DoJ case, but before that, so far, Obama has been horrible when it comes to appointees, friends, and political allies. In general, it's a pretty weak argument to try and defend Obama on this subject when it happens to him ALL the time. Sure, a couple of dumbasses aren't Obama's fault, but a swarm of them is pretty fishy.
If Bush was responsible for all he has been accused of, why then would the next president be allowed to throw decisions off to inferiors and be blameless?????
If Bush was responsible for all he has been accused of, why then would the next president be allowed to throw decisions off to inferiors and be blameless?????
Quite obvious
I'll use simpler English since you seem to have poor reading comprehension:
The "Guilt by association" fallacy means that dirtying the image of a person because of his relationship alone with another, guilty person, is a logically wrong conclusion. This applies in every case: unless the act that the guilty person did is directly tied with the other individual, the two people have no connection.
Since you seem unclear on this, I'll explain. Guilt by association is the fallacy of assuming the misdeeds or opinions of one party somehow rub off on another party who has contact with or a relationship with that party.
I'll also explain chain of command. A president operates at the highest tier, meaning he has the highest executive authority. However his inferiors have penultimate authority and so forth, and consequently they have more limited jurisdictions. In other words a president doesn't guide each and every action of his inferiors, he provides direction. The finer control operates in a chain of inferiors.
Addressing your big question about military, the president is accountable for wars he starts, being his is the exectutive branch, however generals and soldiers are accountable for war crimes, essentially he who orders the affair, or takes initiative in acting out a crime, is responsible.
Great,,,,,,,, now why is Bush blamed for the oil spill then,for the financial crisis,for the housing crisis,for the next crisis after that and the next.....see it's not about the DOJ, it's about a pattern of blaming Republican presidents for everything and letting Democrat Presidents slide by putting it on those he appoints.You can't have it both ways.
"However his inferiors have penultimate authority and so forth"
Great,,,,,,,, now why is Bush blamed for the oil spill then,for the financial crisis,for the housing crisis,for the next crisis after that and the next.....
We're not talking about Bush. Stay on topic.
see it's not about the DOJ, it's about a pattern of blaming Republican presidents for everything and letting Democrat Presidents slide by putting it on those he appoints.You can't have it both ways.
Off topic again.
Why isn't Bush's inferiors blamed?Exactly
We're talking about the DoJ and Obama. Please keep within that topic.
Different rules for different Presidents,different rules for different arguments.
Liberal playbook
My point EXACTLY
Not very smart of you. If you're going to debate and expect to be taken seriously, you stay on the topic. Don't bring up windmills when we're talking about solar panels.
All you've managed to do in your last two comments is demonstrate a startling incompetence when it comes to political discussion. You seem to think that by bringing up Bush, I'll bite into that topic and stay off the topic of Obama.
Not very smart of you. If you're going to debate and expect to be taken seriously, you stay on the topic. Don't bring up windmills when we're talking about solar panels.
All you've managed to do in your last two comments is demonstrate a startling incompetence when it comes to political discussion. You seem to think that by bringing up Bush, I'll bite into that topic and stay off the topic of Obama.
As I said Obama appointed this main to be where he is now. Are you telling me that Obama and him have completly different ideas?
I'll explain this simply since I've stated this previously several times:
The DoJ acts within his own authority, he is separate from his higher-ups, but answers to them. The actions of the DoJ do not reflect upon his higher-ups UNLESS he is ordered somehow or directed somehow to act in a certain way by his higher-ups.
To think otherwise is a guilt by association fallacy. This sort of thing is obvious, but I guess when someone like you is wrapped up in paranoia and can't help but tie ends together that don't fit, you forget these little rules of logic. It also explains why you're a bigot.
Let me put it this way whatever the head of the DoJ DOES DO and DOES NOT DO Obama obviously APPROVES or BELIEVES.
If Obama disagreed with this man about this case or the previous Black-on-white crimes being dropped he would have this man fired.
This is guilt by association. I have also noticed that you use that term (Guilt by association "Fallacy" in a lot of your debates, did you read a book or something? Do you completly understand the meaning or do you just know the surface meaning?
The DoJ acts within his own authority, he is separate from his higher-ups
His own authority? His authority was GIVEN to him be the president!
he is separate from his higher-ups
Higher-ups? Learn a little bit more about the DoJ then talk to me. THe only higher UP is the president.
Let me put it this way whatever the head of the DoJ DOES DO and DOES NOT DO Obama obviously APPROVES or BELIEVES.
Ah, so you've read Obama's memoirs, writings, speeches, etc. and found in them parts which read "I approve of white guilt and consequently of a double standard of blacks over whites?"
Were the DoJ's actions illegal? If they were, then Obama would be obliged to reprimand the man. All you're doing is basing your argument on insinuation.
If Obama disagreed with this man about this case or the previous Black-on-white crimes being dropped he would have this man fired.
Not necessarily. Politics is complicated, and the man may be more than capable or meritorious in that position irregardless. It isn't as simple as "I disagree with you, you're gone." That's black and white thinking.
His own authority? His authority was GIVEN to him be the president!
So? That still doesn't mean that his authority isn't his, and that he lacks the ability to make independent calls within his jurisdiction.
Higher-ups? Learn a little bit more about the DoJ then talk to me. THe only higher UP is the president.
Second time you didn't address the argument.
This is guilt by association. I have also noticed that you use that term (Guilt by association "Fallacy" in a lot of your debates, did you read a book or something? Do you completly understand the meaning or do you just know the surface meaning?
I used it only in this debate because the argument that you make (that Obama is responsible because of his underlings' deeds) is fallacious.
haha learn to read. You need to learn more about the DoJ that there are no "Higher upS" to the head of the DoJ like you said other than Obama that is one man I don't think that makes it plural?
And for one I can tell your a materialist. No matter how valid or sound my reponses are you have to find some excuse to rebutle.
Not necessarily.
Obama being who he is would only put someone in their place if he liked them and their ideas/standards and believed them to. Why hasn't Obama addressed this matter with the DoJ? Because he is as well a "racist bigot".
HE believes that as long as whites and blacks aren't on the same page they should get treated better and he aims to keep the blacks down where they are now so there will be no "equality". Oh yeah, the head of the DoJ believes that too!
If they were, then Obama would be obliged to reprimand the man.
There is no way in hell Obama would do that. Not when Obama feels that their doing the right thing. Oh yes and the DoJ IS doing things that are illegal.
haha learn to read. You need to learn more about the DoJ that there are no "Higher upS" to the head of the DoJ like you said other than Obama that is one man I don't think that makes it plural?
The issue is that they have separate authorities, one does not command the other like a minion. You keep failing to address this.
And for one I can tell your a materialist. No matter how valid or sound my reponses are you have to find some excuse to rebutle.
Like this, you change the topic instead of addressing the major points.
Obama being who he is would only put someone in their place if he liked them and their ideas/standards and believed them to. Why hasn't Obama addressed this matter with the DoJ? Because he is as well a "racist bigot".
Insinuation is not a valid argument.
Ah, so you've read Obama's memoirs, writings, speeches, etc. and found in them parts which read "I approve of white guilt and consequently of a double standard of blacks over whites?"
You just ignored this.
HE believes that as long as whites and blacks aren't on the same page they should get treated better and he aims to keep the blacks down where they are now so there will be no "equality". Oh yeah, the head of the DoJ believes that too!
Speculation, not an argument. Try again.
There is no way in hell Obama would do that. Not when Obama feels that their doing the right thing. Oh yes and the DoJ IS doing things that are illegal.
Now you said something that actually forms an argument, that the DoJ performed illegal actions. You are obliged to prove this, which means you must find the law and list the infraction.
I'll use a prosaic example that you might understand. You know about the genesis story. The argument you are making with Obama and the DoJ is the same as blaming god because he created two people who chose to eat the apple out of free will. Your argument is analogous to one that "he created Adam and Eve, he knew of their opinions and feelings, he is to blame for Eve and Adam's screwups."
While I haven't personally been following this case, I don't think you should be so quick to make surface judgments. You say the evidence consists of A video and some witnesses. Witnesses are perhaps the least reliable form of evidence in any type of crime. The relationship to the defendant, inconsistency of remarks, questionable history are all grounds to consider a witness unreliable. Videos can also be quite difficult to convict with, since they are often very fuzzy or difficult to see even if you are lucky enough to catch a crime on tape, especially if you never get a clear view of the defendant's face. So there are a number of factors to consider, they probably just didn't have convincing enough evidence. More and more often we find that a jury won't convict someone unless they have some type of DNA evidence.
So I think it's a little presumptuous to so quickly attribute this to racism, often people will declare anything racist that they don't agree with.
Everyone's racist. the DOJ is very racist and has a long history of being racist towards BLACKS. I think now they're trying to correct things by balancing it out, but its still racist.
Everyone's racist. the DOJ is very racist and has a long history of being racist towards BLACKS. I think now they're trying to correct things by balancing it out, but its still racist.
i have nothing agianst balck people but they really do need to drop the racism card it stopped over 100 years ago and has not occurred since. it is people likie Al sharpton and Jesse jackson who are the real reacists in this country.
If a white man was accused of rape and there was no proof, he would more than likely get off. But if a african-american male was placed under the same circumstances, he would more than likely be placed under arrest and be accused of it for the rest of his life. Don't belive me? There is a case of that going on in Cass County Texas. (there were no white men involved) but there was 12 african-american men arrested for the rape of a 15yr old girl. The DOJ had proof that only 8 of the men had part of it. But all 12 are setting in state prison.
Absolutely and it shows their true agenda, fairness is never about equality, it's about the change of power in their minds. Their power over others is fine, their presumption of power over them was wrong.
Yes, just another losing position for Obama in 2012. Obama and his socialist cronies have driven america to dangerous positions.
Look, I really don't care what your opinions are, live and let live, but for Christ's sake LEARN THE LANGUAGE. Your usage of the word "socialist" implies your understanding of what socialism is comes only from listening to pundits, and that you never cracked a book open and read about it.
Bush's doj dismissed this case in '99 link - because basically it is a joke, it's a couple crazy people no different than the crazies downtown yelling about the end of the world. There was no substantiated evidence on top of the fact that it was only a couple of crazies anyway. It was all "he said she said this happened" junk.
Recently now 1... count them 1 person filed a civil suit. And this person worked for the Bush DOJ. It's an obvious sabatage from the far right and look at all the racists and dumb dumbs fall right in line with it ><
This isn't the "He said she said" crap that you are talking about. Oh yeah and way to use Bush's DoJ as a good excuse for Obama to do the same. I always thought two wrongs didn't make a right?
Also, it's a couple crazy people no different than the crazies downtown yelling about the end of the world. do you not understand voter intimidation?
The DOJ has better things to do than worry about 2 crazy people at 1 polling place where there is no evidence of any violence whatsoever. Let the local law enforcement handle it.
This is only an issue because Fox spends more time on it than they do on the oil spill. It's another example of the far right trying to divide the country by race.