Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Stinky The Clown

(67,799 posts)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 10:41 PM Jan 2016

Why does our Justice Department seem to be as effective as a fart in a windstorm?

Just recently:

The Y'all Quada Yahoos. Why did it take so damned long? Were they black and urban, they've been dealt with in short order.

Michigan and what is increasingly clear are events and actions that, at least to my unlawyerly eyes, appear to be crimes against humanity. At the least this is a criminal conspiracy that has resulted in wanton indifference. And Flint is only the most famous such action in Michigan.

After every killing of unarmed/innocent black people by cops, we watch the coverups. At the end, the justice department announces a civil rights investigation. Then silence and another lump raises another spot under the national carpet.

What does it take for the feds to protect our citizens?

8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why does our Justice Department seem to be as effective as a fart in a windstorm? (Original Post) Stinky The Clown Jan 2016 OP
The Feds can't protect our citizens from-------other citizens. virgogal Jan 2016 #1
Hey, they have bankers they're busy coddling! villager Jan 2016 #2
I think discussion of the banksters is against the law, isn't it? Stinky The Clown Jan 2016 #5
Why, they might have to yank your FCC license to use the "public" airwaves.... villager Jan 2016 #6
Yuo really do not want me to answer that question nadinbrzezinski Jan 2016 #3
See also: ‘The Divide,’ by Matt Taibbi IDemo Jan 2016 #7
True, there are a bunch nadinbrzezinski Jan 2016 #8
They were slow off the mark truebluegreen Jan 2016 #4

Stinky The Clown

(67,799 posts)
5. I think discussion of the banksters is against the law, isn't it?
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 11:09 PM
Jan 2016

At least that's what I was thinking since it was NEVER FUCKING DISCUSSED IN OUR WORTHLESS MEDIA.

 

villager

(26,001 posts)
6. Why, they might have to yank your FCC license to use the "public" airwaves....
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 11:32 PM
Jan 2016

...if you used the "7 Dirty Words Describing the 1%"

(among which are "bankster," "class," "military-industrial," etc...)

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
3. Yuo really do not want me to answer that question
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 11:01 PM
Jan 2016

since that will anger a few people here. Suffice it to say, read the New Jim Crow... by Michelle Alexander

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
8. True, there are a bunch
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 11:53 PM
Jan 2016

the more I read into it, these days very technical, the more angry I become.

 

truebluegreen

(9,033 posts)
4. They were slow off the mark
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 11:03 PM
Jan 2016

but in their defense I think it gave time for public opinion to coalesce against the occupiers.

But something there is no fucking excuse for is letting the teahadists off the hook after the Bundy ranch fiasco. What did they think would happen next?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why does our Justice Depa...