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
 
2012-06-26 06:15:40 PM
If the documents do not compromise National Security, he ought to give them over. I don't see what the big deal is.
 
2012-06-26 06:23:46 PM
Yes, they're called Blue Dogs. If you didn't expect chicken-ass Democrats to go along with this charade, you're a moron.
 
2012-06-26 06:34:22 PM
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.
 
2012-06-26 06:42:20 PM

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.
 
2012-06-26 07:22:26 PM

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 not as bad as the administration sycophants going on TV and taking to the editorial pages to lie about F&F and try to conflate it with Operation Wide Receiver.

I know some may find it hard to believe, but the Obama administration is capable of scandal, and it's just as wrong for Obama to claim executive privilege to withhold information from Congress as it was for Bush to do the same.

/in 2007 it was "b-b-b-but" Clinton"
//in 2012 it's "b-b-b-but Bush"
 
2012-06-26 07:34:42 PM
Okay, I've said it before and I'll say it again: Contempt of Congress against a sitting AG is essentially toothless.

Even if Contempt of Congress passes, the only real next step that Congress can do is to go to Eric Holder and ask him nicely to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate himself for wrong doing. Usually what happens is that the AG appoints a special prosecutor who piddles around for a few years and then, 2 or 3 years after the request, make an announcement that no wrong-doing was found.
 
2012-06-26 07:52:20 PM
Can I get in on that? I hold Congress in contempt on a daily basis.
 
2012-06-26 07:53:27 PM
Okay, I've said it before and I'll say it again:F*CK THE NRA
 
2012-06-26 07:56:34 PM
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.
 
2012-06-26 07:56:55 PM
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.
 
2012-06-26 07:58:44 PM
Never badder than bad
'cause the brother is madder than mad
At the fact that's corrupt like a senator

/first thing that came in my head.
 
2012-06-26 08:13:08 PM
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.

When are they going to focus on creating jobs?
 
2012-06-26 08:14:16 PM

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.

When are they going to focus on creating jobs?


Thank you.
 
2012-06-26 08:20:04 PM

GAT_00: Yes, they're called Blue Dogs. If you didn't expect chicken-ass Democrats to go along with this charade, you're a moron.

 
2012-06-26 08:25:23 PM
The NRA? What does Grover Norquist have to do with this?
 
2012-06-26 08:30:39 PM
I wonder if my representative is involved with this.
He's a blue dog, so it wouldn't surprise me.
 
2012-06-26 09:21:34 PM

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


The documents are basically interoffice memos where people in the administration talk informally about issues and how the administration should respond to them. They've been claimed as covered by executive privilege by most modern administrations because if the administration officials believe that everything they write to each other can be asked for in any given witchhunt of the session, they won't be candid with each other.

None of it has to do with the deliberations or execution of the program by the justice department. Those documents have already been disclosed long, long ago.

/still amused that Issa voted to fund the program and now thinks it was somehow improper
//if you're really interested in what they say, they'll be available in the Obama Presidential Library sometime in the future
 
2012-06-26 09:23:33 PM

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.

When are they going to focus on creating jobs?


That would be the Bush 43 Justice Department and at the very least Rep Issa who voted to fund it. The program was already well underway by the time the Obama Administration started.
 
2012-06-26 09:31:32 PM

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

The documents are basically interoffice memos where people in the administration talk informally about issues and how the administration should respond to them. They've been claimed as covered by executive privilege by most modern administrations because if the administration officials believe that everything they write to each other can be asked for in any given witchhunt of the session, they won't be candid with each other.

None of it has to do with the deliberations or execution of the program by the justice department. Those documents have already been disclosed long, long ago.

/still amused that Issa voted to fund the program and now thinks it was somehow improper
//if you're really interested in what they say, they'll be available in the Obama Presidential Library sometime in the futurevery soon

 
2012-06-26 09:34:28 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: 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.

When are they going to focus on creating jobs?

That would be the Bush 43 Justice Department and at the very least Rep Issa who voted to fund it. The program was already well underway by the time the Obama Administration started.


And the lies keep coming. In Operation Wide Receiver, Mexican law enforcement as well as American ATF in Mexico were aware of the program and were going to track the guns once they crossed the border, and intervene before the guns were used in crimes. The Mexican government is incompetent and corrupt, and they lost track of the weapons. The program was shut down because of this. In F&F, Mexican law enforcement and American ATF agents in Mexico were not appraised of the situation. The goal was to track the guns of course, but the only method available to track the guns after they were deliberately allowed to walk across the border and disappear was to run the serial numbers of guns that happened to be left at crime scenes.

Losing track of the guns in Wide Receiver was an accident, and the program was shut down because of this. In Fast and Furious, they lost track of the weapons by design, as the only way to track the guns was to put a pin on the map where they turn up, and the program was allowed to continue even after they began turning up at hundreds of crime scenes.
 
2012-06-26 09:41:04 PM
The NRA should be shot.


// See what I did there?

Die in a fire you unpatriotic scumbags.
 
2012-06-26 09:46:04 PM

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


If they do compromise the safety of Americans, Holder has to make that decision.
 
2012-06-26 09:46:57 PM

Generation_D: The NRA should be shot.


// See what I did there?

Die in a fire you unpatriotic scumbags.


Replace "NRA" with "ACLU" and you sound exactly like a Bush-bot circa 2006.
 
2012-06-26 09:48:21 PM

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.

When are they going to focus on creating jobs?


This summarizes my opinion. The GOP is hoping if they keep scratching at this fark-up it will somehow become infected and be the conspiracy they need because they are failing politically in every other way.
 
2012-06-26 09:54:53 PM

Fark It: Generation_D: The NRA should be shot.


// See what I did there?

Die in a fire you unpatriotic scumbags.

Replace "NRA" with "ACLU" and you sound exactly like a Bush-bot circa 2006.


Yes, because while the ACLU actually protests freedoms, the NRA only acts as the professional Republican owned organization it is. Hating one is roughly the same as hating the other.
 
2012-06-26 09:56:13 PM
Hmm. That should be protects. See what you made me do?
 
2012-06-26 09:58:51 PM

GAT_00: Fark It: Generation_D: The NRA should be shot.


// See what I did there?

Die in a fire you unpatriotic scumbags.

Replace "NRA" with "ACLU" and you sound exactly like a Bush-bot circa 2006.

Yes, because while the ACLU actually protests freedoms, the NRA only acts as the professional Republican owned organization it is. Hating one is roughly the same as hating the other.


So, you're implying the 2nd Amendment isn't a freedom?

Republican owned

Republican-owned NRA endorses 58 House Democrats
 
2012-06-26 10:00:16 PM

GAT_00: Hmm. That should be protects. See what you made me do?


Spelling mistakes are small fry compared to defending someone advocating violence against a civil rights organization.
 
2012-06-26 10:09:24 PM
I think I'm going to stay out of this one unless I get pretty drunk.
 
2012-06-26 10:17:01 PM
New Constitutional Amendment:

If you're old enough to collect Social Security, you can't serve on the Supreme Court. Or any federal court. Once you hit 70 your brain literally starts falling apart.
 
2012-06-26 10:17:46 PM

Fark It: New Constitutional Amendment:

If you're old enough to collect Social Security, you can't serve on the Supreme Court. Or any federal court. Once you hit 70 your brain literally starts falling apart.


But, this isn't the Scalia thread, you retard.
 
2012-06-26 10:21:50 PM

Fark It: New Constitutional Amendment:

If you're old enough to collect Social Security, you can't serve on the Supreme Court. Or any federal court. Once you hit 70 your brain literally starts falling apart.


I had relatives in their 90's who were sharper than most people in their 30's.
 
2012-06-26 10:28:25 PM

Fark It: GAT_00: Fark It: Generation_D: The NRA should be shot.


// See what I did there?

Die in a fire you unpatriotic scumbags.

Replace "NRA" with "ACLU" and you sound exactly like a Bush-bot circa 2006.

Yes, because while the ACLU actually protests freedoms, the NRA only acts as the professional Republican owned organization it is. Hating one is roughly the same as hating the other.

So, you're implying the 2nd Amendment isn't a freedom?

Republican owned

Republican-owned NRA endorses 58 House Democrats


See my second post and shut up.
 
2012-06-26 10:34:10 PM

GAT_00: Fark It: GAT_00: Fark It: Generation_D: The NRA should be shot.


// See what I did there?

Die in a fire you unpatriotic scumbags.

Replace "NRA" with "ACLU" and you sound exactly like a Bush-bot circa 2006.

Yes, because while the ACLU actually protests freedoms, the NRA only acts as the professional Republican owned organization it is. Hating one is roughly the same as hating the other.

So, you're implying the 2nd Amendment isn't a freedom?

Republican owned

Republican-owned NRA endorses 58 House Democrats

See my second post and shut up.


Your second post would be relevant if the NRA had actually endorsed anyone yet and if this thread was about NRA endorsements. The NRA should endorse neither, as both are in favor of AWBs, either in theory or in practice.

And I was responding to your claim that the NRA is "Republican owned," which you didn't make in your second post. It's also false, btw, but anti-gunners aren't known for their truthfulness.
 
2012-06-26 10:44:59 PM

Fark It: either in theory


Ah yes, the 'Obama hasn't grabbed our guns yet so that means he MUST be going to do so next term' argument. Very persuasive. It's like religion - the lack of evidence is evidence of proof. And don't even pretend to be so naive as to not know who the NRA is going to endorse, that's the dumbest line I've ever seen.
 
2012-06-26 10:51:44 PM

GAT_00: Fark It: either in theory

Ah yes, the 'Obama hasn't grabbed our guns yet so that means he MUST be going to do so next term' argument. Very persuasive. It's like religion - the lack of evidence is evidence of proof. And don't even pretend to be so naive as to not know who the NRA is going to endorse, that's the dumbest line I've ever seen.


On what planet are you from where you think the NRA should endorse Obama, and that Obama's support of a renewed AWB (as recently as 2009, when the idea was last floated by his administration) is not relevant and somehow a conspiracy?

Obama hasn't grabbed our guns yet so that means he MUST be going to do so next term

Those are your words, by the way. Usually when you get caught lying in two separate posts it's time to turn tail and leave, not continue on the attack.
 
2012-06-26 10:55:59 PM

GAT_00: Fark It: either in theory

Ah yes, the 'Obama hasn't grabbed our guns yet so that means he MUST be going to do so next term' argument. Very persuasive. It's like religion - the lack of evidence is evidence of proof.



"Well, as President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons. I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum."

"There are obviously a number of things that are -- that have been taking up a substantial amount of [Obama's] time, and so, I'm not sure exactly what the sequencing will be,"


Pardon me if I don't exactly trust democrats with gun rights. But some are cool, those "chicken-ass" bluedogs aren't so chickenshiat that they are afraid of scary looking guns.
 
wee [TotalFark]
2012-06-26 11:05:53 PM
So everyone's opinion on the matter is exactly the same as it was last week?
 
2012-06-26 11:52:50 PM

wee: So everyone's opinion on the matter is exactly the same as it was last week?


Pretty much, as there's smoke but no fire. Think about it: these days, a President always has a scandal which haunts his second term: Nixon had Watergate, Reagan Iran-Contra, Clinton Monica, etc. If this is the WORST thing they've got to pin on Obama, it's going to be smooth sailing and clear skies ahead.
 
2012-06-26 11:56:17 PM

Lionel Mandrake: F*CK THE NRA


Yeah, that.
 
2012-06-26 11:58:59 PM

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.


It seems to me that we need to run guns to the non-criminal Mexicans in Mexico so that they can defend themselves against Obama's guns which were intended only for Mexican criminals. The NRA doesn't have the same "only arm the criminals" view of guns that the Obamacrats have.
 
2012-06-27 12:02:43 AM
FTA:An NRA letter to House members contended that the Obama administration "actively sought information" from Operation Fast and Furious to support its program to require dealers to report multiple rifle sales.

So how does this support that anyone did anything illegal, or there is a cover up? Oh not at all. They are just saying "We don't like what they did so we want someone to go to jail for it". Nice job assholes!
 
2012-06-27 12:02:52 AM
Tick-Tock: Some Democrats will follow the NRA's request, support Contempt of Congress charges against AG Holder legitimize conspiracy theories of conservative lobbying groups

Keep pretending that the (D) party is left-wing.
 
2012-06-27 12:04:55 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.


If the documents are not documents that even existed while F&F was going on why do they need them again?

Ok so does Romney need to hand over all his documents that by law he had to hand over while governor of Massachusetts (which he deleted)? Or is that magically different?
 
2012-06-27 12:05:02 AM

GAT_00: 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.



1) Why would the NRA back Obama? He's given his positions regarding handguns and so-called "assault weapons", and they're not Second Amendment friendly.

2) That expansion of gun rights you mentioned was to allow concealed carry in national parks, but that law was attached to the credit card reform bill. Do you honestly think Obama would have signed it into law if the gun law was the only part of that bill?
 
2012-06-27 12:06:09 AM
So the NRA is saying "Nothing illegal happened but because he has a position we do not like, we want him to go to jail!"

And people support this?
 
2012-06-27 12:06:23 AM

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".
 
2012-06-27 12:07:44 AM

The_Sponge: GAT_00: 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.


1) Why would the NRA back Obama? He's given his positions regarding handguns and so-called "assault weapons", and they're not Second Amendment friendly.

2) That expansion of gun rights you mentioned was to allow concealed carry in national parks, but that law was attached to the credit card reform bill. Do you honestly think Obama would have signed it into law if the gun law was the only part of that bill?


SO HOLDER SHOULD GO TO JAIL JUST BECAUSE OBAMA'S POSITIONS ARE NOT WHAT THE NRA WANTS?

You are saying it's ok to put people in jail ONLY because they have political belief not the same?
 
2012-06-27 12:09:04 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.


Yes, same as they told Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito how to vote when they gutted the 2nd Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller and made up some mythical "right" of people to have handguns without being part of a well-regulated militia.
 
2012-06-27 12:09:30 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".


Yes, round them up and put them in JAIL!!! right!? According to you people who disagree with the NRA should be thrown in jail!!

ANd you think you believe in liberty? Putting people in jail because they disagree with you is some how justifiable?

You're up there with most totalitarian regimes.
 
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