Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(CNN) NewsFlash Apparently, contempt for Congress is a crime. Subby needs to hire a lawyer   (cnn.com ) divider line
    More: NewsFlash, criminal contempt, congresses, Jim McGovern, executive privilege, Ted Poe, contempt, House Minority Leader, oversight  
•       •       •

22596 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Jun 2012 at 5:14 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-06-28 11:00:33 PM  

mrshowrules: skullkrusher:

So good or bad for Romney? I was posting earlier that I think this is a net positive for Romney.


a net nothing for Romney - I guess he benefits more than he loses from a black mark on the administration but meh
 
2012-06-28 11:03:27 PM  
I know someone else said it in another thread, and I can't remember who it is, but I find it HILARIOUS that the conservatives are suddenly demanding that a supplier of firearms be held responsible for the crimes committed with them. Really underscores how their position has moved from anything resembling core values to knee-jerk opposition to anything Obama is aligned with.

/Still sad about the people who were killed. Does not make the irony really worth it.
 
2012-06-28 11:13:54 PM  

itsfullofstars: [i.imgur.com image 400x400]


Black? He's no blacker than the average person from along the Mediterranian coasts.
 
2012-06-28 11:16:22 PM  

poorjon: I know someone else said it in another thread, and I can't remember who it is, but I find it HILARIOUS that the conservatives are suddenly demanding that a supplier of firearms be held responsible for the crimes committed with them. Really underscores how their position has moved from anything resembling core values to knee-jerk opposition to anything Obama is aligned with.

/Still sad about the people who were killed. Does not make the irony really worth it.


Hey dumbass, gun suppliers don't sell to known gang members or felons. Apparently the DOJ does though. Your "irony" is sadly misguided.
 
2012-06-28 11:16:23 PM  

Codenamechaz: So let me see if I have this right:

1. ATF runs a wiretap and monitoring sting on gun runners. Calls it Fast and Furious
2. One agent waits until the boss is gone and then buys up a bunch of guns to "track" them.
3. Said agent then goes on vacation when it comes time to retrieve the guns.
4. Agent gets his ass chewed out when he returns, then turns whistelblower.
5. NBC blows the story open with partial excerpts taking things out of context from leaked emails.
6. Outrage ensues.
7. Justice department doesn't know what the fark until they find the documents. Guy in charge takes responsibility.
8. REpublican Darrel Issa starts a major investigation into the whole thing, calls HOlder in to testify and requests a ton of documents.
9. Holder complies and also has the justice department start its own investigation into what happened.
10. Issa then requests the documents related to the investigation of the investigation.
11. Holder can't because it would out undercover agents and endanger investigations.
12. Issa threatens him with contempt
13. Holder says his hands are tied and can't do it.
13.5 (Sidebar, Issa openly admits he'd hold him in contempt even if the documents were turned over)
14. Administration declares executive privilege over those documents.
15. Outrage ensues.
16. Contempt proceedings and posturing begins
17. Report surfaces detailing that the whole thing is a sham and that Republicans, Issa included, are only pursuing all of this because of a conspiracy theory that Obama was going to use this program to call for gun control.
18. Fortune mag releases their investigation showing that 1 through 5 was completely ignored by the media and Issa's committee
19. Contempt vote goes down with dems following through on threat to walk out

Am I missing anything?


Just the fact that Issa himself said that there isn't any evidence, nor does he believe that the White House or Holder were involved in Fast and Furious.

I hope the Republicans make the hearings for this a big televised event. I would love to see them explain why even though they didn't think Holder knew of FF, had anything to do with it, and they knew that the DOJ couldn't turn over all of the documents from their investigation because it would endanger agents, did they still push for these charges.
 
2012-06-28 11:18:08 PM  

pyrotek85: jso2897: pyrotek85: jso2897: jbuist: Lou Brown: The amusing thing about the entire conservative outrage over Fast and the Furious is that it totally contradicts the premise that, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

No it doesn't. I own "assault weapon" guns and they aren't killing people.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. That's why you don't circumvent our nation's gun control laws with the explicit purpose of arming violent drug cartels. Those people kill people.

We have reached a watershed moment in legal history, ladies and gentlemen. Noted internet legal scholar and GED in law jbuist has declared "sting" operations "teh badz".
Sorry, FBI - no more stings on kiddie porn purveyors.
Sorry, DEA, no more stings on drug dealers.
Sorry, CIA - no more stings on Al Quaeda terrorists.
Sorry, SEC - no more stings on crooked stock traders.
Jbuist has declared all that null and void.
You see, inducing bad people to do bad things so you can catch them is wrong.
So we aren't going to do it any more. So there.

Stings are fine, you just don't purposely lose track of the guns and then try to 'link' them to cartels when they're eventually left behind at a murder scene. They didn't even bother to get permission from or inform Mexico that they were doing this. What if the Mexican government aided gangs in the US in some way and it contributed to the deaths of US civilians? Would you just say that they'd have been killed by the gang members anyways, or would our country be kinda pissed off?

No. I would not defend F&F, and that is not what I am doing. I am simply pointing out that such ops are normal and customary - and sometimes they screw up. That doesn't make it cool to make a partisan issue out of it, and try to violate security rules that YOUR PASRTY made.
This is bullshiat manufactured outrage about business as usual, and it is transparently partisan. Suck that cock if you like the taste - but I don't want any.

Eh that's the thing, this doesn't re ...


I don't know or care what you're nattering about. Apparently you think you are reciting some sort of magical mantra that turns a nakedly political fishing expedition into a legitimate "investigation". Your magic doesn't work. This is a typical, Republican, HUAC style witch hunt.
It won't stick.
You may as well quit flinging it.
 
2012-06-28 11:18:55 PM  

dr_blasto: LaughingRadish: Lou Brown: Frank N Stein: Lou Brown: The amusing thing about the entire conservative outrage over Fast and the Furious is that it totally contradicts the premise that, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

How so? Did those guns become sentiment and start shooting border patrol agents?

What I was trying to get at- why are conservatives outraged that the guns got across the border and were eventually used in the shooting of the agents? The guns didn't have anything to do with the crime. The murderers did.

Did you miss the song and dance Hillary Clinton was doing over the idea that the drug cartels got most of their guns from crooked US gun shops?

Yes, I did. Can you provide a quote? I'd like to see it.


See
http://www.factcheck.org/politics/counting_mexicos_guns.html. Then google for "hillary clinton guns mexico". That should keep you occupied for a while.
 
2012-06-28 11:22:35 PM  

LaughingRadish: itsfullofstars: [i.imgur.com image 400x400]

Black? He's no blacker than the average person from along the Mediterranian coasts.


I don't think you quite understand the concept of race. Are Japanese people white now?

/then again people from the Med. have a good amount of African roots.
 
2012-06-28 11:29:25 PM  

skullkrusher: Biological Ali: skullkrusher: Biological Ali: You do realize that factual propositions are different from value propositions, right? A person could believe that the program was a bad idea (or have no particular opinion on it) while maintaining that some specific accusation or insinuation is false. Or vice versa. The one has no logical relation to the other.

didn't see anyone making such an insinuation or claim - hence my comment about qorkfiend

You haven't seen anyone make that insinuation? Are you being obtuse again or have you really not read the news (or Fark threads for that matter) over the past six months?

jeez dude, in the farking conversation he joined... is there something the matter with you?


What difference is that supposed to make? It surely can't be that surprising that a person might want to address the same disingenuous claim that gets made in every Fark thread (and in the media at large) even if it hasn't specifically been brought up in the comment he was responding to, can it?
 
2012-06-28 11:31:26 PM  

Biological Ali: skullkrusher: Biological Ali: skullkrusher: Biological Ali: You do realize that factual propositions are different from value propositions, right? A person could believe that the program was a bad idea (or have no particular opinion on it) while maintaining that some specific accusation or insinuation is false. Or vice versa. The one has no logical relation to the other.

didn't see anyone making such an insinuation or claim - hence my comment about qorkfiend

You haven't seen anyone make that insinuation? Are you being obtuse again or have you really not read the news (or Fark threads for that matter) over the past six months?

jeez dude, in the farking conversation he joined... is there something the matter with you?

What difference is that supposed to make? It surely can't be that surprising that a person might want to address the same disingenuous claim that gets made in every Fark thread (and in the media at large) even if it hasn't specifically been brought up in the comment he was responding to, can it?


once again, it sounded to me like he was defending this stupid program. Yes, it is tiresome when people trot out arguments that people are not currently making (OMG SOSHULIZM comes to mind).
 
2012-06-28 11:43:59 PM  

Mr. Breeze: poorjon: I know someone else said it in another thread, and I can't remember who it is, but I find it HILARIOUS that the conservatives are suddenly demanding that a supplier of firearms be held responsible for the crimes committed with them. Really underscores how their position has moved from anything resembling core values to knee-jerk opposition to anything Obama is aligned with.

/Still sad about the people who were killed. Does not make the irony really worth it.

Hey dumbass, gun suppliers don't sell to known gang members or felons. Apparently the DOJ does though. Your "irony" is sadly misguided.


Fine, fine. If I join a gang or get convicted of a felony I'll just get my guns in one of the 33 states which don't require background checks to purchase at gun shows. That way you don't have to be uncomfortable and get to win.
 
2012-06-28 11:51:57 PM  
Also, anyone who thinks the Republicans are really worried about exposing agents' identities have forgotten about Valerie Plame.
 
2012-06-29 12:21:58 AM  

Msol: SithLord: I have nothing BUT contempt for this Congress!

Feed Holder to the Sharkticons!

[tfwiki.net image 300x225]


But they've got more congresscritters than we've got photon charges! We can't hold out forever, but we can give them one humongous repair bill.
 
2012-06-29 12:45:47 AM  

Nattering Nabob: The project started under Bush. Holder was a Bush political appointee.


If by "Bush" you mean "Obama", then you're absolutely correct.
 
2012-06-29 12:51:28 AM  

chrylis: Nattering Nabob: The project started under Bush. Holder was a Bush political appointee.

If by "Bush" you mean "Obama", then you're absolutely correct.


Night putting.
 
2012-06-29 12:57:46 AM  
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-06-29 01:25:14 AM  
To cover the incorrect assumption that jdmac's pic states, here's some more info.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal
"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]"
Yes, the exact same thing happened during Bush's term. No shrieks of outrage from the hypocritical right then, however.
 
2012-06-29 01:43:06 AM  

jdmac: [25.media.tumblr.com image 640x577]


The assertion that "Fast and Furious" was intended to create a false argument in support of unreasonable firearm restrictions -- such as a renewed "assault weapons ban" -- is entirely unsubstantiated.
 
2012-06-29 01:50:56 AM  

Dimensio: jdmac: [25.media.tumblr.com image 640x577]

The assertion that "Fast and Furious" was intended to create a false argument in support of unreasonable firearm restrictions -- such as a renewed "assault weapons ban" -- is entirely unsubstantiated.


OK, then you explain why they did this. It is the only reason with any kind of logic behind it. Well, maybe Eric Holder just really likes Mexican drug cartels and wants them to have really good weapons. Or maybe he just likes seeing Mexicans and border agents get shot. Is that better?
 
2012-06-29 02:06:10 AM  

jdmac: Dimensio: jdmac: [25.media.tumblr.com image 640x577]

The assertion that "Fast and Furious" was intended to create a false argument in support of unreasonable firearm restrictions -- such as a renewed "assault weapons ban" -- is entirely unsubstantiated.

OK, then you explain why they did this. It is the only reason with any kind of logic behind it. Well, maybe Eric Holder just really likes Mexican drug cartels and wants them to have really good weapons. Or maybe he just likes seeing Mexicans and border agents get shot. Is that better?


Or he's trying to do the same things Bush did, but is so absurdly incompetent that he screws it up completely (and considering how low Bush's IQ is supposed to be, that's really sad).

Obama's nation-building in Afghanistan, Egypt, and Libya, as well as his bailout program and green initiatives, contribute mounting evidence to this conclusion. About the only thing he's really done right is start treating Pakistan as the backstabbing liars they are, and sent Osama bin Laden to a watery grave in the process.
 
2012-06-29 02:23:45 AM  

MurphyMurphy: Also, this shiat needs to come to a head.

A trial, where Holder sits there and repeats the words "I do not recall" over and over and over.

[talkingpointsmemo.com image 320x240]

I'd almost care about their investigation except it smells like election year bs. Issa? Yeah, I don't believe for a second anything that man does is for the better of anyone but himself.

That and this country is on the fast track to hell anyways. We'll biatch up a storm about the 1 thing done wrong we know about to distract ourselves from the 1000 things they are doing wrong we don't want to know about. Mexicans got guns? Yeah... ever notice every third world country dictator has stockpiles of US Surplus? Nothing new. At least this was done in the interest of nailing some bad guys to the wall.


For the umpteenth time. This investigation has been going on for *over* a year. But "Mid-election cycle" doesn't have quite the same ring to it I suppose.

Had Holder complied with the subpoena we wouldn't even be doing this right now.

/and yes, that does include internal communications about f&f.
 
2012-06-29 02:30:03 AM  

Mr. Breeze: poorjon: I know someone else said it in another thread, and I can't remember who it is, but I find it HILARIOUS that the conservatives are suddenly demanding that a supplier of firearms be held responsible for the crimes committed with them. Really underscores how their position has moved from anything resembling core values to knee-jerk opposition to anything Obama is aligned with.

/Still sad about the people who were killed. Does not make the irony really worth it.

Hey dumbass, gun suppliers don't sell to known gang members or felons. Apparently the DOJ does though. Your "irony" is sadly misguided.


Hey, person I can't name call or I'll get in trouble again, it's a standard mantra of the NRA that lawful gun suppliers not be charged for any crimes that happen to be committed with their product. They've been against holding your local gun dealer all the way up to Smith&Wesson responsible for handing out weapons of singular destruction since before I was born. It's always been "guns don't kill people, people kill people" with them.

So the irony is that suddenly they're demanding that the suppliers (the DoJ) be held responsible for the deaths of people killed with the weapons they supplied. If that can be the case, why can't John Gunshop be held responsible for the exact same thing?
 
2012-06-29 02:35:47 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Mr. Breeze: poorjon: I know someone else said it in another thread, and I can't remember who it is, but I find it HILARIOUS that the conservatives are suddenly demanding that a supplier of firearms be held responsible for the crimes committed with them. Really underscores how their position has moved from anything resembling core values to knee-jerk opposition to anything Obama is aligned with.

/Still sad about the people who were killed. Does not make the irony really worth it.

Hey dumbass, gun suppliers don't sell to known gang members or felons. Apparently the DOJ does though. Your "irony" is sadly misguided.

Hey, person I can't name call or I'll get in trouble again, it's a standard mantra of the NRA that lawful gun suppliers not be charged for any crimes that happen to be committed with their product. They've been against holding your local gun dealer all the way up to Smith&Wesson responsible for handing out weapons of singular destruction since before I was born. It's always been "guns don't kill people, people kill people" with them.

So the irony is that suddenly they're demanding that the suppliers (the DoJ) be held responsible for the deaths of people killed with the weapons they supplied. If that can be the case, why can't John Gunshop be held responsible for the exact same thing?


The DoJ isn't actually the suppliers either. The NRA is twisting itself in knots to make this Dems fault.
 
2012-06-29 02:38:13 AM  

cuzsis: MurphyMurphy: Also, this shiat needs to come to a head.

A trial, where Holder sits there and repeats the words "I do not recall" over and over and over.

[talkingpointsmemo.com image 320x240]

I'd almost care about their investigation except it smells like election year bs. Issa? Yeah, I don't believe for a second anything that man does is for the better of anyone but himself.

That and this country is on the fast track to hell anyways. We'll biatch up a storm about the 1 thing done wrong we know about to distract ourselves from the 1000 things they are doing wrong we don't want to know about. Mexicans got guns? Yeah... ever notice every third world country dictator has stockpiles of US Surplus? Nothing new. At least this was done in the interest of nailing some bad guys to the wall.

For the umpteenth time. This investigation has been going on for *over* a year. But "Mid-election cycle" doesn't have quite the same ring to it I suppose.

Had Holder complied with the subpoena we wouldn't even be doing this right now.

/and yes, that does include internal communications about f&f.


Oh, yes we would have been doing this now. No matter what he gave them they would have kept asking for more. Issa knew that Holder couldn't give him what he was asking for because it would have endangered agents.

Answer this for me. Issa admitted that neither the White House or the DOJ knew about Fast and Furious, but why did he keep pushing this? Was it just so that the Republicans could make Obama look bad in the election year? What other reason did they have to keep pursuing this, other than to try to make Obama look bad, when they knew that the DOJ launched their own investigation into it and they knew that neither Holder nor Obama had anything to do with it?

Like I said in another thread, I hope the Republicans make the hearings on this big news with huge media coverage. So that when they are questioned why they chose to pursue this even though it was being handled by the DOJ, they knew the documents that they were asking for would endanger agents, and they knew that neither the White House nor Holder knew about it, they will be embarrassed.

This will end in a lot of embarrassment for the Republicans.
 
2012-06-29 02:40:25 AM  

ongbok: cuzsis: MurphyMurphy: Also, this shiat needs to come to a head.

A trial, where Holder sits there and repeats the words "I do not recall" over and over and over.

[talkingpointsmemo.com image 320x240]

I'd almost care about their investigation except it smells like election year bs. Issa? Yeah, I don't believe for a second anything that man does is for the better of anyone but himself.

That and this country is on the fast track to hell anyways. We'll biatch up a storm about the 1 thing done wrong we know about to distract ourselves from the 1000 things they are doing wrong we don't want to know about. Mexicans got guns? Yeah... ever notice every third world country dictator has stockpiles of US Surplus? Nothing new. At least this was done in the interest of nailing some bad guys to the wall.

For the umpteenth time. This investigation has been going on for *over* a year. But "Mid-election cycle" doesn't have quite the same ring to it I suppose.

Had Holder complied with the subpoena we wouldn't even be doing this right now.

/and yes, that does include internal communications about f&f.

Oh, yes we would have been doing this now. No matter what he gave them they would have kept asking for more. Issa knew that Holder couldn't give him what he was asking for because it would have endangered agents.

Answer this for me. Issa admitted that neither the White House or the DOJ knew about Fast and Furious, but why did he keep pushing this? Was it just so that the Republicans could make Obama look bad in the election year? What other reason did they have to keep pursuing this, other than to try to make Obama look bad, when they knew that the DOJ launched their own investigation into it and they knew that neither Holder nor Obama had anything to do with it?

Like I said in another thread, I hope the Republicans make the hearings on this big news with huge media coverage. So that when they are questioned why they chose to pursue this even though it was being handled by the ...


Issa is going full dumb-ass.
 
2012-06-29 03:00:43 AM  

SithLord: I have nothing BUT contempt for this Congress!


tfwiki.net

"Feed him to the Sharkticons!"
 
2012-06-29 03:03:51 AM  

Tatterdemalian: jdmac: Dimensio: jdmac: [25.media.tumblr.com image 640x577]

The assertion that "Fast and Furious" was intended to create a false argument in support of unreasonable firearm restrictions -- such as a renewed "assault weapons ban" -- is entirely unsubstantiated.

OK, then you explain why they did this. It is the only reason with any kind of logic behind it. Well, maybe Eric Holder just really likes Mexican drug cartels and wants them to have really good weapons. Or maybe he just likes seeing Mexicans and border agents get shot. Is that better?

Or he's trying to do the same things Bush did, but is so absurdly incompetent that he screws it up completely (and considering how low Bush's IQ is supposed to be, that's really sad).

Obama's nation-building in Afghanistan, Egypt, and Libya, as well as his bailout program and green initiatives, contribute mounting evidence to this conclusion. About the only thing he's really done right is start treating Pakistan as the backstabbing liars they are, and sent Osama bin Laden to a watery grave in the process.


So are we doing with Obama what we did with Bush? One moment he's so incompetent that he can't find his ass with both hands and a flashlight, the next moment he's an uber-genius diabolical mind pulling a fast one on the world?
 
2012-06-29 04:00:16 AM  

ongbok: cuzsis: MurphyMurphy: Also, this shiat needs to come to a head.

A trial, where Holder sits there and repeats the words "I do not recall" over and over and over.

[talkingpointsmemo.com image 320x240]

I'd almost care about their investigation except it smells like election year bs. Issa? Yeah, I don't believe for a second anything that man does is for the better of anyone but himself.

That and this country is on the fast track to hell anyways. We'll biatch up a storm about the 1 thing done wrong we know about to distract ourselves from the 1000 things they are doing wrong we don't want to know about. Mexicans got guns? Yeah... ever notice every third world country dictator has stockpiles of US Surplus? Nothing new. At least this was done in the interest of nailing some bad guys to the wall.

For the umpteenth time. This investigation has been going on for *over* a year. But "Mid-election cycle" doesn't have quite the same ring to it I suppose.

Had Holder complied with the subpoena we wouldn't even be doing this right now.

/and yes, that does include internal communications about f&f.

Oh, yes we would have been doing this now. No matter what he gave them they would have kept asking for more. Issa knew that Holder couldn't give him what he was asking for because it would have endangered agents.

Answer this for me. Issa admitted that neither the White House or the DOJ knew about Fast and Furious, but why did he keep pushing this? Was it just so that the Republicans could make Obama look bad in the election year? What other reason did they have to keep pursuing this, other than to try to make Obama look bad, when they knew that the DOJ launched their own investigation into it and they knew that neither Holder nor Obama had anything to do with it?

Like I said in another thread, I hope the Republicans make the hearings on this big news with huge media coverage. So that when they are questioned why they chose to pursue this even though it was being handled by the ...


They're hoping for another Lewinsky moment. Until then, they're just pulling "scandals" out of their ass, hoping one sticks enough to hurt Obama.

After all, that worked SO well when Clinton was up for reelection.
 
2012-06-29 04:01:02 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Tatterdemalian: jdmac: Dimensio: jdmac: [25.media.tumblr.com image 640x577]

The assertion that "Fast and Furious" was intended to create a false argument in support of unreasonable firearm restrictions -- such as a renewed "assault weapons ban" -- is entirely unsubstantiated.

OK, then you explain why they did this. It is the only reason with any kind of logic behind it. Well, maybe Eric Holder just really likes Mexican drug cartels and wants them to have really good weapons. Or maybe he just likes seeing Mexicans and border agents get shot. Is that better?

Or he's trying to do the same things Bush did, but is so absurdly incompetent that he screws it up completely (and considering how low Bush's IQ is supposed to be, that's really sad).

Obama's nation-building in Afghanistan, Egypt, and Libya, as well as his bailout program and green initiatives, contribute mounting evidence to this conclusion. About the only thing he's really done right is start treating Pakistan as the backstabbing liars they are, and sent Osama bin Laden to a watery grave in the process.

So are we doing with Obama what we did with Bush? One moment he's so incompetent that he can't find his ass with both hands and a flashlight, the next moment he's an uber-genius diabolical mind pulling a fast one on the world?


No. Everybody pretty much agrees that Bush was incompetent and he couldn't find his ass with both hands and two flashlights. Everybody with half a brain knows that Cheney was the brain behind that administration.
 
2012-06-29 06:05:25 AM  

vegasj: GOOD


You are NOT above the law asswipe!


Rarely is utter ignorance of a situation so succinctly and proudly noted in a thread. Thanks for pointing out to anybody who has actually paid any attention to this that you have no interest in the facts of the situation.
 
2012-06-29 06:28:26 AM  

jdmac: Dimensio: jdmac: [25.media.tumblr.com image 640x577]

The assertion that "Fast and Furious" was intended to create a false argument in support of unreasonable firearm restrictions -- such as a renewed "assault weapons ban" -- is entirely unsubstantiated.

OK, then you explain why they did this. It is the only reason with any kind of logic behind it. Well, maybe Eric Holder just really likes Mexican drug cartels and wants them to have really good weapons. Or maybe he just likes seeing Mexicans and border agents get shot. Is that better?


Relax, Cletus. nobody wants to take your guns. they aren't much of a threat in hands like yours, anyway. The only thing you'll ever shoot off is your big fat mouth.
 
2012-06-29 07:04:37 AM  

LaughingRadish: dr_blasto: LaughingRadish: Lou Brown: Frank N Stein: Lou Brown: The amusing thing about the entire conservative outrage over Fast and the Furious is that it totally contradicts the premise that, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

How so? Did those guns become sentiment and start shooting border patrol agents?

What I was trying to get at- why are conservatives outraged that the guns got across the border and were eventually used in the shooting of the agents? The guns didn't have anything to do with the crime. The murderers did.

Did you miss the song and dance Hillary Clinton was doing over the idea that the drug cartels got most of their guns from crooked US gun shops?

Yes, I did. Can you provide a quote? I'd like to see it.

See
http://www.factcheck.org/politics/counting_mexicos_guns.html. Then google for "hillary clinton guns mexico". That should keep you occupied for a while.


This: "Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, on a visit to Mexico, said Wednesday that America's inability to prevent weapons being smuggled across the border is causing the deaths of Mexican police officers, soldiers and civilians."

Or something else? I see some crazy-blogger sites, but even a couple of them, when they have a quote, only point to the above CBS news bit. That article related that Clinton said, erroneously, that "90%" of the guns used to kill cops and other people in Mexico came from the US. None of those said the guns were from gun shops, nor did they mention the military-style rifles the US sells to Mexico in mass quantity that seem to disappear regularly from Mexico's armories. Those are US guns, just not the kind normal gun shops can sell.

Did I just miss the right one out of the 2.8 million hits?
 
2012-06-29 07:50:45 AM  
*THIS* is too large for FARK?

WTF?

Man up and get some lube

/256k? My toenail is bigger than 256k
 
2012-06-29 07:52:41 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Mr. Breeze: poorjon: I know someone else said it in another thread, and I can't remember who it is, but I find it HILARIOUS that the conservatives are suddenly demanding that a supplier of firearms be held responsible for the crimes committed with them. Really underscores how their position has moved from anything resembling core values to knee-jerk opposition to anything Obama is aligned with.

/Still sad about the people who were killed. Does not make the irony really worth it.

Hey dumbass, gun suppliers don't sell to known gang members or felons. Apparently the DOJ does though. Your "irony" is sadly misguided.

Hey, person I can't name call or I'll get in trouble again, it's a standard mantra of the NRA that lawful gun suppliers not be charged for any crimes that happen to be committed with their product. They've been against holding your local gun dealer all the way up to Smith&Wesson responsible for handing out weapons of singular destruction since before I was born. It's always been "guns don't kill people, people kill people" with them.

So the irony is that suddenly they're demanding that the suppliers (the DoJ) be held responsible for the deaths of people killed with the weapons they supplied. If that can be the case, why can't John Gunshop be held responsible for the exact same thing?


For one thing, murder isn't the primary purpose of a firearm.
Second, the DoJ didn't supply the weapons in a manner that would be considered legal if it were done within the US.
 
2012-06-29 07:56:28 AM  

Mr. Breeze: Gyrfalcon: Mr. Breeze: poorjon: I know someone else said it in another thread, and I can't remember who it is, but I find it HILARIOUS that the conservatives are suddenly demanding that a supplier of firearms be held responsible for the crimes committed with them. Really underscores how their position has moved from anything resembling core values to knee-jerk opposition to anything Obama is aligned with.

/Still sad about the people who were killed. Does not make the irony really worth it.

Hey dumbass, gun suppliers don't sell to known gang members or felons. Apparently the DOJ does though. Your "irony" is sadly misguided.

Hey, person I can't name call or I'll get in trouble again, it's a standard mantra of the NRA that lawful gun suppliers not be charged for any crimes that happen to be committed with their product. They've been against holding your local gun dealer all the way up to Smith&Wesson responsible for handing out weapons of singular destruction since before I was born. It's always been "guns don't kill people, people kill people" with them.

So the irony is that suddenly they're demanding that the suppliers (the DoJ) be held responsible for the deaths of people killed with the weapons they supplied. If that can be the case, why can't John Gunshop be held responsible for the exact same thing?

For one thing, murder isn't the primary purpose of a firearm.
Second, the DoJ didn't supply the weapons in a manner that would be considered legal if it were done within the US. (by anyone but the government)

FTFM
 
2012-06-29 08:05:33 AM  

Emposter: This is most assuredly 110% politically motivated. There can be little doubt of it.

However, for once the Republicans in Congress are correct. You don't get to ignore a subpoena because you think it's politically motivated.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress
Congressional subpoena is a bit different than subpoena from the courts. Its a self created power that isn't in the constitution. It requires the Judicial or Executive branches cooperation in order to enforce it to jail or criminally punish the individual for ignoring the subpoena.
 
2012-06-29 08:41:38 AM  

jdmac: [25.media.tumblr.com image 640x577]


you're info is flawed.

Newly reported facts reveal Issa misstatements about Fast and Furious

June 28, Washington DC - Bombshell reporting in Fortune Magazine and the Washington Post sheds new light on the festering, wormy mess that is Darrell Issa's Fast and Furious investigation. Fortune reports that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives operation was nothing like Issa has claimed. In fact, Fast and Furious was so different that it is virtually impossible for Chairman Issa to be so utterly misinformed. He appears to be lying.


Let's catch up...


ATF never bought, held or had "2,000 guns"


Fortune reports that the "2000 guns" often named by Issa as having been a part of the program were actually guns that were purchased ordinarily by suspected straw purchasers who were under investigation. They were not guns purchased by ATF, with ATF funds, or for ATF investigations.


As it turns out, only five guns appear to have been purchased with ATF funds. They were all part of an operation conducted by ATF Agent John Dodson, congressman Issa's ostensible "whistle-blower." So it appears that John Dodson described his own operation, but made it sound like everyone was doing it. In reality, his investigation was the only example among seven ATF gunrunning units.


Given where he worked, Dodson too, could not have been honestly mistaken. Though not proven, he appears to have made inaccurate claims about the other 1,995 guns under investigation, which would be perjury if he had made them under oath instead of under federal protections for whistleblowers.


All of Dodson's bait guns were lost and the investigation closed without an arrest. They - these five guns - were the only bait guns bought or lost by ATF, according to Fortune. (Notably, Dodson's investigation proposal had been rejected by his immediate supervisor but approved by his supervisor's supervisor.)


Guns recovered from the Brian Terry shooting were not ATF guns


Here's the biggest shocker: Fortune reports that a transient named Jaime Avila purchased three WASR-10 rifles (an AK-47 knockoff) at a Glendale Arizona gun shop. A gun shop employee notified ATF by faxing the bill of sale conveying his suspicions. The serial numbers from these guns were entered into the Phoenix office gunrunning database from the faxed bill of sale.


These were not the Dodson guns. Agents never saw, touched, funded, or purchased the guns found at the Terry murder scene.


Based on prior experience, the agents knew they didn't have a case against Avila yet. In Arizona, it is not against the law to buy guns with someone else's money. Nor is it against the law to then give them away, even immediately.


The problem is Arizona


According to Fortune's reporting, state laws in Arizona make it a mecca for gunrunners and its proximity to Mexico makes it ground zero for drug-cartel straw purchasers. There is no limit or waiting period, or any resale or gift limits. Fortune quotes ATF Agent Dave Voth, "In Arizona, someone buying three guns is like someone buying a sandwich." The lax gun laws also made it almost impossible to prosecute the 31 men identified by ATF agents as suspected straw purchasers for the Sinaloa drug cartel. Prosecutors repeatedly declined or slow rolled these cases due to the impossible hurdles created by Arizona law.


Phoenix ATF chief says Justice Department didn't lie


Today's Washington Post reports that Agent William D. Newell, former head of the ATF Phoenix office said that there is no evidence that AG Eric Holder knew any details of his office's efforts to stop straw purchases for the Sinaloa drug cartel. So when the Justice Department reported to the Oversight Committee that ATF didn't buy guns or let them walk, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that they were reporting:



what they believed to be true,
what was true in each of seven ATF units charged with stopping drug-cartel straw purchases,
and what was true in all cases except for Dodson's failed experiment.

You can't convict gun runners in Arizona


Fortune discovered that ATF agents gathered evidence about one suspect who was on food stamps but had spent $300,000 for 476 firearms during the previous six months. A prosecutor declined to authorize an arrest because - according to Agent Voss - agents didn't have clear evidence that the suspect hadn't purchased the guns for himself. Even if he had, it turns out, Arizona law allowed him to change his mind and give them away immediately. The weakness of Arizona statutes and penalties creates an environment of unimpeachable impropriety.


Agent Newell confirmed that prosecutor's offices (saddled by Arizona's ineffective laws) were where arrests and prosecutions languished, not at the agent or field level.


Congress has now voted to hold AG Holder in contempt. The National Rifle Association promised to score the vote. In the end, it divided along NRA/non-NRA lines. The Mexican government estimates that 2,000 US-bought weapons cross the border into Mexico every day. It is not incidental that the NRA has an interest in maintaining those gun sales.


When it happened, Eric Holder was spending the day at Disneyworld. Darrell Issa was in Washington where the circus is in town. No kidding.

 
2012-06-29 08:42:45 AM  

Mr. Breeze: Mr. Breeze: Gyrfalcon: Mr. Breeze: poorjon: I know someone else said it in another thread, and I can't remember who it is, but I find it HILARIOUS that the conservatives are suddenly demanding that a supplier of firearms be held responsible for the crimes committed with them. Really underscores how their position has moved from anything resembling core values to knee-jerk opposition to anything Obama is aligned with.

/Still sad about the people who were killed. Does not make the irony really worth it.

Hey dumbass, gun suppliers don't sell to known gang members or felons. Apparently the DOJ does though. Your "irony" is sadly misguided.

Hey, person I can't name call or I'll get in trouble again, it's a standard mantra of the NRA that lawful gun suppliers not be charged for any crimes that happen to be committed with their product. They've been against holding your local gun dealer all the way up to Smith&Wesson responsible for handing out weapons of singular destruction since before I was born. It's always been "guns don't kill people, people kill people" with them.

So the irony is that suddenly they're demanding that the suppliers (the DoJ) be held responsible for the deaths of people killed with the weapons they supplied. If that can be the case, why can't John Gunshop be held responsible for the exact same thing?

For one thing, murder isn't the primary purpose of a firearm.
Second, the DoJ didn't supply the weapons in a manner that would be considered legal if it were done within the US. (by anyone but the government)
FTFM


Umm read the Fortune magazine article published yesterday. I might realize you have been duped about what this whole thing is about.
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-tru t h/
There are some town hall debunks of the fortune article but they essentially amount to accusing the ATF of giving the go ahead to the gun stores, which is exactly what the fortune article says they did.
 
2012-06-29 09:05:57 AM  
If this were Canada, conservatives would be falling over themselves trying to make him supreme leader after such a finding.
 
2012-06-29 10:01:09 AM  
The reality is, it doesn't matter whether it is bs or not. Congress pays the bills. If they want to find out if you are doing your job, you hand over the documents.
 
2012-06-29 10:43:20 AM  
dericwater: "Don't you think that's a bit of a reach? Don't you think that's a bit of a fishing expedition?"

Absolutely. So give them everything.
If there's nothing to find, there's nothing to find.
If there's something worth making a stink over, I don't care if came up through a fishing expedition or not.
That's how government transparency is *supposed* to work. That's what Obama campaigned on.

Holding out on congress is always bullshiat. Even if they're being asshats.
The executive branch simply does not get to make judgement calls about whether or not they feel like honoring their obligations under the Constitution.
 
2012-06-29 10:47:41 AM  

RibbyK: This ruling's about HEALTH INSURANCE, not HEALTHCARE, right?


Obama fan-boys love the idea of forcing people to purchase something they don't want and then fining (and possibly incarcerating them) if they don't. I know a lot of healthy, functional adults who face a lot of fines because of this. Hooray for progress!
 
2012-06-29 11:01:02 AM  

Lou Brown: Frank N Stein: Lou Brown: The amusing thing about the entire conservative outrage over Fast and the Furious is that it totally contradicts the premise that, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

How so? Did those guns become sentiment and start shooting border patrol agents?

What I was trying to get at- why are conservatives outraged that the guns got across the border and were eventually used in the shooting of the agents? The guns didn't have anything to do with the crime. The murderers did.


Keep trying. Still stupid.
 
2012-06-29 11:05:06 AM  

ringersol: dericwater: "Don't you think that's a bit of a reach? Don't you think that's a bit of a fishing expedition?"

Absolutely. So give them everything.
If there's nothing to find, there's nothing to find.
If there's something worth making a stink over, I don't care if came up through a fishing expedition or not.
That's how government transparency is *supposed* to work. That's what Obama campaigned on.

Holding out on congress is always bullshiat. Even if they're being asshats.
The executive branch simply does not get to make judgement calls about whether or not they feel like honoring their obligations under the Constitution.


You understand that what you are proposing is a violation of federal law, right? As you correctly stated in the last line, with one small addendum:

The executive branch simply does not get to make judgement calls about whether or not they feel like honoring their obligations under the Constitution, or the written law.

Congress doesn't get to order another branch to violate the law. No. They can not has.
 
2012-06-29 11:28:08 AM  

MindStalker: Mr. Breeze: Mr. Breeze: Gyrfalcon: Mr. Breeze: poorjon: I know someone else said it in another thread, and I can't remember who it is, but I find it HILARIOUS that the conservatives are suddenly demanding that a supplier of firearms be held responsible for the crimes committed with them. Really underscores how their position has moved from anything resembling core values to knee-jerk opposition to anything Obama is aligned with.

/Still sad about the people who were killed. Does not make the irony really worth it.

Hey dumbass, gun suppliers don't sell to known gang members or felons. Apparently the DOJ does though. Your "irony" is sadly misguided.

Hey, person I can't name call or I'll get in trouble again, it's a standard mantra of the NRA that lawful gun suppliers not be charged for any crimes that happen to be committed with their product. They've been against holding your local gun dealer all the way up to Smith&Wesson responsible for handing out weapons of singular destruction since before I was born. It's always been "guns don't kill people, people kill people" with them.

So the irony is that suddenly they're demanding that the suppliers (the DoJ) be held responsible for the deaths of people killed with the weapons they supplied. If that can be the case, why can't John Gunshop be held responsible for the exact same thing?

For one thing, murder isn't the primary purpose of a firearm.
Second, the DoJ didn't supply the weapons in a manner that would be considered legal if it were done within the US. (by anyone but the government)
FTFM

Umm read the Fortune magazine article published yesterday. I might realize you have been duped about what this whole thing is about.
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-tru t h/
There are some town hall debunks of the fortune article but they essentially amount to accusing the ATF of giving the go ahead to the gun stores, which is exactly what the fortune article says they did.


If it's that simple and straightforward, why doesn't the DoJ just hand over what's being asked of them?

What are they trying to hide if they did nothing wrong?
 
2012-06-29 11:51:38 AM  
impossible...no one in the Messiah's administration can do wrong?
 
2012-06-29 12:28:39 PM  

jdmac: [25.media.tumblr.com image 640x577]


All Wide Receiver weapons had RFID trackers and were actively tracked? Bullshiat, the effective range of an RFID tag is about 10 feet. Nothing was being "actively tracked".
 
Bf+
2012-06-29 01:03:19 PM  
[we get it he's black]
 
2012-06-29 01:34:48 PM  

Bf+: [we get it he's black]


STFU
 
2012-06-29 02:37:11 PM  
Every night, I fall asleep listening to the same talk radio station. And, at some point in the night, the programming switches over from conservative talk radio to Coast-to-Coast AM. And, you know, it's getting harder and harder to tell the difference between the two. I never know when it has switched over.
 
Displayed 50 of 351 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report