PDA

View Full Version : What's Bam Hiding?



SnakeoilSeller
06-22-2012, 01:19 PM
Letís be clear: While there are political elements to the story (arenít there always?), the bottom line is that a US Border Patrol officer and scores of Mexican citizens have been murdered by weapons the Justice Department lost track of.
In a nutshell, the feds released some 2,500 firearms to Mexican drug-cartel members in an effort to track gun-trafficking patterns. The weapons vanished, the body count started to grow ó and how all that happened became the question around which the scandal revolves.
Obama asserted executive privilege Wednesday regarding House subpoenas for documents that might provide some clarity ó subpoenas at which Holder & Co. have been thumbing their institutional noses for months.


Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/what_bam_hiding_EGPjfdqGCo8hV4Jenp3ydN#ixzz1yXlNMGjN

So what is he hiding? Why executive priviledge now?

CedarPhin
06-22-2012, 01:32 PM
Why all of the dumb nicknames for people? It'd be like if someone were to call you, "SeedyOldScrotum". It cheapens the debate and just leads to flame wars.

SnakeoilSeller
06-22-2012, 02:49 PM
Why all of the dumb nicknames for people? It'd be like if someone were to call you, "SeedyOldScrotum". It cheapens the debate and just leads to flame wars.

Did you read the article? Obviously not - BAM is used in the title of the article, so if you have a problem with it, talk to the author. But, again thank you for proving how liberalism is a lie. Now would you like to have a debate on why the President of the United States claimed Executive Privledge on something he claims he did not know about or do you just want to keep calling me names, commenting on articles you have not read.

Dolphins9954
06-22-2012, 03:10 PM
He's definitely hiding something. The War On Drugs is the reason for the violence on the border. Too bad Obama and Holder don't see that but instead focused more on making the 2nd amendment look bad for political gain. Meanwhile our own guys and countless mexicans are killed.

CedarPhin
06-22-2012, 03:27 PM
Did you read the article? Obviously not - BAM is used in the title of the article, so if you have a problem with it, talk to the author. But, again thank you for proving how liberalism is a lie. Now would you like to have a debate on why the President of the United States claimed Executive Privledge on something he claims he did not know about or do you just want to keep calling me names, commenting on articles you have not read.

*ZZT* *ZZT* Librrralllism is a lie *ZZT* *ZZT* *ZZT* Big Sis is coming for you *ZZT* *ZZT*

I didn't call you any names, I was merely painting hypotheticals.

LANGER72
06-22-2012, 03:43 PM
The Obama administration supplied guns to Mexican gangs that killed hundreds or thousands of Mexicans, plus a US border guard.
Now they are trying to cover it up.
Nahh...this isn't news...it is political partisanship.
Once the US contingent of Mexicans starts to fully realize the hurt that Obama has caused to their countrymen, they will rethink their position.
If Rubio is selected as VP, it will be a truth explained in their own language.
That is why Obama will suppress this...he has no political choice but to misled and lie...yet again!
Nero is burning.

CedarPhin
06-22-2012, 03:58 PM
The Obama administration supplied guns to Mexican gangs that killed hundreds or thousands of Mexicans, plus a US border guard.
Now they are trying to cover it up.
Nahh...this isn't news...it is political partisanship.
Once the US contingent of Mexicans starts to fully realize the hurt that Obama has caused to their countrymen, they will rethink their position.
If Rubio is selected as VP, it will be a truth explained in their own language.
That is why Obama will suppress this...he has no political choice but to misled and lie...yet again!
Nero is burning.

The Bush Administration started the program, soooo......

LANGER72
06-22-2012, 06:38 PM
The Bush Administration started the program, soooo......


Link?

The program under investigation and the cover up... is all Holder/Obama.
LOL...Bush redacted and is limiting all the documents too...right?

SnakeoilSeller
06-23-2012, 08:15 AM
Link?

The program under investigation and the cover up... is all Holder/Obama.
LOL...Bush redacted and is limiting all the documents too...right?

Please, proof? Facts? Liberals hate facts. It is easier to say Bush started it too and have MSNBC repeat it then actually have some proof to back it up.

SnakeoilSeller
06-23-2012, 08:18 AM
He's definitely hiding something. The War On Drugs is the reason for the violence on the border. Too bad Obama and Holder don't see that but instead focused more on making the 2nd amendment look bad for political gain. Meanwhile our own guys and countless mexicans are killed.

Agree. Why after months of trying to get this information, why now use executive priviledge, unless he is trying to covrer something up. In all of these situations it seems like the cover up is what brings people down, not just admitting they ****ed up.

Tetragrammaton
06-23-2012, 09:08 AM
Please, proof? Facts? Liberals hate facts. It is easier to say Bush started it too and have MSNBC repeat it then actually have some proof to back it up.


WASHINGTON (AP) — A second Bush administration gun-trafficking investigation has surfaced using the same controversial tactic for which congressional Republicans have been criticizing the Obama administration.
The tactic, called "gun walking," is already under investigation by the Justice Department's inspector general and by congressional Republicans, who have criticized the administration of Democratic President Barack Obama for letting it happen in an operation called "Fast and Furious".
Emails obtained by The Associated Press show how in a 2007 investigation in Phoenix, agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — depending on Mexican authorities to follow up — let guns "walk" across the border in an effort to identify higher-ups in gun networks. Justice Department policy has long required that illicit arms shipments be intercepted whenever possible.


http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-second-bush-era-gun-smuggling-probe-202043091.html

Instead of making such stupid statements as "Liberals hate facts", just do a Google search or read a Wiki page. It took me less than a minute to get this.

BassFin
06-23-2012, 10:50 AM
Operation Wide Receiver was run out of one office in one city. All the guns were being tracked. Fast and Furious was multiple offices in 11 different cities. And the guns were not being tracked.

SnakeoilSeller
06-23-2012, 11:07 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-second-bush-era-gun-smuggling-probe-202043091.html

Instead of making such stupid statements as "Liberals hate facts", just do a Google search or read a Wiki page. It took me less than a minute to get this.

Many people in the Mainstream media and the Dems and Libs and I guess Socialist sympothisaers try to paint Operation Wide Receiver as the same as Fast and Furious. It is difficult for me to believe that our governmnet would be stupid enough to do either, and the stupidity makes both failed operations difficult to understand but there are enormous differences between the 2. Wide Receiver sought to track purdhases by "straw purchasers" and track with RFID tracking devices. It was stopped after a year when 450 guns went missing. Fast and Furious let at least 2000 weapons go to a violent drug cartel, while the DOJ encouraged sales knowing where they were going, the guns had no tracking devices and their was no intention on arresting smugglers or the straw purchasers. It was done so the Adminstation could use the data to creat stricter gun laws. And 2000 guns is a low estimate. I have read estimates from 2,000 to 10,000. I have also read articles that described grenade launchers were being sold as well.

Here is a pretty decent explanation between the 2:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/gunwalker-gunning-down-the-bush-did-it-too-lie/2/

Further, you can critisize me all you want, but I back lots of my facts up with links and proof, while many of the Kool Aid drinkers do not.

NY8123
06-23-2012, 11:27 AM
US government gives thousands of guns away to many different groups. Hell we supplied the Taliban with guns because the enemy of my enemy is my friend, some of which no doubt killed US troops 20 years later.

There's a lot of seedy **** going on around the world and 95% of it revolves around money.

Tetragrammaton
06-23-2012, 01:49 PM
It was done so the Adminstation could use the data to creat stricter gun laws.

Oh, so you're crazy. Guys, this isn't a serious topic.

Locke
06-23-2012, 03:09 PM
It was done so the Adminstation could use the data to creat stricter gun laws.


http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/06/conspiracy-1.jpg

JamesBW43
06-23-2012, 05:00 PM
I back lots of my facts up with links and proof, while many of the Kool Aid drinkers do not.


Liberals hate facts.

Proof?

Dolphins9954
06-23-2012, 06:31 PM
Regardless if it was Bush or Obama. Both failed to see the real cause of the violence on the border.

SnakeoilSeller
06-23-2012, 06:40 PM
Proof?

Read most of your posts, that's all the proof anyone needs.

SnakeoilSeller
06-23-2012, 06:51 PM
There are other differences between Operation Wide Receiver and Operation Fast and Furious. In Wide Receiver, the Mexican Government knew. In Fast and Furious they did not. And of course, 300 dead Mexicans and 1 dead American Border Agent.

And though the left may scream this is nothing, think of about this. These guns were supplied to some of the most dangerous criminals on the planet for the sole purpose of creating violence so the Obama Adminstration could enact stricter gun laws. And now the President is envoking Executive Privledge? Why?

phinfan3411
06-23-2012, 07:29 PM
Keeping away from the other topics in this thread, i do believe it to be, at least, a ulterior motive of fast and furious, to be building pressure through the media of the US supplying all of the guns in the Mexican violence, making further legislation easier.

---------- Post added at 07:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:27 PM ----------

I mean if that sounds far fetched would you like me to start listing other PROVEN acts by our government that were even worse over the years?

Locke
06-23-2012, 07:31 PM
These guns were supplied to some of the most dangerous criminals on the planet for the sole purpose of creating violence so the Obama Adminstration could enact stricter gun laws. And now the President is envoking Executive Privledge? Why?


http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/06/conspiracy-1.jpg

Locke
06-23-2012, 07:36 PM
Keeping away from the other topics in this thread, i do believe it to be, at least, a ulterior motive of fast and furious, to be building pressure through the media of the US supplying all of the guns in the Mexican violence, making further legislation easier.

---------- Post added at 07:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:27 PM ----------

I mean if that sounds far fetched would you like me to start listing other PROVEN acts by our government that were even worse over the years?

It's completely possible that there is an ulterior motive, but gun control? In an election year? I know our resident hate monger will find any and everything to whine like a little girl about in regard to the POTUS, but it would take a special kind of stupid to try to pass something that decisive with the election less than half a year away. Any reasonable person would be able to deduce that Obama is going to play it safe in the coming months. Would he be doing this so he can try to pass these laws after the election? That seems like an awful lot of effort into something when a much bigger issue, the election, is on his plate.

Any way you look at it, this is yet another hatefest with no logic behind it by someone who doesn't need ammunition to hate on the President. If there was an ulterior motive, I think it would be something along the lines of the war on drugs, not on gun control...

JamesBW43
06-23-2012, 08:15 PM
Read most of your posts, that's all the proof anyone needs.

So it should be easy for you to find one and post it then. I mean, I'm trying to see it but because I hate facts so much and all my opinions are lies I just can't. You're going to have to show me and explain it.

NY8123
06-23-2012, 11:18 PM
It's completely possible that there is an ulterior motive, but gun control? In an election year? I know our resident hate monger will find any and everything to whine like a little girl about in regard to the POTUS, but it would take a special kind of stupid to try to pass something that decisive with the election less than half a year away. Any reasonable person would be able to deduce that Obama is going to play it safe in the coming months. Would he be doing this so he can try to pass these laws after the election? That seems like an awful lot of effort into something when a much bigger issue, the election, is on his plate.

Any way you look at it, this is yet another hatefest with no logic behind it by someone who doesn't need ammunition to hate on the President. If there was an ulterior motive, I think it would be something along the lines of the war on drugs, not on gun control...

The topic of gun control in an election year is usually a kiss of death for the Democrats, gun control in an election year is a no no, especially since 2012 was a historically low year for violent crime in the US.

It's pretty hard to argue that guns increase violence when the rates are on record declines.

Tetragrammaton
06-23-2012, 11:49 PM
Keeping away from the other topics in this thread, i do believe it to be, at least, a ulterior motive of fast and furious, to be building pressure through the media of the US supplying all of the guns in the Mexican violence, making further legislation easier.

---------- Post added at 07:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:27 PM ----------

I mean if that sounds far fetched would you like me to start listing other PROVEN acts by our government that were even worse over the years?

I guess anyone can come up with any conspiracy they want, and just say "hey, we know the government has done worse, is this so far fetched?"

The reason this conspiracy is so dumb is because even the premise they base it behind is false. It is easy to believe in the conspiracy if you think the Obama Administration is trying to take away guns; but those less caffeinated or attentive to politics know the administration has not made any sort of serious effort at gun control. It is a fantasy created by Republicans; Democrats have their own fantasies about Republicans, as well.

Besides, if a layman like Rush Limbaugh can "figure it out", you have to wonder. How can someone think the administration is so nefarious to plan this all but so inept as to let functionally illiterates catch on? It rings the same as 9/11 lunatics.

Spesh
06-24-2012, 12:50 AM
There are other differences between Operation Wide Receiver and Operation Fast and Furious. In Wide Receiver, the Mexican Government knew. In Fast and Furious they did not. And of course, 300 dead Mexicans and 1 dead American Border Agent.

And though the left may scream this is nothing, think of about this. These guns were supplied to some of the most dangerous criminals on the planet for the sole purpose of creating violence so the Obama Adminstration could enact stricter gun laws. And now the President is envoking Executive Privledge? Why?


President Bush invoked executive privilege today for the first time in his administration to block a Congressional committee trying to review documents about a decades-long scandal involving F.B.I. misuse of mob informants in Boston. His order also denied the committee access to internal Justice Department deliberations about President Bill Clinton's fund-raising tactics.


http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/14/us/bush-claims-executive-privilege-in-response-to-house-inquiry.html



President Bush invoked executive privilege to keep Congress from seeing the FBI report of an interview with Vice President Dick Cheney and other records related to the administration's leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity in 2003.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/16/bush-claims-executive-pri_n_113065.html


President Bush moved one step closer to a constitutional showdown with Democrats on Thursday, as the White House asserted executive privilege in refusing to comply with Congressional subpoenas for documents related to the dismissal of federal prosecutors.
The move prompted Democrats to accuse the White House of stonewalling, and seemed to put the legislative and executive branches on a collision course that could land them in court. It was the second time in Mr. Bushís presidency that he has formally asserted executive privilege, the power first recognized by the Supreme Court (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/supreme_court/index.html?inline=nyt-org) in a 1974 Watergate-era case.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/washington/29bush.html?ex=1340769600&en=84a2d395fc9d23ec&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


Citing executive privilege, President George W. Bush on Wednesday rejected a subpoena for his close adviser Karl Rove to testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee in a probe over fired federal prosecutors.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/01/us-usa-prosecutors-rove-idUSN0141867220070801

So what was Obama hiding? Probably the same things Bush was. Bush went on to use executive privilege 6 times, including 4 times in just over a month(June 28, 2007-August 1, 2007. To be fair, the July 13th one concerning Pat Tillman's death might not have been a official executive privilege though it did have that effect). Bush's reasons for these extraordinary assertion? Often to keep his aides from testifying. His cited reasoning was that he needed candid and unfettered advice to perform his duties and having people see what was discussed might have prevented future advice from being given.

Oh, but wait, Obama used it for exactly the same reason. BURN THAT GODLESS COMMIE LIBERAL(which is a lie anyways!!) AT THE STAKE!

Spesh
06-24-2012, 01:00 AM
Keeping away from the other topics in this thread, i do believe it to be, at least, a ulterior motive of fast and furious, to be building pressure through the media of the US supplying all of the guns in the Mexican violence, making further legislation easier.---------- Post added at 07:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:27 PM ----------

I mean if that sounds far fetched would you like me to start listing other PROVEN acts by our government that were even worse over the years?

Wouldnt legislation be much easier after, say, the Gabby Gifford shooting in 2011? Or the time that doctor got shot in a church in 2009? After Trayvon Martin shooting?

Lets face it, its not like theres a lack of gun violence in America to justify introducing gun legislation.

SnakeoilSeller
06-24-2012, 08:12 AM
So executive privilege in the firing of federal prosecutors is the same as executive privilege in the case of 300 dead innocent Mexicans and 1 Border guard agent? Wow. That does not put much of a value on human life. Fired lawyers and the non outing of a person that worked for the CIA equals how many dead people? I never said that President Obama was the first President to use Executive Privilege. But in a rush to defend Obama with the typical Bush did it too excuse, you unintentionally exposed how much was made of minor uses of executive privilege by the media and the left, so why not attack this scandal with the same vigor? The special prosecutor in the Valerie Plame case knew who the outer was and still went on a fishing expedition to get Karl Rove, George Bush and Dick Cheney exclusively. Don't the families of the 300 dead Mexicans and Agent Terry's Family deserve the same investigation? Would it be different if it was in inner city Detroit? Or New York City? Or Miami?

Also, this rationale that the Obama Adminstration would not do this in an election year is a joke. It was started in 2009. It ended in 2010. It was not supposed to be an election issue. It is just another one of the many **** ups by this administration, driven by ideology. Just like the stimulus was supposed to create "shovel ready" jobs, but there were none. Just like green energy was the future, like Solyndra. The only difference is that instead of wasting trillions of dollars, this idea cost hundreds their lives.

Vaark
06-24-2012, 08:29 AM
I wanted to know what "Shrub" was hiding the day after 911 when all bin Laden's relatives were promptly airlifted out of the US at taxpayers' expense. Was it a reaction or the result of pre-planning proaction?

phinfan3411
06-24-2012, 10:17 AM
I guess anyone can come up with any conspiracy they want, and just say "hey, we know the government has done worse, is this so far fetched?"

The reason this conspiracy is so dumb is because even the premise they base it behind is false. It is easy to believe in the conspiracy if you think the Obama Administration is trying to take away guns; but those less caffeinated or attentive to politics know the administration has not made any sort of serious effort at gun control. It is a fantasy created by Republicans; Democrats have their own fantasies about Republicans, as well.

Besides, if a layman like Rush Limbaugh can "figure it out", you have to wonder. How can someone think the administration is so nefarious to plan this all but so inept as to let functionally illiterates catch on? It rings the same as 9/11 lunatics.


You must have me confused with other posters here, on other boards (gun boards) i remind the idiots that Bush himself said that he would re-up the AWB if it got to his desk, just to drive home the premise that having a "R" after your name does not make it an automatic that you are a friend of the second amendment.

Another point is this, fast and furious started years ago, and i think it had an ulterior motive to try and get SOME of the public behind more gun legislation.

Are we going to sit here and debate that this does not go on every day????

Look at the Trayvon Martin case, and the stand your ground law (no i am not saying the gov had anything to do with the killing), the government always uses a time of public swaying by the media to at least attempt new legislation, and i do not think that is far fetched at all.

And as for what Rush Limbaugh or whoever said anything, i cannot comment, as i do not listen, but have little understanding of what it has to do with this conversation.

So, if you do not think that is what the government was doing, what was their plan, since they had no tracing devices on these firearms, and they certainly are doing everything they can to lie and cover up now?

Tetragrammaton
06-24-2012, 11:03 AM
You must have me confused with other posters here, on other boards (gun boards) i remind the idiots that Bush himself said that he would re-up the AWB if it got to his desk, just to drive home the premise that having a "R" after your name does not make it an automatic that you are a friend of the second amendment.

Another point is this, fast and furious started years ago, and i think it had an ulterior motive to try and get SOME of the public behind more gun legislation.

Are we going to sit here and debate that this does not go on every day????

Look at the Trayvon Martin case, and the stand your ground law (no i am not saying the gov had anything to do with the killing), the government always uses a time of public swaying by the media to at least attempt new legislation, and i do not think that is far fetched at all.

And as for what Rush Limbaugh or whoever said anything, i cannot comment, as i do not listen, but have little understanding of what it has to do with this conversation.

So, if you do not think that is what the government was doing, what was their plan, since they had no tracing devices on these firearms, and they certainly are doing everything they can to lie and cover up now?

As previous posts have pointed out, there have been much better times to propose gun legislation, particularly the Giffords shooting.

I don't know anything about this story other than the basics, mostly because it is irrelevant and largely boring. There are far more immoral and atrocious actions the administration has taken in the last three years; a few lost guns are not important.

phinfan3411
06-24-2012, 11:57 AM
As previous posts have pointed out, there have been much better times to propose gun legislation, particularly the Giffords shooting.

I don't know anything about this story other than the basics, mostly because it is irrelevant and largely boring. There are far more immoral and atrocious actions the administration has taken in the last three years; a few lost guns are not important.

I will not argue with you about the actions of this administration, but to call this action irrelevant is not exactly how i would expect someone to describe it.

As i said before, i consider to be an ulterior motive, or a shot in the dark, to see where it takes them type of plan. You see, i look at it EXACTLY the same way most of the field agents looked at it, what the hell could they be thinking of?

As for the Giffords shooting, i'm not sure you understand what i am trying to say, obviously they had nothing to do with it, if as a result of that shooting, there was a moving of public sentiment on gun control, i see no reason that they would not take advantage of it.

The ulterior motive i am speaking of is an attempt, through the media to try and move the perception of needed gun legislation by stories, night after night (which there were) of all of this gun violence in Mexico (a very highly thought of vacation place) while putting the blame squarely on our "lax" gun laws.

I do not think this is far fetched at all as an ulterior motive, in fact i would think a reasonable man would have a hard time figuring out exactly what their primary motive was. I know what the BS cover your azz motive was, but i really do not believe that.

SnakeoilSeller
06-24-2012, 12:18 PM
I wanted to know what "Shrub" was hiding the day after 911 when all bin Laden's relatives were promptly airlifted out of the US at taxpayers' expense. Was it a reaction or the result of pre-planning proaction?

Not terribly sure what that has to do with supplying guns to a violent drug cartel, 300 dead Mexicans and a dead borber agent. Sounds like a topic for another thread.

Spesh
06-24-2012, 12:22 PM
So executive privilege in the firing of federal prosecutors is the same as executive privilege in the case of 300 dead innocent Mexicans and 1 Border guard agent? Wow. That does not put much of a value on human life. Fired lawyers and the non outing of a person that worked for the CIA equals how many dead people? I never said that President Obama was the first President to use Executive Privilege. But in a rush to defend Obama with the typical Bush did it too excuse, you unintentionally exposed how much was made of minor uses of executive privilege by the media and the left, so why not attack this scandal with the same vigor? The special prosecutor in the Valerie Plame case knew who the outer was and still went on a fishing expedition to get Karl Rove, George Bush and Dick Cheney exclusively. Don't the families of the 300 dead Mexicans and Agent Terry's Family deserve the same investigation? Would it be different if it was in inner city Detroit? Or New York City? Or Miami?

Also, this rationale that the Obama Adminstration would not do this in an election year is a joke. It was started in 2009. It ended in 2010. It was not supposed to be an election issue. It is just another one of the many **** ups by this administration, driven by ideology. Just like the stimulus was supposed to create "shovel ready" jobs, but there were none. Just like green energy was the future, like Solyndra. The only difference is that instead of wasting trillions of dollars, this idea cost hundreds their lives.

Ah, so the abuse of executive privilege isnt the problem. Your problem is in which case is it acceptable to abuse the system. Circumventing the law? Perfectly acceptable, as long as no guns were involved. And even then its ok so long as its not used as an excuse to introduce gun legislation. Gotcha.

As far as the human life argument, when Gabby Giffords was shot 19 others were hit(another was injured taking down the gunman), 6 killed. The shooter used a Glock 19 with a 33 bullet magazine. Should we blame the person who sold him the gun or magazine? Should we launch an investigation into how someone with a clear instability could get his hands on such a weapon? Should we blame the politicians who have supported the gun purchase process and our right to own weapons? Of course not.

Obama used executive privilege for the same exact reason that Bush did: to cover up incompetency. To get riled up over one and not the other is laughable. This is election year partisan politics at its finest.
I think many on this board would applaud your honesty if you were to simply state how you feel its acceptable for Republicans to abuse their powers but its a crime when Democrats do.

SnakeoilSeller
06-24-2012, 12:50 PM
Ah, so the abuse of executive privilege isnt the problem. Your problem is in which case is it acceptable to abuse the system. Circumventing the law? Perfectly acceptable, as long as no guns were involved. And even then its ok so long as its not used as an excuse to introduce gun legislation. Gotcha.

As far as the human life argument, when Gabby Giffords was shot 19 others were hit(another was injured taking down the gunman), 6 killed. The shooter used a Glock 19 with a 33 bullet magazine. Should we blame the person who sold him the gun or magazine? Should we launch an investigation into how someone with a clear instability could get his hands on such a weapon? Should we blame the politicians who have supported the gun purchase process and our right to own weapons? Of course not.

Obama used executive privilege for the same exact reason that Bush did: to cover up incompetency. To get riled up over one and not the other is laughable. This is election year partisan politics at its finest.
I think many on this board would applaud your honesty if you were to simply state how you feel its acceptable for Republicans to abuse their powers but its a crime when Democrats do.


You are absolutely right, it is election year at it's finest. Fired lawyers are the same as dead Mexicans and a dead border agent, in the mind of the left when it is protecting a Democratic President and Democratic Attorney General. Again, I never said this was abuse of Executive Privilege, did I? No. Did I ever say that President is the only President to use Executive Privilege? No. Suddenly should I teach my children that 2 wrongs make a right? Because that is the left's rationale, George Bush used Executive Privilege, so it's the same thing — but it is not. To compare a manufactured case of an outed CIA Agent (which everyone in Washington knew where she worked) to that of 300 dead Mexicans and 1 dead border agent is at least a horrible joke, or is it telling? Maybe that's how the left truly feels about Mexicans and the country of Mexico?

And how in the world can you even use Giffords as any comparison. The Dems used the Giffords tragedy to blame the Tea Party, blame Sarah Palin and raise money. And I am sure there were many OP Ed written articles by politicians that called for more gun laws citing the Giffords tragedy. The left never lets a crisis go to waste.

Tetragrammaton
06-24-2012, 01:48 PM
I will not argue with you about the actions of this administration, but to call this action irrelevant is not exactly how i would expect someone to describe it.

As i said before, i consider to be an ulterior motive, or a shot in the dark, to see where it takes them type of plan. You see, i look at it EXACTLY the same way most of the field agents looked at it, what the hell could they be thinking of?

As for the Giffords shooting, i'm not sure you understand what i am trying to say, obviously they had nothing to do with it, if as a result of that shooting, there was a moving of public sentiment on gun control, i see no reason that they would not take advantage of it.

The ulterior motive i am speaking of is an attempt, through the media to try and move the perception of needed gun legislation by stories, night after night (which there were) of all of this gun violence in Mexico (a very highly thought of vacation place) while putting the blame squarely on our "lax" gun laws.

I do not think this is far fetched at all as an ulterior motive, in fact i would think a reasonable man would have a hard time figuring out exactly what their primary motive was. I know what the BS cover your azz motive was, but i really do not believe that.

The point I was making with Limbaugh earlier, is that it is strange that someone thinks the administration is so evil and plotting, yet a bunch of amateur sleuths figured it out. Limbaugh is one of many voices who have been touting this conspiracy theory. Don't take offense to this, but you and SnakeOilSeller are just ordinary people, yet you seemed to have cracked the code. That is why every conspiracy theory usually falls apart; you have to believe that the government is so good it could pull something like this off but so bad that regular people like yourself can figure it out.

Americans love guns. The only way more gun control is going to get through is if a Republican proposes it, because the Democrats won't be on the other side of that.

Dolphins9954
06-24-2012, 02:15 PM
Obama and Bush suck mexican donkey show balls.

Dogbone34
06-24-2012, 02:40 PM
being unable to comprehend those who would conspire for political or financial gain is a gullible you problem.

just because your not in the loop doesn't mean there is no loop.
trust but verify.

phinfan3411
06-24-2012, 03:20 PM
The point I was making with Limbaugh earlier, is that it is strange that someone thinks the administration is so evil and plotting, yet a bunch of amateur sleuths figured it out. Limbaugh is one of many voices who have been touting this conspiracy theory. Don't take offense to this, but you and SnakeOilSeller are just ordinary people, yet you seemed to have cracked the code. That is why every conspiracy theory usually falls apart; you have to believe that the government is so good it could pull something like this off but so bad that regular people like yourself can figure it out.

Americans love guns. The only way more gun control is going to get through is if a Republican proposes it, because the Democrats won't be on the other side of that.

I am not sure who you were directing this, but, as far as i can tell, the Obama administration is just another administration, that does absolutely nothing of what they promise, yet their lemmings think they walk on water, in other words, Bush 2.0.

I do not think i have argued any differently on this matter, that i can remember anyways.

I think you are way off on your "cracking the code" theory, i think many, if not all of the last half century (at least) of administrations have been guilty of similar actions, which they will never admit to, and will do there best to destroy any evidence of, certainly doesn't mean it did not happen.

Regular people were able to figure it out? What a joke...

Dolphins9954
06-24-2012, 03:30 PM
Fact is Obama's administration is one of the worst when it comes to transparency after promising to be "the most open and transparent government ever". He hides behind national security and state secrets on a constant basis and really doesn't give a damn about our right to know what our government is up to. Bush was horrible with this too and Obama attacked Bush for it. But just like every other person with power it went to his head. I heard a good quote the other day. "Obama promised everyone a pie in the sky. Instead they all got a pie to the face".

Tetragrammaton
06-24-2012, 04:16 PM
being unable to comprehend those who would conspire for political or financial gain is a gullible you problem.

just because your not in the loop doesn't mean there is no loop.
trust but verify.

I am sure the chemtrails made them do it.

Spesh
06-24-2012, 06:55 PM
You are absolutely right, it is election year at it's finest. Fired lawyers are the same as dead Mexicans and a dead border agent, in the mind of the left when it is protecting a Democratic President and Democratic Attorney General. Again, I never said this was abuse of Executive Privilege, did I? No. Did I ever say that President is the only President to use Executive Privilege? No. Suddenly should I teach my children that 2 wrongs make a right? Because that is the left's rationale, George Bush used Executive Privilege, so it's the same thing ó but it is not. To compare a manufactured case of an outed CIA Agent (which everyone in Washington knew where she worked) to that of 300 dead Mexicans and 1 dead border agent is at least a horrible joke, or is it telling? Maybe that's how the left truly feels about Mexicans and the country of Mexico?

And how in the world can you even use Giffords as any comparison. The Dems used the Giffords tragedy to blame the Tea Party, blame Sarah Palin and raise money. And I am sure there were many OP Ed written articles by politicians that called for more gun laws citing the Giffords tragedy. The left never lets a crisis go to waste.

Instead you start demanding "WHAT ARE THEY HIDING!" and hilariously try and explain how its just not a big deal when conservatives do the same thing. At best, you are riled up and upset that the Obama administration stole your parties tactics. By your own words, your not upset that conservatives have used the executive privilege in a fashion it was not designed for, your just upset that a liberal has. How you can try and justify that as something other then hypocrisy is beyond me.

According to your posts, its perfectly fine to cover things up. So long as you can be identified as a Republican. If a Democrat does the same exact thing, well then its time to start beating down doors and screaming in the streets.
And of course the Gifford incident doesnt apply, the reason? Because you dont want it to. Oh, and Obama wasnt involved.

CedarPhin
06-26-2012, 06:04 PM
I can't wait until the ATF does a pint-sized Waco on Snake's windmill mansion on the mini-golf course, all while he sits jamming his ukulele defiantly against the man.

LANGER72
06-26-2012, 06:43 PM
Not terribly sure what that has to do with supplying guns to a violent drug cartel, 300 dead Mexicans and a dead borber agent. Sounds like a topic for another thread.

:hclap:

LANGER72
06-26-2012, 06:48 PM
Instead you start demanding "WHAT ARE THEY HIDING!" and hilariously try and explain how its just not a big deal when conservatives do the same thing. At best, you are riled up and upset that the Obama administration stole your parties tactics. By your own words, your not upset that conservatives have used the executive privilege in a fashion it was not designed for, your just upset that a liberal has. How you can try and justify that as something other then hypocrisy is beyond me.

According to your posts, its perfectly fine to cover things up. So long as you can be identified as a Republican. If a Democrat does the same exact thing, well then its time to start beating down doors and screaming in the streets.
And of course the Gifford incident doesnt apply, the reason? Because you dont want it to. Oh, and Obama wasnt involved.

Obama's use of executive privilege is not new, but the obstruction has lowered the bar to a new low. And for what?
There should be no "executive privilege" in any branch or level of government. It is a license to break the law.
Right now, Holder and Obama are in the hot seat.