Ed New Black Panthers threaten RNC

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

And the blatant violations of civil liberties and effects of racism were sanctioned by mainstream society. The main thrust of the Black Panthers was to be a forum to call out the obvious hypocrisy of US society.

Read David Horowitz's autobiography Radical Son. The Black Panthers were an extortion racket/drug gang with political camoflage.

 

[MaGZ]

Yes, each side has its share of lunatics. Nobody should take them seriously, unless you think Ted Nugent really should be arrested for threatening Obama and H. Clinton.

Until one of them breaks into a Republican office with a gun and several magazines of ammo. Like that sort of thing never happens.

 

[MaGZ]

So, Palin is the equivalent of the NBPP when it comes to the newsworthiness of their statements?

For once, I agree with you.

Palin loves Blacks, especially Black basketball players. She wanted Allen West to be the Romney’s VP pick.

 

[MaGZ]

Not a bad point actually.

But I certainly don't see Republicans as the equivalent of the KKK.
And I don't think many here would.

As aside: couldn't we buy these NBP guys some tickets to to the next End Apathy gig? (As soon as they get a new guitarist) It would make for fun reality TV.

All those attending will be given claw-hammers and machetes.

Henry Rollins as 'sports commentator'?

Title: 'Last Bigot Standing'?

David Duke is a Republican.

 

[mhaze]

Read David Horowitz's autobiography Radical Son. The Black Panthers were an extortion racket/drug gang with political camoflage.

Hey, what you doing, guy?

Butting in in the middle of some rewriting history with unwelcome facts?

But I did have the mods change the title which originally said "Black Panthers..."

I don't want to insult the WRONG GROUP OF THUGS!

 

[ravdin]

Read David Horowitz's autobiography Radical Son. The Black Panthers were an extortion racket/drug gang with political camoflage.

I haven't read the book, but I'm familiar with the story. David Horowitz was an idealistic radical leftist until his friend was murdered by the Black Panthers.

It's a gripping tale, but it has nothing at all to do with the New Black Panther Party, any more than the incident that inspired the OP had anything to do with the thugs who murdered David Horowitz's friend.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

David Duke is a Republican.

And was a Democrat before that. The Democrats switched from Jim Crow to Affirmative Action. Republicans have (somewhat) consistently favored equality before the law. If one hates __X__, one will prefer the anti-X party to the X-neutral party and the X-neutral party to the pro-X party. When the previously anti-X party moves to a pro-X position, where's the anti-X voter to go?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

The Old Black Panther Party were revolutionary Maoists.

And the blatant violations of civil liberties and effects of racism were sanctioned by mainstream society. The main thrust of the Black Panthers was to be a forum to call out the obvious hypocrisy of US society.

Read David Horowitz's autobiography Radical Son. The Black Panthers were an extortion racket/drug gang with political camoflage.

I haven't read the book, but I'm familiar with the story. David Horowitz was an idealistic radical leftist until his friend was murdered by the Black Panthers. It's a gripping tale, but it has nothing at all to do with the New Black Panther Party, any more than the incident that inspired the OP had anything to do with the thugs who murdered David Horowitz's friend.

I disputed Dancing David's characterization of the 60's era Black Panthers.

 

[Spindrift]

I disputed Dancing David's characterization of the 60's era Black Panthers.

Not really.

DD didn't 'characterize' the Black Panthers, he stated what their main thrust was to be. And he is correct.

That the Black Panthers changed does not alter that DD is correct.

 

[mhaze]

Not really.

DD didn't 'characterize' the Black Panthers, he stated what their main thrust was to be. And he is correct.

That the Black Panthers changed does not alter that DD is correct.

"Attaboy!"

Let's look at the differences between "characterize" and "main thrust" of a bunch of thugs.

That's the way.

Yessir!

 

[MaGZ]

I haven't read the book, but I'm familiar with the story. David Horowitz was an idealistic radical leftist until his friend was murdered by the Black Panthers.

It's a gripping tale, but it has nothing at all to do with the New Black Panther Party, any more than the incident that inspired the OP had anything to do with the thugs who murdered David Horowitz's friend.

At Yale, Hillary Clinton defended those thugs.

 

[Border Reiver]

At Yale, Hillary Clinton defended those thugs.

And you've defended Neo-Nazis, I presume you have a point.

The police are in an excellent position to identify, arrest and prosecute.

 

[Dancing David]

I disputed Dancing David's characterization of the 60's era Black Panthers.

And one data point is one data point and does not describe all the people involved in the Black Panthers, most of the Black Panthers did not commit that act, most of them were making a political statement is response to the overwhelming racism and injustice that prevailed in the US at the time.

Which was my point and you did not dispute, how many Black Panthers committed those acts. How many police officers and citizens routinely abused black citizens at the time. How many businesses were abusive to blacks, why was Flip Wilson the first black american to have a TV show run a full season.

So either you have exaggerated the acts of individual Black Panthers or you have denied the context of the their agi-prop.

Why did they start patrols with weapons and observe police officers? How many blacks were lynched illegally in the US. When was that huge KKK rally held in Indiana, you know that last really huge one. Why were their Woolworth protests across the US? What exactly was racism like in the US in 1966?

So you can address those points, but I predict if you respond to this post it will be to change the topic.

Give the exact citations and evidence for Horowitz.s contention that the Black Panthers killed more than 12 people, from alternative sources that are not David Horowitz or quoting David Horowitz.

 

[Dancing David]

Not really.

DD didn't 'characterize' the Black Panthers, he stated what their main thrust was to be. And he is correct.

That the Black Panthers changed does not alter that DD is correct.

I did characterize them, as being agi-prop to generate publicity and bring the nature of the racism in the US to the forefront.

Just like in 1968, Olympians Tommie Smith and John Carlos protested the way blacks were being treated by the US and the preponderance of black combat soldiers in Viet Nam.

It was agi-prop and of a less confrontational nature.

 

[Dancing David]

"Attaboy!"

Let's look at the differences between "characterize" and "main thrust" of a bunch of thugs.

That's the way.

Yessir!

Funny, you have not demonstrated them being a bunch of thugs at all, now have you?

You have no substance and no actual data.

 

[Dancing David]

At Yale, Hillary Clinton defended those thugs.

You have yet to demonstrate the thuggery, its extent or prevalence among the Black Panthers.

Having read your posts before I suppose you support the racism, Jim Crow and lynchings on blacks at the time. Do you deny you support those things?

 

[mhaze]

Funny, you have not demonstrated them being a bunch of thugs at all, now have you?

You have no substance and no actual data.

Huey Newton, founder

As a teenager, he was arrested several times for minor offenses, and by age 14, had been arrested for gun possession and vandalism.[4] Newton supported himself in college by burglarizing homes in the Oakland and Berkeley Hills areas, and committing other crimes. Newton once said that he studied law to become a better criminal.[5]

Move along, no thugs to be seen here!

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

And one data point is one data point and does not describe all the people involved in the Black Panthers, most of the Black Panthers did not commit that act, most of them were making a political statement is response to the overwhelming racism and injustice that prevailed in the US at the time.¹Which was my point and you did not dispute, how many Black Panthers committed those acts. How many police officers and citizens routinely abused black citizens at the time. How many businesses were abusive to blacks, why was Flip Wilson the first black american to have a TV show run a full season.

So either you have exaggerated the acts of individual Black Panthers or you have denied the context of the their agi-prop.

Why did they start patrols with weapons and observe police officers? How many blacks were lynched illegally in the US. When was that huge KKK rally held in Indiana, you know that last really huge one. Why were their Woolworth protests across the US? What exactly was racism like in the US in 1966?

So you can address those points, but I predict if you respond to this post it will be to change the topic.²

1. Motivations are a matter of inference. I will make a few about the accusation of "overwhelming racism and injustice". Must feel great to be so morally superior to 200 million people.
2. Racism exists. Why is a murderous and irrational political ideology a sensible response?

 

[Robrob]

Huey Newton, founder As a teenager, he was arrested several times for minor offenses, and by age 14, had been arrested for gun possession and vandalism.[4] Newton supported himself in college by burglarizing homes in the Oakland and Berkeley Hills areas, and committing other crimes. Newton once said that he studied law to become a better criminal.[5]

Move along, no thugs to be seen here!

Swing and a miss. I can understand your confusion, though it helps when you actually know what you are talking about.

The New Black Panther Party (NBPP), whose formal name is the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, is a U.S.-based black political organization founded in Dallas, Texas in 1989. Despite its name, NBPP is not an official successor to the Black Panther Party. Members of the original Black Panther Party have insisted that the newer party is illegitimate and have firmly declared that "there is no new Black Panther Party".

Not to mention Brietbart's continued hysterics over a couple thousand rabble rousing nobodies who do nothing other than garner press from terrified wingnuts, is well - predictable.

As of 2009, the NBPP claimed a few thousand members organized in 45 chapters, while independent estimates by the Anti-Defamation League suggest that the group is "much smaller" but is nevertheless able to attract a large turnout of non-members (some of whom "may not even realize what this group actually stands for") to its events by focusing on specific issues of local interest.

Please let me know if you need me to research any more of your points?

 

[mhaze]

Swing and a miss. I can understand your confusion, though it helps when you actually know what you are talking about.



Not to mention Brietbart's continued hysterics over a couple thousand rabble rousing nobodies who do nothing other than garner press from terrified wingnuts, is well - predictable.



Please let me know if you need me to research any more of your points?

I refer to Dancing David's defense of the 1960s era BP party.