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.

(Yahoo)   Tick-Tock: Some Democrats will follow the NRA's request, support Contempt of Congress charges against AG Holder   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 260
    More: Interesting, contempt of Congress, NRA, Democrats, House Oversight, executive privilege, contempt, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, border states  
•       •       •

1912 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Jun 2012 at 11:38 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-27 02:28:02 AM

Fark It: You seem to have the NRA confused with the National Shooting Sports Foundation. This confusion has already been addressed in this thread.

How does the NRA profit from gun sales, being a non-profit and all?


Because Michael Moore told me that the NRA was bad. I saw it on Bowling for Columbine. Is that not enough proof for you?
 
2012-06-27 02:32:49 AM

Fark It: BuckTurgidson: Fark It: coeyagi: NRA's just jealous because they weren't profiting directly from the sale.

How does the NRA profit from gun sales?

Are you f*cking kidding?

The NRA is a user group. It's not an industry group. They're also a not-for-profit. It's grassroots (unlike, say, the Brady Campaign), which means most of its funding comes from small, individual donations.

How does the NRA profit from gun sales?


Wow, I've never seem someone call the NRA "grassroots". Yes, that little ol', Ma & Pa, "most influential lobbying group", the NRA.
 
2012-06-27 02:36:39 AM

Fark It: How does the NRA profit from gun sales, being a non-profit and all?


By vending its political influence to whomever (*cough*GOP*cough*) might wish to leverage the NRA'a easily-manipulated 60%-paranoid-retard membership to influence public elections in utterly non-gun-related issues, maybe?
 
2012-06-27 02:38:56 AM

BuckTurgidson: Fark It: How does the NRA profit from gun sales, being a non-profit and all?

....word salad.....


How does the NRA profit from gun sales, being a non-profit and all? Like, how does the money from a gun sale go into the NRA's ledger?
 
2012-06-27 02:42:59 AM

Fark It: BuckTurgidson: Fark It: How does the NRA profit from gun sales, being a non-profit and all?

....word salad.....

How does the NRA profit from gun sales, being a non-profit and all? Like, how does the money from a gun sale go into the NRA's ledger?


How do you profit from posting diversionary patently disingenuous questions on Fark.com?
If you don't profit from doing so, you certainly must never have done so.
 
2012-06-27 02:43:03 AM

vrax: Fark It: BuckTurgidson: Fark It: coeyagi: NRA's just jealous because they weren't profiting directly from the sale.

How does the NRA profit from gun sales?

Are you f*cking kidding?

The NRA is a user group. It's not an industry group. They're also a not-for-profit. It's grassroots (unlike, say, the Brady Campaign), which means most of its funding comes from small, individual donations.

How does the NRA profit from gun sales?

Wow, I've never seem someone call the NRA "grassroots". Yes, that little ol', Ma & Pa, "most influential lobbying group", the NRA.


They're the definition of grassroots. "Grassroots" is not synonymous with "ineffectual," by the way.
 
2012-06-27 02:44:55 AM

Fark It: They're the definition of grassroots.


Know how we know you're trolling?
 
2012-06-27 02:46:59 AM

BuckTurgidson: Fark It: BuckTurgidson: Fark It: How does the NRA profit from gun sales, being a non-profit and all?

....word salad.....

How does the NRA profit from gun sales, being a non-profit and all? Like, how does the money from a gun sale go into the NRA's ledger?

How do you profit from posting diversionary patently disingenuous questions on Fark.com?
If you don't profit from doing so, you certainly must never have done so.


coeyagi claimed that the NRA was upset with F&F because they didn't profit directly from the gun sales. I was confused as to how the NRA profits from gun sales, being a non-profit. Maybe one of you enlightened folks can help me wrap my feeble, gun-loving mind around it.

or admit you're full of shiat
 
2012-06-27 02:49:33 AM

BuckTurgidson: Fark It: They're the definition of grassroots.

Know how we know you're trolling?


A grassroots organization is one that has a groundswell of support from a wide range of individuals, and is funded primarily through many small, individual donations. How is an organization with 4 million dues-paying members not grassroots?
 
2012-06-27 02:51:19 AM

Fark It: BuckTurgidson: Fark It: BuckTurgidson: Fark It: How does the NRA profit from gun sales, being a non-profit and all?

....word salad.....

How does the NRA profit from gun sales, being a non-profit and all? Like, how does the money from a gun sale go into the NRA's ledger?

How do you profit from posting diversionary patently disingenuous questions on Fark.com?
If you don't profit from doing so, you certainly must never have done so.

coeyagi claimed that the NRA was upset with F&F because they didn't profit directly from the gun sales. I was confused as to how the NRA profits from gun sales, being a non-profit. Maybe one of you enlightened folks can help me wrap my feeble, gun-loving mind around it.

or admit you're full of shiat


Isn't it obvious? Any organization that supports gun rights must be making buckets of money from all the misery guns cause to elderly widows and orphan children. After all, no one could actually like guns for any reason other than to shoot cute fluffy animals, leaving them to gasp out their dying breath as the shooter fondles his firearm and masterbates furiously.

You're never going to get an answer out of him. So why keep trying?
 
2012-06-27 02:51:45 AM

Fark It: BuckTurgidson: Fark It: How does the NRA profit from gun sales, being a non-profit and all?

....word salad.....

How does the NRA profit from gun sales, being a non-profit and all? Like, how does the money from a gun sale go into the NRA's ledger?


Fark you, it's magic!
 
2012-06-27 02:54:48 AM

vrax: Fark It: BuckTurgidson: Fark It: How does the NRA profit from gun sales, being a non-profit and all?

....word salad.....

How does the NRA profit from gun sales, being a non-profit and all? Like, how does the money from a gun sale go into the NRA's ledger?

Fark you, it's magic!


So, you've got nothing then?
 
2012-06-27 02:58:19 AM

Fark It: vrax: Fark It: BuckTurgidson: Fark It: How does the NRA profit from gun sales, being a non-profit and all?

....word salad.....

How does the NRA profit from gun sales, being a non-profit and all? Like, how does the money from a gun sale go into the NRA's ledger?

Fark you, it's magic!

So, you've got nothing then?


I guess you've never seen that one.

Anyway, yes, they profit off of each gun sold in the same way the UAW profits off of each car sold.
 
2012-06-27 03:00:20 AM

Fark It: BuckTurgidson: Fark It: BuckTurgidson: Fark It: How does the NRA profit from gun sales, being a non-profit and all?

....word salad.....

How does the NRA profit from gun sales, being a non-profit and all? Like, how does the money from a gun sale go into the NRA's ledger?

How do you profit from posting diversionary patently disingenuous questions on Fark.com?
If you don't profit from doing so, you certainly must never have done so.

coeyagi claimed that the NRA was upset with F&F because they didn't profit directly from the gun sales. I was confused as to how the NRA profits from gun sales, being a non-profit. Maybe one of you enlightened folks can help me wrap my feeble, gun-loving mind around it.

or admit you're full of shiat


MAXIMUM DISINGENUOUSNESS THRESHOLD BROACHED, EVACUATE IMMEDIATELY
TWELVE SECONDS TO ANNIHILATION

/Oh, and there's a spider on your face.
 
2012-06-27 03:22:43 AM

diaphoresis: If the documents do not compromise National Security, he ought to give them over. I don't see what the big deal is.


This is a really stupid Boobies. Be proud.
 
2012-06-27 03:31:04 AM

Fark It: coeyagi: NRA's just jealous because they weren't profiting directly from the sale.

How does the NRA profit from gun sales?


Is this a farking serious post? No, really, how farking stupid do you have to be to ask this question?
 
2012-06-27 04:04:06 AM

Sabyen91: Fark It: coeyagi: NRA's just jealous because they weren't profiting directly from the sale.

How does the NRA profit from gun sales?

Is this a farking serious post? No, really, how farking stupid do you have to be to ask this question?


If it was serious the NRA is an arm of gun manufacturers. How do gun manufacturers profit from gun sales? See why I called you farking stupid?
 
2012-06-27 04:48:35 AM

Fark It: BuckTurgidson: Fark It: coeyagi: NRA's just jealous because they weren't profiting directly from the sale.

How does the NRA profit from gun sales?

Are you f*cking kidding?

The NRA is a user group. It's not an industry group. They're also a not-for-profit. It's grassroots (unlike, say, the Brady Campaign), which means most of its funding comes from small, individual donations.

How does the NRA profit from gun sales?


Hahahhahaha, oh wow!
 
2012-06-27 04:52:09 AM
I usually like you, Fark It, but you've lost your mind in this thread.
 
2012-06-27 06:50:33 AM
The part which most annoys me is that if I were to open my safe and let a Mexican gang walk with a dozen weapons, the ATF wouldn't spend years debating whether I should go to jail or not.

The agents behind this "program" violated department policy, US law, and the rules of common sense. You would think that the AG would let them fall on their swords and be done with it (The NRA gets its arrests, the administration covers its ass, everyone's happy).
That its even a fight makes this turn of events seem all the more malicious than it probably is.
 
2012-06-27 07:07:39 AM

AdolfOliverPanties: The documents they are claiming privilege on are documents that are OUTSIDE the scope of the F&F investigation. They are internal documents that existed AFTER the investigation was ended. Or after the program ended or whatever. Privilege applies. Privilege sucks, but it applies.

It doesn't really matter. We are all at the mercy of these bought and paid for mercenaries that are supposed to be working FOR US anyway. There is so much farking money in the political system now that our democracy is virtually dead.

The amount of coin that will be spent this season on the POTUS election will be unprecedented and very disgusting.

Every one of these reps in congress are bought and paid for by someone.

We have only to decide which party actually gives a shiat about America and has ANY good ideas for fixing the problems and which one is ONLY interested in power and money accumulation for the few.

It is truly a decision between a douche and a shiat sandwich, on a party level. The Democrats are the douche, for while it is a douche, it at least CAN serve some useful purpose. The GOP is a shiat sandwich, helpful to none but vermin.

And in some cases, the distinction is so dim as to barely be visible, as is the case with Blue Dogs and RINOs.

They are all scum and we are farked.


...and you're part of the problem.

/PICK. ANOTHER. NAME.
 
2012-06-27 07:10:47 AM

GAT_00: kmmontandon: So ... the NRA is just openly telling it's bought and sold members of Congress how to vote?

That sounds more contemptible than anything Holder's done.

It's the farking NRA. They don't give a shiat about anything other than being a Republican talking point machine. If the NRA actually cared about gun rights they'd be backing Obama since IIRC Romney signed laws as MA Governor limiting gun rights, while Obama has only signed into law bills expanding gun rights. The NRA is backing the only Presidential candidate who actually is a gun grabber. helping sell guns and ammo

 
2012-06-27 07:11:42 AM
The NRA: Advocating against responsible gun sales until the president is a democrat.
 
2012-06-27 07:14:03 AM

OgreMagi: What astounds me is people like you are so busy sucking Obama's nut-sack that you are willing to pretend nothing is wrong.


And there it is. No political argument is complete without reference to sucking Obama's dick.

Just come out of the closet and accept who you really are.
 
2012-06-27 07:16:19 AM
Will they also start brushing their teeth with a bottle of Jack?

/sadly, not obscure enough
 
2012-06-27 07:16:55 AM
I can't stand Issa, the NRA, or the Republicans, but the gun running operation was a major clusterfark, and if Holder misled or stonewalled the committee, then he should be held in contempt.

I hate corruption and ineptitude more than I hate the Republicans.
 
2012-06-27 07:28:50 AM

Fark It: A grassroots organization is one that has a groundswell of support from a wide range of individuals, and is funded primarily through many small, individual donations. How is an organization with 4 million dues-paying members not grassroots?


So you've seen the NRA's books and know its all funded through donations and not through corporate cash?
 
2012-06-27 07:30:28 AM

Fark It: BuckTurgidson: Fark It: BuckTurgidson: Fark It: How does the NRA profit from gun sales, being a non-profit and all?

....word salad.....

How does the NRA profit from gun sales, being a non-profit and all? Like, how does the money from a gun sale go into the NRA's ledger?

How do you profit from posting diversionary patently disingenuous questions on Fark.com?
If you don't profit from doing so, you certainly must never have done so.

coeyagi claimed that the NRA was upset with F&F because they didn't profit directly from the gun sales. I was confused as to how the NRA profits from gun sales, being a non-profit. Maybe one of you enlightened folks can help me wrap my feeble, gun-loving mind around it.

or admit you're full of shiat


If they weren't paying for noted hunters like Grover Norquist to be on the board, they might have made a profit.

Or all that money on congressional races.

/wait, non-profit? Why do you hate capitalism?
 
2012-06-27 07:35:45 AM
People are entitled to their opinions, but, as a regular gun owner with no commercial interest in guns, and no vigilante fantasies I need to indulge, I've never seen the NRA as being even remotely in my corner, beyond all the "tiger-preventing-rock" boasting they engage in.
Don't do shiat for me.
 
2012-06-27 07:38:33 AM
Ah. Case is so weak they need to purchase votes.
 
2012-06-27 07:38:35 AM

NewportBarGuy: All I really care about is who authorized the program and is it stopped? If it's stopped, great. Then find the people who authorized it and fire them or early retire them. End of story.

It was a f*cked up sting and there needs to be someone who pays for the lack of oversight and judgement. That's about it.


There si also the problem of the ATF telling Congress they were not gunwalking, while they were. That is a big deal to me.

There is also the issue of the one ATF whistleblower being fired. Also a big deal.

Those should be huge for anyone who believes in transparency in govt.
 
2012-06-27 07:41:18 AM

kmmontandon: So ... the NRA is just openly telling it's bought and sold members of Congress how to vote?

That sounds more contemptible than anything Holder's done.


That's how the game is played, isn't it? The Union's tell their dues extorted members to vote the way they are told and the NRA tells it's voluntary dues paying members how their Congress Critters voted and lets them decide for themselves how to vote. It's funny how gun grabbers hate the idea of an informed voter.
 
2012-06-27 07:50:44 AM

ex-nuke: That's how the game is played, isn't it? The Union's tell their dues extorted members to vote the way they are told and the NRA tells it's voluntary dues paying members how their Congress Critters voted and lets them decide for themselves how to vote. It's funny how gun grabbers hate the idea of an informed voter.


Tribalism and the Resentment Culture at work. I hope y'all Farkers are taking notes.
 
2012-06-27 07:51:29 AM
Has anyone mentioned Bush or black yet?
 
2012-06-27 07:54:22 AM
Just look at all those jobs the GOP controlled House has created...

If they get a Special Prosecutor, that would bring their grand total of jobs created to... One.

Outstanding work, Gentlemen. Outstanding. Truly, the "adults are in charge again".
 
2012-06-27 07:57:06 AM
I think this is the end for Obama. You guys are right, go all in on the conspiracy theory. It's totally credible.
 
2012-06-27 08:01:22 AM
liam76

NewportBarGuy: All I really care about is who authorized the program and is it stopped? If it's stopped, great. Then find the people who authorized it and fire them or early retire them. End of story.

It was a f*cked up sting and there needs to be someone who pays for the lack of oversight and judgement. That's about it.

There si also the problem of the ATF telling Congress they were not gunwalking, while they were. That is a big deal to me.

There is also the issue of the one ATF whistleblower being fired. Also a big deal.

Those should be huge for anyone who believes in transparency in govt.


Nope - a lot of people only care when it happens to the other side....then it's an outrage. Now, the outrage is coming after Holder in the first place. How rude! The audacity! Switch Holder for Ashcroft and see how the tables would turn.
 
2012-06-27 08:03:56 AM

cabbyman: Has anyone mentioned Bush


CTRL-F 'Wide Receiver'

13 hits. So yes, Bush has been mentioned.
 
2012-06-27 08:04:08 AM

Say, GAT...it's a little late too late for you in this thread but here's some advice that you might be able to us later in life:


i1123.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-27 08:17:01 AM
"All that first term, lip service to gun owners is just part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment during his second term," he said.

"We see the president's strategy crystal clear: Get re-elected and, with no more elections to worry about, get busy dismantling and destroying our firearms' freedom, erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights and excise it from the U.S. Constitution."
 
2012-06-27 08:18:02 AM

apoptotic: I really can't wrap my head around this (the document demand that's being contested), and I'm usually pretty good with stuff like this. To me it seems analogous to a criminal trial in which the prosecution can't find what they're looking for in the evidence, so they try to get access to all the notes made by the defense attorney/investigator during trial preparation.


This isn't a prosecution.

The fact is somebody at ATF or the DOJ greenlighted F&F. Someone at the ATF or or the DOJ decided to keep going after they knew that hundreds of their guns were turinging up at crime scense and they weren't getting closer to cartels. Someone at the ATF or or the DOJ then lied to congress about it (said they weren't gunwalking). Ten months later they told the truth (after a US agent was killed), and they fired the ATF agent who blew the whistle.

In a govt agency these things don't just magically happen. There is a paper trail of who was on board for each step of that process, and Holder has not provided them with that paper trail. It isn't unreasonable to request it, especially since the only person fired was the whistleblower, and not any of the decision makers.

As fara s the "wioth hunt" aspect, even John Stewart was bashing holder for releasing documents that had 90% of the words blacked out.
 
2012-06-27 08:21:26 AM
liam76

apoptotic: I really can't wrap my head around this (the document demand that's being contested), and I'm usually pretty good with stuff like this. To me it seems analogous to a criminal trial in which the prosecution can't find what they're looking for in the evidence, so they try to get access to all the notes made by the defense attorney/investigator during trial preparation.

This isn't a prosecution.

The fact is somebody at ATF or the DOJ greenlighted F&F. Someone at the ATF or or the DOJ decided to keep going after they knew that hundreds of their guns were turinging up at crime scense and they weren't getting closer to cartels. Someone at the ATF or or the DOJ then lied to congress about it (said they weren't gunwalking). Ten months later they told the truth (after a US agent was killed), and they fired the ATF agent who blew the whistle.

In a govt agency these things don't just magically happen. There is a paper trail of who was on board for each step of that process, and Holder has not provided them with that paper trail. It isn't unreasonable to request it, especially since the only person fired was the whistleblower, and not any of the decision makers.

As fara s the "wioth hunt" aspect, even John Stewart was bashing holder for releasing documents that had 90% of the words blacked out.



Wow - then you know it's serious.
 
2012-06-27 08:26:24 AM

karnal: Wow - then you know it's serious


There are lot of people who are saying it is a partisan issue, when John weighs in on the Republican side that is pretty hard to argue.
 
2012-06-27 08:30:46 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Say, GAT...it's a little late too late for you in this thread but here's some advice that you might be able to us later in life:


Never go full DIA.
 
2012-06-27 08:38:15 AM
liam76


karnal: Wow - then you know it's serious

There are lot of people who are saying it is a partisan issue, when John weighs in on the Republican side that is pretty hard to argue.



Oh - ok, so when Stewart takes a partisan stand against a democrat, the other democrats can follow suit. Interesting.....I didn't know that is how it worked. The more you know and all......
 
2012-06-27 08:46:28 AM

karnal: liam76


karnal: Wow - then you know it's serious

There are lot of people who are saying it is a partisan issue, when John weighs in on the Republican side that is pretty hard to argue.


Oh - ok, so when Stewart takes a partisan stand against a democrat, the other democrats can follow suit. Interesting.....I didn't know that is how it worked. The more you know and all......


Reading comprehension not your strong suite?

The fact that Stewart is weighing in is pretty clear it isn't partisan.

The fact is somebody at ATF or the DOJ greenlighted F&F. Someone at the ATF or or the DOJ decided to keep going after they knew that hundreds of their guns were turinging up at crime scense and they weren't getting closer to cartels. Someone at the ATF or or the DOJ then lied to congress about it (said they weren't gunwalking). Ten months later they told the truth (after a US agent was killed), and they fired the ATF agent who blew the whistle.

In a govt agency these things don't just magically happen. There is a paper trail of who was on board for each step of that process, and Holder has not provided them with that paper trail. It isn't unreasonable to request it, especially since the only person fired was the whistleblower, and not any of the decision makers.


What is partisan about that?
 
2012-06-27 08:49:43 AM
liam76

karnal: liam76


karnal: Wow - then you know it's serious

There are lot of people who are saying it is a partisan issue, when John weighs in on the Republican side that is pretty hard to argue.


Oh - ok, so when Stewart takes a partisan stand against a democrat, the other democrats can follow suit. Interesting.....I didn't know that is how it worked. The more you know and all......

Reading comprehension not your strong suite?

The fact that Stewart is weighing in is pretty clear it isn't partisan.

The fact is somebody at ATF or the DOJ greenlighted F&F. Someone at the ATF or or the DOJ decided to keep going after they knew that hundreds of their guns were turinging up at crime scense and they weren't getting closer to cartels. Someone at the ATF or or the DOJ then lied to congress about it (said they weren't gunwalking). Ten months later they told the truth (after a US agent was killed), and they fired the ATF agent who blew the whistle.

In a govt agency these things don't just magically happen. There is a paper trail of who was on board for each step of that process, and Holder has not provided them with that paper trail. It isn't unreasonable to request it, especially since the only person fired was the whistleblower, and not any of the decision makers.

What is partisan about that?



You are correct - I meant bipartisan. Sorry.
 
2012-06-27 09:01:23 AM

edmo: But we can't just let a bunch of Mexican criminals go around killing other Mexican criminals with American guns. That would be wrong.

/Never thought I'd see the gun nuts so sure that guns need to be better controlled.


That's not the argument. NRA sees F&F as a backdoor to gun confiscation nationwide.
 
2012-06-27 09:11:04 AM

OgreMagi: Corvus: OgreMagi: No, Holder should go to jail for trying to cover up a failed operation that caused the death of at least one of our border agents and countless Mexican nationals.

Was it criminal? NO

Is there any proof of any cover up? NO

The only "proof" that there is a cover up is there is no evidence to that shows Holder was involved in the details of the operation.

You are saying "There is no proof Holder did anything wrong, THAT PROVES THERE IS A COVER UP!!"

That's bullshiat! You know it. They are trying to put someone in jail just because of his political views.

What we know, specific documents demanded by the congressional committee have NOT been handed over. Holder has refused on the grounds of executive privilege - except that there has been no formal claim of executive privilege. Refusing to cooperate with a congressional committee investigating wrong-doings is, by definition, a farking cover up.

And you might want to ask the Mexican government if the actions were criminal. Our Federal agents violated their laws in this operation. Gun-running is a serious crime.

What astounds me is people like you are so busy sucking Obama's nut-sack that you are willing to pretend nothing is wrong. People were killed and you think nothing was wrong. You are a sick piece of shiat.


Hey dumbass. Maybe most of us see this for what it is, nothing but Republican trolling and faux-rage. Go ahead and weep for America, idiot. But please by all means ignore everything your own side has done to get us to where we are now. And everything else you'll keep ignoring as long as (R) is next to it.

Dumbfark.
 
2012-06-27 09:13:36 AM

The_Sponge: TofuTheAlmighty: Lionel Mandrake: F*CK THE NRA

Yeah, that.

I'm sorry, the correct answer is "F*ck the Brady Campaign, Million Mom March, and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, AND the NRA".


Fixed.
 
Displayed 50 of 260 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report