info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
#Ann Coulter: FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Kurt Nicklas
Jul 11, 2012, 6:16:54 PM7/11/12
to
FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM
July 11, 2012
Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-11.html#read_more
Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric Holder
is hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't understand the
story.
Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation for
why President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers: It put guns
in their hands to strengthen liberals' argument for gun control.
Precisely because this is such a jaw-dropping accusation --
criminality at the highest level of government to score a political
point -- Republicans refuse to make it.
But the problem with Republican rectitude in discussing this scandal
is that as soon as they start talking about subpoenas and dates and
documents, TV channels change across America. They're never going to
get answers unless they first explain to the American people why it
matters.
Liberals have been dying to reinstate the so-called "assault weapons"
ban, but they haven't been able to for political reasons. (For more
information on this, see the 1994 congressional elections.)
A typically idiotic Democratic scheme, the "assault weapons" ban
prohibited the sale of semiautomatics that are operationally
indistinguishable from deer rifles, but which looked scary to liberal
women.
First, the Democrats tried lying about how American guns were being
found in the hands of Mexican drug dealers -- while demanding a
renewal of the assault weapons ban.
Obama had barely unpacked at the White House, when he and high-level
administration officials and Senate Democrats -- Holder, Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Sen. Chuck Schumer --
started railing about how our lax gun control laws were putting guns
in the hands of Mexican drug cartels.
In 2010, even Mexico's President Felipe Calderon demanded that the
U.S. reinstate the assault weapons ban -- on the grounds that Mexican
drug violence was directly linked to the law's repeal.
The claim was preposterous for many reasons, including the fact that
the type and quantity of armaments being used by Mexican drug cartels
can be obtained only from places such as North Korea, China, Russia,
Venezuela and Guatemala.
The notion that most guns used by Mexican drug gangs came from the
U.S. was a lie -- exposed on about 1 million gun blogs and on Fox
News.
So, then the Obama administration did exactly what Democrats had been
falsely accusing American gun sellers of doing: They put American guns
in the hands of Mexican drug cartels.
The only explanation for Fast and Furious is that it was a program to
prop up a losing gun control argument. The Waco and Ruby Ridge raids
were monstrous, but they at least made sense as simple screw-ups: (1)
ATF's budget was about to be cut and it needed some showy raids; and
(2) law enforcement officials detest private gun ownership on
principle.
There is no conceivable law enforcement objective to giving Mexican
drug dealers thousands of untrackable guns. It's not even fun for the
agents, like an armed raid on a private home. If there's some other
explanation, Holder isn't telling.
Republicans refuse to state this clearly because they can't prove it.
Instead, they just keep chattering about the documents that haven't
been turned over and subpoenas that haven't been answered.
Did Democrats wait for a smoking gun to accuse Karl Rove of treason
for revealing Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA agent? It turned out
Rove didn't reveal it, and it wouldn't have been a crime if he had.
Did they wait for proof to accuse Sen. John McCain of committing
adultery? They had none, and yet that story ran on the front page of
The New York Times.
Did they have any evidence before accusing the entire Republican House
leadership of complicity in Mark Foley's creepy emails to young male
interns? See if you can guess. Take all the time you need. Feel free
to call one of your "lifelines" if necessary.
Liberals just make wild-eyed accusations and demand Republicans prove
themselves innocent. (Say, whatever happened to Karl Rove's trial for
treason for outing Valerie Plame? Can somebody call Lawrence O'Donnell
and check on that?)
If conservatives were our only source of information about 9/11, no
one would care about that, either. Somehow they'd make it about Osama
bin Laden not answering a subpoena.
This isn't just another government program gone bad -- a $300 ashtray,
stimulus money fraud, Solyndra or Van Jones.
It isn't just a story about some government official refusing to
testify.
It isn't even a story about an American dying as a result of a
government program, as outrageous as that is. Yes, Brian Terry died at
the hands of a Mexican using a Holder-provided American gun. Pat
Tillman died. Ron Brown died. People sometimes die as a result of
government screw-ups. Fast and Furious is worse.
Innocent people dying was the objective of Fast and Furious, not
collateral damage.
It would be as if the Bush administration had implemented a covert
operation to dump a dangerous abortifacient in Planned Parenthood
clinics, resulting in hundreds of women dying -- just to give pro-
lifers an argument about how dangerous abortion clinics are.
That's what Fast and Furious is about.
July 11, 2012
Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-11.html#read_more
Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric Holder
is hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't understand the
story.
Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation for
why President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers: It put guns
in their hands to strengthen liberals' argument for gun control.
Precisely because this is such a jaw-dropping accusation --
criminality at the highest level of government to score a political
point -- Republicans refuse to make it.
But the problem with Republican rectitude in discussing this scandal
is that as soon as they start talking about subpoenas and dates and
documents, TV channels change across America. They're never going to
get answers unless they first explain to the American people why it
matters.
Liberals have been dying to reinstate the so-called "assault weapons"
ban, but they haven't been able to for political reasons. (For more
information on this, see the 1994 congressional elections.)
A typically idiotic Democratic scheme, the "assault weapons" ban
prohibited the sale of semiautomatics that are operationally
indistinguishable from deer rifles, but which looked scary to liberal
women.
First, the Democrats tried lying about how American guns were being
found in the hands of Mexican drug dealers -- while demanding a
renewal of the assault weapons ban.
Obama had barely unpacked at the White House, when he and high-level
administration officials and Senate Democrats -- Holder, Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Sen. Chuck Schumer --
started railing about how our lax gun control laws were putting guns
in the hands of Mexican drug cartels.
In 2010, even Mexico's President Felipe Calderon demanded that the
U.S. reinstate the assault weapons ban -- on the grounds that Mexican
drug violence was directly linked to the law's repeal.
The claim was preposterous for many reasons, including the fact that
the type and quantity of armaments being used by Mexican drug cartels
can be obtained only from places such as North Korea, China, Russia,
Venezuela and Guatemala.
The notion that most guns used by Mexican drug gangs came from the
U.S. was a lie -- exposed on about 1 million gun blogs and on Fox
News.
So, then the Obama administration did exactly what Democrats had been
falsely accusing American gun sellers of doing: They put American guns
in the hands of Mexican drug cartels.
The only explanation for Fast and Furious is that it was a program to
prop up a losing gun control argument. The Waco and Ruby Ridge raids
were monstrous, but they at least made sense as simple screw-ups: (1)
ATF's budget was about to be cut and it needed some showy raids; and
(2) law enforcement officials detest private gun ownership on
principle.
There is no conceivable law enforcement objective to giving Mexican
drug dealers thousands of untrackable guns. It's not even fun for the
agents, like an armed raid on a private home. If there's some other
explanation, Holder isn't telling.
Republicans refuse to state this clearly because they can't prove it.
Instead, they just keep chattering about the documents that haven't
been turned over and subpoenas that haven't been answered.
Did Democrats wait for a smoking gun to accuse Karl Rove of treason
for revealing Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA agent? It turned out
Rove didn't reveal it, and it wouldn't have been a crime if he had.
Did they wait for proof to accuse Sen. John McCain of committing
adultery? They had none, and yet that story ran on the front page of
The New York Times.
Did they have any evidence before accusing the entire Republican House
leadership of complicity in Mark Foley's creepy emails to young male
interns? See if you can guess. Take all the time you need. Feel free
to call one of your "lifelines" if necessary.
Liberals just make wild-eyed accusations and demand Republicans prove
themselves innocent. (Say, whatever happened to Karl Rove's trial for
treason for outing Valerie Plame? Can somebody call Lawrence O'Donnell
and check on that?)
If conservatives were our only source of information about 9/11, no
one would care about that, either. Somehow they'd make it about Osama
bin Laden not answering a subpoena.
This isn't just another government program gone bad -- a $300 ashtray,
stimulus money fraud, Solyndra or Van Jones.
It isn't just a story about some government official refusing to
testify.
It isn't even a story about an American dying as a result of a
government program, as outrageous as that is. Yes, Brian Terry died at
the hands of a Mexican using a Holder-provided American gun. Pat
Tillman died. Ron Brown died. People sometimes die as a result of
government screw-ups. Fast and Furious is worse.
Innocent people dying was the objective of Fast and Furious, not
collateral damage.
It would be as if the Bush administration had implemented a covert
operation to dump a dangerous abortifacient in Planned Parenthood
clinics, resulting in hundreds of women dying -- just to give pro-
lifers an argument about how dangerous abortion clinics are.
That's what Fast and Furious is about.
ala
Jul 11, 2012, 9:25:36 PM7/11/12
to
"Kurt Nicklas" <kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a34bfd38-7641-430a...@i8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM
> July 11, 2012
>
> Ann Coulter
>
> http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-11.html#read_more
>
> Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric Holder
> is hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't understand the
> story.
>
> Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation for
> why President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
> Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers: It put guns
> in their hands to strengthen liberals' argument for gun control.
there are other plausible stories, most of which she can't access due to her
> July 11, 2012
>
> Ann Coulter
>
> http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-11.html#read_more
>
> Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric Holder
> is hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't understand the
> story.
>
> Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation for
> why President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
> Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers: It put guns
> in their hands to strengthen liberals' argument for gun control.
intellectual limitations
Padraigh ProAmerica
Jul 11, 2012, 9:57:37 PM7/11/12
to
Coulter was a respected Constitutional attorney before she turned to
punditry. I'd dare say her intellectual ability is a couple of orders of
magnitude above yours.
--
"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff. "--
Frank Zappa
punditry. I'd dare say her intellectual ability is a couple of orders of
magnitude above yours.
--
"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff. "--
Frank Zappa
Olrik
Jul 11, 2012, 11:30:52 PM7/11/12
to
Le 2012-07-11 18:16, Kurt Nicklas a écrit :
> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM
Indeed. It's a series of so-so action flicks for teenagers.
> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM
<snip crapola>
max headroom
Jul 11, 2012, 11:46:18 PM7/11/12
to
ala <alac...@comcast.net> wrote in news:3oWdnQMlTrgGumPS...@earthlink.com:
Why don't you explain a few as clearly as she did?
Gray Guest
Jul 12, 2012, 12:31:04 AM7/12/12
to
The facts ARE the facts. Holder and Obama are welcome to offer thier own
versions if they think it will do them any good.
Somehow, I rather doubt you'll hear.
Why libs suck and are dangerous:They lie. All the time. About everything.
One reallyu interesting thing about thier lies though, you'll notice that
the accusatiosn of actual crimes by Republicans never actually seem to
result in a conviction, ket alone a trial. Libby wasn't convicted of what
he was accused of, he was convicted for getting some fairly inconsequential
facts wrong long after the event but the dickhead Democrats NEEDED
something to hang around Bush's neck, so they destroyed a decent man
because they couldn't get to Bush, a man they have argued is a barely
functional moron.
Your moment has come and gone. Leave quietly or you will escorted out for
some wall to wall counseling.
--
Refusenik #1
Gray Guest
Jul 12, 2012, 12:32:12 AM7/12/12
to
ogr...@webtv.net (Padraigh ProAmerica) wrote in news:11879-4FFE2F11-1329
@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net:
I suspect my dog's intellect is a couple of orders of magnitude above his.
And I'm not talkking about the smart one.
--
Refusenik #1
@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net:
And I'm not talkking about the smart one.
--
Refusenik #1
Jason
Jul 12, 2012, 2:40:18 AM7/12/12
to
In article
<a34bfd38-7641-430a...@i8g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, Kurt
Kurt,
Thanks for an excellent post.
jason
<a34bfd38-7641-430a...@i8g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, Kurt
Thanks for an excellent post.
jason
3082 Dead
Jul 12, 2012, 3:14:36 AM7/12/12
to
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 20:46:18 -0700, max headroom wrote:
> ala <alac...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:3oWdnQMlTrgGumPS...@earthlink.com:
>
>> "Kurt Nicklas" <kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:a34bfd38-7641-430a-
> ala <alac...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:3oWdnQMlTrgGumPS...@earthlink.com:
>
>> "Kurt Nicklas" <kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
b4ec-792...@i8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM July 11, 2012
>
>>> Ann Coulter
>
>>> http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-11.html#read_more
>
>>> Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric Holder
>>> is hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't understand the
>>> story.
>
>>> Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation for
>>> why President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
>>> Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers: It put guns
>>> in their hands to strengthen liberals' argument for gun control.
>
>> there are other plausible stories, most of which she can't access due
>> to her intellectual limitations
>
> Why don't you explain a few as clearly as she did?
Booga booga! Big bad Negro President's going to take your guns! Ack!
>>> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM July 11, 2012
>
>>> Ann Coulter
>
>>> http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-11.html#read_more
>
>>> Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric Holder
>>> is hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't understand the
>>> story.
>
>>> Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation for
>>> why President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
>>> Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers: It put guns
>>> in their hands to strengthen liberals' argument for gun control.
>
>> there are other plausible stories, most of which she can't access due
>> to her intellectual limitations
>
> Why don't you explain a few as clearly as she did?
Booga booga!
Kurt Nicklas
Jul 12, 2012, 7:33:21 AM7/12/12
to
On Jul 12, 2:40 am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article
> <a34bfd38-7641-430a-b4ec-792e6a4c4...@i8g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, Kurt
My pleasure. Thx.
> In article
> <a34bfd38-7641-430a-b4ec-792e6a4c4...@i8g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, Kurt
Kurt Nicklas
Jul 12, 2012, 7:32:27 AM7/12/12
to
On Jul 12, 3:14 am, 3082 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 20:46:18 -0700, max headroom wrote:
> > ala <alackr...@comcast.net> wrote in
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 20:46:18 -0700, max headroom wrote:
> >news:3oWdnQMlTrgGumPS...@earthlink.com:
>
> >> "Kurt Nicklas" <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:a34bfd38-7641-430a-
>
> b4ec-792e6a4c4...@i8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM July 11, 2012
>
> >>> Ann Coulter
>
> >>>http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-11.html#read_more
>
> >>> Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric Holder
> >>> is hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't understand the
> >>> story.
>
> >>> Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation for
> >>> why President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
> >>> Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers: It put guns
> >>> in their hands to strengthen liberals' argument for gun control.
>
> >> there are other plausible stories, most of which she can't access due
> >> to her intellectual limitations
>
> > Why don't you explain a few as clearly as she did?
>
> Booga booga! Big bad Negro President's going to take your guns! Ack!
> Booga booga!
"Oooooonga ooooooooooonga oooooooonga! Mean CORPORATION CEOs are
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM July 11, 2012
>
> >>> Ann Coulter
>
> >>>http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-11.html#read_more
>
> >>> Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric Holder
> >>> is hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't understand the
> >>> story.
>
> >>> Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation for
> >>> why President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
> >>> Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers: It put guns
> >>> in their hands to strengthen liberals' argument for gun control.
>
> >> there are other plausible stories, most of which she can't access due
> >> to her intellectual limitations
>
> > Why don't you explain a few as clearly as she did?
>
> Booga booga! Big bad Negro President's going to take your guns! Ack!
> Booga booga!
hiding under my bed! THEY'E GONNA EAT ME AND MY DOGS!!!! OOOOOO"
----------------- "Zepp" Jamieson, Just about every day on Usenet
raven1
Jul 12, 2012, 8:52:05 AM7/12/12
to
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 15:16:54 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas
<kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric Holder
>is hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't understand the
>story.
Most Americans care even less about what Ann Coulter thinks the story
<kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric Holder
>is hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't understand the
>story.
is.
raven1
Jul 12, 2012, 8:54:58 AM7/12/12
to
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 04:31:04 +0000 (UTC), Gray Guest
<No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>"ala" <alac...@comcast.net> wrote in
>news:3oWdnQMlTrgGumPS...@earthlink.com:
>
>>
>> "Kurt Nicklas" <kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:a34bfd38-7641-430a...@i8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>>> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM
>>> July 11, 2012
>>>
>>> Ann Coulter
>>>
>>> http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-11.html#read_more
>>>
>>> Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric Holder
>>> is hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't understand the
>>> story.
>>>
>>> Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation for
>>> why President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
>>> Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers: It put guns
>>> in their hands to strengthen liberals' argument for gun control.
>>
>> there are other plausible stories, most of which she can't access due to
>> her intellectual limitations
>Really? What are they.
Off the top of my head: moderate mental retardation, intermittent
<No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>"ala" <alac...@comcast.net> wrote in
>news:3oWdnQMlTrgGumPS...@earthlink.com:
>
>>
>> "Kurt Nicklas" <kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:a34bfd38-7641-430a...@i8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>>> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM
>>> July 11, 2012
>>>
>>> Ann Coulter
>>>
>>> http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-11.html#read_more
>>>
>>> Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric Holder
>>> is hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't understand the
>>> story.
>>>
>>> Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation for
>>> why President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
>>> Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers: It put guns
>>> in their hands to strengthen liberals' argument for gun control.
>>
>> there are other plausible stories, most of which she can't access due to
>> her intellectual limitations
>Really? What are they.
explosive disorder, Tourette's syndrome, and psychopathy. Did I miss
any?
MarkA
Jul 12, 2012, 9:36:59 AM7/12/12
to
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 15:16:54 -0700, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM July 11, 2012
>
> Ann Coulter
>
> http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-11.html#read_more
>
> Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric Holder is
> hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't understand the story.
>
No, most Americans don't care about this issue because they remember the
> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM July 11, 2012
>
> Ann Coulter
>
> http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-11.html#read_more
>
> Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric Holder is
> hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't understand the story.
>
last time the GOP decided to go after a Democratic Administration, we got
to watch the spectacle of a sitting President being impeached for
the high crime of getting a blow job in the Oval Office. Or, maybe it was
the time the party of smaller government and personal responsibility
decided that Michael Schiavo wasn't fit to make end-of-life decisions for
his wife, and called an emergency session of Congress to pass a law that
the President cut short a scheduled vacation to sign, giving the federal
court jurisdiction in the case.
Actually, I think the GOP squandered the last of what little credibility
they had when GW Bush insisted that Iraq absolutely, positively, was
hiding weapons of mass destruction, and if we didn't go in and get them
RIGHT NOW, mushroom clouds would soon be sprouting over our major cities.
It was a real epiphany to find that Saddam Hussain was being more honest
with the American people than our own President was.
So, sorry, Ann, but when some irate Congressional GOPper insists that he's
found a conspiracy from the President to give guns to Mexican drug lords,
I'm so not impressed. I'm willing to believe that the ATF may have
screwed up a plan, but that happens every day, and is not an
indication of a massive cover-up. Have the GOP cultivate some honesty and
civility, and get back to me in a couple of years.
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
SaPeIsMa
Jul 12, 2012, 10:09:34 AM7/12/12
to
"ala" <alac...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3oWdnQMlTrgGumPS...@earthlink.com...
When you can't attack the message, attack the messenger
A loser tactic
max headroom
Jul 12, 2012, 4:56:21 AM7/12/12
to
3082 Dead <de...@gone.com> wrote in news:jtltgq$56n$3...@dont-email.me:
That was more coherent than I expect from most pinkies.
MarkA
Jul 12, 2012, 10:37:35 AM7/12/12
to
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 04:31:04 +0000, Gray Guest wrote:
> "ala" <alac...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:3oWdnQMlTrgGumPS...@earthlink.com:
>
>
>> "Kurt Nicklas" <kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:a34bfd38-7641-430a...@i8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>>> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM July 11, 2012
>>>
>>> Ann Coulter
>>>
>>> http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-11.html#read_more
>>>
>>> Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric Holder is
>>> hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't understand the
>>> story.
>>>
>>> Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation for
>>> why President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
>>> Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers: It put guns
>>> in their hands to strengthen liberals' argument for gun control.
>>
>> there are other plausible stories, most of which she can't access due to
>> her intellectual limitations
>>
>>
>>
> Really? What are they.
>
Like most real-life situations, there is undoubtedly a complex mix of
> "ala" <alac...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:3oWdnQMlTrgGumPS...@earthlink.com:
>
>
>> "Kurt Nicklas" <kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:a34bfd38-7641-430a...@i8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>>> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM July 11, 2012
>>>
>>> Ann Coulter
>>>
>>> http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-11.html#read_more
>>>
>>> Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric Holder is
>>> hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't understand the
>>> story.
>>>
>>> Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation for
>>> why President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
>>> Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers: It put guns
>>> in their hands to strengthen liberals' argument for gun control.
>>
>> there are other plausible stories, most of which she can't access due to
>> her intellectual limitations
>>
>>
>>
> Really? What are they.
>
factors in play: bureaucratic bungling, inter-departmental rivalries,
conflicting goals, lack of oversight, lax gun laws, etc.
There is an old saying, "Never attribute to malice that which can be
explained by incompetence".
Of course, the GOP is *desperate* to come up with anything they can to
tarnish Obama's successes in office, heading into the fall elections.
They have a couple of buttons they can push that will ALWAYS get their
members to the polls: abortion, homosexuals, and guns. Tell the lurking
GOPpers that the gov'ment wants to take their guns away, and they will be
out voting against their own self-interests in droves on election day.
3082 Dead
Jul 12, 2012, 10:49:29 AM7/12/12
to
Or care.
max headroom
Jul 12, 2012, 10:29:48 AM7/12/12
to
raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in news:g5itv75uepqs1qu3u...@4ax.com:
Any that have a basis in reality.
max headroom
Jul 12, 2012, 11:18:39 AM7/12/12
to
MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in news:pan.2012.07.12...@nowhere.invalid:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 04:31:04 +0000, Gray Guest wrote:
>> "ala" <alac...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:3oWdnQMlTrgGumPS...@earthlink.com:
>>> "Kurt Nicklas" <kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:a34bfd38-7641-430a...@i8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>>>> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM July 11, 2012
>>>> Ann Coulter
>>>> http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-11.html#read_more
>>>> Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric Holder is
>>>> hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't understand the
>>>> story.
>>>> Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation for
>>>> why President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
>>>> Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers: It put guns
>>>> in their hands to strengthen liberals' argument for gun control.
>>> there are other plausible stories, most of which she can't access due to
>>> her intellectual limitations
>> Really? What are they.
> Like most real-life situations, there is undoubtedly a complex mix of
> factors in play: bureaucratic bungling, inter-departmental rivalries,
> conflicting goals, lack of oversight, lax gun laws, etc.
What gun laws were too lax when you have licensed dealers being told by ATF to allow straw buyers to
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 04:31:04 +0000, Gray Guest wrote:
>> "ala" <alac...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:3oWdnQMlTrgGumPS...@earthlink.com:
>>> "Kurt Nicklas" <kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:a34bfd38-7641-430a...@i8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>>>> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM July 11, 2012
>>>> Ann Coulter
>>>> http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-11.html#read_more
>>>> Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric Holder is
>>>> hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't understand the
>>>> story.
>>>> Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation for
>>>> why President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
>>>> Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers: It put guns
>>>> in their hands to strengthen liberals' argument for gun control.
>>> there are other plausible stories, most of which she can't access due to
>>> her intellectual limitations
>> Really? What are they.
> Like most real-life situations, there is undoubtedly a complex mix of
> factors in play: bureaucratic bungling, inter-departmental rivalries,
> conflicting goals, lack of oversight, lax gun laws, etc.
complete the sales?
> There is an old saying, "Never attribute to malice that which can be
> explained by incompetence".
> Of course, the GOP is *desperate* to come up with anything they can to
If Holder and DoJ hadn't stonewalled the House committee for the past year, this would be over now.
> They have a couple of buttons they can push that will ALWAYS get their
Sounds like a DNC clarion call.
> ... Tell the lurking GOPpers that the gov'ment wants to take their guns away, and they will be
> out voting against their own self-interests in droves on election day.
How would it be in the self interests of voters to let the government take away their guns?
pyotr filipivich
Jul 12, 2012, 12:10:36 PM7/12/12
to
Let the Record show that "max headroom" <maxhe...@localnet.com> on
or about Thu, 12 Jul 2012 07:29:48 -0700 did write, type or otherwise
cause to appear in talk.politics.guns the following:
He was listing his/her/it's medical problems.
>
--
pyotr filipivich
Next Month's Panel: Suicide - getting it right the first time.
or about Thu, 12 Jul 2012 07:29:48 -0700 did write, type or otherwise
cause to appear in talk.politics.guns the following:
>
--
pyotr filipivich
Next Month's Panel: Suicide - getting it right the first time.
Steve
Jul 12, 2012, 1:08:52 PM7/12/12
to
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 14:49:29 +0000 (UTC), 3082 Dead <de...@gone.com>
wrote:
I wonder how Porky Jamieson deals with the humiliation of having to
buy his adult diapers with his food stamp card... or even worse,
knowing that I know he does it?
wrote:
buy his adult diapers with his food stamp card... or even worse,
knowing that I know he does it?
pyotr filipivich
Jul 12, 2012, 1:08:17 PM7/12/12
to
Let the Record show that "SaPeIsMa" <Sape...@gmail.com> on or about
Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:09:34 -0500 did write, type or otherwise cause to
Followers of the Obama have to attack the messenger, as they are
forbidden to even recognize the message.
"The Politics of Cognitive Dissonance
Why closed-mindedness is an imperative for the left."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303740704577520890454878330.html
In short: "Don't repeat conservative language or ideas, even when
arguing against them."
Or as I would put it "DemSoc Bellyfeeler, crimestop plusgood.
Duckspeak blackwhite that Oldthinkers blackwhite duckspeak.".
Liberal True Believers do not think about what the Conservative
argument is, they stop "thinking" when they sense they are getting
close to Those Ideas, and veer away, as all "right thinking" peoples
"should". They quack like ducks whatever the Party line is, believing
that black is white, because the party says so, and then accusing the
Conservatives of "quacking nonsense" without ever noticing their
"crimestop" preventing them from ThinkCrime.
tschus
pyotr
(why yes, I have been reading Orwell again.)
--
pyotr filipivich
TV NEWS: Yesterday's newspaper read to the illiterate.
Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:09:34 -0500 did write, type or otherwise cause to
appear in talk.politics.guns the following:
>
>
forbidden to even recognize the message.
"The Politics of Cognitive Dissonance
Why closed-mindedness is an imperative for the left."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303740704577520890454878330.html
In short: "Don't repeat conservative language or ideas, even when
arguing against them."
Or as I would put it "DemSoc Bellyfeeler, crimestop plusgood.
Duckspeak blackwhite that Oldthinkers blackwhite duckspeak.".
Liberal True Believers do not think about what the Conservative
argument is, they stop "thinking" when they sense they are getting
close to Those Ideas, and veer away, as all "right thinking" peoples
"should". They quack like ducks whatever the Party line is, believing
that black is white, because the party says so, and then accusing the
Conservatives of "quacking nonsense" without ever noticing their
"crimestop" preventing them from ThinkCrime.
tschus
pyotr
(why yes, I have been reading Orwell again.)
--
pyotr filipivich
TV NEWS: Yesterday's newspaper read to the illiterate.
raven1
Jul 12, 2012, 1:53:07 PM7/12/12
to
is appropriate in this case. Good call!
raven1
Jul 12, 2012, 2:34:30 PM7/12/12
to
(madman? It's difficult to tell with Coulter). There's nothing of
substance to attack.
>"The Politics of Cognitive Dissonance
>Why closed-mindedness is an imperative for the left."
>
>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303740704577520890454878330.html
reporting...
>In short: "Don't repeat conservative language or ideas, even when
>arguing against them."
repeating it?
>Or as I would put it "DemSoc Bellyfeeler, crimestop plusgood.
>Duckspeak blackwhite that Oldthinkers blackwhite duckspeak.".
>
> Liberal True Believers do not think about what the Conservative
>argument is, they stop "thinking" when they sense they are getting
>close to Those Ideas, and veer away, as all "right thinking" peoples
>"should". They quack like ducks whatever the Party line is, believing
>that black is white, because the party says so, and then accusing the
>Conservatives of "quacking nonsense" without ever noticing their
>"crimestop" preventing them from ThinkCrime.
projection: accuse your opponents of your own flaws.
David Geiger
Jul 12, 2012, 2:39:25 PM7/12/12
to
"raven1" wrote in message
news:hj3uv75k6i4q34bjj...@4ax.com...
You liberals DO have a problem understanding the diff between a man and a
woman!
Is that what you are saying?
Go figure! :)
JohnJohnsn
Jul 12, 2012, 2:45:48 PM7/12/12
to
On Jul 12, 9:37 am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 04:31:04 +0000, Gray Guest wrote:
>
>>"ala" <alackr...@comcast.net> wrote in
>
>
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 04:31:04 +0000, Gray Guest wrote:
>
>>news:3oWdnQMlTrgGumPS...@earthlink.com:
>
>>>"Kurt Nicklas" <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:a34bfd38-7641-430a...@i8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM July 11, 2012
>
>>>> Ann Coulter
>
>>>>-http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-11.html
>
>>>> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM July 11, 2012
>
>>>> Ann Coulter
>
>
>>>> Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric Holder
>>>> is hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't understand the
>>>> story.
>
>>>> Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation for
>>>> why President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
>>>> Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers: It put guns
>>>> in their hands to strengthen liberals' argument for gun control.
>
>>> there are other plausible stories, most of which she can't access due to
>>> her intellectual limitations
>
>> Really? What are they.
>
> Like most real-life situations, there is undoubtedly a complex mix of
> factors in play: bureaucratic bungling, inter-departmental rivalries,
> conflicting goals, lack of oversight, lax gun laws, etc.
>
Oops! Therr went your credibility, Marky: dropping the false "lax gun
>>>> Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric Holder
>>>> is hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't understand the
>>>> story.
>
>>>> Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation for
>>>> why President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
>>>> Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers: It put guns
>>>> in their hands to strengthen liberals' argument for gun control.
>
>>> there are other plausible stories, most of which she can't access due to
>>> her intellectual limitations
>
>> Really? What are they.
>
> Like most real-life situations, there is undoubtedly a complex mix of
> factors in play: bureaucratic bungling, inter-departmental rivalries,
> conflicting goals, lack of oversight, lax gun laws, etc.
>
laws" red herring.
>
> There is an old saying, "Never attribute to malice that which can be
> explained by incompetence".
>
> Of course, the GOP is *desperate* to come up with anything they can to
> tarnish Obama's successes in office, heading into the fall elections.
>
Other than his "successes" of "successfully" turning his "no new taxes
> There is an old saying, "Never attribute to malice that which can be
> explained by incompetence".
>
> Of course, the GOP is *desperate* to come up with anything they can to
> tarnish Obama's successes in office, heading into the fall elections.
>
for anyone making less than $250K/yr" into the lie we all knew it to
be via the ObamaCare "penalty"/"tax" on those who are least capable of
paying them, and "successfully" creating more debt in three-and-a-half
years than all presidents from George W through George W created, what
do _you_ consider his "successes," Marky?
"There are two ways to enslave a country....
One is by the Sword.
The other is by Debt."
— John Adams
Obama’s unparalleled debt creation
http://tinyurl.com/Obama-debt-creation
Obama's National Debt Clock
http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html
>
> They have a couple of buttons they can push that will ALWAYS get
> their members to the polls: abortion, homosexuals, and guns.
>
Will these get _your_ Liberal Democrat voters to the polls, Marky?
> They have a couple of buttons they can push that will ALWAYS get
> their members to the polls: abortion, homosexuals, and guns.
>
>
> Tell the lurking GOPpers that the gov'ment wants to take their guns away...
>
The federal "gov'ment" has a well-proven and well-documented pattern
of conduct there since 1934, Marky.
"I have said this before; I will repeat it: I have the greatest
admiration and courage for President Calderón and his entire cabinet,
his rank-and-file police officers and soldiers as they take on these
cartels. I commend Mexico for the successes that have already been
achieved. But I will not pretend that this is Mexico's responsibility
alone. A demand for these drugs in the United States is what is
helping to keep these cartels in business. This war is being waged
with guns purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90
percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States,
many from gun shops that line our shared border."
--Barack Obama; Joint Press Conference,
Mexico City, Mexico, April 16, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/90-percent-of-guns
Gee, Marky: seems as though `Fast and Furious' started right about
then; didn't it?
2009–2011: Operation Fast and Furious
On October 26, 2009, a teleconference was held at the Department of
Justice in Washington, D.C. to discuss U.S. strategy for combating
Mexican drug cartels. Participating in the meeting were Deputy
Attorney General David W. Ogden, Assistant Attorney General Lanny A.
Breuer, ATF Director Kenneth E. Melson, Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) Administrator Michele Leonhart, Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation Robert Mueller and the top federal
prosecutors in the Southwestern border states. They decided on a
strategy to identify and eliminate entire arms trafficking networks
rather than low-level buyers. Those at the meeting did not suggest
using the "gunwalking" tactic, but ATF supervisors would soon use it
in an attempt to achieve the desired goals. The effort, beginning in
November, would come to be called Operation Fast and Furious for the
successful film franchise, because some of the suspects under
investigation operated out of an auto repair store and street raced.
...
In November 2009, the Phoenix office's Group VII, which would be the
lead investigative group in Fast and Furious, began to follow a
prolific gun trafficker. He had bought 34 firearms in 24 days, and he
and his associates bought 212 more in the next month. The case soon
grew to over two dozen straw purchasers, the most prolific of which
would ultimately buy more than 600 weapons.
The tactic of letting guns walk, rather than interdicting them and
arresting the buyers, led to controversy within the ATF. As the case
continued, several members of Group VII, including John Dodson and
Olindo Casa, became increasingly upset at the tactic of allowing guns
to walk. Their standard Project Gunrunner training was to follow the
straw purchasers to the hand-off to the cartel buyers, then arrest
both parties and seize the guns. But according to Dodson, they watched
guns being bought illegally and stashed on a daily basis, while their
supervisors, including David Voth and Hope MacAllister, prevented the
agents from intervening.
However, other accounts of the operation insist that ATF agents were
prevented from intervening not by ATF officials, but rather by federal
prosecutors with the Attorney General's office...
[Gee, Marky: what is the name of the U.S.A.G." Isn't it "Eric the Red"
Holder???]
["The `buck' stops here."]
...who were unsure of whether the agents had sufficient evidence to
arrest suspected straw-buyers. According to some reports, many agents
insisted they were prevented from making arrests because prosecutors
were unwilling to engage in what could become a potentially
contentious political battle over Second Amendment rights during an
election year, particularly given the difficult nature of prosecuting
straw buyers, and the weak penalties associated with it, even if
successful. Instead, prosecutors instructed ATF agents not to make
arrests, but rather continue collecting evidence in order to build a
stronger case. One tactic proposed for doing so was a wiretap of
suspected straw-buyers, in an attempt to link the suspects to criminal
activities taking place on the Mexican side of the border.
...
By June 2010, suspects had purchased 1,608 firearms at a cost of over
US$1 million at Phoenix-area gun shops. At that time, the ATF was also
aware of 179 of those weapons being found at crime scenes in Mexico,
and 130 in the United States. As guns traced to Fast and Furious began
turning up at violent crime scenes in Mexico, ATF agents stationed
there also voiced opposition. One opposing agent testified to
congressional investigators, "With Ms. Giffords' shooting, there was a
state of panic, like, oh, God, let's hope this is not a weapon from
that case," after the January 2011 shooting of then Congresswoman
Gabrielle Giffords.
On the evening of December 14, 2010, U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian
Terry and others were patrolling Peck Canyon, Santa Cruz County,
Arizona, 11 miles from the Mexican border. The group came across five
suspected illegal immigrants. When they fired non-lethal beanbag guns,
the suspects responded with their own weapons, leading to a firefight.
Terry was shot and killed; four of the suspects were arrested and two
AK-pattern rifles were found nearby. The rifles were traced to Fast
and Furious within hours of the shooting, but the bullet that killed
Terry was too badly damaged to be conclusively linked to either gun.
After hearing of the incident, Dodson reached out to ATF headquarters,
ATF's chief counsel, the ATF ethics section and the Justice
Department's Office of the Inspector General, none of whom immediately
responded. He and other agents then contacted Senator Chuck Grassley
of Iowa (R–IA), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who
would become a major figure in the investigation of "gunwalking." At
the same time, information began leaking to various bloggers and Web
sites.
On January 25, 2011, Burke announced the first details of the case to
become officially public, marking the end of Operation Fast and
Furious. At a news conference in Phoenix, he reported a 53-count
indictment of 20 suspects for buying hundreds of guns intended for
illegal export between September 2009 and December 2010. Newell, who
was at the conference, called Fast and Furious a "phenomenal case,"
while denying that guns had been deliberately allowed to walk into
Mexico.
Altogether, 2,020 firearms were bought by straw purchasers during Fast
and Furious. These included AK-47 variants, Barrett .50 caliber sniper
rifles, .38 caliber revolvers, and FN Five-sevens. As of October 20,
2011, 389 had been recovered in the US and 276 had been recovered in
Mexico. The rest remained on the streets, unaccounted for. Most of the
guns went to the Sinaloa Cartel, while others made their way to El Teo
and La Familia.
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal#2009.E2.80.932011:_Operation_Fast_and_Furious
"Somebody once said: Politics is the art of looking for trouble,
finding it, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong
remedies."
--Nikhil Kumar
>
> ...and they will be out voting against their own self-interests in droves
> on election day.
>
You _do_ realize that your postings here will make _zero_ difference
on Election Day 2012; don't you, Marky?
Everyone here made their choices long ago.
>
> --
> MarkA
> Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before About eight o'clock
>
"If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove you're not a racist you'll
> --
> MarkA
> Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before About eight o'clock
>
have to vote for someone else in 2012 to prove you're not stupid!"
"A taxpayer voting for Barack Obama is like a chicken voting for
Colonel Sanders."
--Bud Gregg
"Fast & Furious" and "White Gun": Obama's Watergate(s)
Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) - a system of government where the
least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing,
and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or
succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the
confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
See: Obama Administration, 2009-2013
"Sunday, January 20th, 2013 - The End of an Error"
Obama Countdown Clock
http://tinyurl.com/Obama-is-GONE
JohnJohnsn
Jul 12, 2012, 3:27:31 PM7/12/12
to
On Jul 12, 12:53 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:10:36 -0700, pyotr filipivich
> <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> Let the Record show that "max headroom" <maxheadr...@localnet.com> on
>
>
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:10:36 -0700, pyotr filipivich
> <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> or about Thu, 12 Jul 2012 07:29:48 -0700 did write, type or otherwise
>> cause to appear in talk.politics.guns the following:
>
>>> raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote in
>> cause to appear in talk.politics.guns the following:
>
>>>> <No_email_for_...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>"ala" <alackr...@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>news:3oWdnQMlTrgGumPS...@earthlink.com:
>
>>>>>>"Kurt Nicklas" <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:a34bfd38-7641-430a...@i8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>>>>> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM
>>>>>>> July 11, 2012
>
>>>>>>> Ann Coulter
>
>>>>>>>-http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-11.html
>
>>>>>>> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM
>>>>>>> July 11, 2012
>
>>>>>>> Ann Coulter
>
>
>>>>>>> Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric Holder
>>>>>>> is hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't understand
>>>>>>> the story.
>
>>>>>>> Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation
>>>>>>> for why President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
>>>>>>> and Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers:
>>>>>>> It put guns in their hands to strengthen liberals' argument for gun
>>>>>>> control.
>
>>>>>> there are other plausible stories, most of which she can't access
>>>>>> due to her intellectual limitations
>
>>>>> Really? What are they.
>
>>>> Off the top of my head: moderate mental retardation, intermittent
>>>> explosive disorder, Tourette's syndrome, and psychopathy.
>>>> Did I miss any?
>
>>> Any that have a basis in reality?
>>>>>>> Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric Holder
>>>>>>> is hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't understand
>>>>>>> the story.
>
>>>>>>> Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation
>>>>>>> for why President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
>>>>>>> and Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers:
>>>>>>> It put guns in their hands to strengthen liberals' argument for gun
>>>>>>> control.
>
>>>>>> there are other plausible stories, most of which she can't access
>>>>>> due to her intellectual limitations
>
>>>>> Really? What are they.
>
>>>> Off the top of my head: moderate mental retardation, intermittent
>>>> explosive disorder, Tourette's syndrome, and psychopathy.
>>>> Did I miss any?
>
>
>> He was listing his/her/it's medical problems.
>
> Coulter's actual gender *is* fairly unclear, so I guess "his/her/its"
> is appropriate in this case. Good call!
>
Isn't interesting that only Liberals claim that Ann Hart Coulter was
>> He was listing his/her/it's medical problems.
>
> Coulter's actual gender *is* fairly unclear, so I guess "his/her/its"
> is appropriate in this case. Good call!
>
once a "man"?
Her background is easily verifiable; as, unlike Barack Hussein Obama
II; a/k/a Barry Obama and Barry Soetoro; she has made no effort to
"seal and conceal" her past.
Did you miss the story published in April that Obama lawyer Alexandra
Hill admitted, _under_oath_ in open court, that all the so-called
"Obama Birth Certificates" released by the White House are
FORGERIES?!?
BTW:
Barack Obama Running From Barry Soetoro
By Larry Johnson
Email: lcjoh...@me.com
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net
http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/barrysoetoro.jpg
About: Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central
Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S.
Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director
for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and
special operations in the State Department's Office of
Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set
up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG
Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert
in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk
management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the
founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues
of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated
as Best Political Blog of 2008.
http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/58550/barack-obama-running-from-barry-soetoro/
MarkA
Jul 12, 2012, 4:43:51 PM7/12/12
to
in the country, don't they? Like, you have to be able to prove
you're 18 before you can buy 20 or more assault rifles at a time?
Then, how long do you have to keep them before you resell them, Johnny?
Oh, that's right, you can resell them any time you like, can't you?
Or, as the ATF agent replied, when the FBI agent asked when they were
going to stop people from buying car loads of guns: Tell me what law
they're breaking, and I'll be glad to arrest them!
I wouldn't point fingers at people's credibility if I were you, Johnny.
>>
>> There is an old saying, "Never attribute to malice that which can be
>> explained by incompetence".
>>
>> Of course, the GOP is *desperate* to come up with anything they can to
>> tarnish Obama's successes in office, heading into the fall elections.
>>
> Other than his "successes" of "successfully" turning his "no new taxes
> for anyone making less than $250K/yr" into the lie we all knew it to be
> via the ObamaCare "penalty"/"tax" on those who are least capable of
> paying them, and "successfully" creating more debt in three-and-a-half
> years than all presidents from George W through George W created, what
> do _you_ consider his "successes," Marky?
>
> "There are two ways to enslave a country....
> One is by the Sword.
> The other is by Debt."
>
> Obama's unparalleled debt creation
> http://tinyurl.com/Obama-debt-creation
>
> Obama's National Debt Clock
> http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html
>>
>> They have a couple of buttons they can push that will ALWAYS get their
>> members to the polls: abortion, homosexuals, and guns.
>>
> Will these get _your_ Liberal Democrat voters to the polls, Marky?
What gets me to the polls is the thought that people like you are out to
> Obama's unparalleled debt creation
> http://tinyurl.com/Obama-debt-creation
>
> Obama's National Debt Clock
> http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html
>>
>> They have a couple of buttons they can push that will ALWAYS get their
>> members to the polls: abortion, homosexuals, and guns.
>>
> Will these get _your_ Liberal Democrat voters to the polls, Marky?
destroy my country, Johnny.
>>
>> Tell the lurking GOPpers that the gov'ment wants to take their guns
>> away...
>>
> The federal "gov'ment" has a well-proven and well-documented pattern of
> conduct there since 1934, Marky.
>
> "I have said this before; I will repeat it: I have the greatest
> admiration and courage for President Calderón and his entire cabinet,
> his rank-and-file police officers and soldiers as they take on these
> cartels. I commend Mexico for the successes that have already been
> achieved. But I will not pretend that this is Mexico's responsibility
> alone. A demand for these drugs in the United States is what is helping
> to keep these cartels in business. This war is being waged with guns
> purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90 percent of
> the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun
> shops that line our shared border." --Barack Obama; Joint Press
> Conference,
> Mexico City, Mexico, April 16, 2009
> http://tinyurl.com/90-percent-of-guns
>
> Gee, Marky: seems as though `Fast and Furious' started right about then;
> didn't it?
assault rifles by the truckload, sells them with less restriction than
alcohol in shops all along the Mexican border, then, when they show up in
the hands of Mexican drug gangs, it's Obama's fault? Is that your theory,
Johnny? And, just what would the GOPpers be howling if Obama tried to
clamp down on gun sales? I'll give you a hint: it starts with "s", and
ends with "econd amendment!!!!!"
<snip>
> "Somebody once said: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding
> it, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies." --Nikhil
> Kumar
>>
>> ...and they will be out voting against their own self-interests in
>> droves on election day.
>>
> You _do_ realize that your postings here will make _zero_ difference on
> Election Day 2012; don't you, Marky?
>
> Everyone here made their choices long ago.
busy crafting its own destruction, they're at a point where they can't
even produce a candidate that their Christian base will vote for! LOL!
MarkA
Jul 12, 2012, 4:47:17 PM7/12/12
to
entitled to buy?
>
>> There is an old saying, "Never attribute to malice that which can be
>> explained by incompetence".
>
> What was the goal of F&F and how was it supposed to achieve that goal?
>
>> Of course, the GOP is *desperate* to come up with anything they can to
>> tarnish Obama's successes in office, heading into the fall
>> elections....
>
> If Holder and DoJ hadn't stonewalled the House committee for the past
> year, this would be over now.
they?
>
>> They have a couple of buttons they can push that will ALWAYS get their
>> members to the polls: abortion, homosexuals, and guns....
>
> Sounds like a DNC clarion call.
>
>> ... Tell the lurking GOPpers that the gov'ment wants to take their
>> guns away, and they will be out voting against their own self-interests
>> in droves on election day.
>
> How would it be in the self interests of voters to let the government
> take away their guns?
walt tonne
Jul 12, 2012, 6:06:17 PM7/12/12
to
Government presently negrofuxated.
MattB
Jul 12, 2012, 6:16:21 PM7/12/12
to
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 07:14:36 +0000 (UTC), 3082 Dead <de...@gone.com>
wrote:
He doesn't have that power. He is only half Negro please keep you
facts straight.
wrote:
facts straight.
JohnJohnsn
Jul 12, 2012, 6:13:58 PM7/12/12
to
laws and only discuss the state laws" gambit.
It was expected; seeing as how you try it at every opportunity.
>
> Like, you have to be able to prove you're 18 before you can buy 20 or more
> assault rifles at a time?
>
Yet another "goal post move" there, Marky (see below).
> Like, you have to be able to prove you're 18 before you can buy 20 or more
> assault rifles at a time?
>
>
> Then, how long do you have to keep them before you resell them, Johnny?
> Oh, that's right, you can resell them any time you like, can't you?
>
Marky; you've already had your ass kicked over that falsehood so badly
> Then, how long do you have to keep them before you resell them, Johnny?
> Oh, that's right, you can resell them any time you like, can't you?
>
that your hemorrhoids are probably hanging down to your knees.
Yet you trot it out for yet another ass kicking.
You're a masochist, as well as a Liberal; aren't you.
Sic `im, RD! <chuckle> ;D
>
> Or, as the ATF agent replied, when the FBI agent asked when they were
> going to stop people from buying car loads of guns: Tell me what law
> they're breaking, and I'll be glad to arrest them!
>
Without a verifiable source we can rest assured that you made that up
> Or, as the ATF agent replied, when the FBI agent asked when they were
> going to stop people from buying car loads of guns: Tell me what law
> they're breaking, and I'll be glad to arrest them!
>
out of whole cloth, Marky.
>
> I wouldn't point fingers at people's credibility if I were you, Johnny.
>
>>> There is an old saying, "Never attribute to malice that which can be
>>> explained by incompetence".
>
>>> Of course, the GOP is *desperate* to come up with anything they can
>>> to tarnish Obama's successes in office, heading into the fall elections.
>
>> Other than his "successes" of "successfully" turning his "no new taxes
>> for anyone making less than $250K/yr" into the lie we all knew it to be
>> via the ObamaCare "penalty"/"tax" on those who are least capable of
>> paying them, and "successfully" creating more debt in three-and-a-half
>> years than all presidents from George W through George W combined
> I wouldn't point fingers at people's credibility if I were you, Johnny.
>
>>> There is an old saying, "Never attribute to malice that which can be
>>> explained by incompetence".
>
>>> Of course, the GOP is *desperate* to come up with anything they can
>>> to tarnish Obama's successes in office, heading into the fall elections.
>
>> Other than his "successes" of "successfully" turning his "no new taxes
>> for anyone making less than $250K/yr" into the lie we all knew it to be
>> via the ObamaCare "penalty"/"tax" on those who are least capable of
>> paying them, and "successfully" creating more debt in three-and-a-half
>> created, what do _you_ consider his "successes," Marky?
>
We noticed you ran away from that, Marky.
>
"Run, Marky; run!"
(paraphrasing Jenny Curran)
>
>> "There are two ways to enslave a country....
>> One is by the Sword.
>> The other is by Debt."
>> - John Adams
>
>> Obama's unparalleled debt creation
>> http://tinyurl.com/Obama-debt-creation
>
>> Obama's National Debt Clock
>> http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html
>
>>> They have a couple of buttons they can push that will ALWAYS get
>>> their members to the polls: abortion, homosexuals, and guns.
>
>> Will these get _your_ Liberal Democrat voters to the polls, Marky?
>
> What gets me to the polls is the thought that people like you are out to
> destroy my country, Johnny.
>
You have confused me with the Left-wing Socialist-in-Chief currently
>> "There are two ways to enslave a country....
>> One is by the Sword.
>> The other is by Debt."
>> - John Adams
>
>> Obama's unparalleled debt creation
>> http://tinyurl.com/Obama-debt-creation
>
>> Obama's National Debt Clock
>> http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html
>
>>> They have a couple of buttons they can push that will ALWAYS get
>>> their members to the polls: abortion, homosexuals, and guns.
>
>> Will these get _your_ Liberal Democrat voters to the polls, Marky?
>
> What gets me to the polls is the thought that people like you are out to
> destroy my country, Johnny.
>
occupying the White House, Marky.
“Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern
Liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles
on which our freedoms were founded. Like spoiled, angry children,
they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and
demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle
to grave.”
--Dr. Lyle Rossiter,“The Liberal Mind:
The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.”
>
>>> Tell the lurking GOPpers that the gov'ment wants to take their guns
>>> away...
>
>> The federal "gov'ment" has a well-proven and well-documented pattern
>> of conduct there since 1934, Marky.
>
>>"I have said this before; I will repeat it: I have the greatest
>> admiration and courage for President Calderón and his entire cabinet,
>> his rank-and-file police officers and soldiers as they take on these
>> cartels. I commend Mexico for the successes that have already been
>> achieved. But I will not pretend that this is Mexico's responsibility
>> alone. A demand for these drugs in the United States is what is helping
>> to keep these cartels in business. This war is being waged with guns
>> purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90 percent of
>> the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun
>> shops that line our shared border." --Barack Obama; Joint Press
>> Conference,
>> Mexico City, Mexico, April 16, 2009
>> http://tinyurl.com/90-percent-of-guns
>
>> Gee, Marky: seems as though `Fast and Furious' started right about then;
>> didn't it?
>
> Just to make sure I'm understanding you here, Johnny: the USA manufactures
> assault rifles by the truckload, sells them with less restriction than alcohol in
> shops all along the Mexican border, then, when they show up in the hands of
> Mexican drug gangs, it's Obama's fault? Is that your theory, Johnny?
>
Total bullshit, Marky: "USA manufactur(ed) `assault rifles'" have been
>>> Tell the lurking GOPpers that the gov'ment wants to take their guns
>>> away...
>
>> The federal "gov'ment" has a well-proven and well-documented pattern
>> of conduct there since 1934, Marky.
>
>>"I have said this before; I will repeat it: I have the greatest
>> admiration and courage for President Calderón and his entire cabinet,
>> his rank-and-file police officers and soldiers as they take on these
>> cartels. I commend Mexico for the successes that have already been
>> achieved. But I will not pretend that this is Mexico's responsibility
>> alone. A demand for these drugs in the United States is what is helping
>> to keep these cartels in business. This war is being waged with guns
>> purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90 percent of
>> the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun
>> shops that line our shared border." --Barack Obama; Joint Press
>> Conference,
>> Mexico City, Mexico, April 16, 2009
>> http://tinyurl.com/90-percent-of-guns
>
>> Gee, Marky: seems as though `Fast and Furious' started right about then;
>> didn't it?
>
> Just to make sure I'm understanding you here, Johnny: the USA manufactures
> assault rifles by the truckload, sells them with less restriction than alcohol in
> shops all along the Mexican border, then, when they show up in the hands of
> Mexican drug gangs, it's Obama's fault? Is that your theory, Johnny?
>
virtually unavilable to the general buying public since May 19th,
1986.
And even before that, sales, possessions and purchases have been under
strict federal government control since 1934.
"Do you want to change your bullshit story, sir?"
--Chief Deputy US Marshal Samuel Gerard
"Come on, don't give us none of your bullshit stories huh?...I'm
pretty much ODing on all your bullshit stories!"
--Jake Fratelli
"I'm pretty much OD'ing on all your bullshit stories!"
--Clark Devereaux
>
> And, just what would the GOPpers {SIC} be howling if Obama tried
> to clamp down on gun sales? I'll give you a hint: it starts with "s",
> and ends with "econd amendment!!!!!"
>
"Without the Second Amendment, all others are merely suggestions."
> and ends with "econd amendment!!!!!"
>
Do "study up," Marky:
The Embarrassing Second Amendment
by Sanford Levinson
University of Texas at Austin School of Law
Reprinted from the Yale Law Journal, Volume 99, pp. 637-659
http://constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm
>
> <snip>
>
>>"Somebody once said: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding
>> it, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies."
>> --Nikhil Kumar
>
>>> ...and they will be out voting against their own self-interests in
>>> droves on election day.
>
>> You _do_ realize that your postings here will make _zero_ difference
>> on Election Day 2012; don't you, Marky?
>
>> Everyone here made their choices long ago.
>
> Believe me, I'm painfully aware of that. Fortunately, the GOP has been
> so busy crafting its own destruction, they're at a point where they can't
> even produce a candidate that their Christian base will vote for! LOL!
>
So, Marky; in addition to being a Left-wing Liberals Sccialist, you're
> <snip>
>
>>"Somebody once said: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding
>> it, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies."
>> --Nikhil Kumar
>
>>> ...and they will be out voting against their own self-interests in
>>> droves on election day.
>
>> You _do_ realize that your postings here will make _zero_ difference
>> on Election Day 2012; don't you, Marky?
>
>> Everyone here made their choices long ago.
>
> Believe me, I'm painfully aware of that. Fortunately, the GOP has been
> so busy crafting its own destruction, they're at a point where they can't
> even produce a candidate that their Christian base will vote for! LOL!
>
a self-admitted atheist.
Kinda already figured that one out.
I don't know how old you _actually_ are, Marky; but I was around when
the opposition tried that "Christian" thing (Roman Catholic, ITIC)
against Jack Kennedy back in `63.
Didn't work then, either.
>
> --
> MarkA
> Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before About eight o'clock
>
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone
> --
> MarkA
> Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before About eight o'clock
>
who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it
but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are
ruined.”
-- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5,
1788
“We are today in the most literal sense a lawless society,
for our law has ceased to be law and become instead its
opposite -- mere force at the disposal of whoever is at the
controls.”
--Charles A. Reich, _Peters Quotations_
RD Sandman
Jul 12, 2012, 6:24:45 PM7/12/12
to
MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in
news:pan.2012.07.12....@nowhere.invalid:
Actually, purchases of multiple long arms are reported to the ATF. Holds
true for all four border states....California, Arizona, New Mexico and
Texas.
> Then, how long do you have to keep them before you resell them,
> Johnny? Oh, that's right, you can resell them any time you like, can't
> you?
Not without coming under surveillance. You do understand, I hope that
most of those sales were done under cooperation from the ATF. Phone
calls like "Should I really go ahead with this sale?" and ATF replying,
"Of course, we have it under control out here."
> Or, as the ATF agent replied, when the FBI agent asked when they were
> going to stop people from buying car loads of guns: Tell me what law
> they're breaking, and I'll be glad to arrest them!
Which ATF agent was that, mon ami?
> I wouldn't point fingers at people's credibility if I were you,
> Johnny.
>
auto or select fire. They are not the semi auto clones which are the
ones sold at gun shops unless the dealer is a Class III dealer.
sells them with less
> restriction than alcohol in shops all along the Mexican border,
Wrong.
then,
> when they show up in the hands of Mexican drug gangs, it's Obama's
> fault?
Not quite how it happens.
Is that your theory, Johnny? And, just what would the GOPpers
> be howling if Obama tried to clamp down on gun sales? I'll give you a
> hint: it starts with "s", and ends with "econd amendment!!!!!"
Yes, there are nuts on both sides of that argument. You appear to be one
on the other side.
--
If you hear me yell, "Eject! Eject! Eject!"
The last two will be echoes......
If you stop to ask "Why?" You will be talking to
yourself because you just became the pilot.
Sleep well, tonight.....
news:pan.2012.07.12....@nowhere.invalid:
true for all four border states....California, Arizona, New Mexico and
Texas.
> Then, how long do you have to keep them before you resell them,
> Johnny? Oh, that's right, you can resell them any time you like, can't
> you?
most of those sales were done under cooperation from the ATF. Phone
calls like "Should I really go ahead with this sale?" and ATF replying,
"Of course, we have it under control out here."
> Or, as the ATF agent replied, when the FBI agent asked when they were
> going to stop people from buying car loads of guns: Tell me what law
> they're breaking, and I'll be glad to arrest them!
> I wouldn't point fingers at people's credibility if I were you,
> Johnny.
>
>> "I have said this before; I will repeat it: I have the greatest
>> admiration and courage for President Calderón and his entire cabinet,
>
>> admiration and courage for President Calderón and his entire cabinet,
>
> Just to make sure I'm understanding you here, Johnny: the USA
> manufactures assault rifles by the truckload,
Assault weapons.....assault rifles go to the military. They are full
> manufactures assault rifles by the truckload,
auto or select fire. They are not the semi auto clones which are the
ones sold at gun shops unless the dealer is a Class III dealer.
sells them with less
> restriction than alcohol in shops all along the Mexican border,
then,
> when they show up in the hands of Mexican drug gangs, it's Obama's
> fault?
Is that your theory, Johnny? And, just what would the GOPpers
> be howling if Obama tried to clamp down on gun sales? I'll give you a
> hint: it starts with "s", and ends with "econd amendment!!!!!"
on the other side.
--
If you hear me yell, "Eject! Eject! Eject!"
The last two will be echoes......
If you stop to ask "Why?" You will be talking to
yourself because you just became the pilot.
Sleep well, tonight.....
RD Sandman
Jul 12, 2012, 6:27:34 PM7/12/12
to
MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in
news:pan.2012.07.12....@nowhere.invalid:
Straw buying is illegal. The ATF agents in Fast and Furious were telling
dealers to go ahead with the sales that they had it covered.
Does that mean that many guns didn't go to Mexico without ATF's helping
hand? No, but over 2,000 of them had that assist. Those are the ones in
Fast & Furious.
>>> There is an old saying, "Never attribute to malice that which can be
>>> explained by incompetence".
>>
>> What was the goal of F&F and how was it supposed to achieve that
>> goal?
>>
>>> Of course, the GOP is *desperate* to come up with anything they can
>>> to tarnish Obama's successes in office, heading into the fall
>>> elections....
>>
>> If Holder and DoJ hadn't stonewalled the House committee for the past
>> year, this would be over now.
>
> Right. The GOPpers in Congress are all about getting to the truth,
> aren't they?
Everyone should be.
>>> They have a couple of buttons they can push that will ALWAYS get
>>> their members to the polls: abortion, homosexuals, and guns....
>>
>> Sounds like a DNC clarion call.
>>
>>> ... Tell the lurking GOPpers that the gov'ment wants to take their
>>> guns away, and they will be out voting against their own
>>> self-interests in droves on election day.
>>
>> How would it be in the self interests of voters to let the government
>> take away their guns?
>
--
news:pan.2012.07.12....@nowhere.invalid:
dealers to go ahead with the sales that they had it covered.
Does that mean that many guns didn't go to Mexico without ATF's helping
hand? No, but over 2,000 of them had that assist. Those are the ones in
Fast & Furious.
>>> There is an old saying, "Never attribute to malice that which can be
>>> explained by incompetence".
>>
>> What was the goal of F&F and how was it supposed to achieve that
>> goal?
>>
>>> Of course, the GOP is *desperate* to come up with anything they can
>>> to tarnish Obama's successes in office, heading into the fall
>>> elections....
>>
>> If Holder and DoJ hadn't stonewalled the House committee for the past
>> year, this would be over now.
>
> Right. The GOPpers in Congress are all about getting to the truth,
> aren't they?
>>> They have a couple of buttons they can push that will ALWAYS get
>>> their members to the polls: abortion, homosexuals, and guns....
>>
>> Sounds like a DNC clarion call.
>>
>>> ... Tell the lurking GOPpers that the gov'ment wants to take their
>>> guns away, and they will be out voting against their own
>>> self-interests in droves on election day.
>>
>> How would it be in the self interests of voters to let the government
>> take away their guns?
>
--
Don Kresch
Jul 12, 2012, 6:46:22 PM7/12/12
to
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:37:35 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
scrawled in blood:
>Of course, the GOP is *desperate* to come up with anything they can to
>tarnish Obama's successes in office,
Which are?
> heading into the fall elections.
>They have a couple of buttons they can push that will ALWAYS get their
>members to the polls: abortion, homosexuals, and guns. Tell the lurking
>GOPpers that the gov'ment wants to take their guns away, and they will be
>out voting against their own self-interests in droves on election day.
Democrats vote against their self-interest as well.
As George Carlin said: I don't vote, so I'm not part of the
problem.
Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
scrawled in blood:
>Of course, the GOP is *desperate* to come up with anything they can to
>tarnish Obama's successes in office,
> heading into the fall elections.
>They have a couple of buttons they can push that will ALWAYS get their
>members to the polls: abortion, homosexuals, and guns. Tell the lurking
>GOPpers that the gov'ment wants to take their guns away, and they will be
>out voting against their own self-interests in droves on election day.
As George Carlin said: I don't vote, so I'm not part of the
problem.
Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Gray Guest
Jul 12, 2012, 6:53:40 PM7/12/12
to
MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in news:pan.2012.07.12.14.37.33.43623
@nowhere.invalid:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 04:31:04 +0000, Gray Guest wrote:
>
>> "ala" <alac...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:3oWdnQMlTrgGumPS...@earthlink.com:
>>
>>
>>> "Kurt Nicklas" <kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:a34bfd38-7641-430a-b4ec-792e6a4c4c72
right... Eric the Red is hiding everything.
> There is an old saying, "Never attribute to malice that which can be
> explained by incompetence".
In your case it's a 2-fer.
> Of course, the GOP is *desperate* to come up with anything they can to
> tarnish Obama's successes in office, heading into the fall elections.
> They have a couple of buttons they can push that will ALWAYS get their
> members to the polls: abortion, homosexuals, and guns. Tell the lurking
> GOPpers that the gov'ment wants to take their guns away, and they will be
> out voting against their own self-interests in droves on election day.
Desperate? hahahahah! Are you really so vacuous that you don't see the
avalanche coming to bury you and the rest of thieving, lieing scumbags?
--
Refusenik #1
@nowhere.invalid:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 04:31:04 +0000, Gray Guest wrote:
>
>> "ala" <alac...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:3oWdnQMlTrgGumPS...@earthlink.com:
>>
>>
>>> "Kurt Nicklas" <kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
@i8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>>>> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM July 11, 2012
>>>>
>>>> Ann Coulter
>>>>
>>>> http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-11.html#read_more
>>>>
>>>> Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric Holder
is
>>>> hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't understand the
>>>> story.
>>>>
>>>> Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation for
>>>> why President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
>>>> Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers: It put guns
>>>> in their hands to strengthen liberals' argument for gun control.
>>>
>>> there are other plausible stories, most of which she can't access due
to
>>> her intellectual limitations
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Really? What are they.
>>
>
> Like most real-life situations, there is undoubtedly a complex mix of
> factors in play: bureaucratic bungling, inter-departmental rivalries,
> conflicting goals, lack of oversight, lax gun laws, etc.
And you can of course, cite your evidence of any of these. Oh yeah, that's
>>>> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM July 11, 2012
>>>>
>>>> Ann Coulter
>>>>
>>>> http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-11.html#read_more
>>>>
>>>> Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric Holder
is
>>>> hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't understand the
>>>> story.
>>>>
>>>> Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation for
>>>> why President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
>>>> Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers: It put guns
>>>> in their hands to strengthen liberals' argument for gun control.
>>>
>>> there are other plausible stories, most of which she can't access due
to
>>> her intellectual limitations
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Really? What are they.
>>
>
> Like most real-life situations, there is undoubtedly a complex mix of
> factors in play: bureaucratic bungling, inter-departmental rivalries,
> conflicting goals, lack of oversight, lax gun laws, etc.
right... Eric the Red is hiding everything.
> There is an old saying, "Never attribute to malice that which can be
> explained by incompetence".
> Of course, the GOP is *desperate* to come up with anything they can to
> tarnish Obama's successes in office, heading into the fall elections.
> They have a couple of buttons they can push that will ALWAYS get their
> members to the polls: abortion, homosexuals, and guns. Tell the lurking
> GOPpers that the gov'ment wants to take their guns away, and they will be
> out voting against their own self-interests in droves on election day.
avalanche coming to bury you and the rest of thieving, lieing scumbags?
--
Refusenik #1
Gray Guest
Jul 12, 2012, 7:22:49 PM7/12/12
to
MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in news:pan.2012.07.12.20.47.16.369047
@nowhere.invalid:
>> If Holder and DoJ hadn't stonewalled the House committee for the past
>> year, this would be over now.
>
> Right. The GOPpers in Congress are all about getting to the truth, aren't
> they?
Apparently not.
--
Refusenik #1
@nowhere.invalid:
>> If Holder and DoJ hadn't stonewalled the House committee for the past
>> year, this would be over now.
>
> Right. The GOPpers in Congress are all about getting to the truth, aren't
> they?
--
Refusenik #1
ala
Jul 12, 2012, 7:40:39 PM7/12/12
to
"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA08E9D442...@216.196.121.131...
>>
>> Right. The GOPpers in Congress are all about getting to the truth,
>> aren't they?
>
> Everyone should be.
about everything?
Congress Considers Prosecutions of Reporters Over Leaked Information
By Annika McGinnis, McClatchy Newspapers | Report
Washington - In response to New York Times stories that relied on leaks of
sensitive national-security information, a House of Representatives panel on
Wednesday discussed legislation that could allow journalists to be
prosecuted for disclosing such information.
Army Col. Ken Allard testified to a House Judiciary subcommittee that the
extent of national security leaks is "unprecedented" in American history.
Recent examples include the Times' investigations of President Barack
Obama's terrorist "kill list" and American cyberattacks on Iran.
According to Allard, such investigations threaten national security and
serve only to promote the news media's self-interest. He charged that such
investigations were carefully planned to help Obama's re-election chances
and to advance the media's own agenda. An example, he said, was New York
Times reporter David Sanger's new book, "Confront and Conceal," which
details American cyberattacks on Iranian nuclear facilities.
max headroom
Jul 12, 2012, 7:32:06 PM7/12/12
to
A licensed dealer may not sell to a prohibited person. In practice, a dealer will delay a sale if he
suspects something fishy and ask ATF.
You mentioned lax gun laws. To which laws did you refer?
>>> There is an old saying, "Never attribute to malice that which can be
>>> explained by incompetence".
>> What was the goal of F&F and how was it supposed to achieve that goal?
>>> Of course, the GOP is *desperate* to come up with anything they can to
>>> tarnish Obama's successes in office, heading into the fall elections....
>> If Holder and DoJ hadn't stonewalled the House committee for the past
>> year, this would be over now.
> Right. The GOPpers in Congress are all about getting to the truth, aren't they?
>>> They have a couple of buttons they can push that will ALWAYS get their
>>> members to the polls: abortion, homosexuals, and guns....
>> Sounds like a DNC clarion call.
>>> ... Tell the lurking GOPpers that the gov'ment wants to take their
>>> guns away, and they will be out voting against their own self-interests
>>> in droves on election day.
>> How would it be in the self interests of voters to let the government
>> take away their guns?
ala
Jul 12, 2012, 8:11:35 PM7/12/12
to
"max headroom" <maxhe...@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:7OKdneKAeP8K_GLS...@posted.localnet...
The goal post have been moved again,
What are they doing this for?
They are getting everyone's backs up,
Why do they always want more?
Pamela lutwyche
ala
Jul 12, 2012, 8:15:03 PM7/12/12
to
"Steve" <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote in message
news:c11uv7t3m1nn36k6e...@4ax.com...
there
was open plain and sky. To draw ever more complex patterns on the blank
sheet. We cannot abide that openness: it is terror to us. Look at
Borges [...]
Beneath the city street, the warrens of rooms and corridors, the fences and
networks of steel track, the Argentine heart, in its perversity and guilt,
longs for a
return to that first unscribbled serenity ... that anarchic oneness of
pampas and
sky..." Thomas Pynchon
ala
Jul 12, 2012, 8:21:26 PM7/12/12
to
news:HuudnXsBacfSQ2PS...@posted.localnet...
>
> That was more coherent than I expect from most pinkies.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175566/
Apologies to Mexico: The Drug Trade and Gross National Pain
Tuesday, 10 July 2012 11:54
By Rebecca Solnit, TomDispatch.com | Op-Ed
Dear Mexico,
I apologize. There are so many things I could apologize for, from the way
the U.S. biotech corporation Monsanto has contaminated your corn to the way
Arizona and Alabama are persecuting your citizens, but right now I'd like to
apologize for the drug war, the 10,000 waking nightmares that make the news
and the rest that don't.
You've heard the stories about the five severed heads rolled onto the floor
of a Michoacan nightclub in 2006, the 300 bodies dissolved in acid by a
servant of one drug lord, the 49 mutilated bodies found in plastic bags by
the side of the road in Monterrey in May, the nine bodies found hanging from
an overpass in Nuevo Laredo just last month, the Zeta Cartel's videotaped
beheadings just two weeks ago, the carnage that has taken tens of thousands
of Mexican lives in the last decade and has terrorized a whole nation. I've
read them and so many more. I am sorry 50,000 times over.
The drug war is fueled by many things, and maybe the worst drug of all is
money, to which so many are so addicted that they can never get enough. It's
a drug for which they will kill, destroying communities and ecologies, even
societies, whether for the sake of making drones, Wall Street profits, or
massive heroin sales. Then there are the actual drugs, to which so many
others turn for numbness.>
>
> That was more coherent than I expect from most pinkies.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175566/
Apologies to Mexico: The Drug Trade and Gross National Pain
Tuesday, 10 July 2012 11:54
By Rebecca Solnit, TomDispatch.com | Op-Ed
Dear Mexico,
I apologize. There are so many things I could apologize for, from the way
the U.S. biotech corporation Monsanto has contaminated your corn to the way
Arizona and Alabama are persecuting your citizens, but right now I'd like to
apologize for the drug war, the 10,000 waking nightmares that make the news
and the rest that don't.
You've heard the stories about the five severed heads rolled onto the floor
of a Michoacan nightclub in 2006, the 300 bodies dissolved in acid by a
servant of one drug lord, the 49 mutilated bodies found in plastic bags by
the side of the road in Monterrey in May, the nine bodies found hanging from
an overpass in Nuevo Laredo just last month, the Zeta Cartel's videotaped
beheadings just two weeks ago, the carnage that has taken tens of thousands
of Mexican lives in the last decade and has terrorized a whole nation. I've
read them and so many more. I am sorry 50,000 times over.
The drug war is fueled by many things, and maybe the worst drug of all is
money, to which so many are so addicted that they can never get enough. It's
a drug for which they will kill, destroying communities and ecologies, even
societies, whether for the sake of making drones, Wall Street profits, or
massive heroin sales. Then there are the actual drugs, to which so many
others turn for numbness.>
ala
Jul 12, 2012, 8:31:02 PM7/12/12
to
"SaPeIsMa" <Sape...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jtmm41$h37$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> AH yes
> When you can't attack the message, attack the messenger
> A loser tactic
Indeed,
ala
Jul 12, 2012, 8:37:18 PM7/12/12
to
news:UtOdnTQl0cd_1GPS...@posted.localnet...
> ala <alac...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:3oWdnQMlTrgGumPS...@earthlink.com:
>
>> "Kurt Nicklas" <kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:a34bfd38-7641-430a...@i8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM
>>> July 11, 2012
>
>>> Ann Coulter
>
>>> http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-11.html#read_more
>
> news:3oWdnQMlTrgGumPS...@earthlink.com:
>
>> "Kurt Nicklas" <kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:a34bfd38-7641-430a...@i8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM
>>> July 11, 2012
>
>>> Ann Coulter
>
>>> http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-11.html#read_more
>
>>> Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric Holder
>>> is hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't understand the
>>> story.
>
>>> is hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't understand the
>>> story.
>
>>> Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation for
>>> why President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
>>> Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers: It put guns
>>> in their hands to strengthen liberals' argument for gun control.
>
>> there are other plausible stories, most of which she can't access due to
>> her
>> intellectual limitations
>
>>> why President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
>>> Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers: It put guns
>>> in their hands to strengthen liberals' argument for gun control.
>
>> there are other plausible stories, most of which she can't access due to
>> her
>> intellectual limitations
>
> Why don't you explain a few as clearly as she did?
as long as paranoia can be considered clarity
ala
Jul 12, 2012, 8:39:04 PM7/12/12
to
"Olrik" <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jtlgg1$h7o$2...@dont-email.me...
> Le 2012-07-11 18:16, Kurt Nicklas a écrit :
>> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM
>
> Indeed. It's a series of so-so action flicks for teenagers.
>> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM
>
>
> <snip crapola>
>
>
the original was pretty good tho
before vin diesel started sucking
Scout
Jul 12, 2012, 8:43:51 PM7/12/12
to
news:CtidnY7fFdMa_WLS...@earthlink.com...
dissemination and distribution of classified material and I see absolutely
no reason why reporters should generally be above that law. No, in the cases
where those classified materials do DIRECTLY impact US citizens...say a
classified project on how the government will start rounding up select
citizens to put them into camps or something like that, then that would be
another issue. But being involved in publishing other classified
material...that could be seen as a number of crimes up to treason.
>
> "RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:XnsA08E9D442...@216.196.121.131...
>
>
>>>
>>> Right. The GOPpers in Congress are all about getting to the truth,
>>> aren't they?
>>
>> Everyone should be.
>
> everyone?
> about everything?
>
> Congress Considers Prosecutions of Reporters Over Leaked Information
>
> By Annika McGinnis, McClatchy Newspapers | Report
>
> Washington - In response to New York Times stories that relied on leaks of
> sensitive national-security information, a House of Representatives panel
> on Wednesday discussed legislation that could allow journalists to be
> prosecuted for disclosing such information.
As well they should. It is a federal crime to be involve in the
> "RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:XnsA08E9D442...@216.196.121.131...
>
>
>>>
>>> Right. The GOPpers in Congress are all about getting to the truth,
>>> aren't they?
>>
>> Everyone should be.
>
> everyone?
> about everything?
>
> Congress Considers Prosecutions of Reporters Over Leaked Information
>
> By Annika McGinnis, McClatchy Newspapers | Report
>
> Washington - In response to New York Times stories that relied on leaks of
> sensitive national-security information, a House of Representatives panel
> on Wednesday discussed legislation that could allow journalists to be
> prosecuted for disclosing such information.
dissemination and distribution of classified material and I see absolutely
no reason why reporters should generally be above that law. No, in the cases
where those classified materials do DIRECTLY impact US citizens...say a
classified project on how the government will start rounding up select
citizens to put them into camps or something like that, then that would be
another issue. But being involved in publishing other classified
material...that could be seen as a number of crimes up to treason.
ala
Jul 12, 2012, 8:51:11 PM7/12/12
to
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:jtnr0d$m45$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
> As well they should. It is a federal crime to be involve in the
> dissemination and distribution of classified material and I see absolutely
> no reason why reporters should generally be above that law. No, in the
> cases where those classified materials do DIRECTLY impact US
> citizens...say a classified project on how the government will start
> rounding up select citizens to put them into camps or something like that,
> then that would be another issue. But being involved in publishing other
> classified material...that could be seen as a number of crimes up to
> treason.
>
>
>
isn't it possible that the Fast and Furious program concerns just such
>
>
> As well they should. It is a federal crime to be involve in the
> dissemination and distribution of classified material and I see absolutely
> no reason why reporters should generally be above that law. No, in the
> cases where those classified materials do DIRECTLY impact US
> citizens...say a classified project on how the government will start
> rounding up select citizens to put them into camps or something like that,
> then that would be another issue. But being involved in publishing other
> classified material...that could be seen as a number of crimes up to
> treason.
>
>
>
classified materials that warrant nondisclosure?
>
Free Lunch
Jul 12, 2012, 8:51:28 PM7/12/12
to
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 20:43:51 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism:
Why isn't it a federal crime to classify material for the purposes of
hiding criminal or other embarrassing actions of government employees?
Why should we trust a general who is covering his ass?
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism:
hiding criminal or other embarrassing actions of government employees?
Why should we trust a general who is covering his ass?
Free Lunch
Jul 12, 2012, 8:53:23 PM7/12/12
to
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 20:51:11 -0400, "ala" <alac...@comcast.net> wrote
in alt.atheism:
Almost certainly, but Darryl Issa is above the law.
in alt.atheism:
Scout
Jul 12, 2012, 8:56:03 PM7/12/12
to
news:Bq-dnYqD_4ON7GLS...@earthlink.com...
No, since there is no national security issues involved in a simple sting
operation, which was what the ATF is claiming this was. If it was something
else, then they have been lying the whole time and should be taken to task
for it. Besides, most members of Congress have the necessary security
clearance and 'need to know' to be able to view the documents. If there is
nothing in them, then the investigation can end.
operation, which was what the ATF is claiming this was. If it was something
else, then they have been lying the whole time and should be taken to task
for it. Besides, most members of Congress have the necessary security
clearance and 'need to know' to be able to view the documents. If there is
nothing in them, then the investigation can end.
ala
Jul 12, 2012, 8:56:13 PM7/12/12
to
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:b6suv7l76imbgjhh5...@4ax.com...
>>
> Why isn't it a federal crime to classify material for the purposes of
> hiding criminal or other embarrassing actions of government employees?
> Why should we trust a general who is covering his ass?
By Chris McGreal, Guardian UK
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/08/romney-tax-evasion-robert-gibbs
the Obama campaign has called on Mitt Romney to release years of tax returns
to prove he did not break the law following claims that the Republican
presidential candidate held secret accounts in foreign tax havens.
Robert Gibbs, the president's former spokesman and now a top campaign
adviser, said on CNN that "nobody knows" whether Romney committed tax
evasion after Vanity Fair reported that he kept parts of his multimillion
dollar fortune in more than a dozen entities in Bermuda, the Cayman Islands
and Switzerland.
Vanity Fair reported that among other things Romney parked some of his money
in a Bermuda corporation entirely owned by him which he transferred to his
wife's name the day before he became Massachusetts's governor and then
failed to list it on financial disclosure forms.
It finally appeared on his 2010 tax return.
"Quite frankly he offshores most of his own personal investments, presumably
to shield them from taxes," said Gibbs.
The Obama aide continued: "Nobody knows why he has a corporation in Bermuda,
why he failed to disclose that on seven different financial disclosures, why
he transferred it to someone else's purview the day before he became
governor of Massachusetts.
"The one thing he could do to clear up whether he's done anything illegal,
whether he's shielding his income from taxes in Bermuda or Switzerland is to
do what every other presidential candidate's done and that is to release a
series of years of their own tax returns... The best way to figure out if
Mitt Romney is complying with American tax law is to have him release more
of the tax returns."
The Obama campaign also released a web video on Sunday pressing the issue.
"Mitt Romney is effectively saying he has not technically broken any laws by
keeping his money in offshore tax havens. Here's the question. Is not
technically breaking the law a high enough standard for someone who wants to
be president of the United States?" it said.
The Romney campaign rejected the criticisms saying that the Republican
challenger "pays every dime of tax he owes".
"The Obama campaign's latest unfounded character assault on Mitt Romney is
unseemly and disgusting," said Andrea Saul, his campaign spokeswoman.
"Barack Obama has become what he once ran against - a typical politician
willing to use false and dishonest attacks to save his job after failing to
do his job."
The issue of Romney's offshore accounts plays into attacks over how he made
his vast fortune including accusations he shipped American jobs overseas
when he was running Bain Capital and will protect tax breaks for
millionaires as president.
"I pick a bank because there's an ATM near my home," said Gibbs. "Romney had
a bank account in Switzerland."
Several other prominent Democrats joined the assault on the Republican
candidate on the Sunday talk shows.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee,
also pressed the issue on Fox News.
"I'd really like to see Mitt Romney release more than one year of tax
records, because there's been disturbing reports recently that he's got a
Bermuda corporation, a secretive Bermuda corporation that no one knows
anything about, investments in the Caymans, kind of Swiss bank account," she
said.
Scout
Jul 12, 2012, 9:00:13 PM7/12/12
to
successful no one will know that you did it.
> Why should we trust a general who is covering his ass?
to oversight committees such as Congress.
ala
Jul 12, 2012, 9:01:00 PM7/12/12
to
news:jtnrna$pai$1...@dont-email.me...
if there is a national security issue involved, they couldn't disclose it
could they?
>
>
>
> No, since there is no national security issues involved in a simple sting
> operation, which was what the ATF is claiming this was. If it was
> something else, then they have been lying the whole time and should be
> taken to task for it. Besides, most members of Congress have the necessary
> security clearance and 'need to know' to be able to view the documents. If
> there is nothing in them, then the investigation can end.
>
>
why should you believe the atf
>
>
> No, since there is no national security issues involved in a simple sting
> operation, which was what the ATF is claiming this was. If it was
> something else, then they have been lying the whole time and should be
> taken to task for it. Besides, most members of Congress have the necessary
> security clearance and 'need to know' to be able to view the documents. If
> there is nothing in them, then the investigation can end.
>
>
if there is a national security issue involved, they couldn't disclose it
could they?
Scout
Jul 12, 2012, 9:12:46 PM7/12/12
to
news:I-6dnRVI-I3A7mLS...@earthlink.com...
Who says I do?
The ATF could certainly disclose it to those with the necessary security
clearance and 'need to know'. Specifically members of the Congressional
investigation who have both the security clearances and the need to know
necessary. If they find the classification to be without merit or
unjustified then they can have the documents unclassified and/or bring
whatever corrective actions are necessary against those involved.
Now, you and I may never know about it, but those overseeing the ATF and/or
investigating them would.
The ATF could certainly disclose it to those with the necessary security
clearance and 'need to know'. Specifically members of the Congressional
investigation who have both the security clearances and the need to know
necessary. If they find the classification to be without merit or
unjustified then they can have the documents unclassified and/or bring
whatever corrective actions are necessary against those involved.
Now, you and I may never know about it, but those overseeing the ATF and/or
investigating them would.
ala
Jul 12, 2012, 9:14:37 PM7/12/12
to
news:jtnsmk$tvb$1...@dont-email.me...
congressional components don't
"Only lies and evil come from letting people off."--Iris Murdoch
>
>
> Who says I do?
>
> The ATF could certainly disclose it to those with the necessary security
> clearance and 'need to know'. Specifically members of the Congressional
> investigation who have both the security clearances and the need to know
> necessary. If they find the classification to be without merit or
> unjustified then they can have the documents unclassified and/or bring
> whatever corrective actions are necessary against those involved.
>
> Now, you and I may never know about it, but those overseeing the ATF
> and/or investigating them would.
>
>
apparently Ann Coulter believes she knows somethingthat those special
>
> Who says I do?
>
> The ATF could certainly disclose it to those with the necessary security
> clearance and 'need to know'. Specifically members of the Congressional
> investigation who have both the security clearances and the need to know
> necessary. If they find the classification to be without merit or
> unjustified then they can have the documents unclassified and/or bring
> whatever corrective actions are necessary against those involved.
>
> Now, you and I may never know about it, but those overseeing the ATF
> and/or investigating them would.
>
>
congressional components don't
"Only lies and evil come from letting people off."--Iris Murdoch
Scout
Jul 12, 2012, 9:22:07 PM7/12/12
to
news:8ZKdnZGDTYsQ62LS...@earthlink.com...
A lot of people claim to know things....doesn't mean they do, or that she
does. If she does know and can back it up then she should present her
evidence to the committee.
does. If she does know and can back it up then she should present her
evidence to the committee.
Free Lunch
Jul 12, 2012, 10:36:08 PM7/12/12
to
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 21:00:13 -0400, "Scout"
As long as Congress takes responsibility for its role in the debacle, I
have no problem with them asking about things they historically have
been able to legally get from the Justice Department. What bothers me is
that they have hamstrung ATF for years and when one of the ATF's gun
running adventures is found to have gone awry (I doubt that the other
ones they ran before that worked like clockwork--based on the ATF
history), one of the congressmen responsible for hamstringing ATF gets
mad at someone else entirely.
I strongly prefer that ATF (and DEA and all other federal police forces)
be abolished as a separate entity and that all federal criminal
enforcement come from one agency that is properly managed. That would be
easier if we didn't have a lot of really petty or counter-productive
federal crimes.
have no problem with them asking about things they historically have
been able to legally get from the Justice Department. What bothers me is
that they have hamstrung ATF for years and when one of the ATF's gun
running adventures is found to have gone awry (I doubt that the other
ones they ran before that worked like clockwork--based on the ATF
history), one of the congressmen responsible for hamstringing ATF gets
mad at someone else entirely.
I strongly prefer that ATF (and DEA and all other federal police forces)
be abolished as a separate entity and that all federal criminal
enforcement come from one agency that is properly managed. That would be
easier if we didn't have a lot of really petty or counter-productive
federal crimes.
Free Lunch
Jul 12, 2012, 10:41:33 PM7/12/12
to
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 20:56:03 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>
I thought that it was the on-going investigation exemption.
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>
Free Lunch
Jul 12, 2012, 10:42:17 PM7/12/12
to
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 21:01:00 -0400, "ala" <alac...@comcast.net> wrote
in alt.atheism:
>
If there was national security involved, who in their right mind would
bring in ATF? This seems to have been a DEA operation that managed to
drag ATF in.
in alt.atheism:
>
bring in ATF? This seems to have been a DEA operation that managed to
drag ATF in.
max headroom
Jul 12, 2012, 10:23:32 PM7/12/12
to
ala <alac...@comcast.net> wrote in news:oKadnVhFloSE92LS...@earthlink.com:
> "max headroom" <maxhe...@localnet.com> wrote in message
> news:HuudnXsBacfSQ2PS...@posted.localnet...
>> That was more coherent than I expect from most pinkies.
> http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175566/
> Apologies to Mexico: The Drug Trade and Gross National Pain
> Tuesday, 10 July 2012 11:54
> By Rebecca Solnit, TomDispatch.com | Op-Ed
> Dear Mexico,
> I apologize. There are so many things I could apologize for, from the way
> the U.S. biotech corporation Monsanto has contaminated your corn to the way
> Arizona and Alabama are persecuting your citizens...
Did Mexico already apologize for being such a corrupt shithole that its own citizens will risk life
and limb to illegally sneak into Arizona and Alabama and about 48 other states?
> "max headroom" <maxhe...@localnet.com> wrote in message
> news:HuudnXsBacfSQ2PS...@posted.localnet...
>> That was more coherent than I expect from most pinkies.
> http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175566/
> Apologies to Mexico: The Drug Trade and Gross National Pain
> Tuesday, 10 July 2012 11:54
> By Rebecca Solnit, TomDispatch.com | Op-Ed
> Dear Mexico,
> I apologize. There are so many things I could apologize for, from the way
> the U.S. biotech corporation Monsanto has contaminated your corn to the way
Did Mexico already apologize for being such a corrupt shithole that its own citizens will risk life
and limb to illegally sneak into Arizona and Alabama and about 48 other states?
Scout
Jul 12, 2012, 10:52:34 PM7/12/12
to
news:032vv794r5867icsq...@4ax.com...
The ATF has been running amok for years. Maybe if the ATF spent more time
doing their job and going after actual criminals rather than trying to set
people up, stage media events for funding that go horribly wrong and/or
otherwise harassing innocent people, then Congress wouldn't have to restrict
them so much.
> I strongly prefer that ATF (and DEA and all other federal police forces)
> be abolished as a separate entity and that all federal criminal
> enforcement come from one agency that is properly managed.
Agreed, it should be the FBI in charge with possibly divisions within that
deal with specific issues. But I'm not sure the FBI would want many of the
current ATF agents, and certainly not the upper management.
> That would be
> easier if we didn't have a lot of really petty or counter-productive
> federal crimes.
Agreed. Which is why I'm of the mind that most, if not all laws, should come
with a sunset clause.
doing their job and going after actual criminals rather than trying to set
people up, stage media events for funding that go horribly wrong and/or
otherwise harassing innocent people, then Congress wouldn't have to restrict
them so much.
> I strongly prefer that ATF (and DEA and all other federal police forces)
> be abolished as a separate entity and that all federal criminal
> enforcement come from one agency that is properly managed.
deal with specific issues. But I'm not sure the FBI would want many of the
current ATF agents, and certainly not the upper management.
> That would be
> easier if we didn't have a lot of really petty or counter-productive
> federal crimes.
with a sunset clause.
Scout
Jul 12, 2012, 10:53:27 PM7/12/12
to
news:bm2vv75ms9ukb6v3p...@4ax.com...
Apparently not given all the pages of blanked out documents they've given
Congress.
Congress.
Scout
Jul 12, 2012, 10:54:49 PM7/12/12
to
news:6n2vv7d4ms40rka63...@4ax.com...
Personally, I don't see how any of the functions of the DEA or the ATF would
involve national security.
involve national security.
Seth lePod
Jul 12, 2012, 11:05:10 PM7/12/12
to
On Jul 12, 3:16 pm, MattB <trdell1234NOMORES...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 07:14:36 +0000 (UTC), 3082 Dead <d...@gone.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 20:46:18 -0700, max headroom wrote:
>
> >> ala <alackr...@comcast.net> wrote in
> >>news:3oWdnQMlTrgGumPS...@earthlink.com:
>
> >>> "Kurt Nicklas" <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:a34bfd38-7641-430a-
> >b4ec-792e6a4c4...@i8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> >Booga booga! Big bad Negro President's going to take your guns! Ack!
> >Booga booga!
:
> He doesn't have that power. He is only half Negro please keep you
> facts straight.
A "half Negro", eh?
Pray, who then are some "full Negroes"?
Seth
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 07:14:36 +0000 (UTC), 3082 Dead <d...@gone.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 20:46:18 -0700, max headroom wrote:
>
> >> ala <alackr...@comcast.net> wrote in
> >>news:3oWdnQMlTrgGumPS...@earthlink.com:
>
> >>> "Kurt Nicklas" <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:a34bfd38-7641-430a-
> >b4ec-792e6a4c4...@i8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM July 11, 2012
>
> >>>> Ann Coulter
>
> >>>>http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-11.html#read_more
>
> >>>> Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric Holder
> >>>> is hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't understand the
> >>>> story.
>
> >>>> Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation for
> >>>> why President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
> >>>> Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers: It put guns
> >>>> in their hands to strengthen liberals' argument for gun control.
>
> >>> there are other plausible stories, most of which she can't access due
> >>> to her intellectual limitations
>
> >> Why don't you explain a few as clearly as she did?
:
> >>>> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM July 11, 2012
>
> >>>> Ann Coulter
>
> >>>>http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-11.html#read_more
>
> >>>> Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric Holder
> >>>> is hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't understand the
> >>>> story.
>
> >>>> Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation for
> >>>> why President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
> >>>> Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers: It put guns
> >>>> in their hands to strengthen liberals' argument for gun control.
>
> >>> there are other plausible stories, most of which she can't access due
> >>> to her intellectual limitations
>
> >> Why don't you explain a few as clearly as she did?
> >Booga booga! Big bad Negro President's going to take your guns! Ack!
> >Booga booga!
:
> He doesn't have that power. He is only half Negro please keep you
> facts straight.
A "half Negro", eh?
Pray, who then are some "full Negroes"?
Seth
MarkA
Jul 13, 2012, 7:44:34 AM7/13/12
to
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 22:53:40 +0000, Gray Guest wrote:
> MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in news:pan.2012.07.12.14.37.33.43623
>>> news:3oWdnQMlTrgGumPS...@earthlink.com:
>>>
>>>
> right... Eric the Red is hiding everything.
>
>> There is an old saying, "Never attribute to malice that which can be
>> explained by incompetence".
>
> In your case it's a 2-fer.
>
>> Of course, the GOP is *desperate* to come up with anything they can to
>> tarnish Obama's successes in office, heading into the fall elections.
>> They have a couple of buttons they can push that will ALWAYS get their
>> members to the polls: abortion, homosexuals, and guns. Tell the lurking
>> GOPpers that the gov'ment wants to take their guns away, and they will
>> be out voting against their own self-interests in droves on election
>> day.
>
> Desperate? hahahahah! Are you really so vacuous that you don't see the
> avalanche coming to bury you and the rest of thieving, lieing scumbags?
You really need to get out more. Your circle of like-minded friends is
not mainstream America.
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
> MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in news:pan.2012.07.12.14.37.33.43623
> @nowhere.invalid:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 04:31:04 +0000, Gray Guest wrote:
>>
>>> "ala" <alac...@comcast.net> wrote in
>
>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 04:31:04 +0000, Gray Guest wrote:
>>
>>> news:3oWdnQMlTrgGumPS...@earthlink.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Kurt Nicklas" <kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:a34bfd38-7641-430a-b4ec-792e6a4c4c72
> @i8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM July 11, 2012
>>>>>
>>>>> Ann Coulter
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-11.html#read_more
>>>>>
>>>>> Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric Holder
> is
>>>>> hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't understand the
>>>>> story.
>>>>>
>>>>> Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation
>>>>> for why President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
>>>>> Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers: It put
>>>>> guns in their hands to strengthen liberals' argument for gun control.
>>>>
>>>> there are other plausible stories, most of which she can't access due
> to
>>>> her intellectual limitations
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM July 11, 2012
>>>>>
>>>>> Ann Coulter
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-11.html#read_more
>>>>>
>>>>> Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric Holder
> is
>>>>> hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't understand the
>>>>> story.
>>>>>
>>>>> Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation
>>>>> for why President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
>>>>> Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers: It put
>>>>> guns in their hands to strengthen liberals' argument for gun control.
>>>>
>>>> there are other plausible stories, most of which she can't access due
> to
>>>> her intellectual limitations
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Really? What are they.
>>>
>>>
>> Like most real-life situations, there is undoubtedly a complex mix of
>> factors in play: bureaucratic bungling, inter-departmental rivalries,
>> conflicting goals, lack of oversight, lax gun laws, etc.
>
> And you can of course, cite your evidence of any of these. Oh yeah, that's
>>>
>>>
>> Like most real-life situations, there is undoubtedly a complex mix of
>> factors in play: bureaucratic bungling, inter-departmental rivalries,
>> conflicting goals, lack of oversight, lax gun laws, etc.
>
> right... Eric the Red is hiding everything.
>
>> There is an old saying, "Never attribute to malice that which can be
>> explained by incompetence".
>
> In your case it's a 2-fer.
>
>> Of course, the GOP is *desperate* to come up with anything they can to
>> tarnish Obama's successes in office, heading into the fall elections.
>> They have a couple of buttons they can push that will ALWAYS get their
>> members to the polls: abortion, homosexuals, and guns. Tell the lurking
>> GOPpers that the gov'ment wants to take their guns away, and they will
>> be out voting against their own self-interests in droves on election
>> day.
>
> Desperate? hahahahah! Are you really so vacuous that you don't see the
> avalanche coming to bury you and the rest of thieving, lieing scumbags?
You really need to get out more. Your circle of like-minded friends is
not mainstream America.
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
MarkA
Jul 13, 2012, 8:23:03 AM7/13/12
to
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:13:58 -0700, JohnJohnsn wrote:
> On Jul 12, 3:43 pm, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 11:45:48 -0700, JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>>>> news:3oWdnQMlTrgGumPS...@earthlink.com:
>>
>>> laws" red herring.
>>
>> Oh, that's right, Johnny! Arizona has some of the most stringent gun
>> laws in the country, don't they?
>>
> Ah, yes: the old "ignore the federal laws taking precidence over state
> laws and only discuss the state laws" gambit.
>
> It was expected; seeing as how you try it at every opportunity.
Clearly, you are more familiar with federal gun laws than the federal
prosecutors are. You may want to call the USAG office, and inform them.
They probably still believe the myth that US citizens have the right to
buy guns.
>>
>> Like, you have to be able to prove you're 18 before you can buy 20 or
>> more assault rifles at a time?
>>
> Yet another "goal post move" there, Marky (see below).
Heh. See above.
>>
>> Then, how long do you have to keep them before you resell them, Johnny?
>> Oh, that's right, you can resell them any time you like, can't you?
>>
> Marky; you've already had your ass kicked over that falsehood so badly
> that your hemorrhoids are probably hanging down to your knees.
>
> Yet you trot it out for yet another ass kicking.
>
> You're a masochist, as well as a Liberal; aren't you.
>
> Sic `im, RD! <chuckle> ;D
Heh. See above.
"For prosecutors, straw-purchasing cases were hard to prove and
unrewarding to prosecute, with minimal penalties attached. In December
2010, five U.S. Attorneys along the Southwest border, including Burke in
Arizona, wrote to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, asking that penalties
for straw purchasing be increased. The commission did increase the
recommended jail time by a few months. But because the straw purchasers,
by definition, have no criminal record and there is no
firearms-trafficking statute that would allow prosecutors to charge them
with conspiracy as a group, the penalties remain low."
I know you probably can't read that much all at once, but the important
sentence is right there at the beginning: straw purchasing cases are hard
to prove and unrewarding to prosecute.
>>
>> Or, as the ATF agent replied, when the FBI agent asked when they were
>> going to stop people from buying car loads of guns: Tell me what law
>> they're breaking, and I'll be glad to arrest them!
>>
> Without a verifiable source we can rest assured that you made that up
> out of whole cloth, Marky.
From the Famous Fortune article, which you apparently haven't read:
"In August 2010, after the ATF in Texas confiscated 80 guns-63 of them
purchased in Arizona by the Fast and Furious suspects- Voth got an
e-mail from a colleague there: "Are you all planning to stop some of these
guys any time soon? That's a lot of guns...Are you just letting these guns
walk?"
"Voth responded with barely suppressed rage: "Have I offended you in some
way? Because I am very offended by your e-mail. Define walk? Without
Probable Cause and concurrence from the USAO [U.S. Attorney's Office] it
is highway robbery if we take someone's property."
If you look for sources of information beyond Fox News, you'll be amazed
to discover how ignorant you are. I guess that's why so few Fox News
viewers ever do it.
>>
>> I wouldn't point fingers at people's credibility if I were you, Johnny.
>>> for anyone making less than $250K/yr" into the lie we all knew it to
>>> be via the ObamaCare "penalty"/"tax" on those who are least capable of
>>> paying them, and "successfully" creating more debt in three-and-a-half
>>> years than all presidents from George W through George W combined
>>> created, what do _you_ consider his "successes," Marky?
>>
> We noticed you ran away from that, Marky.
>
> "Run, Marky; run!"
> (paraphrasing Jenny Curran)
>>
>>> "There are two ways to enslave a country....
>>> One is by the Sword.
>>> The other is by Debt."
>>> - John Adams
>>
>>> Obama's unparalleled debt creation
>>> http://tinyurl.com/Obama-debt-creation
>>
>>> Obama's National Debt Clock
>>> http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html
>>
>> What gets me to the polls is the thought that people like you are out
>> to destroy my country, Johnny.
>>
> You have confused me with the Left-wing Socialist-in-Chief currently
> occupying the White House, Marky.
Oh Nos!!! Not SOCIALISM!!! Get the Holy Water!!!
>
> "Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern
> Liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which
> our freedoms were founded. Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel
> against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a
> parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."
> --Dr. Lyle Rossiter,"The Liberal Mind:
> The Psychological Causes of Political Madness."
Yes, it is strikingly irrational to think that one of the most advanced
nations in the Western World should protect the weak and vulnerable. It
makes much more sense to leave them on rocks in the woods to die.
>>
>>>> Tell the lurking GOPpers that the gov'ment wants to take their guns
>>>> away...
>>
>>> The federal "gov'ment" has a well-proven and well-documented pattern
>>> of conduct there since 1934, Marky.
>>
>>>"I have said this before; I will repeat it: I have the greatest
>>> admiration and courage for President Calderón and his entire cabinet,
>>> his rank-and-file police officers and soldiers as they take on these
>>> cartels. I commend Mexico for the successes that have already been
>>> achieved. But I will not pretend that this is Mexico's responsibility
>>> alone. A demand for these drugs in the United States is what is
>>> helping to keep these cartels in business. This war is being waged
>>> with guns purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90
>>> percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States,
>>> many from gun shops that line our shared border." --Barack Obama;
>>> Joint Press Conference,
>>> Mexico City, Mexico, April 16, 2009
>>> http://tinyurl.com/90-percent-of-guns
>>
>>> Gee, Marky: seems as though `Fast and Furious' started right about
>>> then; didn't it?
>>
>> Just to make sure I'm understanding you here, Johnny: the USA
>> manufactures assault rifles by the truckload, sells them with less
>> restriction than alcohol in shops all along the Mexican border, then,
>> when they show up in the hands of Mexican drug gangs, it's Obama's
>> fault? Is that your theory, Johnny?
>>
> Total bullshit, Marky: "USA manufactur(ed) `assault rifles'" have been
> virtually unavilable to the general buying public since May 19th, 1986.
>
> And even before that, sales, possessions and purchases have been under
> strict federal government control since 1934.
Oh, let's quibble about the definition of 'assault rifle', shall we? You
haven't had enough opportunity to demonstrate what an asshole you are.
>
> "Do you want to change your bullshit story, sir?"
> --Chief Deputy US Marshal Samuel Gerard
>
> "Come on, don't give us none of your bullshit stories huh?...I'm
> pretty much ODing on all your bullshit stories!"
> --Jake Fratelli
>
> "I'm pretty much OD'ing on all your bullshit stories!" --Clark Devereaux
>>
>> And, just what would the GOPpers {SIC} be howling if Obama tried to
>> clamp down on gun sales? I'll give you a hint: it starts with "s", and
>> ends with "econd amendment!!!!!"
>>
> "Without the Second Amendment, all others are merely suggestions."
>
> Do "study up," Marky:
>
> The Embarrassing Second Amendment
> by Sanford Levinson
> University of Texas at Austin School of Law Reprinted from the Yale Law
> Journal, Volume 99, pp. 637-659 http://constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>"Somebody once said: Politics is the art of looking for trouble,
>>>finding
>>> it, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies."
>>> --Nikhil Kumar
>>
>>>> ...and they will be out voting against their own self-interests in
>>>> droves on election day.
>>
>>> You _do_ realize that your postings here will make _zero_ difference
>>> on Election Day 2012; don't you, Marky?
>>
>>> Everyone here made their choices long ago.
>>
>> Believe me, I'm painfully aware of that. Fortunately, the GOP has been
>> so busy crafting its own destruction, they're at a point where they
>> can't even produce a candidate that their Christian base will vote for!
>> LOL!
>>
> So, Marky; in addition to being a Left-wing Liberals Sccialist, you're a
> self-admitted atheist.
>
> Kinda already figured that one out.
>
So, you think calling someone an "atheist" is an insult? That doesn't
surprise me. It must be hell living in a country that was specifically
founded as a secular nation.
> On Jul 12, 3:43 pm, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 11:45:48 -0700, JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 12, 9:37 am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 04:31:04 +0000, Gray Guest wrote:
>>
>>>>>"ala" <alackr...@comcast.net> wrote in
>>> On Jul 12, 9:37 am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 04:31:04 +0000, Gray Guest wrote:
>>
>>>>> news:3oWdnQMlTrgGumPS...@earthlink.com:
>>
>>>>>>"Kurt Nicklas" <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:a34bfd38-7641-430a...@i8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>>>>> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM July 11, 2012
>>
>>>>>>> Ann Coulter
>>
>>>>>>>-http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-11.html
>>>>>>> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM July 11, 2012
>>
>>>>>>> Ann Coulter
>>
>>
>>>>>>> Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric
>>>>>>> Holder is hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't
>>>>>>> understand the story.
>>
>>>>>>> Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation
>>>>>>> for why President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
>>>>>>> Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers: It put
>>>>>>> guns in their hands to strengthen liberals' argument for gun
>>>>>>> control.
>>
>>>>>> there are other plausible stories, most of which she can't access
>>>>>> due to her intellectual limitations
>>
>>>>> Really? What are they.
>>
>>>> Like most real-life situations, there is undoubtedly a complex mix of
>>>> factors in play: bureaucratic bungling, inter-departmental rivalries,
>>>> conflicting goals, lack of oversight, lax gun laws, etc.
>>
>>> Oops! Therr went your credibility, Marky: dropping the false "lax gun
>>>>>>> Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric
>>>>>>> Holder is hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't
>>>>>>> understand the story.
>>
>>>>>>> Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation
>>>>>>> for why President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
>>>>>>> Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers: It put
>>>>>>> guns in their hands to strengthen liberals' argument for gun
>>>>>>> control.
>>
>>>>>> there are other plausible stories, most of which she can't access
>>>>>> due to her intellectual limitations
>>
>>>>> Really? What are they.
>>
>>>> Like most real-life situations, there is undoubtedly a complex mix of
>>>> factors in play: bureaucratic bungling, inter-departmental rivalries,
>>>> conflicting goals, lack of oversight, lax gun laws, etc.
>>
>>> laws" red herring.
>>
>> Oh, that's right, Johnny! Arizona has some of the most stringent gun
>> laws in the country, don't they?
>>
> Ah, yes: the old "ignore the federal laws taking precidence over state
> laws and only discuss the state laws" gambit.
>
> It was expected; seeing as how you try it at every opportunity.
Clearly, you are more familiar with federal gun laws than the federal
prosecutors are. You may want to call the USAG office, and inform them.
They probably still believe the myth that US citizens have the right to
buy guns.
>>
>> Like, you have to be able to prove you're 18 before you can buy 20 or
>> more assault rifles at a time?
>>
> Yet another "goal post move" there, Marky (see below).
Heh. See above.
>>
>> Then, how long do you have to keep them before you resell them, Johnny?
>> Oh, that's right, you can resell them any time you like, can't you?
>>
> Marky; you've already had your ass kicked over that falsehood so badly
> that your hemorrhoids are probably hanging down to your knees.
>
> Yet you trot it out for yet another ass kicking.
>
> You're a masochist, as well as a Liberal; aren't you.
>
> Sic `im, RD! <chuckle> ;D
Heh. See above.
"For prosecutors, straw-purchasing cases were hard to prove and
unrewarding to prosecute, with minimal penalties attached. In December
2010, five U.S. Attorneys along the Southwest border, including Burke in
Arizona, wrote to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, asking that penalties
for straw purchasing be increased. The commission did increase the
recommended jail time by a few months. But because the straw purchasers,
by definition, have no criminal record and there is no
firearms-trafficking statute that would allow prosecutors to charge them
with conspiracy as a group, the penalties remain low."
I know you probably can't read that much all at once, but the important
sentence is right there at the beginning: straw purchasing cases are hard
to prove and unrewarding to prosecute.
>>
>> Or, as the ATF agent replied, when the FBI agent asked when they were
>> going to stop people from buying car loads of guns: Tell me what law
>> they're breaking, and I'll be glad to arrest them!
>>
> Without a verifiable source we can rest assured that you made that up
> out of whole cloth, Marky.
From the Famous Fortune article, which you apparently haven't read:
"In August 2010, after the ATF in Texas confiscated 80 guns-63 of them
purchased in Arizona by the Fast and Furious suspects- Voth got an
e-mail from a colleague there: "Are you all planning to stop some of these
guys any time soon? That's a lot of guns...Are you just letting these guns
walk?"
"Voth responded with barely suppressed rage: "Have I offended you in some
way? Because I am very offended by your e-mail. Define walk? Without
Probable Cause and concurrence from the USAO [U.S. Attorney's Office] it
is highway robbery if we take someone's property."
If you look for sources of information beyond Fox News, you'll be amazed
to discover how ignorant you are. I guess that's why so few Fox News
viewers ever do it.
>>
>> I wouldn't point fingers at people's credibility if I were you, Johnny.
>>
>>>> There is an old saying, "Never attribute to malice that which can be
>>>> explained by incompetence".
>>
>>>> There is an old saying, "Never attribute to malice that which can be
>>>> explained by incompetence".
>>
>>>> Of course, the GOP is *desperate* to come up with anything they can
>>>> to tarnish Obama's successes in office, heading into the fall
>>>> elections.
>>
>>> Other than his "successes" of "successfully" turning his "no new taxes
>>>> to tarnish Obama's successes in office, heading into the fall
>>>> elections.
>>
>>> for anyone making less than $250K/yr" into the lie we all knew it to
>>> be via the ObamaCare "penalty"/"tax" on those who are least capable of
>>> paying them, and "successfully" creating more debt in three-and-a-half
>>> years than all presidents from George W through George W combined
>>> created, what do _you_ consider his "successes," Marky?
>>
> We noticed you ran away from that, Marky.
>
> "Run, Marky; run!"
> (paraphrasing Jenny Curran)
>>
>>> "There are two ways to enslave a country....
>>> One is by the Sword.
>>> The other is by Debt."
>>> - John Adams
>>
>>> Obama's unparalleled debt creation
>>> http://tinyurl.com/Obama-debt-creation
>>
>>> Obama's National Debt Clock
>>> http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html
>>
>>>> They have a couple of buttons they can push that will ALWAYS get
>>>> their members to the polls: abortion, homosexuals, and guns.
>>
>>> Will these get _your_ Liberal Democrat voters to the polls, Marky?
>>>> They have a couple of buttons they can push that will ALWAYS get
>>>> their members to the polls: abortion, homosexuals, and guns.
>>
>>
>> What gets me to the polls is the thought that people like you are out
>> to destroy my country, Johnny.
>>
> You have confused me with the Left-wing Socialist-in-Chief currently
> occupying the White House, Marky.
Oh Nos!!! Not SOCIALISM!!! Get the Holy Water!!!
>
> "Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern
> Liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which
> our freedoms were founded. Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel
> against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a
> parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."
> --Dr. Lyle Rossiter,"The Liberal Mind:
> The Psychological Causes of Political Madness."
Yes, it is strikingly irrational to think that one of the most advanced
nations in the Western World should protect the weak and vulnerable. It
makes much more sense to leave them on rocks in the woods to die.
>>
>>>> Tell the lurking GOPpers that the gov'ment wants to take their guns
>>
>>> The federal "gov'ment" has a well-proven and well-documented pattern
>>> of conduct there since 1934, Marky.
>>
>>>"I have said this before; I will repeat it: I have the greatest
>>> admiration and courage for President Calderón and his entire cabinet,
>>> his rank-and-file police officers and soldiers as they take on these
>>> cartels. I commend Mexico for the successes that have already been
>>> achieved. But I will not pretend that this is Mexico's responsibility
>>> alone. A demand for these drugs in the United States is what is
>>> helping to keep these cartels in business. This war is being waged
>>> with guns purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90
>>> percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States,
>>> many from gun shops that line our shared border." --Barack Obama;
>>> Joint Press Conference,
>>> Mexico City, Mexico, April 16, 2009
>>> http://tinyurl.com/90-percent-of-guns
>>
>>> Gee, Marky: seems as though `Fast and Furious' started right about
>>> then; didn't it?
>>
>> Just to make sure I'm understanding you here, Johnny: the USA
>> manufactures assault rifles by the truckload, sells them with less
>> restriction than alcohol in shops all along the Mexican border, then,
>> when they show up in the hands of Mexican drug gangs, it's Obama's
>> fault? Is that your theory, Johnny?
>>
> Total bullshit, Marky: "USA manufactur(ed) `assault rifles'" have been
> virtually unavilable to the general buying public since May 19th, 1986.
>
> And even before that, sales, possessions and purchases have been under
> strict federal government control since 1934.
Oh, let's quibble about the definition of 'assault rifle', shall we? You
haven't had enough opportunity to demonstrate what an asshole you are.
>
> "Do you want to change your bullshit story, sir?"
> --Chief Deputy US Marshal Samuel Gerard
>
> "Come on, don't give us none of your bullshit stories huh?...I'm
> pretty much ODing on all your bullshit stories!"
> --Jake Fratelli
>
> "I'm pretty much OD'ing on all your bullshit stories!" --Clark Devereaux
>>
>> And, just what would the GOPpers {SIC} be howling if Obama tried to
>> clamp down on gun sales? I'll give you a hint: it starts with "s", and
>> ends with "econd amendment!!!!!"
>>
> "Without the Second Amendment, all others are merely suggestions."
>
> Do "study up," Marky:
>
> The Embarrassing Second Amendment
> by Sanford Levinson
> University of Texas at Austin School of Law Reprinted from the Yale Law
> Journal, Volume 99, pp. 637-659 http://constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>"Somebody once said: Politics is the art of looking for trouble,
>>>finding
>>> it, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies."
>>> --Nikhil Kumar
>>
>>>> ...and they will be out voting against their own self-interests in
>>>> droves on election day.
>>
>>> You _do_ realize that your postings here will make _zero_ difference
>>> on Election Day 2012; don't you, Marky?
>>
>>> Everyone here made their choices long ago.
>>
>> Believe me, I'm painfully aware of that. Fortunately, the GOP has been
>> so busy crafting its own destruction, they're at a point where they
>> can't even produce a candidate that their Christian base will vote for!
>> LOL!
>>
> So, Marky; in addition to being a Left-wing Liberals Sccialist, you're a
> self-admitted atheist.
>
> Kinda already figured that one out.
>
So, you think calling someone an "atheist" is an insult? That doesn't
surprise me. It must be hell living in a country that was specifically
founded as a secular nation.
MarkA
Jul 13, 2012, 8:40:19 AM7/13/12
to
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 16:32:06 -0700, max headroom wrote:
> MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in
> news:pan.2012.07.12....@nowhere.invalid:
> MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in
>
>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 08:18:39 -0700, max headroom wrote:
>
>>> MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in
>>> news:pan.2012.07.12...@nowhere.invalid:
>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 08:18:39 -0700, max headroom wrote:
>
>>> MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in
>
>>>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 04:31:04 +0000, Gray Guest wrote:
>
>>>>> "ala" <alac...@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 04:31:04 +0000, Gray Guest wrote:
>
>>>>> news:3oWdnQMlTrgGumPS...@earthlink.com:
>
>>>>>> "Kurt Nicklas" <kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:a34bfd38-7641-430a...@i8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>>>>> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM July 11, 2012
>
>>>>>>> Ann Coulter
>
>>>>>>> http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-11.html#read_more
>
>>>>>>> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM July 11, 2012
>
>>>>>>> Ann Coulter
>
>
>>>>>>> Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric
>>>>>>> Holder is hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't
>>>>>>> understand the story.
>
>>>>>>> Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation
>>>>>>> for why President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
>>>>>>> Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers: It put
>>>>>>> guns in their hands to strengthen liberals' argument for gun
>>>>>>> control.
>
>>>>>> there are other plausible stories, most of which she can't access
>>>>>> due to her intellectual limitations
>
>>>>> Really? What are they.
>
>>>> Like most real-life situations, there is undoubtedly a complex mix of
>>>> factors in play: bureaucratic bungling, inter-departmental rivalries,
>>>> conflicting goals, lack of oversight, lax gun laws, etc.
>
>>> What gun laws were too lax when you have licensed dealers being told by
>>>>>>> Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric
>>>>>>> Holder is hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't
>>>>>>> understand the story.
>
>>>>>>> Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation
>>>>>>> for why President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
>>>>>>> Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers: It put
>>>>>>> guns in their hands to strengthen liberals' argument for gun
>>>>>>> control.
>
>>>>>> there are other plausible stories, most of which she can't access
>>>>>> due to her intellectual limitations
>
>>>>> Really? What are they.
>
>>>> Like most real-life situations, there is undoubtedly a complex mix of
>>>> factors in play: bureaucratic bungling, inter-departmental rivalries,
>>>> conflicting goals, lack of oversight, lax gun laws, etc.
>
>>> ATF to allow straw buyers to complete the sales?
>
>> What grounds would licensed dealers have for not selling to people
>> legally entitled to buy?
>
> Nice goalpost move.
>
> A licensed dealer may not sell to a prohibited person. In practice, a
> dealer will delay a sale if he suspects something fishy and ask ATF.
>
> You mentioned lax gun laws. To which laws did you refer?
When did I say a dealer would sell to a prohibited person? A person
legally entitled to buy is not a prohibited person. Perhaps you weren't
aware of that subtle trick of the English language?
>
>>>> There is an old saying, "Never attribute to malice that which can be
>>>> explained by incompetence".
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [crickets.wav]
>
>
>
> >>>> Of course, the GOP is *desperate* to come up with anything they can
>>>> to tarnish Obama's successes in office, heading into the fall
>>>> elections....
>
>
> >>>> Of course, the GOP is *desperate* to come up with anything they can
>>>> to tarnish Obama's successes in office, heading into the fall
>
>>> If Holder and DoJ hadn't stonewalled the House committee for the past
>>> year, this would be over now.
>
>> Right. The GOPpers in Congress are all about getting to the truth,
>> aren't they?
>
> Certainly no less than Democrats.
>> Right. The GOPpers in Congress are all about getting to the truth,
>> aren't they?
>
The Dems in Congress are a bunch of spineless amateur guppies. The
GOPpers are the ferocious sharks. Too bad they are working for the 1%,
and have managed to con a sizable portion of the other 99% to think that
they are looking out for their best interests.
MarkA
Jul 13, 2012, 9:03:31 AM7/13/12
to
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:24:45 -0500, RD Sandman wrote:
> MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in
> news:pan.2012.07.12....@nowhere.invalid:
>
> MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in
> news:pan.2012.07.12....@nowhere.invalid:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 11:45:48 -0700, JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 12, 9:37 am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>> On Jul 12, 9:37 am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 04:31:04 +0000, Gray Guest wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"ala" <alackr...@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>
>>>>>news:3oWdnQMlTrgGumPS...@earthlink.com:
>>>>
>>>>>>"Kurt Nicklas" <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:a34bfd38-7641-430a...@i8g2000yql.googlegroups.co
>>>>>>m...
>>>>
>>>>>>news:a34bfd38-7641-430a...@i8g2000yql.googlegroups.co
>>>>>>m...
>>>>
>>>>>>> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM July 11, 2012
>>>>
>>>>>>> Ann Coulter
>>>>
>>>>>>>-http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-11.html
>>>>
>>>>>>> Ann Coulter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric
>>>>>>> Holder is hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't
>>>>>>> understand the story.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation
>>>>>>> for why President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
>>>>>>> Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers: It put
>>>>>>> guns in their hands to strengthen liberals' argument for gun
>>>>>>> control.
>>>>
>>>>>> there are other plausible stories, most of which she can't access
>>>>>> due to her intellectual limitations
>>>>
>>>>> Really? What are they.
>>>>
>>>> Like most real-life situations, there is undoubtedly a complex mix of
>>>> factors in play: bureaucratic bungling, inter-departmental rivalries,
>>>> conflicting goals, lack of oversight, lax gun laws, etc.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric
>>>>>>> Holder is hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't
>>>>>>> understand the story.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation
>>>>>>> for why President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
>>>>>>> Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers: It put
>>>>>>> guns in their hands to strengthen liberals' argument for gun
>>>>>>> control.
>>>>
>>>>>> there are other plausible stories, most of which she can't access
>>>>>> due to her intellectual limitations
>>>>
>>>>> Really? What are they.
>>>>
>>>> Like most real-life situations, there is undoubtedly a complex mix of
>>>> factors in play: bureaucratic bungling, inter-departmental rivalries,
>>>> conflicting goals, lack of oversight, lax gun laws, etc.
>>>>
>>> Oops! Therr went your credibility, Marky: dropping the false "lax gun
>>> laws" red herring.
>>
>> Oh, that's right, Johnny! Arizona has some of the most stringent gun
>> laws in the country, don't they? Like, you have to be able to prove
>>> laws" red herring.
>>
>> Oh, that's right, Johnny! Arizona has some of the most stringent gun
>> you're 18 before you can buy 20 or more assault rifles at a time?
>
> Actually, purchases of multiple long arms are reported to the ATF. Holds
>
> true for all four border states....California, Arizona, New Mexico and
> Texas.
That doesn't surprise me in the least. However, provided the
purchaser is not a known felon, there is nothing illegal about letting the
sales go through, is there?
>
>> Then, how long do you have to keep them before you resell them, Johnny?
>> Oh, that's right, you can resell them any time you like, can't you?
>
> most of those sales were done under cooperation from the ATF. Phone
> calls like "Should I really go ahead with this sale?" and ATF replying,
> "Of course, we have it under control out here."
>
>> Or, as the ATF agent replied, when the FBI agent asked when they were
>> going to stop people from buying car loads of guns: Tell me what law
>> they're breaking, and I'll be glad to arrest them!
>
> Which ATF agent was that, mon ami?
>> Or, as the ATF agent replied, when the FBI agent asked when they were
>> going to stop people from buying car loads of guns: Tell me what law
>> they're breaking, and I'll be glad to arrest them!
>
I looked it up for another adversary. It turns out I was mis-remembering
the details. It was actually Voth replying to an ATF agent (not FBI) in
Texas:
(From K. Eban's Fortune article):
"In August 2010, after the ATF in Texas confiscated 80 guns-63 of them
purchased in Arizona by the Fast and Furious suspects- Voth got an
e-mail from a colleague there: "Are you all planning to stop some of these
guys any time soon? That's a lot of guns...Are you just letting these guns
walk?"
"Voth responded with barely suppressed rage: "Have I offended you in some
way? Because I am very offended by your e-mail. Define walk? Without
Probable Cause and concurrence from the USAO [U.S. Attorney's Office] it
situation with the unemployed suspect who had bought the sniper rifle. "We
conducted a field interview and after calling the AUSA [assistant U.S.
Attorney] he said we did not have sufficient PC [probable cause] to take
the firearm so our suspect drove home with said firearm in his car...any
ideas on how we could not let that firearm 'walk'"?
>
>> I wouldn't point fingers at people's credibility if I were you, Johnny.
>>
>>> "I have said this before; I will repeat it: I have the greatest
>>> admiration and courage for President Calderón and his entire cabinet,
>>
>>> admiration and courage for President Calderón and his entire cabinet,
>>
>> Just to make sure I'm understanding you here, Johnny: the USA
>> manufactures assault rifles by the truckload,
>
> Assault weapons.....assault rifles go to the military. They are full
>> manufactures assault rifles by the truckload,
>
> auto or select fire. They are not the semi auto clones which are the
> ones sold at gun shops unless the dealer is a Class III dealer.
I have bought semi-automatic rifles. I considered them to be "dumbed-down
assault rifles". I also believe the technology exists to turn them into
full auto, if you don't mind violating gun laws, which probably isn't an
issue for professional drug smugglers.
However, if you are telling me that the term "assault rifle" is incorrect
for the semi-autos that John Q Public can buy at the local gun store,
I'll accept that.
>
> sells them with less
>> restriction than alcohol in shops all along the Mexican border,
>
>
> then,
>> when they show up in the hands of Mexican drug gangs, it's Obama's
>> fault?
>
> Not quite how it happens.
> then,
>> when they show up in the hands of Mexican drug gangs, it's Obama's
>> fault?
>
>
> Is that your theory, Johnny? And, just what would the GOPpers
>> be howling if Obama tried to clamp down on gun sales? I'll give you a
>> hint: it starts with "s", and ends with "econd amendment!!!!!"
>
> Yes, there are nuts on both sides of that argument. You appear to be
>> hint: it starts with "s", and ends with "econd amendment!!!!!"
>
> one on the other side.
Just trying to enlighten some people who think that any information that
doesn't come through Fox News is part of a conspiracy to turn the USA into
a Commie Socialist Nanny State.
max headroom
Jul 12, 2012, 10:52:54 PM7/12/12
to
ala <alac...@comcast.net> wrote in news:K_KdnaM0sNCj72LS...@earthlink.com:
> "Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
> news:b6suv7l76imbgjhh5...@4ax.com...
>> Why isn't it a federal crime to classify material for the purposes of
>> hiding criminal or other embarrassing actions of government employees?
>> Why should we trust a general who is covering his ass?
> Obama Aide Hints at Romney Tax Evasion
Staying on topic: FAIL
> "Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
> news:b6suv7l76imbgjhh5...@4ax.com...
>> Why isn't it a federal crime to classify material for the purposes of
>> hiding criminal or other embarrassing actions of government employees?
>> Why should we trust a general who is covering his ass?
> Obama Aide Hints at Romney Tax Evasion
Free Lunch
Jul 13, 2012, 9:38:42 AM7/13/12
to
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 22:54:49 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>
Doesn't DEA leave a lot of international messes that State needs to
clean up?
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>
clean up?
max headroom
Jul 13, 2012, 10:25:18 AM7/13/12
to
> When did I say a dealer would sell to a prohibited person?...
When did I say you did?
> ... A person legally entitled to buy is not a prohibited person. Perhaps you weren't
> aware of that subtle trick of the English language?
Perhaps you did not comprehend this when you skimmed it the first time--
A licensed dealer may not sell to a prohibited person. In practice, a dealer will delay a sale if he
suspects something fishy and ask ATF.
of time must take the Fortune article with a grain of salt, as it only expresses the probable legal
defenses of ATF agents who may be facing charges in the near future. ATF is not helpless when bad
guys don't cooperate. It is well known for manufacturing evidence in the lab if it can't find it in
the field.
And again, you mentioned lax gun laws. To which laws did you refer? Or were you only blowing pink
smoke?
>>>>> There is an old saying, "Never attribute to malice that which can be
>>>>> explained by incompetence".
>>>> What was the goal of F&F and how was it supposed to achieve that goal?
>> [crickets.wav]
>>>>>> Of course, the GOP is *desperate* to come up with anything they can
>>>>> to tarnish Obama's successes in office, heading into the fall
>>>>> elections....
>>>> If Holder and DoJ hadn't stonewalled the House committee for the past
>>>> year, this would be over now.
>>> Right. The GOPpers in Congress are all about getting to the truth,
>>> aren't they?
>> Certainly no less than Democrats.
> The Dems in Congress are a bunch of spineless amateur guppies. The
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahaha.... you one funny guy!
MarkA
Jul 13, 2012, 11:52:27 AM7/13/12
to
who are of legal age, and are not otherwise prohibited from buying them.
What laws are they? How are gun dealers "being told by the ATF to allow
straw buyers to complete the sales"? You're saying that ATF agents told
gun dealers to violate federal gun laws by selling to known felons? Do
you know any gun dealer who would really do that?
>
>>>>>> There is an old saying, "Never attribute to malice that which can
>>>>>> be explained by incompetence".
>
>>>>> What was the goal of F&F and how was it supposed to achieve that
>>>>> goal?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>> [crickets.wav]
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>>>> Of course, the GOP is *desperate* to come up with anything they
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>> to tarnish Obama's successes in office, heading into the fall
>>>>>> elections....
>
>>>>> If Holder and DoJ hadn't stonewalled the House committee for the
>>>>> past year, this would be over now.
>
>>>> Right. The GOPpers in Congress are all about getting to the truth,
>>>> aren't they?
>
>>> Certainly no less than Democrats.
>
>> The Dems in Congress are a bunch of spineless amateur guppies. The
>> GOPpers are the ferocious sharks....
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahaha.... you one funny guy!
Despite the fact that Bush could barely document that he had even shown up
for his cushy Air National Guard assignment, while Kerry was in Nam
getting shot up, the GOP managed to portray Bush as the "War President".
Any organization that can pull off a marketing stunt like that is a force
to be reckoned with. The GOP has incredible marketing skills. It's too
bad they are such lousy statesmen once they get elected.
RD Sandman
Jul 13, 2012, 12:06:54 PM7/13/12
to
MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in
news:pan.2012.07.13....@nowhere.invalid:
In the case of Fast & Furious, certain ATF agents were called when the
sale was taking place. The purchaser was there due to undercover agents
telling the purchaser to go to particular dealers. ATF would then OK the
sale when called.
>>> Then, how long do you have to keep them before you resell them,
>>> Johnny? Oh, that's right, you can resell them any time you like,
>>> can't you?
>>
>> Not without coming under surveillance. You do understand, I hope
>> that most of those sales were done under cooperation from the ATF.
>> Phone calls like "Should I really go ahead with this sale?" and ATF
>> replying, "Of course, we have it under control out here."
>>
>>> Or, as the ATF agent replied, when the FBI agent asked when they
>>> were going to stop people from buying car loads of guns: Tell me
>>> what law they're breaking, and I'll be glad to arrest them!
>>
>> Which ATF agent was that, mon ami?
>
> I looked it up for another adversary. It turns out I was
> mis-remembering the details. It was actually Voth replying to an ATF
> agent (not FBI) in Texas:
>
> (From K. Eban's Fortune article):
Seems that is where you get a lot of your 'facts'.
> "In August 2010, after the ATF in Texas confiscated 80 guns-63 of them
> purchased in Arizona by the Fast and Furious suspects- Voth got an
> e-mail from a colleague there: "Are you all planning to stop some of
> these guys any time soon? That's a lot of guns...Are you just letting
> these guns walk?"
>
> "Voth responded with barely suppressed rage: "Have I offended you in
> some way? Because I am very offended by your e-mail. Define walk?
> Without Probable Cause and concurrence from the USAO [U.S. Attorney's
> Office] it is highway robbery if we take someone's property." He then
> recounted the situation with the unemployed suspect who had bought the
> sniper rifle. "We conducted a field interview and after calling the
> AUSA [assistant U.S. Attorney] he said we did not have sufficient PC
> [probable cause] to take the firearm so our suspect drove home with
> said firearm in his car...any ideas on how we could not let that
> firearm 'walk'"?
Sorry, Voth, but in many of those cases, the purchaser was known to your
agents, arranged by your agents, the dealer given a go-ahead by those
agents, US Customs told not to stop the vehicle transporting those
weapons by those agents.
You need to do a lot more work on Fast & Furious other than reading one
article. Look up some of Sheryl Attkisson's reports. She works for CBS
in Washington and won some awards reporting on this operation.
"In 2012, CBS News accepted an Investigative Reporting Award given to
Attkisson's reporting on ATF's "Fast and Furious" gunwalker controversy.
The award was from the conservative media watchdog group "Accuracy in
Media" and was presented at the Conservative Political Action Conference.
[13] In June 2012, Attkisson's investigative reporting for the
"Gunwalker" story also won the CBS Evening News the Radio and Television
News Directors Association's National Edward R. Murrow Award for
Excellence in Video Investigative Reporting. The award will be presented
Oct. 8, 2012 in New York City.[14]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharyl_Attkisson
>>> I wouldn't point fingers at people's credibility if I were you,
>>> Johnny.
>>>
>>>> "I have said this before; I will repeat it: I have the greatest
>>>> admiration and courage for President Calderón and his entire
>>>> cabinet,
>>>
>>> Just to make sure I'm understanding you here, Johnny: the USA
>>> manufactures assault rifles by the truckload,
>>
>> Assault weapons.....assault rifles go to the military. They are full
>> auto or select fire. They are not the semi auto clones which are the
>> ones sold at gun shops unless the dealer is a Class III dealer.
>
> I have bought semi-automatic rifles. I considered them to be
> "dumbed-down assault rifles".
What you consider them isn't really what they are called. The Assault
Weapons Ban was specifically about these *semi* auto clones of military
weapons.
I also believe the technology exists to
> turn them into full auto,
Yes, but not easily. There are federal regulations on what must be used
to do so or it will be considered a Class III weapon.
if you don't mind violating gun laws, which
> probably isn't an issue for professional drug smugglers.
>
> However, if you are telling me that the term "assault rifle" is
> incorrect for the semi-autos that John Q Public can buy at the local
> gun store, I'll accept that.
Good, because the "assault weapons that John Q Public can legally buy
(without going through a Class III dealer or Class III background check
and buying tax stamp which is only good for a gun manufactured prior to
1986) is a semi auto which fires one bullet per pull of the trigger just
like Officer Handy's S&W revolver.
>> sells them with less
>>> restriction than alcohol in shops all along the Mexican border,
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>> then,
>>> when they show up in the hands of Mexican drug gangs, it's Obama's
>>> fault?
>>
>> Not quite how it happens.
>>
>> Is that your theory, Johnny? And, just what would the GOPpers
>>> be howling if Obama tried to clamp down on gun sales? I'll give you
>>> a hint: it starts with "s", and ends with "econd amendment!!!!!"
>>
>> Yes, there are nuts on both sides of that argument. You appear to be
>> one on the other side.
>
> Just trying to enlighten some people who think that any information
> that doesn't come through Fox News is part of a conspiracy to turn the
> USA into a Commie Socialist Nanny State.
You come across as much more antigun than you do as an informative
source.
--
If you hear me yell, "Eject! Eject! Eject!"
The last two will be echoes......
If you stop to ask "Why?" You will be talking to
yourself because you just became the pilot.
Sleep well, tonight.....
news:pan.2012.07.13....@nowhere.invalid:
sale was taking place. The purchaser was there due to undercover agents
telling the purchaser to go to particular dealers. ATF would then OK the
sale when called.
>>> Then, how long do you have to keep them before you resell them,
>>> Johnny? Oh, that's right, you can resell them any time you like,
>>> can't you?
>>
>> Not without coming under surveillance. You do understand, I hope
>> that most of those sales were done under cooperation from the ATF.
>> Phone calls like "Should I really go ahead with this sale?" and ATF
>> replying, "Of course, we have it under control out here."
>>
>>> Or, as the ATF agent replied, when the FBI agent asked when they
>>> were going to stop people from buying car loads of guns: Tell me
>>> what law they're breaking, and I'll be glad to arrest them!
>>
>> Which ATF agent was that, mon ami?
>
> I looked it up for another adversary. It turns out I was
> mis-remembering the details. It was actually Voth replying to an ATF
> agent (not FBI) in Texas:
>
> (From K. Eban's Fortune article):
> "In August 2010, after the ATF in Texas confiscated 80 guns-63 of them
> purchased in Arizona by the Fast and Furious suspects- Voth got an
> e-mail from a colleague there: "Are you all planning to stop some of
> these guys any time soon? That's a lot of guns...Are you just letting
> these guns walk?"
>
> "Voth responded with barely suppressed rage: "Have I offended you in
> some way? Because I am very offended by your e-mail. Define walk?
> Without Probable Cause and concurrence from the USAO [U.S. Attorney's
> Office] it is highway robbery if we take someone's property." He then
> recounted the situation with the unemployed suspect who had bought the
> sniper rifle. "We conducted a field interview and after calling the
> AUSA [assistant U.S. Attorney] he said we did not have sufficient PC
> [probable cause] to take the firearm so our suspect drove home with
> said firearm in his car...any ideas on how we could not let that
> firearm 'walk'"?
agents, arranged by your agents, the dealer given a go-ahead by those
agents, US Customs told not to stop the vehicle transporting those
weapons by those agents.
You need to do a lot more work on Fast & Furious other than reading one
article. Look up some of Sheryl Attkisson's reports. She works for CBS
in Washington and won some awards reporting on this operation.
"In 2012, CBS News accepted an Investigative Reporting Award given to
Attkisson's reporting on ATF's "Fast and Furious" gunwalker controversy.
The award was from the conservative media watchdog group "Accuracy in
Media" and was presented at the Conservative Political Action Conference.
[13] In June 2012, Attkisson's investigative reporting for the
"Gunwalker" story also won the CBS Evening News the Radio and Television
News Directors Association's National Edward R. Murrow Award for
Excellence in Video Investigative Reporting. The award will be presented
Oct. 8, 2012 in New York City.[14]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharyl_Attkisson
>>> I wouldn't point fingers at people's credibility if I were you,
>>> Johnny.
>>>
>>>> "I have said this before; I will repeat it: I have the greatest
>>>> admiration and courage for President Calderón and his entire
>>>> cabinet,
>>>
>>> Just to make sure I'm understanding you here, Johnny: the USA
>>> manufactures assault rifles by the truckload,
>>
>> Assault weapons.....assault rifles go to the military. They are full
>> auto or select fire. They are not the semi auto clones which are the
>> ones sold at gun shops unless the dealer is a Class III dealer.
>
> I have bought semi-automatic rifles. I considered them to be
> "dumbed-down assault rifles".
Weapons Ban was specifically about these *semi* auto clones of military
weapons.
I also believe the technology exists to
> turn them into full auto,
to do so or it will be considered a Class III weapon.
if you don't mind violating gun laws, which
> probably isn't an issue for professional drug smugglers.
>
> However, if you are telling me that the term "assault rifle" is
> incorrect for the semi-autos that John Q Public can buy at the local
> gun store, I'll accept that.
(without going through a Class III dealer or Class III background check
and buying tax stamp which is only good for a gun manufactured prior to
1986) is a semi auto which fires one bullet per pull of the trigger just
like Officer Handy's S&W revolver.
>> sells them with less
>>> restriction than alcohol in shops all along the Mexican border,
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>> then,
>>> when they show up in the hands of Mexican drug gangs, it's Obama's
>>> fault?
>>
>> Not quite how it happens.
>>
>> Is that your theory, Johnny? And, just what would the GOPpers
>>> be howling if Obama tried to clamp down on gun sales? I'll give you
>>> a hint: it starts with "s", and ends with "econd amendment!!!!!"
>>
>> Yes, there are nuts on both sides of that argument. You appear to be
>> one on the other side.
>
> Just trying to enlighten some people who think that any information
> that doesn't come through Fox News is part of a conspiracy to turn the
> USA into a Commie Socialist Nanny State.
source.
--
If you hear me yell, "Eject! Eject! Eject!"
The last two will be echoes......
If you stop to ask "Why?" You will be talking to
yourself because you just became the pilot.
Sleep well, tonight.....
RD Sandman
Jul 13, 2012, 12:08:51 PM7/13/12
to
"ala" <alac...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:CtidnY7fFdMa_WLS...@earthlink.com:
>
> "RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:XnsA08E9D442...@216.196.121.131...
>
>
>>>
secret information for our national security.
news:CtidnY7fFdMa_WLS...@earthlink.com:
>
> "RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:XnsA08E9D442...@216.196.121.131...
>
>
>>>
>>> Right. The GOPpers in Congress are all about getting to the truth,
>>> aren't they?
>>
>>> aren't they?
>>
>> Everyone should be.
>
> everyone?
> about everything?
Asinine question. The subject here is Fast & Furious, not military or
>
> everyone?
> about everything?
secret information for our national security.
RD Sandman
Jul 13, 2012, 12:09:40 PM7/13/12
to
"ala" <alac...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:Bq-dnYqD_4ON7GLS...@earthlink.com:
news:Bq-dnYqD_4ON7GLS...@earthlink.com:
> news:jtnr0d$m45$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>
>>
>> As well they should. It is a federal crime to be involve in the
>> dissemination and distribution of classified material and I see
>> absolutely no reason why reporters should generally be above that
>> law. No, in the cases where those classified materials do DIRECTLY
>> impact US citizens...say a classified project on how the government
>> will start rounding up select citizens to put them into camps or
>> something like that, then that would be another issue. But being
>> involved in publishing other classified material...that could be seen
>> as a number of crimes up to treason.
>>
>>
>>
>
> isn't it possible that the Fast and Furious program concerns just such
> classified materials that warrant nondisclosure?
There is nothing in F&F that has anything to do with national security.
>>
>>
>>
>> As well they should. It is a federal crime to be involve in the
>> dissemination and distribution of classified material and I see
>> absolutely no reason why reporters should generally be above that
>> law. No, in the cases where those classified materials do DIRECTLY
>> impact US citizens...say a classified project on how the government
>> will start rounding up select citizens to put them into camps or
>> something like that, then that would be another issue. But being
>> involved in publishing other classified material...that could be seen
>> as a number of crimes up to treason.
>>
>>
>>
>
> isn't it possible that the Fast and Furious program concerns just such
> classified materials that warrant nondisclosure?
RD Sandman
Jul 13, 2012, 12:10:00 PM7/13/12
to
Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:ibsuv7dta0h6iuris...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 20:51:11 -0400, "ala" <alac...@comcast.net>
> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>>
>>"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
>>news:jtnr0d$m45$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As well they should. It is a federal crime to be involve in the
>>> dissemination and distribution of classified material and I see
>>> absolutely no reason why reporters should generally be above that
>>> law. No, in the cases where those classified materials do DIRECTLY
>>> impact US citizens...say a classified project on how the government
>>> will start rounding up select citizens to put them into camps or
>>> something like that, then that would be another issue. But being
>>> involved in publishing other classified material...that could be
>>> seen as a number of crimes up to treason.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>isn't it possible that the Fast and Furious program concerns just such
>>classified materials that warrant nondisclosure?
>
> Almost certainly, but Darryl Issa is above the law.
>>news:jtnr0d$m45$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As well they should. It is a federal crime to be involve in the
>>> dissemination and distribution of classified material and I see
>>> absolutely no reason why reporters should generally be above that
>>> law. No, in the cases where those classified materials do DIRECTLY
>>> impact US citizens...say a classified project on how the government
>>> will start rounding up select citizens to put them into camps or
>>> something like that, then that would be another issue. But being
>>> involved in publishing other classified material...that could be
>>> seen as a number of crimes up to treason.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>isn't it possible that the Fast and Furious program concerns just such
>>classified materials that warrant nondisclosure?
>
>
No, he isn't.
RD Sandman
Jul 13, 2012, 12:10:59 PM7/13/12
to
"ala" <alac...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:I-6dnRVI-I3A7mLS...@earthlink.com:
Are you really that dumb or is this just one of your personas?
news:I-6dnRVI-I3A7mLS...@earthlink.com:
RD Sandman
Jul 13, 2012, 12:13:53 PM7/13/12
to
Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:969008do5f2f8046e...@4ax.com:
Fast & Furious included ATF, DEA, FBI, US Customs and the Border Patrol.
RD Sandman
Jul 13, 2012, 12:15:37 PM7/13/12
to
"ala" <alac...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:K_KdnaM0sNCj72LS...@earthlink.com:
Ahhhh, if you have no answer, change the subject.......quickly.
news:K_KdnaM0sNCj72LS...@earthlink.com:
> news:b6suv7l76imbgjhh5...@4ax.com...
>
>>>
>> Why isn't it a federal crime to classify material for the purposes of
>> hiding criminal or other embarrassing actions of government
>> employees? Why should we trust a general who is covering his ass?
>
> Obama Aide Hints at Romney Tax Evasion
> By Chris McGreal, Guardian UK
>
>>>
>> Why isn't it a federal crime to classify material for the purposes of
>> hiding criminal or other embarrassing actions of government
>> employees? Why should we trust a general who is covering his ass?
>
> Obama Aide Hints at Romney Tax Evasion
Ahhhh, if you have no answer, change the subject.......quickly.
RD Sandman
Jul 13, 2012, 12:18:37 PM7/13/12
to
Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:032vv794r5867icsq...@4ax.com:
> I strongly prefer that ATF (and DEA and all other federal police
forces)
> be abolished as a separate entity and that all federal criminal
> enforcement come from one agency that is properly managed. That would
be
> easier if we didn't have a lot of really petty or counter-productive
> federal crimes.
>
organization with responsibility within the US (including its borders)
report to the FBI for its enforcement arm. The remaining agents would be
investigative only and in their fields based solely on their expertise.
RD Sandman
Jul 13, 2012, 12:21:48 PM7/13/12
to
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:jto2ho$mm9$1...@dont-email.me:
All laws should come with:
1. The problem that it is to fix (along with documented stats)
2. A measurement for seeing if the law works.
3. A time period over which this law will be measured.
4. A date for the law to sunset if it doesn't show improvement in 1 & 2.
5. Date reached, no measureable improvement, law sunsets.
news:jto2ho$mm9$1...@dont-email.me:
1. The problem that it is to fix (along with documented stats)
2. A measurement for seeing if the law works.
3. A time period over which this law will be measured.
4. A date for the law to sunset if it doesn't show improvement in 1 & 2.
5. Date reached, no measureable improvement, law sunsets.
RD Sandman
Jul 13, 2012, 12:23:19 PM7/13/12
to
MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in
news:pan.2012.07.13....@nowhere.invalid:
IN some cases, they are.
news:pan.2012.07.13....@nowhere.invalid:
RD Sandman
Jul 13, 2012, 12:24:44 PM7/13/12
to
"max headroom" <maxhe...@localnet.com> wrote in
news:V-2dnS_RcYXErZ3N...@posted.localnet:
you.
RD Sandman
Jul 13, 2012, 12:28:56 PM7/13/12
to
Seth lePod <v.infe...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:878f9e3a-0105-456a...@d6g2000pbt.googlegroups.com:
Well, let's look at it this way. When the Zimmerman/Martin story broke
in Florida, many liberals and the mainstream media kept calling Zimmerman
a "white Hispanic" to keep the racial element alive. It is inconvenient
to call Obama a "white black" or a "white negro" but that is what he is
just as much as Zimmerman was a "white Hispanic".
> Pray, who then are some "full Negroes"?
>
>
> Seth
>
>
>
news:878f9e3a-0105-456a...@d6g2000pbt.googlegroups.com:
in Florida, many liberals and the mainstream media kept calling Zimmerman
a "white Hispanic" to keep the racial element alive. It is inconvenient
to call Obama a "white black" or a "white negro" but that is what he is
just as much as Zimmerman was a "white Hispanic".
> Pray, who then are some "full Negroes"?
>
>
> Seth
>
>
>
RD Sandman
Jul 13, 2012, 1:09:41 PM7/13/12
to
>>> When did I say a dealer would sell to a prohibited person?...
>>
>> When did I say you did?
>>
>>> ... A person legally entitled to buy is not a prohibited person.
>>> Perhaps you weren't aware of that subtle trick of the English
>>> language?
>>
>> Perhaps you did not comprehend this when you skimmed it the first
>> time--
>>
>> A licensed dealer may not sell to a prohibited person. In practice, a
>> dealer will delay a sale if he suspects something fishy and ask ATF.
>>
>> The last thing an FFL wants is ATF scrutiny. Anyone who has read of
>> ATF misadventures for any length of time must take the Fortune
>> article with a grain of salt, as it only expresses the probable legal
>> defenses of ATF agents who may be facing charges in the near future.
>> ATF is not helpless when bad guys don't cooperate. It is well known
>> for manufacturing evidence in the lab if it can't find it in the
>> field.
>>
>> And again, you mentioned lax gun laws. To which laws did you refer?
>> Or were you only blowing pink smoke?
>
> Apparently, you think there is some law that limits gun sales to
> people who are of legal age, and are not otherwise prohibited from
> buying them. What laws are they? How are gun dealers "being told by
> the ATF to allow straw buyers to complete the sales"?
By phone. When the dealer notifies local ATF of a multiple long arms
>>
>> When did I say you did?
>>
>>> ... A person legally entitled to buy is not a prohibited person.
>>> Perhaps you weren't aware of that subtle trick of the English
>>> language?
>>
>> Perhaps you did not comprehend this when you skimmed it the first
>> time--
>>
>> A licensed dealer may not sell to a prohibited person. In practice, a
>> dealer will delay a sale if he suspects something fishy and ask ATF.
>>
>> The last thing an FFL wants is ATF scrutiny. Anyone who has read of
>> ATF misadventures for any length of time must take the Fortune
>> article with a grain of salt, as it only expresses the probable legal
>> defenses of ATF agents who may be facing charges in the near future.
>> ATF is not helpless when bad guys don't cooperate. It is well known
>> for manufacturing evidence in the lab if it can't find it in the
>> field.
>>
>> And again, you mentioned lax gun laws. To which laws did you refer?
>> Or were you only blowing pink smoke?
>
> Apparently, you think there is some law that limits gun sales to
> people who are of legal age, and are not otherwise prohibited from
> buying them. What laws are they? How are gun dealers "being told by
> the ATF to allow straw buyers to complete the sales"?
sale. Just in case you didn't know it, these sales of guns via Fast &
Furious were prearranged....they didn't just happen.
You're saying
> that ATF agents told gun dealers to violate federal gun laws by
> selling to known felons?
Do you know any gun dealer who would really
> do that?
BTW, we control your license. Yes.
>>>>>>> There is an old saying, "Never attribute to malice that which
>>>>>>> can be explained by incompetence".
>>
>>>>>> What was the goal of F&F and how was it supposed to achieve that
>>>>>> goal?
record, there are some who think it was to create a crisis that the
administration could solve by passing some new gun control laws.
>>
>>>>>>>> Of course, the GOP is *desperate* to come up with anything they
>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> to tarnish Obama's successes in office, heading into the fall
>>>>>>> elections....
>>
>>>>>> If Holder and DoJ hadn't stonewalled the House committee for the
>>>>>> past year, this would be over now.
>>
>>>>> Right. The GOPpers in Congress are all about getting to the
>>>>> truth, aren't they?
>>
>>>> Certainly no less than Democrats.
>>
>>> The Dems in Congress are a bunch of spineless amateur guppies. The
>>> GOPpers are the ferocious sharks....
>>
>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahaha.... you one funny guy!
>
> Hey, in 2004, Sen Kerry ran for President against incumbent GW Bush.
> Despite the fact that Bush could barely document that he had even
> shown up for his cushy Air National Guard assignment, while Kerry was
> in Nam getting shot up, the GOP managed to portray Bush as the "War
> President".
Imagine that, I thought all along it was Bush.
> Any organization that can pull off a marketing stunt like that is a
> force to be reckoned with. The GOP has incredible marketing skills.
> It's too bad they are such lousy statesmen once they get elected.
Free Lunch
Jul 13, 2012, 1:58:31 PM7/13/12
to
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:10:00 -0500, RD Sandman
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in alt.atheism:
>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
>news:ibsuv7dta0h6iuris...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 20:51:11 -0400, "ala" <alac...@comcast.net>
>> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>>
>>>"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
>>>news:jtnr0d$m45$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As well they should. It is a federal crime to be involve in the
>>>> dissemination and distribution of classified material and I see
>>>> absolutely no reason why reporters should generally be above that
>>>> law. No, in the cases where those classified materials do DIRECTLY
>>>> impact US citizens...say a classified project on how the government
>>>> will start rounding up select citizens to put them into camps or
>>>> something like that, then that would be another issue. But being
>>>> involved in publishing other classified material...that could be
>>>> seen as a number of crimes up to treason.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>isn't it possible that the Fast and Furious program concerns just such
>>>classified materials that warrant nondisclosure?
>>
>> Almost certainly, but Darryl Issa is above the law.
>>
>
>No, he isn't.
We may not think so, but Mr. Issa appears to.
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in alt.atheism:
>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
>news:ibsuv7dta0h6iuris...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 20:51:11 -0400, "ala" <alac...@comcast.net>
>> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>>
>>>"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
>>>news:jtnr0d$m45$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As well they should. It is a federal crime to be involve in the
>>>> dissemination and distribution of classified material and I see
>>>> absolutely no reason why reporters should generally be above that
>>>> law. No, in the cases where those classified materials do DIRECTLY
>>>> impact US citizens...say a classified project on how the government
>>>> will start rounding up select citizens to put them into camps or
>>>> something like that, then that would be another issue. But being
>>>> involved in publishing other classified material...that could be
>>>> seen as a number of crimes up to treason.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>isn't it possible that the Fast and Furious program concerns just such
>>>classified materials that warrant nondisclosure?
>>
>> Almost certainly, but Darryl Issa is above the law.
>>
>
>No, he isn't.
Free Lunch
Jul 13, 2012, 1:59:13 PM7/13/12
to
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:21:48 -0500, RD Sandman
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in alt.atheism:
Sounds quite reasonable.
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in alt.atheism:
pyotr filipivich
Jul 13, 2012, 2:23:56 PM7/13/12
to
Let the Record show that raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> on or
about Thu, 12 Jul 2012 14:34:30 -0400 did write, type or otherwise
cause to appear in talk.politics.guns the following:
>On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:08:17 -0700, pyotr filipivich
><ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>Let the Record show that "SaPeIsMa" <Sape...@gmail.com> on or about
>>Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:09:34 -0500 did write, type or otherwise cause to
>>appear in talk.politics.guns the following:
>>>news:3oWdnQMlTrgGumPS...@earthlink.com...
>>>When you can't attack the message, attack the messenger
>>> A loser tactic
>>
>> Followers of the Obama have to attack the messenger, as they are
>>forbidden to even recognize the message.
>
>Or we recognize the "message" as the paranoid fantasy of a madwoman
>(madman? It's difficult to tell with Coulter). There's nothing of
>substance to attack.
"Quack quack" quacks the sheeple.
>
>>"The Politics of Cognitive Dissonance
>>Why closed-mindedness is an imperative for the left."
>>
>>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303740704577520890454878330.html
>
>Ah, the Wall Street Journal, that bastion of fair and unbiased
>reporting...
Actually, all things considered, yeah. I can filter for bias, I
cannot filter for the lact of facts in a story. I'd trust those who's
"beat" is business, to at least have a real world understanding of
what business is actually about. The WSJ offers facts to support their
editorializing, and do manage to keep their news stories from being
editorials. Can the Old Gray Lady say the same - honestly?
>
>>In short: "Don't repeat conservative language or ideas, even when
>>arguing against them."
>
>Considering that Coulter's "idea" is laughable, why dignify it by
>repeating it?
I take it then, that you didn't read the article, or recognize the
quote from George Lakoff and Elisabeth Wehling's "little blue book".
Of course not, that would mean that you might have to actually become
aware of what the conservative would say, and that might cause you to
commit "crimethink". Doubleplus ungood, as They say.
>
>>Or as I would put it "DemSoc Bellyfeeler, crimestop plusgood.
>>Duckspeak blackwhite that Oldthinkers blackwhite duckspeak.".
>>
>> Liberal True Believers do not think about what the Conservative
>>argument is, they stop "thinking" when they sense they are getting
>>close to Those Ideas, and veer away, as all "right thinking" peoples
>>"should". They quack like ducks whatever the Party line is, believing
>>that black is white, because the party says so, and then accusing the
>>Conservatives of "quacking nonsense" without ever noticing their
>>"crimestop" preventing them from ThinkCrime.
>
>Sounds more like a dittohead than a liberal. Typical right-wing
>projection: accuse your opponents of your own flaws.
So, you,having no counter argument, and completely unable to
address the point made by unbelievers, refuse to take notice of any
counter-arguments, or even of the argument in general. And then miss
out the small minor detail that Orwell was writing about a society
formed along "progressive" lines.
Well of course,. MiniTruth told you that 1984 is just a book
about a man who comes to love Big Brother.
You sir, are a true newthinker, and bellyfeel DemSoc plus good.
tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
Next Month's Panel: Suicide - getting it right the first time.
about Thu, 12 Jul 2012 14:34:30 -0400 did write, type or otherwise
cause to appear in talk.politics.guns the following:
>On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:08:17 -0700, pyotr filipivich
><ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>Let the Record show that "SaPeIsMa" <Sape...@gmail.com> on or about
>>Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:09:34 -0500 did write, type or otherwise cause to
>>appear in talk.politics.guns the following:
>>>news:3oWdnQMlTrgGumPS...@earthlink.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Kurt Nicklas" <kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:a34bfd38-7641-430a...@i8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM
>>>>> July 11, 2012
>>>>>
>>>>> Ann Coulter
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-11.html#read_more
>>>>>
>>>>> Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric Holder
>>>>> is hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't understand the
>>>>> story.
>>>>>
>>>>> Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation for
>>>>> why President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
>>>>> Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers: It put guns
>>>>> in their hands to strengthen liberals' argument for gun control.
>>>>
>>>> there are other plausible stories, most of which she can't access due to
>>>> her intellectual limitations
>>>
>>>AH yes
>>>> "Kurt Nicklas" <kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:a34bfd38-7641-430a...@i8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM
>>>>> July 11, 2012
>>>>>
>>>>> Ann Coulter
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-11.html#read_more
>>>>>
>>>>> Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric Holder
>>>>> is hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't understand the
>>>>> story.
>>>>>
>>>>> Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation for
>>>>> why President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
>>>>> Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers: It put guns
>>>>> in their hands to strengthen liberals' argument for gun control.
>>>>
>>>> there are other plausible stories, most of which she can't access due to
>>>> her intellectual limitations
>>>
>>>When you can't attack the message, attack the messenger
>>> A loser tactic
>>
>> Followers of the Obama have to attack the messenger, as they are
>>forbidden to even recognize the message.
>
>Or we recognize the "message" as the paranoid fantasy of a madwoman
>(madman? It's difficult to tell with Coulter). There's nothing of
>substance to attack.
"Quack quack" quacks the sheeple.
>
>>"The Politics of Cognitive Dissonance
>>Why closed-mindedness is an imperative for the left."
>>
>>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303740704577520890454878330.html
>
>Ah, the Wall Street Journal, that bastion of fair and unbiased
>reporting...
Actually, all things considered, yeah. I can filter for bias, I
cannot filter for the lact of facts in a story. I'd trust those who's
"beat" is business, to at least have a real world understanding of
what business is actually about. The WSJ offers facts to support their
editorializing, and do manage to keep their news stories from being
editorials. Can the Old Gray Lady say the same - honestly?
>
>>In short: "Don't repeat conservative language or ideas, even when
>>arguing against them."
>
>Considering that Coulter's "idea" is laughable, why dignify it by
>repeating it?
I take it then, that you didn't read the article, or recognize the
quote from George Lakoff and Elisabeth Wehling's "little blue book".
Of course not, that would mean that you might have to actually become
aware of what the conservative would say, and that might cause you to
commit "crimethink". Doubleplus ungood, as They say.
>
>>Or as I would put it "DemSoc Bellyfeeler, crimestop plusgood.
>>Duckspeak blackwhite that Oldthinkers blackwhite duckspeak.".
>>
>> Liberal True Believers do not think about what the Conservative
>>argument is, they stop "thinking" when they sense they are getting
>>close to Those Ideas, and veer away, as all "right thinking" peoples
>>"should". They quack like ducks whatever the Party line is, believing
>>that black is white, because the party says so, and then accusing the
>>Conservatives of "quacking nonsense" without ever noticing their
>>"crimestop" preventing them from ThinkCrime.
>
>Sounds more like a dittohead than a liberal. Typical right-wing
>projection: accuse your opponents of your own flaws.
So, you,having no counter argument, and completely unable to
address the point made by unbelievers, refuse to take notice of any
counter-arguments, or even of the argument in general. And then miss
out the small minor detail that Orwell was writing about a society
formed along "progressive" lines.
Well of course,. MiniTruth told you that 1984 is just a book
about a man who comes to love Big Brother.
You sir, are a true newthinker, and bellyfeel DemSoc plus good.
tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
Next Month's Panel: Suicide - getting it right the first time.
Scout
Jul 13, 2012, 3:24:36 PM7/13/12
to
"MarkA" <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2012.07.13....@nowhere.invalid...
laws if you wish to discuss them.
Scout
Jul 13, 2012, 3:25:22 PM7/13/12
to
news:969008do5f2f8046e...@4ax.com...
Possibly, but that still doesn't involve national security issues.
Scout
Jul 13, 2012, 3:26:24 PM7/13/12
to
news:XnsA08F5D31E...@216.196.121.131...
like to see that vetted by someone with the proper security clearances.
> "ala" <alac...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:Bq-dnYqD_4ON7GLS...@earthlink.com:
>
>>
>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
>> news:jtnr0d$m45$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As well they should. It is a federal crime to be involve in the
>>> dissemination and distribution of classified material and I see
>>> absolutely no reason why reporters should generally be above that
>>> law. No, in the cases where those classified materials do DIRECTLY
>>> impact US citizens...say a classified project on how the government
>>> will start rounding up select citizens to put them into camps or
>>> something like that, then that would be another issue. But being
>>> involved in publishing other classified material...that could be seen
>>> as a number of crimes up to treason.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> isn't it possible that the Fast and Furious program concerns just such
>> classified materials that warrant nondisclosure?
>
> There is nothing in F&F that has anything to do with national security.
That would tend to be my take on it, and if they claim there is then I would
> news:Bq-dnYqD_4ON7GLS...@earthlink.com:
>
>>
>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
>> news:jtnr0d$m45$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As well they should. It is a federal crime to be involve in the
>>> dissemination and distribution of classified material and I see
>>> absolutely no reason why reporters should generally be above that
>>> law. No, in the cases where those classified materials do DIRECTLY
>>> impact US citizens...say a classified project on how the government
>>> will start rounding up select citizens to put them into camps or
>>> something like that, then that would be another issue. But being
>>> involved in publishing other classified material...that could be seen
>>> as a number of crimes up to treason.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> isn't it possible that the Fast and Furious program concerns just such
>> classified materials that warrant nondisclosure?
>
> There is nothing in F&F that has anything to do with national security.
like to see that vetted by someone with the proper security clearances.
MarkA
Jul 13, 2012, 3:53:26 PM7/13/12
to
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:06:54 -0500, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> Is that your theory, Johnny? And, just what would the GOPpers
>>>> be howling if Obama tried to clamp down on gun sales? I'll give you
>>>> a hint: it starts with "s", and ends with "econd amendment!!!!!"
>>>
>>> Yes, there are nuts on both sides of that argument. You appear to be
>>> one on the other side.
>>
>> Just trying to enlighten some people who think that any information
>> that doesn't come through Fox News is part of a conspiracy to turn the
>> USA into a Commie Socialist Nanny State.
>
> You come across as much more antigun than you do as an informative
> source.
I think that's what gets the dander up on "Johnny" Johnsn and Gray Guest.
>>> Is that your theory, Johnny? And, just what would the GOPpers
>>>> be howling if Obama tried to clamp down on gun sales? I'll give you
>>>> a hint: it starts with "s", and ends with "econd amendment!!!!!"
>>>
>>> Yes, there are nuts on both sides of that argument. You appear to be
>>> one on the other side.
>>
>> Just trying to enlighten some people who think that any information
>> that doesn't come through Fox News is part of a conspiracy to turn the
>> USA into a Commie Socialist Nanny State.
>
> You come across as much more antigun than you do as an informative
> source.
I don't consider myself "anti-gun" at all. However, the idea that the
Obama administration wants to give guns to Mexican drug lords so they can
pass more stringent gun control laws is ludicrous. Even without F&F,
Mexican drug lords have plenty of access to fine American-made weaponry.
Congressional blow-hards like Issa are trying to use a screwed-up ATF
operation to foment mistrust of the Obama administration. He reminds me of
the Mississippi Legislature when they insist that the new law that would
force the closing of the last abortion clinic in the state isn't about
forcing the closing of the last abortion clinic in the state; it's "to
protect women's health". Right.
JohnJohnsn
Jul 13, 2012, 3:58:43 PM7/13/12
to
On Jul 13, 7:23 am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:13:58 -0700, JohnJohnsn wrote:
>> Ah, yes: the old "ignore the federal laws taking precidence over state
>> laws and only discuss the state laws" gambit.
>
>> It was expected; seeing as how you try it at every opportunity.
>
> Clearly, you are more familiar with federal gun laws than the federal
> prosecutors are.
>
Based on what you posted below, I'm beginning to think that very
thought.
>
> You may want to call the USAG office, and inform them.
>
Naa; experience has proven that once they get that "JD" behind their
names they become untrainable.
>
> They probably still believe the myth that US citizens have the right to
> buy guns.
>
Yet another "goal post move" there, Marky.
>
> Heh. See above.
>
Already noted, Marky.
>> that your hemorrhoids are probably hanging down to your knees.
>
>> Yet you trot it out for yet another ass kicking.
>
>> You're a masochist, as well as a Liberal; aren't you.
>
>> Sic `im, RD! <chuckle> ;D
>
> Heh. See above.
>
>"For prosecutors, straw-purchasing cases were hard to prove and
> unrewarding to prosecute, with minimal penalties attached. In December
> 2010, five U.S. Attorneys along the Southwest border, including Burke in
> Arizona, wrote to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, asking that penalties
> for straw purchasing be increased. The commission did increase the
> recommended jail time by a few months. But because the straw purchasers,
> by definition, have no criminal record and there is no firearms-trafficking
> statute that would allow prosecutors to charge them with conspiracy as
> a group, the penalties remain low."
>
Gee, Marky; SOMEONE need to explain to these so-called "experts" that
under federal law, it takes only two people being involved to
establish a prosecutable case of Conspiracy; so that could _easily_ be
the one making the "strawman purchase" and the one for who the
"strawman" was _making_ the purchase. No need whatsoever to try to
establish a "gun-trafficking" scenario; and the punishment for
Conspiracy is far greater than for the mere "strawman purchase."
This is not new, as in California the Penal Code provides that while a
crime unto itself may be a misdemeanor, two people conspiring to
commit the misdemannor are committing a _felony_ with that conspiracy.
You missed the key phrase in your unattributed "quote," Makry:
"...DIFFICULT TO PROVE AND UNREWARDING TO PROSECUTE..."
[EMPHASIS added]
In the twenty-plus years I was in law enforcement I had to deal with
all-too-many _lazy_ prosecutors who were unwilling to take on
"difficult-to-prove" cases, as if they blew the prosecution, it made
their Conviction Rate numbers go down; and this was a blow to their
personal and/or professional egos that they were unwilling to suffer.
I had a case one with a four-time DWI offender wherein I filed the
case as a felony (3rd time ups the offense level), only to have the
ADA call me to come in and rewrite the paperwork to make the filing a
misdemeanor, as they couldn't "prove" that the previous convictions
were _actually_ his (No: I kid you not one bit!).
When I asked them if the county jail's bookin fingerprints and photos
weren't sufficient proof, he stammered, then just repeated that the
case was to be prosecuted as a misdemeanor.
DAs and ADAs, and apparently USAs and AUSAs are just as lazy as their
state/county counterparts.
Oh;, and BTW; I later learned the _true_ reason they wouldn't go with
the felony charge: if convicted of the felony, he would go to the
state pen instead of the county jail, and then the DA's office
couldn't collect all the subsequent Probation Fees for the YEARS of
probation which followed his _short_ jail stay.
>
> I know you probably can't read that much all at once, but the important
> sentence is right there at the beginning: straw purchasing cases are hard
> to prove and unrewarding to prosecute.
>
I did (see above).
>> out of whole cloth, Marky.
>
> From the Famous Fortune article, which you apparently haven't read:
Voth's ego was bruised here: plain and simple (or did you miss my
above comment about "JDs"?).
>
> If you look for sources of information beyond Fox News, you'll be amazed
> to discover how ignorant you are. I guess that's why so few Fox News
> viewers ever do it.
>
I Despite your obvious ad hominem here, Martky, I do not watch any
network news; Fox, CNN, MSNBC, et al.
Hey, I barely even watch the local station news.
>>>> for anyone making less than $250K/yr" into the lie we all knew it to
>>>> be via the ObamaCare "penalty"/"tax" on those who are least capable of
>>>> paying them, and "successfully" creating more debt in three-and-a-half
>>>> years than all presidents from George W through George W combined
>>>> created, what do _you_ consider his "successes," Marky?
>
>> We noticed you ran away from that, Marky.
>
>>"Run, Marky; run!"
>> (paraphrasing Jenny Curran)
>
>>>> "There are two ways to enslave a country....
>>>> One is by the Sword.
>>>> The other is by Debt."
>>>> - John Adams
>
>>>> Obama's unparalleled debt creation
>>>>http://tinyurl.com/Obama-debt-creation
>
>>>> Obama's National Debt Clock
>>>>http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html
>
>>>>> They have a couple of buttons they can push that will ALWAYS get
>>>>> their members to the polls: abortion, homosexuals, and guns.
>
>>>> Will these get _your_ Liberal Democrat voters to the polls, Marky?
>
>>> What gets me to the polls is the thought that people like you are out
>>> to destroy my country, Johnny.
>
>> You have confused me with the Left-wing Socialist-in-Chief currently
>> occupying the White House, Marky.
>
> Oh Nos!!! Not SOCIALISM!!! Get the Holy Water!!!
>
"Run, Marky; run!"
(paraphrasing Jenny Curran)
Run away from it all you want, Marky; but your compatriots know
better:
"Obama is a socialist, you fucking moron. As are all Americans.
Only about 25%, including you, are too stupid to know what that
means"
— Scheißekopf "Deep Dudu", Wed, Oct 12 2011 5:38 pm
Moreover:
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess.
They [socialists] always run out of other people's money.
It's quite a characteristic of them."
--Margaret Thatcher, UK Prime Minister;
Thames TV This Week, February 5, 1976
>
>> "Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern Liberals
>> relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which
>> our freedoms were founded. Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel
>> against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a
>> parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."
>> --Dr. Lyle Rossiter,"The Liberal Mind:
>> The Psychological Causes of Political Madness."
>
> Yes, it is strikingly irrational to think that one of the most advanced
> nations in the Western World should protect the weak and vulnerable.
> It makes much more sense to leave them on rocks in the woods to die.
>
Red herring.
>
>>>>> Tell the lurking GOPpers that the gov'ment wants to take their guns
>>>>> away...
>
>>>> The federal "gov'ment" has a well-proven and well-documented pattern
>>>> of conduct there since 1934, Marky.
>>>> cartels. I commend Mexico for the successes that have already been
>>>> achieved. But I will not pretend that this is Mexico's responsibility
>>>> alone. A demand for these drugs in the United States is what is
>>>> helping to keep these cartels in business. This war is being waged
>>>> with guns purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90
>>>> percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States,
>>>> many from gun shops that line our shared border." --Barack Obama;
>>>> Joint Press Conference,
>>>> Mexico City, Mexico, April 16, 2009
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/90-percent-of-guns
>
>>>> Gee, Marky: seems as though `Fast and Furious' started right about
>>>> then; didn't it?
>>> restriction than alcohol in shops all along the Mexican border, then,
>
>> Total bullshit, Marky: "USA manufactur(ed) `assault rifles'" have been
>> virtually unavilable to the general buying public since May 19th, 1986.
>
>> And even before that, sales, possessions and purchases have been under
>> strict federal government control since 1934.
>
> Oh, let's quibble about the definition of 'assault rifle', shall we?
>
The United Sattes Congress wrote the definition for what you falsely
refer to as "assault rifle" when they passed the "Assault Weapons Ban
of 1994," Marky.
You are just another Joshie Sugarmann:
"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and
plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks,
coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns
versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a
machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the
chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In
addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."
--Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988
Meanwhile:
Definition: The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word
Sturmgewehr (literally "storm rifle", as in "to storm a position").
The name was coined by Adolf Hitler to describe the Maschinenpistole
43, subsequently renamed Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally
considered the first assault rifle that served to popularise the
concept and form the basis for today's modern assault rifles.
The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for
similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44.
In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following
characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:
●It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the
shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
●It must be capable of selective fire;
●It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a
pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
●Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather
than a feed-belt.
●And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)
Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically
not assault rifles despite frequently being considered as such. For
example, semi-automatic-only rifles like the AR-15 (which the M16
rifle is based on) that share designs with assault rifles are not
assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire
and thus are not selective fire capable. Belt-fed weapons or rifles
with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles because they do
not have detachable box magazines.
The US Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire
weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between
submachinegun and rifle cartridges."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle#Definition
IOW: "machine guns," Marky.
Words _do_ have meanings; learn to use the proper terms when
discussing firearms with a firearms expert:
Definition of assault weapon
In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain
specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15,
TEC-9, non select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and
Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum
set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or
more of the following:
●Folding or telescoping stock
●Pistol grip
●Bayonet mount
●Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
●Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the
launching or firing of rifle grenades, though strangely, this applies
only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those which are
mounted externally)
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of
the following:
●Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
●Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor,
handgrip, or suppressor
●Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
●Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
●A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm
●Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
●Folding or telescoping stock
●Pistol grip
●Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
●Detachable magazine
The earlier term assault rifle refers to rifles that are capable of
fully automatic fire. By that definition the ban did not cover
"assault rifles" at all. Instead, it created a new definition of
"assault weapon," a term that was broad enough to encompass all three
categories of firearm (rifle, pistol and shotgun) capable of semi-
automatic fire and having a combination of features as listed above,
but did not include fully automatic firearms of any type.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
If you want even a semblance of credibility in a firearms discussion
news group, Marky, don't be "gun stupid;" or be such an obvious gun
control schill/troll (your "catch phrases" notwithstanding).
>
> You haven't had enough opportunity to demonstrate what an asshole you are.
>
I've been called worse by better people than you, Marky: usually while
I was arresting them and booking them into jail.
>
>> "Do you want to change your bullshit story, sir?"
>> --Chief Deputy US Marshal Samuel Gerard
>
>> "Come on, don't give us none of your bullshit stories huh?...I'm
>> pretty much ODing on all your bullshit stories!"
>> --Jake Fratelli
>
>> "I'm pretty much OD'ing on all your bullshit stories!"
>> --Clark Devereaux
>
>>> And, just what would the GOPpers {SIC} be howling if Obama tried to
>
>> Do "study up," Marky:
>
>> The Embarrassing Second Amendment
>> by Sanford Levinson
>> University of Texas at Austin School of Law Reprinted from the Yale Law
>> Journal, Volume 99, pp. 637-659http://constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm
>
>>> <snip>
>
>>>>"Somebody once said: Politics is the art of looking for trouble,
>>>> finding it, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong
>>>> remedies."
>>>> --Nikhil Kumar
>
>>>>> ...and they will be out voting against their own self-interests in
>>>>> droves on election day.
>
>>>> You _do_ realize that your postings here will make _zero_ difference
>>>> on Election Day 2012; don't you, Marky?
>
>>>> Everyone here made their choices long ago.
>
>>> Believe me, I'm painfully aware of that. Fortunately, the GOP has been
>>> so busy crafting its own destruction, they're at a point where they
>>> can't even produce a candidate that their Christian base will vote for!
>>> LOL!
>
>> So, Marky; in addition to being a Left-wing Liberals Sccialist, you're a
>> self-admitted atheist.
>
>> Kinda already figured that one out.
>
> So, you think calling someone an "atheist" is an insult?
>
The fact that I noticed, and pointed out, that you are apparently an
atheist; then you took it _as_ an "insult," tells more about you than
about me, Marky.
Look up "mens rea."
>
> That doesn't surprise me. It must be hell living in a country
> that was specifically founded as a secular nation.
>
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with
another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and
equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle
them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they
should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive
of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall
seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence,
indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be
changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience
hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are
sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which
they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations,
pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them
under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to
throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and
such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former
Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great
Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having
in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these
States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
...
--IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
Independence."
-- Charles A. Beard, American Historian, (1874-1948)
And FYI, Marky; neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights
contain the term `separation of church and state.'
You _will_ find it, though, in the 1936 Constitution of the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics:
ARTICLE 124. In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the
church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school
from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of
antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.
Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of
individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who
had that freedom would use it responsibly.... [However, now] there's a
lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there's too much
freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to
limit it."
--Bill Clinton, on MTV's "Enough is Enough" April 19, 1994
>
>
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:13:58 -0700, JohnJohnsn wrote:
>> laws and only discuss the state laws" gambit.
>
>> It was expected; seeing as how you try it at every opportunity.
>
> Clearly, you are more familiar with federal gun laws than the federal
> prosecutors are.
>
Based on what you posted below, I'm beginning to think that very
thought.
>
> You may want to call the USAG office, and inform them.
>
Naa; experience has proven that once they get that "JD" behind their
names they become untrainable.
>
> They probably still believe the myth that US citizens have the right to
> buy guns.
>
Yet another "goal post move" there, Marky.
>
>>> Like, you have to be able to prove you're 18 before you can buy 20
>>> or more assault rifles at a time?
>
>> Yet another "goal post move" there, Marky (see below).
>>> Like, you have to be able to prove you're 18 before you can buy 20
>>> or more assault rifles at a time?
>
>
> Heh. See above.
>
Already noted, Marky.
>
>>> Then, how long do you have to keep them before you resell them, Johnny?
>>> Oh, that's right, you can resell them any time you like, can't you?
>
>> Marky; you've already had your ass kicked over that falsehood so badly
>>> Then, how long do you have to keep them before you resell them, Johnny?
>>> Oh, that's right, you can resell them any time you like, can't you?
>
>> that your hemorrhoids are probably hanging down to your knees.
>
>> Yet you trot it out for yet another ass kicking.
>
>> You're a masochist, as well as a Liberal; aren't you.
>
>> Sic `im, RD! <chuckle> ;D
>
> Heh. See above.
>
>"For prosecutors, straw-purchasing cases were hard to prove and
> unrewarding to prosecute, with minimal penalties attached. In December
> 2010, five U.S. Attorneys along the Southwest border, including Burke in
> Arizona, wrote to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, asking that penalties
> for straw purchasing be increased. The commission did increase the
> recommended jail time by a few months. But because the straw purchasers,
> by definition, have no criminal record and there is no firearms-trafficking
> statute that would allow prosecutors to charge them with conspiracy as
> a group, the penalties remain low."
>
Gee, Marky; SOMEONE need to explain to these so-called "experts" that
under federal law, it takes only two people being involved to
establish a prosecutable case of Conspiracy; so that could _easily_ be
the one making the "strawman purchase" and the one for who the
"strawman" was _making_ the purchase. No need whatsoever to try to
establish a "gun-trafficking" scenario; and the punishment for
Conspiracy is far greater than for the mere "strawman purchase."
This is not new, as in California the Penal Code provides that while a
crime unto itself may be a misdemeanor, two people conspiring to
commit the misdemannor are committing a _felony_ with that conspiracy.
You missed the key phrase in your unattributed "quote," Makry:
"...DIFFICULT TO PROVE AND UNREWARDING TO PROSECUTE..."
[EMPHASIS added]
In the twenty-plus years I was in law enforcement I had to deal with
all-too-many _lazy_ prosecutors who were unwilling to take on
"difficult-to-prove" cases, as if they blew the prosecution, it made
their Conviction Rate numbers go down; and this was a blow to their
personal and/or professional egos that they were unwilling to suffer.
I had a case one with a four-time DWI offender wherein I filed the
case as a felony (3rd time ups the offense level), only to have the
ADA call me to come in and rewrite the paperwork to make the filing a
misdemeanor, as they couldn't "prove" that the previous convictions
were _actually_ his (No: I kid you not one bit!).
When I asked them if the county jail's bookin fingerprints and photos
weren't sufficient proof, he stammered, then just repeated that the
case was to be prosecuted as a misdemeanor.
DAs and ADAs, and apparently USAs and AUSAs are just as lazy as their
state/county counterparts.
Oh;, and BTW; I later learned the _true_ reason they wouldn't go with
the felony charge: if convicted of the felony, he would go to the
state pen instead of the county jail, and then the DA's office
couldn't collect all the subsequent Probation Fees for the YEARS of
probation which followed his _short_ jail stay.
>
> I know you probably can't read that much all at once, but the important
> sentence is right there at the beginning: straw purchasing cases are hard
> to prove and unrewarding to prosecute.
>
I did (see above).
>
>>> Or, as the ATF agent replied, when the FBI agent asked when they were
>>> going to stop people from buying car loads of guns: Tell me what law
>>> they're breaking, and I'll be glad to arrest them!
>
>> Without a verifiable source we can rest assured that you made that up
>>> Or, as the ATF agent replied, when the FBI agent asked when they were
>>> going to stop people from buying car loads of guns: Tell me what law
>>> they're breaking, and I'll be glad to arrest them!
>
>> out of whole cloth, Marky.
>
> From the Famous Fortune article, which you apparently haven't read:
>
>"In August 2010, after the ATF in Texas confiscated 80 guns-63 of them
> purchased in Arizona by the Fast and Furious suspects- Voth got an
> e-mail from a colleague there: "Are you all planning to stop some of these
> guys any time soon? That's a lot of guns...Are you just letting these guns
> walk?"
>
>"Voth responded with barely suppressed rage: "Have I offended you in some
> way? Because I am very offended by your e-mail. Define walk? Without
> Probable Cause and concurrence from the USAO [U.S. Attorney's Office] it
> is highway robbery if we take someone's property."
>
Did I mention "egos," Marky?
>"In August 2010, after the ATF in Texas confiscated 80 guns-63 of them
> purchased in Arizona by the Fast and Furious suspects- Voth got an
> e-mail from a colleague there: "Are you all planning to stop some of these
> guys any time soon? That's a lot of guns...Are you just letting these guns
> walk?"
>
>"Voth responded with barely suppressed rage: "Have I offended you in some
> way? Because I am very offended by your e-mail. Define walk? Without
> Probable Cause and concurrence from the USAO [U.S. Attorney's Office] it
> is highway robbery if we take someone's property."
>
Voth's ego was bruised here: plain and simple (or did you miss my
above comment about "JDs"?).
>
> If you look for sources of information beyond Fox News, you'll be amazed
> to discover how ignorant you are. I guess that's why so few Fox News
> viewers ever do it.
>
I Despite your obvious ad hominem here, Martky, I do not watch any
network news; Fox, CNN, MSNBC, et al.
Hey, I barely even watch the local station news.
>
>>> I wouldn't point fingers at people's credibility if I were you, Johnny.
>
>>> I wouldn't point fingers at people's credibility if I were you, Johnny.
>
>>>>> There is an old saying, "Never attribute to malice that which can be
>>>>> explained by incompetence".
>
>>>>> explained by incompetence".
>
>>>>> Of course, the GOP is *desperate* to come up with anything they can
>>>>> to tarnish Obama's successes in office, heading into the fall
>>>>> elections.
>
>>>> Other than his "successes" of "successfully" turning his "no new taxes
>>>>> to tarnish Obama's successes in office, heading into the fall
>>>>> elections.
>
>>>> for anyone making less than $250K/yr" into the lie we all knew it to
>>>> be via the ObamaCare "penalty"/"tax" on those who are least capable of
>>>> paying them, and "successfully" creating more debt in three-and-a-half
>>>> years than all presidents from George W through George W combined
>>>> created, what do _you_ consider his "successes," Marky?
>
>> We noticed you ran away from that, Marky.
>
>>"Run, Marky; run!"
>> (paraphrasing Jenny Curran)
>
>>>> "There are two ways to enslave a country....
>>>> One is by the Sword.
>>>> The other is by Debt."
>>>> - John Adams
>
>>>> Obama's unparalleled debt creation
>>>>http://tinyurl.com/Obama-debt-creation
>
>>>> Obama's National Debt Clock
>>>>http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html
>
>>>>> They have a couple of buttons they can push that will ALWAYS get
>>>>> their members to the polls: abortion, homosexuals, and guns.
>
>>>> Will these get _your_ Liberal Democrat voters to the polls, Marky?
>
>>> What gets me to the polls is the thought that people like you are out
>>> to destroy my country, Johnny.
>
>> You have confused me with the Left-wing Socialist-in-Chief currently
>> occupying the White House, Marky.
>
> Oh Nos!!! Not SOCIALISM!!! Get the Holy Water!!!
>
"Run, Marky; run!"
(paraphrasing Jenny Curran)
Run away from it all you want, Marky; but your compatriots know
better:
"Obama is a socialist, you fucking moron. As are all Americans.
Only about 25%, including you, are too stupid to know what that
means"
— Scheißekopf "Deep Dudu", Wed, Oct 12 2011 5:38 pm
Moreover:
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess.
They [socialists] always run out of other people's money.
It's quite a characteristic of them."
--Margaret Thatcher, UK Prime Minister;
Thames TV This Week, February 5, 1976
>
>> "Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern Liberals
>> relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which
>> our freedoms were founded. Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel
>> against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a
>> parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."
>> --Dr. Lyle Rossiter,"The Liberal Mind:
>> The Psychological Causes of Political Madness."
>
> Yes, it is strikingly irrational to think that one of the most advanced
> nations in the Western World should protect the weak and vulnerable.
> It makes much more sense to leave them on rocks in the woods to die.
>
Red herring.
>
>>>>> Tell the lurking GOPpers that the gov'ment wants to take their guns
>>>>> away...
>
>>>> The federal "gov'ment" has a well-proven and well-documented pattern
>>>> of conduct there since 1934, Marky.
>
>>>>"I have said this before; I will repeat it: I have the greatest
>>>> admiration and courage for President Calderón and his entire cabinet,
>>>> his rank-and-file police officers and soldiers as they take on these
>>>>"I have said this before; I will repeat it: I have the greatest
>>>> admiration and courage for President Calderón and his entire cabinet,
>>>> cartels. I commend Mexico for the successes that have already been
>>>> achieved. But I will not pretend that this is Mexico's responsibility
>>>> alone. A demand for these drugs in the United States is what is
>>>> helping to keep these cartels in business. This war is being waged
>>>> with guns purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90
>>>> percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States,
>>>> many from gun shops that line our shared border." --Barack Obama;
>>>> Joint Press Conference,
>>>> Mexico City, Mexico, April 16, 2009
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/90-percent-of-guns
>
>>>> Gee, Marky: seems as though `Fast and Furious' started right about
>>>> then; didn't it?
>
>>> Just to make sure I'm understanding you here, Johnny: the USA
>>> manufactures assault rifles by the truckload, sells them with less
>>> Just to make sure I'm understanding you here, Johnny: the USA
>>> restriction than alcohol in shops all along the Mexican border, then,
>>> when they show up in the hands of Mexican drug gangs, it's Obama's
>>> fault? Is that your theory, Johnny?
>
>> Total bullshit, Marky: "USA manufactur(ed) `assault rifles'" have been
>> virtually unavilable to the general buying public since May 19th, 1986.
>
>> And even before that, sales, possessions and purchases have been under
>> strict federal government control since 1934.
>
> Oh, let's quibble about the definition of 'assault rifle', shall we?
>
The United Sattes Congress wrote the definition for what you falsely
refer to as "assault rifle" when they passed the "Assault Weapons Ban
of 1994," Marky.
You are just another Joshie Sugarmann:
"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and
plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks,
coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns
versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a
machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the
chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In
addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."
--Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988
Meanwhile:
Definition: The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word
Sturmgewehr (literally "storm rifle", as in "to storm a position").
The name was coined by Adolf Hitler to describe the Maschinenpistole
43, subsequently renamed Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally
considered the first assault rifle that served to popularise the
concept and form the basis for today's modern assault rifles.
The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for
similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44.
In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following
characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:
●It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the
shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
●It must be capable of selective fire;
●It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a
pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
●Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather
than a feed-belt.
●And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)
Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically
not assault rifles despite frequently being considered as such. For
example, semi-automatic-only rifles like the AR-15 (which the M16
rifle is based on) that share designs with assault rifles are not
assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire
and thus are not selective fire capable. Belt-fed weapons or rifles
with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles because they do
not have detachable box magazines.
The US Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire
weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between
submachinegun and rifle cartridges."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle#Definition
IOW: "machine guns," Marky.
Words _do_ have meanings; learn to use the proper terms when
discussing firearms with a firearms expert:
Definition of assault weapon
In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain
specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15,
TEC-9, non select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and
Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum
set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or
more of the following:
●Folding or telescoping stock
●Pistol grip
●Bayonet mount
●Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
●Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the
launching or firing of rifle grenades, though strangely, this applies
only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those which are
mounted externally)
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of
the following:
●Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
●Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor,
handgrip, or suppressor
●Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
●Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
●A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm
●Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
●Folding or telescoping stock
●Pistol grip
●Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
●Detachable magazine
The earlier term assault rifle refers to rifles that are capable of
fully automatic fire. By that definition the ban did not cover
"assault rifles" at all. Instead, it created a new definition of
"assault weapon," a term that was broad enough to encompass all three
categories of firearm (rifle, pistol and shotgun) capable of semi-
automatic fire and having a combination of features as listed above,
but did not include fully automatic firearms of any type.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
If you want even a semblance of credibility in a firearms discussion
news group, Marky, don't be "gun stupid;" or be such an obvious gun
control schill/troll (your "catch phrases" notwithstanding).
>
> You haven't had enough opportunity to demonstrate what an asshole you are.
>
I've been called worse by better people than you, Marky: usually while
I was arresting them and booking them into jail.
>
>> "Do you want to change your bullshit story, sir?"
>> --Chief Deputy US Marshal Samuel Gerard
>
>> "Come on, don't give us none of your bullshit stories huh?...I'm
>> pretty much ODing on all your bullshit stories!"
>> --Jake Fratelli
>
>> "I'm pretty much OD'ing on all your bullshit stories!"
>> --Clark Devereaux
>
>>> And, just what would the GOPpers {SIC} be howling if Obama tried to
>>> clamp down on gun sales? I'll give you a hint: it starts with "s", and
>>> ends with "econd amendment!!!!!"
>
>> "Without the Second Amendment, all others are merely suggestions."
>>> ends with "econd amendment!!!!!"
>
>
>> Do "study up," Marky:
>
>> The Embarrassing Second Amendment
>> by Sanford Levinson
>> University of Texas at Austin School of Law Reprinted from the Yale Law
>> Journal, Volume 99, pp. 637-659http://constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm
>
>>> <snip>
>
>>>>"Somebody once said: Politics is the art of looking for trouble,
>>>> finding it, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong
>>>> remedies."
>>>> --Nikhil Kumar
>
>>>>> ...and they will be out voting against their own self-interests in
>>>>> droves on election day.
>
>>>> You _do_ realize that your postings here will make _zero_ difference
>>>> on Election Day 2012; don't you, Marky?
>
>>>> Everyone here made their choices long ago.
>
>>> Believe me, I'm painfully aware of that. Fortunately, the GOP has been
>>> so busy crafting its own destruction, they're at a point where they
>>> can't even produce a candidate that their Christian base will vote for!
>>> LOL!
>
>> So, Marky; in addition to being a Left-wing Liberals Sccialist, you're a
>> self-admitted atheist.
>
>> Kinda already figured that one out.
>
> So, you think calling someone an "atheist" is an insult?
>
The fact that I noticed, and pointed out, that you are apparently an
atheist; then you took it _as_ an "insult," tells more about you than
about me, Marky.
Look up "mens rea."
>
> That doesn't surprise me. It must be hell living in a country
> that was specifically founded as a secular nation.
>
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with
another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and
equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle
them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they
should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive
of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall
seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence,
indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be
changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience
hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are
sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which
they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations,
pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them
under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to
throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and
such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former
Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great
Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having
in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these
States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
...
--IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
Independence."
-- Charles A. Beard, American Historian, (1874-1948)
And FYI, Marky; neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights
contain the term `separation of church and state.'
You _will_ find it, though, in the 1936 Constitution of the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics:
ARTICLE 124. In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the
church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school
from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of
antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.
>
> --
> MarkA
> Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before About eight o'clock
>
"When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical
> --
> MarkA
> Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before About eight o'clock
>
Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of
individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who
had that freedom would use it responsibly.... [However, now] there's a
lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there's too much
freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to
limit it."
--Bill Clinton, on MTV's "Enough is Enough" April 19, 1994
MarkA
Jul 13, 2012, 4:07:03 PM7/13/12
to
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:09:41 -0500, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>
>>> And again, you mentioned lax gun laws. To which laws did you refer? Or
>>> were you only blowing pink smoke?
>>
>> Apparently, you think there is some law that limits gun sales to people
>> who are of legal age, and are not otherwise prohibited from buying them.
>> What laws are they? How are gun dealers "being told by the ATF to allow
>> straw buyers to complete the sales"?
>
> By phone. When the dealer notifies local ATF of a multiple long arms
> sale. Just in case you didn't know it, these sales of guns via Fast &
> Furious were prearranged....they didn't just happen.
>
> You're saying
>> that ATF agents told gun dealers to violate federal gun laws by selling
>> to known felons?
>
> Yep.
>
Really? In all the spouting off on both side of the F&F issue, that's the
>>>
>>> And again, you mentioned lax gun laws. To which laws did you refer? Or
>>> were you only blowing pink smoke?
>>
>> Apparently, you think there is some law that limits gun sales to people
>> who are of legal age, and are not otherwise prohibited from buying them.
>> What laws are they? How are gun dealers "being told by the ATF to allow
>> straw buyers to complete the sales"?
>
> By phone. When the dealer notifies local ATF of a multiple long arms
> sale. Just in case you didn't know it, these sales of guns via Fast &
> Furious were prearranged....they didn't just happen.
>
> You're saying
>> that ATF agents told gun dealers to violate federal gun laws by selling
>> to known felons?
>
> Yep.
>
first time I've heard that dealers were selling guns to known felons. Do
you have a cite?
fact that the GOP is much more cohesive, with a laser-focus, while the
Dems are all over the map. For two years, when they had a majority in
Congress and control of the White House they couldn't get anything done.
Voters like a clear message, even if it's a bad one.
MattB
Jul 13, 2012, 4:24:25 PM7/13/12
to
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 16:07:03 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:09:41 -0500, RD Sandman wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> And again, you mentioned lax gun laws. To which laws did you refer? Or
>>>> were you only blowing pink smoke?
>>>
>>> Apparently, you think there is some law that limits gun sales to people
>>> who are of legal age, and are not otherwise prohibited from buying them.
>>> What laws are they? How are gun dealers "being told by the ATF to allow
>>> straw buyers to complete the sales"?
>>
>> By phone. When the dealer notifies local ATF of a multiple long arms
>> sale. Just in case you didn't know it, these sales of guns via Fast &
>> Furious were prearranged....they didn't just happen.
>>
>> You're saying
>>> that ATF agents told gun dealers to violate federal gun laws by selling
>>> to known felons?
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>
>Really? In all the spouting off on both side of the F&F issue, that's the
>first time I've heard that dealers were selling guns to known felons. Do
>you have a cite?
http://www.humanevents.com/2011/07/25/convicted-felons-buy-fast-and-furious-guns/
Jacob Wayne Chambers and Sean Christopher Stewart, both from Phoenix,
Arizona, are convicted felons. Their criminal records include
burglary, dealing in stolen goods, resisting arrest, and drug charges.
Convicted felons are barred from purchasing firearms under federal
law… and yet these two bought over 360 guns between them, acting as
straw purchases for violent drug cartels. The FBI didn’t stop them.
Agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives sat
and watched them buy their guns via closed-circuit TV.
Yes, it’s “Operation Fast and Furious” again. Fox News had a look at
the paltry handful of twenty defendants indicted by this massive
operation, and spotted the radioactive rap sheets of Chambers and
Stewart. The FBI does not wish to comment, but it seems hard to
escape the conclusion that federal gun laws were knowingly abrogated
so that “Fast and Furious” could move forward.
More
http://goo.gl/9cGC7
I do wonder what they are hiding under the Presidents orders.
wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:09:41 -0500, RD Sandman wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> And again, you mentioned lax gun laws. To which laws did you refer? Or
>>>> were you only blowing pink smoke?
>>>
>>> Apparently, you think there is some law that limits gun sales to people
>>> who are of legal age, and are not otherwise prohibited from buying them.
>>> What laws are they? How are gun dealers "being told by the ATF to allow
>>> straw buyers to complete the sales"?
>>
>> By phone. When the dealer notifies local ATF of a multiple long arms
>> sale. Just in case you didn't know it, these sales of guns via Fast &
>> Furious were prearranged....they didn't just happen.
>>
>> You're saying
>>> that ATF agents told gun dealers to violate federal gun laws by selling
>>> to known felons?
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>
>Really? In all the spouting off on both side of the F&F issue, that's the
>first time I've heard that dealers were selling guns to known felons. Do
>you have a cite?
Jacob Wayne Chambers and Sean Christopher Stewart, both from Phoenix,
Arizona, are convicted felons. Their criminal records include
burglary, dealing in stolen goods, resisting arrest, and drug charges.
Convicted felons are barred from purchasing firearms under federal
law… and yet these two bought over 360 guns between them, acting as
straw purchases for violent drug cartels. The FBI didn’t stop them.
Agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives sat
and watched them buy their guns via closed-circuit TV.
Yes, it’s “Operation Fast and Furious” again. Fox News had a look at
the paltry handful of twenty defendants indicted by this massive
operation, and spotted the radioactive rap sheets of Chambers and
Stewart. The FBI does not wish to comment, but it seems hard to
escape the conclusion that federal gun laws were knowingly abrogated
so that “Fast and Furious” could move forward.
More
http://goo.gl/9cGC7
I do wonder what they are hiding under the Presidents orders.
JohnJohnsn
Jul 13, 2012, 6:12:03 PM7/13/12
to
On Jul 13, 9:25 am, "max headroom" <maxheadr...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
>
> The last thing an FFL wants is ATF scrutiny. Anyone who has read of ATF
> misadventures for any length of time must take the Fortune article with a
> grain of salt, as it only expresses the probable legal defenses of ATF agents
> who may be facing charges in the near future. ATF is not helpless when bad
> guys don't cooperate. It is well known for manufacturing evidence in the lab
> if it can't find in the field.
>
>
> The last thing an FFL wants is ATF scrutiny. Anyone who has read of ATF
> misadventures for any length of time must take the Fortune article with a
> grain of salt, as it only expresses the probable legal defenses of ATF agents
> who may be facing charges in the near future. ATF is not helpless when bad
> guys don't cooperate. It is well known for manufacturing evidence in the lab
>
Actually; they were best at "manufacturing machine guns" out of
confiscated AR-15 Colt Sporters in the Firearms Technology Branch lab.
There are numerous documented instances of ATF taking an AR-15 into
which the owner had substituted a (usually chrome) M16 bolt and bolt
carrier in place of the original AR-15 semi-auto bolt and carrier.
While this does not in and of itself convert the semi-auto-only AR-15
into a machine gun, the labrats would remove the weapon's disconnector
from the trigger assembly, then load up "special ATF ammunition" (.223
Remington or 5.56mm NATO cases equipped with soft small pistol primers
in place of the hard small rifle primers) into the magazine and keep
"test firing" the weapon until the weapon "doubles" due to the hammer
"following home" (due to the removed disconnector not catching the
hammer) and igniting the too-soft-for-rifle-ammo primer.
Once the weapons "fires more than one time by a single function of the
trigger" the owner is charged with "Possession of an Unregistered
Machine Gun;' despite the fact that the weapon _never_ doubled in the
condition it was in when it was confiscated by ATF field agents.
And don't forget the Randy Weaver/Ruby Ridge "short-barreled shotgun"
controversy.
An undercover ATF informant delivered two 12-ga. Remington pump
shotguns to Weaver with instructions to "cut off the barrels."
While Weaver stated that he cut them down to 18" (the minimum legal
length), ATF "measured" them (with a hacksaw, perhaps?) and they
"measured" 17-3/4"; making them "short-barreled shotguns" and Weaver
was charged with "Unlawfully Transferring Two Unregistered Short-
Barreled Shotguns" to the informant.
Of course; we all know the ultimate outcome from that "ATF
misadventure;" don't we?
Now; as to whether or not FTB is still doing that or not, I do not
know: but _they_did_ in the past; and that is the legacy that the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (a/k/a: ATF) bears
to this day.
BTW; don't call them "BATFE," as that insences them; they want to be
an `elite' "TLA" (three-letter agency: like FBI, CIA, et al.) more
than anything else.
<+++>
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty
when the
government's purposes are beneficent... the greatest dangers to
liberty lurk in insidious
encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
-- Justice Louis Brandeis
"Fast & Furious" and "White Gun": Obama's Watergate(s)
Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) - a system of government where the
least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing,
and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or
succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the
confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
See: Obama Administration, 2009-2013
"Sunday, January 20th, 2013 - The End of an Error"
Gray Guest
Jul 13, 2012, 8:45:31 PM7/13/12
to
"ala" <alac...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:cd2dnVhLAvpT8GLS...@earthlink.com:
>
> "max headroom" <maxhe...@localnet.com> wrote in message
> news:UtOdnTQl0cd_1GPS...@posted.localnet...
>> ala <alac...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:3oWdnQMlTrgGumPS...@earthlink.com:
>>
>
>
Ah, so your raving has no basis in reality then?
She cogently presented a theory based on observable facts. Perhaps you
could, too.
--
Refusenik #1
news:cd2dnVhLAvpT8GLS...@earthlink.com:
>
> "max headroom" <maxhe...@localnet.com> wrote in message
> news:UtOdnTQl0cd_1GPS...@posted.localnet...
>> ala <alac...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:3oWdnQMlTrgGumPS...@earthlink.com:
>>
>>> "Kurt Nicklas" <kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:a34bfd38-7641-430a-b4ec-792e6a4c4c72
@i8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM
>>>> July 11, 2012
>>
>>>> Ann Coulter
>>
>>>> http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-11.html#read_more
>>
>>>> FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A D.C. LAW FIRM
>>>> July 11, 2012
>>
>>>> Ann Coulter
>>
>>
>>>> Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric Holder
>>>> is hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't understand the
>>>> story.
>>
>>>> Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation for
>>>> why President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
>>>> Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers: It put guns
>>>> in their hands to strengthen liberals' argument for gun control.
>>
>>> there are other plausible stories, most of which she can't access due
to
>>> her
>>> intellectual limitations
>>
>>>> Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric Holder
>>>> is hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't understand the
>>>> story.
>>
>>>> Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation for
>>>> why President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
>>>> Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers: It put guns
>>>> in their hands to strengthen liberals' argument for gun control.
>>
>>> there are other plausible stories, most of which she can't access due
to
>>> her
>>> intellectual limitations
>>
>> Why don't you explain a few as clearly as she did?
>
>
> as long as paranoia can be considered clarity
>
>
>
>
Ah, so your raving has no basis in reality then?
She cogently presented a theory based on observable facts. Perhaps you
could, too.
--
Refusenik #1
Gray Guest
Jul 13, 2012, 8:46:29 PM7/13/12
to
"ala" <alac...@comcast.net> wrote in
You trash ruined Scooter Libby over less. I say take it up the ass like a
man.
--
Refusenik #1
news:Bq-dnYqD_4ON7GLS...@earthlink.com:
>
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:jtnr0d$m45$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>
>>
>> As well they should. It is a federal crime to be involve in the
>> dissemination and distribution of classified material and I see
>> absolutely no reason why reporters should generally be above that law.
>> No, in the cases where those classified materials do DIRECTLY impact US
>> citizens...say a classified project on how the government will start
>> rounding up select citizens to put them into camps or something like
>> that, then that would be another issue. But being involved in
>> publishing other classified material...that could be seen as a number
>> of crimes up to treason.
>>
>>
>>
>
> isn't it possible that the Fast and Furious program concerns just such
> classified materials that warrant nondisclosure?
>
>
>>
>
>
Like impeachble offenses?
>
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:jtnr0d$m45$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>
>>
>> As well they should. It is a federal crime to be involve in the
>> dissemination and distribution of classified material and I see
>> absolutely no reason why reporters should generally be above that law.
>> No, in the cases where those classified materials do DIRECTLY impact US
>> citizens...say a classified project on how the government will start
>> rounding up select citizens to put them into camps or something like
>> that, then that would be another issue. But being involved in
>> publishing other classified material...that could be seen as a number
>> of crimes up to treason.
>>
>>
>>
>
> isn't it possible that the Fast and Furious program concerns just such
> classified materials that warrant nondisclosure?
>
>
>>
>
>
You trash ruined Scooter Libby over less. I say take it up the ass like a
man.
--
Refusenik #1
Gray Guest
Jul 13, 2012, 8:48:30 PM7/13/12
to
"ala" <alac...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:I-6dnRVI-I3A7mLS...@earthlink.com:
outside monitroing firearms sales inside the US have to do with National
Security when we have the FBI and Holeland Security for real threats.
Your lameness is quite refreshing.
--
Refusenik #1
news:I-6dnRVI-I3A7mLS...@earthlink.com:
> news:jtnrna$pai$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>
>
>>
>> No, since there is no national security issues involved in a simple
>> sting operation, which was what the ATF is claiming this was. If it was
>> something else, then they have been lying the whole time and should be
>> taken to task for it. Besides, most members of Congress have the
>> necessary security clearance and 'need to know' to be able to view the
>> documents. If there is nothing in them, then the investigation can end.
>>
>>
>
> why should you believe the atf
> if there is a national security issue involved, they couldn't disclose
> it could they?
>
>
>
Exactly what would a domestic law enforcement agency with no authority
>>
>>
>
>>
>> No, since there is no national security issues involved in a simple
>> sting operation, which was what the ATF is claiming this was. If it was
>> something else, then they have been lying the whole time and should be
>> taken to task for it. Besides, most members of Congress have the
>> necessary security clearance and 'need to know' to be able to view the
>> documents. If there is nothing in them, then the investigation can end.
>>
>>
>
> why should you believe the atf
> if there is a national security issue involved, they couldn't disclose
> it could they?
>
>
>
outside monitroing firearms sales inside the US have to do with National
Security when we have the FBI and Holeland Security for real threats.
Your lameness is quite refreshing.
--
Refusenik #1
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages