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.

(National Review)   Obama cannot claim executive privilege over a scandal he owns lock, stock, and barrel because the papers requested never involved the White House   (nationalreview.com) divider line 275
    More: Ironic, President Obama, executive privilege, White House, D.C. Circuit, Furious, executive branches, DOJ, checks and balances  
•       •       •

2255 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Jun 2012 at 3:57 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-06-21 09:37:14 AM
Attorney General, member of presidents cabinet = executive branch of government.
case closed.

//HA HA!!!!!
 
2012-06-21 09:38:21 AM
Good thing it's called White House Privilege, then.
 
2012-06-21 09:39:40 AM
I forget, what was this Fast and Furious program called when Bush started it in 2008?
 
2012-06-21 09:40:02 AM
So, wait, now the argument is that Obama WAS NEVER INVOLVED.

Thanks, NRO!
 
2012-06-21 09:43:17 AM
Wikipedia:

"In the United States government, executive privilege is the power claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government. The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[1]"
 
2012-06-21 09:52:13 AM

kingoomieiii: So, wait, now the argument is that Obama WAS NEVER INVOLVED.

Thanks, NRO!


Yeah, they didn't think that one through.
 
2012-06-21 10:03:43 AM
morons. farking morons. william f. buckley is spinning in his grave right now.
 
2012-06-21 10:22:50 AM
So they're not the White House's papers then. So shut up and sit down.

/major FAIL
 
2012-06-21 10:30:55 AM
facepalm.jpg

So: what party is conservative fiscally, yet understands fiat currency and therefore doesn't lust after a gold-standard, is socially pragmatic, and believes in science? Too many PC loons in the Democratic party, and they aren't fiscally conservative.
 
2012-06-21 10:32:42 AM

FlashHarry: morons. farking morons. william f. buckley is spinning in his grave right now.


I miss him.
 
2012-06-21 10:37:26 AM
And the White House was supposedly uninvolved in the US Attorney firing scandal but that didn't stop Bush from invoking executive privilege to enable Rove, Meirs and other WH officials to avoid subpoenas.
 
2012-06-21 10:39:08 AM

Ricardo Klement: Too many PC loons in the Democratic party, and they aren't fiscally conservative


Um. What? President Obama is the only one who has come up with a plan for a balanced budget that is fiscally conservative and sound. He happens to be a Democratic President.
 
2012-06-21 10:47:15 AM

Ricardo Klement: facepalm.jpg

So: what party is conservative fiscally, yet understands fiat currency and therefore doesn't lust after a gold-standard, is socially pragmatic, and believes in science? Too many PC loons in the Democratic party, and they aren't fiscally conservative.


Man, sounds like you're saying that both sides are bad. I guess you'd better vote for the party whose budget plan blows the deficit up even more, and by that of course, I mean the Republicans.
 
2012-06-21 11:10:03 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Um. What? President Obama is the only one who has come up with a plan for a balanced budget that is fiscally conservative and sound. He happens to be a Democratic President.


A fiscal conservative? Bull. He's not cutting taxes for people who make 30 times what I will ever earn in my lifetime, who for some reason I desperately care about, while slashing social programs intended to provide a base level of subsistence to my family.
 
2012-06-21 11:15:04 AM
Fiscally conservative doesn't mean fiscally sound.
 
2012-06-21 11:17:11 AM

Aarontology: Fiscally conservative doesn't mean fiscally sound.


Oh right, my bad.
 
2012-06-21 11:20:46 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Aarontology: Fiscally conservative doesn't mean fiscally sound.

Oh right, my bad.


That wasn't directed towards you, specifically. Just in general, since the two are often used incorrectly as synonyms.
 
2012-06-21 11:32:07 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Ricardo Klement: Too many PC loons in the Democratic party, and they aren't fiscally conservative

Um. What? President Obama is the only one who has come up with a plan for a balanced budget that is fiscally conservative and sound. He happens to be a Democratic President.


I didn't say Obama was a loon. I said there are too many loons in his party. He's too Keynesian for me, though I don't want to get into an unsolvable argument over the relative merits of Classic and Keynesian economics, but otherwise he governs largely from the center.
 
2012-06-21 11:35:05 AM

Ricardo Klement: I didn't say Obama was a loon. I said there are too many loons in his party


Which ones are the loons then?
 
2012-06-21 11:36:10 AM

RminusQ: Ricardo Klement: facepalm.jpg

So: what party is conservative fiscally, yet understands fiat currency and therefore doesn't lust after a gold-standard, is socially pragmatic, and believes in science? Too many PC loons in the Democratic party, and they aren't fiscally conservative.

Man, sounds like you're saying that both sides are bad. I guess you'd better vote for the party whose budget plan blows the deficit up even more, and by that of course, I mean the Republicans.


I am not a "both sides are bad, so vote Republican" conservative. There are some Democrats I would prefer over some Republicans. I would vote for Obama over Palin so long as I hadn't had a lobotomy or been irradiated by a malevolent energy form of a kind we've never encountered. Based on their histories (and not their *stated* positions), Romney and Obama are as close to identical as we've ever had in a presidential election.
 
2012-06-21 11:45:50 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Ricardo Klement: I didn't say Obama was a loon. I said there are too many loons in his party

Which ones are the loons then?


Sheila Jackson Lee is a good example.

And, I hate to do this, because it will end up directly insulting farkers when I generally try to avoid launching first, but I kind of set myself up for the question and answer, so here goes...

People who believe the MIC is made up of mindless automatons and not human beings who prefer peace over war.

People who believe 9/11 was an inside job (although birthers are doing a good job of taking the title for biggest conspiracy loon).

People who think Israel runs US foreign policy (which exist in both parties, but moreso in the Democratic Party.)

Most of CurrentTV

To be fair, I'll list some of the loons in the Republican Party:

Birthers

The Grover-Nordquist crowd (absolutes are generally bad)

Young Earthers

Allen West

Most of FOX News
 
2012-06-21 12:08:09 PM

Ricardo Klement: And, I hate to do this, because it will end up directly insulting farkers when I generally try to avoid launching first, but I kind of set myself up for the question and answer, so here goes...

People who believe the MIC is made up of mindless automatons and not human beings who prefer peace over war.

People who believe 9/11 was an inside job (although birthers are doing a good job of taking the title for biggest conspiracy loon).

People who think Israel runs US foreign policy (which exist in both parties, but moreso in the Democratic Party.)

Most of CurrentTV


You can't even name actual people? And the groups that you can name are either not affiliated with the Democrats (truthers) or exist in both parties.
 
2012-06-21 12:28:08 PM

Ricardo Klement:

People who think Israel runs US foreign policy (which exist in both parties, but moreso in the Democratic Party.


Hmm, which Democrat said this:

"I believe America must say - and the best way to have peace in the Middle East is not for us to vacillate and to appease, but is to say, we stand with our friend Israel. We are committed to a Jewish state in Israel. We will not have an inch of difference between ourselves and our ally, Israel."

and this:

"Before I made a statement of that nature, I'd get on the phone to my friend Bibi Netanyahu and say: "Would it help if I say this? What would you like me to do?"

And which Democrat has a billionaire throwing hundreds of millions their way from someone who thinks Israel is the 51st state, and nothing is more important?
 
2012-06-21 12:32:32 PM

BritneysSpeculum: And the White House was supposedly uninvolved in the US Attorney firing scandal but that didn't stop Bush from invoking executive privilege to enable Rove, Meirs and other WH officials to avoid subpoenas.


Do you think historical precedent has any bearing for today's GOP? Their policy -- first and foremost on every issue -- is "WHARRRGARBBLLL-BAMAAAAAAAA!!!!"

There is ZERO evidence that they care about anything else other than making Obama look bad. ZERO. Zilch. No compromise. Nothing. Never. They've decide to make their bed this way... we'll see what they end up sleeping in come November.
 
2012-06-21 12:40:48 PM
Can't we just fast forward to the part where it's all Obama's fault?
 
2012-06-21 12:44:41 PM

Ricardo Klement: Most of CurrentTV


So YOU'RE the guy watching that.
 
2012-06-21 12:46:13 PM

Aarontology: Fiscally conservative doesn't mean fiscally sound.


Man if only liberals were this good at soundbites and bumpersticker sayings like on a national level.
 
2012-06-21 12:50:35 PM
Headline: Obama completely owns this scandal he had nothing to do with
 
2012-06-21 01:02:45 PM

Jackson Herring: Aarontology: Fiscally conservative doesn't mean fiscally sound.

Man if only liberals were this good at soundbites and bumpersticker sayings like on a national level.


Like Roman candidates for Consul scrambling for a truly memorable sator square to sway the ignorant plebes, the politics of the world's only superpower once again comes down to "beer-drinkability-with-ism", "shortest policy position I have to remember", and "the other guy did much worst stuff than I ever got caught for".
 
2012-06-21 01:03:01 PM
kmmontandon:

which exist in both parties
 
2012-06-21 01:07:23 PM
I must say that for an NRO article, that was pretty well written.

Jonah Goldberg must be on vacation.
 
2012-06-21 01:18:30 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Ricardo Klement: And, I hate to do this, because it will end up directly insulting farkers when I generally try to avoid launching first, but I kind of set myself up for the question and answer, so here goes...

People who believe the MIC is made up of mindless automatons and not human beings who prefer peace over war.

People who believe 9/11 was an inside job (although birthers are doing a good job of taking the title for biggest conspiracy loon).

People who think Israel runs US foreign policy (which exist in both parties, but moreso in the Democratic Party.)

Most of CurrentTV

You can't even name actual people? And the groups that you can name are either not affiliated with the Democrats (truthers) or exist in both parties.


I'm at a loss to answer this without appearing to be insulting. Sheila Jackson Lee isn't an actual person? I didn't say Democrats were Truthers, I said there are too many Truthers in the party. After all, Birthers aren't affiliated with the Republican Party, but you didn't object to my including THEM. And for Christ's sake, I even SAID for Israel they exist in both parties, but it's a matter of how many.

Are you saying there are zero loonies in the Democratic Party?
 
2012-06-21 01:22:32 PM

RexTalionis: Wikipedia:

"In the United States government, executive privilege is the power claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government. The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[1]"


[citation needed]*

*Not really. I just like lame Wikipedia jokes.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-06-21 01:25:50 PM

GAT_00: kingoomieiii: So, wait, now the argument is that Obama WAS NEVER INVOLVED.

Thanks, NRO!

Yeah, they didn't think that one through.


It won't matter. The don't lose points for logical inconstancy with their audience.
 
2012-06-21 01:33:23 PM

vpb: GAT_00: kingoomieiii: So, wait, now the argument is that Obama WAS NEVER INVOLVED.

Thanks, NRO!

Yeah, they didn't think that one through.

It won't matter. The don't lose points for logical inconstancy with their audience.


Today: Of course Obama wasn't involved. He isn't competent enough to keep an eye on what the crooks in his administration are doing. You know those people aren't that bright.

Tomorrow: Of course Obama was involved. It's his administration, and just like one of those people to orchestrate this sort of malfeasance on his watch.

I'd say their views are pretty consistent...0BAMA BAD!!!
 
2012-06-21 01:37:42 PM

Ricardo Klement: Are you saying there are zero loonies in the Democratic Party?


I don't think he's saying that. I think you're missing almost all of the groups that are as crazy as the right-wing. Some of the examples that I'd give as left wing crazies are:

Anything touching the LaRouche insanity

The actual Communists, the few that there are

PETA activists. And ELF. And some Greenpeace.

Anyone who thinks that George W. Bush was brilliant and evil, and not just incompetent. (But not Cheney, he is brilliant and evil).
 
2012-06-21 01:48:39 PM

SphericalTime: Ricardo Klement: Are you saying there are zero loonies in the Democratic Party?

I don't think he's saying that. I think you're missing almost all of the groups that are as crazy as the right-wing. Some of the examples that I'd give as left wing crazies are:

Anything touching the LaRouche insanity

The actual Communists, the few that there are

PETA activists. And ELF. And some Greenpeace.

Anyone who thinks that George W. Bush was brilliant and evil, and not just incompetent. (But not Cheney, he is brilliant and evil).


His response would be that PETA and ELF and Greenpeace aren't affiliated with the Democratic Party.
 
2012-06-21 01:53:53 PM

Ricardo Klement: SphericalTime: Ricardo Klement: Are you saying there are zero loonies in the Democratic Party?

I don't think he's saying that. I think you're missing almost all of the groups that are as crazy as the right-wing. Some of the examples that I'd give as left wing crazies are:

Anything touching the LaRouche insanity

The actual Communists, the few that there are

PETA activists. And ELF. And some Greenpeace.

Anyone who thinks that George W. Bush was brilliant and evil, and not just incompetent. (But not Cheney, he is brilliant and evil).

His response would be that PETA and ELF and Greenpeace aren't affiliated with the Democratic Party.


But they're way more closely aligned with the issues that Democrats (purport to) care about than Peace activists, 9/11 Truthers, or the Evangelical Israel supporters.

That last one is actually typical of lots of Republicans as well: Democrats support Jewish causes, Republicans support Israel.

Still haven't figured out your "MIC" comment yet.
 
2012-06-21 01:58:00 PM
Wait, Military Industrial Complex? That's kind of an odd thing to claim, that lefties think that most of the people working for it are mindless drones.

On the contrary, my own brother was a Marine and then worked for a couple of years for Xe, so I know that the people that work for those companies aren't all pro-war Republicans marching in lockstep toward war. But the leadership of those companies does want war as a route to more corporate profits. I don't think that's deniable.
 
2012-06-21 02:03:18 PM

Ricardo Klement: Romney and Obama are as close to identical as we've ever had in a presidential election.


Sure they are identical...unless you happen to be a woman, a minority, of a faih other then Christianity,, an immigrant (illegal or otherwise), poor, a veteran, or LGBT. Then those differences become real farking important.
 
2012-06-21 02:13:05 PM

SphericalTime: Ricardo Klement: Are you saying there are zero loonies in the Democratic Party?

I don't think he's saying that. I think you're missing almost all of the groups that are as crazy as the right-wing. Some of the examples that I'd give as left wing crazies are:

Anything touching the LaRouche insanity

The actual Communists, the few that there are

PETA activists. And ELF. And some Greenpeace.

Anyone who thinks that George W. Bush was brilliant and evil, and not just incompetent. (But not Cheney, he is brilliant and evil).


How many of those groups actually have any sort of influence with the Democrats though?

Left wing is not synonymous with the Democrats just like right wing isn't synonymous with the Republicans. There can be whack jobs who lean left or right without really being associated with, or having any real influence with the parties that tend to be on either side of the spectrum.
 
2012-06-21 02:14:08 PM

Gwendolyn: Ricardo Klement: Romney and Obama are as close to identical as we've ever had in a presidential election.

Sure they are identical...unless you happen to be a woman, a minority, of a faih other then Christianity,, an immigrant (illegal or otherwise), poor, a veteran, or LGBT. Then those differences become real farking important.


Yeah, but if you're anyone that matters, they're basically identical.

/I fall into . . . three of those categories, and I date a legal immigrant.
 
2012-06-21 02:17:58 PM

Aarontology: How many of those groups actually have any sort of influence with the Democrats though?


Well, not many. That really wasn't what the original goal post was though, which was "loons that exist in the Democratic Party." Ricardo claims that there are too many of said loons, but I argued that his list didn't accurately reflect the real loons in the party anyway.

Granted, I also dispute his claim that there are too many loons in the Democratic Party, but I never really got into that.
 
2012-06-21 02:19:41 PM
I have very little idea how executive privilege works. It always seems a bit shady. And in this case, I was a bit confused.

Holder asked for EP on documents not related to F&F, but to his conversations within the administration about how to respond to Congress' questions on F&F, I thought. His letter (longwinded) seemed to only want to protect communication after the investigation had started, not the original F&F documents.

Either way, as I understand EP, it is the final trump card. You could I guess appeal to the SC, but then it becomes a separation of powers argument.
 
2012-06-21 02:22:24 PM

Vodka Zombie: I forget, what was this Fast and Furious program called when Bush started it in 2008?


Operation Liberty Guns for Freedom, Puppies and Jesus
 
2012-06-21 02:22:35 PM

SphericalTime: Aarontology: How many of those groups actually have any sort of influence with the Democrats though?

Well, not many. That really wasn't what the original goal post was though, which was "loons that exist in the Democratic Party." Ricardo claims that there are too many of said loons, but I argued that his list didn't accurately reflect the real loons in the party anyway.

Granted, I also dispute his claim that there are too many loons in the Democratic Party, but I never really got into that.


I suppose I misread the post then.

But it made me think of LaRouche and how funny crazy he is, so not all was lost.
 
2012-06-21 02:32:14 PM

I_C_Weener: I have very little idea how executive privilege works. It always seems a bit shady. And in this case, I was a bit confused.


Most governments have something equivalent. In Canada it is Memorandum to Cabinet which is highly protected.

Imagine having to come up with important decisions. You will get advice, recommendations, crazy ideas and discuss the impact and repercussions of them. If none of this information is protected from the public, it would be impossible for people to have true discussion/debate on any issue without fear of it being used against you politically.

If the F&F thing blew up and Holder sent a communication to the White House on the issue and recommendations on how it should be handled (damage control), that could legitimately be protected under privilege IMHO. Recommendations to the White House from staff should be protected. Other types of information, reports, studies might be on shakier ground.
 
2012-06-21 02:33:04 PM
Your headline has encouraged me to watch Guy Ritchie movies tonight.
 
2012-06-21 02:38:27 PM

SphericalTime: Ricardo Klement: SphericalTime: Ricardo Klement: Are you saying there are zero loonies in the Democratic Party?

I don't think he's saying that. I think you're missing almost all of the groups that are as crazy as the right-wing. Some of the examples that I'd give as left wing crazies are:

Anything touching the LaRouche insanity

The actual Communists, the few that there are

PETA activists. And ELF. And some Greenpeace.

Anyone who thinks that George W. Bush was brilliant and evil, and not just incompetent. (But not Cheney, he is brilliant and evil).

His response would be that PETA and ELF and Greenpeace aren't affiliated with the Democratic Party.

But they're way more closely aligned with the issues that Democrats (purport to) care about than Peace activists, 9/11 Truthers, or the Evangelical Israel supporters.

That last one is actually typical of lots of Republicans as well: Democrats support Jewish causes, Republicans support Israel.

Still haven't figured out your "MIC" comment yet.


I think that the assertion that Israel runs our foreign policy is not an expression of support.

MIC="Military-Industrial Complex" and a lot of Democrats believe the MIC is a major determining factor if we go to war because they can make money off of it.
 
2012-06-21 02:41:29 PM

SphericalTime: Gwendolyn: Ricardo Klement: Romney and Obama are as close to identical as we've ever had in a presidential election.

Sure they are identical...unless you happen to be a woman, a minority, of a faih other then Christianity,, an immigrant (illegal or otherwise), poor, a veteran, or LGBT. Then those differences become real farking important.

Yeah, but if you're anyone that matters, they're basically identical.

/I fall into . . . three of those categories, and I date a legal immigrant.


Read what I said: if you look at their HISTORIES not their POSITION STATEMENTS. Romney's rhetoric has zoomed off to the right as fast and as far as he could do it and get the nomination.
 
2012-06-21 02:42:49 PM

JerseyTim: Ricardo Klement: Most of CurrentTV

So YOU'RE the guy watching that.


My housemate watched it when Olbermann was on. So he's the one.
 
2012-06-21 02:51:15 PM

Ricardo Klement: cameroncrazy1984: Ricardo Klement: I didn't say Obama was a loon. I said there are too many loons in his party

Which ones are the loons then?

Sheila Jackson Lee is a good example.

And, I hate to do this, because it will end up directly insulting farkers when I generally try to avoid launching first, but I kind of set myself up for the question and answer, so here goes...

People who believe the MIC is made up of mindless automatons and not human beings who prefer peace over war.

People who believe 9/11 was an inside job (although birthers are doing a good job of taking the title for biggest conspiracy loon).

People who think Israel runs US foreign policy (which exist in both parties, but moreso in the Democratic Party.)

Most of CurrentTV

To be fair, I'll list some of the loons in the Republican Party:

Birthers

The Grover-Nordquist crowd (absolutes are generally bad)

Young Earthers

Allen West

Most of FOX News




Rather extreme examples here.

Strawmanny.
 
2012-06-21 02:54:26 PM

Ricardo Klement: cameroncrazy1984: Ricardo Klement: Too many PC loons in the Democratic party, and they aren't fiscally conservative

Um. What? President Obama is the only one who has come up with a plan for a balanced budget that is fiscally conservative and sound. He happens to be a Democratic President.

I didn't say Obama was a loon. I said there are too many loons in his party. He's too Keynesian for me, though I don't want to get into an unsolvable argument over the relative merits of Classic and Keynesian economics, but otherwise he governs largely from the center.


President Obama is a Rockefeller Republican.

This fact makes "official" Republicans bleed from their anuses.
 
2012-06-21 03:02:02 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: This fact makes "official" Republicans bleed from their anuses.


Meh. The current GOP purged of its 'paleo' elements likes to hold up St. Reagan, but they wouldn't run him.
 
2012-06-21 03:06:03 PM

Party Boy: Ricardo Klement: cameroncrazy1984: Ricardo Klement: I didn't say Obama was a loon. I said there are too many loons in his party

Which ones are the loons then?

Sheila Jackson Lee is a good example.

And, I hate to do this, because it will end up directly insulting farkers when I generally try to avoid launching first, but I kind of set myself up for the question and answer, so here goes...

People who believe the MIC is made up of mindless automatons and not human beings who prefer peace over war.

People who believe 9/11 was an inside job (although birthers are doing a good job of taking the title for biggest conspiracy loon).

People who think Israel runs US foreign policy (which exist in both parties, but moreso in the Democratic Party.)

Most of CurrentTV

To be fair, I'll list some of the loons in the Republican Party:

Birthers

The Grover-Nordquist crowd (absolutes are generally bad)

Young Earthers

Allen West

Most of FOX News


Rather extreme examples here.

Strawmanny.


?

Strawman? Extreme?

That was the WHOLE POINT.

Me: "Loonies."
Cameron: "Show me."
Me: "Examples of Loonies."
You: "Hey! Those are extremes!"

No farking shiat, really?
 
2012-06-21 03:12:55 PM

Ricardo Klement: Strawman? Extreme?

That was the WHOLE POINT.


Ricardo Klement: I said there are too many loons in his party


Ok.
The examples you provide are not example of how there are too many loons? The admittedly straw man examples provided above by you aren't an example of how there are too many loons in the party?
 
2012-06-21 03:24:35 PM

Party Boy: Ricardo Klement: Strawman? Extreme?

That was the WHOLE POINT.

Ricardo Klement: I said there are too many loons in his party

Ok.
The examples you provide are not example of how there are too many loons? The admittedly straw man examples provided above by you aren't an example of how there are too many loons in the party?


Cameron asked for examples of loons. That's all it was. Some examples. No one is saying that they represent the entire party. No one is saying they're the majority. No one is making an argument attacking them as a proxy to defeat an other argument.

This is a subjective thing, clearly. I can say my hamburger has too many pickles. If it has 1 or 100, depends on my taste. If I consider 4 to be too many, it's too many. If I consider 2 to be too many, it's too many.

Straw man has nothing to do with this. Extremists in the party does. And, like pickles, I prefer to have fewer than the available options normally provide.
 
2012-06-21 03:30:32 PM

Ricardo Klement: Cameron asked for examples of loons. That's all it was. Some examples.


Ricardo Klement: I said there are too many loons in his party.


You are saying there are too many loons. Then you provide examples that arent really reflective of it.

Ricardo Klement: Straw man has nothing to do with this. Extremists in the party does


Well, thats the second part. The examples are strawman distillations of positions. Theyre not really accurate, are they.

Perhaps its not as much of a concern?
 
2012-06-21 04:03:51 PM
Can't wait for Obama to cite an NRO report clearing him of any involvement.

img.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-21 04:08:06 PM

Vodka Zombie: I forget, what was this Fast and Furious program called when Bush started it in 2008?


2006. I feel compelled to post some Wikipedia information:

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] Detty would sell a total of about 450 guns during the operation.[22] These included AR-15s, semi-automatic AK-pattern rifles, and Colt .38s. The vast majority of the guns were eventually lost as they moved into Mexico.[7][23][25]

At the time, under the Bush administration Department of Justice (DOJ), no arrests or indictments were made. After President Barack Obama took office in 2009, the DOJ reviewed Wide Receiver in September 2009[26] and found that guns had been allowed into the hands of suspected gun traffickers. Indictments began in 2010, over three years after Wide Receiver concluded. As of October 4, 2011, nine people had been charged with making false statements in acquisition of firearms and illicit transfer, shipment or delivery of firearms.[18] As of November, charges against one defendant had been dropped; five of them had pled guilty, and one had been sentenced to one year and one day in prison. Two of them remained fugitives.[23]

Another, smaller probe occurred in 2007 under the same ATF Phoenix field division. It began when the ATF identified Mexican suspects who bought weapons from a Phoenix gun shop over a span of several months. The probe ultimately involved over 200 guns, a dozen of which were lost in Mexico. On September 27, 2007, ATF agents saw the original suspects buying weapons at the same store and followed them toward the Mexican border. The ATF informed the Mexican government when the suspects successfully crossed the border, but Mexican law enforcement were unable to track them.[4][10]

Less than two weeks later, on October 6, William Newell, then ATF's special agent in charge of the Phoenix field division, shut down the operation at the behest of William Hoover, ATF's assistant director for the office of field operations.[27] No charges were filed. Newell, who was special agent in charge from June 2006 to May 2011, would later play a major role in Operation Fast and Furious.[4][24]
 
2012-06-21 04:10:04 PM

Vodka Zombie: I forget, what was this Fast and Furious program called when Bush started it in 2008?


A failure.
 
2012-06-21 04:10:32 PM

Ricardo Klement: Me: "Loonies."
Cameron: "Show me."
Me: "Examples of Loonies."
You: "Hey! Those are extremes!"

No farking shiat, really?




I think the point here was that the extremes on the left you mention get pointed at and laughed about. The extremes on the right you mention have quite a bit of power in the Republican Party (Grover being a perfect example).
 
2012-06-21 04:10:58 PM
"I want seven hearings a week, times 40 weeks."

www1.pictures.zimbio.com
 
2012-06-21 04:11:41 PM

Ricardo Klement: cameroncrazy1984: Ricardo Klement: Too many PC loons in the Democratic party, and they aren't fiscally conservative

Um. What? President Obama is the only one who has come up with a plan for a balanced budget that is fiscally conservative and sound. He happens to be a Democratic President.

I didn't say Obama was a loon. I said there are too many loons in his party. He's too Keynesian for me, though I don't want to get into an unsolvable argument over the relative merits of Classic and Keynesian economics, but otherwise he governs largely from the center.


For those just joining in, Ricardo seems to prefer politicians who adhere to a school of economic thought that first arose around 230 years ago and lost influence around 1870.
 
2012-06-21 04:12:18 PM

Ricardo Klement: SphericalTime: Gwendolyn: Ricardo Klement: Romney and Obama are as close to identical as we've ever had in a presidential election.

Sure they are identical...unless you happen to be a woman, a minority, of a faih other then Christianity,, an immigrant (illegal or otherwise), poor, a veteran, or LGBT. Then those differences become real farking important.

Yeah, but if you're anyone that matters, they're basically identical.

/I fall into . . . three of those categories, and I date a legal immigrant.

Read what I said: if you look at their HISTORIES not their POSITION STATEMENTS. Romney's rhetoric has zoomed off to the right as fast and as far as he could do it and get the nomination.


Romney's history aside, it's pretty clear that his agenda would be dictated by Congressional Republicans. Instead of basing your decision on Obama vs. Romney or punting because they're so similar, you could judge based on the merits and likely impact of the expected legislative agendas, which would be radically different for a second Obama administration than a Romney administration.
 
2012-06-21 04:16:50 PM

FlashHarry: morons. farking morons. william f. buckley is spinning in his grave right now.


i149.photobucket.com
Nnnyyyess - and the rotation motion is causing nausea and vertigo, I might add!
 
2012-06-21 04:17:25 PM

DrippinBalls: obama = bush

worthless liberals/leftists = gop/repukes.

It's the same shiat from both sides. Both sides are political idiots. Sad.


you're really bad at this.
 
2012-06-21 04:18:03 PM

RexTalionis: Wikipedia:

"In the United States government, executive privilege is the power claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government. The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[1]"


Exactly. NRO is wrong. Fast and Furious does belong to Obama and cronies.
 
2012-06-21 04:21:05 PM

DrippinBalls: obama = bush

worthless liberals/leftists = gop/repukes.

It's the same shiat from both sides. Both sides are political idiots. Sad.


so vote Republican?
 
2012-06-21 04:22:32 PM

DrippinBalls: obama = bush

worthless liberals/leftists = gop/repukes.

It's the same shiat from both sides. Both sides are political idiots. Sad.


The important part is that you have found a way to feel superior to both.
 
2012-06-21 04:29:36 PM
Remember: The left has Shiela Jackson Lee. The right has.... Christ, dozens of Senators, Governors, members of the House, ALL their presidential candidates but one, and...

Well, damn, you sold me, both sides are bad and clearly the left has far more loons in politics.
 
2012-06-21 04:32:36 PM

Vodka Zombie: I forget, what was this Fast and Furious program called when Bush started it in 2008?


You're probably thinking of Wide Receiver, which ended in 2007. Fast and Furious started in 2009.
 
2012-06-21 04:33:22 PM

Vodka Zombie: I forget, what was this Fast and Furious program called when Bush started it in 2008?


2006, actually. And it was called Operation Wide Receiver.
 
2012-06-21 04:33:30 PM

El Pachuco: Ricardo Klement: cameroncrazy1984: Ricardo Klement: Too many PC loons in the Democratic party, and they aren't fiscally conservative

Um. What? President Obama is the only one who has come up with a plan for a balanced budget that is fiscally conservative and sound. He happens to be a Democratic President.

I didn't say Obama was a loon. I said there are too many loons in his party. He's too Keynesian for me, though I don't want to get into an unsolvable argument over the relative merits of Classic and Keynesian economics, but otherwise he governs largely from the center.

For those just joining in, Ricardo seems to prefer politicians who adhere to a school of economic thought that first arose around 230 years ago and lost influence around 1870.


Some notable economists like Lee Coppock at UVA and Arthur Laffer are supply-side. (Before you go on about the Laffer Curve, be aware that tax cuts are also Keynesian.)
 
2012-06-21 04:35:04 PM

DrippinBalls: heap
DrippinBalls: obama = bush

worthless liberals/leftists = gop/repukes.

It's the same shiat from both sides. Both sides are political idiots. Sad.

you're really bad at this.

dickhead. Figures. Christ, it's sick.


why don't you go relax in your room put some Bieber on and come back when you're ready to be nice.
 
2012-06-21 04:35:49 PM
Is anyone else annoyed by today's rash of "Executive Privilege" stories?

I saw one on Yahoo today that had the headline: "Top Uses of Executive Privilege: Washington, Nixon, Obama", and then went on to say that this is the ONLY time Obama has used it, and that Bush, Reagan, and CLinton ALL used it more. In fact, when they made their list of "top" users. Obama wasn't actually on it.

Jesus people, you may not like him, but please DO try and have just a smidgen of journalistic integrity for a change.

Link
 
2012-06-21 04:38:05 PM
Newsflash 1: Barry can CLAIM executive privilege over records of Boot's and Bo's and Michelle's bowel moments. And the only way to sort it out is through judicial involvement.

Newsflash 2: This is all about making what ever Holder is hiding stay hidden until after the election.
 
2012-06-21 04:41:24 PM

qorkfiend: Ricardo Klement: SphericalTime: Gwendolyn: Ricardo Klement: Romney and Obama are as close to identical as we've ever had in a presidential election.

Sure they are identical...unless you happen to be a woman, a minority, of a faih other then Christianity,, an immigrant (illegal or otherwise), poor, a veteran, or LGBT. Then those differences become real farking important.

Yeah, but if you're anyone that matters, they're basically identical.

/I fall into . . . three of those categories, and I date a legal immigrant.

Read what I said: if you look at their HISTORIES not their POSITION STATEMENTS. Romney's rhetoric has zoomed off to the right as fast and as far as he could do it and get the nomination.

Romney's history aside, it's pretty clear that his agenda would be dictated by Congressional Republicans. Instead of basing your decision on Obama vs. Romney or punting because they're so similar, you could judge based on the merits and likely impact of the expected legislative agendas, which would be radically different for a second Obama administration than a Romney administration.


Then let us consider. What will we get with 4 more years of Obama. That's 4 more years of a right-wing president "Aw, c'mon!"ing an ultraright Congress out to run as far right as possible just to oppose the Democratic president and the vast bulk of the liberal-left making excuses for monstrosities because their team is at bat.

With Romney we get a rightwing politician able to get compromises from the ultraright congress because they are part of the same machine and a liberal-left that will get furious and start agitating over things like "social security is on the table"

Huh. If I believed things like pragmatic voting I might have to go mitt.
 
2012-06-21 04:41:56 PM

Aarontology: Fiscally conservative doesn't mean fiscally sound.


But at least when they take soundings, it is possible to detect the bottom.
 
2012-06-21 04:43:08 PM
Well, I for one certainly hope Rep. Issa gets to the bottom of this and roots out everyone in the ATF responsible for gunwalking, past and present.
 
2012-06-21 04:43:21 PM

DrippinBalls: obama = burhead. Moron, total idiot, and a lazy kneegrow. Just like all of 'em.

/yea, gimme your Goddamn worthless $5 drew bullshiat per month.


Trying to get banned?

Trolling the moderators?

Does anyone care?
 
2012-06-21 04:45:26 PM

vygramul: Some notable economists like Lee Coppock at UVA and Arthur Laffer are supply-side. (Before you go on about the Laffer Curve, be aware that tax cuts are also Keynesian.)


Okay.

And WTF does that have to do with Ricardo's comment?
 
2012-06-21 04:45:57 PM

Mikey1969: Jesus people, you may not like him, but please DO try and have just a smidgen of journalistic integrity for a change.

However, during the Iran-Contra scandal, Reagan waived executive privilege, making his documents, diaries and entire staff available for congressional scrutiny.


I was not aware of this. Thank you for the link. I have seen many people claiming Reagan used executive privilege during Iran-Contra.
 
2012-06-21 04:46:18 PM

Ned Stark: qorkfiend: Ricardo Klement: SphericalTime: Gwendolyn: Ricardo Klement: Romney and Obama are as close to identical as we've ever had in a presidential election.

Sure they are identical...unless you happen to be a woman, a minority, of a faih other then Christianity,, an immigrant (illegal or otherwise), poor, a veteran, or LGBT. Then those differences become real farking important.

Yeah, but if you're anyone that matters, they're basically identical.

/I fall into . . . three of those categories, and I date a legal immigrant.

Read what I said: if you look at their HISTORIES not their POSITION STATEMENTS. Romney's rhetoric has zoomed off to the right as fast and as far as he could do it and get the nomination.

Romney's history aside, it's pretty clear that his agenda would be dictated by Congressional Republicans. Instead of basing your decision on Obama vs. Romney or punting because they're so similar, you could judge based on the merits and likely impact of the expected legislative agendas, which would be radically different for a second Obama administration than a Romney administration.

Then let us consider. What will we get with 4 more years of Obama. That's 4 more years of a right-wing president "Aw, c'mon!"ing an ultraright Congress out to run as far right as possible just to oppose the Democratic president and the vast bulk of the liberal-left making excuses for monstrosities because their team is at bat.

With Romney we get a rightwing politician able to get compromises from the ultraright congress because they are part of the same machine and a liberal-left that will get furious and start agitating over things like "social security is on the table"

Huh. If I believed things like pragmatic voting I might have to go mitt.


Wouldn't be worth it, as the costs would outweigh any benefits. Social satey nets eliminated, tax increased for the lower classes, and several exciting new unfunded wars, not to mention civil rights taking a backseat to religious zealots.

I'll Take Obama over that any day of the week. He's not perfect, but the republicans are authoritarian sociopaths.
 
2012-06-21 04:46:30 PM
My favorite part of the F&F situation is how it's gone from "F&F weapons were found among those confiscated after the agent's death" to "F&F guns killed the agent"
 
2012-06-21 04:48:24 PM

Ned Stark: Huh. If I believed things like pragmatic voting I might have to go mitt.


If you believed in things like pragmatic voting, you'd be considering the fact Scalia, Ginsburg, and Kennedy -- but especially the last two -- are all likely to retire from the Court in the next turn, and whoever wins in 2012 will get to replace each and every one of those seats.

Meaning that come 2016, we'll have a 6-3 split on the Court favoring one ideology or the other, opposed to the 4-4 split with a swing Justice we've had for the past few decades.
 
2012-06-21 04:48:51 PM

El Pachuco: vygramul: Some notable economists like Lee Coppock at UVA and Arthur Laffer are supply-side. (Before you go on about the Laffer Curve, be aware that tax cuts are also Keynesian.)

Okay.

And WTF does that have to do with Ricardo's comment?


Well, generally, supply-side economists prefer to be called classical economists.
 
2012-06-21 04:53:15 PM

BeesNuts: DrippinBalls: obama = burhead. Moron, total idiot, and a lazy kneegrow. Just like all of 'em.

/yea, gimme your Goddamn worthless $5 drew bullshiat per month.

Trying to get banned?

Trolling the moderators?

Does anyone care?


I have him listed as "apparent troll account or huge douche," so I'm going to guess... No on all of those.
 
2012-06-21 04:55:44 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-06-21 04:57:19 PM

Ned Stark: qorkfiend: Ricardo Klement: SphericalTime: Gwendolyn: Ricardo Klement: Romney and Obama are as close to identical as we've ever had in a presidential election.

Sure they are identical...unless you happen to be a woman, a minority, of a faih other then Christianity,, an immigrant (illegal or otherwise), poor, a veteran, or LGBT. Then those differences become real farking important.

Yeah, but if you're anyone that matters, they're basically identical.

/I fall into . . . three of those categories, and I date a legal immigrant.

Read what I said: if you look at their HISTORIES not their POSITION STATEMENTS. Romney's rhetoric has zoomed off to the right as fast and as far as he could do it and get the nomination.

Romney's history aside, it's pretty clear that his agenda would be dictated by Congressional Republicans. Instead of basing your decision on Obama vs. Romney or punting because they're so similar, you could judge based on the merits and likely impact of the expected legislative agendas, which would be radically different for a second Obama administration than a Romney administration.

Then let us consider. What will we get with 4 more years of Obama. That's 4 more years of a right-wing president "Aw, c'mon!"ing an ultraright Congress out to run as far right as possible just to oppose the Democratic president and the vast bulk of the liberal-left making excuses for monstrosities because their team is at bat.

With Romney we get a rightwing politician able to get compromises from the ultraright congress because they are part of the same machine and a liberal-left that will get furious and start agitating over things like "social security is on the table"

Huh. If I believed things like pragmatic voting I might have to go mitt.


I guess if you want things done just for the sake of getting them done, sure.

My hope is that Obama's presence will be inhibiting enough that the far-right Congress won't bother introducing their more extreme stuff, and would give cover to filibusters by Senate Democrats should the Republicans win the chamber. We'll continue with gridlock, so things might not get done, but if they do, they'll be pretty moderate.

On the other hand, Romney's presence would almost certainly encourage the far-right Congress to move even further rightward, since Romney won't buck his party in any meaningful way. Things will get done, and they'll be extreme right.

Plus, Supreme Court Justices.
 
2012-06-21 04:59:19 PM

Vodka Zombie: I forget, what was this Fast and Furious program called when Bush started it in 2008?


God's work.
 
2012-06-21 04:59:21 PM

topcon: [i.imgur.com image 365x574]


there's a difference between taking care of business & creating a mess.

Obama=/=Bush, not by a long shot, not at all.
 
2012-06-21 04:59:33 PM

that bosnian sniper: Ned Stark: Huh. If I believed things like pragmatic voting I might have to go mitt.

If you believed in things like pragmatic voting, you'd be considering the fact Scalia, Ginsburg, and Kennedy -- but especially the last two -- are all likely to retire from the Court in the next turn, and whoever wins in 2012 will get to replace each and every one of those seats.

Meaning that come 2016, we'll have a 6-3 split on the Court favoring one ideology or the other, opposed to the 4-4 split with a swing Justice we've had for the past few decades.


Scalia will hold on to his seat with both hands until there's a Republican in office.
 
2012-06-21 05:01:34 PM
Hi, I'm a butthurt right-winger. How can you tell?

3.bp.blogspot.com

I am passionately outraged about Fast & Furious. Even though nobody else is --besides my ilk, anyway.

This is a petulant frenzy. A petulant frenzy.
I'm petulant. And I'm having a frenzy.
 
2012-06-21 05:01:37 PM

Almet: My favorite part of the F&F situation is how it's gone from "F&F weapons were found among those confiscated after the agent's death" to "F&F guns killed the agent"


It's also nice that the right wing has finally come around to the argument that people don't kill people, guns kill people.
 
2012-06-21 05:01:54 PM

Ned Stark: qorkfiend: Ricardo Klement: SphericalTime: Gwendolyn: Ricardo Klement: Romney and Obama are as close to identical as we've ever had in a presidential election.

Sure they are identical...unless you happen to be a woman, a minority, of a faih other then Christianity,, an immigrant (illegal or otherwise), poor, a veteran, or LGBT. Then those differences become real farking important.

Yeah, but if you're anyone that matters, they're basically identical.

/I fall into . . . three of those categories, and I date a legal immigrant.

Read what I said: if you look at their HISTORIES not their POSITION STATEMENTS. Romney's rhetoric has zoomed off to the right as fast and as far as he could do it and get the nomination.

Romney's history aside, it's pretty clear that his agenda would be dictated by Congressional Republicans. Instead of basing your decision on Obama vs. Romney or punting because they're so similar, you could judge based on the merits and likely impact of the expected legislative agendas, which would be radically different for a second Obama administration than a Romney administration.

Then let us consider. What will we get with 4 more years of Obama. That's 4 more years of a right-wing president "Aw, c'mon!"ing an ultraright Congress out to run as far right as possible just to oppose the Democratic president and the vast bulk of the liberal-left making excuses for monstrosities because their team is at bat.

With Romney we get a rightwing politician able to get compromises from the ultraright congress because they are part of the same machine and a liberal-left that will get furious and start agitating over things like "social security is on the table"

Huh. If I believed things like pragmatic voting I might have to go mitt.


Could have saved me a bunch of reading by just saying "Both sides are bad, so vote republican"
 
2012-06-21 05:02:27 PM

topcon: [i.imgur.com image 365x574]


"Why do blacks seem to have the same problems everywhere, even in black dominant countries? It's a valid question."

If you *don't* have this guy farkied as a proper farking racist, I suggest you do so.
 
2012-06-21 05:02:46 PM

Welfare Xmas: Newsflash 2: This is all about making what ever Holder is hiding stay hidden until after the election.


So, you actually think this is a sekrit plot to eliminate the second amendment? Do you also think Obama was born in Kenya?
 
2012-06-21 05:03:32 PM

vygramul: El Pachuco: vygramul: Some notable economists like Lee Coppock at UVA and Arthur Laffer are supply-side. (Before you go on about the Laffer Curve, be aware that tax cuts are also Keynesian.)

Okay.

And WTF does that have to do with Ricardo's comment?

Well, generally, supply-side economists prefer to be called classical economists.


Well, when your school of thought has been peer-reviewed and found lacking, it's natural to try to re-brand and disassociate yourself from a failed ideology.

And never mind what they hope others will call them; they're still known as supply-siders. Scalia calls himself a strict Constitutionalist, but that doesn't erase his radical activism and shiftable principles.

/I prefer to be called "stud-muffin" by the ladies, but so far they're a tad uncooperative
 
2012-06-21 05:04:11 PM
Obama and Holder have both said they knew nothing about the operation.
And everyone knows that the Bush administration started this.

Since there is nothing to hide, this must be a clever plot to trick the right-wingers, and then Obama will say "okay" and release all the documents that blame Bush.
 
2012-06-21 05:09:12 PM
 
2012-06-21 05:12:56 PM

whidbey: Hi, I'm a butthurt right-winger. How can you tell?

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 300x251]

I am passionately outraged about Fast & Furious. Even though nobody else is --besides my ilk, anyway.

This is a petulant frenzy. A petulant frenzy.
I'm petulant. And I'm having a frenzy.


Liberal Butthurt typing detected.

/it's not a crime when we cover up a scandal!
 
2012-06-21 05:15:42 PM
I wonder if any conservatives have ever thought that Obama is letting this whole Fast and Furious thing garner so much attention to point out that in the last five years Mexico has confiscated 68,000 guns from drug cartels that came from the United States. The Republicans in Congress might have just served this one up on a platter without even realizing it. While Fast and Furious might have been a complete mess, those 2,000 guns are just a drop in the bucket of the guns going into Mexico from the United States.
 
2012-06-21 05:16:29 PM

downpaymentblues: Mikey1969: Jesus people, you may not like him, but please DO try and have just a smidgen of journalistic integrity for a change.

However, during the Iran-Contra scandal, Reagan waived executive privilege, making his documents, diaries and entire staff available for congressional scrutiny.

I was not aware of this. Thank you for the link. I have seen many people claiming Reagan used executive privilege during Iran-Contra.


Wow, I didn't notice that part... It doesn't completely surprise me though, because Reagan claimed 'Alzheimer's Privilege' instead, and suffered from a sudden case of C.R.S., it's natural that he had to set SOMEbody up to take the fall...
 
2012-06-21 05:16:38 PM

El Pachuco: Well, when your school of thought has been peer-reviewed and found lacking, it's natural to try to re-brand and disassociate yourself from a failed ideology.


The problem is that Keynesian economics suffers from a lot of problems as well. Frankly, economics has some fundamental math down, but they have an awful lot of variables for which they've been unable to account.

But that's just me. And my econ topped out at the college level.
 
2012-06-21 05:17:48 PM

beta_plus: Liberal Butthurt typing detected.

/it's not a crime when we cover up a scandal!


Thank you, kind patriot, for exposing the scandal of this Kenyan Black Usurper from Africa and his sekrit muzlim plot to repeal the second amendment in his second term. WTF was Shartbama thinking?
 
2012-06-21 05:18:32 PM
Desperately trying to get that mud to stick.
 
2012-06-21 05:18:45 PM

downpaymentblues: Ricardo Klement: Me: "Loonies."
Cameron: "Show me."
Me: "Examples of Loonies."
You: "Hey! Those are extremes!"

No farking shiat, really?



I think the point here was that the extremes on the left you mention get pointed at and laughed about. The extremes on the right you mention have quite a bit of power in the Republican Party (Grover being a perfect example).


That's why I want another party. The nutcases have taken over.
 
2012-06-21 05:19:50 PM

topcon: [i.imgur.com image 365x574]


Wow, that's a nice, full-of-fail pic right there.

- Getting out of Iraq and drawing down Afghanistan isn't good enough for you? Or would you prefer we just completely abandon both countries, and allow the ensuing collapse to make them even WORSE than before?
- So you just want Obama to send a team in to capture any al-Qaeda members who happened to be American citizens, so there's a chance soldiers could get shot/blown up and Obama could have his Carter moment?
- This is the only one that even has a SLIGHT bit of non-partisan meat to it, and that's only if you were dumb enough to think that any Presidential candidate actually has any intention of legalizing pot.
- The NDAA was a vital military spending bill, passed with a veto-proof majority even with the bullshiat rider. The signing statement was literally all Obama could do about the aforementioned rider. But concern trolls seem to WANT Obama to be a dictator.
 
2012-06-21 05:21:43 PM

whidbey: Hi, I'm a butthurt right-winger. How can you tell?

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 300x251]

I am passionately outraged about Fast & Furious. Even though nobody else is --besides my ilk, anyway.

This is a petulant frenzy. A petulant frenzy.
I'm petulant. And I'm having a frenzy.


Also, butthurt right-wingers never gave a shiat about the program (started, as has been pointed out, under Bush) until a Democrat became President. That's something of a pattern I've been seeing.
 
2012-06-21 05:22:08 PM

beta_plus: whidbey: Hi, I'm a butthurt right-winger. How can you tell?

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 300x251]

I am passionately outraged about Fast & Furious. Even though nobody else is --besides my ilk, anyway.

This is a petulant frenzy. A petulant frenzy.
I'm petulant. And I'm having a frenzy.

Liberal Butthurt typing detected.

/it's not a crime when we cover up a scandal!


I missed the part where he - or anyone - said that. Can you direct me to it?
 
2012-06-21 05:22:26 PM

lennavan: So, you actually think this is a sekrit plot to eliminate the second amendment? Do you also think Obama was born in Kenya?


I don't think there is any secret about it. You do realize that there was a CBS story about how the administration was going to use this to try and push a new "assault weapons" ban.

Second of all Holder has lied retracted testimony/made up documents 3 this now. Smoke, fire all that.
 
2012-06-21 05:22:51 PM

DaSwankOne: I wonder if any conservatives have ever thought that Obama is letting this whole Fast and Furious thing garner so much attention to point out that in the last five years Mexico has confiscated 68,000 guns from drug cartels that came from the United States. The Republicans in Congress might have just served this one up on a platter without even realizing it. While Fast and Furious might have been a complete mess, those 2,000 guns are just a drop in the bucket of the guns going into Mexico from the United States.


They seem to keep focusing on illegal exports of guns to Mexican drug cartels. How many laws do we need that say you can't export guns to Mexican drug cartels? Apparently no matter how man laws we have, it doesn't stop the government from doing it.
 
2012-06-21 05:23:28 PM
times not this
 
2012-06-21 05:23:55 PM

phaseolus: After reading a decade's worth of news items along these lines, can you honestly blame anyone for suspecting such a thing?


Not really. But I would expect some maturity and intelligence would help prevent that suspicion from blooming into full-fledged conspiracy-level belief. Firemen depend on there being fires for them to keep their jobs, and while every once in a while a fireman gets caught setting fires, the vast, vast majority are not the result of their actions, nor the result of fire engine manufacturers, nor the city pipefitter's union. War, of course, is such an ugly business, and so damaging, that no one wants to believe that it happens without some manipulation by malevolent external sources.
 
2012-06-21 05:24:44 PM

lennavan: Thank you, kind patriot, for exposing the scandal of this Kenyan Black Usurper from Africa and his sekrit muzlim plot to repeal the second amendment in his second term. WTF was Shartbama thinking?


People come up with this wild idea about creating a crisis as a reason for more gun control because the idea that the ATF did this just to see if they could get some people killed over it is too crazy to believe.

Then add in Obama's "under the radar" comment about gun control and here we are.
 
2012-06-21 05:24:49 PM

beta_plus: Liberal Butthurt typing detected.

/it's not a crime when we cover up a scandal!


The ta(R)ds have cried wolf so often, the real scandals kinda become a buzzing in the ear.
F&F had good intentions but was simply a botched.
 
2012-06-21 05:25:32 PM
It's "ironic" that some RW asswipe rag publishes it's 100th anti-Obama editorial opinion this week? I fail to see the irony, or anything else noteworthy.
 
2012-06-21 05:29:18 PM

Welfare Xmas: I don't think there is any secret about it. You do realize that there was a CBS story about how the administration was going to use this to try and push a new "assault weapons" ban.


I'm cusious as to how your logic equates 'The goverrnment farked up and watched people buy guns illegally' with 'Assault weapons ban'... That's like having a program to demonstrate the effects of drunk driving by paying people to get wasted and then drive home, and then when people die and you are caught, you pass a law to put breathalyzer ignition interlocks on eveyone's car in the country.
 
2012-06-21 05:30:57 PM

Ricardo Klement: phaseolus: After reading a decade's worth of news items along these lines, can you honestly blame anyone for suspecting such a thing?

Not really. But I would expect some maturity and intelligence would help prevent that suspicion from blooming into full-fledged conspiracy-level belief. Firemen depend on there being fires for them to keep their jobs, and while every once in a while a fireman gets caught setting fires, the vast, vast majority are not the result of their actions, nor the result of fire engine manufacturers, nor the city pipefitter's union. War, of course, is such an ugly business, and so damaging, that no one wants to believe that it happens without some manipulation by malevolent external sources.


At the same time, there are private companies and individuals that profit handsomely from war, and you can't claim that these companies and individuals are unable to exercise influence greater than that of the average citizen simply by virtue of money.

You cannot deny that the incentive exists, and where an incentive exists, someone will act on it.
 
2012-06-21 05:31:22 PM

Mikey1969: I'm cusious


*curious
Farking shaitty computer, my laptop isn't loading fark today for some reason, sorry...
 
2012-06-21 05:31:34 PM

Mikey1969: I'm cusious as to how your logic equates '


It's not my logic, I'm not "the administration" and CBS didn't write the story about me.

//should be obvious
 
2012-06-21 05:32:32 PM

Mikey1969: I'm cusious as to how your logic equates 'The goverrnment farked up and watched people buy guns illegally' with 'Assault weapons ban'... That's like having a program to demonstrate the effects of drunk driving by paying people to get wasted and then drive home, and then when people die and you are caught, you pass a law to put breathalyzer ignition interlocks on eveyone's car in the country.


"Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction"
 
2012-06-21 05:33:03 PM

Welfare Xmas: Mikey1969: I'm cusious as to how your logic equates '

It's not my logic, I'm not "the administration" and CBS didn't write the story about me.

//should be obvious


Well, if CBS says so...

/something something Rathergate
 
2012-06-21 05:33:15 PM

lennavan: Welfare Xmas: Newsflash 2: This is all about making what ever Holder is hiding stay hidden until after the election.

So, you actually think this is a sekrit plot to eliminate the second amendment? Do you also think Obama was born in Kenya?


I doubt he thinks anything at all, because that post was a direct quote from Rush yesterday.
 
2012-06-21 05:34:17 PM

Ricardo Klement: facepalm.jpg

So: what party is conservative fiscally, yet understands fiat currency and therefore doesn't lust after a gold-standard, is socially pragmatic, and believes in science? Too many PC loons in the Democratic party, and they aren't fiscally conservative.


The Democrats.

There's a couple of things you're premise is lacking:

First off, the "PC loons" are a creation of the right. They don't actually exist as a relevant political entity and never really have, you can FIND some Child-of-gaia-think-of-the-womyn-and-children type if you look, but most of them don't actually vote in the first place and they never take the lead. Their existence is inflated, distorted, and given press by right-wing media trying to play up another fear, the fear of the wimpy, shrimpy, limp-wristed lump. It's nonsense on multiple levels and pervasive only if not analyzed.

Second, "fiscal conservative" is bullshiat. It is the lunatic belief that economic models that have been disproved thoroughly in 3 of the last 5 administrations are going to somehow start working this time around. By the actual definition of the word "conservative" the democrats are "fiscal conservative" since they advocate a return to a past fiscal policy that worked decidedly better than current policy. An appeal to traditional tax rates, you know?
 
2012-06-21 05:35:54 PM

Ned Stark: With Romney we get a rightwing politician able to get compromises from the ultraright congress


Seems like when Joffrey had your head chopped off the common sense leaked out, if you think that Romney would in any way moderate that ultraright Congress.
 
2012-06-21 05:36:54 PM

TheBigJerk: First off, the "PC loons" are a creation of the right. They don't actually exist as a relevant political entity and never really have, you can FIND some Child-of-gaia-think-of-the-womyn-and-children type if you look, but most of them don't actually vote in the first place and they never take the lead.


I'd go so far as to say they're not really Scots at all.
 
2012-06-21 05:37:47 PM

paygun: TheBigJerk: First off, the "PC loons" are a creation of the right. They don't actually exist as a relevant political entity and never really have, you can FIND some Child-of-gaia-think-of-the-womyn-and-children type if you look, but most of them don't actually vote in the first place and they never take the lead.

I'd go so far as to say they're not really Scots at all.


He didn't say they weren't liberals. He said they aren't active within the Democratic party.
 
2012-06-21 05:38:00 PM
This administration has consistently favored the reinstitution of the assault weapons ban. It is something that we think was useful in the past with regard to the reduction that we've seen in crime, and certainly would have a positive impact on our relationship and the crime situation in Mexico. Eric Holder testifying to congress about Fast & Furious

But no Obama isn't trying to ban guns and that non-existant ban would never be sold by referencing all of the guns going across the border a large percentage of which were ferried across the border by the Obama administration.
 
2012-06-21 05:38:10 PM

Welfare Xmas: Mikey1969: I'm cusious as to how your logic equates '

It's not my logic, I'm not "the administration" and CBS didn't write the story about me.

//should be obvious


Yeah, but you fell for it. It's total bullshiat, and anyone with half a brain would be able to see that, CBS is just trying to garner traffic to sell ads with some fabricated crap...
 
2012-06-21 05:39:23 PM

paygun: Mikey1969: I'm cusious as to how your logic equates 'The goverrnment farked up and watched people buy guns illegally' with 'Assault weapons ban'... That's like having a program to demonstrate the effects of drunk driving by paying people to get wasted and then drive home, and then when people die and you are caught, you pass a law to put breathalyzer ignition interlocks on eveyone's car in the country.

"Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction"


Yeah, I didn't fall for that one, either.
 
2012-06-21 05:39:33 PM

qorkfiend: He didn't say they weren't liberals. He said they aren't active within the Democratic party.


yeah totally different
 
2012-06-21 05:39:47 PM

jcooli09: I doubt he thinks anything at all, because that post was a direct quote from Rush yesterday.


OMFG, truth/facts can be disregarded if Rash Limberger knows about them.
 
2012-06-21 05:40:22 PM

paygun: qorkfiend: He didn't say they weren't liberals. He said they aren't active within the Democratic party.

yeah totally different


It's entirely different. Not all liberals are Democrats and not all Democrats are liberals.
 
2012-06-21 05:41:09 PM

Welfare Xmas: This administration has consistently favored the reinstitution of the assault weapons ban. It is something that we think was useful in the past with regard to the reduction that we've seen in crime, and certainly would have a positive impact on our relationship and the crime situation in Mexico. Eric Holder testifying to congress about Fast & Furious

But no Obama isn't trying to ban guns and that non-existant ban would never be sold by referencing all of the guns going across the border a large percentage of which were ferried across the border by the Obama administration.


Saying that they "favor" it doesn't mean that they are in the process of trying to put a ban in place.

Jesus, over-reactive people like you are the reason I couldn't find ammo anywhere for 2+ years.
 
2012-06-21 05:41:14 PM

Mikey1969: Yeah, I didn't fall for that one, either.


So do you think you're smarter than the average slack jawed retard, or dumber? It sure seems like you're smarter to me.
 
2012-06-21 05:41:41 PM

Mikey1969: Yeah, but you fell for it. It's total bullshiat, and anyone with half a brain would be able to see that, CBS is just trying to garner traffic to sell ads with some fabricated crap...


So the main stream media just spews a bunch of right wing lies? Wow do you believe a skeret konspiracy againts Hussein Barak Obama is in play?
 
2012-06-21 05:42:15 PM

Welfare Xmas: jcooli09: I doubt he thinks anything at all, because that post was a direct quote from Rush yesterday.

OMFG, truth/facts can be disregarded if Rash Limberger knows about them.


Rush doesn't deal in truth or facts, and is an excellent bullshiat detector. If he says it, the chances are exceptionally good that it's bullshiat.

It works for people that repeat him, too.
 
2012-06-21 05:42:25 PM

qorkfiend: It's entirely different. Not all liberals are Democrats and not all Democrats are liberals.


I agree. I don't think the right has cornered the market on nutjobs, either.
 
2012-06-21 05:42:56 PM

Mikey1969: I couldn't find ammo anywhere for 2+ years.


Given your intelligence level and apparent emotional instability I'd say that's a good thing.
 
2012-06-21 05:45:20 PM

jcooli09: It works for people that repeat him, too.


What? You ad homonym attacks. You may want to try an argument style that is not false by construction.
 
2012-06-21 05:46:01 PM

paygun: qorkfiend: It's entirely different. Not all liberals are Democrats and not all Democrats are liberals.

I agree. I don't think the right has cornered the market on nutjobs, either.


The right gives their nutjobs seats at the table. The left ignores them.
 
2012-06-21 05:46:44 PM

Welfare Xmas: jcooli09: It works for people that repeat him, too.

What? You ad homonym attacks. You may want to try an argument style that is not false by construction.


That's not an ad hominem. This is an ad hominem: Your argument is wrong because you're ugly.
 
2012-06-21 05:47:40 PM

Mikey1969: Saying that they "favor" it doesn't mean that they are in the process of trying to put a ban in place.


When the president meets with a group whose stated goal is banning all handguns, and reportedly claimed to be working on more gun control, people take notice.

The campaign site that Obama put up during the election outright claimed that he sought a renewal of the assault weapons ban. It's not like any of this is a secret.

To say that just because he hasn't done anything yet that means he never will, is kind of like saying Lindsay Lohan isn't going to do any more coke because she's not high as a giraffe ass right this moment.
 
2012-06-21 05:48:40 PM

TheBigJerk: Ricardo Klement: facepalm.jpg

So: what party is conservative fiscally, yet understands fiat currency and therefore doesn't lust after a gold-standard, is socially pragmatic, and believes in science? Too many PC loons in the Democratic party, and they aren't fiscally conservative.

The Democrats.

There's a couple of things you're premise is lacking:

First off, the "PC loons" are a creation of the right. They don't actually exist as a relevant political entity and never really have, you can FIND some Child-of-gaia-think-of-the-womyn-and-children type if you look, but most of them don't actually vote in the first place and they never take the lead. Their existence is inflated, distorted, and given press by right-wing media trying to play up another fear, the fear of the wimpy, shrimpy, limp-wristed lump. It's nonsense on multiple levels and pervasive only if not analyzed.

Second, "fiscal conservative" is bullshiat. It is the lunatic belief that economic models that have been disproved thoroughly in 3 of the last 5 administrations are going to somehow start working this time around. By the actual definition of the word "conservative" the democrats are "fiscal conservative" since they advocate a return to a past fiscal policy that worked decidedly better than current policy. An appeal to traditional tax rates, you know?


The validity of differing economic approaches is a discussion for another thread. I would love to take a class from Krugman so he can explain why he believes in the Keynesian model. But at the Econ 300 level, it doesn't make sense.

The PC loonies are, in fact, there, and even though they (nor really much of the grass roots) have any pull in the party, I'd still have to put up with them.
 
2012-06-21 05:48:55 PM

jcooli09: Rush doesn't deal in truth or facts, and is an excellent bullshiat detector. If he says it, the chances are exceptionally good that it's bullshiat.

It works for people that repeat him, too.



A humble servant of God who partakes in political hackery wouldn't lie to old folks, that's just being non-compliant.
 
2012-06-21 05:49:24 PM

qorkfiend: The right gives their nutjobs seats at the table. The left ignores them.


Sure they do.
 
2012-06-21 05:49:36 PM

DrippinBalls: obama = bush


So you are voting for Obama then? Good to know.
 
2012-06-21 05:52:13 PM

paygun: qorkfiend: The right gives their nutjobs seats at the table. The left ignores them.

Sure they do.


And where is she now? Lost a primary for re-election, is out of the House and is a member of the Green Party. Is this the only example you have?
 
2012-06-21 05:53:23 PM

qorkfiend: Your argument is wrong because you're ugly.


Actually that is such a stupid argument that it doesn't have a name. I hereby dub it the Retarded 3 year old Nose Picker fallacy (named after it's creator).
 
2012-06-21 05:54:15 PM

paygun: Mikey1969: Yeah, I didn't fall for that one, either.

So do you think you're smarter than the average slack jawed retard, or dumber? It sure seems like you're smarter to me.


Well, considering that I didn't buy what turned out to be a total sack of lies from day 1, I must be smarter.
 
2012-06-21 05:57:57 PM

paygun: qorkfiend: He didn't say they weren't liberals. He said they aren't active within the Democratic party.

yeah totally different


They are different. the democratic party has liberals, but not all liberals are democrats. People like ALF, ELF, etc are not traditionally in the democratic party, nor do they have any sort of power in the party's policies.

Compare that to say, the tea party, who are fairly radical, and control a lot of GOP national policy and state policy.
 
2012-06-21 05:58:23 PM

Welfare Xmas: jcooli09: It works for people that repeat him, too.

What? You ad homonym attacks. You may want to try an argument style that is not false by construction.


What's a homonym attack? Using words that sound the same but have entirely different meanings? Example: "I'm a-gonna chute ewe!".

And you left a 'd' off of 'add'.
 
2012-06-21 05:58:26 PM

Mikey1969: paygun: Mikey1969: I'm cusious as to how your logic equates 'The goverrnment farked up and watched people buy guns illegally' with 'Assault weapons ban'... That's like having a program to demonstrate the effects of drunk driving by paying people to get wasted and then drive home, and then when people die and you are caught, you pass a law to put breathalyzer ignition interlocks on eveyone's car in the country.

"Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction"

Yeah, I didn't fall for that one, either.


"The war will pay for itself"

"We will be greeted at liberators"

"Mushroom cloud of uncertainty and fear"

And, my personal favorite, "We don't need an exit strategy"

How could you be so cynical as to doubt the veracity of these claims, and see their subsequent lack of fruition as anything other than the fault of the unpatriotic?

During the run up to the war, I wanted to save every article I could. Anything at all that came out of the Bush administration, and scrapbook it. It isn't that I didn't know I was being lied to, it's that I knew that even just a few years later, the absolute extent of the dishonesty would be either forgotten or denied.
 
2012-06-21 06:00:14 PM

Welfare Xmas: jcooli09: It works for people that repeat him, too.

What? You ad homonym attacks. You may want to try an argument style that is not false by construction.


That wasn't an argument, it was a shortcut. I've listened to Rush on and off for years, and he is predictable: he never draws any conclusions that aren't bullshiat.

I've found that people that repeat him usually let other people do their thinking for them, so that's another shortcut. This one is not quite as reliable, occasionally someone proves it wrong. I'll wait for you to.
 
2012-06-21 06:00:27 PM

Vodka Zombie: I forget, what was this Fast and Furious program called when Bush started it in 2008?


It was called Project Gunrunner and began in 2006
 
2012-06-21 06:01:00 PM

Mikey1969: What's a homonym attack? Using words that sound the same but have entirely different meanings? Example: "I'm a-gonna chute ewe!".

And you left a 'd' off of 'add'.


OMFG, I got pwned by the spell checker. All my arguments are therefore invalid (Non-Sequitur).

You need to come up with a better argument strategy you're still in the realm of "false by construction."
 
2012-06-21 06:02:11 PM

Welfare Xmas: Mikey1969: I couldn't find ammo anywhere for 2+ years.

Given your intelligence level and apparent emotional instability I'd say that's a good thing.


Not sure where you're supposedly getting the "emotional instability" thing, but since I can spell ad hominem (And know how to look it up if I'm not sure), actually know what it means, and don't automaically believe everything CBS tells me, I'm willing to bet that Im at least a little bit more intelligent than you are, and that's all that matters at the moment.
 
2012-06-21 06:04:07 PM

Mikey1969: Not sure where you're supposedly getting the "emotional instability" thing, but since I can spell ad hominem (And know how to look it up if I'm not sure), actually know what it means, and don't automaically believe everything CBS tells me, I'm willing to bet that Im at least a little bit more intelligent than you are, and that's all that matters at the moment.


Oh and I forgot the whole tin-foil-hat-bat-shiat-crazy-conspiracy-nut thing. Hopefully your local ammo shop is out of bullets for a good long while.
 
2012-06-21 06:09:16 PM
The executive has also argued that because candor is the principal value served
by the exemption, its protection should extend beyond predecisional deliberations to
deliberations involving decisions already made. "Moreover, even if the decision at
issue had already been made, disclosure to Congress could still deter the candor of
future Executive Branch deliberations."63 Executives have also taken the position
that the privilege covers confidential communications with respect to policymaking
well beyond the confines of the White House and the President's closest advisors.
The Eisenhower Administration took the most expansive approach, arguing that the
privilege applied broadly to advice on official matters among employees of the

executive branch.64 The Nixon Administration appears to have taken a similar view,
arguing that the privilege applied to decisionmaking at a "high governmental level,"
but conceding that the protected communication must be related to presidential
decisionmaking.65 The Reagan Justice Department appears to have taken a slightly
narrower view of the scope of the privilege, requiring that the protected
communications have some nexus to the presidential decisionmaking process.66
The George H. W. Bush Administration took the position that recommendations
made to senior department officials and communications of senior policymakers
throughout the executive branch were protected by executive privilege without regard
to whether they involved communications intended to go to the President
.67 Finally,
the Clinton Administration took a similarly expansive position that all
communications within the White House68 or between the White House and any
federal department or agency69 are presumptively privileged.

The George W. Bush Administration, through presidential signing statements,
70 executive orders71, and opinions of the Department of Justice's Office of Legal
Counsel (OLC) has articulated a legal view of the breadth and reach of presidential
constitutional prerogatives that if applied to information and documents often sought
by congressional committees, would stymie such inquiries.72 In OLC's view, under
the precepts of executive privilege and the unitary executive, Congress may not
bypass the procedures the President establishes to authorize disclosure to Congress
of classified, privileged, or even non-privileged information by vesting lower-level
officers or employees with a right to disclose such information without presidential
authorization
Thus, OLC has declared that "right of disclosure" statutes
"unconstitutionally limit the ability of the President and his appointees to supervise
and control the work of subordinate officers and employees of the Executive
Branch."73 The OLC assertions of these broad notions of presidential prerogatives
are unaccompanied by any authoritative judicial citations.
 
2012-06-21 06:12:03 PM

paygun: Mikey1969: Saying that they "favor" it doesn't mean that they are in the process of trying to put a ban in place.

When the president meets with a group whose stated goal is banning all handguns, and reportedly claimed to be working on more gun control, people take notice.

The campaign site that Obama put up during the election outright claimed that he sought a renewal of the assault weapons ban. It's not like any of this is a secret.

To say that just because he hasn't done anything yet that means he never will, is kind of like saying Lindsay Lohan isn't going to do any more coke because she's not high as a giraffe ass right this moment.


Not a good analogy... You're comparing someone who has said he would support doing something if it came up with someone that HAS done something over and over and over and over and over... Replace LiLo with Romney, and it's a little better. You have two people who haven't actually done the activity they are talking about...
 
2012-06-21 06:16:53 PM

Welfare Xmas: Mikey1969: What's a homonym attack? Using words that sound the same but have entirely different meanings? Example: "I'm a-gonna chute ewe!".

And you left a 'd' off of 'add'.

OMFG, I got pwned by the spell checker. All my arguments are therefore invalid (Non-Sequitur).

You need to come up with a better argument strategy you're still in the realm of "false by construction."


Oh, so you actually just had a little typo there? Bullshiat. You didn't get a letter wrong, you got the WHOLE WORD wrong, you also have no clue as to what it meant.

You got owned by people who don't just regurgitate what they hear, but actually listened in school, and have continued to pay attention throughout life.

But hey, if you want to use the 'I'm rubber, you're glue!' tactic, be my guest. I'll just sit back and poke fun at you when it suits me.
 
2012-06-21 06:17:34 PM

downpaymentblues: Mikey1969: Jesus people, you may not like him, but please DO try and have just a smidgen of journalistic integrity for a change.

However, during the Iran-Contra scandal, Reagan waived executive privilege, making his documents, diaries and entire staff available for congressional scrutiny.

I was not aware of this. Thank you for the link. I have seen many people claiming Reagan used executive privilege during Iran-Contra.


He wasn't facing re-election at the time, iirc.
 
2012-06-21 06:18:46 PM
The Eisenhower Administration took the most expansive approach, arguing that the
privilege applied broadly to advice on official matters among employees of the executive branch.


Should have bolded that part too.

Presidential administrations beginning with Eisenhower have taken the view that executive privilege extends beyond the scope of communications with the president himself, to communications among executive branch officials, and even employees.

I.e., the premise that invocation of executive privilege here indicates Obama's personal knowledge of Fast and Furious is... bullsh*t.

"Wait, are you saying Daryl Issa lied when he said invocation of executive means Obama personally delivered automatic weapons to Mexican drug cartels?"

I'm saying Issa's public statement inferring Obama's personal knowledge of Fast and Furious from invocation of executive privilege conclusively proves either a) that Issa is ignorant of executive privilege's long history, or b) that Issa knows the history, and dishonestly argued for a faulty inference. In the first case, Issa is unfit for his chairmanship by virtue of ignorance of matters critical to the exercise of its powers. In the second case, Issa is unfit for his chairmanship by his proven character for dishonesty. At the minimum, no reasonable person believes anything Daryl Issa says anymore.
 
2012-06-21 06:19:57 PM

Mikey1969: You didn't get a letter wrong, you got the WHOLE WORD wrong, you also have no clue as to what it meant.


Yes Mikey you are the smartest one in the room. Nobody but you knows the meaning of complicated logic terms. (pats Mikey on the head)

//Mikey's mom clearly didn't give him enough, "my little man is the cutest smartest little man ever"
 
2012-06-21 06:20:17 PM

Welfare Xmas: Mikey1969: Not sure where you're supposedly getting the "emotional instability" thing, but since I can spell ad hominem (And know how to look it up if I'm not sure), actually know what it means, and don't automaically believe everything CBS tells me, I'm willing to bet that Im at least a little bit more intelligent than you are, and that's all that matters at the moment.

Oh and I forgot the whole tin-foil-hat-bat-shiat-crazy-conspiracy-nut thing. Hopefully your local ammo shop is out of bullets for a good long while.


Hey, dumbass, YOU'RE the one with the whole 'Obama is using Fast and Furious to push an assault weapons ban!! I know because I heard it on CBS!' conspiracy. I'm saying that I don't buy it, and that I also didn't buy all the shiat leading up to the Iraq war, which turned out to be lies wrapped in pigshiat and bundled up inside of half-truths. In other words, I was right.

I guess the interwebs are going to have to teach you the definition of both 'ad hominem' and 'conspiracy'. Do you need me to Google those for you?
 
2012-06-21 06:22:47 PM

Mikey1969: Do you need me to Google those for you?


Could you please do that for me Mikey. You are soooooooo much smarter than I am.

I'm soooooooo stupid I bet you'll need to look up about an elevently million links for me before I understand. Now run along and do that while us stupid people talk among ourselves.
 
2012-06-21 06:24:36 PM

BritneysSpeculum: And the White House was supposedly uninvolved in the US Attorney firing scandal but that didn't stop Bush from invoking executive privilege to enable Rove, Meirs and other WH officials to avoid subpoenas.


Republicans do it: OUTRAGE!

Democrats do the same thing: Ho-hum....nothing to see here.

If 0bama and Holder have nothing to hide, then why invoke executive privilege?
 
2012-06-21 06:31:37 PM

MBrady: BritneysSpeculum: And the White House was supposedly uninvolved in the US Attorney firing scandal but that didn't stop Bush from invoking executive privilege to enable Rove, Meirs and other WH officials to avoid subpoenas.

Republicans do it: OUTRAGE!

Democrats do the same thing: Ho-hum....nothing to see here.

If 0bama and Holder have nothing to hide, then why invoke executive privilege?


Because the requested documents implicate ongoing international law enforcement operations and United States foreign policy.
 
2012-06-21 06:39:56 PM

Welfare Xmas: This administration has consistently favored the reinstitution of the assault weapons ban. It is something that we think was useful in the past with regard to the reduction that we've seen in crime, and certainly would have a positive impact on our relationship and the crime situation in Mexico. Eric Holder testifying to congress about Fast & Furious

But no Obama isn't trying to ban guns and that non-existant ban would never be sold by referencing all of the guns going across the border a large percentage of which were ferried across the border by the Obama administration.


What guns did Obama ban again? After four years there must be something.
 
2012-06-21 06:41:44 PM

Welfare Xmas: Mikey1969: Do you need me to Google those for you?

Could you please do that for me Mikey. You are soooooooo much smarter than I am.

I'm soooooooo stupid I bet you'll need to look up about an elevently million links for me before I understand. Now run along and do that while us stupid people talk among ourselves.


You ARE pretty dense. I don't think him doing that for you would help since you would just keep throwing your poop like a good troll.
 
2012-06-21 06:55:32 PM

downpaymentblues: Mikey1969: Jesus people, you may not like him, but please DO try and have just a smidgen of journalistic integrity for a change.

However, during the Iran-Contra scandal, Reagan waived executive privilege, making his documents, diaries and entire staff available for congressional scrutiny.

I was not aware of this. Thank you for the link. I have seen many people claiming Reagan used executive privilege during Iran-Contra.


Well, lets not get all too excited. All his people did was go before congress and repeat "I can not recall" thousands of times.
 
2012-06-21 07:31:16 PM
Also it was a program created and staffed by another administration. So there's that.
 
2012-06-21 07:32:24 PM

Welfare Xmas: Mikey1969: Do you need me to Google those for you?

Could you please do that for me Mikey. You are soooooooo much smarter than I am.

I'm soooooooo stupid I bet you'll need to look up about an elevently million links for me before I understand. Now run along and do that while us stupid people talk among ourselves.


Look dude, when you can't use words or phrases correctly, and people call you out on it, you should really just try to learn from the experience. Not only did you use ad hominem and non sequitur incorrectly, you couldn't even spell them correctly, it just makes you look like a tool. Then you turn around and accuse me of being a tinfoil hat conspiracy nut specifically because I don't believe YOUR tinfoil hat conspiracy? Hell, it's not like you even have an argument to begin with.

You're either extremely stupid, or you're currently residing in some kind of managed care facility and are dosed up to the eyeballs on Thorazine, strapped snugly into a straitjacket, and are typing by banging your forehead on the keyboard...
 
2012-06-21 07:34:26 PM

Fart_Machine: What guns did Obama ban again?


He did attempt the Assault Weapons ban, but that did not work out too well for him. Since that debacle, he has kept his distance.
 
2012-06-21 07:36:36 PM

Garble: Also it was a program created and staffed by another administration.


Actually, Fast and Furious was not. That was a different program called Wide Receiver. There were some pretty big differences between the two programs. The main difference was that Wide Receiver attempted to apprehend the straw purchaser before they got to the border. Fast and Furious made no attempt to do so.
 
2012-06-21 07:47:51 PM

Mikey1969: Obama is using Fast and Furious to push an assault weapons ban!!


While I don't know if the F&f was ever conceived to be used to 'push' the AWB, it sure looks pretty stupid when the first time they pushed it they used 'all those damn guns going to Mexico' as the main reasoning. A few years later they were caught doing pretty much the same thing they were earlier railing about.
 
2012-06-21 07:48:43 PM

HeadLever: Fart_Machine: What guns did Obama ban again?

He did attempt the Assault Weapons ban, but that did not work out too well for him. Since that debacle, he has kept his distance.


When did he put that before Congress?
 
2012-06-21 07:51:59 PM

Fart_Machine: When did he put that before Congress?


It did not get that far. After 31 Dems signed a letter telling him to stick it, he saw this as a loosing policy for him and quickly backed off.
 
2012-06-21 07:52:41 PM
Dull comment warning:

I finally went and read up about this, and was pretty shocked. American security services and law enforcement are quite clearly a law unto themselves. I don't feel like it's wrong for Obama being tarred with this scandal, because if he can't put a stop to it, who can? This kind of shiat is just going to increase in the future. I see no way in which it can be reigned in.

Incidentally, I live in Australia, and I've never heard about this scandal through our media. Our media is absolute garbage.
 
2012-06-21 07:54:18 PM

Fart_Machine: HeadLever: Fart_Machine: What guns did Obama ban again?

He did attempt the Assault Weapons ban, but that did not work out too well for him. Since that debacle, he has kept his distance.

When did he put that before Congress?


No no no - you just don't understand. Everybody knows that "debacle" is short for, he said while campaigning he'd like to renew the AWB, among many other things he'd like to do, but then when elected he found he had to choose what he was going to push for and the AWB renewal got set aside.

Geez, what part of "debacle" don't you understand?

Right, HeadLever?
 
2012-06-21 07:57:16 PM

HeadLever: Fart_Machine: When did he put that before Congress?

It did not get that far. After 31 Dems signed a letter telling him to stick it, he saw this as a loosing policy for him and quickly backed off.


Sooooo never then.
 
2012-06-21 07:58:07 PM

spamdog: Our media is absolute garbage.


So is ours.
 
2012-06-21 07:59:34 PM

El Pachuco: No no no - you just don't understand. Everybody knows that "debacle" is short for, he said while campaigning he'd like to renew the AWB, among many other things he'd like to do, but then when elected he found he had to choose what he was going to push for and the AWB renewal got set aside. too much opposition (much of it from his own side) and quickly dropped the issue.


/fixed for accuracy
 
2012-06-21 08:01:49 PM

Fart_Machine: Sooooo never then.


Correct. But that does not mean the he never attempted to institute said policy. It just means that it never got very far.
 
2012-06-21 08:02:34 PM

HeadLever: El Pachuco: No no no - you just don't understand. Everybody knows that "debacle" is short for, he said while campaigning he'd like to renew the AWB, among many other things he'd like to do, but then when elected he found he had to choose what he was going to push for and the AWB renewal got set aside. too much opposition (much of it from his own side) and quickly dropped the issue.

/fixed for accuracy


Total debacle! It will probably cost him the re-election, it was so debacley! You are a veritable wordsmith.
 
2012-06-21 08:03:40 PM

muck4doo: RexTalionis: Wikipedia:

"In the United States government, executive privilege is the power claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government. The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[1]"

Exactly. NRO is wrong. Fast and Furious does belong to Obama and cronies.


Do I really need to cite the constitution, the part about one of Congress' duties being Executive Oversight? Or are you going to post Wikipedia articles?

You do know that what sank Nixon was not Watergate, but the cover up, and more importantly the claims of Executive Privilege to cover it up.
 
2012-06-21 08:06:40 PM

El Pachuco: It will probably cost him the re-election,


I would not go that far. However, it was pretty funny to watch him be admonished by his own party and then tuck his tail between his legs in retreat. Kind of like the Farm Labor issue here a few months back.

In his defense, I'll say that he quickly sees a loser policy pretty quickly. He also does not push them as an ideologue would. He may be out of touch with a pretty large segment of the population, but in some sense, I think he recognizes this and acts accordingly.
 
2012-06-21 08:09:54 PM

HeadLever: Fart_Machine: Sooooo never then.

Correct. But that does not mean the he never attempted to institute said policy. It just means that it never got very far.


Sure, just because there is no evidence of it ever occurring doesn't mean it didn't happen.
 
2012-06-21 08:11:03 PM

Descartes: Obama and Holder have both said they knew nothing about the operation.
And everyone knows that the Bush administration started this.

Since there is nothing to hide, this must be a clever plot to trick the right-wingers, and then Obama will say "okay" and release all the documents that blame Bush.


FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT THE SAME PROGRAM AS WIDE RECEIVER YOU IGNORANT PIECE OF CRAP.

God some of you are retarded. One used controlled delivery while the other relied on uncontrolled, pretty substantial difference.
 
2012-06-21 08:14:05 PM

Fart_Machine: Sure, just because there is no evidence of it ever occurring doesn't mean it didn't happen.


No evidence of the attempt? I hope you are joking.

No evidence of attempting to bring it before congress? That you would be correct because, as I mentioned, it never got that far.
 
2012-06-21 08:23:48 PM

HeadLever: Fart_Machine: Sure, just because there is no evidence of it ever occurring doesn't mean it didn't happen.

No evidence of the attempt? I hope you are joking.

No evidence of attempting to bring it before congress? That you would be correct because, as I mentioned, it never got that far.


It never got that far because it was never really a priority except to the nitwits who were stockpiling ammo back in 2008.
 
2012-06-21 08:26:40 PM

MyRandomName: Descartes: Obama and Holder have both said they knew nothing about the operation.
And everyone knows that the Bush administration started this.

Since there is nothing to hide, this must be a clever plot to trick the right-wingers, and then Obama will say "okay" and release all the documents that blame Bush.

FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT THE SAME PROGRAM AS WIDE RECEIVER YOU IGNORANT PIECE OF CRAP.

God some of you are retarded. One used controlled delivery while the other relied on uncontrolled, pretty substantial difference.


I think F&F was a complete fark-up but I am curious, how you claim "Wide Receiver" is so different. They were both putting guns into the hands of the drug cartels in Mexico. I understand that it is important for you that these be somehow different on an important fundamental level but to any objective viewer the differences are not substantial. How did the "control" the guns in "wide receiver" after they crossed the border?
 
2012-06-21 08:28:48 PM
Mikey1969:

Not a good analogy... You're comparing someone who has said he would support doing something if it came up with someone that HAS done something over and over and over and over and over... Replace LiLo with Romney, and it's a little better. You have two people who haven't actually done the activity they are talking about...

You're right, Romney is a much better comparison, because he actually signed an assault weapons ban.

Right up until he signed it, the fact that he wanted one means absolutely nothing of course. You can't use anyone's explicitly stated goals as any indicator of what they want to do.
 
2012-06-21 08:30:16 PM

Fart_Machine: It never got that far because it was never really a priority except to the nitwits who were stockpiling ammo back in 2008.


If it was a priority enough to trot Holder out in front of the Media to indicate a 'few changes he would like to make' it was a priority. Maybe not the highest, but a priority nonetheless.
 
2012-06-21 08:32:21 PM

HeadLever: Fart_Machine: Sure, just because there is no evidence of it ever occurring doesn't mean it didn't happen.

No evidence of the attempt? I hope you are joking.

No evidence of attempting to bring it before congress? That you would be correct because, as I mentioned, it never got that far.


Wrong citation, buddy - the article you posted was just Holder saying the AWB was something Obama would like to renew, but gave no examples of anything other than talk. By Holder.

Given that you seem to have as solid a grasp of politics as you do economics, it should be child's play for you to show us a big speech where Obama got heckled as he tried to push for the AWB, or maybe a letter signed by many senators and congresscritters saying "no AWB!" in response to an O letter asking for it.

'Cause it was a debacle for Obama, right? Should be pretty easy to demonstrate the solid thumping Obama got for trying that, right? There were seven whole weeks between your Holder remarks and Obama saying he wasn't going to do AWB after all, so there should be like a metric ton of debacles putting egg on the president's face.

You certainly at least could provide evidence of an attempt, right?
 
2012-06-21 08:32:30 PM

mrshowrules:

I think F&F was a complete fark-up but I am curious, how you claim "Wide Receiver" is so different. They were both putting guns into the hands of the drug cartels in Mexico. I understand that it is important for you that these be somehow different on an important fundamental level but to any objective viewer the differences are not substantial. How did the "control" the guns in "wide receiver" after they crossed the border?


I think it was best that people went to jail over Wide Receiver. I agree that people should go to jail over Fast & Furious too.
 
2012-06-21 08:35:22 PM

mrshowrules: I think F&F was a complete fark-up but I am curious, how you claim "Wide Receiver" is so different. They were both putting guns into the hands of the drug cartels in Mexico.


As I understand it, WR was actually a controlled delivery program where F&F was not. That is what caused the whistleblowing of the program.
 
2012-06-21 08:38:09 PM

paygun: You can't use anyone's explicitly stated goals as any indicator of what they want to do.


I think you can't use Romney's explicitly stated goals as any indicator of what they want to do. Although politicians flip and flop all of the time, I don't think I've ever seen ANYONE as happy on both sides of ANY issue as Romney is. The amazing thing is that people keep on supporting him. You'd think the smart ones wouldn't trust him and the less smart ones would at least be insulted by his blatant pandering.
 
2012-06-21 08:41:35 PM

Mikey1969: paygun: You can't use anyone's explicitly stated goals as any indicator of what they want to do.

I think you can't use Romney's explicitly stated goals as any indicator of what they want to do. Although politicians flip and flop all of the time, I don't think I've ever seen ANYONE as happy on both sides of ANY issue as Romney is. The amazing thing is that people keep on supporting him. You'd think the smart ones wouldn't trust him and the less smart ones would at least be insulted by his blatant pandering.


I can't think of anything you can say along the lines of Romney being a slimy dick that I won't agree with.

I still believe Obama when he stated he wanted an assault weapon ban. You're effectively calling Obama a liar if you don't think so.

Any more deflections?
 
2012-06-21 08:41:44 PM

HeadLever: mrshowrules: I think F&F was a complete fark-up but I am curious, how you claim "Wide Receiver" is so different. They were both putting guns into the hands of the drug cartels in Mexico.

As I understand it, WR was actually a controlled delivery program where F&F was not. That is what caused the whistleblowing of the program.


If it was it put guns in the hands of Mexican drug dealers, what's the fundamental difference except the scale and perhaps the level of retardation?
 
2012-06-21 08:43:49 PM

El Pachuco: Wrong citation, buddy - the article you posted was just Holder saying the AWB was something Obama would like to renew,


Actually, as a matter of semantics, "The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today" indicates a little more than just indicating 'something Obama would like to renew'.

Indicating that one "will seek" is typically construed as an attempt, even if it doesn't get very far (as in this case).
 
2012-06-21 08:44:20 PM

mrshowrules:
If it was it put guns in the hands of Mexican drug dealers, what's the fundamental difference except the scale and perhaps the level of retardation?


You don't understand man, we have to give them guns in order to find out where they get their guns!
 
2012-06-21 08:46:29 PM

paygun: mrshowrules:

I think F&F was a complete fark-up but I am curious, how you claim "Wide Receiver" is so different. They were both putting guns into the hands of the drug cartels in Mexico. I understand that it is important for you that these be somehow different on an important fundamental level but to any objective viewer the differences are not substantial. How did the "control" the guns in "wide receiver" after they crossed the border?

I think it was best that people went to jail over Wide Receiver. I agree that people should go to jail over Fast & Furious too.


If incompetent law enforcement was a crime, you better start increasing law enforcement salaries, training and be content with law enforcement agencies hiding in their offices and not taking any chances.

The appropriate punishment for stupid and even irresponsible behavior is being fired. Perhaps in this case, multiple levels of management should be fired.
 
2012-06-21 08:46:39 PM

mrshowrules: If it was it put guns in the hands of Mexican drug dealers,


A controlled delivery is one that has law enforcement (theoretically) is in control of the situation and is able to apprehend the suspect immediately after the illegal activity takes place. Not saying that WR was a perfect plan. Let's face it, anything the ATF is involved is usually FUBAR'ed
 
2012-06-21 08:49:03 PM
Law of the land since 1974 on Presidential executive privilege

Since the White House has circled the wagons and made the claim; that pretty much says the requested documents contain incriminating evidence.

Wonder who will accidentally erase lose the papers in question before
finally turning them over?
 
2012-06-21 08:52:07 PM
Most

Transparent

Administration

EVER!
 
2012-06-21 08:54:30 PM

mrshowrules:

If incompetent law enforcement was a crime, you better start increasing law enforcement salaries, training and be content with law enforcement agencies hiding in their offices and not taking any chances.

The appropriate punishment for stupid and even irresponsible behavior is being fired. Perhaps in this case, multiple levels of management should be fired.


I don't know if you can call it incompetence. It's not like this was one bad decision made by an agent in the field. Five agents around the water cooler don't put together an operation like this because they just don't know any better.
 
2012-06-21 08:55:46 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Ricardo Klement: Too many PC loons in the Democratic party, and they aren't fiscally conservative

Um. What? President Obama is the only one who has come up with a plan for a balanced budget that is fiscally conservative and sound. He happens to be a Democratic President.


Um. What? Lol you have no idea what you're talking about, obviously.
 
2012-06-21 08:55:59 PM

paygun: mrshowrules:
If it was it put guns in the hands of Mexican drug dealers, what's the fundamental difference except the scale and perhaps the level of retardation?

You don't understand man, we have to give them guns in order to find out where they get their guns!


Call me stupid but can't you just arrest them and ask them where they got their guns and maybe cut a few years of their sentence for cooperating. Or maybe a database that tracks who manufactures which gun and where they are sold so if the gun shows up, you can trace where it came from?
 
2012-06-21 08:56:29 PM

paygun: I still believe Obama when he stated he wanted an assault weapon ban. You're effectively calling Obama a liar if you don't think so.

Any more deflections?


I'm not deflecting. I believe Obama more than I believe Romney. I also don't believe Obama is going to present some kind of new assault weapons ban, but I DO believe a bunch of paranoid assholes are going to buy up all of the supplies again, artificially drive the price up, and empty the shelves.

Is that clear enough to show you that I'm not "deflecting"? The fact that I wouldn't trust Romney to tell me if my front yard had turned into a nuclear wasteland overnight, and that I personally don't think that Obama is going to pass a bunch of gun regs? Not because I think Obama is some kind of messiah but because I have seen nothing that really says that to me. You see it, that's fine, but please don't make a run on the gun store, I like to go shooting, and don't want my prices to double, while my supplies dwindle to almost zero again.
 
2012-06-21 08:59:43 PM

DrippinBalls: obama = bush

worthless liberals/leftists = gop/repukes.

It's the same shiat from both sides. Both sides are political idiots. Sad.


Let's see how many posts you can get removed today.
 
2012-06-21 09:02:26 PM

mrshowrules:
Call me stupid but can't you just arrest them and ask them where they got their guns and maybe cut a few years of their sentence for cooperating. Or maybe a database that tracks who manufactures which gun and where they are sold so if the gun shows up, you can trace where it came from?


That's not stupid at all. That's called law enforcement. And the system of tracking serial numbers and what dealer sold which gun has been in place for more than 40 years.

That's how this conspiracy theory got started that the purpose of F&F was just supplying guns, because that's the only part it looks like the ATF accomplished.
 
2012-06-21 09:09:33 PM

Mikey1969: I believe Obama more than I believe Romney. I also don't believe Obama is going to present some kind of new assault weapons ban, but I DO believe a bunch of paranoid assholes are going to buy up all of the supplies again, artificially drive the price up, and empty the shelves.


I don't believe he will either, unless something changes. I also don't think everyone who is buying up guns and ammo is doing so because they're paranoid. People made a killing right after the first ban by selling pre-ban guns.

I haven't bought even any ammo for a few years now because the prices are retarded. I just stopped shooting.
 
2012-06-21 09:23:09 PM

paygun: I haven't bought even any ammo for a few years now because the prices are retarded. I just stopped shooting.


Stop shooting?!?!?!?!?!

How am I gonna stay in practice for when the Black Helicopters come? ;-)
 
2012-06-21 09:28:24 PM

Mikey1969: paygun: I still believe Obama when he stated he wanted an assault weapon ban. You're effectively calling Obama a liar if you don't think so.

Any more deflections?

I'm not deflecting. I believe Obama more than I believe Romney. I also don't believe Obama is going to present some kind of new assault weapons ban, but I DO believe a bunch of paranoid assholes are going to buy up all of the supplies again, artificially drive the price up, and empty the shelves.

Is that clear enough to show you that I'm not "deflecting"? The fact that I wouldn't trust Romney to tell me if my front yard had turned into a nuclear wasteland overnight, and that I personally don't think that Obama is going to pass a bunch of gun regs? Not because I think Obama is some kind of messiah but because I have seen nothing that really says that to me. You see it, that's fine, but please don't make a run on the gun store, I like to go shooting, and don't want my prices to double, while my supplies dwindle to almost zero again.


If Romney said that Obama was born in the US, I might actually convert to being a birfer.
 
2012-06-21 09:47:11 PM
I think Obama got involved to make sure the whole country finds out who the mastermind behind this whole "investigation" is.

dailycensored.com
 
2012-06-21 09:56:23 PM
Personally, I think this all can be solved by going back in time, and Pelosi ordering the arrest of Karl Rove on a contempt charge.
 
2012-06-21 10:02:21 PM

HeadLever: mrshowrules: If it was it put guns in the hands of Mexican drug dealers,

A controlled delivery is one that has law enforcement (theoretically) is in control of the situation and is able to apprehend the suspect immediately after the illegal activity takes place. Not saying that WR was a perfect plan. Let's face it, anything the ATF is involved is usually FUBAR'ed


Fast and Furious was part of the Bush program "Project Gunrunner."

Link

There is no evidence the Bush administration discontinued Project Gunrunner after Wide Receiver. That, of course, is why the GOP House has demonstrated no interest whatsoever in subpoenaing Gonzales or any of the other parties who set Project Gunrunner in motion. This whole charade is pure political showboating.
 
2012-06-21 10:07:33 PM

RDixon: Since the White House has circled the wagons and made the claim; that pretty much says the requested documents contain incriminating evidence.


No it doesn't. It says it involves documents implicating the ability of executive branch figures to speak candidly:

The executive has also argued that because candor is the principal value served
by the exemption, its protection should extend beyond predecisional deliberations to
deliberations involving decisions already made. "Moreover, even if the decision at
issue had already been made, disclosure to Congress could still deter the candor of
future Executive Branch deliberations."63 Executives have also taken the position
that the privilege covers confidential communications with respect to policymaking
well beyond the confines of the White House and the President's closest advisors.
The Eisenhower Administration took the most expansive approach, arguing that the
privilege applied broadly to advice on official matters among employees of the
executive branch.64 The Nixon Administration appears to have taken a similar view,
arguing that the privilege applied to decisionmaking at a "high governmental level,"
but conceding that the protected communication must be related to presidential
decisionmaking.65 The Reagan Justice Department appears to have taken a slightly
narrower view of the scope of the privilege, requiring that the protected
communications have some nexus to the presidential decisionmaking process.66
The George H. W. Bush Administration took the position that recommendations
made to senior department officials and communications of senior policymakers
throughout the executive branch were protected by executive privilege without regard
to whether they involved communications intended to go to the President.67 Finally,
the Clinton Administration took a similarly expansive position that all
communications within the White House68 or between the White House and any
federal department or agency69 are presumptively privileged.

The George W. Bush Administration, through presidential signing statements,
70 executive orders71, and opinions of the Department of Justice's Office of Legal
Counsel (OLC) has articulated a legal view of the breadth and reach of presidential
constitutional prerogatives that if applied to information and documents often sought
by congressional committees, would stymie such inquiries.72 In OLC's view, under
the precepts of executive privilege and the unitary executive, Congress may not
bypass the procedures the President establishes to authorize disclosure to Congress
of classified, privileged, or even non-privileged information by vesting lower-level
officers or employees with a right to disclose such information without presidential
authorization Thus, OLC has declared that "right of disclosure" statutes
"unconstitutionally limit the ability of the President and his appointees to supervise
and control the work of subordinate officers and employees of the Executive
Branch."73 The OLC assertions of these broad notions of presidential prerogatives
are unaccompanied by any authoritative judicial citations.

Link
 
2012-06-21 10:15:20 PM
They don't?

Then why is Al Sharpton (aside from calling the whole mess racist)... why is he claiming Bush's admin knew about it
 
2012-06-21 10:44:23 PM
Hey Farklibs, you should all be pissed that Obama isn't releasing these papers showing this Bush program, Fast and Furious, that has gotten people killed. Why is Obama covering for Bush? Amiright?
 
2012-06-21 10:47:04 PM

MyRandomName: muck4doo: RexTalionis: Wikipedia:

"In the United States government, executive privilege is the power claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government. The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[1]"

Exactly. NRO is wrong. Fast and Furious does belong to Obama and cronies.

Do I really need to cite the constitution, the part about one of Congress' duties being Executive Oversight? Or are you going to post Wikipedia articles?

You do know that what sank Nixon was not Watergate, but the cover up, and more importantly the claims of Executive Privilege to cover it up.


I didn't post the Wikipedia article. I commented on it.
 
2012-06-21 10:48:37 PM

muck4doo: Why is Obama covering for Bush? Amiright?


That was good for a laugh.
 
2012-06-21 11:00:44 PM

bugontherug: Fast and Furious was part of the Bush program "Project Gunrunner."


F&F - no.

Project Gun Runner and Wide Receiver - Yes.
 
2012-06-21 11:02:25 PM
Does this mean that John McCain yells at cloud, and Sarah Palin is automatically President?
 
2012-06-21 11:04:03 PM

HeadLever: bugontherug: Fast and Furious was part of the Bush program "Project Gunrunner."

F&F - no.

Project Gun Runner and Wide Receiver - Yes.


To clarify, Fast and Furious was never a Bush Program, while Project Gunrunner and WR were. F&F was post-Bush Operation.
 
2012-06-21 11:08:53 PM
Liberals - nothing they love more than a dead border guard.
 
2012-06-21 11:23:22 PM

beta_plus: Liberals - nothing they love more than a dead border guard.


Right wingers - nothing they love more than thousands and thousands of dead US servicemen.

thesocietypages.org

Except perhaps mocking their sacrifices.

www.democraticunderground.com
 
2012-06-21 11:45:15 PM

bugontherug:

Fast and Furious was part of the Bush program "Project Gunrunner."

Link

There is no evidence the Bush administration discontinued Project Gunrunner after Wide Receiver. That, of course, is why the GOP House has demonstrated no interest whatsoever in subpoenaing Gonzales or any of the other parties who set Project Gunrunner in motion. This whole charade is pure political showboating.


There's some pretty compelling evidence that Obama took office in 2009.
 
2012-06-21 11:49:04 PM

paygun: There's some pretty compelling evidence that Obama took office in 2009.


Bush's time machine was handed down to Obama,I guess. One difference is that Bush only figured out how to go forward in time, though.
 
2012-06-22 12:14:39 AM

muck4doo: Hey Farklibs, you should all be pissed that Obama isn't releasing these papers showing this Bush program, Fast and Furious, that has gotten people killed. Why is Obama covering for Bush? Amiright?


Umm... maybe it's because the documents being asked for don't have anything to do with the program itself (or its antecedents under Bush), but rather are merely a fishing expedition for information that may or may not make Obama look bad? Just a thought.
 
2012-06-22 12:15:16 AM
Ah, Summer. The air is warm, the sun shines, Hurricane season starts just when it becomes worth going to the beach, and fark turns into 4chan.

Ah, Summer.
 
2012-06-22 12:20:28 AM
giving guns to terrorists and drug lords is a longstanding and fine Republican tradition.
why is Issa so pissed that Obama did it too?
 
2012-06-22 12:32:08 AM
What's good for the goose is good for the gander?

Suck it cons.
 
2012-06-22 12:46:09 AM

Biological Ali: merely a fishing expedition for information that may or may not make Obama look bad?


I don't think Issa wants information as much as "7 hearings a week times 40 weeks" in the hope that the appearance of an investigation will imply wrongdoing. It's pretty clear by now he's more interested in his little show than the truth.
 
2012-06-22 01:05:03 AM
So vote libertarian!

Oh wait, he's a Republican who happens to believe in Mormonism too...so what good would that do you?

Hell, Nixon is looking good compared to the modern GOP
 
2012-06-22 01:32:54 AM

HeadLever: To clarify, Fast and Furious was never a Bush Program, while Project Gunrunner and WR were. F&F was post-Bush Operation.


All ran by the same person:

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] Detty would sell a total of about 450 guns during the operation.[22] These included AR-15s, semi-automatic AK-pattern rifles, and Colt .38s. The vast majority of the guns were eventually lost as they moved into Mexico.[7][23][25]

At the time, under the Bush administration Department of Justice (DOJ), no arrests or indictments were made. After President Barack Obama took office in 2009, the DOJ reviewed Wide Receiver in September 2009[26] and found that guns had been allowed into the hands of suspected gun traffickers. Indictments began in 2010, over three years after Wide Receiver concluded. As of October 4, 2011, nine people had been charged with making false statements in acquisition of firearms and illicit transfer, shipment or delivery of firearms.[18] As of November, charges against one defendant had been dropped; five of them had pled guilty, and one had been sentenced to one year and one day in prison. Two of them remained fugitives.[23]

Another, smaller probe occurred in 2007 under the same ATF Phoenix field division. It began when the ATF identified Mexican suspects who bought weapons from a Phoenix gun shop over a span of several months. The probe ultimately involved over 200 guns, a dozen of which were lost in Mexico. On September 27, 2007, ATF agents saw the original suspects buying weapons at the same store and followed them toward the Mexican border. The ATF informed the Mexican government when the suspects successfully crossed the border, but Mexican law enforcement were unable to track them.[4][10]

Less than two weeks later, on October 6, William Newell, then ATF's special agent in charge of the Phoenix field division, shut down the operation at the behest of William Hoover, ATF's assistant director for the office of field operations.[27] No charges were filed. Newell, who was special agent in charge from June 2006 to May 2011, would later play a major role in Operation Fast and Furious.[4][24]
 
2012-06-22 01:52:19 AM

Welfare Xmas: Mikey1969: What's a homonym attack? Using words that sound the same but have entirely different meanings? Example: "I'm a-gonna chute ewe!".

And you left a 'd' off of 'add'.

OMFG, I got pwned by the spell checker. All my arguments are therefore invalid (Non-Sequitur).


So the spell checker substituted a hominem for what you meant to say.
 
2012-06-22 02:16:24 AM

downpaymentblues:

All ran by the same person:


Maybe if Obama asks really nice, George Bush will let him make some changes at the ATF.
 
2012-06-22 02:46:26 AM
The transparent government, on parade...behind executive privilege

/man up, Mr. President.
 
2012-06-22 03:21:50 AM

HeadLever: mrshowrules: I think F&F was a complete fark-up but I am curious, how you claim "Wide Receiver" is so different. They were both putting guns into the hands of the drug cartels in Mexico.

As I understand it, WR was actually a controlled delivery program where F&F was not. That is what caused the whistleblowing of the program.


Really? So WR losing weapons just like F&F was controlled?
 
2012-06-22 03:23:38 AM

beta_plus: Liberals - nothing they love more than a dead border guard.


beta_plus, nothing he loves more than being a stupid farking troll.
 
2012-06-22 03:25:38 AM

Richard Saunders: The transparent government, on parade...behind executive privilege

/man up, Mr. President.


Republicans now believe there is no such thing as Top Secret in case of national security? When did they become such liberals?

/Weird.
 
2012-06-22 04:50:45 AM

paygun: downpaymentblues:

All ran by the same person:


Maybe if Obama asks really nice, George Bush will let him make some changes at the ATF.


I'm not sure I understand. Newell has already been removed. U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke resigned.
 
2012-06-22 05:57:40 AM
Fast and Furious is a debacle that would be treated as a huge scandal if a Republican were in charge. The troubling aspect of it is that it makes Holder (or subordinates he is covering for) look damned incompetent. Obama 'owns' it because he is invoking executive priviledge (the coverup). The politically expedient thing for Obama to have done would've been to hang Holder out to dry, but he's too loyal to do that, unfortunately
 
2012-06-22 07:27:33 AM

BritneysSpeculum: And the White House was supposedly uninvolved in the US Attorney firing scandal but that didn't stop Bush from invoking executive privilege to enable Rove, Meirs and other WH officials to avoid subpoenas.


How did that work out for them? Oh, yeah:

On February 14, 2008 the full United States House of Representatives voted 223-32 to pass the contempt resolutions against White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers.
 
2012-06-22 07:44:50 AM

tooeasy: Fast and Furious is a debacle that would be treated as a huge scandal if a Republican were in charge. The troubling aspect of it is that it makes Holder (or subordinates he is covering for) look damned incompetent. Obama 'owns' it because he is invoking executive priviledge (the coverup). The politically expedient thing for Obama to have done would've been to hang Holder out to dry, but he's too loyal to do that, unfortunately


BS, the reason this is not a scandal is because of what you said, it involves in competence at its worse. Real scandal involves something illegal or immoral. The truth is that the only reason this is being pursued by the Republicans is because Obama has no scandals so far, so this is the best they got.

Think of all the fark ups even just with the Iraq war, no wmds found, letting arms get to militants, losing track of billions in cash etc... Non of those things became scandals because the didn't involve the Presidents administration doing anything illegal or immoral, and Dems had plenty of scandals on Bush already (Valerie plane, mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners, yellow cake).
 
2012-06-22 08:40:58 AM

HeadLever: bugontherug: Fast and Furious was part of the Bush program "Project Gunrunner."

F&F - no.

Project Gun Runner and Wide Receiver - Yes.


2006-2007: Operation Wide Receiver and other probes

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. 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", Detty would sell a total of about 450 guns during the operation. These included AR-15s, semi-automatic AK-pattern rifles, and Colt .38s. The vast majority of the guns were eventually lost as they moved into Mexico.

At the time, under the Bush administration Department of Justice (DOJ), no arrests or indictments were made. After President Barack Obama took office in 2009, the DOJ reviewed Wide Receiver in September 2009 and found that guns had been allowed into the hands of suspected gun traffickers.
Indictments began in 2010, over three years after Wide Receiver concluded. As of October 4, 2011, nine people had been charged with making false statements in acquisition of firearms and illicit transfer, shipment or delivery of firearms. As of November, charges against one defendant had been dropped; five of them had pled guilty, and one had been sentenced to one year and one day in prison. Two of them remained fugitives.


Weird that Issa didn't see fit to check out that operation...maybe he just hasn't heard of it.
 
2012-06-22 08:45:51 AM

Aldon: the reason this is not a scandal is because of what you said, it involves in competence at its worse.


No. Operation Wide Receiver was incompetence. That was truly a "botched" operation, where there was an attempt to track the guns and interdict them, but it failed.

Fast and Furious wasn't "botched", in that there never was any attempt to interdict the guns or arrest those who purchased and smuggled them, at least not until it was made public. Would you call a DEA operation "botched" if it consisted of DEA agents telling pharmacists to sell Oxycontin to people they knew were re-selling it illegally, but not bothering to track the drugs or the people selling them? What if at the same time, the administration was arguing that Oxycontin needed to be banned because it was being misused?

That's the problem: When literally thousands of guns go over the border with the ATF looking on, at a time when the administration is talking about the need to ban assault weapons because of the carnage in Mexico, then it looks like they were trying to generate a *REASON* and public support to renew and make permanent the failed Clinton assault weapons ban.
 
2012-06-22 09:12:27 AM

dittybopper: That's the problem: When literally thousands of guns go over the border with the ATF looking on, at a time when the administration is talking about the need to ban assault weapons because of the carnage in Mexico, then it looks like they were trying to generate a *REASON* and public support to renew and make permanent the failed Clinton assault weapons ban.


I think you are really on to something. It's obviously a conspiracy! Run with this.
 
2012-06-22 09:19:17 AM
Holder and Obama need to burn for this. Never before in the history of the United States have American or Mexican citizens died as a result of governmental impropriety.
 
2012-06-22 09:28:32 AM

CrackpipeCardozo: Holder and Obama need to burn for this. Never before in the history of the United States have American or Mexican citizens died as a result of governmental impropriety.


Excellent!
 
2012-06-22 09:31:01 AM

dittybopper: Aldon: the reason this is not a scandal is because of what you said, it involves in competence at its worse.

No. Operation Wide Receiver was incompetence. That was truly a "botched" operation, where there was an attempt to track the guns and interdict them, but it failed.

Fast and Furious wasn't "botched", in that there never was any attempt to interdict the guns or arrest those who purchased and smuggled them, at least not until it was made public. Would you call a DEA operation "botched" if it consisted of DEA agents telling pharmacists to sell Oxycontin to people they knew were re-selling it illegally, but not bothering to track the drugs or the people selling them? What if at the same time, the administration was arguing that Oxycontin needed to be banned because it was being misused?

That's the problem: When literally thousands of guns go over the border with the ATF looking on, at a time when the administration is talking about the need to ban assault weapons because of the carnage in Mexico, then it looks like they were trying to generate a *REASON* and public support to renew and make permanent the failed Clinton assault weapons ban.




You are going into conspiracy theory territory here.... there are so many logical holes in what you are saying I don't know where to begin. How about we begin and end on the fantasy legislation to ban (or extend a ban on) assault weapons that the Obama administration didn't introduce, while Obama administration actually signed off at least two pieces of legislation that expanded gun rights.

So the premise you begin with is fantasy that only exists in conspiracy theorists heads, then of course the the way this mythical conspiracy is supposed to have been carried out is about as incompetent as it comes (as evidenced on how it worked out regarding gun control).

A brilliant and far-reaching conspiracy that went off without a hitch.... and got exactly none of the results it was intending. hooookay.
 
2012-06-22 10:11:47 AM

amiable: dittybopper: That's the problem: When literally thousands of guns go over the border with the ATF looking on, at a time when the administration is talking about the need to ban assault weapons because of the carnage in Mexico, then it looks like they were trying to generate a *REASON* and public support to renew and make permanent the failed Clinton assault weapons ban.

I think you are really on to something. It's obviously a conspiracy! Run with this.


I said it *LOOKS* like it. After all:

1. Obama publicly stated as part of his election platform that he wanted to reinstate and make permanent the assault weapons ban.

2. Within a couple months of taking office, President Obama's Secretary of State and his Attorney General both comment publicly about the need to ban assault weapons to prevent them from going across the border into Mexico.

3. After a bunch of push-back in Congress and from the gun lobby, basically shutting down the idea of a renewed assault weapons ban, Operation Fast and Furious is approved in late October, 2009.

4. Operation F&F differed in several important aspects from the previous Operation Wide Receiver: At least some of the guns in Wide Receiver had RF tracking devices installed in the stocks, in an attempt to track them. None were so equipped in F&F. In OWR, Mexican authorities were consulted and notified of the operation. That didn't happen in OF&F. In OWR, once it was plain the guns weren't being interdicted because of technical issues, it was shut down, and only around 500-ish guns went over the border. In OF&F, no attempt was made to track or interdict the guns once they left the store. Over 2,000 guns "walked" in that case, and it was only shut down because of an ATF whistleblower who noticed that a gun used to kill a border agent was part of the program.

5. President Obama personally assured Sarah Brady that they were working on gun control "under the radar" in early 2011, before the scandal was widely reported.

There are two possibilities here:

1. This was a massive case of the stupids on the part of nearly everyone involved, or
2. This actually was a botched "conspiracy" to generate support for a renewed assault weapons ban.

I'm perfectly content to believe it was case #1, but given the facts here, I can see where some would believe it was case #2.
 
2012-06-22 10:21:51 AM

dittybopper: I said it *LOOKS* like it. After all:


Except that there is zero evidence that anyone in the administration was aware of this program prior to February 2011. After all, Issa is NOT SUBPOENAING ANY FURTHER DOCUMENTS PRIOR TO THE DEATH OF THE AGENT.

So there's #3: overzealous field office, overzealous Republican Congressman.
 
2012-06-22 10:30:25 AM

Aldon: A brilliant and far-reaching conspiracy that went off without a hitch.... and got exactly none of the results it was intending. hooookay.


See my post immediately above.

It has the appearance of a conspiracy. It might just be a case of the stupids, but there are enough convenient coincidences there to make one wonder.

Also, assuming it was a conspiracy (which again, I'm not), it wouldn't have to be all that far-reaching: Only the principles (AG, ATF supervisors) would need to know the reasoning behind it. Obviously the field agents actually tasked with letting the guns walk were in the dark as to the reasoning behind it, and had to be goaded by their supervisors when they questioned the reasoning. It didn't go off without a hitch: A US Border Patrol agent was killed by one of the guns, which is what caused a whistleblower in the ATF to go public with the operation. Assuming again that it was a conspiracy of some sort, it wouldn't have gotten any results because of that little "hitch".
 
2012-06-22 10:48:47 AM

RsquaredW: dittybopper: I said it *LOOKS* like it. After all:

Except that there is zero evidence that anyone in the administration was aware of this program prior to February 2011.


Attorney General Eric Holder was briefed on the operation on July 5th, 2010.

Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed on December 14th, 2010.

Try again.
 
2012-06-22 11:03:42 AM

dittybopper: It didn't go off without a hitch: A US Border Patrol agent was killed by one of the guns, which is what caused a whistleblower in the ATF to go public with the operation.


I agree with you that you actually have good reason to believe Obama would want an assault weapon ban extension (I was wrong there).

From there is where I don't understand the logic. First, Obama tried to extend the assault weapon ban and it didn't even get past the idea phase. Just like a few other things Obama had to realize he had to put on the back burner (closing gitmo for one) because he couldn't even have the hope of enough support from his own party on getting it done. Heck, like he said gun owners have GAINED rights under him.

Then if you want to have a conspiracy theory that has Mexican drug lords creating mayhem with guns you can't get better than killing a border patrol agent.... how did that work out?
 
2012-06-22 11:23:04 AM

dittybopper:

I said it *LOOKS* like it. After all:


Obvioulsy. You left out the part baout the reverse vampires though. How deep does this rabbit hole go!!!!?!??!?!?!?
 
2012-06-22 12:01:08 PM

amiable: dittybopper:

I said it *LOOKS* like it. After all:


Obvioulsy. You left out the part baout the reverse vampires though. How deep does this rabbit hole go!!!!?!??!?!?!?


All conspiracies are not created equal. You're just giving a blanket excuse to any kind of government malfeasance by treating critical thinking as insanity.
 
2012-06-22 12:27:23 PM

Welfare Xmas: lennavan: So, you actually think this is a sekrit plot to eliminate the second amendment? Do you also think Obama was born in Kenya?

I don't think there is any secret about it.


i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-06-22 12:35:05 PM

Aldon: dittybopper: It didn't go off without a hitch: A US Border Patrol agent was killed by one of the guns, which is what caused a whistleblower in the ATF to go public with the operation.

I agree with you that you actually have good reason to believe Obama would want an assault weapon ban extension (I was wrong there).

From there is where I don't understand the logic. First, Obama tried to extend the assault weapon ban and it didn't even get past the idea phase. Just like a few other things Obama had to realize he had to put on the back burner (closing gitmo for one) because he couldn't even have the hope of enough support from his own party on getting it done. Heck, like he said gun owners have GAINED rights under him.

Then if you want to have a conspiracy theory that has Mexican drug lords creating mayhem with guns you can't get better than killing a border patrol agent.... how did that work out?


Except, of course, when the gun used to kill that agent is shown to be part of a program that just let guns "walk" across the border with no attempt at all to track them to the ultimate users in Mexico, or to interdict them and arrest the people doing the tracking.

Again, I'm not saying that there necessarily was a conspiracy there. That doesn't change the fact that during that time frame, a significant fraction of the weapons going over the border were doing so at the behest of the ATF, with no real law enforcement purpose evident, other than "When these guns show up at a crime scene, we'll know where they came from", which is stupid, because we can already do that.

Again, in simple form, and in chronological order:

1. Obama says he wants to renew the assault weapons ban.
2. Both his Secretary of State and his Attorney General make noises about needed a ban to stem the flow of guns into Mexico.
3. Operation Fast and Furious is then conceived and put into action.
4. Veteran ATF agents question the tactics involved in the operation, but are slapped down by a gung-ho supervisor.
5. A border patrol agent is killed with one of the 2,000+ guns sent to Mexico under this program.
6. An ATF agent blows the whistle on the operation, but outside of the "gun nuts" on the web, it's largely ignored.
7. Obama tells Sarah Brady, head of the "Brady Campaign to Prevent Violence", that he's working on gun control "under the radar".
8. Scandal starts getting traction in mainstream media.

I don't find anything inconsistent with it being a case of the stupids, nor do I find anything inconsistent with it being due to an effort to gin up support for a new AWB: The plan would have been to point to all those guns and say "See, we *TOLD* you the US was supplying those guns, and here is the proof".

Again, this one could be either, but either case doesn't look good for Holder, because he lied to Congress when he said he hadn't been briefed on the operation until sometime in early 2011.
 
2012-06-22 01:11:20 PM
I am not concerned at all that Obama is going to take my guns away.

/Republican
//Gun owner
///Got plenty of .223 ammo
 
2012-06-22 01:14:39 PM

Ricardo Klement: I am not concerned at all that Obama is going to take my guns away.

/Republican
//Gun owner
///Got plenty of .223 ammo


The president of the NRA would like a word with you.
 
2012-06-22 01:25:09 PM

dittybopper: Attorney General Eric Holder was briefed on the operation on July 5th, 2010.

Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed on December 14th, 2010.

Try again.


Did you read your document? It basically says "we're tracking guns related to the Sinoloa cartel." Nothing about gunwalking, etc. "Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S." this ain't.

Once again, why the investigation into post-February 2011 documents if the question is Holder's oversight over the initiation of this program?
 
2012-06-22 01:27:09 PM

lennavan: Ricardo Klement: I am not concerned at all that Obama is going to take my guns away.

/Republican
//Gun owner
///Got plenty of .223 ammo

The president of the NRA would like a word with you.


There's a reason I am not a member of the NRA despite my concurrence on the second amendment. They're too aggressive and too absolute.
 
2012-06-22 02:19:07 PM

RsquaredW: dittybopper: Attorney General Eric Holder was briefed on the operation on July 5th, 2010.

Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed on December 14th, 2010.

Try again.

Did you read your document? It basically says "we're tracking guns related to the Sinoloa cartel." Nothing about gunwalking, etc. "Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S." this ain't.

Once again, why the investigation into post-February 2011 documents if the question is Holder's oversight over the initiation of this program?


It says "involves a Phoenix-based firearms trafficking ring headed by Manuel Celis-Acosta. Celis-Acosta and [REDACTED] straw purchasers are responsible for the purchase of 1,500 firearms that were then supplied to Mexican drug trafficking cartels".

Right there is a smoking gun. If I were reading that, my first thought would be "OK, how come we didn't arrest them already?"
 
2012-06-22 02:34:08 PM

BeesNuts: amiable: dittybopper:

I said it *LOOKS* like it. After all:


Obvioulsy. You left out the part baout the reverse vampires though. How deep does this rabbit hole go!!!!?!??!?!?!?

All conspiracies are not created equal. You're just giving a blanket excuse to any kind of government malfeasance by treating critical thinking as insanity.


Right, critical thinking, gotcha. So let me follow the logic here:

1. Obama decided to ship two thousand of guns to mexico (which is apparently a drop in the ocean of guns crossing the border into mexico).
2. That he knew would increase violence/be used to kill American's increase gun violence (because he is a wizard), which
3. He will then use this as a bludgeon to force Congress (a Congress that refused to pass gun legislation after one of their own memebrs got shot by a crazy with a gun bought at a gun show) to ban assault weapons.

Yup, that's some mighty fine critical thinking there, Lou. It's clearly a conspiracy!
 
2012-06-22 02:37:14 PM

dittybopper: 1. Obama says he wants to renew the assault weapons ban.
1.1 President Bush's administration/ATF started "gunwalking" as a tactic to combat Mexican drug lords in 2006 (project gunrunner).
2. Both his Secretary of State and his Attorney General make noises about needed a ban to stem the flow of guns into Mexico.
2.1 Nothing is done legisatively when there is little or no support from other law makers.
2.2 Obama quits talking about gun control and does not make it an issue even when there are highly public shooting rampages and other gun related violence.
2.3 Obama signs at least two pieces of legislation giving gun owners expanded rights.
3. Operation Fast and Furious is then conceived and put into action.
3.1 Operation Fast and Furious was an expansion of the previous administration's ideas under "Project Gunrunner"
3.2 No arrests for were made under the Bush administration under the gunwalking sting operation were at least 450 guns were sold illegally between 2006 and 2008/9.
3.3 The Obama justice department makes at least 9 indictments involving targets of gunwalking operations (2010).
3.4 The gunwalking operation was expanded to about 2000 guns with fast and furious.

4. Veteran ATF agents question the tactics involved in the operation, but are slapped down by a gung-ho supervisor. (This actually happened before Obama took office as well)
5. A border patrol agent is killed with one of the 2,000+ guns sent to Mexico under this program.
6. An ATF agent blows the whistle on the operation, but outside of the "gun nuts" on the web, it's largely ignored.
7. Obama tells Sarah Brady, head of the "Brady Campaign to Prevent Violence", that he's working on gun control "under the radar".
8. Scandal starts getting traction in mainstream media.


missed a few things.

Don't create a complicated theory, even the best of us have bad ideas or do stupid things sometimes.

Again, if you are going to have conspiracy that involved getting guns to Mexican drug lords and tracing the weapons, then hoping the Mexican drug lords would create as much mayhem as possible with said weapons. You then can't say, "the conspiracy would have worked except that law enforcement were able to trace the weapons." duh! What you are saying is that the conspiracy theory involving tracing weapons depended on no one ever tracing the weapons to them... faulty logic.

Remember these were common law enforcement agents, not spys or people who would be expected to keep a secret like this.
 
2012-06-22 03:05:15 PM

Almet: My favorite part of the F&F situation is how it's gone from "F&F weapons were found among those confiscated after the agent's death" to "F&F guns killed the agent"


GUNS KILL PEOPLE is the best argument ever, especially coming from the Right Wing.

I think I've gained five pounds from the popcorn alone.
 
2012-06-22 03:32:23 PM

amiable: BeesNuts: amiable: dittybopper:

I said it *LOOKS* like it. After all:


Obvioulsy. You left out the part baout the reverse vampires though. How deep does this rabbit hole go!!!!?!??!?!?!?

All conspiracies are not created equal. You're just giving a blanket excuse to any kind of government malfeasance by treating critical thinking as insanity.

Right, critical thinking, gotcha. So let me follow the logic here:

1. Obama decided to ship two thousand of guns to mexico (which is apparently a drop in the ocean of guns crossing the border into mexico).
2. That he knew would increase violence/be used to kill American's increase gun violence (because he is a wizard), which
3. He will then use this as a bludgeon to force Congress (a Congress that refused to pass gun legislation after one of their own memebrs got shot by a crazy with a gun bought at a gun show) to ban assault weapons.

Yup, that's some mighty fine critical thinking there, Lou. It's clearly a conspiracy!


I just try and hesitate before I dismiss anything more complicated than a spilt coffee cup as a conspiracy.

Are you saying that this is on par with con-trail conspiracies and that bit about the moon landing? Cause I had the same issue with how truthers were treated in 2001-2003. Truthers that existed in 2007? Yeah, nuts. But I try not to begrudge or discourage curiosity.

If you look upthread, you'll see me say very clearly that I don't happen to believe that there was some grand thought process. I happen to think that our law enforcement agencies think far too highly of themselves and succumbed to their own hubris.

But I don't see how it's helpful to dismiss and deride anybody who has a positive hypothesis that can be disproven. I don't find ditty's thinking intellectually bunk. It's a little out there. A bit tin-foily, yeah. But we're not talking "blue helmets, code numbers on freeway signs, and flouride will turn us all gay" kinds of crazy. There's... levels of nuts.

This isn't that nuts. Probably malarky. CERTAINLY based on little more than raw conjecture. But it's still grounded in some form of reality. Or at least a reality-based flavor-substitute.
 
2012-06-22 04:11:09 PM

BeesNuts: But I don't see how it's helpful to dismiss and deride anybody who has a positive hypothesis that can be disproven. I don't find ditty's thinking intellectually bunk. It's a little out there. A bit tin-foily, yeah. But we're not talking "blue helmets, code numbers on freeway signs, and flouride will turn us all gay" kinds of crazy. There's... levels of nuts.

This isn't that nuts. Probably malarky. CERTAINLY based on little more than raw conjecture. But it's still grounded in some form of reality. Or at least a reality-based flavor-substitute.


I'm not even saying that it *HAS* to be a conspiracy, as I point out, it could just be a massive case of the stupids.

If you can't see how it could possibly be construed that way by some people, though, do a little gedankenexperiment: Flip the political parties and the issue, say, to a republican administration, and something like abortion, or better yet, WMD's in Iraq, or 9/11.

I actually like to live by the old saw of "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity", but there is a sequence of events here that people are going to connect the dots on, because that is what humans do, look for patterns, and sometimes they find one even when it's just a random grouping of events. Also, while we've made some *GREAT* strides on gun rights in the last decade or so (turning point seems to have been 9/11), those of us who lived through the dark times of the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's remember that it wasn't always so, and that we were lied to by the government, and in general treated like potential criminals when we were no such thing. So perhaps you can forgive us if some look at events like this with a jaundiced eye: Sure, there may be a bit of paranoia there, but it's learned paranoia, it didn't just spring from nothing.

Again, I'm about 50/50 on this one. Could have been a botched attempt to shut down gun trafficking to Mexico, or it could have been a botched attempt to whip up public support for a renewed AWB. Hell, maybe it was *BOTH*.
 
2012-06-22 04:12:53 PM

dittybopper: Again, I'm about 50/50 on this one. Could have been a botched attempt to shut down gun trafficking to Mexico, or it could have been a botched attempt to whip up public support for a renewed AWB. Hell, maybe it was *BOTH*.


It *WAS* used as justification for the infamous "Demand Letter 3", so it's not like it's completely out of the question.
 
Displayed 275 of 275 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report