If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS News)   House committee moves forward with Fast & Furious 6 starring Eric Holder. This time fewer cars, more guns   (cbsnews.com) divider line 395
    More: Spiffy, Furious, House committees, house oversight committee, contempt, committees, socialist country  
•       •       •

1557 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Jun 2012 at 10:50 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



395 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-11 06:06:58 PM

Nobodyn0se: Fark It: Nobodyn0se: Yes, those tear gas canisters, which were not used anywhere NEAR the building that started on fire, and thus could not have started the fire.

If by "anywhere near" you mean "directly on top of in order to flush them out" then yes.

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that there's no way any law enforcement agency would fire tear gas canisters into a barricaded structure in order to flush people out.

/and the FBI admitted that tear gas canisters "may" have been used and fired at the Waco structure in 1999, six years after the fact and after repeated denials, many of which were under oath to Congress.

Sigh. Seriously. How many times do I have to explain this?

Yes, they used tear gas on the buildings. No, they did NOT use pyrotechnic charge based tear gas on the buildings.

There were two types of tear gas delivery systems used at Waco. One used pyrotechnics, one used inertia. The inertia ones were used on the building, the pyrotechnic ones were used outside the building.

The inertial tear gas canisters could NOT have started the fire, because there was nothing explosive/flammable in them. The pyrotechnic tear gas canisters couldn't have started the fire because they weren't used anywhere near where the fire started.


How do you think CS gas is made (regardless of the delivery system)? You have to burn it....

Ms. Reno and officials at the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation, in asserting that the Government was not responsible for setting the deadly fire, have long denied that any tear-gas canisters capable of igniting a fire were ever used. But prompted by the disclosure this week of Government inventories listing weapons used in the assault, F.B.I. officials acknowledged on Wednesday that some pyrotechnic canisters were used.

The officials continue to maintain that the fire was set by the cult members. They say the pyrotechnic canisters were used six hours before the fire started and had been aimed at a bunker 100 yards from the main building that later burned. But Ms. Reno said she was troubled by the disclosure.


They lied for six years about the use of pyrotechnic devices. Then they said "oh we used them, but they didn't start the fire. Trust us."

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-05-29/news/mn-7278_1_cs-gas

And the children's bodies were too badly burned to determine cause of death. Many likely died from smoke inhalation due to the bombardment with CS gas. And had they survived the fire, they would have been in intensive care with permanent lung damage.

/you're an awful, disgusting, boot-licker
 
2012-06-11 06:07:23 PM

bugontherug: So I asked again whether or not Holder had ever used Fast and Furious to justify gun control legislation. This time, you answered with a link. Here is what you said:

Here you go. Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.


That link was not per some question. That link was per your request to see evidence to back up one of my earlier proposition (which you misinterpreted), so I defered to the meaning of my origional proposition.

Your words:
I'll have to see evidence for both of those propositions. Specifically:

1) that Holder used Fast and Furious to justify gun control legislation, and


My original proposition was that he was justifying potential gun control legislation because of a 'crisis', not that this crisis was an ends to a means. That is the part that I have repeately indicated I do not know. No one knows outside of Holder. My point is that it raises red flags, which it should in most folks.


In the strictest sense, this is non-responsive to the question I had at that point asked you twice

Of course it is non-responsive. Again and again I have told you that I don't know.


this answer was most reasonably understood as an affirmative response.

Uh, no. An agrument that questions a motive is not understood as a affirmative response. It is understood as a question. Put the goalpost down dude(ette).

It is unclear to me

You could have stopped right there. Something apparently got mixed up in our tranlations of this discussion because we are not apparently discussing the same agrument.
 
2012-06-11 06:08:27 PM

Fark It: a genuine AKM manufactured in the Soviet Union that's been sitting in a crate covered in cosmoline in Panama or Cuba for the last 30 years, that's untraceable and costs $100, and is select-fire without the need for any modifications?


go on....
 
2012-06-11 06:10:52 PM

o5iiawah: Fark It: a genuine AKM manufactured in the Soviet Union that's been sitting in a crate covered in cosmoline in Panama or Cuba for the last 30 years, that's untraceable and costs $100, and is select-fire without the need for any modifications?

go on....


You can dream. But thanks to Reagan and Sen. Hughes (farking New Jersey), machine guns are a rich man's game.
 
2012-06-11 06:13:56 PM

Fark It:
How do you think CS gas is made (regardless of the delivery system)? You have to burn it....


"CS2 dry powder (CS2 is a siliconized, micro-pulverized form of CS)."

Oh look, you DON'T have to burn it! You can use it as a dry powder! And I bet someone has made a way to use that dry powder as a weapon in an inertial delivery system!
 
2012-06-11 06:15:34 PM

Fark It: /you're an awful, disgusting, boot-licker


I'm an awful, disgusting, boot-licker because I actually require some EVIDENCE of government wrong-doing before I accuse them of something?

Holy crap, man.
 
2012-06-11 06:18:19 PM

Nobodyn0se: Fark It:
How do you think CS gas is made (regardless of the delivery system)? You have to burn it....


"CS2 dry powder (CS2 is a siliconized, micro-pulverized form of CS)."

Oh look, you DON'T have to burn it! You can use it as a dry powder! And I bet someone has made a way to use that dry powder as a weapon in an inertial delivery system!


CS is useless in its powder form as an area/crowd control weapon. It must be in its gas form for it to have its desired effect.

Nobodyn0se: Fark It: /you're an awful, disgusting, boot-licker

I'm an awful, disgusting, boot-licker because I actually require some EVIDENCE of government wrong-doing before I accuse them of something?

Holy crap, man.


I was wrong. You're an awful, disgusting, and uninformed boot-licker because you're an apologist who ignores evidence of wrong-doing.
 
2012-06-11 06:22:44 PM

Fark It: Nobodyn0se: Fark It:
How do you think CS gas is made (regardless of the delivery system)? You have to burn it....


"CS2 dry powder (CS2 is a siliconized, micro-pulverized form of CS)."

Oh look, you DON'T have to burn it! You can use it as a dry powder! And I bet someone has made a way to use that dry powder as a weapon in an inertial delivery system!

CS is useless in its powder form as an area/crowd control weapon. It must be in its gas form for it to have its desired effect.


Yes, which is why you need a delivery system, like the INERTIAL DELIVERY SYSTEMS that were actually used in the Waco siege, which had no explosive components.
 
2012-06-11 06:23:23 PM

Fark It:

I was wrong. You're an awful, disgusting, and uninformed boot-licker because you're an apologist who ignores evidence of wrong-doing.


What evidence have I ignored?
Hint: Ramblings by conspiracy theorists do not count as evidence.
 
2012-06-11 06:25:20 PM
HeadLever:That link was not per some question. That link was per your request to see evidence to back up one of my earlier proposition (which you misinterpreted), so I defered to the meaning of my origional proposition.

I misinterpreted nothing. Let me repeat:

Me:
Are you insinuating Holder hatched Fast and Furious to create a false impression of gun smuggling across the border with Mexico so he could justify re-enacting the assault weapons ban?


You:
No clue. He was either being disingenious or had no clue. Maybe even a combination of both. In any case, when you see him justifying potential gun control legislation because of an 'crisis' his own DOJ is actively participating in, red flags tend to go up.
 
2012-06-11 06:25:42 PM

Nobodyn0se: Yes, which is why you need a delivery system, like the INERTIAL DELIVERY SYSTEMS that were actually used in the Waco siege, which had no explosive components.


They used military CS canisters in the Waco siege. They admitted to using them. Military-grade CS canisters are ignited and burn from a pyrotechnic charge, and are noted in Army field manuals as being capable of starting fires.
 
2012-06-11 06:26:05 PM

Fark It:

CS is useless in its powder form as an area/crowd control weapon. It must be in its gas form for it to have its desired effect.


Hey look, here's an actual PICTURE of a non-explosive, inertial delivery canister for CS gas that was actually used in a crowd control situation in Egypt!

rogueadventurer.files.wordpress.com


Now, what was it you were saying about it being impossible to use non-explosive, non-burning methods of delivering CS gas in a crowd control situation again?
 
2012-06-11 06:27:21 PM

bugontherug: HeadLever:That link was not per some question. That link was per your request to see evidence to back up one of my earlier proposition (which you misinterpreted), so I defered to the meaning of my origional proposition.

I misinterpreted nothing. Let me repeat:

Me:
Are you insinuating Holder hatched Fast and Furious to create a false impression of gun smuggling across the border with Mexico so he could justify re-enacting the assault weapons ban?

You:
No clue. He was either being disingenious or had no clue. Maybe even a combination of both. In any case, when you see him justifying potential gun control legislation because of an 'crisis' his own DOJ is actively participating in, red flags tend to go up.


Thus, when first asked whether or not Holder fabricated Fast and Furious to justify gun control legislation, you responded with an equivocal answer, but hinting you believed that yes, you believed such an idea is plausible.
 
2012-06-11 06:27:34 PM

Fark It: Nobodyn0se: Yes, which is why you need a delivery system, like the INERTIAL DELIVERY SYSTEMS that were actually used in the Waco siege, which had no explosive components.

They used military CS canisters in the Waco siege. They admitted to using them. Military-grade CS canisters are ignited and burn from a pyrotechnic charge, and are noted in Army field manuals as being capable of starting fires.


Yes, they admitted to using them hundreds of feet from where the fire started, and two hours before the fire started.

The only tear gas used anywhere near the place that fire originated were the kind in the picture above, which did not have any explosive or combustible properties and thus could NOT have started that fire.
 
2012-06-11 06:29:24 PM

Nobodyn0se: Hey look, here's an actual PICTURE of a non-explosive, inertial delivery canister for CS gas that was actually used in a crowd control situation in Egypt!


We're not talking about CS gas used in Egypt, we're talking about CS gas being deployed in America, by the FBI, during the Waco siege.

They admitted to using pyrotechnic, military CS gas canisters, after lying to Congress for six years.
 
2012-06-11 06:31:17 PM

HeadLever: As I have already pointed out to you, it was not controversial at all until they started to let guns walk across the border. This practice did not start with Bush but with Obama


By the way, this is flagrantly false. Gunwalking began under Bush, with "Operation Wide Receiver."

Link

The first known ATF "gunwalking" operation to Mexican drug cartels, named Operation Wide Receiver, began in early 2006 and ran into late 2007.
 
2012-06-11 06:31:47 PM

Fark It: Nobodyn0se: Hey look, here's an actual PICTURE of a non-explosive, inertial delivery canister for CS gas that was actually used in a crowd control situation in Egypt!

We're not talking about CS gas used in Egypt, we're talking about CS gas being deployed in America, by the FBI, during the Waco siege.

They admitted to using pyrotechnic, military CS gas canisters, after lying to Congress for six years.


And yet you said that using non-pyrotechnic methods of CS delivery was impossible, remember?

Fark It: How do you think CS gas is made (regardless of the delivery system)? You have to burn it....


That picture proves that you were wrong.

And yes, they admitted to using military tear gas HUNDREDS OF FEET AWAY FROM THE FIRE AND TWO HOURS BEFORE IT STARTED. How many times does this very simple fact need to be repeated before you actually read it and understand it? Just give me a number, I'll repeat it that many times, and we can move on.
 
2012-06-11 06:38:25 PM

Nobodyn0se: Fark It: Nobodyn0se: Hey look, here's an actual PICTURE of a non-explosive, inertial delivery canister for CS gas that was actually used in a crowd control situation in Egypt!

We're not talking about CS gas used in Egypt, we're talking about CS gas being deployed in America, by the FBI, during the Waco siege.

They admitted to using pyrotechnic, military CS gas canisters, after lying to Congress for six years.

And yet you said that using non-pyrotechnic methods of CS delivery was impossible, remember?

Fark It: How do you think CS gas is made (regardless of the delivery system)? You have to burn it....

That picture proves that you were wrong.

And yes, they admitted to using military tear gas HUNDREDS OF FEET AWAY FROM THE FIRE AND TWO HOURS BEFORE IT STARTED. How many times does this very simple fact need to be repeated before you actually read it and understand it? Just give me a number, I'll repeat it that many times, and we can move on.


And you believe them? AFTER THEY LIED ABOUT IT FOR SIX YEARS?
 
2012-06-11 06:43:08 PM

Fark It:

And you believe them? AFTER THEY LIED ABOUT IT FOR SIX YEARS?


You're right. Instead of the official story (backed up by the testimony of witnesses and the forensic evidence left behind at the scene), I'll believe that they started that fire based on absolutely nothing besides the conjecture pulled out of some conspiracy theorist's ass. That's got MUCH more evidence behind it!
 
2012-06-11 06:49:14 PM

Nobodyn0se: Fark It:

And you believe them? AFTER THEY LIED ABOUT IT FOR SIX YEARS?

You're right. Instead of the official story (backed up by the testimony of witnesses and the forensic evidence left behind at the scene), I'll believe that they started that fire based on absolutely nothing besides the conjecture pulled out of some conspiracy theorist's ass. That's got MUCH more evidence behind it!


There is tons of missing evidence. And the site was bulldozed by the authorities relatively soon after the siege ended, rendering further forensic work impossible.
 
2012-06-11 06:49:21 PM
Then, when I asked for supporting evidence that Holder had ever used Fast and Furious to justify gun control legislation, you responded with a link to a news story from February 2009. My request was not ambiguous, equivocal, or poorly phrased. It read:

I'll have to see evidence for both of those propositions. Specifically:

1) that Holder used Fast and Furious to justify gun control legislation,


To that request, posed after you had already answered that you believed it plausible that Holder had fabricated Fast and Furious to justify gun control legislation, you responded with what you thought was supporting evidence in the form of a link:

Here you go. Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.


So I pointed out the chronological problem with your evidence--specifically, that your article was written before Fast and Furious was ever conceived.

That's when you started hemming and hawing and claiming I can't read.

It is now clear to me what is going on here, and I'd like to apologize. Deep down, you believe Fast and Furious was part of a plot by Holder to ship guns to Mexico, then point to the gun shipments to Mexico, and say "see, we really need more gun control to stop guns going to Mexico!" That's what you've read in your right-wing gun rights rags, you trust them over that goddamn liebrul media, and so you're pretty damn sure it's true.

But you have just barely the social sense to know you can't come out and say that, because other people think such notions are idiotic. So instead you hinted at it. Then, when you thought you found your smoking gun, which in your mind was Holder talking about gun control in reference to cross border gun traffic and cartel violence at all, I humiliated you by disproving your proposition, and calling attention to your manifest stupidity.

So let me just say "I'm sorry." I'm sorry for the defects of your character which cause a) your paranoid fantasies, and b) your aggressive response when someone takes a pinprick of reality to the bubble of unreality you've so carefully constructed to preserve your delicate ego. I truly apologize and want you to know I take full responsibility for my part in this.
 
2012-06-11 06:52:17 PM

Fark It:
There is tons of missing evidence. And the site was bulldozed by the authorities relatively soon after the siege ended, rendering further forensic work impossible.


Yes. And 9/11 was an inside job, Obama is going to declare martial law in November, we never landed on the moon, and Johnson killed Kennedy.
 
2012-06-11 06:53:19 PM
So what you're saying is "they're comin' for mah guns!"
 
2012-06-11 06:53:26 PM

bugontherug: I misinterpreted nothing.


If you are not misinterpreting my argument when I say I have clue, then you are misstating my agrument by saying that it an affirmative response.
 
2012-06-11 06:55:58 PM
good. He's nothing but a racist asshole
 
2012-06-11 06:56:52 PM

Nobodyn0se: Fark It:
There is tons of missing evidence. And the site was bulldozed by the authorities relatively soon after the siege ended, rendering further forensic work impossible.

Yes. And 9/11 was an inside job, Obama is going to declare martial law in November, we never landed on the moon, and Johnson killed Kennedy.


Reductio ad absurdum. Yawn.

/voted for Obama in 2008
 
2012-06-11 07:00:08 PM

bugontherug: HeadLever: As I have already pointed out to you, it was not controversial at all until they started to let guns walk across the border. This practice did not start with Bush but with Obama

By the way, this is flagrantly false. Gunwalking began under Bush, with "Operation Wide Receiver."

Link

The first known ATF "gunwalking" operation to Mexican drug cartels, named Operation Wide Receiver, began in early 2006 and ran into late 2007.


Wide Receiver interdicted the guns before they crossed the border.
 
2012-06-11 07:00:46 PM

bugontherug: Thus, when first asked whether or not Holder fabricated Fast and Furious to justify gun control legislation, you responded with an equivocal answer, but hinting you believed that yes, you believed such an idea is plausible.


Which was summed up very by the phrase, 'I don't know'. The 'hinting you believed yes' is your intrepretation and outside any context I was conveying. Is is possible? Yep. Do I believe it? Don't know and really don't care. Gun Control is a dead issue anyway as they found out after being biatchslapped regarding the AWB.
 
2012-06-11 07:04:14 PM

Fark It:

Reductio ad absurdum. Yawn.

/voted for Obama in 2008


The guy who basically said "The government didn't tell us about using military munitions for six years, so that must mean they started the fire!" is pulling out the logical fallacies?

WOW. Ballsy man, ballsy.

/Also voted for Obama in 2008 (and will again in 2012), but has no idea what that has to do with the conversation.
 
2012-06-11 07:04:31 PM

HeadLever: bugontherug: I misinterpreted nothing.

If you are not misinterpreting my argument when I say I have clue, then you are misstating my agrument by saying that it an affirmative response.


Here is the question I posed:

Are you insinuating Holder hatched Fast and Furious to create a false impression of gun smuggling across the border with Mexico so he could justify re-enacting the assault weapons ban?


Here is your response:

No clue. He was either being disingenious or had no clue. Maybe even a combination of both. In any case, when you see him justifying potential gun control legislation because of an 'crisis' his own DOJ is actively participating in, red flags tend to go up.

The underlined portion of your response indicates affirmatively that yes, you believe the notion that Holder fabricated Fast and Furious as part of a plot to justify gun control legislation. When you said "red flags," you were referring to "red flags" indicating a possible conspiracy.

I know this for two reasons: first off, it's in response to the question re: whether Fast and Furious was part of a conspiracy. Second off, when I asked you for supporting evidence, you linked to an article with Holder talking about cross border gun trade and cartel violence. You further said:

Here you go. Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.

"Here you go" there is a clue. It indicates your intent to produce the requested supporting evidence.

You, sir, are a nutter. I mean that with all due respect.
 
2012-06-11 07:05:17 PM

HeadLever: Is is possible? Yep.


Do you realize that this line right here validates EVERYTHING bugontherug has been saying this entire time?
 
2012-06-11 07:07:00 PM

bugontherug: Gunwalking began under Bush, with "Operation Wide Receiver."


That part is true but the ATF SOP under Wide Reciever was to intercept the guns before they go to the border. What caused the controversy is when they rejected that SOP and allowed them to cross the border where they had no ability to track them. that was not a part of Wide Reciever. That is, however, when the whistleblowers rightly started coming out to spill thier guts.
 
2012-06-11 07:10:14 PM

redmid17: bugontherug: HeadLever: As I have already pointed out to you, it was not controversial at all until they started to let guns walk across the border. This practice did not start with Bush but with Obama

By the way, this is flagrantly false. Gunwalking began under Bush, with "Operation Wide Receiver."

Link

The first known ATF "gunwalking" operation to Mexican drug cartels, named Operation Wide Receiver, began in early 2006 and ran into late 2007.

Wide Receiver interdicted the guns before they crossed the border.


No, it didn't:

The first known ATF "gunwalking" operation to Mexican drug cartels, named Operation Wide Receiver, began in early 2006 and ran into late 2007. Licensed dealer Mike Detty informed the ATF of a suspicious gun purchase that took place in February 2006 in Tucson, Arizona. In March he was hired as a confidential informant working with the ATF's Tucson office, part of their Phoenix, Arizona field division.[23] With the use of surveillance equipment, ATF agents monitored additional sales by Detty to straw purchasers. With assurance from ATF "that Mexican officials would be conducting surveillance or interdictions when guns got to the other side of the border",[24]

The distinction you're looking for, but are too steeped in right wing propaganda to make, isn't that Wide Receiver interdicted guns before they crossed the border. It's that there was close cooperation with Mexican law enforcement. Fast and Furious involved no such close cooperation.

Now, if only we could figure out some plausible reason why, after one gunwalking operation targeting wealthy, powerful cartels failed, producing no prosecutions, the ATF would avoid notifying Mexican officials for the next gunwalking operation... It's a huge mystery.
 
2012-06-11 07:11:34 PM

bugontherug: The underlined portion of your response indicates affirmatively that yes, you believe the notion that Holder fabricated Fast and Furious as part of a plot to justify gun control legislation. When you said "red flags," you were referring to "red flags" indicating a possible conspiracy.


Nope. It indicates that I have questions about motive. Anything more is coming from your imagination. Trying to construct a strawman out of this is not going to get you anywhere. In fact, if you want to fight it out with that strawman you have created, I'll gladly step our of your way and let you two at it. Mabe the winner can continue this conversation.
 
2012-06-11 07:12:43 PM
The budget for toner alone must be in the millions. These guys can only waste.
 
2012-06-11 07:14:35 PM

HeadLever:

Nope. It indicates that I have questions about motive.


So, in other words, "you believe it plausible that Holder had fabricated Fast and Furious to justify gun control legislation,"? Exactly as bugontherug has been saying this entire time?
 
2012-06-11 07:14:47 PM

Nobodyn0se: Do you realize that this line right here validates EVERYTHING bugontherug has been saying this entire time?


So believing that something is possible now means that you belive that said something is true? Nope. Sorry. Try again.
 
2012-06-11 07:16:32 PM

HeadLever: Nobodyn0se: Do you realize that this line right here validates EVERYTHING bugontherug has been saying this entire time?

So believing that something is possible now means that you belive that said something is true?


So, in other words, "you believe it plausible that Holder had fabricated Fast and Furious to justify gun control legislation,"?
 
2012-06-11 07:17:25 PM

HeadLever: Nobodyn0se: Do you realize that this line right here validates EVERYTHING bugontherug has been saying this entire time?

So believing that something is possible now means that you belive that said something is true? Nope. Sorry. Try again.


... even if not "true," you really believe it's even PLAUSIBLE that this was to push for gun control?
 
2012-06-11 07:17:32 PM

HeadLever: bugontherug: The underlined portion of your response indicates affirmatively that yes, you believe the notion that Holder fabricated Fast and Furious as part of a plot to justify gun control legislation. When you said "red flags," you were referring to "red flags" indicating a possible conspiracy.

Nope. It indicates that I have questions about motive. Anything more is coming from your imagination. Trying to construct a strawman out of this is not going to get you anywhere. In fact, if you want to fight it out with that strawman you have created, I'll gladly step our of your way and let you two at it. Mabe the winner can continue this conversation.


Nobodyn0se said it better than I can:

HeadLever: Is is possible? Yep.


Do you realize that this line right here validates EVERYTHING bugontherug has been saying this entire time?
 
2012-06-11 07:27:06 PM

bugontherug: No, it didn't:


Yes it did. the fact that the SOP was to intercept the smugglers before they reached the border cannot guarentee that they will all be caught. Also, at least Operation Wide Reciever notified and coordinated with the Mexican Goverment, unlike Operation Fast and Furious.
 
2012-06-11 07:30:49 PM

SithLord: Turn the table over. Had this been a Republican Administration with a DOJ who was in the pocket of said Administration, the Fark Liberal Brigade would be out in full force calling for heads and effigies.


I think that has something to do with the fact that "liberal brigade" has the intelligence to figure out something is wrong. Having to use no more than two syllable words to get something across to your ilk is a big issue within this country.
 
2012-06-11 07:31:09 PM

Nobodyn0se: So, in other words, "you believe it plausible that Holder had fabricated Fast and Furious to justify gun control legislation,"?


Copy from earlier post: Is is possible? Yep. Do I believe it? Don't know and really don't care.

Why do you keep asking the same question over and over again?
 
2012-06-11 07:32:06 PM

LasersHurt: even if not "true," you really believe it's even PLAUSIBLE that this was to push for gun control?


copy/pasta

Is is possible? Yep. Do I believe it? Don't know and really don't care.
 
2012-06-11 07:33:59 PM

HeadLever: LasersHurt: even if not "true," you really believe it's even PLAUSIBLE that this was to push for gun control?

copy/pasta

Is is possible? Yep. Do I believe it? Don't know and really don't care.


That's an odd philosophy, but, you know, whatever floats your boat.
 
2012-06-11 07:37:37 PM

HeadLever: Nobodyn0se: So, in other words, "you believe it plausible that Holder had fabricated Fast and Furious to justify gun control legislation,"?

Copy from earlier post: Is is possible? Yep. Do I believe it? Don't know and really don't care.

Why do you keep asking the same question over and over again?


I'm wondering if you're ever going to give me an answer that DOESN'T completely justify everything bugontherug has been saying this entire time.

You may want to go back and read what he actually wrote, and then you'll realize that you haven't been arguing against what he's actually saying for pretty much this entire conversation.
 
2012-06-11 07:39:15 PM

LasersHurt: That's an odd philosophy, but, you know, whatever floats your boat.


Finally, a refreshing post that actually doesn't try to constuct some strawman in my image. FWIW, thanks.
 
2012-06-11 07:41:17 PM
Here's a good starting point Headlever:

bugontherug: I asked you twice whether or not Holder used Fast and Furious to justify gun control. The first time, I asked whether or not Holder had fabricated Fast and Furious to justify gun control legislation. You gave an equivocal answer, leaving open the possibility that Holder used Fast and Furious to justify gun control legislation, and hinting that you believed he did. Here was your answer:


No clue. He was either being disingenious or had no clue. Maybe even a combination of both. In any case, when you see him justifying potential gun control legislation because of an 'crisis' his own DOJ is actively participating in, red flags tend to go up.

So I asked again whether or not Holder had ever used Fast and Furious to justify gun control legislation. This time, you answered with a link. Here is what you said:

Here you go. Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.

In the strictest sense, this is non-responsive to the question I had at that point asked you twice, suggesting that you, not me, have the problem with reading comprehension.

But given your post about "red flags"--indicating that you believed the notion that Holder had fabricated Fast and Furious to justify gun control plausible, this answer was most reasonably understood as an affirmative response. "Yes, he used Fast and Furious to justify gun control legislation, and here is the link proving it."

It is unclear to me at this point whether or not you are lying about your answer, or whether you simply lack the reading comprehension to have understood my questions. But it is clear it must be one or the other.

BBL.


bugontherug: Then, when I asked for supporting evidence that Holder had ever used Fast and Furious to justify gun control legislation, you responded with a link to a news story from February 2009. My request was not ambiguous, equivocal, or poorly phrased. It read:

I'll have to see evidence for both of those propositions. Specifically:

1) that Holder used Fast and Furious to justify gun control legislation,

To that request, posed after you had already answered that you believed it plausible that Holder had fabricated Fast and Furious to justify gun control legislation, you responded with what you thought was supporting evidence in the form of a link:

Here you go. Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.


So I pointed out the chronological problem with your evidence--specifically, that your article was written before Fast and Furious was ever conceived.

That's when you started hemming and hawing and claiming I can't read.

It is now clear to me what is going on here, and I'd like to apologize. Deep down, you believe Fast and Furious was part of a plot by Holder to ship guns to Mexico, then point to the gun shipments to Mexico, and say "see, we really need more gun control to stop guns going to Mexico!" That's what you've read in your right-wing gun rights rags, you trust them over that goddamn liebrul media, and so you're pretty damn sure it's true.

But you have just barely the social sense to know you can't come out and say that, because other people think such notions are idiotic. So instead you hinted at it. Then, when you thought you found your smoking gun, which in your mind was Holder talking about gun control in reference to cross border gun traffic and cartel violence at all, I humiliated you by disproving your proposition, and calling attention to y ...

 
2012-06-11 07:50:17 PM

Nobodyn0se: You may want to go back and read what he actually wrote,


Per bugontherug: The underlined portion of your response indicates affirmatively that yes, you believe the notion that Holder fabricated Fast and Furious as part of a plot to justify gun control legislation.

The underlined portion was a sentence from a link providing information per his own request and was not of my own construct. It had nothing to do with my beliefs on the matter. No matter how hard you stuf straw into that suit, it does not mean that I belive that "Holder fabricated Fast and Furious as part of a plot to justify gun control legislation".
 
2012-06-11 07:51:58 PM

HeadLever: Nobodyn0se: You may want to go back and read what he actually wrote,

Per bugontherug: The underlined portion of your response indicates affirmatively that yes, you believe the notion that Holder fabricated Fast and Furious as part of a plot to justify gun control legislation.

The underlined portion was a sentence from a link providing information per his own request and was not of my own construct. It had nothing to do with my beliefs on the matter. No matter how hard you stuf straw into that suit, it does not mean that I belive that "Holder fabricated Fast and Furious as part of a plot to justify gun control legislation".


And yet you've said over and over and over how you believe it was plausible. Taht justifies every conclusion he's made about you. Seriously. Reread what he wrote.
 
Displayed 50 of 395 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report