Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Rude on June 02, 2002, 12:10:19 AM
-
THIS WILL OPEN YOUR EYES
By Paul Harvey - Conveniently Forgotten Facts
Back in 1969 a group of Black Panthers decided that a fellow black panther
named...Alex Rackley needed to die. Rackley was suspected of disloyalty.
Rackley was first tied to a chair. Once safely immobilized, his friends
tortured him for hours by, among other things, pouring boiling water on him.
When they got tired of torturing Rackley, Black Panther member, Warren Kimbo
took Rackley outside and put a bullet in his head. Rackley's body was later
found floating in a river about 25 miles north of New Haven, Conn. Perhaps
at this point you're curious as to what happened to these Black Panthers.
In 1977, that's only eight years later, only one of the killers was still in
jail. The shooter, Warren Kimbro, managed to get a scholarship to Harvard,
and became good friends with none other than Al Gore. He later became an
assistant dean at an Eastern Connecticut State College. Isn't that
something? As a '60s
radical you can pump a bullet into someone's head, and a few years later, in
the same state, you can become an assistant college dean! Only in America!
Erica Huggins was the lady who served the Panthers by boiling the water for
Mr. Rackley's torture. Some years later Ms. Huggins was elected to a
California School Board. How in the world do you think these killers got off
so easy? Maybe
it was in some part due to the efforts of two people who came to the defense
of the Panthers. These two people actually went so far as to shut down Yale
University with demonstrations in defense of the accused Black Panthers
during their trial.
One of these people was none other than Bill Lan Lee. Mr. Lee, or Mr. Lan
Lee, as the case may be, isn't a college dean. He isn't a member of a
California School Board. He is now head of the US Justice Department's Civil
Rights Division, appointed by none other than Bill Clinton.
O.K., so who was the other Panther defender? The other Panther defender
was, like Lee, a radical law student at Yale University at the time. She is
now known as The "smartest woman
in the world." She is none other than the Democratic senator from the State
of New York----our former First Lady, the incredible Hillary Rodham Clinton.
And now, as Paul Harvey said; You know "the rest of the story".
-
Urban Ledgend strikes again.
And here is the rest of the rest of the story.
http://www.snopes2.com/inboxer/outrage/panthers.htm
-
Thanks for sharing that one, Rude :)
-
From that "unbiased" link kindly provided by Thrawn:
Quote:
"Stripped of all the invective and blatant political ranting, the case here against Mr. Lee and Ms. Clinton comes down to nothing more than "We don't like their politics" and "They were there," so they must be as morally guilty as the Panthers themselves. As a junior senator from Wisconsin once demonstrated, if you can't defeat your political opponents at the ballot box, and you can't point to anything specific they've done wrong, simply declare them guilty for once having been associated (no matter how tenuous the association) with a group now reviled. "Vilification by association" tactics that worked for McCarthyites in the 1950s apparently still have their adherents today.
Scream, America, when you've had enough. "
Yeah, i've "had enough". Enough of Liberal Left hypocrisy and just plain old Bulls***. So-called "McCarthyism" is SOP for the Liberal Left these days. It's so obvious it's not worth discussing.
I don't doubt that this "Rest of the story" is more than likely at least partly untruthful. Who cares. In any case, The Black Panthers were just another street gang that used moronic Leftist '60's politics to excuse their criminal behavior, Clinton and Lee are unabashed Lefties, and i don't need stories like the above to change my opinion about the Liberal Left one iota:
They suck..............
Cabby
-
Bit like the Stern Gang, eh, Cabby?
-
Cabby, let me get this straight. You're sick of the liberal-left BS. But, you're fine with the conservative-right BS, like the article posted above?? If so, I think we've found exacly were the hypocracy lies.
By the way, why did you put "unbiased" in quotes? Who were you quoting?
-
Urban Legen if I ever heard on.
You can always tell by the emotion and dramatic pauses before letting out a controversial secret. And the always shocking finally, that will leave you feeling guilty for never knowing the truth.
Its amazing how much people will WANT to believe any lie they are told as long as it will help them hold on to their weak opinions.
-
Originally posted by Animal
Its amazing how much people will WANT to believe any lie they are told as long as it will help them hold on to their weak opinions.
roadkill has a strong influence on the weak minded.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Thrawn:
If you are going to post a link to prove-disprove a story, your opinion, etc., it would be in your best interest to READ said link.........
Cabby
-
I did read it. I don't see what this has to do with the questions I asked though. Would you please clarify?
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
roadkill has a strong influence on the weak minded.
-- Todd/Leviathn
Cabbys the perfect example of the influence roadkill has on a weak mind. ;)
-
Cabby has harsh politics. Its a harsh world.
Score
Cabby: one
Weazel: Zero
-
Originally posted by MuadDib of Dune
Cabby has harsh politics. Its a harsh world.
Score
Cabby: one
Weazel: Zero
Thank you for your arbitary score system.
Here is mine.
Cabby: Tuesday
Weazel: Orange
-
LOL, Thrawn!
-
Originally posted by MuadDib of Dune
Cabby has harsh politics. Its a harsh world.
Be warned that in Cabby's world the liberal's are made of straw (people who understand logic will get that), the voices from the AM radio do your thinking for you, irony doesn't exist and the sky is purple with pink polka dots. :D
LOL, Thrawn!
-
btw Rude I find this kind of threads more entertaining than WoW-threads. Any chance having more informative threads from you ? :)
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Urban Ledgend strikes again.
And here is the rest of the rest of the story.
http://www.snopes2.com/inboxer/outrage/panthers.htm
Uh..have you actually read that page? That page does not say that it is a legend. Heck, it confirms most of it.
-
I'll take Paul Harvey, Cabby & Rude over Thawn, weazel & Staga anyday :)
As for the story, hillary was a BP supporter. But why not .... :rolleyes:
-
Quote:
"Be warned that in Cabby's world the liberal's are made of straw (people who understand logic will get that), the voices from the AM radio do your thinking for you, irony doesn't exist and the sky is purple with pink polka dots."
I "understand logic" fairly well. Your post contains little of it.
BTW, Liberals are not made of straw. They are mostly made up of..........thin air..............
Cabby
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Uh..have you actually read that page? That page does not say that it is a legend. Heck, it confirms most of it.
Yeah some of the facts are comfirmed.
They put in a bunch of facts at the begining of the article and come with a completely bogus and misleading conculsions.
-
"I "understand logic" fairly well. "
I admire the brave choice you've made in completely ignoring it.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I'll take Paul Harvey, Cabby & Rude over Thawn, weazel & Staga anyday :)
As for the story, hillary was a BP supporter. But why not .... :rolleyes:
OK, Eagler, you get Paul Harvey, Cabby and Rude and I get Thrawn, Weazel and Staga. But to make it fair because you are so hopelessly overmatched and in the intrests of fairness we'll let you have Sandman, Midnight Target and Dowding and we'll take Udie, Caligua and hblair.
-
Originally posted by Cabby44
Quote:
I "understand logic" fairly well.
Oh, I get it now. So these posts you make on political issues are really just some sort of logician's prank. Jeez, why didn't you let us in on it earlier? ;)
BTW, Liberals are not made of straw. They are mostly made up of..........thin air..............
As opposed to conservatives, who are mostly made up of........hot air? :)
-
Thanks for the link Thrawn. I've copied and pasted it here.
It's funny how some extremists will ignore the truth and dismiss it as nothing more than biased 'stories'
(part 1/3)
Claim: Hillary Clinton played a significant role in defending Black Panthers accused of torturing and murdering Alex Rackley.
Status: False.
Example: [Collected on the Internet, 1999]
*******************
Scream, America, When You've Had Enough
Back in 1969 a group of Black Panthers decided that a Black man named Alex Rackley needed to die. Rackley was a fellow Panther suspected of disloyalty.
Rackley was first tied to a chair. Safely immobilized his "friends" tortured him for hours by, among other things, pouring boiling water on him.
When they got tired of torturing Rackley Black Panther member Warren Kimbro took Mr. Rackley's outside and put a bullet in his head. Rackley's body was found floating in a river about 25 miles north of New Haven, Conn.
Maybe at this point you're curious as to what happened to these Black Panthers. Well, in 1977, that's only eight years later, only one of the killers was still in jail. The shooter, Warren Kimbro, managed to get a scholarship to Harvard. He later became an assistant dean at Eastern Connecticut State College.
Isn't that something? As a 60's radical you can pump a bullet into someone's head, and years later, in the same State, you can be an assistant college dean! Only in America!
Ericka Huggins was the lady who served the Panthers by boiling the water for Mr. Rackley's torture. Some years later Ms. Huggins was elected to a California school board.
How in the world do you think that these killers got off so easy? Well, maybe it was in some part due to the efforts of two people who came to the defense of the Panthers. These two people actually went so far as to shut down Yale University with demonstrations in defense of the accused Black Panthers during their trial. One of those people was none other than Bill Lan Lee. Mr. Lee, or Mr. Lan Lee as the case may be, isn't a college dean. He isn't a member of a California school board. He is the head of the U.S. Justice Departments Civil Rights Division. Lee is serving in that capacity, illegally, by the way, but that's another story -- another part of the Clinton saga of ignoring the rule of law.
O.K., so who was the other Panther defender? Is this other notable Panther defender now a school board member? Is this other Panther apologist now an assistant college dean?
Nope, neither. The other Panther defender was, like Lee, a radical law student at Yale University at that time. She is now known as The Smartest Woman in the World. She is none other than the unofficial Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate from the State of New York -- our lovely First Lady, the incredible Hillary Rodham Clinton.
**************
Origins: It's difficult for those who weren't around to experience the 1960s first-hand to fully understand the controversy that swirled around "radical" parties such as the Black Panthers. Certainly to many Americans they represented the very worst of that era's political movements: a group of hate-filled militants who felt their disaffection with the existing social and political systems justified anything required to achieve their aim of "revolution by any means necessary" (such as smuggling guns into a Marin County courtroom in an attempt to free Panther George Jackson, resulting in a shoot-out that killed a judge, two inmates, and Jackson's brother). To others, however, they were the only political group that truly represented a downtrodden and marginalized group of people who had been enslaved, discriminated against, and denied civil rights protections for hundreds of years; that sought to improve the condition of the poor by operating schools, opening medical clinics, and providing free breakfasts for ghetto children; and that had the courage to stand up to the brutality visited upon them by law enforcement acting in the service of a government and a society that sought to "keep them in their place."
In May of 1969, Black Panther founder and national chairman Bobby Seale (who had already been indicted for his alleged participation in demonstrations at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in August 1968) made a trip from Oakland to New Haven, Connecticut, to speak at Yale University. The Black Panthers were by then nationally known, a focus of media attention, and under the active surveillance of the FBI. (J. Edgar Hoover had publicly declared several months earlier that he considered the Panthers "the greatest threat to the internal security of the country.") Rumors of police informants and government spies having infiltrated the party were rampant, and a man named Alex Rackley, a member of the Panthers' New York chapter, fell under suspicion. Rackley was taken to the home of Warren Kimbro (a "community organizer and aspiring Panther") where he was held captive for 24 hours, beaten, and scalded with boiling water in an effort to force him to confess. Rackley was then taken to a marsh in Middlefield by Kimbro, George Sams (Panther field marshall and, according to some, himself a police informant), and Lonnie McLucas (a Panther member from Bridgeport), where Sams ordered Kimbro and McLucas to kill the suspected informant. (Who did the actual killing has always been disputed; McLucas reportedly fired the first shot, but Kimbro admittedly delivered the bullet to the head that killed Rackley.) Rackley's body was discovered the next day by fishermen, and fourteen Black Panthers were arrested and charged with murder, kidnapping, and conspiracy.
That several Black Panthers directly took part in the torture and murder of Alex Rackey is beyond dispute, and to those of us who believe that torture and murder are always wrong, no matter what the cause, their actions were morally reprehensible. But this piece isn't really about outrage over what the Black Panthers did thirty years ago; it's a political tract whose purpose is to discredit the Clintons by associating them with the Black Panthers. Of the hundreds of people who played part in the Black Panthers' New Haven trial three decades ago, the only ones named here are Hillary Clinton (currently our First Lady and a candidate for a U.S. Senate seat in New York), and Bill Lann Lee (acting head of the Justice Department's civil rights division, whose appointment by President Clinton remains controversial because of Lee's support for affirmative action programs).
-
(part 2/3)
So, exactly what connection do Ms. Clinton and Mr. Lee have to the Black Panthers? The piece quoted above claims:
**********
How in the world do you think that these killers got off so easy? Well, maybe it was in some part due to the efforts of two people who came to the defense of the Panthers. These two people actually went so far as to shut down Yale University with demonstrations in defense of the accused Black Panthers during their trial.
************
We'll begin with the last part, and it's simply ludicrous. Yale University was not "shut down" during the trial. Classes were made optional when 12,000 Panther supporters swarmed the campus in protest, and the president of Yale University himself, Kingman Brewster Jr., announced: "I personally want to say that I'm appalled and ashamed that things should have come to such a pass that I am skeptical of the ability of Black revolutionaries to achieve a fair trial anywhere in the U.S." To lay the entire responsibility for this massive, widespread protest on the shoulders of two Yale students is just silly, all the more so because nobody has offered evidence that either one of them led, or even participated in, any student demonstrations or protests in support of the Black Panthers. Nevertheless, even if they didn't actually lead or take part in any demonstrations they're still guilty by association, we're told, because they "defended" the Black Panthers.
One of the elements often employed in political screeds such as this one is the ambiguity of the word "defend." It can be used in the sense of providing legal aid to a person accused of a crime, or in the sense of supplying moral justification for a person's actions. Sometimes these two concepts go hand in hand; but often they don't. We often find it necessary, in order to preserve and protect our rights, to defend (in a legal sense) those whose actions we consider morally wrong, and to defend (in a moral sense) those who actions we find legally wrong. We sometimes let criminals go free because constitutional safeguards were violated in the process of bringing them to justice. That doesn't mean we condone their crimes; it means we're willing to "defend" their rights in order to preserve a higher moral principle (i.e., the rights that protect all of us).
What has been overlooked (or deliberately ignored) in the piece quoted here is that even though fourteen Black Panthers were arrested and charged with murder, kidnapping, and conspiracy in connection with the murder of Alex Rackley, only two of them were put on trial (the others plead to lesser charges, or the charges against them were dropped): Bobby Seale and Erika Huggins. Why only these two? Seale wasn't present at either the torture or murder of Alex Rackley; he maintained that he knew nothing about any plans to kill Rackley and wasn't even aware that Rackley was suspected of being a police informant. (Panther George Sams did claim he had told Seale about suspicions Rackley was an informant, however.) Erika Huggins wasn't present when Rackley was killed, either. She was accused of having taken part in the "interrogation" of Rackley, boiling the water used to scald him and kicking him while he was tied to a chair. Certainly her actions were both criminally wrong and morally reprehensible, but several other Panthers took a far more active hand in the torture and murder of Rackley (such as those who actually poured the boiling water onto him, beat him, and shot him in the head). Why were only these two people put on trial while the other Panthers were allowed to plead out or weren't even prosecuted at all?
Many people genuinely believed, at the time, that the government was deliberately prosecuting for murder people whom it knew full well were not guilty of murder in order to discredit a group it perceived as a threat, and that perhaps the government had deliberately sacrificed Rackley by planting him in the Panthers' midst and then leaking his cover in order to provoke a showdown. (The fact that neither of the accused was ever convicted is taken by some as proof of the correctness of this theory; others dismiss it as irrelevant and maintain that the case was far too politically controversial to allow for a fair verdict.) If Bobby Seale, the head of the Black Panther party, could be convicted and sent to prison for murder, the Black Panthers would lose a great deal of public support and credibility and be disarmed as a threat to the government. This, it was widely held, was the government's real motivation for prosecuting only Seale and Huggins while other Panthers who were more directly involved in Rackley's murder went free or were allowed to plead to lesser charges (in exchange for turning state's evidence against Seale and Huggins).
The key point here is not whether this notion was ultimately right or wrong. The key point is that many people believed it to be true at the time, and they therefore "supported" the Black Panthers during the subsequent trial (in a legal sense) -- not necessarily because they condoned the (alleged) actions of the two people on trial (or the Black Panthers in general), but because they felt it was morally wrong for the government to prosecute murder charges against only two people, neither of whom was directly involved in the murder of Alex Rackley, all for political purposes. So, one cannot simply tar everyone who "defended" the Panthers with the same brush of moral outrage; many found the Panthers and their actions odious but still "defended" them because they honestly believed the government's attempts to prosecute only a select two of questionable guilt (while letting confessed torturers and murderers off with a comparative slap on the wrist) to be the far greater injustice.
So, what exactly did Mr. Lee and Ms. Clinton do to "defend" the Panthers in a legal sense? In Mr. Lee's case, he did absolutely nothing. He wasn't a lawyer, or even a law student; he was simply another Yale undergraduate who had nothing to do with the Black Panthers' trial. Ms. Clinton wasn't a lawyer then, either; she was a Yale law student. The sum total of her involvement in the trial was that she assisted the American Civil Liberties Union in monitoring the trial for civil rights violations. That a law student's tangential participation in one of the most controversial, politically and racially charged trials of her time (one that took place right on her doorstep) to help ensure it remained free of civil rights abuses is now offered as "proof" of her moral reprehensibility demonstrates that McCarthyism is alive and well -- some of us apparently believe in rights but don't believe everyone has the right to have rights.
Of course, neither Mr. Lee nor Ms. Clinton had anything to do with "defending" the other twelve Panthers, who never even stood trial because the government declined to prosecute them or allowed them to turn state's evidence. The flimsy "evidence" typically mustered as "proof" of their "support" for the Black Panthers is that Hillary Clinton was co-editor of the Yale Review when it printed a derogatory cartoon depicting police as decapitated pigs, even though no one has demonstrated that she approved (or even knew) of it, and that in order to join a student group, Bill Lee once "acquiesced when pressed to write a statement expressing solidarity with the Panthers who were on trial." (If Mr. Lee was such a wholehearted supporter of the Panthers, one has to wonder why he had to be "pressed" into making such a statement.)
In a woefully bad piece of "journalism," Insight magazine writer John Elvin tried his best, despite his lack of any real evidence, to huff and puff and assert as true the claim that Hillary Rodham was leading campus protests in support of the Black Panthers. His conclusion was a model of disingenuousness:
*******
Can there be any doubt, based on the foregoing facts, that Rodham and Lee indeed were student leaders during the Panther protests at Yale? The correct answer is no.
*******
Sure, the answer is "no," because the wrong question has been asked. That Hillary Rodman could fairly have been described as a "student leader" is something no one would dispute. The question being asked here is "Was Hillary Clinton leading campus protests in support of the Black Panthers?" -- a question Elvin dishonestly avoids answering because he can't demonstrate the answer to be "yes." The "foregoing facts" he refers to can be summarized thusly:
-
(part 3/3)
The person who started this rumor says it's true.
Hillary Rodham associated with people I don't like.
A bunch of books I don't name say she was a campus activist.
The first two items have no probative value, and the third is carefully worded to conceal the fact that the writer is really stating nothing more than an obvious point no one would dispute, while trying hard to create the misleading impression the point that he can't prove (i.e., that Hillary Rodham actually led campus protests in support of the Black Panthers) is true:
***********
Insight reviewed biographies of Hillary Clinton by Milton, Brock and Roger Morris for this story and lengthy selections from such other biographies as Barbara Olson's Hell to Pay. Together, relying on primary and other firsthand sources, they unquestionably back Horowitz's contention that Hillary was a campus leader during the Panther protests. She was, by standards of those chaotic and violent times, a moderate voice compared with such fanatics as Yippie leader Jerry Rubin, who exhorted Yale students to "kill your parents," but she played a prominent activist role.
**********
Yes, Hillary Rodham was a "campus leader" and played an "activist role" in her university days. So what? The same could be said of thousands of other people who protested the Vietnam War, or campaigned to get 18-year-olds the vote, or supported equal rights for women. None of that demonstrates anything about Hillary Rodham's alleged support of the Black Panthers. Elvin himself admits that she was "a moderate voice," and it's significant that he doesn't quote from, synopsize, or even identify by title any of the "reviewed biographies" he alludes to, because none of them supports the impression he's trying to create. Not a single one of these biographies quotes anyone who actually saw Hillary Rodham taking part in campus protests for the Panthers, but nearly all of them quote people who knew her back then as saying that radical protest politics simply weren't her style, and that she preferred getting two sides together for reconciliation rather than confrontation. For example, in The Seduction of Hillary Rodham Clinton by David Brock, we find:
********
. . . Hillary took her moral bearings from the radicals while favoring establishment tactics . . . This enabled her to work within the mainstream and to retain the respect and admiration of those in power. "She was always careful not to stray," said Robert Borosage. "For example, the yippies erected an air balloon tent on campus and lived in it. She wasn't a part of that. She probably had a sense that that was a politics that wouldn't work."
[ . . .]
By the end of her first year at Yale, it was clear that Hillary abjured the in-your-face political tactics of Jerry Rubin as well as the exhibitionistic and hedonistic side of the 1960s. She was practical, pragmatic, and mainstream in her strategies, tactics, and presentation.
********
Stripped of all the invective and blatant political ranting, the case here against Mr. Lee and Ms. Clinton comes down to nothing more than "We don't like their politics" and "They were there," so they must be as morally guilty as the Panthers themselves. As a junior senator from Wisconsin once demonstrated, if you can't defeat your political opponents at the ballot box, and you can't point to anything specific they've done wrong, simply declare them guilty for once having been associated (no matter how tenuous the association) with a group now reviled. "Vilification by association" tactics that worked for McCarthyites in the 1950s apparently still have their adherents today.
Scream, America, when you've had enough.
Update: Versions of the e-mailed denunciation headed "Paul Harvey's 'The rest of the story'" began circulating on the Internet in June 2000. This header plus a comment at the end of the text ("And now, as Paul Harvey says, you know the rest of the story") caused some to believe Paul Harvey had read this piece (or a shorter version of it) on air. Paul Harvey's people confirm he has never broadcast the Panthers and Hillary Clinton story.
Sources:
Brock, David. The Seduction of Hillary Rodham.
New York: Free Press, 1996. ISBN 0-684-83451-0 (pp. 30-35).
Claiborne, William. "Brewster: From Yale to the Court of St. James's."
The Washington Post. 8 April 1977 (p. B1).
Elvin, John. "Hillary Hides Her Panther Fling."
Insight. 31 July 2000.
Freed, Daniel. Agony in New Haven: The Trial of Bobby Seale, Erika Huggins, and the Black Panther Party.
New York: Simon and Schuster, 1973.
McCaslin, John. "Hillary for the Defense."
The Washington Times. 12 June 1998.
Rierden, Andi. "Once a Black Panther, Always a Cause."
The New York Times. 22 November 1992 (p. CN1).
West, Diana. "The '60s Strike Back."
The Washington Times. 5 February 1999.
Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. "Former Black Panthers Who Have Turned to Higher Education."
31 October 1998 (p. 62).
-
No, thank you wsnpr. I didn't notice on the first read through that Paul Harvey apparently didn't even write that article.
Sorry Eagler, I'm afraid you can no longer claim him for your side. ;)
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
OK, Eagler, you get Paul Harvey, Cabby and Rude and I get Thrawn, Weazel and Staga. But to make it fair because you are so hopelessly overmatched and in the intrests of fairness we'll let you have Sandman, Midnight Target and Dowding and we'll take Udie, Caligua and hblair.
Pick your side carefully Elf!! Liberals aren't allowed to fight, especially as a group (oh the SHAME of thinking about it). They are supposed to join hands and sing peacenik songs. Harvey, Rude and Cabby will probably bring a Tank. :D
Oh and btw, I'll take the word of P.H. over anything I find on the www, especially when written by an obvious liberal trying to make it ok to support ridiculous things like the Black Panthers in ANY fashion.
-
Originally posted by Staga
btw Rude I find this kind of threads more entertaining than WoW-threads. Any chance having more informative threads from you ? :)
Not a chance....some of these guys scare me:)
I simply found this to be of interest....recieved it from a friend of mine via email.
Now, it can be true or false or somewhere in between....the fact remains, that anyone who would defend Hillary and her sidekick Bill, is difficult to take too seriously:)
And to all of you liberals out there, may your day be filled with happiness and joy along with a dose of truth from time to time:)
Later!
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Thank you for your arbitary score system.
Here is mine.
Cabby: Tuesday
Weazel: Orange
ROFL
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by Tumor
Pick your side carefully Elf!! Liberals aren't allowed to fight, especially as a group (oh the SHAME of thinking about it). They are supposed to join hands and sing peacenik songs. Harvey, Rude and Cabby will probably bring a Tank. :D
Oh and btw, I'll take the word of P.H. over anything I find on the www, especially when written by an obvious liberal trying to make it ok to support ridiculous things like the Black Panthers in ANY fashion.
Fight?! Who said anything about fighting? I wanted to get a good softball game going.
-
Now this is the kind of thread we need more often. The "serious" points are even funnier than the jokes!
Now all you Tighty-Righties try to read all the words in the following paragraph. I will be happy to provide definitions for the ones that are haarrd.
So, what exactly did Mr. Lee and Ms. Clinton do to "defend" the Panthers in a legal sense? In Mr. Lee's case, he did absolutely nothing. He wasn't a lawyer, or even a law student; he was simply another Yale undergraduate who had nothing to do with the Black Panthers' trial. Ms. Clinton wasn't a lawyer then, either; she was a Yale law student. The sum total of her involvement in the trial was that she assisted the American Civil Liberties Union in monitoring the trial for civil rights violations. That a law student's tangential participation in one of the most controversial, politically and racially charged trials of her time (one that took place right on her doorstep) to help ensure it remained free of civil rights abuses is now offered as "proof" of her moral reprehensibility demonstrates that McCarthyism is alive and well -- some of us apparently believe in rights but don't believe everyone has the right to have rights.
Let me save cabby the trouble:
"Yea but they suck anyway....so who cares if its true!"
-
Tah-Gut,
You need to read the whole thread before posting I think. The content of that link was invalidated via ad hominim attack. Because Snopes (one of the leading Urban Legend research sites on the net) is obviously liberal, the content of snopes.com (and presumably snopes2.com) is not of value, and the facts contained in that website are not to be used.
Once snopes was called out of play I knew this thread would be fun to watch lol.
-Sikboy
-
Hey Eagler, I pick Sikboy to be my center fielder. Your pick-
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Now all you Tighty-Righties try to read all the words in the following paragraph. I will be happy to provide definitions for the ones that are haarrd.
[/b]
Fine, you brought it on yourself.
Please try not to use a dictionary, instead let us hear your definitions of the following:
"defend",
" do nothing",
"defend in a legal sense", and
"support"
Good luck
-
Oh My??
Now What!??
Oh wait, I know. I won't let Mr. Lawyer change the subject or the push the debate in a direction other than whether the story is factual or not. That just might work!
Defend = Try to keep the opposition from scoring
Do-nothing = Defend as if you were France playing Senegal
Defend in a Legal sense = (See Do-nothing)
Support = That piece of equipment I need to provide a good defense, and you don't.
Snopes isn't out of play! Note the cited sources at the end of the article. And since when is Ad Hominem worth a pile a spit?
Update: Versions of the e-mailed denunciation headed "Paul Harvey's 'The rest of the story'" began circulating on the Internet in June 2000. This header plus a comment at the end of the text ("And now, as Paul Harvey says, you know the rest of the story") caused some to believe Paul Harvey had read this piece (or a shorter version of it) on air. Paul Harvey's people confirm he has never broadcast the Panthers and Hillary Clinton story.
Sources:
Brock, David. The Seduction of Hillary Rodham.
New York: Free Press, 1996. ISBN 0-684-83451-0 (pp. 30-35).
Claiborne, William. "Brewster: From Yale to the Court of St. James's."
The Washington Post. 8 April 1977 (p. B1).
Elvin, John. "Hillary Hides Her Panther Fling."
Insight. 31 July 2000.
Freed, Daniel. Agony in New Haven: The Trial of Bobby Seale, Erika Huggins, and the Black Panther Party.
New York: Simon and Schuster, 1973.
McCaslin, John. "Hillary for the Defense."
The Washington Times. 12 June 1998.
Rierden, Andi. "Once a Black Panther, Always a Cause."
The New York Times. 22 November 1992 (p. CN1).
West, Diana. "The '60s Strike Back."
The Washington Times. 5 February 1999.
Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. "Former Black Panthers Who Have Turned to Higher Education."
31 October 1998 (p. 62).
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
And since when is Ad Hominem worth a pile a spit?
It's not, but sarcasm is worth its weight in gold :)
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Oh My??
Now What!??
Oh wait, I know. I won't let Mr. Lawyer change the subject or the push the debate in a direction other than whether the story is factual or not. That just might work!
Defend = Try to keep the opposition from scoring
Do-nothing = Defend as if you were France playing Senegal
Defend in a Legal sense = (See Do-nothing)
Support = That piece of equipment I need to provide a good defense, and you don't.
Snopes isn't out of play! Note the cited sources at the end of the article. And since when is Ad Hominem worth a pile a spit?
Now, if you actually had bothered to read the first post on this thread and compared it to what that urban legend site is saying you would note that the urban legend site does not disprove anything. In fact it confirms most of it. Although the author of the urban legends site chooses to use other definitions of various concepts, or he chooses to put different lables on certain situations.
Basically what it all comes down to is your definition of complicated concepts such as "defend" and "support". That is why it would have been interesting to hear your definition of those words. But judging from your rather cavalearly reply here, I guess that just went right over your head or something.
Here Target, I made a mental checklist for you to go through the next time you feel the urge to make some smart-assed post.
1) Do I really know what I'm talking about ./. Do I understand what I'm saying.
2) Can I back up my arguments with facts, or am I just making statements that I really have no idea how to back up.
3) What if someone disagrees with me, what will I do then?
If you cant take the heat...
I'm sure others can help me add to this checklist.
[EDIT] You also might want to read the sources yourself next time instead of just copying some other guys list. I mean you really have no idea what those sources say now do you? Its rediculous.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Now this is the kind of thread we need more often. The "serious" points are even funnier than the jokes!
Now all you Tighty-Righties try to read all the words in the following paragraph. I will be happy to provide definitions for the ones that are haarrd.
Let me save cabby the trouble:
"Yea but they suck anyway....so who cares if its true!"
...?? It's RIGHTY-TIGHTY ya big doofus! :D
sigh.. and you CAN'T pile spit! You can however spit on piles (ewwww)
Tumor
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
Hey Eagler, I pick Sikboy to be my center fielder. Your pick-
Hard to have a serious baseball game when the libs throw like women :)
Cabby looks like a good DH though .. that is designated hitter :)
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
Fight?! Who said anything about fighting? I wanted to get a good softball game going.
it sounds like you dont play drunk enough :)
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
OK, Eagler, you get Paul Harvey, Cabby and Rude and I get Thrawn, Weazel and Staga. But to make it fair because you are so hopelessly overmatched and in the intrests of fairness we'll let you have Sandman, Midnight Target and Dowding and we'll take Udie, Caligua and hblair.
Ok I think Midnight and I are going to have to change seats. Weazel just farted and hblair is making funny noises!
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Basically what it all comes down to is your definition of complicated concepts such as "defend" and "support".
Actually, The site gives a paragraph's worth of comentary on the definition of "Defend" and it's use in this article.
But the article erroniously attributed to Mr. Harvey doesn't give you anything to work with on this matter. What did Mr. Lee and Ms. Rodam do to defend or support these guys? Buy em lunch? Pay for their prison cells via tax contributions? Not kill them outright? We don't know because we are not given any information. Why not? Because, so far as I can tell, there is no information to give. This is much ado about nothing.
(And this from a guy who can't stand Hillary Clinton)
-Sikboy
-
Dear Mr. Hortlund,
I have read your questions and answered them:
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Treat them with all the sincerity and wisdom they deserve.
Now. How about we cut to the chase?
THIS WILL OPEN YOUR EYES
By Paul Harvey - Conveniently Forgotten Facts Not reported by Paul Harvey "Paul Harvey's people confirm he has never broadcast the Panthers and Hillary Clinton story. "
Back in 1969 a group of Black Panthers decided that a fellow black panther
named...Alex Rackley needed to die. Rackley was suspected of disloyalty.
Rackley was first tied to a chair. Once safely immobilized, his friends
tortured him for hours by, among other things, pouring boiling water on him. True enough
When they got tired of torturing Rackley, Black Panther member, Warren Kimbo
took Rackley outside and put a bullet in his head. Rackley's body was later
found floating in a river about 25 miles north of New Haven, Conn. Perhaps
at this point you're curious as to what happened to these Black Panthers. also true enough, some facts are left out, but not relevent ones IMHO.
"That several Black Panthers directly took part in the torture and murder of Alex Rackey is beyond dispute, and to those of us who believe that torture and murder are always wrong, no matter what the cause, their actions were morally reprehensible. "
In 1977, that's only eight years later, only one of the killers was still in jail. Now we start to leave out pertinant information. Like Kimbro was not convicted for murder! He spent 4 1/2 years in jail and was released on a State program which offered college educations to former convicts. Kimbro attended a small local University and won a scholarship to Harvard Business school where he received a masters degree.
The shooter, Warren Kimbro, managed to get a scholarship to Harvard,
and became good friends with none other than Al Gore. He later became an
assistant dean at an Eastern Connecticut State College. Isn't that
something? As a '60s
radical you can pump a bullet into someone's head, and a few years later, in
the same state, you can become an assistant college dean! Only in America! Especially when the Government tries to convict people who didn't take part in the actual shooting and did it only for political gain.
Erica Huggins was the lady who served the Panthers by boiling the water for
Mr. Rackley's torture. Some years later Ms. Huggins was elected to a
California School Board. How in the world do you think these killers got off
so easy? Maybe
it was in some part due to the efforts of two people who came to the defense Is this what you are using as your point Hortlund? The word Defense? Read the article, and tell me which "defense" is implied here.
"We often find it necessary, in order to preserve and protect our rights, to defend (in a legal sense) those whose actions we consider morally wrong, and to defend (in a moral sense) those who actions we find legally wrong. We sometimes let criminals go free because constitutional safeguards were violated in the process of bringing them to justice. That doesn't mean we condone their crimes; it means we're willing to "defend" their rights in order to preserve a higher moral principle (i.e., the rights that protect all of us)."
of the Panthers. These two people actually went so far as to shut down Yale
University with demonstrations in defense of the accused Black Panthers
during their trial.
Since your point was that the Snopes article backed up "most" of the first post in the thread, I will stick to quoting Snopes.
"Classes were made optional when 12,000 Panther supporters swarmed the campus in protest, and the president of Yale University himself, Kingman Brewster Jr., announced: "I personally want to say that I'm appalled and ashamed that things should have come to such a pass that I am skeptical of the ability of Black revolutionaries to achieve a fair trial anywhere in the U.S." To lay the entire responsibility for this massive, widespread protest on the shoulders of two Yale students is just silly, all the more so because nobody has offered evidence that either one of them led, or even participated in, any student demonstrations or protests in support of the Black Panthers."
One of these people was none other than Bill Lan Lee. Mr. Lee, or Mr. Lan
Lee, as the case may be, isn't a college dean. He isn't a member of a
California School Board. He is now head of the US Justice Department's Civil
Rights Division, appointed by none other than Bill Clinton. The fact that Mr. Lee was a member of the justice department is not in question, his "defense" of the Panthers and the fact that he was one of the "two people actually went so far as to shut down Yale University with demonstrations" WRONG!
"So, what exactly did Mr. Lee and Ms. Clinton do to "defend" the Panthers in a legal sense? In Mr. Lee's case, he did absolutely nothing. He wasn't a lawyer, or even a law student; he was simply another Yale undergraduate who had nothing to do with the Black Panthers' trial. "
O.K., so who was the other Panther defender? The other Panther defender
was, like Lee, a radical law student at Yale University at the time. We have just shown that Lee was NOT a law student She is now known as The "smartest woman in the world." She is none other than the Democratic senator from the State of New York----our former First Lady, the incredible Hillary Rodham Clinton. Panther defender? Maybe defender of constitutional rights. Hardly a Panther defender, and hardly "the other" Panther defender.
"Ms. Clinton wasn't a lawyer then, either; she was a Yale law student. The sum total of her involvement in the trial was that she assisted the American Civil Liberties Union in monitoring the trial for civil rights violations. "
And now, as Paul Harvey said; You know "the rest of the story". Well, there he goes again