Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics and News' started by xBiffx, Jun 20, 2012.
They haven't given up, they've just failed for the last decade.
They don't seem to understand the concept that I will give up my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead, hand.
Correct. That's why gun sales skyrocketed (as in over 500%) and STILL surging before the election and for at least a year afterwards. It was all the thing's Obama has said in the past of what he would do regarding gun regulation.
This operation was a means to supply guns to mexico so Obama could say to the public "see what a big problem this is! We need to crack down with some common sense gun regulation".
Folks only need to look back at 2009 and how much this "guns flowing from US to mexico" was and how congress "needed to do something".
So obama - when did you know about fast and furious and what did you know? And did you order, direct or execute, or approve of it's operation?
If so = treason.
Show me the bills that are anywhere the same level of the Assault Weapon Ban that were introduced since that ban expired....
How about many congress members saying they should re-enact it? How many congress critters stood up and applauded the mexican president saying the US should ban "assault rifles". There's always very stupid gun bills that try to make it out committee, they rarely see the floor. I'm sure I could locate some bills about magazine capacity which was a big one of the AWB.
If you would like to see Obama's statements on onerous gun regulation, just look at his views before he ran for president. There's a few sites out there that list them all in nice format to digest his hatred of the 2nd amendment.
Regarding congress acting stupid - here's the magazine limit one I remember.
More from google Obama's own words:
There's a reason progressives have switched tactics from gun ban bills to arming drug cartels.
Ascribing a sinister plot to a major *** up is akin to saying those false flag conspiracy theorists have a point.
How many people applaud when they don't really mean to do anything about it?
Every Republican who claps when a Democratic politician says something meant to be bipartisan. Likewise for every Democratic politician who claps for a Republican.
Here's a clue, when the Democratic Party had 60 members in congress before Senator Kennedy fell ill and was absent until a temporary replacement was appointed there wasn't a peep about Gun Control.
Perception is reality.
AFAIK the administration is claiming privilege over their consultations with legal counsel in the aftermath of the operation after the inquiry was launched. Not over the every single actual Fast and Furious document.
Tell that to the false flag conspiracy fans.
Channeling Wayne LaPierre?
The fact that they're not trying to grab yer guns proves, quite obviously, that they're trying to grab yer guns. Yeppers. Makes all the sense in the world to people whose idea of fun is paranoid delusion.
Only to those who embrace the poisoning of their mental faculties by right wing propaganda. It just *feels so good* to Believe, huh?
And your point is...?
Ascribing a sinister plot when we have internal documentation supporting that claim and no other possible use for the program seems a pretty safe bet. Again, this is in no wise comparable to Wide Receiver. Lord knows I can believe that BATFE is capable of fucking up an anvil falling in a vacuum and no doubt allowed Wide Receiver guns to be lost within Mexico, intentionally or otherwise, but the program did have a well reasoned purpose, a tracking methodology, and resources within Mexico to track the weapons and arrest those purchasing them. In this case there is zero evidence of ANY law enforcement mechanism from Day One AND there are internal documents detailing how to use the resultant crimes to push for further restriction of our Second Amendment rights. If you choose to believe (or pretend to believe) that a law enforcement program that simply arms drug cartels without any law enforcement mechanism is merely a ***-up and the internal documentation of the intent I ascribe is simply coincidence, well, it's still a free country despite the BATFE's best efforts.
As for myself, if a gun walking program has no possible way to gain any information beyond what is already gathered without the program and has no possible way to help detect and/or arrest criminals, and we have internal documentation about how to use for political benefit the crimes committed with the guns walked in, I'm going to conclude that the purpose of the program was to get guns into the hands of drug cartels to facilitate crimes for political benefit. I defy anyone to produce a logical chain of events that could be interpreted differently. If you wish to try, please remember that as part of gun sales we already have the identifying information of the buyer and the serial numbers of the guns, we already have the guns found at crime scenes or taken from arrested criminals, and there was no attempt at tracing the guns within Mexico or, indeed, within the USA. Fast and Furious had no implanted GPS tracking devices and no surveillance.
You cannot possibly believe that there are 80,000 to 100,000 documents which are "consultations with legal counsel" and 7,600 documents which comprise the entirety of the program unless there is a massive cover up. No one is that stupid. People who must have handlers to drain their drool cups and buckle on the helmets covering their soft spots aren't THAT stupid.
I didn't read it that way at all. You can, at the same time, say that you believe that this is a witch hunt and that Congress should have more power to conduct investigations AND that EP should be scaled back. I believe that is what he has consistently stated. He believes that Congress SHOULD have the ability to investigate this further but he also believes its a politically motivated witch hunt.
OK so they should have more power to investigate, they just shouldn't use it? Or should they just not use it in this case? Or is it that they should only use it when certain people think it should be? Or should it only be used when a republican is in office? You can not say in one breath that there should be more power, and then claim the the use of the power they have today is akin to a witch hunt, without showing your political bent. Either you give them more power to investigate more and further, or you reduce there power so that there is a higher burden of proof needed to start the investigation and limit the scope.
The same as EP.
Uhmmmm, you can totally say both. They are in no way mutually exclusive.
Perhaps an example would serve better, how about Obama's 'kill list'? Let's use some congressional investigation powers on that? It's odd to me that you can't see outside of the two party for or against dynamic, particularly since that's what you are complaining about.
Ah yes, there is a word for those who think that way.
You misspelled 'Bush voter'
So is it just in this case you don't want them to exercise more power?
Who determines what is a witch hunt and what isn't?
They have little letters in parentheses after their names to let you know whether it's a witch hunt, scandal or cover up.
(D) investigating (R) = scandal.
(R) investigating (R) = scandal plus cover up.
(R) investigating (D) = witch hunt.
(D) investigating (D) = nothing to see but good government going the extra mile to make sure nothing is wrong.
It's a concise and effective system that avoids the necessity for an actual investigation since you already know the outcome.