|
29 Jun 12 - 02:59 PM (#3369704) Subject: BS: Fast and Furious News. Not so simple. From: Jack the Sailor Mother Jones reports on Fortune. |
|
29 Jun 12 - 03:13 PM (#3369710) Subject: RE: BS: Fast and Furious News. Not so simple. From: gnu "In another instance, a young jobless suspect paid more than $10,000 for a 50-caliber tripod-mounted sniper rifle." Gives me a better perspective on the problems down south. |
|
29 Jun 12 - 03:20 PM (#3369714) Subject: RE: BS: Fast and Furious News. Not so simple. From: Bobert This is all a joke, right??? Hey, I can rent a U-Haul truck and drive to any of the Richmond, Va. gun shows and buy every AK-47 available and a $5 book on how to make them fully automatic and no background check and no questions asked... B~ |
|
29 Jun 12 - 03:36 PM (#3369727) Subject: RE: BS: Fast and Furious News. Not so simple. From: Jack the Sailor A 50-caliber tripod-mounted sniper rifle is not a defensive weapon. |
|
29 Jun 12 - 03:41 PM (#3369729) Subject: RE: BS: Fast and Furious News. Not so simple. From: gnu Bobert... don't spend $5 on a book. Buy a file and look up how to do it on the internut. JtS... nor is it a squirrel rifle. Unless ya want squirrel puree. Of course, if yer huntin Fords and such, Bob's yer uncle. |
|
29 Jun 12 - 03:51 PM (#3369731) Subject: RE: BS: Fast and Furious News. Not so simple. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Well if that's true, you'd think they'd be falling all over themselves to get the documents to the committee to clear themselves!...Just a thought... GfS |
|
29 Jun 12 - 04:02 PM (#3369734) Subject: RE: BS: Fast and Furious News. Not so simple. From: Jack the Sailor Well if it is true then there is nothing in the documents that can clear them or provide more information. It is just a fishing expedition combined with a political show trial for "contempt." Just a thought from an actual working brain. |
|
29 Jun 12 - 04:04 PM (#3369735) Subject: RE: BS: Fast and Furious News. Not so simple. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity ...and invoke 'executive privilege' for THAT???? I think Forbes Fortune Magazine just wanted to boost their Democratic party market sales!! The premise makes no sense...Why not clear it up?? Nope, doesn't wash. GfS |
|
29 Jun 12 - 04:10 PM (#3369737) Subject: RE: BS: Fast and Furious News. Not so simple. From: Jack the Sailor The Fortune reporter is saying that The Democrats are lying when they say there has been gunwalking. Yet they say the "whistle blower" walked guns. So obviously there has been gun walking. Is Holder fully informed, No. Is he saying anything dishonest? Is there a coverup? No not if the reporter is to be believed. Could he have handled it better? Fortune Reports. You decide. |
|
29 Jun 12 - 04:16 PM (#3369740) Subject: RE: BS: Fast and Furious News. Not so simple. From: Bobert How many documents would make you and Issa happy, GfinS??? You are playing the same ill-logic trick-bag game we played on Saddam... Prove you don't have WMDs... Prove you don't have more documents... I mean, if Holder gave them another 1000 documents they still wouldn't be happy... They are perfectly happy just wasting America's time as they have since the 2010 election... ****************************obstructionism**************************** B~ |
|
29 Jun 12 - 04:20 PM (#3369743) Subject: RE: BS: Fast and Furious News. Not so simple. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Fair enough, Jack..but how do they explain why Obama go for the 'Executive Privilege' if it was just one rogue idiot??....and risk all the political backlash??..You mean to tell me, that the President would risk the appearance of such a cover-up, and allegations of involvement in it, in an election season??...It still doesn't make sense....and I'm not promoting anything one way or the other...it just makes no sense, for it to be true..........what WOULD make sense, is that this guy is being the 'fall guy' to continue the stonewalling, and to shield any higher ups..then we go back to the first question, "Why not release the documents, to clear Holder and the President, if this one guy is the 'only one'?? Feedback is OK....this is legit dialogue. GfS |
|
29 Jun 12 - 04:28 PM (#3369749) Subject: RE: BS: Fast and Furious News. Not so simple. From: Jack the Sailor explain why Obama go for the 'Executive Privilege' Because he knows the GOP is fishing and would not stop at that. He saw what these unpatriotic assholes did to President Clinton. How does an investigation of a real estate deal turn into 70 million dollars of taxpayer money spent on investigating a simple marital infidelity. Disgusting yes. But worth 70 million to investigate. hardly. if it was just one rogue idiot I don't think he or Holder are as up on the details as the reporter. She suggests that they should have done a better investigation. at the local level. |
|
29 Jun 12 - 04:32 PM (#3369751) Subject: RE: BS: Fast and Furious News. Not so simple. From: Jack the Sailor "Why not release the documents, to clear Holder and the President," As I said before, i will not say it again. No offense to you. You are being lucid and civil. But I have recently learned that it is pointless to continue a discussion when my main point is being ignored. "Well if it is true (what the reporter is saying) then there is nothing in the documents (being sought by Congress) that can clear them or provide more information." |
|
29 Jun 12 - 04:51 PM (#3369759) Subject: RE: BS: Fast and Furious News. Not so simple. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity So, are you saying, in your opinion, that the story has no legs? GfS |
|
29 Jun 12 - 05:01 PM (#3369761) Subject: RE: BS: Fast and Furious News. Not so simple. From: Jack the Sailor No I think the story has lots of legs. I think that it will cause the DOJ to do a more thorough investigation. I think that Congress is looking for a cover up. But how can there be a coverup if Holder didn't know what he was covering? They are certainly trying to pull a Ken Starr on Holder. I think that Holder was apologizing for the actions of the "rogue" agent but probably didn't go much further to see if there were others because he has a lot of more important work to do. Unfortunately the GOP House of Congress apparently does not. But those are just my first impressions. Hence I titled the thread. " Fast and Furious News. Not so simple." Lets wait and see what comes out. |
|
29 Jun 12 - 05:01 PM (#3369762) Subject: RE: BS: Fast and Furious News. Not so simple. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity I mean,,,if there is nothing to hide, and the documents are subpenaed, whether they think there is something to hide or not, they WERE subpenaed...and the refusal to produce them, is what the contempt charges were filed for..he refuse, he got charged with contempt..which legally, it is. Somehow scratching my head...am I missing something? GfS |
|
29 Jun 12 - 05:12 PM (#3369764) Subject: RE: BS: Fast and Furious News. Not so simple. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Jack: "I think that it will cause the DOJ to do a more thorough investigation...." True, and I suppose others will be, also..(fair enough)...guess we'll see what comes of it......though, in my humble, (and sometimes 'not so humble') opinion, (wink), I think it goes higher up...and possibly for reasons they WANT to hide..but we'll see, OK?..be open. GfS |
|
29 Jun 12 - 05:28 PM (#3369774) Subject: RE: BS: Fast and Furious News. Not so simple. From: Jack the Sailor I think it interferes with the operations of the DOJ for a Congressional Committee to go on a fishing expedition. Obviously they do not know what is in the documents or they would not need to subpena them right. And they are looking for a coverup right? So obviously the GOP is asking for something along the lines of "send us all correspondence among all senior DOJ officials for the last 3 and a half years. and throw in all the stuff involving the Commander in Chief while you are at it. I doubt that they do have anything serious to cover up involving "Fast and Furious" but there are probably plenty of things people like Sean Hanity and Jim DeMint can use to pull out of context and smear the administration. To prevent such things and to ensure that the President gets candid advice is why executive privilege exists. I hope that answers your question because I am getting tired. Please consider what I have said here while the story unfolds. It took me some trouble to write it. take care. |
|
29 Jun 12 - 05:36 PM (#3369780) Subject: RE: BS: Fast and Furious News. Not so simple. From: pdq "...Holder was apologizing for the actions of the "rogue" agent but probably didn't go much further..." Which would mean that Holder knew that somebody who was under his charge planned and executed this atrocity that resulted in the deaths of at least 200 people. No big thing? About Holder, "he has a lot of more important work to do." Then turn over what was asked for and get to the other work. |
|
29 Jun 12 - 05:59 PM (#3369793) Subject: RE: BS: Fast and Furious News. Not so simple. From: Jack the Sailor "Which would mean that Holder knew that somebody who was under his charge planned and executed this atrocity that resulted in the deaths of at least 200 people." No which would mean that someone under his very indirect charge confessed to "walking guns." You blame the agent who facilitated the sale but ignore the gun makers who lobbied for it and the Arizona Legislature that made the unrecorded bulk automatic weapons sales legal? Could your motivations and arguments be political? :-p |
|
29 Jun 12 - 06:18 PM (#3369804) Subject: RE: BS: Fast and Furious News. Not so simple. From: Bobert The problem here is that there is no number of documents that would make Senator Issa happy... He is a bully/coward just like Eric "The Wiesel" Cantor... As long as he has big boys around him he's Mr. Tough Guy... Neither of these punks have ever played a contact sport of been in a real fist fight... They are cowards and wimps and if anyone knows either of them tell them that there is a wirey ol' hillbilly who would be more than happy to teach them the finer points of pugilism... Cowards make me sick!!! B~ |
|
29 Jun 12 - 08:15 PM (#3369848) Subject: RE: BS: Fast and Furious News. Not so simple. From: Jack the Sailor I don't care much what they did before Congress. The nonsense they do in Congress is what bothers me. |
|
29 Jun 12 - 08:21 PM (#3369853) Subject: RE: BS: Fast and Furious News. Not so simple. From: Bill D "Then turn over what was asked for and get to the other work. " What was asked for was the transcripts of the private meeting discussing the issue....where there was no doubt many irrelevant but 'interesting' things said. They GOT all the documents relating to the actual F & F operation. The Republicans sure would see the point if they were asked for transcripts of the meeting discussing "how to oust Obama" that was held the night before inauguration. |
|
29 Jun 12 - 08:27 PM (#3369854) Subject: RE: BS: Fast and Furious News. Not so simple. From: Bobert Yup, Bill... The entire Republican Party turned its back on governance and the American people when Obama became president... They no longed give a flying fuck about either of those boring and trivial things... Obama is the problem... These people aren't patriots... They are treasonous crybabies... B~ |
|
29 Jun 12 - 08:30 PM (#3369857) Subject: RE: BS: Fast and Furious News. Not so simple. From: Songwronger Holder should have been tried and executed for this long ago. They're just feeding him to us now to distract us from the Obamacare abomination. |
|
29 Jun 12 - 08:50 PM (#3369862) Subject: RE: BS: Fast and Furious News. Not so simple. From: Bobert TeaPub talk... Don't BS us anymore, wrongman... Your spots are hotter than the sun... B~ |
|
30 Jun 12 - 01:55 AM (#3369920) Subject: RE: BS: Fast and Furious News. Not so simple. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity The way i see the partisan angle, is this campaign is going to be(and has been) a dirty, mudslinger from both sides..and both sides are doing it, complete with exaggerations both ways. None of this would have been ab issue, if 16 months prior Holder would have been co-operative...Obama worsened it by claiming executive privilege,..which in his eagerness(?) to help his AG out, he implicated himself....and that was like throwing blood in the water at the nearby sharks. Either it was tactically dumb, or he is hiding something...I mean how else could you interpret it? Personally, I think there is more to this story than meets the eye, just as there was to Hassenfuss's C-5A going down. Whether its that big , or just the tip of the iceberg, or just an isolated incident, the more he stonewalls, the worse it looks...especially to the sharks, who are just waiting for a frenzy....Then, on the other hand, it still could be the tip of that ol' iceberg. To jump to conclusions, either way, is still media inspired lynch mob mentality..either way. The smart thing to do, would have been the honest thing to do....but then this administration, along with others, as well, probably has the worse reputation for it's lack of candor and honesty. One thing, for sure, is Obama should have NEVER promised 'transparency' in his campaign....that's thrown even more blood into the water! GfS |
|
30 Jun 12 - 02:12 AM (#3369922) Subject: RE: BS: Fast and Furious News. Not so simple. From: Jack the Sailor Or as the evidence presented by the reporter suggests, Holder didn't confess because he didn't know what was going on. |
|
30 Jun 12 - 01:52 PM (#3369958) Subject: RE: BS: Fast and Furious News. Not so simple. From: Bobert That's the deal. JtS... The Repubs are up to the same pea-under-the-shell game they played on Saddam... Prove you don't have something... Proving that you don't have something is, ahhhhhh.... ...impossible... B~ |